Is america the only developed country where we brag about cutting aid to the poor

Great Debates
1

I know this sounds like an america bashing thread, but with the desire to cut food stamps it reminds me that in my experience, there is alot of bragging about cutting aid to the poor in this country (ie welfare reform, ending welfare, complaining about food stamps, etc). At least in midwestern states like the one I live in.

Is america the only developed country where the attitude of cutting aid to the poor is considered laudable? Is it due to our belief in individuality or what? I doubt that it is because we want to save money or because we are anti aid in this country because there is alot of aid here (over $800 billion is spent by state & federal govs. on education each year, another $500 billion on social security, $800 billion on healthcare, $150 billion in corporate welfare, etc) so either people have no idea that welfare to the poor is just a tiny part of ‘aid’ or they selectively encourage cutting off aid to the poor (as opposed to cutting it for businesses, students and the elderly). What about Japan, do they feel the same way about cutting aid to the poor? It seems so petty and pathetic for a developed nation to do this, cutting food stamps to pregnant women and poor people to save $113 million a year when our federal budget is about 2.5 trillion. But its not like those people (I hope) will be left without food, they just won’t get as much aid as they do now. Assuming this passes at least.

2

Well, in order to qualify for participation in the Euro common currency in the late 1990’s, most European countries had to do some fairly aggressive budget squeezing and deficit reduction, often at the cost of social programs. I don’t know how much of it was accompanied by the gleeful “no more handouts for those freeloading deadbeat poor people” attitude that you seem to be talking about, though.

However, I don’t think that kind of aggressive rhetoric is unknown in Europe, especially when it comes to discussing aid to immigrants from Third World countries.

3

We “brag” about it because most people don’t really believe that these government programs are working. They see the people who use them as simply gaming the system – using government aid to subsidize their laziness and poor decision-making. Our country believes that if you want to, you can succeed by working hard and sacrificing. The government “safety net,” in this view, is simply giving money from those who do work hard to those who choose not to work or who choose to have multiple babies without a thought of how to care for them.

4

There are also a lot of people who take pride in refusing government help, even if they qualify; self-reliance is very high on many Americans’ list of virtues (perhaps even higher than compassion). Perhaps some of them see lessening their neighbor’s dependancy as a good thing.

Someone may correct me, but I’m pretty sure that Japan, like most of the Asian nations, gives less direct aid to the poor than the US. They do have nationalized healthcare, but the welfare & unemploment systems are smaller.

5

Do most people believe that the government’s cotton subsidy program is working? The world court sees it as government aid to subsidize the laziness and poor judgement of american cotton farmers.
Why does congress approve of gaming the system for cash, but not approve of gaming the system for food and shelter?

6

Actually, most conservatives deplore both welfare to farmers and welfare to regular folks.

And Congress believes that both groups should receive welfare. There is no move in Congress to get rid of welfare. There are no moves to get rid of food stamps or housing programs. Sure, there are moves to cut them, but no one is talking about dismantling the system.

7

The problem with that is the US gives out alot of welfare. We give out medical welfare, education welfare, welfare to the elderly, corporate welfare and probably other forms of welfare. But most hate and dislike is usually only directed at welfare for the poor (ie housing assistance, food stamps, school lunches, etc) and welfare to foreign nations, both of which are welfare to the poor. I don’t hear the same dislike for pell grants or social security that I hear for food stamps or foreign aid where I live and I don’t know why. Maybe its because ‘the poor’ aren’t seen as contributing to the system to pay back for what they take out of it while the elderly, corporation and students either do, have or will repay what they recieve in aid. That or people don’t understand what welfare is and just assume to get ‘welfare’ you must be ‘poor’ and not understand that there are tons of forms of welfare. The poor may be seen as just taking and not giving anything back.

8

The world court is talking about us dismantling our cotton subsidy system, and congressmen responded by talking about shifting the cuts to food aid programs.

9

Yes, squink, Congress is talking about finding savings in the food stamp program, but not dismantling it. You made the assertion that Congress approved of the farm subsidy program but not the food stamp program. That’s simply not true. Congress approves of both. Just because they are looking to find some savings in the food stamp program does not mean that they disapprove of it.

As I said before, Congress approves of both types of welfare.

10

Yet they’re fighting to maintain the cotton subsidizes by proposing cuts in food subsidizies. Does this not suggest to you a different level of approval for the different types of welfare programs?

11

Perhaps, but we have to be careful in the debate about farm subsidies and food stamps not to impart too much ideological meaning to them. In the end, support in Congress for farm subsidies and food stamps has nothing to do with whether or not you are a liberal or a conservative. It has to do with whether or not you are from an agricultural state or not. Some in Congress want to preserve farm subsidies not because they view them as ideologically right, but because they pump a lot of money into their states and help their constituents. Southern Senators and Congressman want to preserve cotton subsidies because cotton is grown in the South. Similarly, agriculture state Congressmen and Senators want to preserve the food stamp program because it benefits farmers in their states (much like these ag state Senators and Congressmen are the strongest defenders of the school lunch program).

It’s my impression (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you are thinking that these heartless conservatives only believe in welfare when it helps business (e.g., farm subsidies) but not when it helps poor people (e.g., food stamps). Sorry, but it’s not that simple. Congress supports both, in part, because both farm subsidies and food stamps help farmers.

And on the wider welfare debate, Congress has shown consistent support for welfare for the rich (e.g., farm subsidies), for the middle class (e.g., student aid), and for the poor (e.g., housing assistance). There are always proposals to cut some money from various welfare programs, but no on in Congress is seriously proposing doing away with any of the forms of welfare that flourish in our country.

12

It was my impression that your description of food stamps etc. as “government aid to subsidize their laziness and poor decision-making” without reference to the welfaare program that the feds are trying to save through food stamp cuts implied a preference for one type of welfare over another. Do you support cuts to cotton subsidies? Do you support senators who change the subject to food stamps when cotton subsidies come under discussion?

13

So when I criticize one government program without criticizing all the other government programs I have a problem with, then that implies that I support all the other programs? We were talking about why some people in this country don’t support aid to the poor. I addressed my comments accordingly.

I support cuts of all welfare programs – food stamps, cotton subsidies, Pell Grants, student aid, etc.

No, but if we get some food stamp cuts out of it, I’ll be happy.

14

I don’t think very many citizens like corporate welfare. It happens because the people in favor of it are wildly disproportionate in influence; but it’s by no means a popular thing.

Without discarding what you said, I also think that people see elderly or disabled as vulnerable. They can’t help themselves. But if you are an able-bodied adult, you’re on your own. If you were born poor, we’ll help you get an education; but if you’re 35 or 40 and you’ve gotten yourself into a situation where you’re making $8 an hour, A) it’s probably your own damn fault and B) you can get yourself out of it.

15

How about if we deal with cutting cotton subsidies as the wto demanded, and the president has suggested? Bringing up food stamps out of the blue when there’s a real reason to chop other subsidy programs is merely an attempt to hide the real issue behind a hot button issue.

16

If we were cutting aid to the poor because there was less need for it, because fewer people actually were poor, then it absolutely would be worth celebrating and bragging about.

Getting people who are able to work off the welfare rolls and into good, decent-paying jobs is a worthy goal, and if that’s what people think of when they hear “reducing welfare” it could explain why they consider it a good thing.

17

Too bad it’s not the actual goal of the welfare system. (I’m gonna rant so if you don’t wanna hear it, just go ahead and close the window now.)

If the welfare system were designed to get people ready for good jobs, going to school would be mandatory in order to receive welfare. As it’s currently set up, you can either work and/or go to school. Your benefits are slashed if you work, though – and if all you have is a high school diploma (and chances are that’s all the education the majority of recipients have), you’re not going to find a better job after your time is up UNLESS you get some kind of higher education. It doesn’t have to be college, but if all you’re doing is working at Taco Bell for those 5 years, you’ve gained no new skills and will still be working a low wage job with no benefits after you’re finally cut off for good. And when you are cut off, there’s no more safety net, ever. Lose your job and you have nothing to fall back on. You’re probably going to be a low wage worker for the rest of your life.

Welfare ISN’T working, but cuts aren’t the answer — and neither is increased funding.

The way the system is designed right now, welfare will only, in a best case scenario, sustain the recipient. Sustaining would be just fine, if any efforts the recipient makes on their own to start building a nest egg for the future weren’t met with drastic cuts in their benefits.

Here’s an example. Let’s say you live in WV and you’re on welfare. A family of 3 gets $340 a month in cash and $3XX in food stamps. The child has a medical card, and so do the parents as long as they aren’t working. If just one of the parents works, both of them lose the medical card. Only the kid’s medical benefits are safe.

But let’s say that both parents are in school, and $340 just isn’t getting it so Dad wants to take a minimum wage job somewhere working 10 hours a week – the plan being to use half now and put half in savings.

If Dad knows that he and the wife won’t lose their medical cards and the family’s benefits wouldn’t be slashed by 1/3 (or more), he could get that job and earn a paltry $51.50 a week. Let’s pretend that he sees $40 of that after taxes. So they’d have an extra $80 coming into the household to be spent now, and $80 being set aside every month in savings.

If they do that over their 5 year period, and this family would have about $5,000 in the bank by the time they get off of welfare. They’d have plenty to live on while they find good jobs, AND they may even be able to take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit every year (that’s iffy, though, because IIRC the EITC requires a minimum income). The EITC, if they can get it, would bring even more money into the home that could go into savings. Let’s get even crazier and allow Mom to work at the same place Dad does, same money, same hours. They’d have an extra $160 to spend every month and almost $10,000 in the bank by the end of their time limit. Armed with some kind of higher education and decent savings, there is almost no chance this family is ever going to need welfare again.

Instead, the family is forced to pay their bills on $340 a month and not work at all. They lose the chance for the EITC every year, and when they get off of welfare they will have no savings whatsoever – and will probably be in debt up to their ears, too (many recipients end up having to use credit cards to get by). Unless they have their own place (or are in subsidized housing) AND either have a car that’s paid off (or access to public transportation), there is simply no way they are going to have their actual needs met by what cash they do get. They may be able to keep the lights and phone on, and pay their car insurance, but clothing isn’t gonna happen. It could, though, if they were allowed to work a little bit.

The good consequences of getting a job and earning that measly $200-400 a month, though, are far outweighed by the cuts they would get. They would literally be worse off for trying to work and save up a little nest egg. When they get out of school, not only do they have no savings, but they have nowhere to turn if it takes a month or two to find a job because they’ve used their 5 years already. God forbid they get sick during that interim period or get a flat tire, they’re screwed.

Sorry to ramble but this is a hot button issue for me. I really do believe the majority of welfare recipients would jump at the chance to work and save money if they knew they wouldn’t get nailed. Nobody with any sense WANTS to be on welfare – and those that are on it deserve the chance to shape their own financial future without fear of getting punished for it. I’m not saying that welfare recipients should be able to work full time jobs with NO cuts to their benefits whatsoever, but I think they should be allowed – no, encouraged – to earn a minimum income on their own with no repercussions, especially since the government is unwilling to pay these people what they need to pay their bills (and buy necessities) to begin with. (I know people on welfare who have to either borrow money from friends OR use a friend’s washing machine just to get the laundry done!)

If someone chooses not to take the opportunity to earn that minimum income and save some of that money for the future, SCREW 'EM. If they starve once their 5 years has expired, oh well. Everyone, though, should at least have the opportunity to see to it that, once they leave that welfare office that final time, they at least have something to fall back on.

The system’s not working because the government is not requiring anyone to do the ONE thing that is proven, more than anything else, to get people out of poverty: further your education. In the welfare system, education is optional, when it should be priority #1. With this “education optional” policy, coupled with recipients who aren’t allowed to earn even a tiny paycheck without dire cuts to their benefits, it’s no wonder that very few people who get off of welfare actually end up living above the poverty line. They may get off of welfare, but they are still poor. Their time on welfare did nothing to improve the rest of their lives, and in the end the government has failed in creating new taxpayers.

Nobody wins.

18

I agree with you to some extent, but education is not the only problem. There are also issues of transportation-- the poor do not often own reliable cars, public transportation is not always available, and you can’t count on friends to get you there on time.

Secondly, the poor don’t always own appropriate clothing. A secretary in a nice office cannot wear jeans and a t-shirt. Nice clothes are expensive, and poor folks don’t always have credit cards, or a lump sum of cash on hand that they can invest.

Thirdly, they may need social training. Polite discourse is not instinctual.-- many people sincerely do not know how to express themselves politely. “What do you want?” is a perfectly appropriate question-- asking it in a nice fashion, “How can I help you?” is something that must be taught.

Fourthly, the poor may need medical care in order to look appropriate for business settings. No one will hire a secretary who has tatoos on her face or is missing her front teeth. Poor choices of youth could condemn a person for life, and welfare usually doesn’t pay for cosmetic treatments such as tatoo removal.

Fifthly, there are problems with finding good, affordable child care. Daycare can devour most of a paycheck, and some parents are very leery of leaving their child with strangers. Grandparents may work themselves, and be unable to care for the children, or even may be people that the parents don’t trust. Friends are not always reliable, and employers can be very unsympathetic when a worker has to leave to go get a child when daycare has fallen through.

Lastly, there may be a cultural barrier to good working relations. People who have been taught to be proud, and not to “take shit from no one” often have trouble submitting to boss’ demands, especially if those demands seem unfair or unreasonable. Again, reacting appropriately is not instinctual-- it must be taught. Some people have never had this sort of social training.

Sure, programs could be designed to deal with most of these issues, but there is a segment of the population which deeply resents spending money on the poor, whom they see as immoral, lazy, and fully deserving of their situation, having believed all of their lives that success comes almost automatically to those willing to work. These people are generally unacquainted with the realities which face the poor.

I agree with you to some extent. One of the major problems is that there aren’t enough high-paying jobs in this country for everyone to have one. “Lo, the poor will be with thee always.” Even under the most ideal circumstances, there’s always going to be some who are left out in the cold.

Oh, well, indeed. Hungry people can be violent people. Parents who see their children going hungry can be vicious. Crime rates would skyrocket.

Honestly, in a sense, welfare pays people not to become criminals. People with no other options do not sit quietly and starve submissively. They do what they feel they have to do to survive, and if that means taking what you have, so be it. Revolutions occur when the poor starve while the wealthy live in luxury, utterly indifferent to their plight. Hell, in a way, welfare is a bribe to keep the poor from beating us to death with our own designer shoes.

19

I would like to add my half-cent (damn US-Can exchange!) to this discussion. The city I live in has a huge proportion of people on welfare. It seems to have actually developed into a sub-culture: the Welfare Life, if you will. A welfare recipient here is usually proud to be on the pogey (not all, but a great proportion). Geared-to-income housing, medical, et al are provided, and are seen as a right. A “Gangsta Hood” mentality has arisen in the welfare recipients here, coupled with a nose-thumbing attitude towards the working suckers who have paid for their life of (relative) luxury.

This does not mean that I believe these people are inherently bad - they are more inheritively bad (that’s probably a fake word). By this I mean that most are second- and even third-generation welfare collectors. Their parents and grandparents (some grandmas around here are in their mid 30’s to early 40’s, not a totally unrelated factoid) collected welfare so this is not a hijack of a government system to the latest group, but a learned way of life. If a system designed to help poor people only helps them stay where they are, what has it accomplished? I place more blame on the system that has allowed this cycle than those in it to some degree.

I can hear the response; “Get off your lazy ass and do some work!” If you haven’t been at the bottom, this is a typical response. Having been there myself for a time, I know exactly how hard it can be to stay off pogey. Try taking care of a bedridden-sick wife and two small children on a cook’s pay (you cooks out there can relate to our big-buck industry). I remember being in the store wishing to buy gum for myself and not being able to afford it. We had Christmas that year thanks to the Goodfellows, who give food and gifts at the holidays to the less-fortunate (that year being me and my adopted family).

Things have turned around for me personally in the following years, but many more do not get access to the escape route I had. I had a middle-class upbringing as a kid. I consider myself to be well-educated, both college-wise (culinary degree, 3 yrs engineering as well) and commonsense-wise. None of these things helped me escape the poverty well, which on general terms acts like a gravity well, sucking in the almost-unfortunate and pulling them into the lifestyle I’ve briefly described above. My parents bailed us out financially until we were up and running again, just in case I hadn’t given up all my dignity yet at that point.

If my parents hadn’t had some extra money to assist us, I can easily imagine the daily despair I felt overcoming me. Each day was like the weight of the world. If we had finally gone on assistance, I might be there still. How much simpler is it to be taken care of like a pet? All it costs is human dignity, which when compared to starving means it is usually paid out. Where, after three generations of this, does that leave the mindset of those in the system? Who would willingly leave the security of such a system that provides every basic need, with the added benefit of not having to work harder to gain less security? As an example from the other end of the spectrum, imagine Paris Hilton freely giving up her inheritance and going to work at the library. The same essential idea of a right to a certain lifestyle appears.
This does not excuse the abuse of the system, but it does highlight that a system with such bizarre abilities as actually creating more people to abuse it on a generational scale should be seriously re-evaluated.

Sitting here, writing this on a new 2.2G computer, I am no longer poor, but the firsthand experience stays with me. I try to put myself in anyone else’s shoes on a regular basis, to avoid generalizing an entire group of people. I am not making any criticisms on the previous posts, but just throwing out one of doubtless many stories from the bottom perspective.

PS I think my half-cent is about five bucks US at this point :wink:

20

Your country also “believes” that “The War on Terrorism” and the “WMDs in Iraq” is why the American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are being killed daily. Lot of the “belief” in the US is a result of the super marketing job done through the mainstream media by the profit kings to make the rest of us work harder and harder until we die in poverty, while the king’s bean-counters rack up higher and higher profits.

The genius of the marketing job is that most of the believers think that as a result of working harder and harder and making sacrifices, one day soon in the future, they may “succeed” and become one of those kings, able to screw the rest of the hard workers below.

By the time the reality behind the marketing facade becomes clear, the poor old hard-worker is too old and too tired, ready to die in poverty with a miserly social security that leaves no dignity to want to live any longer in this media-generated make-believe set-up.