# Welfare (as requested in the kid haters thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620 "2009-05-07T02:14:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/41 "2009-05-07T12:43:52Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > The difference is that SS benefits are based at least in part on the amount contributed while working many years. Vastly different than welfare. In theory that’s true. In actual fact, the connection between Social Security payments and levies is, well, pretty tenuous. There’s no Social Security pension fund. SS payments are thrown into general revenue, and payouts come from the Feds’ general bucket of money. There’s no rule that your benefits run out if you live too long. If you don’t contribute enough you end up qualifying for other government programs. It’s a pension plan to some extent, but to a great extent it’s just another welfare program. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/42 "2009-05-07T13:21:29Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Yes. Before taxes. > Yes. Before taxes. Do you think that people on minimum wage _don’t_ have taxes withheld? > > Let’s assume that 20% of the check goes into taxes and other such requirements (not out of line with my experience). That’s about $838 a month net to actually live on. With rents on one-bedroom apartments in my area running about $700/month on average that makes living on $838/month difficult, yes? Because that rent amount _doesn’t_ include utilities. Or food. Or gas/mass transit fares. Or health insurance (usually not provided with minimum wage jobs). Or clothes. Or toothpaste. Anyone earning minimum wage in this country is not paying income taxes. Some of their check may be deducted, but the portion paid to income taxes would be refunded at the time their taxes were filed in April. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/43 "2009-05-07T14:29:17Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I have a sister who for the first 45 years of her life lived a middle class lifestyle with a job and income. She and her husband very much wanted and planned and provided for her children. Well, at this point she no longer has a husband, she’s trying to get her boys out of high school and into college, and yes, she’s on welfare - so suddenly she’s a “welfare mom” and her boys are “unplanned” because _right now_ they’re going through hard times. I mean, she hears it all the time. It’s just one example of a kneejerk assumptions that people make _all the time_. The assumption is NEVER that you’re a responsible person fallen on hard times, if you’re poor today the assumption is _you’ve always been poor, and you will always be poor_. > > Of course, I understand why people do that - if they ever admitted that someone might up poor through no fault of their own, that you can do everything “right” and still wind up destitute it would just rock their little world. It means that simply “being responsible” won’t _guarantee_ that Bad Things never happen to them. You make an excellent point here. There are good honest hard working willing people who fall on hard times and I hope we are the kind of society who reach out with a helping hand. I also think you’re correct about the assumptions people make and why, to an extent. It’s really unfair to judge someone without knowing who they are or what they’ve been through. Once you get to know someone you have a better idea about their character. The other side of that coin is there are people who milk the system and could do more for themselves but just don’t. Years ago when my kids were little my wife and I lived in subsidized housing for a year or so. I saw single Mom’s who were working themselves through school toward a better life and those who’s live in boyfriends made good money but still allowed the state to pay the rent and grocery bills so they could afford a nicer car and other goodies. My son’s employee has a good job and was getting plenty of overtime but for some reason the state’s welfare system doesn’t count overtime because it’s not consistent income, so taxpayers paid for repairs on this guys home while he bought a snowmobile. A guy I used to work with has a son who was dangerously premature and almost died. For reasons I don’t understand he now qualifies for a $600 check each month which he brags about before he goes home early. My sister in law volunteered to help people who were struggling to handle their budgets better. One of the first things she ran into was their unwillingness to give up things that weren’t necessary like cell phones, cable TV etc. People do abuse the system and IMO if they’re not encouraged , even pushed, to take responsibility for themselves we encourage abuse and dependence. People who are already responsible adults won’t be hurt by reasonable policies that encourage responsibility. We won’t have a perfect system. When the rules are broad to take in more people who need help it invites more abuse. When the rules are narrow and rigid to discourage abuse some needy people are left out. I think the government has every right to limit and set reasonable conditions for those who want and need help. They also have the right to set a maximum amount regardless of number of dependents. That’s not insisting people can’t have more children. It just means they won’t get any more welfare for those children. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/44 "2009-05-07T14:58:52Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Food stamps currently provide $100 in food per month. $25 per week. Wow, _that’s_ a lavish amount! I think that varies from state to state and number within the household but you’re right. Hardly a lavish amount if you need it. > [@](#): > > You know, the poverty life style SUCKS. I am working _two jobs_ trying to get out of it. You know what I REALLY need, more than foods stamps or Section 8 or someone forcibly sterilizing me? _I need a job that pays a living wage_. You know, enough to cover my rent and food and a few toiletries for me and my husband - a husband who is disabled, but has been told he doesn’t qualify for disability (we are fighting that with a lawyer at present). > > You are very naive if you think “job training” programs will solve poverty. What will solve the poverty problem is _a job that pays enough to live on_, not “training”. > > Oh, and just for the record - my husband and I both have college degrees. I have over 20 years in the work force. I got laid off at the beginning of our current economic mess and have been scrabbling to get by ever since. Sorry, honey, education _alone_ isn’t going to get you work if there’s no job openings. Getting just _any_ job won’t work, you need a job that pays enough for you to meet your monthly expenses - which, even for the most frugal, minimum wage won’t do in my area. I sincerely hope things get better for you and your husband. Again, you’ve made a really good point about the living wage. I work in retail and feel grateful in these times to have a job that pays enough for me to meet my obligations. Over the years I’ve seen retail change. When I first started there were plenty of commissioned salespeople at major companies that earned a decent living. As the years passed and the economy changed those jobs disappeared and companies went to more part time help that offered no benefits and paid a lot less. When more and more jobs pay far less than what a basic existence cost something is wrong with our economy. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/45 "2009-05-07T15:03:54Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > This is a major issue, and one that has no real solution in a market-based economy. Any attempts to artificially increase wages will not result in an increase of purchasing power due to higher cost of goods resulting from higher mandatory wages. > > Welfare reform ideas tend not to address the following questions: (you, refers to anyone who cannot/will not earn a living wage due to what ever reasons exist) > > Since the skills you possess are not in high enough demand to merit a living wage, does that mean you deserve not to live? > > Or does it mean you should change your skills? Who pays for that education? Who pays for the food while you are educated? > > Who says you will choose a more marketable skill? > > How does education take into account shifts in the market? > > What about people who are unable to learn new skills? Hey!! Aren’t you supposed to answer those questions too? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/46 "2009-05-07T15:15:07Z")
> [@](#): > > I was urged in the Longest Pit Thread Evarr! to start a thread about a welfare system reform uh… thingy. I’m not sure if it was out of genuine curiosity or whether they wanted to see me get piled on again, but I guess I’m up for either. > > So, in the thread, I proposed a theoretical system that would, hopefully, remove the incentive for people to stay on welfare by disallowing them to have children while on any type of government assistance. By any sort, I mean any sort at all–food stamps, disability, medicare/medicaid (perhaps with the exception of PlanFirst, which is a GOOD IDEA) pell grants, section 8 housing, unemployment compensation, you name it. The process by which this might work could be set up as follows: Here’s what I want to know. Under this plan, will the executives at AIG, Citibank and Bank of America going to be forcibly sterilized? Because if so, this plan has my full support. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/47 "2009-05-07T15:38:23Z")
I work with people on Section 8 Housing and I’ve seen the system get abused in ways you could not image. There are people having children so they can live on welfare. There are children raised on welfare who are now raising children on welfare. It’s a bad system and one that needs to be demolished and replaced with one that works. We’ve had to evict Section 8 tenants because they don’t pay their portion of the rent (sometimes for less than $100 a month). We’ve seen welfare people turn down apartments because they didn’t like the neighborhood, the rooms are too small, they don’t have a laundry hookup, they don’t have a yard. People whose welfare or housing benefits are cut off will fight battles to get them back. If they worked like that in the real world, they would be CEO of the company. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “Well, it’s only a little amount. I shouldn’t have to pay it.” The worse case I know of is the woman who kept her 17 year old son out of a college scholarship because she would lose her two bedroom apartment if he went away to school. She forced him to go to a junion college and live at home. ETA: BTW, welfare stats are meaningless. People are encouraged to go on welfare who shouldn’t even be on welfare so they can get off it in a month or two to make the stats look better. “The average stay on welfare is two years,” means absolutely nothing. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/48 "2009-05-07T16:01:09Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > It’s not a problem for me. In fact, I think everyone should have a minimum floor they aren’t allowed to sink beneath. Yes, but the details of how that actually works gets pretty complicated. It really is an issue that some people cheat the system. > [@](#): > > The argument that some will cheat or swap their benefits for drugs doesn’t hold water as far as I’m concerned - such people will cheat or break the law _no matter what_. And we have to deal with it. I’d rather be in a society that helps people when they need it but for the sake of that same society we need to encourage personal responsibility. We can’t ignore the abuses in the name of helping people. > [@](#): > > Again, your assumption is that ALL children on welfare were born poor. Well, I have two nephews currently on welfare but they weren’t poor until they were 14 and 16. FTR I didn’t see any such assumption > [@](#): > > And while for YOU this is an academic exercise I’m trying to support two people and looking for work while scrabbling to get enough money in to keep the lights on. and posting here. It is GD as you pointed out. > [@](#): > > It’s a piss-poor system and I’d argue that no, all too frequently it _doesn’t_ take care of people who need help. It won’t ever be perfect. There is realistic limit to what we can do for others. > [@](#): > > Again, your underlying assumption is _once on welfare always on welfare_. That’s another assumption I didn’t see. Independence and self reliance should be the goal. I think we need guidelines and limits to push people toward these goals and to stop dependence. Do you think it’s reasonable to ask people to work for the assistance they receive? > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t a system that genuinely gets people to independence be preferable to one that sterilizes people rather than getting them on their feet? Having children is not the cause of poverty (though it can be a contributing factor). Having a true social safety net would eliminate much of the suffering caused by poverty without the need to force people to submit to medical procedures. Social safety net is a great idea that is incredibly complicated to execute correctly. I do think there should be limits and I believe that’s been instituted in some states. No required child limits but a cap on how much you receive regardless of dependents. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/49 "2009-05-07T16:06:41Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Anyone earning minimum wage in this country is not paying income taxes. Some of their check may be deducted, but the portion paid to income taxes would be refunded at the time their taxes were filed in April. And some get more back than they actually paid in because of earned income credit. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/50 "2009-05-07T16:21:17Z")
> [@starwarsfreek42](#): > > When I used to make lots more money I paid for my Depo shot every three months, but since it’s on a sliding scale and I make less now, I get my shot for free. If I preferred a patch or pills, or an IUD, those would also be free. > > Free birth control has not stopped all those unaffordable babies. What on earth makes you think this is the case for everyone? I assure you, it is not. And just because you are, apparently, satisfied with Depo doesn’t mean it is right for everyone (beyond those who are simply allergic, That’s what’s so ‘great’ about shots and implants – if you react badly – and many women do – you get a few months to think about what a horrible decision you made). The side effects of hormonal birth control are nothing to sniff at – telling women they’ve got to sink into clinical depression to keep their kids fed is particularly cruel. As for the IUD – who pays if a woman’s uterus gets perforated? If it’s Mirena or similar, what if she can’t take the hormones? If it’s copper, what if she can’t take the blood loss? > [@](#): > > Anyone found to have concieved a child while on assistance is disqualified, men included. And, with any of these methods, how will the anti-abortion crowd react if she conceives (and needs an abortion)? Will she get it for free? It would be sort of ridiculous for the government to punish her if she conceives, which can happen purely by accident (and possibly do to their mandated doctors’ screw-ups – and god help the doctors hired for that job, btw), but then deny her a free abortion. Or to deny her funding if she is comfortable with staying off hormonal birth control but having an abortion if necessary. ETA: I am all for free birth control of every shape and color, including Plan B, abortion and (uncoerced) vasectomies and reversible tubal ligation. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/51 "2009-05-07T16:27:39Z")
Also, the timing of this thread is sort of odd, in that with the economy being what it is, I’d think a lot of people who previously spoke of ‘crack babies’ and ‘welfare moms’ would finally start to get it – that smart, decent, qualified people can fall on hard times, too, for reasons beyond their control. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/52 "2009-05-07T16:36:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **starwarsfreek42** > > Anyone found to have conceived a child while on assistance is disqualified, men included. I think a more practical solution is just to limit the amount they receive. I couldn’t find it on the web but I believe a former Governor of NJ decided years ago to limit the amount single mothers could get. They got A for one child B for two children and that was the max. If they had more children they still got B. She was heavily criticized as I recall but in a few years statistics revealed the birth rates went down. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/53 "2009-05-07T16:37:54Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Also, the timing of this thread is sort of odd, in that with the economy being what it is, I’d think a lot of people who previously spoke of ‘crack babies’ and ‘welfare moms’ would finally start to get it – that smart, decent, qualified people can fall on hard times, too, for reasons beyond their control. I noticed that as well - did this thread fall through a wormhole from the 80’s? Is the OP Morton Downey Jr.? What are we gonna do about the Russian menace or the gay cancer? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/54 "2009-05-07T16:42:49Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Also, the timing of this thread is sort of odd, in that with the economy being what it is, I’d think a lot of people who previously spoke of ‘crack babies’ and ‘welfare moms’ would finally start to get it – that smart, decent, qualified people can fall on hard times, too, for reasons beyond their control. I lost my job in November last year but was fortunate enough to find another. A close friend lost hers and was without work for months. She just recently relocated to take a job on the East Coast. We’re the fortunate ones. There was no welfare when my Dad grew up and the idea just didn’t occur to him. He worked two jobs as long as I can remember and we still struggled. ---
**Author:** ![starwarsfreek42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@starwarsfreek42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starwarsfreek42)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/55 "2009-05-07T17:18:34Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Yes, you do have some rude awakenings. > > When I was in college and working my butt off both in class and at a job I thought I understood how things worked, but I was wrong. You are still a bit protected while a student. > > Once you’re out in the real world, though, things get a lot tougher. It because harder to get a job because all those jobs quietly reserved for students are no longer open to you. More will be expected of you, now that you’re not a student. Getting health insurance will suddenly be a lot harder. Various forms of assistance open to college students will be closed to you. > I didn’t claim you said that - I am, however, disagreeing with you. I think your proposal is poorly thought out. You did not adequately account for various consequences of your sweeping proposals. I am not misrepresenting your views, I am disagreeing with your views, some of which I find morally repugnant. I worked full time before I was a student and didn’t come upon any “rude awakenings” that I know of. My job isn’t quietly reserved for students, it’s loudly reserved for middle aged men with business degrees. I proved myself worty of the position. You seem to think that less is expected of me because I am a student, but you are wrong. I am on call all the time, more is expected of me because of the position I hold than anyone else in the restaurant. The only concession I get for being a student is showing up at 4 instead of 3 on two days a week. I do not now, nor have I ever had, health insurance. If I get sick, I’m sick. No, I’m not living on loans; I borrow only enough to cover tuition and books. I do not live on campus, I do not receive on campus meals or student insurance or any other benefits. I drive 30 minutes to go to classes two days a week, and I pay for my own damn gas. I don’t have a nice mommy to loan me money if my light bill is overdue. I have nobody. This week I will likely run out of shampoo before payday, and will be washing my hair with dish detergent. I know perfectly well how the real world works, and I’d thank you to not assume I’m some sheltered sorority girl holed up in her dorm in her dorm all the time. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/56 "2009-05-07T17:21:57Z")
> [@starwarsfreek42](#): > > That is simpler, but what about that third kid? What if the parents don’t find a job and are unable to feed it? > > By giving welfare moms actual products rather than money, I think that makes the situation more of a hand up than a hand out. My sister in law trades the use of her food stamp card for cigarettes and crack. This system would eliminate that kind of crap. The welfare for single mothers is for the children not the mothers. Children are people too. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/57 "2009-05-07T17:37:31Z")
> [@starwarsfreek42](#): > > I know perfectly well how the real world works, and I’d thank you to not assume I’m some sheltered sorority girl holed up in her dorm in her dorm all the time. Funny that, people assuming they know all about your living situation… ---
**Author:** ![starwarsfreek42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@starwarsfreek42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starwarsfreek42)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/58 "2009-05-07T18:10:47Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > So… you brought up a proposal, and now you’re not happy because some people disagree with it? Then why have a discussion at all? I don’t care if anyone disagrees with it, but I’m not interested in a snark fest. There is no need for hostility, and please do stop assuming that I’m an ignorant sorority chick who has no idea how the world works. > [@](#): > > The difference is that no one is withholding food and shelter from you for not showing up for that exam. The difference is that there are other means of birth control you could choose that don’t require all of that. > > Again, I ask you - if a woman is receiving direct deposit of her welfare money and she doesn’t show up for her monthly exam _what are the consequences?_ If there are none, why bother to show up? If there are some, what will they be? Under the proposed plan, nobody is withholding food and shelter from anybody. No, there are no other means of birth control I could choose because I don’t have insurance and can’t afford to pay a doctor. I could buy condoms I guess, but in this situation we need to use something that can’t be forgotten or discarded. > [@](#): > > Why NOT offer free vasectomies? There are men who get vasectomies, even pay for them out of pocket. Why do you assume no men will go for this when there are men walking around who have gone to some effort to get one? Sure, free vasectomies for all. I assumed nobody would want to be forced into something semi-permanent, so I didn’t suggest it, but I’d be all for it. In fact, I’d be all for the government offering to give people say, $1000 to have a free vasectomy. That would give the crackheads a bonus for their crack, and keep them from reproducing at the same time. Obviously the non-crackheads could put down a payment on a new car or something. > [@](#): > > But either way the woman is _forced_ to have the child? Again, _why not_ offer free abortions? Doesn’t abortion prevent unwanted children from being born? Sure, free abortions. The public won’t like that, but I’m all for it. > [@](#): > > I’ve never heard of a school that required uniforms that provided them. I’ve never seen a public school that actually required uniforms. A local private middle school does though, so they have the kids wear khaki pants and tennis shoes and provde different colored polo shirts for each grade level. Doesn’t sound too difficult. > [@](#): > > Again, if you didn’t want anyone to point out the flaws in your proposal why did you put it in Great Debates? Go ahead and point out flaws, but knock off the condescending attitude, k? > [@](#): > > It’s not a problem for me. In fact, I think everyone should have a minimum floor they aren’t allowed to sink beneath. Then what are we discussing? > [@](#): > > The argument that some will cheat or swap their benefits for drugs doesn’t hold water as far as I’m concerned - such people will cheat or break the law _no matter what_. Yes, but we can prevent them from having kids while doing so. Do you want crack heads to reproduce? Neither do I. > [@](#): > > No, we’re not. Any nation that leaves 1 in 6 people out of the health care system does not deserve to be called civilized. And that’s just one example. That’s ridiculous. We live in a civilization. We care for one another, therefore we are civilized. Nobody’s entitled to health care. I’m all for socialized medicine, but nobody’s entitled to anything in this life. I’m not entitled to running water and electricity and food if I don’t pay for them. > [@](#): > > Again, your assumption is that ALL children on welfare were born poor. Well, I have two nephews currently on welfare but they weren’t poor until they were 14 and 16. I assume nothing of the sort. > [@](#): > > “Shelter” does not guarantee access to the cooking facilities required to process bulk foods like beans into edible meals. I agree. Let’s provide rations instead. MRE’s for everyone! > [@](#): > > How is it less reliable than, say, TV or newspapers? This wasn’t some whackjob talk radio host, it was a news report. I don’t really consider those to be 100% reliable either. > [@](#): > > You’re telling people that they will be temporarily sterilized if they don’t get job training and they don’t look for a job… but even if they do everything right and still don’t get hired because there are more people looking for work than work available then… tough luck, you’re _still_ having to show up for a shot if you want assistance in _surviving_ until you do land a job. So sorry, you did everything right but tough luck, we’re going forcibly modify your body chemistry and you’ll submit to it if you want a roof over your head and food to eat. And you don’t see anything coercive or wrong about that? > > So… someone needs job training to get a job, and they can’t get a job until they get that training, but they can’t get a loan for the training until they can get the job they can’t get without training… you don’t see a problem here? No, they will be temporarily sterilized if they want money without getting a job. They don’t have to participate in job training if they don’t want/need it. No, I don’t see a problem. They can get a different job, and they can still get a loan if the bank is willing. > [@](#): > > Why are you taking on animals to care for when you should be concentrating on your education? Who cared for those animals while you were at your two jobs and going to school? Who says I should be concentrating on my education? You? Rescuing is perfectly honorable work and I see no reason I should stop doing it just because I’m in college. I can do more than one thing at a time you know. My next door neighbors were kind enough to keep an eye on my dogs who were left outside in nice weather during the day. I came home from job 1 at 3, fed them, refilled their water, checked up on the rabbits and the cats, and was at job 2 by 5. When I got home one of the dogs came in for the night, the other stayed out because he was a danger to the cats and furniture as a puppy. Now he’s older, so he’s inside too. None of them were neglected by any means. > [@](#): > > You have loans, yes? You’re living at least partly on loans? Then you’re not paying your own way. Being independent means being able to pay your bills without borrowing all the time. No, I am not living on loans. I use them to pay tuition and books, and nothing else. I never overborrow. I am certainly paying my own way, as this money will all be coming back out of my pocket after I’ve graduated, and with interest. > [@](#): > > Oh, yeah. Lavish lifestyle. No, it’s not, and that’s the point. > [@](#): > > It’s a piss-poor system and I’d argue that no, all too frequently it _doesn’t_ take care of people who need help. > > Sure, I did everything right, too - went to college, had a nice job, married a man who owned a business and thus had an income. We even avoided debt, lived within our means, and had savings for hard times. Except life happened, he _can’t_ work anymore, we had to liquidate the business, I lost my nice job (along with our health insurance - uninsured with chronic health problems and disability is double or triple suckage) and now we’re struggling. And told we _don’t_ qualify for help. If it’s a piss poor system, why dont you suggest something that could improve it instead of picking it apart line by line and shooting every point down as if it were any worse than the way things work now? > [@](#): > > So you think forcibly sterilizing women is the answer? Are you seriously OK with that? I just find it baffling that a woman who seems to value independence is so willing to surrender her body and those of other women to the government. > > Again, your underlying assumption is _once on welfare always on welfare_. Wouldn’t a system that genuinely gets people to independence be preferable to one that sterilizes people rather than getting them on their feet? Having children is not the cause of poverty (though it can be a contributing factor). Having a true social safety net would eliminate much of the suffering caused by poverty without the need to force people to submit to medical procedures. Yes, I am seriously ok with that. I value independence but I also recognize that, if I were to fall on hard times, I should make every effort not to burden the rest of society. I have no such underlying assumptions. My in-laws have been on and off welfare, my mother had public housing when I was a kid but she doesn’t now. There’s no reason to think that people can’t end their cycle of poverty. The system is designed to keep people from digging themselves in further while they are unable to support themselves, and job training and daycare would be provided so they had a better shot at getting back on their feet sooner. ---
**Author:** ![starwarsfreek42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@starwarsfreek42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starwarsfreek42)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/59 "2009-05-07T18:21:32Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > And it’s one thing to borrow money for a house or a vehicle - you’re using it to purchase an expensive item. As long as you can make regular payments you’re good. But while students loans do pay for expensive education she’s not making the payments yet since she’s still in school. If all she is doing is putting that loan money towards tuition and books fine, but too many kids these days use the loan money for basic living expenses. If you’re relying on borrowed money for food you aren’t doing well. Again, I’m not living on loans. They pay for tuition and books only. I make my own room and board, utilities, internet, phone, gas, food, and vet bills. And you have no reason to assume I’m not making payments–it’s not like there’s a penalty for early payment. Once in a while EdFinancial sends a letter asking if I want to pay toward my loans before graduating, and when they do I usually send them fifty bucks. I’m not relying on borrowed money for daily needs. I’m not doing great, but I’m not living above my means either. Stop assuming things that I haven’t stated and that you have no way of knowing. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/60 "2009-05-07T18:46:58Z")
> [@starwarsfreek42](#): > > If it’s a piss poor system, why dont you suggest something that could improve it instead of picking it apart line by line and shooting every point down as if it were any worse than the way things work now? Call me crazy, but isn’t the system you proposed the entire point of this thread? It’s perfectly natural for people to shoot down the parts they disagree with. If you wanted dopers to come up with their own new welfare systems, then start a thread soliciting entirely new systems. This one is about yours. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=4)