# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/101 "2009-05-11T14:51:41Z")
> [@starwarsfreek42](#): > > Last time I was at the emergency room they had someone talking to me about payment before they even examined me. Kind of inconsiderate, but at least around here they are understanding. I probably wouldn’t be able to handle that much, but I don’t plan on being poor and without insurance for the rest of my life. I don’t think anyone _plans_ on that, but a severe enough accident or illness and you _will_ be poor for the rest of your life. I don’t see how making sick or injured people into permanent paupers benefits society in the long term. > [@](#): > > Since my budget doesn’t cover shampoo, it’ll have to wait. OK, this _does_ confuse me - you say your have $31, but you can’t buy a sample-size shampoo at the local drug store? You can pay $100+ in pet food a month but can’t afford shampoo? I don’t want to tell you how to prioritize your life - maybe you’re totally OK with using dish detergent instead and if you’re hair is clean who’s to know? - but I can’t agree with that sort of budget. I would choose fewer pets and more shampoo, but that’s me. Which just illustrates that even two responisble adults can disagree on what’s most important in the budget, I suppose. > [@](#): > > I imagine you’d have the option of a copper IUD, or filing for an exemption. The system wouldn’t be heartless. And since we’re now handing out MRE’s, nobody’s going to starve. As long as we don’t make birth control the condition for MRE’s, no. And I don’t consider filing for an “exemption” to the one-size-fits-all hormonal choice to be acceptable. No, we want people to learn to make decisions so _give them options:_ “Check one: \_\_\_ Depro-provera \_\_\_\_ IUD \_\_\_ some other option I can’t think of at the moment” Among other things, you’ll get a LOT more cooperation if people have choices. > [@](#): > > But they would be getting it, for free. Matter of fact, if they’d take a stroll down to their local health department or Planned Parenthood office, they can probably work out something free or low cost right now. There are many parts of this country that don’t have Planned Parenthood. There are health departments that don’t fund birth control due to local religious nutjobs or people who scream about having their tax money used on poor people (who also scream when poor people with no birth control have kids). If these things were truly universally available I’d be more willing to say it’s an acceptable situations. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The government also has a responsibility to “provide for the general welfare”. Keeping people from starving to death seems to fall into that cateogry for me. > > > > You are being quite condescending by assuming that everyone who is poor today is too stupid to make good decisions and needs a nanny-state to keep them from hurting themselves. Well, the family in my neighborhood whose house burned down earlier this week are now homeless and have lost everything except their lives, but I’m not going to assume that if the mother isn’t immediately forced onto birth control she’s going to immediately get pregnant again, and I’m not going to assume they’re strung-out druggies, or that their child is somehow better off dead than in his current circumstances. These people had something bad happen to them, that doesn’t mean that the intelligence and motivation that enabled them to buy that house in first place have suddenly vanished. Fact is, those folks are poor today. Doesn’t mean they will continue to be poor unless bludgeoned into making the decisions someone else views as most correct. > > I’m not assuming anything. I don’t think they are too stupid, but I think accidents happen and we as a society should protect ourselves from spending even more money on those who are already on welfare. I don’t assume they’ll continue to be poor, but if they want assistance from the government they have an obligation not to make themselves any more expensive. So, you don’t want to spend money on people who’ve suffered a misfortune? Someone’s house burns down and you want to force birth control on them to make sure they don’t become “more expensive”? I wasn’t aware that people whose homes burn down suddenly have an urge to make more babies or to become “more expensive”. Yes, as soon as their home burned they are suddenly dependent on others for at least temporary shelter, clothing, and food. I don’t see where that means we should assume their irresponsible. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Why don’t you value daycare services enough to pay the people who provide them? Your volunteers “otherwise unemployed” - shouldn’t they be looking for paying work so as not to be a burden on society? > > Well, you say there aren’t any jobs for them to go find. Meanwhile, they ought to give something back to the society that’s paying their way so as to lessen their burden. Why shouldn’t society pay them for caring for children? Isn’t that important? Doesn’t that have worth? If it does, _why aren’t you willing to pay them for it?_ If childcare was a paying job then those forced volunteers wouldn’t be unemployed anymore, would they? (And yes, _forcing_ people to give services for free, such as childcare, eliminates the notion they are “volunteers”. “Volunteer” means by free choice - saying “either you volunteer for this or I cut off your aid” is an abuse of the word. That’s not “volunteer”, that’s _coerced)_ > [@](#): > > Hopefully none of those things will happen before I get myself out of this hole I’m in, but if they do I’m sure I’ll manage somehow. If I get hit by a car, surely I can take out a loan against my house to pay my hospital bills and living expenses until I get back on my feet. You _might_ - but you might not. Could you take out a loan for a million dollars? If you did, could you pay it back? If not, sorry, no, you _can’t_ handle all possible situations. In fact, a million dollars isn’t really enough. A bad accident can run millions of dollars if there’s a bad burn involved or some complex injury, not to mention the lifetime costs of a potential disability. You might _never_ really “get back your feet”. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But if something catastrophic occured - your house burned down, for example - would you refuse help, or seek it out? > > The insurance company would come build another one. Are you sure? Is your policy for replacement costs? Few are. If there’s flooding involved it may void your policy - last year my area suffered catastrophic floods. Some homes burned while there was water standing inside. The insurance companies got out of paying, by maintaining that it was triggered by flood damage, which they don’t have to cover. At _best_ you’d be looking at a multi-year lawsuit, and, guess what - if it really _was_ flooding that triggered whatever caused the fire then no, the homeowner’s policy doesn’t have to pay a single cent. My point is that if you look we are surronded by things that happen to our neighbors that leave them destitute - things they can’t foresee, can’t prepare for, and can’t pay for. In most of Europe there is, at least, a certain floor you can’t fall below - you’ll have a roof over your head, something to eat, and your basic medical needs taken care of. We don’t have that in the US. You can fall clear down to sleeping on a sewer grate in our nation’s capital begging for spare change and being scorned by everyone else. I find that shameful. > [@](#): > > And nobody will be. The birth control wouldn’t be a punishment, it would be a protection. If it’s coerced, it’s a form of punishment. You’re giving people a “choice” that is really no choice at all. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Those jobless adults who are disqualified for assistance could still recieve a basic food/shelter/running water package so that they wouldn’t be starving on the streets. We are a civilised society, after all. They could not, however, recieve medical care except in emergencies and would remain disqualified for pell grants, unemployment, etc. Again no checks would be written, but bulk food items could be picked up at designated places and times. The idea here being, if you want a better life, go get a job and earn it. > > So if they slowly deteriorate to inability to provide for the kids due to non-emergent medical conditions, that’s OK? Indeed - why do we have a society that would, for example, provide treatment to my husband when he’s in a diabetic coma, or amputate a gangrenous limb, but NOT pay for his daily diabetes medication that would PREVENT these conditions? What does that “teach” him - not to be diabetic? Do you think people CHOOSE to be diabetic? Do you think they can choose not to be? Likewise, why “disqualify” adults for Pell grants? WTF? Isn’t educating people for new careers a GOOD thing? Shouldn’t we _encourage_ people to get education and job training? Perhaps it would be reasonable to restrict which study courses are eligible, but to _deny_ this entirely? How does that benefit either the individul or society? Particuarly when so many aid programs restrict a person’s savings, so getting enough to pay college tuition up front is nealy impossible? Don’t you see that that is _holding people down,_ NOT encouraging them to better themselves? > [@Curlcoat](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Broomstick > > Poor does not mean without resources. One does not go from middle class to absolutely destitute, there’s a spectrum of poverty. It is not unheard of, or unreasonable, for someone qualifying for quite a few benefits to have, say, $1,000 in their possession at a particular point in time. Usually just before they pay the rent. Poor people should be encouraged and allowed to save money, the idea that if you have anything you should be stripped of benefits is pernicious because it encourages people to spend as soon as they get which is not good long term. Poor people live in places that cost $1000/month where you are? [/quote] What, you have a problem with poor people saving money? Here’s a hypothetical - let’s say the poor person is living in a situation where the rent is… oh… $550/month (which happens to be MY rent - which, by the way, is significantly below average for my area, but whatever. Let’s assume said person is resourceful). So… the day before they pay their rent they have $1000 in the bank. They pay their rent. Now they have $450 in the bank, to pay for food and all that other stuff. WHY did you assume ALL the money would be rent? Because you believe poor people are incapable of saving anything at all? Even the strictest food stamp program I am aware of allows up to $2,000 in assets. (Unfortuately, that same program will disqualify you if you have a car worth that much - as it is also in an area where there is no mass transit this is yet another catch-22 - good luck getting to the store, much less looking for work, if you have no car). > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Living off the government is curable. Giving up a child for adoption is an option that, oddly, people seem entirely resistant to considering. There’s more than one way out of any given situation. Perhaps that’s the reason for my distate at hammering everyone into a one-size-fits-none “solution”. > > Not allowing people to have babies while being supported by the taxpayer is a one size fits all solution for everyone. No birth control method is 100% reliable, even when used 100% correctly. Even if a woman consents to birth control and remains celibate there is always a chance she can become pregnant through rape - a very small chance, but spread over the entire population of the US I’m certain it will occur from time to time. And while I understand that biology isn’t fair and thus the burden would be borne SOLELY by poor women not to get pregnant, there most certainly SHOULD be severe consequences for any man fathering a child in such circumstances. But, alas, society is quite please to condemn “welfare mothers” and forget entirely about the sperm donors. > [@](#): > > Living off the government is generally not curable if babies are born and if these women truely love these babies they “accidentally” have while on welfare, they would be happy to see them in a home where the parents can afford to give the child a safe home, good clothes and three meals a day, not to mention that all important good head start in life. Right, because ripping babies out of the arms of their mothers by force is SUCH a good idea… no, society says a woman who gives up her child is a bad mother - only a mother willing to sacrifice everything for her child is a good mother. And don’t discount the rather old-fashioned but still present meme that children should support their parents, thus, for the poor (not just here, but world over) having children is seen as a sort of insurance policy and retirement plan. You may not agree with that, but for many people that’s not an irrational viewpoint. If people didn’t need to rely so heavily on their children then they would have less incentive to have so many. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Yes. In my opinion. Which I will continue to voice. Our current jacked-up health system is cruel and inhumane, particularly since we have multiple examples from other countries that cover more people for less money with better results. > > You opinion on that subject has nothing to do with the subject in this thread you know, right? Yes, actually it _does_ - or don’t you think crushing medical costs and/or lack of insurance is a factor in poverty? Bankruptcies due to medical bills are a significant portion of the whole. Lack of insurance means people go untreated until they have an actual emergency - which is usually more costly than preventive care would have been, but for many disease preventive care is beyond the out-of-pocket means of the poor. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > In your opinion. I disagree. So does my husband, who was born into poverty. Sure, being born into wealth would have been a lot more comfortable, but he seems to hold to the opinion that being poor is better than being dead. I’m not sure where this meme comes from that poverty is worse than death - some forms of poverty might be, but most poor people in the US can still live a physically comfortable, if spartan, existence. > > I was also born into poverty and didn’t get out of it until I “married up” when I was 35. Oh? My husband managed to _get a job and EARN_ his way out of poverty by his mid-20’s. Not that there is anything _wrong_ with “marrying up”, it’s a time-honored means of getting out of poverty. Just not the only way. > [@](#): > > And I didn’t say “death” was preferable, I said that not being born into poverty in the first place is preferable. Whatever your beliefs are about “where” people are before they are born, it seems to me that it is much better to wait to be born until you can land in a good place rather than suffer. Ah, yes - neighbors with the burned down house waited until they had that suburban home to have their baby… whoops, a month later _they’re homeless and living in a shelter_. Gee, guess THEY screwed up, huh? Don’t you get it - it doesn’t matter how well you planned, bad things can still happen. The baby wasn’t born into poverty, but he and his family are going to be in a world of financial hurt for at least a couple years. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Because she said she was caring for nine animals. Her words. > > I asked you how you know how long she is gone from home She also stated she was working two jobs at the time. That’s a substantial part of the day she’s gone. > [@](#): > > … and how much time it takes her to care for her animals. You seem to be assuming that animal care takes all this time, when the truth is that it takes far less time than taking care of children. Animals are easy. Animals require a certain minimum of care. Locking a dog in a house for 12-16 hours a day is cruel, because dogs need to pee, too. I’m not saying she did that, but if you’re working two jobs I have to wonder if you really are giving the animals the care they need, or just warehousing them. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Or… give her infant up for adoption. Or send the children to live with relatives until she is back on her feet (an option that has been used throughout history). There are actually a number of options for a poor parent with children. > > As long as the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay for any of it, I don’t care what they do. Right. God forbid you have to extend yourself for anyone else. How about we take away the roads and police and fire protection paid for by your taxes, too? Why should YOU can anything from taxes if the most needy can’t? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Why didn’t we set this up when the Fed debt was lower? Why does every other western country manage to afford social safety nets even though their countries have less total wealth than ours, yet somehow we can’t? Do you think that Europe is somehow less affected by the current economic crisis than we are? > > If you want to re open the UHC debate, start another thread. It goes WAY beyond just UHC - it affects education, job training, and, yes, welfare. We _could_ do more, but we don’t. It’s high time we just admitted that as a national we’re largely a pack of smug, arrogant, selfish jerks. ---
**Author:** ![InterestedObserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/102 "2009-05-11T17:25:56Z")
Well, firstly, wrt the OP, some of the forms of “welfare” you refer to are NOT, in fact, “welfare” but funds paid in by individuals when they are working and later paid BACK to them in the form of benefits when and if they are ever needed. (Social Security Disability, Unemployment) The amount of benefits is directly linked to the amount paid in. There should be no conditions other than the obvious (disability, unemployment) for the reciept of these funds. Secondly, even those forms of “welfare” which come out of the general fund (i.e. all taxpayers pay in and benefits are not directly linked to how much or little any individual paid in) usually represent taxes the person getting the benefits paid in at some point. For instance, someone who worked most of their life and then needed to go on food stamps for 6 mths following a lay-off. That is THEIR money, and they are just getting some small fraction of it back based on need. Lastly, I find the whole idea of linking procreation to income through such mandates repugnant. The stereotype of the irresponsibly reproducing “welfare mom”, usually of color, is, ime, hardly representative of the majority of those who recieve such benefits at any given time. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/103 "2009-05-11T17:59:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > This is the discussion at hand. It doesn’t mean we support wasteful spending in other areas. It’s one facet of managing and improving our society. The question is "How do we help the needy without encouraging generational dependence?It may not be the the biggest issue financially but it is a legitimate question. Absolutely. But the OP is not merely talking about organizational efficiency, but on using the receipt of welfare payments as grounds for substantial government interference in the private affairs of its citizens - affairs that, historically and legally, the government has stayed out of. It seems to me that the extent to which government should interfere in the private lives of its citizens should be determined based at least in part by _the necessity of the public interest in doing so._ If welfare threatened to bankrupt the state, then putting high barriers on receiving it would be understandable. If it doesn’t, the OP has a pretty tough sell. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/104 "2009-05-11T18:00:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > The most significant loss for single mothers was medical. When they got a basic job they lost medical benefits for their kids. A better system IMO would be to encourage them to find work while still picking up some of the tab. Unfortunately, that still encourages them to have babies on the taxpayer’s dime. And that is my personal take on it - that if we continue to give them support for having children while on welfare, we continue the cycle of poverty thru the generations. Somehow we need to get these folks to understand that it should be - job –\> decent income and security and insurance – \> _then_ children! ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/105 "2009-05-11T18:38:33Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > What, you have a problem with poor people saving money? There is a difference between saving money and just holding it until it is time to pay the bills. Why would a person who is living on the taxpayer have a real savings account? > [@](#): > > No birth control method is 100% reliable, even when used 100% correctly. Even if a woman consents to birth control and remains celibate there is always a chance she can become pregnant through rape - a very small chance, but spread over the entire population of the US I’m certain it will occur from time to time. Abortion or adoption. > [@](#): > > And while I understand that biology isn’t fair and thus the burden would be borne SOLELY by poor women not to get pregnant, there most certainly SHOULD be severe consequences for any man fathering a child in such circumstances. But, alas, society is quite please to condemn “welfare mothers” and forget entirely about the sperm donors. Because the sperm donors don’t have a highly reliable birth control and they don’t have final say on whether or not the woman remains pregnant/keeps the baby. Since men are capable of siring far more children than the average woman is capable of having, it would be nice to be able to cut off that source of welfare babies, but the reality right now is that we really can’t. > [@](#): > > Right, because ripping babies out of the arms of their mothers by force is SUCH a good idea… no, society says a woman who gives up her child is a bad mother - only a mother willing to sacrifice everything for her child is a good mother. And don’t discount the rather old-fashioned but still present meme that children should support their parents, thus, for the poor (not just here, but world over) having children is seen as a sort of insurance policy and retirement plan. You may not agree with that, but for many people that’s not an irrational viewpoint. If people didn’t need to rely so heavily on their children then they would have less incentive to have so many. You sure are full of hyerbole. I said that these women should be happy to be able to give their babies a chance to grow up where they most likely won’t end up living their full lives in poverty, and you equate that with “ripping babies out of the arms of their mothers by force”. Noone has said that - if the mother cannot look beyond her own selfish desire to keep the baby, then it’s all hers but she will raise it without our help. As for society saying a woman who gives up her child is a bad mother - what does society say about anyone who lives off the taxpayer and raises that child with cockroaches? And that bit about needing children to take care of you in old age - uh huh. They are already living on the taxpayer, what do they need children for? > [@](#): > > Yes, actually it _does_ - or don’t you think crushing medical costs and/or lack of insurance is a factor in poverty? How people get to the poverty level and on the taxpayer is not the subject. How they dig themselves a deeper hole by having babies while in poverty is. > [@](#): > > Oh? My husband managed to _get a job and EARN_ his way out of poverty by his mid-20’s. That’s nice - so? He got lucky, he had opportunities I didn’t, he’s a male, whatever. The point was that it is not in any way desirable to live in poverty and those who have the chance will leave it as soon as they can. > [@](#): > > Ah, yes - neighbors with the burned down house waited until they had that suburban home to have their baby… whoops, a month later _they’re homeless and living in a shelter_. If you quit trying to change the subject :rolleyes: Again, the subject is babies conceived and born while the mother is on welfare. OTOH, if those neighbors weren’t so overextended that a burnt down house meant they ended up in a shelter… > [@](#): > > Animals require a certain minimum of care. Locking a dog in a house for 12-16 hours a day is cruel, because dogs need to pee, too. I’m not saying she did that, but if you’re working two jobs I have to wonder if you really are giving the animals the care they need, or just warehousing them. More hyperbole. You don’t know if the dogs are “locked in the house”, you don’t know how long at one stretch she is gone from the house and you have no idea how many hours a week is she working total. But you jump right to she must be cruel. Oh, and as for warehousing? Even is she is, these are rescues so she is only going to have them for a short period of time, to keep them alive until a home can be found. You know, how they are “warehoused” in a shelter? > [@](#): > > Right. God forbid you have to extend yourself for anyone else. How about we take away the roads and police and fire protection paid for by your taxes, too? Why should YOU can anything from taxes if the most needy can’t? Why is it that any time there is a discussion about people who spend generations on welfare, we are told that the taxes they suck up are the same as the taxes that go to roads, police and fire depts? Do you really not understand the difference? > [@](#): > > It’s high time we just admitted that as a national we’re largely a pack of smug, arrogant, selfish jerks. If we were, we wouldn’t have all these people living on our tax money. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/106 "2009-05-11T18:39:52Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > The stereotype of the irresponsibly reproducing “welfare mom”, usually of color, is, ime, hardly representative of the majority of those who recieve such benefits at any given time. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/107 "2009-05-11T19:01:41Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > This is the discussion at hand. It doesn’t mean we support wasteful spending in other areas. It’s one facet of managing and improving our society. The question is "How do we help the needy without encouraging generational dependence?It may not be the the biggest issue financially but it is a legitimate question. I’m not saying we shouldn’t discuss the issue, I’m saying that we should discuss whether it’s a politicised red herring with very little real relevance to the economy (which happens to coincide with my opinion on it). In fact I’d think that to a certain extent, the more generous your welfare system is, the better it is for the economy. The dollars you give to a poor person are instantly put back into circulation and is a real ‘stimulus’ unlike propping up failed business models. It’s also the most effective crime prevention available, which saves a lot of money and resources not to mention the humane benefits of it. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/108 "2009-05-11T19:08:50Z")
> [@Caveat\_lector\_1](#): > > However, I am much more troubled by the thought of the government getting into the business of deciding who has the right to have more children. I don’t think I want them having that power at all. Screw any slippery slope it might cause. I don’t even want them on the top of the hill. Cool. Then they can get out of the business of supporting those kids as well. ---
**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 11, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/109 "2009-05-11T19:29:43Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > There is a difference between saving money and just holding it until it is time to pay the bills. Why would a person who is living on the taxpayer have a real savings account? Why would they at all or why might they be restricted from opening one (versus using payday loan-type establishments)? > [@curlcoat](#): > > Abortion or adoption. Abortion, great. I would love nothing more than to see free, accessible abortions available to those who want them (though this didn’t really seem like an option earlier in the OP, which focused on _conception_). As for adoption – is anyone under the impression that putting unwanted children into the foster care system (including minorities and those with disabilities) is easy or cheap for taxpayers? > [@curlcoat](#): > > Because the sperm donors don’t have a highly reliable birth control and they don’t have final say on whether or not the woman remains pregnant/keeps the baby. Since men are capable of siring far more children than the average woman is capable of having, it would be nice to be able to cut off that source of welfare babies, but the reality right now is that we really can’t. Great. Let’s see that male birth control pill/injection that’s been in the works for decades and demand that it finally be put on the market, while at the same time demanding more research into alternate forms of female birth control (and into the side effects of those on the market). And let’s make them all free or dirt cheap and available in every town in the country. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/110 "2009-05-11T19:31:45Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > First, there is a very real problem that there are some people who _aren’t_ capable of caring for themselves. The severely mentally ill were dumped out of institutions onto the street, with the “consequences” that many are now part of the chronically homeless population. What they need is a sheltered living situation or group home - which no one seems to want in their neighborhood. Again, I say we’re barbaric for leaving these people who can’t take care of themselves on the street where they can be repeatedly victimized and often die in preventable ways. Such people can _not_ be expected to be fully responsible for themselves and a civilized society would find a way to make provisions for them. noted , but lets limit the discussion to people in need but able to some degree to help themselves. I’m not suggesting those who are unable for one reason or another, be abandoned to survive as best they can. Additionally I realize our system needs many improvements. My point is that while helping others is a good thing we need to find realistic ways to fund such programs and draw limits and set boundaries that encourage people to do as much as they are capable off to contribute. That’s a big challenge IMO. > [@](#): > > Second, the help has to be _reasonable_ - no catch-22 situations such as CNN has noted in regards to unemployment benefits and seeking education in [this article](http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/08/obama.unemployment/index.html), which points out that in many states enrolling in training for a new job can result in termination of your unemployment benefits, at the very time you probably need some additional financial support (fortunately, my state is not so unelightened - the unemployment office emphasises that you must be looking for a job _or in training_ to receive benefits). > [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/us/10safetynet.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=recession&st=cse) is a recent _New York Times_ article on the fragmented nature of aid and how regulations for various programs are contradictory. At best aid to people who have true need is fragmentary. You won’t know this until a disaster hits your family, meanwhile, quite a few people sail along thinking they actually are in control of their destiny and nothing so bad will ever happen to them that they will need to become one of those horrible poor people on welfare. I agree. I think the way to help people while encouraging them is to not allow them to become too dependent on the system. That means allowing them to gradually be weaned off assistance and offering some but less support as they work low paying jobs or go to school. Personally I think balance needs to be restored so that more jobs meet at least minimum standards of living. > [@](#): > > Funny, though, how people would bitch about sick people starving to death on a public sidewalk. The collective we might say no one is entitled, yet we mandate that hospitals treat all emergencies that arrive at their door regardless of ability to pay, and there are soup kitchens and homeless shelters across the nation. In other words, we say one thing and do another. My only conclusion is that our society is delibrately self-deceiving on these matters. It’s a difference in terms but one I think is important. Society gets to choose what kind of society it will be. If we feed the hungry, care for the sick, offer education opportunities, second chances for those who make mistakes, we not only help the individual but society as a whole. We as a society have to choose where those lines are drawn and that’s what we’re discussing here. Nobody is owed anything or entitled to anything. If we are fortunate enough to live in a compassionate society that does offer aide I think that citizen needs to understand that that aide costs something and they pay that debt by meeting their personal responsibility as much as they are able and contributing as much as possible. Not all citizens pay the same or need the same help and that’s okay, providing we cultivate the “do what you can and make a contribution” mindset. I grew up poor but we had enough so I really never noticed until High School. When my Dad had trouble paying property tax it never occurred to him to ask for assistance that he might be entitled to. He went to the town and offered to work part time for them to pay his taxes and that’s what he did for years. It’s the mindset of I’m _entitled_ to X that bothers me. Once that enters into the equation it’s sure to be abused and misunderstood. > [@](#): > > Oh, I agree - some of this deals with some tough stuff, including the reality that in our society there are some adults who will _never_ be responsible for their own selves due to mental issues - no amount of “tough love” is going to cure a schizophrenic or make someone of below normal intelligence smarter. respectfully, it’s not necessary to state the obvious. I hope it’s clear I’m referring to people who are able to help themselves. I realize there are people who cannot help themselves and I’m not suggesting we throw them to the wolves in a “tuff shit pal” way. I’m not assuming everyone who needs help is able to help themselves. I’d like you and others to realize that there are some lazy unmotivated people out there who suck up resources that could be used to help others. I acknowledge that the the system itself has serious flaws. I’d like the repairs in the system to help the truly needy and give those milking the system the kick in the ass they deserve. {a compassionate kick to be sure} > [@](#): > > As for rehab - our society decided, starting in the 1980’s, that we’d rather jail addicts than treat them. The result has been an explosion of inmates, followed by a lot of people who get out of jail no better than they went in, who are now nearly unemployable not only because of addiction issues but because now they are also convicted felons. In other words, long term it just made the situation _worse_. > > I’ve always favored treatment over incarceration (while recognizing there are situations where locking someone up is the best course, if only for the safety of others) and for four years put my money where my mouth is by working to help rehab addicts. Which only made me more convinced that rehab is the best choice in the majority of situations. Yet there is no vast funding of rehab - indeed, one year, in order to meet a budget shortfall Illinois _simply didn’t send us any money for services rendered_. That is, the state agreed to pay us X dollars for Y amount of services and _simply didn’t pay the bill for eight months!_ Yet, because of the nature of the contract, we were legally required to keep providing those services. This is insane. Quite a few rehab centers went under that year, which left a lot of addicts who were _seeking_ treatment out in the cold, others who were _mandated by the courts_ to get treatment as part of their probation _could not get that treatment_ and would up with a parole violation and back in jail _ **through no fault of their own** _. This is NOT humane! It was a cruel, Kafkaesque farce of a trainwreck, meanwhile, my co-workers and I were bringing our own toilet paper to work because the clinic couldn’t afford to buy it anymore. {bolding mine.} That’s kinda what I’m talking about. It seems obvious to me that it is through **some** fault of their own. Does the state really bear \*\*all \*\*the responsibility as your wording indicates. I’m fine with rehab programs rather than prison and other programs that offer a real chance at rehabilitation, but somewhere along the way the individual has to take the consequences of their own choices. People wind up back in prison because of something **they did** after the rehab program closed, not because the state failed to provide their entitlement. Some folks rehabilitate themselves without state funds. > [@](#): > > This is just one more example of how the “system” is crap and how it actively works against people getting better. You speak as if the system is a separate evil entity. The system actually includes the people who need help as well as those able to provide some. Years ago I met a man who was a ship captain with a private company. They helped older teens in trouble with the law by making them part of the crew. A smaller part of the crew was counselors. They had an impressive success rate and were often paid by states because they were cheaper than simply locking them up. The point being that let’s not assume the \*system \* as in government, is supposed to solve all these issues. > [@](#): > > The problem is that privatizing aid just doesn’t provide _enough_. It never has, that’s why even in Privitzition Central, a.k.a. the USA, we have government programs for the needy. When times are hard, private assistance _falls_ at the very time it is most needed. Boo-hoo-hoo, the government uses tax money to help those worst off I have no problem with programs being funded. I do think there may be a correlation between the failure of private organizations and the failure of the system as a whole. Both are a reflection of societies overall mindset. I’d like to see minor taxes added onto what we buy. That way individuals retain the choice of what they spend and how much and those with more money spend more and fund more while still retaining free choice. > [@](#): > > - _the government has an obligation to helps its citizens._ Right there in the preamble to the constitution: > Seems to me that making sure everyone is educated to a minimum level and doesn’t starve to death or die of preventable causes would fall under “general welfare”. That’s a broad interpretation. Any indication that state funding of welfare programs was what our founders intended? Again, there’s that separation of the government and it’s citizens and you almost paint the government as some big brother who is obligated to help. I prefer the view that we the citizens are part of the government in this democracy and the obligation is shared by all citizens. If there is a moral imperative to help then there is an equal moral imperative to contribute. > [@](#): > > Yes, I resent that he spent so much on a war in Iraq that never should have been started instead of feeding the hungry, tending the sick, and educating people. Me too. The point is citizens have a right to object to how their money is spent if they feel it’s being misdirected, even the citizens who disagree with you. I have friends who are conservatives and are very willing to help others in need. They just don’t believe that’s a role of government or that the government is very good at it financially. I’d agree, escpecially now, that those milking the system are extremely small potatoes compared to other issues, however, if we are to move forward it is a relevant issue. > [@](#): > > This. If a woman gains more for herself by NOT working _because of the way the system is built_ then her choosing to stay home and raise the kids is NOT her being lazy or irresponsible _it’s actually an intelligent choice and her best option._ When designing a social safety net you have to make sure that it does what it _should_ do - provide incentive for genuine improvement - rather than provide perverse incentives where the best choice for an individual is to _not_ work or _not_ improve. I agree. That was my point. > [@](#): > > Another gripe I have is that many programs _penalize_ people for saving money. This is just _freakin’ stupid_. As an example - a $2,000 savings account can disqualify you from the food stamps program. And no doubt some will say “well, good, if they’ve got that much money they can use it to buy food”. But by preventing people from saving money you make it that much harder for them to go to college, or perhaps to purchase tutoring services for a child having difficulty in school, or to get a reliable vehicle so they have more options as to where to look for work, or to relocate to a safer neighborhood. The poor folks who save money are NOT the ones who are blowing it on crack, iPods, and bling. Would should be _encouraging_ these people to not only save money, but save _much more_ money. Yes, have a sliding eligibility for something like food stamps, but not an abrupt cut-off that provides a perverse incentive to blow money on crap today if you get a windfall because if you don’t they’ll just cut off your aid. Hide it in the sock drawer for crying out loud and pay the tutor in cash. It’s not mandatory that you blow it. The line has to be drawn somewhere. How is a program supposed to know what a recipient will spend their money on? It makes much more sense to offer a little help to those trying hard than wait for them to crumble and then support them completely, but I do understand that lines must be drawn. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/111 "2009-05-11T19:41:01Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Unfortunately, that still encourages them to have babies on the taxpayer’s dime. And that is my personal take on it - that if we continue to give them support for having children while on welfare, we continue the cycle of poverty thru the generations. Somehow we need to get these folks to understand that it should be - job –\> decent income and security and insurance – \> _then_ children! Yes and that’s at least in part a failure on how the system is set up and executed. I’m in favor of limits to single parents as I described in a previous post. You get X for 1 kid. X plus Y for two kids and that’s the limit. I’d also require able bodied citizens to _do something_ for their welfare. I’m thinking if we required welfare recipients to do some work for the town/county/state they were getting funds from we’d weed out those working under the table pretty quick. If you need the state to pay your rent or grocery bill then cleaning up the park, mowing lawns, painting fences, whatever isn’t to lowly or dishonorable. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/112 "2009-05-11T19:50:54Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Absolutely. But the OP is not merely talking about organizational efficiency, but on using the receipt of welfare payments as grounds for substantial government interference in the private affairs of its citizens - affairs that, historically and legally, the government has stayed out of. It seems to me that the extent to which government should interfere in the private lives of its citizens should be determined based at least in part by _the necessity of the public interest in doing so._ If welfare threatened to bankrupt the state, then putting high barriers on receiving it would be understandable. If it doesn’t, the OP has a pretty tough sell. It doesn’t have to be that extreme. Even if it’s not threatening to bankrupt the system it’s okay to discuss what is effective or intrusive. ftr I’m not defending the more intrusive suggestions of the OP and that wasn’t the point of the post you responded to. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/113 "2009-05-11T20:00:28Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > I’m not saying we shouldn’t discuss the issue, I’m saying that we should discuss whether it’s a politicised red herring with very little real relevance to the economy (which happens to coincide with my opinion on it). > > In fact I’d think that to a certain extent, the more generous your welfare system is, the better it is for the economy. The dollars you give to a poor person are instantly put back into circulation and is a real ‘stimulus’ unlike propping up failed business models. It’s also the most effective crime prevention available, which saves a lot of money and resources not to mention the humane benefits of it. That’s an interesting point. Some friends of mine suggested that if the bailout money was divided up for the average citizen it would have done more good for the economy. Lot’s of bills would have been paid and the banks would have gotten a big portion of it anyway. Instead they got the money while keeping us in debt. Still, lot’s of things with little real relevance are discussed in GD all the time. We get to decide which irrelevant things we think are interesting. 🙂 We’re not discussing the the economic picture as a hole or the bailout. Just one small facet of the big picture. Don’t you think a welfare system can be too generous? ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/114 "2009-05-11T20:23:27Z")
Yes I do think a welfare system can be too generous (Dubai and Brunei). There should be a clear economic incitament to work. Basically this would seem to mean that a welfare payout should (as a general rule) be smaller than the salary for a minimum wage job. How much smaller is of course somewhat arbitrary but obviously it makes no sense to have a welfare payout (for a single person with no dependants) that is bigger than that. The welfare system in the US as far as I know (and my knowledge on this matter as on many others is quite limited) seem to be far from the risk of being too generous though. In general, and this is not an emotional or idealistic argument but rather an economic and psychological one, positive incitaments work better than negative ones. Harder sentencing and harsher prisons do NOT lower crime, and lower welfare does NOT lower unemployment. In fact, it’s pretty obvious that both lead to an increase in crime. Of course you can’t tip the scale all the way too the other side (massive welfare payouts and no punishment), you have to find a balance. Welfare should basically allow for you to have reasonable housing, eat properly and support whatever dependants you have. As well as make possible some minimal entertainment/culture for the recipient. Attacking recipients of welfare only makes sense on a moralising level, and that I what I usually see saturating the discussions. Basically people paint themself (or have painted for them) a picture of some lazy bum sitting around doing nothing all day on ‘your’ hard earned dollar. The vast majority of recipients of welfare do not fall into that category, only an insignificantly small minority does. You can categorise the majority into three groups. Those who could take a job if one was offered, those who need training/education, and those who need rehabilitation. So if you want to lower unemployment as well as welfare costs you should work on providing jobs, education and rehabilitation, not dole out collective punishment on the majority for the abuse committed by an insignificant minority. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/115 "2009-05-11T21:03:18Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Yes I do think a welfare system can be too generous (Dubai and Brunei). There should be a clear economic incitament to work. Basically this would seem to mean that a welfare payout should (as a general rule) be smaller than the salary for a minimum wage job. How much smaller is of course somewhat arbitrary but obviously it makes no sense to have a welfare payout (for a single person with no dependants) that is bigger than that. > > The welfare system in the US as far as I know (and my knowledge on this matter as on many others is quite limited) seem to be far from the risk of being too generous though. > > In general, and this is not an emotional or idealistic argument but rather an economic and psychological one, positive incitaments work better than negative ones. Harder sentencing and harsher prisons do NOT lower crime, and lower welfare does NOT lower unemployment. In fact, it’s pretty obvious that both lead to an increase in crime. > > Of course you can’t tip the scale all the way too the other side (massive welfare payouts and no punishment), you have to find a balance. Welfare should basically allow for you to have reasonable housing, eat properly and support whatever dependants you have. As well as make possible some minimal entertainment/culture for the recipient. It’s a matter of details and that’s where it gets more difficult. I haven’t seen anyone stereotyping all welfare recipients in this thread and I agree that’s not helpful or accurate. OTOH a generalized , “we should help those in need” lacks the specifics to really help in any practical way. > [@](#): > > Attacking recipients of welfare only makes sense on a moralising level, and that I what I usually see saturating the discussions.Basically people paint themself (or have painted for them) a picture of some lazy bum sitting around doing nothing all day on ‘your’ hard earned dollar. I suggest you respond to the specific posts in this thread rather than what you usually see. It’s not attacking recipients or encouraging stereotypes to make suggestions and comments. > [@](#): > > The vast majority of recipients of welfare do not fall into that category, only an insignificantly small minority does. I can believe that’s true but do you have any cites to verify. It would be a matter of percentages to be significant. > [@](#): > > You can categorise the majority into three groups. Those who could take a job if one was offered, those who need training/education, and those who need rehabilitation. So if you want to lower unemployment as well as welfare costs you should work on providing jobs, education and rehabilitation, not dole out collective punishment on the majority for the abuse committed by an insignificant minority. When I was in subsidized housing what I saw was people working under the table or single Mom’s with a live in boyfriend who’s income went for extra goodies while taxpayers paid the bills. I agree that programs to help people especially job training and education are a good way tom help prevent crime. I’m all for it. I’m only saying that we need to create sense of responsibility the includes all economic classes rather than a sense of entitlement. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/116 "2009-05-11T21:23:12Z")
The cites I can provide are of no use for you, but I can say that my information comes from being on the committe that is responsible for welfare in my town and is nation-wide. IIRC about 2% of the money paid in welfare is abused, which is (to us) well below what can be considered acceptable (abuse of other non-welfare related systems are generally a lot higher). Our projections also show that at this point, spending more money on catching cheaters will cost more than it would save. I agree completely with you about working against any sense of “entitlement” and that should be at the foundation of the structure, because the very sense of entitlement is detrimental to the objectives of the structure. If people feel entitled to welfare they may very well be less motivated to work or pursue education. And I don’t think that is a big problem currently, at least not here. The social stigma of living off welfare as well as the inherent restrictions on your life (not affording to do things you would like to do) are strong enough to prevent that. The real problem comes not from the majority of welfare cases but from the long term of permanent ones, specifically the ones that bridge generations. Welfare is hereditary that way. If your parents are unemployed and on welfare, you are much more likely to be unemployed and have less motivation to change that. For me, that leads to the conclusion that to combat this we need to create jobs, and help people become capable of taking those jobs, and focusing early on helping those who are children to disenfrenchised groups. Lowering the living standard for them will however not have the desired effect. They will just adapt (which is what humans are great at). Sometimes the adaption will mean more crime, which will cost much more than what is saved by cutting into the welfare cheques. The economically rational solution is to put effort into helping and positive incitaments, not the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/117 "2009-05-11T21:51:23Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > > [@Broomstick\[/quote](#): > > > > What, you have a problem with poor people saving money? > > There is a difference between saving money and just holding it until it is time to pay the bills. Why would a person who is living on the taxpayer have a real savings account? Why would they NOT? Isn’t saving money in order to have a reserve on hand for emergencies a _responsible_ thing to do? Why shouldn’t welfare recipients be permitted a modest reserve to cover expenses such as, well, a broken tooth or a flat tire or some such, rather than the alternative which is forcing them to take a loan of some sort and spend money on interest? Wouldn’t permission to save encourage good budgeting skills? Now, if they saved up $20,000 grand, yes, maybe it’s time for them to get off welfare or for someone to cut back on their beneift. But $2,000 doesn’t amount to much, particularly if you live in an urban area. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And while I understand that biology isn’t fair and thus the burden would be borne SOLELY by poor women not to get pregnant, there most certainly SHOULD be severe consequences for any man fathering a child in such circumstances. But, alas, society is quite please to condemn “welfare mothers” and forget entirely about the sperm donors. > > Because the sperm donors don’t have a highly reliable birth control and they don’t have final say on whether or not the woman remains pregnant/keeps the baby. Since men are capable of siring far more children than the average woman is capable of having, it would be nice to be able to cut off that source of welfare babies, but the reality right now is that we really can’t. Bullcrap. Welfare fathers are just as capable of using condoms as any other male human being. We have DNA typing nowadays. How about any man who goes on welfare has to provide a DNA sample, so if he fathers any children while on welfare he can be held accountable? He’ll just have to be responsible and be careful where he’s dipping his stick _prior_ to conception, and if he isn’t - too bad, now that he’s a father he’s got responsbilities. > [@](#): > > You sure are full of hyerbole Yep, sometimes I am. > [@](#): > > I said that these women should be happy to be able to give their babies a chance to grow up where they most likely won’t end up living their full lives in poverty I’ve never met a woman _happy_ to give up her baby. Never. Even when she knows it’s in the best interest of the child _she is NOT happy_ to do this. It can, in fact, be quite traumatic to the mother even when she is convinced it is the right thing to do. Normal women do not want to give up their children. The fact that some do so is a triumph of intellect over natural impulses. I should also point out that just because a woman gives up her children does not mean that child will be adopted. Indeed, we have tens of thousands of children languishing in foster care right now. Healthy, blond haired blue eyed baby boys get snatched up quickly, their blond haired blue eyed sisters almost as fast, but minority children are much less likely to be adopted and any disabled child is unlikely to be adopted. Getting shuffled from one foster family to another throughout childhood, only to be dumped on your own at 18, is a really crappy way to live. > [@](#): > > As for society saying a woman who gives up her child is a bad mother - what does society say about anyone who lives off the taxpayer and raises that child with cockroaches? It’s quite insulting for you to presume all poor people are living in homes with vermin. Fact is, the “welfare” mother is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn’t - if she gives up her children she’s a bad mother who didn’t really love them enough to keep them, and if she doesn’t give them up she’s seen as a sucking parasite on society. > [@](#): > > And that bit about needing children to take care of you in old age - uh huh. They are already living on the taxpayer, what do they need children for? As I pointed out, it’s a historical hangover from the past when children were usually one’s retirement security. Or don’t you think culture impacts peoples’ decisions? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Oh? My husband managed to get a job and EARN his way out of poverty by his mid-20’s. > > That’s nice - so? He got lucky, he had opportunities I didn’t, he’s a male, whatever. The point was that it is not in any way desirable to live in poverty and those who have the chance will leave it as soon as they can. Oh he was male, yes - and disabled which is at least as much a liability as coming from a welfare family. Neither of you should be looked down upon for how you got out of poverty, nor should you have been less valued as humans beings when you were poor. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Ah, yes - neighbors with the burned down house waited until they had that suburban home to have their baby… whoops, a month later they’re homeless and living in a shelter. > > If you quit trying to change the subject Again, the subject is babies conceived and born while the mother is on welfare. OTOH, if those neighbors weren’t so overextended that a burnt down house meant they ended up in a shelter… Where do you THINK people whose homes have burned down typically end up? Usually in a shelter, or some charity or agency subsidizes their stay in a local hotel. It has nothing to do with being “overextended”. Damn few people could lose their largest asset - their home - then turn around and buy another one the next day. In this economy, few could afford to pony up for a security deposit on a rental in less than a couple months. Again, the victim(s) is being blamed for a misfortune. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Animals require a certain minimum of care. Locking a dog in a house for 12-16 hours a day is cruel, because dogs need to pee, too. I’m not saying she did that, but if you’re working two jobs I have to wonder if you really are giving the animals the care they need, or just warehousing them. > > More hyperbole. You don’t know if the dogs are “locked in the house”, you don’t know how long at one stretch she is gone from the house and you have no idea how many hours a week is she working total. But you jump right to she must be cruel. Would you like to actually read what I said? I stated that I didn’t know her circumstance, just that if someone says they have two jobs and nine animals I _wonder_ how those animals are doing, not that is must be a cruel situation. Yes, it is _possible_ to manage it, but not everyone does. > [@](#): > > Oh, and as for warehousing? Even is she is, these are rescues so she is only going to have them for a short period of time, to keep them alive until a home can be found. You know, how they are “warehoused” in a shelter? Actually, all my animal rescues I kept for their lifetimes. Once I bring an animal into my home I am responsible for it _for life_. Which is why I’m very careful about how many I take on. Especially since my current pets have 20-35 year lifespans. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Right. God forbid you have to extend yourself for anyone else. How about we take away the roads and police and fire protection paid for by your taxes, too? Why should YOU can anything from taxes if the most needy can’t? > > Why is it that any time there is a discussion about people who spend generations on welfare, we are told that the taxes they suck up are the same as the taxes that go to roads, police and fire depts? Do you really not understand the difference? No, I can’t. The only difference I see is that you have use for roads, police, and fire protection but foolishly assume you will never be poor or need financial help. I pay taxes for police and fire and hope to god I never need them. I pay taxes for a social safety net and hope to god I never need it. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/118 "2009-05-11T22:17:12Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > The cites I can provide are of no use for you, but I can say that my information comes from being on the committe that is responsible for welfare in my town and is nation-wide. IIRC about 2% of the money paid in welfare is abused, which is (to us) well below what can be considered acceptable (abuse of other non-welfare related systems are generally a lot higher). Our projections also show that at this point, spending more money on catching cheaters will cost more than it would save. I find that easy to believe. Sadly the concept of shiftless welfare recipients is widespread among some conservatives after years of political gaming. I think we just need to tweak the rules and find the right balance that encourages and enables people to use welfare as an temporary emergency system. I also saw single Moms use it while they finished school. > [@](#): > > I agree completely with you about working against any sense of “entitlement” and that should be at the foundation of the structure, because the very sense of entitlement is detrimental to the objectives of the structure. If people feel entitled to welfare they may very well be less motivated to work or pursue education. And I don’t think that is a big problem currently, at least not here. The social stigma of living off welfare as well as the inherent restrictions on your life (not affording to do things you would like to do) are strong enough to prevent that. The real problem comes not from the majority of welfare cases but from the long term of permanent ones, specifically the ones that bridge generations. Welfare is hereditary that way. If your parents are unemployed and on welfare, you are much more likely to be unemployed and have less motivation to change that. I think more jobs need to pay a wage that allows people to maintain a decent minimum standard of living. What I’ve seen in my years in retail is more and more jobs that used to be full time with some benefits that supported an adult fade away to become part time , lower wages, no benefits, that can’t support an adult. Call me crazy but I think the jobs that exist ought to pay a living wage. A degree and a better job is great but don’t we want the people who work the unskilled, unspecialized, jobs to make a living? > [@](#): > > For me, that leads to the conclusion that to combat this we need to create jobs, and help people become capable of taking those jobs, and focusing early on helping those who are children to disenfrenchised groups. Lowering the living standard for them will however not have the desired effect. They will just adapt (which is what humans are great at). Sometimes the adaption will mean more crime, which will cost much more than what is saved by cutting into the welfare cheques. The economically rational solution is to put effort into helping and positive incitaments, not the opposite. I agree. In a question about what is best for society as a whole I agree that creating opportunity and means while lifting people up and encouraging them is a better path than “every man for himself” I just want that to be tempered with the teaching of personal responsibility and and the idea that we as individuals are part of a society and share the responsibilities of citizenship. That includes making whatever contribution we are capable off , even a modest one. I could ramble on but I’ll restrain myself. ---
**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 11, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/119 "2009-05-11T22:27:02Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Yes I do think a welfare system can be too generous (Dubai and Brunei). There should be a clear economic incitament to work. Basically this would seem to mean that a welfare payout should (as a general rule) be smaller than the salary for a minimum wage job. At the same time, you’ve got to work to make sure that minimum wage is both livable and more than what someone would get were they on welfare (what you proposed, but from the other end). ‘Perks’ like child care and health care – which can be gained and lost depending on income – would help, too. If you get a job that basically covers living expenses and daycare, and you’d be getting that much minus what you pay for daycare on assistance, plus you’d actually get to see your kid(s) during the day, one could argue that going on welfare means you’re a better parent. ETA: What cosmosdan said, regarding minimum wage jobs. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/120 "2009-05-11T22:30:08Z")
double post sorry!! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=7)