# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/121 "2009-05-11T22:32:36Z")
I find it ironic that people are deeply concerned about animals being “warehoused” in a shelter, but are advocating that children be removed from their welfare-receiving mothers and… warehoused in orphanages and foster care? There isn’t a huge demand for adopting children who aren’t perceived as “perfect” by a mostly white society. Taking them away from people who, while possibly shiftless and/or fiscally reprehensible, might actually love them, to put them in the system, seems like a bad idea all around. It wouldn’t be cost-efficient and it would be as cruel as putting animals into shelters. I say this as someone who volunteers weekly at an animal shelter and has 6 cats. I also used to work at a counseling center that did adoptions. We had there what we called the “Baby Book,” which had photos of children in orphanages waiting to be adopted, with little blurbs under them. I had to put in the updated pages and discard the outdated ones, and it was hard not to cry, reading about these kids, who were desperate for parents. I wouldn’t want a kid who wasn’t abused or neglected to be in that situation, ever. Better to leave them with their mother, even if she’s on welfare, if she’s able to care for them adequately, seriously. And on a completely different topic: why ISN’T there a reliable male contraceptive, in pill, patch, or injectable form? It seems well within the realm of modern medicine, and would undoubtedly make a lot of money. ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/122 "2009-05-11T22:37:55Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. I’m all for declaring a minimum acceptable level of income (this may have to be adjusted for location - what is sufficient in Nowhere, Idaho would not be sufficient in New York City) and not allowing people to fall below that. If you do, you receive subsidies to raise you to that level (and issuing food, clothing, and other goods would be acceptable if you don’t want to simply issue money). The point is that we don’t let anyone fall into squalor-level, living-in-a-box poverty. I’m also all for maintaining some standards. For example, give financial age for people to get educated or retrained, but make it contingent on them maintaining an acceptable grade level. By relieving people of the worry of being completely destitute it should allow them to take full advantage of education, but if they can’t exert themselves then they’ll have to settle for crap jobs for the rest of their life. Perhaps after flunking out they can try again in a certain number of years, giving the opportunity to change. Others may be content with the minimum. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. Yes. These people were given as a condition of their parole that they MUST enter a recognized rehabilitation program within X number of days or weeks _at the very same time_ the state was refusing to pay money owed to these facilities, leading to them going out of business. So you have people wanting to get into rehab and being told sorry, the clinic is out of business or sorry, there is a X month waiting list, said waiting list being far beyond the time given for them to get into treatment. Because it was _not_ enough to be on a waiting list, they had to actually BE in treatment. Something the state’s refusal to pay the bills rendered _impossible_ for even the most sincere, dedicated, and motivated parolee to achieve. Frankly, it would have been kinder to simply keep them in jail and not give them parole rather than have them out for two-three weeks and then snatched back with an _additional_ black mark on their record. > [@](#): > > 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. The rehab facilities were closing _even before_ these people were released on parole, with a condition of parole being to enter a treatment program. Yes, it was a consequence of the state refusing to pay money for _services already rendered_ that directly lead to many programs closing in Illinois during that period in the 1990’s. In other words, these people were told that in order to comply with parole they had to get into a program when those same programs were either going out of business or already out of business. It was _impossible_ for the parolees during that period to comply with the conditions of parole. > [@](#): > > Some folks rehabilitate themselves without state funds. Self-rehabilitation would NOT have satisfied the conditions of their parole. They had to be in a _state recognized_ program, self-help was not considered sufficient (nonetheless, some tried to go before a judge and use their NA and AA atendance as evidence they had made an effort. It wasn’t good enough, they were found in violation of parole and sent back to jail). The only ones who got into rehab during that period were those whose families were able and willing to pony up for _private treatment_, in some cases out of state (but a recognized program). Of course, that cost thousands of dollars - which most impoverished parolees simply don’t have. As I said the state made it _impossible_ for these people to adhere to the conditions imposed. That is wrong. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. I would have no objection to that sort of funding system. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > - 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. So what? There have always been strict vs. loose constructionists in this country. > [@](#): > > Any indication that state funding of welfare programs was what our founders intended? The US founders _intended_ that people of African descent be bought and sold as property, but we eventually decided that wasn’t OK anymore. In 1776 a poor man could take a rifle and hunt meat for his family without worrying about hunting seasons and licenses - we took that option away for the most part. At one point in time anyone could stake a claim to 40 acres, work it for 5 years, then be awarded the deed to the land - that was a heck of a giveaway (particularly since a lot of the land was actually claimed by the natives, but let’s not digress). What does it matter what the founders did or didn’t intend? The fact there is a mechanism to amend the constitution shows that the founders _intended_ that the nation adapt to changing circumstances. > [@](#): > > 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. The government should be the last resort, but it should _be there_ as a resort for those at the end of the rope. And perhaps some not quite so deparate, to _prevent_ that dire level of need. > [@](#): > > 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. The problem is that the “moral imperative” mechanism doesn’t seem to work well without some substantial backing. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. My point is that our current system has a LOT of perverse incentives and instead of fixing them all too many people would rather punish people caught in the system than actually help them. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. It is, however, mandatory that you _declare_ it when you apply for aid. Failure to do so is fraud, and punishable by fines and/or jail time. Did you not know that? You are asking people to break the law if you say “hide it in the sock draw and pay the tutor in cash”, i.e. under the table. Again, a perverse incentive. > [@](#): > > How is a program supposed to know what a recipient will spend their money on? If a recipient is saving money in a bank account _they aren’t spending it_, are they? And it is possible to audit people. Perhaps there could be an incentive for saving a given amount - perhaps at $500 in savings the person receives, oh, I don’t know - a $50 coupon/voucher for groceries and household goods at a local store (perhaps chosen from a list of items that aren’t alcohol or junk food, much as WIC vouchers operate). A free oil change and tire rotation for their vehicle. A $20 per child coupon/voucher for school supplies. Nothing extravagant, but a definite reward for good budgeting. The only way they’re going to be able to save that much would be to NOT indulge in frivolous puchases and really exercise fiscal self-discipline. Which is what you want to encourage, right? > [@](#): > > 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 Yes, but let’s call it what it is - _work_. Instead of saying “we’ll issue you a check for welfare, but in return you “volunteer” for work”, let’s be up front and say “we’ll give you these good and services in exchange for your labor”. Make the benefits given to these people somewhat better than just sitting at home on their ass, with more hours worked per week giving more incremental benefit. In other words _reward people for working_. Or, if they’re going to school, give them a small bonus for regular attendence and maintaining high grades - the higher the grade point the more the bonus. We reward people in private industry for being productive and meeting goals, why don’t we do this for the poor? There would also have to be adequate benefits for those who _cannot_ work, of course, but you did say we’re limiting this to the able-bodied and mentally capable. > [@](#): > > Don’t you think a welfare system can be too generous? Yes, but we’re _nowhere_ near that in this country right now. > [@](#): > > 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. If people are working under the table or otherwise breaking the rules then either they should be subjected to consequences - or the rules need to be changed. As for “mom’s live in boyfriend” - is there something wrong with mom taking in a roommate? Does the roommate have to be poor? Is there a problem with a poor person moving in with other people who are financially better off? Or is that a good choice from their viewpoint in regards to getting the maximum use out of his/her resources. Reform the system so people aren’t penalized or cut off entirely when they make marginal improvements. Don’t penalize people for pooling resources - that is a much more efficient use of money that everyone going it alone. Get rid of perverse incentives and actually reward the behavior you want to see. ---
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/123 "2009-05-11T23:02:23Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > 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. I know in our freakin sue happy blame someone make them pay society it’s not likley but it occurred to me years ago when I was living in subsidized housing surrounded by others who were it occured to me that perhaps they could setup a day care or two right there. While a single Mom is sitting at home taking care of her child she can take care of several others as well so those mothers could work or attend school. I think health care is a huge issue and once that’s in place it will help solve other problems. If a single Mom still has health care for her and her kids she has no excuse not to work or go to school. concerning minimum wage jobs. Here’s a big problem I see being in retail. People have to understand that there is a very real connection between the money they spend and how their society functions. As a merchant I have a stake in wanting my customers to be happy. I also want them to respect the obvious fact that a business is supposed to earn a profit and if it doesn’t it can’t exist. I don’t make a lot of money but I will go out of my way to spend a little more and patronize a local merchant. If we want employees to make more then things will cost a little more. As we shop for better bargains and cheaper prices we sometimes choose for our neighbors to lose their jobs because we don’t or don’t want to see the connection. How many old family businesses have failed because a local WalMart opened. That’s due in part and in real terms to people choosing to save a buck at the expense of their neighbor. ---
**Author:** ![starwarsfreek42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@starwarsfreek42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starwarsfreek42)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/124 "2009-05-12T03:00:45Z")
Ok, I’m not making another huge reply interrupted by quote after quote. I get too confused and might reply to the wrong person and look 'tarded. **Broomstick** , I have little to no sympathy for addicts. If they go to jail or go back to jail, it certainly isn’t through no fault of their own. Nobody made them light up that first time… or the second time… or the tenth. Their choices are their fault, and they bear the burden of responsibility. Yes, the kitten went to a good home. [Here’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=499976)the thread I started. I also have a correction to make. I aquired numbers 6, 7 and 8 in September, then quit my second job, and then aquired number 9 in November. So it was only ever 8 at most while working two jobs. Usually I left the house at 7:30 for school, was at job 1 by 10, home at 3. I let the dogs inside if they had been out, took a hot shower, checked up on everybody’s water, let the dogs back out, and was at job 2 by 5 o’clock. I got off between 10 and 11, fed the dogs/cats/bunnies, handed out medicine, and puttered around until I fell asleep. Yeah, sometimes it was like warehousing them but you know what? They weren’t sleeping out in the cold street, eating garbage and in danger of being killed by the wheels of a car. They weren’t sleeping on a hard concrete floor in a steel cage, eating cheap donated dog chow and in danger of being led to the gas chamber. They were in my yard, enjoying the fresh air and digging holes, or on rainy days they were snoozing the afternoon away on a big comfy futon in my laundry room with lots of chewies and squeakies and a stuffed elephant. They had good, nutritious food and clean water and a guarantee that they’d never face a car or a coyote or a needle. They got, and still get, proper veterinary care, and they get help from a local rescue agency in finding new homes. You may rescue a dog and keep it forever, and that’s good for you. I rescue, rehabilitate, and find new homes so that I may open my home up for more animals in need of rescue. Maybe I didn’t have time to play fetch every day, maybe I didn’t have the energy to go for walks every day. Maybe the best I could do sometimes was pet the bunnies when I dumped their litterboxes and let a couple of cats and a dog curl up with me in bed at night. That’s still better than many alternatives. As far as my budget, it’s my hard earned money and I’ll choose where to spend it. Out of that $31 will come gas, rabbit food, and laundry detergent. No, birth control wouldn’t be a condition for shelter or MRE’s, it would be a condition for cash–unemployment, pell, etc. And as far as options for birth control, how can you tell me that offering IUD/Depo/pills/patches/Implanon isn’t offering options? **Rubystreak** , I think a big reason that contraceptive pills and shots aren’t available for men is because of plain ol’ sexism. Back in the day it was the woman who needed to be oppressed, so naturally the burden of birth control landed on her. Today we need something that’s as effective for men, and as I recall there is something in the works already. Also I agree with **cosmodan** –that sense of entitlement that Americans have is something we need to fight. At the same time, we as a society get to decide what we want to do. I think we as a society should decide on socialized medicine and gay marriage, but nobody much listens to me. The system as it is now really doesn’t offer many incentives for people to get off welfare, so we need to either raise the minimum wage or decrease benefits. I’d vote for doing both to some degree. As a society, we have decided that we ought to care for the poor and those who have fallen on hard times. However, we don’t want to be enablers. We have to draw the line of personal responsibility somewhere, and not allow people to knowingly make bad decisions just because they know they’ll be taken care of if they do. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/125 "2009-05-12T05:56:44Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Why would they at all or why might they be restricted from opening one (versus using payday loan-type establishments)? If someone is so poor that they must live off of the taxpayer, what are they doing with any significant savings? > [@](#): > > 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? I’m looking at it as a long term investment, both in the hopes that it would reduce the number of babies born to women on welfare, and that children not raised in poverty won’t continue that cycle. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/126 "2009-05-12T06:53:22Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > 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. Eh, they will just claim they can’t find someone to watch the kids, they have no way to get to the job, etc. Or the other dodge - get yourself hurt on the job so the state can pay you forever! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/127 "2009-05-12T07:12:30Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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? Nope. The responsible thing is to not be living off of the taxpayers in the first place, so if they are getting more money than they need for the basics, they are getting too much. The broken tooth is covered by DentiCal here and we have busses. > [@](#): > > But $2,000 doesn’t amount to much, particularly if you live in an urban area. $2000 would cover all of my monthly bills for basic neccessities, and I live in a rather expensive place. > [@](#): > > Bullcrap. Welfare fathers are just as capable of using condoms as any other male human being. Note that I said reliable birth control. > [@](#): > > 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. Works for me. > [@](#): > > I’ve never met a woman _happy_ to give up her baby. I said “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”. You know, not be selfish. > [@](#): > > 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. Build boarding schools with the money we are saving. > [@](#): > > It’s quite insulting for you to presume all poor people are living in homes with vermin. It would be if I’d said that. > [@](#): > > Where do you THINK people whose homes have burned down typically end up? With relatives, with family, in a hotel, living in their RV. If my home burned down tonite, I would have many choices other than a shelter. > [@](#): > > It has nothing to do with being “overextended”. Of course it does. For one thing, our insurance covers our living expenses until the house would be rebuilt. We also know several people that would be happy to put us up. Planning ahead is always a good thing. > [@](#): > > Would you like to actually read what I said? Did you read it? Here, I’ll quote it again - “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.” Saying “I’m not saying she did that” doesn’t cover the “is cruel” or “warehousing” comments. > [@](#): > > 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_. There is a difference between doing rescue and adopting rescues. > [@](#): > > 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. I have _been_ poor, remember? And I didn’t use anything that approaches welfare. Which of course is beside the point since what is under discussion here is paying to raise babies that people on welfare decide to have. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/128 "2009-05-12T11:17:46Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Eh, they will just claim they can’t find someone to watch the kids, they have no way to get to the job, etc. Or the other dodge - get yourself hurt on the job so the state can pay you forever! :smack: because that’s the kind of people _they_ are? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/129 "2009-05-12T11:22:09Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Build boarding schools with the money we are saving. That wouldn’t be boarding school. That would be an orphanage. I really don’t think anyone in this country is going to get behind taking away children from people solely because they were born while the mother was on welfare, no matter how much of a good idea you seem to think it is. Also, there’s no way it would save you money either. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/130 "2009-05-12T14:39:43Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > That wouldn’t be boarding school. That would be an orphanage. I really don’t think anyone in this country is going to get behind taking away children from people solely because they were born while the mother was on welfare, no matter how much of a good idea you seem to think it is. Also, there’s no way it would save you money either. Hey! That’s the beauty of it! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/131 "2009-05-12T14:54:36Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I’m all for declaring a minimum acceptable level of income (this may have to be adjusted for location - what is sufficient in Nowhere, Idaho would not be sufficient in New York City) and not allowing people to fall below that. If you do, you receive subsidies to raise you to that level (and issuing food, clothing, and other goods would be acceptable if you don’t want to simply issue money). The point is that we don’t let anyone fall into squalor-level, living-in-a-box poverty. > > I’m also all for maintaining some standards. For example, give financial age for people to get educated or retrained, but make it contingent on them maintaining an acceptable grade level. By relieving people of the worry of being completely destitute it should allow them to take full advantage of education, but if they can’t exert themselves then they’ll have to settle for crap jobs for the rest of their life. Perhaps after flunking out they can try again in a certain number of years, giving the opportunity to change. Others may be content with the minimum. That’s fine. Providing we require something of the able bodied for receiving aide. We also need to control the discrepancy in income vs costs of goods. In our pursuit of cheap goods we’ve eliminated a lot of jobs, which increases the need for cheap goods, which costs more jobs etc. We can blame the government but as citizens in a democracy we share the blame. > [@](#): > > The rehab facilities were closing _even before_ these people were released on parole, with a condition of parole being to enter a treatment program. Yes, it was a consequence of the state refusing to pay money for _services already rendered_ that directly lead to many programs closing in Illinois during that period in the 1990’s. In other words, these people were told that in order to comply with parole they had to get into a program when those same programs were either going out of business or already out of business. It was _impossible_ for the parolees during that period to comply with the conditions of parole. OKay. I didn’t get these details from the last post. Yes, sometimes the system fails. It seems ridiculous to me to require rehab attendance where none is available but I don’t know any details other than what you’ve shared. You’d think remaining clean and attending some form of AA which is free and usually available would be enough. > [@](#): > > Self-rehabilitation would NOT have satisfied the conditions of their parole. They had to be in a _state recognized_ program, self-help was not considered sufficient (nonetheless, some tried to go before a judge and use their NA and AA atendance as evidence they had made an effort. It wasn’t good enough, they were found in violation of parole and sent back to jail). The only ones who got into rehab during that period were those whose families were able and willing to pony up for _private treatment_, in some cases out of state (but a recognized program). Of course, that cost thousands of dollars - which most impoverished parolees simply don’t have. An example of a faulty system for sure. There are also examples of lazy bastards milking the system. We know it’s not a perfect world. I’d support an opportunity for rehab rather than just incarceration but at some point an addict has to bear the consequences of their choices. Just ask AA. > [@](#): > > So what? There have always been strict vs. loose constructionists in this country. To pull that phrase out and use it as an indication the government has some obligation to provide welfare is stretching it IMHO, but it’s an interesting point. As society has shifted from agricultural to whatever we are now we have to adapt. When I say we I mean citizens and government, together. > [@](#): > > The fact there is a mechanism to amend the constitution shows that the founders _intended_ that the nation adapt to changing circumstances. Agreed. As a people and as leaders we need to look to the future to some degree and understand that our actions today have consequences tomorrow. The government needs to encourage American jobs and an economic balance that makes basic necessities available. Citizens need to support those jobs. The sad truth is that as we increase the scope of the social safety net some folks will abuse it. Someone said that was a very small percent and if a few are abusing the system while many more are being helped I’m okay with that. I just think in order to encourage personal responsibility and promote the attitude of making whatever contribution we are able to we need to tweak the rules so that something is required from those receiving aide, according to their ability. Let’s offer a good education to everyone who wants it in return they can spend a reasonable amount of time in service to others. I couldn’t send my son to college so he took the initiative and joined the army planning to take advantage of the GI bill and get an education after a few years of service. A friend of mine got her Masters degree paid for by working for several years with special needs kids. That’s the kind of thing I respect. People get something but they also give. > [@](#): > > The government should be the last resort, but it should _be there_ as a resort for those at the end of the rope. And perhaps some not quite so deparate, to _prevent_ that dire level of need. As I said, I’m okay with programs that help people who fall on hard times. I know no system will ever be perfect but I’d like to see a general move toward encouraging personal responsibility rather than an attitude of entitlement. > [@](#): > > The problem is that the “moral imperative” mechanism doesn’t seem to work well without some substantial backing. On both sides. If we force people to fund programs to help the less fortunate or those temporarily down on their luck under the label of being civilized, we can also require something from those receiving that aide. > [@](#): > > My point is that our current system has a LOT of perverse incentives and instead of fixing them all too many people would rather punish people caught in the system than actually help them. Fair enough. I’m for fixing them and not punishing people unnecessarily. I am for promoting personal responsibility and that sometimes means letting people suffer the consequences of their poor choices. I think it’s a harder balance to find than most people realize. > [@](#): > > It is, however, mandatory that you _declare_ it when you apply for aid. Failure to do so is fraud, and punishable by fines and/or jail time. Did you not know that? You are asking people to break the law if you say “hide it in the sock draw and pay the tutor in cash”, i.e. under the table. Again, a perverse incentive. Let’s be realistic. Saving a few hundred in a sock drawer will likely not be discovered, but fine. I don’t want to encourage illegal activity. Where do you think the line should be drawn on people having other taxpayers pay their rent and/or grocery bill? How much should they be allowed to save while others pay their bills. Maybe I’m touchy because in paying all my bills I save very little. Someone on welfare saving up for a big screen TV or Iphone would irritate me. > [@](#): > > If a recipient is saving money in a bank account _they aren’t spending it_, are they? Well duh no, but can we reasonably assume they’re saving it _for_ something? $1000 to $2000 seems a reasonable amount to save for emergency car repair, busted appliance, or something. I thought your complaint was that they should be able to save more while others pay their bills. > [@](#): > > And it is possible to audit people. Perhaps there could be an incentive for saving a given amount - perhaps at $500 in savings the person receives, oh, I don’t know - a $50 coupon/voucher for groceries and household goods at a local store (perhaps chosen from a list of items that aren’t alcohol or junk food, much as WIC vouchers operate). A free oil change and tire rotation for their vehicle. A $20 per child coupon/voucher for school supplies. Nothing extravagant, but a definite reward for good budgeting. The only way they’re going to be able to save that much would be to NOT indulge in frivolous puchases and really exercise fiscal self-discipline. Which is what you want to encourage, right? So now people deserve a extra reward from other taxpayers for not being irresponsible. When you say auditing you’re adding more expense to execute a program. I don’t see that working. I would encourage some realistic real world practical economics classes starting no later than high school. It’s been a long time since High School for me but it seems to me that kids need some real world practical learning as much as they need Ancient History. I believe I mentioned my sister in law up thread. A generous person, she volunteered to help people manage their finances better. What was frustrating to her was that people who had little money consistently refused to give up things that weren’t needs like cell phones. cable TV. etc. > [@](#): > > Yes, but let’s call it what it is - _work_. Instead of saying “we’ll issue you a check for welfare, but in return you “volunteer” for work”, let’s be up front and say “we’ll give you these good and services in exchange for your labor”. Make the benefits given to these people somewhat better than just sitting at home on their ass, with more hours worked per week giving more incremental benefit. In other words _reward people for working_. Sure. I said \*work \*didn’t I? Let’s be up front with people. Person A just lost their job and applies for welfare for themselves and their two kids. Okay you got it. In return we require that you pick up trash and rake gravel at these city parks three days a week. {or something} > [@](#): > > Or, if they’re going to school, give them a small bonus for regular attendence and maintaining high grades - the higher the grade point the more the bonus. We reward people in private industry for being productive and meeting goals, why don’t we do this for the poor? In private industry the bonuses are tied to goals about money. You made the company X amount. You receive X amount. Nope, I think the opportunity to attend school should be enough motivation. I would like that opportunity broadened so that those who can’t afford to foot the bill up front still get to go and repay it with service after they’ve completed {like my friend did} > [@](#): > > There would also have to be adequate benefits for those who _cannot_ work, of course, but you did say we’re limiting this to the able-bodied and mentally capable. and retraining for those whose jobs evaporate. 20+ years on the sales floor has left me with some knee and ankle issues. If I couldn’t do what I do now I’d welcome the opportunity to retrain for something else and be willing to repay the opportunity. > [@](#): > > Yes, but we’re _nowhere_ near that in this country right now. I agree. The change we need isn’t just in the government and it’s system. > [@](#): > > If people are working under the table or otherwise breaking the rules then either they should be subjected to consequences - or the rules need to be changed. The point was that you complained about welfare recipients being stereotyped. The fact is some do abuse the system and get others to pay their bills knowingly and willingly. People who have witnessed this may mistakenly paint all recipients with the same brush but their attitudes often aren’t completely baseless. > [@](#): > > As for “mom’s live in boyfriend” - is there something wrong with mom taking in a roommate? Does the roommate have to be poor? Is there a problem with a poor person moving in with other people who are financially better off? Or is that a good choice from their viewpoint in regards to getting the maximum use out of his/her resources. What are you talking about? The problem I was talking about is Mom receiving welfare checks based on limited income while another income is living with her on the taxpayers dime. Another indication that people really do abuse the system. > [@](#): > > Reform the system so people aren’t penalized or cut off entirely when they make marginal improvements. agreed > [@](#): > > Don’t penalize people for pooling resources - that is a much more efficient use of money that everyone going it alone. People pooling their resources is often a way to avoid welfare entirely. > [@](#): > > Get rid of perverse incentives and actually reward the behavior you want to see. At least have guidelines that encourage that behavior rather than discourage it. I don’t think people deserve extra bonuses for being a responsible citizen. Opportunities to learn and earn a living yes. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/132 "2009-05-12T15:26:29Z")
You can require welfare recipients to do community service, but that won’t always be possible, either. 1. You have the underemployed who are often working multiple shitty jobs and won’t be available to do community service. 2. You have childcare considerations. 3. You have job training taking up time that would be spent cleaning up the highway. (Are those managers and administrators going to work swing and graveyard and hold the flashlight while the poor clean the parks during off hours??) 4. You have to pay people to manage and administrate the work-for-welfare program. 5. A program like this will cost the taxpayers more money, will be difficult, if not impossible for most people to adhere to, and will weed out very few abusers. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/133 "2009-05-12T16:03:44Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > You can require welfare recipients to do community service, but that won’t always be possible, either. > > 1. You have the underemployed who are often working multiple shitty jobs and won’t be available to do community service. If they’re working multiple shitty jobs they probably don’t need welfare. Health care maybe, but that’s another thread. > [@](#): > > 1. You have childcare considerations. Then we train single Mom’s to run or work at daycares > [@](#): > > 1. You have job training taking up time that would be spent cleaning up the highway. (Are those managers and administrators going to work swing and graveyard and hold the flashlight while the poor clean the parks during off hours??) I would say job training could be seen as mitigating working for the state at least in part. I’m not suggesting we assign an hourly wage to the services they preform and they must earn their welfare. I’m saying we require something based on circumstances to maintain the concept of personal responsibility and citizens making a contribution. Couldn’t we also fund apprentice programs where we pay a portion of the wages for people to learn a trade from others. > [@](#): > > 1. You have to pay people to manage and administrate the work-for-welfare program. We’re already paying people to manage a welfare system aren’t we? I’m not suggesting an additional one, but possible improvements to the one we have. I once asked then state Rep now Governor of Maine about workfare. He said one problem is assigning work that will not injure. If someone is injured working for the state then the state is on the cuff for disability. A problem that can have solutions. > [@](#): > > 1. A program like this will cost the taxpayers more money, will be difficult, if not impossible for most people to adhere to, and will weed out very few abusers. Says you. I’m unconvinced. [So are others](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare) I know there will be problems but we already have problems. Requiring folks to make some contribution to receive welfare doesn’t seem much different to me than offering them a job. You get X {money for food shelter etc. } and Y is required of you. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/134 "2009-05-12T18:35:12Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > If they’re working multiple shitty jobs they probably don’t need welfare. Health care maybe, but that’s another thread. > Then we train single Mom’s to run or work at daycares Well, it depends on a person’s situation. If you work two shitty jobs but you have 2 kids, it’s harder to make ends meet than if it’s just yourself you’re taking care of. Rather than teaching moms to be daycare workers, I think we need a system that allows for childcare professionals that are available 'round the clock. I’ve known plenty of people who would have taken a night shift job had they had a childcare option. It’s difficult to get a person to come into your home overnight. > [@](#): > > I would say job training could be seen as mitigating working for the state at least in part. I’m not suggesting we assign an hourly wage to the services they preform and they must earn their welfare. I’m saying we require something based on circumstances to maintain the concept of personal responsibility and citizens making a contribution. I agree. I’m just not sure it’s always (or even “usually”) feasible. > [@](#): > > Couldn’t we also fund apprentice programs where we pay a portion of the wages for people to learn a trade from others. Not a bad idea for some types of work, but I don’t see many businesses opening their doors to training people. It would require a pretty big incentive, as you will also have insurance/injury risks and the like. Individuals who can train people in their spare time could earn a few bucks, I suppose. > [@](#): > > We’re already paying people to manage a welfare system aren’t we? I’m not suggesting an additional one, but possible improvements to the one we have. I’m talking about managing the people at the clean-up sites, recording the work done (crediting their “account” so to speak), organizing what types of work will be done, where the work will be done (and by who). These people would be employers, in effect…wouldn’t they? They would need to supply tools, vehicles, supervisors, even safety equipment, in some cases. It’s more complicated than just telling someone to go clean up a park or what have you, and the traditional welfare recipients aren’t going to go away completely. There will have to be both approaches to the issue. > [@](#): > > I once asked then state Rep now Governor of Maine about workfare. He said one problem is assigning work that will not injure. If someone is injured working for the state then the state is on the cuff for disability. A problem that can have solutions. Agreed. > [@](#): > > Says you. I’m unconvinced. [So are others](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare) I know there will be problems but we already have problems. Right. I’m just saying there are a LOT of details and costs that people don’t think about when they consider alternatives to the current system. > [@](#): > > Requiring folks to make some contribution to receive welfare doesn’t seem much different to me than offering them a job. You get X {money for food shelter etc. } and Y is required of you. I agree, but is the state prepared to properly “employ” all the people who are currently receiving welfare? ---
**Author:** ![InterestedObserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/135 "2009-05-12T19:08:12Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Cite? (Originally Posted by 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.) Here’s one, fairly recent: [http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/index.shtml](http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/index.shtml) "Figure ECON 5 shows the percentage of poverty spells that are of various lengths for persons who became poor during the 2001 to 2003 period. Nearly half (49.2 percent) of poverty spells that began between 2001 and 2003 ended within 4 months. More than three-quarters (76.9 percent) of poverty spells during this period ended within one year while 15.5 percent of spells lasted more than 20 months. Table ECON 5a shows the percentage of poverty spells for persons entering poverty during the 2001 to 2003 period by length of spell and demographic characteristics. Among racial and ethnic groups, a larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Whites had short spells of poverty (52.3 percent) than Non-Hispanic Blacks (42.1 percent) or Hispanics of any race (45.7 percent). For poverty spells greater than 20 months, a larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks had longer poverty spells (21.1 percent) compared to Non-Hispanic Whites (13.5 percent) and Hispanics of any race (16.8 percent). Among age categories, the difference in the percentage of poverty spells among adults 65 years or older and other adults is notable. Twenty-one (21.2) percent of adults ages 65 years and over had poverty spells that lasted more than 20 months as compared to 14.4 percent of women ages 16 to 64 and 12.1 percent of men ages 16 to 64. " To sum up, during the “given time” examined in this report, at any rate: Almost half of “poverty spells” (as measured by receipt of welfare) lasted 4 mths or less and more than 3/4s lasted a yr or less. Only 15.5% represented longer-term “spells” of dependence of 20 mths or longer. Strike one against the myth of the long-term dependent “welfare mom” being representative of a majority of welfare recipients. Strike 2: looking at the data on race, we see that at NO time do “Blacks” (the race/ethnic group most commonly associated with the “welfare mother” myth) represent a majority of those receiving benefits. The highest percentage found, for short spells of poverty/assistance, is less than half of the total (42.1%) Strike 3: In reality, MORE senior citizens relied on welfare for 20 mths or more during the given time studied than did women (OR MEN) of child-bearing age. Those 65 and older are very unlikely to be reproducing or to even still have children of their own living at home, so they can’t be the mythical “welfare moms”. As with ANY stereotype, it is possible to find examples, sometimes quite a few, but the evidence does not indicate that such examples are reflective of the majority, or even of a significant minority. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/136 "2009-05-12T19:52:36Z")
Thank you for finding that cite. It supports what most of us already know. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/137 "2009-05-12T20:02:37Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Well, it depends on a person’s situation. If you work two shitty jobs but you have 2 kids, it’s harder to make ends meet than if it’s just yourself you’re taking care of. It is harder. That’s why I’d support health care available for everyone. That was one of the major problems I saw with welfare. As soon as a single Mom got some work she lost her health care and with kids that often outweighs the income. Welfare usually weighs income against # of dependents. A workfare program doesn’t need to require every person to put in service. It could depend on hours worked, school attended, or the number of hours of service could be much smaller. If someone is already working two jobs I assume they’d need less aide than those not working or working one job or part time. I’ve already said no program will be perfect and answer all needs flawlessly. > [@](#): > > Rather than teaching moms to be daycare workers, I think we need a system that allows for childcare professionals that are available 'round the clock. I’ve known plenty of people who would have taken a night shift job had they had a childcare option. It’s difficult to get a person to come into your home overnight. Any program should be flexible and try to adapt to the individuals situation. I lived in an apartment complex. 32 apartments all subsidized housing. I’m suggesting one or more of those Moms could be trained in day care , perhaps in her own place, while providing daycare for other Moms so they can work or go to school. Some Mom’s are receiving training to become childcare professionals while also providing a service. Even night service for those who work the late shift. > [@](#): > > I agree. I’m just not sure it’s always (or even “usually”) feasible. Why not? Difficult, sure. Not feasible? > [@](#): > > Not a bad idea for some types of work, but I don’t see many businesses opening their doors to training people. It would require a pretty big incentive, as you will also have insurance/injury risks and the like. Individuals who can train people in their spare time could earn a few bucks, I suppose. Again why not? If the motivation is having a portion of their wages and benefits paid for by the state it would probably be attractive. Lots of companies have internal incentive training programs for employees. I don’t see a huge resistance to partnering that with government. Small businesses needing help but on tight budgets might really like it. They could hire someone and train them to be a better employee for half {or something} of what it might cost them otherwise. > [@](#): > > I’m talking about managing the people at the clean-up sites, recording the work done (crediting their “account” so to speak), organizing what types of work will be done, where the work will be done (and by who). These people would be employers, in effect…wouldn’t they? They would need to supply tools, vehicles, supervisors, even safety equipment, in some cases. It’s more complicated than just telling someone to go clean up a park or what have you, and the traditional welfare recipients aren’t going to go away completely. There will have to be both approaches to the issue. States already have those too. It’s often an outside private contractor or employee. So you have managers supervising , just as they do now, and welfare recipients doing the unskilled labor, or skilled labor if they have skills. That might result in fewer state employees but states are facing a very real economic crisis. Economic reality may mean they can’t pay all their employees and still provide all the services they want to and support welfare. Having some of the welfare recipients do some of the work, having people being trained to preform some services for the state makes sense to me. Agreed. > [@](#): > > Right. I’m just saying there are a LOT of details and costs that people don’t think about when they consider alternatives to the current system. I never claimed to be an expert or have all the answers. You made a declarative statement about cost and feasibility that you didn’t support. Still haven’t. One reason I support workfare is a news story I heard years ago. A particular city or county in some southern state had a real welfare financial crisis. They had so many people on welfare they couldn’t maintain the budget. Their solutions was to defray some of the cost by having the welfare recipients preform the menial jobs they normally had to pay for. People still got help and the county got the work done without spending extra. The problem was about 25 to 30% of the recipients simply refused to do menial labor. They resented the county telling them to mow lawns or pick up trash and paint fences. They eventually fell off the welfare roles because of it. I never went to detective school but IMO that means most of them didn’t need to be on welfare and were probably working under the table or some form of undeclared income. So, until shown otherwise I think workfare, with it’s problems , is the way to go. Hey, we don’t have to have any welfare system but I prefer a society that helps people. I also think that because of human nature we need to require something of able bodied recipients. At some point we have to say to citizens, you have to contribute something according to your ability, and if you don’t you’re on your own. > [@](#): > > I agree, but is the state prepared to properly “employ” all the people who are currently receiving welfare? It’s not employment in the traditional sense as in per hour wages. It’s requiring something back depending on ability. Why would it be any more difficult than all then state employees they already have. It could actually mean less state employees and cost if handled correctly. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/138 "2009-05-12T22:49:24Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > It is harder. That’s why I’d support health care available for everyone. That was one of the major problems I saw with welfare. As soon as a single Mom got some work she lost her health care and with kids that often outweighs the income. Welfare usually weighs income against # of dependents. A workfare program doesn’t need to require every person to put in service. It could depend on hours worked, school attended, or the number of hours of service could be much smaller. If someone is already working two jobs I assume they’d need less aide than those not working or working one job or part time. > I’ve already said no program will be perfect and answer all needs flawlessly. Healthcare reform will solve a lot of problems once it actually becomes a reality. I also believe the working poor require fewer services in most cases. > [@](#): > > Any program should be flexible and try to adapt to the individuals situation. I lived in an apartment complex. 32 apartments all subsidized housing. I’m suggesting one or more of those Moms could be trained in day care , perhaps in her own place, while providing daycare for other Moms so they can work or go to school. Some Mom’s are receiving training to become childcare professionals while also providing a service. Even night service for those who work the late shift. I lived in subsidized housing for about a year and this goes on all the time (both inside and outside of the welfare system). People take care of each others kids for money, or in a pinch, or as part of babysitting groups. I did it myself for a while. However, my experience is that most people don’t want to watch other people’s kids in the kids’ homes. It takes away from their own family time. > [@](#): > > Why not? Difficult, sure. Not feasible? Because we have different circumstances, different abilities, different learning capacities, geographic and transportation barriers, health issues, etc. Too many variables that will keep many people from being able to contribute. > [@](#): > > Again why not? If the motivation is having a portion of their wages and benefits paid for by the state it would probably be attractive. Lots of companies have internal incentive training programs for employees. I don’t see a huge resistance to partnering that with government. Small businesses needing help but on tight budgets might really like it. They could hire someone and train them to be a better employee for half {or something} of what it might cost them otherwise. I agree. In some circumstances it might be attractive. I’m just saying I can see a lot of things that would make it undesireable for a company. Particularly if they’re not going to hire anyone due to economic downturn or lack of need or whatever. There are job training programs through the unemployment department in Illinois. I don’t have any statistics regarding the effectiveness of that piece of the program, and I don’t know anyone who’s taken advantage of it. I’d have to see a plan that would entice businesses to sign on to training people they won’t be hiring. > [@](#): > > States already have those too. It’s often an outside private contractor or employee. So you have managers supervising , just as they do now, and welfare recipients doing the unskilled labor, or skilled labor if they have skills. That might result in fewer state employees but states are facing a very real economic crisis. Economic reality may mean they can’t pay all their employees and still provide all the services they want to and support welfare. Having some of the welfare recipients do some of the work, having people being trained to preform some services for the state makes sense to me. I don’t think states are looking for unskilled labor to run the show. And the object of the program is to get people off welfare and into long-term employment. That means a constant change of manpower in state jobs that will undoubtedly require continuity and an ongoing committment if the program is going to work. > [@](#): > > I never claimed to be an expert or have all the answers. You made a declarative statement about cost and feasibility that you didn’t support. Still haven’t. I didn’t make a declarative statement about anything. Reread my post. > [@](#): > > One reason I support workfare is a news story I heard years ago. A particular city or county in some southern state had a real welfare financial crisis. They had so many people on welfare they couldn’t maintain the budget. Their solutions was to defray some of the cost by having the welfare recipients preform the menial jobs they normally had to pay for. People still got help and the county got the work done without spending extra. The problem was about 25 to 30% of the recipients simply refused to do menial labor. They resented the county telling them to mow lawns or pick up trash and paint fences. They eventually fell off the welfare roles because of it. I never went to detective school but IMO that means most of them didn’t need to be on welfare and were probably working under the table or some form of undeclared income. So, until shown otherwise I think workfare, with it’s problems , is the way to go. I agree that it \*could \*work in some cases. I haven’t seen a plan that will convince me that this is the way to go for all welfare recipients, though. It will have to be in addition to what we currently have…not instead of. > [@](#): > > Hey, we don’t have to have any welfare system but I prefer a society that helps people. I also think that because of human nature we need to require something of able bodied recipients. At some point we have to say to citizens, you have to contribute something according to your ability, and if you don’t you’re on your own. Now all you have to do is decide where the line is and who you let fall and we’re all set! 😉 > [@](#): > > It’s not employment in the traditional sense as in per hour wages. It’s requiring something back depending on ability. Why would it be any more difficult than all then state employees they already have. It could actually mean less state employees and cost if handled correctly. Possibly. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/139 "2009-05-12T23:55:36Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Healthcare reform will solve a lot of problems once it actually becomes a reality. I also believe the working poor require fewer services in most cases. right. Bring it on > [@](#): > > Because we have different circumstances, different abilities, different learning capacities, geographic and transportation barriers, health issues, etc. Too many variables that will keep many people from being able to contribute. That’s specifically why I added “as they are able” several times. I think you’d be surprised how many recipients are able to contribute something. Or maybe I would be by the opposite. > [@](#): > > I agree. In some circumstances it might be attractive. I’m just saying I can see a lot of things that would make it undesireable for a company. Particularly if they’re not going to hire anyone due to economic downturn or lack of need or whatever. There are job training programs through the unemployment department in Illinois. I don’t have any statistics regarding the effectiveness of that piece of the program, and I don’t know anyone who’s taken advantage of it. I’d have to see a plan that would entice businesses to sign on to training people they won’t be hiring. I’m not sure why the need arises to state the obvious that doesn’t really address what I said. Of course if a company has a hiring freeze then enticements won’t matter. OTOH when they are hiring or if they’re on the edge and budgets do matter being able to add needed personnel at half the cost would be attractive. I got laid off last year and was fortunate enough to find another job. The company I’m with now asks us to cuts hours when business is slow. Having a program that paid have of people’s wages would help us and them IMO. > [@](#): > > I don’t think states are looking for unskilled labor to run the show. Me neither. Didn’t say that. > [@](#): > > And the object of the program is to get people off welfare and into long-term employment. That means a constant change of manpower in state jobs that will undoubtedly require continuity and an ongoing commitment if the program is going to work. People change jobs a lot more now than they used to. Nothing about workfare changes the goal of the program. It just requires something of the recipients until they find long term employment. It also might, in some cases, train them in jobs they had no experience in. I think the model might be to have a certain amount of State jobs be on rotation. Some unskilled and some that train people. My daughter trained with the State of AZ DMV. She could have stayed on but decided to go with private employment that paid more. Those jobs exist. even if somewhat successful we might find people who need less help over a period of years until they need none. That’s better than generational welfare dependence IMO. > [@](#): > > I didn’t make a declarative statement about anything. Reread my post. ok. Did that. You said > [@](#): > > 1. A program like this will cost the taxpayers more money, will be difficult, if not impossible for most people to adhere to, and will weed out very few abusers. Is that a declarative statement or not? You didn’t say \*could \*or _might_, > [@](#): > > you said _will_. > I agree that it \*could \*work in some cases. I haven’t seen a plan that will convince me that this is the way to go for all welfare recipients, though. And knowing that is why I chose the words I did. I never claimed it would work for all recipients. If being partially successful in urban areas it, weeds out \*some \*people who are getting welfare and working under the table, maintains an attitude of contribute to society rather than entitlement, helps train some people for jobs and helps small business along the way, I’d call it a success. regardless of how we approach welfare we have to have a budget and decide how that money is best spent. > [@](#): > > It will have to be in addition to what we currently have…not instead of. Why? You haven’t shown that. > [@](#): > > Now all you have to do is decide where the line is and who you let fall and we’re all set! 😉 That’s the reality all right. In thinking about the general issue I realized that on a sliding scale , given that no system will be perfect. A too liberal system that makes welfare funds easily accessible will encourage more abuse and waste as well as costing more. A too rigid and restricted system cuts out more waste and abuse and allows more sincerely needy to go without. Any system needs to be examined and tweaked on a regular basis. I may be naive but I try to reduce issues to terms I can identify with the idea that the principles that apply to people on a small scale often apply on the larger scale. If a family member or friend was in need they would be welcome in my home or I would do what I could to help them. In return I would expect them to do all they could to mitigate my expenses and become self sufficient. I’d expect them to wash dishes, vacuum, mow my lawn, or anything else they were able of doing to earn their keep. Let’s keep in mind that this is society’s problem not just a political or government issue. No program prevents private citizens from helping those in need. The reality is if we reached out to each other more on a personal basis we probably wouldn’t need these programs. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/140 "2009-05-12T23:59:58Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > I think a simpler system would be this: > > 1. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up, not a hand out. You can be on welfare for a specified length of time and no more, say a year or so. After that, you get a job (exceptions for those physically unable to work, of course). Welfare benefits should include free job training and free daycare services for those attending that training. > > 2. Welfare is based on your family status at the time of signup. If you have two kids, you get payments based on two kids. You get pregnant and have a third, you don’t get any more money for it. Often we disagree on stuff, but ya know what? Your ideas here sound a LOT like what I tend to believe. Give people a chance, but don’t enable the abusers. I guess there are always details and nits, but I go along with the general spirit of your post. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=8)