# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/141 "2009-05-13T01:49:55Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > because that’s the kind of people _they_ are? They who? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/142 "2009-05-13T01:58:27Z")
> [@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. It would be a boarding school in that it wouldn’t just be a place to stick kids until they were 18, they would be getting an education. I feel it would save money in the long run because that should break the cycle of poverty/welfare. As for the country not getting behind the idea, I’m well aware that most people in the US are incapable of thinking of children with their brains rather than their emotions. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/143 "2009-05-13T02:14:23Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > They who? Wow did you forget your own one sentence post this quickly? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/144 "2009-05-13T02:41:59Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > ok. Did that. You said > > Quote: > 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. Is that a declarative statement or not? You didn’t say could or might, [/quote] No, but I did use modifiers like most, and very few. If it’s too difficult to adhere to for most people, it won’t be money well spent, in my opinion. It needs to be accessible to MOST people and so far, I don’t see that happening as you’ve laid it out. > [@](#): > > 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 has to work for “most” to be effective. “Some” isn’t enough for a welfare overhaul. > [@](#): > > Why? You haven’t shown that. It’s very simple. It’s not the same thing as a regular employee so someone has to manage the program. In addition, a large population won’t be able to work for their welfare and that program will have to be administered as it is now (or something similar). In effect, you will have two parallel programs – one for those who work and one for those who don’t. And I’m not convinced it will be easy or cheap to manage time and attendance, choose the positions and hire the workers, provide training, document everything, supervise the work, and then do it all over again when the people find real jobs. There will be revolving door-style turnover because MOST people don’t stay on welfare for extended periods. > [@](#): > > 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. Nothing naive about that. I just don’t think it’s as easy as that. We’re talking about a fluid population. > [@](#): > > 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. Agreed. ---
**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 13, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/145 "2009-05-13T02:46:37Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > If someone is so poor that they must live off of the taxpayer, what are they doing with any significant savings? Starting or maintaining a savings account is an important step on the road to financial stability (assuming someone qualifies) – I’d rather a welfare recipient save a few dollars here and there as proof of foresight, not to mention the ability to delay gratification, than see them punished for not spending every cent every month, as if that’s proof that they’re getting more money than they need. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/146 "2009-05-13T02:55:26Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > It would be a boarding school in that it wouldn’t just be a place to stick kids until they were 18, they would be getting an education. I feel it would save money in the long run because that should break the cycle of poverty/welfare. Sigh. The suggestion was to take away children from people who conceive or bear children while on welfare. Taking them away from their mothers, presumably at birth, would require them to be put, not in school, but in orphanages. You may not know this, but infants don’t go to school. Most children do not attend school until 2 or 3 at the earliest. Consequently, these infants would be put in orphanages, or “warehoused,” if you will, just like stray animals in shelters, with probably as much individual attention and genuine love as animals in shelters. Or do you think government employees would love these children as well as their shiftless, welfare-receiving mothers do? I find it unlikely, if not impossible. And yes, children do need love. This is not an irrational belief: [children need physical affection](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_148_37/ai_97723210/) to grow into properly functioning adults. It is well-documented that babies need lots of touch and intimate contact in the first two years of their lives to develop properly. [From Infancy and America:](http://books.google.com/books?id=cgzDeAQV_CUC&pg=PA637&lpg=PA637&dq=infant+development+the+need+for+touch&source=bl&ots=jkYk--RJw4&sig=jmU4Jx-M5y6C1tif07AW-d4P8jE&hl=en&ei=9DIKSp2FG5LCMvG8xdML&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4) > [@](#): > > Rene Spitz, an Austrian American psychiatrist acclaimed for his work on infant development and maternal behavior, showed the importance of touch. He studied infants who were abandoned and lived in orphanages. He found the institutionalized infants were more likely to die within the first year of life… Those institutionalized infants who survived the first few years of life went on to experience physical and psychological difficulties. Is this really a fate merited by the misfortune of being born to a mother who is on welfare? I would say no. I’m wondering where you got the idea that having a child be raised by government employees sans maternal affection would somehow break the cycle of poverty and turn these children into adults who will not be poor. Rather, it seems it will likely turn them into [lower functioning](http://indiaedunews.net/Science/Growing_up_in_orphanage_may_affect_children%27s_IQ_2940/), possibly damaged adults. Your conclusion is not supported by any studies I have seen, as you are assuming that being on welfare automatically makes you an inferior parent to a paid government employee. Rather an extremely harsh view of women who conceive and bear children while on welfare. If you disagree with my reasons for thinking these “boarding schools” are a poor idea, please offer cites to counter mine. Maybe you can convince me that I’m wrong, but this is GD, so proof will be necessary. Also, I have to say, your sudden, new found faith in the government is puzzling. I find it ironic that you think that government-run orphanages, or euphemistically labeled “boarding houses,” would provide a better education and parenting than welfare mothers who send their children to government-run public schools. You have repeatedly expressed zero confidence in taxpayer funded public education, yet you are advocating for it now, replete with dormitories and full-time, round the clock infant care. What changed? > [@](#): > > As for the country not getting behind the idea, I’m well aware that most people in the US are incapable of thinking of children with their brains rather than their emotions. I don’t think your idea is particularly well thought out nor based in reality or logic, for reasons outlined above. You may not be thinking with your heart, but you are not thinking with your front brain either. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/147 "2009-05-13T03:00:12Z")
Not to mention it is boatloads cheaper to have welfare Mothers care for their children than it would be to create massive orphanages for tens of millions of children. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/148 "2009-05-13T03:41:34Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Not to mention it is boatloads cheaper to have welfare Mothers care for their children than it would be to create massive orphanages for tens of millions of children. I don’t think it would be tens of millions. More like 5 million or so, a wild guestimation based on [census numbers on women who receive WIC.](http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb95_29.pdf) Still, that’s a lot of kids to put in “boarding schools.” ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/149 "2009-05-13T05:01:01Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > It would be a boarding school in that it wouldn’t just be a place to stick kids until they were 18, they would be getting an education. I feel it would save money in the long run because that should break the cycle of poverty/welfare. > > As for the country not getting behind the idea, I’m well aware that most people in the US are incapable of thinking of children with their brains rather than their emotions. Foster children almost universally end up with major emotional problems that lead to poverty and crime. The foster care system is one of our greatest failures- but there is no better alternative. Children absolutely need love and affection to grow up right. If we take them away from that, we will certainly be creating future burdens on society. ---
**Author:** ![Shakester](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shakester/32/437_2.png) [@Shakester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shakester)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/150 "2009-05-13T06:55:32Z")
All this talk of encouraging/forcing people to work instead of being on welfare is based on the idea that there is work available for everyone. There isn’t. Western countries have been moving manufacturing (and any other industry they can do it to) to poorer countries where wages are low and there are few (or no) worker health and safety laws. Those jobs no longer exist in western countries. Try getting a factory job - there are dozens (sometimes hundreds) of applicants for every position. We now have a large underclass of people who have no chance. People for whom there are **no** opportunities. The jobs that these people would have had in the 50s or 60s or 70s are **gone**. There is nothing to replace them. You can spout as much happy right-wing bull as you like about how these people should be forced to find work - there **isn’t** any work for people in that position. It’s not like they’re turning down work because they prefer to be unemployed, it’s that there is no work for a large percentage of society. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/151 "2009-05-13T11:44:09Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Still, that’s a lot of kids to put in **“boarding schools.”** Heh-heh…reminds me of Goldie Hawn in Private Benjamin. “I think I’m in the wrong army. I was supposed to be at the one with the condos.” ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/152 "2009-05-13T12:20:31Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > No, but I did use modifiers like most, and very few. Um, not in your first post you didn’t, which is where the declarative statement came from. It’s no big deal, but you did make a declarative statement and then modified it in later posts. No matter. > [@](#): > > If it’s too difficult to adhere to for most people, it won’t be money well spent, in my opinion. It needs to be accessible to MOST people and so far, I don’t see that happening as you’ve laid it out. Why does it need to be accessible to most people?I haven’t set a condition that those unable to work won’t receive aide. I see it as a relatively simple part of the application process that already exists. An addition to the form. > [@](#): > > It has to work for “most” to be effective. “Some” isn’t enough for a welfare overhaul. I’m not sure why you think it has to be available to most or why it wouldn’t be. It would be just as available as welfare is now, the difference being those able to work will work. > [@](#): > > It’s very simple. It’s not the same thing as a regular employee so someone has to manage the program. In addition, a large population won’t be able to work for their welfare and that program will have to be administered as it is now (or something similar). In effect, you will have two parallel programs – one for those who work and one for those who don’t. And I’m not convinced it will be easy or cheap to manage time and attendance, choose the positions and hire the workers, provide training, document everything, supervise the work, and then do it all over again when the people find real jobs. There will be revolving door-style turnover because MOST people don’t stay on welfare for extended periods. I see those problems but they don’t seem insurmountable. Lot’s of businesses function with a high turnover rate as long as key people remain in place. It’s not two parallel programs. The separation is done in the application process but it’s all the same welfare. States already have employees in place for work so those supervisors could also supervise and record the work of welfare recipients. Modern technology would make it easier or a simple phone call to see who’s assigned to what job. The hardest part I see is that in most cases it’s more expensive to check up on recipients in an attempt to prevent fraud than the money you might save. In basic menial tasks the revolving door wouldn’t be a major issue. In other areas where you are training people it gets more difficult but still not impossible. Trainee’s work with established state employee’s Yes it seems like a revolving door but no more so than classes in a class room. Teachers are state employees right. Companies do it all the time. You train someone and they move on. > [@](#): > > Nothing naive about that. I just don’t think it’s as easy as that. We’re talking about a fluid population. IMO you really haven’t shown why the problems you point out are so insurmountable. They seem to be the same problem’s companies face every day and still mange to do just fine. It’s all speculation anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/153 "2009-05-13T12:48:48Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Um, not in your first post you didn’t, which is where the declarative statement came from. It’s no big deal, but you did make a declarative statement and then modified it in later posts. No matter. > Why does it need to be accessible to most people?I haven’t set a condition that those unable to work won’t receive aide. I see it as a relatively simple part of the application process that already exists. An addition to the form. > I’m not sure why you think it has to be available to most or why it wouldn’t be. It would be just as available as welfare is now, the difference being those able to work will work. > > I see those problems but they don’t seem insurmountable. Lot’s of businesses function with a high turnover rate as long as key people remain in place. It’s not two parallel programs. The separation is done in the application process but it’s all the same welfare. States already have employees in place for work so those supervisors could also supervise and record the work of welfare recipients. Modern technology would make it easier or a simple phone call to see who’s assigned to what job. > The hardest part I see is that in most cases it’s more expensive to check up on recipients in an attempt to prevent fraud than the money you might save. > > In basic menial tasks the revolving door wouldn’t be a major issue. In other areas where you are training people it gets more difficult but still not impossible. Trainee’s work with established state employee’s Yes it seems like a revolving door but no more so than classes in a class room. Teachers are state employees right. Companies do it all the time. You train someone and they move on. > > IMO you really haven’t shown why the problems you point out are so insurmountable. They seem to be the same problem’s companies face every day and still mange to do just fine. > It’s all speculation anyway. I don’t think it’s impossible. I think it’s going to be much more costly to do it. While I think there will be a benefit with regard to getting work done, instilling a work ethic in those who don’t have one, etc. (the human side of it), I think taxpayers would balk at the the substantial increase in cost to find work for, administer, and manage a fluid workforce on a large scale. I think one way to offset the cost would be to increase taxes on those who receive benefits and then return to the workforce and work their way out of poverty. An example of what I’m thinking of would be something along the lines of: 1. Welfare recipient receives benefits and training for 6 months, or receives traditional benefits and then goes back to work. 2. Welfare recipient moves from Income Bracket A to Income Bracket B (this would need to be a substantial jump in earning power) within a prescribed period of time (3 years? Five?) 3. Worker might be taxed at a higher rate for a period of time to “pay back” benefits. Obviously, you wouldn’t do this for people who didn’t substantially improve their earning power…it would just put them back below the poverty line. But if a person’s income moved from say, $15,000/year to $25,000/year, the person would be flagged in the system. So you might take an additional 2% for a period of 3 years or something like that. There are ways to make it less of a drain on the workforce. Obviously, this is just off-the-cuff, but I think it’s worth exploring. ---
**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 13, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/154 "2009-05-13T17:59:38Z")
> [@starwarsfreek42](#): > > **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, I understand and even agree with that. However I was describing a situation where addicts _had_ been made responsible in that they _had_ served their sentence. Then conditions were imposed on them that were IMPOSSIBLE for them to meet. Not just difficult, IMPOSSIBLE. That’s _not_ making someone accept responsibility, that’s cruelty.. > [@](#): > > 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. As I said, your budget is your business. Just sayin’ I would have made different decisions, and I fully expect you’d disagree with some of my priorities. > [@](#): > > 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? As I read it, you were offering solely hormonal therapy as the _default_ and anything else would require and exception - I say you offer the options up front instead of saying you have to get an exception made for anything but a particular one. > [@curlcoat](#): > > If someone is so poor that they must live off of the taxpayer, what are they doing with any significant savings? OK, let’s do it your way - we say that if you save $1000 then \>boom\< you’re off welfare, AMF YOYO. Just cut the bums off. A month or two later they’re out of money and back on welfare. This accomplishes… what? We can certainly discuss what is “reasonable” - perhaps it is $500 per person in the household, or some other number, but allowing people to accumulate a nest egg for emergencies will help keep them off welfare once they leave the system. Otherwise, it might not take much to put them back on it. From my viewpoint it’s a lot like when I was on unemployment - I was able to earn a certain amount without being abruptly cut off for just _any_ paid work. It was set up so I definitely had an incentive to work, as I would always come out with more money if I worked _at all_, but the benefit paid by unemployment was gradually reduced as I earned more. I think the maximum amount would have been an amount 150% of just unemployment alone, but at that point most of the money would have been earned and not from the state. Something similar could be done for recipients of various forms of welfare to give them an incentive to earn money without cutting them off too abruptly. The advantage to the taxpayer would be that while you’re encouraging the desired behavior the cost to the state gradually goes down as the people become more self-sufficient. Another benefit is that they are more likely to _stay off_ the system once they get off it. For those who are supporting themselves the recommendation is 3-6 months living expenses in cash or equivalent. Well, my hypothetical $2000 is less than _two months_ for my husband and I at our most frugal (including relying in part on our garden for food). Perhaps you think it unreasonable, but allowing people to accumulate two months worth of nest egg before cutting them off the system makes sense to _me._ > [@curlcoat](#): > > 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. Good for you. _We have neither where I live_. Perhaps where you live it would be reasonable to demand a lower ceiling on assets. Where I live mass transit will not get you to work unless you work in Chicago and have a car to get to the train station to take you there. We don’t have dental coverage on medicaid. Therefore, where I live having that “nest egg” for welfare recipents makes more sense. > [@](#): > > $2000 would cover all of my monthly bills for basic neccessities, and I live in a rather expensive place. I live in a dirt cheap place and it wouldn’t take my husband and I past two months. Gee, maybe different regions have difference cost of living. > [@](#): > > 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. There is nothing that forces a child raised in poverty to remain in poverty all of his or her life. There are many examples of people raised by impoverished parents who went on to middle class or even wealthy lifestyles. Poverty is _not_ a genetic disease. > [@](#): > > Build boarding schools with the money we are saving. In other words, remove children from their parents and put them in orphanages. You know, we stopped doing that because the results sucked. **Rubystreak** had a fine post in regards to this, #146 in this thread. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, not everyone has living relatives or family to fall back on. Not everyone has an RV (for the family I mentioned in regards to this, they lost their one and only vehicle in the house fire - being parked close to the home it, too, burned completely, so living in their vehicle was no an option, either). In what way do you think living in a hotel differs substantially from a shelter? In fact, putting homeless families into subsidized hotel rooms is not an uncommon way for social services to deal with a lack of housing. And why are you so adamantly opposed to a shelter anyhow? Have you ever even looked inside one? They aren’t pestilential hell holes. Not as nice as your own place, no, but more than a cell and a slop bucket. Hell, some of them are even privately owned and operated. What is your objection to shelters? > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, but planning ahead can account for all potential events. As I pointed out, virtually no homeowner’s policies cover flooding - if you were rendered homeless because of a flood are you _sure_ your insurance company would be there for you? If you aren’t 100% sure on that do read your policy, for your own sake. > [@](#): > > 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. That’s because _locking a dog in a house for 12-16 hours a day_ IS cruel. As it happens, **starwarsfreek42** did _not_ do that. If she _had_, though, I would have altered my statement not one bit. > [@](#): > > I have _been_ poor, remember? Me, too. Odd that we have such different opinions, though. > [@](#): > > And I didn’t use anything that approaches welfare. And if you had - so what? It wouldn’t make you a bad person. If you were poor, but not poor enough to qualify for welfare, or if you managed without welfare good for you. That in no way makes you a better person than someone who _did_ accept welfare of any sort to survive. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > 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. A valid point. That is a gritty detail to be worked out. As it is, in many locations you _can_ have $2,000 in the bank and still qualify for food stamps, as an example. It’s not that radical a departure from what currently exists in many places. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > > [@broomstick](#): > > > > 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. _If that’s what it takes to achieve the end goal, yes_. The end goal is to teach and encourage _responsible_ behavior, yes? As I said, a _small_ reward to encourage the behavior we want to see: fiscal responsibility. A carrot instead of a stick. I realize that sticks in the craw of a lot of people, but currently the system encourage people to spend all by the end of the month and _never_ save, which is _not_ the behavior we want. > [@](#): > > When you say auditing you’re adding more expense to execute a program. I don’t see that working. I don’t buy that because the system _already_ performs audits. I was audited while on unemployment (being an honest and organized person I also satisfied the auditor I was in the right by the end of the same business day I was notified). All the welfare programs I am aware of reserve the right to conduct an audit. > [@](#): > > 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 agree completely. However, if people have become destitute enough to be state dependents for awhile then a little empirical, as opposed to theorectical, education doesn’t seem out of line in my view. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, I’d like to think a “free” education would be enough, too, but a slight bonus for, say, a 3.5 or 4.0 grade point might encourage greater efforts on the part of the students. Seems to me if the state is paying for the education the state has some interest in maximizing the results. Doesn’t have to be a HUGE reward - a token amount would be sufficient. Heck, a book of coupons for McDonald’s could function as motivation for some people. Nothing wrong with recognizing someone’s hard work. > [@](#): > > 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. However, if an “extra bonus” _encourages_ responsible behavior why do you object to it? Do you object to car insurance companies giving reduced rates to good drivers with clean records? Do you object to people who pay their bills on time getting better interest rates on a loan? There are a LOT of incentives out there to encourage people to be “responsible citizens”, why should that suddenly end if you become poor? If anything, we should provide _more_ encouragement to people on the lower socio-economic levels than we do to the middle-class or wealthy. > [@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. > > 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. 1. If you’re working two jobs already I’d say you’re off the community service hook. Obviously you ARE trying to do the right thing in that case, imposing more work requirements would be detrimental. The “community service” requirement would only apply to _able bodied adults not employed._ 2. Employ some of the welfare/unemployed as child caretakers. 3. As I mentioned, in my state in order to get unemployment benefits you are either looking for work _or in job training_. If you’re in a recognized job training program you’re off the community service hook. 4. We are already paying people to work in the social servcies area. I don’t see that as a valid argument. 5. Reduce the number of people in the community service pool via what I said for 1, 2, and 3 and I don’t think the resulting number will be unmanagable. The community service requirement would only apply to able-bodied adults who are NOT working and NOT in job training. While working for the Census Bureau recently I got into a discussion with a co-worker who is receiving some forms of state aid for herself and her two children (as it happens, she was plunged into poverty after her husband was killed in a car accident). In order to continue to receive those benefits (largely subsidized daycare in her case) she must provide proof that she is either working, looking for work, or in school. So, she reports to a caseworker - I earned X this week/month, I applied to these four want ads, here is my class schedule this semester, etc. Is it annoying? On a certain level, yes. But no more so than my weekly reporting requirements while receiving unemployment benefits. You _don’t_ have to hold peoples hands for most of this - just tell them what they need to satisfy reporting requirements and how often they must report and who to call if they have questions/issues. This isn’t rocket science. And yes, audit people. As I stated, I was audited while on unemployment. It was annoying, but not unreasonable. We _already_ do these things, any system we consider implementing will have to do these things. > [@Shakester](#): > > All this talk of encouraging/forcing people to work instead of being on welfare is based on the idea that there is work available for everyone. There isn’t. > > Western countries have been moving manufacturing (and any other industry they can do it to) to poorer countries where wages are low and there are few (or no) worker health and safety laws. Those jobs no longer exist in western countries. Try getting a factory job - there are dozens (sometimes hundreds) of applicants for every position. > > We now have a large underclass of people who have no chance. People for whom there are **no** opportunities. The jobs that these people would have had in the 50s or 60s or 70s are **gone**. There is nothing to replace them. > > You can spout as much happy right-wing bull as you like about how these people should be forced to find work - there **isn’t** any work for people in that position. It’s not like they’re turning down work because they prefer to be unemployed, it’s that there is no work for a large percentage of society. That is EXACTLY why we need robust job training programs - not just for those without skills or experience, but also te RETRAIN people whose skills and experience are now obsolete. What I used to do is no longer much needed - thank Og I’m healthy and strong enough to do physical labor, as that is the _only_ sort of work I have gotten these past couple years (even the Census work I did requires 8 hours a day of walking - even a lot of people considered able-bodied would find that difficult or impossible to keep up with for more than day or two). Currently, I am looking into some vocational training but I face two major obstacles: 1) money for tuition - it has to come from somewhere, and 2) since I _already_ have a college degree most funding/grants/programs/etc. are closed to me, the assumption being that somehow a college degree, any college degree, guarantees employment. _It doesn’t_. Maybe in the past it did, but not anymore. Now, I will probably find a way to get the money over the next couple years. Meanwhile, it will be a very hand-to-mouth existence. Personally, I’d much rather start my re-education NOW. I’d _love_ to have an arrangement where by retraining now I would be able to repay the tuition costs via some sort of service commitment but I know of no such program I’m eligible for. It’s a damn shame, because it would be a win-win for everyone - my family gets a higher standard of living and the larger society gets the benefits of my time and education. Just one more thing in this lengthy post - I’ve seen comments here about cellphones being frills. Not always. BOTH my two current jobs _require_ me to have a cellphone. I’ll say that again - _both of my two jobs REQUIRE the employee to have a cellphone_. It’s _not_ a frill in my case, it’s a necessity for my jobs. It’s an example of why people shouldn’t be too quick to judge. Now, that said - I _also_ have a rock-bottom, minimal service cellphone plan. The Census bureau training course even had a list of suggestions for acquiring a cellphone for the least amount of money that would satisfy the job requirement (required both because the supervisors need to be able to contact the fieldworkers, and because they want the fieldworkers to be able to call 911 for help if they get into a bad situation while in the field). Fact is, though, you can’t tell from looking at my cellphone whether I have the dirt cheap plan or the bells-and-whistles plan. On the other hand, a hypothetical caseworker could observe that my family has ONE cellphone, held by the breadwinner, and not a tricked-out iPhone for every member of the household. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/155 "2009-05-13T19:38:07Z")
> [@Shakester](#): > > All this talk of encouraging/forcing people to work instead of being on welfare is based on the idea that there is work available for everyone. There isn’t. > > Western countries have been moving manufacturing (and any other industry they can do it to) to poorer countries where wages are low and there are few (or no) worker health and safety laws. Those jobs no longer exist in western countries. Try getting a factory job - there are dozens (sometimes hundreds) of applicants for every position. > > We now have a large underclass of people who have no chance. People for whom there are **no** opportunities. The jobs that these people would have had in the 50s or 60s or 70s are **gone**. There is nothing to replace them. > > You can spout as much happy right-wing bull as you like about how these people should be forced to find work - there **isn’t** any work for people in that position. It’s not like they’re turning down work because they prefer to be unemployed, it’s that there is no work for a large percentage of society. I understand that, especially with today’s economic situation. I was thinking of those who simply won’t work, even when everything is booming. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/156 "2009-05-14T03:02:38Z")
> [@InterestedObserver](#): > > 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. \ > [@](#): > > 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. Math is not my strong suit, but it appears that they have more than 100% up there. Nearly half go four months but a bit over 3/4 go a year? > [@](#): > > 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”. Actually, they could and this is why I have such a hard time supporting welfare. Those senior citizens could have been on and off welfare all of their lives AND raised their children on it AND their children are also now on and off welfare and raising children on it. There just don’t seem to be any studies on the generational affect, only stories from case workers. Also, I am not of the opinion that welfare mothers make up a majority of those recieving benefits but I wouldn’t be surprised if they take a majority of the funds! ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/157 "2009-05-14T03:05:47Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Wow did you forget your own one sentence post this quickly? Well, considering it’s been at least a day, it wasn’t all that quick but that isn’t the point. You wanted to know if that is the kind of people “they” are and I wanted to know what “they” you were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/158 "2009-05-14T03:08:43Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Starting or maintaining a savings account is an important step on the road to financial stability (assuming someone qualifies) – I’d rather a welfare recipient save a few dollars here and there as proof of foresight, not to mention the ability to delay gratification, than see them punished for not spending every cent every month, as if that’s proof that they’re getting more money than they need. A few dollars isn’t significant savings. I asked that question because someone (I forget who now) gave an example of a person on welfare with $2000 in the bank. Quite a bit more than a few dollars! ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/159 "2009-05-14T03:49:43Z")
[QUOTE=curlcoat] Math is not my strong suit, but it appears that they have more than 100% up there. Nearly half go four months but a bit over 3/4 go a year? [/QUOTE] Wow. Math ISN’T your strong suit, huh? Here is the quote to which you responded: “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.” Seriously… you actually can’t understand that? Are you joking? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/160 "2009-05-14T04:27:51Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Sigh. The suggestion was to take away children from people who conceive or bear children while on welfare. Taking them away from their mothers, presumably at birth, would require them to be put, not in school, but in orphanages. You may not know this, but infants don’t go to school. Most children do not attend school until 2 or 3 at the earliest. Consequently, these infants would be put in orphanages, or “warehoused,” if you will, just like stray animals in shelters, with probably as much individual attention and genuine love as animals in shelters. You mean like the daycares that so many mothers use these days? > [@](#): > > Or do you think government employees would love these children as well as their shiftless, welfare-receiving mothers do? I find it unlikely, if not impossible. Doesn’t seem to be an issue in daycares. > [@](#): > > Also, I have to say, your sudden, new found faith in the government is puzzling. I find it ironic that you think that government-run orphanages, or euphemistically labeled “boarding houses,” would provide a better education and parenting than welfare mothers who send their children to government-run public schools. You have repeatedly expressed zero confidence in taxpayer funded public education, yet you are advocating for it now, replete with dormitories and full-time, round the clock infant care. What changed? I didn’t say anything about them getting a better education, tho it would probably be far more likely that they would actually go to school, and finish high school. If it was really well run, it would also be less likely the girls would be pregnant at 14, they would most likely be better fed and so better able to absorb an education. Kind of interesting that you keep calling them orphanages, when the children wouldn’t be orphans but wards of the state. Mommy gets a job and gets off welfare, she can have the kids back, just like it is done now with foster care. You know, where kids are warehoused now? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=9)