This part I understand. I disagree, but I understand.
But this part I do not understand. Making more rights would reduce the total fraud how?
I’m not trying to nitpick. If my questions are out of line let me know.
I don’t understand how someone working at Walmart is currently being punished (unless you count working at Walmart as punishment).
There have always been poor people who have been able to survive without welfare or charity. These people are the salt of the earth. However, they–like most of us–have luck on their side. Maybe they are married. Maybe they live with parents or extended family members (grandparents, aunts, etc.) who can give them a break on rent and/or watch children for free. Maybe the local food pantry replaces what would be supplemented by food stamps. Maybe having Section 8 housing is enough to keep them off of welfare.
Maybe all they’re doing is surviving, but not very well. Maybe they deal with electricity and phone service being regularly shut off. Maybe they haven’t been to the doctor in over ten years because they can’t afford one. Maybe they live in a roach-and-rat motel of an apartment and walk five miles to work everyday. Maybe they are living so close on the edge that the only thing keeping them from seeking welfare is knowing that people will judge them harshly if they do so.
Or then again, maybe the welfare recipient is just lazy, and the Walmart employees “doing it for themselves” are the Heroes of the World.
The reality is that it does not matter. We can spend time blaming the poor for their poverty or we can help those who want and need help to STOP BEING POOR. If it takes five years of full-time higher education for a welfare recipient to be equipped with marketable skills, then I say let’s go for it. If we help them while they’re in voc school or college and that person fails to maintain self-sufficiency afterwards, then maybe then we can blame them. But making it as difficult as possible for a welfare recipient to get help will not help anyone.
It’s not like Walmart employees (or other working class people) don’t qualify for student loans or school-sponsored financial aide. There are programs available to non-welfare recipients for education, so squealing about “special rights” seems down right ignorant to me.
I don’t see how any single mother can survive, myself.
I am currently on assistance.
We get medical coverage and 250$ food a month, no check.
Once your child goes to school, no more check.’
If I found a job(ever) all the food money would be gone.
So if I worked 40 hours a week, I would make about 200 a week.
800 a month.
Not enough for food & rent, bus, or anything.
My friend used to make it, but she had a good job (RTA) and made 1700 a month. But she only saw her son a few hours a night since she had to work so many hours.
If you don’t mind me turning the question around on you… if you disagree, how would you prevent it?
It wouldn’t directly reduce it - it would make the system more efficient.
The way disability welfare works now, you have to list all the doctors and hospitals, they have to contact them, its all very messy and can lead to errors being made. With a centralized medical record and government-paid doctors who all work on the same system, it would be easier to conduct the evaluations.
You said that poor people would survive “quite nicely” without welfare.
A man can survive without having eaten in 20 days. But that ain’t surviving “quite nicely”.
There are millions of poor people in India who are surviving without welfare. But it ain’t “quite nicely”.
During the Great Depression, people would go house-to-house begging for food. Surviving, yes. But not “quite nicely”.
I don’t want to live in a society where little kids have to sell soda cans to get a meal. That’s not surviving “quite nicely” IMHO.
Your kids will suffer if poor children are not assisted in some way. Either way, they “suffer”*.
What will, though?
Doesn’t it benefit you and your children for you to be concerned about poor people? Johnny does not become a better person by spending his formative years in near-starvation. He becomes a person that, if he makes it to adulthood, will not be self-sufficient. You and your kids will pay for the mental health services he will require. You and your kids will pay for the criminal justice system he and his victims will require. You and your kids will have to avoid him on the sidewalk when he accosts you for spare change. You and kids will have to deal with him when he can’t make change for you at the register.
If the government could provide insurance against hunger, then I’d be more willing to jump on the “anti-welfare” bandwagon. It just seems kinda harsh to say, “Let’s scrap all of it!”
*Not all suffering is the same. The suffering of a well-fed taxpayer is nothing compared to the suffering of a kid suffering from teeth decay and malnutrition.
Person A wants to both get an education and support him/herself and children. Gets a job at Walmart or some other unskilled job and goes to school part-time at night. Gets some financial aid, but still takes 6-8 years ( or more) to get a bachelors degree. Person B goes on welfare. Doesn’t have to spend time at a job, so he/she can attend school full-time. Gets maximum financlal aid , which means in some cases tuition costs nothing- not even any loans to pay back. If I’m person A, I’m sure gong to feel like i’m being punished for working. Nobody is going to come up to me and say “Quit your job. We’ll support your family while you go to school full-time for four years.Oh, and it won’t matter that your husband is also working a minimum wage job (since you need two incomes to survive), we’ll give you a public assistance grant anyway”.
Why is it that welfare recipients need a four year degree to have marketable skills? Are there no longer jobs that are a step or two or three up from Walmart, but don’t require a four year college degree? What about dental assistants, clerical jobs, tax preparers, hair stylists, auto mechanics, truck drivers, medical technicians? Maybe not great jobs, but jobs that pay more than minimum wage. And then, if a further education is desired, attend part-time while working.
You’re absolutely right about the financial aid. The “special right” is the right to go to school full-time while being supported by welfare. I don’t mind helping people who need help. I do mind people who believe they are entitled to collect welfare while going to school full time for four or five years, while other poor people must both work and go to school. I don’t see why people who are now on welfare should be given an easier time of things than low wage workers , who are apparently going to be poor for longer than the welfare recipients are (since it will take longer for them to get an education attending part time) and who are paying the taxes that support the welfare recipient.
Poverty today, and poverty 100 years ago are two entirely different things. Poor people of the Victorian age might have no heat whatsoever in their homes because they couldn’t afford the fuel. They sometimes actually starved to death. Deaths from illnesses were probably more frequent because malnutrition and exhaustion contributed to their condition.
The “welfare” of the day was often distributed by charitable organizations, but one had to be morally fit to recieve it. A woman with a baby out of wedlock most likely would get no help, nor a man known to consort with loose women.
They worked sometimes 12 to fourteen hours a day-- even children did so in some cases, for pittance wages. Their homes were often in deplorably unsanitary conditions, owing to the fact that many people still emptied their chamberpots out the windows, and had no running water for washing.
If you’d like to read further, try this site, which has material which was printed in the period. It’s about Victorian London, but the poor didn’t have it much better over here. (Go to Publications and then to Social Investigation/Journalism-- the articles are fascinating. This article is specifically about the failures of London charities to be able to provide enough to even keep people from starving to death.
Poor people today have luxuries that poor Victorians probably would have killed for. Their homes are usually heated (sometimes even mechanically cooled), they have plenty of food: if they don’t have money for it, enough food is thrown away to feed people quite adequately-- no one starves in this country, unless willingly. We have free emergency medical care. Children don’t have to die of influenza in cold rooms with empty bellies.
Yeah, the poor survived (sometimes) in the Victorian era, but it was a hellish life, full of abject misery and early death.
I actually agree with this. I think for someone who is poor and doesn’t have very many choices, vocational school would be the best route if only because the job skills would be laid out on their resume when they are finished.
Perhaps five years is too long for full-time education (not sure how many welfare recipients do this, though). Maybe welfare recipients should be given five years of assistance, with two years donated to full-time education. After their two years is up, education will have to be juggled along with part-time work, but with no cuts in benefits.
I still don’t agree that someone who chooses to work and go to school is being “punished”. I wasn’t eligible for the Pell grant when I was in college, but I would have been if my parents’ weren’t claiming me as a dependent. Doesn’t mean I was being punished for being a dependent…it just means I wasn’t entitled to something meant for people in different circumstances. But I think you’ve convinced me that the current system should be improved for the benefit of the working person who wants to go to school.
Yes, the vast majkority would, did, and could.
Agreed. That’s not what I meant. But you knew that.
Quite right. India is more socialist than we are. You are the one recomending that we copy their philosophy. 
That’s right. The great depression was a very bad time. It was not, however, an essensial failure of capitalism. It certainly was not caused by a lack of a social safety net.
I never said anything like this. But I suspect you know that also.
I agree.
Read the first half of the paragraph you quoted.
I am.
I’m not exactly sure I said anything like scrap all of it. I think building a society where it is not necessary for the government to abscond with 20-40% of the economy, mostly for the redistribution of that wealth through an inefficient bureaucracy to those who did not create it.
Just to be clear, you are talking about preventing the fraud associated with state supported medical treatment right? Personally, I don’t think this is as much of a problem as the number of healthy people who could work but don’t. But to play fair (since you generously answered my question), I really think that decentralizing the system is far better than increasing centralization. If very local (so local that they could know the clients) case workers had more power to make decisions (as opposed to filling out forms and passing them up the chain), the better sorts of decisions we could make. Personally, I don’t think anything like this will ever happen unless we remove the federal government from the process.
Again, not to nitpick, but I think what you would have would be more and more layers of bureaucracy rather than a more efficient system. You’d still have multiple doctors and facilities to report to the decision maker. The difference, is that you’d introduce alternative motivations to those decision makers. Namelyu politics.
For some it was. But it was not so hellish that conditions did not improve for most. And the improvements came through growing economies and increasing freedom rather than growing government handout programs.
The point I was trying to make was that reducing the welfare roles would not equal people starving in large numbers.
Cite?
I don’t read minds, and neither do you. I don’t know what you mean unless you actually say what you mean.
I did not say it was either of these things. Is it your contention that the social safety net that came into existance during the Great Depression made things worse?
You mean this:
This is not a solution to anything. This is a vacuous daydream.
I don’t believe you have to propose a solution in order to complain about the current system. But something meatier than buzz words and meaningless phrases would be nice.
Which part of the welfare state would you like to keep?
Why do you think my children should suffer if poor children are not assisted?
Your argument doesn’t hold up. There are literally hundreds of millions of poor people in the world who DON’T commit crimes, panhandle, or become mentally ill.
Right, all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. :rolleyes:
History of world population growth
Note that the welfare state is only 50 years old while the continued incease of industry (and capitalism) is much older than that. I contend that this suggests that the massive increase in population growth has more to do with continued economic growth than it does with an increase in welfare bureaucracies.
Except that I said survive quite well, and you used that phrase yourself. So, I think I did say what I meant.
In the long run yes.
No, it is not. What it means is that if we can encourage greater economic growth, we in effect encourage greater numbers of poor people to no longer be poor. Welfare does not do this. It, in fact, hampers this.
Well, in the long run, I’d much rather we do without it. I think that if we reduces the number of people to those who truly need it while at the same time expanding the number of opportunities not to need it (greater economic growth), we could do with a greatly reduced welfare system.
This does not answer my question AT ALL. To refresh, you said poor people have survived quite nicely for millenia. How does your cite support this statement?
Simply surviving and surviving quite nicely are two different things. I want to know what you mean by “quite nicely”. Remember we are talking in the context of modern America. Without food stamps or rent subsidies or other government-sponsored assistance, how can a single-parent family living on minimum wage survive “quite nicely”?
I gave you examples of surviving but not “quite nicely”. Just in case you’re still clueless, your usage of the phrase “quite nicely” is what I’m having a problem with. Please explain what you mean.
How does Welfare encourage companies to outsource their labor to places like India?
How does Welfare encourage companies to pick up shop and move to places like Mexico and Indonesia?
How does Welfare promote a minimum wage that does not sustain a typical family?
How does Welfare promote the mechanization of tasks previously requiring human labor?
How does Welfare hamper economic growth? Through taxes? You might as well blame the educational system, military spending, and the salaries of Congressmen and Senators for doing the exact same thing.
No, I think I said they survived quite nicely before the welfare state. Meaning the time period after 1600 through 1930 or 1950. Not for millenia. If I did say that then I am an idiot. People lived short brutal lives, with very few excpetions, before the spread of capitalism. They still live such lives where it has not taken hold.
I mean simply that poor people can survive without starvation or long term malnutrition. That is, they can have enough to eat, shelter, and clothing.
Well, I agree it is not easy. My grandparents did it through the great depression. My parents did it through the 60s. My cousin did it through the 90s. I understand it is not easy. I really do. But claiming that welfare and food stamps are necessary or millions will starve is just alarmist rhetoric.
I don’t understand how any of this has anything to do with our discussiion.
Well, I would, if they were as large a portion of the federal budget as the welfare state is. The fact of the matter is that education, defense, and congressional salaries account for a rather small portion of the federal budget. You could tripple them all and it would not amount to the same sort of drag on the economy that the welfare state is.
What are you including in “the welfare state.” Obviously, if you include everything, then the government is primarily in the business of transfering wealth from young people to old people, since Social Security is gigantic. But the strict program of “welfare,” the one for poor people, is actually a pretty tiny outlay. Corporate welfare (subsidies, tax base holes, etc.) is a far bigger drain than the taxes which fund the current welfare system for poor people, though the EITC makes up a lot of that balance. So which programs are we talking about here?
Way back near the beginning of this thread I posted a link to information on the Danish welfare state.
I have read the subsequent postings and no one has responded with any thoughts on this, so I guess my comment that as we (here I include Americans and increasingly Australians) are told such a thing cannot exist it therefore must not exist - if you believe it doesn’t exist you don’t have to deal with the fact it works and works well, in a modern, western country.
But why should a poor person be denied the benefits of a bachelor’s degree? There is a shortage of teachers, a profession that requires at least a bachelor’s. Nursing is another profession that has a shortage. Granted, a person could get an associate’s degree in nursing and still be an RN, but if that person wants to move into more skilled positions, like management or advanced practice, a BSN is required.
It seems to me that we could solve some of these problems by encouraging those on welfare to pursue the highest level of education they can. Teachers who come from the communities they serve would be invaluable, because they understand what their students go through. Ditto for nurses. If nurses are familiar with their patients from a social perspective; that is, where they come from, what they face on a daily basis, what resources are available, and so forth, they will prove invaluable.
Of course, for some, vocational education is invaluable. But no one should be denied the benefits of a four-year college education merely because they’re poor.
Robin
I didn’t look at your link until today, but I’m not so sure the system is working all that well, even in Denmark, based on this quote from the “Scandanavian Welfare Model” page.
I also noticed, from looking around the other pages on the website, that those eligible for unemployment under age 25 must receive job training after six months of receiving benefits, and http://www.denmark.dk/servlet/page?_pageid=80&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&_fsiteid=175&_fid=184982&page_id=1&_feditor=0&folder.p_show_id=184982#185040
It strikes me that under the Danish welfare system, a person who has never worked would not be able to receive cash benefits while attending college full time for four years.
Just because it may work okay in Denmark, however, doesn’t mean it will work in the US or Australia. There are cultural differences . There seem to be a fair amount of mandatory participation programs (which Americans don’t generally go for) and a rather high tax burden in Denmark. Additionally, even the non-poor in Denmark have benefits that are not available in the US. Just to give an example, I worked as a financial aid counselor in a school that enrolled a large number of welfare recipients in the late '80s. At that time, there was no time limit to receiving welfare. There was a requirement that when the youngest child was old enough for kindergarten, a single parent had to find work or go to school. Many of them voiced their displeasure at this requirement. Not only didn’t I feel sorry for them , I thought they were lucky they were given five years before having to seek work or training. At least part of the reason is because, I as a working woman was not legally entitled to a dollar while on leave if I had a child. Even today, the only legal requirement is 12 weeks of unpaid leave- and only if my employer employs more than a certain number of people.