How exactly are poor people being denied the benefit of a bachelor’s degree? That person who receives welfare while obtaining an associate’s degree in nursing hasn’t been denied a BS- he/she can still continue her education and get a BS while supporting herself as many people do (mostly the poor- the middle and upper classes tend to go to college right after high school and receive at least some parental support). The only thing he/she is being denied is the luxury of not having to work while completing it.
BUT Please understand (and I should have made this clear earlier) I am not talking about a 17 year old who is just now graduating from high school whose parent receives welfare. When I think “welfare recipient”, I’m just not thinking about them, because in my mind, they are not the welfare recipients, the parent is.
I agree, in part, but you can’t deny that government handout programs, as you call them, have alleviated the suffering of many, many people.
To put it simply: are there enough high-paying jobs for everyone in America? (By “high paying,” I mean that an income source can provide a decent standard of living–food, car, housing, etc., without desperate struggle.) No, there are not. Some people, despite their best efforts, will be left out in the cold. Are there some legitimate circumstances in which work cannot be found, or a person cannot work?Without a government program to provide help, what will those people do?
“Government handout programs” are responsible for much good in our society. because of them, a poor kid can go to college. Possibly, he had a boost in life because his mother could get government housing, giving the kid a stable home, and because of government utility programs, a warm place to sleep. He may have gotten government-paid medical and dental care which are important to getting good work. (No employer who is primarily working with the public will hire people who have blackened, missing teeth, or infected eyes.) He may be healthier because his mother could give him good, nutritious meals with her food stamps.
Without them, should the mother and son live on the street? Should they starve? Should the boy fall sick and be unable to see a doctor because he can’t afford it? Where would their support come from?
Why do you think that? (Besides arguing that they could eat from dumptsers.) Where will their food come from if they cannot find a job? Where will they live? Private charities cannot possibly keep up with the demands. Check out my last cited article for how the numbers broke down in Victorian London. Despite big efforts for charitable campaigns and help for the poor, the organizations could only help a tiny fraction of those who needed it. I don’t think people are, on a whole, more charitable than they were 100 plus years ago.
So, if charity cannot meet the burden, what’s to be done? Someone’s gotta pay for the food.
Well, no. But I can deny that the overall cost to benifit ratio has been positive.
Ok, but now you are going beyond the idea of eating out of dumpsters and starving. What exactly is the level of comfort that you want to guarantee to every person whether he could earn it himself or not? What exactly do you mean by desperate struggle?
But the point is that in a healthy robust economy, this number is far lower than the number of people who recieve benefits today. I contend that if we did not give as many hadouts through taxation, more of the economy would be healthy and robust enough to help those who are able to earn their own living.
Undoubtedly. I have never denied this.
Because of them there are not enough jobs for poor college kids to earn thier own way.
From friends, relatives, and the availability of more jobs.
My whole point is that with more economic activity, there will be more jobs.
I need more information to prove this.
Actually, it is not. It is about the failure of the poor house system to feed and cloth the poor. These systems were run not as charities, but as functions of the particular part of the city within which they existed. They were administered by elected officials, and run as part of the government. Here is a history of the poorhouse system in America.
More importantly, someone has to create the wealth to pay for it in the first place. I deny that you have proof that people are not more charitable than they were 100 years ago. There are far more middle class people now than then. People who are better off are generally better able and more willing to give charitably. This is exactly my point. If we create an economy which allows for more growth, we can increase the number of middle class. This would decrease the number needing help as well as the number able and willing to help.
Seeing the great interest and excitement in this thread about the Danish social security system I’ll chime in with the Finnish social security system (761k PDF). Here are statistics (643k PDF). In the latter, click the table of contents or go to page 13 for English. There’s a nice graph there.
20 euros says that Finland has at least as great a social security system as Denmark. At the same time, they have one of the highest economic growth rates in the EU, and I think a consistent budget surplus for the past 5+ years straight.
doreen mentioned cultural differences, I think that is very true and a greatly underappreciated factor at all levels of the discussion.
When I see a drunk bum drinking beer (or worse) in the park, I am proud that thanks to my taxes he’s not starving and (-shudder-) not forced to beg in the streets. Plus of course, only the tiniest percentage of total welfare expenditures goes to cases like this; the rest goes toward even better causes.
Cultural differences also come into play in how welfare and other state programs are run. The quality and efficiency and customer friendliness of state-run programs in this country are absolutely top-notch. Workers (civil servants) are highly trained and motivated everywhere and just a joy to deal with. Much better than commercial enterprises that are often prone to cut corners, to the detriment of everybody. Seeing such a well-run state does influence my attitude toward all state programs in general, including welfare.
I understand where you’re coming from. My point is that we seem to be focusing on vocational training in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Some professions, like teaching, don’t have the benefit of an associate’s-level entry point the way nursing does.
Granted, it is possible to work while attending school. However, as has been pointed out, life is enough of a juggling act. Working a full-time job and taking care of kids is enough, especially as a single parent. Throw in a couple classes on top of that, and it’s a recipe for disaster. I myself had a full course load (15 credits) last semester, and Airman was deployed for about half of it, thus making me a single mother for the duration. Had I also had a job, something would’ve had to go.
Why can’t the state do something similar for welfare recipients that it does for National Guardsmen? The PA National Guard and Air National Guard covers tuition for a five-year period at any of the state’s universities. The Guardsman is thus responsible for fees and textbooks only. Why can’t the states do something similar for welfare recipients willing to pursue a degree? Five years of paid tuition, with student financial aid picking up the rest, and welfare benefits covering living expenses? If you can’t keep a C average, or if you can’t finish in the five years, you’ve got to find a job.
Yeah, it’d be a tax burden for the short term. But consider the additional earning power of someone with a BA/BS degree over someone who only has a tech certificate or high school diploma. Those who go on to finish college earn a significantly higher salary, and thus pour more money back in taxes and in spending.(Cite, although these numbers are for 1998. I couldn’t find anything more recent.)
There is also the issue of human dignity. Why say to someone, “Well, you’re poor, so we’re going to restrict you to whatever you can learn at the Vo-Tech school, hope you make the right choice that leads to a living wage and that has jobs available.” The message is, “You have no right to expect any better.” People should be encouraged to change their lives, to correct their mistakes and improve their circumstances. Education is one way to do that.
Because National Guardsmen are providing a service to the country in return for their tuition? People on welfare aren’t. Why should being on welfare = full paid scholarship to college? Under that formulation the best thing for the National Guardsman to do is quit. He can then go on welfare and get the same benefit without having to obligations in return.
I also don’t understand why the state should pick up tuition costs. Most people take out loans to attend college. Many people work while attending. Why shouldn’t welfare recipients have to do the same?
I get the argument that the state should ensure you’re not starving on the street. I don’t understand the argument that the state should make sure you’re employed in a well paying job. That’s not our collective responsibility.
The person is free to attend college. They can take out LOANS and WORK while doing so like everyone else. I just don’t see where someone gets the right to say, “I can’t support myself. My responsibility is to attend school. Your responsibility is to support me.”
I also don’t understand the argument that Vo-Tech = lack of dignity. There are quite a few plumbers and auto mechanics who would be highly offended at that argument.
Let’s try this again. You can’t get loans to go to college if you don’t have income. The point of giving them education is so that they stop being on welfare. If they can only get minimum wage jobs they almost always wind up back on welfare. The other thing is how close most of the population is to being on welfare. A welfare system that does everything it can to beat people down keeps people from being taxpayers.
When my husband walked out and dissapeared, I was 4 months pregnant and had a college education and a job with health care benefits. There was even a little in the way of savings. I was a grown up. I was able to work up until she was born but I had a bad time during labor and couldn’t work for a while that blew through the savings.
I then decided the only way in my field to work normal hours was to teach and that required graduate school. I managed a year and a half of grad school being a TA and parenting before it all fell apart. I managed to stay off of welfare at that point by the skin of my teeth by selling plasma, and some money from my grandmother.
The point is stuff happens. The closer to the edge people are the more likely they are to fall off. Welfare needs to be there, and if possible be a way to get people away from the precipice and towards being contributing members of society.
Fine with me- as long as society is also willing to subsidize Joe the janitor’s living expenses when he quits his job to attend school full-time four years get a teaching degree , even if Joe’s wife keeps her job. And Sam the student, who has to work to pay for everyhing except room and board because as his parent’s dependent he doesn’t get much financial aid but his parents are unwilling or unable to provide more than room and board. Oh, and let pay those in the National Guard more than $4000/yr while we’re at it, becasue it looks to me like they must have full-time jobs as well as being members of the NG.You find a society that’s willing to fund that with taxes , and then I might agree that welfare recipients should be allowed to pursue a four year degree without having to work while doing it. Until then, I don’t see why the welfare recipient is entitled to an easier time than the single mothers I know who work in clerical jobs and attend school one or two evenings a week for much longer than four years to get a bachelor’s degree. Again, I’m not saying it’s easy, but lots of people do it.
Yeah, it’d be a tax burden for the short term. But consider the additional earning power of someone with a BA/BS degree over someone who only has a tech certificate or high school diploma. Those who go on to finish college earn a significantly higher salary, and thus pour more money back in taxes and in spending.(Cite, although these numbers are for 1998. I couldn’t find anything more recent.)
[/quote]
And I’d be able to earn more and pay more taxes if I went to law school. Is that a good enough reason to expect society to fund my living expenses while I do it, or would I have to attend part-time while stil supporting myself?
Sure, education is one way to do that. Nobody is saying they can’t or shouldn’t get an education. But everyone makes choices in life, and every choice affects later options. The message sent when you allow welfare resipients to attend colege full-time instead of workig is " Don’t worry, we will not only make sure that you and your children don’t starve, we will also insulate you from the consequences of your poor decisions". Most of the people on welfare who would be helped by a bachelor’s degree made a poor decision somewhere. I’m willing to insulate people from the consequences of bad decisions up to a point. I want them to have someplace to live, food to eat and medical care. That doesn’t mean I believe they are entitled to a blank check to live in any apartment they want to and eat any diet they might desire. I don’t believe society is responsible to support them while they get their desired degree in the amount of time they wish to get it.
Thanks Frankenstein Monster for that information. I used the Danish model because it was one I was familiar with, a Danish friend recently had family visiting here and it had been the topic for discussion.
You are right of course and cultural differences are largely to blame to differing attitudes to the welfare state - my concern is that my country is heading down the American path, and reading this thread reinforces, to me at least, that is the last place we want to be.
Let’s try this again. You can’t get loans to go to college if you don’t have income.
Not true. In fact the poorer you are, the better.
The only time I have seen income come into play is when you are taking out unsubsidized loans. In that case, they will look at your living expenses (how they calculate it is really weird) and determine how much they will give you.
You’ve gotta exhaust your subsidized loans first, though, AFAIK.
I wish I could follow this thread more I’m still moving and don’t have the net at my new place yet
There are other benefits to government programs than the direct ones, i.e, reducing crime rates. If government programs did not exist, I have strong suspicions that crime rates would sharply increase. Hungry people are a dangerous thing, and parents who see their children going hungry, I dare say, would be more so.
Desperate struggle: having to chose between food and heat in the winter; having to chose between getting your daughter’s painful tooth pulled and getting your son glasses he desperately needs; having no hope of your situation improving because you’re in a dead-end job.
The “comfort level” I wish for every person to have is wholesome food in their bellies, medicine and doctor/dentist visits as needed, weather-appropriate clothing and a heated, dry shelter, and access to programs which will help the person improve their lives (such as job training/college courses).
In the richest country in the world, I cringe with shame to think that there are people who don’t have the basic necessities of life.
How did you come up with that? Did the money “welfare reform” saved the country make the economy more robust, or did the government just find other places to spend it? I contend that the “handouts” actually help the economy in a small way, because it is re-injecting tax money into the consumer economy rather than it being given out in the form of subsidies to major corporations or spent in fashions which do not create jobs.
What?
I pondered this for quite a while and I still can’t see how welfare effects the job market in any way-- if anything it frees up jobs for those who are able to work.
I’ll put aside the “more jobs” thing until I get your explanation.
From friends and family, you say, they will be supported. Uh huh. You mean the people who are statistically most likely in the same socio-economic group-- in similar dire financial straits as the welfare reciepient? Could you afford to support a sibling and his/her kids?
I have no problem asking my best friend to loan me five bucks for lunch, but if I asked her to help support me, I doubt if I’d get very far. She’s got her own family to take care of, and little extra cash.
And you don’t think the spending of welfare money generates any economic activity? Think of all of the food that is purchased, medical services procured, monies paid out n rent, maintenance on autos, gas, clothing, utilities, toiletries and myriad other things which the recipients bought because they had the means to do so, as opposed to begging these items from family and friends or going without.
Well, what is given is spread thinner these days. Whereas in the Victorian days, people gave to a handful of different charities which focused on the poor, or the ill, or missionaries, etc, now we have thousands of charities competing for donors. People today have a great deal of flexibility in what and whom they can give to, whether it be saving the poor or saving the whales or saving souls. As that one article stated, only about 10 percent of charity reaches the poor. I argue that in earlier time, that percentage was higher (especially in the days before administrative costs) because the money was split between fewer causes.
But this assumes that poverty would increase if we limited the welfare state. I am convinced otherwise.
I do to. I simply differ in how such things can be created.
Well, actually, no, there was quite a bit of money that the government did not confiscate because of welfare reform. Taxes did not increase massively in the 90s.
The problem with this argument is that money given away is not treated the same way as money earned. It does not go to the same sorts of goods as money earned. Simply put, it is not valued the same.
Just restructuring your argument that welfare helped people get to colleg with the argument that it also prevented some from getting there.
I’m sorry, I thought it was obvious. The federal government directly confiscates and redistributes (after their cut) at least 10% of the GDP. This money invested in businesses would provide more jobs and more economic opportunity.
No, I said they could be supported at least in part that way.
And yet you have no problem asking her to pay half of her income to support these programs you are so enamored of.
No, I think it does not create wealth. Wealth is created when 2 individuals trade goods each values higher than the other. If a third party takes value from someone who produced it, gives it to someone who did not, the expenditures of this person will not have the same effect because he did not earn the money.
Uh, can you prove that religious charities don’t provide services and money to the poor?
Doesn’t this one fact alone indicate that charitable activity is far from lower than it was in the past?
No, because you are confusing “higher percentage” with “higher amount”. Poor people may spend a higher percentage of their income on charity than the rich, but that is because their income is lower. The total amount given by rich people far outweighs the amount given by poor people. This proves exactly what I said. The more rich people you have, the greater pool of charitable doners you have.
No. Look at your numbers again. The 5000 pound earner gave 4.5% or 225 pounds. The 40000 pound earner gave 2% or 800 pounds. Clearly, the more rich people you have the more money is available for charity. That is my point.
As your own figures show, it does work exactly that way. Thank you for the cites BTW.
This cite contains a common error that was pointed out to me a long time ago.
It contains this phrase “Welfare spending by state, local and federal governments averages $35,756 for every family below the poverty level, although as much as 70 cents of each dollar goes to people who are not poor.”
Unfortunatley, this does not mean what it implies. It does not mean that 70 cents of every welfare dollar goes to somone who does not need it. The fact is that most expenditures on the poor are in the form of food stamps, housing assistance, and things like that. This means that payments to grocery stores or landlords are counted as “going to people who are not poor”. However, the money is most definately on behalf of the poor.
But look at that first number. $36,000 for every family below the poverty line. That’s almost $3,000 a month. This is so far away from starving it is simply disengenuous to claim that it is “desperate”. I did not earn this much money until the late nineties. All through the late eighties and early ninties, I supported my family on much less than this amount. Looking through this cite on the federal poverty level guidlines, I find that I was never very far above the poverty level myself.
OMG
I cannot believe I read that. Are you seriously saying you must SELL your blood in order to survive when you are out of work in the US? ( I assume this is what you mean by selling plasma)
How is this different from the stories you hear from 3rd world countries where the poor sell their body parts (eg kidneys) to be able to feed their families?
I don’t think I can read this discussion anymore, when the people who have posted after you haven’t even felt the need to comment on something like this! Thank goodness we still have blood DONATIONS in Australia
I live in a community of about 30,000 people. There are quite a few welfare recipients around. There is also a scarcity of jobs. Sure, McDonalds is hiring, but you can’t raise a family on that money. We have no public transportation, besides taxis, so you either have to have a good, reliable car, or you’ll pay out half of your minimum-wage salary to get to work each day. Child care will eat up the other half, and then more.
Let’s say welfare ends tomorrow. What do these people do? Moving’s not really an option: you have to have money to start fresh in a new place. Maybe there’s 200 jobs open in my community right now, (and that’s a very generous estimate)with perhaps 20 of them being jobs providing a decent salary, and there’s probably more than a thousand people on public assistance. What now? Wait around to see if one of the guys who owns a pizza shop decides to use his fabled extra-money-now-welfare’s-gone to hire another delivery boy?
They didn’t decrease massively, either, due to cuts in the system. As I said, the government found other uses for the money.
A welfare recipient buys shoes and food just as I do. How is her money “treated” any differently than mine? It all “spends the same.” Are you saying she buys junk food, or luxury items? Well, so do I. What do you care?
Is this some sort of vague you-don’t-appreciate-what-you-haven’t-worked-for statements? If it is, what does their appreciation matter? Personally, it doesn’t bother me one bit if they’re “ungrateful.” I don’t support these programs because I want their gratitude. I support them because I’m a sensible, compassionate person.
Yeah, I get that, but I don’t see your point. HOW did welfare prevent someone from getting to college/getting a job, etc.?
Or they’d use the money to buy their mistress a fur coat. Come on, you really can’t predict what a business will do.
I haven’t seen a huge job increase with the massive tax cuts that George Bush has given to the rich. Hell, a lot of businesses don’t even pay taxes any more, due to their subsidies, shelters, and write-offs. They don’t altruisticly use the money they saved to hire more people. They use it for more advertising, higher CEO salaries, or to, I dunno, redecorate the office. They may use it to buy machinery which will allow them to lay off more workers. Coprorate America does not have a vested interest in helping people find jobs: they want to do more with less and make a profit while doing it.
The point is, there doesn’t seem to be much of a correlation between lower taxes for businesses and job growth that I can see. The vast amount of tax revenue lost by the recent cuts has given us at best paltry results. The same money invested in social programs would have done much more good in the long run.
Further, I’ve already shown that throwing these people sink-or-swim into the job market would actually be a bad thing: inflation, fierce competition, and let’s not forget that surplus labor tends to bring down wages. Stimulate all you want, there will still be that 6% unemployment rate.
What do we do with that pesky 6%?
And where does the other part come from?
No, I really don’t, to tell you the truth, because I can see the value of social investment. Actually, I’d pay higher taxes without blinking an eye if it would mean better living conditions for the poor.
Plus, I know that only a small percentage of my taxes go to social programs that assist the poor. What I have a problem with is corporate welfare, which costs more and gives less of a benefit to society.
What?
Why does it matter where the money comes from? If it buys a product, what does it matter if it came from welfare, hard work, embezzlement, prostitution, or you found it on the street? The shoes have been purchased, creating profit for the store, the manufacturer and the worker. Part of these thre entitities income goes back into the pool which helps them sell more of their product.
Some do, sure. Others use it to build a new church, or to send missionaries to Guam, or to pay the pastor’s salary, or to hire someone to run Vacation Bible School, or to repave the parking lot, or to buy Bibles to pass out for free.
Antectdotally, I’ve been involved with four churches in my adult life, and none of them did anything for the poor.
[qote]Doesn’t this one fact alone indicate that charitable activity is far from lower than it was in the past?
No, because you are confusing “higher percentage” with “higher amount”. Poor people may spend a higher percentage of their income on charity than the rich, but that is because their income is lower. The total amount given by rich people far outweighs the amount given by poor people.
[/quote]
Dollar amount is not the point: the point is that the rich are less inclined to donate. Just being rich does not inspire people to generosity. If a person wins the lottery, their first thought might not be what charities they can assist.
Secondly, did you see in the first article that most charity is collected and distributed locally? Wealthy neighborhoods are not areas of great need. The people who truly need the help are not benefitting even if the rich folks on the other side of town collected a massive amount. They’re being helped by the small contributions of their neighbors.
But there’s a fundamental flaw in your logic. It reminds me somewhat of the Underpants Gnomes in a South Park episode: “Step one, collect underpants. Step two: ??? Step three: Incredible Profit!”
You’re essentially saying, “Step one: drop social safety net. Step two: ??? Step three: More rich people!”
Explain to me, please, exactly how eliminating welfare will make a lot of new rich people, and how their donations will help the poor, especially since only 10% are for the poor, and most of that is distributed locally, where the poor may not live. Explain to me, step-by-step how eliminating welfare will create jobs, when the recent tax cuts have not had that result. Explain to me what people will do, being unable to find work, and having no money for the necessities of life-- and how thousands of people being utterly broke will reduce poverty. Lastly, explain to me how this will, in any way, benefit our society as a whole in the long run.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t see it.
BUT WHERE WILL THESE RICH PEOPLE COME FROM? Kicking people out on the streets into abject poverty will not enrich vast numbers of people to the point where their charitable donations will take care of the poor.
I would attack the unemployed, first by shelling their homes, and then, when they run screaming into the street, mowing them down with machine-gun fire. And then, releasing the vultures.
I realize these views are unpopular, but I have never courted popularity.
History. As economies are allowed to flourish, everyone’s lifestyle increases.
Let’s not. I never proposed this. I don’t know anyone who does. Do you?
I care because I created the wealth in the first place.
Let’s not get personal. But no, it is not about grattitude. It is about a basis for value. If 0 work is worth 30,000 dollars a year, what is a little work worth? If a person is given the choice to work very hard for 29,000 a year or not at all for 30,000, which will he choose? Which will create more value in the market place?
by reducing the economy enough to prevent those who might have earned their way in from doing so.
No, I can. OK, not every penny, but 10% of GDP would not go to fur coats. And even if it did, it would provide a huge number of new jobs creating, selling, moving and cleaning fur coats.
Agreed. I am not advocating the sorts of policies the Bush is.
This is not true. Please don’t give sustenance to a meme which is patently false.
Of course not. They use it to grow their business. Now who is predicting what businesses will do?
But the more they create with less, the less things cost. The more things are available. the larger the economy is, and the more economic activity is available for people to participate in.
Except that if you invested that tax money in social programs, you would also have spent the money we did on the war on terror and improving homeland security. Additionally, the economic downturn following 9-11 and the dot com bust would still have happened. The only difference would be that the businesses which did succeed and grow the economy would have had a harder time doing it. Also, we would now have the social programs to pay for. Those things tend to take on a life of their own and never seem to accomplish their goals.
Please stop. I have never advocated throwing anyone to the wolves as you keep insinuating. All I am asking for is some recognition that free markets do more good than we give them credit for, and that welfare recipients be treated as charity cases rather than entitlements.
What percentage of our workforce is currently reciving government help? Is it smaller than 6%?
But which one of us is really threatening her children’s welfare then?
Well, this is not true. If you include Social Security, social programs account for more than half of the federal budget. And most of the social programs are paid for by states.
This is a problem with the exact same costs. I agree entirely. In fact, I’d agree to cut off corporate welfare entirely. I’d be much more inclined to stop that cold. Social welfare must be limited more slowly.
No, wealth is created through free exchange of value. If I earn $5 and I would be willing to pay $3 for the muffin you just baked, as long as you are willing to sell it for less than $3, the net consequence is that we both increased our wealth. If, however, I stole the $5 in the first place, then I am using money created by someone else. That is, I have destroyed someone elses wealth to further our transaction. The net amount of wealth created is much less.
Right. And government programs have similar costs.
Yes it is. My contention is that having more rich people is the way to increase charitable donations. Your figure that poor people give more as a percentage of their income proves that this is the case.
Yes, but what do they mean locally? Do they really mean that charities in Beverly Hills are mostly dispursed there? I doubt that very much. Now, if they mean that charities funded by residents of Beverly Hills usually spend their money in Sothern California, that I’ll buy. But that hardly means that there is no opportunity to help poor people.
No, I am not saying this at all. I am arguing that is we wean ourselves off of the welfare system, we can make more money available to the private economy. That is, we can lower taxes to the point that economic activity will grow.
You are making assumptions about my argument and what I am advocating. Do I really need to explain how a larger economy creates more and better jobs? Really? Is is really necessary for me to explain how not taxing will leave more money in the hands of those who earned it?
Well, perhaps if the government were not controlling 20% to 40% of th GDP, the economy would have been strong enough to weather the dot com bust more easily. Perhaps it would have been strong enough to weather the 9-11 attacks more calmly.
Sure. IF you will explain to me where I ever advocated this.
No offence, but if you stop rephrasing my points in ways that I did not say, you might see what I am talking about.
Allow me to rephrase what I am saying.
I am not suggesting ending welfare tomorrow. Or ever for that matter. I would simply like to do 2 things. First I would like to stop treating it like an entitlement. The person who is entitled to money is the person who earns it by free exchange of values with others who have earned their money similarly. There are other ways to get money, but they are not the same morally. Secondly, I would like to limit the governments involvement with welfare as much as possible.
What I am saying is the we should find other ways to help people get off of the welfare roles besides giving them more welfare money. I am truly not advocating cutting anyone (with the exception of large corporations) off of the welfare roles.
Perhaps you could rephrase what you are proposing. Do you advocate a much larger welfare state? How much? How much in taxation would be enough do you think? 30%, 40%, 50%. Do you not see a point of diminishing returns? A point when you take so much from the productive economy that you are producing more poor people than you can help?
The part where I’m going to school part time (6hrs/quarter) and just got a letter offering me $15k in federal loans, five thousand of which is interest-free, and all of which is deferrable to six months after I get me degree.
And I don’t even qualify for a Pell grant.
I’m a former Child Support Enforcement worker for the county DHS, so I know how totally fucked the system is, but getting student loans isn’t part of the problem.
I’ll chime in with the 
I’m still moving and don’t have the net at my new place yet 
No, I disagree. But I guess you deduced that.