To a certain extent, yes, but there will always be people left out in the cold.
I created some of the wealth that went to support the foolish, immoral war in Iraq. I didn’t have much of a say in that.
I could choose to go on disability right now for my back and heart problems, and, truth be told, I’d probably get more from Uncle Sam than I do from my paychecks. But just because I can doesn’t mean I * will.* The same is true with welfare. There are quite a few folks who could be on assisatance, but refuse it because of pride, or personal choice. There are also many, many folks on welfare who would give anything to have a good paying job. Sure, there are some who don’t want to work, but they’re in the minority.
How, exactly? I still don’t understand the connection.
But hasn’t the welfare system created jobs, not only in the system itself, but in the goods and services that recipients consume that they wouldn’t have been able to afford otherwise?
Not a prediction, just saying that historically, growing a business does not always include hiring more people.
When GM lays off a thousand workers, or closes a plant, I don’t see car prices coming down. A major electronics manufacturer near me just shut down a factory, and I saw no difference when I priced TVs a couple of months ago.
If less people have jobs, they’re going to be buying less, and their plight may influence their still-working neighbor to cut back on his spending out of concern the same might happen to him. There’s a domino effect when factories shut down or lay off workers-- other businesses may fall too.
The goal, as I see it, is to keep people from being hungry and homeless. To this end, I’d say welfare has been a remarkable success.
How does one treat a “charity case”, anyway? In the richest country on the face of the earth, shouldn’t food and medical care be an entitlement? I think it should. It’s a source of shame to our nation when a child is in want.
It appears so. From the way I read this chart, the highest percentage was in 1994 with 5.5%.
But remember that the unemployment rate does not always acurately reflect the actual number of people without steady work. Working just a few days at a temporary job is enough to get a person counted as “employed” even though his situation may be just as dire as if he’d stayed in bed on those mornings. “empliyed” also covers people who are working in jobs which have no chance of supporting them or their families.
I’m hoping to ensure that if my friend should ever fall ill, or be unable to work that her kids will have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. If that’s “threatening”, then so be it.
I thought we were specifically talking about welfare. I must note, however, that I find it vaguely amusing that some people rail against welfare, but suppport Social Security, when both are essentially the same thing.
But out of Federal block grants, I thought.
That’s interesting. Cutting “corporate welfare” would have much greater of an impact on your life, since subsidies keep some product costs low (beef, for example is highly subsidized). Companies would probably be more inclined to leave the US for more friendly shores. If anything should be phazed out slowly, it would have to be corporate welfare, otherwise the shock to the economy would be too great.
But you still haven’t explained where all these rich people are going to come from, and what makes you think that they’ll give to the poor instead of the Sierra Club or Save The Spotted Owl.
I was quoted what the cite said. I do not know what they mean by “locally.”
And I’m arguing that taxes will not be cut, but that the government will find other places to spend the money, and that it will not magically appear in the economy, causing stimulation, just as the Bush tax cuts didn’t stimulate anything.
No, but you haven’t proved that tax rates would go down at all. I posit that they would not, nor that the relatively small difference would stimulate growth all that much.
I doubt it. 9/11 would have had terrific impact no matter in what shape our economy was at the time-- it was designed to cause a disruption, and it was something our country had never faced.
Perhaps if more money had been floating around in the Dot Com era, the crash would have been even worse because more people would have been invested in it.
I don’t think morals have anything to do with it.
It’s simply a matter of different opinions. I personally feel that food, shelter, and medical care is and should be an entitlement. There is no reason on God’s green Earth it should be otherwise.
I don’t see how that is feasible. Private charities cannot handle the load, and I shudder at the idea of individuals being able to arbitrarily decide who “deserves” what.
Perhaps, but I don’t think we’ve reached that point. There are plenty of places in the governmental budget to trim the fat, increasing spending on social programs without raising taxes.
Not to get off subject, but defense is one of those areas in which massive amounts of money could be freed up by cuts. We’re still arming the country like the Communists are trying to take over. It’s a different world, and massive weapons systems aren’t as important today as they were Back When. Just think about the good we could do with that money!
I’m just going to concentrate on a few salient points. If I miss anything you think is important, or don’t answer a question just remind me.
Some of it, yes. But much of it is also paid for by the states directly. Unfunded mandates and all that.
Well, yes there is. The fact of the matter is that all of the things you mention require wealth (and labor) to create. If you are entitled to a home, must I build it for you? How, in basic moral terms, do you differenciate this from slavery?
Now if you mean that I have no right to take your home away, then I agree whole heartedly. But it seems to me that you are positing that you have a right to force me to build you a home. Further, it seems to me that you are positing this right regardless of your own ability to build your own home. That is, if you are healthy and able to build your own home, but simply choose not to, then I am still obligated (and subject to force) to build you one. How far off am I?
Agreed. If they are the same thing, then you need to reasses your points about the level of spending. I’m willing to consider Social Security as not the exact same thing as welfare. But it is certainly social spending and does contain a large degree of wealth redistribution.
Perhaps a good first step would be to means test government subsidies. Social security, corporate welfare, flood insurance etc. If we have to spend 10% of GDP on social programs, at least we could be sure that the money gets to those who need it.
I think you need to reexamine this premise. I agree that there are plenty of places that can be cut in the federal budget (besides social spending). However, they constitute a lower and lower percentage of the federal budget. In 2003, for instance, federal defense spending was 3.7% of GDP. Social spending, on the other hand was 10.9% of GDP. If we cut defence spending 10%, we could raise social spending to 11.27 of GDP ( a 3% increase). Cutting social spending by 10%, on the other hand would provide 1% GDP to do other things with. Invest in education or infrastructure, redirect to more deserving social programs, or perhaps even allow those who earned it in the first place to keep it. I know, that last proposal was radical.
The problem, of course, is that social spending is considered an entitlement. It is off the table in virtually all discussions about how to balance the budget. In the end, this is the biggest problem. There is simply no way to address the problem politically. Well over half the federal budget is simply not addressable in a reasonable way. And the biggest obsticle to such reasonable discusion is the insistence that welfare should be an entitlement. That is the odd notion that people who did not earn it are entitled to my money.
Nope, it’s a federal program and the rules are the same everywhere. There is a minimum requirement, but it’s neither the 12 credits that is generally considered full-time nor the 15 or 16 it takes to graduate in 4 years.
No, I am not saying that you, as a private and lone citizen, have any obligation to house me.
What I am saying is that if people cannot afford housing, for whatever reason, the government should assist them in paying their rent. The government does not have to buy them a house-- just assist in helping to rent shelter.
The landlords of this world shouldn’t have to provide free housing. They’re just trying to make a living after all, and it wouldn’t be fair to place the burden directly on them. Instead, the government should pay a portion, or all, of the rent of the needy person.
I know that wealth redistribution is a dirty pair of words to some people, on par with Communism, but call it what you will, it does seem wrong to me that there are people like Bill Gates who live a couple of miles from people who are forced to decide between buying needed medicine and food. It also seems wrong that a person could work for thirty years for a company and have no retirement benefits, thus having to depend on Social Security.
I’ll be honest with you-- I’ve always been well off. Never have I had to worry about where my next meal would come from, or whether I’d be able to buy gas to get to work. But I do have friends from all socio-economic backgrounds, and their struggles have always pained me. I’ve seen what poverty and want can do to people and it’s not pleasant.
It has made me want to share as much as I can with those who have not been as fortunate as I have been. There, but for the grace of God, go I. By a mere chance of birth, I have been privledged, whereas I could be struggling to keep my head above the proverbial waters. If my tax dollars can alleviate just a little of the suffering of the poor, it’s well worth it.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: this is the richest country on the Earth. We are staggeringly wealthy-- and yet some kids go to bed hungry at night. This is very disturbing to me.
My husband works in corrections. We treat our criminals better than we do poor, law abiding citizens. An inmate can get an organ transplant, but a poor person cannot. This just seems wrong to me-- not wrong that we care for our inmates in a humane and decent manner, but that ordinary folks are somehow less deserving of the necessities of life.
This is a capitalist country, with a strong work-ethic, and honestly, there’s an undercurrent of contempt for the poor. They’re seen as immoral, lazy, dirty people who have no one to blame but themselves for their condition, which they could change in an instant if they would just work at it. Hell, since we were in grade-school we’ve been taught that America is the land of opprotunity, and that you can achieve anything if you just work hard enough. But the flip side to this notion is that if you’re not succeeding, it’s because you’re not trying hard enough.
I have seen many people who work so hard they’re near collapse, only to just barely tread water, with no real hope of things ever improving. I knew a woman who worked three jobs, but could still barely make ends meet. No one could ever say she wasn’t trying hard enough, or working hard enough, but she’ll probably die in poverty. The opprotunities just aren’t there. Higher education is pretty much out of the question, and none of her jobs offered much opprotunities for advancement. She’ll work until she physically can’t do it any longer, and then she’ll try to survive on Social Security.
The American Dream isn’t for folks like her. It’s for folks who could afford college, who have parents who “know people” and thus can get a kid started in a career, who can afford a reliable car and nice business clothing, who have all of their teeth and good health because of medical insurance and good nutrition, who have been taught polite social discourse, and thus can make good impressions. Yeah, a person with these advantages can be anything they want to be: their opprotunities are endless. Hers are not.
So, I don’t mind a little bit of my wealth going out to help people in need. Life has been good to me, and I don’t begrudge what little bit is taken back. I think everyone should do their part to alleviate the sufferings of others, and if it takes taxes to do it, so be it.
Perhaps a good first step would be to means test government subsidies. Social security, corporate welfare, flood insurance etc. If we have to spend 10% of GDP on social programs, at least we could be sure that the money gets to those who need it.
Not radical at all-- actually a very valid viewpoint. However, it appears that if the poor are to be helped, we have to force Americans to do it. Charity cannot meet the needs, and I have grave doubts that allowing Americans to keep an extra ten percent of their income will encourage them to give it away. Hell, if I had an extra ten percent right now, I’d pay it on my mortgage.
I see it not only from a compassion standpoint, but one of ensuring peace. Revolutions happen when people are hungry and see all of the money in the hands of a few powerful elite. In essence, we’re paying the poor not to revolt and beat us to death with our own designer shoes.
I don’t see this as a problem at all. My opinion is that it is an entitlement: part of the benefits of being an American. No one should be hungry here. No one should go without medicine. No one should be without warm, dry, safe shelter. We can afford it, and it’s money damn well spent, too.
This odd notion stems from the belief that we are all part of a society, and getting the benefits of belonging to it, we should be obligated to help support members who cannot support themselves.
It’s much like the public school system. I didn’t use it for the majority of my school years, and my husband didn’t use it at all. We have no children, nor intend to have any. Yet we must pay taxes to pay for the education of others’ children. I could whip myself into a fervor of righteous indignation over this “injustice”, but thinking logically about it, society has a vested interest in educated youngsters. Educated kids are ones who will get better jobs and pay more taxes.
I see it that society has the same vested interest in the welfare system. Kids will grow up in better environments because of it, and possibly have more opprotunities to become successful and high tax-paying adults.
There is one question I’d like to re-ask. You said:
I asked, how does one treat a charity case, anyway? I’m curious as to your answer. I know you don’t intend it this way, but I keep seeing Oliver Twist whispering, “Please sir, may I have some more?”
Do we need to keep reminding people that they live on our sufferance? To put them in their “place”? For what purpose?
Do we need to keep reminding people that they live on our sufferance? To put them in their “place”? For what purpose?
There are people out there who would have welfare recipients wear an armband all the time so the public would be able to identify them.
Or have them dance a jig in public on the 1st day of every month.
Why? Because they’re assholes.
That’s what people don’t get: if you’ve got a holier than thou attitude when you help someone, yeah, you’re still helping. But those who lord it over those who are helping are still generally bad people.
Actually, this is a good argument for more tax cuts.
Yet you seem to have no problem making complete strangers support you…
I agree with you that everyone should have a basic level of security; food, a roof over their head, access to medical care, and educational opportunities. That doesdefinately not include free college tuition payed for by taxing families trying to put their own children through school.
When I sugest that the social safety should not be considered an entitlement, I do not mean that every person on wealfare shoudl cowtow to those who are not on it. I am not suggesting that they wear armbands (BTW, can you substantiate that claim?). The only think I am suggesting is that we consider the programs as debateable. That’s it really. I just want to be able to debate social spending on with the same deliberation that we debate military spending.
BTW, your wrong about the American dream. It is for everyone. I realize that some people (yes, even through no fault of their own) do not realize that dream. But it is not simply for those fortunate enough to be born into the right family, or lucky enough to stumble on the right opportunity. The American dream is predicated on 2 things. That working hard enough at the correct sort of career will produce financial success. This simply means that what you create, you have earned. It implies that others will be free to purchase your services or goods, and that you will be allowed to keep such rewards. Secondly, it is predicated on the freedom to chose for yourself how hard to work, and what to work at. That is, your freedom to offer whatever services you want and the everyone elses freedom to pay for (or not) those services are all that are required. Simply go back to your own statistics and notice that welfare has only ever been needed by 5 or 6 percent of the country. If the American dream were limited to those with rare gifts, luck, or heritage, then you’d expect far more people to be destituted.
I think that you guys are profoundly misunderstanding me. I am not trying to say that everyone could avoid poverty if they simply worked harder. I have said many times that I understand that some people are truly unable to fend for themselves. All I am saying is that this is not true for the vast majority of us. Making welfare an entitlement makes it harder to tell who really needs the money, and who needs some other form of assistance.
Let me ask you about this:
Do you really mean “for whatever reason”? Really? You don’t acknowledge at all that some people are poor out of choice or personal failings of their own making?
Look, once again, I am not advocating that tomorrow we stop providing welfare or social security. I am looking farther down the road. In 50 years, the current level of social services will become ruinously expensive. Medical advances will require more and more medical spending. The changing demographics in the developed world will mean that fewer and fewer people will be working to support more and more. The way things stand right now, there is no way we will make the hard decisions we have to to prevent a huge disaster. The only solution is to find ways to help people without simply writing them a check (on someone else’s account).
I’m a complete liberal, but I take a wild view on some things… I think that considering the idea of people working harder with incentive, I feel that parents on welfare who have children doing exceptionally well in school should get increased payouts.
You wouldn’t necessarily cut funding for other children, but this would be a bonus. Even though poverty spans races, you could look at this as a form of reparations.
This is a drive-by so please don’t expect me to defend this realistically. It’s a daydream of mine.
The way I see it, the burden is spread out over millions of “complete strangers” rather than falling on a few individuals who are likely to be in the same boat as the person in need.
But what will get people off of public assistance and into good, stable, high-paying jobs, so that they can support the system rather than being supported?
Only through education can we ensure that these people can have a better future and only through government assistance that they will get it. How else can they afford tuition, or books, or childcare while going to school-- not to mention food, shelter, and transportation?
I think this is a very nice notion in theory, but it doesn’t quite work out that way in the real world. Sure, some people make it against all odds-- they write articles lauding them in The Reader’s Digest but part of the reason why they’re article-worthy is the fact that it’s so rare to succeed against all odds.
But where does one get the career?
Successful people usually had an “edge” over the rest of the herd:
1)They had a college education, perhaps with internships and practicums in their chosen field. Mind you, college is not for everyone. Some people simply aren’t smart enough to make the cut. Secondly, one has to be prepared for college in highschool-- reading comprehension, good study habits, and a general basis of knowledge which they will be assumed to have once they reach the collegiate level. A sad number of schools do not adequately prepare students. Thirdly, a sad number of parents do not encourage their children to excel in school. Some parents actively deride education and resent it if their children appear to be saying their lifestyle isn’t good enough by wishing to better themselves. It is extremely difficult and takes an incredibly determined person to overcome things like this. Yeah, it can be done. There’s always those inspirational stories, but those sort of people are rare. Too often, people fall victim to discouragement and hoplessness.
As I mentioned before, the successful most likely had access to good nutrition and medical care. They’re most likely not disfigured by preventable ailments, nor do they fall sick as often as those with little or no care.
They have appropriate clothing for business situations. Acquiring a wardrobe of nice clothes is not cheap, even if one shops at the Salvation Army-- it requires an outlay of cash which for some is insurrmountable. These are people who have to chose between food and trash bags, let alone buying a suit.
They have reliable transportation. I’ve personally seen instances where a person gets a job, only to be fired or forced to quit when their car breaks down and they cannot find alternate transportation. Not all places have busses or metros, and taxi cabs can be very expensive.
They have been taught polite social discourse. Some people genuinely have no idea how to express themselves politely. “What do you want?” is a perfectly valid question to ask a customer, but it’s more correctly phrased, “May I help you?” This knowledge is not innate. People must be taught polite conversation, not to mention decent grammar and restraint on slang.
To a certain extent, they must be servile. It is very difficult for some in the poorer classes where “respect” is a matter of combat if not properly signified (much as the knights of the middle ages thought of their “honor”) to accept being berated by a supervisor. It’s even more difficult in situations where the two people interacting are of different races, where a person may feel (validly or not) that racism has more to do with the chastisement than does performance.
There are many more factors involved, such as nepotism or family “favors” which get people into their starting positions. Where they go from there is up to them, but they got an extra bump in life which helped them get started. A guy just doesn’t stumble in off the street and find him self as a vice-president of the company. He gets there, not only through hard work, but through the assistance of a support network in the background. Without one, it’s tough going indeed.
And I believe that the more successful you are, the more you should give back to the community which gave you the opprotunities, thus our graduated tax system. Sure you should be able to enjoy your success, but being part of a community means that you’re obligated to your fellow members. You don’t just shrug them off as you climb the ladder-- you must help pull others up with you. You may be at the top of that ladder, and from that position, you should be able to pull others at least up to the first rung.
True, but some cannot barter their services for what they are worth. Many minimum wage jobs involve heavy labor of the dirtiest and monotonous kind-- work that I wouldn’t do for ten times the amount that they earn.
Well, to be fair, not everyone who needs help gets it. People can be denied benefits for a host of reasons, or be too proud to accept help in the first place. Secondly, even with government assistance, life is sometimes an incredible struggle. I used to deliver Meals-On-Wheels to the elderly, some of whom only had their Social Security checks to meet their needs. It wasn’t a pretty sight.
Part of the problem of making who gets assistance subjective is that you must trust the judgement of tired, overworked, underpaid and underappreciated state employees who quickly become jaded and cynical. That’s why policies are written, so that the personal opinions of staffers do not become the issue. What if a particular employee is racist, or tries to enforce his/her moral code by denying benefits to those who violate it?
Sure, we could review each and every individual case by committee, but the administration costs would be astronomical. Caseworkers are hardpressed to do their minimum requirements, let alone extra work, involving debating the merits of each individual request. Thousands of new employees would have to be hired, when that money could be going to better uses.
Sure there are, but it’s not my job to punish them for those failings, and not the job of the system to “tsk, tsk” over their bad choices. “You made your bed, so lie in it” is a very cold statement indeed, especially if minor children are dependant on the erring individual. As I said, housing should be something that every American has-- not just the smart ones, or the ones who make good choices, or the ones who follow whatever moral code we think is correct.
And people laughed at Al Gore’s Social-Security-in-a-lockbox statement. Maybe we’d still be in trouble if the surplus had gone to SS instead of being pissed away by the current administration, but we wouldn’t be as bad off as we are now.
I argue that the way to prevent a disaster down the road is actually more social spending: education, job training and placement programs, and better schools along with subsidized, quality child care, free preventive medicine for all, and comminty support centers which, while not replacing federal assistance, would supplement it and ensure that people are having their needs met consistantly.
I also think that something (and admittedly I’m not sure exactly what) should be done about the minimum-wage system which exploits the poor American worker and keeps them in poverty. Something should be done about companies which cheat and abuse their employees.
Of course, the arguments against changing the minimum wage system is that massive upheavals would happen in the form of more expensive consumer goods and inflation. Firstly, perhaps good should be a little more expensive. Americans consume far too much as it is. I know it’s the basis of our economy, but it’s a shaky one. Secondly, inflation can be checked through other means.
Hell, I know it’s not perfect, but something has to be done. You’re preaching to the choir when it comes to our teetering governmental system. The main problem being that we haven’t had a leader since-- well, probably since Roosevelt.
The problem starts with the American people. We’re a NOW, NOW, NOW! culture, who will gleefully vote for a man who will give us a three hundred dollar check, never mind that it may destroy us down the road. We’re painfully short-sighted, and our politicians are such cowards that they not only go with the flow, but actively encourage this sort of viewpoint.
You’re absolutlely right: something must be done. The man who finally stands up to say it will be comitting political suicide, but it must happen, or we’re positively fucked. However, I don’t believe that sacrificing our social programs are a way to accomplish our long-term goals. I think that the ramifications would be disastrous, not just NOW, NOW, NOW, but for generations to come.
It sounds like a nice idea, at first, but it would mostly likely end up a nightmare.
I could see some unscrupulous parents doing the kid’s homework for him, and encouraging cheating.
And quite frankly, even if they didn’t, that’s pretty much putting a lot of responsibility on a child. Can you imagine being told that if you don’t get an A on a test, you’ll cost your family money?
A friend of mine was on welfare because she divorced an abusive husband and had two children to support. She was lucky enough to get into project chance pilot program which paid for childcare for the time she was actually in class, provided she found a way to pay for school and got better than a 3.0 gpa. She managed to get an associates degree and then a job that included health care. That project was amazingly successful, yet it was canceled because people were outraged that people were getting money for childcare and getting welfare. I don’t understand why we seem so determined to make welfare as grindingly oppressive as possible. Why we want to dump people of of it so quickly. As many have pointed out, getting financial aid loans or otherwise is not trivial, if someone manages to do so, why not let them stay on welfare as long as they made progress toward a degree adn got decent grades? Why not provide some childcare for parents who do so? It could actually raise people out of poverty, and in a few years, what they pay in taxes would make up for what they cost the state while going to school.
