I once read this in a letter to Newsweek or TIME:
What would you rather have?
100 needy families?
Or one welfare cheat?
I, for one, would rather feed 1 needy family and 99 cheaters than starve 99 needy families to catch 1 cheater.
Some people feel otherwise.
For the record, I wasn’t referring to Shodan, as he has engaged in debate and earned the “asshole” title. I was referring to the immediate dismissal and asshole label on sghoul’s post with not even the smallest attempt at debate.
Thanks to everyone for not jumping on me and calling me an asshole, for pointing that out though. I was half expecting it.
Okay, my total and honest opinion on this - I have never been on welfare, but I was on unemployment last year - two different things, but it’s just about as difficult to survive on unemployment as it is to survive on welfare if you don’t have any savings.
I don’t begrudge a penny of the money that goes towards welfare. People get into tough spots and you know, someone’s got to help them out. If they need the help to get themselves back on their feet, then give them the help. I desperately needed every unemployment check that came my way last year. If people need food stamps to eat, then give them to them. If they want to buy Mountain Dew and pretzels every week, who am I to say anything? I buy unhealthy things plenty of times. And if they want to have a special occasion every so often and take their kids to McDonalds and a movie - who cares? We all need something uplifting once in awhile in order to keep our spirits up, and I would think that someone on welfare would need those things doubly.
The problem comes, IMO, when people refuse to take any personal responsibility and come to depend on the help. When they don’t take advantage of state-offered education in order to better themselves. When they don’t do everything they can to get themselves off of welfare and become dependent upon it and food stamps. When they assume that the government will always take care of them. That’s when I get annoyed and angry. I think the problem with the current system is that it allows people to become lax. It doesn’t push them to up their marketable skills. That’s where the system needs to be revamped.
Ava
To be fair, avabeth, the current system is designed to keep people from developing (or honing) useful skills. The only programs they let you go do without interfering with benefits are the nearly useless classes they try to force on everyone. Those classes don’t give you marketable skills. Anything beyond that and you will be penalized for not working when you were in class, and you will be ineligible for child care (meaning you have to spend your own money on it). They used to let people do any program up to two years, but too many people managed to get college degrees that way so they cut it to six months, and now I think it’s six weeks.
Our welfare system is designed to keep people down. We yell at people to work to get out of the hole while at the same time keep pushing them back into it. Quite a pathological attitude, isn’t it?
OTOH, IMHO, Kelly that’s too broad of a sweeping brush, too. In my state (MI), the way the ‘work first’ program operates (generally) is that folks who are receiving AFDC are required to participate in Work First in order to continue recieving benefits.
there’s assistance w/preparing applications, assistance w/locatin suitable job leads, transportation assistance (in the form of bus tokens, car repairs at times etc.), clothing assistance if needed (for example, need steel toed work boots in order to start work? they’re purchased for you), other types of assistance on a case by case basis (I once had a couple who did not have basic shampoo, detergent, soap, mouthwash and toothpaste. I got those items for them, and they were both employed w/in a month).
It’s my personal opinion that these sorts of things will assis those who are among the 20 - 60% who wouldn’t be on assistance for any substantial length of time anyhow, the most. But that’s ok by me.
and the way earnings are figured into the mix, everyone is better off if they work at least a few hours per week.
YMMV
Ok, now I’m guessing it is the people who are on welfare 5+ years that are bugging avabeth, is this right? Of that less than 20%, how should we treat those with chronic conditions, mental or physical, which limit their ability to get gainful employment regardless of doing things like “taking advantage of education opportunities”. Can we agree that they can stay on for a lifetime? If not, what would you have them do? If so, then we’re down to <20% of welfare recipients - the number of recipients with chronic conditions which make them virtually unemployable. Anyone have any ideas as to what that second number should be? What I’m trying to do is isolate down the actual percentage of able-bodied and employable people on welfare for 5+ years. This would be the logical next step IMHO.
Suggesting remedies for ending the abuse of the system by a population you know virtually nothing about(if you don’t even know how many of them there are, how can you figure out the ways they abuse the system and make it less abusable?) would seem to be a step to take AFTER you identify if the “deadbeat” population is “too large” in a real, factual, quantifiable sense. Some percentage of fraud will always exist. Maybe the current levels are low enough to be tolerable in a complex system. Still the point is we’d have to get some real figures before we can start arguing if a remedy is necessary at all and that would be a prerequisite to arguing for what form that remedy should take.
I also am of two minds about Kelly’s proposition that some programs are actually barriers to acquiring skills and education. I’ve seen this type of program in action(as soon as you qualify for some alternative form of health care Medicaid cuts out and your private insurance takes over. Sometimes Medicaid would re-imburse you if your co-pays or deductible were outrageous, other times you’d be stuck actually paying a fair bit of money out of pocket with a private plan when if you hadn’t taken that job you would have paid nothing and remained on Medicaid). I typically think encouragement of marketable skills is a good goal for a welfare program to have, but some of the implementations are really poor. Also some of the means-tested programs may help you get back on your feet, but as soon as you’re up they pull the rug out from under you and unless your new job can pick up all the slack immediately you’re every bit as likely to fall back down again. It’s a mess, really.
Enjoy,
Steven
wring, none of that assistance helps you develop “marketable skills”, it just helps to remove minor (but critical) barriers to employability. That helps already-employable people get low-skill positions: the sort of work that will never pay a family wage. It does not help people develop the skills to get the sort of work that does pay a family wage, which is what it really takes to get a family off of welfare. Which is, I believe, part of the structural design of the welfare system.
But often (FME) that’s exactly what is needed in many cases (especially things like transportation assistance etc).
and the ‘training’ programs are available (not as many, I’ll grant you since they can be quite expensive. I can help one person at 3 grand a pop or 5 people at $600)
wring, the families it helps are the ones that hit a pothole in life (layoff, temporary illness, etc.). The effectiveness of these remedies is also dependent on having a strong job market, which was the case in the late 90s but is not the case now. The ones it does not help are the ones that have had a structural change (divorce, death, disability) and need more intensive assistance to make it out.
Steven, it doesn’t bother me. As I said, I’m perfectly happy to contribute my share to welfare because I’ve been pretty lucky in my life and I know not everyone is that lucky. If it’s a chronic medical condition, that’s another story. I have panic disorder and should that get worse at some point in my life, who knows what could happen? I don’t begrudge people the help if they need it. But if a person who is fully capable of working and just needs some help to get themselves back on their feet doesn’t do what they need to do to get themselves there, then who is responsible? I’m saying that everyone needs to take a little personal responsibility. Is this a bad thing in today’s society for someone to try and take charge of their own life to better themselves?
Kelly, I understand that. That’s why I also said the system needs to be revamped. There need to be more opportunities for education made to welfare recipients. I place the blame for that solely on the government - education is important and everyone should have the opportunity to partake of it.
Ava
Did you read my post on this subject? Yes, they provide assistance with the things you mention above. From my experience (and I was IN the system) those only work if you’ve got someone who is completely socially backward and “fresh out of jr. High” ignorant of how to apply for a job, regarding their job skills etc.
I’m not sure, but I bet I’m not the only overqualified well-trained person who found themselves in a bad economy trying to make ends meet on welfare.
I think it was Primaflora who provided me with the percentage link (and thanks again :)). So maybe she/he has more info on the subject but at least 14 years ago when I was struggling within the system, they didn’t have the means to train people for “real” jobs, at least not in my state.
They had plenty of useless “how do dress for an interview,” “write a resume,” “develop work ethics” type stuff. In my experience they had no training available to prepare people for jobs that would actually enable them to obtain jobs that were anything other than deadend ones.
Perhaps that’s changed. The system needs a LOT of work, not to the detriment of the recipients but for their benefit. Especially in areas of Proper training and education.
Do you honestly think that reading a book is going to change my mind?? I have said repetedly that I am not opposed to all types of welfare. I just get pissed off at the abuse in the system. I also get pissed off when people ( YOU ) tell me that I don’t know anything about this topic. Would this be a bit of judging people without knowing them?? Surely not from you.
You may not have a problem with the welfare system and how it works, but that doesn’t mean that no one else can have a problem with it. If we all thought alike we would all essentially be the same person. How boring would life be if everyone was like you, they had the same beliefs and thoughts as you. I am sorry if I have said things that anger you, but its how I feel. I already stated that the system has less abusers than I had originally thought when this thread began. I have learned a bit about welfare and how it works, but I still have the right to have an opinion.
Jarbabyj I never said better = richer.
I attempted a few months ago to apply for some rental/utility assistance at Social Services a few months ago, and got a taste of how hard it is.
I found out I didn’t qualify because my income at the job I had just lost (which I didn’t make very good money at, btw) put me over the qualifying income. Also, in order to even be able to apply and talk to a social worker to find out if you qualify for any kind of aid, you have to go down to the office and wait. As in they tell you to pack a lunch and bring your medications, and even if you show up at 7 in the morning, they might not be able to see you that day, and you’ll have to come back the next day… So, if you’re working even a part-time, low-wage job, or want to attend job training, and therefore can’t sit in their waiting room all day, you’re probably SOL. Also, when you do apply, they only take your income into account- not your outgo. So, if you have rent to pay, bills, medical expenses, it is not taken into account when finding out if you qualify for aid.
I don’t have any experience with the welfare system, just county SS, but I imagine it’s pretty similar. The system does seem to be set up to make it most difficult for a working person who just needs temporary help to get it, and to favor those who just want to “work the system” to get aid because they really don’t want to work. If you don’t have anything better to do than sit on your butt all day in an office once a month waiting your turn, yeah, you can get help. But if you have a job or a vo-tech class to go to, you can’t.
I just don’t get it. The deck is indeed stacked against people who just need a hand-up and in favor of those seeking a hand-out. And don’t tell me that it’s set up this way to weed out those who want to abuse the system. It’s the ones who want to abuse it who are able to jump through all the required hoops, because they have the time on their hands to do it, and it’s painfully obvious to a layman that this is so. You don’t think the Gummint, (local, state, or federal) doesn’t know it too?
I’m sure someone’s already mentioned this, but I’m too lazy to read the thread. But wouldn’t someone on welfare have an awfully hard time getting someone to extend them credit or give them a debit card? Wouldn’t they then need the extra cash to pay for all necessities?
overlyverbose, yes, you’re too lazy to read the thread.
It is very very hard to get on welfare and to stay on it as well.
I live in ontario and I had to go though hell just to get a little bit each month. There was the 1 1/2 phone call where you are screened and asked every question under the sun. Then, IF you live on less than 511 a month as a single adult, you get another apointment. Every little detail is checked out and gone over. Then you might be lucky enough once agian to get somthing, maybe.
I am not trying to bitch about how little get, even though I am.
I am greatful for what I get. Also, as for my “money”, if i wasn’t a full time student with a part time job, I would have spend all of my time volunteering. Its more of a pay cheque than a handout.
**
Well, apparently not.
You have an opinion on a subject based on “facts”. You find out that the "facts’ you’re basing your opinion on are totally false. Grossly exaggerated. Pulled out of your bum. So - do you change your opinion to reflect the new ACCURATE facts? No. You just decide to ignore the actual truth of the issue so you can maintain your prejudice.
Obviously your ignorance is entirely too far gone for a single book.
Actually, I think that would be pretty cool. I’m hilarious. 
Really honey - don’t flatter yourself. I’m not even remotely angry. Totally flabbergasted at your complete refusal to adjust your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is incorrect, but certainly not angry.
jarbaby - she clearly couldn’t associate richer with better 'cus I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth, so she should LOOOOOOOVE me. Uh huh.
Canvas - I posted a link w/percentages of folks on welfare length of time (If that’s the link you’re talking about).
Did you see where I stated that I work w/in the system??? Hmmm?? I ran a Work First program for a number of years. I still work in conjunction w/the programs in my area. I work in building that houses a large urban work first program. My co-horts are folks who run Work First Programs.
It’s just ducky that you personally didn’t think you needed the interview classes, employability things etc. The great majority of the folks that I personally witnessed did. and thought they didn’t. (not claiming that you needed same).
and, they do have some specific training available, not much because it’s very, very expensive.
But From My Experience of over ten years working in and around that system, having meetings with the folks work with the folks, yes, indeed, the things I mentioned were exactly what was needed in the great majority of the cases.
wring, my objection to the interview classes, etc. is that they often force people to take them who don’t need them. This can actually make it take longer for that person to get off welfare – as the time they spend in the class could cause them to miss an opportunity.
Also, in many places those classes are used mainly as an excuse to kick people off welfare entirely, the classes being mandatory and all that. Just schedule the class on short notice (I’ve even seen after-the-fact scheduling notices sent – I have actually seen caseworkers tell the computer to override notices required by law in order to accelerate the process of kicking people off welfare) and then kick the individual off for “failing to attend class”.
Anecdotal, and experiences vary wildly, but here was my experience with one of the “work encouragement” programs that went hand in hand with welfare in Texas a few years ago. My wife and I were non-traditional students with two small children. We had student housing and financial aid and we were fortunate enough not to have a car payment, but we were still short, especially at the end of a semester and over the summer. We applied for food stamps and we qualified for cash aid. We were told that to get the cash aid one of us would need to be working 30 hours a week. If we didn’t have a job they would accept community service. The jobs they had to offer were things like being a go-fer for the local medical clinic and lawn maintenance. 30 hours of lawn maintenance work on top of a student’s schedule(which wasn’t even possible really because the daytime nature of both pursuits).
We chose to get student loans because we figured getting the education was our primary goal and years of work experience as a lawn care engineer or a “medical clinic volunteer” wasn’t going to be as marketable as an actual degree. This is the type of thing I thought of when I heard Kelly say that these “work encouragement” programs don’t really build marketable skills or help someone become gainfully employed. Employed, sure, gainfully employed, though, is a different thing.
Enjoy,
Steven