Welfare: Good or Bad?

[GarzaUK]

No need for welfare...if "one" actually had a job & "one" would get laid off "one" would get unemployment for 6 months & the unemployment office would even get "one" some job references...BUT, all this is under the presumption "one" actually wants to work.

...at least that's how it works in Ohio.

Oh, I know someone is about to scream "what about the kids?"

Having children with the inability to support them should be a crime. Child endangerment...?

What if your town/city fonz started to suffer economically and as a result, people started to get fired - including you. And you had a family to provide for, no jobs you qualify for are in the area - what are you going to do? Are you then a criminal as you point out?

There are abusers of the system, but not all people you use welfare are abusers.

I've heard about living in Ohio and I've heard nothing good about it. No offense.

 

[anomaly]

I agree with Garza. LEt's look at Flint Michigan as an example. Most of the workers there used to be employed by GM. Then, GM got the bright idea to move the factory if Flint to Mexico (those humanistic CEOs!). As a result, Flint is in some tumultuous economic times, and they are in much the same situation as Carza describes. Are all of the laid offf workers suddenly criminals Arthur? Because they were fired, and happen to have children, the parents should be thrown in general, for needing welfare? Also, Garza is right in that most of the people on welfare are not abusing it. In fact, if you actually ask some people on welfare if they enjoy being on welfare, you'll find that the vast majority do not want to be on welfare. It's a safety net for the public, it's really no problem.

 

[RightinNYC]

I agree with Garza. LEt's look at Flint Michigan as an example. Most of the workers there used to be employed by GM. Then, GM got the bright idea to move the factory if Flint to Mexico (those humanistic CEOs!). As a result, Flint is in some tumultuous economic times, and they are in much the same situation as Carza describes. Are all of the laid offf workers suddenly criminals Arthur? Because they were fired, and happen to have children, the parents should be thrown in general, for needing welfare? Also, Garza is right in that most of the people on welfare are not abusing it. In fact, if you actually ask some people on welfare if they enjoy being on welfare, you'll find that the vast majority do not want to be on welfare. It's a safety net for the public, it's really no problem.

You have no idea what you're saying.

So, GM shouldn't have had the right to move their plant to Mexico?

It's funny, because for as unhappy as the workers in Flint were, I bet they would have been JUST as unhappy if GM had been forced to close the plant because of sagging sales.

At least this way, the workers in Mexico were happy.

What exactly was wrong with this?

 

[Citizen]

My problem with welfare is simple--it provides a reward for doing nothing. That is not to say that everyone who receives welfare does not need it, but there is a mentality among some that if you get to know the rules and milk the system, you just might never have to work again.

Welfare should have a strict time limit. You get up to 6 months of help when you hit hard times, but there should be a lifetime maximum of help you can get. Any long-term welfare should be protected and very closely monitored.

Most people don't milk the system. Those that do ought to be prosecuted. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. All forms of welfare is not bad. I think that most states are getting stricter with welfare reform and all. It is really hard these days to get welfare. I think that giving welfare out freely takes away the responsibility of the family in caring for one another, but in some cases welfare in needed.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

What if your town/city fonz started to suffer economically and as a result, people started to get fired - including you. And you had a family to provide for, no jobs you qualify for are in the area - what are you going to do? Are you then a criminal as you point out?

There are abusers of the system, but not all people you use welfare are abusers.

I've heard about living in Ohio and I've heard nothing good about it. No offense.

Gee...I've been laid off 6 times in my life & only twice did I collect unemployment. Why? Because I got another job within a week the other 4 times. 2 of those time I actually got another job the same day I was laid off. The last time I got laid off I started my own business (actually, my wife was already in business for herself. I just came in & helped her triple the size of the business in about a year). I did that until a better opportunity came along. I currently drive an hour to work everyday to provide for my family. I have actually heard people tell me that they couldn't or wouldn't do that. It's too far to drive. You see; some of us will actually do what it takes to provide for our families while some others will complain no matter what.

As far as the criminality of having children...I was referring to those already on welfare who continue to have more children as a means of getting more benefits. Or, those who have children while in a position of not being able to care for them. Anyone can lose a job & that's why we have unemployment. It lasts for 6 months. If you can't find a job in 6 months you aren't looking very hard. Yeah, that means you might have to take a job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart or even both just to make ends meet until something better comes along.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

I agree with Garza. LEt's look at Flint Michigan as an example. Most of the workers there used to be employed by GM. Then, GM got the bright idea to move the factory if Flint to Mexico (those humanistic CEOs!). As a result, Flint is in some tumultuous economic times, and they are in much the same situation as Carza describes. Are all of the laid offf workers suddenly criminals Arthur? Because they were fired, and happen to have children, the parents should be thrown in general, for needing welfare? Also, Garza is right in that most of the people on welfare are not abusing it. In fact, if you actually ask some people on welfare if they enjoy being on welfare, you'll find that the vast majority do not want to be on welfare. It's a safety net for the public, it's really no problem.

The workers were not FIRED. Laid off & fired are two completely different things.

When did GM move to Mexico? Think about NAFTA & who signed it into law.

Why did GM want to move? Not just to Mexico but out of Flint...?...you think maybe because they were paying a broom pusher 20+ dollars per hour...?

 

[Pacridge]

The workers were not FIRED. Laid off & fired are two completely different things.

When did GM move to Mexico? Think about NAFTA & who signed it into law.

Why did GM want to move? Not just to Mexico but out of Flint...?...you think maybe because they were paying a broom pusher 20+ dollars per hour...?

Not all that different to the person now short a paycheck.

 

[anomaly]

The workers were not FIRED. Laid off & fired are two completely different things.

When did GM move to Mexico? Think about NAFTA & who signed it into law.
Why did GM want to move? Not just to Mexico but out of Flint...?...you think maybe because they were paying a broom pusher 20+ dollars per hour...?

Oh come on. Clinton was economically conservative. Using him in defense is just hurting your cause. NAFTA is a very fiscally conservative trade agreement.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Oh come on. Clinton was economically conservative. Using him in defense is just hurting your cause. NAFTA is a very fiscally conservative trade agreement.

Just proves I don't subscribe to everything conservative.

Doesn't hurt my case at all.

Your democrat president signed something into law that was not a good idea. I don't care how many conservative republicans liked the idea most blue collar workers knew it was going to be their demise. Just goes to show you that even your precious democrats aren't for the laborers as they claim. I just get tired of Bush being blamed for things that were obviously notof his doing.

By the way; though I consider myself conservative I do not subscribe to all that is conservative nor am I a republican. I have always been independent.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

But then think of what is the cost of not having free trade. Essentially having laws against outsourcing is essentially passing into law who companies need to purchase labor from. Economically speaking, that'd be like there being a law that you have to buy an American TV, even though the foreign ones are cheaper and work just fine.

I'm sure we all can see that "trade" is a lot more complicated than just being for or against NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc.

We were sold a bill of goods about NAFTA that was a bold face lie. The line of crap that so many Americans fell for was the idea that free trade with Mexico & Canada would mean more intermediate parts factory work for us to supply this new demand in the other two countries. These new factories in Canada & Mexico would be there to supply those countries with complete products (primarily assembly plants). All we got was the current intermediate parts companies just shifted where they shipped their parts to.

I am not saying that all "free trade" agreements are bad. It just so happens we haven't yet entered into one that's been equal in it's rewards to the laborer of the countries involved.

It's not even just about the cost of labor. If that were the case why has nothing dropped in price? Minus the labor savings; add in the shipping cost...air, ocean, trucking, rail, etc. Then there's the pollution restrictions put on business here in America...of course that saves money by moving production to less restrictive places.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I am not an isolationist. I'm just tired of being sold down the river by our representatives.

A quick novel idea. Free trade with foreign companies...BUT, not for American companies moving operations overseas just to re-import their product back to the states...especially when that product used to be made here.

I know that sounds overly simple...but it's a start.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Not all that different to the person now short a paycheck.

No different?

Fired...employee fault...no unemployment check

Laid-off...not employee fault...unemployment compensation for 6 months.

No need for welfare if one is really looking for a job.

 

[TJS0110]

I think wellfare is good and bad. Its good when its used right. When the money goes to people who cant work becuase of illness or disability. The problem is that people often simpley just stop working and cheat wellfare. They dont work and lie about the facts of there liveing situation to get more money. If people were honest and only used wellfare for what its made for then we would have a problem. People in this day and age are fine with liveing off of someone elses tax money. I think wellfare is good but we need to fix it's loopholes.

 

[TJS0110]

No different?

Fired...employee fault...no unemployment check

Laid-off...not employee fault...unemployment compensation for 6 months.

No need for welfare if one is really looking for a job.

You make a good point but what about people who cant work due to the fact that they are disabled? Not in the sence that would allow them disability but in other ways? However you make a good point.