Welfare: Good or Bad?

[Repub05]

I live in state that's pretty generous about handing out fat welfare checks. Personally I think the system is being screwed over by too many fat sluts who spend more time on their backs with the mailman then out trying to get a job, or trying to make something of their lives.

Is the initial purpose of the Welfare Program good? Yes I think so, in certain cases, for example:

If a construction worker brakes his legs and can't work for a while, but has a family to support, should he be financially supported until he can work again? I think so.

But it seems to me like there are more able-bodied citizens using the Welfare system as a primary source for income (some for generations) then there are people who actually need it.

What kind of life would that be anyway?

My names Bertha, I live in a trailer park, and instead of actually trying to make something out of my life, I'd rather pump out a few more kids in order to get welfare benefits.

(Not that they would speak english that well but you get what I mean)

What these white trash mamas fail to realize is that there is no warehouse full of cash especially made for them. The money that comes in a welfare check is money that we work hard for, that we earned by getting ahead in our lives.
Now tell me, why should we have to work our asses off when they don't? We have kids too, We've had hard times too, and I'm pretty sure most of our immigrant ancestors were poor too, but did they sit on their asses and use others hard-earned cash for bon-bons?

:roll:

 

[anomaly]

I live in state that's pretty generous about handing out fat welfare checks. Personally I think the system is being screwed over by too many fat sluts who spend more time on their backs with the mailman then out trying to get a job, or trying to make something of their lives.

Is the initial purpose of the Welfare Program good? Yes I think so, in certain cases, for example:

If a construction worker brakes his legs and can't work for a while, but has a family to support, should he be financially supported until he can work again? I think so.

But it seems to me like there are more able-bodied citizens using the Welfare system as a primary source for income (some for generations) then there are people who actually need it.

What kind of life would that be anyway?

My names Bertha, I live in a trailer park, and instead of actually trying to make something out of my life, I'd rather pump out a few more kids in order to get welfare benefits.

(Not that they would speak english that well but you get what I mean)

What these white trash mamas fail to realize is that there is no warehouse full of cash especially made for them. The money that comes in a welfare check is money that we work hard for, that we earned by getting ahead in our lives.
Now tell me, why should we have to work our asses off when they don't? We have kids too, We've had hard times too, and I'm pretty sure most of our immigrant ancestors were poor too, but did they sit on their asses and use others hard-earned cash for bon-bons?

:roll:

The fact is that an overwhelming percentage of people who receive welfare are not "fat sluts", as you so lovingly refer to them, but hardworking, but very unfortunate decent people, just like you and me. Has the human race come this far just to deny the needy a second chance in life? If you have a problem with the growing number of obese receiving 'disability' checks in the mail, than I'd say welfare in and of itself is not at fault, rather, you should crusade against fast food.

 

[Lassez-Faire]

Welfare should be abolished so taxes can be reduced.

 

[Repub05]

Did I say the overwhelming percentage of people who receive welfare were fat sluts? NO. I believe they are a growing # of the population that uses the welfare program and most just have babies just to receive welfare (besides, you don't probably live in my state, maybe not a state that uses welfare at all, but I do) but I believe I said:

" it seems to me like there are more able-bodied citizens using the Welfare system as a primary source for income (some for generations) then there are people who actually need it."

I should crusade for fast food? Why am I at fault for others eating? People who eat untill they're fat (and even after they're fat) can control their own actions and therefore can control what they eat. I don't want my tax dollars to be sent to the obese people, I want it to be sent to someone, like I originally mentioned, that really needs it, and really does have a disabilty. And besides, who says fat people can't work anyway?

Although the health department refers obesity as a disease ( I don't agree but then again I'm not a doctor) it's not contagious, it can be cured (by excercise and healthy diet, not pills) and the only person who can do that is the fat person. What if I go on that little "crusade"? would they really listen to me? They know they're fat, they now that they'll die if they keep eating junk, they don't need me to tell them that. And like I just said, Why can't you work if you're fat?

 

[GarzaUK]

Did I say the overwhelming percentage of people who receive welfare were fat sluts? NO. I believe they are a growing # of the population that uses the welfare program and most just have babies just to receive welfare (besides, you don't probably live in my state, maybe not a state that uses welfare at all, but I do) but I believe I said:

" it seems to me like there are more able-bodied citizens using the Welfare system as a primary source for income (some for generations) then there are people who actually need it."

Those people who have babies. the welfare program at least lets those children have a decent life and makes sure their is food in their mouths everyday. Welfare programs stop the majority of the very poor from being homeless and maybe having a decent life.

I'd rather a poor man getting money, than a rich man stuffing more bills down his fat wallet. Share the wealth!

I do understand where your coming from though. In the UK there is some familes who don't work - get big checks, more money than some familes who work two jobs for a living. I don't think that is right, but to cut out welfare altogether is heartless.

 

[Repub05]

I am all for helping kids but this is how it is in my state: most of them just have kids just to get the money, not because they want to be responsible for another human's life or to love them and even if they are, the main reason for having them is $$$. I'd hate my mom ( or mum as you would say) if the only reason she had me was so she could get money from other people instead working.

 

[Squawker]

Those people who have babies. the welfare program at least lets those children have a decent life and makes sure their is food in their mouths everyday. Welfare programs stop the majority of the very poor from being homeless and maybe having a decent life.

I live in a welfare State also and the sad news is the children often go without. The parent uses the money to stock up on booze, cigarettes, and lottery tickets. They have to put gas in their run down gas guzzler to be on the road all the time, and run to the doctor every other week. Two dogs in every household to feed, so after that the kids get very little. This is of course a broad generalization, but I have seen it way too often.

 

[Repub05]

And about 'sharing the wealth', if I'm rich, how did I get rich in the first place? I didn't have kids as an excuse for money, I didn't sit on my couch all day, I worked hard to get to where I am. And even I was born rich, someone had to work for that cash, whether it be my father or my mother or grandpas or grandmas.

Let's just pretend for a minute that we all live in a Liberal dream world where we all put our cash in a big bucket and spread the wealth evenly to everyone in the US (or in your case the UK). All the money the rich people worked hard to get is taken away and given to people who didn't do **** their whole lives.
Even though now everyone has the same amount of money, should the rich people who worked hard for their cash earn the same amount of money as the people who didn't do anything?. Is that equal? Is that fair? NO!

 

[Repub05]

I would have to agree with Squawker. Before you say anything UK why dont you ask yourself a question that liberals hardly ever ask themselves: how much of the money is actually going towards the childrens needs? Being that I am a republican in a liberal state with welfare, and that I go to school where there are welfare kids, I know, as well as Squawker, very well what the answer to that question is: There is not a lot of money going towards the kids. Examples of what I've seen are the ones shown above in Squawker's reply, and it seems that the parents direct that money more towards themselves. Therefore it looks to me like that the kids were only born as an excuse to get money from other people, not to be loved. I don't think having children should be an excuse to get welfare anyway. Other people have kids too and they don't go on welfare. My parents didn't have a little money when they started out, but they worked hard (and still are) now they have four kids and they are sucessfull.

Thank you Squawker

 

[bellisaurius]

Repub, On principal, I'm not a fan of welfare, but I can't be against the hand that fed me once either.

I don't think the amount that a mother nets for the extra child can be much of an incentive. In new jersey, I think it's something like $64 a month (I think that could in theory come out to 6 cases of schlitz per month), and $90 in my state. That would be like saying someone has a child for the extra couple hundred dollar tax deduction. Also, about half the states have caps to prevent mothers from benefiting from additional children, so this problem is solved in that sense in many places.

Still, I think it would be better to expand wic or food stamp benefits for those mothers because it's still hard to let the kid suffer for the mother's mess up, and that way, there's no monetary benefit.

 

[stsburns]

If you are ever get to see the movie "Back in Da Hood", a guy states it just right.

"My family has been on Welfare for 4 Generations!"

 

[26 X World Champs]

I live in a welfare State also and the sad news is the children often go without. The parent uses the money to stock up on booze, cigarettes, and lottery tickets. They have to put gas in their run down gas guzzler to be on the road all the time, and run to the doctor every other week. Two dogs in every household to feed, so after that the kids get very little. This is of course a broad generalization, but I have seen it way too often.

You're right, what you wrote was a broad generalization. Without any of us doing research as to the stats on welfare all of our opinions are subjective.

When I read that one poster honestly believes that Welfare should be abolished completely so he can save money on taxes it makes me shudder. I thought that type of evil, prejudiced and small minded thinking went out of people's minds way back in the 1960s. To see that it is still very much alive today is upseting. To not "help those who cannot help themselves" would reduce America to a caste system, in effect, 21st century slavery.

You know there are abuses in the welfare system by the poor just as there are abuses of the tax system by the rich, abuses of the military procurement system by both the military and military contractors, abuses of the political funding system by lobbyists and special interest groups. What's the difference? Based on the absurd logic that Welfare should be stopped completely do we then apply that stupidity to all government programs that have shortcomings?

Under Pres. Clinton the Welfare system was overhauled and improved, dramatically, and everyone benefits from the changes.

Welfare Reform's Fifth Anniversary
Examining the Social, Political and Economic Results

The welfare caseload has dropped to half its peak in 1994. Sources: The Brookings Institution and the Congressional Research Service.

Aug. 22, 2001 -- Five years ago today, a massive overhaul of the nation's welfare system was signed into law. "Welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life," then-President Bill Clinton said as he approved the bill. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act imposed a five-year lifetime limit on assistance to welfare recipients. That cap kicks in this year and next for tens of thousands of families.

Clinton faced vehement protests from some of his staunchest supporters when he signed welfare reform bill. But today, the measures aimed at getting people off assistance and into jobs are generally deemed a success. At its peak in 1996, Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- the main government program providing income assistance to the poor -- had a caseload of 4.55 million families. It is now less than half that.

 

[RightinNYC]

Under Pres. Clinton the Welfare system was overhauled and improved, dramatically, and everyone benefits from the changes.

You neglect to mention that the only reason Clinton did anything is because he was forced into it by the Republicans.

 

[Arch Enemy]

so from what I'm hearing, abolishing welfare would help Americans? Are you that out of touch with reality? There will ALWAYS be cheats in the system.

What are you going to tell those who NEEDED welfare in order to live? "Um.. yeah.. we've just made up our minds, you're not allowed to eat any more, I'd rather have my tax cut, then to feed the hungry." Should we punish all of the needy because you've decided that some "fat-sluts" would do better without help? We shouldn't cut people down, we should help them.

Although the health department refers obesity as a disease ( I don't agree but then again I'm not a doctor) it's not contagious, it can be cured (by excercise and healthy diet, not pills) and the only person who can do that is the fat person.

Disease is:

A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.

Obesity is inheritable and can be passed on.
Is it contagious? Yes it is actually, your mother cooks your food when you're little and she cooks food that is very greasy and unhealthy, if you're young how would you know what to eat or what not to? When you're young all you care about is what tastes the best.
It's been proven that Obesity can be found in genes, so it IS a Disease considering it is a genetic defect.
It's also been proven that people a little bit overweight are more likely to live longer then those who are skinny.
You used fat like it's something terrible, considering you used it with a "slut". Why do people see fat people like they're nothing more then useless creatures, the reason why they don't leave home is assholes like you Repub, who'd rather discriminate against them then to help them. When in the years did it become a BAD thing to be fat? I've got friends whom are "fat" or "obese" (deciding what kind of logical person you are) and the only thing that is different is that they've got a disability. You don't throw rocks at the "slow" people at school do you? then why pick fun at obese people?
It's too hard for a person with obesity to get a job, many jobs discriminate against them and turn them away instantly. So their only option is to take welfare.
Tell me, what IS a slut? Unless you're referring to hooker, or prostitute.

 

[Mixed View]

Welfare is good for the people who really need it. It seems to me that some people choose to be poor. Like you chose to drop out of high school. When you're older you choose what foods you eat. You choose who you have sex with. If you're that fat slut and you're poor then it is all your fault.

 

[Arch Enemy]

what if this "fat slut" hasn't been taught better. Her mother is a prostitute and started prostituting her since she was a young child, then what do you say to her? "That since you didn't know better you deserved it?"

Everybody deserves a second chance, what do you think she'll do when we stop getting her welfare? How about the other people who use welfare fairly, what will become of them?

 

[Konqwest]

Welfare is pretty much b/s... The fact that someone can be a working human, and someone can sit at home on welfare and these people can make the same money, is pretty much b/s. Even someone who is working at 7/11 is getting screwed, because atleast they have a job, atleast they are trying to do the right thing by working, but then you have people who sit on welfare and make the same money. I just dont understand how this works its horrible

 

[Arch Enemy]

what if you don't have any legs, or arms? What are you going to do for them? Take them out back and shoot 'em?

 

[MrBob]

what if you don't have any legs, or arms? What are you going to do for them? Take them out back and shoot 'em?

You're absolutely right. I don't think many people, like myself, who disagree with welfare have a problem with Social Security Disability Insurance. That is I have much less of a problem with the government forcing me to donate money to someone who is ACTUALLY UNABLE TO WORK. Not being able to find work within the 6 months of unemployment insurance coverage after losing your job is another matter. I'm not a very strong believer in UI, but I do consider it to be volumes less damaging to our society than welfare.

To me welfare and disability compensation are two completely different things. If they were the same thing, why do we need both welfare and the Social Security Disability Insurance program? I say we get rid of welfare and use part of the money that currently goes to welfare into bolstering the SSDI.

I believe society as a whole is damaged by the welfare system. Not just the taxpayers are damaged by it, but the individuals who receive it. Instead of going in depth into this, here is a link that shows some of the damages welfare causes to our society
http://www.jesbeard.com/w4.htm

But here comes the tricky part. I have identified the welfare system as a problem, but what of the problems inherent in dismantling the welfare program? My answer, and I'm sure it's far from perfect, would be something I've dubbed "The Hardship Workers Act". The idea behind it is that if you had little enough money to be accepted to the welfare roles, you could instead apply for the title of being a hardship worker. Certain employers, notably manual labor, would be able to hire these workers at 50% of minimum wage. This would serve two purposes actually.

1. It would mean the previously unemployable would actually be desired as workers.
2. It would substantially cut down on the amount of illegal workers in this country.

It is my belief that the majority of those who employ illegal workers would rather be employing Americans, unfortunately it simply isn't cost effective. This would make it cost effective for those companies, especially if we gave the companies who employed hardship workers some form of tax break.

I know it's short on details and I'm sure it will be attacked on that basis, but as a bare bones idea I honestly believe that this is a workable solution to the welfare problem.

 

[anomaly]

You're absolutely right. I don't think many people, like myself, who disagree with welfare have a problem with Social Security Disability Insurance. That is I have much less of a problem with the government forcing me to donate money to someone who is ACTUALLY UNABLE TO WORK. Not being able to find work within the 6 months of unemployment insurance coverage after losing your job is another matter. I'm not a very strong believer in UI, but I do consider it to be volumes less damaging to our society than welfare.

To me welfare and disability compensation are two completely different things. If they were the same thing, why do we need both welfare and the Social Security Disability Insurance program? I say we get rid of welfare and use part of the money that currently goes to welfare into bolstering the SSDI.

I believe society as a whole is damaged by the welfare system. Not just the taxpayers are damaged by it, but the individuals who receive it. Instead of going in depth into this, here is a link that shows some of the damages welfare causes to our society
http://www.jesbeard.com/w4.htm

But here comes the tricky part. I have identified the welfare system as a problem, but what of the problems inherent in dismantling the welfare program? My answer, and I'm sure it's far from perfect, would be something I've dubbed "The Hardship Workers Act". The idea behind it is that if you had little enough money to be accepted to the welfare roles, you could instead apply for the title of being a hardship worker. Certain employers, notably manual labor, would be able to hire these workers at 50% of minimum wage. This would serve two purposes actually.

1. It would mean the previously unemployable would actually be desired as workers.
2. It would substantially cut down on the amount of illegal workers in this country.

It is my belief that the majority of those who employ illegal workers would rather be employing Americans, unfortunately it simply isn't cost effective. This would make it cost effective for those companies, especially if we gave the companies who employed hardship workers some form of tax break.

I know it's short on details and I'm sure it will be attacked on that basis, but as a bare bones idea I honestly believe that this is a workable solution to the welfare problem.

So in effect you wish to lower minimum wage. You do realize that those employees already working in manual labor at higher salaries would likely be disposed of, to make room for these "hardship workers"? In order to compete effectively in all areas of the job market (I doubt manual labor would be the only area for your hardship workers) the government would have to end up lowering minimum wage again and again, or risk the possibility of jobless rates increasing. What could happen is the minimum wage disappearing completely, which I'm sure you don't want to see, but I'm also sure you realize that with your plan it is possible. Hello 1920s.

Instead of hurting skilled workers to make room for welfare recipients, why don't we simply help the welfare recipients and leave laborers alone? First, minimum wage should be raised, not lowered, in order to really help the poorest among us. Set up a welfare program just like we have now, except instead of strict limits on welfare, make the wlefare gradually dissappear after a year or so, disappearing at rate proportional to the size of the family of course. This will make it clear to the welfare recipient the he'd better get out there and find a job once the welfare checks gradually decrease. Of course, this plan is far too vague and general. There would have to be special implications for single parent homes, among other things. But really, the idea is to help more, not less.

While I sputter that out off the top of my head, I would still argue that poverty is a permanent part of life as long as a money economy exists. For this reason, we should advance to socialism, a base from which communism may possibly be achieved. But even with the nationalization of industry, we could make sure everyone has a home (one problem), and likely greatly reduce poverty (two problems) with federal assistance and federally run redistribution programs.

 

[RightinNYC]

So in effect you wish to lower minimum wage. You do realize that those employees already working in manual labor at higher salaries would likely be disposed of, to make room for these "hardship workers"? In order to compete effectively in all areas of the job market (I doubt manual labor would be the only area for your hardship workers) the government would have to end up lowering minimum wage again and again, or risk the possibility of jobless rates increasing. What could happen is the minimum wage disappearing completely, which I'm sure you don't want to see, but I'm also sure you realize that with your plan it is possible. Hello 1920s.

Instead of hurting skilled workers to make room for welfare recipients, why don't we simply help the welfare recipients and leave laborers alone? First, minimum wage should be raised, not lowered, in order to really help the poorest among us. Set up a welfare program just like we have now, except instead of strict limits on welfare, make the wlefare gradually dissappear after a year or so, disappearing at rate proportional to the size of the family of course. This will make it clear to the welfare recipient the he'd better get out there and find a job once the welfare checks gradually decrease. Of course, this plan is far too vague and general. There would have to be special implications for single parent homes, among other things. But really, the idea is to help more, not less.

While I sputter that out off the top of my head, I would still argue that poverty is a permanent part of life as long as a money economy exists. For this reason, we should advance to socialism, a base from which communism may possibly be achieved. But even with the nationalization of industry, we could make sure everyone has a home (one problem), and likely greatly reduce poverty (two problems) with federal assistance and federally run redistribution programs.

I agree with your first paragraph

 

[anomaly]

I agree with your first paragraph

All I do in my first paragraph is criticize this good fellow's idea. You agree with the criticisms? If so, perhaps you're beginning to see the light.

 

[RightinNYC]

All I do in my first paragraph is criticize this good fellow's idea. You agree with the criticisms? If so, perhaps you're beginning to see the light.

I just think the idea of lowering the minimum wage is foolish.

 

[casper_t_f_g]

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.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

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.

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...?