ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:17 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Arbiet Macht Frei: The Welfare Question
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:27 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Edit: Revised to look prettier, flow more logically, etc. This is my final product, which I am submitting to my soc instructor, who I hope will bump it up to some place where I can get noticed. All ideas here are of course my intellectual property, and since I have several witnesses here and faculty to back me up on me being the originator of these ideas, taking any of these without proper credit to the author (that'd be me) is considered a crime, etc etc, I know none of you people are actually gonna do it but it never hurts to say so.

Arbiet Macht Frei: The Welfare Question
By Santiago Valenzuela

(Ed. Note -- yes, the title and subtitle were both intentional, since I was called a nazi multiple times for suggesting that welfare was immoral. Go fuck yourselves, lefties.)

“Do not bite the hand that feeds you” is an old adage which is violated day in and day out in America today. This is the process of welfare and the mentality that advocates use to justify the massive expenditures on it. US Census Bureau and IRS data clearly shows that that welfare has, in fact, failed utterly in its stated goal. Not only has it failed, but it perpetuates the very problem is attempts to mitigate. Lastly, it is an immoral practice, contradictory to our culture of capitalism, and undermining core American principles.

Welfare is a failed social experiment. The purpose that welfare was created for was to help mitigate the problem of the underclass; those chronically unemployed, people who could not find jobs and who needed help to get along while they could. The theory was that people were only in the underclass because they could not scrape up the resources to properly feed and shelter themselves and thus were more concerned with fulfilling those needs by whatever means necessary, and not with getting a job.

However, the following statistical data from the US census bureau seems to suggest otherwise: disregarding the Great Depression as a statistical anomaly and not representative of any particular “trend” within American society, the standard of living (as measured in 2002 dollars) has gone up fairly constantly since the civil war; welfare has not accelerated this process in any perceptible way. Rather, the standard of living has gone up almost every year, with larger jumps during big booms in the economy (World War II, the Dot-Com era of business, etc.) For example, from 1984 to 1990, in the middle of an economic depression, the amount of people making less than $25,000 a year as a percentage of the total population went down by 2.9%: during the previous 6-year period, it went down by 12.6%. From 1990 to 1996, after the Reagan increases in medical benefits and during the dot-com boom, the percentage of the total population making less than $25,000 dollars stayed about the same. However, after welfare reform in 1996, where approximately 20 million dollars was cut from welfare and many states instituted harsher penalties for abusing the welfare system, during the economic depression that began when Bush took office and was made worse by the attacks on 9-11, the percentage of the total population making less than $25,000 a year shrunk by 1.9%, despite the economic depression gripping the nation. Similarly, the percentage of the total population living below the poverty thresholds also went down after welfare reforming, after having reached a 37-year high in 1993 at 15.1%, down to a mere 12.1% in 2002. Thus, during an economic boom but when welfare was much easier to get and maintain, and just after social services had been increased significantly, poverty had gone up significantly and people weren’t becoming richer, contrary to the overall trend in American society since the civil war. However, once welfare was reformed significantly, even an economic downturn could not stop people from becoming richer; more of the underclass were able to claw their way out of their state of absolute poverty, and those who were able to support themselves were generating more income.

This data suggests two things – one, that welfare is an ineffective means of combating the problem of the underclass, and two, that welfare apparently propagates this same social problem. Antidotal evidence suggests that the reason welfare propagates the underclass because of a lack of motivation to actually move up in the social ladder. A woman on welfare in Florida was quoted as saying “I have never worked a day in my life and I don’t intend to.” Given this attitude, and combined with the astounding number of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation welfare recipients, the motivating factor in people not getting off of welfare appears to be that they do not mind having a bare sustenance every month; they merely wish to get by on as little work as possible. The idea of welfare was to support the chronically unemployed, those too disabled to get proper work, and those in a state of temporary poverty. The system has, however, clearly lead to more of all of the former two than if welfare had never been instated at all. This is shown by the fact that after welfare was increased, and during an economic boom, poverty and amount of income were negatively affected; after it was cut drastically, and during a slow economic time, people became more prosperous and fewer were poverty-stricken.

Welfare also punishes those who succeed. In this capitalistic society, a person who makes a lot of money every year has succeeded in running a business, the foundation upon which this society runs. Without businesses succeeding, America would crash into a state of absolute poverty as people would have to be self-sufficient and force, rather than exchange of value, was the means by which goods exchange hands. However, Welfare is a large contradiction to the capitalist ideal of exchanging value for value, whether that be money for food or labor for money. These people are given free handouts, no strings attached, with no compunction to pay it back. This is a huge moral precedent, and once taken to its (il)logical conclusion, you see a world in which it is more beneficial to stay unemployed, and leech of the extremely wealthy, than it is to seek employment. When someone says it is the moral responsibility of those who have to support those who do not, you are starting a downward spiral where failure is rewarded, and where success is penalized, the more successful being given the largest burden of failures to carry. This kind of system will eventually self-destruct as those successes either collapse under the strain of people who see it is easier to simply not work, or simply refuse to carry the burden of someone who has earned nothing.

In conclusion, Welfare was a drastic measure undertaken to attempt to keep morale up in the country during the Great Depression. It has shown, however, to aggravate the very problems it was supposed to help mitigate: the underclass, those chronically unemployed who you see subsisting on welfare, going through the motions of looking for work but never really staying in any one job long. The data shows that the only thing motivating those chronically unemployed to go out and get employment is the threat of starvation or death; remove these two very powerful motivators, and you in fact create a new underclass: a collection of sponges demanding that they be supported by those who have the drive to succeed.

The solution to this problem is twofold: first, abolish welfare entirely, from top to bottom scrapping the entire social experiment. Second, because some people actually do need a chance to get on their feet, establish a personal loan office of the government, which will grant a single low-interest loan to any person in financial hardship, with payments delayed for a reasonable period of time, adjusted for the state of the economy. These loans will be small (enough to live off of reasonably for a single year, at most,) and should be paid off in short order: 5 or 6 years seems reasonable. This debt should not be able to be erased by bankruptcy declarations, as it is special government aid. This way, rather than just handing out money to people, the government gives loans, making sure people can go to school for a year and live, or just look for work if they wish to, but most of all they require that it be paid back with interest. Thus the ideal of our society is upheld: value for value. As well, it forces those people who previously only wanted to live off of their handouts for their entire lives to make a decision: either become a productive member of society, or starve.

Statistics courtesy of the US Census Bureau and IRS. See attached.

(Edit: You can't see it, but the tables I used are Appendix A-1: Households by Total Money Income, Race, and Hispanic Origin of Householder 1967 to 2002 in the US Census Bureau document "Income in the United States: 2002" and appendix A-1: Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2002 of the US Census Bureau document "Poverty in the United States: 2002")

_________________
delenda est communism


Last edited by The Man In Black on Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:41 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
Firstly, I object to the claim that welfare is simply to keep people from starving. Rather, its goal could more broadly be stated as being to make certain that all members of our society have their basic needs met. There is assuredly some argument regarding what those needs are - medical care and education being notable examples. However, I will explicitly include housing in addition to food as being a necessity. This is rather significant. The poverty line is based on the cost of food. Those prices have not changed significantly for several decades, and thus our definition of poverty has remained reasonably steady. However, the cost of housing has skyrocketed during that same time. This is a significant factor in considering poverty rates and one that, to the best of my knowledge, is ignored in most if not all statistical analyses.

Second, I object to the characterization of the welfare system as a method of theft. This is a fallacy - it ignores the basic concept of taxation. Instead, I assert that taxes are the price one pays for the benefits of living within this society and under the aegis of our government. No, not everyone will see equal direct benefits from tax money. However, taxes - in the form of government spending - are used to maintain our society1. They maintain the infrastructure, such as roads, that allows us to perform commerce. They maintain the military that defends our country. THey maintain the police force that protects our citizens and enforces our laws. They maintain the schools that educate our children.... and they maintain the social programs that keep angry mobs from tearing apart mansions. No two people receive the same short-term direct benefits, but we would all suffer from societal collapse.

Quote:
Unfortunately, the stated purpose has been a complete and utter failure. Statistical data from the US census beuro leads me to the following conclusion. Disregarding the Great Depression as a statistical anomaly and not representative of “trends” within the US standard of living, the standard of living has consistently gone up since the civil war; welfare has not had any readily perceptible affect on this standard of living; rather, standard of living has increased every year by variable amounts; industrialization, the boom in the early 80s, etc., have all had noticeable effects on the standard of living (from 1978 to 1984, the amount of people making less than 25,000 dollars (2002 value of the dollar) went down 12.6%; the depression in the 80s, defined here as the period between 1984 and 1990, showed this same statistic go down by only 2.9%. From 1990 to 1996, the dot-com rave, where people who were getting jobs were only people who were getting educated anyway, and thus would have been making more than 25k already, it stayed exactly level (0% change.) From 1996, the year of welfare reform, which cut approximately 20 million dollars from Federal Welfare, to 2002, the latest year the level of income was taken, the percentage of the income-earning households making less than 25k per year went down yet again, this time 1.9% (US Census.)
As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. This entire paragraph utterly fails to relate to the stated goal of welfare. Ask, instead, how many people starved to death, or died of exposure. Ask how many people died because they couldn't get the medical care they needed. I don't have those numbers, but those would be the relevant thigns to know. Notwithstanding, as I mentioned before, that the poverty line has scarce little to do with the actual rate of poverty. Bear in mind that the time periods mentioned also saw a massive boom in property values.

Fourth, the claim given is that the act of receiving welfare, by brekaing the much-vaunted cause and effect relationship between work and wealth in a capitolist society, discourages people from becoming productive. As any student of statistics knows, correlation is not causation. I have yet to see any actual evidence that this is the reaosn people stay on welfare. Now, the claim given is that welfare is intended to "solve" the problem of the underclass. I find this a remarkable claim in that the welfare system does not, itself, address any of the issues that result in people needing welfare. It does not try to rehabilitate our ailing education system. It does not provide scholarships. It does not provide vocational training. It does not keep rising housing costs in check. If there is a failure to welfare it is this. Providing individuals with the means of survival is not a bad goal as such, but it needs to be coupled with a strong effort to amend the situation such that these people are no longer in need of such charity - as it stands, the forces that left these people in such circumstances remain in place, and so the underclass remains condemned to its position.

Now, I will assert that there are people who, by dint of physical or mental disabilities are and will permanently remain unable to do the work necessary to provide for themselves. On this alone I view the complete abolition of welfare as unconscionable. I will further state that there are in fact those who find themselves in need of assistance as a temporary state, and think that providing that assistance is an entirely reasonable service for society to provide. To be sure, there are those who can provide for themselves but instead abuse the system; these people do not, however, provide a case for the abolition of welfare any more than bank robbers make a case for the abolition of banks.

I will close by suggestiong that anyone interested in this subject consider reading Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. It's a quick read, and gives a somewhat different view of poverty.

1- we could argue as to how specific instances of government spending do or do not accomplish this ad nauseum. Nonetheless, this is the goal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:20 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
It is partially because of the capitalistic system we have in place that there is an "underclass" at all. If everyone was born completely equally (in a social and financial sense) I might agree with you, but we arnt. Someone who is born in a poor neighbourhood has to go to a crappy school, and either get the cash together to move out or get a decent job in the place that they come from. The class division means that not everyone gets the same chance at life as everyone else. Its worse in america then it is here: we have rough housing estates and stuff in England, but nothing like the entire "bad neighbourhoods" or "ghettos" you guys have got. I also dont get what your trying to say, here. We should stop welfare because some people on welfare are layabouts and leeches? And then they will just roll over, die, and stop being a drain on society? Bullshit. They'll become criminals and steal their food.

How is it "discouraging" rich people to be rich? Rich people still keep a large portion of their earnings, this isnt communism. Of course people with more money should contribute more money. Its common sense. Even the smartest entrepreneurs build on the backs of the little people. Ok, so I concede you shouldnt hike too much tax on them or they'll just move to Spain or somewhere and avoid paying taxes entirely.

The problem with the proverbial "hand" is that it doesnt feed everyone equally, and those who are lucky enough to be born into a place where they get the biggest portions, object to sharing. I agree the current welfare system is far from perfect, and having the hand feed everyone equally (communism) wouldnt work because of the capitalistic nature of most human beings. But dropping it entirely is rediculous. Out of curiosity, MIB, where were you born? Im guessing you didnt claw your way out of the ghetto and scrimp and save for a computer to post on these boards.

The sad thing is, a perfect welfare sytem (one that catches everyone in the net, educates them, and throws them back into middle class jobs) would not work. A lower class is necessary. Who else is going to sweep the floors and get paid in peanuts. Without a lower class there can be no upper class. Without either of these, we cant all be middle class. I dont like it to the extent Im almost a communist, but I recognise that humans being what they are, capitalism is always going to be The Way (tm).

Other then that, Hasufin said everything that I would say, but articulated himself better, so I wont try to parrot.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:21 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Hasufun wrote:
Firstly, I object to the claim that welfare is simply to keep people from starving. Rather, its goal could more broadly be stated as being to make certain that all members of our society have their basic needs met. There is assuredly some argument regarding what those needs are - medical care and education being notable examples. However, I will explicitly include housing in addition to food as being a necessity. This is rather significant. The poverty line is based on the cost of food. Those prices have not changed significantly for several decades, and thus our definition of poverty has remained reasonably steady. However, the cost of housing has skyrocketed during that same time. This is a significant factor in considering poverty rates and one that, to the best of my knowledge, is ignored in most if not all statistical analyses.


later, you say

Hasufin wrote:
As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. This entire paragraph utterly fails to relate to the stated goal of welfare. Ask, instead, how many people starved to death, or died of exposure. Ask how many people died because they couldn't get the medical care they needed. I don't have those numbers, but those would be the relevant thigns to know. Notwithstanding, as I mentioned before, that the poverty line has scarce little to do with the actual rate of poverty. Bear in mind that the time periods mentioned also saw a massive boom in property values.


Okay, way to contradict yourself in your own fucking post. And poverty thresholds are still a useful measuring stick (see below.)

Go get those numbers: I refuse to do your work for you. I'll give you a hint: they're too small to keep statistics on. People don't starve unless they're invalids left in the streets in this country; even bums can subsist off of panhandling and dumpster diving. I've even seen a family who's parents dumpster-dived for 2 months while looking for some extra work. Sure, its plenty hard work, and its humiliating, but it kept them alive.

Erm, thusly I say in order to starve to death you need to be physically incapable of panhandling or dumpster diving, how many people are actually homeless that are that disables, not many.

As to died of explosure: again, too small a statistic to keep.

Died because they can't get proper medical care: What the FUCK? That is the most vague statistic I have EVER heard, and I could slice it a million different ways. Define more clearly, then get it yourself or don't mention it. I know you're confident a statistic like that would back you up, but until you actually come up with something then I'm afraid I'm going to dismiss your entire arguement as a pile of opinions backed up by jack shit.

I also like how you advocate looking at statistics right after the quote where someone says that statistics are all evil.

Dirty. Communist. Fucking. Lies.

How the Census Beuro Determines Poverty.

It is meant as a statistical yardstick more than a complete and accurate reflection of how much money people need - if anything, given the numbers (in 2003 USDs) it is a bit high. The poverty threshhold is based mostly upon the amount of income people spent on food, leaving enough for housing, etc.; I calculated it myself, and I could theoretically live a little below the poverty threshhold for my category. This in Califonia, where the CoL is rather high.

But yeah, not meant as some exact measure of CoL (in my case a bit high, but maybe I'm just somehow better than everyone) but as an easy measure of how many low-income people.

As a side note, CoL increases would be accounted for; as you get lower-income, less of your income is put into food and more into housing, etc, and as I said I can live off of a little less than the poverty threshhold (this includes yearly rent in a cheap apartment, car payments, food, utilities, 2 college night classes every semester except during the summer and insurance.)

So, please bring up real statistics on how people can't live on at/above the poverty threshhold instead of telling me how they can't when I obviously can.

Hasufin wrote:
Second, I object to the characterization of the welfare system as a method of theft. This is a fallacy - it ignores the basic concept of taxation. Instead, I assert that taxes are the price one pays for the benefits of living within this society and under the aegis of our government.


Okay, simple for you now: what compels you to pay your taxes if you refuse.

In a simple exchange, what you lose is a value you're paying for; if I don't pay my jigabillion dollars in taxes, then the roads I use are obviously not getting that jigabillion to drive on.

However...what actually compels people to pay taxes? It is not that. If I don't pay taxes, I go to jail. Thus, its extorted payment, under threat. If you wish to dress it up as a "price" for being a society (since when did I have to pay admission to a free democracy?) fine, but at its heart it is taking someone's income under threat of sanction. If you wish to pretty it up and put a nice little label and justification over it, thats your business. But taxes are at heart taking of income under duress.

Hasufin wrote:
They maintain the infrastructure, such as roads, that allows us to perform commerce. They maintain the military that defends our country. THey maintain the police force that protects our citizens and enforces our laws. They maintain the schools that educate our children.... and they maintain the social programs that keep angry mobs from tearing apart mansions. No two people receive the same short-term direct benefits, but we would all suffer from societal collapse.


A govt's job is to keep the peace, as it were. (Most notable NOT making sure you live comfortably.) People would volenteer money for these kinds of endeavors; thats what I would prefer, rather than say taking my own involentarily.

But hey, crazy me, wanting to do with my money what I want and such.

Cenwood wrote:
It is partially because of the capitalistic system we have in place that there is an "underclass" at all. If everyone was born completely equally (in a social and financial sense) I might agree with you, but we arnt. Someone who is born in a poor neighbourhood has to go to a crappy school, and either get the cash together to move out or get a decent job in the place that they come from. The class division means that not everyone gets the same chance at life as everyone else. Its worse in america then it is here: we have rough housing estates and stuff in England, but nothing like the entire "bad neighbourhoods" or "ghettos" you guys have got. I also dont get what your trying to say, here. We should stop welfare because some people on welfare are layabouts and leeches? And then they will just roll over, die, and stop being a drain on society? Bullshit. They'll become criminals and steal their food.


Er, if you can't figure out the easily labeled points in my essay, let me do it for you:

1. Welfare perpetuates the underclass, and doesn't reduce it (as it is designed to do.)
2. It discourages the concept of working for one's own bread, in a capitalist society this is an antithetical concept to the basis of how our economy works.
3. Welfare punishes those who succeed
4. Welfare does not do its states goal of helping people to get into higher income brackets

Therefore, since it is a completely useless drain on taxdollars, I say abolish it.

But see, Cen, to get my points you have to pay attention. Since each of these points was basically the first sentence in a paragraph, I guess you've got some kind of disability, which I will call being a goddamn idiot, where you can't get the basic thrust of an article.

Also, its worse in Britain overall, SoL is lower there, people make less money, etc, the choice is do you have a big huge bed of safety so that the poor people don't have motivation to move on up, or you let them see that being poor is bad and let them come to the conclusion whether or not they want to stay there themselves.

So yeah, again ignoring my goddamn article, the point is what motivates the poor people to move up from the underclass isn't welfare, its the fact that they can't afford to have a halfway decent lifestyle, as shown by the statistics I carted out. Pure raw things by the US Census Beuro etc.

Lastly, I'm contending that communism and socialism are the largest perpetuator of the underclass: in Europe, highly socialists states consistantly have double-digit enemployment, and in communist countries you're just all equally poor, rather than having rewards based on merit.

Cenwood wrote:
How is it "discouraging" rich people to be rich? Rich people still keep a large portion of their earnings, this isnt communism. Of course people with more money should contribute more money. Its common sense. Even the smartest entrepreneurs build on the backs of the little people. Ok, so I concede you shouldnt hike too much tax on them or they'll just move to Spain or somewhere and avoid paying taxes entirely.


So...they should pay more out of proportion to their income?

Actually the hardest hit by the income brackets is the upper-middle class, whereas the upper-upper class has tax shelters galore, at least on average more than any other class (there will always be exceptions), the upper-middle class doesn't, and ends up paying the most in proportion to their wealth.

It is discouraging success, not richness. I know several small business owners. One in particular comes to mind: he spent years building up his business, hired 20 people, and finally was making 100,000+ a year. After all the taxes...he asked me "Why did I just succeed if they're gonna take so much of it away?"

He was left with a little under half of his income...he figured if he had stayed in the next lower bracket, he would have made just about the same amount of money after taxes.

So...thats like saying "good job, you succeeded, here's your monetary reward...now...YOINK."

Cenwood wrote:
The problem with the proverbial "hand" is that it doesnt feed everyone equally, and those who are lucky enough to be born into a place where they get the biggest portions, object to sharing. I agree the current welfare system is far from perfect, and having the hand feed everyone equally (communism) wouldnt work because of the capitalistic nature of most human beings. But dropping it entirely is rediculous


Okay, there is no response to this, because its merely a statement, and you give no proof why discontinuing welfare would bad. However, I have given plenty of data (see my essay, just in case you didn't read it: I'm suspecting you didn't) which shows the harm of welfare and its inability to meet its stated goal in even the most basic sense, ie it hurts what it was meant to help.

And how is not feeding everyone equally bad now? Hey, you worked 2.5 hours on the farm, I worked 400, we get the same amount of food?

So why do I work on the farm again, when your ideal system rewards incompetance and punishes success? In fact, what kind of moral system is that, to do that? The entire basis of your system is depending on the successful to succeed because of their drive only; rather than rewarding them for their efforts, you exploit them for the benefit of your own constituency, the poor.

Who's exploiting who, again?

Cenwood wrote:
Out of curiosity, MIB, where were you born? Im guessing you didnt claw your way out of the ghetto and scrimp and save for a computer to post on these boards.


Downey, California. I live in Norwalk and have all my life; the reason I was born in Downey is because that was the closest hospital. West of me (about 4 blocks) is a bunch of cheap rental houses, several of which are drug houses. My high school used to have enough gang violence that my sister refused to go to school often (it was improved by shipping anyone who makes trouble off to El Camino; basically a prison-school). To my east, about 6 blocks, there are 1-room apartments and 1-way streets, the local ghetto. My house is in a little area just away from the drug houses and ghetto, but I walk past both of them often. I graduated from high school early, am attending community college for cheap certs/AA, have a job, and am moving out to be with my fiance soon.

Where were you born, Cen?

Cenwood wrote:
The sad thing is, a perfect welfare sytem (one that catches everyone in the net, educates them, and throws them back into middle class jobs) would not work. A lower class is necessary. Who else is going to sweep the floors and get paid in peanuts. Without a lower class there can be no upper class. Without either of these, we cant all be middle class. I dont like it to the extent Im almost a communist, but I recognise that humans being what they are, capitalism is always going to be The Way (tm).


The problem is it requires people who want to move out of welfare for it to work: if everyone actually was a good citizen and only used welfare for real needs while looking for work, charities could handle most of it, like they did before the great depression.

Welfare was actually introducing during the GD as the charities were overwhelmed with poverty-stricken people.

So in conclusion, give me something solid or don't post again please. I know all your feelings and intuitions for how welfare being removed would be a disaster, but I'd like something showing how before welfare, when we were overall poorer, on the average, that people were all rowdy and evil and such, asy ou seem to imply.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Last edited by The Man In Black on Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:35 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
(written before MiB's above post landed)

Cenwood wrote:
Its worse in america then it is here: we have rough housing estates and stuff in England, but nothing like the entire "bad neighbourhoods" or "ghettos" you guys have got.

don;t be too quick to demonise America, do they have police armed with assault rifles and sub-machine guns regularly on patrol in their "bad neighbourhoods" England does, don't jump to stereotypical conclusions

Cenwood wrote:
We should stop welfare because some people on welfare are layabouts and leeches? And then they will just roll over, die, and stop being a drain on society? Bullshit. They'll become criminals and steal their food.

the lazy passivly abuse the system, the criminals activly abuse it, take that system away and they will activly abuse another, thus:
Hasufin wrote:
To be sure, there are those who can provide for themselves but instead abuse the system; these people do not, however, provide a case for the abolition of welfare any more than bank robbers make a case for the abolition of banks.


those people are not the ones welfare is aimed at, obviously and as such are to be ignored, the ones it is aimed at are:
Hasufin wrote:
by dint of physical or mental disabilities are and will permanently remain unable to do the work necessary to provide for themselves. On this alone I view the complete abolition of welfare as unconscionable. I will further state that there are in fact those who find themselves in need of assistance as a temporary state


people permanently unable to work and people in a temporary state of poverty. So this is in agreement with MiB's aim of the good welfare system, he states it is failing because:
Hasufin wrote:
the welfare system does not, itself, address any of the issues that result in people needing welfare. It does not try to rehabilitate our ailing education system. It does not provide scholarships. It does not provide vocational training. It does not keep rising housing costs in check. If there is a failure to welfare it is this.


by just throwing a weekly handout of money at someone you are not "rehabilitating" them, you are not building a saftey net for them to recover from a fall, only a bed that they can get into and stay there. going back to the Arbiet Macht Frei title of the piece, if there is no need to work, many people will not. as above, criminal activity in this is not a factor, crime is a job, stealing is not the same and sponging

anyway, for those who don't know what taxes are:
Hasufin wrote:
They maintain the infrastructure, such as roads, that allows us to perform commerce. They maintain the military that defends our country. THey maintain the police force that protects our citizens and enforces our laws. They maintain the schools that educate our children.... and they maintain the social programs that keep angry mobs from tearing apart mansions. No two people receive the same short-term direct benefits, but we would all suffer from societal collapse.


now, all those things are good, but by cutting welfare funding taxes we are not cutting taxes to any of those areas are we? in fact by moving the money from a failing welfare system into the above places then we could infact be solving the " issues that result in people needing welfare." Less handouts = more social projects construction? problem solved

anyway, for those who don't know what taxes are II:

Cenwood wrote:
How is it "discouraging" rich people to be rich? Rich people still keep a large portion of their earnings, this isnt communism. Of course people with more money should contribute more money. Its common sense.


a higher amount or a higher %? if you make $10 an hour and are taxed at 70% then you pay the same as a person making $1000 an hour taxed at 70%, the latter hands over $700 to the tax man and the former hands over $7. same percentage but differing toal amount, you make more then you give more, right?

wrong, the 70% only applies to the top incomes, the guy making $10 an hour pays a hugely smaller %, the harder you work the more % you end up paying, that is the slight paradox of the supposidly capitalist system, this is reenforced by the welfare system that says if you dont' work at all you get tax free 'pay'

take this system to it's (il)logical conclusion and you'd have the people with no jobs being payed more than the ones with the best jobs, what's the point in working?

Cenwood wrote:
having the hand feed everyone equally (communism) wouldnt work because of the capitalistic nature of most human beings.


another terrible assumption there, you are what you are socialsed to be, live in a (basicly) capitalist system and you tend to be more capitalist than a person in a more socialist system, norms and values are socially transmitted, not genetically

Cenwood wrote:
The sad thing is, a perfect welfare sytem (one that catches everyone in the net, educates them, and throws them back into middle class jobs) would not work. A lower class is necessary. Who else is going to sweep the floors and get paid in peanuts. Without a lower class there can be no upper class. Without either of these, we cant all be middle class.

The Man In Black wrote:
The theory behind welfare was that it would “solve” the problem of the underclass.

yes, we are talking about the underclass, the people below the lowerclass, welfare is not for people who, as you put it "sweep the floors and get paid in peanuts" it is for the ones who don't even do that, who do not want to be a productive member of society. those who try to get pooly paied subsistance work are the lower class (for want of a 5 page description) and the criminal element are to the side of the class system.

but without an incentive to go out and sweep floors for peanuts, it's easier to just stay at home and get those peanuts, prehaps more even, given to you by the state, while Arbiet [i]does[/] Macht Frei, so, to an extent, does sitting in from of the tv all day. which would you rather do?

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I so wanted to say embetterment.
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:16 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
If anyone wants proof that welfare has not helped the lower class to anything more than staying in the lower bracket, all one has to do it look at the number of 4th and 5th generation welfare recipients out of the total of welfare recipients. Flat out, people are having more kids so they can get a bigger check and not have to go out and do anything. They live in housing projects because they can get it without working. Their children, by proxy, don't ever learn the benifits of working and end up in the same position. A proper welfare system would be one wherin the recipient must work towards bettering themselves in order to recieve aid. Aside from the disabled, unless you are willing to help yourself, no checks for you. My uncle has a bumper sticker that says it best: "I fight poverty. I work."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:44 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 820
Location: An Unforgiving World Overrun by Poverty, Drug Abuse, Nepotism, and Ninjas...
Question: How do Food Stamps work into this?

_________________
<sarevock> I think my eyes started bleeding.
<NebbieQ> Bleeding is just another word for love.
<sarevock> ¬¬
* sarevock runs away from NebbieQ
<NebbieQ> But I just want to make you love me. ;_;


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:13 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Food stamps are covered under welfare statistics.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:43 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
I did not, and do not mean that all statistics are evil. Please try to encompass the concept of a moderate viewpoint here.
What I mean, in reference to statistics, is thus: statistics are a very powerful tool. So is blasting gel. I wouldn't give either one to an 8-year-old. Statistics are very valuable if and only if you understand them. THey must be relevant, and they must be handled in an intelligent manner.

I'm looking for the numbers - I'm not certain anyone has been tracking them. Not "too low of numbers" or "not related" but simply that they haven't been tracked in such a fashion as to be accessible to the likes of me. Of course, *I* am not proposing a major change how our government handles social problems - the onus of proof does not in this rest solely on me. Nonetheless, if you can find a breakdown of causes of death, corrected for population growth and relating to income, I'd love to see the figures. Gods know, they might support your claims.

As far as taxes... why do you face legal action (fines, typically, though I know of a few instances where jail time was involved) when you refuse to pay taxes? Because you're engaging in theft. You are reaping the benefits of living in this country without paying the associated fees. This is no different than going into a store and carrying off the merchandise without paying. If you don't want to pay taxes and you don't want to be arrested, then you should divest yourself of all the benefits that you refuse to pay for - which you can't do while still living in US territory, I might add.

Now, I agree that our current system of facing poverty is severely flawed - as I said before, we are failing to address the root causes of the problem. I do not, in the abolition of welfare, see any more of an attempt to do this however. The current system does help keep people fed, clothed, and housed - alternatives do not offer this, at least not within the strictures of our society.

It is in fact the nature of living things to survive. For the most part, people will survive with or without assistance - it is flawed to assume that welfare is only intended to accomplish this. Rather, welfare allows people in our society to survive. People may survive by dumpster diving. Or by petty theft, or they might riot in great mobs and tear down mansions - gods know, it won't be the first time the poor have overthrown the rich.
If you believe that welfare shoudl be taken away, I urge you to consider this - not that the poor will not find options to survive, but that the options they choose may - in fact, almost certainly will - not be acceptable to us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:37 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Debate 101, Hasufin: Burden of proof relies on the advocate (that'd be me) until I develope a case that would, unopposed, convince your average bypasser of my stance.

The burden of proof now lies with you; either show that my arguements are incorrect or get out of my thread, as I have no business with people who say nothing.

In other words, I've developed my case, you get to do the same now or leave, your choice. I'm not helping you develope your case either, sorry.

Oh, what you said was real points?

The Dirty Communist Liar wrote:
I did not, and do not mean that all statistics are evil. Please try to encompass the concept of a moderate viewpoint here.


The Dirty Communist Liar, earlier wrote:
As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.


yeah that seems moderate to me.

The rest of your post is bullshit - am I a vassel, to be taxed for being born here? Do I owe alleagence and money to my feudal lord? Are we in a capitalist society or in your ideal society where the Baron takes money for living on his land?

In other words, is this country mine, or does it belong to some shadow "society" which seems to be everyone but me?

Please back up your arguements with DATA from now on, for example why the poor would overthrow the rich now when they didn't in the 160 year history of America without welfare and when the standard of living is much higher than any period within that 160 years?

Oops, inconvient facts

Here, I'll copy your debate tactics.

For those of you considering that I'm wrong with my brilliant theory, consider:

You're wrong.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:29 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
First, please refrain from name-calling. "Dirty Communist Liar" does you no credit. And I would encourage you to evaluate statements within their context - deliberate misapprehensions and words games do not make for a convincing or even terirbly coherent argument.


No, I will be clear - the evidence you have put forward regarding the lack of effectiveness of the welfare system does not, in my opinion, accurately reflect the actual poverty rate nor how the recipients of welfare are affected - and most certainly does not cover the interaction between that system and our economy or society as a whole.

To be honest, I find the idea of making a definitive study of this topic a very daunting concept. It would at the least be a doctoral thesis; I think that it would entail several theses covering social indices, metrics for determining CoL and income, and then making a unified study bringing all the data together.

WHo owns the country is an interesting question, and one whose answer is rather educational. The simple answer is that this country belongs to its citizens - not as individuals, but as a whole. Which means that when you refuse to pay taxes you are stealing a very little bit from each and every other citizen.
THis is relevant to the question as to why there has not, in our history, ever been a worker's revolt (although such has come surprisingly close to happening on a few occasions).
Consider, if you would, the monarchial model in which the country belongs to an individual. I'm thinking of two instances in particular: France and Russia, both prior to their revolutions. Aha! The revolutions. There's the rub. In both the French revolution of the 1700s and the Soviet Revolution in the early 20th century, the country was undergoing severe economic difficulty, but the government failed to address the problems of the working classes. The unsurprising result was, of course, revolution. It is here that the US differs from those examples: each time the US has met economic difficulty, it has risen to meet the problem with social programs that address those concerns. This is a simple enough wisdom, and one that I think General MacArthur during the occupation of Japan summed up nicely:
General Douglas MacArthur wrote:
Send me food, or send me bullets


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:48 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Hasufin wrote:
the evidence you have put forward regarding the lack of effectiveness of the welfare system does not, in my opinion, accurately reflect the actual poverty rate nor how the recipients of welfare are affected


Translation: The offical statistics do not reflect my own personal view of the situation, and rather than have my veiw be challenged, I shall instead dismiss a complehensive, offical statement of fact, and claim that I, with my very own exaustive research (Which we will not go into here) disagrees with and is better than anything THE freakin census bureau can come up with.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:57 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Quote:
1. Welfare perpetuates the underclass, and doesn't reduce it (as it is designed to do.)
2. It discourages the concept of working for one's own bread, in a capitalist society this is an antithetical concept to the basis of how our economy works.
3. Welfare punishes those who succeed
4. Welfare does not do its states goal of helping people to get into higher income brackets


I addressed 3 and 4. Disagree with my points if you wish, but dont pretend I didnt address them. I did read your stuff all the way through, whereas you clearly didnt read mine.

2 is PURELY a matter of opinion. Provide some evidence, preferably testimonials of the peoples who's opinions are supposedly changed by being on welfare, please.

I do agree with you partly on number one. There are people that are just too fucking lazy to work, turn up for as many job interviews as they have to and dont try to give a good impression for any of them, and continue to be leeches their whole lives. Now, had you proposed "I think the current dole system doesnt seperate the genuine unfortunates from those who arnt ever going to work, and thus needs reform", I might agree with you. But no. All you are saying is "THE DOLE TAKES RICH PEOPLES MONEY AWAY AND SHOULD BE DROPPED AS A TAX AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS AN EVIL COMMUNIST OMFG LOLOLOLOL GOOD BLESS AMERICA".

So some people use the dole as a permanent source of income and not as a tempory safety net from which they have a social responsibility to climb out of, and there is an argument for cutting or reducing these peoples dole money. I still would counter with "Yeah but then they just become criminals", but its an argument. But not all people on the dole are like this. And you are acting as if prelonged unemployment is socially acceptable, and its not. Look at the way your acting now. You arnt alone in your views, and we still have a real societal thing about "bringing home the bacon."

What about redundancies? What about Seasonal unemployment? What about Transitonary unemployment? What about prelonged unemployment due to illness or pregnancy, with the person struggling to get back in despite their lack of modern experience and the length of time since they worked? (I dont know the actual economic name of this type of unemployment, but you get my point.) What about unemployment due to genuine handicaps? What about the poor bastards who get laid off or just plain old fired? If you try to shrug and tell me "Well, those people should just scavenge food in trash cans and sleep in condemned buildings until they can go get a job" then I will call you a stupid, judgemental asshole.

The hand that feeds analogy was my response to you acting indignant about people biting the hand that feeds, ie leeching off the state. What I was saying is, people are BORN poor due the structure we have in place. The figurative hand here doesnt provide for everyone equally. If you are rich and Iam born poor, I could work 4 times as hard as you for less money. Thats what I was saying. I agree with you, ideally those who work harder would get the most money. However, thats not the case. Im not advocating total communism so every is born the same and gets the same chance, but dont try to tell me that the state is soo benevolent to everyone and that every has an equal stab at life. Because they dont. Yes, in your scenario, you should get a lot more reward for your hard work. (Unless I broke my arm two hours in, or I was made redundant because someone invented some new farm machinery. In which case, its not too much to ask that the state gives me enough to keep me alive and healthy until my arm heals or I can find new work or get new training.)

And no, Im not going to argue socialism or communism: the joys thereof with you, cause Im the wrong person. Im a greedy capitalist, I was born to two middle-middle/middlle-upper class parents, and Ive never wanted food, water, or health care. However, I recognise that this makes me LUCKY. I do not frown down upon anyone who doesnt have food and water for whatever reason. Iam not better then anyone simply because my parents are richer.

Forevergrey: The statistics, even if accurate, are not a direct figure that says "welfare is 80% inefficient". MIB is quoting some figures mildly related to (and apparently in support of) his beliefs, and Hasufin is questioning their accuracy or relevance.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:06 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Im sorry, all I heard was "You must not have read what I wrote because you didnt believe me, OMG"

And I'm pretty sure the micky mouse club theme was playing in the background. Cenwood, as always, you have a lot to say and your backup is thin on the ground. Back it up or pack it up, if you want to claim inconvient facts that dont support YOUR veiw are untrue, fine. Personally I believe that O J Simpson is innocent and that the Illuminati murdered his wife for a joke. Any evidence you wish to put forward to counter that claim I shall simply ignore, then I shall restate my original claim again. And again. And again.

Have you ever NOT been wrong in debate club? Every goddamn time you open your mouth something mind-numbingly stupid emerges.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:29 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
also, lets not get started on 'workers' revolutions especially compairing the Russian and French revolutions together

als, at what point does MiB say that all taxes should be stopped as that seesm to be a big part of your argument, painfully explaining to us what taxes are over and over. the point is that degree (or %) of taxation and that fact that some of it is going to clearly failing scheames. yes there are lots of other taxes that you might not agree with, but this one is just about directly linked to income at both ends, the highest actively worked to get there and the lowest actively didn't work to get there

(oh, and dole = English for welfare, for anyone who's confused)

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:47 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
He doens't explicitly oppose taxes. However, he uses an argument which applies equally well to all taxes"
Man in Black wrote:
Thus, you are taking money, the fruit of a person’s labors, earned through the exchange of labor (either physical or mental), and giving it, unearned, to another person. Placing this undue burden upon the successful is tantamount to a crime: politicians have no compunction about raising taxes on these same successful businessmen and women, but they admonish them publicly for their greed and selfishness.
and hence I am countering that if the argument is true in the case of welfare, then it is true for all other taxes - I think we have general agreement that *some* taxes are called for, so to call welfare theft in this fashion is false. I will grant that this is more directly linked to income than most other methods - but there are other forms of government activity, such as subsidies, that are also directly relating to income.

My comparison between the Russian and French revolutions (and the post WWII discontent in Japan) is to show a general trend - people are survivors first, and citizens second. If someone does not have the option to survive within the strictures of a society, that person will look outside of those strictures. This can manifest in many ways. It can be simply the overthrow of the current government, it can be a shift to communism, or it may simply invovle people turning to criminal activities. The point is, they're going to disregard our laws and rules in favor of survival.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:58 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Forevergrey wrote:
Im sorry, all I heard was "You must not have read what I wrote because you didnt believe me, OMG"


Thats not what I said, you blithering imbecile. Learn to read and cognitively process information, then come back. The point I was making was a counterpoint to MIB's dumbly reiterating his points, when I HAD already addressed them (rightly or wrongly).

Forevergrey wrote:
If you want to claim inconvient facts that dont support YOUR veiw are untrue, fine.


Bah, someone pulls a few half asses statistics out of their ass, and your satisfied? 68% of statistics are made up on the spot. Statistics can be made to appear however someone wants them to appear. And the main beef with these statistics is that they do not NECESSARILY directly mean what MiB claims they insinuate.

Forevergrey wrote:
Have you ever NOT been wrong in debate club? Every goddamn time you open your mouth something mind-numbingly stupid emerges.


*coughs, says something concerning pots and kettles*. What the fuck? Have you ever said anything intelligent in your whole miserable existance, ever? The only intelligent thing you will ever do is die. The more painfully, the more intelligent.

Also, you could try addressing my actual points rather then singling out one point you disagree with, and declaring my entire argument a "loss" as a result.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:33 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I gave US Census Bereau data, backed up by logic and breaking down of terms (ie taxes, particularly ones that go to welfare, = immoral stealing)

You gave opinions, backed up by..."I question your premises, and I also question the validity of your data," Cen and Hasu both.

Cen seems to think that he addressed points 3 and 4. Okay Cen, lets put it in simple terms for you: If you are a failure, I will pay you 200 dollars a week. If you are a success, I will take 5 out of every 10 dollars you make, and give it to a failure.

That brings up the question of exactly what reward society gives the successful when you transfer the measure of their success - ie, money - and give it to someone who has only succeeded at failing.

Here's a hint Cen, Hasu: www.census.gov

Go there, back up your arguements with data, or do not post again.

But since I quite literally find it impossible to respond to opinions, vague statements, and lack of any hard fact in favor of merely "questioning" some aspect of my arguement does anyone else actually have something valid on the opposing side?

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:27 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Cenwood wrote:

Forevergrey wrote:
If you want to claim inconvient facts that dont support YOUR veiw are untrue, fine.


Bah, someone pulls a few half asses statistics out of their ass, and your satisfied? 68% of statistics are made up on the spot. Statistics can be made to appear however someone wants them to appear. And the main beef with these statistics is that they do not NECESSARILY directly mean what MiB claims they insinuate.


Half assed statisitcs? Try doing some research on those my friend. They are highly researched and very scientific. They are statements of PURE DATA. You don't get anymore concrete than that. If you want to argue what they mean then fine, do that. DO NOT try to argue the actual statistic. (I suggest backing your claims up with something resembling logic and or other facts like MiB has)

Cenwood wrote:

Forevergrey wrote:
Have you ever NOT been wrong in debate club? Every goddamn time you open your mouth something mind-numbingly stupid emerges.


*coughs, says something concerning pots and kettles*. What the fuck? Have you ever said anything intelligent in your whole miserable existance, ever? The only intelligent thing you will ever do is die. The more painfully, the more intelligent.


I find his comments to have been quite on the mark and while broad still very relevant. You both have had a tough time of actually using facts to back up your claims. Your opinions may be valid (and from my knowledge some of them can be argued very well as such) but you guys have yet to make a single factual case that I can see... Thus far you guys have basically said "Nuh uh, thats not true!" or "Those facts lie!"

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:33 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 8:27 am
Posts: 611
Location: Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Even though the idea of welfare was to create a safety net, it failed horribly because the safety net was not propery created. Instead of a safety net, we got a hammock instead.

Instead of abolishing welfare, the ideal solution would be to reform it. The major problems with welfare reform in the United States it that there are too many different political agendas to deal with. The Democrats want one thing, the Repubilcans want another and what we get is some diluted compromise that probably doesn't even work because is isn't enough.

I believe that the current welfare system right now encourages people to stay on welfare. For example I know to people that get social services from the government. One only get food stamps, Section 8 (free apartments), and Student Loans from the government. She is a full time student trying to be come a school teacher so she can support herself. However, when she tries to get free child care for her son, she is turned away because she is not a welfare recipient. She doesn't want to be on welfare because they require you to try to get a full time job and she rather stay a student to get a BETTER full time job. So she has to pay 100 a week to have the neighbor upstairs watch her kid.

The second woman I know, has two children and is on full welfare benefits. She has tried to get a job many times but is consently fired for being lazy. She has no plans to go to school and gets free child care even though she doesn't work. I really don't know how long you can stay on welfare, but at this point, though she talks get off welfare a lot, I doubt she ever will.

Though this is not the full story, only the story of two people I know. These people eat better than I do and because I have have not popped out a kid yet, I am still considered finacially dependent on my parents who has given me about $50 in the past few months (and that was a birthday present).

Thus, I think wefare should be a helping hand, not a hand out. They should give this people basic education (typing, interviewing skills, etc) and have them get a real job. And taperdown the welfare benefits instead of cutting them off when they have a job. A lot of people I know get into debt when they are jobless, so that extra little boost will help them pay off bills.

Also they should give those who have suceeded off of welfare publicity along with those "I'm so poor and abused" stories they show on tv. Make getting off of welfare a good thing in the public eye, instead of a "Thank god, that lazy bum is off of welfare now"

_________________
Some people don't need drugs to act weird, crazy, or demented. They simply are.

Politics is about saving your ass in this life; Religion is about saving your ass in the next. It's no wonder that the two are connected now.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group