Welfare

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • biga
    Banned
    • Feb 2016
    • 1331

    Welfare

    if you google up opinions on welfare you get a pretty even split on who likes the idea and who hates it. i would assume that a lot of that split is the people paying for it versus the people receiving it. my question is, what was the original purpose of welfare? does it still serve in the same capacity today as it did in the times in which it was written? should it be open ended with no cut-off time? should it be more money/less money? does it serve as an helpful tool or a socioeconomic inhibitor?

    and keep it to regular welfare, not unemployment or the ACA.
  • AndyG
    Still Not Banned Yet
    • Mar 2011
    • 4984

    #2
    Re: Welfare

    It prevents revolution, supports society, decreases injustice, is morally right and helps stop the poorest starving in the streets. It also takes money away from defence spending.

    What's not to love?

    Andy
    "In case of fire ring Fellside 75..."

    Comment

    • biga
      Banned
      • Feb 2016
      • 1331

      #3
      Re: Welfare

      i'm not worried about a revolution. if you don't have money for food, you're not going to pay for a revolution. just ask the north koreans.

      Comment

      • Boater14
        Banned
        • Sep 2011
        • 2896

        #4
        Re: Welfare

        A revolution inspired by well fed businessmen who resented taxes is the exception. Certainly the Chinese, Russians, French were hungry.

        Comment

        • Ian McColgin
          Senior Member
          • Apr 1999
          • 51656

          #5
          Re: Welfare

          Were the OP serious, he'd start about 1790 BC with those sections of the Code of Hammurabi that provide for widows, orphans and the weak. Notions of social welfare are about as old as civilization, as are the competing lusts of greed any bullying.

          Comment

          • Norman Bernstein
            Liberaltarian
            • Nov 2004
            • 25220

            #6
            Re: Welfare

            Originally posted by biga
            if you google up opinions on welfare you get a pretty even split on who likes the idea and who hates it. i would assume that a lot of that split is the people paying for it versus the people receiving it.
            That might be the attitude of SOME people, but certainly not all. Many people support welfare because 'it's the right thing to do', as opposed to having a permanent underclass of citizens incapable of providing the bare necessities of life. It is a fact of life that a capitalist economy will result in a wide range of incomes, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, EXCEPT that at the very lowest bounds of the economy, people will suffer without some sort of assistance. 150 years ago, those people starved, or sickened and died.

            Originally posted by biga
            my question is, what was the original purpose of welfare?
            I think I just explained that.

            Originally posted by biga
            does it still serve in the same capacity today as it did in the times in which it was written?
            I think it has changed somewhat... but the fundamentals are still there. 150 years ago, poor people starved... today, one out of five children are 'food insecure', i.e., they don't have an assurance of adequate nutrition to sustain life... but welfare and social service agencies have managed to eliminate absolute starvation. The scale of the problem has changed, but the problem persists.

            Originally posted by biga
            should it be open ended with no cut-off time?
            It shouldn't be dependent on a 'time factor', at all.

            Originally posted by biga
            should it be more money/less money?
            That's a judgment call... hard to say, but I can recall back in the Reagan era, when, for the purposes of public assistance, ketchup was classified as a 'vegetable'. If people deserve public assistance, the assistance ought to be sufficient so as not to require kids to eat nothing but Kraft Macaroni and Cheese and Ramen noodles. Nutrition and the ability to learn are strongly correlated... if we expect the children of welfare recipients to be able to break a familial pattern of poverty, then they need to be adequately fed.

            Originally posted by biga
            does it serve as an helpful tool or a socioeconomic inhibitor?
            In a full employment economy, it's hardly a 'socioeconomic inhibitor'. There's a broad presumption that people on welfare suffer primarily from 'character defect', unwilling to work to sustain themselves. While I'm sure that there is some of that going on, it's been studied and shown to simply not be true, in the aggregate... recent studies show the instances of welfare fraud to be a very small proportion of cases.

            As long as the minimum wage essentially equals poverty, we're going to need public assistance. The problem has to do with how we value work; anyone working a full 40 hours a week shouldn't be earning poverty level wages... yet employers insist that the value of unskilled labor doesn't justify a higher wage.

            What we do about it reflects on our character, as a people; if we want to continue to have an underclass of citizens who cannot earn enough, DESPITE work, to sustain life, then we are going to always need welfare of some form.
            "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."






            Comment

            • Paul Pless
              pinko commie tree hugger
              • Oct 2003
              • 124858

              #7
              Re: Welfare

              I stumbled upon this project earlier this year and found it to be eye opening.

              The Uncertain Hour

              All the episodes are excellent, but this one in particular is exceptional in giving an understanding of what 'welfare' has become.

              How does your state spend federal welfare dollars? It's probably not how you think
              Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

              Comment

              • Keith Wilson
                Trying to be reasonable
                • Oct 1999
                • 64167

                #8
                Re: Welfare

                I generally support it because I think a kid should not have to make a careful choice of parents to have a good life. The devil's in the details, of course.
                Last edited by Keith Wilson; 10-18-2016, 09:42 AM.
                "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
                for nature cannot be fooled."

                Richard Feynman

                Comment

                • biga
                  Banned
                  • Feb 2016
                  • 1331

                  #9
                  Re: Welfare

                  thanks for the response norman.


                  i guess the whole reason i asked the question was b/c fundamentally i want everyone to have the opportunity to work for a living and provide for themselves and their families. there's something to be said for the satisfaction you get as a provider. i think we need welfare so as to not have people starving to death in the streets, but i also don't like the idea of the open ended deal where people get used to living off the government and lose all desire to be productive with their lives. i would never mind helping out a person in need, but i want to help you help yourself. what could we do to facilitate this more? it just feels like you go into some of these inner cities and there's no hope. the kids that grow up in that environment just start the next part of the cycle.

                  Comment

                  • Dan McCosh
                    Senior Member
                    • Mar 2001
                    • 16375

                    #10
                    Re: Welfare

                    Welfare supports a capitalist system that cannot find work for a significant portion of the population. It mainly goes to the real estate business, and a little to retail grocery and clothing stores.

                    Comment

                    • Too Little Time
                      Senior Member
                      • Feb 2014
                      • 12748

                      #11
                      Re: Welfare

                      So many want welfare.

                      Some are deserving. Some are not. I am willing t provide welfare for those in the bottom 50%. Others can spend their assets until they are in the bottom 50% and apply.
                      Life is complex.

                      Comment

                      • AndyG
                        Still Not Banned Yet
                        • Mar 2011
                        • 4984

                        #12
                        Re: Welfare

                        Originally posted by Norman Bernstein
                        It is a fact of life that a capitalist economy will result in a wide range of incomes, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that
                        Um...question from the back?

                        "A wide range of incomes" is, I accept, going to happen in a capitalist economy. Could you (broadly) define the range you'd find "not intrinsically wrong"?

                        Andy
                        "In case of fire ring Fellside 75..."

                        Comment

                        • Hugh Conway
                          Banned
                          • Jan 2012
                          • 9162

                          #13
                          Re: Welfare

                          Do you need old lady's on the corner selling apples for a pittance to feel better about yourself? Do you need others abject poverty to feel better about your life choices?


                          You may want to educate yourself on the substantial changes to welfare in the last 30 years. It's not what you are describing at all.

                          Comment

                          • Norman Bernstein
                            Liberaltarian
                            • Nov 2004
                            • 25220

                            #14
                            Re: Welfare

                            Originally posted by biga
                            i guess the whole reason i asked the question was b/c fundamentally i want everyone to have the opportunity to work for a living and provide for themselves and their families.
                            Don't we all?

                            Originally posted by biga
                            i think we need welfare so as to not have people starving to death in the streets, but i also don't like the idea of the open ended deal where people get used to living off the government and lose all desire to be productive with their lives.
                            I think that is an assumption of questionable merit. You can blame people on welfare for poor choices, in many cases... like the young woman with multiple kids and no husband... but once 'there', the ability to change the course of one's life is extraordinarily difficult, and it's no surprise that some find it impossible to overcome the obstacles. Education is the key? Tell that to the young woman whose first priority in insuring her kids are fed, clothed, and housed... she can't afford day care, tuition, AND the rent, on what welfare provides.... so she's trapped.

                            Originally posted by biga
                            i would never mind helping out a person in need, but i want to help you help yourself. what could we do to facilitate this more?
                            Plenty... but it costs money.... and for lots of people, the attitude is grudgingly sufficient to provide some limited means of public support, but no where near enough to get people trapped like the example above, to rise out of poverty and welfare, to self-sufficiency.

                            Originally posted by biga
                            it just feels like you go into some of these inner cities and there's no hope. the kids that grow up in that environment just start the next part of the cycle.
                            Then it ought to be worth lots of additional money to break the trap. Unfortunately, many politicians, and far too many people who support them, don't agree. It is NOT helpful when politicians perpetuate the 'character' myth, like Reagan did back in the 80's with his 'Welfare queen' talk.
                            "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."






                            Comment

                            • biga
                              Banned
                              • Feb 2016
                              • 1331

                              #15
                              Re: Welfare

                              here's another take on welfare. should we make people work for it? if you're able bodied... should we require you to pickup trash, mow grass for public property, etc? there's TONS of stuff that needs to be done that is either not getting done due to lack of funding or is getting done by paid government employees. we essentially have a massive work force out there that is getting paid to not work.

                              Comment

                              Working...