Welfare is it wrong?

[bushi jon]

Here are my thoughts. Welfare was the single worst thing a president ever gave to the U.S.A. It has created a sub class of people that are more than willing to stay on the dole for the rest of there lives. It has also trapped the good people into thinking that they entitled to gvt hand outs.

Do you think we should get rid of welfare or expand it?

 

[The Kai]

Look to the great depression, if there is no safety net whole families starved

 

[michaeledward]

There are strict time limits for how long a person can receive welfare. Please explain how someone can 'stay on the dole for the rest of their lives'?

 

[Andrew Green]

Here are my thoughts. Welfare was the single worst thing a president ever gave to the U.S.A. It has created a sub class of people that are more than willing to stay on the dole for the rest of there lives. It has also trapped the good people into thinking that they entitled to gvt hand outs.

Do you think we should get rid of welfare or expand it?

Have you ever done any work in Community programs? Ever had any lengthy contact with people that wouldn't survive without it?

I'm guessing not.

A lot of people who recieve welfare need it to survive, not because they are lazy, but because they are not capable of working. Whether it is dissability, uneducated single parent, or any other number of reasons which prevent them from being able to work.

Without money they have no home, no phone, no clothes, so even those that could get a job wouldn't be able to.

 

[7starmantis]

There are strict time limits for how long a person can receive welfare. Please explain how someone can 'stay on the dole for the rest of their lives'?

Your not serious are you?

 

[tshadowchaser]

There comes a time in some peoples lives when **** happens and they need help. AT that time welfar can be a life saver and the funds from it may be able to keep a family togeather. I have been there I know.
Getting off welffar is sometimes not as easy as it sounds either, employers sometimes don't want to help someone "in the system" because they fear the person is a lazy, nonproductive sort.
Should someone be on it forever, NO, but there are individuals out there that do need help to get them through a bad period of time

 

[Makalakumu]

Here are my thoughts. Welfare was the single worst thing a president ever gave to the U.S.A. It has created a sub class of people that are more than willing to stay on the dole for the rest of there lives. It has also trapped the good people into thinking that they entitled to gvt hand outs.

Do you think we should get rid of welfare or expand it?

I think we should totally subsidize education - including college, create a universal health care system, mandate a living wage, increase aid for child care, and then leave wellfare alone. No able bodied person needs to live off the govt dole, but some people do need help when they can't live any other way. Besides, our government spends so little on wellfare, it really isn't worth arguing about IMO.

 

[Makalakumu]

Your not serious are you?

I think we need to define "wellfare"...

 

[Fallen Ninja]

There comes a time in some peoples lives when **** happens and they need help. AT that time welfar can be a life saver and the funds from it may be able to keep a family togeather. I have been there I know.
Getting off welffar is sometimes not as easy as it sounds either, employers sometimes don't want to help someone "in the system" because they fear the person is a lazy, nonproductive sort.
Should someone be on it forever, NO, but there are individuals out there that do need help to get them through a bad period of time

Well said!

Its easy to be on the other side of the fence and talk... but when you're in it...

On the flip side of that coin... which "I have here in my nicotine stained fingers:"
There are those that find holes and the system and exploit them causing those of use that could qualify... can't benefit from them. Almost like a whack grading curve. Those that need it because of circumstance don't qualify because they still make too much....? Weird. :idunno:

:ninja:
FN

 

[Andrew Green]

There are those that find holes and the system and exploit them causing those of use that could qualify... can't benefit from them.

People of all classes exploit the system, doesn't matter if they are lower class scamming a few hundred or a multi billion dollar company scamming millions.

Although I imagine one of those is more costly then the other... just not the one getting complained about here

 

[MA-Caver]

That welfare has been abused/scammed and over-used by the terminally lazy cannot be denied. But there are people and FAMILIES that need the welfare because of one circumstances or another.
I myself have had to depend upon one welfare service or another and I will say it is indeed a big help. Now that I'm gainfully employed I no longer need it nor request it. Before it helped me get by until I was able to find the job that I have now.
No, it wasn't the worse thing that A president created. The fact that it had so many loopholes in the beginning (and some today) that it allowed those "terminally lazy" to abuse it that it has been given it's bad name. However it isn't as easy to "abuse" the system today as it was say 10-20 years ago. One cannot walk into a welfare office and expect to walk out with a check or a fistful of foodstamps. Funds/assistance will be cut off after a certian time and job searches are required... and the next time one applies (after assistance is cut off) they're required more to do to re-acquire it... i.e. more (accountable) job searches and community services hours like working at a food bank (ironically) and so forth.
So for those who have families and are honestly and dilligently searching for employment welfare can be a boon. At least their children won't starve!

 

[michaeledward]

Your not serious are you?

Yes, I am.

The 1996 Welfare Law and Changes to Date Replacement of AFDC by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TANF is a fixed block grant for state-designed programs of time-limited and work-conditioned aid to families with children. Enacted on August 22, 1996 (P. L. 104-193), it repealed AFDC, Emergency Assistance for Needy Families, and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and replaced them with TANF. It combines previous funding levels for the three programs into a single block ($ 16.5 billion annually through FY2002) and entitles each state to a fixed annual sum based on pre-TANF funding. It also provides an average of $2.3 billion annually in a new child care block grant. The law appropriates extra funds for loans, contingencies, bonuses for "high performance" and for reducing out-of wedlock births, and supplemental grants for states with historically low federal welfare funding per poor person and/ or rapid population gain. As amended in 1997 (P. L. 105-33), TANF law also provided a $3 billion program in FY1998-FY1999 for welfare-to- work (WtW) grants, most of which required state cost sharing, to help states achieve required work participation rates TANF greatly enlarged state discretion in operating family welfare, and it ended the benefit entitlement of individual families. States decide what kinds of needy families to help and whether to adopt financial rewards for work. TANF explicitly allows states to administer benefits and provide services through contracts/ vouchers with charitable, religious, or private organizations, a provision widely called Charitable Choice. Attached to the TANF block grant are some federal conditions. States must achieve minimum work participation rates and maintain at least 75% of their "historic" level of state welfare funding, increased to 80% if the state fails the work participation rate. States must require parents and other caretaker recipients to engage in state-defined "work" after a maximum of 24 months of benefits and must impose a general 5-year time limit on federally-funded ongoing basic benefits. They may exempt single parents with a child under age 1 from required work (and from the calculation of work participation rates). In FY2002, 50% of all families with an adult recipient must work (including 90% of families with two parents); these rates are lowered for caseload declines from FY1995 levels. States are forbidden to give TANF aid to unwed parents under 18 unless they live under adult supervision, and, if high school dropouts, attend school. States may continue reforms begun under waivers from AFDC rules even if terms are inconsistent with the new law. (For TANF provisions, as compared to AFDC, see CRS Report 96-720.)

 

[Lisa]

My mom was a case worker for social services for quite a few years. She would tell me the sad stories about people losing their jobs and needing money to help them out. She often said it had to be one of the hardest things for MOST of the people to ask for. The stigma attached to it would often prevent people who really needed it from asking for it until things got really bad for them. She agreed that there were those that probably were raking the system but she said those that truly needed it far outweighed those that didn't. She was a firm believer that the system was a very necessary part of our society, I believe that too.

 

[bcbernam777]

During times like a great depression there needs to be a welfare system in place as the saftey net, however during prospourous times there needs to be a distinction between those deserving i.e. Children in crisis and the disabled and elderly, the weaker of our society need to be protected whilst those who are able to work should get off their **** and work.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

My feelings on this are in another thread relating to this....you want to know them find the thread.

 

[arnisador]

I don't think that abuse of the system is the norm.

I like living in a country that helps out its citizens. Frankly, I wish we could next do something about health care costs.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

That welfare has been abused/scammed and over-used by the terminally lazy cannot be denied. But there are people and FAMILIES that need the welfare because of one circumstances or another.
I myself have had to depend upon one welfare service or another and I will say it is indeed a big help. Now that I'm gainfully employed I no longer need it nor request it. Before it helped me get by until I was able to find the job that I have now.
No, it wasn't the worse thing that A president created. The fact that it had so many loopholes in the beginning (and some today) that it allowed those "terminally lazy" to abuse it that it has been given it's bad name. However it isn't as easy to "abuse" the system today as it was say 10-20 years ago. One cannot walk into a welfare office and expect to walk out with a check or a fistful of foodstamps. Funds/assistance will be cut off after a certian time and job searches are required... and the next time one applies (after assistance is cut off) they're required more to do to re-acquire it... i.e. more (accountable) job searches and community services hours like working at a food bank (ironically) and so forth.
So for those who have families and are honestly and dilligently searching for employment welfare can be a boon. At least their children won't starve!

Exactly. As my Abnormal Psychology professor used to say, while describing the afflictions of those less fortunate than ourselves: "... but for the grace of God, there go I". Sure there are abuses and those need to be handled vigorously, but there are many, many people who have to go on some sort of aid for a time in order to survive.

 

[shesulsa]

Here are a few links on poverty and welfare studies - I find the pie chart here compelling.

Although this site is at CSUF, there are stats for California and the USA.
http://guides.library.fullerton.edu/govstats/poverty&welfare.htm

This is a nonpartisan site which publishes fact-finding results.
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles.cfm?issue_type=welfare

I have heard it argued, and I rather agree, that if one wishes to remove the welfare system then something must be in place for the care of these children. It was also suggested that many of these children are not recipients of any child support by non-custodial parents and that perhaps mandatory, automatic wage garnishment on ALL support-paying parents punishable by federal law COULD help abate SOME of the strain on welfare. I'm looking for stats on this right now, but I think that argument has some merit.

I used to be very much against welfare until I learned about the Great Depression and the expanding gap between the haves and have-nots ... as my father used to say, "Would you rather give a little from your paycheck every month, or get stabbed for the five dollars in your pocket?"

Well, of course, I could be stabbed for a lot less, but I think the point is that the impoverished will obtain need fulfillment one way or another. There ARE people who manage to get off of welfare - problem with this program is the flaw where you can't seem to get off of it and remain secure. It's not designed for you to get off of it with relative comfort that you won't need to go back on or find another assistance program.

I think it's better than the alternative.

 

[bushi jon]

So we all agree that welfare is flawed. As for the comment aluding to I have never been around people that need welfare,your wrong. We should be putting our money into, free college,grant money for small buis,fuel exploration. I have known very few people that have gotten off of welfare after they went on it. I would like to see the stats on how many of the recipients of welfare are single mothers and how many of them are gettting support from the childrens father. I think if we had those stats we would all be shocked.

 

[MJS]

My mom was a case worker for social services for quite a few years. She would tell me the sad stories about people losing their jobs and needing money to help them out. She often said it had to be one of the hardest things for MOST of the people to ask for. The stigma attached to it would often prevent people who really needed it from asking for it until things got really bad for them. She agreed that there were those that probably were raking the system but she said those that truly needed it far outweighed those that didn't. She was a firm believer that the system was a very necessary part of our society, I believe that too.

Lisa, going on this and the quote from michaeledward, I'm curious as to how many case workers there are compared to the number of cases. I'm willing to bet that regardless of the time limits, there are just too many cases to have someone constantly monitor them, therefore, many people slip through the cracks, and stay on it much longer than they should.

Mike