Welfare, wel-"fair"!?!?

[Matt_LRR]

Benefits drastically outweigh the costs and abuses of the system.

I'm curious as to where you get your numbers on this.

Welfare is intended to help those in need get back on their feet. It is not, and should not, be used as a permanent form of support. Those that abuse the system put a strain on the funds for it and often can prevent those that truly need the support from getting it. I think there should be more done with Welfare to make sure those that aren't qualified, don't get it.

I don't recall providing numbers. I was talking in terms of potential for social good - which isn't exactly an objective measure.

I believe that welfre programs provide a necessary social service, that is legitimately needed by a great many people. I believe that the cost to society of eliminating welfare programs would be greater than supporting them, and I believe that the benefit to the many outweighs the impact of the few who abuse the system.

Natually, I am for tighter control of systemic abuse, whatever form that takes, but I wouldn't want to see such measures taken at the expense of properly providing support to people who do need it. In any social support system there are going to be abusers - it's a simple fact of life - so mitigate it where you can, but account for it, to ensure that you are able to sufficiently support the people who are only using it to get back on their feet again.

-m

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

You have no idea what you're talking about, a scholarship is not welfare.

Pelgrants and Welfare are two entirely different things, with different purposes and requirements, so I really don't think you can compare the two. That and I think if we start talking about the list of other government benefit, this could go way off the subject of Welfare.

It might not be "benefits" in the sense of the OP, however it is still a form of monetary supplementation to help those without money themselves to get back up on their feet or do something they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. Part of the grants we get are unemployment based, my Educational Allowance is "Need-Based" because of that. While they're separate, they are still a benefit from the government intended to provide aid, and so I thought it was relevant.

 

[Infinatex]

It is a good idea. and it is a necessity but it sure as hell gets abused by a lot of the people who claim it.

 

[Skinny_Ninja]

Welfare is a good idea but doesn't work out in the long run. Much like socialism/communism. The idea works on paper but not in real life.

I've known people who who's family was on Welfare for three generations. Meaning they never worked a day in their lives. Good people, but that's no way to live. Although I have always been curious how someone on Welfare drives a Lexus when I actually work and drive a shitty Dodge Neon.

I say get rid of it. Or make it to where if you are on Welfare, you have to work so many hours for the city. Whether you're picking up garbage on the interstate or scrubbing graffiti off the sides of buildings.

It is one sided though. I tried signing up for that and food stamps a while back when I was having serious income issues. Let's just say I'm too "white" for Welfare. Well, that's how the female clerk told me when I was trying to sign up. Apparently she believed only black people were allowed to sign up, racist *****. If I didn't believe in hitting women, I would have knocked her teeth out.

 

[RoboPenguin]

Welfare is good.

End of story.

This, but there must be some limits.

Like maybe there should be some kind of Welfare Police/Inspectors that frequently come by your residence and make sure that you're not cheating them.

"Papers, citizen. Big brother needs to make sure you're doing the right thing."


Personally, I'm torn on the issue. I see it as a great good for those down on their luck but I've also seen it abused. For some, it becomes a state of mind and they expect EVERYONE to give them hands outs (I worked in the medical field for a stint and we'd get those on state insurance and they ALWAYS had this attitude like they were entitled to something).

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Well I can't speak for the Australian system.
As far as myself, I did apply for welfare this year actually, after I got in a car accident, lost my job, and was disabled.
I got rejected simply because I had some money in retirement.
Not a lot even mind you.
But they said first I would have to liquidate all my savings, any assets I have, and then once I had done all that I could apply for welfare. Even then she said that I would probably not be eligible because I had family who were supporting me at the time since I had moved back in with my parents. Nevermind the fact I wanted to stop mooching off of my family during this tough time.
The shocking bit is that is exactly what you have to do when declaring bankruptcy. I don't think the Canadian government has a system in place that recognizes the difference between welfare and bankruptcy.

So that's where that argument comes from. On the flip side I've known people who are completely capable of working, have no physical disabilities, and still apply for welfare checks monthly simply because they are too lazy/depressed to find work.

That's why I don't agree with the welfare system. I don't think it should give money to anyone that doesn't have a legitimate setback that is preventing them from finding work.
Besides, with the amount of money that we pay in taxes to support welfare, they could probably come up with a a better system, one that helps people find job placement during hard times, government jobs even, or provides them with career counselling and training.
Welfare simply puts a bandaid on a much larger issue. It also perpuates a mentality that you don't need to work in order to support yourself, and the government will just give you money.
I think welfare should be a temporary solution, to help get you back on your feet, and in the meantime there should also be mandatory career counselling or job placement programs that the welfare applicant must undergo.

Wow. I know for sure that Australia has a disability net, but it's also assets and income tested. Considering you had no income and reportedly little assets, you should have been eligable for at least some.

Hell, there's even a short term disability allowance. I don't know, I wish I could find a clear comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_Dole Work for the dole is something I like.

I'm afraid I don't have the knowledge to continue this discussion, but I support welfare, freeloaders or not, as my belief is that the people are the responsibility of all.

Well I guess we agree to disagree then
Yeah, I think the system is essentially just broken here in Canada. I also don't think the people are the responsibility of the all. Guess I should go make my own country then?

 

[RoboPenguin]

Welfare is a good idea but doesn't work out in the long run. Much like socialism/communism. The idea works on paper but not in real life.

I've known people who who's family was on Welfare for three generations. Meaning they never worked a day in their lives. Good people, but that's no way to live. Although I have always been curious how someone on Welfare drives a Lexus when I actually work and drive a shitty Dodge Neon.

I say get rid of it. Or make it to where if you are on Welfare, you have to work so many hours for the city. Whether you're picking up garbage on the interstate or scrubbing graffiti off the sides of buildings.

It is one sided though. I tried signing up for that and food stamps a while back when I was having serious income issues. Let's just say I'm too "white" for Welfare. Well, that's how the female clerk told me when I was trying to sign up. Apparently she believed only black people were allowed to sign up, racist *****. If I didn't believe in hitting women, I would have knocked her teeth out.

I like this idea. Employ them instead of giving hand outs. But then you have all kinds of issues with Unions and the like. At least in my town the garbage service is Unionized.

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

But those who are able to get this aid aren't only those who are in need of it. A friend of mine has an eduction grant from the government, and his family has a yearly income of about $150,000.

We aren't talking about those kind of government supplements in this topic.

I was intending to only refer to the grants that are based on personal, financial need. I realise there are other forms of grant that have different criteria and can be given to people from quite well off families. But Welfare is meant to be about aiding those who are in need to have their basic rights of living, one of which is education, which is the case for me.

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

But those who are able to get this aid aren't only those who are in need of it. A friend of mine has an eduction grant from the government, and his family has a yearly income of about $150,000.

We aren't talking about those kind of government supplements in this topic.

I was intending to only refer to the grants that are based on personal, financial need. I realise there are other forms of grant that have different criteria and can be given to people from quite well off families. But Welfare is meant to be about aiding those who are in need to have their basic rights of living, one of which is education, which is the case for me.

Again, you are confusing the programs that we're actually discussing, and are just lumping a bunch of government programs together under the umbrella of "welfare."

Considering the title and question is simply "welfare", and there is little to no mention of a specific program in the OP, I'm going to assume it has a more specific meaning in the US than in the UK. What I am talking about is a form of welfare, which was what the question asked us to discuss, umbrella term or otherwise.

 

[Blitzkreg]

Okay, I feel really strongly about this subject. Welfare is a really bad thing. It drives poor people to not have to work, as the government. In addition, the money is largely taken from the richest, so I believe that while there should be tax breaks for the poor to help them out, we CANNOT keep giving money away to people who dont wanna work. Please, if anyone disagrees, engage...
P.S. this should have been a poll

 

[dasm]

Okay, I feel really strongly about this subject. Welfare is a really bad thing. It drives poor people to not have to work, as the government. In addition, the money is largely taken from the richest, so I believe that while there should be tax breaks for the poor to help them out, we CANNOT keep giving money away to people who dont wanna work. Please, if anyone disagrees, engage...
P.S. this should have been a poll

In my opinion, this is an incredibly ignorant view of the hole people can find themselves in, financially speaking.
This is not a cheap country to live in; some people, for various reasons, find themselves unable to pay bills. Welfare is there to support those who need it, and while it perhaps has been abused, it is hardly something you can live on.
We absolutely have an obligation to help the poor, but not to help them indefinitely. We have an obligation to help them dig themselves out of their hole, and get to a financially stable point.
In addition, as for the taxation of the rich: I don't see why depriving the rich of some of their luxury to lift people out of a life of poverty is a bad thing.

TL;DR: Welfare is to lift the needy to a point where they can support themselves, NOT a free paycheck. As such, it deserves our support.

 

[russkiimperial]

I got nothing against a program specifically designed to pull someone out of poverty and get them on their feet. Of course the way welfare is set up in the United States the program creates a class of people that will continually vote for whomever is giving them the most handouts. To simplify, Person A votes for Person B to take... uhm I mean 'spread the wealth around' from Person C.

If I had it my way I would have mandatory drug tests for those on welfare. I'm not even against drug legalization but as long as somebody is living off of my tax money they better as hell not be spending it on things like that. An obese person on food stamps? Heck why don't they be required to do a few laps to keep getting the handouts. While this may not seem 'fair' I think the more that a person is dependent on their government, the more of their independence they should give up. Hence, this way there will be an incentive to get off of welfare and onto independence.

 

[Calhoun347]

When used for the purposes needed, yes. When abused, no. The system itself is fine, though more needs to be done as far as regulation.

 

[Blitzkreg]

Okay, I feel really strongly about this subject. Welfare is a really bad thing. It drives poor people to not have to work, as the government. In addition, the money is largely taken from the richest, so I believe that while there should be tax breaks for the poor to help them out, we CANNOT keep giving money away to people who dont wanna work. Please, if anyone disagrees, engage...
P.S. this should have been a poll

In my opinion, this is an incredibly ignorant view of the hole people can find themselves in, financially speaking.
This is not a cheap country to live in; some people, for various reasons, find themselves unable to pay bills. Welfare is there to support those who need it, and while it perhaps has been abused, it is hardly something you can live on.
We absolutely have an obligation to help the poor, but not to help them indefinitely. We have an obligation to help them dig themselves out of their hole, and get to a financially stable point.
In addition, as for the taxation of the rich: I don't see why depriving the rich of some of their luxury to lift people out of a life of poverty is a bad thing.

TL;DR: Welfare is to lift the needy to a point where they can support themselves, NOT a free paycheck. As such, it deserves our support.

Okay, so while many of the things that you say are true, there are many ways for these people who have "dug themselves in a hole" to get out of them, with the government's help. AS I mentioned before, you can give them tax breaks, or simply not taxing them at all, encouraging them to work for their money, but not simply giving them the money. Everyone has to work sometime in their lives, and more often than not, the reason that people are poor is because they simply failed to work. In addition, the government can also pay off some of the interest that is on the loans that these people have taken out. Again, this encourages people to work, for the money they get. All in all, there are very frequently places people can work, and things they can sell/not use anymore. Unfortunately, the people who find themselves here are unwilling to stoop to the levels necessary to dig themselves out of their hole.

 

[LockeDown]

As a college student, I can personally say that I'm for welfare, so long as it's regulated to prevent blatant abuse. For example, many students at my school (I attend community college while I continually await acceptance of transfer to a state university) utilize a government aid program called the "Pell Grant". Essentially, as long as the student proves (via signature) that they attend a certain percentage of their classes (I think it's 10-20%), the government will give them a check to cover education expenses.

However, most all these students abuse this system. They will attend for the first few weeks of class, every day, and be very diligent. However, once they reach the number of classes they are required to attend, they take their checks and are never seen again. It's the reason that there is a scarcity of parking spaces for the first few weeks, and after that, the lots look like a ghost town.

That kind of behavior is very frustrating for me personally, because while my family has made enough money to prevent me from being able to get financial aid for school, these people are allowed to collect government money and run with it.

 

[Marik2]

I think that welfare is a good thing, but it needs to be more regulated, and to have more restrictions. Right now, it's too easy to take advantage of the system.

Welfare is a good idea though, but in theory and in practice, it just needs a few few small tweaks in the way the system is managed.

Yes my thoughts exactly.

 

[dasm]

Okay, so while many of the things that you say are true, there are many ways for these people who have "dug themselves in a hole" to get out of them, with the government's help. AS I mentioned before, you can give them tax breaks, or simply not taxing them at all, encouraging them to work for their money, but not simply giving them the money. Everyone has to work sometime in their lives, and more often than not, the reason that people are poor is because they simply failed to work. In addition, the government can also pay off some of the interest that is on the loans that these people have taken out. Again, this encourages people to work, for the money they get. All in all, there are very frequently places people can work, and things they can sell/not use anymore. Unfortunately, the people who find themselves here are unwilling to stoop to the levels necessary to dig themselves out of their hole.

Granted, your suggestions are valid ways to lessen the load on people without giving them money. However, I don't see how that's any better than, well, giving them money. In the United States, at least, welfare is specifically designed to encourage job search. There is a five year limit on the primary type of welfare, and recipients are required to perform some sort of job search. In addition, they are REQUIRED to work within two years of receiving welfare.
Ergo, solving your perceived problem of "jobless dependents."
It would seem the welfare system provided for people who are able to work is entirely in line with your aims.
In addition, a job is not always the answer. As I said, America is an expensive place to live. Welfare exists for people who are working, but cannot support themselves or their family. Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Assuming a forty hour work week, a person bringing in minimum wage makes $15,080 per year. This is with NO time off.

$15k a year is not much. That's a mere $1,257 a month. Now think how much you spend on mortgage payments, rent, food, utilities, etc....

 

[Blatherscythe]

It is a good idea. and it is a necessity but it sure as hell gets abused by a lot of the people who claim it.

Yes you have just summed it up for me. It's good for those who need it and bad for us if the people who don't need it abuse it.

 

[Blatherscythe]

I think that welfare is a good thing, but it needs to be more regulated, and to have more restrictions. Right now, it's too easy to take advantage of the system.

Welfare is a good idea though, but in theory and in practice, it just needs a few few small tweaks in the way the system is managed.

I forget which state this happened in, but, the governor of a state wanted to pass a bill.
You have 1 child, you can get welfare.
You have another child your benefits get cut in half.
You have a 3rd child, you lose your benefits entirely.
I think it's brilliant.

Yes, it IS brilliant. The state should not allow people, who cannot afford their children, to breed.

That person will lose a good deal of support from people who have 2-3+ kids though, great idea though, I hope that person gets in and that bill is passed.

 

[EnzoHonda]

Get rid of welfare and you'll have slums in every major city. Not "that neighborhood you don't want to go to" kind of slum, but a hard-core Rio De Janeiro or Mumbai-style cluster-fuck of wretched humanity. Life is better for everyone when you keep that from happening.