Welfare, wel-"fair"!?!?

[BonsaiK]

Welfare is good because it reduces crime. Having people running around with no money means they often resort to desperate measures. Welfare reduces that, therefore it is good. That is all.

 

[JEBWrench]

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.

They do that in Canada, comrade. You are legally required to allow them into your home whenever they choose to inspect that you're not wasting your pittance on things like "food" and "electricity".

OT: The system is good in theory. But the theory falls apart when in practise it encourages inaction on the part of the recipient.

 

[Riobux]

Is it actually "fair?"
So escapists (more so those who live in the USA) what are your thoughts on welfare? Is it a good idea? Is it a good idea gone bad? Is it just a bad idea? Or do you think a select "few" ruin it for everyone else?

I'd say it's unfair and filled with faults, but the alternatives are worse.

 

[elcamino41383]

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.

Wow, seriously? That's some seriously fucked-up bullshit right there.

Single mothers with small kids already have the odds stacked against them. It's hard to get a job when you have little kids, so what exactly are they supposed to do? I know someone who was on welfare for this very reason -- she had two young kids, one disabled, her husband walked out, and she couldn't make ends meet on her own. The idea of someone removing even more of her precarious support structure because of some arbitrary need to punish women for making choices they don't approve of is absolutely horrifying to me.

Just out of curiosity, did this guy also claim to be pro-life? Because that would be hysterical, in an incredibly depressing kind of way.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The bill is aimed to keep people from having MORE kids after you're already on welfare. So if you have 1 child and need assistance then you can qualify for welfare. But if you're already on welfare and have another child then your benefits get cut in half. And if you have a 3rd child while you're on welfare, then you're cut off. Makes sense. Why should people be having more kids that they can't support?

I know @Atalanta said more on this in a later post, but I don't need to quote a page worth of stuff. So anyway, I think "the law of 3" as I'll put it also needs to be regulated with the regular inspections and such that people have mentioned to make sure that they aren't trying to cheat the system. I would think its obvious that given more extreme circumstances such as rape cases, would be exceptions to the rule.

 

[Voodoomancer]

Maybe it is "a Fair" ?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

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.

Yes indeed.

What if someone can't find their feet? Let them starve to death?

 

[Kragg]

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.

accidentally get triplets, youre fucked, yeah this is an awesome way to solve things

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Depends on the situation. If it's because of some sort of disability, then sure, I don't mind that. However if some dumb fuck decides to drop out of high school and pump out two babies before the age of 20 then it's their own damn fault they're poor. Maybe it's my hatred for my fellow human beings talking, maybe it's my love of me and my material possessions, I don't know, but if my money is going towards somebody else, there better be a damn good reason for it other than "they have a low income." Boo hoo, you're poor. Come back when you don't have any legs. then we'll talk.

 

[armaina]

What if someone can't find their feet? Let them starve to death?

You say that as thought it's impossible to support one's self. Unless they are disabled from doing any work at all (in which case they should be on disability) there really isn't that much that could prevent someone from getting work to support themselves eventually.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

What if someone can't find their feet? Let them starve to death?

You say that as thought it's impossible to support one's self. Unless they are disabled from doing any work at all (in which case they should be on disability) there really isn't that much that could prevent someone from getting work to support themselves eventually.

Unless they live in an area where there are no jobs available.

Or unless the jobs that are available do not pay enough to support them.

 

[soapyshooter]

If liberals had the fucking balls to do anything rather than trying to appease everyone this country would have wel"fair" Focus should be on cutting the fraud out of welfare and actually getting the money to people that need it. For once I wish dems would nominate a guy I could vote for out of support rather to just keep out greedy conservatives. We need more FDRs and Bill Clintons (minus the BJs in office)

Maybe a couple of LBJs?

You clever man

I don't see why we couldn't have more LBJs. Man with military service and not a bad president by any means.

 

[armaina]

Unless they live in an area where there are no jobs available.

Or unless the jobs that are available do not pay enough to support them.

Jobs may be scarce but it never stays that way forever. Also, If something doesn't provide enough income yet, there are food stamps that could be used to help with getting needed things rather than welfare. Either way, just about anyone can move off welfare eventually, if you actually work for it.

 

[Valkyrie101]

Unemployment benefit is necessary, so people who lose their jobs aren't made redundant. However, it should only be for a period of a few months, giving them ample time to find a new job, whilst preventing them from living on benefits and never, ever working. It should be the bare minimum to keep people alive.

 

[Seatownstriker]

I really think they should require a drug test for it.

 

[Marowit]

Welfare is good.

End of story.

Sums it up.

It's part of being part of the civilized world - There are plenty of places you can choose to live where you can have no responsibility to the human beings around you if it bothers you so very much.


Also, why wasn't this thread put into the obvious Political/Religious forum? Seems pretty political since it's the favorite red-headed stepchild of conservatives.

 

[ender214]

I despise the welfare. I see no reason why some people should be able to leech off others. I don't care if they were born in unfair circumstances or experienced unfortunate events, if I felt like they deserved my money I would have given it to them.

I sure hope you never go to the hospital, or drive on roads, or call the police/fire department, or go to public school, or eat FDA-approved foods, or travel by plane, or drink tapwater, or breathe air. You're leeching off my tax dollars just as readily as the woman I saw at the supermarket the other day paying with foodstamps.

All these things are used by everyone. As a user of such commodities, I perfectly understand why I would help the government pay for them, even disproportionally. Those food stamps don't help me in any way what so ever.

 

[atalanta]

All these things are used by everyone. As a user of such commodities, I perfectly understand why I would help the government pay for them, even disproportionally. Those food stamps don't help me in any way what so ever.

By that logic I should be exempted from paying taxes for public schools and the fire department. I went to private school and my house has never been on fire, but they're there if I need them. My sister has never been to the emergency room, but paramedics are there if she needs them. You've never needed food stamps, but they're there if you need them. That's the whole point.

 

[Con Carne]

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.

Wow, seriously? That's some seriously fucked-up bullshit right there.

Single mothers with small kids already have the odds stacked against them. It's hard to get a job when you have little kids, so what exactly are they supposed to do? I know someone who was on welfare for this very reason -- she had two young kids, one disabled, her husband walked out, and she couldn't make ends meet on her own. The idea of someone removing even more of her precarious support structure because of some arbitrary need to punish women for making choices they don't approve of is absolutely horrifying to me.

Just out of curiosity, did this guy also claim to be pro-life? Because that would be hysterical, in an incredibly depressing kind of way.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The bill is aimed to keep people from having MORE kids after you're already on welfare. So if you have 1 child and need assistance then you can qualify for welfare. But if you're already on welfare and have another child then your benefits get cut in half. And if you have a 3rd child while you're on welfare, then you're cut off. Makes sense. Why should people be having more kids that they can't support?

I know @Atalanta said more on this in a later post, but I don't need to quote a page worth of stuff. So anyway, I think "the law of 3" as I'll put it also needs to be regulated with the regular inspections and such that people have mentioned to make sure that they aren't trying to cheat the system. I would think its obvious that given more extreme circumstances such as rape cases, would be exceptions to the rule.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I don't believe in the "take no prisoners" attitude. But under the proper guidelines, that bill has a lot of potential.

 

[Kimarous]

I don't know a whole lot about welfare, but my general opinion on the matter is "good idea, poor execution".

 

[ender214]

All these things are used by everyone. As a user of such commodities, I perfectly understand why I would help the government pay for them, even disproportionally. Those food stamps don't help me in any way what so ever.

By that logic I should be exempted from paying taxes for public schools and the fire department. I went to private school and my house has never been on fire, but they're there if I need them. My sister has never been to the emergency room, but paramedics are there if she needs them. You've never needed food stamps, but they're there if you need them. That's the whole point.

That is fine by me. So long as your children will not be able to enter the public school until you begin paying for them again, that you are ok with the firefighters not helping you when your house is on fire, and your sister is ok with paramedics not responding.

I'm for an opt-in tax. I doubt that I will ever need food stamps, and if I would be perfectly ok if the food stamps weren't there if I ever need them. It is a risk I am willing to take. Think of the system to be like insurance.