Question for the right wingers
 

Just a quick question for the right wingers in the cellar.

What kind of social provision do you consider acceptable in your society? Are you against all welfare provisions? Or do you agree with some kind of welfare ...if you want to see some kind of welfare provision who do you think should be covered by it? Do you think there should be schooling provided by the state? How about medicine? Where do you draw the line on governement responsibilty?

Ah, damn it, Dana; that's an open invitation for Radar to post two pages of Libertarian propaganda which will enrage us all.;)

Must...resist posting...sarcastic answer...

Nnnnnngh. *twitch*

Programs which quickly and effectively return able people to a productive position in society, i.e. workfare programs, job retraining, limited unemployment benefits.

As stated in another thread, capitalism involves risk. When we make minor but effective moves to mitigate some of the consequences of failed ventures for both the small business owners and small business employees, we encourage risk-taking, and thereby encourage a robust capitalism.

When we create programs that enable long-term subsistence on public funds, we foster a sense of entitlement that does not encourage the individual to return to a productive place in society.

There are many, many things that I believe are social obligations, but not government obligations. That’s a critical distinction. Do I have social obligation to the welfare of the homeless in my city? I believe that I do, and so my wife and I are consistent donors to the LA Rescue Mission (www.losangelesmission.org if any of you are so inclined). We give a large portion of our income to non-profit organization because of our perceived social obligation.

Do I think that the government has a moral right to compel me, through tax collection, to fulfill my social obligations? I do not. It violates any logical sense of limited government, and I think is detrimental to the social fabric. There are two critical differences between voluntary social obligation, and government coercion. First, it affects my sense of connection with the needs being met. When I am compelled to support others, I am resentful of their need. When I freely support others, I am empathetic and compassionate. Secondly, it affects the perception of the person receiving aid. When it comes from a government bureaucracy, it quickly leads to a sense of entitlement. When it comes through non-profits, through compassionate aid, it leads to gratitude.

Which social values do you think are more productive, empathy, compassion, and gratitude, or resentment and entitlement?

-sm

edit: URL now works. BTW, sorry for the novel. tough to explain some of these things in sound bites

Wow, pretty much everything Smoothmoniker came up with I am in full agreement with. I do support the safety net that the welfare system provides. I do not support most long term programs.
The system is currently screwed up because some people would lose money by going to work at the jobs they are qualified for, so they stay home on our collective dime.

Smoothmoniker, thanks for speaking so eloquently.

I know it's a cliche, but social programs really should be more based on the notion "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."

*Stares at screen with dazed expression.

STOP PRESS! Catwoman agrees with right winger (kind of)

That made a lot of sense. The entitlement/gratitude thing. My only question:

Are they not entitled? Is it not a human right? Sure, it breeds laziness. But I'm lazy. Yes, I work, but I could do a lot more to help society. How many hours of TV does the average worker watch? A lot. Just because they are in full time employment, does not automatically guarantee their social validity. One homeless guy who gives his only blanket to a runaway teenage girl to prevent the onset of pneumonia is worth 10 overworked pretentious butt licking salesmen. (Ok ok not saying all homeless guys are like that... jeez, just making a point).

What I'm saying is, social merit (and thus entitlement) is not necessarily dictated by financial contribution.

Welcome to the club. We have a secret handshake. I'll show you later.



There is not a basic human right to be provided with food and shelter. Human rights are all derived from their origin in the “natural person” – they are all rights of freedom, not of benefit. We recognize that living together in society interferes with some of those rights. The stated, enumerated human rights (bill of rights, etc.) are those rights which social interaction and centralized power tend to compromise, but which we agree to protect as a society: speech, freedom to gather, religion, etc.

Shorthand – there is no right to receive anything from anyone. All rights are protections of freedom to , for lack of a better term.

So what are people entitled to? A freely competitive society, in which no one, or no institution, can interdict their freedom to work, and to receive the benefit of that work (food and shelter).

Let me make your argument for you (man, what a pretension ass of a thing to say – sorry). If you’re going to argue for an entitlement, it can’t be on the basis of social merit, because that’s not what you really believe. You don’t really believe that the guy who gives away his blanket should get food and shelter, and the guy who spends all day sipping Boon Hill should be left to die. What you believe is that all people have inherent value, that there is dignity in the human nature, and that society should recognize that value, and do the minimum necessary (at least) to sustain life.

And with that, I agree.

(more later … I have to get some work done today)

-sm

Give a man a fire, he`ll be warm for a day, set a man on fire, he`ll be warm for the rest of his life.

Sorry, I`ll go back to my cave now.

Jag, that made my day. :)

I'm stealing that line.

Catwoman sulks because sm made sense again. Looks forward to part 2.

Jag - set a homeless guy on fire he'll warm the street for passers by. Set a Madison Avenue gimp on fire and all he'll burn is a bigger hole in the whore he's impaling and a handbag full of coke.

Its difficult for me to imagine that anyone* could actually believe that an entitlement attitude is preferable to an attitude of self-sufficiency.

* Excluding those already posessing an entitlement attitude.

What's best is an attitude of self-sufficiency, where people aren't left to die on the streets. The difference is whether one thinks the attitude is more important, or the lives.

No one in America is dying in the street because they were denied help. God forbid that anyone should suggest that people who lack the ability to provide for themselves should be taught how to do so. Much easier to just make yourself look like a hero by giving them what they want with no strings attached and no end in sight. Especially when its not even your money.

Following welfare reform, how many former recipients died in the streets leaving widows and orphans to starve and freeze to death in the open tundra versus the number of people who actually found gainful employment and contribute to society twofold by not drawing down public charity but instead paying into the system?

Sorry but all able bodied folk must pay their share - those who are able to but don't (a group that most if not all socialists pretend do not exist) are freeloaders. And those who allow them to freeload are nothing but enablers who derive a warped sense of justification (or political expedience) from the dependency they create and/or perpetuate.

I'm not a right-winger or a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, but then again, I'm not a liberal socialist either. I'm dead center on the political scale. I'll try to answer anyway.

Any that are funded privately without force or coercion.

Only those that are funded by government through taxes on income (aka theft).

I encourage all people to give generously to the charity of their choice and to help those in need. With only one third of the money stolen by government for social welfare programs, all those in need would get more than double the level of assistance they currently recieve. They could get a hand up instead of a hand out.

I think government should stop trying to be everything for everybody. People should rely on their family, friends, neighbors, churches (assuming they are religious), non-profit charities, etc. who do not rely on force to fund their programs.

In the voluntarily funded private assistance programs, I'd love to see all areas of need covered so there are fewer elderly, sick, and poor suffering as they often do while on government assistance. The government has no business in charity, healthcare, retirement, education, vocational training, etc. All of these should be provided privately and government should give a dollar-for-dollar tax reduction for all those who give to charities that provide these services.

Absolutely not. America once had the best education system on earth until the government got involved. The same is true of healthcare. It is because of government that healthcare costs have skyrocketed, and our education system is a failure. The problem of government messing up education and healthcare can't be solved by giving government more power to do the same thing. The answer is to get government completely out of these areas.

I respect and care too much about the elderly, sick, and poverty-stricken to allow their needs to be handled by government bureaucrats. I'd much rather see them have MORE assistance (which is what they would have) provided by those who genuinely care about the needy instead of glorified Postal/DMV workers.

The government is here for one purpose; to defend our rights and offer security from domestic and foreign enemies. That means a legislature (to make and enforce laws that do not infringe on our rights, but only defend them), a judiciary (to ensure our rights are defended from an out of control legislature, a military (to defend against impending foreign attacks), and an executive branch to veto unjust legislation and to represent our country.

Other than that, the government has no other responsibilities. We each are responsible for ourselves, and our children (while they are children). We are not responsible for our neighbors, friends, or complete strangers. We should encourage people to take on such social responsibilities, but never force others into it. A responsibility is something we willingly accept.

We are not entitled to anything simply based on our need. Your need does not entitle you to rob others. If you're starving and the guy next door cooked 100 steaks and will never be able to eat them, you are not entitled to go next door and take one. You are entitled to ask for some food and if he is a decent person, he will give you some. But need doesn't entitle you to anything.

Healthcare is not a right, nor is having food, or shelter, or clothing, or otherwise having your percieved and/or real needs met.

Government is not here to educate, to provide retirement money, healthcare, childcare, or charity. It is not here to do anything other than what is specifically mentioned and spelled out in the Constitution. There is nothing vague or ambiguous about the Constitution.

Government keeps more than 85 cents of every dollar marked for social welfare programs for overhead costs compared to roughly 12-15 cents of every dollar kept for costs by private non-profit charities. Politicians like to get people hooked on welfare like they're hooked on crack. Then they can get votes by threatening to take it away or by saying the other guy will do it. They only give people just enough to always be needy and never get out of their situation. Private charities would get more help to those in need and train them to help themselves with skills needed in the private sector. The private sector creates wealth, while the government takes wealth away from the economy which costs jobs and opportunities.

I think I've kept this shorter than 2 pages. :)

People are denied help all the time in this country and they die as a result. Just because they don't die in public view doesn't mean its not happening. They don't go to the tundra unless they happen to live in Alaska. Many homeless people do camp on public lands, however, because they have nowhere else to go.

I can't speak to the issue of welfare since I have no personal experience with it, but when it comes to the disabled of this country, the lack of help is appalling. The wait for SSI/SSDI can go on for years. In the meantime the disabled individual has little if any access to medical care and only what financial support the individual states may give. Some states give nothing. Colorado gives $130.00 a month plus $130 in food stamps. Try "living" on that. The waiting list for housing was 2 years. Now with the new HUD cuts, its approaching infinity.

I know of one woman with a son with Down's syndrome who finally got up the courage to leave her abusive husband. This woman had no education and suffered from severe post traumatic stress syndrome as a result of the abuse. She fled her home in Utah and went to Western Colorado. She applied to Social Services for help and was put on the two year wait list for housing. Meanwhile she and her son lived in an abandoned trailer with no heat on an old uranium claim that was no longer being mined. Due to beurocratic bungling, her food stamps were cut off. She had no transportation and no access to medical care. She killed herself, but she didn't do it on a city street, so I guess that doesn't count. I know of another woman, also on Colorado's West slope, who was extremely ill, also with no transportation. She ended up dying for lack of medical care. I know of a man who is schizophrenic, on the waiting list for housing. In the mean time he lives in the national forest like a wild animal, killing rabbits and deer to survive. I know of these cases first hand and can document them. Don't tell me people aren't dying for lack of help in this country!

Radar.....al charity was once voluntary. There was a time when nobody was given help or assistance by the government. The trouble was that people starved. People went without homes and children went without education. Workers were treated with disdain by their employers because they were able to, after all who would rock the boat with their employer when the result could and would be unemployment and with it starvation?

America didnt always have public education but that meant lots of children never recieved basic schooling. All these social welfare and social provisions were introduced against the wishes of business and the moneyed classes as a response to appalling poverty and distress........remove those provisions and the poverty and distress willl return. People are often charitable but people are often not. If social provsions are a matter of choice what happens if people choose not to support them? Simple, a large number of American citizens will live lives akin to those of the third world.

Oh good God, if you are the centre I really dont want to know what the right looks like on your political scale. I had you down as a rightwing libertarian. In the UK thats what you'd be classed as with your belief system ( I think, just going off what you have said in the cellar) ....I keep forgetting that you guys have a slightly different political spectrum than ours

Take a moment to try the World's Smallest Political Quiz

It's only 10 questions (Yes, No, or Maybe). There are no right or wrong answers. This quiz is used in most political science books to determine where your personal beliefs lie on the political spectrum. It doesn't use a simple left/right scale. It's widely known for being accurate and unbiased.

woo-hoo! I'm a centrist, with a slight libertarian bent.

now that I know, I'll have to start acting accordingly.

-sm

Personal: 100%
Economic: 30%

Well I took it and it was interesting but the questions dont allow enough subtlety. For instance. I dont agree that government should control TV but I do believe TV should be regulated and consider a publicly owned non profit making oganisation like the BBC, funded by licence fees which are paid by anyone who wishes to own a television ( by law) are a good thing. It's a little like paying a TV/radio tax and having a tip top service thats available to all because of it.

I dont think that politics can be reduced to science alone, i think there has to be room for political philosophy which is rather more difficult to address with a quiz which simplifies so much. Interesting though *smiles*

When I said you guys have a different political spectrum I think really what I mean is you have a different set of cultural assumptions when it comes to your political identity. When I hear an American express a view of one issue it's often no indicator as to where that person might sit on a different issue. With another Brit I can usually take an educated guess based on their responses to one or two issues, more or less where they are likely to stand on most others.

*agrees with SM and Beestie*


Nothing wrong with public assistance for those who:

1. need help getting back on their feet while they're looking for a job, or work but don't make enough money to buy necessities after paying bills (that's more common than anyone realizes)

or

2. are disabled to the point that they have trouble finding and/or keeping adequate work with which to support themselves

To Marichiko: I don't know about where you live, but in La., one can get emergency welfare if they're shown to need it (no job, no income), within three days. The only time someone is put on a waiting list for housing is when they apply to HUD, which is specifically for housing and doesn't involve welfare money.


I completely agree with welfare reform. Five-year lifetime limit. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone on welfare are down-and-outers...matter of fact, the down-and-outers usually don't stay on it longer than necessary. Their pride in themselves keeps them from doing that (at least that applies to the people I know who've been on it)

The ones that piss me off are the ones who live on it, and teach their kids to do the same. Welfare has the unfortunate side-effect of blunting the pride of people who live on it (imo), so that they see nothing wrong with being parasites, because they make more than they would make working. They have a sense of entitlement. They don't contribute, yet they act as if society owes them a living.

IMO, if you're an able-bodied individual, there's nothing keeping you from getting a job like the rest of us peons. If you need help while you're looking for work, hey, that's what it's there for. But when you start spitting out kids because you make more money per kid, you can just bite my ass. We don't owe you shit.

I hate the "poor, downtrodden, not-their-fault welfare recipiant" attitude. That's not true for the majority. I'd love to do an experiment to find out how many "lifetime" recipiants are able-bodied enough to get a job. They give those who truly need the assistance a bad name.

I feel that if you've spent the majority of your life working, then suddenly don't have a job, then you ARE entitled to assistance. You've contributed to the fund, so you're entitled to share in it if you need to. But when you just don't feel like working at a minimum-wage job, and apply for benefits....uh-uh. You should have to work for benefits in some way. There should be make-work projects for people who go on assistance. Not only would it possibly confer a skill, but it would give people a little pride in themselves.

I think that's kind of what's missing in society nowadays--pride in oneself. Considering the dumbing-down in schools, the blaming society for what is actually the fault of the individual...it just seems like pride in oneself and one's accomplishments is no longer important. After all, if letter grades are abolished so the dummies won't feel bad, what's the point of getting an A? If "putting one over on the government" by living on welfare is prized over doing a job well, or having a job at all, then what's the point of getting a job?

*shakes head*

People's priorities are just getting all fuckled up, it seems. People are no longer responsible for anything. Everything is someone else's fault. After all, if you don't receive rewards for your accomplishments, then why should you take responsibility for your failures? It just seems to me that that's how people think nowadays.

Oh well....


Sidhe

Sidhe - you rock! usually i'm called a fascist or something equally ridiculous for saying the very thing that you very coherently put into print. thank you.

You too?

Does La. stand for Louisiana or Los Angeles? Please reply quickly since I am packing my car and need to know whether to point it south or west. Thank you so much for this bit of information which no one in 5 years has bothered to tell me about. Its been awful being on SSDI which I paid for myself over 25 year's work and taxes and getting only a little over $600.00 a month with no housing. Now with the HUD cuts I'm facing being homeless yet again. I am so thankful to hear that there actually is help somewhere. Please, can you tell me the phone number and name of the agency which will give me welfare in either Louisiana or Los Angeles? I have been in total despair, all hope gone, sometimes considering suicide. Do you have the name of a contact person you can give me? I'm not joking and you are literally saving my life, but I need specifics. Please respond ASAP! I'm serious!

La in this case means Louisiana. I'm sorry to hear that things are not going well and hope things turn around quickly for you.

Thank you for your concern. Do you know how long one has to reside in Louisiana before getting this help in 3 days? Can I just go down there and declare myself a resident the moment I cross the state line? I assume its the state of Louisisana which is so generous, since there is no program like that available from the Feds. Will Louisiana give me a place to live right away?

It is illegal to deny a person necessary medical treatment solely because they do not have insurance coverage.

A hospital which is found to have refused necessary stabilization and care is subject to a $20,000 (might have gone up to $30K) per incident fine. And once a violation is identified, records get audited to determine if other instances exist. The fines may be levied against a facility and/or the physician responsible. (I know of at least one VERY pissed off doc that this happened to ... it's mandated that any hospital receiving a patient who was refused stabilization/treatment because of lack of coverage report that to the feds, because that hospital is subject to the SAME FINE if they don't report.)

It's called EMTALA, and it's a world of hurt for a hospital ... not just because of the fine ... because of the danger that the hospital will lose ALL ABILITY to accept any payments from Medicare. Forever.

It's taken pretty seriously.

Any uninsured/underinsured patient can apply for Medical Assistance (aka Medicaid) while hospitalized. The purpose is for the hospital to pursue a 'limited use' application to cover costs of that hospitalization. The patient can follow up with the welfare office after discharge with the possibility of receiving full benefits if the meet the requirements.

If the MA application does not get approved, the same document can be used to apply for other funding sources, including monies earmarked for this use by the county.

My refinement on this one includes ... no extra bennies for extra offspring, folks should get "weaned off" ... the amount of benefits should reduce the longer one collects them.

marichko, if you are so freaking destitute that you are considering scamming other states' welfare systems, why do you have a computer and internet access?

daaaaamn! ouch, but good question - I think the libraries are closed by now.

I have a beat up lap top that someone loaned me and a bunch of "Free AOL for 3 months" disks. And what gives you the right to form the opinion that I would be "scamming"?

PS When all else fails, I use a friend's computer or I go to the local college library which as it just so happens is currently open for 24 hours for finals. Don't make assumptions, Defmats.

She isnt destitute yet ....She is facing possible destitution. Your attitude in that last post is horrible.

a "beat up laptop" wouldn't run word 2003 ... which is a VERY expensive piece of software.

As an American, I have the right to hold any opinion I want. As a taxpayer, I have the right to hold the opinion that you are scamming (or rather planning to scam) the system. You said that you would move to another state JUST FOR THE BENEFITS.

That's scamming.

Not necessarily...

or she could be using word at a library

and don't tell me people actually pay for msft software.

I know the guy who does ...

his name is uncle sam

I paid for mine.

OEM (with the machine) or seperately though

I have office xp running on win 2k so i'm sure marichiko could have word 03 on a 3 year old laptop. Not that that is the point. At all. Give the girl a break or she'll take that cowgirl lassoo and whip you all into shape.

this is wolf, you'd have enough lead in you to act as nuclear reactor lining by the time you got it out.

No, it won't run 2003, I've been having endless problems with it. A friend loaned me his disk for it, but I can't get it to work on my machine.

If its possible for me to get more help in a different state, I see nothing wrong with going there to obtain it. Its very hard to go through the medical treatment I need and make some kind of progress with voc-rehab when I'm looking at having no housing again by next winter. All my energy gets taken up with trying to figure out how I'm going to find shelter and fighting the fear that I have about this.

I have a doumented medical condition that I am trying to get evaluation and treatment for so that I can go back to work. Someone tells me of a state where I can get more help that what I'm currently getting and can even live indoors. If I move there, I am a scammer? It seems to me that you object to ANYBODY recieving assistance in order to be productive again.

Apparently you would prefer that me and others like me recieve no help what-so-ever and either die or live in hobo camps somewhere, rather than get some assistance and become productive tax paying members of society again. Let's set aside any humanitarian concerns and look at it in terms of dollars and common sense. If I had been able to remain in my old profession, I'd be earning around $50,000 a year at this point. If I was given the help to go back to it or do something similar, I could be earning that $50,000 again. Of that income, at least a third would go to the government in taxes = $15,500/year. I have potentially 20 productive working years left to me IF I get help. That means the government would get at least $300,000 out of me and that's if I never got a single raise or cost of living adjustment. All the government would have to do is invest about $40,000 in me, almost all of which I have already paid for in taxes myself. $40,000.00 to get a $300,000.00 return ain't a bad return for your money. But you and other American voters are too short-sighted to see this and instead want to accuse people in need of help as being scammers and throw them to the dogs.

Mari, have you actually looked at the changes being made to Section 8 on HUD's website? I wouldn't completely trust what that interest group is saying, as interest groups can be as bad as politicians when it comes to spin.

The Feds give their money out as block grants to each state. Each state then decides how they want to spend their portion.

HUD naturally wants to put the best face on things, so their web site is all chirpy about how wonderful they are. I went straight to the horse's mouth and called the local program which handles HUD grants here in town and they said that they are cutting back severely on the program due to the withdrawal of funding.

To Onyx Cougar: Sycamore is right, its Federal money distributed to the states which they use as they see fit. I assume that Louisiana is going to remain a part of the US, at least for the next 20 or 30 years, and not go back to being a Confederacy, so the people of Louisiana would benefit from my share of Federal taxes even if I were to leave. And why do you assume that I would up and leave if Louisiana is really as gracious enough to help people as Lady Sid claims? I'd be pretty damn greatful and just might stay on. My family is originally from the South and I may have a long lost cousin down there somewhere in Louisiana. Magnolias, Thomas Wolfe, William Faulkner - Louisiana sounds pretty nice if Lady Sid would just give me her info source for help in 3 days.

And IS my math off? I just used rough estimates, but one thing that's happened to me is that I can't do even the simplest math anymore. If I messed up, I'd like to know.

But it's probably not just Federal money that goes into their program...state funds probably go in too.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. But if La. is willing to help me the way Lady Sid claims, I'd happily sign an agreement to stay on and work there after I'm able to get a job again and remain until I'd at least paid La. back in my share of state taxes.

I seem to remember you being neither hispanic nor illegal ... that might have been your problem.

The one-time milk and honey state of california has over time become the land of dust and tragedy because they are serving more illegals than they are their actual residents.

I find that hard to believe. Its certainly not true in Colorado. Here only legal residents of the US are given what little help Colorado has to offer. I've spent many hours in social service waiting rooms and the majority of the people waiting in the chairs beside me were either white or African American young mothers with small children that the father had deserted, the elderly, and disabled people. I'd guess maybe a fifth of the people I saw in these places were hispanic and they were all native born or legal immigrants. I know this because on the outside of the social services office was a sign in Spanish warning that proof of citizenship or a green card would be required.

Yes, It's Louisiana. Actually, I'm not sure how long you have to be here. I assume you can get it as soon as you get here. You have to go to Amite, La. I don't know the exact address, but if you ask someone who works at a convenience store or gas station, I'm sure they'll be able to tell you. Or you could go to the courthouse, which is on the left a little after the railroad tracks (when you get off the interstate 55 in Amite, stay right until you go over the tracks. The courthouse is a little past that on the left), and they can tell you. All you have to do is fill out some papers, and they'll talk to you within a couple of days. If you're shown to need emergency assistance, they'll get it to you within three days.


Good luck.

Sidhe

Lucky for me, when I got hospitalized in 2001, they assigned a social worker to me and she got the ball rolling right away to get me Medicaid. It was new to me...all my life before that I had been insured, and now I was facing this mess. I still don't like it, but what else can I do? I sure as hell can't afford commercial insurance, and when I tried to sign up with BC/BS and Aetna, it was a joke. I would not have been able to get covered for a year (those nasty pre-existing conditions), but they wanted you to still pay the premiums during that non-covered year..not!

It's amazing what you learn about the healthcare system when you get sick.

I guess La. isn't such a bad place to live after all....in addition to having the best food on the planet, anyone who needs public assistance can get it. If you're pregnant, you generally don't have a problem getting WIC, and as long as you qualify (a family with an income under $17000-- for a couple with a small child--under six--can qualify). Almost every town has a free medical clinic and there's a free psych clinic in about one in every five towns.

I mean, I've been reading about California, a place with one of the highest costs of living, and the trouble people have getting assistance there....damn, man, that sucks.

Like I said, I have no problem with the people who need it getting it. That's why it's there. And the difference with Mari as opposed to freeloaders is, I assume she plans to get a job once she gets back on her feet. Therefore, she will be a contributing member of society.



Sidhe

They still receive services. And that's why there is a booming business in fake green cards and ss#s

You bet I want to get back on my feet and get a job! The thought of spending the rest of my life existing on $600 a month with or without a housing voucher strikes terror into my heart. Besides, I miss working. I really do. I loved my job and I'd give anything to be able to perform well enough to do it again. Thank you for the information. I'm going to call and check it out.

And to Wolf: So you would deny help to me and thousands of other Americans just like me who WANT to get back on our feet just because of your percieved view of a very small minority who abuse the system? I'd like to see your statistics, on that by the way, as well as the source for them.

Oh yeah, Onyx Cougar: I can't really speak to the whole WIC, ADFC thing, since I've never been on welfare. Colorado does have a lower hispanic population than either California or Arizona, so, naturally I saw fewer hispanics in the waiting rooms. Its interesting that Colorado is the only state, apparently, that posts those warnings. As far as I can tell, they're pretty strict about it here. They made sure that they had copies of my social security card AND birth certificate even though I'm obviously anglo in appearance and speech. I don't doubt for a moment that abuses such as you describe occur, but why should there be such barriers for the disabled to get help because of welfare abuse? Its a whole different thing and a different programs and its dismaying to be unjustly tarred with the same brush.