Quote:
Originally posted by Archer
marichiko - I personally put any type of government assistance in the broad category of welfare. Anything from federal housing assistance, WIC, unemployment, to food stamps and , earned income tax credit. In my mind, at least, this is all welfare.
If my money is taken from me, and given to others who are percieved to be in need, then it is welfare.
|
Hm. I think that the easiest solution, if it could be implemented, would be to check up on welfare recipiants periodically. If they are found to be abusing the system, cut off benefits.
I don't look at housing assistance (such as HUD), WIC, unemployment, or EIC as welfare, however, because, in Louisiana, at least,:
HUD does not give away free housing. The rent is on a sliding scale of what the individuals can afford.
WIC is for no- or low-income mothers and children, so that they are guaranteed food that will produce and sustain a healthy child. What it provides is very limited.
Unemployment is money I've paid in via taxes. It's my money anyway, and it's there to help tide people over until they can find a job. It's also limited. You can't get it if you quit a job.
EIC is also my money. It says that I haven't earned such-and-such, and so am entitled to get it back.
When I think of welfare, I think of money. In La, there are two types: direct checks, and the card. I don't have a problem with welfare that is given to people who need it. It could make the difference between getting back on one's feet, or perhaps starving.
Now, as to the "welfare families," people who live on welfare, and teach their children to live on welfare, I think that for every child a welfare mother has, she should lose money. I say this because there are people who have children just to get more money, and the money doesn't go to the kids. We have public clinics at which free birth control can be had, so there's no excuse for popping out children you don't have the means to take care of. Each child born after the mother has accepted welfare should be taken away, at least until she or the father gets a job.
In La., one can only be on welfare for a maximum of five years, lifetime. That means if you get welfare for a year, then get a job, you are eligible for four more years of welfare, should you need it. Once you've accumulated five years' worth, it's over.
Welfare is there for those who need it. I think that there should be that safety net. There are people who work their asses off, and have just enough to pay their bills and keep a roof over their heads, but not enough for decent food. The way I see it, I don't have a problem with them getting welfare. They're working and doing what they can. There are those who have trouble finding a job (slow market, divorced women with children but no job skills, women with children, running from abusive partners) these people are helped to get on their feet by welfare. Our unemployment office offers job skills training as well.
I know how hard it can be to find a job in a slow market. I have two degrees, but when I got laid off from my hospital job, it took me a year to find a job, and then it was a pissant one. Unemployment helped us pay our bills.
Some people don't have families to go to for help or a roof. Welfare can be a lifesaver for them. And not to mention, most people I've known who have gotten welfare were either working or looking for a job, and had children. If the government would employ people to make surprise house checks on welfare recipiants, we could cut out the abusers of the system. Those people piss me off, too. That's MY money they're stealing. But for those who need it, I have absolutely no problem with my taxes being used to feed them and their children.
Right now, though, until the job market picks up, it's the best safety net we have.
Sidhe