Welfare

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Food Stamps is given to adults without children if they fall under a certain income level. AFDC is given to families with children under a certain income level. WIC is given to women with or without children under a certain income level.

How you can not know this and have been in a shelter (information from a previous thread) is beyond me. These are federal programs, not state ones.

O.C., I just wanted to define what we are talking about. WIC and AFDC fall under assistance to low income parents which I mentioned. In my state, able bodied adults who get food stamps are required to sign up for work programs like through Good Will. I suppose this would be called "work fare." I don't know how food stamps are distributed in other states.

I was never in a shelter and never stated that I was. However, I was homeless for about 4 months. I chose to camp on my own in the National Forest rather than go into a shelter.

In my state, anyhow, it is very difficult for a person in need to find out about the programs that might be helpful to them. Social workers from one agency to the next have no idea what other agencies offer, and don't bother to find out. Sometimes they don't even know what's available in their own agency. Example:

I was down at the local community health service standing in line behind a young single mother with a sick baby. She was trying to get her child into a doctor. The woman at the counter told her that there was a mix up on the medicaid paper work and until that was resolved, they would not treat her child. The young mother was in tears. She had ridden the city bus almost an hour to get there, holding her baby who hap a temp of 102 degrees. The worker told her to go to the hospital emergency room which was another 45 minute bus ride away. Actually, that community health center has a walk in critical care unit which was only 5 minutes away and accepts anybody - insurance or not - for only a $5.00 fee. The emergency room visit costs hundreds of dollars which in the case of this young mother and child, the tax payer will foot the bill for.

I told the Mom about the critical care unit around the block and offered to drive her and her child there. She was so greatful, but she never would have known of this service if I hadn't told her.

By the way, in one thread you take me to task for making assumptions, and then you seem to get irritated when I politely ask what people are defining as welfare, so that I can respond appropriately. What's up with that?

[JeepNGeorge]

Farm Subsidy recipient list for my zipcode. Of the top 20 I see two local businessmen, three large scale ranchers and three lawyers. I know we must protect our agriculture industry, but some of the people getting subsidies are not the ones that need it.

[elSicomoro]

AFDC is now known as TANF. The Federal government gives block grants to the states, who in turn develop their own programs and distribute their grants as they see fit. This came about as a result of the welfare reforms of the 1990s.

[ladysycamore]

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.

"Perceived"? Elaborate please.

*on SSDI AND Unemployment. No perception here, but a REAL need to pay bills and survive.*

[xoxoxoBruce]

"Perceived"? Elaborate please.

A CEO making millions each year for 20 years, suddenly gets canned. He now has no income so what is he entitled to collect?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by marichiko

By the way, in one thread you take me to task for making assumptions, and then you seem to get irritated when I politely ask what people are defining as welfare, so that I can respond appropriately. What's up with that?

Because that was before our deal!

[Archer]

Originally posted by ladysycamore


"Perceived"? Elaborate please.

Just that LadySyc. If someone qualifies for a benifit does not mean that they need it. Farm subsidies are a classic example, also, someone with housing assistance, but a $400 month car payment.

So a perceived need is merely one where an individual qualifies for assistance, not that they have a real need for assistance.

I agree with you on your second point, there are times when welfare is necessary if we, as a society, believe that we should help those who otherwise might not be able to maintain a decent standard of living.

UT - I don't know if that 2/3 rds number is correct, but I suspect it's closer than I want to believe. If it's even close to those kind of numbers, then the system is a huge part of the problem.

66 cents to distribute 33 cents, is just sickening.

edit: html and I do not get along

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Archer
Just that LadySyc. If someone qualifies for a benifit does not mean that they need it. Farm subsidies are a classic example, also, someone with housing assistance, but a $400 month car payment.

So a perceived need is merely one where an individual qualifies for assistance, not that they have a real need for assistance.

The only problem I have with that is that you don't know every single person that does that, so why get rid of the system entirely because a percentage of people are bogus? In other words, don't punish all for the corruption of a few (not saying that "you" would want that, but just tying in a point). The only way I know that someone would be able to financially qualify for benefits and have a $400/month car payment is that they are not paying for the car themselves (meaning not out of their pockets), and are obviously not reporting that income. Although many more people have been caught being fraudulent, there will be many more that won't.

I know what it's like to try to be financially eligible for benefits. Maybe this is why Syc and I are not married right now. The combined income would definitely bump us out of eligibility status, and yes our rent is on the high side, but that doesn't mean we have extra cash to spend on (mainly) my medical bills.

Gyah, sorry. I've been on a tear today with chronic illness advocacy issues (on medical message boards), so I'm a bit fiesty.

[Archer]

LadySyc - I'm throwing out some ideas, but I really don't feel that I have a good solution. I really don't think I'm well enough informed (is that syntax right? it's late, and I'm tired), to make a judgment.

That said, totally eliminating welfare should be an option. I'm not really all that keen on the idea, and there is probably a happy medium, but the idea should not be discarded at face value.

My mother is on SSDI, and without it she would not be able to afford her house (it's not much, but it is hers); she still drives a POS car (a lot of miles no less, for the paltry job she can work, ironically enough), buys her clothes at a thrift shop, and by no means eats gourmet. I would not want her to lose her welfare (I stick by my definition), but is it really right to rule out an option due to personal bias?

I'm just saying, some people qualify for welfare that have no business receiving welfare. I'm not saying to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I really think the answer lies somewhere in what UT said, about waste, and I really hope Kitsune can find that report (nudge nudge, wink wink ).

The people in the system are not the problem, and a straw man has been built to draw our ire ("welfare queens"). This draws attention away from the real issue, inefficiency from within the system. We focus on (relatively) minor trespasses on our tax dollars from the people within the system, when, maybe, we should be focusing on the system itself.

[Undertoad]

I had the information about waste in the past but it might no longer apply. I do know that, at one point, the taxes collected for social programs would have put every single poor person in the US over the poverty line if actually paid out in benefit money. Of course the amount paid out did not nearly achieve that.

That was around the early 90s though, before welfare reform.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
Farm Subsidy recipient list for my zipcode. Of the top 20 I see two local businessmen, three large scale ranchers and three lawyers. I know we must protect our agriculture industry, but some of the people getting subsidies are not the ones that need it.

Here's another good example of that.

See the whole thing at:

http://www.reason.com/0403/fe.js.confessions.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Confessions of a Welfare Queen

How rich bastards like me rip off taxpayers for millions of dollars

John Stossel

Law grinds the poor, and rich men rule the law.

-- Oliver Goldsmith

Ronald Reagan memorably complained about "welfare queens," but he never told us that the biggest welfare queens are the already wealthy. Their lobbyists fawn over politicians, giving them little bits of money -- campaign contributions, plane trips, dinners, golf outings -- in exchange for huge chunks of taxpayers’ money. Millionaires who own your favorite sports teams get subsidies, as do millionaire farmers, corporations, and well-connected plutocrats of every variety. Even successful, wealthy TV journalists.

That’s right, I got some of your money too.

My Life as a Welfare Queen

In 1980 I built a wonderful beach house. Four bedrooms -- every room with a view of the Atlantic Ocean.

It was an absurd place to build, right on the edge of the ocean. All that stood between my house and ruin was a hundred feet of sand. My father told me: "Don’t do it; it’s too risky. No one should build so close to an ocean."

But I built anyway.

Why? As my eager-for-the-business architect said, "Why not? If the ocean destroys your house, the government will pay for a new one."

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Archer
[b]LadySyc - I'm throwing out some ideas, but I really don't feel that I have a good solution. I really don't think I'm well enough informed (is that syntax right? it's late, and I'm tired), to make a judgment.

That said, totally eliminating welfare should be an option. I'm not really all that keen on the idea, and there is probably a happy medium, but the idea should not be discarded at face value.

My mother is on SSDI, and without it she would not be able to afford her house (it's not much, but it is hers); she still drives a POS car (a lot of miles no less, for the paltry job she can work, ironically enough), buys her clothes at a thrift shop, and by no means eats gourmet. I would not want her to lose her welfare (I stick by my definition), but is it really right to rule out an option due to personal bias?p/b]

Right, and I knew that, I was just making a point from within the one that you made. I hope that made sense (damn neuropathy!).

I must admit, I'm not that well versed about the system as much as I should be (I know just enough for what applies to me, and what I have to do as far as getting a benefits review every year for Medicaid and every 6 months for State Chronic Renal Insurance).

And I just want clairfy that the issue of benefits isn't the *only* reason why Syc and I aren't married, but I feel that we have to take that into consideration (about how my benefits would change or not change).

And truth be told, I have no idea how the system can be changed, because by the time anyone gets around to making any major changes, IMO, it'll probably be too late for some of us.

[Lady Sidhe]

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

[DanaC]

Tomas mentioned giving something back to society in exchange for welfare. It reminded me of something I had seen about the work for welfare ( not sure what its called) scheme in operation in michigan. What it sounds like at first glance is a way to get long term unemployed people back into the world of work ( probably a good thing for most) and offset the cost of the welfare aid they get ( possibly a good thing depending upon your political stance)

Nice idea shame about the execution. In reality what it amounts to is an abuse of the most vulnerable in society (the poor and desperate) by wealthy corporations. There was a single mother for instance who had to leave her house at 5 am to get bus to another city in order to work behind a counter selling icecreams to the rich at play in a large mall complex. She left that "job" for which she recieved her state welfare and worked another job for a pittance so low as to leave her still able to qualify for statehelp. By the time she returned home atthe end of the day her son was long since in bed. Even with the job and the wlefare programme she was still unable to meet her rent and was evicted. She and her son went to stay at her brother's house where her son found a gun wrapped in cloth under her brothers bed. ( it was a rough neighbourhood,) Perhaps had she been able to stay and raise her 6 year old son herself he might not have been unattended during his morning pre school routine and wouldnt have been able to take the gun to his school and shoot a fellow pupil. Alas she was probably still travelling when he got to school having left before it was light.

A graphic example sure, and not the inevitable consequence of poverty or work for welfare. It raises an interesting political issue though. Why are corporations allowed to use slave labour? If the choice is starve on the streets or accept whatever conditions your employer deems suitable up to and including a life of work for foodstamps .....that surely is a brand of subtle slavery.

[Yelof]

I'm getting sick of the material world, any one know of any monastaries that will take atheists?