Welfare

[Archer]

This has been bugging me fore a couple of weeks (though it floats around in the back of my head from time to time). I've bounced the question off a few friends, but kind of curious what others think about it.

Why do we give perfectly healthy adult citizens money, food and housing? Children, those with disabilities (mental or physical), and the elderly, I can understand, to a point, but why the remainder of adults?

What responsibility do we, as a society (or as individuals) have to this group of people?

Everyone has a right to do (or not do) whatever they want, as long as it does not negatively impact someone else (without their consent). Taxes for defense, roads, even environmental concerns directly impact each individual, and (usually) does so in a positive manner (security, ease of transportation, clean air), so how does welfare benefit the whole of society?

So what good comes from welfare?


Personally, I don't like welfare. That said, I have an issue with allowing any child to come in harms way due to the actions of their parents (or the state, depending on who is caring for them). I really don't think society does a very good job with children right now; too many other things are prioritized ahead of children.

[blue]

Probably no good comes from it, but we do it because we care.

I don't care much for the whole welfare thing myself, but every once in a while a family comes along that truly needs some help. So we give them foodstamps, advice & housing.

And I guess that makes up for the others who abuse the system.

[Happy Monkey]

“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

The alternative is setting up workhouses, sending them to prison, or:

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

[Archer]

HM

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are setting up an either/or situation.

Either we set up forced labor/workhouse/prisons, or people will die. If that is what you are saying, I don't agree. It is not that simple.

Nor does it answer my main question: What good comes from welfare?

Blue

This is my biggest problem! There are people in need, who choose to be in need, and there are people in need because they have exhausted all other options.

I don't really have a problem with welfare in that situation.

I do have a question though Blue: what percentage of people "abuse the system" vs those that "truly needs some help"?

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Archer
This is my biggest problem! There are people in need, who choose to be in need, and there are people in need because they have exhausted all other options.

I don't really have a problem with welfare in that situation.

I do have a question though Blue: what percentage of people "abuse the system" vs those that "truly needs some help"?

The thing is...you'll never truly know, unless you know someone that has personally that has abused the system. I know of some who did abuse, and I know of some who were on the system, and used it to help get off of welfare.

It seems as though the media and those who are anti-welfare tend to put the spotlight on those who abuse the system and not shed a whole lot of light on those who actually managed to get off of public assistance. And since I know more who used the welfare to better themselves, I don't pay any mind to those who abuse it. They only make those who need it look bad.

[Tomas Rueda]

I believe that the benefits of welfare that affect the society as a whole are...

wait. I just thought of something, What if the Government gave welfare as an exchange of something else? like you had to do community service or work for either the government or a non-profit organization. Thus both parties are benefited.

[smoothmoniker]

OK, here's the hardcore capitalist answer to you question.

I believe in a free market. I believe that the greatest benefit to society comes from people being rewarded for taking risks, for innovating, and generally engaging in the task of making themselves profitable. I don’t think this is just good for the individual, I believe it is the most equitable and just way to construct a society.

But I also believe that, by creating at least a minimal safety net, we create a situation wherein people are able to take more risks. They may fail, but that failure will not be fatal. With more people taking more risks, particularly entrepreneurial risks, we have a more robust economy, and that rising tide benefits everyone.

So, I’m still a capitalist, but I believe it is in my self-interest to mitigate some of the risks associated with a free-economy workplace.

[note] this is not an argument for our social programs as they are currently constituted, but just an argument for the idea of some sort of social welfare as part of a robust capitalism.[/note]

[Kitsune]

Why do we give perfectly healthy adult citizens money, food and housing?

A couple of years ago a study was released that attempted to answer this question, because the usual public response is that it is madness to give people money who won't work for it. We read up on this as part of our understanding of the concerns over the national debt, welfare, and where money goes.

The findings of the study were interesting: the people who were on welfare wanted to return to work and more than one in ten people who were part of the study that began welfare one year prior were no longer on welfare and had become a productive part of society. By finding work and becoming a productive part of society again, they had more than repaid, in taxes, the money they had been given by the government. It was found that the detrimental effects of the people who remained on welfare longer than one year and beyond were far outweighed by the positive effects of those who returned to the workforce. The stereotypical "living on welfare bum" recipient did exist in the study and we found that some do take advatage, but without it a large group of people would have remained stagnent in their employment status.

According to the study, these are the reasons the government provides welfare -- the positive effects to the economy and society were much greater than the money invested.

I am going to ask a really dumb question.What does everyone mean by welfare? I know there's social security for old folks and the disabled, there's assistance for single Mom's with kids who are low income, and there's unemployment insurance which is usually limited to less than a year. Is everyone lumping these programs together under the term "welfare'? Is there some other program out there I don't knowabout???

[Archer]

Kitsune - Any chance you might have a link to that. I do not doubt you; I would just like to see that data (or if you have a name for the report, I might be able to track it down).

If there is a societal benefit, which can include, but is not limited to economic benefits, then it has its place.

I think the concept of a "welfare queen" is so emblazoned in peoples (mine at least) minds, that is corrupts their opinion.

I also think there is another branch to this negative mind set. How many people have had positive experiences with federal and state agencies? My personal experiences have been adequate as best, and negative in more than one instance. So in my mind, the negative bureaucratic experience leads me to believe there is rampant corruption, and given that on any given day, you can read about some scandal or poor treatment of an individual, one could easily assume this is the case.

Tomas - you have a great idea, and it could work, save for the aforementioned corruption and abuse. What bothers me is that if you allow corporate america to run the training side (which I believe would be more productive), and have the government handle the income redistribution, then where is the oversight? If it is not apparent by now, the government cannot keep itself in check, and corporate america can buy the government.

If we set aside the obvious moral obligations (and that is really a very large issue), what is so wrong with letting the very bottom layer of our social strata fend for themselves? Mind you, I do not include most welfare recipients in this group.

I guess though, we already do this; those who are stuck in a poor education system, the homeless, even those who work, but cannot afford to live, they are all left to fend for themselves. So where do we draw the line between who it is ok to ignore, and who we should help?

Maybe the cut off line should be higher. If a person cannot find some kind of employment on their own, then they cannot receive any governmental aid. This would mean more funding for those who are able to work, and perhaps, with some help from the government; underemployed individuals would be able to live a reasonably comfortable life.

Then again, if the line was lower, say that anyone who is willing to work (any kind of work), will get paid, and will get paid a wage which they can survive on (maybe something like the CCC, or the WPA). The federal government is already the nation’s largest employer, what would be so bad about making it a little larger? Would it really be that much more of a burden (tax wise) for those with "gainful" (for lack of a better word) employment?

[Archer]

Originally posted by marichiko
I am going to ask a really dumb question.What does everyone mean by welfare? I know there's social security for old folks and the disabled, there's assistance for single Mom's with kids who are low income, and there's unemployment insurance which is usually limited to less than a year. Is everyone lumping these programs together under the term "welfare'? Is there some other program out there I don't knowabout???

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.

[Kitsune]

Kitsune - Any chance you might have a link to that. I do not doubt you; I would just like to see that data (or if you have a name for the report, I might be able to track it down).

I'd actually love to and will see if I can contact my old prof and have him dig it up or look through my notes if I can find them. It was a very interesting collection of studies and also included an analysis of why state governments give students financial aid. The general idea is that students that graduate tend to stay in the area and return the money invested in them by the state.

Needless to say, a massive argument errupted between students on this. The classroom quickly divided in half and some shouting matches were escalated. When the study on where National Debt is owed to came out, it only got worse.

Damn, I miss those classes -- they were fun!

I agree that a certain number of people take advantage of the system. This is human nature and no system is perfect. I don't know what the real numbers are, but let's say its as high as one in ten. Would you feel society should with hold help to all ten because of that one bum?

Another question. Suppose you have a person who is highly trained or educated and wants to work, or even a common laborer who wants to work, but that person has an illness or condition which prevents them from doing so. Would it be in society's best interest to give that person the medical care and voc-rehab which would allow them to get back on their feet and earn money (and pay taxes) again?

Final question. Does a culture have any obligation to its senior citizens who have worked all their lives and now are too old to do so? There are many working class people out there who work low paying jobs that have no pension plans. These folks work hard, raise their kids and are unable to save very much toward old age. Once these peoples' usefulness as workers is at end, what should society do with them?

[Undertoad]

The people taking advantage of the system are the ones in the bureaucracies which routinely take 2/3rds of the money intended for the various programs.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by marichiko
I am going to ask a really dumb question.What does everyone mean by welfare? I know there's social security for old folks and the disabled, there's assistance for single Mom's with kids who are low income, and there's unemployment insurance which is usually limited to less than a year. Is everyone lumping these programs together under the term "welfare'? Is there some other program out there I don't knowabout???

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.