Should we end welfare?

Paschendale said:

Because that would be far less efficient. It would be a huge waste of money compared to what we do now.

Click to expand...

We spend nearly a trillion dollars each year on means tested handouts. A trillion bucks will buy a lot of soup...

joG said:

I think we need to move towards a negative income tax, which would still need a good design, but would do a good deed in reducing bureaucracy.

Click to expand...

Negative income tax...sounds like communism to me

Peter Grimm said:

I would love to Pete, but in the U.S. today, there are more than 80 federal means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to low-income residents. Too many to go through each one.

Click to expand...

Yes I see, so anything that effects low-income people right? How about the welfare for farmers, big business and the wealthy? This is expensive as hell as well. Or how about that welfare machine called the US military? You can define welfare as anything that government pays for, directly or indirectly.. and that is a lot.

An October 2012 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service indicates that as of 2011, federal spending on these programs had reached $746 billion per year—more than expenditures for Medicare ($480 billion), Social Security ($725 billion), or the military ($540 billion). In addition, state contributions into federal welfare programs amounted to $201 billion annually, while independent state programs contributed another $9 billion. All told, means-tested welfare spending from federal and state sources (combined) was $956 billion.

Click to expand...

Yes but how about this.. how about making it so that the welfare programs are not needed? That is the root of the problem, like it or not. Low wage growth, a medical system based on having a job, a debt based economy and massive income inequality.. that is why you need the welfare programs in the first place. So telling people.. you are slackers, and are your own because we wont pay for you.. wont work. It never has and never will. All it will do, is increase criminality and poverty.

Divide that by the entire population of the U.S., and you get nearly 10,000 dollars per person

Click to expand...

And how much did these same people spend on bailing out the banking industry 8 years ago?

Now dont get mad, because I am trying to make a point here.

Welfare should be a stop gap and temporary.. I think most people would agree to that. Problem is that to keep it temporary, then the ability to have jobs that actually pay enough to live off must be prioritized and it is here the US and some western European countries have failed big time the last many decades. We have used failed economic theories that have prioritized the big companies and wealthy over the small/medium companies and middle class. The so called trickle down effect is and always has been bogus and THAT is one of the reasons for more and more being used on welfare. When wages dont keep up with inflation, then at some point people have to go to welfare systems to make up the difference... so while Paris Hilton earns millions a year and pays next to nothing in taxes, the pay checks of the average Joe stay the same at best, but they can buy less and less for it.

And before you go on about me being anti-American and a damn foreigner, then I have to tell you that all nations suffer from these problems to some degree or another. In my own country we are having a debate right now about the 800k people living off the state. Now over half the population get some sort of state aid (pensions and such), but the 800k number is the one people are talking about. Now in this case there is a lot of right wing bull**** involved.. from my own party (yes I am ashamed that they use such tactics), because in the 800k are 40k or so women on maternity leave (yes we have paid maternity leave) and 250k on early retirement. But the point is, that even in "socialist" welfare Denmark we are talking about the slackers in society and what to do about it and how to bring down welfare costs.

Peter Grimm said:

We have a cultural problem in America, particularly inner city, with people living on public money and not being productive members of society.

Part of the problem is that underclass inner city women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work.

The inner city men who are part of the problem also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support.

I once asked a 19 year old with no job and no schooling from the inner city, "What do you do all day?”

“You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

Should we change that? Should we get rid of the handouts and end welfare?

Nothing wrong with the old soup kitchen. I don't believe in letting people starve, but let's get rid of food stamps, welfare payments, and other bs government giveaways.

Let's make these people learn personal responsibility

Click to expand...

Define "welfare". Does it include unemployment? What about veterans on welfare? Are they leeches/parasites/unmotivated slacker or whatever the du jour accusation is these days? Most people who attack "welfare" never seem to go after anything specific, just vague concept and notions. Nevermind that "welfare" doesn't exist in a strict sense which probably explains why nobody ever gets overly specific about problems with it.

PeteEU said:

Yes I see, so anything that effects low-income people right? How about the welfare for farmers, big business and the wealthy? This is expensive as hell as well. Or how about that welfare machine called the US military? You can define welfare as anything that government pays for, directly or indirectly.. and that is a lot.



Yes but how about this.. how about making it so that the welfare programs are not needed? That is the root of the problem, like it or not. Low wage growth, a medical system based on having a job, a debt based economy and massive income inequality.. that is why you need the welfare programs in the first place. So telling people.. you are slackers, and are your own because we wont pay for you.. wont work. It never has and never will. All it will do, is increase criminality and poverty.



And how much did these same people spend on bailing out the banking industry 8 years ago?

Now dont get mad, because I am trying to make a point here.

Welfare should be a stop gap and temporary.. I think most people would agree to that. Problem is that to keep it temporary, then the ability to have jobs that actually pay enough to live off must be prioritized and it is here the US and some western European countries have failed big time the last many decades. We have used failed economic theories that have prioritized the big companies and wealthy over the small/medium companies and middle class. The so called trickle down effect is and always has been bogus and THAT is one of the reasons for more and more being used on welfare. When wages dont keep up with inflation, then at some point people have to go to welfare systems to make up the difference... so while Paris Hilton earns millions a year and pays next to nothing in taxes, the pay checks of the average Joe stay the same at best, but they can buy less and less for it.

And before you go on about me being anti-American and a damn foreigner, then I have to tell you that all nations suffer from these problems to some degree or another. In my own country we are having a debate right now about the 800k people living off the state. Now over half the population get some sort of state aid (pensions and such), but the 800k number is the one people are talking about. Now in this case there is a lot of right wing bull**** involved.. from my own party (yes I am ashamed that they use such tactics), because in the 800k are 40k or so women on maternity leave (yes we have paid maternity leave) and 250k on early retirement. But the point is, that even in "socialist" welfare Denmark we are talking about the slackers in society and what to do about it and how to bring down welfare costs.

Click to expand...

I don't think it matters where you're from...I don't think anybody appreciates slackers who sit around eating Cheetos while you're out working your butt off.

Just going back to the numbers for a second: how many people actually need government handouts because they're poor? I'm not taking about disabled or sick or old people (they are covered under a different program), just how many need goodies for being poor? One in ten at most?

If we spend a trillion dollars a year and one in ten really needs it, that's 100,000 dollars allocated per needy person. That's a lot of money. Since the poor are hardly living the high life, that siggests A.) more people are taking handouts than likely need it, b.). Money is disappearing and c.). Fraud and system abuse are a problem here.

So I say get rid of it and start fresh. Let the govt open up soup kitchens and housing projects. Let them open up goodwill shops to provide these poor with used clothing. But don't give them a dime of spending money.

Peter Grimm said:

We spend nearly a trillion dollars each year on means tested handouts. A trillion bucks will buy a lot of soup...

Click to expand...

Outside of urban centers, distribution will cost a lot of that trillion dollars. The majority of those who need food stamps do not live in urban centers. The urban poor are merely a very conspicuous example, given the contrast to the wealth that most of the rest of a city enjoys. And, of course, they usually aren't white, while the rural poor usually are. We both know that these two groups are not discussed in the same way.

PeteEU said:

Define welfare first... because there is a lot of it around.

Click to expand...

any entity/person/group the federal government gives money which has not provided the federal government with goods or services in exchange.

The poll is dumb. Baiting dumb.

No, freebies aren't great, but also no, it shouldn't be eliminated completely. As some have already said, it need serious reforming, not the continual expanding that we have been doing.

Fiddytree said:

Because there is no "just" behind any of it. Poverty is a multi-systemic experience.

Welfare reform is just one small component to a greater societal issue, and we have difficulty with doing that correctly.

Each component is being worked or or advocated for to better work the poor, and there is enormous political tugging toward what that better is. This means even *if* we have a clue as to what works (and often we don't have that certainty among researchers, let alone lawmakers and the public at large), there is usually no agreement on action when it gets outside the all-too-certain researchers. Then after that implementation runs into an unknown quantity of issues.

Click to expand...

No, it's not a single solution to the problem. But I fully believe it would do a lot of good to help things.

Peter Grimm said:

We already fund our schools. And our inner cities. The problem is too many inner city kids are not well behaved, don't have pride or work ethic, and would rather make babies or "chill" and do drugs than graduate and make something of themselves.

That's not my problem or yours.

Click to expand...

We do not fund our schools even close to equally, and that is a problem. It's not just a matter of work ethic when your schools suck and aren't preparing you for the world outside of your neighborhood.

It actually is my problem, and yours because our tax money goes to this. I'd rather it go towards something that has a chance at changing the system, instead of putting a bandaid on it.

brothern said:

Wut. Seriously. What the heck are you talking about?

These inner city people are "unproductive" members of society, because society has failed them at every single twist in their life. Have you ever BEEN to an inner city school, Peter? These are underfunded bare-bone holding tanks. Even kids with a drive towards "personality responsibility" go into these drugged up, gun-filled, poverty-stricken holes in the ground and then are systematically denied every single opportunity that they try pursuing. These students graduate into the world without even the sliver of basic knowledge needed to get a job or even sustain a productive life; and worse off they've learned the lesson that society will never give them the opportunity to succeed, so why the hell should they even try?

Click to expand...

I have. I taught in one. There are books. There are teachers. Learning can take place. It isn't the school, it is the culture that they live in. Dad doesn't work or there is no dad so son doesn't work or knocks up a girl and won't be a dad himself. They know there is a safety net because mom gets food stamps, etc. They know they can bail because their ex-girlfriend will get food stamps if they bail. Nobody failed them but their parents. Society is trying to help them and they won't help themselves. You sum it up nicely... society helps them live bare-boned so why should they even try to do better when they are fine with that life style?

kerussll said:

We do not fund our schools even close to equally, and that is a problem. It's not just a matter of work ethic when your schools suck and aren't preparing you for the world outside of your neighborhood.

It actually is my problem, and yours because our tax money goes to this. I'd rather it go towards something that has a chance at changing the system, instead of putting a bandaid on it.

Click to expand...

Funding isn't relevant. There are books. There are libraries with computers. There are teachers. There are teachers that go the extra mile, in fact. I have taught at an elite private school and an inner city one and in between and learning is about attitude and motivation. That is it. Nothing more.

Bodhisattva said:

Funding isn't relevant. There are books. There are libraries with computers. There are teachers. There are teachers that go the extra mile, in fact. I have taught at an elite private school and an inner city one and in between and learning is about attitude and motivation. That is it. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

Well, heck, then why fund schools at all??

kerussll said:

No, it's not a single solution to the problem. But I fully believe it would do a lot of good to help things.

Click to expand...

And improving education so that it is more equitable for various demographics involves a large number of reforms, programs, and data tracking mechanisms, all of which are immensely difficult to design, let alone implement, and reflect with accuracy.

Saying "fix education" is something most can agree with, but knowing what to do and doing it are three very different things.

Peter Grimm said:

We have a cultural problem in America, particularly inner city, with people living on public money and not being productive members of society.

Part of the problem is that underclass inner city women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work.

The inner city men who are part of the problem also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support.

I once asked a 19 year old with no job and no schooling from the inner city, "What do you do all day?”

“You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.

Should we change that? Should we get rid of the handouts and end welfare?

Nothing wrong with the old soup kitchen. I don't believe in letting people starve, but let's get rid of food stamps, welfare payments, and other bs government giveaways.

Let's make these people learn personal responsibility

Click to expand...

Provide stats to prove the problem is as significant as you claim.

I'm onboard with doing away with federal welfare. I'd like to see the state welfare program continue in my state. Each state should choose these programs or not depending upon what they wish to fund.

Hard Truth said:

Provide stats to prove the problem is as significant as you claim.

Click to expand...

Will do if you change your avatar to something pleasant to look at...that's a nasty pic dude.

kerussll said:

Well, heck, then why fund schools at all??

Click to expand...

Because then there would be no books, computers or teachers... am I missing something or is your counter point 100% bizarre.

Bodhisattva said:

I have. I taught in one. There are books. There are teachers. Learning can take place. It isn't the school, it is the culture that they live in. Dad doesn't work or there is no dad so son doesn't work or knocks up a girl and won't be a dad himself. They know there is a safety net because mom gets food stamps, etc. They know they can bail because their ex-girlfriend will get food stamps if they bail. Nobody failed them but their parents. Society is trying to help them and they won't help themselves. You sum it up nicely... society helps them live bare-boned so why should they even try to do better when they are fine with that life style?

Click to expand...

Well said

clownboy said:

I'm onboard with doing away with federal welfare. I'd like to see the state welfare program continue in my state. Each state should choose these programs or not depending upon what they wish to fund.

Click to expand...

I've found it difficult to convince states much of anything to pick up on their own. In a severely conservative state, getting them to follow federal law is difficult by itself, and even harder to follow their own mandates. For one thing, their revenue is often not enough. Second, they may not want to do anything at all.

Bodhisattva said:

Funding isn't relevant. There are books. There are libraries with computers. There are teachers. There are teachers that go the extra mile, in fact. I have taught at an elite private school and an inner city one and in between and learning is about attitude and motivation. That is it. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

And the truth shall set you free. Amen.

Peter Grimm said:

Will do if you change your avatar to something pleasant to look at...that's a nasty pic dude.

Click to expand...

That is one of the toughest and oldest creatures on this planet. Here's a cuter picture:

Hard Truth said:

That is one of the toughest and oldest creatures on this planet. Here's a cuter picture:

Click to expand...

I buy RAID spray for things that look like that lol

Please show your sources. What percentage of inner city girls start having children at 15 and have them with 5 or 6 different men, and where do you get this information?

Fiddytree said:

And improving education so that it is more equitable for various demographics involves a large number of reforms, programs, and data tracking mechanisms, all of which are immensely difficult to design, let alone implement, and reflect with accuracy.

Saying "fix education" is something most can agree with, but knowing what to do and doing it are three very different things.

Click to expand...

But I just provided an extremely simple solution and said I know what to do :lol: Fund all public schools equally, adjusted for expenses as they vary from different locations. I'm sure our government would try to make it as complicated as you describe, but it doesn't need to be.