The Welfare Myth

[poopgiggle]

My feeling is, I don't care about politics or efficacy of the program, or money spent, or any of that. Government welfare of any kind is morally wrong and needs to stop.

I think you should tell all of us how it's morally right for people to starve in the wealthiest country in the world.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

I think you should tell all of us how it's morally right for people to starve in the wealthiest country in the world.

I think that you should tell us how it's morally right for able bodied people to sit home and draw a government check and then using that money for anything other than providing food and shelter for their children.

I'm fine with letting able bodied adults starve after they have completed a two year stint on government assistance. We just have to figure out how to feed the kids.

 

[Devilsbcoach]

I have mixed feelings about welfare. I am a big advocate of taking responsibility for oneself and one's actions. However, I do see situations that are beyond a person's control that result in that person needing assistance. My complaint is not so much with the existence of the welfare programs, but rather with what others have already mentioned --- the system being abused, broken etc. I will give an example of what causes my frustration with these programs: I know a family of 5 where Dad works a menial job, and Mom has no job, so they qualify for food stamps. In contrast, I have a family of 4. My wife and I both work at decent jobs, and we do not qualify for assistance. We budget approx $250-$300 a month for groceries and the household items that food stamps do not cover. They receive $900 per month in food stamps. NEVER has our budget for food been $900! I don't think anyone should starve, but REALLY? $900 a month? REALLY? It is a bit frustrating, and (as Tom Petty put it) "it just seems so useless to have to work so hard and nothin' ever really seem to come from it" while those who simply sit back and rely on the government are given so much. I know many will respond to this by saying, "Yes, but other aspects of your life are so much better than theirs." To that I say, "Ehhhh, not really." Their kids have things that my kids are still hoping to get for Christmas or birthday and may or may not get.

 

[inactive]

I'm fine with letting able bodied adults starve after they have completed a two year stint on government assistance. We just have to figure out how to feed the kids.

This is pretty much the short of it. And without rounding them all up away from scumbag parent and sending them to feeding camps, it remains a pretty complex problem.

Not to take away from the less-than-abled bodied adults. Sure they can and should get help too. Of course, the definition of able-bodied is debatable as well.

 

[EFsDad]

Are CRP payments welfare? If so me and mine are on the dole!

 

[Vamoose]

If it means helping kids I'll go with just about any program, warts and all, that gets them what they need. I wouldn't call that welfare. I'd call it an investment.

 

[ez bake]

The biggest problem with "helping kids" is that most kids who are going hungry or without proper care/education need more than money - they need good parents.

You can't provide that without putting an almost unbearable burden on the rest of society here in the US (that's a lot of adoptions). So the real answer is "how do we prevent these non-parents from having kids in the first place?".

Sterilization is one theory, but it's very much anti-constitutional (keep in mind, until someone becomes a scumbag-leach on society, you don't know they will be) and nobody is truly for it (the left thinks it's a violation of their civil rights, the right thinks it's a violation of their religious freedoms - both sides are technically correct).

Education is another way - use tax-dollars to prevent future kids from being criminals and deadbeat parents, and you might have a shot at a future, but it will take time, and it involves breaking a cycle of not giving a $#@! when people are already pretty set in their ways.

Do you "push them out of the nest" by cutting people off of any assistance in the hopes of forcing them to get jobs and be responsible? Not after the system has made them dependent. This will likely not help the kids any (parents who get jobs under protest because they have to are not going to automatically be good parents). A lot of folks will turn to crime, and a many will just die and let their kids starve to death.

It's a much more complex problem than just "welfare" or "education". I don't have a good answer, but it's clear that neither congress nor the president has had a good answer to this for several years now.

 

[Stephen Cue]

The biggest problem with "helping kids" is that most kids who are going hungry or without proper care/education need more than money - they need good parents.

You can't provide that without putting an almost unbearable burden on the rest of society here in the US (that's a lot of adoptions). So the real answer is "how do we prevent these non-parents from having kids in the first place?".

Sterilization is one theory, but it's very much anti-constitutional (keep in mind, until someone becomes a scumbag-leach on society, you don't know they will be) and nobody is truly for it (the left thinks it's a violation of their civil rights, the right thinks it's a violation of their religious freedoms - both sides are technically correct).

Education is another way - use tax-dollars to prevent future kids from being criminals and deadbeat parents, and you might have a shot at a future, but it will take time, and it involves breaking a cycle of not giving a $#@! when people are already pretty set in their ways.

Do you "push them out of the nest" by cutting people off of any assistance in the hopes of forcing them to get jobs and be responsible? Not after the system has made them dependent. This will likely not help the kids any (parents who get jobs under protest because they have to are not going to automatically be good parents). A lot of folks will turn to crime, and a many will just die and let their kids starve to death.

It's a much more complex problem than just "welfare" or "education". I don't have a good answer, but it's clear that neither congress nor the president has had a good answer to this for several years now.

Im for birth control requirements to take welfare. One must provide proof from doctor of current regimen and if a pregnancy occurs, a moratorium for assistance is enacted for an undetermined period.

If they dont want to take birth control, then seek assistance from private charities.

Also, I am for a requirement of community service for all non-disabled welfare recipiants above age 18.

 

[gillman7]

I'm certainly don't mean to offend, but many think that family should care of family, it sounds like your daughters might have made bad decisions, along with pursuing the sperm donor, you are the father and grandfather, step up.

Might want to read the rest of my posts. And yes, it is offensive, as far as stepping up, I am not trying to justify myself to anyone, don't really care what you think. Rest assured that I am not driving a new car, live in a new house, and have sold most of my personal items to take care of issues. The other question is why should I be expected to? They are functioning adults as well, however as was stated in my other posts, 3 of them are adopted out of foster care, been a foster parent, and they are involved in helping out non profits. The issue you quoted was about the stupidity of having to sign up for all programs whether they are needed or not. I like your judgement on my daughters choices, it is refreshing to hear from someone that has never had a bad decision or thing happen to them.

The biggest problem with "helping kids" is that most kids who are going hungry or without proper care/education need more than money - they need good parents.

You can't provide that without putting an almost unbearable burden on the rest of society here in the US (that's a lot of adoptions). So the real answer is "how do we prevent these non-parents from having kids in the first place?".

Sterilization is one theory, but it's very much anti-constitutional (keep in mind, until someone becomes a scumbag-leach on society, you don't know they will be) and nobody is truly for it (the left thinks it's a violation of their civil rights, the right thinks it's a violation of their religious freedoms - both sides are technically correct).

Education is another way - use tax-dollars to prevent future kids from being criminals and deadbeat parents, and you might have a shot at a future, but it will take time, and it involves breaking a cycle of not giving a $#@! when people are already pretty set in their ways.

Do you "push them out of the nest" by cutting people off of any assistance in the hopes of forcing them to get jobs and be responsible? Not after the system has made them dependent. This will likely not help the kids any (parents who get jobs under protest because they have to are not going to automatically be good parents). A lot of folks will turn to crime, and a many will just die and let their kids starve to death.

It's a much more complex problem than just "welfare" or "education". I don't have a good answer, but it's clear that neither congress nor the president has had a good answer to this for several years now.

This is probably the best post in this thread. Andy, you hit the nail on the head. We have a real challenge reestablishing the family unit.

 

[Blinocac200sx]

If it means helping kids I'll go with just about any program, warts and all, that gets them what they need. I wouldn't call that welfare. I'd call it an investment.

The problem is, it's far too easy to use children as a human shield for a pet program. On top of that, you really have to ask yourself, does an impersonal, government run, handout program really help the children?