Place sensible limits on welfare

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76


<< Do you really think she has much of an oppurtunity to change when raising 4 children? Easy to say she is human waste when you have the priviledge of having a spare minute on AT to post about it. >>

Could it be that he EARNED that spare minute to post? Do you think the Federal Government gave him that computer at the expense of starving children? She has a 2/3 chance of ripping off the system, so why shouldn?t she be judged by jaeger66? What gives you the right to judge jaeger when you were not there?
 

Hossenfeffer

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2000
7,462
1
0


<< Could it be that he EARNED that spare minute to post? Do you think the Federal Government gave him that computer at the expense of starving children? She has a 2/3 chance of ripping off the system, so why shouldn?t she be judged by jaeger66? What gives you the right to judge jaeger when you were not there? >>

Survey Says? <BUZZ> Sorry, you provided a poor answer. Please try again. ;)
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
<<Though maybe that was stepping a little to far. I do agree with you about the bums on welfare. My mom works for the Human Services. And the stories I hear just piss me off. A third of the people mis treat the system going around every loop hole possible, driving nice cars and then get their welfare checks. Another third are just bums to lazy to do a damn thing and have no respect for themselves of their families. Real low lifes! And the other third actually needs the assistant for real causes of infortanties. I'm dead serious, about 66% of welfare money is wasted on liars and low lifes.>>


Anytime you subsidize a certain behavior, you encourage it. Anytime you tax a behavior you discourage it. If you pay people not to work, you encourage people to abuse the system.

That being said, you cannot cut this 1/3 of truly needy people off at the knees. The total dollar cost of welfare is minimal. I like to think of the 2/3's as just necessary waste.

However this 2/3s of welfare recipients bothers me most when you see the fact that they instill a mindset that is a cancer on society.
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,607
787
136
Wow! I hope you're just having a bad night jaeger!

You're letting yourself jump to a judgement about this woman and her circumstances on very little real information. And the "piece of human filth" comment is way over the top; it actually has the ring of something the Nazis might have said about the Jews.

No one's going to defend the cheats who take advantage of the welfare system. On the other hand, I wish more people would look beyond them and feel good about helping the majority who really couldn't survive without welfare and/or food stamps.

The most attractive tenent this country has (IMHO) is that of equal opportunity which we all know isn't exactly true, but I am glad that "welfare mothers" receive some support so that their children have at least a fighting chance to compete with the more fortunate in their pursuit of their American dream.
 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
18
81


<< Do you really think she has much of an oppurtunity to change when raising 4 children? Easy to say she is human waste when you have the priviledge of having a spare minute on AT to post about it. >>



she didnt have to have 4 children . to the guy who said would we notice the 8% of our income that disappears, i think a lot of people would say yes. and even if the total dollar cost of welfare was small, which it is not in fact, its the principle that the originator of this thread is talking about.
 

Mucman

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,246
1
0
I think I may follow a different philosophy... perhaps I am closer to predeterminism that I though... Who knows what circumstances occured for that woman to be in such a state.

Looking back, I realise I am not making a convincing argument at all. These kind of discussions aren't my forte but I wish they were because I would like to get involved in these types of topics...
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81


<< Welfare and education is only 114 billion of the federal buget or 8%. Would you really notice 8% of the 30% (~2.5% of total income) in taxes you already pay? And is 2.5% of your salery to much to pay for someone who is down on thier luck or has been downsized? Plus welfare can't go on for ever since Clinton it's 5 years max with 2-2-1 split.

IMO welfare should include more benifits like job training and free day care for those who work part-time jobs. It's sad to me, as rich as we are, to see the lack of compasion in America. I suggest to anyone that thinks welfare is a bad thing to go over to europe or Japan. They have much better extensive welfare programs and less people begging in the streets higher test scores and a more educated populus, and a higher standard of living as a whole. But they don't have too many billionares.
>>



Europe also has a much stronger Socialist undercurrent, in general, running through its population.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81


<<

<< Welfare and education is only 114 billion of the federal buget or 8%. Would you really notice 8% of the 30% (~2.5% of total income) in taxes you already pay? And is 2.5% of your salery to much to pay for someone who is down on thier luck or has been downsized? Plus welfare can't go on for ever since Clinton it's 5 years max with 2-2-1 split.

IMO welfare should include more benifits like job training and free day care for those who work part-time jobs. It's sad to me, as rich as we are, to see the lack of compasion in America. I suggest to anyone that thinks welfare is a bad thing to go over to europe or Japan. They have much better extensive welfare programs and less people begging in the streets higher test scores and a more educated populus, and a higher standard of living as a whole. But they don't have too many billionares.
>>



Europe also has a much stronger Socialist undercurrent, in general, running through its population.
>>



What does that mean exactly? Are you saying they chip in a little better than the US and get off welfare as a sence of duty?
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81


<<

<<

<< Welfare and education is only 114 billion of the federal buget or 8%. Would you really notice 8% of the 30% (~2.5% of total income) in taxes you already pay? And is 2.5% of your salery to much to pay for someone who is down on thier luck or has been downsized? Plus welfare can't go on for ever since Clinton it's 5 years max with 2-2-1 split.

IMO welfare should include more benifits like job training and free day care for those who work part-time jobs. It's sad to me, as rich as we are, to see the lack of compasion in America. I suggest to anyone that thinks welfare is a bad thing to go over to europe or Japan. They have much better extensive welfare programs and less people begging in the streets higher test scores and a more educated populus, and a higher standard of living as a whole. But they don't have too many billionares.
>>



Europe also has a much stronger Socialist undercurrent, in general, running through its population.
>>



What does that mean exactly? Are you saying they chip in a little better than the US and get off welfare as a sence of duty?
>>



Per capita, their income is lower... their tax rates are higher. Sweden, I think, or Finland, has a complete cutoff for anyone who earns over 100k - i.e. anything over that gets taken as taxes.

I think, in Germany... welfare rates are somewhere around 25% of the labor force.
 

jaeger66

Banned
Jan 1, 2001
3,852
0
0


<<
Per capita, their income is lower... their tax rates are higher. Sweden, I think, or Finland, has a complete cutoff for anyone who earns over 100k - i.e. anything over that gets taken as taxes.
>>


I find that hard to believe. Then the maximum salary for anyone is 100K, no company would pay over that just to give it to the government. Maybe in the form of a capital gains tax, but all that would do is encourage people to invest in other countries thereby undermining the local economy.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
some people should stop focusing on 4 little words, and start focusing on the larger topic at hand.

you can make the argument, that you don't know anything about this woman's situation, etc etc. and certainly, there are exceptions to the rule. however, i think it is fairly likely this woman got pregnant while already on welfare. and who's fault is that?

there is a disturbing sentiment in our society, that we are *supposed* to have kids, and that it is no big deal. i would give my life, if i knew that it would reverse this sentiment. people must learn that having kids is *not* a necessity, and it should only be done if they have the resources to support the new child. furthermore, people must also learn that having a child entails a *tremendous* amount of responsibility, and if they are not willing or able to bear this responsibility, they should not have the child. to have a child, in a time when you are clearly incapable of providing a good upbringing for it, is nothing short of child abuse.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81


<< some people should stop focusing on 4 little words, and start focusing on the larger topic at hand.

you can make the argument, that you don't know anything about this woman's situation, etc etc. and certainly, there are exceptions to the rule. however, i think it is fairly likely this woman got pregnant while already on welfare. and who's fault is that?

there is a disturbing sentiment in our society, that we are *supposed* to have kids, and that it is no big deal. i would give my life, if i knew that it would reverse this sentiment. people must learn that having kids is *not* a necessity, and it should only be done if they have the resources to support the new child. furthermore, people must also learn that having a child entails a *tremendous* amount of responsibility, and if they are not willing or able to bear this responsibility, they should not have the child. to have a child, in a time when you are clearly incapable of providing a good upbringing for it, is nothing short of child abuse.
>>



It's easy to say that when, a) you're young, b) you're educated, and c) you're intelligent, all three of which you are, gp. No one ever claimed that people are intelligent as a whole... hence, one of the reasons we have a democratic form of gov't.

In all actuality, very few people recieve the level of education you or I are receiving, gp; I grew up in Kent my whole life, I was surrounded by people who never saw much more than the forty mile area surrounding Kent... lots of people like this there.

*shrug* I've learned to accept the fact that people will...procreate, for the most part, when they want to procreate. Idiots spawn, intelligent people reproduce. Just see to it that your children are intelligent enough to lead the broodlings. ;)
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
It's easy to say that when, a) you're young, b) you're educated, and c) you're intelligent, all three of which you are, gp. No one ever claimed that people are intelligent as a whole... hence, one of the reasons we have a democratic form of gov't.

In all actuality, very few people recieve the level of education you or I are receiving, gp; I grew up in Kent my whole life, I was surrounded by people who never saw much more than the forty mile area surrounding Kent... lots of people like this there.


yes, i know... i don't expect for people to realize that kind of stuff from birth... which is why i said people have to learn :)

i grew up in seattle my whole life, and while it probably isn't as bad as kent (;)), the central and southern areas leave a lot to be desired.

*shrug* I've learned to accept the fact that people will...procreate, for the most part, when they want to procreate. Idiots spawn, intelligent people reproduce. Just see to it that your children are intelligent enough to lead the broodlings. ;)

ugh what a depressing thought :p

i don't think this is a tremendously difficult concept to grasp... it's not instinct or anything, but i do think it's possible to get people more aware of these types of issues. i mean, no money means you can't raise kids. not that hard of a concept...

i also don't take any comfort in knowing that the broodlings will be led by my children. good leadership can carry a people for a good time... years, decades, maybe centuries even. but ultimately, the long term improvement of society comes from educating and improving those who need it the most, imho.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Good to realize that... and good to realize when I'm joking, :). That's the whole idea behind public education... behind scholarships and financial assistance... behind free family planning, etc. Economic disparity is becoming less and less of an excuse for stupid decisions and lack of education.

South Seattle can be pretty ugly, I admit... Kent is full of hicks... but LA beats 'em all. There's something depressing about driving down skid row and seeing that many people there... realizing that these people have essentially given up hope for ever having or finding a regular life...

*sigh*

People can be educated; however, there will always be ignorant people, and selfish people. Welfare, unfortunately, seems to attract a few of both.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91


<<

<< Do you really think she has much of an oppurtunity to change when raising 4 children? Easy to say she is human waste when you have the priviledge of having a spare minute on AT to post about it. >>



she didnt have to have 4 children . to the guy who said would we notice the 8% of our income that disappears, i think a lot of people would say yes. and even if the total dollar cost of welfare was small, which it is not in fact, its the principle that the originator of this thread is talking about.
>>



And how are you so sure she didn't have a job before getting pregnant? Maybe she had worked hard and had earned millions, but was married to her boss, who was an asshole like you, who then left her and the kids and managed to screw her out of everything she had, and fired her. Maybe it's damn hard for her to get a new job cause employers don't want to hire a pregnant woman with so many kids, and maybe she didn't chose to get divorced, maybe her husband died. And maybe you're just an asshole who doesn't give a damn about other people, and who thinks everyone else is living off your money.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Maybe she had worked hard and had earned millions, but was married to her boss, who was an asshole like you, who then left her and the kids and managed to screw her out of everything she had, and fired her.

i find this scenario about as likely as winning the lottery.

who thinks everyone else is living off your money.

the fact is, if she's on welfare, she is living off his money.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
I think this thread has done a lot to expose some latent hostility in this forum...

While I don't agree with people leeching off welfare, I don't think that it is right to judge someone whom you do not know, simply because they appear a certain way. Some situations are just awkard or ugly at a certain moment in time, when in reality, they are neither.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0


<< I think this thread has done a lot to expose some latent hostility in this forum... >>



bah, the hippies always get their panties wet over this kind of stuff ;)
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81


<<

<< I think this thread has done a lot to expose some latent hostility in this forum... >>



bah, the hippies always get their panties wet over this kind of stuff ;)
>>



Everyone gets their panties wet over this kind of stuff.
 

jaeger66

Banned
Jan 1, 2001
3,852
0
0
Let's get something straight: the only acceptable reason to have kids is love. And judging from how she treated hers in my presence there wasn't a whole lot in that household. When is it EVER OK to just let a toddler roam a crowded supermarket?
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
In my opinion: Welfare is a safety net, and should be use as such and only as such. If you are on welfare and you get pregnant, if you have the child your benefits should be reduced by some percentage. If you have a second child after going on welfare, your benefits should be eliminated entirely, with no exceptions. This will cause a lot of people to think before just blindly getting pregnant.

Edit: I also feel that birth control/family planning services should be fully subsidized for low-income people.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81


<< Let's get something straight: the only acceptable reason to have kids is love. And judging from how she treated hers in my presence there wasn't a whole lot in that household. When is it EVER OK to just let a toddler roam a crowded supermarket? >>



Never.

However, I wasn't there, I cannot judge if the toddler was a foot away or ten feet away. I refuse to judge a situation I have not seen myself.
 

Jerboy

Banned
Oct 27, 2001
5,190
0
0


<< Dammit! I thought this was going to be a Jerboy thread!

Oh well, his name DOES start with 'J'...
>>



meh.. I just knew it. I knew my name was going to get mentioned when a topic of poor people is brought up :D

My opinion on of the week: Welfare program sucks. What a waste of tax money.
 

Kaieye

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,275
0
0
If welfare stopped, would people actually get hurt in the long run?? What happened during the Great Depression before public assistance started? Welfare is like a drug- use it and it can be very difficult to ween off it...
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
I was searching for the famous Marion Barry line about "stop having babies" and found this:



<< Veronica Williams was a homeless woman of about 35, with 14 children, living in a shelter in Washington, D.C., in 1987. She had some income from the Social Security system as a result of her husband's death in 1983, but she was homeless.

Veronica Williams made the national news in 1987 when she was engaged in public conversation at the homeless shelter by the Mayor of Washington, D.C., Marion Barry. Mayor Barry asked her, " Why don't you stop having all those babies?" No matter how you may view that question, the impertinence of the question brought national press coverage, including a stint on the Donahue Show where she had the opportunity to debate the Washington Mayor.

The nation's press brought so much light to her plight that the city felt the pressure to get her out of the homeless shelter and into a home of her own. The city approached a Mr. Bradley, who had just remodeled his rental at a cost of $42,000, and convinced him to rent his home to Mrs. Williams, her unemployed husband, and her 14 children. Mrs. Williams said, "I just want to start something new, to live in a decent place and raise my kids with respect." That was in December, 1987. The city paid $1,084 per month (70% of her rent), plus child care services, free medical and dental care, and $600 a month in food stamps.

In the intervening two years, the welfare workers attempted to give Mrs. Williams counseling, but she refused to let them into her house. She told the press earlier this month: "I'm all for help. But don't come into my home dipping into my life. I'm a grown woman. I don't wanna be treated like a government recipient."

Several weeks ago, the city condemned the house, and Mrs. Williams is demanding a new house. The only thing left in the kitchen is the proverbial kitchen sink - but it sits on the floor. The refrigerator is gone. The stove is gone. The cabinets and counters are gone. The furniture the city provided in the rest of the house is gone. There are holes in the walls, the floors, even the ceiling. One bathtub has standing, stagnant water. The city estimates that there is about $40,000 in damage to the 7-bedroom house, but the city refuses to be responsible for the repair of any of the damage. In fact the city says the house is now not satisfactory as a dwelling unit, although it has not been condemned, and has ended their payments to the owner!

Mrs. Williams is about $2,700 in arrears to the city in water bills, and five months behind in her portion of the rent, $243 a month.

The city has removed 10 of her children to protective custody, and will require her to be re-certified for assistance. Her oldest child was killed in a gun accident since she moved in the house, but she has subsequently had another baby by her new husband.

And Mrs. Willams? She says, "If that house was built stronger than it was, I don't believe things would have gone down like that."

Mrs. Williams demands new housing, saying, "What I need is a steady house," explaining that 14 children will naturally cause some damage regardless of how careful they are.
>>