What do you think of the welfare system?

[Syringer]

?

 

[fatbaby]

Well we can never have a welfare system where everyone (rich, poor, hardworking, lazy) can be happy so I guess its fine where it is..

 

[StageLeft]

Revised so that less people feel comfortable with staying on it long term.

 

[Vic]

Should be abolished

 

[AlienCraft]

The emphasis should be on education / parenting / job skill enrichment. Health care and nutrition baseline maintenance. Basic shelter based on need.
Corporations need not apply..... 😀


<never been on welfare.

 

[Yossarian451]

The social effects of welfare have bred a new class of people, those who rely on welfare. The welfare class is a saddenening and sickening thing, there are people who believe that they don't have to do anything and the government will provide for them. Now I am not saying that everyone on welfare is that way, but it is a growing trend.

 

[Geekbabe]

In the Boston area we give a single mother with 1 child about $500 per month in cash assistance,the average rent here for a 1 bedroom apt is around 1k per month.I say if we're going to help anybody we should really help them not just throw scraps at them and then biatch about it.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
In the Boston area we give a single mother with 1 child about $500 per month in cash assistance,the average rent here for a 1 bedroom apt is around 1k per month.I say if we're going to help anybody we should really help them not just throw scraps at them and then biatch about it.

But since enough people already have no problem staying on it longterm (beats working right?) throwing money at them will just make even less people willing to get off it. Frankly those on welfare should not be having kids, but I suppose we can't go and make them all sterile.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
In the Boston area we give a single mother with 1 child about $500 per month in cash assistance,the average rent here for a 1 bedroom apt is around 1k per month.I say if we're going to help anybody we should really help them not just throw scraps at them and then biatch about it.

But since enough people already have no problem staying on it longterm (beats working right?) throwing money at them will just make even less people willing to get off it. Frankly those on welfare should not be having kids, but I suppose we can't go and make them all sterile.

Welfare has already been reformed, 5 yr *lifetime* limit on assistance and no additional cash assistance for any children born after you're on the rolls.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
In the Boston area we give a single mother with 1 child about $500 per month in cash assistance,the average rent here for a 1 bedroom apt is around 1k per month.I say if we're going to help anybody we should really help them not just throw scraps at them and then biatch about it.

But since enough people already have no problem staying on it longterm (beats working right?) throwing money at them will just make even less people willing to get off it. Frankly those on welfare should not be having kids, but I suppose we can't go and make them all sterile.

Welfare has already been reformed, 5 yr *lifetime* limit on assistance and no additional cash assistance for any children born after you're on the rolls.

Hmm I think it must still be in the dark ages in Canada though. But really why does a person need even 5 years? Nobody should need 5 years over their life. And if they do what about if they're on for 5 years and then go to year 6? Will they be thrown on the streets?

 

[gotsmack]

they should be. welfare just creates dependance on the system.

 

[Amused]

Welfare should be left to private charities. It was previous to 1965, and no one was starving in the streets then.

Welfare was introduced as a way to abolish poverty. All it has done is foster poverty.

 

It needs extreme revision, obviously.

There is a lot more to welfare than just getting money in the mail. Social assistance programs provide many services for people that would normally be out of their grasp. Job resources, education, funding, and transportation are some of the things available.

Much of the focus of anti-welfare assistance arguement is based upon abuse. Which isn't even a problem with the system, it's a problem with the human condition. So, it has to be looked at much more in depth than just saying it's a wasteful system that breeds laziness.

Please do not take that opinion and use it to implicate into being a "pansy liberal". I value personal responsibility just as much as the next person.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

It's a complete fustercluck.

The ones who try to get out get screwed, while those who abuse the system get more.

I have a renter under assisted housing who just got screwed for being honest.

They did her yearly evaluation, and the gal was honest with her income, etc. They decreased her assistance :| So she still has to pay the same amount of rent, but 50% more comes out of her pocket. That's more hassle for me as well. So 2 people get the shaft when the girl does good, but when someone lies about their income or needs, they get more money. Makes no sense.

 

[Freejack2]

Nevermind.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Freejack2
The system needs a lot of work. To get rid of it is wrong. Why you ask? Think about this, you push to get welfare abolished. Some young husband and wife has a couple of kids. One day something happens and the husband dies. Things get bad quickly. The widowed mother loses her home and has no place to go, a couple of months later a mother and 2 children are found dead on the street. With welfare the mother and children at least have a fighting chance.

Please show me when this happened in the US during the 1940s, 50s and early 1960s?

It didn't. NO ONE was dying in the streets before state sponsered welfare. This is an insufferable myth borne of historical ignorance that refuses to die.

(The Depression does not count. Even if there was welfare at the time, it would not have worked. State run food banks and soup lines could not keep up as it was.)

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Freejack2
The system needs a lot of work. To get rid of it is wrong. Why you ask? Think about this, you push to get welfare abolished. Some young husband and wife has a couple of kids. One day something happens and the husband dies. Things get bad quickly. The widowed mother loses her home and has no place to go, a couple of months later a mother and 2 children are found dead on the street. With welfare the mother and children at least have a fighting chance.

In an ideal welfare system she goes on welfare. Yeah she loses the home but they are put in an apartment and have a roof over their heads. The woman goes to college for a couple of years to get a degree. During that time welfare pays for child support, rent, food stamps, generally helps her make ends meet. 4 months after graduation the woman lands a decent entry level job and goes off everything except child care. Couple of years later she gets a good promotion and is totally out of the welfare system.

This is just one situation.

I suggest at the very least if someone goes on welfare, they put them to work. That way they stay used to working and it encourages them to get a better paying job out in the real world or take advantage of getting a good education that welfare offers.

That's got to be the stupidest example ever. She's supposed to be a full time single mother of two, full time college student, and employed to help pay for what welfare doesn't cover? When her husband died, he didn't have social security, a pension plan, or any savings, nor did he or she have parents or brothers or sisters or even friends that would help them out?

Have you ever once heard of an entire family of homeless people being found dead on the streets?

Your conconcted example is ridiculous.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Freejack2
The system needs a lot of work. To get rid of it is wrong. Why you ask? Think about this, you push to get welfare abolished. Some young husband and wife has a couple of kids. One day something happens and the husband dies. Things get bad quickly. The widowed mother loses her home and has no place to go, a couple of months later a mother and 2 children are found dead on the street. With welfare the mother and children at least have a fighting chance.

In an ideal welfare system she goes on welfare. Yeah she loses the home but they are put in an apartment and have a roof over their heads. The woman goes to college for a couple of years to get a degree. During that time welfare pays for child support, rent, food stamps, generally helps her make ends meet. 4 months after graduation the woman lands a decent entry level job and goes off everything except child care. Couple of years later she gets a good promotion and is totally out of the welfare system.

This is just one situation.

I suggest at the very least if someone goes on welfare, they put them to work. That way they stay used to working and it encourages them to get a better paying job out in the real world or take advantage of getting a good education that welfare offers.

That's got to be the stupidest example ever. She's supposed to be a full time single mother of two, full time college student, and employed to help pay for what welfare doesn't cover? When her husband died, he didn't have social security, a pension plan, or any savings, nor did he or she have parents or brothers or sisters or even friends that would help them out?

Have you ever once heard of an entire family of homeless people being found dead on the streets?

Your conconcted example is ridiculous.

Not to mention it was not happening before 1965.

 

[hdeck]

heavy revision