Welfare

[Artalion]

This little discussion occurred in another thread, in which we were discussing methods to relieve federal spending, but the discussion turned briefly to welfare.

Welfare is a government program which pays money to people that are unemployed. While it offers a necessary saftey net for people who have been recently unemployed, some people live off welfare and do nothing for the government.

My solution is simple: an unemployed person signs a contract with the government that says that if he is unable to work in X days, then the government will employ him in some public service.

This public service can be picked by the applicant; the choices can be anywhere from military service to being a gardener.

Enigma had these comments to offer, which I'd like to respond to.

Who are these people that really need it according to you? Apparently only people that are moving between jobs. What about people that can't get jobs? Or can't work? Forced labour? That seems slightly cruel and unlikely to work. Especially if it's the military. Can't find work? Then die!

Forced labor? Of course not. More like guarenteed work. Since the amount of jobs is so diverse, it might be difficult for any one person not to get work. Exceptions, like amputees, would need special consideration, but it is unlikely that they are completely useless to the government.

Your offhand remark concerning the US military is ironic, since it is more deadly to drive a car then it is to serve in Iraq or abroad.

I also read this thing in the new york times the other day. (Yeah, and I live in Canada, my parents are news junkies) About how the US pays for the healthcare of only really low income people and how when welfare standards were raisied and more people were kicked off it, the government had to pay more for healthcare then they saved off welfare cuts. That shouldn't be a huge surprise because poverty breeds bad health.

Medical expenses is greater than a paycheck to any one person on welfare.

But anyways your idea in general seems pretty cruel. Lets take away the food money of extremely poor people so that everyone that can afford a tv gets entertained.

Rather then taking food out of the mouths of poor families and forcing them to slave, the government is having people earn the money that they get from government. There is still government programs (can anyone say 'foodstamps') if people are unable to afford food from the money in their paychecks (I doubt this.)

The idea behind this new idea is that people earn the money they are given; instead of being leeches to the government.

Perhaps I am unaware of some key fact or idea that makes this system not plausible. Enigma did note that some people unable to work would have trouble with this new system. It could be compensated by having that length of time be for a long period of time, say 90 years or greater. This would be applied simply if there was no work that a person could do, like a person with no legs or hands.

If their is more problems, then let them be revealed.

[edit the sad parts]

Are welfare and unemployment synonymous in the U.S? I didn't think they were. Unemployment is supposed to be your safety net if you're recently unemployed, si?

Though your idea does make sense, in some cases...what kind of jobs is the government going to find for people, and at what rate of pay? Minwage is not going to guarantee any kind of food on the table, or basic necessities. Housing, food, clothing, transportation, medical bills, and then any leisure spending all add up to, well, much more than a minimum wage job pays. And what if the person in question has a family, as well. That is all of those costs times the number of family members, and pets, as well.

Not to mention childcare...will the goverment provide that, if it's needed? Daycare can cost as much as $50.00/day.

What if a woman becomes pregnant when her contract is up. Will she be forced to work?

What qualifications will have to be met? What if someone is lacking in education? Obviously these people aren't going to get special treatment, and magically have high-paying jobs handed to them. So how can you force someone to become the working-poor in good conscience? Are they going to have to work outrageous hours, so they can support themselves?

Do you know how much the average welfare cheque is? It's not like welfare recipients are leading some glamourous lifestyle, while the rest of the average working joes have to toil all day for a bourgeois existence.

[Artalion]

Good points and I have no idea how to answer them at the moment.

[smalltownsnare]

A program such as the one Artalion is describing actually exists in some states. It's called the Welfare to Work program. However, programs such as these often have drastic consequences.

Tamarla Owens is a single mom on welfare, raising her son while being forced to work three jobs on the Welfare to Work program. Despite working 12 hour days, Tamarla was evicted from her apartment when she was unable to pay rent, and moved in with her brother in Flint. Because Tamarla couldn't pay for child care on her salary, her son was left unattended for hours before and after school. That's when he found a hangun, which he brought to school the next day. The six year old shot another student, killing her instantly.

Is the Welfare to Work program completely responsible for this senseless killing? No. But forced work programs make it virtually impossible for single parents to raise children: another flaw in the system.

[edit the sad parts]

A program such as the one Artalion is describing actually exists in some states. It's called the Welfare to Work program. However, programs such as these often have drastic consequences.

Tamarla Owens is a single mom on welfare, raising her son while being forced to work three jobs on the Welfare to Work program. Despite working 12 hour days, Tamarla was evicted from her apartment when she was unable to pay rent, and moved in with her brother in Flint. Because Tamarla couldn't pay for child care on her salary, her son was left unattended for hours before and after school. That's when he found a hangun, which he brought to school the next day. The six year old shot another student, killing her instantly.

Is the Welfare to Work program completely responsible for this senseless killing? No. But forced work programs make it virtually impossible for single parents to raise children: another flaw in the system.

Yes, and as you've illustrated, it fails, miserably. I've seen that movie, too

[The Lion Rampant]

Social programs are tough nuts to crack. Individual situations and needs are so diverse that it is all but impossible to find a way around the injustice that such programs will inevitably cause. It then boils down to a numbers game; if the number of people "helped" by the programs is greater than the number of people "disenfranchised," we would generally assume that the program is working. However, determining whether someone is "helped" or "disenfranchised" isn't that easy to deduce, either.

My personal solution? Avoid social programs when at all possible; when they break down, they're all but impossible to "fix."

[aka_laura]

It’s Welfare-to-Work on steroids, it would have the same problems.

1. Working doesn’t mean having enough money to pay the bills. Unless you’re planning on enacting living wage requirements, most people in the program would stay below the poverty line.
2. Savings to the government would only be short-term. People would go off the welfare roles but they wouldn’t get financial stability, which means that they still would rely on government funding for things like food stamps, school lunches, health care, housing etc. We’ve seen it happen with Welfare-to-Work.
3. Without government provided child care there’s no place for kids to go (as previously noted). Welfare to work takes kids away from their parents. Unsupervised kids are more likely to commit crime and fail in school, which means we have to pay more for them in the prison or educational systems. Then conservatives get to decry the loss of traditional family values and blame the poor for the whole thing.
4. There’s generally a reason why people are chronically unemployed in the first place. This means the program will wreak havoc upon people’s lives. Case in point: victims of domestic violence, who would be kicked off welfare when their abusers keep them from working, or followed home from work and beaten or killed.

Forced military conscription for the poor is pretty morally repugnant. It also wouldn’t have a prayer of being found constitutional in court. I’d also love to hear the reaction of the military to such a proposal. They would hate it, for the same reasons most military officials don’t want a draft, and they would fight it tooth and nail.

[Enigma]

Your offhand remark concerning the US military is ironic, since it is more deadly to drive a car then it is to serve in Iraq or abroad.

Do you have proof for this? Because soliders drive cars... past people with guns.

Medical expenses is greater than a paycheck to any one person on welfare.

But the already existing medical expenses went up when welfare was lowered.

My personal solution? Avoid social programs when at all possible; when they break down, they're all but impossible to "fix."

Yeah because if someone is abuseing a system that improves thousands of lives that justifies scraping the whole thing.

Well since Artalion couldn't answer edit's points I guess this proposal is already defeated. But this is why I love canada, we don't mind robin hooding it a bit. What's so wrong with rich people losing a little bit of money when 13% of people in the united states are below the poverty line?

[The Lion Rampant]

Yeah because if someone is abuseing a system that improves thousands of lives that justifies scraping the whole thing.

You have misunderstood my meaning. I mentioned nothing about scrapping any current social programs (or anything about welfare specifically, though I do disagree with tax-sponsored welfare programs). I said that it is wise to avoid bureaucracy when at all possible, because when it breaks, it's hard to fix without starting from scratch.

What's so wrong with rich people losing a little bit of money when 13% of people in the united states are below the poverty line?

There are a lot of things wrong with that. It's their money, and if they choose to hold onto it rather than give it away, no one should force it from them. That is called "stealing." Many people argue that "rich people" have a "social responsibility" to the community they live in; i.e., since they "can" pay, they should. It's the old "poverty in the midst of plenty" line that socialists have been peddling for nearly a hundred years. The bottom line is that you can't legislate "equality," no matter how hard you try. Someone always gets screwed over.

[aka_laura]

It's their money, and if they choose to hold onto it rather than give it away, no one should force it from them. That is called "stealing." Many people argue that "rich people" have a "social responsibility" to the community they live in; i.e., since they "can" pay, they should. It's the old "poverty in the midst of plenty" line that socialists have been peddling for nearly a hundred years.

Hey now, let’s be accurate about what socialists have been peddling for nearly 100 years. People have an obligation to support the impoverished not because of social responsibility, (although that’s great too) but because people only get wealthy as a result of other people’s labor. People are paid less than their labor is actually valued at so the people who own the means of production can profit. Some may call that “stealing.”

The bottom line is that you can't legislate "equality," no matter how hard you try. Someone always gets screwed over.

True. But inability to achieve perfection is no reason to stop trying. Attempt to make things more equal and people, on balance, will be better off. After all, I can never make myself flawlessly clean, that doesn’t mean I’m going to give up showering.

[The Lion Rampant]

Hey now, let’s be accurate about what socialists have been peddling for nearly 100 years. People have an obligation to support the impoverished not because of social responsibility, (although that’s great too) but because people only get wealthy as a result of other people’s labor. People are paid less than their labor is actually valued at so the people who own the means of production can profit. Some may call that “stealing.”

You are right, but the type of support you are describing should not be exacted through force. The labor that drives production must and will always be minimally supported by those that desire production to continue. If workers become unhappy and refuse to work, it is in the best interests of the production owners to come to a reasonable agreement with them concerning their needs. However, one must be wary of the distinction between those who want to be treated fairly and those who are, themselves, hungry for power.

People are paid less than their labor is actually valued at so the people who own the means of production can profit. Some may call that “stealing.”

Stealing from the poor for the benefit of the rich is not different than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, and thus should not be offered as a counter argument in this context.

True. But inability to achieve perfection is no reason to stop trying. Attempt to make things more equal and people, on balance, will be better off. After all, I can never make myself flawlessly clean, that doesn’t mean I’m going to give up showering.

I agree completely, but I believe that attempting to "level the playing field" through legislation is directly contrary to the goal you have described. While it is, in every way, noble and just to strive for justice and equality in every avenue of society, laws that are created in order to directly benefit one group and disenfranchise another are wrong. It makes no difference who is on what end of the arrangement.

[aka_laura]

You are right, but the type of support you are describing should not be exacted through force. The labor that drives production must and will always be minimally supported by those that desire production to continue. If workers become unhappy and refuse to work, it is in the best interests of the production owners to come to a reasonable agreement with them concerning their needs.

Perhaps true in the past, but not anymore. Support like that can’t be extracted but through force. The idea that workers can check the power of their employers relies upon the idea of a limited workforce, which doesn’t exist currently. It’s not in the production owner’s best interests to negotiate for fair working conditions and wages, it’s in their best interests to outsource to South America. When South America organizes they’ll go to Asia or Africa. There are billions of poor people to exploit.

However, one must be wary of the distinction between those who want to be treated fairly and those who are, themselves, hungry for power.

This is a fair point, and I’ll be the first to admit that organized labor doesn’t always have the most noble intentions (or the most noble methods). On the bright side, the power-hungry labor unions can check the power-hungry CEOs. At least assuming the corporations don’t take their business elsewhere.

Stealing from the poor for the benefit of the rich is not different than stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, and thus should not be offered as a counter argument in this context.

Perhaps, but then the solution is to help stop the exploitation in the first place, which requires governmental regulation.

I agree completely, but I believe that attempting to "level the playing field" through legislation is directly contrary to the goal you have described. While it is, in every way, noble and just to strive for justice and equality in every avenue of society, laws that are created in order to directly benefit one group and disenfranchise another are wrong. It makes no difference who is on what end of the arrangement.

Any attempt to level the playing field, governmental or not, has that drawback. Equality is a zero-sum game. In order to make things more just someone has to give up something (money, power, etc). Someone is always disenfranchised.

[MFS]

I would like to mention, as it seems to have been forgotten, that welfare is not at all synonymous with unemployment benefits.

Unemployent payments are given to those meeting certain requirements, and you receive those payments only if you are performing your "new job"... which is finding a job. If you don't actively try to get a new job, Unemployment agencies can refuse to pay you. Unemployment is run by the individual states, and each system is likely different from state to state. Some states do offer employment services along with it, but for many professionals, they have nearly nothing to offer, thus you're better off searching for a job on your own.

Also, unemployment payments aren't a permanent thing - they are a stop-gap between periods of employment - they are there to help you out, but not sustain you.

I've had the misfortune of drawing on unemployment benefits twice now. Unemployment benefits are also paid out of accounts from the companies that you were once employed by... to recieve unemployment, the company you had worked for had to have been paying into the unemployment system.

[edit the sad parts]

^ Danke...I didn't think they were synonymous, that WOULD be an enormous strain on the system.

Unemployment works like that in Canada, as well...a bit of your paycheque goes to UE, depending on how much you make.

[smalltownsnare]

This is a pretty good metaphor I heard on Air America.

In the army, a good leader tries to step up the performance of the weakest soldier, because he/she's the one that will get you killed. The weakest soldier is the one who will pack your parachute wrong, or lose focus on guard duty. The same concept applies in society. We have a responsibility to help the weakest members of society. Helping them is in our best interests, and in the best interests of the American economy. If we neglect this responsibility, it would be almost impossible for the weakest members of society to make any real contribution.

[The Lion Rampant]

Support like that can’t be extracted but through force.

I disagree with this. It is trading one power system for another, which is doomed to failure. Those that are hungry for power will always gain control of power systems.

On the bright side, the power-hungry labor unions can check the power-hungry CEOs.

Well, not quite. They can "check" the behavior of other power-hungry individuals so long as there remains a balance between the two forces seeking the same power. It is the nature of such behavior, however, to unbalance things and tilt them in their own favor.

Perhaps, but then the solution is to help stop the exploitation in the first place, which requires governmental regulation.

Exploitation will never end as long as we keep providing more avenues of exploitation (power systems). Instead, we must analyze the root causes of these behaviors and work to provide solutions to them.

Any attempt to level the playing field, governmental or not, has that drawback. Equality is a zero-sum game. In order to make things more just someone has to give up something (money, power, etc). Someone is always disenfranchised.

The only sacrifice we must make in order to achieve a truly equal and mutually uplifting society is that thing which drives our desire for power over others. This is the only truly practical and long-term solution that I can think of. I think it is possible, and I think it will happen.

In the army, a good leader tries to step up the performance of the weakest soldier, because he/she's the one that will get you killed.

It is a good analogy, and we should help those around us to the best of our abilities. I do not believe that government can provide any practical solutions, however.

[metawidget]

^ Danke...I didn't think they were synonymous, that WOULD be an enormous strain on the system.

Unemployment works like that in Canada, as well...a bit of your paycheque goes to UE, depending on how much you make.

Here's how it works in Canada, in detail (I imagine the US has different numbers but a similar system):

Yup, although it is federally-run and the feds have the unhappy habit of "borrowing" from the EI fund and keeping premiums high (just like the US government and old age security). Still, that's the basic idea. Your payments (1.95% of any income you make up to $760.50 per year) in are tax-deductible, and it works like insurance with a blackout period of 420 to 910 hours of work in the last year. EI benefits are proportional (55% with a $413 weekly cap and some exceptions for very low incomes) to your average wages in your previous work. EI takes effect 2 weeks after you lose your job (analogous to a deductible in traditional insurance) and persists for anywhere between 14 and 45 weeks, depending on how many hours of work you racked up in the year before and how the economy is in your region.

Once your resources are exhausted (EI coverage expired, cash reserves gone, credit stretched some, etc.) you are eligible for welfare, which is a fixed benefit linked to where you are living and who you are living with (spouse, roommates, dependents). It's a pretty slim fixed benefit, and if you find any work at all, your pay is deducted from your benefits -- so it's essentially a guaranteed minimum income with the caveat that you also have to be really hard up. The benefits work out to $6 758 a year (Quebec), in an area where the poverty line is $19 795 (2003 estimate) in a big city for someone living alone. That's 34% of a pretty modest income. Almost half of that would go to rent in Montreal if you are a brilliant apartment hunter. And you still need to keep the lights on ($15 a month) have a phone for your potential new employer to call you on ($30 a month), and eat (minimally, say $150 a month) And it gets cold here in the winter, you'll want heat ($150 a month in the winter months, so don't forget to save up). Hope against hope your clothes don't wear out, you can walk everywhere and you never need to call the plumber. Oh, and you're probably in debt with not much in terms of assets, so be sure to set aside some of that to keep the creditors at bay. And Canada has a reputation for being relatively plush with its welfare recipients.

EI information source:
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp? ... tml&hs=tyt
Welfare statistics source:
http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/pri ... eets_e.htm

[Enigma]

Exploitation will never end as long as we keep providing more avenues of exploitation (power systems). Instead, we must analyze the root causes of these behaviors and work to provide solutions to them.

It's funny because you always speak against power systems, but money is a power system. Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor evens out power.

Any attempt to level the playing field, governmental or not, has that drawback. Equality is a zero-sum game. In order to make things more just someone has to give up something (money, power, etc). Someone is always disenfranchised.

The only sacrifice we must make in order to achieve a truly equal and mutually uplifting society is that thing which drives our desire for power over others. This is the only truly practical and long-term solution that I can think of. I think it is possible, and I think it will happen.

How on earth is making the world give up a natural instinct and ingrained idea a practical solution?

In the army, a good leader tries to step up the performance of the weakest soldier, because he/she's the one that will get you killed.

It is a good analogy, and we should help those around us to the best of our abilities. I do not believe that government can provide any practical solutions, however.

Accept it does. You're ignoring the fact that welfare and similar programs do help the weaker members of society everyday, simply because you think that everyone with power is corrupt. Are you power hungry since you want to hold onto your money power over the poor so badly? You can't help people by telling them how to think. No one will listen and even if they do, how do you propose to change society? Eliminate all power? Anarchy?

[The Lion Rampant]

It's funny because you always speak against power systems, but money is a power system. Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor evens out power.

Power systems are only malproductive when they are siezed by power-hungry individuals. In theory, "evening out" the money seems like a good idea because wealth is a powerful tool of the corrupt (it is also a powerful tool of a free society), but in order to accomplish this, you would have to establish another power system to oversee the redistribution of wealth. Power in society would indeed shift away from many of those who are corrupt, but once again, these new power systems will eventually be siezed by those hungry for them.

In collectivist/socialist/communist governing bodies (large centralized authority), it is much easier for those who are hungry for power to sieze control of the population. This does not mean that centralized authority is necessarily bad, it only means that corrupt individuals always used them to do "bad things."

How on earth is making the world give up a natural instinct and ingrained idea a practical solution?

I do not believe that it is a natural instinct. What I refer to as "the drive for power over others" has a very specific quality in humans: it is cancerous, in that it uses its host (the human mind) to make itself grow, even at the expense of that host.

Non-human creatures that live in hierchal societies tend to live more or less symbiotically with their environment. When they fail to do so, they are usually selected out.

Humans are different, however. We are very hardy organisms. We also have a different kind of "intelligence," and it is my belief that the type of intelligence that we have is a perfect breeding ground for the mind virus of "cancerous power over others." It has to do with our notions of "absolute value," which we apply to ourselves and, in turn, to others. It lives in the mind and is transmitted to others via power-seeking behaviors.

It also clouds and distorts our views of "self," making us believe that we are flawed, and it is this distortion that allows power-seeking behaviors to thrive. As long as we continue to see ourselves (and, in turn, others) in this way, malignant power-seeking behaviors will always exist.

I believe that when people are awakened to the mere possibility of "what they really are" underneath all the scar tissue and defense mechanisms, the idea spreads like wildfire. If those who would seek power over others continued to exist in such a society, they would could achieve no foothold over others; the individual who truly knows himself does not allow himself to be ruled by power hungry men, even by force. A sense of self-preservation that is unguided by the "power-hungry mind virus" kicks in.

Accept it does. You're ignoring the fact that welfare and similar programs do help the weaker members of society everyday, simply because you think that everyone with power is corrupt. Are you power hungry since you want to hold onto your money power over the poor so badly? You can't help people by telling them how to think. No one will listen and even if they do, how do you propose to change society? Eliminate all power? Anarchy?

I do not believe that everyone with power is corrupt. "Power" exists everywhere, and it can be most basically defined as "that which causes change." The type of "corrupt" power that I describe is different: cancerous and viral.

I see two major forces at work in all things: that which causes things to converge, and that which causes things to diverge. It is the balance resulting from the interactions of these two opposing forces that produces the "order" we see around us. There is an emergent property of these two forces, however: "unsustainable growth." I am not sure where it came from, but many parables have been made throughout human history to describe it. Insofar as it operates at the scale of human societies, however, it produces corrupt and unsustainable power systems.

I am not ignoring the fact that government can and does help people. I do not believe that government, in and of itself, is a "bad thing." It only looks that way because of power-hungry individuals, who are attracted to power systems like viruses to a cell. Therefore, I believe that the only way that this problem can be eliminated once and for all, at least on the human societal scale, is to "wake people up," not by telling them how to think, per se, but showing them the benefits of truly thinking for themselves.

[howie]

heh heh heh..
you guys think welfare is just unemployed bums sitting on their asses gcollecting the dole from the government, don't you?welfare is government sponsored paycheck, yeah?

where the hell do you think the money comes from to pay the cops, the social workers and the government officials themselves?

Face it- if you are not working independently, in a non-government regimented office or labour- than baby you are collecting welfare... wether you are Tamara trying to feed her babies, the Boss trying to screw Monica with a cigar or the cops trying to screw people out of their freedom-
if you work for the governement you IS collecting welfare-
they should all get off their asses and get real jobs.

Do something that benefits society, not yourself.... that is the only way to get rid of welfare-mentality... Realize anyone who works in it is still collecting a benefits check- albeit the higher up the pay scale the bigger the welfare check...

Hell I'm on welfare myself- i work for a government sponsored legal clinic... I may not get the 520 that welfare recipients in TO get, but its still welfare.

[The Lion Rampant]

Heh, that reminds me of something a friend of mine said: "The great thing about working for the state is that I get a pretty good paycheck with awesome benefits, and I don't gotta do shit."

[JupiterLove]

my best friend lives in goverment housing the goverment pays her rent. they give her cash assistance or welfare as it is being called. she gets food stamps, and they are paying her for her school she just finished her cna certification and in the fall she starts school for her cma. they also pay for her and her daughters medical care and daycare for her daughter, but its not because she is lazy its not because she dont want to work. she has had a few jobs that did not give her enough hours so she quit and tuesday she will start a new job and she hopes to get off welfare, and until you have been in a situation where you could not feed or house your child then no one has room to talk. "dont judge a man until you have walked two moons in the path of his mocassins". before she got on welfare she was selling crack to support her and her daughter because her job as a waitress just did not pay the rent. so in my opinion I would much rather see her on welfare. It may be a flawed system but so are a lot of things. If it was taken away a lot of children would starve. and even with it their are a lot of homeless people in american and starving children. anyone could loose anything at any minute so always remember that before you look down on someone else.