Welfare: the solution to poverty or a new problem?

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Welfare: the solution to poverty or a new problem?

Unread postby James » Thu Mar 06, 2003 4:59 am

What do you think about welfare, as currently presented in the United States? Do you think it helps solve problems like poor education and poverty? Does it help people who have lost everything get back on their feet? Or do you think, that at a certain point, it starts to cause real damage. What changes would you suggest to the system?

For those of you that do not know, in the United States if someone does not make enough money (falls below a certain income level) they can collect welfare. Welfare is liquid cash from the government which gives someone just enough money to live a rather rough, but free, life. There is no time limit to the welfare program, and illegal immigrants can hop on without too much trouble.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17990
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Unread postby Sun jian » Thu Mar 06, 2003 12:13 pm

good topic. welfare is very much abused in today's society. some people who get it just milk the government of money so they can have as many children as they want. it's sickening. :twisted: that money is meant to help those who need it, not those who walk in poor and walk out w\ money, even though they had money to begin with. welfare is a new problem and it creates another opening for people who don't want to work for their money. like i've said before, money is the root of all evil. :roll:
User avatar
Sun jian
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:07 pm

Unread postby Zhou Gongjin » Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:29 pm

People take this very lightly, and I don't like that. I was on wellfare when I was unemployed and had to pay absurd bills, and it kept me from having to live on the streets. After I lost my last job, I applied for it, not for the money, but for my insurrance. Because here, if you don't have an income you pay more insurrance. Normally, I would pay about $15 a month for insurrance when I was employed. When unemployed, it was $182 a month. So, the government says that if you are unemployed and not on wellfare, you have to pay a tax front of a huge amount of money to be insured.
To add to that, the requirements for getting wellfare have been changed so much that you can hardly get any these days. For example, the government thinks that you should be working unless you are critically ill or disabled so much that you can't work, and you need to apply for jobs every week, even if you have no hope of getting one.
We have a law called AOW, which is the law on people who are unable to work 20 hours a week because of physical conditions. These laws are old, and they were revised, and what does the government do? They make everyone get tested again, and they want the older people (40/50+) to get working again so that they don't have to financially aid them.
However, the amount of young unemployed people is so scary that one out of 6 young people between 18 and 22 is unemployed. Instead of helping the youth (who pay taxes and hence, pay for wellfare), they chase after people who have not worked for a long time.
One more thing, people tend to discriminate people on wellfare, and I hate that. I know so many people that cannot find a decent job, so many people get layed off or get ill, and for those people we need wellfare. There are people that abuse the wellfare system, and that's something we can't stop here. "Corruption is a natural result of the availibilty of money."
He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it.
-孔夫子
User avatar
Zhou Gongjin
鋼のチビ
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:49 pm
Location: the Doghouse

Unread postby Harimau » Fri Mar 07, 2003 9:37 pm

Zhou Gongjin wrote:People take this very lightly, and I don't like that. I was on wellfare when I was unemployed and had to pay absurd bills, and it kept me from having to live on the streets. After I lost my last job, I applied for it, not for the money, but for my insurrance. Because here, if you don't have an income you pay more insurrance. Normally, I would pay about $15 a month for insurrance when I was employed. When unemployed, it was $182 a month. So, the government says that if you are unemployed and not on wellfare, you have to pay a tax front of a huge amount of money to be insured.
To add to that, the requirements for getting wellfare have been changed so much that you can hardly get any these days. For example, the government thinks that you should be working unless you are critically ill or disabled so much that you can't work, and you need to apply for jobs every week, even if you have no hope of getting one.
We have a law called AOW, which is the law on people who are unable to work 20 hours a week because of physical conditions. These laws are old, and they were revised, and what does the government do? They make everyone get tested again, and they want the older people (40/50+) to get working again so that they don't have to financially aid them.
However, the amount of young unemployed people is so scary that one out of 6 young people between 18 and 22 is unemployed. Instead of helping the youth (who pay taxes and hence, pay for wellfare), they chase after people who have not worked for a long time.
One more thing, people tend to discriminate people on wellfare, and I hate that. I know so many people that cannot find a decent job, so many people get layed off or get ill, and for those people we need wellfare. There are people that abuse the wellfare system, and that's something we can't stop here. "Corruption is a natural result of the availibilty of money."


That has always been the case with countries that are more economically minded such as America. In the beginning of a reign, so to speak, the government must choose to either become a welfare state or an economic minded state. Sweden is probably the best case for a welfare state; they have the biggest and most generous welfare in the world, but the taxes are outrageous. Its very unfortunate that a state cannot have the both of them in the same time... they must usually choose to improve or decrease one to decrease or increase the other. After all, Welfare is the biggest item in any budget around the world. (Except for some dictatorships, when its the military instead)
If I'm posting here, it means I'm procrastinating.
Harimau
Shangshu Ling
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 2:08 am
Location: Sydney

Unread postby Justin » Sun Mar 09, 2003 3:50 am

Personally I hate welfare and think it should be abolished along with all the other bullshit government programs. For one they are not outlined in the Constitution and I am of the view if it ain't in there you can't do it legally. People managed to get along just fine without any of the crap we have today. I have been on unemployment and all it did for me was make me lazy and look for a job that paid what I was making before and that was impossible. If there was no unemployment my ass would have had a job somewhere anywhere, so I could pay my bills and get food on the table. I feel the same goes for welfare. It only pays enough for people to get by, if you cut that funding off you make them go out and live life in the real world. Even with a full time job you can still buy cheap ass groceries and get food from food banks. You can shop at the discount second hand clothes store. People do what they need to do to get by and to increase their lot in life. If you give them constant handouts they never have a desire or reason to get out of the situation they are in.
My Website

My Blog

The Dungeon

Trouble maker extraordinaire!
User avatar
Justin
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 3356
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 2:08 am
Location: Dropping it like it's hot

Unread postby Evil Comes » Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:51 am

While I think Zhou has some valid points I still have to disagre with the current system that is so abused. Yes there will be corruption in anything but it is way out of control in the current system. I've worked for retail stores almost my entire employed life and I've seen people with the Vision card (new foodstamp system) buying T-Bone steaks, Crab Legs, Snack Food, and now they have cash put on the cards on top of the food stamps and I have seen people use this to buy cigaretts and other items not covered by the foodstamps that are luxuy items. In principal the welfare system is great, then again so is Communisim and we all know how that works in reality.
User avatar
Evil Comes
Assistant
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:28 am
Location: Kansas, USA

Unread postby Sun jian » Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:12 pm

Wan Hung Lo wrote:Personally I hate welfare and think it should be abolished along with all the other bullshit government programs. For one they are not outlined in the Constitution and I am of the view if it ain't in there you can't do it legally. People managed to get along just fine without any of the crap we have today. I have been on unemployment and all it did for me was make me lazy and look for a job that paid what I was making before and that was impossible. If there was no unemployment my ass would have had a job somewhere anywhere, so I could pay my bills and get food on the table. I feel the same goes for welfare. It only pays enough for people to get by, if you cut that funding off you make them go out and live life in the real world. Even with a full time job you can still buy cheap ass groceries and get food from food banks. You can shop at the discount second hand clothes store. People do what they need to do to get by and to increase their lot in life. If you give them constant handouts they never have a desire or reason to get out of the situation they are in.


i definitely agree with you. for each person that gets welfare only 1 out of 20 really need it, i think. if you have the ability to work, you should work, not sit on your ass and get stuff for free. it's the people who do nothing that make everyone else pay more taxes. w\o welfare everyone would have to work and i think the world would be a better place because of it. give no incentive for people to be lazy and they won't be. that's my experience. 8-)
User avatar
Sun jian
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:07 pm

Unread postby Zhou Gongjin » Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:49 pm

Sun jian wrote:
i definitely agree with you. for each person that gets welfare only 1 out of 20 really need it, i think. if you have the ability to work, you should work, not sit on your ass and get stuff for free. it's the people who do nothing that make everyone else pay more taxes. w\o welfare everyone would have to work and i think the world would be a better place because of it. give no incentive for people to be lazy and they won't be. that's my experience. 8-)


Unfortunately it cannot work that way either. What you sugges will lead to:
- More financial debts
- More homeless people
- More people with bad health
- A larger gap between rich and poor

When you have a family and need to support them, and lose your job for whatever reason, how will you support them before you get a new job? Those people would have to loan more money (hence, more financial debts), then if the person remain unemployed without an income (let's say that person is between 30 and 40, which means he has a lower chance of being employed), he/she will be unable to pay for rent (hence, more homeless people), healthcare insurrance (hence more people with bad health), and the people that work don't have to pay those taxes anymore (hence, the gap becomes larger).
People who are well-off or have a job often look down on people on wellfare. Wan Hung Lo was lazy because he let himself be, don't blame a system of support on your own lack of dedication and work ethics. I have always tried to work when I wasn't in school, and I used wellfare to keep myself from getting kicked out when I was looking for a new job.
Abolishing wellfare will most probably destroy the western economy even further.
He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it.
-孔夫子
User avatar
Zhou Gongjin
鋼のチビ
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:49 pm
Location: the Doghouse

Unread postby Zhou Gongjin » Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:01 pm

Evil Comes wrote:While I think Zhou has some valid points I still have to disagre with the current system that is so abused. Yes there will be corruption in anything but it is way out of control in the current system. I've worked for retail stores almost my entire employed life and I've seen people with the Vision card (new foodstamp system) buying T-Bone steaks, Crab Legs, Snack Food, and now they have cash put on the cards on top of the food stamps and I have seen people use this to buy cigaretts and other items not covered by the foodstamps that are luxuy items. In principal the welfare system is great, then again so is Communisim and we all know how that works in reality.


There are no flawless systems of government. If you look at history, you will see that man rules over man only for their own benefit (I won't quote the bible this time because of the religiously sensitive people :roll:). Marx probably thought that he had a good system, but most communistic countries (with the exception of the capitalist-communistic-imperial country of modern Japan :lol: ) are financial and moral cesspools. Democracies don't seem to work, neither do Kingdoms or Dictatorships. In all the time that I studied sociology (about 6 years), I can't say I've seen a government that isn't flawed, and that won't change.
He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it.
-孔夫子
User avatar
Zhou Gongjin
鋼のチビ
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:49 pm
Location: the Doghouse

Unread postby Sun jian » Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:34 pm

Zhou Gongjin wrote:Unfortunately it cannot work that way either. What you sugges will lead to:
- More financial debts
- More homeless people
- More people with bad health
- A larger gap between rich and poor

When you have a family and need to support them, and lose your job for whatever reason, how will you support them before you get a new job? Those people would have to loan more money (hence, more financial debts), then if the person remain unemployed without an income (let's say that person is between 30 and 40, which means he has a lower chance of being employed), he/she will be unable to pay for rent (hence, more homeless people), healthcare insurrance (hence more people with bad health), and the people that work don't have to pay those taxes anymore (hence, the gap becomes larger).
People who are well-off or have a job often look down on people on wellfare. Wan Hung Lo was lazy because he let himself be, don't blame a system of support on your own lack of dedication and work ethics. I have always tried to work when I wasn't in school, and I used wellfare to keep myself from getting kicked out when I was looking for a new job.
Abolishing wellfare will most probably destroy the western economy even further.


I don't disagree that welfare can be a good thing but people who need it should get it and those who don't should work for their money like most do. I'm saying that welfare is not regulated well enough and those who don't need it at all are getting it. Why? Because the government lends out money not knowing who they're loaning it to. Do I want welfare going to a family that needs it cause their breadwinner is unable to work? Yes, w\o a doubt but with proper proof. Too many times I've seen people take crutches and pretend they're injured when they really aren't. It's more common w\ social security but I still see it often enough to maintain my point of view that welfare is another 'gimme' program with a good intention but it's abused, which leads to issues whether to keep it or not. I think it should be kept if the people regulating it weren't so lazy themselves. Otherwise, all who can work should work and if they can't then and only then can they get help.
User avatar
Sun jian
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:07 pm

Next

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved