Welfare

Welfare is a necessity in our society. Such a system needs constant tinkering to ensure that it gives the right help to the right people. The problem with welfare as it existed was that once the Democrats had it instituted they let it drift until it no longer functioned in a capacity of solely helping the poor who are unable to do enough on their own. It allowed many who did not need help to get on the dole. There were people who saw it as a way of life, the generational dependency Republicans speak of. But there were huge numbers of people on welfare genuinely deserving of help. Conservatives took advantage of welfare's failures and the Democrats' arrogant misuse of power to turn the public mind against it. They employed the race card because a substantial number of WASPs were already feeling there was a trough to which they alone were not invited. Thus was born the BLACK WELFARE QUEEN MILKING THE SYSTEM myth, which I heard even my own daughter repeating. The result, in the final end, was Clinton grabbing yet another Republican issue, proclaiming it his own, and the welfare system virtually dismantled. Instead of recognizing the legitimate need of the poorest Americans, we in effect threw out the baby with the bath water.

hitchhiker, since you have pretty much the same topic posted in General (and it has no responses), I am going to delete that topic and cross-post this one to General.

OK with me

It is my first posting and wound up in the wrong place

I feel it unfair to single either political party, or any one administration, for the "Failure of Welfare". The incompetence is pretty equitably spread around.



timber.

I sought to spread the blame around in my little diatribe.

For those REALLY interested in the Welfare system you may find "From poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America" by Walter I. Trattner an interesting read.

As edgarblythe mentioned, the system has been tinkered with so much by all sides that it's surprising it does anything at all. In the book Trattner goes into pretty much every twist and turn of the welfare system and the most startling revelation to me was the amount of influence weilded by the "Social Worker" not on the part of those in need, but to achieve their own status as a "Professional" akin to Doctors and Lawyers. It is an enlightening read.

Quick, only barely relevant, note...one writer thought that Johnston's "War on Poverty" ought really to be termed "Skirmish on Poverty".

On my side of the tracks, it's mostly white welfare queens milking the system.

I have family members that got assistance while they were working because they couldn't afford to live, even in a working class city. It was temporary, and was just used to supplement housing costs in the projects. They moved out years ago. That's a part of the system that works - or did work.

I also had a best friend growing up who figured out that the more children she had, the more money she'd get, and she only had to pay $75 for a 2 bedroom apartment. It's also in the projects - not great, but not a slum ghetto. She still doesn't work and the checks have always come in - her oldest is 15 now. She has no plans for the future and now her children don't either, but she doesn't seem to mind, and she puts her money towards televisions and 10 meals a day.

There's a time and place where the welfare system works - there's also a time and place when people abuse it (which I've seen the most, but my 1st hand experience is just that - everyone has a different view). I've also seen the welfare system perpetuate more poverty, more welfare mothers, etc.. I also read a book that focused more on the internal culture - I'll try and think of the name. It explains the social structure of public housing, etc. and bring to light the issues of getting stuck in a welfare/poverty cycle.

There's a welfare culture that perpetuates itself as well. There are generations that live off of the system because that is the life they know, and no one ever tells them any different. There are people that make a difference for themselves and for others, but they are few and far between.

There's plenty of blame to go around and I can't recall any party, political or otherwise, who has ever effectively changed the system for the better. One step forward, two steps back.

"Welfare is an ambiguous term, used in three main senses:

- Welfare commonly refers to 'well-being'. In welfare economics, welfare is understood in terms of 'utility'; people's well-being or interests consist of the things they choose to have.
- Welfare also refers to the range of services which are provided to protect people in a number of conditions, including childhood, sickness and old age. The idea of the 'welfare state' is an example. This is equivalent to the term 'social protection' in the European Union.
- In the United States, welfare refers specifically to financial assistance to poor people (e.g. Temporary Aid to Needy Families). This usage is not generally reflected elsewhere."


Welfare > welfare state
is seen quite differently around the world:
"- An ideal model. The "welfare state" usually refers to an ideal model of provision, where the state accepts responsibility for the provision of comprehensive and universal welfare for its citizens.
- State welfare. Some commentators use it to mean "welfare provided by the state". This is the main use in the USA.
- Social protection.In many "welfare states", social protection is not delivered by the state at all, but by a combination of independent, voluntary and government services. These countries are still usually thought of as "welfare states". (from: An introduction to social policy, Welfare/The Welfare State, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK)

The complete text can be read online:

An introduction to social policy

Edgar, you are so right regarding the Democrats letting the system drift,without proper oversight.

I think everyone agrees that the dignity of work is necessary for a complete, meaningful life. To allow generations of families to exist on welfare is as callous and unfeeling as those who would kick everyone off welfare and leave them to fend for themselves.

While working with people with mental retardation, I've seen countless examples of work having many unexpected positive results in the lives of people who weren't considered capable of living independently.

The experience of work is an epiphany, to the clients and their parents, many of whom are terribly overprotective. Financial independence, self-esteem (trite but true), being part of the working community all contribute to an amazing process of growth.

People who weren't considered capable of independent living so often prove the experts wrong by growing socially to the point that they can behave appropriately in any setting; they learn how to go to the bank, to shop, to ride the bus, to get up on time, to be productive, to take pride in their surroundings.

The same is true for people of normal intelligence.

Welfare is necessary. There will always be people who can't quite make it without help. As a compassionate society, we are obligated to provide that help, but we are just as obligated to provide help in becoming independent. It takes money and time and oversight.

There are people who will never be able to live a normal life, whether because they are addicts or because have profound mental illness. They still deserve to have a life with as much dignity as possible.

How many politicians are willing to think in long range terms? How many are willing to follow through, even during their reelection campaigns?

Am I skeptical? Yes. Am I ranting? Yes. I'll be quiet now.

I believe the purpose of welfare is to help the poor to help themselves. I do not believe however that putting a mother of four, as an instance, to work for minimum wage is the total answer either. Her children would grow up hungry and neglected. There should be programs of education and possibly even make work programs at entry level to help such people gain experience. I have never been in a position to study the problem first hand as an adult. However I did grow up on welfare. I never viewed the help I recieved as a ticket to an indolent life on the dole. I also never believed the government did enough by simply giving money. It has always seemed to me that giving money is necessary, but there has to be a reaching out on another level to truly help the poor break the cycle that holds them down.


Then it must be recognized that mental deficiency and mental illness will cause some of the poor always to need some form of help.

The interesting thing is that nobody has addressed the original text. The premise was that the system was set up to encourage out of wedlock children in black familes. When white women began to join it the entire system was shut down.

Not many of us are experts in how the system was working. We mostly receive enuendo and tales of BLACK WELFARE QUEENS cooked up to stir up the WASPs so that they move to dismantle the system. I have no doubt that there were BLACK women taking advantage. But what sense does it make to shut it down simply because growning numbers of white women were also involved. It's something I never even heard hinted of before. Why didn't this aspect of the story surface before welfare was 'reformed'? Could it be this is a new spin simply to make predjudiced people seem less predjudiced?

It would seem there are similarities between the way The US administers her Welare System and her Foreign Aid. Notable among these similarities are inequity of distribution, inefficiency of administration, and resentment of, and on the part of, those purportedly served. Must be a Gummint thing.



timber

It is definitely an inmates running the asylum type of thing. (I am aware that my political leaning colors much of what I say, but I am attempting to be essentially truthful on this).

And in the US, Walter Hintler, we seldom speak of the most wasteful form of welfare........ corporate welfare eats up more of the budget than all the other welfare programs combined, so I've heard.

And it always goes to those who need it the least.

That's your premise - but my response does address the text. In my experience, this isn't the case. I have known your statement to be true for my family and friends since welfare began in Massachusetts. In my experience, it's not a race issue, it's a class issue.

Sugar,

You are right. Sorry. I was referring to the majority of messages. Sometimes I think it is a simplification to dismiss government policy as foolish or stupid. They may have other deeper agendas that are not immediately apparent.

What most people refer to as welfare is more properly called, Aid to Families with Dependant Children (AFDC).
I kinda wondered why this was in the philosophy section rather than politics. But I suppose there is a touch of philosophy in the why of welfare. Utilitarianism of the JS Mill flavor probably was probably what brought us to AFDC. Given that children are our most important resource, it is important that they receive adequate care in childhood. After many years of starts and stops it was determined that having the mother raise her own children with subsides from the government was the most cost effective way of achieving that goal.
If I recall correctly AFDC (under another name) was originally started in the thirties and the beneficiaries were primarily widows and orphans. But the realities of the depression had married couples on the dole as well. Because of the social stigmas unwed mothers were treated as a separate class, with many women losing their children. The second half of the 20th century saw the unwed mother also receiving AFDC. Because once again to was more cost effective than to raise the children apart from their mother.
As I stated two parent families did receive AFDC from the start up until it was discontinued in the nineties. There was (supposedly accidental) a change during the late seventies that made it much more difficult for a two parent family to get AFDC. According to former Senator D P Moynahan there was an effort to correct this mistake, but political bickering made it impossible.
As AFDC is no longer with us I suppose it is too late to correct its mistakes. Its replacement "Workfare" strays from the original utilitarian underpinnings of AFDC. It removes children from their mother because there is the fear that the mother is getting a free ride. I feel partisan maneuvering for power drove this fear. This maneuvering also brought us a number of myths that plagued welfare starting with Nixon.
The "Welfare Queen", there never was such a creature. AFDC went overwhelmingly to white rural and suburban women. Baby factories, the birth rate among women getting AFDC were the same as the general population. Long-term life style, the average recipient of AFDC stayed on the program for no longer than 2.5 years. Governmental inefficiency, administrative costs for AFDC were comparable to private sector charity.

"Somewhere someone is getting away with something". I suppose it is natural to want to stop those malefactors from malefacting. We have choices to either admit that no human system is perfect but do the best we can, to spend enormous funds policing the system, or to just give it up.
I'm of the opinion the first option is the best.

Let me just restate to that first post. Welfare was never majority black, it was always white women who received the most benefits. Your contention that once white women started joining AFDC is therefore wrong. The rules that made it more difficult for two parent households to get AFDC were accidental. Political bickering made fixing it impossible. So your contention that it was a government plot is incorrect.

Buzzcook