Welfare

Except for people unable to work for good reason, welfare given to people only creates dependents. The trick is trying to define "good reason." c.i.

The evidence indicates that welfare does not create dependants.
I take it you base your observation on a belief that people are naturally lazy.

I'd say that government subsidies should go to any person or family making less than the poverty level. What form those subsidies take is negotiable of course.

Now as to those children getting a job.

Buzzcook

"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.''

"Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?''

"They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not.''

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir.''

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it.''

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?''

"Nothing!'' Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?''

"I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.''

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die.''

"If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.''

"But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman.

"It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''

In the wealthiest nation on earth, which can squander billions on the incompetence of the research and development, and the manufacturing processes of weapons building corporations, embodied in cost-overruns; which can squander billions on "research" by pharmaceutical and medical supply and equipment companies, which they in fact use to advertise and otherwise promote their products; which can squander billions to support Israel, and to support other nations, many of which are little better than facist dictatorships--it is a glaring crime that we do not do more for our own citizens. This is not a problem incapable of solution for a nation that can put people in space, even on the surface of our nearest celestial neighbor, and bring them safely home. I usually avoid this topic because the neglect of our poorer citizens sickens me.

And it's Tommy this and Tommy that
And it's Tommy go away.
But it's thin red line of heroes
When the bands begin to play.

That's the only circumstance in which our "leaders" have any regard for the poor--when cannon fodder is needed.

I know that this does not answer the question as posted. My answer to that, without going into the political rectitude gestapo or racial paranoia, is . . . No.

Buzzcock, I did not say welfare recepients are lazy. That's a term "you" used. My siblings and I were the recepients of welfare, because our mother was our only care-taker. When we were children, we worked on farms as fruit pickers during the summer months to supplement whatever welfare our mother received from the government. All of my siblings and I worked ourselves through a college education, and led a middle class life. My older brother was an administrative judge in California, my younger brother is a physician, specializing in ophthalmology, and my sister is a RN. Today, my younger brother is a legislator in the California Assembly. Most of our children have college education and are working as professionals or taking care of their homes.

Your quote: "I'd say that government subsidies should go to any person or family making less than the poverty level. What form those subsidies take is negotiable of course."

Many working in the US are not US citizens, so that your blanket statement to support "any person or family" does not make sense. On the other hand, I am a far left wing liberal when it concerns universal health care for all US citizens - especially our children. Some people work two full time jobs, and still are unable to afford a middle class lifestyle; it depends greatly on where one lives.

I believe in increasing the minimum wage by law, but our government is lax when it comes to caring for the poor in this country. They have no difficulty in spending billions of dollars on war, but lack the common sense to feed, shelter, and provide medical care for our citizens. But that's another subject.

c.i.

Well it seems I owe you an apology
cicerone imposter:
I was under the impression that you thought the old welfare was too lax. That it had become a life style choice for its recipients.

I have no problem with subsidies for alien residents even if they are illegal.
The problem is not so much the subsidy of illegal workers as it is a subsidy of inexpensive food for Americans.
If we want to change this it is not the welfare system that needs to be addressed. It is the nature of guest worker laws.
American companies are going over seas to find skilled workers in fields where there shortages. 60 minutes reported on East Indian tech workers and NPR on South African nurses, being head hunted by Americans.
Looked at in one way we are stealing the time and expense of training these people from their mother country. Our nation profits from this importation of skilled labor.
Many of these workers will be subsidized in some way by our government. Is this subsidy different than for the unskilled labor used in farming and manufacturing? In both cases a subsidy is going to a foreign born worker instead of an American worker. In both cases it is the industry that has the ultimate benefit because they don't have to pay for the more expensive American labor and they don't have to pay toward the subsidies as they would with American workers.

Anyway while there may be problems with subsidies of foreign workers, the solution to those problems is not addressed by ending those subsidies.

Buzzcook
Geez just reread this, I souldn't write right after I wake up.

I don't see any denial of the fact our current "Wellfare System" is broken. Somehow or another, that seems to be the general lot of bureacracies, which tend to advance themselves more vigorously than to administer and nurture their charged concerns. Does anyone have a better idea ( about bureaucracies, not welfare - any thought at all on that subject would be improvement over current "Official Practice")?



timber



timber

Buzzcook, Those people being stolen by American companies to work in our hospitals and other skilled workers will be paying income taxes, so I don't understand what you mean by "subsidy" except for what the companies will provide. You say the guest worker laws needs to be change, and I agree, but our legislators will do very little on that issue. The same goes for our welfare system. It's been broken for many years, but we won't see our government trying to fix it any time soon. I also saw that segment on 60 minutes on the recuitment of South African nurses. I have a doctor friend in Tanzania who was offered a job in the states. He asked me for my opinion, so this is what I told him. I said that I have an ethical problem with our country taking away skilled doctors from the very people that need it most. However, if I were in his shoes and got the same offer, I would probably accept it, because it would improve my family's life as well as my own. I told him it was a decisioin he had to make. c.i.

Here are some statistics/facts reported in today's USA Today. In October 2001, 7.9 million households participated in the Food Stamp Program. In September 2002, it increased to 8.5 million households. Although 52% of families own stocks, the wealth disparity increased. The gap between whites and minorities grew by 21 percent. The median net worth for all families rose 10 percent to $86,100 in 2001 from 1998. Net worth for the lowest income group with earnings of $10,300 in 2001 rose 25% to $7,900. The median income for all families rose 10 percent to $39,900 in 2001. Median net worth for whites rose 17 percent to $120,900 but fell 4.5% to $17,000 for minorities. Net worth of the top 10 percent of household income, with a median income of $169,600 rose 69 percent to $833,600. The gap increases as our government does nothing or very little to help the poor and middle class. c.i.

c.i., The Constitution says "With Liberty For All", not "A Free Ride For Some". We are guaranteed equal opportunity, not equal achievement. I have no quibble with appropriate aid to those in true need. There seems to be some question of what constitutes either "appropriate aide" or "true need". The system as it exists is bloated, flawed, contradictory, and counterproductive, offering little more hope for a shift of direction than does that other Great American Icon, The Grand Canyon.



timber

timber, As the richest country in the world, I would think that sharing some of the largess with the less fortunate is the humane thing to do. c.i.

I lean more toward a responsibility for those who are able to earn, and to assist those truly unable to do so. I disagree strongly that the pile should be divvied up equally among all regardless of contribution or other participation. Where we fail the worst is in providing both opportunity and incentive. Those are the items which need to be addressed. For many folks, there is neither meaningful opportunity nor adequate incentive. I believe it preferable to attack the root of the problem, not to "spread the wealth". Masking a symptom rarely cures a disease.



timber

timber, You won't hear any disagreements from me on those points. c.i.

Welfare is a necessary institution when it is applied in a right proportion to the right people (the ones that are unable to work due to health conditions or old age, for example). When being exaggerated, it deprives people of incentive to work and to earn for life, increases number of idlers. And the latter not only multiply number of underprivileged people, they often degrade to crime.

buzzcook

Nice to have you aboard.

I am not much persuaded by the dependency theory. Do any of us know people such as this? I don't (I'm Canadian, but our system is similar). It seems to me many who argue that such dependecies exist (in any significant proportions) simply assume the truth of the anti-welfare state rhetoric because...well, there's a good question...why?

First, it seems to make sense from a blunt stimulus-response understanding of human behavior - reward X and you get more of it, penalize Y and you get less of it. It's a simple, but long out of favor notion in psychology, not least because it has all the nuance of a math theorem, or of some dreary accountant whose mother never loved him.

Second, it rests on the fictions of equality and merit - equality of capabilities and equality of opportunities, both of which show huge variations (present President), and that such are explained through 'merit' (it's a lovely bit of Calvin still hanging about...god rewards the deserving).

Third, it rests on another fiction, that humans actually like the idea of equality (or reasonable equalness) in wealth. Many do not, and define their personal status and worth as a function of how much more they have than their neighbors. Our charitable natures seem at least matched by our urge to see others worse off. How else to explain the repugnant disparities in wealth that do exist? Someone needs thirty mill a year? Or ten? Or five?

Some people need millions of income a year . Not for personal consumption but for investment in business.

Yeah, and some of those same people are crooks. c.i.

Do you consider every businessman being a crook? Hmm, it is weird to hear such things from the citizen of the USA. I thought that being a businessman is a very respectable occupation in the U.S.

steissd, If you care to reread my post, I did not claim that "every businessman" is a crook. c.i.

OK. Sorry, you are right. But I hope that you do not deny that the honest businessmen need millions in annual income for business purposes. Business investments create jobs, therefore millions of dollars earned by businessmen help the other people to earn money.

steissd, As an ex-bean counter, I understand the concept of "business," and the necessity for investments to create jobs. c.i.