Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think it should be a loan, with a strict limit on what one can receive, and a definite repayment plan. Of course, the result would be the same as if the recipients were simply handed a years worth of a living wage: in a few months most would be right back where they started. Why? Because, for most, their sorry lot in life is not simply a condition of circumstance. It is a condition brought on by choices made. And giving out money does absolutely nothing to change the pattern of choices made that land most on welfare.1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.
Now...I am not a big fan if Welfare in it's current form. I personally think they ought to keep their benefits, but I strongly believe that there is plenty of public works projects out there that need done. Putting them on the job, with on the job training will give them work experience, skill sets that will be marketable, empower them, rather than stigmatize them, and help improve our shitty infrastructure.
JMO.
So, how does welfare benefit society as a whole?
How does it not?
I think it should be a loan, with a strict limit on what one can receive, and a definite repayment plan. Of course, the result would be the same as if the recipients were simply handed a years worth of a living wage: in a few months most would be right back where they started. Why? Because, for most, their sorry lot in life is not simply a condition of circumstance. It is a condition brought on by choices made. And giving out money does absolutely nothing to change the pattern of choices made that land most on welfare.1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.
Now...I am not a big fan if Welfare in it's current form. I personally think they ought to keep their benefits, but I strongly believe that there is plenty of public works projects out there that need done. Putting them on the job, with on the job training will give them work experience, skill sets that will be marketable, empower them, rather than stigmatize them, and help improve our shitty infrastructure.
JMO.
Now, welfare expenditures are not really that huge of a problem. Unless one considers the damage done by making poverty livable.
I think it should be a loan, with a strict limit on what one can receive, and a definite repayment plan. Of course, the result would be the same as if the recipients were simply handed a years worth of a living wage: in a few months most would be right back where they started. Why? Because, for most, their sorry lot in life is not simply a condition of circumstance. It is a condition brought on by choices made. And giving out money does absolutely nothing to change the pattern of choices made that land most on welfare.1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.
Now...I am not a big fan if Welfare in it's current form. I personally think they ought to keep their benefits, but I strongly believe that there is plenty of public works projects out there that need done. Putting them on the job, with on the job training will give them work experience, skill sets that will be marketable, empower them, rather than stigmatize them, and help improve our shitty infrastructure.
JMO.
Now, welfare expenditures are not really that huge of a problem. Unless one considers the damage done by making poverty livable.
why a loan? why not just let them work it off as I propose?
So, how does welfare benefit society as a whole?
It acknowledges that sometimes, despite our best intentions and actions, we end up out of a job and we, and our families, need some assistance in order to be able to look for and begin a new job and get back on our feet.
It stops people from starving and/or begging in order to survive during these tough times, and ideally...by each of us paying a "little" of our tax dollars to this system we a) do not have to spend MORE money on the negative outcomes that would come from having unemployed homeless people and their families on the streets and b) provides all of us with an "insurance policy" of sorts in case WE are ever the ones in need of a little help to get back on/stay on our feet.
How does it not?
When the welfare system provides people with enough of the basic necessities of life that they do not feel the need to try for more...you will have people trying to REMAIN on welfare...rather than using it as a temporary measure. When those people have children who are born and raised to know nothing else...that will be their "normal" and they will continue to live within that lifestyle, teaching it to their children. When you do not require people to move on from welfare either by providing enough job training opportunities or help finding jobs...or by requiring them to find SOME type of employment or limiting the time a person can receive welfare...you risk setting up a system where people would rather live on welfare than live on wages they can receive from employment.
A welfare-dependent culture is one that creates a populace that is dangerously vulnerable to political manipulation since they have a vested interest in voting for whichever party has promised them the most benefits. Because of this, unscrupulous parties then have an interest in not only keeping those on welfare receiving those services, but also have an interest in INCREASING the numbers of people on welfare in order to increase their voting constituency.
All of which leads to increasing corruption and increasing ignorance from an increasingly dependent segment of the population which seeks to maintain its lifestyle as it gets bigger and bigger...which further validates its existence, thus aiding the continuation of this devastating cycle.
1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.
Now...I am not a big fan if Welfare in it's current form. I personally think they ought to keep their benefits, but I strongly believe that there is plenty of public works projects out there that need done. Putting them on the job, with on the job training will give them work experience, skill sets that will be marketable, empower them, rather than stigmatize them, and help improve our shitty infrastructure.
JMO.
I think it should be a loan, with a strict limit on what one can receive, and a definite repayment plan. Of course, the result would be the same as if the recipients were simply handed a years worth of a living wage: in a few months most would be right back where they started. Why? Because, for most, their sorry lot in life is not simply a condition of circumstance. It is a condition brought on by choices made. And giving out money does absolutely nothing to change the pattern of choices made that land most on welfare.1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.
Now...I am not a big fan if Welfare in it's current form. I personally think they ought to keep their benefits, but I strongly believe that there is plenty of public works projects out there that need done. Putting them on the job, with on the job training will give them work experience, skill sets that will be marketable, empower them, rather than stigmatize them, and help improve our shitty infrastructure.
JMO.
Now, welfare expenditures are not really that huge of a problem. Unless one considers the damage done by making poverty livable.
why a loan? why not just let them work it off as I propose?
So, moonglow, you think that giving taxpayer money to someone is beneficial to society because they will spend that money? Uh.......ok.
To me there is no upside to welfare, it breeds dependence.
In so much that it may help forstall rioting in the streets, it has little benefit at all but to ease our own sense of guilt.
Avorysuds Wrote:
To me there is no upside to welfare, it breeds dependence.
While I am deeply disappointed with our current welfare system, and often disgusted by the stories that come out of it...I can't help but picture the scene in Cinderella Man when Russel Crow playing James J. Braddock says, "I believe we live in a great country, a country that's great enough to help a man financially when he's in trouble. But lately, I've had some good fortune, and I'm back in the black. And I just thought I should return it."
Now...the libertarian in me, which has become much louder lately...says that we need to leave welfare to private charities and organizations...organizations that say, "We'll gladly pay your rent for 3 months while you look for work...we'll expect you to volunteer doing [fill in the blank] in return." or whatever.
Bottom line, I guess...I deeply believe that sometimes in life we all need a helping hand and that Americans, as a whole, are loving, giving people who WANT to help out their neighbors. I doubt seriously, whether government is capable of being that hand without causing significantly more trouble than the help it provides.
Yes, what America needs is more beggars in the streets.
I think it should be a loan, with a strict limit on what one can receive, and a definite repayment plan. Of course, the result would be the same as if the recipients were simply handed a years worth of a living wage: in a few months most would be right back where they started. Why? Because, for most, their sorry lot in life is not simply a condition of circumstance. It is a condition brought on by choices made. And giving out money does absolutely nothing to change the pattern of choices made that land most on welfare.
Now, welfare expenditures are not really that huge of a problem. Unless one considers the damage done by making poverty livable.
why a loan? why not just let them work it off as I propose?
Isn't that the same thing? In short, I think your proposal is excellent. But it falls short, as many welfare recipients would do, in a federal jobs program, exactly as they have done in life, which is to say they would not thrive. Many recipients are simply not interested in pulling their weight, and would bog down such a program. And so, when kicked out, they should have their future benefits terminated, and be forced to repay that which they have yet to pay. Tax intercepts work very well.
Similar to the thread regarding same-sex marriage and debating why or why it shouldn't allowed with regard to society as a whole. Just apply it now to welfare.
So, how does welfare benefit society as a whole? How does it not?