How does society benefit from welfare?

[Some Guy]

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?

 

[Steelplate]

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.

 

[Pho_King]

Society does not benefit from welfare. Welfare recipients do. Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.

 

[Pho_King]

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.

Now, welfare expenditures are not really that huge of a problem. Unless one considers the damage done by making poverty livable.

 

[Gem]

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.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

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?

 

[Pho_King]

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.

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.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Great post, I however think the first part of what you said is what leads to the second part of what you talked about.

To me there is no upside to welfare, it breeds dependence. In fact seeing as the US has become a welfare nation one could argue that welfare is a leading cause for poverty in the US. If the argument was that being on welfare helped lift people out of hard times and poverty then why with historic amounts of welfare do we also have historic amounts of poverty and downward movement in wealth of individuals in this country?

Outside of making someone feel better, welfare is used purely as a way to secure votes. To me anyone that feels welfare is good for a society is like talking to someone who does not believe in evolution.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

What do you see the long term effects being with such a program?

I see major issues. Everyone who falls into that form of welfare is guaranteed a job, no matter how good or bad they do that job, Government won’t allow strict standards or discrimination. Then you have to pay these people for whom would rarely want to get out of a job they can’t be fired from and work for someone that demands a higher standard from an employee. Next you have to keep Government projects going, that takes money. If that state or federal project does not go through then what happens? What happens if politicians start running on more Government projects so that welfare people have job security?

I guess I see a huge list of problems with the Government providing jobs to it’s citizens.

 

[Pho_King]

So, moonglow, you think that giving taxpayer money to someone is beneficial to society because they will spend that money? Uh.......ok.

 

[California Girl]

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.

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?

Work it off? As in make them government employees? Or do we fire the government employees and fill those jobs with welfare recipients?

Good theory, does not hold up to practical application.

 

[California Girl]

So, moonglow, you think that giving taxpayer money to someone is beneficial to society because they will spend that money? Uh.......ok.

The taxpayer could just as easily spend that money, if he wasn't being forced to support other people with his money.

 

[Gem]

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.

 

[SayMyName]

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.

 

[Swagger]

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.

Indeed. Every civilisation is and was three meals away from anarchy.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Again, I agree with you but fact is we have welfare and we have seen what it becomes. If you start welfare with very strict rules as to who can use it, how long and how much they get, in so many years you will have people buying their beer with cash so they can buy dinner with their welfare card.

 

[Mr Natural]

Yes, what America needs is more beggars in the streets.

 

[Avorysuds]

Yes, what America needs is more beggars in the streets.

I like your point, welfare keeps the beggars at home. No politician wants to see the poverty they helped create in the streets where it could cost them an election. Great point Mr.Claen.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

Who said there wouldn't be incentives to do good and high quality work? first off... you have to think about this in the right way. Let's suppose you are on welfare....not only that, but you are the worst kind of abuser of the system. All of a sudden here comes that asshole Steelplate with his referendum on bringing back the CCC and WPA. It gets through Congress and is signed by the President making it Law.

Now you have to work....just to receive the benefits you used to get for doing nothing. You start out as a general laborer on some public works project. Busting your ass, doing all the most physical labor....sounds pretty shitty, doesn't. it? You have one of three choices.....suck it up and keep working for those benefits, or get a real job that isn't so demanding. The third option is to excel at the laborer job to earn the right to be trained into something better.....once you receive that training, there is no bump in pay....you're still working for your benefits. At some point, you are going to say....I can do better....and you will.

I know...a lot of you want an instant solution. But an instant solution is just pissing in the wind, because no politician is going to simply cut them off....they want re-elected....and it doesn't matter which party....you make enough people outraged, you're gone.

Will there be people who never get out of the system? Sure....I can see people who are hopelessly addicted that may never get out of laborer mode....people with legitimate physical and/or mental handicaps to the point where they can't work at all...but even a guy in a wheelchair can answer phones and whatnot...I'm talking debilitating.

 

[Vidi]

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?

Welfare helps prevent rebellions.