Re-stigmatize government assistance?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Nah, one should wear their leachiness like a badge of honor.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not for welfare workers treating clients like shit.

What seems to work the best is to pour money into building job skills and making job searches mandatory for those who seek public assistance. It's the one thing we've found that really works. Funnel money to contractors, who establish classes to provide support and focus on increasing work and job seeking skills.

The problem is, many of those on welfare have myriad problems, from mental health or emotional problems, to criminal backgrounds, which make it really, really hard for them to climb out of the system.You can teach people to look for jobs, get them into the employment division systems, teach them to type and use excel, require 10 job contacts a week....but if everyone is hiring based on the results of background checks and/or piss tests, which employers who hire people for even the most menial of jobs generally require, those folks are shit out of luck.

Not to mention the hordes of people who are just incapable of holding onto a job because they don't have the social skills, the mental acquity or the emotional ability to persevere in what can be difficult work environments (and let's face it, most of us have had to work in difficult work environments, particularly when we're first getting into the job market.)

 

[KittenKoder]

Blame it on: Bailouts.

 

[manifold]

Blame it on: Bailouts.

Here is a 21 second documentary that demonstrates the bailout decision making process.

[youtube]julnt19Pl8E[/youtube]



True story.

 

[Annie]

I'm not talking about passing a law that welfare recipients get deadbeat tatooed on their forehead. I'm talking about changing society's attitudes and leveraging peer-pressure to establish a disincentive to be on the dole.

Welfare State = Government BUY the people.


Welfare State BUYS votes , welfare state purveyors acquire power.

.

Indeed:

John Cassidy on ObamaCare - WSJ.com

Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
A liberal explains the political calculus.
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run....

 

[ihopehefails]

A few of these other discussions got me thinking... again.


I know this is going to sound really harsh, and that's because it is. We've all heard stories about people who ended up there through no fault of their own. But I cannot help thinking that the overall good of society could benefit from re-stigmatizing government assistance. In short, make people feel like worthless shit if they need a handout. Some people already feel that way naturally. But in some circles, it appears that working the system for unneeded handouts is considered normal, accepted and even lauded.

Do you think it is even possible to re-stigmatize government assistance?

If so, do you think it would do more good than harm, or vice-versa?

I dn't think that welfare should be demonized because there are times when people need it such as our 22% unemployment we have right now. I have a problem with welfare states that thinks its their job to provide for the masses instead of allowing people to be self-sufficient human beings.

Hey now, that's some pretty well crafted empty rhetoric right there. You sure you're not a closet Obamaphile?

I'm pretty sure I did not vote for Obama but public assistance is needed sometimes and if its used as a temporary thing until you get back to your feet then its ok but if its used to trap people into poverty or for the government to imprison them there for their own political purpose then I am against it.

I also don't think welfare should be big enough to get you everything you want such as a Xbox 360 or a new car but just enough to provide you with food so you don't starve. This way you have motivation to get off of it.

 

[Diuretic]

Good, thought-provoking question imho.
I know that the general move is toward de-stigmatizing EVERYTHING and that is not necessarily a good thing imho.

But if you've convinced someone that they are a no-good, worthless, POS, drag on society, then how big of a pyschological jump is it for that person to start viewing themself as a VIOLENT, CRIMINAL no-good, worthless, POS, drag on society?

Or if they are already convinced that they are just a garden-variety, no-good, worthless, POS, drag on society then does that make it harder to rehab that person and help them re-make themselves into a real productive member of society?

And does the stigma encourage more people to fight harder to keep themselves afloat? How many will it influence? How many will it keep off assistance? How many will be driven deeper into anti-social behavior BECAUSE of the stigma?

Good questions - I got no answers - but IMHO they are very good questions.

Labelling/Labeling Theory. Good point.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not talking about passing a law that welfare recipients get deadbeat tatooed on their forehead. I'm talking about changing society's attitudes and leveraging peer-pressure to establish a disincentive to be on the dole.

Welfare State = Government BUY the people.


Welfare State BUYS votes , welfare state purveyors acquire power.

.

Indeed:

John Cassidy on ObamaCare - WSJ.com

Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer
A liberal explains the political calculus.
The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run....

What a bugger eh? Trying to make a fairer society. Where will it end????