Welfare

[Ernie S.]

What a joke.

If I try to vote in a "poll" run by some fruitcake rw, it just tells me I already voted even though I didn't vote.

Why don't you start your own poll and try to block me from voting. When you fail, come back and admit your lie.

Hey Oddball! Can a poll be edited so you can see how folks voted?

No comment Luddly?
Was anyone else barred from voting in this poll?

 

[antagon]

The tax system would have to deepen deductibility for donations to devolve welfare's work to charities. A third-sector system could be created consisting of charity banks to manage the funds, or to grant the funds to charitable orgs. Churches and charities are too susceptible to fraud, usurpery and corruption. Probably more so than the government's system. Maybe that 3rd sector could help with that.

Private enterprise would be the sole collector of the funds from religousprg., charitable org. , unionss, corporations and tax credits from IRS. as well as personal donations. They would work as "fo profit oganizations."

This is confusing.. the sole collector for or from? Not trying to nitpick but I dont get how from works. I am also dumbfounded by the idea of a donation-based for-profit organization. What are they turning a profit on, buddy? Isn't the point that profittaking moochers are purged from the system? Charities mooch hard as it is.

The government also tracks constituents, and has better access to tax info etc to make sure needies are really needy. Fraudulent needies can also spend their days going from charity to charity, so there will have to be a private system of tracking individuals' activities in the charity-space. Who would like that type of private tracking? Not all charities would even dig participation/administration on such a tracking system. Lord, if you thought exploitation of welfare among illegal immigrants is bad with the government administrating this...

Since there would be on clearing house orchestrating the service, there would not by the needy going from charity to charity. This clearing house would track each individual, seek employment for the needy first, then track their paymnents with lower paying employment and/or education to fulfill the requirements of receiving welfare. Illegal immigrants would not be eligible.

Presuming the clearinghouse is a business... they could run this system however they want. When we declared welfare to work, it was law and the govt orgs implemented that. Private charities would probably specialize and employ their own theories to charitable service. This is a free-market system, so they'd need lots of room to diversify and compete for the attention of donors. They'll probably specialize: hunger, disability, housing, victims of.., education, employment, etc. This is how they are now. Charities tend to illegals now.. amnestia, immigration assistance, social svcs. The government could not stop them from using dollars for certain people. If you think that's possible, you'd have to explain how, while maintaining the free-market goal of this conversion.

Lots of big holes in the chances for this charity based welfare thing.

I was sleepy last night and forgot to mention that massive amounts of charitable aid will go to advertisement and fundraising, as is the nature of charities.

It would be a shame to see charitable dollars shifting to the private social safety-net sector and away from Jerry's kids and the WMKeck foundation, etc. If all charities were offered equal deductibility, the safety-net charities would probably struggle for funds... struggle for mine anyhow.

Since the government would no longer be in the entitlement business, our taxes would be lower, giving each individual a chance to give to the needy and other charities with their new found fortune.

What makes taxes lower? I presume (all external factors remaining constant) the same tax liability with less net tax liability for people who donate to deductible orgs. Whichever the case, the govt uses stats and things to target specific folks with welfare support. Any charities displacing that will have to compete for donations with existing charities. I would think nothing would change, and other charities related to health concerns would dominate the charityfare market.

The biggest dividend of welfare is that it does add demand into a sweet-spot in the economy. That spot will suffer, taking the economy with it. Freedom to select goods within the market would be expressed by charities instead of needies, and probably at the wholesale level... potentially at the irregular/out-of-date level. Needies would probably end up eating what they're given and wasting what they don't care to consume. Needy kids would get toys they didn't want more often.

The privitizing approach to welfare keeps the fraud out, and keeps the needy to focus on jobs first and truly a hand up instead of incentivizing welfare being a a way of life. No longer would those accepting welfare be getting more than they earn and instead be part of the tax system because they are fist and foremost required to participate in in employment before accepting hand outs for no work at all.

I think that you are just saying that all of this great stuff will happen, but I dont see a free-market charityfare system precluding way-of-life beneficiaries for any reason. I dont see where for-profit, decentralization, or free-market are inherently less corrupt or fraud-proof. Can you explain how your jobs miracle would actually function? I don't see charities bolstering that just because they are businesses. A charity bases their fundraising on their beneficiaries needs, and will tout, as they do now, a mass of needies for the according $ympathy. Sure, these populations will overlap (charity-hopping referenced above). For-profit or non-profit, I dont think there's a market force to make charities blow the whistle on that themselves.

There's probably more to this, but I would go after the welfare state differently. This seems like a good-sounding proposal until further review. It sounds like a recipe for an africonomy: fraud, corruption and charities. I don't see a total devolution either. I don't see a change in consciousness between the welfare constituent or charityfare constituent, moreover.

Each state would be servicing their own clearing house for welfare, receiving the federal funds that citizens have earmarked given to welfare for their state in their federal tax returns. It would operate "as profit" to ensure its viability to service the population, in the manner that the neediest abled bodied welfare recipients goal are to find gainful employment first, education second, and a financial hand up, third.

States, now? What servicing? There is even less uniformity with state-by-state ombudsmanship. This is getting wacky now. Interstate fraud-fest predicted here.

Oh... an earmarking system. That's a big-league fail for me. My goal would be to never give Sam the dough in the first place. If you do... by far and away... Sam might as well give it to the people themselves. We already have charities mooching off the fed and local govts... and they're non-profits. Could you imagine if this was for profittaking!?!?

So profitable companies accessing the largess as you propose, respectfully, is a disastrous plan. Undoubtedly these charitable entities will defraud the public like every other subsidized sector seems to.

 

[antagon]

I'm still surprised I'm the only person who sees welfare as a hand-out. That is the entire purpose.

 

[Pheonixops]

Originally it was a hand up. Quickly became a political tool to ensure voter dependence.

End story.

It wasn't even ORIGINALLY a hand up. Ask LBJ.

LBJ was in the last century, he is irrelevant now. What's relevant now is today and Our future, we can always try to change or maintain the direction that Our country, ourselves, and our families are going in today and tomorrow.

I really don't see welfare being totally eliminated, we have to find more ways to make it efficient. I truly think that people being liable for and paying back their benefits is the way to go. Even if it's a 1% or 2% payment out of their gross income, I think that it would help that program or those programs and the people using it. I also wouldn't get them off of it right away if they found a job, I'd try to make it for a set term so if they found a job and received the benefits at the same time , they could get caught up and ahead, so they can start paying the "loan of benefits" back.

 

[Katzndogz]

Originally welfare was a widows and orphans program designed to help the families of miners who were killed.

When I was young, welfare was horrendous. A social worker would come into your home and tell you what property you could keep and what would be taken by the welfare worker and sold to offset the cost of paying you benefits. No television, no radio, one coat, not two.

 

[Pheonixops]

Is government-run welfare really necessary?

Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate?

Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish?

It should be a temporary hand up for the people who are in need of temporary assistance to get their lives back on track or on track. I think that the whole program of welfare should be geared to wean people off of it and and even have them pay back the benefits they received at a very low payment and interest rate (1%) after they get on track.

It hadn't occurred to me to require repayment.
In FL that's what they do with 'welfare' (AFDC) when a parent needs to draw cash benefits while the other is in jail or otherwise not reachable for child support. FL makes them pay it back.

I think that's a great start and program. In my opinion, going on welfare, foodstamps, etc. should be like going for unemployment. List your job skills when you fill out the application, get a list jobs to call (it can be on paper or by account on computer) , and get cracking.

 

[Pheonixops]

It's not temporary for the bureaucrats....What's their motivation for seeing to it that nobody becomes dependent upon their welfare state opiate?

LOL, it's funny that you would say the same thing that I was thinking about. What's the motivation for someone whose job depends on a big government program to get people off of that big government program? This is across the board with various programs and the political parties that implement and control them.

Maybe they can give bonuses to case workers who keep their "clients" off of welfare, employed, and paying back their "benefits".

Government isn't built that way, tho.
They need to drain every dollar of their budget so that they get an even bigger budget allowance next year.....

In my opinion,that's one of the biggest problems. There should be incentives for offering a lower budget and streamlining the departments.

 

[hortysir]

I'm still surprised I'm the only person who sees welfare as a hand-out. That is the entire purpose.

Continued welfare turns into a hand out.

Temporary assistance is just a hand up

 

[antagon]

I'm still surprised I'm the only person who sees welfare as a hand-out. That is the entire purpose.

Continued welfare turns into a hand out.

Temporary assistance is just a hand up

I could see that, but instead I consider welfare a hand-out which economists see as an economy booster. If one uses it to improve their lot its a hand-up. If one gets comfy and schools their kids on the ins and out of the system, it will grow and perpetuate. If the government doesn't see the problems with these externalities, it will become unsustainable policy.

We have crossed that line already, but not yet a point of no return.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Because that's exactly the way it was before we had welfare.

And it worked from 1776 until the Great Depression.

Great....so let's just undo everything....including the industrial revolution. We'll go back to horse and buggies, burn kerosene lamps for light in our homes, and reenact slavery....that'll solve everything.

In short, since the Industrial Revolution and all the technological advancements that followed(and the increasing levels of associated corporatism), life has gotten much more complicated.

that's not even apples and oranges

 

[Clementine]

Serious question... Why would democrats want people to be on welfare?

Serious answer....people won't bite the hand that feeds them. If a person is comfortable on welfare and is work shy, they'll vote for those who promise even more hand outs.

 

[AmyNation]

Serious question... Why would democrats want people to be on welfare?

Serious answer....people won't bite the hand that feeds them. If a person is comfortable on welfare and is work shy, they'll vote for those who promise even more hand outs.

That might be valid, if most people on assistance voted democrat.

 

[tjvh]

I'm still surprised I'm the only person who sees welfare as a hand-out. That is the entire purpose.

Continued welfare turns into a hand out.

Temporary assistance is just a hand up

Yeah, it's one thing to help someone out until they get back on their feet... It's an entirely different thing to allow them to use a handout as a career choice.

 

[antagon]

I'm still surprised I'm the only person who sees welfare as a hand-out. That is the entire purpose.

Continued welfare turns into a hand out.

Temporary assistance is just a hand up

Yeah, it's one thing to help someone out until they get back on their feet... It's an entirely different thing to allow them to use a handout as a career choice.

The fact is that welfare is not about getting people back on their feet or allowing them to stagnate on subsistence, its about making sure that Walmarts are packed on the 1st and 15th and that slumlords get their rent paid.

I think both sides of this argument are distracted by the human effects of a safety net when those weren't the basis of its establishment.

 

[BreezeWood]

Is government-run welfare really necessary?

Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate?

Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish?

does the OP presuppose there is a "law" preventing Charities from "do(ing) a better job of taking care of the less fortunate" at the present time - whether there is gov't assistance or not?

why are they not doing it now if that is a / the solution - or in fact they already are doing all they can and even with gov't assistance there still is not enough resources to meaningfully address the problem.


Charities and gov't assistance working together with adequate "funding" is the solution for depleting the welfare roles that likewise will expose the freeloaders to be managed as well.

 

[hortysir]

Is government-run welfare really necessary?

Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate?

Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish?

does the OP presuppose there is a "law" preventing Charities from "do(ing) a better job of taking care of the less fortunate" at the present time - whether there is gov't assistance or not?

why are they not doing it now if that is a / the solution - or in fact they already are doing all they can and even with gov't assistance there still is not enough resources to meaningfully address the problem.


Charities and gov't assistance working together with adequate "funding" is the solution for depleting the welfare roles that likewise will expose the freeloaders to be managed as well.

Because the habit of reaching out to Uncle Sam has been too seeply ingrained

 

[AmyNation]

Is government-run welfare really necessary?

Can private charities do a better job of taking care of the less fortunate?

Is it better to give a man a fish to hold him over until he can afford steak, or to teach him how to fish?

does the OP presuppose there is a "law" preventing Charities from "do(ing) a better job of taking care of the less fortunate" at the present time - whether there is gov't assistance or not?

why are they not doing it now if that is a / the solution - or in fact they already are doing all they can and even with gov't assistance there still is not enough resources to meaningfully address the problem.


Charities and gov't assistance working together with adequate "funding" is the solution for depleting the welfare roles that likewise will expose the freeloaders to be managed as well.

Because the habit of reaching out to Uncle Sam has been too seeply ingrained

You do realize many charities actually help people get assistance from the government, right?

 

[Immanuel]

Serious question... Why would democrats want people to be on welfare?

Serious answer....people won't bite the hand that feeds them. If a person is comfortable on welfare and is work shy, they'll vote for those who promise even more hand outs.

That might be valid, if most people on assistance voted democrat.

What makes you think they don't?

My guess is that most people on government welfare do indeed vote Democrat.

Immie

 

[AmyNation]

Serious answer....people won't bite the hand that feeds them. If a person is comfortable on welfare and is work shy, they'll vote for those who promise even more hand outs.

That might be valid, if most people on assistance voted democrat.

What makes you think they don't?

My guess is that most people on government welfare do indeed vote Democrat.

Immie

Feel free to prove it.

 

[Immanuel]

That might be valid, if most people on assistance voted democrat.

What makes you think they don't?

My guess is that most people on government welfare do indeed vote Democrat.

Immie

Feel free to prove it.

You are the one that made the claim, you prove it.

I know, I know, liberals such as yourself don't feel they need to prove anything.

You made the claim, the burden is upon you.

Immie