Your View: Does a Welfare System Really Help the Poor?

1. BishopWhiteT - May 2nd, 2008 at 10:58 am

When used correctly, absolutely. When abused, definitely not. One of the main problems is that there are so many flaws within the system itself that help often does not get to the people who really need it because they barely fail to qualify, while the resources are used and abused by those who wish to live off of others. Good question with no simple answers.

2. JwJwBean - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 am

Very tough to pick a side. I was the recipient of medicaid when I was pregnant with my first son. I did not however take advantage and stay on it for any longer than I had to. I know I have seen reports of people who abuse the system. Can someone who knows more about it than me help me? Didn’t Clinton put something in place about a time limit for welfare recipients? I think all welfares should be reevaluated. It can help some, but I think the majority take advantage and others won’t get a job and get off it because the job they get will not cover their bills anymore and will make them ineligible for the help to pay the bills.

3. Quiana - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 am

Where did everyone go? : ) I think it helps people, but I know a lot of people who abuse it. I think that those who are disabled deserve a little help and everyone else can get up and get out in the work field.

4. courtney - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 am

This is coming from personal experience for me, because I’m in a family that is on welfare. Unfortunately, there is this perception of people (most likely towards African-Americans) who are on welfare that they are not working hard enough, they’re completely apathetic and lazy, etc. I know people who are working two jobs, and still need food stamps to cover groceries. Some of these jobs in America can barely cover the necessities in a household ($9 or $12 an hour seems to be insufficient).

I definitely KNOW that people have manipulated the welfare system, and it’s a shame that the hardworking, single mothers out there have to be labeled as “lazy”, or any other negative connotation because they are trying their damndest to survive.

5. Ravyn - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 am

This is really hard for me to answer. I am on government assist. I have kept it to the most minimal that I need to help raise my children. It was the hardest thing for me to do, walking into that office and admitting that I need help. But it had to be done. I was getting a divorce. The entire time being on Gov. assist., I have been job hunting without a positive lead. I am looking to start school soon. It has been helping me out tremendously as I am trying to get my feet back on the ground.

Now I know there are people who are out there who abuse the system. They don’t care if they can ever support them selves. And it is a damn shame.

It is difficult for the case worker to weed out the honest ones who are trying the best they can from the ones who don’t give a rats ass. It is those people who give everyone else a bad taste of what it is like to have to start over.

6. JwJwBean - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:23 am

I would love to hear from someone who has a government assist program outside the US. I hear a lot of people are on the Dole(?) in England.

7. Daniel - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:28 am

In the same vein jfrater mentioned it’s a complex situation, I’d say it affects more than just the poor’s motivation. I have no statistics on hand, but I’d like to believe that crime goes down when welfare is in place. It makes sense that if the poor are given some help, they are less desperate, which then means less crime (hopefully).

That said, I’d love to see an independent study of different countries welfare systems and how many people “take advantage” of them… then again, I guess you’d have to define what “taking advantage” is in every state. Oh well

I’m a huge fan of what San Francisco has done… http://www.sfconnect.org/

I also believe they set up a voicemail service for the homeless there so they can apply for real jobs… employers wouldn’t know if the homeless person did or didn’t own a cell phone.

8. Cyn - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 am

the current American system sux but unfortunately it is all that there is. if there were actual programs in place to help people get off welfare instead of institutionalized perpetuation ..it’d be an easier issue to say yes or no too. also there should be a distinction made between the poor due to disability or age and healthy adult work able poor. if more programs were either used for the purposes for which they were designed or altered to actually suit the needs as they exist now…like childcare, transportation and relevant job training…then it might be possible to lower the number on welfare. so long as ..in America…welfare for the poor is tied up w/ the disabled and elderly and overshadowed by political machinations….it ain’t gonna be any better for anyone…the poor or the taxpayers funding it all. but..there has to be something in place so there are as few deaths as possible ..and yes, there have been deaths in this country directly traceable to the inadequacies of the welfare system. there is hunger in America. there is welfare fraud on the part of the DOCTORS abusing the system that result in patient deaths. and a long litany of other evils and deaths of the very people the systems were set up to help. and yes, unfortunately i speak from experience as a disabled adult w/ a disabled child who is a beneficiary of this welfare system. and i have the literal scars to prove it. it is a very sad, brutal and terrifying story what we poor face in this country every day. and i ..like so many..live in fear of what will happen to what little we do have when things change here in November.

9. toolnut - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am

Tough question but if I had to choose I would say no as well. I know people that have worked the system to get free money. I know people that refuse to get a job because they can sit at home and sell drugs and still get a goverment check every month. I think that initially it started as a great idea with good intentions, but if you leave humans to their own vices a lot of the time they will prove that mankind can be greedy, selfish, and lazy.

10. JayArr - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 am

Clinton administration - welfare reform act of 1996:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform

Definitely a charged question. A true ‘Welfare State’ fails utterly in the long run. Welfare systems in general are extremely difficult to administer in an intelligent fashion, as everyone who can affect the system will do so for the benefit of their constituencies - often to the detriment of the people for whom the system was setup in the first place.

I am not a support of broad-scale welfare systems. I like the idea of point-specific welfare programs which are managed with strict regulations and policy review, as well as regular oversight to ensure abuse of the programs is limited as much as possible.

Most people in our country have at one time (or will in the future) been in a tight squeeze financially. I know I have been - as a child of a working poor family growing up, and as a working adult. I think everyone is entitled to a little help when they need it, but I certainly do not appreciate those who receive long-term benefits and do nothing to help themselves become contributing members of society.

11. Wanderer - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:42 am

As much as i would like to say yes it does, i’ve known to many people who take advantage of it.

People who wont go and get jobs because then they wont get the wellfare checks anymore.

If there was a little more of a cutoff point, or obviously proof that people are trying to to work themselves, and get them selves active in the job market, and are just not able to get a job etc i could see. But there are many people who just dont go and try to find a job because they get the gaurantee check.

I believe the family guy episode summed it up, with him getting fired and getting 10k a week because of an “accident” the government made and not claiming it, but yet no one seemed to notice a 10k check being made very week.

I’m sure not such an exagerated ammount happens today, but im sure overages and etc are being paid to people that shouldn’t get it.

12. JayArr - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 am

Clinton administration - welfare reform act of 1996:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform)

Definitely a charged question. A true ‘Welfare State’ fails utterly in the long run. Welfare systems in general are extremely difficult to administer in an intelligent fashion, as everyone who can affect the system will do so for the benefit of their constituencies - often to the detriment of the people for whom the system was setup in the first place.

I am not a support of broad-scale welfare systems. I like the idea of point-specific welfare programs which are managed with strict regulations and policy review, as well as regular oversight to ensure abuse of the programs is limited as much as possible.

Most people in our country have at one time (or will in the future) been in a tight squeeze financially. I know I have been - as a child of a working poor family growing up, and as a working adult. I think everyone is entitled to a little help when they need it, but I certainly do not appreciate those who receive long-term benefits and do nothing to help themselves become contributing members of society.

13. Hobolad - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 am

Ooh, good topic. I think yes- I mean, maybe there are the lazy minority. But the majority who rely on welfare through no fault of their own never get into the tabloids or on TV.

To quote Billy Bragg- the system has failed you don’t fail yourself. Which I think is true enough, so while we have a system that leaves people needing welfare, welfare should be available.

I’m gonna say though- the companies should not be going abroad with their factories for slave labour. The situation is as it is not because welfare makes people lazy, but because previous jobs just aren’t there anymore (and it’s not immigrants taking the jobs, it’s the companies going abroad for their exploitation- crippling the foreign poor and doing no good to our job-seekers either).

My 2p.

14. Randall - May 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 am

A properly managed and well-administered welfare system benefits the poor… OF COURSE. And it’s the mark of a civilized, modern, and compassionate society that it maintains such a system for its citizens.

This question is, I’m sorry, a no-brainer. What’s the alternative? To have NO system of support for the poor? Uh uh. That’s not the way *I* want my society to be.

The problem is of course to properly manage and administer such a system to A) prevent abuse and B) encourage people to find their way to improved situations. Tweak it, therefore, yes—but live without it? Hell no.

The people who call for doing away with welfare would do well to remember that few of THEM, probably, come from privilege or privileged backgrounds—and that therefore THEY could just as easily fall into horrible times when THEY and their families might need help. And they would do well to consider what life was like BEFORE such safety net systems were put in place not only in this country but in other countries. The prospect was bleak and terrifying for people back then, with nowhere to turn except occasional (and unreliable) private charity. Why the hell should a civilized, modern society allow for such a thing to happen?

No… if anyone calls for doing away with welfare–then tell me, why not bring back debtor’s prisons? Why not just cut EVERYONE loose, including all the little handouts and entitlements that the middle class has voted itself for the last fifty-odd years? Let’s see you live without *them.*

15. Crimanon - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Ranall: Damn it, Quit making me agree with you!!!

Debtors Prisons? I think the Aussies would get pissed.

16. Crimanon - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm

*Randall

17. Frank - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm

A welfare system helps the poor in the sense that it lets them survive, and it also helps the majority of the poor to stay poor. What would be needed instead is a system where the poor are given the opportunities they need to not be poor any more - a working employment agency, laws on work conditions that will mean employers have to give a decent minimum wage… The only way to make people less poor is to make it profitable for the companies to employ poor people at good wages. I hear a lot of stories about people in the us working more than one job, working more than 40 hours a week just to survive. That is because the us is a fascist state, which means they make laws to benefit the companies rather than the people. So no, the welfare system as it is today do not help the poor, and it can impossibly give that true help without major reconstruction of the society around it.

18. Sara - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm

I don’t think that welfare systems work.

But I also don’t think that’s the right question to be asking. What we should be asking is: should government be able to take people’s money to use for something they don’t agree to? Certain truly “public goods” should be paid for by taxes (national defense, police force, courts, etc), but other than that the government should not have the ability to take my money by force and do something with it that I don’t agree with. (And if you don’t think the government is taking your money by force, think about what happens to people that refuse to pay taxes.) Obviously some people legitimately need help, and there are thousands of private charities helping people all the time. People who want to help others can do so voluntarily by giving to a private charity. There is absolutely no reason why government should be in the business of taking some people’s property and giving it to others.

19. Sara - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Frank: you should look up the definition of a facist state, and not just on wikipedia. I will grant you that the U.S. is closer to a facist state than a socialist state, but it’s not because the government is helping companies. Quite the opposite actually. Words have meanings - you should use them correctly.

20. Drwho1300 - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm

It has to become systematic as a temporary program. There have to requirements for actual employment or education. It should not be a year in year out lifelong program.

21. Hobolad - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Sara: I’m not sure whether to agree or not On the one hand- I reckon it wouldn’t be a good idea to pick and choose which taxes to pay. I mean, like it or not, we’re a society y’know? But for the flapping of a butterfly’s wings it could be you on welfare and another person refusing to pay for it. I mean, society has made some rich, it’s made some poor. You can’t just let society make you rich and not have a responsibilty to the people of that society.

But on the other, I do hate that my money is funding bombs and things

So I don’t really know

22. Yarr - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Hmmm…
Coming in right after Randall. He and I don’t agree on much.
Let’s see.

I am currently what many media types out there consider wealthy. I have a high-paying job that I thank God every day for being able to land and keep. I am truly blessed, lucky… whatever you want to call it. I’m 32 years old and I am currently attending school full time while I work this awesome job. (I’m paying for it in cash BTW, not with grants or loans.)

Why the qualification?

My folks aren’t so lucky. I grew up comfortable, but not very well-off. There were many times my dad had to go hat-in-hand to ask for assistance of some sort or other. It killed him to do it, but he did it because he had to.

So yes. I believe that a welfare system should be there to help the poor and unfortunate.

BUT…

I have to point out that though dad was somewhat unlucky, he only asked for what he NEEDED after working 80+ hours a week was just not good enough. The system we have today reeks of corruption and seems to be designed to keep the poor just that: poor and dependent on the government. There are few incentives for someone who is on welfare to get off it. Benefits are cut when the recipient makes even a few dollars on their own. Benefits are extended to healthy people that are perfectly able to work because they fall into a group that the government considers marginal. Why work if you don’t have to?

I saw this after Katrina here in Houston. In the days following the storm, some friends from New Orleans were here staying in my apartment. They had lost EVERYTHING in the flood. They applied for their disaster benefits, cashed the checks and bought necessities in preparation for rebuilding their lives. Within 2 weeks they all either had jobs here or had returned to their homes to rebuild.
That was almost 3 years ago. There are STILL people living in govt assist here DEMANDING more out of the government because, well, you know, they want it.
To those people I say, “I’m done with you. Get a job and shut your ungrateful mouth. You get nothing more from me.”
But the government keeps tossing money their way. My money.

So, yes to welfare, as it is definitely needed, but HELL YES to welfare reform. Give incentives to the motivated, and light a fire under the asses of the lazy. Stop keeping ‘marginal’ people dependent on politicians.

23. Mom424 - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Of course I believe in Welfare. I don’t believe in hand-outs except in very specific situations. I’m having to agree with Randall, it’s not the principle it’s the practice that sucks.

For Instance;

The subcontractor who breaks his leg with no unemployment coverage will require a helping hand for a defined term. No Problem.

The Mother or Father left high and dry with 4 under school-age kids by either death or abandonment. No Problem. Either provide good day-care and training for the parent or pay until the kids get to school age. Then train.

The handicapped, the mentally infirm. Again no problem.

The lazy-ass drug addict that lives next door, I have a huge problem with. The chronically unemployed who don’t want to work piss me off too. I see no problem with trading money for public service. Our city and provincial employees get paid mega-bucks for jobs that some of our welfare recipients are quite capable of doing. Maybe they would gain a little self-respect at the same time. It’s a win-win situation.

I also would like to see programs where you get paid while you upgrade your training. We have many working poor holding 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. Night school is not an option for them. We should make it one.

The other thing that irritates the hell out of me is women who keep pro-creating either because they are irresponsible fools (I was going to say twats, but thought better of it) or because they get more money. I know a few like this. Unfortunately I can think of no way to curb this tendency. It would be wrong to punish the children because of the parent. And you can’t force sterilization or semi-permanent birth control. Damn.

Some welfare programs I think are a necessity; they benefit the working poor, the unfortunate, as well as the dirt-bags.
Subsidized housing that is properly maintained and policed. Quality subsidized day-care. Utility assistance (A big deal here in winter). And top-ups for the working poor.

24. mzfly - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm

In a society where we have people who are in need, we have a responsibility to help them to succeed.
A lot of these comments are stating that they have seen too many people abuse the system. In my childhood, my family and I were on welfare. My father had been laid off from his job as a coal miner for over 6 months, my younger brother was very ill and my mother was not educated past High School. We utilized various welfare programs and eventually ended up moving over 6 hours away in order for my father to find work (this was during the Reagan era). I was on a free lunch program in school (Thank you Black Paanthers) until Junior High School and we still recieved food stamps until I was about 11 years old. If it were up to my father we would have never been in that situation but, with the system the way it is you are either 90%-100% dependent on Gov’t aid or you are 0% in need. It doesn’t make sense.
The welfare system is really messed up in the sense that it actually encourages, single parent households and the dependency of lower income people. But we have to have somehting in place to help those in need, when they need it.

25. Anne - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm

My family probably wouldn’t eat if it wasn’t for food stamps. So yes, I think it does benefit. Its not really the governments job to get us “out of a rut”, its the peoples job, their support helps.

26. crash - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Working in the grocery industry, I see a lot of people come through with food stamp cards or EBT cards. The vast majority of them in my area, don’t speak English, and you can tell by what some of them are buying that they don’t really need Food Stamps if they can afford the luxury items they get. I feel that the system needs an overhaul, there needs to be an effort in the case of the person getting the benefits to be trying to get off them, or better their lives in someway. For me, I don’t believe in free rides, there are those that can’t work, I understand, but there are other things that they might be able to do to uplift the community, some sort of community service, working at a food bank, or something to show that they are giving back for what they are receiving. If all the people on welfare were either trying to get work or working in the community as volunteers, the world we live in would be better for it.

27. Mom424 - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm

mzfly, anne; The exact situations where I believe Welfare to be wonderful, necessary, and humane. I’m glad you were helped.
I have friends who through no fault of their own, have had to utilize the system. It was a god-send. Unfortunately I know more dirt-bags who abuse the system than the truly needy.

28. Syme - May 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Here in the Netherlands we have an advanced welfare system.. it’s pretty easy to get money from the government. While I think it’s kinda unfair, there are almost NO beggars and homeless people on the streets, and that’s worth something too.

29. Jen - May 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm

When it’s not abused it is a big help but far too many abuse it and give it a bad name and make it hard for people who actually need it to get it. The only saving grace is that there is a time limit for being on it and how many kids they will pay for. Because lets face it, there is a reason so many people on welfare have 10 kids hanging off of them, they’re a pay check.

30. babygirl2882 - May 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I have to say that yes it does help some. My family has been on welfare because my dad is unable to work due to a medical condition. But even before it happened we were on it, because he couldn’t find a job that would make enough to live off of. He had to stay at a job he hated because if he worked just a few more hours a week we would be completely unable to live off of it. It’s not fair that it is nearly impossible to rise up. Right now we can’t make ANY money to save so that when this is over we will be able to get out. I know that the only way out is to make it on my own.

Then there are those who are perfectly able to get there lazy butts off the couch and get a job but don’t. It needs to be better regulated. There needs to be some kind of real help.

31. Talanic - May 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Over here in Wisconsin, we have an interesting system.

You want welfare? You can be on it for a total of five years. No more, PERIOD. If you can work, we have community service jobs open for you. We have job training open for you. We have all sorts of things you can do. Your welfare check IS your payment for that work.

You’ll get our money, but you’ll work for it.

Is it perfect? Hell no, but I think it’s better than just handing out paychecks.

32. mandy - May 2nd, 2008 at 2:29 pm

There are some huge misconceptions about welfare that would need to be addressed first.
It truly is a twisted cycle-not one meant to screw the employed, but to keep the poor poor. Welfare recipients are an easy target because they are shamed, and because they aren’t allowed to really fight for themselves.
After all, they’re getting handouts and beggars can’t be choosers right?
Ever borrow money or get help from someone that made a big deal about it all the time? Always had to mention it, even after you paid it back? Regardless of what it was for, they always implied or told people you weren’t grateful? Now have an entire country always throw it in your face.
You do not get enough to live on,not even close. And any additional money for another child you have while on welfare barely covers the price of diapers for a baby for a month. As for these welfare mothers having the nerve to even have children, well, it must be nice for everyone else to have been planned by 2 caring parents with lots of independent money in the bank.
Ok, so there are people who rip it off, by having money coming from somewhere else or choosing not to work. So I guess everyone you know who has ever worked “under the table” for cash, or had cash tips, always claimed it on their income taxes? Or anyone who owns a business is completely honest with their share to the government? Does it make it right or ok? No. But it doesn’t mean every waitress or small business owner is a cheat,does it?

You need a structure of affordable and accessible education and daycare. You need wages that reflect the true cost of living. You have to have a safety net for those that need it. But anyone who grumbles at welfare’s free ride, should instead be grateful they don’t have to be on it.

http://www.incomesecurity.org/...../myths.pdf

33. Jenna_Bug - May 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I think people abuse the Welfare system. I know first hand because my cousin and her family abuse it every day, they are too lazy to get jobs and spend all their money on drugs.
They are constantly getting evicted from their home of the month….they are perfectly capable of working and having decent jobs. When they do get a good job, they call in sick and then never go back. I definitely think that Welfare could be a wonderful thing if it wasn’t abused by lazy people. A single mother who can’t work full time because she can’t afford daycare is a good example for when Welfare does actually work.

34. Sephiral - May 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Not in a mood for an argument but the simple answer is yes it does. Without some form of outside assistance many people would simply be unable to get a decent education or feed themselves. It nice to pretend that if you work hard and try your best everything will fall in to place. It is one of the ideas that drives the world we occupy but it is not completely correct.

Personally I would have been unable to attend college without government assistance as my father is on welfare payments due to disability. This would have resulted in me getting some poor job and not being able to attend college. There are literally millions of people in similiar situations to me. It always sickens me when people assume that does on welfare are lazy layabouts. While that is true in some cases, by trying to get rid of a welfare system you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

What should be concentrated on is making sure that those who receive aid actually deserve it. Forcing those capable of working into training programs if they want to retain their payments is usually a good idea as long as they are given a broad choice.

35. Sephiral - May 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Oh, I should also add that I am Irish not American. Our perception of a welfare system is utterly different to yours. Basically their would be a revolution in the morning if someone took it away tonight.

36. spence425 - May 2nd, 2008 at 4:34 pm

in a perfect world, i think a “jobs for the poor” program would be more beneficial. unfortunately, jobs just aren’t abundant enough.

i’d agree that welfare is beneficial when administered properly, and when not taken advantage. the problem is that it’s very difficult to police that sort of wide-reaching program.

37. Justin - May 2nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm

got a chain letter the other day, usually ignore these but being from my sister i gave it a look.
Basically, being told from an employee’s perspective, it says they are fine with taking a drug test to keep their job, but when the taxes they pay for said job go to fund a welfare program for people who don’t have to take a drug test to receive their money, they see a problem.

couldn’t really disagree with the logic. in that, I think its bad. in acting as a safety net, I think its bad. If it were more temporary, just to help people who’ve fallen on hard times get their footing enough to restart their life.. not supplement it.

38. mpw - May 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Some people truly need it for instance:

A single parent who is only qualified for a minimum wage job but works their ass off and still cant afford to pay the bills or rent.

people who are poor need luxuries too and a little extra cash is necessary.

also it should be given to people for a set amount of time and during this time they should try to earn an income for themselves

lastly, people who have a shit load of children just to get a bigger welfare check are a fucking disgrace. they shouldn’t make the kids suffer just to have more free money

my answer is Yes, but with limits and regulations

39. JwJwBean - May 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm

mpw - “people who are poor need luxuries too and a little extra cash is necessary.”

Need luxuries? A luxury is not a need it is an extra. If you don’t have the money you don’t get the extras. I have nothing against people actuallty needing welfare. As I said I took advantage when I needed it, but I did not go out and buy luxuries with what I got. My father in law is from Jamaica. They are one of the poorest places. He said the Jamaican immigrants come here and work many jobs and go without said luxuries because they are used to not having them. Then they save up their money and buy large houses and get all those luxuries later. Luxuries should not be given out by the government. When we need a little extra cash I call the catering company, which is my third job on top of my husbnds full time one job, and ask if there are any weddings to work. It is a sad day tho that families have to work so many jobs just to get luxuries.

40. SMD - May 2nd, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Yes and no.
I’ve been on welfare before (when I was a kid). How did it help us? It gave us the support we needed to survive long enough so my mother could finish her degree and get a better paying job. We lived in low-income housing, etc. Then, when my mother finished school she got a job, got off welfare, and never went back.
If everyone were to use the system like that (or in a similar fashion), then we wouldn’t have to ask this question. Welfare does help people, but the problem with it is that it is abused and the system allows people to abuse it. If you’re on welfare for 10 years, the question is why? Is there a valid reason for you being on welfare, or is it because you’re being lazy and not doing anything with your life? We need a welfare system that gives incentives for people to not be on welfare. Perhaps that means we need the system to be temporary, with a requirement for people to give a proposal and stick to it (such as: I am going to attend such and such school for two years, get a degree in such and such, and then get a job and get off welfare, or something else that is equally logical). I don’t know. All I know is that welfare needs to be ONLY for those that pay taxes, that need the help, and it shouldn’t be for people who just want to sit around on it. Our welfare system in California has a lot of flaws because a lot of Americans who could use the help get screwed, and a lot of illegal immigrants can simply walk in and get assistance with practically no questions asked. Seems wrong to me.

41. r graham - May 2nd, 2008 at 5:54 pm

I worked for 12 years as an international air travel specialist in a major travel agency, paid taxes, and was a good citizen. In the late 80’s I got a divorce. The airline industry and travel agencies had been on a deep decline mainly due to the Lybia bombing, The Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Pan Am Lockerbee incident, various international airplane incidents, and desert storm in full swing. By 1989 Americans were hesitant to travel abroad.

By 1991 I was jobless, and a single mother who was not collecting child support. It was difficult for me to find employment as being labled “Over Qualified” in any job available. After much prodding, my friends convinced me to seek food stamps. Upon putting in an application, my welfare interviewer looked at my application. It was difficult to understand him Through a very thick (non-American) accent, He said, you have a college degree; food stamps are for people who need it. I pointed out that my 5 year old daughter could not eat a diploma. I could not get housing subsidy because I was not a refugee in immediate need. After demanding to see a supervisor who spoke American English, I was finally granted food stamps. I am not a prejudice person, I married a non-amerrican and many of my friends are immigrants as well as both my parents. I am just telling the story as it happened.

I believe there is much waste and abuse in Public welfare. Welfare needs to do more job training and placement and a plan to help people become self sufficient. Too many times it give no incentive to leave the system. We have also raised a generation of youth who believe they are entitled. Have a baby, no problem, “I’ll get welfare.” Unfortunately it is a common view for most of our youth.

No, the welfare system as it is in America today, does not help the poor. It provides a climate of abuse. The entire system needs to be revampt.

42. mandy - May 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm

I think the arguments to abolish welfare or examples of why it’s no good should be something other than “I know someone who ripped it off” or just regurgitating stereotypes.

Here in Canada our taxes help pay for universal health care, I’ve known people who have abused it in many ways. Same thing goes for worker’s compensation-faking injuries to get paid for years, when there damn well isn’t anything wrong with them. There are lots of abuses to every system.

There is enough wrong with the way the system is set up that the rip off example doesn’t need to be used.

43. StinkyTheCat - May 2nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm

without reading the above posts…..my view on the subject is that it doesn’t help when many people just abuse it. helping them perhaps get a job, kick a habit (ahem ahem), or learn to manage their money is what they need. And i know what i’m talking about, being a child from the system.

ps- mpw, i’m just saying, when you’re poor enough to be on welfare, you should be worrying about a freakin “luxury”. they’re using MY tax dollars to stuff down a strippers g-string or buy a friggin big screen tv; geeeez. I’D like something nice once in awhile, but shit, if i ain’t got the cash, i’m sure the heck not going to do it on someone elses’ paycheck.

44. MarcJ - May 2nd, 2008 at 6:52 pm

When the government does more for its people, the people will do less for themselves. I hate to use an old saying, but “give a man a fish and he eats for a day… teach him to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime”.

45. charlie - May 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Welfare in itself is a good system. Or should i say any system that helps people that can’t help them selves is what we should all try to do. The problem with the welfare system in the U.S. is the government controls it. Personally i wouldn’t let any one of the representatives in this country balance my check book. We as a human race should help people and get the government out of our lives. the government should do two things for us one is defense of out nation and the other is build roads and bridges. Let us take care of everything else. i think the latest figures is 71 cents out of every dollar in the social security system goes towards overhead no wonder the system is broke. The problem with a system in that everyone takes care of every one else the bottom line is greed. If one gets greedy there is less for every one else. in a perfect world we would all be the same hence communism not to have a better word to describe it.

46. Cyn - May 2nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm

re: abuse of the system. last time i looked and yes, it was a few years ago, according to government directed/funded research ..less than 1% was lost to fraud that could be actionable in court. less than 1%! if you really want to know who is profiting from the current corrupt system of welfare …from housing to foodstamps to Medicare to job training…look at the service providers not the ones recieving services. its like comparing pennies lost to millions in fraud. the system needs overhauling but considering the amount profit being made by the providers…that is doubtful. meanwhile they will continue to feed the public misconceptions about who is screwing who. and the truly needy will starve. so stop blaming those in need and look who is actually profiting from it.

47. mpw - May 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm

JwJwBean: I see what you mean and I may have worded my point wrong.

what i meant was that it is hard to go through life without luxuries and that some people work hard but just dont make enough to buy nice things,but….

you are right people should earn their own stuff

however, it is tough in life when you see other people catch all the breaks when you work just as hard or harder.

trust me i know…

48. Elsa - May 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Speaking for the housing section, I worked with Federal Housing programs in the eastern section of my state for 6 years. The difference between low income housing and moderate income housing was astounding. Low income housing tended to be multi-generational recipients (parents part of the system, now the kids, and they’re having kids) , while the moderate income housing was a very different mentality. Yes, they paid a lower rate than the general public, but they were paying a proportionate amount (30% at the time) for housing and utilities. The conditions , in my experience, in the low income housing was that of an “entitlement” mentality.Granted, it has evolved over generations, but for the most part, that is the most prevelant attitude. “I can’t pay my rent, but I can have cable TV and the Internet and the latest cool shoes for the kids, cause the “programs” were to take care of food clothing and housing”. Priorities folks. If you can’t feed your children, should you be paying 50 bucks or more for TV? And if something got broken, oh well, I don’t have to pay for it,etc. The sanitary conditions were sub-par on the whole.Not the buildings and grounds, but the tenents households themselves. While in the moderate income housing complexes, the tenents were paying their fair share and there was a sense of community and pride in thier apartments. The grounds were kept clean, the apartments never failed inspection and when someone moved out, it was a great excuse for a block party, because moving out meant that you were no longer in need of assistance and everyone was proud that someone was moving up in the world, so to speak.

Now, these are just my experiences. These housing complexes were all in small southern towns and not large metropoliton areas, but I think there are a few things of note that I learned during my tenure.

Yes, people need help at times. and a helping hand is what we should provide. I believe someone once said you can judge a society by how the weakest are treated (paraphrasing here).
But I don’t agree with it being a lifestyle passed on to generation to generation.

When someone has pride in their home (moderate income housing)it shows in their demeanor and attitude about improving even more.

Getting help during times of catastrophy is certainly what we as human beings should be able to expect, and as a fellow human beings, we should strive to help in any way possible. But I think after a while, we are no longer helping them, but instead making them independant on the help and nearly incapable of getting off that hamster’s wheel once it starts turning.

Now before anyone says anything about the people in the Moderate income housing projects being inherently better off financially, the actual difference in income levels was very small.
But the difference in outlook and comunity was huge. Most people WANT to better themselves and the lives of their children. And I truly beleive the feeling of acheiving this on their own made all the difference.

So this long post sums up my feelings, having been involved on the other side. Yes, we need programs to help people in times of need. But there needs to be serious reform or we are in danger of creating whole sub-sections of our population without the ability to fend for themselves. And not nessecarily because it’s what they want, more importantly, it’s all they’ve ever known.

Katrina is a sad example of this , once again, in my opinion. Instead of doing what was needed to be done, most were like lost lambs because the government has always taken care of things, and they did not have realistic coping skills.

During Hurricane Floyd (the largest peacetime evacuation in US history), nearly 1/3 of my home state was under water….not just one town…but dozens, But there were no cries and complaints because FEMA wasn’t Johnny on the spot. I never heard anyone mention Fema once (not to say it never happened, I just never heard it personally). Instead, living our lives in hurricaine alley, we knew what needed to be done and just jumped right in. Tree down in your neighbor’s yard, go help them, then they in turn help you get the tree stuck in your roof out and help you put up tarps, etc. We just did what needed to be done and didn’t wait for rescue.

I’m sure my comments will anger some, but I think we all have a personal responsibility to prioritize. If you need assistance, please go get it. You’ve payed taxes and when you need your government, it should be there. But please do not use it as a band aid. Or a lifestyle.

49. mpw - May 2nd, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Has anybody ever been to a welfare office
its depressing and full of minorities and the welfare agents are assholes

suggestions for a “your view” lists

greatest inventions

most important moment in history

best t.v. show

50. Squiz - May 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 pm

i will admit that i’m on welfare and it’s a big help- i don’t feel i’m really abusing the system, because i work a job, go to college full-time, and it’s not like i’m wasting my money on anything. i don’t have a car, or cable. i take public transportation- i spend a total of 3 hours a day in transit or transferring on buses. also, they ended up labelling me as mentally disabled so for a couple of years while i got THAT mess sorted out and got divorced, i needed a little extra help. but i kept working.
and my medical bills aren’t cheap, and apparently entail going to the doctor at least once a month. and it’s rediculously expensive. if i didn’t have the little extra, i wouldn’t be able to feed myself or take the medicines i need to continue to be a functional member of society. but i don’t take all the handouts i could get either, because that would be wrong.
so with a little help and prodding, people like me are put in government programs that prod us in the right direction to either find realistic work and help get us hired, or help us figure out what kind of job training we would need to get a better job.
but i also see plenty of people who just go out and have kids, don’t even bother to try and do somethign with themselves, brag about all the drugs they do/sell and strut around in expensive clothes thinking they’re all top shit or something.
i’m considered some kind of freak by these people, because not onyl am i trying to work my way out of this system, i am 24 and still have no children. i didn’t feel it was appropriate to bring a child into this situation when i can barely take care of myself. but at my age, most of these kids would have children that are nearly grown themselves.
it’s kind of annoying because they do just expect the government to take care of them, they don’t even bother to try and do somethign with themselves most of the time because they would rather live int he right now and have no real incentive to go out and do something. instead they want to be cool and be gang-bangers and shit.
but i admit i’m slightly biased living in a city that is like 90% black and most of the people i work with are low income teenagers. when a girl at work, who is single teemager and had no intention of keeping a guy around to help her with the kid, because she doesn’t expect him to, was talking about having a baby to keep her company basically. i was horrified and was clearly trying to dissuade her from throwing herself away like that. the other girls in the store became angry with me, telling me she was “a grown woman” and could probably get money for the kid.
i just tried to appeal to her logic and tell her not to throw her freedom away, because she had plenty of time to have a baby, and then it doesn’t go away. and they’re expensive.
so really those are the two sides i can present. i really am torn on whether it helps a lot or not, but you really have to pound the pavement sometimes to get on the right programs, and you’re right a lot of people are just fucking lazy. they want nice stuff right now for free and they want to be home or hanging out doing nothing all day.

51. Bad News - May 2nd, 2008 at 9:27 pm

My feeling is there is waaaay too much abuse regarding welfare. I mean, how much more money do Exxon, WalMart, et al need? And we have to provide these corporations with welfare, too? That *definitely* hurts poor people…

As a society, I think we have a responsibility to provide a safety net to people in need, and as a tax-payin’, gainfully (more or less) employed ‘Merican (Bushism, for non-USers), I’d rather err on the side of generosity — although, as Cyn points out, fraud is much less of a problem than most seem to believe. I think (gulp) Randall said it extraordinarily well.

52. Molly - May 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Who cares if it helps the poor? The government shouldn’t take on that responsibility; it’s the job of the people to help each other. If the government let altruism take its course, the poor would be taken care of, and the rest of the people wouldn’t have to pay for the poor if they didn’t want to.

53. Eve - May 2nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm

I am all for helping the poor/lower middleclass and find it something essential for the government to do. I personally come from a very poor stereotypical white trailer trash family that I managed to escape due to good grades, scholarships and grants. However, my dad has lupus therefore cannot work and is on disability. Despite his health problems, he’s been a drug addict for a very long time and usually that’s where his disabitlity money goes. It’s debatable whether or not someone who is indeed ill should recieve welfare if they do have substance abuse problems.
My own theory is that we’re born into this world and no one owes us a damn thing. We have to work for everything we need and deserve, our society is always gimme this gimme that. But it’s totally understandable to me if someone is absolutely unable to work or can’t make ends meet. Those are the ones who deserve assistance.

54. Mara - May 2nd, 2008 at 10:32 pm

When I was about twelve, my mom went on welfare. She was a student, raising me and my brother, and what she made at work plus child support just didn’t cut it, so it really helped us out.

Now, let’s look at my most recent experience with welfare.

We had a tenant in our basement suite. Twenty six years old, completely capable of working. He stayed at a homeless shelter for a while, and had five different jobs in five different months. He went on social assistance twice - the second time, we had to write up an eviction notice for him to take in to them to prove he needed the money. On the total, he asked me to add an extra hundred so he could put it towards future bills and such. (I told him to eat a cock.) So there are deadbeat idiots like that who just need to be punched in the face, but I agree with the general idea.

It just needs to be managed better. (I’m speaking from a Canadian standpoint, so I don’t know what it’s like for you guys.)

55. Andre D. - May 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 pm

I’m not sure what side i take on this position but one thing needs to be understood by EVERYONE: WELFARE IS A WAGE SUBSIDY. IT SUBSIDIZES THE LARGE CORPORATIONS LIKE WAL-MART or so forth. I’ve worked closely with a lot of people on welfare and they work jobs, often even two jobs. I believe that in a state where people don’t receive welfare, they will be paid ‘living wages’, enough to get by to pay the rent, buy food and so forth OR they will at least DEMAND that their employers pay living wages. Hence, hopefully, supply and demand balances out and workers get paid decently. But when the government comes along and starts handing out welfare, it allows the large corporations who pay minimum wages that ARE NOT enough to get by on, to get away with doing so. I’m not an anti-corporate bleeding heart liberal, but that IS a reality we need to understand.

56. Jono - May 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 am

Yes. It helps the poor. But it shouldn’t.

It should help the people who are in a bind. It should help the people who are mentally or physically disabled. It should help people who lose their jobs.

It should not help wastrels with no desire to improve their situation. At least, it shouldn’t be an option for longer than 1 year. People who live on a welfare benefit for anything longer than that, and are perfectly capable of working, should be signed up to a job by the government. I don’t care if they suffer. If they don’t belong in the society that has been crafted, kick them the **** out.

57. mpw - May 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 am

stinkythecat:

this is not a “what do you think of other peoples opinions list”

although you have a point you should read my whole post

and whats up with the “my tax dollars” bullshit you sound like a self-centered asshole, you are not the only person who pays taxes.

58. trev - May 3rd, 2008 at 2:01 am

I am English and in this country we have a benefits system that is largely being abused it seems that for every person who claims legitimately there is another with a dodgy claim.

The most common dodge is for a woman to claim single parent benefit - this means she will receive cash for living has her rent and other major living expenses paid. If you are a genuine single parent then this is a tough life. However many people claim this(my brother and at least 4 other people that I know are doing this) and then have a partner that works and brings in an income as well.

People like this and other benefit cheats have created a whole section of society on their own - the fabled chavs that the british media refer to.

59. carpe_noctem - May 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 am

It’s really a difficult question. If you think about it in terms of whether or not it has helped people in the past, I would say it’s certainly been useful for a number of people, but it hasn’t been doing it’s job particularly wonderfully so far.

That being said, I have to agree with Randall, it’s not the idea that’s faulty, it’s the way it’s been implemented. I’m not entirely sure of the system in Australia, but I know it’s not working anywhere near as well as we’d like. My answer to the question would be yes, *a* welfare system helps the poor, but no, the current one isn’t helping them too much.

60. Dr.Boris - May 3rd, 2008 at 3:04 am

Hi!
I’m from Germany and there are often such discussions here in the media.
I for my part believe, that social welfare is absolutly necessary for poor people. But the working people have often problems with the paupers: Theyhave a prejudice againt poor people. Instead, paupers are not happy living on charity - thea are forced to.

61. CFAustin - May 3rd, 2008 at 4:53 am

I believe welfare should be used by people who are working and trying their best or used by people who are disabled, but just can’t keep their heads above water. We as a people can’t let somebody who is trying to stay afloat, drown.

Those who abuse welfare should be stripped of it and their children taken away. People who abuse welfare are lazy crooks.

62. Phillies - May 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 am

Welfare should exist for those who are struggling to get by on their own, who are doing everything in their power to improve their position, and are willing to end their dependence on welfare once they become financially secure enough.

Welfare should not exist for those who sit on their couch every day, eating Frito’s and watching Springer, the only time they get up is once every month to the mailbox to get their check, then to the bank and cash it. Then back to the couch he/she goes, popping open a Bud on the way.

63. Paramnesia - May 3rd, 2008 at 6:45 am

I’m going to try and keep this short. No it doesn’t. I’m a struggling student in Aus, I’m currently battling centrelink because I’m at the point of not even being able to afford food. They won’t allow me to be classified as independent hence I get less money (yet I’ve been living on my own for over 2years now) and my payments are going to be decreased.

So yeah, the welfare system is messed up, I’m not dole bludger or money grabbing, I just want to be able to afford food.

64. TLP - May 3rd, 2008 at 7:39 am

Read Rothbard’s “A new liberty”. He proposes (and justifies) the abolishment of the welfare state.

65. Csimmons - May 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 am

No, because like jfrater said, it does not help them get out of their situation, simply because it doesn’t motivate them to do so.

66. Mom424 - May 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 am

I think it a sad commentary when the folks doing the most and loudest complaining about welfare are Americans.

It is fine and dandy that I complain about abuses of the system; We have a great social safety net. Honestly we have no grinding poverty (Our Native Canadian Communities are the exception - Its sad, but I’ll save it for another view). We have universal health care, no-one has to go to a crappy hospital, or partake in a HMO that refuses care because its expensive. Our slums are not slums - I’ve been to the USA on more than one occasion - you guys have slums. Our slums have windows, trees, parks, in-door plumbing that works, graffiti is removed immediately. Our education system is NOT dependent on the tax base of the immediate area - every school in the province receives proportionate funding (not all school boards use the funding well; some spend too much on administration etc, but still), we have an almost livable minimum wage. You would live poorly, but you would live. We have assisted housing, even in my small community (8000 pop). Semi-detached homes (nice ones) as well as apartments. Even our worst areas (parts of Vancouver) are scummy due to drug abuse and alcoholism (high native population-many reasons not the least of which is institutionalized sexual abuse, another view topic).

I will continue to bitch about excesses of our system, but I certainly wouldn’t want yours. You guys don’t look after your citizens very well at all.

67. spikeymikey - May 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 am

Only the poorest of the poor benefit from true charity. It is a ball and chain for the rest. Giving to charitable causes is still important and commendable, but I wholeheartedly agree with the axiom: “The best way to help out poor folks is to not be one yourself.”

68. notafool - May 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 am

I’m American, so our system of Welfare/Assistance is somewhat different, and multi-layered, but the underlying problems are similar.
Basic welfare is, in my opinion, a death sentence to the psyche. One becomes a child again, dependent on the parent (the government) for every need; welfare payments, food stamps, medicaid, and, in the case of single mothers, Aid For Dependent Children. There is no compulsion to find work. Welfare does not, even given all of the above mentioned payouts, provide more than a marginal existence, but since so many on this kind of welfare are second, third, or fourth generation on the welfare state, it is the only existence they know.
The welfare state has been expanding for the last several decades, having added free breakfasts and lunches at school for poor children (NOT something with which I take issue), and various and sundry other “bonuses”, such as increased payments for each child born to a welfare mother…you can imagine the results of this policy in a population of an under-educated populace with no grasp of logic.
In my humble opinion, welfare should be tied to education, making it mandatory for recipients to either get a GED or a certificate in a technical skill and, thereafter, a job. Once employed, welfare stops. If the recipient refuses to get an education and a job, welfare should be cut off after six months, with no way to reapply.
This would give those now bound by the welfare mentality a new, and positive, self-image. There are, doubtless, many brilliant minds going to waste in the present system. The system is broken. It must be fixed, or we all will pay the price

69. nick - May 3rd, 2008 at 11:15 am

My son who is mentally ill has assistance with medications from the state [pa] if he did not he would not be living alone in the real world. I do not see this as ‘charity’,but as a savings to society and also saving people.

70. Scottish Kev - May 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 am

Obviously this is a controversial subject and a lot of good points have been made already.

I will add one thing though: as a teacher I see everyday how children relate to a welfare country. These kids know that they don’t have to work hard, study into the night and pass crucial exams because if they drop out of school, get pregnant or break the law, then the state will look after them.

If you think this is unfair, then consider China. They have schools with thousands of pupils with massive class sizes. Yet, educationally speaking, they are some of the most diligent, hard working people on the planet which is a contributing factor to their rise as THE modern super power. And the reason why they are so hard working at such a young age? Because there is no welfare state to look after them if they fail. If they drop out, or don’t get qualifications then they have no access to the scarce number of jobs available. No money means no food to these people who literally starve to death with little help from the government.

I know this is an extreme point of view, but a balanced one I feel. And as a teacher I find it to be a very relevant one as well. I listen to 13 years olds everyday who say they plan to get pregnant so they will get free money, a free car and a free house. Terrifying.

71. Miss Destiny - May 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Ah, a touchy subject with me. I worked in a convenience store for 4 1/2 years. I saw customers in there, day in and day out, with their food stamp benefit cards, buying pop, candy, chips and other junk food, while their filthy kids were running around the store grabbing everything their sticky, greedy, little hands could hold, merrily bringing it to the register so that their deadbeat moms and dads could pay for it with government assistance. I HATED, and I still hate knowing that my tax money pays for this. I’m surviving on my own, I don’t need help from the government. I also have decided not to make a career out of having kids. Why is it that these people are still allowed to bring people into this world that they have no ability to provide for?

I do believe that the welfare system can help people who truly need it, but as I saw in a previous comment, most of the people who would benefit most from it, the way it was intended, barely fail to meet the requirements. They’re too poor too be rich, but too rich to be poor, if you catch my drift. That was my family for the longest time. We were making enough money to scrape by, but we still could have used some help to get ahead.

I am just going to stop now and read some other comments, and maybe add some more later. This is a subject I usually have a lot to say about and I don’t want to write a novel here.

My time in the convenience store made me sort of bitter towards lowlifes and scumbags, so if I offend anyone, I’m sorry.

72. TerraByte - May 3rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Fortunately, I’m not in charge of public assistance. Having been there, if I were in charge I would require all recipients to work, attend some educational opportunity, or be on medical leave. For work, (in addition to the public sector) I would bring back the Rooseveltian public works jobs the Courts ruled to be illegal. I would also create public non-profit manufacturing jobs (to rebuild our manufacturing base and) to create goods for donation to poor countries as foreign aid, everything from well pumps to soccer balls. Volunteer community work would also be fine. For education, in addition to paying for traditional schools, I would also pay for non-traditional educational opportunities, like you might find in continuing education programs at high schools. Classes in balancing checkbooks, computer programs, crafts and hobbies, communications, anything that would better the mind of the individual. The point is, recipients would have to do something to give back to society.

73. Squiz - May 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm

You know, now that i think about it more, there IS a sort of time-period you are able to get complete welfare, like you don’t work and sit home all the time. i think it might be too long- like 3 years or something. but i also know they stay up on your ass sometimes about getting a job.
but the thing that really annoys me is those people who want to get all massively fat and now they’re trying to claim it as a disability. especially because that way they could just stay home and be all lazy and fat. i know people who do this and then claim all the benifits they can get there greesdy little hands on. i can see if you’re overweight because you have some kind of weird health problem like poly cystic whatever or some kind of hormone problem, but what about all those people who eat like shit and don’t excersize? giving them a handicapped parking spot is like the ultimate insult to people who are actually disabled and can’t walk, as opposed to people who are just too fat and lazy to walk those extra couple spots to the doors of the building.
and then to PAY them, give them an incentive to be even lazier because they’re disabled?
un-be-freaking-lievable.

74. Traci - May 3rd, 2008 at 8:22 pm

I know that welfare type systems do help the people. I am unfortunately having to use Medicaid. I am pregnant and had complications making it so I cannot work. I cannot pay for insurance to continue to see my doctor, and if I couldn’t do that, I would likely have lost my baby. I moved in with my parents and am only using the Medicaid until I’m able to go back to work. So yes, I think that welfare is useful, but it really needs to be looked at. There are people who abuse it, yes, but really, all in all it’s a good sytstem. Every time I’ve talked to people who’ve used government assistance, if you don’t work, they make you go to a career center and get a job or you lose your benefits. So I think the way those systems are set up is a very good idea, being as it makes the people not so dependant on the government to take care of their responsibilites and it makes the recipient responsible for their own way. By working, they’re also contributing tax dollars towards the very system they’re utilizing. Accountability is key.

75. mike d - May 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm

boo fu**in hoo get off your ass and out of my pocket

76. jane q. public - May 4th, 2008 at 12:12 am

There is no doubt in my mind, with the way the world is headed = high prices on everything - everyone will be on welfare. The good old US of A will become a “third world” country.

77. iamaneviltaco - May 4th, 2008 at 2:16 am

unless it provides job training and placement? emphatic no.

78. Crimanon - May 4th, 2008 at 3:19 am

in ref. to 75. : Ahh… The sweet sounds of the “abused middle class”. Is that sub-prime loan getting to you yet?

79. segue - May 4th, 2008 at 9:01 am

The misunderstanding of what constitutes “welfare” saddens me. Nick mentioned his son, who is mentally challenged and who receives assistance in order to live an independent life. That is not welfare.
Traci speaks of a difficult pregnancy which forced her to quit work, move in with her parents, and accept Medicaid. That is not welfare.
We must not confuse welfare with medical or moral requirements. If we turn our backs on those in true need, and lump them in the same pile with the mis-users of welfare, we are in moral danger.
There has to be a better screening process. There has to be a time limit for those able bodied and able minded. There has to be a mandatory education for those on welfare, teaching technical or other socially required skills so that, at the end of 6 to 9 months, they are employable, and welfare ends.
For those who do not, and can not, meet the able body, able mind requirement, the stigma of the term welfare must be changed. It must offer the dignity to which every person of personal virtue is entitled.

80. Dave - May 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Yes, welfare really helps the poor. If you DON’T have money to buy food or pay for your heat, water, etc. and then you DO have money after you receive welfare, then it sure looks like help.

Why THIS question though, when most government welfare programs really serve to benefit business and corporate entities at the expense of taxpayers.

For those who decry government taking their money through taxes for something they don’t agree to pay for, well, that’s an interesting idea. Do you think the U.S. govt. is spending more on welfare cheaters and cheese giveaways or on the Iraq war? Because I would guess that at LEAST 65% of Americans at this point would NOT want to fund anything to do with Iraq other than the speedy removal of our troops. Why do we have to pay for it anyway?

81. VeeBabe - May 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I think the welfare system has some plusses, but also many minuses.
I’m on disability (no thanks to the *bleep* who thought bashing a little girls head into cement was a good way to keep her from telling that he decided to violate her body).
I’m grateful for the money and medical coverage I get…but am just whizzed off that they make it next to impossible to try and make your life better.
For example, if I want to try and work, the Social Security Administration lets me *gross* $65 a month before they start taking away half of every dollar I make. (I get about $600 a month from the government.)I can deal with that. But, then my rent gets jacked up and 30% of my gross income is added to it. So, if I earn $100 gross in a month, by the time taxes are removed, the rent is increased, and the SSA takes $17 out of it, I basically PAY to work.
Also, I have to be on meds to be able to work…but once I earn around $200 gross a month, my medical assistance requires a minimum $100 premium a month, and all my copays triple.
Basically, they take away any incentive for me to work, because I basically get penalized for doing so. (I still work though, although its only about 10 hours a week, on top of that, I make and sell jewelry and take in sewing jobs because frankly, I need the mental health benefits of being at least a partial contributer to society.)
I think it’s good there is help for those who need it, but they need to revamp it to help people not become trapped on it.

82. VeeBabe - May 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

After reading all of the posts, I had 2 more thoughts to add.
One…Yes, people do abuse the system at times. However, some of the people accused of abusing the system may truly need it. If someone who didn’t know me looked at me, they would think I was a leech- after all, my disability isn’t a visible one; my body looks able, and I have a super high IQ. But none the less the disability is there, brain damage doesn’t always show itself in highly visible ways.

Two…the ‘luxuries’ issue. I think it depends on what one would consider luxuries. For me, a luxury is using Aussie Redmond shampoo instead of generic- so I might spend $3 instead of $1.50 every two months on shampoo. To me, the splurge on the shampoo is important because I wont go to a barber/hairdresser to have my hair cut. Instead, I let it grow out until it’s long enough to cut off and donate to Locks for Love- and the Aussie shampoo keeps my hair in good condition whereas the generic stuff ruins it.
Also, I have had cashiers at the grocery store give me flak because of what they consider ‘luxury’ foods I buy. What they don’t realize or know is I buy rice based ramen noodles at close to $1 a pack instead of the wheat-based ramens (3 packs for $1)or organic non-wheat based whole grain bread instead of the cheap white stuff because I have celiac disease. To me, what they consider luxury is a needed for me (unless I want to eat a bunch of wheat based stuff, destroy my insides and starve to death).

I guess what I am saying here is that one cannot always look from the outside and pass judgement on people as being abusive of the system, as not every disease or problem is one you can see just by looking.

83. Mara - May 4th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

I absolutely agree with you, VeeBabe. I had to deal with a year or so of generic everything and a lot of leftovers/cassaroles and what my family calls “Gazinta” (As in.. everything gazinta the pot.) So if luxuries are some things you need, or along those lines, then absolutely. And for those kinds of products, they don’t have a bloody right to say a thing. I’ve seen men drop $800 bucks at an adult store at 3am, so there are obviously worse things to spend money on. (Bloody oil workers. Make way too much money)

What I had a problem with, was our lazyass tenant. The first thing he did when he moved in was buy a PSP. He had a DVD player, probably $300 worth of DVDs (like.. nine series of Stargate.), and still went on welfare. People like him make me sick. (And now we have to hunt down the fucker because he owes us over $1000. Yay!)

84. Arisma - May 4th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

I can only speak from an American perspective, but I can speak as someone who has had personal brushes with the system.

When I was 19 years old I worked full time, 40-60 hours a week. I had a nice savings account, had paid off my first two years of college loans and was getting ready to go back to school in the spring. I had an automobile accident in October that left me with shattered legs, arms and a few other traumatic injuries. At the time I was employed as a temporary worker, although I’d been with the company nearly a year. I had no health insurance. After 16 hours of surgery my savings account wasn’t only wiped out, I still owed enough to buy a decent house. (370k+)

I applied for government insurance, hoping for some help with all of the bills that were piling up. I was denied for months until we’d managed to jump through a series of pretty insane hoops for them.

I lived for years with no way to work as I recovered from all of those injuries. During that time I looked to the system for help. The workers treated me as though I were the lowest piece of sub-humanity in existence. What benefits they would give me access to were never enough to get some sort of stability, just enough to barely scrape by, from disconnection notice to disconnection notice. I hated every second I was in recovery because it was a constant scramble to find a way to take money from one bill to cover another. As someone else said, I wasn’t allowed to work. When I tried doing child care in my home as a last ditch income source they cut my benefits to the point that I would have had to watch 10 children to make up for the benefit loss and required payments for health care.

I can honestly say that without a welfare system of some sort, even one as flawed as ours, I have no idea at all where I would be now. They need more workers to investigate the people applying because I’ve known many people in my own life time who have abused the system. Those people always managed to make out just fine. It’s only when you’re honest that you can’t, so the system encourages abuse.

Also, when enough people look at you as though you are garbage, you start to believe it. I had held steady employment from the time I was 15 until the date of my accident and still, after a year of dealing with the system, no matter how legitimate my claim, I still felt like I was lazy, stupid and worthless. Perhaps that’s something that should be looked into, too, because it’s systemic.

85. WrathofDog - May 4th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

As someone who was orphaned at a young age, most definitely. The American social security system is hugely unfair toward those looking for disability benefits, but the orphans and widows benefits systems work fairly well. My childhood was modest, few toys, no vacations, plain foods, but still so much better than the alternatives.

86. Barnacle - May 5th, 2008 at 5:21 am

Probably one of the best your views or lists i’ve read in a long time.

From about 15 both my parents got unemployment benefits. Prior to that my father was in the public service in Canberra. I was educated on youth allowance all the way to honours level. The uni debt will be paid off in due time. So you could say i’ve been reared by the government in one form or another up to the age of maybe 23.

My parents never abused the system. They never drank or wasted any money on drugs. They set a good example. The money we got was spent efficiently and every dollar was accounted for.
If you are on benefits, you don’t deserve the same luxuries that paid people get. There has to be something for you to aim for.

The welfare system helps the poor, the pregnant, and the disabled. The system here in australia is not a trap yet. It is, however, a trap for the stupid, the lazy, and the dull.

I’ve worked really hard jobs, been on benefits, had easy jobs, etc. What we have to be concerned about is the value of the money earned.
If you’ve mopped a floor for an hour even in a shitty job, you know you’ll get a certain amount of money, and then the value of that money has a lot more value than the same amount garnered through any benefit. You will be wiser with that money. That’s what people on long term benefits are missing out on.

87. bucslim - May 5th, 2008 at 6:03 am

Some of these stories are heartbreaking. It’s difficult to hear of people’s misfortune and struggle just to make it through the day. It makes me appreciate my somewhat easy life in comparison. The only frame of reference I have was being unemployed for a few months when I was just starting out and my recent divorce where I basically lost everything monetarily speaking. Those experiences made me a better person, more determined and made me a little more appreciative of having a decent job that didn’t make me rich, but afforded me a little breathing room at the end of the month.

Unless you’re in the Warren Buffet category of the tax bracket, everyone needs a little assistance from time to time, some more so than others. I’d like to think the best about most people when it comes to this stuff because some folks have been dealt some absolutely brutal cards. I mean really, what do I know about being single, 3 kids and another one on the way, or disabled because of some accident and not having the ability to pay the bills? It’s true I went through some hard times after my divorce, but I never had to choose between paying the bills or eating.

So I guess I’m on the fence here. I don’t like the unending cycle some families experience life by living off of the government I hear about from time to time, I don’t like able bodied people leaching off the federal teat, but we have some responsibility to people less fortunate than ourselves. I’d like to think that religious institutions are doing their part when I know they’re more concerned about building the next mega-church.

It’s up to us who have it better in life to do the responsible thing to help the needy, and the government is one way to do it, but like most other things, they tend to screw it up beyond reason. And as I’ve read in some of your posts, make it demeaning and seemingly impossible to enjoy life. It’s sad really.

88. VeeBabe - May 5th, 2008 at 7:04 am

Mara, that would whizz me off for sure, having been stiffed by a tenant who probably could have paid.
I unfortunately have seen people who abuse the system, who justify wasting their money they recieve on ‘fun’…I’ve seen them justify their foolishness with money by blaming their illnesses or whatever. (I had a former friend on disability who was whining about not having food in the house, but yet only a few days before, she had spent close to $400 on a Nintendo DS for her kid!)
I’ve probably made a few enemies in my time, because I have turned in people who were committing fraud- but only when I knew for sure they were. It makes me angry when people do things like that, because it robs not only taxpayers but the people who really need it.

89. Joss - May 5th, 2008 at 8:15 am

No way, Jose. I personally know people who aim to make only JUST ENOUGH money in order to have welfare and a second income. Then there are the people who don’t work simply because they know they’re taken care of, etc.

90. hippymom - May 5th, 2008 at 9:01 am

wow this is a sticky one…i am a 35 yr old mother of 3 i have been in the public assistance offices several times in my life. althought i have never drawn “welfare” i have always worked, but i did use the system when i needed it. in Tennessee we have a state insc. called “tn-care” and i have been on and off of that several times. the one great thing about it is that kids under the age of 18 are covered regardless. but i digress, i have been on foodstamps several times over the years. but as more experience led to better jobs luckily i am government assist free. but i DO NOT regret the times i had to use the system. as i said i have never been without a job (even if it was low pay) i pay my taxes and i firmly believe that i diserved some of that money back when i needed it. one other good thing about tennessee the FINALLY put a cap on the number of kids you can claim for your welfare checks. it used to be a percentace per child but the capped it to now you can only get assistance for 4 kids. after that it is called “excessive breeding” i mean after all if you are on government assistance why in the h*ll would you need to try to feed that many kids? get some birthcontrol.
that being said….i dont believe people should abuse the system but i personally am glad it was there for me when i needed it.

91. Amanda - May 5th, 2008 at 9:21 am

I think it does help. My husband works overtime every week and I babysit in my home (cannot work outside the home, because I have a disability). At the moment we only receive medical assistance and ebt (food stamps) from the state. I am terrified because in about two months we will be getting our ebt cut off. Hopefully we will still get something, but even if we do it will most likely only be about $30 a month. Even with the assistance we are getting at the moment, we still cannot afford to buy clothes (BIG problem with a quickly growing toddler) or shoes, or shampoo, or toothpaste, or trashbags or diapers. We struggle to pay rent on time every month. And we are NOT lazy by any means! We just have a really crappy economy. My husband makes ten dollars an hour and I make $60 a week. People have asked why my husband doesn’t look for a better job. That is the best job he can get in this area. If it wasn’t for food pantries, the state assistance program, and our church we would STILL be homeless.

92. N5 - May 5th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

If welfare helped the poor, then there would be no poor. Welfare can certainly aid the poor though, but aid is a temporary solution to an ongoing problem. Welfare should be a process in which those living in poverty are helped to subsist on their own eventually but the welfare system’s ability to help is hampered by minimum wage pay. When every country can figure out a minimum wage that their people can actually live on, then, and only then, can we really ask the question whether welfare helps the poor.

93. devo - May 6th, 2008 at 5:15 am

we need a graduated wellfare system. people are afraid to make too much money because once welfare cuts off, they still aren’t making enough to support themselves. We have a system that doesn’t encourage change.

94. Lucy - May 6th, 2008 at 8:49 am

Welfare is definitely needed in some cases. I have had many friends who were/are on welfare and needed it to subsist.
In high school, my 14-year-old friend’s mother took off and left her in an apartment paid for by welfare (all but about $50 a month) with a Bridge card (Michigan’s equivalent of food stamps). So she had somewhere to live and something to eat. Where would she have been without welfare?
I do, however, know some people who abuse it and spend all their earned money on drugs and such and then live off the government when it comes to housing, food, etc.
My theory is: if you have enough leftover money to buy a bag of weed, you should be able to buy a bag of groceries.

95. JayArr - May 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Oops…sorry for the double post up there… my browser locked up (curses to Microsoft some days) and I thought I’d missed the ‘click’ to submit the first one.

96. Dan - May 6th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

I think it’s important to separate out the different forms of welfare, because some programs are very worthwhile in my opinion, others are rife for abuse.

I know at least three people that wouldn’t be able to live without social security disability benefits, while it’s a form of welfare, I think society has a basic obligation to people that through bad luck of genetics or accidents or disease can’t support themselves fully.

Medicaid I also fully support because I’ve seen the benefits firsthand: psychiatric medication for people that otherwise WOULD be unsuitable for employment, basic medical care for children, ect.

On the other hand, how deep does society’s obligation go? On one hand we have people that try to be productive citizens, and through whatever reason can’t (see SSI above), but on the other hand the money for these programs comes from other people, people who are gainfully employed. Welfare, excepting medical aid and disability benefits strikes me as inherently unfair, after all, to quote “is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?”

To answer the question directly, I think some poor are helped. I think many more are harmed, especially when you count the fact that all throughout the US and europe massive welfare systems burden the economy to the point where prices of basic goods rise and corporations move elsewhere to avoid the tax burden. the Entitlement State in the US consumes 60%+ of the budget, and european states are worse. No one can argue that taxation upwinds of 50% helps anyone at all.

97. trojan_man - May 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am

This question has one simple answer - yes, a welfare system helps the poor. The real question - Does a welfare system help the country?

98. Sheree - May 7th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

You are allowed 9 months on welfare/cash aid. In california, its $162 for food stamps and $221 in cash. I am on it right now; I wasn’t able to find a job soon enough so I applied. I waited till I was dead broke too since I always felt someone else needed it more than me (as in someone with kids). But I sucked in my pride and applied. Ok, it takes 2 day’s to qualify and then you have to take classes to continue to receive the money. The classes help you rewrite you resume, build up your self esteem so you keep yourself motivated to continue searching for a job, show you how to give a professional interview and how to network. Many people in my class were laid off due to the current status of the economy; they had wonderful jobs in construction, warehousing, and utility works (as electricians, plumbers etc.) But the economy has forced many companies to cut back since many customers are cutting back. Gas prices are ridiculous, the price of food is ridiculous ($4.00 for a gallon of milk? wow!), people are trying to save their homes, etc. I recently returned my car (repossession) due to lack of funds for the monthly payments. I hate riding the bus but it’s what I’m dealing with right now. Welfare isn’t bad; some of the people on welfare are bad. They are lazy, have their priorities mixed up and will never get off their ass to better their life. I have decided to be on welfare for 4 months; that’s it. I have a job that cut’s hours every other week but I’m still working. My parents help take care of me and to make life easier, I’ll be moving back in with my mother in a few months. (which I think a lot of americans are living under one roof in order to save money). As for the question “does a welfare system help the country?” I would have to say that depends on what the country is going through. When Bill Clinton was president, the country had money, for ourselves and to give. So we were happy. Now, we are suffering due to the greediness of our government and we are coping the best way we know how: Asking for some of our tax money back. Great topic by the way.

99. diz - May 7th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

Sheree makes some excellent points.
Congratulations on making a coherent, intelligent assessment from the inside out. Congratulations, too, on giving yourself a time limit.
I am on Disability, and that will never change no matter how much I want it to. The whole system is there as a safety net, designed to rescue those in short term trouble, in the case of Welfare, and for those who have a condition which makes working impossible, as in the case of Disability.
For the truly needy, for the honest, the motivated, the innocent, it’s a life saver.
Too bad there are those who rape the system, making it more difficult, and more of a stigma, for those whose need is real

100. brothertuck - May 8th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

As you said this is a very complicated issue
I am currently on disability and in the welfare system.
SSDI, Medicaid and Medicare, among others.
I think one difference in someone who comes off of a life of working for a living wants to get out of the system quicker then someone who have known it their whole life.
I am getting almost half as much money as I did when working, the only thing that I really need that I didn’t have at this scale is the medical.
There needs to be an easier way and less red tape to get it to the people who need it, and a better way to filter out those people who are just using the system.

101. FierceGrace - May 9th, 2008 at 11:23 am

I’ve noticed that a lot of you have brought up costs related to health care or better yet assistance ($) programs for health care. I find it so unusual to hear people talking about programs lik