Welfare Fraud

[Halifirien]

Do you think people would work harder and do their utmost to keep their jobs if there was no social welfare program? I think so.

You may think it, but I think you'd be wrong. It doesn't matter how hard you work, because sometimes you lose the job through no fault of your own. Downsizing, they call it. As the kids say, shit happens. That's why we have a safety net. It's just one way we as a society can watch out for each other.

You may hate it that some people are abusing the system, but I'm glad we have it in place. My family had to go on welfare a few times when I was a kid and get food stamps because Dad would periodically get laid off from the coal mines. That money really helped, and I certainly don't mind my tax money going toward keeping people afloat. Boo-hoo, someone bought a television. Plenty of other people are using the money to buy clothes, books and food.

 

[Morcheeba]

You may think it, but I think you'd be wrong. It doesn't matter how hard you work, because sometimes you lose the job through no fault of your own. Downsizing, they call it. As the kids say, shit happens. That's why we have a safety net. It's just one way we as a society can watch out for each other.

The Safety Net for those who lose a job through no fault of their own is EI, not Welfare.

 

[Halifirien]

Financial assistance is financial assistance. Welfare is an umbrella term.

 

[Morcheeba]

Except Welfare you do not have to have worked a number of hours. And EI is not a social assistance, it's taxes paid back to you that were originally taken from you. That's how it's a safety net. Welfare are other peoples taxes that they paid out.

 

[Celvantes]

I reference my earlier statement, Hali, helping someone out legitimately is something I don't have a problem with. But if someone is too damned lazy to work, then then have no right to my money.

And why does welfare have to be in the form of money? Keep the program... hand out food, clothing, and cover bills like electricity and gas (but pay the money directly to the utility companies). That would solve the problem right there and you could still have a safety net.

 

[Halifirien]

I thought conservatives were in favor of letting people decide how to spend money. Do you want some government bureaucrat ordering a family to buy X amount of milk when they're all lactose intolerant? That way lies tyranny! *cough*

As for someone not having a "right" to your money, that's just part of living in the good ol' US of A. The government doesn't always spend tax funds the way you want. I don't like the idea of my money paying for Bush's misadventure in Iraq, but there you are.

 

[Celvantes]

Conservatives are for letting people decide how to spend *their own* money. When you get money from the government, it is not *your* money, it's *my* money.

I'd rather see the government provide welfare in the form of goods than in the form of money so as to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. It wouldn't be a government bureaucrat telling you what to buy, rather, it would be a government bureaucrat handing out food/clothing/medical supplies the same way we do when we're delivering aid to a foreign country.

I just had a mental image of C-17s airdropping those big yellow humanitarian care packages into inner cities across the US. Hang on a sec while I stop laughing.

Side thought: Maybe if we treated welfare recipients like refugees, there would be more incentive to get *off* welfare.

Didn't receiving welfare used to be a hugely negative social stigma instead of the accepted social norm in some communities?

Back to my response: Part of living in the 'good ol' US of A' is that you also have a say in your government, through your elected representatives. One of the ways to influence elected representatives is to draw attention to their bullshit when you see it, thereby spreading the word and hopefully influencing opinion enough for it to matter in the next election.

This can be done in a number of ways, usually in a discussion with friends, co-workers, or in a public forum... like an internet message board. Hm, wonder where I can find one of those?

 

[Keryan]

Most states require people on welfare to do a program called first to work. Alot of the jobs there are infact manual labor. Places like goodwill hire these workers. In many cases said workers will feel the work is too hard and leave. These people lift bales of around 200lbs. You can also volunteer for x hours in some states to remain eligable for assitance.
One of the issues I found with some government jobs is the cost of getting to them. Please assume said person can not afford a car, so publc transportation. I did the math of what it would cost to get round trip from where I live to the airport. Using public transportation which cuts off at about 9:40 pm.... was around $15-$20. Now some will say get the monthly passes, smart cards etc.... Well I would need 3 different passes, each varying between $40 and $160. So lets say a nice average of $200 a month just for mass transit if you are lucky. That is not counting 1 pass because idk how other states are. Your job pays you say $750 after taxes every 2 weeks. So you have maybe $1300 to live on for a month after paying for the passes. Near me rent is 900+. Or you can get assistance which for a family of 5 can add up to over $2000 with cash and Foodstamps. Varies by state of course. None of these offer low income discounts.
I think one of the biggest issues is there is no middle bracket. There are many families who do not quailfy, but have to pick which bill to pay just to have food or clothes. There is nothing wrong with havng welfare, they just have to be more responsible with how they provide it. Maybe have more companion programs like first to work. Vocational training or something. We have many jobs that these people can not afford to get training for. Like Nurse aides, teacher assistants. The training does not have to be for the high paying jobs, but something that will help the person help themselves. Maybe even a program for the elderly that offers a stipen <sp> for volunteer work at schools and other places with children. There are so many places that things can be done to make people more productive members of society.

 

[Morcheeba]

HOLE EE SHIT. That's quite a bit for one round trip!?!?

I can get from my place to Scarborough (other side of Toronto) on a round trip that might cost me $5-$6. If I want the comfort of GO Bus (somewhat like greyhound for local commuting) It may cost about $9 round trip. The bus here is $3.00 right now, you can get tranfers within the city limits for any crossing bus route. So I can literally jump from the 1A, to the 12 to the 44B and so on as long as the tranfer is valid from a crossing route and for that day.

If people need work, they will find a way there.

I used to travel to Bloor and 427, which is really a 15 minutes drive from my house, but I was taking public transit. It was a 2 hour commute for me making minimum wage at the time, I wouldn't get home til 2am often and it would on'y cost me $10 round trip.

 

[mysticalone]

Do like i do, have your employer take the least amount of taxes they can so you pocket your earnings during the year. Just dont expect a nice return and dont go owing anything. Makes me feel like im not wasting my money on anything but me.

 

[Keryan]

I do not live near the big city. We have like one train thing that comes through in the am. stops at 11 am, and in the afternoon. Stops before 10. My point was that for some people it is just not practical, so they do not bother. Not a good reason, but they have to choose at times which will do the most for their families. My other point was the public transit here sucks if you work evenings. You would think they would run it until like midnight for late shift workers....nope not here. You get off at 10pm, you get to walk or pay cab money.

Same with people who pay child care. You have 3 kids, and then to work and have them watched can cost you 80% of your pay. Many people fall in that group that just does not qualify for any help. So as a worker do you get that job so you can keep 20% of your pay, or not work and stay home and care for the kids? *IF you qualify the state has programs that provide free care or will pay like 250+ per child to the caretaker so you can work. If you do not qualify.... I have seen 300-500 a month places. Some cost even more.

I do not mind helping people who need help, but I am against people just abusing the system. The ladies who pop a kid out every 1-2 years so they are exempt from 1st to work, the people who fake mental illness. You might laugh and say it is serious, but there are many who have nothing wrong with them and fake hearing voices just to get that check. Then you have people in wheelchairs who get their benifiets cut. When Bill clintons thing was 1st inacted a man I know with MS to the point he was bedridden was given a letter informing him he no longer qualified. My brother was his caretaker. Yet the man who heard voices and sat at the free lunch hand out place got to keep his. That guy had told his family before he got free money, all he had to do was talk to himelf where people could see. Go figure :crazy:
Some how I doubt the government will do anything to really fix the systems. No one practices common sense and they are all afraid to anger a group.

 

[Dejavu]

Welfare shouldn't exist at all... i don't care if they did spend it on pens and paper they never should have received the money. The fact that it was spent on "high end electronics" only furthers my beliefs that the government should let idiots die of starvation.

 

[Tristam Green]

Welfare shouldn't exist at all... i don't care if they did spend it on pens and paper they never should have received the money. The fact that it was spent on "high end electronics" only furthers my beliefs that the government should let idiots die of starvation.

I'm sorry Dejavu, but there were a few people that disagreed with you.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sure, general welfare doesn't equate to individual welfare, but it's still our charge to take care of the people.

 

[Valandil]

As much as I wished Social Darwinism to be a viable theory, it simply is not. Being "poor" is a relative standard anyway so even if you let all the lazy idiots starve to death, the group just above them will be the new group of lazy idiots. Human beings always have been, and always will be, cooperative social creatures and this characteristic is essential to the survival of the species, even if it means taking care of the lazy idiots.

 

[Raesvelg]

As much as I wished Social Darwinism to be a viable theory, it simply is not. Being "poor" is a relative standard anyway so even if you let all the lazy idiots starve to death, the group just above them will be the new group of lazy idiots. Human beings always have been, and always will be, cooperative social creatures and this characteristic is essential to the survival of the species, even if it means taking care of the lazy idiots.

The logic here is grotesquely flawed, actually.

I'm not saying that Social Darwinism is a valid philosophy, but to simply declare that the elimination of people who refuse to work will lead to the lower-income but still working individuals to immediately begin starving is beyond ridiculous.

And NO, humanity as a whole has NOT been fond of taking care of the lazy idiots. Historically speaking, in any culture that is close to a subsistence level, those who are unable to contribute are often left to starve to death. It's when you start getting into cultures where there is significant leeway in terms of survival that people start coddling those who are unable or refuse to contribute.

Of course, historically speaking, you could always sell those who refused to work into slavery, thus neatly solving that particular problem.

 

[Dejavu]

The logic here is grotesquely flawed, actually.

I'm not saying that Social Darwinism is a valid philosophy, but to simply declare that the elimination of people who refuse to work will lead to the lower-income but still working individuals to immediately begin starving is beyond ridiculous.

And NO, humanity as a whole has NOT been fond of taking care of the lazy idiots. Historically speaking, in any culture that is close to a subsistence level, those who are unable to contribute are often left to starve to death. It's when you start getting into cultures where there is significant leeway in terms of survival that people start coddling those who are unable or refuse to contribute.

Of course, historically speaking, you could always sell those who refused to work into slavery, thus neatly solving that particular problem.

Hmm... so we need to sell homeless into slavery... i like where this is going... what country do you think will get us the best price... I am thinking China because they have the totalitarian work or die atmosphere that may get them to work harder and they have most of the money in the world now too.

 

[Valandil]

The logic here is grotesquely flawed, actually.

I'm not saying that Social Darwinism is a valid philosophy, but to simply declare that the elimination of people who refuse to work will lead to the lower-income but still working individuals to immediately begin starving is beyond ridiculous.

And NO, humanity as a whole has NOT been fond of taking care of the lazy idiots. Historically speaking, in any culture that is close to a subsistence level, those who are unable to contribute are often left to starve to death. It's when you start getting into cultures where there is significant leeway in terms of survival that people start coddling those who are unable or refuse to contribute.

Of course, historically speaking, you could always sell those who refused to work into slavery, thus neatly solving that particular problem.

Actually, a vast number of ancient cultures had laws and/or social customs that were welfare programs of some sort. Technically speaking, any culture that is at or near a subsitence level is not likely to fit the definition of a civilized society, which is really what we're talking about anyway as welfare programs, whatever form they take, only exist in socio-political context. However, my comment about human beings being cooperative and codependent was more from the biological perspective and based upon the assumption that once you start to disregard an undesirable part of your population, you've started down the path of hoarding which is an progenitive timebomb.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that the next group up from the lazy idiots would literally starve, merely that they would eventually become the next welfare class relative to the remaining classes. Someone always has to be at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Unfortunately, our current economic model depends a great deal on those who are currently lazy idiots because they A) consume manufactured goods and B) do provide cheap labor. Even if a fraction of the class actually works and contributes, you need that pool of people to draw from to fill the menial and underpaid jobs which most of the working and contributing populace would not feel because it's either A) beneath them or B) they will be severely underpaid for their skills. If you raise the wage level of those menial jobs to make them more desirable, then you're going to raise the wages of all jobs across the board and you're essentially back where you started.

Anywho, the point being that even though we, who work and contribute to society and earn our keep, would like to somehow eliminate that segment of our society, we never will. But like others have said in this thread, I think the answer would be to provide those people with ONLY the necessities of life and education/work programs that would allow them to improve their situations--if they so choose. If they want to remain at the bottom of the ladder and live off the bare necessities to sustain life, so be it, but they should not receive cash to go out and blow it on luxury items.