New spin on the welfare debate.

[BigBoxaJunk]

Not as easy as it sounds. They're used to just getting fed by others. They aren't going to go and be productive, they'll just start taking from those who they see as having more than them. Ending welfare cold turkey would surely mean a massive spike in crime.

Yeah, not as easy as it sounds. I'm not sure that an increase in crime would be as significant as the children, elderly, and sick people that would die in droves if there was no public safety blanket.

If you boil it down, the reason that we, as a society, have welfare, is because it's not as fun going out to dinner when you have to pass starving kids to get there.

 

[Leadeye]

While an interesting topic for discussion, nothing is going to change. Too many people making good money off of those people, if anything their numbers will grow. I think of them as the golden cows, providing government jobs for many and more dollars for connected contractors.

 

[AtTheMurph]

My solution would be that there is no increase in welfare if you continue to reproduce. Might induce more leg crossing.

My solution is there is no Welfare at all. Government has never been given the power to act as a national charity, and for good reason.

 

[IndyDave1776]

My solution is there is no Welfare at all. Government has never been given the power to act as a national charity, and for good reason.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted authority to do any such thing. That in itself should settle the matter. The aforementioned difficulties driving past starving children to go out to eat is why charities used to deal with these things, supported by the money of people who were so distressed, rather than having them alleviate their distress with everyone else's money.

 

[indyblue]

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted authority to do any such thing. That in itself should settle the matter. The aforementioned difficulties driving past starving children to go out to eat is why charities used to deal with these things, supported by the money of people who were so distressed, rather than having them alleviate their distress with everyone else's money.

Well the .gov argues the consitution says "to provide for commom defense, promote the general welfare..." and gives them the power to run welfare programs.

I notice it says "promote" not "shall provide" general welfare.

Govt welfare never existed before the 30's, why would it so bad to end it?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well the .gov argues the consitution says "to provide for commom defense, promote the general welfare..." and gives them the power to run welfare programs.

I notice it says "promote" not "shall provide" general welfare.

Govt welfare never existed before the 30's, why would it so bad to end it?

You are on the right track, but the problem is that it says 'general welfare' not 'specific welfare' of any individual or individuals. General welfare would be the maintenance of conditions conducive to people prospering on their own which would seem to include maintaining lighthouses and harbors (found in Article I, Section 8) , maintaining roads necessary for the function of the post office, which also provides for the rest of us to travel/trade, defending us from pillage from foreign invaders, having a system of taxation which does not cripple our ability to prosper, that sort of thing--completely different from taking your money away from you and giving it to someone else, which is not an element of 'general welfare' but rather the specific welfare of the recipient.

 

[Indy 1911]

My solution is there is no Welfare at all. Government has never been given the power to act as a national charity, and for good reason.

EXACTLY. No ones likes walking by starving old people and kids on their way to dinner, but I would do it. I may give money to some. I would decide which ones that I want to hand it to.

 

[BogWalker]

Yeah, not as easy as it sounds. I'm not sure that an increase in crime would be as significant as the children, elderly, and sick people that would die in droves if there was no public safety blanket.

If you boil it down, the reason that we, as a society, have welfare, is because it's not as fun going out to dinner when you have to pass starving kids to get there.

We seemed to get along just fine for the ~150 years before welfare programs were enacted.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem if they were purely temporary programs. If somebody really is on dire times and needs help I wouldn't mind a few limited programs, but the fact we have to support most of these people for life is what bothers me. When it comes to fate and circumstance you hit on temporary hard times, but for you to be there your entire life stems from your own poor choices, and I am not responsible for those.

Lots of people on INGO have hit on difficult times. They could have taken government assistance, some of them probably did, but I don't know of anyone here who didn't manage to get back on their feet and subsist on their own efforts.

 

[usafmora]

I did not get back on my feet!

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

We seemed to get along just fine for the ~150 years before welfare programs were enacted.

I wouldn't have so much of a problem if they were purely temporary programs. If somebody really is on dire times and needs help I wouldn't mind a few limited programs, but the fact we have to support most of these people for life is what bothers me.

I don't disagree with that. But, I do maintain that any discussion of these things has to start with this question: Are you OK with people dying (I mean American people) because they either don't or won't fend for themselves? Because if you can't then you're gonna have welfare. And the general distaste people feel towards seeing children suffering - and children are the main demographic - because they had the misfortune to be born into a bad situation a big factor in getting to the place we've come to.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't disagree with that. But, I do maintain that any discussion of these things has to start with this question: Are you OK with people dying (I mean American people) because they either don't or won't fend for themselves? Because if you can't then you're gonna have welfare. And the general distaste people feel towards seeing children suffering - and children are the main demographic - because they had the misfortune to be born into a bad situation a big factor in getting to the place we've come to.

Why is this necessary? Private charity works nicely other than times when people feel they are being double-dipped (and often donate to international charity in non-welfare parts of the world). The difference is that a private charity is more likely to help children and people unable to fend for themselves, or help people having a bad time as opposed to being practitioners of lifelong uselessness. Welfare, by contrast, merely measures a head count and traceable income generally without any effort to see that such people are any more righteous than milkers of the system. Charities who are not beholden to the notion that anyone with less than $X traceable income is entitled to a given amount of money per person have a much freer hand to selectively and effectively disperse funds and other resources. They can also demand that people make an effort toward improving their own situation. Rarely does private charity foster second, third, and fourth generation dependence on their services. On top of that, they use money which has been freely given, not taken at implied gunpoint (i.e., try not paying your taxes and see what happens).

 

[copperhead-1911]

Very good point. I think that if you cant feed them do not breed them. Welfare is not a right it is a privilege contrary to democrat principles.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I was reading the post on drug testing welfare people and it made me think of this.

Why can we as a society not require women who receive welfare to be on a contraceptive like these implants that can be removed http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/implanon/basics/definition/PRC-20015073?

I don't want to punish people who truly need assistance, but how often do you hear about women having 3, 4 ,5 or more kids while on welfare. It sort of falls in that screw me once shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me category.

I am simply saying that if you want to take our money you should be required to not make the situation worse. If you don't want to be implanted fine, then don't accept our money. If you get back on your feet and want more children, then it can be removed and you are free to procreate at will. Just don't do it on our dime.

I know some of the women's right groups would probably have a cow, but ironically these would probably be the same groups that want us to pay for abortions with our tax money.

I am not trying to pick on women, but until men start shooting out babies, it is kind of a one sided issue. Fair, no. Reality, yes.

Why not? Well, one reason is because those who do not choose to be on welfare, but due to its existence, have nowhere else to go to put food on the table, would be forced to accept a medical procedure they don't want. That, to me at least, sounds like what China does with the forced-abortion/one-child-only policy. It's immoral and it's wrong.

I get it, I really do. You're thinking only of the second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-generation welfare queens, and for them, your solution would work. It would still be immoral and wrong, but it would work.

Spay and neuter, place existing children in orphanage, this would break the cycle.

No matter whether they act like it or not, they are human beings. This is yet another immoral, wrong solution, and would certainly take children from good parents who just were down on their luck, quite probably because of our current economy and the efforts we all see to do nothing but make it worse.

Make them put in 30-40 hours of community service to collect; no work no pay.

So..... forced slavery now? It's OK, though, because they're not like us... is that it?

FYI, it's a myth that women on welfare try to have children so they can have increased benefits. Not only due to tge math being very obvious, but also in tge fact that caps on children in other states haven't stopped welfare moms from continuing to have children.

Sorry, Kut, but it does happen. Case in point: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/155824-breadwinner.html

Do away with welfare.

That's one solution, and probably the best one, long-term. It would get the politicians who introduced and voted for it voted out, so it won't happen, but it is a workable solution that is least intrusive on people's liberty and rights of free choice. An intermediate step exists as well: "We'll pay for you, whatever children you have now, and any with whom you are pregnant at the time your benefits are approved. We will pay for those people for a period not to exceed six years, the youngest child beginning first grade, or two years if all affected children are age five or older, whichever comes first." After that, you'd better be working, have a "sugar daddy", or have found some other means of support, because you won't be eligible for at least two more years.

This sounds really harsh, I know, but as was stated upthread, welfare in all forms will be the death of this country. There are only so many that we can afford to take care of, and the multi-generation welfare queens are the biggest suckers at that teat, pun unintentional, but appropriate.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sorry, Kut, but it does happen. Case in point: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/155824-breadwinner.html

That was a well publicized story, and soundly debunked. I remember the first time I read that story. I started scratching my head the moment it was implied that a 20 year old on her 8th pregnancy, had a vocabulary that included "breadwinner." Lol.

Not to mention, the sum mentioned is impossible under IL law. Needless the say, I'm pretty confident such is a work of fiction.

 

[SERparacord]

Not as easy as it sounds. They're used to just getting fed by others. They aren't going to go and be productive, they'll just start taking from those who they see as having more than them. Ending welfare cold turkey would surely mean a massive spike in crime.

When people get hungry they will work. If they choose to steal that solves the problem faster, bang. You can't drive through Muncie without seeing help wanted sign everywhere.

 

[CZB1962]

Why not? Well, one reason is because those who do not choose to be on welfare, but due to its existence, have nowhere else to go to put food on the table, would be forced to accept a medical procedure they don't want. That, to me at least, sounds like what China does with the forced-abortion/one-child-only policy. It's immoral and it's wrong.

I get it, I really do. You're thinking only of the second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-generation welfare queens, and for them, your solution would work. It would still be immoral and wrong, but it would work.

They would be no more "forced" than we are to say, submit to a breathalyzer or blood test when we accept a license from the state. We all have choices; some of them are harder than others but they are still our choice. Comparing this to China is absurd. There is no choice in China; you do what the state says or you die. That is forced.

I guess our definition of immoral and wrong are just different. I believe that taking public money and then continuing to have babies you cant support is immoral and wrong.

I know not all welfare moms are "welfare queens" and I understand that some decent women would have to make the choice between welfare and a procedure they may not want, but we can't just sit on our hands and do nothing. I also don't support just cutting people off and letting them starve either.

Welfare has its place. When I was 24 my wife and I had just had our first child. She had quit to stay home and raise our child because we believed that no one will raise your children like you will. I was the sole bread winner in the family which was OK because I made decent money. Then I was injured off the job and could not work for over three months. No workman's comp, and no disability in the trades back then.

To make a long story short, we had to go on food stamps until I got back to work. As soon as I was able, I returned to work and we got off the system. I believe this is what the system should be for. Short term help for hard working people who have had a run of bad luck.

Everyone out there who says "let them starve" has never had something happen to them and I am here to tell you that it can. At my current age and financial situation I could withstand 3 months, but at 24 with a new baby, and a wife that had just quit, we lived week to week.

 

[cobber]

Some of these folks just seem feral. They look like human beings, and make speaking sounds, and apparently know how to use tools, but their decision-making processes and behaviors are alien. The prolific breeding without any family structure, and little thought to actually raising the kids, is the most bothersome, as this ensures social reproduction of the attendant problems of unemployment and crime.

Basically we have created a generation of people who lack the ability to plan past this day, and do everything on whim, with no thought to consequences. Many of them can't refrain from repeated criminal behavior, yet we expect them to somehow learn to acquire job skills and acquire good parenting practices?

Unintended consequences coming back to bite us. And the answer is more programs? Or a college education?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Dealing with the issue of making it or not financially reaches far deeper than welfare itself, which really is a symptom (albeit a very malignant one to the nation) and not a root cause. Here are my thoughts on a real solution. Please bear in mind that these are the thoughts as they come out, not something I have been pondering in particular, so there will be rough edges.

1. Eliminate property tax. As I see it, the biggest threat to those who are making an honest effort and hit bad times is the threat of losing everything they have worked for most of their working lives on account of hitting hard times. While I am not a 'revenue neutral' disciple as such, I understand we probably can't do that much cutting in one sitting, so I would go along with shifting this to either a consumption tax or an income tax which in either case taxes money you do have rather than money you may well not have, or perhaps I should say it taxes your increase rather than what you bought yesterday or before with money that had already been taxed and is now taxed again with the implied threat of making you homeless.

2. School curriculum is geared toward, for lack of a better description, academic subjects. The only students who take any classes which may replace things not taught by deficient parents like working a budget or frugal living, or even cooking are those with no academic aspirations whatsoever who take such courses as fill material in their schedules and as a vehicle for accumulating the requisite number of credits to graduate, or at least it worked that way when I was in school. Given that the participants I remember were those most likely to have deficient parents, it would seem that this program needs to be ramped up to the point of teaching a lot more than it does, perhaps with additional classes like gardening and canning.

3. Employ an interim solution similar to that proposed by Bill with an eventual goal of eliminating this time bomb before it explodes.

4. Relieve the difficulties levied against private charities by the .gov. If you have ever been involved in starting a 501(c)3 you will understand what I mean.

5. Have the government agencies who put out media advertising on behalf of constituencies (like the milk and pork campaigns, or all the assorted Ad Council material) produce videos giving instruction in the things I suggested adding to the non-academic school curriculum for those who are either unable to fit it into the schedule or else have had their time pass.

I understand that expanding the scope of public education doesn't sit well with many of us including me, but it seems to be a decent gamble in preference to life-long welfare. Further, there is no magic cure for laziness/lack of motivation, but it seems that putting a definite end on welfare and not allowing it to become a way of life is as good a motivator as any.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Some of these folks just seem feral. They look like human beings, and make speaking sounds, and apparently know how to use tools, but their decision-making processes and behaviors are alien. The prolific breeding without any family structure, and little thought to actually raising the kids, is the most bothersome, as this ensures social reproduction of the attendant problems of unemployment and crime.

Basically we have created a generation of people who lack the ability to plan past this day, and do everything on whim, with no thought to consequences. Many of them can't refrain from repeated criminal behavior, yet we expect them to somehow learn to acquire job skills and acquire good parenting practices?

Unintended consequences coming back to bite us. And the answer is more programs? Or a college education?

For those who go criminal, there is either the criminal justice system or, well, curing their mineral deficiency (i.e., lead deficiency).

 

[Expat]

I was watching some show the other day about people living in the Great Depression. They were insulted at the very idea of accepting assistance from anyone... my how times have changed.