In YOUR opinion,how is welfare socioeconomically ruining and

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   
   bankrupting the United States? Before the advent of mass welfare, people worked and made their way in life. No job was too degrading to do as long as it put food on the table, clothes on one's back, and a house to live in. People were PROUD and GLAD to work and be independent!  The advent of mass welfare caused many people to be content with their lot, never improving themselves. They figure hell why work when welfare supplied their needs.
   
   Some scam the welfare system, being fraudelent. They simply refuse to work although there are jobs available. Oh no, they DON'T want to work and WON'T work for anyone-they would rather be on the government dole! Go figure, where has the independence gone and when did the entitlement and owe me mentality begin? Welfare has indeed RUINED, DESTROYED, and KILLED this great nation, America! Let's discuss this!
   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I can only offer my opinion on the UK state of welfare.
      
      The welfare state was created as a safety net, an idea most amicable until you consider what it has become.
      There are 6 million on benefits of one kind or another, it has enabled the corporations to pay below average wages, it has enable those who do not wish to work to be comfortably unemployed to the point where the previous government tried to convince us that we need mass immigration to fill the jobs the lazy British people wouldn't do, it has enabled some people to have more and more children to fill the gaps they have in benefit funding, but most of all it has enabled the taxpayer to look upon welfare recipients as the lazy and a scapegoat for the governments poor economic performance.
      
      There is nothing wrong with having a safety net as long as it doesn't become a crutch for the inept and for politicians to bash us about the head with.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         +1,000,000,000,000,000,000!

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Arguing against the facts again Gm?
      
      Cool I'll just post this again so anyone with half a brain can see it's factually nonsense. in the US anyway. I can't speak for the UK as I don't have the figures.
      
      91% of welfare dollars last year went to working households, the disabled and the elderly. Then 5% went to people on Veterans benefits. Almost 3% percent went to single parents. That makes 99% who are obviously not "entitled" or sponging.
      That leaves 1% of welfare spending now of those most are surely people who cannot find a job or who recently lost theirs, the remnant is so small as to be mathematically irrelevant, just fractions of one percent of welfare recipients.
      http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677
      
      The supposed entitlement class that won't work categorically does not exist outside fractions of a percentage (at worst). All figures direct from Congressional research and government files and compiled by the CBO.
      
      Welfare almost entirely goes to people who need it desperately.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Uh huh and Bull Connor was an all around humanitarian and Arnold Schwarzenegger was the epitome of a faithful husband!  Oh, please! , spare me the inane  --------------, I KNOW BETTER.  I KNOW people who worked in social service agencies, including some friends and a second cousin with advanced degrees. in social work. so I KNOW better than to read some #$%^#@! report.  They maintain that many welfare people scam the system and they would do anything to AVOID work! 
         
         Oh, so naive, I know THE REAL WORLD, MAN.  Live in your schizo utopia, I know BETTER!   SEE YA,DON'T WANT TO BE YA! Really, you are so laughable.  You're a HOOT!  Such radicalness and naivete.  You sound more like an angry radical 18 year old than a supposedly mature man in his 60s. This is so precious!  Aren't YOU getting a bit old to be an extremist radical leftist who wants to overthrow  "the big bad" capitalist system?  Right-on with your bad self!  This is cute!
         
         
         
         Josak, honey, LET the grown ups contribute, okay?  You are getting to be quite TIRED.......TIRED.....TIRED......(wide yawn)!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I don't want to overthrow anything. That is just the voices in your head gm.
            
            That isn't "some report" it's the full government figures compiled by the CBO it is the authoritative source on welfare and it proves you wrong. The only way to refute it is to claim that the figures are all a big government conspiracy. Unless you go down that ridiculous route you are just in black and white wrong.
            
            What your second cousin told you really doesn't compare or compete.
            
            But I agree, the adults will contribute, you know the people who know what they are talking about and can back it up. Those people. Like they did in the last two threads, liberals and conservatives alike both reading the facts and disagreeing with you.
            
            The facts are the facts. You know actual objective facts

            replyreport
            1. 83

               gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Again, ANYONE who can read critically(keyword: critically) knows that reports and statistics represent  only the people they are studying; it DOESN'T represent the entire population of said group.  Talking to a (hold my vitriolic tongue lest I be banned, hold my venomously vitriolic tongue) again.  Jeez.  The Congressional report is talking about a small percentage of the welfare population!  Hello, Josak, is ANYONE home!  Boy, some LIEberals believe what THEY want to believe! 
               
               Yada, yada, yada, have YOU heard of welfare fraud?  Oops, you HAVEN'T .  Don't read much do ya?  I have studied welfare in sociology class and have read books on welfare both for class and personal knowledge.  My mother, a registered nurse, had ward patients who were on welfare.   I supervised a woman who was on welfare.  Again, I know of people in high administrative positions who interfaced with people on welfare.  Spare me the inane bull---------. Josak, I KNOW THE DEAL,   Josak, YOU KNOW s------t !  Just aimlessly quoting some b----------------t minutiae!  Please, I know the real deal!  Told ya, let the grown ups talk!  YOU DON'T LISTEN, do ya!

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Again GM? Same lie twice?
                  
                  This is not a representative study. It's not a segment of the population. It's every single person on welfare as per the governmental records.
                  
                  Do you still not understand? EVERYONE IS THERE IT'S THE WHOLE COUNTRY.
                  
                  Get it now?
                  
                  That is the complete data, and it makes what your mommy and your second cousin told you a complete joke in comparison. Don't compare anecdotes you can't prove to complete governmental data it's pathetic.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Mr. Genius, EXPLAIN welfare fraud  and cheats since YOU know so ---------- much? Yeah, explain welfare fraud? Now YOU are going to play GOD and say IT DOESN'T EXIST? Reports CAN and DO cover the TRUTH.  YES, reports CAN and DO lie!   Reports do not always tell the truth, they present what is CON-venient!   Boy, you are NAIVE and gullible to the multillionth degree!  You can be swayed, oh boy!  LIEberal at work!
                     
                     HELL, ramble on aimlessly, regurgitating all YOU want. It's a FREE country still!   I am just going to ignore YOU.
                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        I am glad we have then covered the last issue and you have stopped arguing that ridiculous lie.
                        
                        So this is your argument that the US government faked millions of welfare applications and the data involved, somehow forced independent reviewers to claim it's valid and then did the same to the CBO in an effort to create a conspiracy...
                        Yup sounds TOTALLY reasonable
                        
                        Welfare fraud does of course happen. There are a whole lot of people whose job it is to minimize it. Criminals exist in all areas, they are caught and removed.
                        
                        The US department of Labor estimates 1.7 to 1.9% fraudulent requests last year with a more than 90% recovery rate.
                        http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/hu … 11find.htm
                        
                        Criminals are not "the poor" they are criminals, no different from thieves. 
                        
                        In summary the amount lost to fraud is miniscule somewhere in the area of 0.17% to 0.19% of welfare funds yearly. We should of course work to reduce that as much as possible.
                        
                        See how I reference and prove what I say? You should try it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 57

                           Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes, many families who receive public assistance do have jobs.  Let's see a couple examples I have encountered in my profession:
                           
                           1.  A lady I worked with told me that she was going to quit her job and have children.  You see, her husband has a job, and she can make more money than she did by having more children and staying at home.  Instead of improving her life, striving for an education, and getting a better job, she opted for public assistance.  She's been unemployed for four years now and has eight kids; two are hers.  I know for a fact that she is on assistance.  She quit her job, so she could earn more money from the government.  That's not a hand up or a system that promotes jobs. 
                           
                           2.  A lady I worked with was on public assistance as she earned her teaching degree.  Once she finished earning her degree and actually got a job, she said, "I ate better on assistance."  Guess what, she's back on assistance.  Yes, her husband works, but she sits at home receiving a check for doing so.  Our welfare system is a joke.
                           
                           Public assistance is being abused.  Instead of working hard and trying to better themselves, many are just opting for public assistance.  In my profession, I see many, many households where one person works, and the other draws public assistance.  If one member of a household decides to stay home, that's great, but the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for that.  That's wrong.

                           replyreport
                           1. 83

                              gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Educated, I succinctly said that many on welfare do exploit the system and DON'T want to work.  However, Josak myopically quoted some inane government statistics  which I ignored as reports are known to lie and represent only a small microcosm.   Educated, FINALLY someone who lives in the REAL WORLD and know of such people as I  DO!  A GROWN UP who has correctly assessed this instead of an aging radical who REFUSES to ackowledge that many welfare people GAME the system!

                              replyreport
   3. 55

      prettydarkhorseposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Where is your data, how do you know?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         She doesn't have any and she doesn't. Just prejudice and ignorance. *Shrug* what can you do but put the facts in front of people, you can't make a horse drink either.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I KNOW!  I DON'T have to depend upon some misconstrued and doctored data,  I have read books on the subject, I have supervised people on welfare, I know people who had welfare recipients for clients, ANYTHING ELSE, KNOWITALL!  Exactly, the aging radical have NO FIRSTHAND experience, ALL HE CAN DO is QUOTE from hackneyed secondhanded sources.  I HAVE SEEN THE REAL DEAL.  Statistics only represent microcosm of said group. 
            
            Some people REFUSE to see the reality of the situation, they prefer to rationalize welfare instead of seeing for the pathology that most thinking normal Americans do.   If I had my way, welfare will be ELIMINATED except for the indigent aged; temporarily unemployed, underemployed; persons w/ mental, emotional, physical, and psychological handicaps, anyone who is able-bodied and who REFUSES to work, SHOULD STARVE! Maybe if the latter is hungry enough, THEY will WORK, guaranteed!   Hell, I know personally of rich kids who worked construction and sales clerk jobs; if they can work, the poor who DOES NOT WANT to work, CAN!    SOME PEOPLE look for EXCUSES for their dire circumstances, instead of taking responsibility, Again, I HAVE NO SYMPATHY!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               There is no misconstruement that is the simple mathematical data.
               
               This is not second hand data it's primary data. Do you not know the difference?
               
               I have plenty of first hand experience but it is not relevant in comparison to national data. Trying to claim it is would be dumb.... Which of course you went ahead and did.
               
               It's not a microcosm as we have covered three times now it's the compilation of the entirety of the welfare data, it's only a microcosm if you are describing all of the US as a microcosm on the issue.
               
               I fully agree with you that people who won't work should receive no aid. Believe it or not it's even the socialist motto. It's on several socialist flags. "He who does not work neither shall he eat"
               
               None of that changes the inescapable facts of the numbers of such people, they are basically non existent. Nothing you or I can say will change the simple mathematical facts.
               No amount of insults, all caps rants or appeals to "stories you have heard or seen" will make the slightest impact on the actual facts.
               
               You are just wasting your breath.

               replyreport
         2. 57

            Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            It's prejudice and ignorance again?

            replyreport
   4. 71

      rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You can't dissect the many ills of this country by picking one out and saying this is the reason for it's ills. Welfare has grown out of the need to supplement the income and lifestyle of those that are being forced to the fringes of society. Good jobs have been steadily exported from this country at epic rates and the ones left barely cover ones needs. WalMart relies upon welfare and similar programs to supplement it's employees while they pocket humongous profits. They also know that these people will be customers because of the limited funds they have to spend anywhere else. Is there corruption elsewhere in the welfare nation? Absolutely and as there are scammers in the lowliest of societies there is the same at the top. Want to talk about congress as far as scammers?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         +1 Not that it's going to get through but you are right on the money there. Gm is probably going to call you a communist now

         replyreport
   5. 71

      thisisoliposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I put up an ad for an assistant for one of my clients last week. low paid and part time. I got over 350 responses from people of all levels of education. This kind of job was what they were willing to accept.
      
      I think the issue is very much down to the fact that people are trained from a young age to work, not create businesses.
      
      Sure there are plenty of people who abuse the system but let's face it. Politicians abuse the system. People who work often abuse the system. People are always out for what they can get.

      replyreport
2. 60

   janesixposted 10 years ago

   (hold my vitriolic tongue lest I be banned, hold my venomously vitriolic tongue)
   
   lol, are you reading my mind gm?

   replyreport
3. 80

   stclairjackposted 10 years ago

   consumerism, and a media driven culture that rewards narcism and rekless spending have done far more to destroy the american work ethic and society as a whole than the welfare state has,... the current welfare conundrum you lament is simply a symptom of the earlier underlying problem,... magicaly getting rid of the welfare safety net because 4-5% of its users abuse it is removing a fly from your nose with a hatchet,... counter productive.
   
   blaming the welfare safety net for the social ills of this nation is akin to blaming the fever while ignoring the underlying infection.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      +1 It's 1.7% to 1.9% but yeah, dead on.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Inverse logic is alive and well among some in the forums!  Communism has reared its head again. Consumers creates revenue and business with their purchases thus creating demand.  This act thereby aid and stimulating the economy.  It also creates jobs.  Welfare/public assistance, on the other hand, creates a class of people, the underclass, who AREN'T contributing to the economy, ergo, they are DRAINING the economy because  our TAX DOLLARS are supporting them.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Wow you just run around mindlessly calling everyone a communist.
         
         But no that is not how an economy works, if you think about it for half a second it becomes obvious. Giving funds to the poor does not drain from the economy it stimulates it.
         
         #1 Because people with money can therefore consume thus driving the economy.
         
         #2 Because the poor are the most immediate and reliable consumers in the country. If a wealthy or middle class person receives or makes a thousand dollars they usually put it away in an investment or a savings account. Poor people have more immediate needs, the rent needs to be paid, groceries need to be bought, clothing etc. SO they immediately and directly stimulate the economy.
         
         They do not drain from it. Though they do contribute to it less than a working person.
         
         And Stclair is correct, consumerism when it becomes rampant and reckless is disastrous. A perfect example is the global crisis we just had. Banks were reckless enough to offer incredibly high risk loans and consumers were reckless enough to to them up and because of that the economy crashed.
         Without even getting into the environmental and social impacts of rampant consumerism.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Giving monetary aid and assistance to the poor DOES NOT stimulate the economy, s----------d.  In many cases, it drains it if the population has sufficient numbers.  This is because these people aren't working, thus they aren't adding to the economy.  Also this assistance comes from my and your tax dollars, taking away monies from taxpayers that can be better used for THEIR families. 
            
            Public assistance as it is now is not a temporary net but a permanant cushion.  This cushion is draining our economy and enabling those with the premise that they CAN'T.  I will K.I.S. for you, if one consistenly withdraws money from his/her bank account, soon he/she won't have any money left.  Conversely, one consistently deposit money in his/her bank account, he/she will HAVE money in the account.  Having these people work is better for the economy! It is those who WORK, no matter the respective socioeconomic class, that ADDS to and STIMULATE the economy.  Josak, honey, your Marxist, communist theory is totally askewed, COMRADE!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Oh for christsakes take an economics course! There are seriously five factual economic errors in      that short statement.  Before you start lecturing me on economics you may want to have a quick glance at my profile to see what I do for a living and what I have a degree in... (Hint it starts with E and ends with S)
               
               Here we go.
               
               #1 Yes all monetary transactions stimulate the economy, particularly those which speed up the flow of capital, stimulation of an economy is just the movement of capital. If giving welfare does not stimulate the economy then all modern economic thought is wrong and all the stimulus packages released all around the world as recommended by the IMF, UN etc. were useless.
               
               I know I know, you are right, you "KNOW" better than 99.9% of economists and every major economic board and review panel in the world including the IMF! probably because your mommy or your second cousin said so.
               
               #2 Not adding is not the same as draining. The poor as noted in the stimulus explanation above do indeed add to the economy. As noted in my last comment they do not do so to the same extent as a working person.
               
               #3 The average stay on welfare is six weeks to seven weeks, obviously not a permanent cushion.
               
               #4 A country is not a bank account. I really can't be bothered teaching you the dozens of reasons that does not work as a comparison. An economy's job is not to store capital (like a bank account) but to produce capital.
               
               #5 None of that is Marxist economics or communist/Leninist/Trotskyist, I do know Marxist economics, though I am not a follower of them, my guess is you wouldn't recognize them if they bit you on the A**.
               
               Let me guess you haven't even read Das Kapital and as such don't have a clue what Marxism even is. Do you ever get tired of having no knowledge at all on the topics you discuss?

               replyreport
            2. 59

               John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Then why the drive to keep people unemployed?
               
               Hint, unemployment keeps wages down
               Another hint, it helps to control inflation.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  You forgot immigration john.
                  Immigration keeps unemployment high and wages low.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     And you believe that stopping immigration would change that!!
                     You'd just have to find another scapegoat or even accept the truth.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        I was agreeing with your statement John but added that the government uses immigration as just another control measure.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           OK, sorry for that.

                           replyreport
         2. 57

            Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            You and I have a different definition of what middle class is.  The average middle class person doesn't just earn a thousand dollars and put it in savings.  In this economy, the vast majority of money somebody in the middle class earns goes towards bills.  Rich people, corporations, and people investing in the stock market MAY be making a killing right now, but the average person is not.  Let's see the "data."

            replyreport
      2. 80

         stclairjackposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         if you dressed in bright green feather and Shat on my shoulder you couldn't be a better parrot for right wing talking points!.... I am most certainly
         NOT a communist, but I also understand the capitalism without moral restraint is unabashed greed, and when coupled with modern media to drive the spending habits of the masses, a task master akin to slavery.
         
         I am a card carrying republican, a firm believer in RESPONSIBLE EDUCATED COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE democracy, and a serving member on my county GOP committee, former officer of same... do not call me a communist my dear sir,..... but then, those who scream communism in the most shrill voice usually have little real understanding of its definition or history beyond what they are feed in the parrot seed each morning.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I am FAR from a right winger. In fact, I despise right wing politics.  I am an independent thinking Liberal Democrat.  However, I see the utter folly in the current welfare system.  Yes, I believe that some people do deserve welfare as the handicapped, the elderly, the unemployed;underemployed; however, those who are able-bodied and REFUSE to work- NO!   I am well aware of the fact that jobs are being outsourced to other countries which is the fault of the corporate entities and their inordinate greed.  Yes, besides welfare, we NEED to curb and restrict corporate welfare.  Yes, corporate welfare and constant bailouts are also strangulating the economy.  Both types of welfare NEED to be REFORMED and the latter type OVERHAULED!

            replyreport
            1. 80

               stclairjackposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               indeed sir!,.... always a pleasure to agree on the large points so as to make the details more palatable.... I personally find it morally offensive that we require good honest hard working American's to be living under a bridge or in public housing before we assist them, we require them to be destitute before we extend the helping hand,... because complete beggars are easier to control and appease,... period. the system is designed this way,... a nanny state can punish its charges as it sees fit.
               
               the wall street bailout would have provided healthcare for this entire nation,... would have saved social security,... quite possibly BOTH!.... so glad the bankers were assisted,..... at some point I hope the PEOPLE will be to big to fail

               replyreport
4. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   I find the bailout of Wall Street and similar corporations to be totally egregious.  They could have had the monies to be economically afloat if it were not misappropiated and wasted. It is GREED and WASTE which caused this bailout.  I believe in assisting those who need it, not rich corporations who know better.  Rich people and corporation CAN look after themselves without being bailed out for their stupidity and carelessness.

   replyreport
5. 76

   jenniferrpoveyposted 10 years ago

   And how about those who are able bodied and have been trying to find a job for months? Years, even.
   
   How about those who are WORKING for companies that cut their hours at 29.5 because they don't want to pay benefits?
   
   How about the BASIC fact that we have two numbers. One is going up. The other is going down. The first is the number of people. The second is the number of jobs.
   
   The only way to get people off welfare is to address WHY they are on welfare in the first place.
   
   In principle I agree that only people who are unable to work should be on "welfare" in the sense of monthly checks in the long term.
   
   I also agree that SOME people are lazy and refuse to work - but they're a minority. Do you really want to see children starve in the street in the richest country in the world?
   
   Others are single parents who, if they worked, would have to pay extortionate sums for childcare. In Washington, D.C., for example, the average cost of childcare is $20,000 PER CHILD. So, yeah, a single mother or father there IS going to stay on welfare, because unless they can get a six figure income, there is no WAY they can afford that plus housing plus food plus clothing...so they stay on welfare.
   
   Every single individual's situation is different.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      stclairjackposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      yup to that,... we often apply blanket statements and blanket policies without remembering that each situation is different,... we've lost our ability to make a judgment call,... and if one case worker makes a bad judgment call then we take away the authority for ALL case works,.. more blanket policy.

      replyreport
6. 61

   SOBFposted 10 years ago

   This has got to be one of the most interesting debates on hubpages....a republican arguing the virtues of a safety net system and a democrat with the counterpoint. But that isn't the most earth shattering part of the conversation. The conservative offers actual facts to support his argument and the democrat counters with the "I know people" argument. I think my head is about to blow up!

   replyreport
   1. 80

      stclairjackposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      take a deep breath and just stay calm,... eventualy we follow the light and leave the twilight zone, lol!

      replyreport
7. 76

   jenniferrpoveyposted 10 years ago

   Thisisoli, you are so correct.
   
   Furthermore, the United States is not friendly to small businesses. I'm a first generation immigrant and am able to compare my tax system with that of my father in England. We are both self employed.
   
   He: Spends 15 minutes a year doing tax returns.
   I: Spend 2 hours a year doing tax returns.
   
   (Note, that doesn't count maintenance bookkeeping).
   
   He: Pays half the amount in National Insurance (their equivalent of social security) on the grounds that he's not eligible for unemployment if the business fails.
   I: Pay TWICE the amount in Social Security - and am not eligible for unemployment if the business fails.
   
   He: Pays no VAT or sales tax on anything he purchases for the business.
   I: Pay extra tax on anything I use for the business, every single year, regardless of what the business brings in. True, this is a state level thing, but...
   
   I could go on and on. And yes, our education system is still designed to make factory workers...

   replyreport