Welfare reform? Who needs it?!?

[IrishEyes]

Irish said:

2- I think welfare needs to be re-structured at least, done away with at most.

 

stargazer responded:

Noone should recieve any kind of assistance or help at all? "You lost your job? Tough break, have fun living on the street. Or go to Iraq, so important rich people don't have to."

 

I accept that there are people who truly have fallen on hard times. It happens, and it's very tragic. But your response is not the answer.

 

I did not say that I don't think people should get any type of assistance at all. There are many programs in place that help people that have low-paying jobs, or no jobs. However, the way the money iis handed out, and the way that people are allowed to stay on 'public assistance' is very alarming. If someone loses their job, they can use 'unemployment' until they find another job.

 

But how long is long enough? How much help should a person expect, before they start taking responsibility for themselves? And how much should the average citizen be expected to pay in taxes to support people that are not willing to support themselves?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

And how much should the average citizen be expected to pay in taxes to support people that are not willing to support themselves?

 

Some good points in your post. But this one is a bit arrogant and begs a few questions.

 

What is an average citizen in the US? Are you one?

 

What kind of people are not willing to support themselves? Do they constitute some sort of majority? Can they be profiled? Are they uniform?

 

Issues like these will cloud the topic because it becomes a discussion of "who pays for what" and "who deserves what", which is highly subjective.

 

If possible, I'd like to see some statistics to show that your claim is correct (ie, that the average citizen pays a lot of money to fund the lazy).

 

Another point I'd like to make is: How do you think your country would benefit from NOT going to war every now and then? What if the money spent on "defense" was spent on building better infrastructure, better health care, better programs for the poor? I believe the "average citizen" in the US pays far more for wars than welfare.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I accept that there are people who truly have fallen on hard times. It happens, and it's very tragic. But your response is not the answer.

 

I did not say that I don't think people should get any type of assistance at all. There are many programs in place that help people that have low-paying jobs, or no jobs. However, the way the money iis handed out, and the way that people are allowed to stay on 'public assistance' is very alarming. If someone loses their job, they can use 'unemployment' until they find another job.

 

But how long is long enough? How much help should a person expect, before they start taking responsibility for themselves? And how much should the average citizen be expected to pay in taxes to support people that are not willing to support themselves?

But I thought you said you wanted to do away with it. I was asking how that would work, not how it works now. If you wish to remove it all, it wont make it easier for people to find jobs. But that's so obvious I'm not even sure why I felt it had to be said.

 

I agree it shouldn't be given away just like that without the person even trying. As it works over here, people who needs help must prove that they are trying to improve their situation, actively looking for jobs, maybe starting their own business, maybe taking extra classes, etc. I agree that in a rich civilised society noone should have to be homeless, or starving. That would be a disgrace to my country (these things happens, and quite honestly it saddens me).

[Tormod]

...brought in from the abortion thread:

 

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

my bust!!

 

Now be careful, there are rules about this.

 

also, i think there is a difference between welfare, and a country that is more into socialism.

 

FWIW, both Norway and Sweden have conservative governments who subscribe to capitalism. In Sweden there is admittedly a minority rule by the so-called "Social Democratic" party, but recently the Prime Minister was on television accepting that there was nothing the government could do (or even want to do) about the strikes in the General Motors-owned car factories, which for long have been a backbone in the Swedish economy. That was - to me - a sign that an epoque is long gone.

 

Our recent history (as in 1930s-1970s) may be considered sort of socialist-ish but we are now good, old, capitalist states with the exception of having had exceptional welfare systems once. I don't know too much about Sweden's current state of affairs in that area (probably a bit better but the country is in horrible debt) but I can safely say that the Norwegian welfare system is going down the drains faster than you can say "plumbo".

 

I might not be the right person to comment on this (living in Norway and being left-ish) but there are only scattered remains of any attempts at socialism, and those remains are rather ugly.

 

Don't forget that the Norwegian Prime Minister (the ordained priest we have talked about before) is a member of the Christian People's Party who are *definitely* not a socialist party. They run the state together with the Conservatives and the Norwegian Centre Party in a majority coalition.

[Freethinker]

One of the largest aspects of WELFARE (in the US) is seldom ever mentioned in the discussion. That is the issue of CORPORATE Welfare.

 

Companies and the upper income that set themselves up as businesses (such as the Pres and VP) have little niceities as the Hummer Rebate. This gives a FULL TAX DEDUCTION of up to $100,000.00 for the purchase of any SUV that weighs over 6k lbs. Can't afford gas for your Yugo? Too bad you didn't buy an Escalade. You'd get the money back from Unc Sam to offset the cost of that gas!

[Tormod]

Well, we do see that the more people earn, the less they pay in tax. A recent article in one of our larges papers claimed that the top 5% of the moneymakers paid like 5% tax. Yet the average is supposed to be around 28%.

[lindagarrette]

Circumstances dictate everything. Where, when, and from whom you are born, along with events throughout your life not necessarily under your control, determines whether or not you are able to live well or on well fare. Condemning the poor for being poor, blaming the victim, ans presuming superiority of classes is what is perpetuating our sad distribution of wealth in this nation. Do you think a CEO of a company works millions of times harder than the janitor? I think we've been over this before.

[IrishEyes]

Circumstances dictate everything. Where, when, and from whom you are born, along with events throughout your life not necessarily under your control, determines whether or not you are able to live well or on well fare.

 

I'm throwing the BS flag on this one. It just irks me when people cry "poor me, look at all I've had to contend with, there's no way I could possibly get ahead". Give me a break. Sell that line down the road, because I'm not buying it here.

 

Circumstances are in control of your life if you allow them to be. Where, when and from whom you are born *do* have an affect on you, that's true. However, to claim that events that are 'beyond your control', along with those birth circumstances, determine whether or not you will live well or on welfare is taking the responsibility away from people. It's an added excuse, another reason, to not achieve what you want.

 

Yes, there are circumstances beyond our control that have a *temporary* affect on our lives, if we let them. Your mother dies the day before your SATs, you do horribly on the test, don't get into the college you want, and now your future is shot, right? Or you were born into a very low income family, in a very poor neighborhood, and the schools were so bad that you never learned to read, and you can't fill out an application at McDonald's right? I'm sorry, I just don't accept that. If you want something bad enough, whether it is to be off welfare, to own a huge house, to be a millionaire, whatever it is - those things are achievable, if you are willing, and able, to do the work to achieve them.

 

Tragedies happen. That's part of life. You either learn to deal with them, learn from them, make the most of your situation, and move on OR you continue to blame your circumstances on - well, circumstances.

 

Condemning the poor for being poor, blaming the victim, ans presuming superiority of classes is what is perpetuating our sad distribution of wealth in this nation.

I don't condemn the poor for being poor. I don't blame the victim. I don't presume a superiority. I haven't been given extra breaks in this country, I haven't asked for handouts, and I still manage to make sure that my children are cared for. My husband didn't have things handed to him on a silver platter. He is still working his way through college, while supporting a family and working a full time job. To say that people that don't make as much as he does are somehow 'victims' is ridiculous. He graduated from high school, joined the military to pay for college, got married, got out of the military, worked menial labor jobs to support us while I finished military and school, and is finally enjoying a few of the benefits of his hard work. To see people whine about not having enough on welfare just makes me ill. Lending a helping hand is one thing. Making excuses for your life's situation is quite another.

 

No, the CEO probably does not work 'harder' than the janitor. But who takes a bigger loss if the company loses? If the CEO has invested his own money into the company, how is that not worth at least as much as the person that sweeps the floors at night? As people, neither is better or worse than the other. But why should the CEO be penalized for earning more money?

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

Circumstances dictate everything. Where, when, and from whom you are born, along with events throughout your life not necessarily under your control, determines whether or not you are able to live well or on well fare.

Some of us realise that you're right on this one. To say that everyone have equal opportunities when this is clearly not true, is obviously a case of selective blindness or dishonesty. It can also be ignorance but I wouldn't think so. If you're poor and live in a society run by people who abolished taxes and welfare (in order to help those who need no help), then how are you supposed to get an education? With public education and other things, I think the game becomes a bit more fair.

 

Condemning the poor for being poor, blaming the victim, ans presuming superiority of classes is what is perpetuating our sad distribution of wealth in this nation. Do you think a CEO of a company works millions of times harder than the janitor? I think we've been over this before.

 

Bah, I am wildly successful, I made it good in my life on my own, with my two hands! (Inheriting my dad's wealth helped considerably, though!) If people with no or few chances to get anywhere don't make it, tough for them. Maybe they should have been born into rich, important families instead! :)

[IrishEyes]

To say that everyone have equal opportunities when this is clearly not true, is obviously a case of selective blindness or dishonesty. It can also be ignorance but I wouldn't think so.

 

I disagree. To claim that 'circumstances' are responsible for everything bad that happens, instead of taking initiative, or taking responsibility for one's own actions, and therefore - one's own life, is a cop-out. I think it shows an amazing lack of respect to anyone to suggest that they can not overcome 'circumstances' and try to become more, or 'better' than what they have, are brn into, or are dealt.

 

Can you imagine telling your child "It's ok, sweetie, you'll just live on welfare like mommy does, because you've been handed such a terrible hand at the beginning of your life that you'll never amount to anything anyhow. So don't even try, just accept what life has given you and don't do a thing to change it". I mean, is that really what you are advocating? That people have so little control over their own lives that it's easier to make excuses for not working for what you want than it is to actually try? Is that not the ultimate in pre-destination, without the extra religious crap thrown in?

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Another point I'd like to make is: How do you think your country would benefit from NOT going to war every now and then? What if the money spent on "defense" was spent on building better infrastructure, better health care, better programs for the poor? I believe the "average citizen" in the US pays far more for wars than welfare.

It's interesting that many of the American conservatives who oppose public education, health care and other things that benefits society, would gladly support their government when they want to go to war. I hope they are in the minority, although with the last election result I'm not entirely convinced. Why war is more important than building a better society for those who pay taxes for it, is a mystery.

[Tormod]

Okay, everone, tone down the heated passion and stay cool. This is an interesting discussion but let's all stay clear-headed (yeah, I know, I'm not perfect either).

 

I think Stargazer has a very good point. A lot of people happen to inherit their money and thus end up in a favorable situation. They can go to the best schools because their parents (who might be self-made for all it's worth). They get the best jobs because they have the best education. And so on. It does not mean they are necessarily hard working or more intelligent.

 

But the majority of people do not inherit much in the way of money. They are hard working, decent people who often lack an education. They might live in an area where there simply are no jobs available. It's not a matter of just saying "Hi honey let's move to Virginia, because it's such a rich state". Poverty is a condition which has a lot of reasons, and it has repercussions on society. Poor kids will end up in poor schools (my wife just saw a documentary about black kids in the US who lived in an extremely poor area. They had no money, no jobs, nothing. There were nobody around to help the young kids with their school work, because the parents had no education themselves. The kids had to be taught how to take tests so that the school would score better so that they would receive enough money to keep their staff to at least a minimum.).

 

This is a terrible predicament and only very, very few people who are in this situation manage to break out of it (come on, we are talking about millions of American citizens here. Do you reallt think there is a job waiting for all of them, or that they have what it takes to start an enterprise on their own?) How is this NOT circumstance? Frankly, if this is "showing an amazing lack of respect" then you seriously need to think twice about what capitalism is. It is a matter of making the massses work for the benefit of the very few. A good capitalist system will make sure that the masses have at least a minimum of education, that they do not have to grow up in an environment steeped in crime and drugs and fear.

 

The problem is that most capitalist systems are based on the availability of cheap labor so that companies can maximise their profits. Cheap labor does not require (or even should *avoid*) any education beyond the basics, and should live in areas where housing is cheap. This is an oversimplification, but it is very obvious in the US political system.

 

All of use here, AFAIK, are extremely lucky seen in this context. Please understand that I am not necessarily against the principles of capitalism per se, but just like the "Communist" state of China is nothing but a monopolistic capitalist state, so the US is a pluralistic industriocracy based on the need to earn money and otherwise acquire wealth in order to survive in the long run. The Company is more important than the people who work there.

 

So for me, welfare is not a matter of the well off paying for the poor. It's a matter of the community as a whole making sure that everyone gets a chance to make it on their own. Sadly, this is not how most welfare systems work.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I disagree. To claim that 'circumstances' are responsible for everything bad that happens, instead of taking initiative, or taking responsibility for one's own actions, and therefore - one's own life, is a cop-out. I think it shows an amazing lack of respect to anyone to suggest that they can not overcome 'circumstances' and try to become more, or 'better' than what they have, are brn into, or are dealt.

If I said that circumstances are responsible for everything, then I take it back. There.

Now, to say that circumstances have no part of it at all is just bizarre. As I said, everyone can and should try to improve their own situation, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be given better opportunities. I mean, I know you're not big on educating the public no matter how rich they are, but I do believe it's important. I think that the possibilities and opportunities should be not for just a few.

 

Can you imagine telling your child "It's ok, sweetie, you'll just live on welfare like mommy does, because you've been handed such a terrible hand at the beginning of your life that you'll never amount to anything anyhow. So don't even try, just accept what life has given you and don't do a thing to change it".

No, I can't. For some reason though, you can imagine it happening. Is it because you think everyone who does not make it are lazy?

 

I mean, is that really what you are advocating?

No, but then again I've never said that this is what I'm advocating. What I am advocating, is a playing field that is a little more fair.

 

That people have so little control over their own lives that it's easier to make excuses for not working for what you want than it is to actually try? Is that not the ultimate in pre-destination, without the extra religious crap thrown in?

Again: I'm not saying people shouldn't try. I'm saying that it's not an outlandish idea to have opportunities for everyone to get an education, to get health care and to, oh, I don't know... survive. I guess I'm kinda weird that way.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Tormod

But the majority of people do not inherit much in the way of money. They are hard working, decent people who often lack an education. They might live in an area where there simply are no jobs available.

This is what I mean. Yes, people should do whatever they can to get a job, but sometimes there are no jobs availible. What are you supposed to do then? Force someone to hire you? Start your own business? Of course doing that requires money.

 

It's not a matter of just saying "Hi honey let's move to Virginia, because it's such a rich state". Poverty is a condition which has a lot of reasons, and it has repercussions on society. Poor kids will end up in poor schools (my wife just saw a documentary about black kids in the US who lived in an extremely poor area. They had no money, no jobs, nothing. There were nobody around to help the young kids with their school work, because the parents had no education themselves. The kids had to be taught how to take tests so that the school would score better so that they would receive enough money to keep their staff to at least a minimum.).

Without money, how can you educate yourself? If we have a society where everyone is left on their own and no taxes are being paid (except to fund the military defense, of course), then there wont be any schools or libraries, except for the expensive private ones. How is a poor person supposed to break out of that? Get a job, obviously. No jobs availible? Well, they should have thought of that before.

 

This is a terrible predicament and only very, very few people who are in this situation manage to break out of it (come on, we are talking about millions of American citizens here. Do you reallt think there is a job waiting for all of them, or that they have what it takes to start an enterprise on their own?)

I doubt that anyone could think so.

 

Please understand that I am not necessarily against the principles of capitalism per se, but just like the "Communist" state of China is nothing but a monopolistic capitalist state, so the US is a pluralistic industriocracy based on the need to earn money and otherwise acquire wealth in order to survive in the long run. The Company is more important than the people who work there.

I'm not against capitalism either. What I'm skeptic towards is a system where capitalism is running rampant without the slightest control. Capitalism combined with some welfare seems like a good idea to me.

 

So for me, welfare is not a matter of the well off paying for the poor. It's a matter of the community as a whole making sure that everyone gets a chance to make it on their own. Sadly, this is not how most welfare systems work.

That is what I, too, think a welfare system should be like.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

That is what I, too, think a welfare system should be like.

 

Hey! If you run for President in 2008 I'll be your VP. Okay? We'll kick ***!

 

(But we need some faked birth certificates...I think the US president must be a US citizen by birth).

 

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Well, we do see that the more people earn, the less they pay in tax. A recent article in one of our larges papers claimed that the top 5% of the moneymakers paid like 5% tax. Yet the average is supposed to be around 28%.

60 of the Fortune 500 US Corps PAID NO TAXES!

 

G Bush's excuse for not re-instating taxes on the upper 2% is that they already hide their income so well (and don't pay taxes) that nothing would be gained. He BRAGGED about it!

 

And the stupid working class voted for him anyway!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

No, the CEO probably does not work 'harder' than the janitor. But who takes a bigger loss if the company loses?

The WORKER, every time!

 

You obviously do not pay any attention to reality. You obviously have never heard of "Golden Parachutes".

 

CEO's are given miliions while their companies file for bankruptcy and workers are tossed out on the streets.

 

Procter & Gamble Co. gave ousted CEO Durk I. Jager a $9.5 million bonus--even though Jager lasted no more than 17 months at the helm and with P&G's stock down 50%, costing P&G shareholders more than $70 billion in wealth.

 

Conseco Inc. gave a $49.3 million going-away gift to Stephen C. Hilbert, and then filed Bankruptcy.

 

Do we even need to give specifics on Enron or MCI/WorldCom?

 

Meanwhile, these failing CEOs, given $Millions in company funds for destroying the companies and leaving, seldom wait more than 6 months to land another, usually higher paid position. While the average worker sees their anual income drop by $9,000 (a SIGNIFICANT % of their income) last year alone!

 

As people, neither is better or worse than the other. But why should the CEO be penalized for earning more money?

When the janitor has done their job effectively to the financial benefit of the company and is layoff, outsourced, had their wages cut, benefits removed... while the CEO has driven the company into bankrupcy but leaves with millions in bonuses (which they do not pay taxes on), it is obvious who is better and who is worse.