The world owes me a living

[SRW]

Back in my Freshman year of college I took Economics 101, I recall one lecture in particular. The Professor spoke about the welfare system in the united states. What he said was is that I will create a perpetual class of welfare recipients. The reason being that It give no incentives for getting out of welfare. It did infarct give disincentives for working, delaying having children and getting married.

Now at that time I supported my self by working in a brick yard in East Windsor Hills CT. 80% of the workforce was black and I had an opportunity to get to know many of my fellow co-workers quite well. One thing I observed was that they all worked hard, you could not survive in a brick yard it you slacked off. We were on piece work so the harder you worked the more you earned. We also had a union, with excellent benefits, and wages.

There were two distinct classes of people, the older workers, over 30 who had families, and for the most part were middle class home owners. The others where first generation welfare kids. Those under 30, the typical guy had a fancy car, lots of spending money, and number of girl-fiends with his children that were on welfare, and saw their daddy once in a blue moon. One of them flat out told me that "the world owes me a living" .


Any thoughts?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by SRW
Back in my Freshman year of college I took Economics 101, I recall one lecture in particular. The Professor spoke about the welfare system in the united states. What he said was is that I will create a perpetual class of welfare recipients. The reason being that It give no incentives for getting out of welfare. It did infarct give disincentives for working, delaying having children and getting married.

Now at that time I supported my self by working in a brick yard in East Windsor Hills CT. 80% of the workforce was black and I had an opportunity to get to know many of my fellow co-workers quite well. One thing I observed was that they all worked hard, you could not survive in a brick yard it you slacked off. We were on piece work so the harder you worked the more you earned. We also had a union, with excellent benefits, and wages.

There were two distinct classes of people, the older workers, over 30 who had families, and for the most part were middle class home owners. The others where first generation welfare kids. Those under 30, the typical guy had a fancy car, lots of spending money, and number of girl-fiends with his children that were on welfare, and saw their daddy once in a blue moon. One of them flat out told me that "the world owes me a living" .


Any thoughts?

Sure, here's one you can relay over to them. Go f*** yourself. The only thing the world owes him is a guarantee that he will die some day just like everything else.

[Suezoled]

as a child, one's parents have an obligation (though they don't always live up to it) to feed, clothe, arrange education, and teach a child to shift for himself. As an adult, a person has the responsibility to make his own way in the world through his own luck and/or effort. A person who is able bodied, and sound enough of mind, should in fact shift for himself; everyone has their daily challenges, but it's simply a part of life to face them.

The world owes them a living, huh? For simply being born? Congrats kids; your mommy and daddy's sex organs worked. That doesn't mean being born makes you especially worthy of living off another person's efforts because you want it to.

But, again, I am silly.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by SRW

Any thoughts?

Same thing I always see when people want to bash the welfare system. Anecdotes about people that abuse the system. "Some people abuse the system, therefor it should be eliminated!"

I always ask these people if they think the same about the stock market.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Sure, here's one you can relay over to them. Go f*** yourself. The only thing the world owes him is a guarantee that he will die some day just like everything else.


Actually I see this same attitude today in the poor section of town where my wife works. Mainly among the white and hispanic immigrants. The parents are hard working while the kids are irresponsible child factories. Oh by the way the school where my wife works, goes out of its way to assure the children that being poor is a good thing.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by SRW



Actually I see this same attitude today in the poor section of town where my wife works. Mainly among the white and hispanic immigrants. The parents are hard working while the kids are irresponsible child factories. Oh by the way the school where my wife works, goes out of its way to assure the children that being poor is a good thing.

In what way do they assure the children that it's a good thing?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Same thing I always see when people want to bash the welfare system. Anecdotes about people that abuse the system. "Some people abuse the system, therefor it should be eliminated!"

I always ask these people if they think the same about the stock market.

It's not all anecdotal data, it's logic. When you get something for free you have virtually no incentive to go find a job that would give you the same thing. That's just human nature as we are lazy species.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It's not all anecdotal data, it's logic. When you get something for free you have virtually no incentive to go find a job that would give you the same thing. That's just human nature as we are lazy species.

Yes, your entire post was nothing but sound logic, not anecdotes that happen to justify your particular view that the world is made up of hard-workin good folk and then lazy good fer nuthins that just want a hand-out.

My bad.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Same thing I always see when people want to bash the welfare system. Anecdotes about people that abuse the system. "Some people abuse the system, therefor it should be eliminated!"

I always ask these people if they think the same about the stock market.

Where did I say it should be eliminated? Personally I believe it is necessary however needs to be reformed, with incentives, training and child care to help people work their way off.


Is the stock market in need of reforms also? You bet. Would I feel better about the stock marked if it were more highly managed, I sure would. So what is wrong with feeling the same about the welfare system?

[DavidJames]

I was struck by these apparent contradictions:

"One thing I observed was that they all worked hard, you could not survive in a brick yard it you slacked off. We were on piece work so the harder you worked the more you earned."

and

the title of the thread.

So I'm missing the point. You say "they all worked hard" but "One of them" made that comment. If you are trying to use an anecdote to prove the old adage "there's one in every crowd" you succeeded admirable.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by SRW

Where did I say it should be eliminated? Personally I believe it is necessary however needs to be reformed, with incentives, training and child care to help people work their way off.


Is the stock market in need of reforms also? You bet. Would I feel better about the stock marked if it were more highly managed, I sure would. So what is wrong with feeling the same about the welfare system? [/B][/QUOTE]

Your original post did not say anything about it being eliminated, reformed, or anything else. It just sounded to me like a typical bitch session about people on being on welfare soley because they are lazy, backed up by nothing but anecdotes.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Grammatron


In what way do they assure the children that it's a good thing?

An example off the top of my head is the free lunch program. About 70% of the students get free or reduced price lunch. Nothing wrong with that program that I can mention. However,
the students who are free, tease the ones who have to pay, and the staff does nothing to stop it. My wife told one pay student not to cry they paying money was not anything to be ashamed of, the principle took her aside and said, don't say that it makes the free students feel bad. I get stories like this from her almost nightly and not just about the lunch program.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Same thing I always see when people want to bash the welfare system. Anecdotes about people that abuse the system. "Some people abuse the system, therefor it should be eliminated!"

I always ask these people if they think the same about the stock market.

There are people out there who do abuse the system, and I know a few. I also have known a few people who don't abuse the system, but have been trapped in it.

I think our welfare system, although it has undergone some reforms in the last 10 years, is a system that encourages people to be dependent rather than independent. And I think it should offer incentives for people who do get an education rather than being punitive to those who choose this option.

No, I don't think the whole system should be scrapped, but it should be revamped. I always thought a low interest or no interest loan system for education with some subsidies would be ideal and a maximum time limit one can receive monetary benefits. Also work programs and work counselors as well financial planning workshops and such would also be a benefit.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Your original post did not say anything about it being eliminated, reformed, or anything else. It just sounded to me like a typical bitch session about people on being on welfare soley because they are lazy, backed up by nothing but anecdotes.


Well I should have stopped at the first paragraph, and asked what you think of my professors theory. The example was nothing more than a personal observation of a case where I saw this take place. Sorry for not being more clear.

[SRW]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I was struck by these apparent contradictions:

"One thing I observed was that they all worked hard, you could not survive in a brick yard it you slacked off. We were on piece work so the harder you worked the more you earned."

and

the title of the thread.

So I'm missing the point. You say "they all worked hard" but "One of them" made that comment. If you are trying to use an anecdote to prove the old adage "there's one in every crowd" you succeeded admirable.

Why should the State support the children of a hard working man who makes a good living. Instead of throwing arround cash, purchasing new cars don't you think he should be supporting the children?

He didn't think so because "the world owed him a living". His girlfriends kids where not his responsibility, his lifestyle was his only priority.

[Chanileslie]

I think there are those people who do have a sense of entitlement. I think it is a personal responsibility problem. These are people who do not take responsibility for their behaviors and actions.

Of course, I do not feel that in the USA, personal responsibility is an accepted way of behaving. We are taught, that if we do something stupid, sue. Sue who? Whoever one can get a large settlement from. Or if one commits a crime, it isn't because that person was a jerk or anything else, it is because,"I'm a victim of society because I grew up poor, black, hispanic, was abused, had someone laugh at my left front tooth [fill in absurd reason here]." And people get away with it all the time.

We must take responsibility for our actions and behaviors and part of that is being financially responsible and supporting ourselves and our children.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


There are people out there who do abuse the system, and I know a few. I also have known a few people who don't abuse the system, but have been trapped in it.

I think our welfare system, although it has undergone some reforms in the last 10 years, is a system that encourages people to be dependent rather than independent. And I think it should offer incentives for people who do get an education rather than being punitive to those who choose this option.

No, I don't think the whole system should be scrapped, but it should be revamped. I always thought a low interest or no interest loan system for education with some subsidies would be ideal and a maximum time limit one can receive monetary benefits. Also work programs and work counselors as well financial planning workshops and such would also be a benefit.


This is exactly what my professor predicted would happen, and how it should be run, encouraging people to rise out of welfare instead of punishing them for having initiative.

[Ignatius]

Do any of you people that constantly bitch about welfare actually know what it is like for a kid that is on welfare? It's a s**t life, I can tell you from experience.

You go to school as a second class citizen. Everybody knows you are poor and makes fun of you because of it. You do not get the same clothes or the same toys or get to go to the places that the other kids do.

You do not have the same opportunities other kids do. In my case my mother could not afford a lot of the extra-cirricular activities that other kids do. Band costs money, sports cost money, I even missed out on an advanced math program because it had to be paid by the parents (and the trend is moving more towards having students pay for these activities). You stand in a different line to get your free lunch tickets. It is like you are living in a world that you can't really take part in.

Sometimes emergency expenses come up and you go hungry.

What you do get is a chance to live. You don't starve to death and you get a chance to grow up, make something of yourself and give back what you know has been given to you.

Of course the same people that bitch about this huge welfare system and how badly it needs to be reformed never mention what a patheticly small percentage it is of the national budget. They are never pushing for "reform" of the military that would make a much bigger difference in their tax burden that they get so worked up over.

To these people that get so worked up over feeding poor people; I wish you a short, brutal life.

Hugs and smooches,

Ignatius

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Do any of you people that constantly bitch about welfare actually know what it is like for a kid that is on welfare? It's a s**t life, I can tell you from experience.

You go to school as a second class citizen. Everybody knows you are poor and makes fun of you because of it. You do not get the same clothes or the same toys or get to go to the places that the other kids do.

You do not have the same opportunities other kids do. In my case my mother could not afford a lot of the extra-cirricular activities that other kids do. Band costs money, sports cost money, I even missed out on an advanced math program because it had to be paid by the parents (and the trend is moving more towards having students pay for these activities). You stand in a different line to get your free lunch tickets. It is like you are living in a world that you can't really take part in.

Sometimes emergency expenses come up and you go hungry.

What you do get is a chance to live. You don't starve to death and you get a chance to grow up, make something of yourself and give back what you know has been given to you.

Of course the same people that bitch about this huge welfare system and how badly it needs to be reformed never mention what a patheticly small percentage it is of the national budget. They are never pushing for "reform" of the military that would make a much bigger difference in their tax burden that they get so worked up over.

To these people that get so worked up over feeding poor people; I wish you a short, brutal life.

Hugs and smooches,

Ignatius

You and your extremes, can't you think in terms of middle? Where did I suggest that welfare system is to be destroyed and poor people ignored that's right nowhere. For you information I was once poor and a child and on welfare. It's no picnic, but it encourages you to work harder to get a better life for yourself. You also learn to appreciate things better. However, on the flip-side welfare does keep you down. If my parents were to get a job they would lose all health benefits and pay extra taxes right away. There is no benefit to leave welfare at that point.

In my view, a welfare program should only provide for the kids where they get free health, x amount for food and that's it. Prent(s) should get only 1-year worth of support and then they should be on their own.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You and your extremes, can't you think in terms of middle?

Behold Grammatron, Voice of Reason and Representative of the Middle:

Originally posted by Grammatron
[B]
Sure, here's one you can relay over to them. Go f*** yourself. The only thing the world owes him is a guarantee that he will die some day just like everything else.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Of course the same people that bitch about this huge welfare system and how badly it needs to be reformed never mention what a patheticly small percentage it is of the national budget. They are never pushing for "reform" of the military that would make a much bigger difference in their tax burden that they get so worked up over.

To these people that get so worked up over feeding poor people; I wish you a short, brutal life.

Hugs and smooches,

Ignatius

If that is your only argument its pretty pathetic. Welfare reform does not mean doing away with it. It means making it work more efficiently. It means going after the deadbeat dads and getting them to take on more of the financial burden, it means providing training for work and work skills and providing daycare so parents can be free to work and learn. To make this happen you need to cut out the waist, fraud, and bureaucracy.

Your story is very sad and I feel for you. My father grew up in the depression, he never got a free lunch ticket, or any other government handouts. Believe me I do not think that is the place we as a society should be.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Behold Grammatron, Voice of Reason and Representative of the Middle:



You think it's perfectly normal for someone to have a lavish lifestyle while having children from different mothers on welfare and claiming that the world owes you a living? I don't think I was out of line telling him to go f himself.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by SRW
[B]

If that is your only argument its pretty pathetic. Welfare reform does not mean doing away with it. It means making it work more efficiently. It means going after the deadbeat dads and getting them to take on more of the financial burden, it means providing training for work and work skills and providing daycare so parents can be free to work and learn. To make this happen you need to cut out the waist, fraud, and bureaucracy.

And that is, of course, what your original post was about. Not at all just bitching about how lazy welfare recipients are. Remember that your post title was, "The world owes me a living". The only thing left out of it was the obligitory standard anecdote about seeing the healthy young man parking his brand new caddy in front of the welfare office and walking in (you substituted a sports car).
[b]
Your story is very sad and I feel for you. My father grew up in the depression, he never got a free lunch ticket, or any other government handouts. Believe me I do not think that is the place we as a society should be.
First, save your pity dickweed. Second, now your back to the old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" anecdote that contradicts what you were saying in the first paragraph. Which is it and would any of this have come up if I hadn't brought this up so forcefully or would this thread have continued to be just about bashing welfare?

[Glory]

What I have yet to figure out is how to put time limits on parents recieving benefits without putting innocent children in danger. If the parent is, in fact, a total slacker who does nothing to improve his or her situation, when their benefits run out, what about their kids who do not have any choices or options?

Glory

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ignatius
[b/]
And that is, of course, what your original post was about. Not at all just bitching about how lazy welfare recipients are. Remember that your post title was, "The world owes me a living". The only thing left out of it was the obligitory standard anecdote about seeing the healthy young man parking his brand new caddy in front of the welfare office and walking in (you substituted a sports car).

First, save your pity dickweed. Second, now your back to the old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" anecdote that contradicts what you were saying in the first paragraph. Which is it and would any of this have come up if I hadn't brought this up so forcefully or would this thread have continued to be just about bashing welfare?

So using your "supreme logic" next time someone "bashes" US government I should fly off the handle and yell at them "Why are you trying to destroy US government?!" Right?

[SRW]

Originally posted by Ignatius
[b/]
And that is, of course, what your original post was about. Not at all just bitching about how lazy welfare recipients are. Remember that your post title was, "The world owes me a living". The only thing left out of it was the obligitory standard anecdote about seeing the healthy young man parking his brand new caddy in front of the welfare office and walking in (you substituted a sports car).

First, save your pity dickweed. Second, now your back to the old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" anecdote that contradicts what you were saying in the first paragraph. Which is it and would any of this have come up if I hadn't brought this up so forcefully or would this thread have continued to be just about bashing welfare?

I quoted a man who was not on welfare. You can read, correct? I never bashed welfare, I simply gave an example of what my professor said and ask for comments. You sir have tunnel vision, and a lack of ability to read others comments and correctly interpet them. Rather you jump off on an emotional tangent and pull crap out of your a**hole and pin it on others.

I do pity you, you pathetic worm. To bad you were not able to get an education, night school is available give it a try.

Where did I say or allude to "pulling ones self up by their boot straps" in this thread?

I wanted people to make comments on my professors logic. You succeeded in putting it off track by spouting your venom. Get back on topic or Piss off.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Glory
What I have yet to figure out is how to put time limits on parents recieving benefits without putting innocent children in danger. If the parent is, in fact, a total slacker who does nothing to improve his or her situation, when their benefits run out, what about their kids who do not have any choices or options?

Glory

I was thinking about that as well, perhaps they need to prove to the welfare office that they truly have been looking for work or for some reason were completely unable to work then their benefits should extend. But if they just sat on their ass all the time perhaps they shouldn't be having kids in the first place.

[Glory]

Welfare needs to be reformed so that people do not see their situation worsen once they actually get a job? Is this the general idea? Is this not directly connected to the problem of jobs which pay too little? We have people who work that can't make ends meet as well as people on welfare who can't afford to take jobs.

Glory

[shuize]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Do any of you people that constantly bitch about welfare actually know what it is like for a kid that is on welfare? It's a s**t life, I can tell you from experience.

You go to school as a second class citizen. Everybody knows you are poor and makes fun of you because of it. You do not get the same clothes or the same toys or get to go to the places that the other kids do.

You do not have the same opportunities other kids do. In my case my mother could not afford a lot of the extra-cirricular activities that other kids do. Band costs money, sports cost money, I even missed out on an advanced math program because it had to be paid by the parents (and the trend is moving more towards having students pay for these activities). You stand in a different line to get your free lunch tickets. It is like you are living in a world that you can't really take part in.

Sometimes emergency expenses come up and you go hungry.

What you do get is a chance to live. You don't starve to death and you get a chance to grow up, make something of yourself and give back what you know has been given to you.

Of course the same people that bitch about this huge welfare system and how badly it needs to be reformed never mention what a patheticly small percentage it is of the national budget. They are never pushing for "reform" of the military that would make a much bigger difference in their tax burden that they get so worked up over.

To these people that get so worked up over feeding poor people; I wish you a short, brutal life.

Hugs and smooches,

Ignatius

Are you still on it? If not, I wonder why? Could it be that you learned from a very early age that living on welfare sucked? If so, then perhaps you have that experience to thank for teaching you to become self-sufficient. Welfare is meant to keep you from starving, not to keep you from being teased.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I was thinking about that as well, perhaps they need to prove to the welfare office that they truly have been looking for work or for some reason were completely unable to work then their benefits should extend. But if they just sat on their ass all the time perhaps they shouldn't be having kids in the first place.

All well and good to speculate about how things should be. I paraphrase Nicholas Meyer:"What you want is irrelevant. What you, [they], have chosen is it at hand." By kicking parents off of welfare we are punishing children for the actions of others.

Glory

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Glory


All well and good to speculate about how things should be. I paraphrase Nicholas Meyer:"What you want is irrelevant. What you, [they], have chosen is it at hand." By kicking parents off of welfare we are punishing children for the actions of others.

Glory

Perhaps, unless of course for that child to stay with that parent would do them more harm than good in the long run.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Glory
What I have yet to figure out is how to put time limits on parents recieving benefits without putting innocent children in danger. If the parent is, in fact, a total slacker who does nothing to improve his or her situation, when their benefits run out, what about their kids who do not have any choices or options?

Glory

Yes that is the big question, what do we do with irresponsible parents? And what about responsible parents who try but still fail to succeed.

For the ones who try, I would be infavor of furthers assistance. For the ones who are more intrested in getting high or watching T.V than getting out and trying, well I do not have an answer.

[gnome]

If we choose, as a society, to feed and house people that would otherwise starve or be homeless ... there will always be people that seek to get that bare minimum for no effort just because they can.

Unless we plan on letting people suffer, we are relying on the idea that most people will want more than the bare minimum and be willing to work for it. We can also make sure that there are a few hoops to jump through so that welfare cheats may find it simpler to just go get a job. But it will never be foolproof.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Glory
Welfare needs to be reformed so that people do not see their situation worsen once they actually get a job? Is this the general idea? Is this not directly connected to the problem of jobs which pay too little? We have people who work that can't make ends meet as well as people on welfare who can't afford to take jobs.

Glory

That's easy enough. Lower the welfare benefits below what someone would earn on minimum wage.

Still, I suppose I'd rather sit around on my ass all day for $4.00/hr than actually having to go work unskilled manual labor for $5.00. So I imagine we'd have to go even lower than that.

But then, I'm sure the bleeding hearts would bitch and moan about how that's just not enough to live on, as they do about minimum wage (in which no one is expected to improve their skills or relocate).

So we can raise minimum wage above the market rate to get the fat-asses off the sofa and out to work. But surely as night follows day we'll then see more people go unemployed as business realizes some of the new labor is not worth the extra cost and cuts more unskilled workers.

So we're back to square one. If welfare is too high, people will sit on the sofa eating cheese puffs rather than working. If welfare is too low, some people will get off their fat asses to go to work, but the truly lazy will tough it out, preferring the free lunch to work. However, you can bet the farm they will certainly complain loud enough about the quality of their reduced rations such that bleeding hearts will cry for reform. Meanwhile, one group of unskilled workers will look at this inequity and just grow bitter that they're having to work while the fat-asses get a free lunch without doing anything to take charge of their own situation. Finally, a smaller group of motivated individuals will stop sitting around making excuses and start aquiring the skills to lift themselves out of poverty rather than relying on the government or society to do it for them.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Perhaps, unless of course for that child to stay with that parent would do them more harm than good in the long run.

So what do we do? If we declare the parents unfit and take the children away, they become even bigger drains on the state's funds. This actually happens already from time to time although usually there are additional reasons those parents lose their parental rights. Also, those unfit parents can and, often, do have subsequent children. We can't criminalize pregnancy. That's a little too totalitarian don't we all think? That is what taking away welfare benefits from those the government has deemed not worthy amounts to. Federal punishment for having children.

Gnome is correct, I think. There will always be those who will abuse the sysytem. We cannot devise the system entirely around defeating fraud and abuse. That leaves us with a system which helps no one. The vast majority of welfare recipients do not want to be on it. They simply don't have a choice or don't think they have a choice. I, for one, am more interested in helping those who need than I am in ensuring that no one can take advantage of the system.

Glory

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Do any of you people that constantly bitch about welfare actually know what it is like for a kid that is on welfare? It's a s**t life, I can tell you from experience.

You go to school as a second class citizen. Everybody knows you are poor and makes fun of you because of it. You do not get the same clothes or the same toys or get to go to the places that the other kids do.

You do not have the same opportunities other kids do. In my case my mother could not afford a lot of the extra-cirricular activities that other kids do. Band costs money, sports cost money, I even missed out on an advanced math program because it had to be paid by the parents (and the trend is moving more towards having students pay for these activities). You stand in a different line to get your free lunch tickets. It is like you are living in a world that you can't really take part in.

Sometimes emergency expenses come up and you go hungry.

What you do get is a chance to live. You don't starve to death and you get a chance to grow up, make something of yourself and give back what you know has been given to you.

Of course the same people that bitch about this huge welfare system and how badly it needs to be reformed never mention what a patheticly small percentage it is of the national budget. They are never pushing for "reform" of the military that would make a much bigger difference in their tax burden that they get so worked up over.

To these people that get so worked up over feeding poor people; I wish you a short, brutal life.

Hugs and smooches,

Ignatius

You sure do assume a lot. I grew up dirt poor, and I was one of those kids who had to stand in the special free/reduced lunch line, and I was embarrassed by it every time I had to do it. Also, through high school when my mother was unable to work due to severe illness (she was our only support), we often did without food because we just didn't have it or the money to purchase it. I know what it is like to live off nothing but elbow macaroni and tomato sauce or potato soup or just be hungry that day. And trust me, I know what it is like to go without. I know what it is like to have the landlord every month showing up at our house demanding the rent, and I know what it is like when nobody answers the door, he would show up at my minimum wage McDonald's job that I worked as often as I could just so we could have enough money to eat and pay the bills. I know what it is like not to have a telephone for 5 years because we couldn't pay the bill. I know what it is like to never have winter coat and to only own two pairs of pants, if I was lucky. I know what it is like.

But just because I was poor does not mean that I don't think our system needs reformation. It is a system that encourages dependence not independence.

I am sure many of us are quite aware of what a drop in the bucket the welfare system is compared to other programs, but that hardly means that the system doesn't need to be re-examined so that people don't have to grow up like you and I did.

You appear to have a chip on your shoulder.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I was thinking about that as well, perhaps they need to prove to the welfare office that they truly have been looking for work or for some reason were completely unable to work then their benefits should extend. But if they just sat on their ass all the time perhaps they shouldn't be having kids in the first place.

Well, I certainly agree with that sentiment!
As a child social woker I get to bond wit the kids and then say bye when thier parent screws up and they kicked out of the shelter.

Welfare reform was pporly enacted to say the least, it was probably a good idea to cut off food stamps and medical for the working poor, although I would personaly like for them to get the benefits back. A system where if you wok then you are netitled(as an able bodied single adult).

I mainly feel that we need to carry on, give food to those with kids and medical for the kids, if we had better public housing that would be cool too.

So if we can't register guns and limit free speech, how are we going to take kids for 'no-work' families. What if there just aren't jobs.

Free condoms and birth control pills!

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Glory
What I have yet to figure out is how to put time limits on parents recieving benefits without putting innocent children in danger. If the parent is, in fact, a total slacker who does nothing to improve his or her situation, when their benefits run out, what about their kids who do not have any choices or options?

Glory

I agree Glory, it is a major problem. Because if you cut of benefits for the parents, no matter what, the children will be the ones to suffer as well.

I think it is more imparetive than to have time limits on the benefits that we put into place a system to help people not have to be reliant on welfare such as education programs and job assist programs.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Do any of you people that constantly bitch about welfare actually know what it is like for a kid that is on welfare? It's a s**t life, I can tell you from experience.

You go to school as a second class citizen. Everybody knows you are poor and makes fun of you because of it. You do not get the same clothes or the same toys or get to go to the places that the other kids do.

You do not have the same opportunities other kids do. In my case my mother could not afford a lot of the extra-cirricular activities that other kids do. Band costs money, sports cost money, I even missed out on an advanced math program because it had to be paid by the parents (and the trend is moving more towards having students pay for these activities). You stand in a different line to get your free lunch tickets. It is like you are living in a world that you can't really take part in.

Sometimes emergency expenses come up and you go hungry.

What you do get is a chance to live. You don't starve to death and you get a chance to grow up, make something of yourself and give back what you know has been given to you.

Of course the same people that bitch about this huge welfare system and how badly it needs to be reformed never mention what a patheticly small percentage it is of the national budget. They are never pushing for "reform" of the military that would make a much bigger difference in their tax burden that they get so worked up over.

To these people that get so worked up over feeding poor people; I wish you a short, brutal life.

Hugs and smooches,

Ignatius
Your counter-argument against an argument using anecdotal evidence also relies on anecdotal evidence.

[Edited to add: I altered the above sentence I wrote from it's previous form in order that it would be easier to understand.]

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by SRW


I quoted a man who was not on welfare. You can read, correct? I never bashed welfare, I simply gave an example of what my professor said and ask for comments. You sir have tunnel vision, and a lack of ability to read others comments and correctly interpet them. Rather you jump off on an emotional tangent and pull crap out of your a**hole and pin it on others.

Jesus Henry Christ!
You start a topic with the title "The world owes me a living". You quote a prof that argues against it. You follow that up with an anecdote that colors welfare recipients as lazy people that just want a handout. I attacked you for that and you say, "Hey, hey I'm not against welfare."

You follow that up with anecdotes about welfare kids teasing the kids that have to pay. Then you say that your daddy went through the Great Depression and He didn't need any help from the government. What other possible conclusion could you possibly be getting at? Then when attacked for it you ask, "Where did I say..."

I have much more respect for guys like shanek that do not believe in welfare for idealogical reasons. They will say so and back it up. YOU spout this crap and then instantly backpeddle when called on it. Grow a spine and defend your position instead of being such a waffling pussy.
[/B][/QUOTE]


I do pity you, you pathetic worm. To bad you were not able to get an education, night school is available give it a try.

Where did I say or allude to "pulling ones self up by their boot straps" in this thread?

I wanted people to make comments on my professors logic. You succeeded in putting it off track by spouting your venom. Get back on topic or Piss off.

Does that mean we wont be going to the dance together?

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by shuize


Are you still on it? If not, I wonder why? Could it be that you learned from a very early age that living on welfare sucked? If so, then perhaps you have that experience to thank for teaching you to become self-sufficient. Welfare is meant to keep you from starving, not to keep you from being teased.

You obviously have very strong opinions on things you know very little about. You would do very well on AM radio.

Being on welfare teaches people to be self-sufficient? OK

I know very well that it is to keep people from starving, not from being teased. I do want to get across to people that it is not just a bunch of lazy people that feel they are owed something by the government like it is being portrayed here.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by JAR

Your counter-argument against anecdotal evidence also relies on anecdotal evidence.

True. This is why I posted in the subject line "Ok, if you want to exchange lovely anecdotes."

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I was thinking about that as well, perhaps they need to prove to the welfare office that they truly have been looking for work or for some reason were completely unable to work then their benefits should extend.I can't believe what I read here! That's exactly how things work in the Netherlands. And I thought you were a Libertarian or something...

Nanny Statist! :pThat's easy enough. Lower the welfare benefits below what someone would earn on minimum wage.

Still, I suppose I'd rather sit around on my ass all day for $4.00/hr than actually having to go work unskilled manual labor for $5.00. So I imagine we'd have to go even lower than that.

But then, I'm sure the bleeding hearts would bitch and moan about how that's just not enough to live on, as they do about minimum wage (in which no one is expected to improve their skills or relocate).

So we can raise minimum wage above the market rate to get the fat-asses off the sofa and out to work.Another nanny statist! Yes, it is true: here in the Netherlands the level of welfare is connected to the minimum wage level, and vice versa.

Welfare is 50% of the national minimum wage (which is lower than the minimum wages collectively agreed upon by worker's unions and employers for specific sectors: our version of a free labour market). There are of course additions for people in specific situations, like having children. Which makes it up to 71% of national minimum wage.

Some of you are bitching and moaning about these silly European nanny states, and how they can't possibly work with so much socialism. But when asked to think how your own system might be improved, you come up with exactly what we have here in our eurosocialist nanny states! Just admit it: you are all a bunch of commies! :p

[American]

Who exactly is "the world"? I guess that's the same as "The Man".

No, you are owed nothing. If you are qualified, capable, willing to work... you are still owed nothing. If you have achieved much, hold a degree, and are very bright, you are still owed nothing.

You are owed something after you have performed a job, or contractually before the job if you arrange things as such on a signed legal document or with a handshake with someone you trust.

Honestly, who does he think "the world" is? Does he not understand that he is a part of this world? Perhaps HE owes others a living...

What an ass.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Ignatius

Jesus Henry Christ!
You start a topic with the title "The world owes me a living". You quote a prof that argues against it. You follow that up with an anecdote that colors welfare recipients as lazy people that just want a handout. I attacked you for that and you say, "Hey, hey I'm not against welfare."



Go back and read my anecdote, where do I say that anything close to people being lazy. You attached me for something I did not say. Look again at my post and show me what you find offensive. I told about an individual who was working hard making good money and not supporting his kids who were on welfare.

The Professor was not against welfare only the structure of the welfare system, and no were did I say anything about my view on this.

Please continue to misquote and misrepresent my words it only reflects poorly on you.


Originally posted by Ignatius



You follow that up with anecdotes about welfare kids teasing the kids that have to pay.

Not the point I was making, I was talking about how the school is supporting a negative image of people who work.

Originally posted by Ignatius

Then you say that your daddy went through the Great Depression and He didn't need any help from the government. What other possible conclusion could you possibly be getting at? Then when attacked for it you ask, "Where did I say..."


Why do I even bother with you? I said my father never even got a free lunch from the government, Then said that that is not where we want to be as a society. In case you are confused that statement means, I do not think we should go back to the days where people in need, were totally on their own. (Hint, I support welfare but not in its current form).

Originally posted by Ignatius


I have much more respect for guys like shanek that do not believe in welfare for idealogical reasons. They will say so and back it up. YOU spout this crap and then instantly backpeddle when called on it. Grow a spine and defend your position instead of being such a waffling pussy.


I cannot help you if you cannot read. I asked you to show me where I said the things you accuse me of saying and you continue to misquote and misinterpret what I say. Why don't you just post for me? If you cannot understand what I say instead of misquoting me; just post for me.

I am typing slow so you can understand.

Edit for spelling

[shuize]

Originally posted by Ignatius

Being on welfare teaches people to be self-sufficient? OK

No, read it again. Being on welfare teaches you that being on welfare sucks and you might have that to motivate you to get off.

I know very well that it is to keep people from starving, not from being teased. I do want to get across to people that it is not just a bunch of lazy people that feel they are owed something by the government like it is being portrayed here.

No, it's not just a bunch of lazy people. But they are vastly overrepresented in the system.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by SRW


Go back and read my anecdote, where do I say that anything close to people being lazy. You attached me for something I did not say. Look again at my post and show me what you find do offensive. I told about an individual who was working hard making good money and not supporting his kids who were on welfare.

The Professor was not against welfare only the structure of the welfare system, and no were did I say anything about my view on this.

Please continue to misquote and misrepresent my words it only reflects poorly on you.

Really, honestly, go back and read what you have written. Your original post title was obviously inflammatory. Every anecdote you gave was pointing out a negative aspect of welfare (and there are certainly negative aspects, as there are with absof-lutely everything). Now take any other subject that irks you and substitute the same kind of language and the same kind of hand-picked anectdote and see what conclusions you make about the authors intention.

Also, I couldn't help but notice how you avoided the subject of our dance. :con2:

Why do I even bother with you?

Better people have asked that without receiving a decent answer.


I am typing slow so you can understand. :
And that, of course, makes all the difference in the world.
Genius.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Ignatius

Really, honestly, go back and read what you have written. Your original post title was obviously inflammatory. Every anecdote you gave was pointing out a negative aspect of welfare (and there are certainly negative aspects, as there are with absof-lutely everything). Now take any other subject that irks you and substitute the same kind of language and the same kind of hand-picked anectdote and see what conclusions you make about the authors intention.

Also, I couldn't help but notice how you avoided the subject of our dance. :con2:
[/B]
Better people have asked that without receiving a decent answer.

:
And that, of course, makes all the difference in the world.
Genius. [/B]

I do not have to re-read what I wrote you do. You got pissisy about the title and went into defend welfare at all costs.

Why is it that you cannot think rationally about welfare reform? Just how many years were you on welfare? Is welfare perfect in its current form and needs no changes at all? Should deadbeat dads be given a pass?

Come on be fair, give me an actual opinion that I can misrepresent.

We can talk about our dance once you have answered the rest of the questions I asked you.

It does make a difference, when I type slow I use small words.
:D

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by SRW


I do not have to re-read what I wrote you do. You got pissisy about the title and went into defend welfare at all costs.

I certainly do enter this kind of discussion with more emotion than I do any other, I wouldn't have it any other way. That is why I generally avoid. It is a subject that is much more than simply academic to me, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong or you are right, though. I certainly did more than just read the title, though. It was much more than that that I responded to.

Please take the time to actually re-read what you wrote. Honestly substitute and any subject and see if you could possibly come to any conclusion other than what I have. Why would any author continually supply anecdotes for one particular opinion other than to back up that opinion? You seem to want to pretend that this is completely academic to you and you have no preconceived notions.

Originally posted by SRW

Why is it that you cannot think rationally about welfare reform? Just how many years were you on welfare? Is welfare perfect in its current form and needs no changes at all? Should deadbeat dads be given a pass?

Come on be fair, give me an actual opinion that I can misrepresent.


Welfare reform is a scapegoat. Certainly it could be reformed just like any other system, but the fact that it gets so much attention (politically and otherwise) to me seems disingenuous. Many other reforms such as cutting back on real expenses like the military are much more effective and would make a much bigger difference in Joe Blow's paycheck. So yeah, I find rants like yours suspicious.

Poor people don't give to political campaigns and are easy and popular targets for explaining to people why they pay so much taxes, even though it simply isn't true. This approach works and you are propagating it. It is a point that isn't entirely without merit, but please re-read your post and tell me how you intentionally characterized it and really how important this is.
Originally posted by SRW

We can talk about our dance once you have answered the rest of the questions I asked you.
It does make a difference, when I type slow I use small words.
:D
Now dance with me, bitch.:p

[Kevin_Lowe]

My own welfare anecdote. (Australian system).

There was a brief period when I was on welfare and working part time, but because of the disincentives in the system it actually cost me money to get paid. Every dollar I earned cost me $1.10 in lost welfare, income tax and lost tax rebate. (Of course I had to pay for transport, food and so on as well. I wasted a fair bit of money on that "job").

They fixed that problem to some extent in later years - even politicians can see that charging money for the privilege of working is not going to create competition for job places. But the essential problem remains as far as I know, that if you work between 7 and 45 hours in a fortnight at minimum wage you are essentially working for nothing compared to what you are entitled to on welfare alone.

That particular job was never going to give me >45 hours per fortnight. Needless to say, I parted ways with that establishment.

[Skeptic]

One of them flat out told me that "the world owes me a living" .

That's nice. Of course, he might have some problem convincing the world of this.

I am confused by one thing in your story, though: you are telling me that the "under-30s", too, worked in the bricklaying company. Maybe they spent their money foolishly, but working as a bricklayer is not exactly my idea of a lazy welfare cheat...

[Skeptic]

An example off the top of my head is the free lunch program. About 70% of the students get free or reduced price lunch.

(Puzzled look)

I dunno, I just can't see anybody going: "Well, I'd really LIKE that fancy car and big house, but if I actually will work hard and not be poor, my kid won't get a free cafeteria meal any more!"

Nothing wrong with that program that I can mention. However,
the students who are free, tease the ones who have to pay, and the staff does nothing to stop it.

Can't you see this is just jealousy on the poor kids' part at those more fortunate than them?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grammatron


It's not all anecdotal data, it's logic. When you get something for free you have virtually no incentive to go find a job that would give you the same thing. That's just human nature as we are lazy species.

Whoa...

We are critters and all critters conserve energy. Watch a preditor some time, they don't go off on chases that are doomed from the outset. If welfare is a sure thing and the results of work are not, welfare will win unless upbringing mitigates against it.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Skeptic
One of them flat out told me that "the world owes me a living" .

That's nice. Of course, he might have some problem convincing the world of this.

I am confused by one thing in your story, though: you are telling me that the "under-30s", too, worked in the bricklaying company. Maybe they spent their money foolishly, but working as a bricklayer is not exactly my idea of a lazy welfare cheat...

Well Ok I have to brush up on my writing skills, or stop posting at work. First off it was not brick laying it was brick making, and making bricks makes laying them look like a cakewalk. It is hard work.

He was not lazy, and he personally did not collect welfare. The Mothers of his children did. He was living the high life while the State took care of his kids.

Like I said before I should have left off the story, I used the story to illustrate the professors quote that welfare as it was designed at that time would make a class of welfare recipients. Meaning the children of this guy. Because of the welfare structure, he was better off having kids without getting married.

What is the likelihood of kids gowning up in those circumstances ending up on welfare them selves.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Skeptic
An example off the top of my head is the free lunch program. About 70% of the students get free or reduced price lunch.

(Puzzled look)

I dunno, I just can't see anybody going: "Well, I'd really LIKE that fancy car and big house, but if I actually will work hard and not be poor, my kid won't get a free cafeteria meal any more!"

Nothing wrong with that program that I can mention. However,
the students who are free, tease the ones who have to pay, and the staff does nothing to stop it.

Can't you see this is just jealousy on the poor kids' part at those more fortunate than them?

Nope just the opposite, they are proud of the fact that they do not have to pay for lunch. You would have to be there. Remember the majority of the kids eat free or reduced, they are proud of the fact that they do not have to pay.

As for the fancy car and big house, none of that stops some people from collecting welfare and getting free lunch for their kids. It has nothing to do with the point I was making. And that is the school goes out of it's way to make the kids feel that it is a good thing to be poor.

[Glory]

Originally posted by SRW


Well Ok I have to brush up on my writing skills, or stop posting at work. First off it was not brick laying it was brick making, and making bricks makes laying them look like a cakewalk. It is hard work.

He was not lazy, and he personally did not collect welfare. The Mothers of his children did. He was living the high life while the State took care of his kids.

Like I said before I should have left off the story, I used the story to illustrate the professors quote that welfare as it was designed at that time would make a class of welfare recipients. Meaning the children of this guy. Because of the welfare structure, he was better off having kids without getting married.

What is the likelihood of kids gowning up in those circumstances ending up on welfare them selves.

It still sounds like you are blaming the welfare system for the behaviour of people who don't take care of their own kids. Deadbeat dads are not the result of welfare. Welfare is the result of deadbeat dads (amongst other forces).

I agree that the structure of welfare is a problem. Its a trap which propagates the very condition it is intended to alleviate. I do not know how to change that though. Any changes you make end up scr*wing someone over. It is a perfect catch 22.

Glory

[Thanz]

Originally posted by SRW


Well Ok I have to brush up on my writing skills, or stop posting at work. First off it was not brick laying it was brick making, and making bricks makes laying them look like a cakewalk. It is hard work.

He was not lazy, and he personally did not collect welfare. The Mothers of his children did. He was living the high life while the State took care of his kids.

Like I said before I should have left off the story, I used the story to illustrate the professors quote that welfare as it was designed at that time would make a class of welfare recipients. Meaning the children of this guy. Because of the welfare structure, he was better off having kids without getting married.

What is the likelihood of kids gowning up in those circumstances ending up on welfare them selves.
I think that your story is really more about one guy being an a-hole and not about the welfare system. It is a tragedy that this guy is not paying child support as he should be. And with respect, welfare seems to be there to help people who have difficulties getting a job and getting childcare when the other parent completely absconds from their responsibilities. The guy should have court orders brought down hard and his wages garnished, rather than the people he has screwed over being somwhow vilified by you.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Glory


It still sounds like you are blaming the welfare system for the behaviour of people who don't take care of their own kids. Deadbeat dads are not the result of welfare. Welfare is the result of deadbeat dads (amongst other forces).

I agree that the structure of welfare is a problem. Its a trap which propagates the very condition it is intended to alleviate. I do not know how to change that though. Any changes you make end up scr*wing someone over. It is a perfect catch 22.

Glory

Yes I am blaming the welfare system. Why is it that the over 30 guys I worked with were family men? Who raised kids and moved out of the North Hartford ghetto and were independent, while the under 30 guys all still lived in the ghetto and were dead beats? This was in 1974, and the welfare system that these under 30 dudes were taking advantage of started in the 60's. Sure there were deadbeat dads in the past, and they will always be around, however this guy in particular felt that he was entitled to be a deadbeat because the government was taking care of his kids.

The catch 22 part is exactly what my professor predicted back in 74.

[Glory]

Originally posted by SRW


Nope just the opposite, they are proud of the fact that they do not have to pay for lunch. You would have to be there. Remember the majority of the kids eat free or reduced, they are proud of the fact that they do not have to pay.

As for the fancy car and big house, none of that stops some people from collecting welfare and getting free lunch for their kids. It has nothing to do with the point I was making. And that is the school goes out of it's way to make the kids feel that it is a good thing to be poor.

They go out of their way to make them feel it is good to be poor, or that being poor is not something of which they should be ashamed?

The social effects of welfare are complex. It is true that many kids have grown up not wanting to make their way in the world but trying to figure out how to work the angles. How to work the system. Upon first reflection, I consider this a failure of education. These people, and many others, know nothing of the world except what they see on TV. They are not encouraged to read and thus are not learning how to think. They don't know when they are being lied to because they haven't been taught critical thinking. They feel disenfranchised and hopeless. They rationalize their behaviour by citing injustices as evidence that they are owed. It is not entitlement mentality. It is a persecution complex.

Kids will always ostracize the kid who is different. I don't think that it is right to tease the different kid but lets face it. Wouldn't all of us love it if being solvent was our biggest problem? People concoct all sorts of fictions to make their lives bearable. That is clearly what the kids you describe have done. They have convinced themselves that anyone who pays must be a sucker or must be immoral. How do you think this phenomenon be should addressed?

Glory

[SRW]

Originally posted by Thanz

I think that your story is really more about one guy being an a-hole and not about the welfare system. It is a tragedy that this guy is not paying child support as he should be. And with respect, welfare seems to be there to help people who have difficulties getting a job and getting childcare when the other parent completely absconds from their responsibilities. The guy should have court orders brought down hard and his wages garnished, rather than the people he has screwed over being somwhow vilified by you.

This one guy represented the under 30 workers. Not all of them of course, but he was the most vocal. I worked there for 3 summers, and got to know most people there quite well. And I can say with out a doubt at least 4 others, were doing the same thing.

And how does pointing out how someone abuses a system vilify anyone but him.

[Glory]

Originally posted by SRW


Yes I am blaming the welfare system. Why is it that the over 30 guys I worked with were family men? Who raised kids and moved out of the North Hartford ghetto and were independent, while the under 30 guys all still lived in the ghetto and were dead beats? This was in 1974, and the welfare system that these under 30 dudes were taking advantage of started in the 60's. Sure there were deadbeat dads in the past, and they will always be around, however this guy in particular felt that he was entitled to be a deadbeat because the government was taking care of his kids.

The catch 22 part is exactly what my professor predicted back in 74.

Older people are almost always more responsible than younger people. What were those over thirty guys like when they were in their twenties?

Insurance companies don't cause hurricanes. Seatbelts don't cause accidents. Welfare may have enabled this guy, though it seems likely that wether his kids had a welfare safety net or not was immaterial to him, but it did not cause him to be a deadbeat.

Glory

[SRW]

Originally posted by Glory


They go out of their way to make them feel it is good to be poor, or that being poor is not something of which they should be ashamed?


Glory


Yes they go out of their way to make them feel that being poor is good. If they stopped at helping to build their self esteem, and showing that they should not be ashamed of being poor, I would not have a problem. It can be a fine line and a delicate situation. However they are completely off the line and giving kids the impression that being poor is something to strive for.

However, I am talking about one specific school so it may well be just the culture at that school. But my wife has worked at that school for six year and I have six years of examples that I will not share, even though they set me off they are really not relevant.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by SRW


This one guy represented the under 30 workers. Not all of them of course, but he was the most vocal. I worked there for 3 summers, and got to know most people there quite well. And I can say with out a doubt at least 4 others, were doing the same thing.

And how does pointing out how someone abuses a system vilify anyone but him.
But how is HE abusing the system? Are you claiming that if there were no welfare system these guys would somehow be transformed into caring family men? I am afraid that deadbeat a-holes will exists whether or not there is a welfare system. I don't see any evidence of the link you seem to be drawing.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Thanz

But how is HE abusing the system? Are you claiming that if there were no welfare system these guys would somehow be transformed into caring family men? I am afraid that deadbeat a-holes will exists whether or not there is a welfare system. I don't see any evidence of the link you seem to be drawing.

His is abusing the system by having kids and having the state take care of them.

I simply pointed out a pattern, where the under 30 guys were likely to do this type of thing, and the over 30 guys were not.

The over 30 guys were born and raised before the welfare system was revamped in the 60's, correct?

The Under 30 guys were growing up as the system changed. Ok so the 60 were a time of change and this attitude could have been the result of something else. After all the moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with mars.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by SRW
His is abusing the system by having kidsYou do not show how he is abusing any system. He has simply been performing a biological function people have been performing for millions of years. He does not have any kids, he knocked others up with them. There is a difference. If you want to argue that welfare has anything to do with it, you'll have to show that his behaviour would have been different without a welfare system.and having the state take care of them.Well, if he doesn't do it, someone else has to, is it not? In what way is he abusing the system? Sounds more like the mothers are using it the way it was intended.I simply pointed out a patternNow show us that it is a pattern and not just something you think you see a pattern in (pareidolia).After all the moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with mars.And Peace Will Guide The Planets And Lohohohove Will Steer The Stars... :g1: :j1: :clap:

[Tmy]

Like a Professor will know anything about welfare.........Hmmm then again they dont work all summer and still pull in a check.


Im think many people are ignorant on how the welfare system works. To say there is no incentive to get off welfare is like saying there is no incentive to leave your job and go on unempolyment. How many of us have opted for unemployment? Why doesnt Economics proff go on unemployment???

People are greedy. We like stuff. Welfare pays crap, isnt forever (usually) and you dont get more for every kid you have. AT least in my state.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You do not show how he is abusing any system. He has simply been performing a biological function people have been performing for millions of years. He does not have any kids, he knocked others up with them. There is a difference.

Ok abusing may be too strong, can we not agree that he is taking advantage of the system.

Would they have behaved differently had their been no welfare system? No one ( or is it really noone) can ever know. But I knew these guys pretty well after working with them for three summers. And in my opinion these were hard working young men who figured out a way to have a harem.

He and the others felt that they were not obliged to take care of their offspring because the state would take care of them.

Which brings up another question, would to women have had children with these guys out of wedlock, without support, if they did not have the welfare system to fall back on?

And I do not ask this with the intention of bashing welfare. These women were victims I never met any of them but from what I was told most were young, high school age so I in no way blame them for being on welfare. (And I still would not if they were older). That is what I believe welfare should do, is to help people in this type of situation.

Originally posted by Earthborn

If you want to argue that welfare has anything to do with it, you'll have to show that his behaviour would have been different without a welfare system.Well, if he doesn't do it, someone else has to, is it not? In what way is he abusing the system? Sounds more like the mothers are using it the way it was intended.Now show us that it is a pattern and not just something you think you see a pattern in (pareidolia)


Again we had two groups of people working there, the ones who were over 30 and the ones over 30.

None of the over 30 year olds (at least that I knew of) had children on welfare. They were all hard workers and made a good middle class living, good union benefits ETC.

Some of the Under 30 year old behaved in the manner of the individual I spoke of originally.

But I am not an expert on the welfare system, and I do not have any statistics to show any patten of abuse.

What I was really looking for were comments on the Professors statement.

Anyway I have stated many times that that really was a mistake on my part to include that story in the original post.

Read the first paragraph and the last sentence and that is what I should have stuck with.

So here is a question for you. Do you believe that children raised on welfare are more or less likely to become welfare recipients than the general public?

Or as glory more eloquently put it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the structure of welfare is a problem. Its a trap which propagates the very condition it is intended to alleviate. I do not know how to change that though. Any changes you make end up scr*wing someone over. It is a perfect catch 22.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tmy
Like a Professor will know anything about welfare.........Hmmm then again they dont work all summer and still pull in a check.


Im think many people are ignorant on how the welfare system works. To say there is no incentive to get off welfare is like saying there is no incentive to leave your job and go on unempolyment. How many of us have opted for unemployment? Why doesnt Economics proff go on unemployment???

People are greedy. We like stuff. Welfare pays crap, isnt forever (usually) and you dont get more for every kid you have. AT least in my state.

He was an economics professor, so he know about it from an academic standpoint. And just as every doctor does not have to have cancer to understand the decease, I would expect that someone who studied economics would be in a position to postulate a theory on welfare.

I do not know about now, however the welfare system in the 70 in Conn. did pay more for each kid you had and lasted as long as you needed it. And I think but am not sure that it was that way in most states until the welfare reform movement started in the 90's.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by SRW


He was an economics professor, so he know about it from an academic standpoint. And just as every doctor does not have to have cancer to understand the decease, I would expect that someone who studied economics would be in a position to postulate a theory on welfare.

I do not know about now, however the welfare system in the 70 in Conn. did pay more for each kid you had and lasted as long as you needed it. And I think but am not sure that it was that way in most states until the welfare reform movement started in the 90's.

In theory communism works. But youve touched on somthing. I think lots of people are humd up on the sterotypical view of welfare. What may be true in the 70s is not the same today.

You know what else is changed since the 70s? The ability for an uneduacted person to step into a manual job that pays well enough to support a home and family. That can also be the difference tween these under 30 vs over 30 guys.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by SRW
Which brings up another question, would to women have had children with these guys out of wedlock, without support, if they did not have the welfare system to fall back on?I think so. Or they would have had abortions.

A more relevant question might be: would these women have had children if they had mandatory healthcare insurance that covers birth control? I think most of them would not.And I do not ask this with the intention of bashing welfare. These women were victims I never met any of them but from what I was told most were young, high school age so I in no way blame them for being on welfare. (And I still would not if they were older). That is what I believe welfare should do, is to help people in this type of situation.So basically you are saying, the world owes them a living?What I was really looking for were comments on the Professors statement.The professor's statement seems extremely obvious to me, but I can look at it with today's knowledge. And I don't even know whether you represent the original statement right. I also don't understand what you are trying to say with it. Are you just saying that someone predicted a possible future? Well, whatever the future turns out to be, there will always be a few people who got it right. I don't see how relevant it is.So here is a question for you. Do you believe that children raised on welfare are more or less likely to become welfare recipients than the general public?Probably on average more than the general public. This will probably be true even if you reform it to include every possible incentive there is to get out of welfare. The kids of welfare recipients will be more aware of the possible benefits they can get and will find it easier to apply for them if they need them than others. I don't see that as relevant though.

Also, changing the structure of welfare doesn't solve the problem entirely. Here in The Netherlands (there I go again) the structure isn't as much the problem as it is designed to get people back to work as soon as possible. There is however a problem of employers not being willing to hire people who have been unemployed for a long time as they are too afraid these people are not productive enough. If the employers aren't even willing to hire these people if the government gives them subsidies for doing so, then I don't see any obvious solution.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tmy


In theory communism works. But youve touched on somthing. I think lots of people are humd up on the sterotypical view of welfare. What may be true in the 70s is not the same today.

You know what else is changed since the 70s? The ability for an uneduacted person to step into a manual job that pays well enough to support a home and family. That can also be the difference tween these under 30 vs over 30 guys.

Nope as far as these guys were concerned they had great jobs and were making big bucks. (an excellent wage plus piece work and OT.) I was making 600.00 bucks a month entry level mostly shoveling brickabrack off the floor. no OT or piece work. That was good money in those days and they did much better.

And yes my view of welfare is probably out of date.

[Tmy]

In many (if not all) states mother is required to give the state the name of father. The state then chases dad for child support. Which is a good thing. Cause if support is a good amount mom goes off welfare, if its not as much, the state keeps in and tosses mom like an extra 50 bucks a month share.

I think people would be amazed at just what the welfare system has become.

The big problem is the fraud. Look at the state budgets for the anti fraud units? Almost nothing.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Earthborn
ISo basically you are saying, the world owes them a living?



No but the state should provide a safety net to support people in
dire circumstances.

Originally posted by Earthborn



Also, changing the structure of welfare doesn't solve the problem entirely. Here in The Netherlands (there I go again) the structure isn't as much the problem as it is designed to get people back to work as soon as possible. There is however a problem of employers not being willing to hire people who have been unemployed for a long time as they are too afraid these people are not productive enough. If the employers aren't even willing to hire these people if the government gives them subsidies for doing so, then I don't see any obvious solution.

Is it set up so that if they do not go back to work they get cut off? Or have they tried government work projects. In the US back in the 30, we had programs set up to make jobs for people, they did everything from making trails in National Parks to helping build dams. That might be a way to prove to an employer that the person really is serious about working.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by SRW
No but the state should provide a safety net to support people in
dire circumstances.That's pretty much the same to me.Is it set up so that if they do not go back to work they get cut off? Or have they tried government work projects.A bit of both. People can get cut off if they make no effort to get back to work, but whether they are cut off does not depend on their success. People can be on welfare for as long as they need to get a job. There are of course exceptions for people with health problems or other issues that prevent them from being able to work. There is substantial debate about whether single mothers should also be obliged to work or not. Today they don't have to if they have children not older than 5 years IIRC.

There are also subsidized jobs, which are most often (but not always) government jobs. A typical example are 'city guards', people who watch out for minor criminality in cities to increase city safety, but don't have the same authority as police officers (although you wouldn't know that by looking at how important they are trying to look in their uniforms :) ). There are also many subsidized jobs in civil service, healthcare and education. Since these jobs only give someone the national minimum wage, it often happens that someone ends up doing exactly the same job as someone else in the same office, but being paid much less. That's why these jobs are also known as 'fake jobs'. There is no shortage of people willing to do them though, because these people generally have little chance competing for 'real jobs'.

Now, the reason these subsidized jobs were instituted was of course to give people the oportunity to prove themselves as productive workers so they can find a 'real job' preferably in the private sector. Well, it didn't exactly work out that way. These people basically made themselves indispensible. Whole sectors in government and semi-government couldn't do without them. They proved to be productive, alright!

The government tried to abolish them because it needs to save, but it couldn't. Lots of those jobs remain. Also the government decided to change many of those jobs into real jobs, but that kind of defeats the purpose of saving money. These people still have difficulty finding jobs in the private non-subsidized sector.

It hasn't worked as planned. And it is not a big government screw-up either. It certainly proved to be more expensive than planned, but it also helps many people who couldn't find a job otherwise and institutions who couldn't pay for more employers otherwise.

That's basically how a 'nanny state' works: once you have it, you can't get back. Everytime something doesn't work right, you'll have to patch it up. And you'll keep on patching for all eternity.

[Glory]

Originally posted by SRW


So here is a question for you. Do you believe that children raised on welfare are more or less likely to become welfare recipients than the general public?



I think we all agree that the children of people on Wefare are more likely to be on it as adults than the children of people who are not on welfare. The question is why are they more likely to be on it. One obvious reason is that the adult children of wealthy people don't tend to need welfare. Nor do the adult children of well off people nor those of middle income people people. The adult children of the poor are far more likely to be poor themselves than anyone else.

Causation and correlation must not be confused.

Glory

[SRW]

Originally posted by Glory


I think we all agree that the children of people on Wefare are more likely to be on it as adults than the children of people who are not on welfare. The question is why are they more likely to be on it. One obvious reason is that the adult children of wealthy people don't tend to need welfare. Nor do the adult children of well off people nor those of middle income people people. The adult children of the poor are far more likely to be poor themselves than anyone else.

Causation and correlation must not be confused.

Glory

Is welfare the problem or poverty. Poor children even when not on welfare tend to goto the worst schools. Most schools in this country are financed by local property tax. So a school in a poor district may only be able to speed $4,000 per child per year a rich district may be spending $10,000 PCPY. I wonder if anyone ever did studies on welfare students bussed to wealthy schools.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by SRW
One of them flat out told me that "the world owes me a living" .

I overheard something similar in a college bar in Cambridge (England - the proper Cambridge) fairly recently, and I nearly punched the guy who said it.

For an (anecdotal) example of how welfare can be blatantly abused, look at this:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_829632.html?menu=
http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/W/wife_swap/shows/02/analysis.html
(same story, gossip column angle).

I don't think it's the system that's wrong, but the attitudes of people. But I also think you have to allow a certain amount of abuse to ensure that you don't screw over those who need and trust the system (search on "florida disenfranchisement").

[Jocko]

This debate is as old as civilization. I defer to the wise Mr. Swift.

Anyone else feeling a bit peckish?

[Glory]

Originally posted by SRW


Is welfare the problem or poverty. Poor children even when not on welfare tend to goto the worst schools. Most schools in this country are financed by local property tax. So a school in a poor district may only be able to speed $4,000 per child per year a rich district may be spending $10,000 PCPY. I wonder if anyone ever did studies on welfare students bussed to wealthy schools.

Yes, they have. I can get some from my stepfather who sits on his local schoolboard. What questions do you want answered?

Glory

[Zep]

Originally posted by SRW

Actually I see this same attitude today in the poor section of town where my wife works. Mainly among the white and hispanic immigrants. The parents are hard working while the kids are irresponsible child factories. Oh by the way the school where my wife works, goes out of its way to assure the children that being poor is a good thing. Didn't their parents migrate TO America because they wanted to avoid the poverty and social breakdown that their kids seem to want to revert to? Thereby hangs a solution: Send the kids back to wherever the parents came from (Hispania??) and let them fend for themselves there where the lifestyle is what they aspire to!

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Glory

Deadbeat dads are not the result of welfare. Welfare is the result of deadbeat dads
If we're going to look at this in such simple terms, I'd like to note that one of the few simple observations that can be made about this problem is that precisely the opposite is true; the welfare system has in fact been a major contributor to the eroding of families. The way the rules have traditionally been structured presumes that dad is a deadbeat, therefore denying benefits to those who do not fit the pattern. This forces mothers to make a tough choice -- kick the father out in order to qualify for the guaranteed income, or hope he can (and will) support them.

Welfare bashing, in its popular form, is based on some rather outdated notions about what life is (or should be) like for a nation of rugged individualists carving out niches for themselves in the land of opportunity.

One of the questionable underlying assumptions is that anyone who wants to work will be able to find work of some kind.

Another is that anyone willing to work will at least be able to afford the basic necessities of life (once true perhaps, but not any more. In many places, a minimum wage job won't even cover housing expenses alone). The term 'working family' no longer means a fifties style family with father as breadwinner and mother as homemaker; it refers to couples with two incomes who use their combined earning power to bid up prices on the decent housing.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Dymanic

If we're going to look at this in such simple terms, I'd like to note that one of the few simple observations that can be made about this problem is that precisely the opposite is true; the welfare system has in fact been a major contributor to the eroding of families. The way the rules have traditionally been structured presumes that dad is a deadbeat, therefore denying benefits to those who do not fit the pattern. This forces mothers to make a tough choice -- kick the father out in order to qualify for the guaranteed income, or hope he can (and will) support them.

This is another permutation of the phenomenon of Welfare punishing those who have jobs. Although, I think that the situation you describe is comparatively unsual. I have never heard of this happening even once.

Glory

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Glory

This is another permutation of the phenomenon of Welfare punishing those who have jobs.
Yes. If we define 'punish' as denial of benefits. In other words, it is another example of how welfare has tended to be self-perpetuating -- supporting the OP's professor's claim.

I have never heard of this happening even once.
Sort of a null anecdote, eh? What are some other things you have never heard of?

Thanz (to SRW)

Are you claiming that if there were no welfare system these guys would somehow be transformed into caring family men?
Though refutable anecdotally, I would expect to see a strong statistical trend in that direction, yes. We're going to find out soon enough. Under the reformed system, you get a total of sixty months. After that, you're on your own (at least as far as cash aid goes). The first wave of maxed out recipients is just hitting the streets.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Dymanic

If the welfare system has in fact been a major contributor to the eroding of families. The way the rules have traditionally been structured presumes that dad is a deadbeat, therefore denying benefits to those who do not fit the pattern. This forces mothers to make a tough choice -- kick the father out in order to qualify for the guaranteed income, or hope he can (and will) support them.

.

I wonder if people really think that marriage is the answer. Dont they realize that the divorce rate is over 50% now.

As for the deadbeat dad. Well most dads in Splitsville sort of are deadbeats. From poor up to rich. Sure some will toss money to the custodial parent but its unreliable, controling, and comes with strings attached. Thats why the smart thing is to get a court order and have the support taken off the top. Then they people dont have to deal with each other.

Welfare is such a target becuase its overused as a political scape goat. I think Social Security Disablity and workmans comp are bigger areas of spending and curruption.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Tmy

As for the deadbeat dad. Well most dads in Splitsville sort of are deadbeats. From poor up to rich.
I think that's a rather poisonous assumption.

The issue of the official sanction of marriage is irrelevant. In simple economic terms, what we're talking about is two-household, one-income families competing for housing with one-household, two-income families. When the bottom line in the former family's budget is in the red, dad is a deadbeat by definition.

[Tmy]

many people live together and raise families without being married. This has become more pupular over the last few years. Cost of living seems to be risng dramatically. Up hear in the Boston area housing costs have skyrocketed. How many people can afford a house whenthe average price is around $300K. The rents have also followed the boom.

Even with a decent job its still hard top make ends meet.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Tmy
Like a Professor will know anything about welfare.........Hmmm then again they dont work all summer and still pull in a check.


Im think many people are ignorant on how the welfare system works. To say there is no incentive to get off welfare is like saying there is no incentive to leave your job and go on unempolyment. How many of us have opted for unemployment? Why doesnt Economics proff go on unemployment???

People are greedy. We like stuff. Welfare pays crap, isnt forever (usually) and you dont get more for every kid you have. AT least in my state.

And yet, I know people who are quite capable of working, who work the welfare system, the Social Security Disabilty Insurance system, the HUD housing program system, Workman's comp and others all in conjunction with each other. It becomes a full time job for these people.

I have known and still know people who work the system over and over again, and some of them live in much better houses (for which they pay little or no money) than I do, drive better cars than I do, and have better furniture. Heck, one person I know has all of the above, and her child goes to private school. How she worked that I have no clue, but she wasn't working with any regularity.

There are those who would rather work the system than work a job, and they do. It is easier to stay at home and do nothing than to actually maintain a job.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Tmy


I wonder if people really think that marriage is the answer. Dont they realize that the divorce rate is over 50% now.

As for the deadbeat dad. Well most dads in Splitsville sort of are deadbeats. From poor up to rich. Sure some will toss money to the custodial parent but its unreliable, controling, and comes with strings attached. Thats why the smart thing is to get a court order and have the support taken off the top. Then they people dont have to deal with each other.

Welfare is such a target becuase its overused as a political scape goat. I think Social Security Disablity and workmans comp are bigger areas of spending and curruption.

The divorce rate is not over 50%, it isn't even at 50%. It is about 48%. And the divorce rate is lower for people in second marriages. Although, I don't think marriage is the answer for people who are deadbeats.

Nor do I think all divorced parents are deadbeats. My kids' dad pays child support regularly with no problems. Of course it wasn't that way when we first divorced, but he has been much better the last few years. Also, I know several parents who don't have custody of their children who pay more than they are required to pay.

BTW, I agree with you about Social Security Disability and Workman's comp, of course I have a birds eye view of Workman's comp and I see the fraud every day.

[Tmy]

People have such a distain for the welfare system, but if you stear them in the direction of unemployment, they dont have the same venom? Why? I think its because uemployment is a safety net theyve particpated in or believe they may particpate in someday. Theres more of a personal stake so its OK [the typical justifictaion is the "I paid into it so I can be a leech on society" line]. When reallly its quite similar to the welfare system and is abused greatly. How many of us have known people who are "collecting" and still work under the table?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Chanileslie

There are those who would rather work the system than work a job, and they do. It is easier to stay at home and do nothing than to actually maintain a job.
All kinds of people work all kinds of systems. I new a guy once who told me about this really cool job he had. All he had to do was come in on payday, pick up a check, go cash it, and return half of it to his 'boss' (oh yeah, and keep his mouth shut about it, which he obviously wasn't able to do). There will always be those who are willing to perpetrate criminal fraud. Just because there are those willing to commit bank robbery doesn't necessarily indicate fundamental flaws in the banking system.

Hustling the state for welfare money is pretty low rent by comparison with some of the alternatives (the risk-to-return ratio is actually pretty lousy).

For example, there's this thing they call 'insurance'. Boy, you wouldn't believe what a sweet little hustle that is. And get this -- it's completely legal! With car insurance, the government actually forces people to play, and if it even starts to look like you might have to pay them something, you can immediately dump the suckers!

[SRW]

Originally posted by Glory


Yes, they have. I can get some from my stepfather who sits on his local schoolboard. What questions do you want answered?

Glory

I would like to see the results of the study.

I have lots of questions which would spawn more questions ad infinitum.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by SRW
Back in my Freshman year of college I took Economics 101, I recall one lecture in particular. The Professor spoke about the welfare system in the united states. What he said was is that I will create a perpetual class of welfare recipients. The reason being that It give no incentives for getting out of welfare. It did infarct give disincentives for working, delaying having children and getting married.
I'd suggest that this is not only a composition fallacy, it's also implicitly malicious in insinuating that welfare recipients are a homogenous group—an "underclass"—and that this group is uniformly selfish and lazy.

It's also probably provably untrue, if the US system is anything like the British one. In the British system, it's the conditions imposed upon claiming benefit which cause the problems, or "poverty trap", which penalise people who want to help provide for themselves, or want to better themselves to improve their chances in the labour market, because a condition of claiming benefit is that claimants have to be (provably) available for work all the time, any wages from part-time work will be deducted from their benefit money and if they take on temporary work they must sign off, and go through the whole long drawn out process of signing back on when that temporary work is over. This doesn't exactly encourage people to seek legitimate sources of income, but it does encourage people to seek illegal "cash-in-hand" work in the black labour market.

One of the problems with coming off welfare is that immediate costs/regular costs (childcare, travel, food for instance) can be so great that unless you go straight into a high paying job—which is unlikely, because most of the jobs which are available are low paid service industry ones—you're worse off than on benefits. Does this mean benefit pays too much? Heavens no, it means that benefit payments recognise the basic cost of living, which the labour market doesn't.

Of course, there are people who are happy to spend their lives "on the dole". Carn't remember the name of the guy, but he suggested that we should look at welfare as compensation for being excess to the needs of the labour market, which is kind of the basic idea of welfare in the UK. Milton Friedman suggested an excellent idea to address the problem of the "poverty trap" which I outlined above, by having negative income tax, which means a guarenteed income for those out of work, and no penalties for those starting out at the bottom end of the labour market.

[SRW]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I'd suggest that this is not only a composition fallacy, it's also implicitly malicious in insinuating that welfare recipients are a homogenous group—an "underclass"—and that this group is uniformly selfish and lazy.

No, he was predicting that a dependant class will result from the structure. And as this lecture was given in 1974, most of what he predicted is correct. Not everyone will get into this trap, however there are third generation welfare recipients in this country.

He did not say that all welfare recipients would become dependant, just that there is a probability of creating a welfare class.


Originally posted by BillyTK




It's also probably provably untrue, if the US system is anything like the British one.


I wonder why you say he is provably wrong then go on to to support his theory in the following two paragraphs. Curious.

Originally posted by BillyTK



In the British system, it's the conditions imposed upon claiming benefit which cause the problems, or "poverty trap", which penalise people who want to help provide for themselves, or want to better themselves to improve their chances in the labour market, because a condition of claiming benefit is that claimants have to be (provably) available for work all the time, any wages from part-time work will be deducted from their benefit money and if they take on temporary work they must sign off, and go through the whole long drawn out process of signing back on when that temporary work is over. This doesn't exactly encourage people to seek legitimate sources of income, but it does encourage people to seek illegal "cash-in-hand" work in the black labour market.

One of the problems with coming off welfare is that immediate costs/regular costs (childcare, travel, food for instance) can be so great that unless you go straight into a high paying job—which is unlikely, because most of the jobs which are available are low paid service industry ones—you're worse off than on benefits. Does this mean benefit pays too much? Heavens no, it means that benefit payments recognise the basic cost of living, which the labour market doesn't.

Of course, there are people who are happy to spend their lives "on the dole".

Exactly and how many of the children, of parents who are happy to be on the dole, will be the next generation of welfare recipients. Not all but certainly a higher % than the general population.

Originally posted by BillyTK




Carn't remember the name of the guy, but he suggested that we should look at welfare as compensation for being excess to the needs of the labour market, which is kind of the basic idea of welfare in the UK. Milton Friedman suggested an excellent idea to address the problem of the "poverty trap" which I outlined above, by having negative income tax, which means a guarenteed income for those out of work, and no penalties for those starting out at the bottom end of the labour market.

I am not clear on what you are saying here, but it sounds like the way you are describing the UK system is different from the US system. Here we usually call welfare a safety net, which is that the government steps in to help with your basic necessities, food shelter and some money until such a time as you can get back on your feet. Also it is a hodge podge of state, and federal systems, and local systems. So we cannot say the US welfare system because it varies state to state city to city.


What the professor proposed as a replacement for the system as it was designed is a graduated system similar to Friedmans. The more outside money you brought in the higher your benefit would be up to a "break even point". Then would gradually decrees as your income and situation improved.

But the world has changed from 1974 so I am not so sure a system is workable.

[Glory]

Originally posted by SRW
What the professor proposed as a replacement for the system as it was designed is a graduated system similar to Friedmans. The more outside money you brought in the higher your benefit would be up to a "break even point". Then would gradually decrees as your income and situation improved.

But the world has changed from 1974 so I am not so sure a system is workable.

It is certainly counterintuitive to give more money to those who have the most. What about people who seek training and education to better their options? They would, clearly, not be bringing in money from outside the system. Indeed, they would be spending more money than their fellow recipients.

Glory

[SRW]

Originally posted by Glory


It is certainly counterintuitive to give more money to those who have the most. What about people who seek training and education to better their options? They would, clearly, not be bringing in money from outside the system. Indeed, they would be spending more money than their fellow recipients.

Glory

Well in a graduated system you have to start somewhere. There would have to be compensation for training, and it would require child support. But you would have an incentive for taking advantage of these programs. When you leave training and get an entry level job you are guaranteed to earn more not less as many times happens now.

Also, it provides an incentive for people to declare all their income and not work under the table.

[Skeptic]

The problem with the "50% of marriages end in divorce" is that it misleading. It is a bit like saying "100% of births end in death", which is of course true, but not really to the point. The question is, HOW LONG do the marriages last?

[Glory]

Originally posted by SRW


Well in a graduated system you have to start somewhere. There would have to be compensation for training, and it would require child support. But you would have an incentive for taking advantage of these programs. When you leave training and get an entry level job you are guaranteed to earn more not less as many times happens now.

Also, it provides an incentive for people to declare all their income and not work under the table.

That's a good point.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The problem with the "50% of marriages end in divorce" is that it misleading. It is a bit like saying "100% of births end in death", which is of course true, but not really to the point. The question is, HOW LONG do the marriages last?

It is the automatic assumtion that a divorce indicates a failed marraige. Some marraiges are good for a while and then. not so good. So because things change and people change, we are to believe that the good things from a marraige are utterly obliviated by the fact that it ended. Ending is not synonomous with failure.

Glory

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by SRW


No, he was predicting that a dependant class will result from the structure. And as this lecture was given in 1974, most of what he predicted is correct. Not everyone will get into this trap, however there are third generation welfare recipients in this country.

He did not say that all welfare recipients would become dependant, just that there is a probability of creating a welfare class.
This is what you said:
What he said was is that I will create a perpetual class of welfare recipients. The reason being that It give no incentives for getting out of welfare. It did infarct give disincentives for working, delaying having children and getting married.
This quote constains none of the clarifications you raise here.

I wonder why you say he is provably wrong then go on to to support his theory in the following two paragraphs. Curious.
Probably because I don't. The poverty trap in and of itself is not a separate or distinct class. What I describe contradicts the assertions made by your professor in that I describe how it's the conditions imposed on claimants by the system which cause dependency, not the welfare system itself. The professor's assertion as you recount it is not so specific, but in the context of your subsequent anecdote, the implication is that it's the "free money" aspect of welfare which is the problem. Unless you wish to clarify that as well :)

Exactly and how many of the children, of parents who are happy to be on the dole, will be the next generation of welfare recipients. Not all but certainly a higher % than the general population.
I have no idea. I'd acknowledge that some children will become institutionalised by the welfare system and related services, but I wouldn't be willing to make even a general estimate percentage-wise as there's too many variables to consider. For instance, what constitutes the general population?

In fact I could suggest that someone who has never experienced life on welfare might find it more attractive (because they're unaware of the hardships) than someone who was brought up on it. But regardless, this would not constitute a distinct class, unless you're using the term in a more fluid way than it is traditionally used.

I am not clear on what you are saying here, but it sounds like the way you are describing the UK system is different from the US system. Here we usually call welfare a safety net, which is that the government steps in to help with your basic necessities, food shelter and some money until such a time as you can get back on your feet. Also it is a hodge podge of state, and federal systems, and local systems. So we cannot say the US welfare system because it varies state to state city to city.
The UK welfare system is a national system. It was founded approximately sixty years, and was conceived as an implicit contract between the government and the individual; the government would guarantee access to health care and related services, and to access to the labour market. It would also guarantee a minimum level of income for individuals and their dependents if access to the labourr market was impeded by economic circustances (eg, redundancy) or personal circumstances (e.g. illness). But like I said, that was sixty years ago, and times have changed; the government is no longer able to guarantee access to the labour market–hence wassisface's description of welfare as compensation for the government's inability to guarantee access to the labour market.

What the professor proposed as a replacement for the system as it was designed is a graduated system similar to Friedmans. The more outside money you brought in the higher your benefit would be up to a "break even point". Then would gradually decrees as your income and situation improved.

But the world has changed from 1974 so I am not so sure a system is workable.
I think the graduated system is workable, but the problem is dismantling the existing system. In the UK administering the system is practically an industry in itself; I haven't looked at figures recently but for instance, IIRC the cost of benefit fraud detection far outweighed money accrued from detection activities, and administration costs of the system itself were close to the amount payed out in benefit. It'd be cheaper to just give the money away, no questions asked!