Some Peple just need welfare

[a_unique_person]

I can see them. They are out there begging, and I cannot imagine a more degrading existence. Even if we forced them into a job, they would be incapable of actually doing anything useful.

In certain countries, begging is more of a profession for some. But I am not talking about those people, just the ones that really don't seem capable of looking after themselves. They wear rags given to them by charities, which are often filthy and soiled.

Should we expect them to work, or be capable of doing anything. If they are not, then how should be provide for them.

[Jon_in_london]

Everybody can work in some way or other.

Welfare is only neccesary to ensure that those struggling to find work have a kind of safety net to protect them in the interim.

If people refuse to work they should be forced to. Plain and simple. No spongers please.

[JAR]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can see them. They are out there begging, and I cannot imagine a more degrading existence. Even if we forced them into a job, they would be incapable of actually doing anything useful.
If you take away the begging part and just have the part about being incapable of actually doing anything useful, you would be describing me.

I like the idea of getting paid money without doing anything to earn it. I've got this extreme adversion to any type of work. The world owes me a living.

I'm just joking. But I'm not joking about not liking to do work. I wonder sometimes how I am going to fit into society without my parents spending money on me. There just aren't any jobs out there that interest me.

[JAR]

I'd like to also add that there aren't any jobs out there that I'm particularly good at.

[max]

I don't know where you live unique but there is no need for anyone to wear rags these days, there are so many charity shops here. The people in rags will do this at their own choice to gain sympathy and are possibly the beggers that are on drugs.
Here in the UK if one has not got an address, one cannot claim benefit from the state, so the begger neither has a home nor any funds whatsoever.
A simple way around this, in my opinion would be to beable to claim benefits by ones finger print. It would not matter then if one had a home or not. The government here must beable to set up such a system but choose to have beggers on the street instead.
I have every sympathy with beggers, it cannot be a nice way to live even if one is lazy, it seems a more difficult way of life than working. There will only be a very small minority who choose this sort of life..i.e. what we used to term as tramps, they liked the outdoor life.
I find it very difficult to comprehend that in this century we still have beggers and people living on the streets and sleeping in cardboard boxes. I think it is disgraceful that society does not do something about this. Communes could be set up for these people to live in. if they are the weaker ones in our society then they should be looked after.
There is way enough money. One of my offspring once lived for free in a London embassy house. She lived there for about a year. The tenant was a first secretary of another country and his way of thinking was.....well, you the UK tax payer, pay for this house and its upkeep...so stay as long as you wish. Can you imagine Tony Blair doing that? But in theory the 1st secretary was correct, the British tax payer was funding the house. So lets, let the beggers into some of the homes we fund. How about starting with Buckingham Palace, that has a lot of rooms doing nothing.

[Graham]

Originally posted by JAR

If you take away the begging part and just have the part about being incapable of actually doing anything useful, you would be describing me.

I like the idea of getting paid money without doing anything to earn it. I've got this extreme adversion to any type of work. The world owes me a living.

I'm just joking. But I'm not joking about not liking to do work. I wonder sometimes how I am going to fit into society without my parents spending money on me. There just aren't any jobs out there that interest me.

You do like 90% of the rest of the working population and get a job that doesn't interest you.

Whether or not you're actually any good at it is more or less irrelevant. Assuming you're any way intelligent you'll probably be able to hide your failings fairly well, at least for long enough to entrench yourself.

Once you're so firmly dug in to your miserable career that firing you becomes more of a chore than simply paying your wages every month, you're pretty much set.

All you have to do is sit back and watch as your youth, enthuasiasm and any kind of joie de vivre slowly drains away into the endless mire of meeting and reports, quotas and targets.

There is a hell and it's waiting for you. in the nearest office block.

I started reading The Life of Pi by Jann Martel yesterday. I'm not terribly impressed by it so far but there was one quote that I liked, I think I'll make it my signature line:

"A tie is a noose. It may be upside down but it can still hang a man"

That's slightly paraphrased, by the way, owing to a brain that's frazzled from staring at f***ed up account statements all day every day for the last month.

Oh well, back to work :rolleyes:

Graham

[reprise]

Just a friendly warning to non-Aussie posters, our social welfare system is vastly different to that of most other nations.

Many WORKING people here are not earning a living wage, and the trend towards casual employment means that fewer and fewer people in the workforce can predict how many hours they will work and how much they will earn in the next 7 days.

Our social security system DOES have a "mutual obligation" aspect, which requires recipients deemed CAPABLE of doing something to participate in approved activities in return for receiving their income support - these approved activities can be study, further job training, volunteer work, or a combination of the foregoing.

[Always Free]

max--"I find it very difficult to comprehend that in this century we still have beggers and people living on the streets and sleeping in cardboard boxes. I think it is disgraceful that society does not do something about this. Communes could be set up for these people to live in. if they are the weaker ones in our society then they should be looked after."

Hi max, if you think about it, it is not so difficult to comprehend why we still have beggers and people sleeping in cardboard boxes. The human race hasn't really evolved as much as we would like to believe we have. Oh, sure, we have made huge leaps forward in technology, medicine, etc but our money driven, moral lacking minds haven't kept pace with these advances. Who cares if a homeless person crawls inside a waste disposal bin to sleep for the night and ends up being crushed to death as the garbage truck picks up the bin and empties it into its hold. Yes, this happened a few years ago. You care and most people here care but what do we do about it? Nothing. And those with the wealth care and do even less. We have a long long way to go.
:(

[max]

Always Free
I agree but we have regressed. When I was a child (1940s) one would see a 'tramp' every now and again. There weren't the large amount of homeless then. I just don't get it. If I see a 'homeless' I usually buy him/her a sandwich and a coffee rather than give cash for him/her to buy drugs.
I used to buy a cup of tea till one begger complained I never gave him coffee..ha I laughed for days at that.

[Graham]

Are homeless people simply being priced out of the market?

In the 40s and 50s and even up to the 60s there were stills plenty of slums in the western world. Terrible places but it didn't take much to be able to afford to live there.

Since then, all the slums have been torn down and even the very lowest standard of housing is, relatively speaking, luxurious and expensive.

It occurs to me that many of the homeless people we see today, living on the streets, would, 30 or 40 years ago, have been living in slum-type accomodation - just as poor and only marginally more comfortable but at least with a roof over their heads and out of sight of the general populace.

Similarly with jobs. Before Unions and PAYE and PRSI (or whatever taxes/social insurance etc you have in your respective countries) before it became a huge chore to hire/fire someone even for the most menial of tasks, there was a lot more casual work available. It was poorly paid and conditions were for the most part awful but it was an alternative to begging. What do you do nowadays if you're not capable of holding down a regular job?

So, have increases in the general standard of living simply pushed a bunch of people off the bottom rung of the ladder altogether? We have eliminated the slums and the almost-slave-labour jobs but have we left a portion of society with nowhere to go?

If so, what should we do about it?

Graham

[Always Free]

Originally posted by max
Always Free
I agree but we have regressed. When I was a child (1940s) one would see a 'tramp' every now and again. There weren't the large amount of homeless then. I just don't get it. If I see a 'homeless' I usually buy him/her a sandwich and a coffee rather than give cash for him/her to buy drugs.
I used to buy a cup of tea till one begger complained I never gave him coffee..ha I laughed for days at that.

Giving someone who is probably homeless and unemployed a meal and a drink is the best thing to do instead of giving money. That's a generous and thoughtfull thing that you do, max. :cool:

[Tricky]

The simple answer?

Soylent Green.

[Always Free]

Originally posted by Tricky
The simple answer?

Soylent Green.

Would you indulge?:D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Always Free


Would you indulge?:D
Sure, if there's plenty of catsup.:D

[Always Free]

Originally posted by Tricky

Sure, if there's plenty of catsup.:D

Gross!! LOL!!

I wish I had never seen that movie.:eek:

[GrapeJ713]

If they can beg they, can pick up trash on the street or some other menial job no one really wants to do. If working people can be forced to do community service as part of punishment for getting caught breaking laws, why can't bums do community service of some kind in order to get a welfare check. There are plenty of unskilled labor jobs that could be accomplished by bums if they aren't too mentally ill or hardcore alcoholics and drug addicts.

[Graham]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
If they can beg they, can pick up trash on the street or some other menial job no one really wants to do. If working people can be forced to do community service as part of punishment for getting caught breaking laws, why can't bums do community service of some kind in order to get a welfare check. There are plenty of unskilled labor jobs that could be accomplished by bums if they aren't too mentally ill or hardcore alcoholics and drug addicts.

I agree with you in principle, I think but, what are your reasons for wanting this?

If it is purely that you want "bums" to work for their money, it seems to me that the cost of administering such a program could only add to the welfare bill. If it's going to cost us more to employ these people than it is not to - why bother?

Besides, who do you think is doing all those "unskilled" jobs now? There's a company contracted to keep our office park clean. Are you going to take their jobs away from them and give them to "bums"?

Besides which again, in my (admittedly limited) experience, actual honest-to-god "bums" (by which I assume you mean homeless people) aren't actually on welfare. In most places you can't get welfare without a permanant address, I think.

If by "bums" you mean simply "unemployed people", it is a requirement of most welfare systems tha tthe recipient be acively seeking employment. Having to do community service at the same time would seriously impede that operation and might well only lead to the person being on welfare for even longer.

As for the proportion of unemployed people who are fraudulently claiming welfare (whether by not actively seeking employent or by claiming a single mother's allowance whilst living with an earning partner or whatever), those people are going to lie and cheat no matter what you do and I see no reason to assume that the welfare system will be no more effective in forcing them to work for their money than it is in checking that they are actually entitled to the money in the first place.

Graham

[Always Free]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
If they can beg they, can pick up trash on the street or some other menial job no one really wants to do. If working people can be forced to do community service as part of punishment for getting caught breaking laws, why can't bums do community service of some kind in order to get a welfare check. There are plenty of unskilled labor jobs that could be accomplished by bums if they aren't too mentally ill or hardcore alcoholics and drug addicts.

I agree, anyone who is physically and mentally able to work, should work. But are there enough people out there to give them the work? To even care if they work or not? Is there someone who will find these people a proper abode so they can go to and from their job? If you don't have a roof over your head it would be impossible to go to a job every day.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
yada yada yada


...And the money to pay them comes from where exactly?

They have no community-provided jobs or shelters because the community (you and me, through our votes and purchasing decisions) has decided it cannot or will not pay for it.

Of course they are physically able to pick up rubbish. What about the people already employed to clear the streets? Are you saying those people should find other jobs? Please think things through before posting reactionary views about the homeless.

You sound like you believe strongly in the work ethic. Keynes suggested that people should be employed by the government to dig holes, while others should be given money to fill them. I say, why not just give people money if there's enough of it to employ people for meaningless tasks?

Why don't you tell me why we shouldn't just keep on giving them cash? Do you think people might be encouraged to be homeless?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
........................

They wear rags given to them by charities, which are often filthy and soiled.


I find it interesting that you are aware of charities that pass out filthy rags to beggars..

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can see them. They are out there begging, and I cannot imagine a more degrading existence. Even if we forced them into a job, they would be incapable of actually doing anything useful.

In certain countries, begging is more of a profession for some. But I am not talking about those people, just the ones that really don't seem capable of looking after themselves. They wear rags given to them by charities, which are often filthy and soiled.

Should we expect them to work, or be capable of doing anything. If they are not, then how should be provide for them.

Ever heard of charity? Charities are much better at taking care of the poor than government.

And let's not forget that government programs are a major cause of unemployment.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by shanek



And let's not forget that government programs are a major cause of unemployment.


Except for the people running the programs...;)

[Graham]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Except for the people running the programs...;)

If I'm reading this (http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/01stus.txt) correctly, some 242,464 people were employed in the US Public Welfare system in 2001 at state level, at a total wageroll of $708,166,430, plus another 9,000-odd at federal level (http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/01fedfun.txt) costing $49,500,000 or so.

That's a lot of people who would be unemployed if there was no welfare system!

edited because I forgot for a moment that the US is not the entire world ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Graham
That's a lot of people who would be unemployed if there was no welfare system!

How do you know? People on welfare are actually less likely to end up getting a job than people helped through charity.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


How do you know? People on welfare are actually less likely to end up getting a job than people helped through charity.

I'd be interested in any evidence you have to back up this claim.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can see them. They are out there begging, and I cannot imagine a more degrading existence. Even if we forced them into a job, they would be incapable of actually doing anything useful.


My favorite begging sign ever was one I saw around the neck of an old floater in Mexico City. Translated, it said: "I am not drunk. I'm crazy. Give me some goddamned money!"

[Dymanic]

Once upon a time you looked so fine
Threw the bums a dime in your prime
Didn't you?

Being seen helping those less fortunate has always been a popular way of gaining status. Demonstrating contempt for those less fortunate also seems directed toward this end. When one is having a tough time, it's nice to have someone to look down on.

But things may be a bit more complicated than that.

Giving money (let's say) to someone in desperate need can be a rewarding experience regardless of the purity of one's motivation for doing so. Those of us with means give lots of money to the poor, but the fact that we don't have a choice in the matter tends to take away the potential for the associated warm fuzzies, replacing it with resentment. The government takes our money whether we like it or not, and gives it away to people we never meet, after doing a questionable job of assessing the legitimacy of their need. We don't even get credit for the status points.

I loved this story, and I hope it's true:
I think it was an article in National Geographic. About the city of Calcutta, and a street lined with goldsmith's shops. Thousands of people live in the streets in that city, and those who live on this particular street 'earn a living' by panning in the gutter for flecks of gold which were swept out of the shops. What's important to understand is that the amount of gold which gets swept out of those shops tends to be rather more than it would be if the streets were not filled with hungry people (goldsmithing ordinarily involves the loss of very little--if any--gold). Apparently, in India, ostentatious charitable displays are considered somewhat tacky.

Everybody can work in some way or other.
That depends a lot on what you mean by 'work'. Not everybody who has a job actually works (I wonder how many of the contributions to this thread will be made by people who are at work?).

[Graham]

Originally posted by shanek


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Graham
That's a lot of people who would be unemployed if there was no welfare system!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know? People on welfare are actually less likely to end up getting a job than people helped through charity.

A little too quick with the rhetoric there ;)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I was referring to the people who administer the welfare system. They would be unemployed if there was no welfare system.

You say: "People on welfare are actually less likely to end up getting a job than people helped through charity". I assume you have statistics to back this up but are your statistics based ona comparison between people who getting help from charities and people getting welfare at some given moment or a comparison between one society where people are being helped by a welfare system and another where they re being helped by charities?

It seems to me that, if it is the former case, the statistics might be skewed by the fact that people who want to get work would prefer to go to charities for help when they're really stuck than the state because of the stigma they, as industrious people, attach to being on welfare. Thus people on welfare are less likely to get a job because of the type of people they are, rather than because they're on welfare. Maybe if there was no welfare they would just sponge off the charities instead.

Obviously that would be difficult to prove but it is a possibility, no?

Graham

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK


I'd be interested in any evidence you have to back up this claim.

Well, check out this graph, made from data from the US Census Bureau:

http://homepage.mac.com/johnj1/images/povertygraph.gif

Poverty was on a sharp decline until the government stepped in with welfare to fix the problem of poverty.

Also check out my previous posts using statistics from Giving, USA to show that the poor would be better off if we ending welfare and cut taxes accordingly.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Graham
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I was referring to the people who administer the welfare system. They would be unemployed if there was no welfare system.

Oh, so they're completely unable of getting jobs elsewhere? We should keep one of the most expensive government programs afloat just to give jobs to administrators? Are you really saying that?

[Ian Osborne]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek

http://homepage.mac.com/johnj1/images/povertygraph.gif

Surely this graph shows poverty continued to fall after welfare was introduced, eventually levelling out until it climbed again during the Reagan years when welfare was severely cut?

[Graham]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, so they're completely unable of getting jobs elsewhere? We should keep one of the most expensive government programs afloat just to give jobs to administrators? Are you really saying that?

Just admit that you missed the point and we'll say no more about it, there's no need to get snippy.

No I wasn't really saying that because that's stupid. Diogenes made a smart-arsed remark and I pointed out that, actually, there was some truth to it, that's all.

Would you care to adress my other point (the one where I asked about your statistics)?

Thanks,

Graham

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, check out this graph, made from data from the US Census Bureau:

Poverty was on a sharp decline until the government stepped in with welfare to fix the problem of poverty.
Thanks Shane. Some more questions though; what is the poverty rate an index of, what was President Johnson's intervention and what kind of welfare provision was available before his intervention?
Also check out my previous posts using statistics from Giving, USA to show that the poor would be better off if we ending welfare and cut taxes accordingly.
Will do!
Cheers
Billy

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek

*snipped image*

Surely this graph shows poverty continued to fall after welfare was introduced, eventually levelling out until it climbed again during the Reagan years when welfare was severely cut?

How long does it take for an innovation to filter through to the bottom line? That seems very relevant to any discussion of the effects of Johnson's "War on Welfare", based on this graph.

[Tmy]

many people on welfare get there because of bad situations. For example their husband-boyfriend leaves. So now you have mom and small kids. Its easy to say "go get a job" but in reality how is she supposed to work and watch te kids at the same time. Daycare? The cost of daycare will most likely add up to more than her paycheck.

This is more of your situation rather than someone sitting at home saying 'O gee I dont want to work".

You want to focus on a true money eating scam, try disabilty abuse.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
Are homeless people simply being priced out of the market?

No, IMO they're drinking themselves out of it. When wsa the last time you saw a homeless person without a bottle or can of something close to hand?

Similarly with jobs. Before Unions and PAYE and PRSI (or whatever taxes/social insurance etc you have in your respective countries) before it became a huge chore to hire/fire someone even for the most menial of tasks, there was a lot more casual work available. It was poorly paid and conditions were for the most part awful but it was an alternative to begging. What do you do nowadays if you're not capable of holding down a regular job?

Right now in this country the unemployment rate is below 5%. For the past number of years we've been having problems with labour shortages. Take it from me, there was an abundance of casual factory and construction work available, which helped me pay my way through college. Wages were good to excellent, and conditions more than tolerable. Even now my father, a construction contractor, is having a hard time to find anyone to mix cement for him.

On a related note here (www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11761&highlight=This+might+make+you+feel) is an example of what happens when governments put their minds to solving pressing social problems. Britains National Health Service now has more administrative staff than hospital beds.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Everybody can work in some way or other.

Welfare is only neccesary to ensure that those struggling to find work have a kind of safety net to protect them in the interim.

If people refuse to work they should be forced to. Plain and simple. No spongers please.

They should be forced to work with at least a minimal reasonable wage? Forced to work at something which at least minimally suits their abilities and dispositions? Ok, that's fine. I am in complete agreement.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
[B]If they can beg they, can pick up trash on the street or some other menial job no one really wants to do. If working people can be forced to do community service as part of punishment for getting caught breaking laws, why can't bums do community service of some kind in order to get a welfare check.



Because that would be incredibly unethical. If they do work that no-one else wants to do they should at least get paid for it more than a welfare check represents. Indeed, from an ethical perspective they should get vastly more.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by shanek


Ever heard of charity? Charities are much better at taking care of the poor than government.

And let's not forget that government programs are a major cause of unemployment.

It ought to be the responsibility of government, not charities.

[Dymanic]

You want to focus on a true money eating scam, try disabilty abuse.
I think you've put your finger right on it. It's abuse of the system that is the problem. Most people wouldn't have any problem with helping those who really need it; it's the idea that they are being forced to help those who are actually capable of being self-sufficient that grates. To help minimize abuse by fakers, the system is designed to be as humiliating as possible for the recipients. The idea seems to be to make welfare such an undesireable alternative that all but the truly desperate will be driven away. I think a lot of the individuals you see out there begging (as well as many who practice crime) do that because they see it as less degrading than welfare. It is interesting to note that while begging is coming to be treated as criminal in many places, in some cultures it is traditionally considered a legitimate--even respectable-- profession. A beggar provides a valuable service in providing others with the opportunity to practice compassion.

Are homeless people simply being priced out of the market?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, IMO they're drinking themselves out of it. When wsa the last time you saw a homeless person without a bottle or can of something close to hand?...

...Right now in this country the unemployment rate is below 5%.
Remember that it is not the job market specifically that we are talking about here; it's the housing market. Being employed is not an absolute guarantee of being able to afford (or find) a place to live. Here in California, many owners of rental properties are using credit references as a means of screening prospective tenants.

I agree that substance abuse is closely tied to homelessness, but it is unclear to what extent it is cause versus effect--I think in many cases, it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle; besides, many people who do have jobs and homes also have substance abuse problems--maybe even bigger ones ('cause they can afford it).

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Dynamic:
Remember that it is not the job market specifically that we are talking about here; it's the housing market. Being employed is not an absolute guarantee of being able to afford (or find) a place to live. Here in California, many owners of rental properties are using credit references as a means of screening prospective tenants.

A fair point. That being said, I'm a graduate student on a fair, but not overly generous fellowship. I can afford the rent on decent accomodation in a metro area with some of the highest rents in Europe.

I agree that substance abuse is closely tied to homelessness, but it is unclear to what extent it is cause versus effect--I think in many cases, it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle; besides, many people who do have jobs and homes also have substance abuse problems--maybe even bigger ones ('cause they can afford it).

True. In this country alcohol abuse is the root cause of practically all our social ills and evils. WHile many people with comfortable homes and sizeable incomes do indeed have serious problems with substance abuse, continuing and serious substance abuse will jeopardise this.

[Tmy]

I getting the vibe that many of you imagine that welfare goes to these drunken street bumms. This is quite the generalization. Have any of you ever been exposed to the welfare system? How it works? Who gets what and how much??

For the most part here in the US (Massachusetts to be specific) if you see someone whos literally homeless, then chances are they are not on any welfare. (no place to mail the check ya know) Welfare is tough to get if you have no children. Even then it will most likely not last forever. Much like unemployment benefits.

Its not a kings ransome either. I wonder how some people even live off of it. Plus the welfare Department has all sorts of programs designed to ween people off welfare. After a while you'll get tossed unless you have specific reason you cant get a job.

Abuses? Sure. But technology has helped cut that down. For example food stamps are now on a type of personal credit card, so you cant sell your stamps.

[Victor Danilchenko]

majority of welfare recipients in USA are single white mothers, and they tend to leave welfare within a year or three. or at least this is how it was when I was taking sociology.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Right now in this country the unemployment rate is below 5%.

I hope you're right. May Ireland come close to achieving full employment...

But don't forget to keep a hairy eyeball on those figures (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=441285#post441285).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek

http://homepage.mac.com/johnj1/images/povertygraph.gif

Surely this graph shows poverty continued to fall after welfare was introduced, eventually levelling out until it climbed again during the Reagan years when welfare was severely cut?

Look at the graph again. A major downward trend in poverty was abruptly halted at the onset of the welfare state.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Thanks Shane. Some more questions though; what is the poverty rate an index of,

Read all about it here:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html

Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is poor. If a family's total income is less than that family's threshold, then that family, and every individual in it, is considered poor.

what was President Johnson's intervention

His "War on Poverty." Note in the graph that the free market was already doing a tremendous job of fixing that problem. Federal spending, as well as state and local spending, increased dramatically after Johnson's pronouncement. The result was the wild fluctuation you see in the graph.

and what kind of welfare provision was available before his intervention?

Free market solutions, such as charities and employer-led job drives.

Will do!

Wow! Someone who's actually going to do this instead of stamping his feet and demanding that I repeat everything all over again? How refreshing!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Graham


How long does it take for an innovation to filter through to the bottom line? That seems very relevant to any discussion of the effects of Johnson's "War on Welfare", based on this graph.

Well, the money is taken out of the economy almost immediately. Since businesses at the end of every fiscal year examine the bottom line, the increase in taxation will have an effect at that time. It may, and usually will, have an effect earlier because businesses are going to try and predict their bottom line in advance and act accordingly, and they'll notice the new taxes.

How long it will take any government program to take effect is a different story. While government is very good at taxation, it can be very slow at implementing a new bureaucracy. So I don't really have an answer for you on that side.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
many people on welfare get there because of bad situations. For example their husband-boyfriend leaves. So now you have mom and small kids. Its easy to say "go get a job" but in reality how is she supposed to work and watch te kids at the same time. Daycare? The cost of daycare will most likely add up to more than her paycheck.

Understand that the free market is not going to just sit around and let a potential workforce just go to waste. The economy, though the business cycle, is going to target full production. Anything it has to innovate in order to do so, it will do.

You mentioned the cost of daycare...My ex worked in daycare, and I can tell you from her direct experience that the big reason daycare is so expensive is because of government intervention. She wanted to start her own daycare, and her target to charge parents was $60 per week per child. But as she did the research, it seemed that every bit of government legislation that was there "for the good of the kids" (even when there was no conceivable benefit) drove up costs. She concluded that there was no way to run a daycare with any amount of profits for less than $95 per week per child because of that. Not coincidentally, that was what the other daycars were charging at the time.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
No, IMO they're drinking themselves out of it. When wsa the last time you saw a homeless person without a bottle or can of something close to hand?

Is that because their situation drove them to drink or their problem with alcohol led to that situation? (Not making a point here, just asking.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by The One called Neo
It ought to be the responsibility of government, not charities.

Why? Especially given that charities do a much better job at this than government.

[Tmy]

How is a single mom with no skills going to grab a job were she can make enough to support her and a kid. Especailly of shes starting from scratch. Taco Bell pays that much?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I think you've put your finger right on it. It's abuse of the system that is the problem. Most people wouldn't have any problem with helping those who really need it; it's the idea that they are being forced to help those who are actually capable of being self-sufficient that grates.

There's another argument for charities over government. Charities are much better at weeding out those who are just pulling a scam because they have an incentive to do so. Government has no such incentive.

To help minimize abuse by fakers, the system is designed to be as humiliating as possible for the recipients. The idea seems to be to make welfare such an undesireable alternative that all but the truly desperate will be driven away.

Well, then why is a trip to the DMV miserable and humiliating? This doesn't actually minimize abuse, as those who would abuse the system wouldn't care (and might even drive away legitimate recipients because of pride).

Remember that it is not the job market specifically that we are talking about here; it's the housing market. Being employed is not an absolute guarantee of being able to afford (or find) a place to live. Here in California, many owners of rental properties are using credit references as a means of screening prospective tenants.

There is a demand for low-priced housing, and inasmuch as it can be under government codes and regulations that drive up the price of housing, it can be provided for at a cheap price. Unfortunately, whenever someone sets that up, they're called a "slum lord" by the government who then siezes the property and makes sure it's fixed up so that it's impossible to rent out the property under the former low rates.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek



There is a demand for low-priced housing, and inasmuch as it can be under government codes and regulations that drive up the price of housing, it can be provided for at a cheap price. Unfortunately, whenever someone sets that up, they're called a "slum lord" by the government who then siezes the property and makes sure it's fixed up so that it's impossible to rent out the property under the former low rates.

God forbid people have heat and running water.

Look around and youll fine these slum apartments still have high rents even if they are not up to codes.

[Dymanic]

Well, then why is a trip to the DMV miserable and humiliating?
LOL! Excellent point. Actually, the indignities inflicted on welfare recipients go beyond those experienced at the eligibility interviews, however. But I agree with you that deliberately humiliating potential recipients is a dubious strategy--but since when did government policies have anything to do with effectiveness?

I've always thought you could take a lot of the pressure off the low-cost housing market by providing some areas where free camping was permitted. Some of these people might actually prefer to live 'in a van down by the river'; somebody mentioned it--'outdoorsy types. The policy of bulldozing tent cities doesn't seem to me to solve anything. I know this sort of thing has been experimented with, but I wonder how it would work if we provided big areas--there's lots of BLM land sitting around doing nothing. I never quite got why homeless people always seem to stick to the cities anyway--seems like it would be a lot easier in the boondocks. Hmmm...ok, thinking this through here--safety in numbers maybe.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
majority of welfare recipients in USA are single white mothers, and they tend to leave welfare within a year or three. or at least this is how it was when I was taking sociology.
Maybe you didn't mean to imply something by this, but this statistic doesn't mean that a white woman is more likely to be on welfare than a black woman. There are about 7 times as many white people in the US as there are black people. Due to this, it is a good idea to check the percentage of people of each ethnic group on welfare before you jump to the conclusion that whites are more likely to be on welfare.

If you didn't mean to imply that whites are more likely to be on welfare, I'm sorry for accusing you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
God forbid people have heat and running water.

1) Who says they didn't, and 2) So you'd rather them be homeless?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dymanic
LOL! Excellent point. Actually, the indignities inflicted on welfare recipients go beyond those experienced at the eligibility interviews, however. But I agree with you that deliberately humiliating potential recipients is a dubious strategy--but since when did government policies have anything to do with effectiveness?

I have to admit, you got me there...

I've always thought you could take a lot of the pressure off the low-cost housing market by providing some areas where free camping was permitted. Some of these people might actually prefer to live 'in a van down by the river'; somebody mentioned it--'outdoorsy types. The policy of bulldozing tent cities doesn't seem to me to solve anything.

Agreed. And again, notice that the solution here isn't for the government to do something, but to stop doing something.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Everybody can work in some way or other.

Really, even the completely disassociated mentally ill?


Welfare is only neccesary to ensure that those struggling to find work have a kind of safety net to protect them in the interim.

If people refuse to work they should be forced to. Plain and simple. No spongers please.

Capable people should have to work, or find other ways to support themselves.

Your claim that all people are capable is trivially refuted.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
[B]

No, IMO they're drinking themselves out of it. When wsa the last time you saw a homeless person without a bottle or can of something close to hand?


Granted but whilst cheap and nasty housing is no longer available, cheap beer is very available and extremely nasty.


Right now in this country the unemployment rate is below 5%. For the past number of years we've been having problems with labour shortages. Take it from me, there was an abundance of casual factory and construction work available, which helped me pay my way through college. Wages were good to excellent, and conditions more than tolerable. Even now my father, a construction contractor, is having a hard time to find anyone to mix cement for him.


I suppose you're right, I never had any trouble finding casual work myself and that's relatively recently too.

I note, however, that you say "helped me pay my way through college". Could you have lived solely on those wages including rent/mortgage payments?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, the money is taken out of the economy almost immediately. Since businesses at the end of every fiscal year examine the bottom line, the increase in taxation will have an effect at that time. It may, and usually will, have an effect earlier because businesses are going to try and predict their bottom line in advance and act accordingly, and they'll notice the new taxes.

How long it will take any government program to take effect is a different story. While government is very good at taxation, it can be very slow at implementing a new bureaucracy. So I don't really have an answer for you on that side.

Actually, looking at the graph again, the timescale is actually mch shorter than I had taken it for at first glance.

As you say, the "war on Poverty" is followed almost immediately (< 5 years) by the levelling off of the downtrend in poverty.

Do you think that the program could have had that much effect, that fast? If I have time late ron, I think I'll look up the details of this "War on Poverty" but I suspect,given the usual progress of government programs, that in five years, the "War on Poverty" was only just beginning.

If I may ask another question as well, if poverty was reducing so dramatically already, why did Johnson decide to start a war anyway?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by Dymanic
[B]
LOL! Excellent point. Actually, the indignities inflicted on welfare recipients go beyond those experienced at the eligibility interviews, however. But I agree with you that deliberately humiliating potential recipients is a dubious strategy--but since when did government policies have anything to do with effectiveness?


When I moved back to Ireland from Canada, I was on welfare for about four weeks while I looked for a job. I had always heard what a terrible, degrading thing it was - the interviews, the personal questions, linging up to get your cheque and so on.

Personally, I didn't find it so bad at all. They interviewed me and made me jump through some hoops. The interviewer was tired and overworked and not terribly friendly but it really was no worse than a trip to the DMV or the passport office.

Incidentally, it took me two years of working before my salary increased to the point where I was making even close to as much as I was getting on welfare (with four kids one of whom is handicapped, they practically throw money at you). there were a lot of times during those two years, I can tell you, where I was tempted to say f-you to my boss and wander back 'round to the dole office.

I didn't but I can see why people would.

Graham

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


Read all about it here:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html
I will--thanks again!
His "War on Poverty." Note in the graph that the free market was already doing a tremendous job of fixing that problem. Federal spending, as well as state and local spending, increased dramatically after Johnson's pronouncement. The result was the wild fluctuation you see in the graph.
I was wondering how his "War on Poverty" campaign actually worked... I'll have a google ;)
Wow! Someone who's actually going to do this instead of stamping his feet and demanding that I repeat everything all over again? How refreshing!
Though I detect a note of irony in your comment, I must admit I've felt a certain frustration myself, from the occasions when linked evidence provided to support a position is ignored. Of course, the flipside is that simply providing evidence doesn't support a case, it depends on the validity of the evidence provided. Particularly when it's statistical in nature. But I'm getting a little (well hopelessly) off-topic here ;) :D

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent:
I hope you're right. May Ireland come close to achieving full employment...

But don't forget to keep a hairy eyeball on those figures.[/QUOTE]

Cast a hairy eyeball on these figures. (www.oecd.org/pdf/M00026000/M00026229.pdf)

Originally posted by ShaneK:
Is that because their situation drove them to drink or their problem with alcohol led to that situation? (Not making a point here, just asking.)

Good question, and I'll try and dig up some references later. Suffice to say for the moment that I'd wager there isn't a single teetotall homeless person in Ireland. That's not to say that alcoholism leads to homelessness in every case.

Originally posted by Graham:
I note, however, that you say "helped me pay my way through college". Could you have lived solely on those wages including rent/mortgage payments?

No, parental subsidies filled the gap. That being said, had I been eligible for the higher education grant, I would have had to go to my parents for a penny.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Cast a hairy eyeball on these figures. (www.oecd.org/pdf/M00026000/M00026229.pdf)


Indeed. Though Mexico is one of thirty member countries of the Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development, it simply is not listed anywhere in the OECD's standardized unemployment rate archives at the link you provided.

I wonder why.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Graham
As you say, the "war on Poverty" is followed almost immediately (< 5 years) by the levelling off of the downtrend in poverty.

Because, as I said, the increased taxation takes effect almost immediately. Increased taxation means increased poverty.

Also, 5 years is certainly more than enough time for the welfare program to be put in place and start paying people. Maybe not enough for the full ramifications to come into effect, but enough to have a significant effect nonetheless.

If I have time late ron, I think I'll look up the details of this "War on Poverty" but I suspect,given the usual progress of government programs, that in five years, the "War on Poverty" was only just beginning.

True, it has escalated since then, with no more success than it had initially.

If I may ask another question as well, if poverty was reducing so dramatically already, why did Johnson decide to start a war anyway?

I honestly don't understand what the one has to do with the other.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Though I detect a note of irony in your comment,

Perhaps, but if so it was sincere irony. I've had so many people insist that I post the same thing over and over again, even in the same thread, I was taken a little aback by the ease at which you agreed to it.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


1) Who says they didn't, and 2) So you'd rather them be homeless?

How many homeless families are out there in the US? By homeless I mean people not having a roof over their heads. I woudl say there are relativly few homeless children. As for adults, well if you take away the chronic homeless (drunks and crazy people) I would say thats still a small number.

"Homeless" can be defined a number of ways depending on what kind of stats you want.

[Graham]

Originally posted by shanek

Because, as I said, the increased taxation takes effect almost immediately. Increased taxation means increased poverty.



Did they put new/increased taxes into place at the same time as the new welfare program? Sorry I had not understood that.

On a related note, were the new taxes clearly labelled as "to pay for the war on poverty"?

I honestly don't understand what the one has to do with the other.

I just thought that there wouldn't be much of a mandate for a president to launch a new and expensive program to combat poverty when things were generally getting better anyway.

Graham

[kedo1981]

When you filter out the bad chose poor (drunks, druggys, the oh mom I really hate school’ers) I would like to see how many poor there are left.
No able-bodied (and mind) childless adult should EVER receive a dime of welfare. And then the focus should be on the child and breaking the kid out of the poverty trap.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by kedo1981
When you filter out the bad chose poor (drunks, druggys, the oh mom I really hate school’ers) I would like to see how many poor there are left.
No able-bodied (and mind) childless adult should EVER receive a dime of welfare. And then the focus should be on the child and breaking the kid out of the poverty trap.

I cound see some welfare. Yknow in case of a bad streak. Loss of employment or sumthin. Most people juts need help for a couple months juts to get on their feet.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Graham
If it is purely that you want "bums" to work for their money, it seems to me that the cost of administering such a program could only add to the welfare bill. If it's going to cost us more to employ these people than it is not to - why bother?

Besides, who do you think is doing all those "unskilled" jobs now? There's a company contracted to keep our office park clean. Are you going to take their jobs away from them and give them to "bums"?

Graham Many cities are cutting back on maintenance of public areas owing to budget shortfalls. It might be possible to employ welfare recipients to help with this maintenance. I am envisioning a public service corps of folks who otherwise do no useful work. Included would be welfare recipients of various sorts, such as the homeless or apparently homeless who accost pedestrians and drivers asking for money or jobs. Of course, they would need instruction and supervision. A value of such a program might be in establishing the idea that no one is worthless and that a free ride is not so easy to obtain. Persons falling into the welfare system would have their work skills and condition assessed and would be expected to work for their money.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy


How many homeless families are out there in the US? By homeless I mean people not having a roof over their heads. I woudl say there are relativly few homeless children. As for adults, well if you take away the chronic homeless (drunks and crazy people) I would say thats still a small number.

"Homeless" can be defined a number of ways depending on what kind of stats you want.

Wonderful. Now answer the question.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Graham
Did they put new/increased taxes into place at the same time as the new welfare program? Sorry I had not understood that.

I believe they did, yes.

On a related note, were the new taxes clearly labelled as "to pay for the war on poverty"?

That I'm not sure, but what would it matter? The War on Poverty required a lot of new funding, they increased taxes to get that funding, and the increased taxation had the above described effect on the economy.

I just thought that there wouldn't be much of a mandate for a president to launch a new and expensive program to combat poverty when things were generally getting better anyway.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to how the government works. Government intrusion into education was to fix problems that didn't exist. Government intrusion into health care was to fix problems that didn't exist. Why should the War on Poverty be any different?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


Wonderful. Now answer the question.

OK heres the answer "ID RATHER LIVE IN A SLUMLORD APARTMENT THAN BE HOMELESS". You got me. I also would rather take a bullet to the head than be burned to death.

AND I'd rather have the board of health enforceing housing standards than to have rodent filled, fire trap, barios all over the city.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


You obviously haven't been paying attention to how the government works. Government intrusion into education was to fix problems that didn't exist. Government intrusion into health care was to fix problems that didn't exist. Why should the War on Poverty be any different?

I dont agree. The government is not some monolithic monster that just hops into things for the hell of it. They usually get involved because there IS a problem and regular market/politcal forces are not addressing it. So citizens will turn to the government for help and so on........ Much like that "I'm just a Bill" schoolhouse rock cartoon.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
OK heres the answer "ID RATHER LIVE IN A SLUMLORD APARTMENT THAN BE HOMELESS".

And why do you feel that the government should force others into the converse?

You got me. I also would rather take a bullet to the head than be burned to death.

What was the point of saying that?

AND I'd rather have the board of health enforceing housing standards than to have rodent filled, fire trap, barios all over the city.

Even if it means pricing the very poor out of the market so they become homeless?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Indeed. Though Mexico is one of thirty member countries of the Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development, it simply is not listed anywhere in the OECD's standardized unemployment rate archives at the link you provided.

I wonder why.

I wonder why you think this has any relevance to the problem of the homeless outside of Mexico? :confused:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont agree. The government is not some monolithic monster that just hops into things for the hell of it. They usually get involved because there IS a problem

There is an appearance of a problem. Although, to be fair, many times they do leap in when there is an actual problem, but those cases (like the War on Drugs) just seem to end up making things worse.

and regular market/politcal forces are not addressing it.

As I've shown, the free market was already taking care of the poverty situation before Johnson stepped in. Johnson's policies arrested the drastic downward trend in poverty rates the free market was engaged in.

So, where was the problem the free market wasn't addressing?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


And why do you feel that the government should force others into the converse?



What was the point of saying that?



Even if it means pricing the very poor out of the market so they become homeless?

Well ya trpped me into agreeing with you by limiting my choices. Thats where the bullet example came in.


As for pricing out the poor. Yes some will be priced out. I see that as a very small number. But society as a whole benefits more from the health code protections. Just like some people will be killed by airbags, but more will be saved.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek




As I've shown, the free market was already taking care of the poverty situation before Johnson stepped in. Johnson's policies arrested the drastic downward trend in poverty rates the free market was engaged in.

So, where was the problem the free market wasn't addressing?


Correct me if Im missing somthing but your graph shows that poverty declined after the War on Poverty and then remained lower than it ever was prior to Johnsons declaration. Since then it hasnt retuned to the heights of poverty when we just relied on the market forces. How is that proof that the War on Poverty failed?

Plus arent the rents based on supply and demand. For example in Boston the rents are outragous because of the demand. If you took away the health codes would the apartments suddenly be affordable?

I dont believe its the health codes that are keeping housing costs high.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


Look at the graph again. A major downward trend in poverty was abruptly halted at the onset of the welfare state.

Is it fair to compare the 7 years before Welfare to the 35 years after? If we had more info there might be a pattern showing a poverty upswing every 7 years. In which case the War on Poverty came just in time.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well ya trpped me into agreeing with you by limiting my choices.

If there's another alternative, by all means let us know.

As for pricing out the poor. Yes some will be priced out. I see that as a very small number. But society as a whole benefits more from the health code protections.

So, a few should be made to suffer for the benefit of the many? Where have we heard that before?

Just like some people will be killed by airbags, but more will be saved.

The ONLY reason that was the case was because government mandated an unsafe amount of force for the airbags. This has been discussed in other threads, too. Government intervention delayed the introduction of airbags 10 years (thus causing the deaths of those who would have been saved by them) and made them fatal to children and shorter adults. What's more, GM told them in 1978 that this is exactly what would happen.

Oh, yes, the government did such a wonderful job with airbags...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Correct me if Im missing somthing but your graph shows that poverty declined after the War on Poverty

Not at anywhere near the rate it was declining before the War on Poverty. And then it went back up.

and then remained lower than it ever was prior to Johnsons declaration. Since then it hasnt retuned to the heights of poverty when we just relied on the market forces.

Oh, GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! The market is the force that GOT the poverty level this low to begin with!!!! :rolleyes:

Plus arent the rents based on supply and demand. For example in Boston the rents are outragous because of the demand. If you took away the health codes would the apartments suddenly be affordable?

When expenses are lowered, as they obviously would be without the expense of regulation, that means that the providers can offer more units at a particular price level. This shifts the Supply curve to the left, and the equilibrium price drops.

I dont believe its the health codes that are keeping housing costs high.

They're certainly a factor.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is it fair to compare the 7 years before Welfare to the 35 years after? If we had more info there might be a pattern showing a poverty upswing every 7 years. In which case the War on Poverty came just in time.

If you can find statistics for earlier years, by all means go for it. I haven't found them on the census.gov site, though. I think 1959 was the first year they started collecting statistics for it.

[Tmy]

IS teh current system so horrible. We have almost no homeless, and we have healthy housing. Whats the problem.

Im sure the homeless bum down the street can find an abandoned buliding to squat in. Which by the way doesnt follow any of those nasty health codes. Its win-win all around.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
IS teh current system so horrible. We have almost no homeless, and we have healthy housing. Whats the problem.

Im sure the homeless bum down the street can find an abandoned buliding to squat in. Which by the way doesnt follow any of those nasty health codes. Its win-win all around.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the exact argument attributed to those like me who believe that the War on Povery doesn't work? Man, the irony...

[Tmy]

What hasnt worked?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
I wonder why you think this has any relevance to the problem of the homeless outside of Mexico? :confused:

A narrative line in any context will have an internal structure that develops over time. Your reference to Ireland's unemployment rate in a post on this thread reminded me of a post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=441285#post441285) on another thread.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Mexico's unemployment rate was 3.9% in 1997. Sounds to me like there's plenty of work.

In that thread I posted links I had hoped might help one to understand how some national unemployment figures can become hopelessly deceiving. Or do you still believe that Mexico has a real lower unemployment rate than the United States?

To answer your question: none of this has anything to do with the problem of the homeless outside of Mexico, of course. What does your question have to do with the subject of this thread? :p

[Shane Costello]

A narrative line in any context will have an internal structure that develops over time. Your reference to Ireland's unemployment rate in a post on this thread reminded me of a post on another thread.
A narrative line in any context will have an internal structure that develops over time. Your reference to Ireland's unemployment rate in a post on this thread reminded me of a post on another thread.

Wow, a fan! Or is that a stalker! :eek:

In that thread I posted links I had hoped might help one to understand how some national unemployment figures can become hopelessly deceiving. Or do you still believe that Mexico has a real lower unemployment rate than the United States?

I don't know. I just took a link you posted at face value! Don't blame me if you've been spreading fallacies!
Now, do you believe that Ireland has been at full employment for the past few years? If not, then why?

To answer your question: none of this has anything to do with the problem of the homeless outside of Mexico, of course. What does your question have to do with the subject of this thread?

Not sure what you mean? :confused:

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Now, do you believe that Ireland has been at full employment for the past few years?

I dunno. What does your question have to do with the subject of this thread? (http://swopec.hhs.se/iiessp/abs/iiessp0617.htm)

[Shane Costello]

What question?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
What question?

Ask not: "what question?" Ask rather: "what question today (http://www.funnymail.com/ddq.html)?"

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Now, do you believe that Ireland has been at full employment for the past few years?
Originally posted by Shane Costello
I wonder why you think this has any relevance to the problem of the homeless outside of Mexico? :confused:
Originally posted by Shane Costello
What has this got to do with the birth rate in Mexico?

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can see them. They are out there begging, and I cannot imagine a more degrading existence. Even if we forced them into a job, they would be incapable of actually doing anything useful.

In certain countries, begging is more of a profession for some. But I am not talking about those people, just the ones that really don't seem capable of looking after themselves. They wear rags given to them by charities, which are often filthy and soiled.

Should we expect them to work, or be capable of doing anything. If they are not, then how should be provide for them.

Some do. But not any of the ones you've tried posting about that were military. Stop the JK tactics of reading an article written for sensationalism and posting it.

Get the facts after reading the story.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll


Some do. But not any of the ones you've tried posting about that were military. Stop the JK tactics of reading an article written for sensationalism and posting it.

Get the facts after reading the story.

The facts are the reason for posting on this board, and not just sitting there smiling smugly to myself.

As far as the military goes, it just amazes me that these people who are supposedly held in such high regard are treated so poorly, There are not many jobs where you are expected to risk your life. There was also a thread I posted about an Australian war widow. She was in not such bad circumstances, but she wasn't much better of either. She was p**d off that the Politicians are very happy to use the military to get votes, but when they die, aside from some platitudes, they just don't want to know you.

[kittynh]

I work with some very mentally ill people. If we can get them to remember to take a bath, and take them to get groceries, and remind them to take their meds - then they are off the street and not begging. We find them places to live, and take donations of furniture and fabric for sewing curtains, and help them fill out endless forms. Just getting the paperwork done is a major hurdle for a sane person!!! For some of these people making it through the day with out killing themselves is a major accomplishment. When you listen to what is going on in their heads you admire them, because I'm not sure I could live with all that.

But, it's a charity taking care of this. The government somehow expects someone that thinks he's a Martian and waiting for the mother ship to come get him to fill out a form properly. I once seriously had to translate forms into Martian for someone (I read it in English, and then said gibberish, he bought it).

Welfare is made for these people. And some of them, once their lives are settled and their meds kick in actually get jobs and move on with life.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by kittynh

Welfare is made for these people. And some of them, once their lives are settled and their meds kick in actually get jobs and move on with life.

I have come across some people such as you have described. You see people on the street, who, while they may not strictley meet the criteria of being mentally ill, are in no shape to hold down a job. You can just imagine an employer having these people forced on them because there should not be any welfare.

[Baker]

Originally posted by shanek


Ever heard of charity? Charities are much better at taking care of the poor than government.

And let's not forget that government programs are a major cause of unemployment.

I found good article on the topic that does agree with your argument.

Sister Connie Driscoll runs St. Martin de Porres House of Hope in Chicago, a home for alcohol- and drug-addicted single mothers. In addition to providing training on how to find a job, the house counsels ladies on the importance of assuming responsibility for one's own behavior.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=174

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baker
I found good article on the topic that does agree with your argument.

Ah yes, Larry Elder. He has such a good way of putting things, and actually brings thought and rationality to the subjects. He was featured on one episode of Penn & Teller: Bullsh!t!