Welfare

[Holdek]

No not really, I was completely sincere with what I said and there is nothing wrong with government cheese/butter rations. I think even having subsidized food stores like I think (Denmark?) has would be better than the current system. Those stores have heavily reduced food prices and provide nutritious things for people to eat.

Conservatives already attempted to restrict what people could buy with food stamps, i.e. not letting people buy junk food. It turned out it would cost substantially more net to add another layer of regulation into the system, so they opted not to go through with it.

The food stamp system is cost efficient because it piggy-backs on private enterprise, and where the manufacture and distribution system already exists. Setting up a network of government-run stores for people to redeem "butter rations" would cost a lot more money.

It's kind of like when conservatives say, "Poor people should pay federal income tax too, even if it's just $1!" When it would actually cost the government more net to go after those $1 tax bills.

 

[A-Stump]

The government should require compulsory public work programs as parts of Detroit have for those on welfare. Barring the disabled/those unable to for other reasons. Parts of Detroit already instated this and it motivates people into finding work. Certain counties in Ohio, where I live, require you to report into Job and Family Services and do work programs to the tune of four hours a day. You decide not to show, you're in the dark. That's how it should be.

 

[Ouija Board]

They are real. I couldn't possibly speculate how common it is vs. somebody who uses the system for a leg up while seeking work or raising their kids on low pay, but I've personally seen them in action. Fat women with several kids in tow, shopping cart(s) full of junk like twinkies, soda, chips, packaged mac and cheese, etc., paying with EBT and getting into a nice Escalade. People talking about the best way to milk the system and hide income so they get more. Once outside a 7-11 a man told me xir'd sell me $100 worth of "food stamps" (I don't know how since it's usually done on EBT cards) for $50 so xir could buy cigarettes and beer, I shit you not. It hasn't happened to me frequently, but almost 8 years of living in a fairly poor city and you'll come across it.

I've seen that too. I'm on food stamps myself and I try to get something healthy but it is hard when you are restricted to less than $200 a month for a single person. Most people that are on welfare buy junk food because a) it's less expensive b)produce and good quality food is expensive as hell as well as it spoils quickly and c) junk food lasts longer. When you are on such a tight budget like that you would want to buy foods that are processed, have a shit ton of preservatives because it lasts longer. Food stamps are a once a month thing, not a bi-weekly or weekly thing like with normal paychecks.

 

[Ruckersvillian]

You want to help those people out? Fine. More power to you. There are several churches and other charities you can donate your own money to. Welfare is forced, tax payer funded charity. You get no choice as to where your money goes. Is it sad that person has mental impairments? Is it sad that person lost their job? Sure it is. Help them if you want. Just don't force me to do it because of some bullshit, feel-good "civic duty, communal responsibility" nonsense. I don't owe those people a damn thing. Like I said, you don't automatically deserve money because you're down on your luck or a mental defective. I've lost jobs before and no one gave me a fucking thing. I went back out and found another fucking job.

"Am I my brother's keeper?"

I just have a problem with this "screw you, buddy; got mine" attitude. Although I understand where you're coming from to a certain degree, it's usually the comfortable/well-off who have this type of attitude - those who either never struggled or struggled so long ago that they've forgotten the many advantages they had along the way.

As Americans, we have our priorities skewed if we're more worried about paying a few more dollars in taxes (God forbid) rather than the poor and the hungry who benefit from those extra dollars. It's selfish.

 

[Holdek]

The government should require compulsory public work programs as parts of Detroit have for those on welfare. Barring the disabled/those unable to for other reasons. Parts of Detroit already instated this and it motivates people into finding work. Certain counties in Ohio, where I live, require you to report into Job and Family Services and do work programs to the tune of four hours a day. You decide not to show, you're in the dark. That's how it should be.

The federal government already has work requirements, it just doesn't have a public work program component.

 

[Pikimon]

I've seen that too. I'm on food stamps myself and I try to get something healthy but it is hard when you are restricted to less than $200 a month for a single person. Most people that are on welfare buy junk food because a) it's less expensive b)produce and good quality food is expensive as hell as well as it spoils quickly and c) junk food lasts longer. When you are on such a tight budget like that you would want to buy foods that are processed, have a shit ton of preservatives because it lasts longer. Food stamps are a once a month thing, not a bi-weekly or weekly thing like with normal paychecks.

Good lord this a million times this. You try restricting your food budget to 200 dollars a month and see what you shop for.

 

[Holdek]

Good lord this a million times this. You try restricting your food budget to 200 dollars a month and see what you shop for.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (AKA food stamps) is just supposed to add to your food budget, not comprise the entirety of it. Unfortunately a lot of folks are in dire straights and all they have is SNAP.

 

[maninthepicklesuit]

Here's my two cents. I'm going to begin with these three premises:

1. Propensity to spend is higher at lower income levels - At lower income levels, you spend a higher percent of every dollar you "earn." If you hypothetically earned $1 a day, you'd have to spend the whole $1 on food. As your income rises over your basic costs of living, you'll tend to save a greater percentage of each dollar because basic necessities won't consume your entire income.

2. Welfare transfers money from people with lower propensities to spend to those with higher propensities to spend - A welfare system transfers money from higher income earners to lower income earners. As per point 1, lower income earners tend to spend a higher percentage of each dollar.

3. Spending tends to be better for the economy than saving - Let's say you save your money. You can hide it under the mattress, in which case the money has been effectively taken out of the economy until you spend it. Or you can deposit it in a bank, in which case the bank by law has to reserve a fraction of your deposits (let's say 30%), and then it can deploy the remaining 70% into the economy as loans, which will then be spent by the recipients of the loans. On the other hand, if you spend a dollar, 100% of that dollar represents income to someone else, and that person will go on to spend that dollar again. In these three scenarios, the last one has the biggest "multiplier effect" on the economy: as that single dollar gets spent over and over, it represents income to people, which stimulates job creation (also, more taxes for the government).

With that said, if you agree with the foregoing, you should agree that welfare has a positive effect on the overall economy. Whatever your feelings are about moochers, some level of wealth transfer is arguably beneficial for the economy as a whole. I'm just trying to highlight that individual morality ("it's not fair that others who don't work still benefit from the sweat of my back") isn't necessarily congruent with what's pragmatic for society as a whole (it's good to stimulate the economy, even if moochers get a free ride).

Note that this isn't necessarily a pro-welfare rant. I'm open to the possibility that the welfare system could be re-calibrated, or that there are ways for the government to spend dollars that would be even more efficient than welfare from a "stimulate the economy" perspective.

As a side-note: can you imagine OPL without welfare? Would he have had the leisure time to make an ass of himself on such a monumental level if he had to do a 9 to 5 job? I guess in a perverse way, we already benefited from the system.

 

[Trickie]

There's a few things in this thread that kind of bother me. I've been poor for most of my life, and homeless on more than one occasion, and it perplexes me every time I see someone rage over someone using welfare to buy something they enjoy. Sure, it wasn't earned in the strictest sense of the word, but are you honestly expecting everyone on welfare to live like monks? The feeling of worthlessness that a lot of people get when they can't provide for themselves is depressing enough without having absolutely nothing to take your mind off of the shitty situation you're in, even if just for a little while.

And why do I see so many people saying that he's spending "MY" money, as if Chris is literally breaking into your house and stealing all your savings? It's not your money. If anything, it's our money, as in all of us who live in the US, the people who the government is supposed to be made by and for. Like it or not, even if Chris is spending the money on vidya or Legos, it's at least contributing to the economy, and helping it go, which also helps jobs.

Sorry for the rant, everyone.

 

[Foulmouth]

There's a few things in this thread that kind of bother me. I've been poor for most of my life, and homeless on more than one occasion, and it perplexes me every time I see someone rage over someone using welfare to buy something they enjoy. Sure, it wasn't earned in the strictest sense of the word, but are you honestly expecting everyone on welfare to live like monks? The feeling of worthlessness that a lot of people get when they can't provide for themselves is depressing enough without having absolutely nothing to take your mind off of the shitty situation you're in, even if just for a little while.

And why do I see so many people saying that he's spending "MY" money, as if Chris is literally breaking into your house and stealing all your savings? It's not your money. If anything, it's our money, as in all of us who live in the US, the people who the government is supposed to be made by and for. Like it or not, even if Chris is spending the money on vidya or Legos, it's at least contributing to the economy, and helping it go, which also helps jobs.

Sorry for the rant, everyone.

People pay Taxes
Taxes are given to chris
Chris buys lego
???????
PROFIT !

 

[Marvin]

Eh, incredible amounts of government money is given to big businesses, the middle class, all sorts of groups. It's not bad, but still, it's morally equivalent to the money given to the poor. Like really, we should start calling all that stuff welfare too, and watch how quickly the anti-welfare people stop talking. And what we call welfare now has the benefit in that it's such an insignificant amount. Over the past few decades, it's something like a few bucks, per person, in the US. Pfft, I spent that much on fast food today.

There's zero reason to discuss welfare like this, unless we're talking about cutting all the other handouts we give at the same time.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Eh, incredible amounts of government money is given to big businesses, the middle class, all sorts of groups. It's not bad, but still, it's morally equivalent to the money given to the poor. Like really, we should start calling all that stuff welfare too, and watch how quickly the anti-welfare people stop talking. And what we call welfare now has the benefit in that it's such an insignificant amount. Over the past few decades, it's something like a few bucks, per person, in the US. Pfft, I spent that much on fast food today.

There's zero reason to discuss welfare like this, unless we're talking about cutting all the other handouts we give at the same time.

Welfare for agriculture and industry is called subsidies. But there's a large number of people who neither work nor pay taxes. It wouldn't be such an issue if free money weren't given out to so many people who refuse to work. No, not "unable" to work-REFUSE.

 

[Marvin]

Welfare for agriculture and industry is called subsidies.

Yep.

But there's a large number of people who neither work nor pay taxes. It wouldn't be such an issue if free money weren't given out to so many people who refuse to work. No, not "unable" to work-REFUSE.

Well, it's kinda like welfare queens. I know such people exist, in the sense that literally any negative stereotype of a person might exist. People disparaging gays might bring up examples of gays that jerk off with diarrhea, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to consider them to represent all gays. These sorts of comparisons are like telling someone they can make a living off of regularly winning the lottery. It happens, because while ultimately, someone might win the lottery, it's still such an unlikely situation that it's not worth considering.

Now, I know that people are going to be gaming the system more frequently than people are winning the lottery. But still, even if it was like 30%, am I willing to tell the other 70% to fuck off? To die in the streets? No.

Really, for me, it's a combination. It's both the tiny amount of money that we're putting into welfare, plus the substantial impact it's having. Really, at this point, if we're so hard up for cash, come back to me when we've squeezed all the cash we can out of everything else we're sinking money into.

 

[Grand Number of Pounds]

That's a good point - what are the results of the current system and what can we do to improve it.

The one thing I noticed in this thread and the reason I stayed out of it is that no one is providing evidence to back up their claims and are letting their emotions run wild, with some saying most welfare recipients are good-for-nothing deadbeats and others saying their opponents want the poor to die in the streets.

All I'm asking is that people provide evidence for their strong opinions. If you find evidence that most welfare recipients are abusing the system, post it, or if such evidence eludes you then be willing to change your position. Same goes for the side that thinks welfare is generally beneficial.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Yep.


Well, it's kinda like welfare queens. I know such people exist, in the sense that literally any negative stereotype of a person might exist. People disparaging gays might bring up examples of gays that jerk off with diarrhea,

Hey! Don't be telling everybody my secret, now.

but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to consider them to represent all gays. These sorts of comparisons are like telling someone they can make a living off of regularly winning the lottery. It happens, because ultimately, someone while might win the lottery, it's such an unlikely situation that it's not worth considering.

You keep gambling, eventually, you're gonna lose. Some people lose everything. My dad kind of has the whole "GET A JOB!" mentality, but that's economists for you.

Now, I know that people are going to be gaming the system more frequently than people are winning the lottery. But still, even if it was like 30%, am I willing to tell the other 70% to fuck off? To die in the streets? No.

Nobody's telling anybody to fuck off and die in the streets. The problem is, it's very difficult to enforce any kind of consistency with this welfare stuff. I mean, everyone needs a leg up now and then, but some people treat it like a permanent lifeline. That's no way to live, I'm not saying throw them all out on the street, I'm just a strong advocate of self-sufficiency.

Really, for me, it's a combination. It's both the tiny amount of money that we're putting into welfare, plus the substantial impact it's having. Really, at this point, if we're so hard up for cash, come back to me when we've squeezed all the cash we can out of everything else we're sinking money into.

The way .gov spends money, I doubt it even matters anymore. America's sunk over $16 trillion already, what's $800 a month for an overweight manchild to have his LEGO sets and video games, anyway? Or Commander Stryker his weed and CoD?

Well, in a very fucked up way, we have benefited at least a little, with some unintentional amusement in the process. But eventually, there's going to be fewer people working and paying taxes and many more on handouts if we aren't careful. Then where's the money gonna come from?

Governments don't produce money on their own, they only print it. A medium of value has to come from somewhere.

 

[Marvin]

You keep gambling, eventually, you're gonna lose. Some people lose everything. My dad kind of has the whole "GET A JOB!" mentality, but that's economists for you.

Haha, well, I wasn't thinking they'd win in the first place. But that works too.

Nobody's telling anybody to fuck off and die in the streets. The problem is, it's very difficult to enforce any kind of consistency with this welfare stuff. I mean, everyone needs a leg up now and then, but some people treat it like a permanent lifeline. That's no way to live, I'm not saying throw them all out on the street, I'm just a strong advocate of self-sufficiency.

Oh, of course not. But by cutting off welfare, that's essentially what they're doing. I mean, can't pay everything, you can't make rent in a given month. Things might take a bit to actually apply, but ultimately, throwing people out on their asses is what we'd be doing. Even with a huge amount of conmen gaming the system, it wouldn't justify fucking over the people who actually need it. Especially because of how tiny the amount of money we're talking about.

Self sufficiency is definitely the goal, but not everyone's there yet.

The way .gov spends money, I doubt it even matters anymore. America's sunk over $16 trillion already, what's $800 a month for an overweight manchild to have his LEGO sets and video games, anyway? Or Commander Stryker his weed and CoD?

Well, in a very fucked up way, we have benefited at least a little, with some unintentional amusement in the process. But eventually, there's going to be fewer people working and paying taxes and many more on handouts if we aren't careful. Then where's the money gonna come from?

Governments don't produce money on their own, they only print it. A medium of value has to come from somewhere.

Oh sure. It's definitely possible to be in a situation where you're going to need to make hard decisions, in order to maintain your structure. But we're not there yet. We're not even close.

 

[Bosnian Wizard]

I live in the UK, and benefits, especially benefits fraud, is discussed a lot in politics. A lot of it is stirred up by the government complaining about how much is spent in benefits, and the papers posting stories along the lines of 'Single mother of 17 claims £15m of YOUR taxes in benefits while importing illegal immigrants' (or maybe something less extreme). Whenever I see stuff like this, I always think of the above image.

The amount lost due to tax avoidance completely eclipses the amount lost due to benefit fraud. Christ, even the amount of benefits unclaimed eclipses the amount of benefits claimed fraudulently. However, the government do very little to combat tax avoidance, especially be large companies, while putting a focus on benefits. The papers do the same. I feel the only reason this happens is because people in the government and their friends benefit from tax avoidance (either directly or through lobbying), whereas poor people who benefit from benefits are a much easier target, as they generally aren't friends with politician, don't have the ability to lobby them, and are easier to stereotype as work-shy layabouts.

While I'm not saying fraudulent claiming of benefits isn't a problem, it is completely overshadowed by tax avoidance (both legal and illegal), and I don't like this hard-and-fast solutions people tend to offer about it, such as workfare (one step off slavery in my opinion, 'do this job for much less than minimum wage or we'll take your money off you') as decreasing benefits. I feel the focus should be on the people who already have lots of money, and are using the influence that comes from that to make even more.

socialist-soapbox.txt

 

[Holdek]

...It wouldn't be such an issue if free money weren't given out to so many people who refuse to work. No, not "unable" to work-REFUSE.

Nah. Welfare has had work requirements since the '90s.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Nah. Welfare has had work requirements since the '90s.

Doesn't mean they can be enforced.

 

[Holdek]

Doesn't mean they can be enforced.

Except they are. You don't work, or attempt to get work, your welfare gets cut off or reduced. Additionally, the burden is on the recipient to prove that they are working or trying to find work, not the government.