Public Assistance Programs

[Charlie Kelly]

I wanted to discuss this, and didn't want to derail the Teen Mom or "Is it selfish to have children?" threads which brought this topic to my mind, so here we go.

So, you're in line at the grocery store, and there's a woman with five kids running around and a baby in the cart, buying two carts full of groceries, mostly snack foods, frozen dinners and the like. The total comes out to well over $400. The woman proceeds to pay with food stamps. Meanwhile, you've loaded up the conveyor belt with $3 worth of ramen noodles, and a can of tuna, that you probably have to pay for with a credit card.

How would that make you feel?

The above scenario is not fictional, it happened to me. And I was maaaaad. The woman was not disabled, and she had a husband or boyfriend that was also not disabled. I had just applied for Social Security when I needed a very expensive surgery, had no real job to speak of, and even "hired" (he would only be paid in the event my case was won) an attorney. The government basically told me too bad, you're not disabled enough, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

What is your opinion of social programs such as welfare? Do you think they work? Do you think that they're a waste of taxpayer money? Do you think that most of the people on welfare actually need it or are they simply working the system? I'd like to hear other's thoughts on this.

(This mostly refers to the US, but if you have something similar in your country, please discuss that as well)

 

[Kura]

I've talked about it before. I think SOME welfare and assistance programs are needed.. but they should really be screened better and offered to people who actually need it. They should probably have like.. a time limit to them, too :/

A lot of people get welfare because they're just lazy.. but I also know some people who are in situations that really call for it. Really it's up to the government to go on a case-by-case basis with this.


But yeah, that happened to me, too. Was working one time and like these people come up COMPLAINING about their free eyecare and how they have to wait an extra two weeks to get their $300 lenses from the government.. then they rant that they can only new ones every 3 years. Like.. what? Meanwhile I had to pay for my frames on my own.. >_> Ridiculous!

I'm in Canada BTW.

It bothers me that people can come into the country and basically apply for welfare right away when many peoples' ancestors (like my grandfather) had to come with only a small luggage and work hard to earn a living while he was here to make a better life for his children. Where has that gone? :c People just want to slack and get everything for free nowadays. There's little pride in people anymore.

 

[Rogue planet]

welfaaaaaaare britain rant incoming
"Critics of the welfare state claim that, in relieving citizens of personal responsibility for their welfare, the government has inadvertently encouraged irresponsible and immature attitudes, with the result that three of the five "Giant Evils" in society: squalor, ignorance, and idleness, are still common."

Welfare is necessary but needs more regulation. My mum has relied on welfare for years, so I relied on welfare on years. Without it I would have lived in crap conditions, and I did briefly. So I definitely wouldn't support getting rid of it; I'm a first hand example of the fact that some people really do need it.

And then you have the people that ruin it for everyone, the stereotypes, I love the classic unemployed dad line "I can't work, I have a bad back"; kids start getting old, about to lose child support money, time to pop out a new one. Some people do nothing, enjoy luxury items, holidays, enjoy the fact that the council houses in this town (and god knows how many others) are far nicer than the houses people have worked and payed for. Not to say I ever got any of that, my dad still had a job, so even though he didn't live with us we were given enough to pay necessary bills and that was it. Half of that "welfare money" came out of my dad's wages anyway. If only he had no self-respect and quit working because of his bad back... the system would favour us then.

I know a lot more people who work hard and still struggle to get by, many far worse than any situation my family was in, they would have much more comfortable lives if they claimed welfare, but they actually have some pride so don't.

It definitely needs to be seriously looked at and reworked, it just has too many flaws and loopholes at the moment for it to be left the way it is.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

We must completely eliminate all welfare programs. It is not the government's job to give people handouts.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

It bothers me that people can come into the country and basically apply for welfare right away when many peoples' ancestors (like my grandfather) had to come with only a small luggage and work hard to earn a living while he was here to make a better life for his children. Where has that gone? :c People just want to slack and get everything for free nowadays. There's little pride in people anymore.

I don't think it's predominately newcomers though. I think a lot of it are people from Canada who are just moochers. Immigrants generally work harder than we do.

 

[Livewire]

We must completely eliminate all welfare programs. It is not the government's job to give people handouts.

Yet it's the government's job to tell its citizens what they can and cannot do with their bodies, and they can beat and stifle protestors?

 

[twocows]

We must completely eliminate all welfare programs. It is not the government's job to give people handouts.

Yeah, letting people die is a much better alternative.

 

[-ty-]

It depends on the amount and type of financial support that is being given out.

Food stamps come from tax payers=>government=>low income families=>grocery stores=>grocery store employees/food manufacturers=>employees of food manufacturers=> corporate/employee taxes=>continues the cycle.

So it sounds like it is alright, but the only problem with the logic is that it doesn't consider where the manufacturer/employees are from. If they are mainly outsourced jobs over seas in China, then everytime the money cycles through the food stamp system, we lose some/most of it to overseas. The economy is basically, a shift in the balance of the international economy. On top of that, those that pay for their food, mainly from walmart or company that similar to it, create the same dillema of shifting money outside of our economy and transferring that wealth to other countries. We should give our companies more leniency and incentives for relocating/locating in the U.S. and cut corporate taxes so that jobs are not being outsourced to countries that do not have limiting regulation on corporations.

So the reduced amount of taxes would also mean, less social programs, but the reduced taxes have a positive effect on both the economy and unemployed.

IF the corporate tax was eliminated and some restrictions were eliminated, there would be tens of millions of more jobs available to the unemployed who receive food stamps. Those who receive food stamps because of unemployment would then be able to earn the money from the factories and companies rather than the tax payer dollars.

Those who are disabled should be able to recover some food stamps though, if the disability inhibits the person from working. This should not include anxiety, bad knee, asthma, arthritis or any other ailment that does not inhibit a person from working; sure, it may prevent physical labor depending on the ailment, but there are many other jobs that the person could consider.

As far as children go...the parents of the child are responsible for the child's well being. If the parent's are not disabled and are not willing to work, or were not prepared to support their children with the income that they have from work, then the children should not be in those parent's custody if the children are not being taken care of and thusly, face health concerns without government intervention like food stamps. There should not be any incentives for low socioeconomic families to have children when they are unable to provide for them. The taxpayers should not bear the burden that the parents are clearly responsible for. Remember the days when parents were not prepared to have children, and then had to take on a couple jobs each? Now you can have children, and not lift a finger for the rest of your life. Social programs can be taken advantage of, and should only be given to those who have serious medical problems.

With all of that being said, you cannot cut these benefits overnight; we need to fix the economy first. First, we have to make the changes in tax and regulation policies for businesses in order for the businesses to create jobs, not the government. (haven't you seen the poor job creation progress in the past few years?) Once the jobs are readily available, then the social programs can be decreased, but as I said, not completely decreased.

As these social programs decrease and unemployment decreases, then taxes will also decrease. People will have more money available to them which will decrease the need for more and more social programs, like federal college loans/aid because there will be less of a tax burden. Not to mention, tuition would be much cheaper; because of our careless economy, the cost of school has soared in the past couple of decades.

Well, that is my two cents...I wrote this all really fast, so I am sure there will be a few typos/errors, but I think that it easy to say, let's take care of everyone, but really, we are essentially destroying the middle class, ramping up unemployment, and creating more needy people, and then we need to ramp up taxes, and that kills the middle class...see how it is a never ending destructive-cycle? We have to look beyond the immediate consequences of our actions to see what the real conclusion is...okay I am done with my rant.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Yeah, letting people die is a much better alternative.

Private charities actually do a great job at assisting the poor. I laid out in a blog post that makes use of a mixture of public and private options to form a benefits package that is monitored for urgent need and abuse.

Yet it's the government's job to tell its citizens what they can and cannot do with their bodies, and they can beat and stifle protestors?

Outside of terminating a human life, I don't care what people do with their bodies. I actually advocate for physician-assisted suicide, drug decriminalization, etc. As far as the OWS protestors, the government is expected to uphold the rule of law and maintain public peace.

 

[Dakotah]

Private charities actually do a great job at assisting the poor. I laid out in a blog post that makes use of a mixture of public and private options to form a benefits package that is monitored for urgent need and abuse.

Private charities rely on government assistance in the form of grants and loans as well as donations from the public. So no matter which way you look at it, the government is involved.

Also, keep in mind that private charities cannot properly operate without receiving donations. During an economic downturn such as the one we're in, these private charities' resources are not as abundant as when the economy is doing well. This means there has to be another source of help for people who need it, one that can be counted on, and that invariably means a government program.

The United way, The Salvation Army (which I refuse to support under any circumstances), the YMCA... these are all charitable organizations that people depend on. But each of them are struggling right now because money is tight. Donations are down, and governments are pulling back on their funding.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Private charities rely on government assistance in the form of grants and loans as well as donations from the public. So no matter which way you look at it, the government is involved.

Also, keep in mind that private charities cannot properly operate without receiving donations. During an economic downturn such as the one we're in, these private charities' resources are not as abundant as when the economy is doing well. This means there has to be another source of help for people who need it, one that can be counted on, and that invariably means a government program.

The United way, The Salvation Army (which I refuse to support under any circumstances), the YMCA... these are all charitable organizations that people depend on. But each of them are struggling right now because money is tight. Donations are down, and governments are pulling back on their funding.

Many charities are religious. The Catholic Church is one of the largest charities organizations in the world. It is funded on an international scale. Religious charities some of the most well-funded and organized.

Might I also ask why you refuse to support the Salvation Army?

 

[Dakotah]

Many charities are religious. The Catholic Church is one of the largest charities organizations in the world. It is funded on an international scale. Religious charities some of the most well-funded and organized.

Might I also ask why you refuse to support the Salvation Army?

Yes the Catholic Church is a very large charitable organization, but it too relies on the government to operate. There was quite the fight in Illinois recently where the Catholic Church pulled out of some of its charity work because they refused to abide by Illinois non-discrimination laws. Some of these religious organizations use property owned by the government, and they also receive government funds in certain situations.

As to why I refuse to support the Salvation Army, it's because that organization is involved in lobbying government against gay rights. As a gay man myself, I refuse to support any organization that seeks to reduce/restrict rights of the LGBT community. Not all of the money donated to this organization goes towards its charity services. A good portion of it goes towards their political wing.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Yes the Catholic Church is a very large charitable organization, but it too relies on the government to operate. There was quite the fight in Illinois recently where the Catholic Church pulled out of some of its charity work because they refused to abide by Illinois non-discrimination laws. Some of these religious organizations use property owned by the government, and they also receive government funds in certain situations.

As to why I refuse to support the Salvation Army, it's because that organization is involved in lobbying government against gay rights. As a gay man myself, I refuse to support any organization that seeks to reduce/restrict rights of the LGBT community. Not all of the money donated to this organization goes towards its charity services. A good portion of it goes towards their political wing.

The Church pulled out not over funding, but really because laws would force the Church to place their orphans in same-sex homes. I don't support this. I support same-sex adoptions, but not forcing private religious organizations to perform them.

While I disagree with you on the Salvation Army, you reasoning is well-intentioned. I think of it as the blood drive ban bill that we rejected here at school. While the FDA's discrimination against LGBT donors is not acceptable, it's not right to cut-off essential resources that come from private organizations from people who are needy or very sick. It's really cutting your nose to spite your face.

 

[deoxys121]

Welfare is often very necessary for those who are struggling. While some people do abuse it, many people really do need the benefits to live. If one is unemployed in today's economy, at least in the United States, it can be extremely difficult to get a job. Meanwhile, while trying to get a job, bills still need to be paid, and groceries need to be bought. I know first-hand just how tough it can be to get a job; it took 7 months to find one myself. So, unemployment and food stamps/EBT are programs that should be maintained. Of course, one should always have to prove one's eligibility for such programs, and continually look for a job while on these programs. On the subject of disability, if one truly cannot work due to a medical condition, after undergoing a medical exam to ensure eligibility, then one should be allowed on the program. If you can't work, you still need money to live. I also think the disability program should be improved so that one does not need to wait for so long to get approved.

 

[Dakotah]

The Church pulled out not over funding, but really because laws would force the Church to place their orphans in same-sex homes. I don't support this. I support same-sex adoptions, but not forcing private religious organizations to perform them.

I could accept the church's position on this if their adoption agencies were funded solely by the church. However, they weren't. The church was receiving public funds to operate those agencies. Any organization that receives public funding must adhere to the laws of the state, regardless of their religious beliefs. The church could very well operate adoption services in that state, and not be forced to comply with the law, but only if those agencies received no government funding.

While I disagree with you on the Salvation Army, you reasoning is well-intentioned. I think of it as the blood drive ban bill that we rejected here at school. While the FDA's discrimination against LGBT donors is not acceptable, it's not right to cut-off essential resources that come from private organizations from people who are needy or very sick. It's really cutting your nose to spite your face.

Instead of donating to the Salvation Army, I donate to a charity that helps HIV infected children, so it's not that I'm keeping the money to myself, thereby hurting people, instead I choose a different organization, one that I can support.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I could accept the church's position on this if their adoption agencies were funded solely by the church. However, they weren't. The church was receiving public funds to operate those agencies. Any organization that receives public funding must adhere to the laws of the state, regardless of their religious beliefs. The church could very well operate adoption services in that state, and not be forced to comply with the law, but only if those agencies received no government funding.



Instead of donating to the Salvation Army, I donate to a charity that helps HIV infected children, so it's not that I'm keeping the money to myself, thereby hurting people, instead I choose a different organization, one that I can support.

That's what the Church did. They pulled their operations out of the state completely; hence, no more state funds are going to them. The downside is that now you have all these orphans who are no longer being supported by the Church. What becomes of them? This is one of the reason's why I believe that churches shouldn't be forced to perform same-sex adoptions whether or not they received state funds.

 

[Lalapizzame]

Charity organizations should be allowed to funnel money to groups and not others as long as it serves the purpose of charity towards the needy.

I am for stern regulation of welfare and helping those in dire straits but cutting it off at a certain level of wealth. Those who needed it, like Vendak, should get it. Those who just suck up money and time that could be spent on those who actually need it for basic subsistence do not deserve nor would they get my sympathy were I allowed to choose to whom taxes are distributed.

 

[Dakotah]

That's what the Church did. They pulled their operations out of the state completely; hence, no more state funds are going to them. The downside is that now you have all these orphans who are no longer being supported by the Church. What becomes of them? This is one of the reason's why I believe that churches shouldn't be forced to perform same-sex adoptions whether or not they received state funds.

To answer your first question, the answer is that the state took over the care of those children. It's not as though the state was just going to abandon the children, and for certain, the Catholic adoption agencies weren't the only ones qualified to place children with a new family.

To answer your second point: any organization that receives funds from the government must sign a contract, and part of that contract is an agreement to follow all relevant laws pertaining to the service the organization provides. There are no exceptions... for anyone. The Catholic adoption agencies signed those contracts, and when it came time to renew their contract, they balked at the clause requiring them to follow the law, because the law changed to make it illegal to discriminate against gay couples. They were perfectly happy when the laws allowed them to discriminate, but now that the laws have changed, and they're no longer allowed to discriminate while also receiving government money, they complain. Well boo hoo for them. I have no sympathy for any organization that attempts to create an exception to the law for itself.

This goes for religious organizations and for non-religious organizations alike. No exceptions. If you can't follow the law, get the h*ll out.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

To answer your first question, the answer is that the state took over the care of those children. It's not as though the state was just going to abandon the children, and for certain, the Catholic adoption agencies weren't the only ones qualified to place children with a new family.

To answer your second point: any organization that receives funds from the government must sign a contract, and part of that contract is an agreement to follow all relevant laws pertaining to the service the organization provides. There are no exceptions... for anyone. The Catholic adoption agencies signed those contracts, and when it came time to renew their contract, they balked at the clause requiring them to follow the law, because the law changed to make it illegal to discriminate against gay couples. They were perfectly happy when the laws allowed them to discriminate, but now that the laws have changed, and they're no longer allowed to discriminate while also receiving government money, they complain. Well boo hoo for them. I have no sympathy for any organization that attempts to create an exception to the law for itself.

This goes for religious organizations and for non-religious organizations alike. No exceptions. If you can't follow the law, get the h*ll out.

The Church doesn't have to follow unconstitutional laws, though. Those contracts are unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. The Church cannot be prevented from practicing its religious beliefs.

And yes, the state can take the orphans in, but how much taxpayer money will that cost?

 

[Dakotah]

The Church doesn't have to follow unconstitutional laws, though. Those contracts are unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. The Church cannot be prevented from practicing its religious beliefs.

You speak as though the first amendment allows any action by the church. It doesn't. If, let's say, a particular religious belief allowed for the keeping of slaves, should they be permitted to do so under the first amendment? No, because the keeping of slaves is unconstitutional. If a particular religious belief allows for a man to marry as many wives as he wants, should he be permitted to do so under the first amendment? No, because polygamy is illegal. What about a religion that allows human sacrifice?

The fist amendment does not grant a church the absolute right to practice their beliefs. There are limits, and rightly so.

Also, I should point out to you that anti-discrimination laws have been upheld repeatedly by the courts as constitutional. Your claim that they aren't constitutional is incorrect.

And yes, the state can take the orphans in, but how much taxpayer money will that cost?

Since the state was already providing the funding to the Catholic adoption agencies in the first place, the cost to the tax payer would be the same, and perhaps even less, since the state didn't have to hire new workers to take on the extra workload. Remember, these adoption agencies were being funded in large part by the state, not by the church.