Welfare reform? Who needs it?!?

[IrishEyes]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tormod]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stargazer]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tormod]

...brought in from the abortion thread:

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
my bust!!

Now be careful, there are rules about this.

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

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

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

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

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

[Freethinker]

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

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

[Tormod]

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

[lindagarrette]

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

[IrishEyes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stargazer]

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

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

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

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

[IrishEyes]

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

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

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