Why is there so much need?

[movingforward]

Oct 25, 2012 14:17:17 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Oct 25, 2012 14:10:42 GMT -5 The Captain said:

"In sum, the majority of families who ever turn to the welfare system for support will use it for relatively short periods of time, but the majority of families receiving assistance at any given point in time (i.e., the current caseload) will eventually receive welfare for relatively long periods of time. While these statements often seem contradictory, both are accurate and both are necessary to present a complete picture of time on welfare."

So what the doctor is saying is that there is a core majority of the families currently on welfare who will receive it for a long period of time.

But, the majority of people that ever use it are on it for a short period.

The fact is some people aren't bright enough to do much more than a minimum wage job & weren't given the education or opportunities to do much else. These people will need welfare. That doesn't mean they are gaming the system or lazy. Just that their capabilities make them unable to support a family.

Others may disagree, but I'm not going to say that someone with low-pay & low-skills should never deserve to have children. For one that would mean we are going to start judging who does & does not deserve to procreate which I find abhorrent. And back to the birthrate issue - someone needs to have them. I don't see society functioning without a poor working class & I don't see it right to deny them children.

for you too Angel!

[midjd]

Yes sometimes someone hits a rough patch. But there is a significant portion (20%) who use it for five years or more. I do not consider that a temporary rough patch but becoming a way of life.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a "significant portion."

From the statements certain posters make, you would believe that 99% of welfare recipients were lifers and/or scamming the system. If it's only 20%, that's not too bad. Should we still try to lower it? Sure. But throwing out a system that works for 80% of people (rather than overhauling it) seems a little short-sighted.

[The Captain]

Oct 25, 2012 14:17:17 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Oct 25, 2012 14:10:42 GMT -5 The Captain said:

"In sum, the majority of families who ever turn to the welfare system for support will use it for relatively short periods of time, but the majority of families receiving assistance at any given point in time (i.e., the current caseload) will eventually receive welfare for relatively long periods of time. While these statements often seem contradictory, both are accurate and both are necessary to present a complete picture of time on welfare."

So what the doctor is saying is that there is a core majority of the families currently on welfare who will receive it for a long period of time.

But, the majority of people that ever use it are on it for a short period.

The fact is some people aren't bright enough to do much more than a minimum wage job & weren't given the education or opportunities to do much else. These people will need welfare. That doesn't mean they are gaming the system or lazy. Just that their capabilities make them unable to support a family.

Others may disagree, but I'm not going to say that someone with low-pay & low-skills should never deserve to have children. For one that would mean we are going to start judging who does & does not deserve to procreate which I find abhorrent. And back to the birthrate issue - someone needs to have them. I don't see society functioning without a poor working class & I don't see it right to deny them children.

I disagree, I don't think its right for someone else to demand I support someone elses children. It's not about what you DESERVE, it is about what you can be responsible for.

If someone with low skills wants to move ahead they can work to improve those skills, not matter what field they are in. There are plenty of jobs where I live where you can make a good living without a degree if you are willing to put in the time and effort.

[Deleted]

Oct 25, 2012 13:40:44 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Oct 25, 2012 13:29:16 GMT -5 The Captain said:

As a society if we continue to support those who do not support themselves, as well as continue to make bad choices, we will all go fail together. So yea, I hope as a society we are better than that and find some way to stop funding those who fail to take responsibility for themselves.

Some people are always going to be unable to support themselves. I think the fact we care for these people makes us a great nation. Sure we could do with welfare reform, but I think it is stupid to even suggest we get rid of all these programs & leave these people to the wolves. And as Mid pointed out - most welfare recipients are not lifers, they are people who need short-term help.

Someone having a short period of a rough times is one thing. ANYONE who has additional kids when they can't support the one(s) they have is not contributing to the strength of our society, but is rather draining it.

I both agree & disagree. Our society has too low of a birthrate as it is. We are below the replacement birth rate which is a bad thing. Kids are future tax payers, future workers, future business owners. And yes, some may be future welfare cases. While I would prefer people who can afford the kids have the kids, if the middle & upper class are going to keep deciding they can't afford to have a lot of kids, well someone needs to.

What?

You would rather poor people have kids that CANT afford to raise them, because someone needs to populate our country??

Last time i looked, we have plenty of people. What we dont have is plenty of people contributing their fair share.

Do you see any classrooms that arent bulging with students?

Any homeless shelters that arent full daily?

[hoops902]

::From the statements certain posters make, you would believe that 99% of welfare recipients were lifers and/or scamming the system. If it's only 20%, that's not too bad. Should we still try to lower it? Sure. But throwing out a system that works for 80% of people (rather than overhauling it) seems a little short-sighted. ::

Because that's 20% of people who have ever received assistance. You don't have to have a high % of users being over 5 years to have a huge amount of the money going to "lifers". If you have 5 people getting assistance over a 5 year period. 1 of those people gets 5 years of assistance, 1 gets a month, 1 gets 3 months, 1 gets a year, 1 gets 2 years. You've got 8 years and 4 months of assistance, over 50% of which is used by one person. And given that at any one time, current users account for over 50% of current receivers, that means you've got over 50% of funds going to "lifers".

So you can see it as "the system works for 80% of people", or you can view it as "over 50% of the funding is wasted to lifers/scammers"...both are true. It depends whether you're counting people, or counting funds used.

[movingforward]

I don't understand why people can't seem to get the fact that even if everyone in this entire country got a degree and worked their ass off there would still not be enough jobs for people. You would have engineers and PhD's working at Walmart (which we actually already have). There are always going to be people working low minimum wage jobs. In a perfect world this would temporary and they would eventually move on to bigger and better things but since we don't live in fairy tale land we have to recognize there are people who are not ever going to do any better.

[hoops902]

::Kids are future tax payers, future workers, future business owners. And yes, some may be future welfare cases. While I would prefer people who can afford the kids have the kids, if the middle & upper class are going to keep deciding they can't afford to have a lot of kids, well someone needs to.::

I understand there's the morality argument of judging who should have kids. But the argument we need to up our population, and specifically with people far more likely to be on government welfare doesn't work. We don't "need" the poor to keep popping out kids who are more likely than other groups to continue to be on welfare. And we don't even NEED to grow the number of people in this country or the world. We don't need to be above replacement rate.

[hoops902]

Oct 25, 2012 14:29:35 GMT -5 movingforward said:

I don't understand why people can't seem to get the fact that even if everyone in this entire country got a degree and worked their ass off there would still not be enough jobs for people. You would have engineers and PhD's working at Walmart (which we actually already have). There are always going to be people working low minimum wage jobs. In a perfect world this would temporary and they would eventually move on to bigger and better things but since we don't live in fairy tale land we have to recognize there are people who are not ever going to do any better.

I agree with you, this is absolutely true. But we don't need to give these people handouts just because they can't do better, and we certainly don't need to give them handouts and incentives to have children they can't afford to take care of.

[milee]

Oct 25, 2012 14:17:17 GMT -5 Angel! said:

The fact is some people aren't bright enough to do much more than a minimum wage job & weren't given the education or opportunities to do much else. These people will need welfare. That doesn't mean they are gaming the system or lazy. Just that their capabilities make them unable to support a family.

Others may disagree, but I'm not going to say that someone with low-pay & low-skills should never deserve to have children. For one that would mean we are going to start judging who does & does not deserve to procreate which I find abhorrent. And back to the birthrate issue - someone needs to have them. I don't see society functioning without a poor working class & I don't see it right to deny them children.

There's a big difference between not judging someone and asking me to pay for their choices. It's also a stretch to say that just because someone deserves something (a point which we can debate), that it's OK to force the rest of society to pay for it.

[midjd]

So you can see it as "the system works for 80% of people", or you can view it as "over 50% of the funding is wasted to lifers/scammers"...both are true. It depends whether you're counting people, or counting funds used.

Good point.

In the context of posts on this forum, almost all refer to the PEOPLE who receive welfare, not the funds spent on welfare. Which makes me think it's not the money, it's the principle. And many of the suggestions to fix the system (removing children and sending them to orphanages, complete elimination of benefits) is more about punishing "lazy" people than about solving our financial issues.

[Deleted]

That is why we have to start putting limits on amount of time you can be in the programs

There can be exceptions for those actually unable to contribute (physical or mental disabilities)

Other than those, we put you on the ranks, and expect you off in two years....and an additional 12 months for hardship cases if oked by your social worker....but after 3 years you are off, period!

We provide training and child care.....but once off, you cannot be on the rolls again for a minimum of 5 years....gets rid of the "lifers" but still takes care of those in tough circumstances

[movingforward]

Oct 25, 2012 14:37:08 GMT -5 midjd said:

So you can see it as "the system works for 80% of people", or you can view it as "over 50% of the funding is wasted to lifers/scammers"...both are true. It depends whether you're counting people, or counting funds used.

Good point.

In the context of posts on this forum, almost all refer to the PEOPLE who receive welfare, not the funds spent on welfare. Which makes me think it's not the money, it's the principle. And many of the suggestions to fix the system (removing children and sending them to orphanages, complete elimination of benefits) is more about punishing "lazy" people than about solving our financial issues.

We need welfare reform that encourages people to become independent

[Deleted]

The reality is that we will always have low wage jobs in this country. Those jobs will never offer a "living wage" or health care access. If you want these low wage earners to be working, then some subsidization of their health care or wages, food stamps, etc... needs to exist so that they are able to function and go to work everyday. Without being able to work, then they will collect more in welfare.

[hoops902]

Oct 25, 2012 14:37:08 GMT -5 midjd said:

So you can see it as "the system works for 80% of people", or you can view it as "over 50% of the funding is wasted to lifers/scammers"...both are true. It depends whether you're counting people, or counting funds used.

Good point.

In the context of posts on this forum, almost all refer to the PEOPLE who receive welfare, not the funds spent on welfare. Which makes me think it's not the money, it's the principle. And many of the suggestions to fix the system (removing children and sending them to orphanages, complete elimination of benefits) is more about punishing "lazy" people than about solving our financial issues.

I think there's also a potential point though that for the 80% for which the system "works", there is probably some percentage (I don't know the actual number, but it can't be zero) for whom if the particular form of welfare did not exist would do just fine. The 80% which is on there short term. The 80% for which some of them they receive benefits because benefits are available to them even if they might not actually "need" them to survive.

Or at least if the welfare were eliminated, would make other arrangements to survive short-term without the reliance on these systems to support them. Clearly it's not all 80% who would have this, but it's also clearly not 0% either.

[midjd]

There's a big difference between not judging someone and asking me to pay for their choices. It's also a stretch to say that just because someone deserves something (a point which we can debate), that it's OK to force the rest of society to pay for it.

I can see your point. What would you propose as an alternative?

[Deleted]

Oct 25, 2012 14:39:47 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

That is why we have to start putting limits on amount of time you can be in the programs

There can be exceptions for those actually unable to contribute (physical or mental disabilities)

Other than those, we put you on the ranks, and expect you off in two years....and an additional 12 months for hardship cases if oked by your social worker....but after 3 years you are off, period!

We provide training and child care.....but once off, you cannot be on the rolls again for a minimum of 5 years....gets rid of the "lifers" but still takes care of those in tough circumstances

So, what is your plan for those who are WORKING poor? (Most people on welfare do actually work...)

[swamp]

orphanages.

[hoops902]

::If you want these low wage earners to be working, then some subsidization of their health care or wages, food stamps, etc... needs to exist so that they are able to function and go to work everyday. Without being able to work, then they will collect more in welfare. ::

This isn't true, it's only true in the current system. We could easily encourage low wage earners to be working. We don't give any able-bodied person welfare. If their options are work or starve to death, I think most would choose work. I'm not saying that's a good idea, but we certainly don't NEED to offer them a welfare incentive to work. We can simply offer them an incentive to work because there is no welfare adn that's the only way they're going to get any money.

[milee]

Oct 25, 2012 14:41:32 GMT -5 @goldpanninggirl said:

The reality is that we will always have low wage jobs in this country. Those jobs will never offer a "living wage" or health care access. If you want these low wage earners to be working, then some subsidization of their health care or wages, food stamps, etc... needs to exist so that they are able to function and go to work everyday. Without being able to work, then they will collect more in welfare.

I would be more open to this theory if I agreed with the definition of what is considered necessary. We are the only country in the world where our "poor" people are fat, have cable TV, cell phones and medical care.

I'd be on board with providing very basic, healthy foods for anyone who can't feed themself and very basic medical care for children. Beyond that, IMHO it's not necessity and I think if you want it, you should pay for it.

[zibazinski]

It would solve it. Removes children from bad home environments and poor parental influences

[hoops902]

::So, what is your plan for those who are WORKING poor? (Most people on welfare do actually work...) ::

Learn to live on less.

[midjd]

Or at least if the welfare were eliminated, would make other arrangements to survive short-term without the reliance on these systems to support them. Clearly it's not all 80% who would have this, but it's also clearly not 0% either.

There was an interesting study on this in the 80s, I believe in Chicago. Apparently at that time welfare/TANF (whatever it was called then) was less than subsistence level and some economist figured out that no one could survive on that income alone. So the sociologists went out to see how people were making it.

They found that of the 50 welfare recipients surveyed, all 50 had alternative sources of income. Most involved illegal activities - selling drugs, burglary, prostitution. Others borrowed from family/friends/significant others. Others panhandled.

So sure, without welfare, people would still get by... but we might not like the manner in which they choose to earn money.

[midjd]

It would solve it. Removes children from bad home environments and poor parental influences

Are you saying that every "working poor" household constitutes a bad home environment and poor parental influences?

If so, I heartily disagree (and I'm betting my siblings would, too.)

And I find it pretty ironic, considering what you've posted about your ex-husband's income-producing activities.

[zibazinski]

Living with a wage earning baby daddy seems to be the choice du jour.

[hoops902]

Oct 25, 2012 14:47:06 GMT -5 midjd said:

Or at least if the welfare were eliminated, would make other arrangements to survive short-term without the reliance on these systems to support them. Clearly it's not all 80% who would have this, but it's also clearly not 0% either.

There was an interesting study on this in the 80s, I believe in Chicago. Apparently at that time welfare/TANF (whatever it was called then) was less than subsistence level and some economist figured out that no one could survive on that income alone. So the sociologists went out to see how people were making it.

They found that of the 50 welfare recipients surveyed, all 50 had alternative sources of income. Most involved illegal activities - selling drugs, burglary, prostitution. Others borrowed from family/friends/significant others. Others panhandled.

So sure, without welfare, people would still get by... but we might not like the manner in which they choose to earn money.

You think this is representative of the 80% of families who are on welfare for only a short time?

And do you think that the 20% of "lifers/scammers" aren't still committing crimes/panhandling/borrowing to get more money. Show me the drug dealer or burglar who commits just enough illegal activity to get to subsistence level and then stops.

[Deleted]

Oct 25, 2012 14:43:42 GMT -5 @goldpanninggirl said:

Oct 25, 2012 14:39:47 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

That is why we have to start putting limits on amount of time you can be in the programs

There can be exceptions for those actually unable to contribute (physical or mental disabilities)

Other than those, we put you on the ranks, and expect you off in two years....and an additional 12 months for hardship cases if oked by your social worker....but after 3 years you are off, period!

We provide training and child care.....but once off, you cannot be on the rolls again for a minimum of 5 years....gets rid of the "lifers" but still takes care of those in tough circumstances

So, what is your plan for those who are WORKING poor? (Most people on welfare do actually work...)

If you are working a minimum wage job and actually contributing to society, then supplementing need is fine by me.

But defining need is the important part.

Do you need a cell phone?
Do you need cable tv?
Do you need to smoke or drink?

Wants and needs are very different.....you provide ALL wants....we help just with necessities (food, clothing, medical, and shelter), and i do mean we help.....you have to contribute a good portion of your pay towards these needs yourself

[hoops902]

::Are you saying that every "working poor" household constitutes a bad home environment and poor parental influences?::

I won't say it's a "bad home environment", but it's definitely "poor parental influence" in setting an example that it's ok to have kids you can't afford and let the government support them for you.

[movingforward]

Oct 25, 2012 14:45:49 GMT -5 milee said:

Oct 25, 2012 14:41:32 GMT -5 @goldpanninggirl said:

The reality is that we will always have low wage jobs in this country. Those jobs will never offer a "living wage" or health care access. If you want these low wage earners to be working, then some subsidization of their health care or wages, food stamps, etc... needs to exist so that they are able to function and go to work everyday. Without being able to work, then they will collect more in welfare.

I would be more open to this theory if I agreed with the definition of what is considered necessary. We are the only country in the world where our "poor" people are fat, have cable TV, cell phones and medical care.

I'd be on board with providing very basic, healthy foods for anyone who can't feed themself and very basic medical care for children. Beyond that, IMHO it's not necessity and I think if you want it, you should pay for it.

I can agree with this. I have been to many third world countries and I would never want to live in a society that didn't provide it's citizens with basic food and healthcare; however, I do agree our society needs to change it's definition of the word "necessity"

[milee]

Oct 25, 2012 14:47:06 GMT -5 midjd said:

Or at least if the welfare were eliminated, would make other arrangements to survive short-term without the reliance on these systems to support them. Clearly it's not all 80% who would have this, but it's also clearly not 0% either.

There was an interesting study on this in the 80s, I believe in Chicago. Apparently at that time welfare/TANF (whatever it was called then) was less than subsistence level and some economist figured out that no one could survive on that income alone. So the sociologists went out to see how people were making it.

They found that of the 50 welfare recipients surveyed, all 50 had alternative sources of income. Most involved illegal activities - selling drugs, burglary, prostitution. Others borrowed from family/friends/significant others. Others panhandled.

So sure, without welfare, people would still get by... but we might not like the manner in which they choose to earn money.

My guess is that those activities haven't changed. All they do now is finance cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, cable TV, cell phones, electronics and all the other things that the increased welfare benefits don't cover.

The idea that if we just increase the welfare benefits to a reasonable level that will eliminate the need for people to engage in earning off the books is naive.

[sheilaincali]

I think some of the problem comes into play when your benefit is tied to the number of children you have. In cases of abuse or misuse there is no incentive to not continue having children. I remember back when the Air Force used to calculate your BAS and BAQ based on the number of dependents you had. So more kids = more money monthly. This switched it to a "single" and "dependent" rate so you got the same amount if you had one spouse or if you had a spouse and 6 kids. Sure did reduce the number of kids that were being born at the base hospital in a hurry.