Public Assistance
 

Maleficent's thread, regarding the Somali refugee, got my blood boiling. So, rather than threadjack, I opted to initiate a seperate discussion relating to Public Assistance, as a whole.

As most of you know, my viewpoints run the graph. I do not consider myself a "liberal", nor do I consider myself a "conservative". Public Assistance is one issue, however, that brings out the "neo-con" in me.

In Mal's thread, she made the following statement;
To which brian1975 replied;
To which I say...if someone is unwilling to do for themselves, then why should I be forced to do for them? I'm not talking about the specific instance in mal's thread. I'm talking...in general.
Don't waste time telling me that there are people that need a help up. I'm perfectly aware of that. I was one of them. At one time I was half a paycheck away from being homeless. Yet, I never received public assistance. I worked, and I worked, and I worked until I slowly, gradually worked my way into better and better circumstances. I'm not well to do, but I'm...comfortable. I no longer need to worry about where dinner is going to come from the next day.

I see, first hand, people who are given free food, free healthcare (better than that which I pay for), and housing for little, or no, cost (a lot nicer homes than the one I lived in when I was on the skids). I see this, and I ask...why? Why am I forced to subsidize this...lifestyle? I see people at the supermaket checkout, buying steaks and crablegs with foodstamps, while I look at my own purchase of hamburger and generic froot loops. I see this, and I ask...why? I see people going to the Emergicare, over an injury that requires little more than bactine and a bandaid, paid for by Medicaid. I see this, and I ask...why? I see people sitting on the front porches of homes, that I help pay to subsidize, that far exceed the comforts of my first home, at any hour of the day. What's up with that?

I am fed the hell up. On the other hand, I don't have all the answers either. I do know that there are people that genuinely need help. But, I do believe that these people represent a very small minority of those collecting public asistance. One answer that I do have is mandatory drug testing. If you're too destitute to supply yourself with the basic necessities of life, then you are certainly too poor to afford drugs. If any trace of drugs are found in your system, then your assistance ends...NOW! Hey...if it's good enough for the work place...then, well. Yes, I know that goes against my Libertarian views. But, then again...so does Public Assistance.

I'm done ranting...for now.

The sense of entitlement people seem to have that Mal mentioned is a real problem. Were those that believe they are entitled to something walking around with a chip on their shoulder because of it, it would be one thing. But when it bleeds over into perverting the intent of public assistance it is another problem altogether. Public assistance should provide basic needs and promote self sufficiency for those who must resort to it. Instead in many cases it seems to provide too much of a crutch for people to prop themselves upon and never move beyond.

There are some success stories I know. A good friend of my wife was able to collect food stamps while she was going to school. This was before my wife was friends with this woman and my wife felt animosity towards this woman. Once the woman finished her education she got a job and I will wager will never be on assistance again. On the other hand, there are those who will never realize personal responsibility and ride the public assistance train off the tracks.

The ironic thing about my wife is that while she once felt resentment about someone who would later become a good friend getting food stamps, she now works for an agency that provides public assistance. Granted this agency is supposed to encourage a path to self sufficiency but I don’t see it working. This agency will pay for childcare for those looking for a job, working or going to school. I would bet that more money is spent for those “looking” for work than working or going to school.

Of course I have it better than those in my wife’s program with the things that I have worked for in comparison to what these people have had given to them. But there are still some serious cases of abuse out there I suspect. When I worked as a bagboy in a grocery store I overheard a lady discussing her husband’s upcoming hunting trip to Canada. She talked of the lodge he would be staying at and the new rifle he had purchased for the trip. She had so many groceries that I was still busy bagging them up when she paid for them… with food stamps. I took two carts of groceries out to a new Ford pickup in the parking lot. Somehow I suspect that two decades later whatever these people were doing to get food stamps is still possible to do today.

I’d like to keep public assistance programs available for those that need them but at the same time I’d like to see these people receiving benefits have to do something for what they get beyond going down and applying for benefits.

This is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread. Seeing people with carts loaded with expensive meat, lots of junk food and nothing healthy, people buying family members groceries because they had "plenty left on their EBT cards", women with manicures, leather jackets, new cars, and plenty of bling buying food on food stamps. The best though, was a woman who bitched me out because I refused her daughter's WIC coupon. She blamed me for the child going without milk, after she had purchased two cartons of cigarettes. :rolleyes: There are serious abuse issues here, that every taxpayer pays for, and what I've mentioned just scratches the surface.

I think your drug testing idea is a great one, Bill. With your pull on Capitol Hill, maybe you should try to get it through ;)

anyone who knows me, knows I am a pretty hardcore conservative and have very little tolerance for public assistance programs (I've even argued convincingly that children should not be tax deductions that you should pay a tax for children, and have that tax fund public education -- rather than those who are childless -- but that's another thread)

Public assistance should be just that -- assistance... Not a way of life. Back when I was in my early 20s and living in NYC, barely getting by, I'd go to the grocery store for a box of spaghetti and a can of tomatoes and spend 2 dollars for dinner for 2 nights, and the lady in the fur coat ahead of me was using food stamps with her completely full grocery cart.

I know that not all people work the system, and it can be a help for some but it's really screwed up as it is - and too much needs to be fixed.

In my perfect world where I am King - if a person was having trouble and needed public assistance, fine - no problem, I'm a benevolent ruler, if you have children, you clearly aren't responsible enough to care for them, so I will take custody of them until you prove your worth (OK, Fix Foster care system) then, you will move into Mal's Dormitory, which would be like the dorm I lived n in College, a bed, a desk, a chair and a lamp. No television, no cable, an alarm clock would be your accessory, and some books. While you are living in the dorm, you will be drug tested regularly, you will not be allowed to smoke or drink (if you can't affort your life, you can't afford cigarettes or booze) Once you find a job - perhaps job training will be provided, perhaps not - that seems to be giving people an edge. you will pay back the money that was expended on your housing and training, and you when you are ready to get yur children back, you will pay back the cost of the child care. You have two shots to get it right, if you fail a third time, well then you become soylent green.

OK, so I have an active imagination... The system as it stands right now is broken, but yet we keep throwing more money and more people into it... It's a never ending cycle.

I'm all for human dignity and all, but when a person is on public assistance, I'm not sure that they are entitled to that --a job is a job, you do whatever it takes to support yourself... a person I think, maintains dignity, by doing for themselves and no letting someone else take care of them.

Don't get me started on abuses of public assistance. Students who qualify for work-study also automatically qualify for food stamps. For those of you who don't know, work-study is the easiest section of financial aid to qualify for. I've seen so many students abuse food stamps when 1) they didn't need them (they were/are making plenty of money from work-study or parental assistance), 2) they go to the grocery store and use the stamps to buy all the mixers for a party, 3) they use the food stamps to buy groceries for other people because they're getting so much in assistance. Some people get like $100 a person. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't eat $100 in food a month.

Recently my roommate told me that her next roomie, who's moving in in a few weeks, asked her to get food stamps. Because my roommate is on work-study, she qualifies. My roommate makes plenty of money and gets a good chunk of financial aid, but her future roommate has very little money. I told roomie if new roomie wants food stamps, she should go get them herself and not expect a free handout from roomie. Furthermore, I told roomie that people using food stamps who obviously don't need them really pisses me off. There are people out there who DO need assistance, and they have a harder time getting it than students on work-study who may or may not need the assistance. For instance, I had a friend that because his parents made too much money (though they weren't giving any to him) didn't qualify for work-study. Thus no food stamps--but he was so poor he had to end up going to the food bank on a regular basis. AND he was working a regular job on top of going to school full-time and serving in the Army Reserve.

To me, I understand why we have public assistance, but I think too many people abuse the system, and too many people raise their children to abuse the system. The system is there as a safety net and a temporary crutch, not a walker or wheelchair. Please.

I doubt the grocery chains would ever let it happen, but now that food stamps are being replaced with a debit card like system, UPC codes on items could be used to approve only certain items with an assistance card. Of course the argument they would use would be that the cost of this would be passed on to consumers like that would be a greater evil than passing on the abuse to taxpayers.

I don't understand, why is that everytime it seems that there is a discussion regarding something like this its always the extremes that are pointed out. Buying steak and crablegs with food stamps. Come on, I would add a comment but I am sure all people are going to mention is the small portion of people who get more than what others think they should get. If bill said that most are abusing I would like to see stats, but frankly i really don't care as I too believe that welfare is abused as a whole, but not as glamours as everyone here is witnessing every day apparently. I only know the canadian welfare system, and if you think a family of 7 is eating steak on there welfare check, there not. Not unless tube steak is what you ment.

MY statement was for people who are just trying to get food to SURVIVE but always people have to not use that, but no it looks like all people that are getting hand outs are eating steak, fish eggs, and fresh atlantic crab legs.

Everyone just seems so against helping anyone. If there is natural disaster and all the food crops were wiped out in north america would you not want other countries to help if they could? Or would you be to proud to eat some hand out and rather die? If you currently lived in a country, that you were born to, with no way of helping yourself, no land worth farming. no way to pay for schooling and if it was available. I would hope that we could help people that happen to be less fortunate. But i guess not, more burgers for us i guess. sorry for post, but peope are just to easy to dismiss something that they have never felt. Sure some of you have been poor, shit housing, ..etc but atleast you could get food stamps and walk to your local store, and come back and live in your government paid for house. But some people don't have that option as there are no programs, those are the people i refer to in my statement.

One admittedly incomplete solution would be for people like your wife's friend to be required to pay back the assistance they received.

Welfare is not a legitimate function of government. All cases of "need" should be handled by charitable organizations. That way, only people who WANT to contribute have their money taken away.

I'm having trouble coming up with a country that would hep us under those circumstances. Maybe Britain, but that's all I can think of.

That sure puts all of our foreign aid in perspective.

I see her as finishing school, working and making the most of her assistance as a return on the investment. I'd rather see those who pissed away everything that was given to them have to work off what they got.

I think people are just opposed to helping those that won't help themselves. And people point out the extremes because those at the extreme are the bad apples spoiling the whole barrel. And even for those who need assistance, if someone gets $200 a month in food stamps and they only need $100 why not expect them to give $100 back? I really do think the system is abused and not just by those who are at the extreme ends of the spectrum but those who just take more than they need.

When I was a cashier, I witnessed it. EVERY DAY. No, not everyone that came in did outrageous things, but a lot of times it was a simple as someone who, quite frankly, was too overweight to be healthy, couldn't work because of health related issues, and then loaded up a cart with junk food. I saw this EVERY DAY. That is abuse, IMO, because it is a cycle that people get into, thinking that it's ok to keep killing themselves on my dollar.

Now, I do believe in helping people who need it. I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet so they can provide for themselves in the future. I *don't* believe in providing a freeloading lifestyle to people who have the potential and opportunity to do better for themselves, but choose not to.

i agree, but again i was not saying that everyone is using the system correctly. just that everytime there is a discussion regarding any type of social system, it always comes down to people always saying the WHOLE system is some fat guy eating 2 thousand twinkies and not a mother of 4 trying to put basic food on her table.

So let me get this straight... no social saftey net whatsoever. People should fend for themselves or die trying?

I agree with Brian that inevitably the worst examples are trotted out when welfare is brought up. There are many more examples of people who do need assistance. One of the main ones is housing. In many places there is a sorry lack of affordable houseing. It is easy to say, just move somewhere cheaper... Cheaper isn't always available and it isn't always close to employment (i.e. sure housing is cheaper 100 miles from the city but then you are 100 miles from your job with no public transit). I see no problem with geared to income houseing and have benefitted from it when I was kid --my single, hard-working mother applied for and got into a coop with some units that were geared to income - it gave us a very good leg up. I have since lived in two apartments that had this sort of arrangement (only I was paying market rate rather than geared to income).

Housing that is affordable and in the right place is often *very* hard to find.

I grew up in a very poor area and I saw both the good and the bad elements of government assistance. I saw hard-working people who just needed that little extra to be able to live with dignity and I saw people who abused the system and stayed at home laying on the couch smoking pot.

I don't what the answer is. I just know that scapping the whole system is not the answer. There are people who have need of assistance and I would rather help them and risk having a few layabouts who abuse the system than the alternative.

so you think it's ok that you bust your butt to provide for yourself and your family, and Louis down the street can coast along and not break a sweat?

Yeah, a few bad apples spoil the bunch, but you seldom hear of the good things that come out of welfare...

I equate it to the homeless guy on the street who yelled at me because I gave him coffee and a bagel, he wanted the money for it... Now, he claimed he was going to use it to buy food... I supplied the food, he didn't like it. I see that a lot with welfare cases (and I've lived in some pretty crappy areas...) I've done a lot of volunteer work with soup kitchens that are run by either religious or charitable organizations, I have no problem with that... People can get a hot meal, maybe it's not in their own home, but ah well -- get a third job...

I'm not sure whyit is the responsibility of the government for feeding the masses?

who said it was okay for louis to slack off? did you even read the above responses? I don't understand. Yes mal people are against abuse of the welfare system, but a third job? give me a break. Please, so let say a single mother of 2 has a full time job 8-5, her kids are school aged so there in school while she works. What does she do with the kids when she goes to her second job? no social programs to watch her kids according to you, how does she work? or is she to just leave her kids home alone and hope they'll be okay?

I hope you never get to a point that you require assistance, oh wait your thoughts that we don't need those programs. So will you starve? go to a life of crime? kill yourself, remember no government, nobody to watch your back incase life deals you spades. People need to get off there mansions and out of there hummers to see that there is a real world out there with real issues that may not be as cut and dry as typing on some internet forum. delete if this is a flame.

and these poor people who's house, jobs and food supplies are wiped out by Hurricane Katrina........who needs to help them eh. eff'em, its there fault for living in those areas eh????/

it's sort of flame but -- whatever....

I don't drive a car because I can't quite afford one, I don't own a house, let alone a mansion, because I cannot afford one. I DO NOT expect anyone to take care of me, but me...

Come down to NYC and watch the people on welfare driving around in their cars, or sitting on their porches drinking beer, talking about the latest show on cable... When you are on welfare, you do not get those benefits. I've spent enough time volunteeering in the NYC public school system, hearing pregnany 16 year olds tell me to my face that they want one more kid because it means a larger apartment... nevermind the fact that the father pays no child support for the first kid...

The system could possibly work, just not the state it's in right now... and for the single mother of two kids, where the heck is the dad, and why isn't he paying child support? Why is it my responsibility to pay for her kids when she should have kept her legs closed.

Natual disasters are not the same as not taking personal responsibility for your actions.

Helping a victim of a natural disaster in a time of need is not the same as an able bodied person not accepting a job instead of assistance because mowing yards or bussing tables is beneath them.

....again i think its safe to say that everyone is against abuse of any government program. I am glad that you are able to take care of yourself, but not everyone is like you. Some people do need help, whether it be someone who WAS supporting there family pay check to pay check and just lost there job, or people with mental issues that are not able to work. What do we do with the those people, just hope they starve off and die? Or is the person with the mental disablilites own fault for being born that way? I don't mean to attack, but i will as all you are doing Mal is ripping the people who are abusing and ignoring the people who might actuall need it or they might die.

my god! again, i every effing post i've typed is about the people who need the assistance not people who choose to bleed the system.

Perhaps because politically what candidate is going to go out on that limb? A too liberal media will likely take any attempt at reforming welfare and turn it into a [insert candidates name here] wants to target minorities/homeless/poor/lower class/etc. issue.

Then what did disaster assistance have to do with the cost of admission to the Juarez Donkey show?

Maybe in canuckistan it's different, but in the US those are the ones that get all the attention, and I am not going to give them a pass... If a person truly needs help, let them prove it, and if they need help, then the soup kitchens and other charities set up should be good enough... It gives them the assistance they need.

I'm sorry but did your read any of my responses or just choose to pull out a few words here and there? Mal had made a point that we don't need government assistance. and a natural disaster is a perfect example of a governemnt HELPING PEOPLE who may not be able to help themselves.

wow, Prove your mentally challenged or disabled? I don't care to add anything else to his thread. The high horse has gotten to high for me and i'm scared of heights! :p

Brian, I don't see FEMA/red-cross and welfare as being in the same category. I think of them as an insurance supplement to bolster affected regions, and since it comes and goes with disasters it's much less ripe for continued abuse.

I don't believe all govt assistance should be removed but it could sure use an infusion of tough-love.

That's hardly fair.

Where the Dad is is entirely beside the point.


Let's assume for a moment that Dad *is* paying support and isn't in prison or dead. Are you suggesting that the state dictate how many kids we are allowed to have? I don't think so.

I know when my Mom had me she was in a very nice suburban house -- two kids, a house, a husband and a car in the drive. When their marriage ended it was tough. My Dad paid support. My Mom worked hard and didn't go on welfare. That said, she did take advantage of government subsidized daycare. Having a full timejob is difficult if you are single and have a kid. You can't always rely in a neighbour (Mom tried that route it was a disaster) or relatives (none in the area). Daycare is expensive.

Now... for all the "handouts" my Mother recieved I would say the following: she has paid back the system many times over in the taxes she pays and moreso from the tax base I represent.

You wanted to hear some good stories about how government support works... there you go.

The point isn't that she wasn't busting her butt while some other family was... she busted her ass regularly. She made *many* sacrifices to see me grow up well. She received the leg up she needed to make it happen.

I'm sure it's possible that there are other reasons a single mother could be raising two kids. I mean, 'slut' is just one of many avenues to explore, isn't it?

I'm not surprised by what I've seen so far in this thread. We live in a country of cynics. Not that that isn't a good thing, but it's important to remember that unwavering cynicism is just as dangerous as blind optimism. And you're right, we don't hear the 'good' stories too often. It doesn't mean that they aren't out there it just means that bad news travels farther, faster.

Personally, I totally agree, the system isn't perfect. It's too easy to abuse, there's very little oversight, and all that jazz, but despite it's current 'unperfect' state, the system does do some good. And as long as it continues to give aid to those that need it, I'll gladly support it, even if it means giving aid to those that abuse it.

Even if there is some anecdotal evidence that some people abuse public assistance programs, they still serve a purpose.
In many ways, public assistance is merely a bone thrown to those who have benefited the least from the status quo. It was probably conceived with the notion that everybody should be able to eat food, drink water, and get shelter. It's not that radical a notion. In fact, i would wager that most of you benefited from a similar arrangement up until you were about eighteen years old. After this arbitrary point in time you were expected to move out and become a full fledged cog in the american economic machine.

Unfortunately, there seems to always be some portion of the human race who is content to live off the work of their fellow human. Due to the fact that the lower class lost the class war long before george washington was ever born, i think we generally only consider poor people when we visualize your typical economic parasite. I think that most of the richest people are just as parasitic and just as lazy and just as apt to benefit from what could be considered the squandering of your tax dollars(or the avoidance paying them all together).

wow everything looks so small when I'm up on my high horse... :D

I have always had a problem with people who think it's OK to get something for nothing, this includes people who sue for their own stupidity, as well as people who accept handouts. There's no such thing as a free lunch, even at work, if they buy lunch for the day, it means we are sitting thru an excruiciatngly dull meeting.

I'm left with no choice but to support the system as it is, though I will never stop ranting about it until it's fixed. If people choose to accept welfare for whatever reason, they have to give something back, whether it's painting a school, cleaning up on the highway, passing out cookies at a blood drive... you don't get something for nothing -- community service should be mandatory.

Section 8 housing is where I draw the line, I started ranting about it in the other thread, but it's wrong, it's unfair to the people who pay full price, and it's got to end.

Alright guys. From the perspective of someone who can’t afford college.

I cannot afford college, but I am going to college, hell I’m even studying abroad in Japan.

I get financial aid from the government, I also get lots of subsidized loans. I am now getting some scholarships, although, I have been forced to decline some… because accepting them would result in loosing my aid (almost double the scholarship).

With this I am able to go to college, and theoretically change my ‘class.’

So I must defend this system, because without it, where would I be?
With these programs, everyone can go to college, and I think that is great.

Here is my question. Why didn’t you get food stamps, when you could have gotten them? Is it because you have pride? Are you better then those people that use them?

What if you could have eaten fruit and got a well-balanced meal… over eating a pack of noodles?

I work, not in work-study, and didn’t know that I might have the option of food-stamps. I doubt I would use them, because I really don’t need them, now. But when I was first in college, and didn’t have a car so I couldn’t work… I was eating ramen all the time, and selling my blood … I think I’d have taken what was handed out.

There are people that abuse the system, I’m sure. Maybe you feel I abuse it, whatever.

Now, normally I don't reply to these sorts of threads. Discussions of this type, to me, usually end in everyone not agreeing. But I have been thinking about this for the past hour, and have decided to at least share my opnion, in the hopes of sparking some thinking on the issue.

Vincentt already posted some of what I was thinking about. If, for a moment, we all choose to say (and I think some of you have been saying) that "handouts" are "bad," that everyone should work for what they have, and no one should be given anything for free, then we have to go on to define what actually gets categorized as a "handout."

If there are people (such as Vincentt and I) who wish to go to college, but who cannot afford to pay for college out of our own pockets (and if you dig a little, you'll see that most of the population cannot afford, without SERIOUS pre-planning, to send their kids to college) we must rely on federal student aid for college. This, to some, is a "handout" because it means we are going to college on someone else's dime, with no gaurenteed return on the investment. I know that the reason the goverment likes to give money for people to go to college is because it's an investment in that person, as people who go to college are more likely to have higher paying jobs, therefore paying more taxes and boosting the economy in the long run. Still, that doesn't help the fact that I am going to college "for free." (granted, I have to pay the money back sometime, but that is a very, very lienient system).

I have health insurance, but it costs a lot, and based on my income for the past year Martel and I get free health care at the county Health Department. I am, in essence, getting a "handout." Granted, the quality of service isn't as high as at a private practice (in my opnion), but it's still keeping me from being sick.

I took sociology in college, and one of the things I learned from it is that, when you are poor, it is very, very hard to get out of the cycle of being poor. "The System" has some very hard cut rules about how much money you can make at a job before they deem you making enough to "live without assistance" and unfortuately, that amount isn't enough to find a house, feed yourself and any children you might have, and afford healthcare.

Now, being the Libertarian that I am, I firmly believe that people should take care of themselves, but I ALSO realize that it's very, VERY bad for a country if everyone is walking around homeless and destitute (which would be very near to reality if the goverment pulled the plug on "The System"). I also think that a frightfully good many of you are way, way too cynical. You seem like the type of people who bitch about things and then never take five minutes to think of what to DO about the things you don't like. No, you can't change the goverment, and no, you can't single-handedly fix every social problem that exists, but you CAN do small things that make a difference.

Like what you ask? Well, Mal has already stated that while she is cynical about the whole thing, she voluenteers at soup kitchens. Perhaps you can make the sacrifice of one Double Grande Mocha Latte a week (hell, every TWO weeks even) and donate $10 to a charity every month (it's tax deductible!). Go through your closets, which are bulging with clothes that you never wear, and donate what you don't need to Goodwill (that's tax deductible too- hell, the goverment is offering you INCENTIVE to donate to charity). No, I am not in favor of helping those who just want to bleed the system dry and not do anything in return. People who aren't contributing to the greater good of humanity (in the sense of sitting on the couch smoking pot all day on goverment assistance) don't command my respect. But, what makes me even MORE mad, what really fries my noodle, are those who constanly complain about the system, the goverment, the president, and the world and then never DO anything, much less educate themselves as to WHY things "aren't working."

My take on the whole thing- ignorance is the path to cynicism, but knowledge and understanding are the path to change. Go educate yourself, and be one step further from being the guy on the couch.

This is the side of the coin that too many people ignore when they are quick to jump on the, "let's blame the poor for living off the public teet" bandwagon.

Thank you for bring this up filtherton.

I don't see why this is a problem. I don't know exactly what Section 8 housing is (nice name to give it by the way :rolleyes: ) but if it is anything like the geared to income housing we have here it seems to serve a reasonable purpose.

You make a building where some of the units are market rate and others are geared to income. Ultimately you provide decent (not top end just decent) affordable houseing for people who could otherwise live in shit holes or on the street.

I suppose we could rely on either landlords to keep their rents low enough for people afford or the government or some charity could build more shelters for families that can't afford the rent (I don't know about where you are but there is an extreme shortage of affordable housing in Toronto).

With this system a number of units in an otherwise ordinary apartment building are earmarked as geared to income. The idea is that it isn't a permanent location but if it is, so what? They are getting by. It isn't like they rolling dough and laughing all the way to the bank if they were, that would be fraud and they would do some time.

you've never been in a building that has section 8 units then
ANY apartment can be a section 8 unit, they get an identical unit to what i pay thru the nose for... i have to jump thru hoop to move into a place - including meeting a specific income requirement and other bullshit, when a person moving into a section 8 unit just has to be poor.

I'll never be able to convince a liberal why this is a bad thing - you'll never be able to convince me that this is a good thing. Same reason why it irks me that the asshole kicking the seat on the plane behind me got his seat for half of what I am paying -- it irks me that the asshole who only knows super loud volume wise lives under me and pays less than what half of what I pay - it's not right.

I do believe that Wisconsin has installed a few things in their foodstamp program that are very helpful to weed out the freeloaders from the ones who need help.

Four years ago hubby was seriously injured, unable to work for three months and when he was physically able to return to work he had no job. So ultimately he was out of work for 6 months. We had gotten on food stamps during the time that he was out of work. I had an infant at the time and worked part time. Once he was able to return to work the welfare rules kicked in. He was required to go to some training sessions where a public assistance worker helped him refine his resume, taught him tricks to help him in an interview, and gave him information on job opportunities in the area. He was required to apply to a certain number of jobs each month and report on the names of the places and contact persons for each place. I know a number of people who do abuse the system but I know very few who have managed to accomplish it for long.

I believe that the drug testing idea would be excellent. Even something that would test for alcohol and tobacco use. Those things irk me so much to see someone using the food stamps to save their cash for junk like that.

I can see that it is a very different system from the one we have here.

1) There is an extreme shortage of affordable housing. The market isn't meeting the demand for affordable housing (and why should it?). It is only natural that owners should want to charge as much as they can get... and they do.

2) As there is a shortage, what do we do with the poor who need a place to live and have the choice of a) the street or b) a place you wouldn't want an animal to live that isn't even close to where they need to be for their employment.

In the past governments created public housing. This was a BAD idea. You end up with ghettos and projects that isolate and exacerbate the situation.

Mixing geared to income and market rate units makes a lot more sense in terms of having an integrated society.


Here is something to chew on... If those who are against these sort of "legs up" or "handouts" think those who are on the receiving end have it so good, why not live the life yourself? Trust me, it isn't a great life and you don't want to be there.

Wouldn't happen with me - I take care of me - I would never expect anyone else do do that for me - I couldn't live with myself if I was accepting handouts... everything comes with a price -- for me to accept a handout - woudlbe for me to sacrafice self respect.

Then you know how hard it is for some to take that handout... What a state they have to be in... You are a single person. Living without handouts is much easier.

Add a kid to the mix and it's another ball of wax.

I am a cashier at a busy grocery store on the University of Kentucky's campus. I see abuse of food stamps every day. I checked out a couple on Saturday that used food stamps to buy fucking ribs. They were wearing new clothes. Most of the people who use food stamps that I check out usually buy cigarettes too.

One public assistance program I can agree on that Kentucky has (I'm not sure if any of the other states have a similar program) is the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program. Citizens are given a voucher for items such as a pound of cheese or a gallon of milk. They have to get a certain kind of everything, and that's what I think public assistance needs to be heading for if they can't just get rid of it. I'm not against helping people out, but I think that help needs to come through private organizations.

I missed the part where it was explained why it's MY fault. However, I sure won't get out of paying for them.

Why do you think that is? Is it because 100% of landlords are greedy? Or could property taxes, permits, and requirements for developers to build parks, schools, roads, sewer lines, and "affordable housing" have anything to do with it?

I have yet to see the answer to the same question I keep asking, which is basically, "Why am I forced to support the people YOU want supported?"

If charity were handled by charitable organizations, I would have the option to contribute only to those I find worthy. That would certainly create a "quality control system" for weeding out deadbeats.

Unfortunately for some, it would eliminate a very widespread method of buying votes. Then what would liberal politicians do?

http://www.zompist.com/welfare.html

8% of 'your' money.
Food stamps being under 2%

Yes, it is sometimes these things but why would a free market keep the rent low when you can just as easily jack it up and get more?


You Americans are so funny. It always comes down to "what do I have" and "fuck you if you don't have it too". I'm sorry of that sounds harsh but that's just what it looks like from the outside.

I really don't care about my money getting redistributed through out the system to help those who need assistance. I am concerned about fraud and mismanagement but not legitimate need.

You are "forced to support the people YOU want supported" because your government has decided that it is the most efficient way to make the system work... I know, charitiable organizations can do it better. I don't think so.

Frankly, I'd be WAY more concerned about mismangement and pointless spending on other parts of your tax dollar (military and war anyone) than the small amount that goes to help your fellow man...

Why should my tax dollars pay the police when they answer a call you made to them? Why do my tax dollars go to pay for an invasion that i never supported in the least? You want to know why? Because that's how it is. That's part of life in america, or in any community. Individual members of the community make individual sacrifices for the better of the community as a whole. If you don't like it, perhaps in the name of consistency you should make damn sure that you never use any government service ever again, unless the benefits you recieve from that service are being paid for by your tax dollars and your tax dollars alone.

Don't worry, it looks like that sometimes from the inside as well. ;)

Here's the thing -- You're going to pay for them one way or another. I mean, I imagine with the demise of all government assistance, a lot of these folks are going to find they're way into the penal system, the healthcare system (I mean, all government assistance programs are gone, right?), and become quite the burden on the educational system (I mean, you think kids are stupid now...wait until they kill free lunch, food stamps and subsidized day care).

One of the main threats to our wonderful and proud public healthcare system up here in "Canuckistan" (love that one, btw) is what Bill was describing when talking about unnecessary medical treatment.

The only solution is to have a gatekeeper at the door that assesses need. Physicians are very hesitant to do this, because they may misdiagnose something very serious, and administrators are unwilling to do this because they do not have the clinical authority to turn someone away... All we can do is educate the public to not go to an emergency room unless it is an emergency.

We have a toll free line that connects you to a registered nurse, and you call and talk to her about your symptoms. She then recommends (without liability) what over the counter medications you could take and what the next clinical step is. The stats say that the majority of calls DO require emergency treatment. Haha, the majority of people only call the number when they should be calling an ambulance!

I personally do not want the job of telling someone "Your injury/illness is not serious enough to be treated here, please go to a clinic or make an appointment with a doctor's office". Plus, we have set up the system to reward physicians financially for seeing these patients.

The system would change if we gave doctors 1 dollar for assessing a sore throat. They would then tell the nurses to tell those sore throat patients to fuck off, and then the sore throats would have to find an alternative (hopefully a clinic) to have their condition treated.

Cost of sore throat treatment at an emergency room: 350$
Cost of sore throat treatment at a clinic: Priceless

/end medicare rant
/begin welfare rant

I sleep better at night knowing that people less fortunate than me are having their needs (and, unfortunately sometimes, their wants) met by the government. I do not want to live in a society that turns its collective back at the poor and lower class (sorry to revert to 'class' descriptors here, but it best describes my thoughts).

I accept all the abuse in the world rather than scrap the present system.

I will collect my thoughts and post more. Maybe along the lines of Mal's... define my perfect welfare system!

This already happens, after a fashion. You cannot buy, say, alcohol with EBT cards. And yes, I was personally in a position to know not too long ago.

Interesting to read the different opinions about a volatile issue. From a personal standpoint: After spending months in the hospital, I'm finally home recuperating. I will not be able to return to work anytime in the forseeable future, so I set about exploring my options in the wonderful world of state/county/federal assistance programs.

1. Apply for disability. I will have to wait up to 180 days before a final decision is made on my case. Mind you, I am applying for money I've put into the system through Social Security (FICA) deductions on my paycheck for almost 30 years. What do I do for food, rent, etc. in the meantime.
2. While I wait, I am supposed to apply for other "interim" assistance programs: food stamps, medical, emergency care, etc. In order to qualify for these programs I must meet eligibility requirements including, little or no income, no savings, no retirement/pension/IRA/stocks/bonds, no health/life insurance, little or no family assistance...you get the picture. One has to be in the worst shape in order to qualify for these benefits. Your personal life and private business is subjected to the most minute scrutiny, essentially, you no longer have private or personal business.
3. After going through this humiliating process, one is then told to wait up to 30 days for a decision to be made concerning your eligibility. The employees who handle your case are not the kind of people you'd want to socialize with, or be associated with, in your previous life. But, you've got to deal with them and their condescending attitudes in order to get the help you need.
4. Local charities such as churches, Salvation Army, are overwhelmed by the demand for help in their communities; therefore, they are forced to limit the amount of assistance they will provide.

There are thousands, maybe millions, in the same boat as I am. We've worked all our lives, paid our own way, but a single catastrophe can wipe out everything you've built. When your savings run out, when you've sold your stocks, cashed in your CDs, made withdrawals on your IRAs (at severe penalty, I might add), when you've sold your home, your car, your personal belongings...where do you go?

Sure, there are people who abuse this particular system, just as there are people who abuse the government/corporate system. The only difference is the amount of money being scammed. Scamming for $150 in food stamps is peanuts in comparison to $64,000 for a hammer. Outrage should be equal opportunity.

BTW: I owned leather and furs, ate steak and lobster, had cable TV, European vacations, and all the other trappings of a successful corporate worker before my illness. I have to wear my leather coat and my nice clothes when I visit the welfare office because I don't have anything else to wear. I want to eat a steak once in a while because that's what I did before, so I'll treat myself to one and buy it with food stamps. So, next time yoou''re in the grocery store line and you see someone buying a cheap steak with food stamps, please restrain your outrage: it just might be someone in similar circumstances.

I am well aware that I don't fit the stereotype of the typical freeloading lazy welfare cheat, but think about it. The only jobs most of them are eligible for are minimum wage deadends that are not sufficient to afford housing, childcare, food, clothing. The working poor face the same obstacles. Faced with these odds (and some hungry children) maybe some of them are utilizing the programs to survive. Overall, as already pointed out, the Federal Government spends far more subsidizing people and corporations who definitely don't have a need for any assistance, but it seems that it's easier to target the poor, the ignorant, and the helpless because they are all too visible. The media has helped make them into scapegoats while diverting your attention away from the unrestrained looting of the government coffers by the wealthy undeserving.

The middle class gets screwed on both ends in this deal, but for some reason they only use the poor (and a few layabouts) as their whipping boys.

Wow, what a thread. Okies, here's my $0.02.

I used to be very harsh about Public Assistance recipients as well. Why do I have to support them, didn't want Section 8 housing in my neighborhood (still don't actually, but more on that later). I felt that people had gotten themselves in a bad situation, let them get themselves out, I never asked for help when I was broke, etc.

What changed is my sister and my three very young nephews being left basically homeless, broke, alone and abandoned by her husband/their father, all the way across the country.
It's a very long story, but she managed to get to my home (in California), and get on assistance.

You know, I say this with all respect, honestly, to the folks who "have too much self-respect to accept public assistance" that's great. But when you're a needy single parent, that much self-respect is a luxury one can't afford. And believe me, CA public assistance works real hard to make sure that you don't build up self-respect. As someone earlier said, every single aspect of your life is examined in scrutinizing detail. You have to fill out the same paperwork constantly, and every single blasted month my sister got notices that she was getting immediately cut off because they didn't have her paperwork--they lost it, couldn't find it, but they threatened her and her babies with homelessness and hunger at every turn because they couldn't bother to file paperwork correctly. :|

Just last month she got yet another notice, and made the trip to the office to re-re-re-re-re-(ad infinatum) submit paperwork--and saw the packet she gave them previously on the worker's desk! She actually pointed it out and handed it to them. No thanks nor apologies for the likes of her, though.

They have failed to repay her for many expenses they were supposed to take care of. She doesn't qualify for gov't housing because she can't pass the credit check (thanks to soon-to-be ex) (yes, at least in CA you have to be able to pass a credit check to get Section 8 housing). Just all kinds of stuff. This is just the tip of the iceburg.

I do suppose one could say that she married poorly, made a bad choice of spouse. Yes she did. Glad that hasn't happened to very many folks (yeah, a light touch of sarcasm here)...but I don't think that should mean that my little nephews should go without housing and food. My nephews who currently have a 90-98% GPA in school (the two older ones, the youngest is too young for school still).

Still and all, she's making the most of her limitied opportunities. Things are looking up. She's grown as a person. She's not yet completely off PA. They live in a terrible section of town (which pains me deeply), and will likely have to move to another state, which means no local family to help out with babysitting. Of course it means I wouldn't get to be with my nephews while they grow up, which is hard, but I also don't want them living in a meth community either...

I've changed too. I have a much clearer view of PA, and of the wide variety of people who depend on it. I do agree it's broken, needs to be fixed. but not only in the ways many here advocate.

Yes, of course there are abuses--because there are people involved. But I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I wouldn't want to castigate wholesale those who *really* have no other options.
Be glad you've not been in that position.

Oh yeah, I happen to have Section 8 housing in my neighborhood, and yes, sadly, everyone knows which houses they are, too. I admit, I wouldn't want to live next to that...they don't appear to appreciate what they have, nor take care of it. Can't say that's true for all S-8 recipients. Oh yeah, there's also currently a 4-year waiting list for S-8 vouchers. Oye.
One last note to this long-ass post: Why do we have to support those who cannot support themselves? I think it's part of the cost of enjoying a higher level of civilization, much like free schooling for all citizens. Also it tends to increase the level of civilization over time.

I see a very huge difference between those who cannot support themselves, and those who cannot be bothered to support themselves.

The disparity between the rich and the poor grows greater the more rich the rich become. For many poor there isn't much way out. It's difficult to support a family on a waitresses income. (I'm not even including those who spend what little they make on drugs, alcohol or tobacco.) Education costs money as well. There aren't a lot of opportunities out there for parents to improve their status.

Those who can't be bothered to support themselves make me sick. But for situations like that of Sultana's sister or Hubby and myself for a time (serious injury) it makes for a lifesaver. We were glad for the help when we had it and do not use foodstamps or income assistance any longer. I know that if I wanted to we could get back on it. It would be easy enough for me to simply say that I don't make any income and because I have a child at home they would not ask me to work. But that would make me feel sick with myself for USEing the system like that. There are those who abuse it in such a way and safeguards to prevent that are what we need. Not a blanket refusal to assist those truely in need.

Because if people cannot get some things (house, food, etc), people tend to stop valueing traditional social mores, like private property and the sanctity of life. And really, at a certain level, they are right in their shift of views.

I don't like living near people who don't value private property and the sanctity of life. I also don't like having people slide into that kind of depths.

This is known as "positive externalities". There are significant positive externatlities to flattening the quality of life gradient in a society. And upping the quality of life of the poorest is quite cheap.

If Charities delt with inequity well enough, then those who did not give to Charity would be getting a free ride. They'd have the benefits of a more equitable society, without paying any of the cost.


Secondly, the capitalist system is just a system. One negative consequence of the capitalist system, compared to alternatives, is that it makes more people starve to death than other systems might. One patch on the capitalist system is to provide, at a trivial cost, the minimium support required to feed, clothe, house and care for those in the system.

I won't support a system that generates optimal growth and wealth for the successful on the backs of starvation, death and sickness.

If someone took Capitalism as holy writ, they might view this differently, and consider any lives ruined by it to be justly ruined. I view it as just another choice. And if you can make it a better choice with a bit of social assistance, to smooth over the rought edges, all the better.

Thirdly, bloody revolution. If the government won't feed the masses, it quite often finds that the masses proceed to destroy the government. It has happened. Admittedly, America hasn't seen much in the way of revolution -- the underclasses in America have never revolted against an entrenched nobility -- but it does happen when inequity gets bad enough. The closest the USA has had, in my recollection, is labour strikes and government/corp crackdowns on labour movements.

This isn't a huge factor, but it should be considered as well as the above.


As for the example of the federal disaster assistance program -- following the "no assistance" mantra, shouldn't people who live in hurricane areas know that hurricanes show up, and have sufficient insurance to cover for any costs? I mean, they shouldn't live there if they aren't ready for the consequences.

I cannot see the difference between someone who gets knocked up at 16 without someone to support her, and someone who chooses to live on a flood plain on the gulf of hurricane without being able to pay for private hurricane insurance.

Well, actually, the 16 year old has the possible excuse that she was young and stupid.

Well, sure. I agree with that. I'd go so far as to to say that everyone here would agree.

But the issues addressed/opinions shared in this thread seems to have evolved past that, or perhaps moved in a different direction.

OK, so here's something to spice it up a little more:
I think that if I'm supporting someone, I have the right to determine how they are going to live. How far could we take that with PA?

Someone mentioned manditory drug testing (which I think is a good idea, for the record). What else?
*Not allowed to get pregnant/get someone pregnant (have no idea how that would be enforced, short of mandatory short term sterilization, lol! Hmmm).
*Not allowed to eat junk food.
*Not allowed to eat food better than what non-PA folks eat.
*Not allowed to go out in public in slippers and pajama bottoms.
*Monthly Section 8 home inspections to ensure they're up to neighborhood standards.
*Enforced physical activity by forcing PA folks to generate their own power/electricity via treadmills (talk about 2 birds with one stone!).

I hope you see the hints of humor here, but shoot, there's no harm in brainstorming, I suppose. :p

And then of course, ideas on how to pay for the implementation of the ideas would be beneficial too.

It's a good thread, by the way. Interesting discussion generated.

Don't forget the riots in Los Angeles...a revolution on a small scale.

So what are you trying to say? That the majority of those on PA are just gaming the system? Do you have any proof? Where do you get this notion that abuse of PA is a widespread problem?

I work at the food bank at out church once a month....my main hope is that I will NOT see familiar faces from prvious months...

These prople are checked and rechecked to make sure that they qualify....we feed over 1000 people in a couple of hours...

Some I have seen before, many for the first time, but above all
we make them feel welcome and to hold their heads high.....

Some I look forward to seeing, of coarse Victoria is only three,
but we are good friends...she doesn't know that I know both of her
parents are in rehab again--maybe the adoption by her aunt will go through right away....I have hope and prayers for a better life
for all of them---especially Victoria. it's hard not getting close to the people in your community when they need help.

That system is already in place... it's called income tax.

If you're looking for actual statistics...no, I do not have them. Nor does anyone else. If those figures were available...and made public...then I believe that would be the death nell to the system as a whole. My proof is in my experience.

I have seen, with my own two eyes, people dressed in the latest Tommy Hilfiger, sporting $75.00 hairdos, wearing $150.00 Nike sport shoes, buying groceries that I have to pass over...and paying for them with food stamps.

I see these same people living in section 8/H.U.D. homes that, by law, must be kept to a "standard" that it's sometimes difficult to keep my own home. Of course, when it's trashed, guess who also gets to pay for the renovation.

The Salvation Army gives out plastic trash bags full of age appropriate toys, to needy children, at Christmastime. A very noble cause, as I hate to see any child do without...especially at Christmas time. Yet, when i saw, on the local TV news, the toys being distributed, every...single...car, all of them, that pulled up to receive the distribution, was much nicer and newer than the car that I drive to work every day. Yet, the ones driving those cars were telling the news crews things like; "This is so great. Oh, thank God. I didn't know what we were going to do for the kids this year."

I could go on, but you get my point. The proof is in the pudding.

I'm not some cold heartless bastard that wants to see little children starve, because they weren't born to a higher station in life. There are people that truly, for whatever reason, need help. I do not begrudge them that. What I object to, are the people that do better on "the system", without so much as having to move off of the front porch, than the guy that busts his ass on a shop floor all day long.

I understand people's indignation at people who receive some kind of public assistance and seemingly shouldn't. But really, getting your knickers in a knot about this small, small minority does a disservice to the many people who try very hard to move off welfare.

Here are a couple of reasons not to get so worked up (from http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html):

1. Public assistance programs (not counting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) make up only 1% of the federal budget, and about 2% of most state budgets.

2. "Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996)."

Furthermore, a few studies have indicated that something like 20-30% of welfare recipients are "unemployable" due to mental or physical disabilities.

Why don't you get equally worked up about the rich guy who gets first crack at IPOs because he's already a large institutional investor, or the corporate agriculture company that gets paid for NOT planting, or gets heavily subsidized so they can undercut growers from other countries? I understand the impulse that leads to the really strong sense of unfairness that someone else can get something for nothing and you're busting your ass to make do, but really you'd be better served to get pissed about something that affects you more.

Woah, I think we have travelled outside of the Monkeysphere here.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

How about we don't get worked up about any of this, and instead sit back and relax?

I really think that You'd be better served to not get pissed at all, whether it affects you or not.

Hey, my buddy Carl Marx said that we have to rise up, and even Bob Marley wanted to fight against the system.

After extensive head scratching and pondering the existence of good/evil/sloth/gluttony/envy/pride has resulted in my personal gratitude that I don't require help to survive... I am also thankful that people can turn to the collective and recieve help.

I thought long and hard about Mal's system of segregation and re-education, but realized that to enforce that we would have to violate people's Constitutional (or in Canada, our Charter) rights. When we force people to act in a certain way to obtain assistance, are we not stripping them of their liberty? Have people died in wars to allow government to dictate living conditions on the poor and destitute? My friends, the present system is as good as we (the royal use of the word here) can get. People are still free, although that is a relative term, to decide how to live within the means government gives them.
Freedom is priceless in my opinion, and I would rather hand over all of my humble possessions than decide how someone else should live. Is that not what some of the posters are doing in this thread? Are they not deciding how people should live? How DARE WE? Oh, this is just a discussion, and we are not actually in charge of anything... thank (insert personal deity here)

Here's the thing. From my experience, most upper middle class americans are whiny, sniveling, self important gasbags. The proof is in the pudding of my personal experience. I am, however, aware that my personal observations do not make up the whole of what reality is. There are a great many upper middle class americans that i have never come into contact with. There are a great many, i'd assume a majority, of people on PA that you have never come into contact with. Perhaps you have some sort of sampling method to determine which PA beneficiaries you will observe, but i somehow doubt it. It doesn't make sense to make to make bold proclamations without any sort of acceptable evidence to back them up. I wouldn't expect to be taken very seriously if i did such a thing myself.

If you want to complain about people gaming the system, that's fine. I'm sure most americans would agree with you that it is wrong for people to game the system, especially when those people are poor and the system is PA. Just don't pretend that you have any kind of factual basis on which to make the claim as to any specific percent composition of cheaters on public assistance.

It doesn't matter if you don't need public assistance. I don't need a math tutor, but i can see wisdom in the fact that they exist, and i don't begrudge people who make use of their services(which tuition helps to pay for at my school).

Or people that you weren't AWARE were on PA.

I know several of people who were on PA at one time or another who would avoid shopping during busy times at the store. I myself would do the same and with the new card instead of coupons for foodstamps it was easy to sortof scan it without ANNOUNCING that it was foodstamps. I'm not sure if people really noticed often, except for the cashiers. I would also avoid going with a slew of screaming kids (or even just one if I could avoid it) and tried to dress as conservatively as possible. No big brand names, not lots of brand new stuff or old cruddy stuff. Something inconspicuous. I didn't want people to notice that I was using foodstamps. I was also careful not to buy a lot of junk or expensive stuff (no caviar). Just the basics mostly. I have a feeling there are quite a few people out there who truely need the assistance, are not proud of it, and don't want people to know they are on it.

The people who are abusing the system seem to not be ashamed of using PA and almost seem to flaunt it. I have run into a few of those myself. Those are the types you are more likely to see I think and where you get your general impression of the PA dependants. Laziness in any form is disgusting and detrimental to our society.

I'm confused. Or, it's possible, perhaps, that I have not yet had enough coffee. I fail to see in any of my posts, where I have attempted to make any "claim as to any specific percent composition of cheaters on public assistance". Nor have I quoted anything on a "factual basis", other than what I have observed. In fact, I do believe that I have stated several times that I am accutely aware of the fact that there are many out there that must have Public Assistance in order to survive. I do not begrudge one nickel to any hard working human being, whose back is truly up against the wall. I will say it one more time. What I object to are those that are on Public Assistance that somehow manage to maintain a better lifestyle than the guy sweating his ass off in a plant for 8 to 10 hours a day.

lurkette...you know me well enough to know that I do get worked up over these things. I live in Nebraska, for Pete's sake. I am aware, and outraged, over the evils of Agri-Business. That is, however, fodder for a different thread (and one that I may very well get to). I also know that the abuses perpetrated on Public Assistance amount to a mere drop in the bucket of government abuse. It is, however, the abuse that is waved in my face when I'm at the grocery store, or at the doctor's office, or when I'm writing the mortage check. I see it more. And...it pisses me off. As I said in the opening post, it is the one topic that gives me the appearance of a neo-con. Wouldn't ustwo just fall over in shock? ;)

Hey, Bill - it's not just you I was aiming the comment at. (I know your political proclivities ;) ) It just seems that a lot of people get very bent out of shape about these anecdotal situations, and tend to draw conclusions about people on public assistance, or about the program in general, based on those anecdotes. The incidence of actual fraud is hard to pinpoint, and studies I saw ranged from 1.2 - 8-ish percent of welfare cases being referred for fraud investigation, ranging from a few thousand dollars in overpayment to hundreds of thousands of dollars in TANF and housing assistance over a period of several years. These are isolated cases, but my concern is that even though we KNOW we are just getting upset over individuals who cheat the system, the individual stories tend to aggregate into a cultural story: "welfare cheat." It started with Ronald Reagan's welfare queen and it's been a long haul ever since to change public perceptions of people on public assistance. I just think we need to be careful getting into high dudgeon over a few visible instances, and direct our energies somewhere more productive. (To threadjack further....for instance, why does TANF perversely require that mothers of infants go back to work within 6 months to keep benefits, and not provide for HIGH QUALITY day care assistance when all the developmental literature argues for the cost-effectiveness of having a consistent primary caregiver for at least 6 months after birth?)

I think all non-emergency assistance should be on a loan basis, some thing like tax and payment deferred student loans. People that take advantage of assistance would view it differently if they knew they had to pay it back. I have a neighbor that keeps trying to talk my wife into applying for WIC, like her. I think she is trying to make herself feel better about abusing the system by getting others to do it.

We live in $250,000 homes and drive decent cars. Yes we have bills that are at time hard to meet, but why should I take advantage of a system that is flawed. When I can't pay something, I call the creditor and come up with a plan to pay in parts. I get a second job or work overtime if I can and basically bust hump. Meanwhile, she goes out a buys a brand new Excursion. I don't know their entire situation, but if they can afford that new $60K SUV, they don't need assistance. Buy a used vehicle or STOP HAVING KIDS YOU CAN'T PAY FOR!!! She is also at least 250lb and if she would eat a bit less would probably have a whole lot more money. I hate people that think everyone else owes them something. Be thankful for what you have and if you want more, get off YOUR ASS and work harder!

Just a little note, it actually costs significantly more to eat healthy. That's one of the big problems in the poorer areas of bigger cities, folks are getting by on $1 burgers and $0.69 burritos and whatnot. Many food sellers in those areas do not offer fresh fruit and veggies, and folks tend to not make the effort it would take to get them, and pay more for them than for a cheeseburger...
Overall it's much cheaper to eat unhealthily. :(

This is assuming that all people have the middle-class luxuries you're used to having: health, social support, backup resources.

A lot of people who end up on public assistance have mental health problems that are untreated because they don't have the education to seek treatment, or they don't have the insurance to pay for it. If you're poor, for whatever reason, it's harder to climb out. If my car breaks down, I have a credit card. If my credit cards get out of hand, I have home equity. If I lose my job, I have benefits and disability insurance. Not all people have the wherewithal to manage an extra job (transportation becomes an issue, as does job availability); not all people can handle the impact of a catastrophic illness, or any kind of mental illness (thank god my employers, who research mental illness, were understanding of my depression after my brother died!); not all people are able-bodied, educated, have any kind of skills, or can pull themselves up by their own fucking bootstraps. I get sick of this middle-class "why can't they just help themselves" attitude, as well as the "I did X so why can't you?" I see no problem with keeping a FREE social safety net in place to catch those who, for whatever reason, can't catch themselves. As a society, we have often created the context in which individuals find themselves making choices, good or bad. And it strikes me that as a society we have both a humanitarian and a practical interest in making sure that these people have some kind of structure for getting back on their feet, without indenturing them for the sin of having fallen on hard times.

Fair enough. Though you did say in your first post that you believed that the vast majority of people on PA don't need it. This would seem to imply that you believe that the majority of people on PA are cheating the system. All i did was question the relevance of that assumption in light of it lacking any possible means of verification.

PA makes you angry because it allow people who don't work as hard as you to live better than you on your dime. I'm just curious as to why you chose to focus on PA when nearly every aspect of human existence has this dynamic.

Not really. If you compare volumes of food. I was 193lbs less than a year ago. I'm 148lbs now and find that I eat less than half of what I used to. My grocery bills are so much less now buying only healthy food. More expensive if you are too lazy to make your own food and only eat out, but that goes back to the get off your lazy ass subject again. They would actually have to make themselves meals.

I love it when Lurkette weighs in on a subject... all I have to do is point to her well written posts and say, "I agree".

No, I didn't come from the middle class support you speak of. I see that as a pathetic excuse to expect from others. I didn't start off as well, but I don't think other people owe me.

I worked two jobs at $5 an hour and my wife worked two jobs as well. My wife and I took out student loans to go to school. I got an internship through school and worked my ass off. I worked through the night just about every week. My boss gave me all the overtime I wanted because he knew there was no one else there willing to work as hard as me. If there was a deadline or budget problem, I got the job. Instead of complaining about money and bills, I asked for more work. Even if I had money, I would never turn down a project.

I could have used the "I come from a poor background" excuse, but I have more pride than that. I wanted more, so I worked harder to get it. I didn't expect someone else to pay for my school. I took loans, knowing that I would pay it back. It is not where you come from that makes you who you are, it is your own drive, determination and dedication that makes someone successful.

There will always be those with more that me, but they don't owe me anything because I have less. There will always be those that have less than me, but I have no sympathy for those who choose to be that way because they are lazy. If you are lazy, don't put your hand out to me!

There is a difference between can't help themselves and don't want to help themselves! A difference between I want a brand new car and I can do with a used one. Because Joe Schmo overtime to buy his new car, should he have to pay higher taxes so I can have one without working the overtime? Should spoiled little Paris Hilton owe everyone else because they didn't start off the same as her. Does she owe them that? If you don't like where you start off or currently are, you have the choice. Sit and eat cheese on the couch while you whine about it or get up and work to change it. Don't expect me to work harder, so you don't have to.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying not to help anyone. If some needs help up after being hit by some hardship, they should get help. But help doesn't mean it should all be done for them. If you want to get up you have to make some effort yourself to go hand in hand with the help. That why I see a system of payment deferred, tax free loans with a plan to self support as the best way of helping. Teach them how to support themselves. If they don't want to learn or work, then you are not helping them.

If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach a man how to fish, he will eat for a life time.

avhg1, as far as you are concerned, have you taken more from society, or has society taken more from you?

It depends on the angle you look at it from. I don't feel like I take much from society. All acts of kindness are passed on by me. I feel like I could and want to do more for others, but you can't starve yourself to feed everyone else. I'm the type of person that will pull over when I see someone broken down on the side of the road. I like to give to those who are really in need. I donate money for disaster relief and give blood. I'm no saint, but you would never have to worry about me stealing from anyone or taking advantage of them.

In the respect of society taking from me, I get annoyed when I see money that has been put forth with a stated purpose going to other purposes or being taken advantage of by those that are lazy. I don't think society owes me anything and therefore I don't view it as taking as much as borrowing in order to be able to pay back more. That's why I say that I would have no problem borrowing money until I'm back on my feet and can pay back what I can afford as things get better.

I'm not a strictly black and white person. There are grey areas to almost every subject. There will always be thieves and con-artists, but I don't judge whole groups based on individuals. PA is the same thing. It shouldn't be taken away from those that need it, but it should be refined and revised to deter those that do not. Usually, those that don't need it are looking for something for free and don't want to pay back what they've taken. Those that truly need help are happy to get it and are proud the day that they have brought themselves up to the point that they are able to pay back the help they been given.

Since we're dealing in anecdotes:

avhg1, I didn't come from a privileged background, either. My brother was born with a congenital illness that made it difficult if not impossible for us to get health insurance. Neither of my parents went to college. My dad worked a working-class job and got paid a decent wage that kept us just out of poverty. We got government cheese and butter and stuff, but so did most of the people in our poor-ish rural midwestern farming community. My parents made some stupid decisions (like my dad's penchant for buying used cars that didn't work, oh, and his cocaine habit) but we had good family support and some genetic predisposition to intelligence that had us kids come out all right. I put myself through college with scholarships, grants, and some loans that I'm still paying back.

Now you know my background.

We didn't get a lot of help, and I worked my way out of the cycle of poverty, too. But I had a few things going for me, in addition to just working hard: 1. parents who valued education, even though (or because) they didn't have it themselves; 2. the brains to get scholarships to a private college; 3. health care when I was an adult to deal with the mental and physical health problems that are the statistical lot of people who grow up in poverty. Not all people have these advantages. Not all people CAN work harder, smarter, whatever. How can you learn to fish well if you're bipolar, or borderline retarded, or a high-school dropout, or an unwed teen parent? Using the "well they should help themselves" argument to reduce the availability of assistance dooms people who have made one bad choice, or had bad circumstances, and who can't do what you and I did, to a life of no hope, no way out. Demanding that others work their way out of a bad situation just because you were able to neglects all of the various circumstances that people in need face. Absolutely, people who are able to work should do so, and absolutely there is a sense of entitlement in this country (not just among the poor) that extends beyond the basic needs, and negates personal responsibility. But to hold the individual solely responsible for this neglects the cultural and institutional role in creating the context in which the individual finds him/her self, and is a poor argument against social responsibility for helping those individuals become self-reliant if they can.

It's not "individual responsibility" vs. "welfare state;" The only thing that works is both/and: creating an environment in which individuals who are otherwise unable to take responsibility for meeting their own needs are able to find the means to do so. Removing the social safety net, or lowering the qualifying bar for those who should receive it, does nothing to create that environment.

The biggest problem that I have with the way that public assistance is structured is the incentive and lack of incentive that it creates. I have no problem helping people that are less fortunate than myself, I think that it is fair and reasonable to have a public safety net that provides a minimal level of subsistance to those that need it. However, I have a problem when these programs incent people toward abuse.

Have another child while on welfare ... we'll send you more money.

Get a job while on welfare ... we'll send you less.

Public assistance must be structured to incent and favor those that work hard to get off the public dole. Public housing should not be the same as private. Public medical care should not be as inclusive as private. You shouldn't be able to eat as well on food stamps, as with cash.

Lurkette, I believe we are on almost the same page and have more of a semantics issue then a difference in belief of the purpose of PA. Those who are disadvantaged mentally or physically are different cases. I was pointing to more the case where people that feel entitled to things that they are not willing to work for. I have an aunt with Down syndrome and she will always be on public assistance. The difference is that she still works to the best of her abilities for the things she has. Those types of assistance are not the cases that I’m referring to. I said before, assistance needs to be reformed to better help those who genuinely need it, not those who want to take advantage of it. In my own experience, I can only say that I have seen more cases of abuse of the system than the system being used as it was intended. I have also seen the difficulty that those who truly need the help have in getting it as a result of others abusing it.

The food stamp program varies from state to state; as for in Ohio, [afiak] you cannot buy tobacco or alcohol with the Ohio Direction card [aka food stamps]. Furthermore, I qualify for the work study program [in college] and my family sure as hell doesn't get food stamps [we do live comfortably enough to go without food stamps or assistance]. Even if I qualify, hmm...should I get them ? probably Not. I'd like to think I won't need them in the coming months when I start college, but we'll see.

Although I can understand fellow TFP'ers frustrations, remember that the examples you see probably aren't the typical/primary recipients. I've volunteered occasionally on sunday nights with some others from my high school and help feed the various homeless people in downtown cleveland. Those people sure aren't living the same lifestyles as described.


http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=69
As described above, there is a cycle for the lower class to eat more unhealthy. Also, remember that the food prices in stores where the the poor shop are often more expensive than for suburban/higher socioeconomic status. Why ? First off, the location of 'big box' volume stores [i.e. wal-mart, costco, etc.] are in the suburbs and are only now starting to sprout up in poorer, urban areas. [I don't have the data here, but I know the link's out there...]
Secondly, the costs to maintain a store in poorer/urban areas are often more expensive, because insurance rates and shoplifting rates are higher. Lastly, those who do not have their own automobile are at the mercy of their nearest shop [even an expensive convenience store] because it's not always feasible or available to use public transportation for the grocery shopping. Thus, the cycle continues, and the poor can't stretch their culinary dollar to the capacity of others.

Don't forget about the working poor either.

4 weeks * $5.15 an hour [federal min. wage] * 50 hours of work [which is quite a bit, imho] = $ 1060 a month.

That's before taxes, rent, food, cost of transportation, anything.. Don't forget, sometimes you'll have to take off of work to go pick up your PA check and deal with the admin and bureaucracy there. Employers aren't always understanding that you need to take off for such matters [Asking your boss that you need off for that, it's very difficult and humbling - because of the stigma that is attached to people on PA, a co-worker had to deal with that, plus transportation to everywhere. The co-worker has to walk everywhere - he's surely a healthy lad, at 23, albeit with ulcers]

No matter where you live, if you're trying to climb out of poverty, it's an uphill battle, and sometimes you can't tell if and how you're trying to help you....

/props to everyone's civility thus far in the thread

catcha back on the flipside,
will.

Why do some people feel the need to crawl face first in a pit of molten glass, when there is a bridge 20 feet to the left?

I know you want to wear your badge, you fought hard to get where you are, and everyone likes to say that.

Most people on welfare and food stamps are extremely embarrassed, or have gone past that and ‘gave up’ the ability to be embarrassed.

Everyone looks down on them; they aren’t laughing their way to the bank.

There are people who are not on PA, that NEED to be on PA, but don’t because of these notions of pride. Their children suffer all because the notion that only the shittyist of people get food stamps, or have ‘free lunch’ at school.

I’m sure some of you would love to have people really starve and actually DIE on the streets. PA keeps gives people a chance; assisted housing gives people a chance.

Like someone else said, if PA wasn’t there, those people would find their way back into the system. If it is down to two choices starve, or steal for food, how many people will make what choice?

I didn't crawl through a pit of molten glass. I worked hard and have pride that I did. That's like asking why someone runs a marathon when they could have driven a car to the finish line. There's nothing wrong with ambition, hard work and not expecting hand outs. I think we could all benefit from a little better work ethic. Shouldn’t we all be able to tell our kids or grand kids how we walked up hill in the snow to school, both ways!

I don't believe in making people suffer, but PA should be a helping hand, not a ride in a carriage through the park. There are those (mentally or physically disabled) who will need help forever and that’s not what I’m referring to. I only have a problem with people who are not looking for a helping hand, but to take advantage of the system. It is really the PA system that is flawed, not those who get help from it when they really need it.

Others have said it more eloquently in this thread, and elsewhere, but I'll put it more bluntly. You're buying something for your money, and don't think you're not. 8% is pretty cheap, considering the alternatives.

1) I will say this again. For those who think being on PA is a "carriage ride in the park" please be my guest and walk a mile in their shoes. If the lifestyle is so great, why not live it yourself.

2) This is such a pointless argument. (Just about) everyone agrees that PA serves a worthwhile purpose and are generally only upset with those who are "gaming" the system. We all agree that anyone who committs fraud should be dealt with. Considering it is 8% of the budget compared with much worse departments and programs that overspend and scam the system why get so bent out of shape. Let's face it, scams or no, 8% is gonna get spent. If you want to see the less than 1% (a number given above) stop gaming the system come up with a better system and propose it to your local government.