Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's called the permanent underclass, I think, and there is not much you can do about it short of burying people alive for being poor. There are not enough jobs for everyone in america, and the government goes after people for selling things on the black market. Some people are just stuck in their low economic level and will never rise above it.
Ok, I guess I'll write my post again in a different way.
Welfare = Scapegoat created to blame poor people for our problems.
Welfare is a great idea, but the moment you use welfare to give people money, you have setup the system for failure.
Now thanks to Ronald Reagan's fictional "Welfare Queen" we have a generation of Americans that think that everybody that is poor is poor by choice and does it to live on everybody else's taxes.
Instead of giving people money, they should be give food, free daycare for their children, free medicine, free doctor check ups.
But we can't do that because then it would make it a success.
For those who really are interested in understanding the causes for our underclass growth I'd strongly recommend some reading on the subject of poverty and the various ways in which it has been addressed here in the US. The public welfare system has been an evolutionary one that has seen many changes in the methods of it's administration. Most of the latter day changes have been aimed at making an attempt to return to the original notion of aid being a temporary thing.
Most of those who benefit from public assistance are the young, the elderly, and the disabled, the remainder are those working poor who seek aid in the form of food stamps and housing assistance. The consensus among the majority of American's with regard to education is that you will need a great deal of skill in order to survive, how this fits with another area of consensus, the high cost of education, and the university entrance requirements, reveals one of the paradoxical dilemmas for the poor, and the not so poor.
With that conundrum in mind I'm wondering how we'll ever have a decent society where the majority are doing alright while having some form of aid for those who aren't. One of the worst misconceptions is the one that assumes a kind of universal frame of mind that would adequately define those in poverty. On the one hand we cheer those who pull themselves up from the ranks of the chronically unemployed, and on the other we readily acknowledge the fact of a rapidly changing work paradigm. Concluding that the cause of unemployment may well be laziness is a form of lazy reasoning in itself, understanding the entire dynamic provides us with a set of problems that will defy the one liner cures offered by the lazy thinkers.
Often enough those who seem most enraged at the thought of the welfare recipient as actually worthy of any assistance are those who preface their rant with a disclaimer stating their agreement with the idea of assistance to those in true need. They then insist upon the welfare recipient's working in some capacity, be it in service to others or at state employment functions, completely ignoring the irony of their own acknowledgement of our current employment woes and the fact that children and the elderly can't work at all.
Poverty produces undesirable traits in most people, the worst being a kind of demotivating frame of mind, coupled with a resigned acceptance of their circumstances. Often the poor seek to ameliorate their discomfort with drugs, booze, and all too often a barely concealed rage that offends polite society. The other widespread view of those poverty stricken individuals comes from the most visible of the poor, the street people, a group that often includes the mentally ill and a quasi criminal element, but these are the people receiving private aid for the most part.
We'll always have some form of welfare, in spite of all it's faults the public relief system does a pretty good job of achieving it's goals of short term aid, but the future of the country looks to be one that will include a huge need for accommodating the permanently marginalized populace that is a result of a growing techno framework of employment coupled with a hope resistant mindset common among many of that class.
Your 100% correct, I know there is a shortage of jobs in some areas. I feel for those people, I really do. They cannot pick up and move to an area with jobs without money. We most definitely should not kill them off lol. I just want to see them work for money. community service, volunteer,, ect.
I realize some people need welfare. I'm not against having welfare, I'm against having a system that is so widely abused. I work downtown and the first of the month makes me sick. People lined up to cash checks bragging about how they got more and how to do it. Literally lines out of the liquor, beer, cigarette store. This is what passes me off so much. the fact of the matter is any time you give away no strings attached free money, it will be abused.
I didn't think they still issued paper checks..... I thought that most, if not all, had gone to ebt cards??
and we see the same problem with the white underclass in the smaller, rural towns.... a LOT of people know how to game the system to get SSDI benefits, along with the other forms of help....
putting people to work doing ANYTHING they are capable of doing is a very good idea.... imagine what could be accomplished with our decaying infrastructure!! also, just going somewhere and having something productive to do leads to a sense of accomplishment, instead of the defeatist attitude that comes with long-term lack of productivity.... childcare could be provided.... it might would cost a bit more to get the programs started, but would be well worth pursuing....
Let me start off by first saying that I am all for helping those with true disabilities and injuries with no strings attached. Let me also say that I am all for helping the poor get to a better place. With that said, why is that our social programs generally come with no strings attached? Everyday you see perfectly able, lazy, uneducated people living in government housing just sitting back and collecting a check. Why have we stooped so low as a country that we think these people have a right to that housing and assistance?
IMO it would make more sense to have mandatory stipulation to receive this money such as job training classes, education (FREE optional community college and mandatory GED requirements), or even community service. Something to make those who choose to be lazy work for their money like the rest of us. The problem with our system is we do not provide enough incentive to better yourself. Living on assistance may not be luxurious in any way, but based on what i have seen all across America, many people are still OK with it simply because their basic needs are met for doing nothing. Why is it morally or socially wrong to leave someone who is perfectly able to work and contribute to society homeless because they choose not only not to work, but also choose not to strive to achieve more?
America has turned into a nanny state where everyone is entitled to a comfortable life with limited luxuries such as a cell phone regardless of what they contribute. I am sick of paying taxes so some lady with 5 kids from 5 guys by age 22 can sit at home and talk about how society holds them down while smoking Newport's and watching a 45 inch flat-screen. We need to institute consequences for poor life choices and stop believing everyone has a right to be taken care of.
************************************************** ************ MODERATOR NOTE: Please read post #10 before posting in this thread ************************************************** ************
Those people have a right to not starve and to have a roof over their heads because the economy isn't able to provide jobs for everyone. Not all social programs are no-strings-attached. I don't know about now, but receiving welfare used to be contingent on the recipient demonstrating that s/he had applied for jobs each month, and had been turned down. Some states at one point instituted "workfare", where recipients of welfare were required to do volunteer work. And free community college is exactly what Obama now is instituting, and being attacked for, I might add.
American is very far from a nanny state. Welfare and unemployment benefits have been cut back significantly, due to the recession.
I'm curious how many people are actually out there that fit the OP's imaginary profile of young people with 5 kids and a nice TV, smoking cigarettes? Few young people smoke these days. And if states weren't rolling back the right to abortion, there probably wouldn't be so many kids being born to people who can't support them. The government actually does, in various ways, provide support for single moms who want to go to school, from what I've read on this forum.
Please research the issues before posting an OP, people.
I suggest that we return to sharecropping instead of the welfare system.
Upsides: Healthier food, reduction in obesity, improvement in economic output and self-sufficiency.
Downside: Still causes an endless cycle of debt and poverty for the tenant farmers.
I grew up in Appalachia - one the poorest and most welfare dependent areas of the country.
What made me even more conservative than I already was was when a grade school friend of mine, whom I can't remember ever working a day in his life, was receiving SNAP, SSDI, TennCare and other benefits/subsidies to the tune of $1100/month. While that's certainly not living high on the hog, I was only working for $11/hour at the time, with no benefits at all, and netted between $1200-$1300/month after taxes. Meanwhile, this guy was sitting at home all day, netting only a couple hundred less, and being able to work outside, go mountain biking, etc, while I was in the call center at 7 AM every morning. His parents were well off financially, so he lived at home and never hit a lick.
It would be one thing if he was just lazy, but I think the lack of structure that came from a lack of a defined schedule led to other problems. Because he had nothing to do, he had time to get into a lot of illegal/suspect or outright useless activity that those of us who have to work simply don't have time to do. Because the money was "free," he didn't value it, and it pretty much all went to drugs and alcohol.
He's a severe case, but I can't tell you the literally dozens of people I know who receive some sort of benefits, many of whom are also getting money from the underground economy.
Are there people who get benefits because they absolutely need it? Sure, and I'm not opposed to that, temporarily. It remains that much of the system is rife with abuse and promotes a lifestyle of dependence, especially among the low skilled (for whom low wages are about all they can earn) and in areas like Appalachia, where there is no work.
I grew up in Appalachia - one the poorest and most welfare dependent areas of the country.
What made me even more conservative than I already was was when a grade school friend of mine, whom I can't remember ever working a day in his life, was receiving SNAP, SSDI, TennCare and other benefits/subsidies to the tune of $1100/month. While that's certainly not living high on the hog, I was only working for $11/hour at the time, with no benefits at all, and netted between $1200-$1300/month after taxes. Meanwhile, this guy was sitting at home all day, netting only a couple hundred less, and being able to work outside, go mountain biking, etc, while I was in the call center at 7 AM every morning. His parents were well off financially, so he lived at home and never hit a lick.
It would be one thing if he was just lazy, but I think the lack of structure that came from a lack of a defined schedule led to other problems. Because he had nothing to do, he had time to get into a lot of illegal/suspect or outright useless activity that those of us who have to work simply don't have time to do. Because the money was "free," he didn't value it, and it pretty much all went to drugs and alcohol.
He's a severe case, but I can't tell you the literally dozens of people I know who receive some sort of benefits, many of whom are also getting money from the underground economy.
Are there people who get benefits because they absolutely need it? Sure, and I'm not opposed to that, temporarily. It remains that much of the system is rife with abuse and promotes a lifestyle of dependence, especially among the low skilled (for whom low wages are about all they can earn) and in areas like Appalachia, where there is no work.
eh, if he is doing drugs, he probably won't be around very long to "enjoy" his existence. So, is he still alive?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
