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.
No. I'm saying that churches and other private groups did a very good job of helping those in need. They still do. They weren't perfect but neither is todays government handout system. There will always be someone living on the streets. But today there are not enough of those church and private resources to help as many of the poor (as a percentage of all poor) as they did before. The sad fact is that people were far more self reliant back then. The Depression was terrible but most people didn't demand a welfare check in those days. Today they demand a welfare check and much more. People have changed and, in many ways, not for the better.
Are you serious? There were no welfare checks during the depression, welfare was enacted in 1938, it was enacted because people saw what a failure reliance on 'private groups' for charity was when the unemployment rate was 25%. People were more self reliant when most of the population was rural and had the ability to grow their own food.
Cato is a libertarian think tank, what they and Heritage have done is added up every single available welfare benefit and come up with grossly inflated numbers. They add in HUD housing vouchers yet only 24% of the poor receive any housing assistance, that alone can add $10,000-$20,000 to the "value of welfare". They also add in medical care even though they fail to mention that even the middle class receive a form of 'welfare' when they get a ACA subsidy on health insurance.
In Nevada a mother and two children on welfare receive $383 cash and $500 in SNAP benefits. The wait list for a HUD voucher is about 5 years, those receiving a HUD voucher have a hard time finding a landlord who will accept it. The only other benefits she is entitled to are WIC vouchers for formula and baby food if she has a child under 5.
Exactly-beat me to it. It's not possible to receive every welfare benefit under the sun. One program often knows you out of the others or lessens the benefits. For example-shelter costs are used as a deduction for the SNAP program so if someone is living in Section 8 they probably don't pay much rent so would not get as much in SNAP as someone responsible for $500/month in rent.
The welfare system is not perfect, but more often than not it does what it is intended to do-helps people temporarily. The "Welfare Queen" may have existed in the 1980's (doubt it though) but it's just not possible anymore after Clinton reformed TANF. Recently, Cash was also ended completely for disabled people. Now, a person only qualifies if they have children-and it is temporary.
Also, starting in January 2016 SNAP will also be a temporary program for adults with no young children. I think a person can only receive it 3 Months over a 3 year period.
I wouldn't really put much faith in anything coming from the CATO Institute, funded by the Kochs.
It actually is a nuisance for many to keep up with all the paperwork/verification/renewals every 3-6 months and many have to reapply many times since they can't keep up with appointments/deadlines.
(FYI-I was a caseworker with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare for 5+ years). I rarely saw any of the absurd claims people have about welfare recipients "living the high life".
I say it often, but the majority of working age/able-bodied SNAP recipients ARE EMPLOYED!
The #1 Employer in the welfare system is Wal Mart, who encourages and teaches their employees how to be eligible for benefits.
#2 is McDonalds.
What disgusts me is the War on "Drugs"-it is the longest and costliest war in American history and has brought nothing but violence, misery, waste and death.
Are you serious? There were no welfare checks during the depression, welfare was enacted in 1938, it was enacted because people saw what a failure reliance on 'private groups' for charity was when the unemployment rate was 25%. People were more self reliant when most of the population was rural and had the ability to grow their own food.
I'm quite aware of that. And you have missed my point entirely.
I'm quite aware of that. And you have missed my point entirely.
perhaps..but here is what I got from your post.
1)in the good old days churches and private charities took care of the poor
2)during the depression no one asked for welfare
3)people used to be more self-reliant than they are now
And, this is how I addressed those issues: churches and private charities did not meet the needs of the poor, that is what led to the formation of a welfare system in 1938. People were more self reliant when the population was rural and people could grow their own food.
If I missed your point, then tell me what you were trying to say
perhaps..but here is what I got from your post.
1)in the good old days churches and private charities took care of the poor
2)during the depression no one asked for welfare
3)people used to be more self-reliant than they are now
And, this is how I addressed those issues: churches and private charities did not meet the needs of the poor, that is what led to the formation of a welfare system in 1938. People were more self reliant when the population was rural and people could grow their own food.
If I missed your point, then tell me what you were trying to say
Agreed.
In addition, that self-reliance wasn't due to moral superiority. It was due to not having any other option. People were not refusing government help. There was simply none to be had.
During the depression IMO, people weren't self reliant as much as they simply survived the best they could with what their options were. And as a result, there were a lot of hungry and sickly people, many of them children.
And that's why we have government interventions today.
In contrast, Switzerland and the U.K. fund Heroin Clinics for long time ( 15 or more years) whereby a daily or twice daily dose is administered by healthcare professionals. Reportedly, this approach has increased the quality of life for long term addicts and may have reduced crime in some areas. This approach may have an impact on the black market.
I agree with that approach and I am pretty sure I mentioned that in this thread. And you are right, decriminalization is not a panacea, but at least it keeps people whose only crime is the possession of drugs for personal use out of our jails and prisons, and it allows for them to seek treatment without fear of being labeled a criminal. I spent several years dealing with addicts in the criminal justice system and our system is screwed on so many levels..
Most people sent to prison have access to drugs during their incarceration and if not addicted upon commitment they frequently are when they are released.
Drug treatment mandated by the courts generally fails because it considers any relapse as failure and usually mandates incarceration for a "dirty test". All evidence suggests that addicts relapse several times during recovery and that the length of sobriety between relapses is a better indication of success than is a single relapse.
Most addicts are released from treatment or incarceration without any support, they return to the same environment where they became or continued their addiction and we somehow expect a different result after their being "cured"
The biggest dangers to an addict and the highest societal costs are: accidental overdose, criminal activity to sustain an addiction and increased risk of contracting HIV or Hep C. Most addicts without serious co-morbid psychiatric disorders can lead productive lives and act as 'normal' as anyone else while using drugs unless their addiction renders them homeless or involved in criminal behavior in their effort to obtain drugs.
There may have been a few "welfare queens" in the 1980s and there may still be a few today. Welfare can be abused if you have several people in on it switching out turns in the temporary system. Even then I highly doubt you could make 30-40K a year off of it. Maybe 20K at best and probably less than that.
In any case, the total tax money we lose off the few who are able to completely game the system is probably far less than the sum total of people who inflate their charitable giving, make incorrect deductions, withhold income information or otherwise cheat on their taxes.
Hummmm this thread and its responding post have been interesting.. As I hear it... Many Conservatives claim to be Christians and Most Christians claim to be Conservatives.. The First Thing a "Christian" should understand is Mercy and Love.. isn't it? I mean Mercy ...Isnt that what God said he offered You? All of us by now understand that..... addictions are ONLY Symptoms of bigger problems.. So before you can " FIX" the addiction you have to establish the REAL problem and address that.. RIGHT? ( You have a leaky roof but you NEVER fix the leak you just keep painting the ceiling inside and THEN .... Latter.... You Wonder why the roof sheeting and the rafters and joist are rotted???? REALLY ???
" but hey I have never had to deal with any of those issues and this is .....costing me money.. "
Yes each and EVERY Social Program we have in place, is abused and YES we need to temporarily increase funding so we can drastically reduce the number of cheaters.. Don't stop with welfare or ADC or section 8 Take it to SSDI and don't forget those Life TIME $1200-$2400 tax free dollars per month for PTSD claims..
Churches may have tried but they FAILED.. The Job was TOO LARGE and the Funding TOO Small.. Same is true today! BTW Samaritans Purse pays Franklin Graham $620,000.00 a year and BGEA Pays him another $264,000.00 every year as well. IMHO You lack a lot of facts for your post.. Others have already corrected you with the FACT that welfare didn't exist..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster
No. I'm saying that churches and other private groups did a very good job of helping those in need. They still do. They weren't perfect but neither is todays government handout system. There will always be someone living on the streets. But today there are not enough of those church and private resources to help as many of the poor (as a percentage of all poor) as they did before. The sad fact is that people were far more self reliant back then. The Depression was terrible but most people didn't demand a welfare check in those days. Today they demand a welfare check and much more. People have changed and, in many ways, not for the better.
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.
