Protecting Your Investment in Welfare (unemployment, generation, illegal, drugs)

[Cleverfield]

I had to file a police report in the city for a bank-owned house that was broken into and had its water heater, furnace, electrical wiring, and circuit breakers stolen -- a common occurrence in the city. I work for a national contracting company for the banks, and see this with alarming frequency. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed, but that's not what this story is about. While I was giving my police report, a couple of gangly looking guys in their 20s walked by. Their looks, and body language must have meant something to the cop, because he looked up from his paperwork and asked the boys a question. "Do you guys have jobs?" "No, I get a check" one said, "I live with my grandma, I'm still looking for one" said the other. The cop turned to me and rolled his eyes, saying nothing to the kids as they walked away. After they were out of earshot he told me "Can you believe that, here I am working 18 hour days, and these kids do nothing but try to find where their next beer or crack pipe is coming from". I know cops can be jaded by their line of work, especially in the city of Cleveland, but his words seemed to jive with reality. "They've been up all night, they usually don't get up this early, probably been smoking crack or dealing drugs, and just going home to bed now," he went on. It was about 9 am. Judging by their sluggish speech, and dirty appearance it seemed like he was right. He continued "and who's paying for them, who's writing their check, they think Obama's paying them, no I am, you are, the people who work for a living."

In our world divided by those who want government social action, vs. those who want people to fend for themselves in a true capitalist economy, it seems that this is a good place to build some bridges. Those who are on welfare receive money from those of us who work and pay taxes. In a way, that makes them like an investment, albeit a forced investment. This is not our only forced investment. We are also forced to invest in police, fire, schools, and city services through the tax dollars we spend in our respective municipalities, and we are justifiably driven to protect our investment by scrutinizing the city to make sure the funds are not being spent frivolously or corruptly. Despite the fact that we are obliged by force to make these investments, people scrutinize them with at least as much alacrity as they do with their stock portfolios. We ought to scrutinize our investments in the poor as well. We ought to make sure our money is not going to support bad habits, laziness, and hopelessness. We ought to make sure our investment is doing what the original creators of government welfare intended it to do, and that is to make things better for the people that receive it. Our country decided a long time ago that it is not okay for people to live at such a level that they cannot meet their basic needs, and most people today still agree that this is a good policy. However, if that is what our money is intended to produce, we ought to scrutinize the investment to make sure it's actually doing that. If it's not, we ought to do something to help it. We wouldn't lay dormant when we invest our money in a poorly run company, nor should we lay dormant investing our money in poorly run people.

There are several good options when one comes across bad investments. One can either pull one's money out entirely, invest in something else, or one can do something to ensure that one's investment is not lost, by ensuring it is moving the company in a good direction. The last one is the most difficult, and often the least promising, but in the case of welfare, we don't have another choice. No one would say that it's acceptable to allow someone who was poor by no fault of their own to go hungry, and there is no way of distinguishing those who are poor by their own fault vs. those who are poor for some other reason. To protect the few that society wants to protect, society must offer protection for the whole. This is true in other cases as well. A police officer is sworn to protect and serve, not to only protect and serve good people. A drug dealer who is being assaulted ought to receive the same protection as anyone else. That is not to say that they deserve this protection, but this is the only way the system can operate. The system cannot distinguish those who deserve from those who do not deserve. It is not all-knowing, it is not all seeing, and it cannot be that wise, especially when the decision of desert would often come at a moment's notice. Desert can only be determined in our system after, often lengthy and expensive, court trials.

One might argue that welfare desert should be determined by court trials as well. Perhaps this is a good idea, but we have seen time and time again that the judicial system is not always equitable and hardly free of prejudice. This law would create a subclass of poor who were literally starving on the streets, and might unfairly subject those of a certain ethnicity to a cruel punishment. Nor is this economical, as the court trials to make these determinations, if they were done fairly, would likely cost more than it would to give welfare to those people.

it seems that the only alternative, if we want to protect our investment in society, is to do something to make sure our hard earned dollars are going to what we determined to be good and valuable. We do the same thing when we invest our time and money in our children. We try to instill our good values onto them. In order to do this with the poor, we must do more than simply give them our money, we must also give them, literally and figuratively, a piece of our mind. We must spend time with them, learn who they are, and guide them to what is right. American's greatest mistake is believing that we can take care of people's needs with money alone. We need not only provide the money, like negligent parents who spoil their children, we must also provide our time and our care. We must get to know the people we're investing our money in, and help them to use it in the best way possible. How we start this, I don't know, but I think it needs to involve open discussions, and mutual understanding. We must cast aside our prejudices and realize that it's important, not only for those who need the help, but for the working Americans who are making bad investments. We cannot continue to be absentee welfare donors; there is enough absenteeism in the ghetto already. Instead we need to be loving, caring and guiding when we provide a helping hand to those in need.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

One might argue that welfare desert should be determined by court trials as well. Perhaps this is a good idea, but we have seen time and time again that the judicial system is not always equitable and hardly free of prejudice. This law would create a subclass of poor who were literally starving on the streets, and might unfairly subject those of a certain ethnicity to a cruel punishment. Nor is this economical, as the court trials to make these determinations, if they were done fairly, would likely cost more than it would to give welfare to those people.

This is reminiscent of the old European poor laws, where the "deserving poor" would be given some kind of assistance and the "undeserving poor" would be whipped and jailed.

I think the investment in welfare has two parts: 1) investment in the future for the (many) who are temporarily on the rolls until they can pick themselves up; and 2) investment in social stability, so even the poorest in society don't have "nothing left to lose," which is a dangerous and unstable situation.

I'm interested in what programs you consider to be welfare. All TANF "checks" are earmarked for families with children or pregnant women (in which case we are presumably investing in those children) but there are other programs.

[purehuman]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

Instead we need to be loving, caring and guiding when we provide a helping hand to those in need.

very true....and we must also strive not to make assumptions based on age and dress ,about someones worth...I doubt that any compassion for the poor will be forthcoming when you've got cops (like the one you mentioned) harrassing (I say "harrassing" because if they'd told him to mind his own business, the outcome would have been very different, probably violent) and judging young people just because he didn't like the way they looked.

[danielpalos]

Why can we afford a War on Drugs instead of better infrastructure?

[tinynot]

Cleverfield, I think you idea is admirable, though I don't have any ideas or theories on how to accomplish the desired end-result. It is sorta hard for me to believe that a cop in Cleveland works 18 hour days for any length of time. That is against Labor Laws, so he needs to tell the truth or get some relief.

[purehuman]

danielpalos...we can't...it's a lose, lose situation....

[danielpalos]

How can providing for the general welfare by investing in state-of-the-art infrastructure, be any form of "losing" proposition?

[ovcatto]

"Do you guys have jobs?" "No, I get a check" one said, "I live with my grandma, I'm still looking for one" said the other. The cop turned to me and rolled his eyes, saying nothing to the kids as they walked away. After they were out of earshot he told me "Can you believe that, here I am working 18 hour days, and these kids do nothing but try to find where their next beer or crack pipe is coming from".

The story seems to missing, the age of these young men, whether or not they're "check" is from a Social Security survivor account or unemployment because otherwise, I don't know of a single federal program that they would be eligible for.

"Can you believe that, here I am working 18 hour days, and these kids do nothing but try to find where their next beer or crack pipe is coming from"

The the "officer" knew this how? Or was this just another example of sweeping indictment without probable cause?

[danielpalos]

Next time someone asks, maybe they can state, they would have a job if it was easier to get one than it is buying illegal drugs, even with our generation long War on Drugs.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

The story seems to missing, the age of these young men, whether or not they're "check" is from a Social Security survivor account or unemployment because otherwise, I don't know of a single federal program that they would be eligible for.

I was thinking the same thing; check? what "check?"
What's the name of the Federal program, that just write checks to some young guys out of a blue?