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.
There is an interesting thread right now in the General U.S. forum that is comparing U.S. ghettos to third world ghettos, with the general consensus that third world ghettos make U.S. ghettos look like the middle class. But what if, as many conservatives desire, we eliminated or at least drastically reduced welfare programs and public housing, would our ghettos turn into third world slums? Would you be willing to live in a country like that for the sake of reducing spending?
I consider myself a kind of limited libertarian. I say "limited" because true libertarianism won't work. A version of it existed in France about 250 years ago. The Aristocrats had everything and the poor had the slums. The end result was a revolution and the guillotine for those unfortunate aristocrats. Nowadays we stave-off a revolution (or at least some potential riots) by contenting the poor by way of welfare and other giveaways. Many of these poor are rejected by the American workforce. Some are rejected due to mental and/or physical illness, some due to personality or character problems, some due to simple laziness.
There is an interesting thread right now in the General U.S. forum that is comparing U.S. ghettos to third world ghettos, with the general consensus that third world ghettos make U.S. ghettos look like the middle class. But what if, as many conservatives desire, we eliminated or at least drastically reduced welfare programs and public housing, would our ghettos turn into third world slums? Would you be willing to live in a country like that for the sake of reducing spending?
Providing for the poor and most at risk was the purpose of social welfare programs, but now we have middle class welfare cutting into the government pie.
We give out tax rebates for so many things that the poor cannot take advantage of like "Cash for Clunkers" or more recently a $7,500 rebate for stupid electric cars.
We give out billions to corporations for solar and wind projects, which only drive up costs for electricity.
We give out billions to for SCHIP to families earning as much as $80,000
We give out billions by expanding the eligibility for Medicare, Medicaid,and Social Security.
The point I'm making, is if government stopped spending like a drunken Marxist, we would not even be having this discussion.
You see this is the crux of the problem, this fantasy that there are these hordes of able bodied people living in "ghetto's" getting "welfare", The fact is the VAST majority of those receiving benefits from "entitlement programs" are minor children and the elderly, but as long as you can imply that most of these people are people of color they can be vilified as the cause of all the countries ills.
First of all I said nothing about people of color, so I think you owe me an apology for suggesting that I did.
The minor children on welfare problem should be addressed somehow. We have a system that encourages single parenthood and people to have more children than they can afford. The easier you make it for people to do this the more it will happen.
The elderly and disabled I believe are deserving of services.
I think its very naive and laughable to think that if you cut off welfare the former recipients will start working and turn their ghettos into middle-class communities, and there are many people on this thread who've expressed this opinion. Although some people might do that, many of the able bodied people who don't pursue educations or trades and simply take advantage of the welfare system because they are lazy would only turn to crime like drug dealing, armed robbery and prostitution if their welfare checks were all of a sudden taken away. Anyone with even the most remote desire to "work hard to improve themselves and their situation", as one person on this thread implied they would do, is already trying to do that. Now I'm not saying this is a legitimate reason for the welfare system, because its not. But lets not be naive and say all of the welfare junkies would jump up from their couch and all of a sudden try to find legitimate gainful employment if their welfare was cut off.
of course the ghettos will not turn into middle class neighborhoods, no one is claiming that. What many of us are saying is: 1-we can't afford the handouts"2-get more people to take charge of their lives and get off their asses, eventurally the welfare rolls will go down. Reagan said, there will always be about 5% of the population that will need to depend on welfare and 3-we have to stop the cheating that goes on. and no, not everyone that can improve their situation are trying to do that. I don't have time to list all the situations I know where peope could improve if they wanted.
The article said almost half don't live in the Ghettos . So more than half do .
No, the article said that almost half would live in the suburbs. That doesn't mean the rest live in the ghetto. There are other places to live in a city or in the country.
First of all I said nothing about people of color, so I think you owe me an apology for suggesting that I did.
Nope, I owe you nothing, the title of the thread bares out my comment.
Quote:
The minor children on welfare problem should be addressed somehow.
I'm await your suggestions with baited breath.
Quote:
We have a system that encourages single parenthood and people to have more children than they can afford.
There is no correlation between the birth rate of welfare recipients and non-recipient single mothers, the argument that welfare acts as an incentive to have children is just not borne out by the literature.
Quote:
The easier you make it for people to do this the more it will happen.
Like so many who choose to opine on this subject the welfare reforms of 1996 seem to have completely escaped you.
Quote:
The elderly and disabled I believe are deserving of services.
Tens of thousands of kids who through no fault of their own are born to in poverty aren't? Now no one would deny that some percentage of "welfare" recipients are good for nothing leeches on the system, but what I don't hear outside of an anecdotal story or two is what percentage of "welfare" recipients constitutes that number of individuals. And this overwrought charge that $16 billion dollars in a $3 trillion + dollar budget is the threatening to destroy the country simply boggles the mind.
But here is what we do know.
The number of TANF recipients has decreased steadily since the passage of the 1996 welfare reforms.
We know that even under Aid For Dependent Children, have of recipients left the program on average each year.
In an "average" year, about one-half of the AFDC caseload leaves the welfare rolls. The best available estimates indicate that between one-half and two-thirds of those who leave do so because they have found paid employment. A small percentage (less than 15 percent) leave for marriage and the remainder leave for a variety of other reasons. Those who leave are replaced by new applicants who have never received assistance before and by families who have received assistance previously and are returning to receive assistance again.
I think that those of you who think you know about welfare/TANF and actually want to be able to discuss the issue with some degree of intelligence should read the following study.
Well 80%of aid to poverty goes to urban areas that have 20% of the porverty;so you guess the answer.The abilty to polically get more of the poverty aid has had a effect on urban areas;no doubt.
Well 80%of aid to poverty goes to urban areas that have 20% of the porverty;so you guess the answer.The abilty to polically get more of the poverty aid has had a effect on urban areas;no doubt.
Considering the majority of PEOPLE in general in this country live in urban areas it's perfectly understandable.
No. A country like that would have over a third of its population in homelessness, and many would resort to criminal behavior and robbing the "haves" in order to survive. Better to provide programs that help them get out of the system of welfare in the first place, and programs that prevent people from having to resort to getting public assistance at all. According to the Census, one in every seven Americans is on food stamps. This isn't a reflection of laziness, it's a reflection of a loss of prosperity and means to earning it in this country.
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.
