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.
You assume without government sponsored payments there would be no individual private charities willing to help these people out.
You seem to forget Americans sent more than 300 Billion dollars to charities without government asking them or stealing from them to do it. The real question is would this 300 Billion be close to 1 Trillion if government did not coerce Americans into giving to others via taxes.
Welfare is a 48 Billion program so you get my point right?
So then what would be the difference.
1. People give money to charity, it goes to the needy.
2. Government taxes working people, the money goes to the needy.
So you just don't want to give your money, but everyone else can?
I think everyone working should pay a percentage based on their wages toward taxes, but the welfare system needs to be "re-programmed" so that it actually helps people get back on their feet, not just pass out money and other benefits.
1. People give money to charity, it goes to the needy.
2. Government taxes working people, the money goes to the needy.
So you just don't want to give your money, but everyone else can?
I think everyone working should pay a percentage based on their wages toward taxes, but the welfare system needs to be "re-programmed" so that it actually helps people get back on their feet, not just pass out money and other benefits.
1phwalls, i've read a lot of your comments in this forum and i value your opinion, because it is coming directly from "the horses mouth" so to speak, because you've clearly been there done that etc. Thanks for adding thoughtful discussion to the forum.
To answer your question i'm more willing to give my money to help another person as long as i can pick and choose what programs i'm actually helping. What the government currently does is take 0.4 cents out of my yearly earnings and decides where my money goes. Yes, giving money to the poor, which 75% goes to support poor children, i believe is a noble effort in and of itself, but to steal money from one individual to support your own good intention, is where i have the problem. If i was able to keep more of my own money and personally decide, which charities i wanted to support, i can guarantee you I'd spend more than 0.4 cents to help poor children. If i'm left with the responsibility of deciding where my money goes, i'm more likely and willing to gather information on the programs and support the causes for the poor I'm strongly behind.
I do not need a government entity, telling me it is a good cause and then stealing my money to support their great intentions. I can do this on my own and support what i feel are great intentions.
The problem for me is that like in your normal social life, people will frivolously spend others money, for their own good intentions, and this leads to waste, but when people are in charge of spending their own money they are much less wasteful. If you spent your money on good intentions for the poor wouldn't you be more likely to make sure your money went to exactly what you intended it for out of the kindness of your heart???
Do you think you need a government entity to spend your money for you based on "good intentions?"
I think I've answered both of your question in my response.
There is an incredible amount of fraud in people taking government dole, whether it be foodstamps, Welfare, Medicaid, Section-8, SSI, disability, etc. There should be stricter guidelines for disability benefits, and prison for fraud.
I would like to see a complete end of all Welfare, but this doesn't include Social Security that was paid for by working Americans.
Welfare should replaced by a guaranteed government job for those who cannot find a job in the private sector. That would include high and low paying jobs, free daycare, and affordable government built homes available to low wage earners. Close military bases around the world and put the soldiers to work rebuilding manufacturing here. End the trillions spent on futile wars and unneeded weaponry development, and use it to rebuild this country. Now THAT would be change i could believe in, not this wishy-washy milktoast that Obama is dishing out.
Kramerkrat, as far as i'm concerned if you cannot see that Social Security is a welfare program just like "TANF" then there is no hope for a good debate with you.
Kramerkrat, in your own opinion why do you think Social Security is insolvent (or very close to it?)
Wouldn't you agree if it was a pay system where people actually put in exactly what they took out there would be no problem right? (If i worked and put in 100, i then retired and took out 100, there would be no problem with the system right?) - However, is this what happens with Social Security OASI?
I mean it is just basic math Kramekrat
I put in 100 and i get out 250 - We'll something is not going to work and the math is not going to add up (now if 30 Million people are putting in 100 and getting out an extra 150, how is that possible?)
-OH right it is a ponzi schem as long as there are younger workers paying into the system, i can consistently get out more than i ever put in DUH~!
This program alone cost the American tax payer more than 650 Billion Dollars and will touch a Trillion dollars within the next 5-10 years, but you think getting rid of welfare a 50 Billion dollar programs is really going to get us out of running budget deficits, just brilliant, now why aren't you working in the Presidents Cabinet?
This is sort of like me wanting to reduce my yearly personal expenses and saying, "We'll if i only got rid of buying a pack of gum, i could solve all my yearly expense problem" - (Assuming my largest expense is paying for cable)
Since you people are know-it-alls about the welfare program, tell me exactly how they are supposed to "better" themselves. Do you realize that most of those people have no cars. And in the city I grew up in, buses run from 6am to 10pm on Mon- Sat. And they don't go everywhere.
So you have single mom who has to walk 30 min to the bus stop, take 3 different buses for an hour and half, then walk another 30 min to your job. Then do the same thing on the way home. When were they supposed to better themselves?
Then most of them didn't even graduate high school. They also have no support system of responsible people to guide them and help them do something more. All they know is how to make it from day to day, they have no idea how to plan for the future.
Do you think these welfare to work programs help them improve? NO! Employers that don't want to pay for their workers request one of their welfare people. And they come to work and stuff envelopes, or sort through used clothes donated to goodwill. And they don't help you get a job. They tell you that you have to apply for 2 jobs every week to keep your check. They don't even tell them to dress appropriatly to pick up the applications. (You would assume one would know this, but they don't) Then they don't know how to fill out the application. Do you know what N/A means? They don't. Do you know what a surname is? They don't. Is anyone helping them fill this form out? No. Do you think anyone would want to hire them? Not if it's for more than minimum wage.
Oh, and the federal limit for welfare is 5 years, the state is 2 years, but you can apply for an extension for special circumstances. And I have seen people get denied.
Also, if you are one of the ones with ambition to go back to school to get that degre and better job, they only count one year of school. After that, you must work in their back to work crap full time. So back to the transportation issue. How do you get from home, to daycare, to work, to school, to daycare, to home while the busses are still running? Then when they finally figuer out a way to make this hapopen, Jr is in middle school and left home alone so he can become a delinquent cause no one is watching him except the gang bangers at the corner.
You people need to wake up from your delusional land and come back to reality. It's not as easy as you think it is. The only reason I overcame it is because I knew what I needed to do before I ended up in the "system", and I had family to help me when I needed it. And great, I made it off welfare, only to be $100,000 in debt!
Welfare benefits should be tied into some type of job training/life skills training.
I can see how someone in the situation you described would have trouble getting ahead but more often than not they put themselves there in the first place by dropping out of school, having kids too young or just "keeping it real" (acting stupid and eschewing hard work and education for street cred).
I'm all for spending more to improve schools, improve law enforcement, provide more job training in lower income areas but I'm not going to support handouts to those that refuse to try and blame others for everything. People used to look at public assistance as a last resort, something one was ashamed to have to use even if only for a short time while you got back on your feet. Now people view it as a right and the shame is gone. What happened to our country?
Imagine going back in time to 1950 and telling your grandparents about welfare/food stamps or the bailouts. They would be shocked and probably ask you if the Soviets took over America.
1phwalls, i've read a lot of your comments in this forum and i value your opinion, because it is coming directly from "the horses mouth" so to speak, because you've clearly been there done that etc. Thanks for adding thoughtful discussion to the forum.
To answer your question i'm more willing to give my money to help another person as long as i can pick and choose what programs i'm actually helping. What the government currently does is take 0.4 cents out of my yearly earnings and decides where my money goes. Yes, giving money to the poor, which 75% goes to support poor children, i believe is a noble effort in and of itself, but to steal money from one individual to support your own good intention, is where i have the problem. If i was able to keep more of my own money and personally decide, which charities i wanted to support, i can guarantee you I'd spend more than 0.4 cents to help poor children. If i'm left with the responsibility of deciding where my money goes, i'm more likely and willing to gather information on the programs and support the causes for the poor I'm strongly behind.
I do not need a government entity, telling me it is a good cause and then stealing my money to support their great intentions. I can do this on my own and support what i feel are great intentions.
Or do you think if the government stepped out, the percentage of people that just chose not to donate would not negatively affect overall contributions anyway?
The problem for me is that like in your normal social life, people will frivolously spend others money, for their own good intentions, and this leads to waste, but when people are in charge of spending their own money they are much less wasteful. If you spent your money on good intentions for the poor wouldn't you be more likely to make sure your money went to exactly what you intended it for out of the kindness of your heart???
Do you think you need a government entity to spend your money for you based on "good intentions?"
I think I've answered both of your question in my response.
I see your point. But I have another question.
What if the government said, we will not collect your money and decide where it goes, but we will still choose the percentage you must give, and then you can dole it to whatever charity you want. And then you would have to show proof somehow.
I guess I have to explain my thinking/concern.
I have a lot of bills, and I still consider myself poor due to those bills, even though I'm above the guidelines, so I'm just not as poor as some. If the government stopped taking my tax money, I know I would spend it on my own bills rather than choose to give to charity. (and I really mean bills, not personal life) Which leads me to believe that some others would do the same.
I'm not saying everyone would do this, because obviously people would still give to charity. Especially if they are doing it now on top of their taxes.
I do agree with you that I would like to choose where to spend the money. During my daydreams of winning Mega Millions (which I never even play so I don't know how I'd win) I always think, what programs would I give money to?
I right now do not donate money to charity. I did buy a bag of supplies for the "stuff the bus" campaign here. And I might do random things the school collects for, but that's it.
Kramerkrat, as far as i'm concerned if you cannot see that Social Security is a welfare program just like "TANF" then there is no hope for a good debate with you.
Kramerkrat, in your own opinion why do you think Social Security is insolvent (or very close to it?)
Wouldn't you agree if it was a pay system where people actually put in exactly what they took out there would be no problem right? (If i worked and put in 100, i then retired and took out 100, there would be no problem with the system right?) - However, is this what happens with Social Security OASI?
I mean it is just basic math Kramekrat
I put in 100 and i get out 250 - We'll something is not going to work and the math is not going to add up (now if 30 Million people are putting in 100 and getting out an extra 150, how is that possible?)
-OH right it is a ponzi schem as long as there are younger workers paying into the system, i can consistently get out more than i ever put in DUH~!
This program alone cost the American tax payer more than 650 Billion Dollars and will touch a Trillion dollars within the next 5-10 years, but you think getting rid of welfare a 50 Billion dollar programs is really going to get us out of running budget deficits, just brilliant, now why aren't you working in the Presidents Cabinet?
This is sort of like me wanting to reduce my yearly personal expenses and saying, "We'll if i only got rid of buying a pack of gum, i could solve all my yearly expense problem" - (Assuming my largest expense is paying for cable)
Of course the Social Security system is bankrupt, because of incompetant management. 'Welfare' in the purest sense, is just government dole to people who cannot support themselves and whatever babies they have popped out. On the other hand, Social Security is a government annuity, which forces me to pay into it, and theoretically will pay me back with agreed on interest.
I am open to a dismantling of Social Security, just pay me back what I paid into it, with a reasonable interest, and I will opt out. If they offered such an option to Americans, I'm sure that many would take them up on the offer, at least those who have worked much in their lifetimes.
Curious what your thoughts on government run health care are.
A government option would keep private in line. Can you imagine being at the mercy of UPS and Fedex without the US post office? Of course the billion dollar bonuses to UHC CEOs would end.
Welfare benefits should be tied into some type of job training/life skills training.
I can see how someone in the situation you described would have trouble getting ahead but more often than not they put themselves there in the first place by dropping out of school, having kids too young or just "keeping it real" (acting stupid and eschewing hard work and education for street cred).
I'm all for spending more to improve schools, improve law enforcement, provide more job training in lower income areas but I'm not going to support handouts to those that refuse to try and blame others for everything. People used to look at public assistance as a last resort, something one was ashamed to have to use even if only for a short time while you got back on your feet. Now people view it as a right and the shame is gone. What happened to our country?
Imagine going back in time to 1950 and telling your grandparents about welfare/food stamps or the bailouts. They would be shocked and probably ask you if the Soviets took over America.
That is very true! And it is sickening. I remember going down to the welfare office. These people knew each other and it was like a hang out. They even chatted it up with the employees. While I was hiding in the corner praying no one would recognize me!
A government option would keep private in line. Can you imagine being at the mercy of UPS and Fedex without the US post office? Of course the billion dollar bonuses to UHC CEOs would end.
KRAMERCAT, wouldn't you be nervous to have the same U.S. government that you believe was behind 9/11 running a part of our health-care?
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.
