Discussion on Welfare and other Social Programs

[BoneSnapDeez]

do you even work?

[oxymoron]

do you even work?

Yes sir.

[dsheinem]

Dave where is the racism you were citing?

I'm not going to bother reading back through the thread, but there were some comments made referring to the types of interests/brands/products that people on welfare, etc. buy, many of which are associated pretty strongly with racial minorities. It wasn't racist, but it struck me as the kind of precursor I see in a conversation that then turns racist.

And voluntary drug testing?? You think drug users on welfare are going to volunteer to take drug tests? They don't need a test to tell you they use.

I think there are plenty of people on welfare who also have a drug problem that, if given the chance for free rehab and help to get clean (and thus off of welfare), would gladly take it. I think they should be able to show that they do indeed have a drug problem (thus a test) before going, but this seems to me a better route to helping people than stripping their benefits through mandatory testing and telling them to more or less "deal with it."

Political discussion on this site is pointless. It is about 3/4 or more left leaning, and it turns into liberal bullying and ideological circle jerk of many teaming up on the few conservative leaning posters.

Given that most of us are in our teens-mid thirties, that the group would be 3/4 leaning left is pretty much to be expected. That doesn't excuse "bullying" of course, but it explains the general tenor of the discussion. You will always have strongly worded opinions when deeply personal issues come up...

This is done time and again, some more aggressive than others by shaming, guilt tripping, or just outright hostility calling those who have different ideologies than you stupid, greedy, classist etc... This quashes meaningful debate and discussion. Instead of discussing our points, you guys mostly take on the crusade of a side in the larger national debate.

Sometimes those ideologies are classist, greedy, uninformed, citing bad info, etc. I agree that there's a right way and a wrong way to point out those instances, though.

You act is if you are defending a system that is infallible and doesn't need or deserve criticism or improvement.

I've not seen anyone suggest that the welfare and related systems are infallible or need no improvement. Now you're the one using hyperbole...

[Jmustang1968]

Besides JT, I have seen no one take a stance beyond defending it or to even admit there are issues. It is mostly attack or aggressively defend welfare systems! Abuse is so rare, yet it is commonly seen by many who just need to open their eyes to see it.

It is obvious the problem we have with it are the abusers and lifers. Not the legitimate in a bad situation or back on their feet type of recipients. However, our points are then assumed to encompass all recipients. The term and culture of things like 'hood rich' and such exist and are prevalent, joking aside with the song lyrics I posted, which I found amusingly on topic. Instead of addressing these points we have brought up, everyone has tried to dismiss them as being rare to non existent or as not an issue.

The products that may have been mentioned were possibly in my post where I quoted lyrics in a song?

I could be wrong, but don't free methadone and rehab clinics already exist? Or am I off-base there?

[Jagosaurus]

So here in TX "food stamps" are actually on a pulse card type system called a Lone Star Card. They allow these individuals to "buy" food tax free.

I've personally talked to someone who had a sister get $800 a month on this. She would use $400 & sell the remaining $400 for $200 cash. That's abusing the system & they told me it's not an isolated incident.

This same individual didn't mind making D's in college BC his classes were all paid for by grants.

I'm sure many ppl need these services... how many ppl abuse per person that truly need it is my question.

[MrPopo]

If you guys would like I could bring both sides of the debate together by posing a viewpoint that both of you can oppose:

Let's get rid of the social safety net entirely. We accept the fact that sometimes people will get dealt a rough hand in life, not make it, and we as a society can move on.

[oxymoron]

If you guys would like I could bring both sides of the debate together by posing a viewpoint that both of you can oppose:

Let's get rid of the social safety net entirely. We accept the fact that sometimes people will get dealt a rough hand in life, not make it, and we as a society can move on.

If they did this we wouldn't even have a middle class post 2008.

[dsheinem]

Besides JT, I have seen no one take a stance beyond defending it or to even admit there are issues.

I've seen plenty of folks admit there are problems. I suggested, for example, that more needs to be done to help recipients who may have a drug addiction. No one has denied fraud exists, though plenty of folks have offered numbers to suggest that the numbers are fairly low.

I could be wrong, but don't free methadone and rehab clinics already exist? Or am I off-base there?

Hmm, not near me: http://www.freerehabcenters.org/city.ph ... h+for+city

If I broaden my search: http://www.freerehabcenters.org/zip.php?zip=17820

There's ONE that has a sliding scale fee, about 45 minutes away.

As for methadone clinics, the nearest one is over an hour away and does not appear to be free.

We have a huge meth problem in a town that's next to where I teach, but no clinics or rehab options of any kind - let alone free - seem to be nearby. I am sure it is different from place to place, but building free substance abuse help into the welfare system would be a great idea.

[marurun]

Besides JT, I have seen no one take a stance beyond defending it or to even admit there are issues. It is mostly attack or aggressively defend welfare systems!

I know my posts are long-winded... Perhaps you aren't reading everything I've typed. I have, at no point, claimed the system is perfect. Questions of how to fix it are VERY big-picture issues. I don't think I have "the answers", necessarily. Besides, I don't think welfare CAN be fixed if there's lots of widespread misinformation. Attempting to fix something from a poorly constructed platform is a recipe for disaster. I have stuck to those things I can back up with published data. For example, the early Florida experiment with requiring drug testing has proved, thus far, to ultimately cost the state money.

Abuse is so rare, yet it is commonly seen by many who just need to open their eyes to see it.

So far, I've heard a couple anecdotal stories of witnessing someone who drives a nice car. Someone else mentioned a case where someone did game the system and was caught and kicked out of it. The problem with all these "clearly visible" cases is that those cases seem, at least in part, to be based on making assumptions about what people are seeing. The only solid data we have suggests that fraud exists, but is not massive or even unmanageable. Various welfare programs like food stamps, unemployment, and Medicaid are occasionally audited, and the audits reveal that more money is lost to failures on the management side than actual recipients gaming the system. There's just too much "truthiness" in all this.

When Reagan was running for election his campaign spread this story about some big Chicago welfare queen. Problem is, she never existed. No journalist or fact-checker was ever able to find any record, or even a whiff, of this welfare queen outside of Reagan's campaign. It didn't matter than this welfare queen didn't exist, because the story was too compelling. For Reagan, the story was more important than the truth. A lot of what people tell me about welfare abuse, even if they claimed to have witnessed it, smacks of this. I think people are seeing what they want to see.

It is obvious the problem we have with it are the abusers and lifers. Not the legitimate in a bad situation or back on their feet type of recipients. However, our points are then assumed to encompass all recipients. The term and culture of things like 'hood rich' and such exist and are prevalent, joking aside with the song lyrics I posted, which I found amusingly on topic. Instead of addressing these points we have brought up, everyone has tried to dismiss them as being rare to non existent or as not an issue.

You've made it rather clear that the legitimate recipients are those with whom you have no beef. But the way you talk about these lifers and abusers makes it sound like you think they make up a significant number of folks on the welfare rolls. All the factual data I've encountered suggests that the legit recipients make up the overwhelming majority of those receiving aid.

In truth, the way to deal with lifers and make it easier for folks to pull themselves out of poverty and off welfare is likely to involve spending more money, and significant amounts of it, on additional programs and assistance. The way to reduce welfare is to spend MORE money, and the folks who are most likely to talk about welfare being broken talk about it in terms of stripping benefits or erecting all sorts of barriers to getting aid which, sure, might catch some of the scammers, but are more likely to simply throw good money after bad and inconvenience those who really do need the help. I cannot imagine that adding additional bureaucracy, administrative overhead, and delay to our current welfare system will improve things.

The other thing that hasn't come up in this discussion at all is that there is no such thing as perfect employment. There is no way to employ 100% of our populace without essentially creating jobs specifically so that people will have them, with any kind of purpose or functionality being a distant concern. We're always going to have people on aid. And some of those people can never work.

There are, in addition to physical disabilities, mental and emotional disabilities. A relative of mine has borderline personality disorder. She's a manipulative asshole, and it's not entirely her fault. She's incapable of working for a number of reasons, but her personality disorder is one of them. The problem is, unless you have known her a long time and know borderline personality disorder very well, you'll probably just think she's a sweet charmer or a total ass. But there's so much more going on in her head. I would bet that if anyone encountered her getting food stamps or support payments and talked to her they'd wonder why she's on welfare. They would decide that she was gaming the system. But in truth, she really can never get and hold a job. She is broken and cannot easily, affordably, reasonably be fixed. She is one of those who is lost to society, at least in terms of being a productive contributor.

Jmustang1968, I can't speak for all others involved in this discussion, but I've tried to be respectful, stick to the facts, quote sources of information, have a reasoned discussion, and avoid casting personal aspersions. If I have failed, I apologize. I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I don't mind forcing you to think on your feet. And I do have hopes that I'll change someone's mind in some way, even if it isn't necessarily to my viewpoint.

[Menegrothx]

Negative income tax/basic income seems to be an idea that both libertarians (Milton Friedman) and new school socialists support. In theory it gets rid of the bureaucracy (meaning no abuse and less public resources spent on running the bureaucratic network) while maintaining a safety net that covers all people. That combined with moving away from taxing productivity and moving towards taxing consumption seems, atleast on paper, like the way to go. Whether you can combine those ideas and still make enough tax revenue to support important public institutions is a different question all together.