Does the welfare system/state make people feel more useless?

[ERose]

I think it does for some. I know that for me, I often feel useless because I have to rely on the welfare system. But I honestly have no choice. I am very much disabled and if it wasn’t for the welfare system, I’d be out on the streets in a cardboard box relying on soup kitchens for meals and homeless shelters for occasional shelter from storms.

Holly, it is for people like you that the welfare system was created for. I do not think that anyone on this thread would disagree with this point. The problem right now with the system is that there is so many people on it that shouldn’t be on it. So the problem that I have with it is the ones that abuse the system and not the ones that the system is made for.

God bless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Holly, it is for people like you that the welfare system was created for. I do not think that anyone on this thread would disagree with this point. The problem right now with the system is that there is so many people on it that shouldn’t be on it. So the problem that I have with it is the ones that abuse the system and not the ones that the system is made for.

God bless.

It seems to me that any system can be abused regardless of the safe guards, but this doesn’t change the fact that welfare is a much needed thing and a good thing in our society.

 

[ERose]

It seems to me that any system can be abused regardless of the safe guards, but this doesn’t change the fact that welfare is a much needed thing and a good thing in our society.

I have no problem with a welfare system, and I agree that there will always be some abuse. But the level of abuse can be greatly minimized from what it is now. I wished someone would study the percentage of individuals on the roll that are abusing the system. I bet you it would be the majority.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I have no problem with a welfare system, and I agree that there will always be some abuse. But the level of abuse can be greatly minimized from what it is now. I wished someone would study the percentage of individuals on the roll that are abusing the system. I bet you it would be the majority.

Since you feel it genuine to criticize people you don’t know personally, why would you bet it to be the majority? More like you hope so, cause then that would support your unreasonable ideology? More like the corporate state is abusing poor people by not given them all decent Jobs.

Its easier to blame the victim, rather than face up to the immoral economic corruption of human society.

 

[St_Francis]

Since you feel it genuine to criticize people you don’t know personally, why would you bet it to be the majority? More like you hope so, cause then that would support your unreasonable ideology? More like the corporate state is abusing poor people by not given them all decent Jobs.

Its easier to* blame the victim,* rather than face up to the immoral economic corruption of human society.

It is quite ironic that *you *are saying *she *is ciriticizing others, since that is pretty much all you have done throughout this thread. You have not once addressed the issues that those with whom you disagree have brought up. You have only criticized them for being selfish and wanting to keep their own money and not help poor people.

If you want to persuade people of the merits of distributism, you might start out by making some effort to understand what it is that they are espousing rather than simply assume that you understand everything from what they are saying to their motives for saying it, and also not sounding so much like a socialist that no one pays any attention to what you are saying.

As it turns out, some people focus on what is, rather than a pie in the sky that might come about after they are dead. It’s all well and good to discuss distributism, *but that is not what we have now. *When people are talking about a current reality, see how you can fit distributism into that reality rather than merely judging everyone who disagrees with you. When people are talking more generally about economic systems, *that *is an appropriate time to bring up distributism.

 

[St_Francis]

Since you feel it genuine to **criticize people you don’t know personally, **why would you bet it to be the majority? More like you hope so, cause then that would support your unreasonable ideology? More like the corporate state is abusing poor people by not given them all decent Jobs.

Its easier to blame the victim, rather than face up to the immoral economic corruption of human society.

It is quite ironic that *you *are saying *she *is ciriticizing others, since that is pretty much all you have done throughout this thread. You have not once addressed the issues that those with whom you disagree have brought up. You have only criticized them for being selfish and wanting to keep their own money and not help poor people.

If you want to persuade people of the merits of distributism, you might start out by making some effort to understand what it is that they are espousing rather than simply assume that you understand everything from what they are saying to their motives for saying it, and also not sounding so much like a socialist that no one pays any attention to what you are saying.

As it turns out, some people focus on what is, rather than a pie in the sky that might come about after they are dead. It’s all well and good to discuss distributism, *but that is not what we have now. *When people are talking about a current reality, see how you can fit distributism into that reality rather than merely judging everyone who disagrees with you. When people are talking more generally about economic systems, *that *is an appropriate time to bring up distributism.

 

[St_Francis]

…More like the corporate state is abusing poor people by not given them all decent Jobs…

You need to learn about how economics works. First of all, the state cannot give everyone jobs. Where does the state gets its money? It gets its money from us taxpayers. If we all worked for the government, and the government received only a fraction of our money back, they would not be able to pay us next year, and we would *all *be out of work.

Secondly, corporations do not “have” jobs which they are keeping from people. When they need people to work, they hire people. When they do not need people to work, they *cannot *hire them, because unless they get a benefit from the person, they cannot *afford *to. Were they to hire people willy-nilly, they would have to raise the prices of their goods, no one would buy, and they would go broke–then *all *the people working for them would be without jobs.

Do you think that more people should have jobs? Fine. Go out and start a business, get it going well enough that you can afford to hire people, and give people jobs. But don’t bellyache because institutions which do not have the money to hire people don’t hire people.

 

[ERose]

Since you feel it genuine to criticize people you don’t know personally, why would you bet it to be the majority? More like you hope so, cause then that would support your unreasonable ideology? More like the corporate state is abusing poor people by not given them all decent Jobs.

Its easier to blame the victim, rather than face up to the immoral economic corruption of human society.

Where am I criticizing? I sorry you are blinded by your world view to the facts of life but hey that is the way it is I guess. I know what I know from experience. From knowing people in the welfare system that are abusing the system. Of knowing people and seeing people on welfare that are just as able bodied as I am but are just as happy doing nothing for the check they are getting.

I ain’t judging no one. I am making an observation. Since the welfare department doesn’t keep statistics on this (or I haven’t found any), I can’t prove it. But whatever. All I am saying is that more needs to be done to protect the system from abuse. If that is evil in your mind then all I call tell you is one night look for the moon and when you see it understand that you are most probably looking up and not down. Because you sure do see the world opposite of the majority of people out there.

 

[Black_Rose]

Holly, it is for people like you that the welfare system was created for. I do not think that anyone on this thread would disagree with this point. The problem right now with the system is that there is so many people on it that shouldn’t be on it. So the problem that I have with it is the ones that abuse the system and not the ones that the system is made for.

God bless.

I have no problem with a welfare system, and I agree that there will always be some abuse. But the level of abuse can be greatly minimized from what it is now. I wished someone would study the percentage of individuals on the roll that are abusing the system. I bet you it would be the majority.

So you want a more stringent criteria for those receiving aid from a welfare state. To use an analogy from statistics, you want to minimize type I error (false positives;thinking that people “deserve” welfare when they do not).

However, using a low alpha does reduce type I error, but it also increases type II error (false negatives; thinking when people do not deserve welfare when they do).

Where am I criticizing? I sorry you are blinded by your world view to the facts of life but hey that is the way it is I guess. I know what I know from experience. From knowing people in the welfare system that are abusing the system. Of knowing people and seeing people on welfare that are just as able bodied as I am but are just as happy doing nothing for the check they are getting.

I ain’t judging no one. I am making an observation. Since the welfare department doesn’t keep statistics on this (or I haven’t found any), I can’t prove it. But whatever. All I am saying is that more needs to be done to protect the system from abuse. If that is evil in your mind then all I call tell you is one night look for the moon and when you see it understand that you are most probably looking up and not down. Because you sure do see the world opposite of the majority of people out there.

Ok, you can’t prove it.

But this might refer to your own situation where people generally consider their own experience as genuine “knowledge” without any statistical support:

Paul [dePodesta] wanted to look at stats because the stats offered him new ways of understanding amateur players. He had graduated from college with distinction in economics, but his interest, discouraged by the Harvard economics department, had been on the uneasy border between psychology and economics. He was fascinated by irrationality, and the opportunities it created in human affairs for anyone who resisted it. He was just the sort of person who might have made an easy fortune in finance, but the market for baseball players, in Paul’s view, was far more interesting than anything Wall Street offered. There was, for starters, the tendency of everyone who actually played the game to generalize wildly from his own experience. People always thought their own experience was typical when it wasn’t. There was also a tendency to be overly influenced by a guy’s most recent performance: what he did last was not necessarily what he would do next. Thirdly—but not lastly—there was the bias toward what people saw with their own eyes, or thought they had seen. The human mind played tricks on itself when it relied exclusively on what it saw, and every trick it played was a financial opportunity for someone who saw through the illusion to the reality. There was a lot you couldn’t see when you watched a baseball game.

highway6.com/alexandria/mbart.pdf

 

[ERose]

So you want a more stringent criteria for those receiving aid from a welfare state. To use an analogy from statistics, you want to minimize type I error (false positives;thinking that people “deserve” welfare when they do not).

However, using a low alpha does reduce type I error, but it also increases type II error (false negatives; thinking when people do not deserve welfare when they do).

Not if it is done correctly. I think anyone and everyone, except for the ones that are actually abusing the system which the government does not deny happens, would want to minimized abuse. Wouldn’t you? If you minimize abuse there would be more money for other programs or even more money for those on welfare. Especially in those locations where a welfare check doesn’t get you much such as in New York and California.

Ok, you can’t prove it.

But this might refer to your own situation where people generally consider their own experience as genuine “knowledge” without any statistical support:

highway6.com/alexandria/mbart.pdf

I have not found any statistics outlining the level of abuse. What I do know is that the govenment believes that there is fraud if not then they would have fraud investigations now would they. But you are probably right. I may just be a little low on my assumption.

 

[Abu]

MindOverMatter2
Intrusiveness is not necessarily wrong; it depends on the context and the reason for that intrusion. In this case the context is about the value and dignity of human life whether you like it or not; and thankfully the power of the state frees me from the worry of wondering whether you give a dame about the value of your fellow human beings.

Such confusion over the “power of the state” can never allow anyone to see the wood for the trees.
The Catholic Church has decisively clarified how and why a Welfare State devalues human beings which is what this thread is about, not venting personal prejudices.

From Centesimus Annus (John Paul II, 1991):
“48. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.

“Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State [Welfare State] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.”

“Note
100. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno, I : loc. cit., 184-186.”

 

[royal_archer]

I am hesitant to jump in here, because of my specific circumstances, but here we go.

I am on “welfare” specifically Food Stamps, Medicaid and the WIC program. Do these programs make me feel useless? in some ways yes in others no. …

We are on these programs because we moved so I could attend law school, …

Now the worst at making one feel useless is probably WIC. (maybe it is just me, because I agree with the goals of the program itself ) When I go in for my checks I an often there for 3 hours at a time. There is nothing like waiting in a depressing office for 3 hours to make one feel useless. …

When my husband was unemployed it was probably the hardest on him, (so this is not necessarily the welfare state, but rather just the economic circumstances at the time). He felt useless and that he couldn’t provide for us, and that is difficult for most people.

There are millions of people working 10 hours a day in a “depressing office” who can’t afford families or further education who are being forced to pay for you. I don’t see how you can be so insensative to their plights.

I have more respect for your husband for feeling that way.

 

[royal_archer]

I wanted to start a new topic on this: some have alleged that the welfare state demeans the poor.

I will just post response I made in previous threads as a primer for this thread:

Regarding the poor being “useless” doesn’t their financial state already indicate that, to put it quite bluntly? One reason is that they are poor is the lack a stable income source, and that is because the labor market does not deem their labor valuable, so in a sense their poverty is a value judgment from the market about the lack of any valuable innate talent or trainable skills. So the notion that a welfare state increase the perception of worthlessness among the poor and unemployed is ridiculous especially when the labor market already made that judgment.

…

They do not need to told by anyone that they are incapable of taking care of themselves and need “to be taken care of by their fellow citizens”. They already realize that themselves since they are aware that they do not valuable skills to derive income from labor or assets that provide steady cash flows to finance a dignified livelihood. (For instance, receiving food from a food bank is not dignified livelihood since it is rather humiliating.)

Now seriously, what could they actually give if they are unable to materially provide for themselves and their immediate family?

Welfare is demeaning but some people have lost their sense of dignity and self worth through years of perpetual dependency.

Keep in mind that some people just need kicked out of the nest before they will learn to fly. I saw it with teaching teens. many were self absorbed slackers because society allowed them to be so. After I gave them some responsibility and accountability they quickly adapted to that situation.

Actually many are capable of taking care of themselves. They may not be able to afford big homes, cars, and flat screen TVs but they are capable of taking care of themselves. Maybe if the socialists stopped trying to force a higher standard of living on them then they could afford to live within their means.

 

[jilly4ski]

There are millions of people working 10 hours a day in a “depressing office” who can’t afford families or further education who are being forced to pay for you. I don’t see how you can be so insensative to their plights.

I have more respect for your husband for feeling that way.

As I will hopefully next year, be paying for others to be on these programs, by working in a “depressing office.”

I am not insensitive peoples plights, some of my observation is that people who work 10 hours in an office job, would have extreme difficultly getting help from these programs, even if they qualify. I have a relatively flexible schedule so can make it to appointments that last 3 hours, or sit in a waiting room all afternoon waiting to fill out paperwork, but how do people who work all day do this?

 

[centurionguard]

You need to learn about how economics works. First of all, the state cannot give everyone jobs. Where does the state gets its money? It gets its money from us taxpayers. If we all worked for the government, and the government received only a fraction of our money back, they would not be able to pay us next year, and we would *all *be out of work.

Secondly, corporations do not “have” jobs which they are keeping from people. When they need people to work, they hire people. When they do not need people to work, they *cannot *hire them, because unless they get a benefit from the person, they cannot *afford *to. Were they to hire people willy-nilly, they would have to raise the prices of their goods, no one would buy, and they would go broke–then *all *the people working for them would be without jobs.

Do you think that more people should have jobs? Fine. Go out and start a business, get it going well enough that you can afford to hire people, and give people jobs. But don’t bellyache because institutions which do not have the money to hire people don’t hire people.

…

Hello St. Francis;

Just wanted you to know that I’ve read through this entire thread and support you in everything you said.

I’ve been on Welfare for the last seven years. But not solely because it was my preferred choice. I’m fighting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Pancreatic Cancer.
Personally; I hate the term Welfare. Not because I’m always in favor of politically correct language, but because for decades the word welfare has so often labeled in a synonymous way numerous unfortunately human beings as useless scum. The word Social Assistance more aptly helps remove (“some”) of that unfair stigma and prejudice much in the same way of rephrasing the term Mentally Retarded for the word Mentally Challenged.

Perhaps I’m looking at this wrong IMHO, but I think there are some better termed words that replace old words like Welfare and Mentally Retarded, which can in a manner of speaking soften the heavy knife blow of bias and disdain that often accompanies the views engendered by the judgment of others who knowingly or unknowingly cause pain as to remove human dignity that is every persons right no matter what social status.
As human beings it is our daily duty to make sure in Gods calling that every persons dignity is respected, even the disheveled and smelly drunk beggar in the street.
Am I speaking in the extreme here? Hmm; we might as well ask what Jesus Himself would do.

If I could remove myself from social assistance I would.
However; should someone feel the self-righteous need to
label me as Welfare Scum. So be it. All the power to them.

Peace
Chris

 

[Abu]

athair_siochain (#48)
The US is the most debt ridden Nation on the Planet. the worst is yet to come. the landlord and moneylenders must pay the price for bringing this once great Nation to its knees, young families have lost all their life savings, the welfare system will not fix the unfix-able. those on welfare do not feel useless, there hands are tied . what did the Bush Government do, they threw money at the moneylenders, to bail them out.

Here is an example of how people make their own trouble.
We’ve seen how the Welfare State devalues the human being. Here we see the total confusion which results from feelings, desires and prejudices, and no idea of the laws of economics discovered by the Catholic Late Scholastics based on reason, cause and effect, and no idea of the government interventions which make a mockery of such free enterprise which is endorsed by the Catholic Church.

How governments allow their central banks to devastate free enterprise by finagling! Then they play the blame game!visandvals.org/The_Great_Greek_Bailout.php

“Central bankers—unaccountable not only to the voters of these countries, but to their duly constituted governments as well — seem to have carte blanche to do what they want.

“As reported by Bloomberg on May 10, “The U.S. Federal Reserve will restart its emergency currency swap tool by providing as many dollars as needed to European central banks to keep the continent’s sovereign debt crisis from spreading.”

“First, we live in a world of finite wealth and limits, yet central bankers are flirting with an infinitely elastic money supply when they talk about ‘unlimited funds’ and creating ‘as many dollars as needed.’
Second, who authorized the Fed to bail out European governments? Our own government is drowning in debt, so how can we afford to provide hundreds of billions of dollars to Europe? Is Congress asleep? Where’s the media?
Third, does anyone think that the other European governments teetering on the brink of insolvency will be able to convince their voters that they should tighten their belts through a government austerity program when the central bankers have made it clear that they stand ready to supply bailout funds? Moral hazard, anyone?”

Thus do the bumblers create the chaos that they blame on free enterprise with their idiotic manipulations. And some here fall for the deceit.

 

[St_Francis]

…

Hello St. Francis;

Just wanted you to know that I’ve read through this entire thread and support you in everything you said.

I’ve been on Welfare for the last seven years. But not solely because it was my preferred choice. I’m fighting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Pancreatic Cancer.
Personally; I hate the term Welfare. Not because I’m always in favor of politically correct language, but because for decades the word welfare has so often labeled in a synonymous way numerous unfortunately human beings as useless scum. The word Social Assistance more aptly helps remove (“some”) of that unfair stigma and prejudice much in the same way of rephrasing the term Mentally Retarded for the word Mentally Challenged.

Perhaps I’m looking at this wrong IMHO, but I think there are some better termed words that replace old words like Welfare and Mentally Retarded, which can in a manner of speaking soften the heavy knife blow of bias and disdain that often accompanies the views engendered by the judgment of others who knowingly or unknowingly cause pain as to remove human dignity that is every persons right no matter what social status.
As human beings it is our daily duty to make sure in Gods calling that every persons dignity is respected, even the disheveled and smelly drunk beggar in the street.
Am I speaking in the extreme here? Hmm; we might as well ask what Jesus Himself would do.

If I could remove myself from social assistance I would.
However; should someone feel the self-righteous need to
label me as Welfare Scum. So be it. All the power to them.

Peace
Chris

Chris and Jilly,
Welfare is a difficult thing in our (US) society. Those who really need it have no options, it’s the way society is set up, so I have no problem with people who are on welfare. Most of the people I know in the US who are on welfare are working to get off welfare.

It is somewhat different in Europe, where it seems to be seen more as a right, and I think have been more strongly affected by what the Pope described in Centissimus Annus.

I just think that the current structure is bad for everyone… I’d like to see people who need help be able to get help, but in a different way, a way which is *good *for everyone.

Chris, as to changing the name, I have seen several name changes of different things over the years, and so far as anyone wanting to insult someone, the different name doesn’t really help. The “slow” kids were ridiculed, so they put them in Special Education instead, now “SpEd” is an insult. A rose by any other name…

 

[royal_archer]

Holly, it is for people like you that the welfare system was created for. I do not think that anyone on this thread would disagree with this point. The problem right now with the system is that there is so many people on it that shouldn’t be on it. So the problem that I have with it is the ones that abuse the system and not the ones that the system is made for.

God bless.

I accept the point in theory but disagree from a practical point of view.

Not all, but there are too many people out there who are to put it bluntly are hypochondriacs. With the ample welfare programs they are not willing to make the effort to rise above their limmitations and fight through the pain associated with earning their keep. When people can stay in bed all day and get a welfare check, going to work with a bit of back pain may seem like a big deal. When you can lay around all day, applying for one or two jobs a day may seem like you are realy trying.

For those who are truly needy and gratefull when people try to help them there will be plenty of people who are willing to take them in and help them out with out the need for spending most of our national budget on welfare programs.

 

[royal_archer]

Since you feel it genuine to criticize people you don’t know personally, why would you bet it to be the majority? More like you hope so, cause then that would support your unreasonable ideology? More like the corporate state is abusing poor people by not given them all decent Jobs.

Its easier to blame the victim, rather than face up to the immoral economic corruption of human society.

I have met many people on welfare but never one who actually deserved it. (Not counting temporary unemployment)

 

[royal_archer]

So you want a more stringent criteria for those receiving aid from a welfare state. To use an analogy from statistics, you want to minimize type I error (false positives;thinking that people “deserve” welfare when they do not).

However, using a low alpha does reduce type I error, but it also increases type II error (false negatives; thinking when people do not deserve welfare when they do).

Ok, you can’t prove it.

Can you prove your point? Please provide the name of the unemployed person who has more of a right to my paycheck than I do and state the legal standing to which you feel they are more entitled to my money than I am.