Is Welfare just another form of Slavery?

[peregrinus_WA]

Now that I got the “shock title” out of the way, let me explain.

There is a talk radio station in Detroit that is conservative in slant (which I prefer) and I listen to it a lot (surprise surprise).

More than once on this station, Welfare has been likened to Slavery for what it does to people’s desire to better themselves and how it tends to destroy the family especially within the African-American community. There now seems to be multiple generations in the same families that are on welfare.

Before I am accused of racism, it is not only whites that are saying this. There is a 2 hour program on Saturday (2nd hour rebroadcast on Sunday) hosted by a African American Elder (i.e. Pastor) that echos this same theme.

With the way the welfare system is set up right now (the reforms of the 90’s did not change that much), I tend to agree with this position.

Comments and what can be done about it?

Blog Entry

 

[Trader]

Get married to someone with a job, lose your benefits.
Shack up with someone with a job, keep your benefits.

Save some of the money from a part time job, lose your benefits.
Spend that money on a little weed, keep your benefits.

Reconcile and move in with family, lose your benefits.
Stay alienated from family, keep your benefits.

It sounds a lot like voluntary slavery to me. Couldn’t we at least change the system to indentured servitude? There would be a definite time limit to benefits and social workers would be supervising a definite written plan to change the behavior that caused the problem in the first place.

The only ones to suffer would be the politicians who could not campaign for increases in benefits to get more votes.

 

[bilop]

The worst part of it is that it’s slavery to the black political class, i.e. the urban Democrats. They have no desire to see people advance themselves, b/c they might move out of the ghetto and stop voting for the “machine” politicians.

God Bless

 

[steveandersen]

My sister was abandoned by her husband soon after the birth of their son.

For a brief time she was on welfare. It helped her pay the bills, get job training, and take care of her son.

That was 25 years ago. She is a productive member of society. She works, pays taxes, owns a home, and votes.

How can helping people in their hour of need be equated with slavery?

That is an odd idea of conservatism you have.

Personally I see conservatism as the preservation of public order and stability.

 

[Oscarthecat]

My sister was abandoned by her husband soon after the birth of their son.

For a brief time she was on welfare. It helped her pay the bills, get job training, and take care of her son.

That was 25 years ago. She is a productive member of society. She works, pays taxes, owns a home, and votes.

How can helping people in their hour of need be equated with slavery?

That is an odd idea of conservatism you have.

Personally I see conservatism as the preservation of public order and stability.

I don’t think that anyone equated slavery with “helping people in their hour of need.” I think that the point is that the welfare system in this country takes advantage of people in need by giving them just enough to subsist, but not enough to succeed.

Most conservatives would agree that your sister is a good example of how the welfare system SHOULD work because it helped her during her time of need, and helped her become self-sufficient again.

That is exactly how a conservative would say that welfare was supposed to work-

Instead, by and large, welfare doesn’t do this anymore- instead, it seems to many welfare recipients are provided just enough to maintain a marginally comfortable subsist level, but not enough to succeed and return to being self-sufficient.

 

[Ruthie]

My sister, too, benefited from welfare after her husband left her with 4 kids. And my ex-mother in law raised 7 kids on welfare. They both used the system the way it was *meant *to be used. They were neither one of them at fault, and welfare was their best choice for taking care of their kids. When the youngest was in school, they got off welfare. I’m happy to have my tax dollars support them and others in that kind of predicament.

In fact, I was on emergency welfare for a few months when I had a very bad case of mono and couldn’t work. (I got medical care, food stamps, and $5 less a month than my rent. I managed to survive.)

But there are others who have the entitlement mentality and feel they should not have to work for a living. There are also those who finance their drug and/or alcohol problems using the welfare system. If that is slavery, it is self-induced slavery.

I’d say something about how the system destroys families, but Peregrine and Trader covered it pretty well. My ex-MIL would agree. After she got off welfare, she went to the office and said, “Hey, I know the system inside and out, why not hire me as an investigator?” They did. She told me a lot of that stuff!

Ruthie

 

[Dale_M]

How can helping people in their hour of need be equated with slavery?

That is an odd idea of conservatism you have.

I’ll leave aside the issue of conservatism, but wonder how many persons who are recieving government aid of some kind feel trapped by it.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I can see how your argument supports the position that welfare is a form of social control designed to maintain a poor class.

But I don’t know if that alone makes it a form of slavery. Slavery is also a form of social control, but it is designed to maintain an obligate labor class by asserting ownership of the slave’s labor. As such, it is primarily an economically motivated form of control in which the slave owner, not the slave, profits from their labor.

The type of control asserted by the Welfare system is not economically motivated, or at least I don’t think that it is, because the welfare system is designed to divert the benefits of other peoples’ labor to support those on welfare.

Now that I think about it, welfare recipients have more in common with the slave owners, and those of us who work and pay taxes have more in common with the slaves.

 

[quasimodo]

no it is not at all like slavery… at its worst it can become more like an addiction, however. At its best it can save lives. Same is true of many medicines.

 

[love4mary]

I know many many families who have been receiving welfare benefits for generations. Their children attend school (as required by law) but then they either quit or just barely graduate.

Upon leaving school, they stay home and for some of the girls, have babies. This is not a blanket statement, these are families that I personally know.

Every child in my county has access to the Same level of education, there are no special schools designed for the gifted, so they cannot use lack of educational opportunities as an excuse. Many churches have volunteers to help tutor children after school if there is a need.

They live in rent subsidized homes, utility bills are adjusted, and food stamps are provided. (the only real good that comes of this is that children receive Vital heath care, wish my children had health insurance)

Is there ACTUAL need for welfare?,Yes! Absolutely, but it should have a time limit and be contingent upon the recipients gaining meaning full employment (granted a tough thing in todays economic crisis)

Its not,“Oh those poor people being enslaved by our government welfare system”. It should be, “STOP milking the system those who receive and for the government to STOP making it ‘attractive’ to remain on welfare”.

 

[Newbie2]

Most conservatives would agree that your sister is a good example of how the welfare system SHOULD work because it helped her during her time of need, and helped her become self-sufficient again.

That is exactly how a conservative would say that welfare was supposed to work-

Exactomundo. Politically, if someone on the right even hints at limiting welfare by dollar amount, or the time someone is on welfare, they get jumped on by the left. And some one the right might say to, for example a woman who got pregnant, "Well, you got yourself into this mess, why should I help you out of my own pocket.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

I think that it the welfare system as it exists is a form of slavery, in that it encourages deeper and deeper dependance on government to take care of people, instead of giving them the freedom to make choices in how they could be productive citizens.

My wife’s great aunt used to be on welfare; she was disabled and couldn’t work. They gave her WAY more food then she could possible even eat, and we ended up with some of it so it wouldn’t go to waste. I felt a bit guilty eating government peanut butter and cheese, (but it wasn’t bad at all) and otherwise would have gone to waste.

Clean up waste and corruption in the system, and there’d be plenty for everyone.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Every child in my county has access to the Same level of education, there are no special schools designed for the gifted, so they cannot use lack of educational opportunities as an excuse. Many churches have volunteers to help tutor children after school if there is a need.
What county is that? Are there no private schools in your county where affluent children go and receive a better education? Are there not districts in your county with better public schools than some other district? All are exactly equal? Thats not my county.

They live in rent subsidized homes, utility bills are adjusted, and food stamps are provided. (the only real good that comes of this is that children receive Vital heath care, wish my children had health insurance) Unlike those who have the purchase of their home subsidized by the government? Thats right-or do you not claim the mortgage interest deduction on your taxes? What is that but a government subsidy to help one purchase a home. You also get to deduct your property taxes–more government subsidy. We all benefit in some way from various government programs/subsidies–call them what you will.

Is there ACTUAL need for welfare?,Yes! Absolutely, but it should have a time limit and be contingent upon the recipients gaining meaning full employment (granted a tough thing in todays economic crisis) The rules make it very hard for someone to do what you ask. Instead of encouraging people to succeed and get off of welfare–they penalize you. That’s what needs to be reformed–so that people can work their way up and off of welfare.

Its not,“Oh those poor people being enslaved by our government welfare system”. It should be, “STOP milking the system those who receive and for the government to STOP making it ‘attractive’ to remain on welfare”.

Yes living in subsidized housing, barely having enough to eat, and not being able to go out and get an entry level job without losing your benefits – is all so attractive–its a wonder we don’t all live like that.–I know when I see people living in the projects–the first thing I think is dang thats attractive wish I could live there.

 

[steveandersen]

I’ll leave aside the issue of conservatism, but wonder how many persons who are recieving government aid of some kind feel trapped by it.

IIRC welfare is no longer an “entitlement”, there are time limits on receiving benefits and have been for (over?) a decade now.

My experience is that most folks who get government help are grateful to have it. I have not heard of any “trapped” feelings.

 

[neat62]

It creates a dependant class. All social programs do. The people must vote for the party who provides those programs or else they will lose them. The dependants are now slaves to the master providers. Now the providers can do what they want. Yep, it sure is.

 

[Oscarthecat]

What county is that? Are there no private schools in your county where affluent children go and receive a better education? Are there not districts in your county with better public schools than some other district? All are exactly equal? Thats not my county.

I don’t know what you were responding to, but it didn’t seem to have anything to do with the point of the person to whom you were responding, which was that despite the fact that children in her county recieve the same education, those who grow up in welfare dependent families end up becoming welfare dependent themselves, while the other children do not.

Children who grow up on welfare are more likely to become dependent on welfare as adults.

Thats right-or do you not claim the mortgage interest deduction on your taxes? What is that but a government subsidy to help one purchase a home. You also get to deduct your property taxes–more government subsidy. We all benefit in some way from various government programs/subsidies–call them what you will.

Are you really equating the use of a tax deduction to recieving welfare?

Here’s the flaw in that logic-
people on welfare are being given money they didn’t earn and are provided housing they don’t pay for- they don’t pay taxes because they don’t earn any money.

People deducting their property tax and mortgage interest from their taxes are subtracting those amounts from the total amount of money that they earned over the course of the year.

Tax deductions are not similar to welfare benefits in any way, shape, or form- in fact, taxes are what pay for welfare benefits.

The rules make it very hard for someone to do what you ask. Instead of encouraging people to succeed and get off of welfare–they penalize you. That’s what needs to be reformed–so that people can work their way up and off of welfare.

You are right- the rules DO make it very hard for people to break free of welfare- I think that is one of the basic points made by the OP.
I think that was also one of the main points of the person you were responding to.

But for some reason, you sound as if you think someone disagrees with you…

Yes living in subsidized housing, barely having enough to eat, and not being able to go out and get an entry level job without losing your benefits – is all so attractive–its a wonder we don’t all live like that.–I know when I see people living in the projects–the first thing I think is dang thats attractive wish I could live there.

Nobody is claiming that welfare recipients are the objects of class envy.

Most people recieving welfare would rather be self-sufficient because they know that it is more profitable and more dignified. However, there are those who do abuse the system by staying on it indefinitely, or manipulating the system to recieve benefits that don’t belong to them.

For example, a remarkable number of welfare checks are “cashed” by deceased people every month because the system takes a few months to update after people die-there are people who read the obits every morning, and start stealing mail delivered to homes of the recently deceased in the hope of finding welfare checks.

While the welfare lifestyle may not seem appealing to most people, that doesn’t change the fact that some people are perfectly content to live in conditions others would find unacceptable because 1) they have become used to it, and 2) they think that working and being self-sufficient is more onerous than living in the projects.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Actually, I see welfare as a part of a larger issue and that is Marxist Socialism (i.e. the Nanny State) where some think it is the duty of the government to cloth, feed, and other things from cradle to grave. They are so reliant on handouts that they are, in fact, slaves of the government. If fact, Marxist Socialism makes people property of the government. Now tell me that is not slavery.

I think I have another blog entry for later.

 

[jc-servant]

Wow, the nonsense and false info on this thread is amazing. Welfare reform legislation went through during the Clinton era. There is a maximum time limit for what most people refer to as “welfare” which is the old AFDC aid to families with dependent children or TANF temporary aid to needy families. If you notice even the name shows that the benefits are now temporary.

There are things like disability that people can receive for longer periods of time than the above “welfare,” but given that most people commenting on some “welfare” recipient have no idea what the person is getting and from whence it comes, I believe incorrect assumptions are often being made.

Are those people who cannot support themselves due to a disability just slaves? Does anyone believe that they would rather be homeless and hungry and retain that precious independence from all government assistance? Perhaps the family who chooses life over abortion for their severely disabled child should just suck it up and pour all of their finances into hospital and therapy bills until they are all on the streets since independence from government assistance is going to save them from feeling like slaves.

There are more costly “welfare” programs that no middle class families like to think that they are using such as Medicaid vendor benefits that allow them to place granny into a nursing home using a government subsidy when they cannot come up with the many 1000s of dollars per month for her care. Why no hue and cry over this extremely costly form of “welfare” I wonder? Perhaps because people don’t want to believe that they too are dependent on the government for “welfare.”

BTW, Missouri instituted welfare to work programs in the early 90s even before Congress made welfare a time-limited benefit. People can finish GEDs or college, start jobs with subsidized child care that is gradually phased out as they are able to sustain jobs on their own, etc. Other states instituted similar programs when the federal law changed in the 90s. The rate of people who get out of the system and stay gainfully employed is extremely good. It is only a very small percentage of people who don’t get their lives together since the benefits will stop regardless of their efforts.

 

[neat62]

jc-servant;4216872]

Are those people who cannot support themselves due to a disability just slaves? Does anyone believe that they would rather be homeless and hungry and retain that precious independence from all government assistance?

Nobody ever said that.

There are more costly “welfare” programs that no middle class families like to think that they are using such as Medicaid vendor benefits that allow them to place granny into a nursing home using a government subsidy when they cannot come up with the many 1000s of dollars per month for her care. Why no hue and cry over this extremely costly form of “welfare” I wonder? Perhaps because people don’t want to believe that they too are dependent on the government for “welfare.”

1. Medicaid is a super common issue that is talked about all the time. There is a huge cry over medicare/Aide. People take it because they have paid for it. The market dictates the costs because they know that unlimited taxpayer funding will pay it.

BTW, Missouri instituted welfare to work programs in the early 90s even before Congress made welfare a time-limited benefit. People can finish GEDs or college, start jobs with subsidized child care that is gradually phased out as they are able to sustain jobs on their own, etc. Other states instituted similar programs when the federal law changed in the 90s. The rate of people who get out of the system and stay gainfully employed is extremely good. It is only a very small percentage of people who don’t get their lives together since the benefits will stop regardless of their efforts.

Subsidized child care is not our problem. It was their choice, not ours. They should pay for it on their own. Without it, people would think twice before they mess up. Safety nets for uncontrolable acts or events are one thing, a bail out for bad choices is another.

 

[Michael_David]

This from Cornell University:

welfare law: an overview

In the United States, welfare benefits for individuals and families with no or low income had been almost non-existent prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s. With millions of people unemployed, the federal government saw income security as a national problem. In addition to establishing two major “social insurance” programs to respond to future income loss (Social Security and Unemployment compensation), the Social Security Act of 1935 launched federal grants to support state welfare programs for low-income elderly and families with children. The former evolved into a federally administered program for the elderly, blind, and disabled, Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The latter became Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Both were supplemented by two important "in kind"benefit programs also funded by the federal government – Medicaid and Food Stamps. Needy individuals not meeting the eligibility criteria for these forms of federally assisted or supported welfare may qualify for purely state or state and local relief, often called general assistance.

In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform Act).  The new law eliminated AFDC, placed permanent ceilings on the amount of federal funding for welfare, and gave each state a block grant of money to help run its welfare program. For example, under the 1996 law, federal funds may only be used to provide a total of five years of aid in a lifetime of a family. Another significant change was the complete exclusion of legal aliens from receiving any SSI benefits.  The passage of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 further narrowed the number of people allowed to receive SSI disability benefits by requiring that drug addiction or alcoholism not be a material factor in their disability.

The law governing entitlement and benefit to any one of these welfare programs is complex. For individuals or families involved with more than one of them the situation is even more so. Federal law applies to federal benefits like SSI and in some respects, to federally funded benefits administered by the states, as AFDC used to be and Medicaid remains. Both federal and state programs must comply with Constitutional standards in setting eligibility rules and procedures for applying them.

Personally, I do not believe it is slavery. Rather a Human weakness of taking the ‘easy’ way, rather then the tougher proper way. I also have seen one’s self-esteem (and all the drawbacks that follow) drop while on such programs. It comes down to IF one ‘ever’ was a contributing self-sufficient member of society before the use of welfare moreso then if one ‘chooses’ at first that form of livelihood. Different mentalities are had by either type.

 

[jc-servant]

jc-servant;4216872]

Nobody ever said that.

Actually no one ever excluded the disabled from the discussion/condemnation about people receiving welfare, so by default they are included.

1. Medicaid is a super common issue that is talked about all the time. There is a huge cry over medicare/Aide. People take it because they have paid for it. The market dictates the costs because they know that unlimited taxpayer funding will pay it.

Medicare is not the same as Medicaid. People pay into the system for Medicare, but not for Medicaid which is “welfare.” The nursing home subsidies are Medicaid.

Subsidized child care is not our problem. It was their choice, not ours. They should pay for it on their own. Without it, people would think twice before they mess up. Safety nets for uncontrolable acts or events are one thing, a bail out for bad choices is another.

You miss the point that the child care was subsidized as an assist to people who were returned to the work force from welfare. It is paid for by taxpayers just like any other part of the welfare programs.

This was part of the welfare reform enacted in Missouri to ensure that people could learn to manage a work life while still having some assistance until they were secure in working and earning enough for child care expenses. I have no idea what you mean by “people would think twice before they mess up” when speaking about child care. Are you calling having a child “messing up?”