Is Welfare just another form of Slavery?

[neat62]

jc-servant;4220957]

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.

And I am against that.

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?”

If you cannot afford a kid, then don’t have sex. If you cannot control yourself(mess up), then you are on your own. I control myself, why should I pay for those who do not?

 

[Joejohn39]

The welfare-statists pretend that if the welfare state is abolished people will be starving in the street. This in untrue. The institution of government does not have to take care of people through welfare: that isn’t it’s job, it’s inefficient at it, and it’s against the rule of law. Private organizations, churches, families, and local communities are perfectly capable, if allowed. The problem with government welfare is that it is enforced charity from the taxpayer. Almsgiving should not be coerced; it should be voluntary. Welfare actually makes the populace less charitable (it’s difficult to feel charitable when you’re working 5 months out of the year just to pay your taxes). Individuals who are unable to care for themselves should be cared for locally and voluntarily by their communities.

 

[cynic]

And if that fails to happen, then too bad for them.

Also the entirity of tax people pay does not get spent on welfare.

 

[Joejohn39]

And if that fails to happen, then too bad for them.

Also the entirity of tax people pay does not get spent on welfare.

If you don’t trust the local communities and individuals to care for the unfortunate, on what basis can you trust a massive, distant bureaucracy that’s proven itself to be corrupt and inept a thousand times over? No, our tax dollars aren’t only spent on the Welfare State and Ponzi-scheme entitlements; they’re also spent on empire-building, corporate subsidies, pork for congressmen’s constituents, special interest groups, redundant bureaucratic overhead, and paper to print out legislation dissolving civil liberties, seizing private property, and destroying our currency.

 

[cynic]

If you don’t trust the local communities and individuals to care for the unfortunate, on what basis can you trust a massive, distant bureaucracy that’s proven itself to be corrupt and inept a thousand times over?.

Well since welfare abuse is considered such a problem in western society, it seems that the availability of financial help (to those who genuinely require it) might not be the issue.

 

[Joejohn39]

Well since welfare abuse is considered such a problem in western society, it seems that the availability of financial help, (to those who genuinly require it), might not the issue.

It only proves my point the government doesn’t know what’s it’s doing (if it ever does) and that these things are more compatently handled at a local level. Again, why put more faith the federal government than other institutions? What makes them more trustworthy? We have the idea in our society that the higher, bigger and broader a governing body is, the better it’s able to handle problems. If local private communities have a problem, the local government takes it over. The local government only screws it up more, so the state takes it over, then the federal, and then we want to hand to the UN. Completely fallacious, IMO

 

[cynic]

It only proves my point the government doesn’t know what’s it’s doing (if it ever does) and that these things are more compatently handled at a local level.

Aren’t there time limits on welfare in the U.S now? Seems like a pretty simple thing to apply a few rules.

Again, why put more faith the federal government than other institutions? What makes them more trustworthy?

Government can force it to happen. It can guarantee financial aid, while charity leaves it up to chance. Whether the recipients deserve it or not is a separate issue.

 

[Joejohn39]

Government can force it to happen. It can guarantee financial aid, while charity leaves it up to chance. Whether the recipients deserve it or not is a separate issue.

I favor much more drastic changes in government than minor rule changes, and honestly I’m not particularly concerned with who deserves it or not. In my opinion, government should not be involved in the alms business at all, in any way whatsoever. It has no jurisdiction, it tends to be incompetent in whatever it does, and it is just plain unjust to coerce charity from people. Leaving it up to the government is just as chance-y as anything else; how do you know that one day the government won’t turn around and use that money for one of its wars? It’s done more corrupt things than that, like attempted to give 700 billion of other peoples’ hard-earned money to big corporations. The only reason the government can force anything to happen is because it’s the institution that holds all the guns…the same reason the Mafia can force things to happen.

 

[jc-servant]

If you cannot afford a kid, then don’t have sex. If you cannot control yourself(mess up), then you are on your own. I control myself, why should I pay for those who do not?

So if people already have a child while gainfully employed and they later lose their job what do you expect them to do when their savings runs out? Should they abandon their kids on the streets or let them starve? Not everyone who is receiving government assistance with kids had them after they got onto assistance.

You may “control yourself” but you don’t control the economy or employers who ship jobs overseas leaving entire communities out of work and too poor to move away. I hope that you never lose your means of support or have huge medical bills that bankrupt you and cause you to need some assistance. It would be a rude awakening to the realities of trying to rely on voluntary hand outs, etc when you are unable to support yourself (and possibly a family) despite your best efforts.

 

[neat62]

So if people already have a child while gainfully employed and they later lose their job what do you expect them to do when their savings runs out? Should they abandon their kids on the streets or let them starve? Not everyone who is receiving government assistance with kids had them after they got onto assistance.

You may “control yourself” but you don’t control the economy or employers who ship jobs overseas leaving entire communities out of work and too poor to move away. I hope that you never lose your means of support or have huge medical bills that bankrupt you and cause you to need some assistance. It would be a rude awakening to the realities of trying to rely on voluntary hand outs, etc when you are unable to support yourself (and possibly a family) despite your best efforts.

I’m all for temporary assistance. 6 months tops. Beyond that, you do what you have to do, be it, moving to where the work is, working 4 days straight at a gas station, or delivering pizzas. I’ve done all of that. I used to take home (post taxes) $500.00 a week earning minimum wage. I knew single women supporting kids working at a gas station. Was it a cozy life? Nope, but nobody is guaranteed a cozy life. You do what you have to do. Taking assistance so you can sit at home is not my idea of helping anyone. Welfare should be a last resort.

 

[neat62]

Another thing. When the government give your money to people, it now places certain rules as conditions. For example: Churchs are tax exempt, so the government tells them that they cannot mention political canidates.

When the government spends your money on say, building a new Federal building somewhere, contractors must hire minorities, pay them the maximum, and insure them.

And like this current financial crisis, the government told banks that you must give loans out to unqualified people.

So yeah, somebody looses rights when the governmnet spends your money.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

I was responding to the idea that all children in her county receive the “same” education. They don’t all receive the “same” education. When was the last time you saw a child whose parent(s) is on welfare govng to Andover or Groton and getting that education and making those life long connections? My children went to a Catholic grade school where they received an education that was light years ahead of the public grade schools in our area. In my county even the public grade schools vary greatly depending on where you live. The kids in LO get a better education than the kids in OC–fact of life. Not too many welfare recipients in LO accessing those public schools.
So the point is not everyone gets the same education–those with means get a better education.

Children who grow up on welfare are more likely to become dependent on welfare as adults. And kids from affluent families are more likely to be affluent as adults.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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

Here’s the flaw in that logic- I dont think so. See below.
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. The housing is subsidized not free. The mortgage interest and property tax deductions subsidize your house. You didn’t earn the deduction. You bought a house–why should the government give you a tax break to do so? They don’t give you one to buy a car or clothes. So keep kidding yourself–its a handout from the government because they think its good for people to own homes–its helps foster a social policy. The goverment also believes it is better for people to have housing than sleep on the street–hence they provide subsidized housing helping to foster a social policy.

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. Why should you be allowed to do this? Why should the goverment give you a break because you bought a house–thats your choice. You’re getting a break that a renter doesnt get.

Tax deductions are not similar to welfare benefits in any way, shape, or form- in fact, taxes are what pay for welfare benefits.
Yes they are. Someone who doesnt own a home and doesnt want to own a home has paid taxes and some of those taxes have been given to you (in the form of the reduced taxes you pay by virtue of claiming the mortgage interest and property tax deduction). Don’t you think that maybe that person doesnt want to help subsidize your home? Taxes are what we pay or shoud pay for our infrastructure, national defense etc. Those things that let you earn a decent living, live in a safe neighborhood and safe and stable country etc. They probably shouldn’t help us buy houses etc. Those welfare benefits also help provide for some stability in our social frabric and we all reap benefit from that. Just look at the history of social unrest if you doubt that.

Nobody is claiming that welfare recipients are the objects of class envy. I was being sarcastic (sorry).

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. Yes some abuse the system getting benefits they don’t deserve–but do you really think people stay on welfare indefinitely because they want to? That they’ve seen a better life and said no? That they’ve been shown a way out and said no–I’d rather live like this? I guess you answered this below.

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. Yes and those people are criminals and most likely they are not themselves welfare recipients–so I don’t see how this is an arguement against welfare.

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 or don’t know anything else?, and 2) they think that working and being self-sufficient is more onerous than living in the projects. this implies that one can get a job that allows one to be self-suffient which may or may not be the case. Isnt it more likely that they ust don’t see a way out? That they can’t find a job that will pay them enough to live–to have housing and to eat? That they cant save up enough to qualify for that apartment?/quote]

It is quite possible that I am naive and think to highly of people. I’m not going to argue with that.
I will argue with those who think they are “entitled” to a tax break because they “earned” money, and that they are not getting subsidized by the government because thats what a tax break is.
No one is entitled to or has earned a tax deduction. We pay taxes for the security and upkeep of our communities and country–so that we can live securely and have the opportunity to work. The governement is under know obligation to help you buy your home.

 

[Trader]

From MarkiinOregon
“The housing is subsidized not free. The mortgage interest and property tax deductions subsidize your house. You didn’t earn the deduction. You bought a house–why should the government give you a tax break to do so? They don’t give you one to buy a car or clothes. So keep kidding yourself–its a handout from the government because they think its good for people to own homes–its helps foster a social policy. The goverment also believes it is better for people to have housing than sleep on the street–hence they provide subsidized housing helping to foster a social policy.”

Equating welfare and tax dedutions makes sense only if all money belongs to the government in the first place. Then allowing me to keep part of my earnings would be the same as taking some of my earnings and giving it to someone else who did not earn it.

You can make a good argument that everything I have belongs to God, but you cannot equate God and the government. Government is a creature of the people “deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.”

 

[Pinkyyy]

No, I do not think it is equal to slavery. I hope I don’t offend anyone, but here I go…

Women today have no respect for their bodies and they sleep around (outside of marriage am speaking of) whether it be with a boyfriend or several guys - it’s the same thing, sleeping around. Then when they get pregnant, they want to abort the “fetus” who is “using their body against their will”. If the keep the baby, they don’t even want to consider adoption because of 2 reasons 1) They think it’s “too hard” or 2) they have this belief that it will go into the foster care system and come out being abused and wishing they were never born or go and committ suicide.

On a side note, I am not bashing women chosing to raise their children, but it seems TO ME that so many of these poor women are pregnany by x y and z father and instead of giving these children up to TWO parents who can raise the child better, that selfish gene that all humans have starts to kick in, and it’s suddenly more important what’s “good for the mother” as opposed to “good for the baby”.

Now that that rant is over, let me say that I do get why women and do keep their babies in those situations and I am not slamming them, but if they would have practiced what they often times preach (chrisitanity) then they wouldn’t have had sex in the first place!

Anyway, often times (not all the times), these women are forcing themselves into the welfare system (or their mothers did it and forced them into the welfare system).

Many of these women also actually have more children so they can collect more money - can you believe that?

I do agree with the welfare system today - it’s not supposed to be easy. Too many just plain take advantage of it and therefore the system can not just give $2,000 away to families so that their lives are easier because even more would abuse the system then. It’s meant to be a struggle because these people are using the system for whatever reason and they need to have some uncomfort to motivate them.

But I can also advocate for some perks for those on welfare such as more help finding jobs, maybe weaning them from the systemn too so it’s not such a shock - such as when they get a job, they also get some (lesser) help for a 3 month or 6 month period.

I mean, the system already gives so much free stuff - money, rent, healthcare, daycare - there is so much out there and those that abuse the system hurt those that really need it.

It is not a form of slavery, but no one said it would be easy either.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

It is wise to have a safety net as a form of insurance that people pay into when they can and receive from when required.

The problem comes when somepeople use the safety net as a hammock.

 

[royal_archer]

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”.

Why are they having children if they can’t take care of themselves?

 

[royal_archer]

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.

I did have a chance to help teach some classes in the inner city. The classes dealt with life skills so we had a chance to talk about opportunities. The kids were convinced they had absolutely no opportunity. They believed that their only chance of a decent life was what the government gave them.

Based on this I see where some elected officials encourage this culture of dependency. The power hungry politicians get what they want the contituants get what they want (because they don’t know they can get better) and others get forced to pay.

 

[Oscarthecat]

You talk about taxes and government the same way that people with stockholm syndrome talk about their captors.

The government is not “giving” people ANYTHING by allowing a deduction or a tax cuts.

They are simply taking less of what doesn’t belong to them in the first place.

They have convinced you that what you earn belongs to them, and that you are lucky to be able to keep what they don’t take because you don’t have a right to it in the first place. You disdain those who are able to keep a little bit more than you- not because you feel you are somehow missing out- but becaues you think that they are taking an unfair portion of what you don’t think belongs to them.

You are entitled to every penny you earn. Most people in this country don’t even realize that they have never explicitly agreed to pay most of the taxes demanded of them. The government is not entitled, and should not be allowed, to take anything from you without your free consent.

If you want to forfeit all of your tax deductions, then go ahead. But don’t think you have the right to make that choice for others.*

 

[MoBeck]

Well, having been on welfare, I can tell you it is no fun. When I was in my early 20s (late 1980s) I was out of work, my unemployment ran out & I moved to a new city. At the time there were not jobs for the asking like there are now.
I was on for a year & a half. Recipients had to do 16 hours “workfare” usually washing cars at the city garage or something like that. I was volunteering at a homeless shelter so I was able to get that counted. I also worked under the table at a bookstore sometimes – totally illegal, I would have lost my benefits if DSS had found out.

What I found demoralising was being out of work, having no reason to get up in the morning. I’d go in cycles, several weeks of searching diligently, then get sick of it and backslide. Would being cut off of welfare have motivated me any more? Or not being allowed on in the first place.

The system itself assumes you have no plans. They’ll give you an appointment for, say, 9.00 a.m. and you find yourself in a roomful of people all of whom have 9 o’c appts. The desk doesn’t even open until 9.15 or 9.20. My first encounter with this I had made an appt. for a job interview at 11.00. Oops!

I took the first job I could get, at a mall for minimum wage. Then when they dumped me after Christmas I got a job at a shelter.

I now work at a shelter for homeless families and most are there due to emergency, or relocation (quite a few getting out of NYC). Many have jobs and have to leave early to get their kids to school and don’t get back until late in the evening, having to travel by bus from job to whatever afterschool arrangement they have for the children back to the shelter.

And on the other hand you have the hard-core cases for whom welfare is a lifestyle, but they are a minority. We see the coming back every year or six months.

But for most, who are trying, what do we do? Most aren’t qualified for much better than low-paying jobs without health benefits. And most have already made poor choices (and are likely to again).

So what do we tell them? “Don’t use birth control or get abortions, but I’m not going to pay for health care or daycare for you & your bastards.”
Sometimes that’s what it sounds like around here.

I don’t think anyone could call me a socialist, but if we don’t provide more for the struggling poor their rational choice is to say “Screw it, I’d be better off getting a check every month.”