Is Welfare just another form of Slavery?

[Sam_Maloney]

Slavery is where you get no money for work.

Welfare is where you get money for no work.

Now, if you wanted to compare welfare to the Roman system of ‘bread and circuses’ to keep people just barely fed and distracted enough to prevent outright rebellion, that might be a conversation worth having.

 

[royal_archer]

…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.”

Part of the problem is they are getting the option to say “just *** it”. Another part of the problem is that there are a lot of people making bad decisions and are not fit to manage their own affairs. This is a case where many of these individuals need to have someone looking out for them on a one on one basis, not some annonymous government monstrosity sending them free money.

 

[Oscarthecat]

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.”

Most people understand that it is right to help people in need.

But politicians aren’t most people.

While we may disagree on how we should help those people- we would all agree that the end goal for everyone on welfare is that they eventually become self sufficient.

Politicians, on the other hand, have figured out that they can pass legislation that does just enough to make it look like they care about the poor. But that same legislation is carefully designed to make sure that the poor are still poor by the time the next election cycle comes around. That way, politicians can give big campaign speeches every election about helping the poor and make big noise about the legislation they passed to help the poor. They know that if they actually did help the poor in any kind of meaningful way, they would have one less thing to leverage their next election.

The two party system is perfect for this kind of nonsense- they just take turns blaming one another and shifiting policies.

People in government don’t want to solve problems- they just want to give the appearance that they are solving problems in order to keep themselves in office.

If the government bureaucrats really wanted to help the poor, then welfare recipients would be required to participate in job skills training and they would be encouraged to take on part time jobs to supplement their welfare income.

But instead they are told to show up and wash the city’s cars for a few hours a week.

 

[christcnection1]

For many people welfare keeps them in a cycle of poverty, and fosters in them little desire to get out.

For many others, the welfare system serves to be an effective safety net whereby they can stand on two feet and be enabled to move forward.

For some people welfare is merely a handout; for others, the system is a hand up. Such was the case with my mother. If it was not for welfare, she probably would not have been able to raise me and become as successful as she is today.

I am a strong supporter of government programs if they have been proven effective in helping people help themselves. When you’re in the pit of poverty and desire to get out, you tend to look at things from a different perspective.

Let’s be honest. For many of us, if a few things went different in our life, we could easily be on the margins not knowing where to turn, and stuck with very few options.

Indeed, if it were not for the grace and mercy of God, and the support of others, I could easily be in prison or dead. Now I plan on joining a Religious Order in hopes of becoming a priest after God’s own heart.

The welfare system is far from perfect, but as a general rule, is necessary and appropriate for the betterment of our country. And to answer the question, yes, the welfare system can potentially be a form of slavery.

 

[MoBeck]

Part of the problem is they are getting the option to say “just *** it”. Another part of the problem is that there are a lot of people making bad decisions and are not fit to manage their own affairs. This is a case where many of these individuals need to have someone looking out for them on a one on one basis, not some anonymous government monstrosity sending them free money.

“A lot” and “many” do not equal all or even most. Just because someone has made bad decisions in the past does that mean we shouldn’t try to help them now, both in the short term (cash assistance, food stamps) and in the longer term (education, job skills)?

As for having someone to look out for them on a one-to-one basis, what do you suggest? Do you know the number of social workers that would require? The closest thing to that is long-term caseworkers for Child Protective who are supposed to be closely involved with the families they’re assigned to. Here in Albany Co. (NY) each worker has at least 30 cases and I’m sure that’s far less than the national average.

 

[royal_archer]

“A lot” and “many” do not equal all or even most. Just because someone has made bad decisions in the past does that mean we shouldn’t try to help them now, both in the short term (cash assistance, food stamps) and in the longer term (education, job skills)?

As for having someone to look out for them on a one-to-one basis, what do you suggest? Do you know the number of social workers that would require? The closest thing to that is long-term caseworkers for Child Protective who are supposed to be closely involved with the families they’re assigned to. Here in Albany Co. (NY) each worker has at least 30 cases and I’m sure that’s far less than the national average.

I didn’t say they do no need help but if someone has proven themselves to be irresponsible with money you don’t jus tkeep giving them more money. Obviously you wouldn’t want paid social workers doing this. It would be better to think of it in terms of the big brother / big sister programs or foster care. I would expect to have other citizens with good life skills looking out for these people and helping them with important life decisions.

 

[royal_archer]

For many people welfare keeps them in a cycle of poverty, and fosters in them little desire to get out.

For many others, the welfare system serves to be an effective safety net whereby they can stand on two feet and be enabled to move forward.

For some people welfare is merely a handout; for others, the system is a hand up. Such was the case with my mother. If it was not for welfare, she probably would not have been able to raise me and become as successful as she is today.

I am a strong supporter of government programs if they have been proven effective in helping people help themselves. When you’re in the pit of poverty and desire to get out, you tend to look at things from a different perspective.

Let’s be honest. For many of us, if a few things went different in our life, we could easily be on the margins not knowing where to turn, and stuck with very few options.

Indeed, if it were not for the grace and mercy of God, and the support of others, I could easily be in prison or dead. Now I plan on joining a Religious Order in hopes of becoming a priest after God’s own heart.

The welfare system is far from perfect, but as a general rule, is necessary and appropriate for the betterment of our country. And to answer the question, yes, the welfare system can potentially be a form of slavery.

One problem is that when people think of Welfare they think of either of two stereotypes the person who is down on their luck through a series of unforseen circumstances and bums. There is a third group that does not get enough attention: the working “poor”. There are a lot of people who are getting by but are using various social programs to improve their standard of living. These recipients of all sorts of pork continue to exploit the system but are not totally dependent on the system. It is these people (and their supporters) who are a significant voting block that increases the burden on the system and take resources away from those who truly need it.

 

[Laborer]

Whose image is on your money?

 

[Michael_David]

I see two problems here: one is the welfare slant and the other is the young kids (off the roles) trying to make a living (like he was used to).

The welfare slant is with a mother with kids. They are the ones that get the welfare. The fathers (that got kicked out, or left) do not; and the mother keeps (wants) the kids for the welfare they will bring… unless the father is still there. Another is the child support that can be had if the father is gone (for no reason other then she does not want him there anymore). This means there are double gains for the poor mother with kids. And add to that, the other benefits subsidized through the program. Let’s say minimum wage is $5… even if the mother is working for that much, with child care, food stamps, baby care, medical, schooling… that wage becomes closer to $15, a very nice sum for any wage earner NOT on the welfare roles. In fact, it puts her well above the average of most workers with schooling (that they paid for to better themselves).

So now we have this mothers kids. They turn 16 and try to get a job, perhaps flipping burgers. But at $5 they cannot afford the life style they were used to… can’t even move out as rooms cost more then that, much less all the living expenses. With time, this kid may advance and make more money, but really, he is in a trap. Live with Mom, who now looks at him as a burden (since he is not bringing in any funds for Her), or go out with others, like himself, and try to make ends meet together. Working in the low-end doesn’t have all the benefits he had before (with mom), like medical, or food stamps. And he cannot get welfare as a single person, and may even owe child support. The young girl has another choice… get pregnant… be like Mom. But the young boy does not have this option.

So, if the welfare Mom is making the equivalent of $30K when others out there (on their own) are making $20K and are the REAL POOR now that welfare Mom has leap-froged over POOR status with all the help and subsidy. And yes, the one’s doing it on their own are still together, both Mother and Father and kids… they have stayed together and are trying to make ends meet and raise their family TOGETHER.

Yet the young male is only able to make $10K, and came from a home with a life-style of $30K. It will take a lot of work and commitment for him to succeed. The female can be like Mom, unless she too goes the route of her male counter-part.

To me, welfare should of never gave the recipient as much as they do. The incentive is to stay on welfare (and make $30K) or go off welfare (and make $20K), (or only $10K). Welfare should be at the bottom so that one on the roles can only look UP AND OUT to improvement, not out to a loss.

 

[Pani_Rose]

It is a ‘salvery to the world’ One looks to the government for their needs, instead of to God. The working poor who need the help to get by, that is a good thing, they are trying and we need to help however possible, but the ultimate responcibility should be for the Church and people to provide, not the government. There are always times when it is necessary to get someone over the proverbial humps in life as a stop gap. However, to get there and stay - Scriptures on the subject of work, well I think they speak pretty clearly about welfare.:

Proverbs 10:4 Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.

12:11 He who works his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment.

24 Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor.

14:23 All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.

31:27 She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.

1 Thessalonians 4:11 Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you,

12 so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

11 We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies.

12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.

1 Timothy 5:8 If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

[christcnection1]

One problem is that when people think of Welfare they think of either of two stereotypes the person who is down on their luck through a series of unforseen circumstances and bums. There is a third group that does not get enough attention: the working “poor”. There are a lot of people who are getting by but are using various social programs to improve their standard of living. These recipients of all sorts of pork continue to exploit the system but are not totally dependent on the system. It is these people (and their supporters) who are a significant voting block that increases the burden on the system and take resources away from those who truly need it.

What do you suggest is the solution? We likely agree that there are injustices surrounding the working poor as well.

There are also a lot of other pork that could be spent on individuals who are deserving of this assistance, whether they are “the poor” or “working poor.”

Ultimately, any of this help should be a hand up, not a hand out. I think we agree on this.

 

[royal_archer]

What do you suggest is the solution? We likely agree that there are injustices surrounding the working poor as well.

There are also a lot of other pork that could be spent on individuals who are deserving of this assistance, whether they are “the poor” or “working poor.”

Ultimately, any of this help should be a hand up, not a hand out. I think we agree on this.

Simple answer: all pork is wrong.

The constitution provides a very narrow scope of what the government can do, we need to restrict the government to those tasks. However, our country has moved from a constitutionally limmited representative democracy toward an unrestricted representatie democracy. We as individuals need to start looking out for each other and collectively fight back against these programs which are outside the scope of the constitutional powers granted to the federal government even if it means that we do not get some of the luxuries we have gronw accustomed to.

They say we are in a “global ecconomy” That means we are competing with third world countries. Americans are perfectly happy buying products made in third world sweat shops. These other people have a very low standard of living. We expect to maintain a higher standard of living. Our average standard of living is exceeding our average means and we have attemped to fill the gap with personal and federal debt. We therefore need to reevaluate what is a necesity and what is a luxury. We do not need to provide welfare in order to subsidize these luxuries.

When you say there “a lot of other pork that could be spent on individuals who are deserving of this assistance,” it reflects what I see as the take what you can get approach. The money for this pork is not created by the government, it is taken from others. We need to stop thinking in terms of how we can get more to how do we create more. We need to improve productivity in this country by improving education, and improving the number of people working. Pulling people out of the work force puts a drain on the ecconomy while improving the number of people contributing improves the ecconomy. Not only will it increase the income per individual it will increase supply and decrease the cost for consumer goods.

 

[cynic]

. We need to improve productivity in this country by improving education, and improving the number of people working. .

And who’s going to pay for the education if that’s not the role of government?

 

[royal_archer]

And who’s going to pay for the education if that’s not the role of government?

It isn’t the role of the Federal government.

However, it would be resonable for the governement to publish minimum educational standards for entry into civil service or enlistment. If schools addpted them for the purpose of graduation criteria so be it. If not, parrents should get upset.

The Government also has a legitimate role in setting standards for exchange such as how much fluid is in a gallon. They do not mandate you have to sell milk by the gallon, only that if you advertise the milk you are selling as a gallon, it has to have a gallon of milk in it. The same can be said for other commodities such as an highschool education. They can state what minimum educational accomplishments would qualify for a certain level of education.

At the local level: people have a wide variety of abilities but we assume people must be in school 12 years. In order to acomplish this we slow down all but the children with the least educational abilities. If we allowed the more able children to move at their own pace we could get them into college level courses earlier, reduce the cost of education, and allow more time for teachers to focus on the students who need the help.

You can also transition from an education system where the burden is paid for by the tax payer to a system where the parrents have a vested interest. This will encourage parrents to help there children study and avoid having to pay to retake courses. This will also provide a disincentive for parrents who have more kids than they can afford to raise.

 

[cynic]

That may mean a large number of people will never be able to afford children, and where does the next generation of workers come from if that’s the case? Not to mention the fact that it makes children bear the consequences for their parents lack of income.

 

[royal_archer]

That may mean a large number of people will never be able to afford children, and where does the next generation of workers come from if that’s the case?

I would reduce the burden on those who do work and allow them to have more children.

Not to mention the fact that it makes children bear the consequences for their parents lack of income.

Can’t the same be said for Social Security, Medicare, and the National Debt? Of course I would say allow the children to go to school and if the parrents do not pay, leave the unpaid portion as a reflection on their credit rating.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

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.

How about this. I was married to a lewd man who is now in jail for his lewd behavior. I don’t need to go into that. And he left me, by doing what he did and being sentenced to jail, with 3 children and pregnant for my 4th.

Convicts don’t have to pay child support. So, I was working, but couldn’t afford insurance. I had some medical problems. To go to a charity hospital, I would have had to take time off of work…and we really need the money. So, I go to the Medicaid office, hoping that they could help me with my medical bills. See, doctors won’t give appointments to patients who cannot pay their bills before the doctor ever sees them. The people at the medicaid office told me that because I made more than $259 a month, I couldn’t qualify for medical benefits…except for contraception. My medical condition worsened. In order to get to a doctor, I had to be unemployed…which I now am. I had to have major abdominal surgery. Now that I am recovered, I am unemployed…with very few prospects.

Point is, the welfare system is programmed to keep people dependent upon it, and only it. Once a person is TRYING and starting to succeed (but still continues to need some help), the benefits are cut off. The government system makes it so that you cannot work…or get married to someone who works. It makes it so that you cannot get just the little bit of help you need, for a short amount of time…because you have to quit a job to be unemployed before they grant you much needed help.

Yes, it is a form of forced dependency.