Welfare are leeches?

[Robert Jan]

Im always so surprised about these anti welfare opinions of US citizens... I mean, The USA gives their poor folk the least out of most first world countries. and still you think its way too much etc.

My father is a triple Uni graduate, Hes a dentist, a chemist and a doctor. He got seriously hurt in a motorcycle accident in `94 and he cant work anymore. 95% of people who this happens to get shoved into welfare as the justice system is corrupt and close covering as shit. Luckily we made it and were the 5% that actually gets some more money than that, the money that income insurance promises for like 40% (thats very rare)

We havent got it thick. But if society really was as right wing as you people suggest, Neither me or my sister who is now in law school, could ever finish our education and contribute to the nation.

My father worked for many years paying his taxes. Now he cant, hes fucking 62 years old too. It would be unthankful as shit to just let him figure shit out himself. My mom even returned to work as a nurse where she only earns very little $.

I find the way you generalize towards people who receive government help very offensive.

I know there must be plenty of inbred redneck shitholes who dont even try and just leech off everybody. But guess what, any system has leeches. theres always a few trying to mess up for the majority. I dont think we should let them.

 

[Fish]

Well spoken. Many just rant because they are tired of working hard and "seeing" others using it aganist them. No system is perfect. And someone will take advantage of anything. I am a convert. I was against welfare, not completly, but mostly. Then my uncle fell through a roof and broke his lower back. He was on the roof as a volentire (sp?) fireman. He is now fully funded by the state, due to disablity. He lives in a trailer and already owned his own land. He has no family to feed, no rent to pay, and still can not afford to have his perscriptions filled. So yes there are leeches, but there are good people that get hurt when you lower benifits.

 

[jennifer BFL chick]

There are always exceptions. If you really need the help, especially if you are or were a tax paying citizen, then by all means----but if your simply too lazy to get off the couch, that truly gets to me. (sorry, I have had personal experiences with people like this, and it was annoying to watch)

So its not welfare that I don't like, its the Jerry Springer hopefuls that eat captain crunch and don't work for years

 

[Fish]

I agree with you in that there is a problem. I just don't blame the system for people's human nature. I am sure everyone, not taking advantage, would love to see it corrected. Just no one smart enough has come along to do it.


Best luck to all

 

[Robert Jan]

I dont think people realize how little money welfare families really have... or otherwise they would probably not complain about it so much.

I think what is to worry about is the huyge amounts of money that the system makes through insurance, banks, tax, fees, retirement policies which are compulsory for one reason that is that its pure tax, they dont pay back half of what you put in.

all this money goes to the small elite. far from equal spreading over who made the money

 

[Lao Tzu]

You never hear those people bitch about a defense contract that is $3 billion more than it needs to be, or corporate subsidies that are given to thriving companies. That's what bothers me, that the attacks against welfare recipients/leeches are reserved for the socially undesirables (i.e. lazy, uneducated people).

 

[Warik]

There are always exceptions to the common rules - and your father is one of them in this case. I would truly have absolutely NO complaints about the welfare system if only people in situations like your family received welfare. The sad part is that the typical family on welfare is one of a single mother who has more children than a happily wed man and woman with a comfortable income. They breed and breed and breed and breed and then feed off of those of us who work hard.

Your father worked for decades to put money in the system, and now he gets some of it back - well-deserved. These other "people" worked for decades to take money out of the system, and now want more.

I find it disgusting.

-Warik

 

[the nature boy]

again, you as nordstrom, the opinion seems to be that corporate welfare is okay, but social welfare is bad. very ironic.

 

[Warik]

You never hear those people bitch about a defense contract that is $3 billion more than it needs to be, or corporate subsidies that are given to thriving companies. That's what bothers me, that the attacks against welfare recipients/leeches are reserved for the socially undesirables (i.e. lazy, uneducated people).

I find them both unacceptable, but I am bothered more by social welfare than corporate welfare, because, as you said, these companies are thriving, i.e. they are doing some good in society. The lazy fucks/single moms of 3 kids, on the other hand, contribute nothing to society and, I say this with much sadness, society would likely IMPROVE with their simultaneous disappearances. The same can't be said about large, thriving companies. We'd have a major economical crisis on our hands.

Now, I'm not saying that corporate welfare is acceptable - it is NOT acceptable. If your management is so pathetic that you can't compete in a mostly free market, then you don't deserve any help to do so.

The topic of this thread, however, is social welfare, and thus I'll only talk shit about lazy single moms of 3 kids.

-Warik

 

[musclebrains]

It's easier to object to people who have no power -- "welfare queens" -- than to corporations.

If critics of welfare actually looked at the numbers, they'd realize what a miniscule percentage of the US budget is allocated to assistance. Moreover, the average AFDC benefiicary, the majority of which are white by the way, stays on welfare less than 2 years. Thirtyfive percent draw it for less than a year. Hard to read that and argue that welfare robs people of the incentive to work. Indeed,Dubya wants welfare mothers to begin working 40 hours a week -- whereas the average mother doesn't work 20.

Contrary to the myth Warik repeats, 43.2 percent of recipients have only one child and 30.7 percnet have two. This is hardly a case of baby factories. Better look for another source of disgust. The vast majority have been abandoned by husbands. Maybe you'd be better off feeling disgusted about men who abandon their families.

Welfare, as it's envisioned in the popular imagination, is something quite different from the reality. This is one of those cases when, if you repeat a lie often enough, it comes to be viewed as truth. It's quite convenient politically for conservatives who need a whipping post but it's bullshit from any objective statistical perspective.

 

[jennifer BFL chick]

Thanks for the different views on walfare. I'm actually seeing it in a new light.....

I live in a pretty shitty neighborhood, or close to one, and I saw all sorts of people mooching and having no respect for themselves or others, but I guess they are only part of the problem.

 

[the nature boy]

I find them both unacceptable, but I am bothered more by social welfare than corporate welfare, because, as you said, these companies are thriving, i.e. they are doing some good in society. The lazy fucks/single moms of 3 kids, on the other hand, contribute nothing to society and, I say this with much sadness, society would likely IMPROVE with their simultaneous disappearances. The same can't be said about large, thriving companies. We'd have a major economical crisis on our hands.

why, then would a thriving company need corporate welfare? and I wouldn't say that Enron, a classic example of corporate welfare, was doing some good in society.

 

[Sushi X]

corporate welfare is part of the trickle down effect. trickle down does'nt work anymore. you think companies are going to pass down their profit to their employess or customers for that matter? no way, they are gonna milk it and give the executives and the ceo a fat raise. you can't trust them to do what's right and share the benefits with those who help make them a success, the customer and the employee.

back to social welfare, the problem is the welfare workers get most of the money not the recipients. i don't have a problem with those who really can't work but to those that can they need to get up and work or don't eat.

 

[p0ink]

does anyone remember when ol' dirty bastard (of wu-tang clan) was on mtv, and took a limo to go pick up his welfare check?

 

[cockdezl]

I guess no one realizes that "welfare", whether it is corporate or individual, is unconstitutional, as stated by the Founding Father (you know, those dead, rich, white guys):

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

"The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

 

[musclebrains]

Well damn, there goes the federal highway system.

 

[cockdezl]

Well damn, there goes the federal highway system.

Good attempt, but that was done under the idea of national defense, it was called the National Defense Highway System by the Eisenhower adminstration. Now attempt to correlate the Food Stamp program to national defense.

 

[paradox]

I find it disgusting.


I couldnt agree more.

 

[musclebrains]

Good attempt, but that was done under the idea of national defense, it was called the National Defense Highway System by the Eisenhower adminstration. Now attempt to correlate the Food Stamp program to national defense.

LOL...The point is that anything can be rationalized -- from public education to slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, not to mention the historic enormous public welfare granted farmers in the form of subsidies.

The US allocates a tiny portion of its budget to AFDC. Railing about it is like hunting a gnat with a shotgun when there are far more dangerous animals running about than the baby-crazy welfare queens of your imagination -- those terrible women sucking the life blood out of America with their $300 monthly subsidy checks for 7 months. What do you want to do, abandon their children for the 7 months- 1.5 years the average recipient is on welfare?

Of course there's always mandatory sterilization. That's one way to keep fathers from abandoning their families while honoring the spirit of the Constitution.

 

[the nature boy]

ha ha

 

[circusgirl]

I have to agree with Robert Jan. The thing to remember is that around 40% of people are assholes. Which means a certain proportion of welfare recipients are assholes too (no Robert not referring to any of your relatives - they are in the other 60%!).

I would prefer to see some person get 70 dollars a week they didn't deserve if that was what it took to ensure the deserving people got it too. And for fucks sake, there's hardly ANY assistance available in the US, dunno what you folks are complaining about. We have a real welfare state over here in Europe. Yes, I support it.

I have visited countries with NO free medical care, education, public services, subsidised public transport, clean water, etc etc etc and people literally starve in the streets. Do you want to live in a third world country? I certainly don't. I know quite a few americans on disability, and ALL of them have good reason (mental illness, back injury to name a few). Do they LIKE claiming benefits? Hell no, but when you can only walk for 2 hours a day because of your back, you don't have much choice. Actually other than the aforementioned Dutch lady I have only met 1 dole sponger (an irishwoman). And many deserving cases.

And even if the parents are lazy bastards, taking away their welfare check isn't going to help their kids much is it? The state has the duty to protect its citizens, especially young children who through no fault of their own are in a shitty situation such as having retarded red neck fucks for parents...

For those who are wondering, I am a social democrat/libertarian in the classic mould. Which gives me the choice of Labour, lib Dem or Labour when voting (the Tories are evil!!!!!).

circusgirl

 

[the nature boy]

And even if the parents are lazy bastards, taking away their welfare check isn't going to help their kids much is it? The state has the duty to protect its citizens, especially young children who through no fault of their own are in a shitty situation such as having retarded red neck fucks for parents...

i agree. I could really care less about the lazy people, but I do feel for their children. they didn't ask to be put in that situation. Their chances of making it in this lfe are very slim, without some kind of assistance in any form their chances are even more slim.

 

[b fold the truth]

I hope that I am not one of the lazy ones

B True

 

[cockdezl]

LOL...The point is that anything can be rationalized -- from public education to slavery and the disenfranchisement of women, not to mention the historic enormous public welfare granted farmers in the form of subsidies.

Since you did not understand the above quotes, this is the reason the founders constrained the Congress through the Constitution, so that they could not rationalize their every whim.

Slavery and women's suffrage were not products of the American political system, but a product of history, which like many other events had to run their course.

The US allocates a tiny portion of its budget to AFDC. Railing about it is like hunting a gnat with a shotgun when there are far more dangerous animals running about than the baby-crazy welfare queens of your imagination -- those terrible women sucking the life blood out of America with their $300 monthly subsidy checks for 7 months. What do you want to do, abandon their children for the 7 months- 1.5 years the average recipient is on welfare?

Constantly repeating this above idea will not make the AFDC program into the only social program in US society. People who use this program do not end with this program, they partake of many other social programs.

Also, please come to inner city areas, such as my hometown of New Orleans, and show me the people who only use these programs for 1.5 years. You probably won't make it more than 20 minutes in these areas anyways, since you will be killed for your car.

Of course there's always mandatory sterilization. That's one way to keep fathers from abandoning their families while honoring the spirit of the Constitution.

This displays your lack of knowledge of the ideas behind our political system, and why you love socialism.

 

[musclebrains]

This displays your lack of knowledge of the ideas behind our political system, and why you love socialism.

Oh, okay, I stand corrected. Suffrage operates inside changing history but the Constitution and social services don't.

And the 25 percent staying on welfare more than 2 years, like those evil residents of New Orleans, are reason to scrap the whole program. Let's see, if welfare is 2.8 percent of your taxes and you're objecting to 25 percent, that's about .7 percent of your taxes washed completely down the drain! My GOD.

When I need a libertarian parrot with a copy of the Federalist Papers lining his cage and a red-baiting pointer finger, I'll be in touch.

 

[Code]

I propose we use the welfare lists to pick people for unsavory things like jury duty, military drafts, telemarketing/junk mail and tax audits.

 

[cockdezl]

Oh, okay, I stand corrected. Suffrage operates inside changing history but the Constitution and social services don't.

And the 25 percent staying on welfare more than 2 years, like those evil residents of New Orleans, are reason to scrap the whole program. Let's see, if welfare is 2.8 percent of your taxes and you're objecting to 25 percent, that's about .7 percent of your taxes washed completely down the drain! My GOD.

No the reason would be that they do not work. If you can show me how these programs have succeeded in reducing "poor" or "unfortunate" numbers, and thereby reduced their burden on our national treasury, then I may listen. But you will continue parroting (good word) your diatribe about how social services only comprise, what is it, 0.7% of my taxes.

When I need a libertarian parrot with a copy of the Federalist Papers lining his cage and a red-baiting pointer finger, I'll be in touch.

Will this be before or after you elect another Democrat in office?

 

[musclebrains]

Since 75 percent of the people who draw welfare go back to work within 2 years and most of those within 7 months, I'd say it's pretty clear that the program gives children abandoned by their fathers needed support until their mothers can get employed and earn enough to support their kids. (Most of the people on welfare already do work, by the way.)

Perhaps you have an alternative plan for these children? Starvation? Mandatory sterilization of their parents? Extermination? Simply ignoring them? Do tell.

And please DO explain how it is that suffrage and slavery operate within history and the Constitution and attitudes toward social services in a since-industrialized society don't? Or is my bringing this up again also repeating a diatribe?

 

[magdelana]

In Holland it is estimated by the welfare ministry that by 2010 there wil be more citizens receving welfare then earning there money. Frightening. We have truly huge taxes and yes it is nearly impossible to be homeless (actually impossbile unless you try very hard to be) but is about as impossible to become rich. We do not have the early morning televisie programmes telling about how i became rich and you can as well because this simply is not possbile in Holland. Yes more protection in many ways (like our health care) but also less oppourtunity.

Yah America!

 

[vinylgroover]

It's the same here in Australia, where we have an enormous welfare net. I guess it's a case of weighing up the social costs vs the economic benefits of not having a welfare system.

I have no problem with welfare per se, but like everyone, i do have a problem with those who abuse the system. Therefore, why is it not feasible to insist that those on welfare, particularly unemployment welfare, work for their welfare by undertaking community or social service for say 10 or 15 hours a week. This gives them enough time to genuinely look for work, while also putting back into the community that supports them.

 

[musclebrains]

It's the same here in Australia, where we have an enormous welfare net. I guess it's a case of weighing up the social costs vs the economic benefits of not having a welfare system.

I have no problem with welfare per se, but like everyone, i do have a problem with those who abuse the system. Therefore, why is it not feasible to insist that those on welfare, particularly unemployment welfare, work for their welfare by undertaking community or social service for say 10 or 15 hours a week. This gives them enough time to genuinely look for work, while also putting back into the community that supports them.

The majority of people in the US receiving public assistance DO work. Moreover the main public assistance program, AFDC, is for families with dependent children. Unless you think childrearing is not work, you can't say that single women receiving AFDC -- who constitute the majority -- aren't working. However, our kindly president wants to require them to work 40 hours a week, whereas the average mother doesn't work even 20. Another way those free-spirited Republicans want to create a class of people in service to the state.

 

[the nature boy]

one obvious benefit to society is basic healthcare that these programs offer. if these poor folks didn't get any kind of medical assistance who knows what kind of disease epidemic would be running rampant. a necessary evil IMO.

 

[smokinghawk]

I find them both unacceptable, but I am bothered more by social welfare than corporate welfare, because, as you said, these companies are thriving, i.e. they are doing some good in society. The lazy fucks/single moms of 3 kids, on the other hand, contribute nothing to society and, I say this with much sadness, society would likely IMPROVE with their simultaneous disappearances. The same can't be said about large, thriving companies. We'd have a major economical crisis on our hands.

Now, I'm not saying that corporate welfare is acceptable - it is NOT acceptable. If your management is so pathetic that you can't compete in a mostly free market, then you don't deserve any help to do so.

The topic of this thread, however, is social welfare, and thus I'll only talk shit about lazy single moms of 3 kids.

-Warik

I would thrive too, if Bush had a $200 billion annual budget item specifically earmarked to give me gifts, tax breaks, and subsidies.

I thought people believed in "free market" until I realized how absurdly we interfere with gifts and buyoffs.

Frankly, I'd rather support a mom--lazy or not is irrelevant to me--where three KIDS are concerned. As much as we want to judge her, at no point would I ever disenfranchise children because of the traits of the parent.

But corporations should sustain themselves, and not be given millions of dollars of our money to sell stuff right back to us. Not when schools need $16 billion in repairs (and can't get it), the elderly poor can't get medical care because there are currently only 17% as many Medicaid doctors as five years ago, domestic violence shelters barely manage, and 60% or more of inmates are there for nonviolent offenses at our expense.