Idea for Welfare Reform

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mist425, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. Hey all. So I know many people here have strong views in regards to the welfare system: some think it's the best social program we've got while others feel it should be abolished entirely. Nevertheless, I think we can all attempt to look at the situation objectively and consider whether or not certain changes would at least constitute an improvement on the current state of affairs.

    Here's an idea I had: I do not know how large this subsection of the welfare-receiving population is but consider the group of those getting monthly checks who are of working age, unemployed, and do not spend their days directly looking after their children (as in the person either does not have children or they are looked after by some other person/institution during the daytime hours). Rather than give this group a simple check every month, why not enroll them (on a voluntary basis of course) in a government works program that would end up paying the person a total monthly salary around what they were otherwise receiving under the current welfare system (perhaps a bit more as an additional incentive). Governmental administrative jobs would be available vis a vis secretarial work (filing, typing, etc.) or perhaps general labor positions like trash-cleanup, construction work, etc.

    I feel this would be an improvement on the current system in that this specific subsection of the welfare-receiving population would be able to gain some valuable work experience that I imagine would directly translate in increased odds of achieving gainful employment; a prospective employer is certainly going to be more impressed with someone that has such a work history vs. someone that does not. I also imagine this would help quell some of the voices screaming "handouts" in that, with the public works aspects of these jobs anyways, there would be a much greater visible effect of this government aid.

  2. Good idea, except there are already low-paying general labor jobs out there. People take welfare because they can't (or more than likely refuse) to find a job.

    It's basically saying work this job or you won't get your check, which is, in principle, abolishing the welfare system as it stands.

    Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, even an inexpensive path toward trash collection and repairing our national infrastructure. But it's not going to cater to the millions who get checks for nothing, I'd bet 75% would exit the system altogether if this were the ultimatum.
  3. :confused_2:

    Well, I very much support the welfare system in that I feel it attempts to give people going through some shit a small chance of getting things together... My sympathy lies with those stuck in the cycle of "got to get a job --> can't get a job without experience --> can't get experience without a job--> got to get a job". I know that's not the issue for everyone but I do see it as a problematic trend people can get stuck in. Anyways, yeah, I care about helping those people out, not ones who actively choose to just say 'fuck it' (I'd like to believe those people are few in number)

    For example, I love their music but I can't say I love the message ;):

    [ame=""]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
  4. If you can work a minimum wage job you can afford an apartment. There is no excuse at all for people to be on welfare.
  5. True, but the welfare system is set up so that you NEED the government's help.

    If people need to get back on their feet, they can look for an entry level job somewhere. If they can't get one of those, it's probably because of one of three things: no education (get a GED), failed background check (screwed yourself), or failed drug test (stop doing drugs until you at least get a job). Experience shouldn't make a difference in a job like a janitor or construction worker.

    If you have a diploma/GED, a clean background, and clean piss, you should be able to put on a collared shirt and go find a minimum wage job.
  6. How about instead of creating publicly funded job opportunities, we partner unemployed with private sector job opportunities? The UK has the JobCentre, I'm not sure if the US does something similar.

    And in order to be a recipient of welfare you have to apply for a certain number of jobs per week, ie prove you're actually looking for work.

    If you get denied on 20 applications you then receive exemption from minimum wage, and you can offer your lowly services for whatever they'll pay you... and the state won't tax your income.
  7. Heres an idea for welfare. Get rid of it.
  8. One thing that would help with welfare reform would be to eliminate income taxes across the board. This puts $1.3 trillion back into the productive economy. You put more cash in peoples paychecks and you eliminate a lot of headache and paperwork for every single employer in this country. Companies large and small will save billions of dollars in compliance cost. I think the corporate tax rate should be reduced as well.

    Social Security and Medicare taxes would not be touched. Of course lots of things are going to have to go if we do this. I would say that reducing defense spending to less than $100 billion would help out a lot. I also believe that the Veterans Administration hospitals should be closed down. This would save millions upon millions of dollars. So that Veterans still receive their care allow them to take their VA dollars to whatever hospital or doctor they wish, or enroll them in Medicare and remove the inefficiencies of having a redundant system.

    With all of this new money coming into the system again companies are going to need to hire more workers, people are going to be paying off debts faster, saving more and eventually spending more. More jobs will be created and fewer people will be on the dole. Charitable donations are going to go up as well.
  9. Get rid of it.
  10. Don't wanna start a flame war or anything here, but did any of you read Mists' astute observation on the 'cycle of joblessness'? If not, here ye go

    This is a pretty crippling cycle, and it's one that has only two outcomes for those of us who don't have any money to fall back on. One outcome is to say "Fuck my aspirations, I need ANY job because I'm going to be homeless otherwise" and essentially embark on an endless stream of working menial jobs with practically no prospect of career advancement or pay rise - jobs like flipping burgers, stacking shelves, mowing lawns etc. This option basically entails working - for the rest of your life, presumably - purely to keep yourself alive with no goal, objective or purpose besides to bring home a pay cheque to fend off being completely destitute. And, of course, the moment you lose that lifeline (get fired), you either get another job quick smart or become destitute because your savings from McDonalds will amount to sweet fuck all to try and live on.

    The second option is to say "No, I don't want to lead a meaningless life of working a job I hate to keep myself alive, I want to get a job that I'm interested in, that I like and that can take me places!"... and, sadly, this isn't an option at all for most people who'd be in this predicament in the first place. For getting a good job, as Mist said, requires qualification/experience - and, putting aside the issue of money in respect to 'getting qualified' at uni, how are you going to be able to pursue either of these things if you've got to work to keep yourself afloat? You can go to uni part time (presuming you mysteriously conjure up some money/a tertiary education entrance score), but any potential employer would laugh at you if you said "G'day, I'm here to do some free work experience, but I can only do an hour or two a day because I've got to work my other job." You might be lucky and find a boss like this, and then spend the next few years working and working until you gradually know enough to get a job, but for those of us who aren't blessed with such a rare opportunity are still caught in the pit.

    Disregarding this, the best of workers can fall on hard times and lose their job, often through no fault of their own. What happens to them? If they don't have enough savings to keep them going until they get a job, then what do they do? Get a loan that they don't have a job to pay back the money for? Start selling their possessions? Start stealing other peoples possessions to sell? Or does he start working at McDonalds...

    It's all very well to knock those who recieve welfare and pensions until you find yourself trapped in the same situation. Ideally, everyone works and if they don't, their family supports them until they get a job. In the real world, people come from poor families/have no real family and can't sustain themselves if they become, for whatever reason, unemployed. It's undeniable that some people abuse the priveledge and get hand-outs when they could just as easily be working, but I think Mist addressed this nicely with the original post - put them into social service.
  11. keep it, but better it
  12. #12 Arteezy, Oct 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 12, 2010
    The cycle of joblessness is a choice. Yes, life is hard, but that doesn't mean you deserve other people's money and that especially does NOT give you (or anyone else) the right to take money from other people by force.

    I think you're forgetting a 3rd option... Hell, there's probably even a 4th option you're forgetting as well... Why the focus on these 2 options when there are clearly more? The fact is that welfare is the forceful redistribution of wealth. Libertarians are never going to be in favor of forceful redistribution of wealth. Until you can think of a system that doesn't involve taking money by force from certain people, I doubt you'll garner any support among the libertarians here.

    Not always... You don't necessarily need to spend thousands of dollars getting qualified in order to acquire a "good job"...

    I'm not sure you're really aware of the economic climate here in the United States. You realize that the government is the one creating and subsidizing (read: incentivizing) this pit, right? Why do you think unemployment is so high right now? Are they all unqualified people with absolutely no use to society or is the government restricting their access to employment through minimum wage, social security, income taxes, the upcoming mandate on health insurance? Try to think about it from an employer's perspective, since y'know, they're the ones who hire people...

    That's up to him to decide. Not sure why you think you think you or anyone here can make decisions for other people... I'm betting that guy who is supposedly "the best of workers" will be able to weather himself through some difficult times. You know America is one of, if not the most charitable nation in the world, right? Naww, we hate poor people here. We let them rot in the streets and starve. :rolleyes:

    Not too long ago I was in NYC showing some buddies around who had never been and you wouldn't believe how many charitable handouts to homeless people we saw in the several hours we spent in NYC.

    No, it's easy to knock them because the money they receive was TAKEN BY FORCE... Why are you defending a criminal enterprise? Or is theft not criminal these days as long as it goes towards a good cause?

    I'll be sure to tell the next person I rob that it's not really theft when I take their wallet, since it's going towards a good cause.:rolleyes:

    Just to clarify, by "social service" you mean a service that takes money from certain people by force in order to give it to other people. I think that distinction must be made since a "social service" sort of implies that this service is being provided without coercion, which is certainly not the case. Welfare as it stands is a criminal enterprise and you certainly won't see me supporting theft anytime soon, EVEN IF ITS FOR A GUD CAUSE.
  13. That's debatable, it honestly depends where you live.
  14. #14 Aquoz, Oct 12, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 12, 2010
    Maybe Austin, TX is unique, but I can support myself, and pay my college tuition at the local community college with a lowly 25 hour work week. And still have money left over in order to appease my addiction to marijuana.
  15. Come to NY and try that... Come to Massachusetts and try that. Come to New Jersey and try that. See where I'm going with this? Austin, TX has a low cost of living compared to some areas of the United States. Enjoy it...
  16. It Can Happen Here - Reason Magazine

    article titled: It can happen here. Government really can be cut: case studies from Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.
    good read...


    Thankfully, Truman ignored the Keynesians. Government spending plummeted by nearly two-thirds between 1945 and 1947, from $93 billion to $36.3 billion in nominal terms. If we used the “multiplier” of 1.5 for government spending that is favored by Obama administration economists, that $63.7 billion plunge should have caused GDP to fall by $95 billion, a 40 percent economic decline. In reality, GDP increased almost 10 percent during that period, from $223 billion in 1945 to $244.1 billion in 1947. This is a rare precedent of a large drop in government spending, so its economic consequences are important to understand.

    Welfare policy:(New Zealand 1980's) We now aimed not just to shrink the state but to reduce the number of people dependent upon it. Welfare had evolved into an entitlement to state support for social circumstances such as solo parenting, unemployment, health problems, and other forms of dependency. Under the new approach, resources were devoted to resolving health problems, education problems, social problems, and poor work skills. This approach moved 300 percent more people from dependency to independent living. It was a carrot-and-stick approach, though: If work was available and a citizen was capable of doing the job, he or she had to take it or forgo benefits.

  17. This.

    NJ here. 2br low-scale apartments are $1,300 a month, or more. That's just rent.
  18. As long as it is done respectfully and no Sheriff Joe style carry on then it sounds good to me.
    Contribute back to the society which provides for you.
    Work for your money and benefits...

    Work is good for man.
    Most of societies problems come from lack of work...
  19. This statement is a little ridiculous... I hardly think there is a lack of work to be done, especially inside the United States and I hardly think that society's problems are stemming from this supposed 'lack of work'...

    Perhaps there's a lack of employers hiring, but that's a little different from 'lack of work' at least for those of us who can step into an employer's shoes.

  20. Without work man has no purpose.
    Do you think that the majority of those on welfare in the US are happy to not have a job ?
    Why do you think that the areas with high unemployment rates are black spots for crime ?

    Maybe even for those of you that wear those shoes exclusively.:)

Share This Page