All Welfare Programs Should Be Abolished

[durutti]

They should be replaced with a basic minimum income, something like Alaska's citizen's dividend. Everyone would receive a sum equal to the amount required to maintain the most basic standard of living. They would receive it no matter what, so there would be no disincentive to work, and shitty service jobs would have to pay more to attract workers.

I find this proposal preferable to the current welfare system, which not only doesn't satisfy people's basic needs, but is in many ways deeply invasive, humiliating, and dehumanizing.

Thoughts?

[DBoon]

1. McGovern proposed something like this in 1972

I like it.

[markus]

53. If memory serves, so did Nixon. n/t

[Flubadubya]

2. The first welfare program that needs to go....

is the "corporate" one! :evilgrin:

[durutti]

4. Definitely.

n/t

[Catfight]

6. I was thinking the same thing! n/t

[liberalhistorian]

3. As someone who was once on

ADC when my son was little, even though I was a middle-class college graduate, I would definitely agree with this proposal. I will NEVER EVER forget just how humiliating being on welfare really was, how dehumanizing and degrading, how you feel like shit and how your life isn't yours at all as long as you're under the system.

I remember when they implemented a rule that you couldn't bring your kids to your periodic interviews with your caseworker. I couldn't find childcare for one scheduled meeting and the sitter cancelled suddenly for the next; when I tried to explain that to my caseworker, he said he'd only schedule it one more time and then, if I didn't make it regardless of the reason, my case would be closed, click went the phone, end of story.

And I hated using my food stamps, it was so humiliating. THANK GOD those days are over. Of course, last week I had to apply for unemployment after being laid off suddenly from my paralegal job; I immediately felt that old humiliated, degraded feeling even though it wasn't my fault. There were all these fucking rules I had to comply with, once again my life is under the system's thumb.

[the Kelly Gang]

13. I know how you feel..20 years ago in Australia I went on welfare and

received the same treatment..it's humiliating and unhelpful, depressing etc etc.
But there has been a big change here a few years ago were all sorts of rules were introduced ( by a Labor Govt of course)that all public servants , including social securtiy workers, had to treat the customers( thatwas a name change as well) with respect.
A year ago I had to go on sickness welfare for 2 months..the diffence in being treated with respect was amazing and with social security workers treating their customers well..the system actually works.
So many more peoiple now actually go jobseeking and get off welfare quicker because they dont get destroyed in the welfare office first..it's human nature..treat people well and they respond.

But a Citizen's Dividend is the way to go !!

Remember : the minute you spend some money you are contributing to Capitalism and you are entitled to a return !

[Ladyhawk]

26. Disability feels the same way.

Even though it isn't my fault, my life is not my own. I don't even make as much as the burger flippers at McDonald's. And it hurts.

[camero]

32. It's often worse

You have to jump through more hoops to get disability. It takes so much longer to get benefits

[Ladyhawk]

33. I got the benefits and yes, it took a long time.

They don't amount to much, though. $790 a month. I pay $430 for rent. When you add in other bills, it comes to about $200. That leaves me with $160 to pay for gas, groceries and other living expenses.

Right now, I'm getting help from family, but I still feel powerless. I feel at the mercy of both the government and my family. I really would like to have my own life.

[camero]

37. I feel the same way

And I haven't even gotten them yet.

[bobthedrummer]

38. I'm on SSDI, and I'm only 54

it's really bad in some ways, you have to know your rughts and the bureaucracy is from a different century.

[rooboy]

5. If falls down in areas where the care needs to be directly given...

such as where kids aren't being looked after by their parents properly. Surely you don't want to give the parents $100 only for them to buy more booze with it???

[durutti]

7. By that logic...

We should take all children from their families and have the state raise them. Rich folks are just as likely to be addicted to drugs (alcohol or otherwise) as poor folks.

Also, remember that teachers are trained to spot signs of child abuse and neglect.

[Ilsa]

19. So you want to lay the responsibility on the teachers?

Sorry, but I think some of the benefits need to remain in the form of qualified food benefits, to make sure the kids don't miss out on meals, and babies don't miss out by getting watered-down formula. Yeah, there really are dysfunctional enough parents who don't care, or unfortunately, don't know how to manage the cash they have, and this is one way to keep the benefits going to the kids without the govt having to step in and take kids away from their parents.

We have lots of kids at school who quality for the breakfast and lunch programs, and they set them up for summer also, so make sure the kids get fed.

At the grocery store, another customer can't tell which ones are on the program because they are using a type of debit card.

[Mikimouse]

10. That is nothing but a stereotype...

and it has been demonstrated to be such on multiple occasions in the sociological literature. Take a look at Renzetti and Curran, 2001, pages 230-232.

[rooboy]

22. The HELL it is nothing but a stereotype...

I own part of a corporation whose main customer base is poor people. They are overwhelmingly decent and honest like everyone else. But there are some people who WILL NOT care for their children. Others are obviously incapable of caring for themselves.

You want to cancel welfare??? HOMES FOR ORPHANED CHILDREN ARE WELFARE!!! I repeat my question. you want to give a 10 year old kid a check and say "good luck out there"??? Really???

I am talking about all sorts of people - young, old, single, married, whatever - who CANNOT care for themselves!!! the idea that you just flick them some bucks to piss off is so disgusting i want to puke.

[liberalhistorian]

46. Well, excuse me, but there are plenty

of RICH and MIDDLE-CLASS parents who are the same way with their children, they don't give a shit, will not take care of their kids, and the kids suffer. The difference is, they get a pass from everyone-police, teachers, social workers, the community-simply because they're of a higher economic class. And you appear to be doing the same thing!!!!

[Mikimouse]

47. Easy on the vitriol, there...

maybe you should take my suggestion and do some actual reading before you launch into a misdirected diatribe. It is of no import to me that you own anything, it does not make you an authority on the subject. I am a firm proponent of the welfare system, and am unwilling to punish the vast majority of welfare resipients for the actions of a few. Besides, children 10 years old will not be the ones to decide where that money goes, they have some form of guardian if nothing else, and who are you to decide how they should spend that money. In addition, no one is suggesting that one throw money at them to, as you articulated it so profoundly, 'piss off'. And for the record, it is my profession to be familiar with how these things work. Get your facts straight and we'll talk, otherwise, we're done here.

[bread_and_roses]

8. An eminently sane idea

and, as someone above posted, actually bandied about in Nixon era.

Our economy requires disposable labor; I don't see that changing anytime soon, much as I'd like it to. To penalize people for macro-economic forces is crazy. It is also crazy to spend huge sums administering the punitive, demeaning, and inadequate system now in place.

[the Kelly Gang]

9. great idea. It's the name that causes this problem..if it wasn't called

Social Security..but National Insurance or citizen's dividend: it would be more accepted.
It's the rediculous idea that people are 'getting something for nothing' that works against social security.. with those that think they are working and their taxes are going to 'freeloaders' whilst applauding corporate welfare which never has strings attached or accountability.

I think FDR introduced large scale SS to the US ..and was responsible ultimately for really for the greatest boost in overall US wealth and prosperity.

It amazes me that people never consider the fact that if the very poorest and disadvantaged are not helped..that places like Wal Mart etc. were people they think could all work would actually collapse !

In fact ..if Capitalism is to survive..it must have welfare.

[sal]

11. welfare is temporary relief for people (mostly white families)

in a relatively brief period of economic hardship. You might have forgotten that all programs are limited to five years and require work participation. The amount of descretionary spending dedicated to so-called welfare programs is miniscule. The largest welfare program besides SSI and Medicaid, which benefit poor children, is the school lunch program which basically keeps poor children from being malnourished. These all face further cuts and will most likely vanish before long.

The state of the poor and unemployed in this country is deplorable. Stop kicking the weakest in society when they are down, for crissake. I can't think of a better time for a Great Society, instead of further tinkering designed to blame the poor.

[RafterMan]

15. And you might have forgotten

to read the rest of the post.

[Cleita]

12. I'm all for abolishing corporate welfare.

The idea of a minimum wage was so people could earn enough to live on, but it no longer meets the basic subsistence level its supposed to cover. If people had basic social services like free health care, free child care, and free puublic transportation, maybe it wouldn't be such a burden on both the employer and the employee to hold down a job. Also what about people who can't work because of physical or mental disabilities? Shoudn't they be able to get something to survive on?

My first job in a cafeteria saw me through my first year of college. I was able to pay rent and busfare to get to classes, not to mention fees and books on minimum wage. I worked at night and the fact I got a free meal helped too. The state college was tuition free then and provided full time students health care, so one was able to survive and get an education and minimum wage then was $1 an hour, yet it bought more that the $5.15 an hour does today.

I believe it was the progressive taxation in place back then that brought in the money to do these things, like a tuition free education and the means of getting by until one went to work at a better paying job and thereby able to pay taxes to help fund the next generation. The good old days.

[cushla_machree]

17. i agree

I say get rid of corporate welfare.

free healthcare (or at least an affordable national plan)
free education
job training
affordable housing
living wage

I don't really agree with welfare at all. Why should the government give money for nothing? When i was a teenager i got a job to be able to support myself. When i was in college i got a work study job to be able to pay for books and food.

If i lost my job tommorow, i would get a job at MCDs before i went to the welfare office. And if i needed additional income to get by, then i would apply for welfare. My grandparents survived just fine back during the depression without welfare. I think welfare breeds dependence. Its easy to just sit back, and wait for that perfect job to come your way, instead of getting out there and being pro-active.

maybe this is my *one* conservative issue. i just don't think it is the governments job to give out free money. That is wealth redistribution to use a token phrase.

I don't know, does this make me a bad person?

[Cleita]

18. Not so fast. Many people need welfare.

I lived next door to a twenty-six year old blind man who was on SSI. He was an ex-cop who suddenly lost his eyesight. I know he hated not working. He spent his days listening to his police scanner. There are many out there who can no longer work.

But, for those who could work except for issues of child care and health care, there are many ways to help working people get through their lives without forcing them on welfare. Social programs for everyone rich or poor, like access to decent health care, child care and elderly care, job training, as well as transportation would take many people off the welfare rolls and into jobs that would yield tax revenue to pay for these programs.

[cushla_machree]

20. well

i absolutely agree in that respect. There are people who cannot work, and i think it is right to provide them with a basic standard of living, out of compassion and the fact that we can afford it despite what conservatives would have you believe. I know people who cannot work due to disability, mental ilness - and welfare is important in that respect. But instead of giving EVERYONE a certain amount of money, i think it would be better spent on the things you just highlighted. But of course i think there should always be some type welfare available. Just how it should be set up escapes me.

[Cleita]

21. The way it is set up now really doesn't help as much as it should.

Also, cutting down the funding for free lunches for working poor parent's children is just plain awful I think.

[Ladyhawk]

30. One thing I don't understand: I don't think I get as much as people...

...on welfare.

I'm disabled and the money I'm paid is based on what I've already put into social security: very, very little. Is it my fault that I became disabled shortly after I finished college? This is very depressing for me. In fact, I can't write about it without tears welling up in my eyes...every single post.

What would a single woman on welfare be allotted?

[bread_and_roses]

43. In NY State

a single woman on welfare would recieve less than $350 (I am fairly sure it is just about $330 but I don't have the figures in front of me) in cash benefit, plus food stamps. The <$350 has to pay her rent, utilities, etc. As in most states, she would be required to seek work, to accept any job, and her benefits would terminate as soon as she made that <$350 gross wages.

"Welfare" for people without children is not paid for by Federal $ but by State and local $; some states have no welfare for non-disabled single adults.

[Ladyhawk]

28. Also, I think the system is designed to further disable the disabled.

I spend so much time worrying about the fact I can't work, that I don't have enough money to be independent, that I might have to live with relatives I can barely tolerate, I get more and more stressed out. The stress contributes to my illnesses.

This has been an observation from a disabled person.

[Cleita]

31. The one thing I don't understand about SSI is why they cap

the benefit. I had a friend who had to go on SSI before he was 65. He was also entitled to a small pension from the Navy. But the SSI deducted the amount he got from the Navy from the amount he received from them. The only good thing that happened was that he was able to get Medicaid, which he badly needed. However, if his friends didn't round up cans for him to take to the recycler to help him out, he would have starved on the capped amount. Shouldn't this be changed?

[Ladyhawk]

34. Yes. I don't understand why SSI doesn't pay a living wage.

$790 a month is not a living wage where I live.

[Kanary]

39. Try living on $550 a month *ANYWHERE*

Yeah, I'm "sitting back and waiting for a better job"

Amazing, the ignorance.

Kanary

[Ladyhawk]

41. That really sucks ass, Kanary.

I'm sorry. (((((((((((Kanary))))))))))))

:shrug: :hug:

[dumpster_baby]

52. but you could take that money to many foreign countries and live better

For example: many countries in S. America would allow you to live comfortably on $400/month due to exchange rates.

[dpibel]

23. Reality much?

I have this awful feeling that you're saying all of this with a straight face. That would be terribly unfortunate.

When you're working at Mickey D's and need a little extra scratch, then you'd take some welfare? Not in this world you wouldn't.

I guess if you're just lumping all government assistance of any kind under the umbrella term "welfare," you might have a shot. Maybe you could get some food stamps. But I wouldn't count on it.

You sure wouldn't qualify for AFDC. You don't mention whether you have any children. Amazingly to many, that's a prerequisite to receiving the most-maligned form of welfare--it's called Aid to Families with Dependent Children for a reason. And the standard welfare trap is this: a mother on AFDC can't afford to go to work for Mickey D because she can't afford child care, and can't afford medical insurance, and probably can't afford rent.

Elsewhere in this thread, someone talks about an ex-cop who went blind and is now on welfare. Frankly, I doubt it. If he's an ex-cop, he's far more likely to be on some form of disability or pension benefit. I suppose you could call that welfare if you wanted to, but you'd be lonely in your usage.

If the blind ex-cop is not getting disability/pension benefits, then he's on SSI (Supplemental Security Income). In your burger-flipping incarnation, you would not remotely qualify for that. To get that, you have to be profoundly disabled, and prove it to any number of caseworkers, doctors, and hearing examiners.

Finally, you conjure up some crowd of people who are just kickin' back on their welfare benefits waiting for just the right job to come along. As a first matter, employable people with job options are awfully unlikely to qualify for welfare (ask some of the people out in the world or on this board who have exhausted their UC benefits how much welfare they're getting--zero is gonna be your answer). Of course, it occurs to me that you may think unemployment compensation is welfare (it's not--it's a form of insurance that you and your employer pay for).

And if you think folks are just lazing about their condos living the high life on welfare until the right job comes along, you really should check out the vast wealth represented by AFDC or SSI benefits. You can really live fat most places on $4-800 a month. (Just as an aside, the idiots who talk about chronic welfare mothers cranking out endless babies so they can get richer and richer should do some fact-checking, since an extra kid's worth an extra hunsky or two in most states, and if you can get rich on that, let alone feed a kid, you're better than I am.)

BTW: when you advocate

"free healthcare (or at least an affordable national plan)
free education
job training
affordable housing"

aren't those all examples of the "government giving away something for nothing"?

My grandparents (both sides) also survived the depression, and I think "survived" is just the right word. Both had big gardens, canned food, and my maternal grandfather hunted rabbits for meat. Of course, the maternals lived on a farm, and the paternals lived on five lots in a small town where they could garden and raise some chickens. None of those ways of getting by are really terribly practical for your average urban welfare recipient. Don't know what your grandparents' situation was, but, hell: lots of people, most, in fact, survived the depression. So the point is exactly what?

When you say welfare is "wealth redistribution to use a token phrase," you've pulled the wrong term out of your memory banks. What you're looking for is "talking point."

Does this make you a bad person? Can't speak to that. But I think I know what it does make you.

[Cleita]

24. The problem with a lot of social programs is the means testing.

If everyone had access to health care, quality child care and free transportation, it wouldn't matter if you are rich or poor. Most likely the poor would use these programs more than the rich, but they should be available to everyone, if for no other reason than to cut down on the paper work. Then it wouldn't be seen as welfare. Many people see welfare as supporting their family as well as another one they don't even know. If everyone got the same entitlements then they couldn't complain that it's welfare.

Anyway, I don't think any of the programs that are available today should be stopped. I just think that society should make it easier for people to go to work who can instead of being on welfare.

[dpibel]

27. I hope you don't think I disagree with you

I was, after all, responding to post #17, a Cushla Machree production. I don't have a problem with the list of benefits which I quoted from the original post; it's just that, if the original poster wanted to be consistent, he or she, should.

I guess that's what you were responding to in my post, but I sure don't know.

[Cleita]

29. I knew you were not responding to me, but I thought

I would clarify my position anyway. I don't mind if you do disagree with me. That's what discussion is for. Anyway, I will probably be long dead before any meaningful social programs are ever installed in this country like they are in the rest of the industrial countries of the world.

[deek]

25. bravo n/t

.

[bigbillhaywood]

14. Yes. n/t

[JanMichael]

16. Commie.

.

[AgadorSparticus]

35. I've never heard of a program like that implemented in Alaska.

What a GREAT idea....

[bluestateguy]

36. Richard Nixon's Family Assistance Plan

He floated this idea in 1969 as a way of abolishing the welfare bureaucracy (he was convinced the social service agencies were staffed with his enemies), but many conservatives had a problem with a government guaranteed annual income. Milton Freidman did support it, however. Many congressional Democrats opposed it, arguing that the payments were too low. Nixon gingerly backed away from the plan and would later attack George McGovern for proposing a very similar idea in 1972.

[Kanary]

40. Is it too late to vote for Nixon?

Amazing how good some of the idiots from the past look now!

Kanary

[krkaufman]

42. Right, but...?

But how would you account for poverty? If everyone now has a "basic minimum income", there's more cash in the system and so more dollars competing for the same goods... prices go up... and "basic minimum" still falls short.

What would be necessary to insure that basic needs are met?

Note that I wholly agree with you. Satisfy the basic needs across the board via social programs, but leave luxuries to what one earns via the capitalist machine.

Also, I'm all for a basic, uniform national health care system. This would insure basic, preventative care for all, and would take the health care burden off of businesses -- large and small -- allowing businesses to compete on an equal footing (as opposed to heartless bastids like Walmart driving down our society).

p.s. And would you also be amenable to require a balancing sacrifice for these "basic minimum" services? (e.g. requisite service, be it national, state, local, military, etc?)

[rman]

44. i think that's not realistic

if taken to its extreme; no-one working but everyone receiving an income, then what would people be buying with that money?

It violates one of the most basic economic principles: that there should be enough money in circulation to cover the value of goods and services to be traded.
How much money should be in circulation of no-one is providing any goods or services?

no labor = no production = nothing to buy

[dpibel]

45. Well that explains it

I've often wondered why everybody in western Europe sits on their fat duffs and they don't make anything and they don't buy anything. Now I know.

[dumpster_baby]

51. then why do absentee owners/landlords get any money?

Or did they not cover than in Econ 101?

[markus]

54. Funny, why hasn't everyone in Alaska quit working?

Or, as another poster pointed out, in Europe?

Yes, there are probably some people who would sit on a stoop and drink up their disbursement. Or blow it up their nose or shoot it in their veins.

There are some who would retire to a life of contemplation, or paint or write poetry.

Making sure a single person had, oh, maybe 10 or 15 thousand dollars a year isn't going to be an incentive to stop working. Most of us want a little more than that.

To make it more revenue nuetral, take away the mortage interest deduction and make sure people with reasonably priced homes (somewhere between $75,000 and $250,000 depending on where you live), get at least the same amount of money.

For those who don't own their home, they possibly get enough new income to own a home, creating the exact same incentive we would be repealing.

In exchange, I would do away with most other direct assistance programs (such as food stamps). I would keep some things. Unemployement insurance: you shouldn't lose your home just because you can't make the mortgage on the annual stipend. Head Start: this and other programs that help advance people by providing them with foundational skills.

[Crucible]

48. How much is enough?

How much of your personal income are you willing to give? I have no problem with helping my fellow man when he or she falls on hard times,but,("but"denotes contrast in thinking)many families have come to rely on welfare as a way of life. Welfare wasn't created to provide for a growing family, it was created to give people a helping hand so that one day that family can provide for itself. Also, I'm curious as to your definition of "Basic Standard of Living". You leave to many things up to interpretation. Are tax payers to be required to provide cable television, air conditioning, computers, a mid-size car, etc. for everyone in this country? If so, would you please buy me a new car?

[Vladimir]

49. A living wage

I completely agree that this is more progressive in principle than a welfare system which makes the needy beg for money and feel like they are scrounging when they are in fact only asking for what is rightly theirs. My only concerns would be over implementation... I agree that this would not be a disincentive to work. I tend to think people would want to work regardless - us humans are quite an ambitious lot by and large.

[Mr.Green93]

50. 72 cents of every welfare dollar goes to administrative costs

I support direct grants or basic minimum income.