Fare well welfare....

[bjj hero]

Ive been on benefits, for nearly a year 2000/2001. I returned to the UK after living abroard due to a death in the family, I wasnt able to use my qualifications Id gained in America as I had no UK drivers licence and all the related jobs I applied for I was either over qualified or was told that 12-24 months earlier theyd have bit my hand off but now they wanted specific qualifications.

So I did volunteer work and college whilst unemployed and moved into a different career. Im happy and greatful for the welfare system as it allowed me get back on my feet.

What I dont get is people wove managed to be unemployed for years during economic growth. They need a foot up the backside to get motivated and get employed.

Ill pay in (we all do) without a problem but I want more action on the states part to move people on, as my previous manifesto suggests.

 

[Necrophagist]

I'm down for taking welfare down. It's a crutch for the lazy and irresponsible. It's draining the country's resources. It supports the process of over-population. It's an unnecessary tax burden.

Fuck 'em. I don't make a lot of money, but I would NEVER go on welfare or WIC. If I can't support a child, I'll wear a damn condom.

 

[EchetusXe]

Well it would be cheaper and more effective yes.

 

[Eskay]

Im my ideal world, those who don't want to/ can't/ anythin else/ work are given enough food, bedding and clothes to stay alive relatively comfortably. This is paid for by those who are making far more than sufficient, if you will. It's no real skin off their nose that they have to buy the porsche instead of the ferrari (an exagerrated example but you get my point) because of it. So what if (taking on strong Republican, American dream style or Conservative voice here) "Joe the builder worked damn hard for his money this year and wants to spend all of it". Guess what, in my opinion, the life of the most lazy bugger in the world is worth just as much as, say, 205 of his money if not more. For me that's an axiom, live your life how you want to, but others should be able to live their lives as well, no matter whom they are. Would you shoot someone for not working? Hmm, no, I think not. But you can kill them just as easily by inaction. Sorry if that sounded abrasive.

This is beginning to drag on a bit, so I'll end with my main summarised point. The majority of people on this forum, have enough money to live relatively comfortably, I will presume, insomuch as we are not dying on the street. That you have a computer or laptop is testemant to that. I will ask you to look at this more personally.

It may not affect all sections of society as much, and true enough many of the people here will be better off, but consider that everyone who works is taxed and their money goes into this. This can be from the poorest people who struggle to scrape by and pay the bills. Considering the amount of debt the country is in (UK here, but US just as much) its clear that money could be put to far better use. Its completely unreasonable to ask tax payers who work damn hard for their living to pay to support moochers. (I realise that the majority on social aren't, but they were never the issue I raised)

I appreciate the leftist principles, right to a fair living. But this idea encompasses the freedom to do so. It does not cover the right to be lazy or to have a free ride on those who work all day, simply to fund the lazy person sitting in front of the tv eating wotsits all day. Human rights are essential and life is precious, selfishness is not and while we should tolerate it, we shouldn't pay for it.

 

[Captain Blackout]

What will they eat? Ramen has no protein. Hmmm. Necrophagism. I know, I'll feed all the poor. Rich people are high in protein and fat. Time to sharpen the knives.......

Okay, maybe I should explain a little. I won't go into my life story or my wife's, despite the deep relevance. I won't quote over-used statistics. I will say every believer in a god who hates welfare but doesn't have better solution has missed the point. In the end, if your level of compassion is so low that all welfare should be abolished, I no longer have any use for you except as food.

 

[omicronpercei]

Would a better solution be to cut off the welfare of truants? Consider most on benefits have no qualifications, so surely we should punish those who are in that situation by their own laziness.

What are they going to eat?

Nothing, no work no food.

People won't simply sit about and say "oh well, I can't eat". They will steal. Lock them up if you like, but that costs a whole lot more.

K, they can starve in prison.

So you want to lock people up and starve them... because they have the audacity to be poor and need help in the first place?

Congratulations on making my ignore list.

They had the audacity to sit on their ass and do nothing, thus they shouldn't get anything.

Why should people who went to school and got a job be expected to foot the bill of people or didn't give enough of a shit to do so themselves?

I'm going with Green Devil on this one. Why do people feel the need to reward society for mediocrity and laziness. People who sit on their ass and do nothing don't deserve shit. Welfare was never meant to be a way of life, it was designed to help people who are down on their luck until they can get back on their feet. Nothing is more infuriating then driving by the Section 8 housing (Welfare Housing) and seeing Cadillac Escalades and Hummers parked out front of them. These people get a free ride because their lazy and I work 65 hour weeks and pay that welfare? No thank you. I feel like welfare is like communism in the sense that it looks good on paper, but is screwed up in practice. If someone has the ABILITY to work more than they do but CHOOSE not to because "they don't feel like it" That sounds like their problem...yet my government insists on making it mine.

 

[Seldon2639]

It's an issue in any policy question:

The total error in your accounting system will generally be constant. You can change which type of error is made (false positives, or false negatives), but assuming you don't get better information, you can't reduce error.

In this case, you have four possible choices: you can correctly give benefits to the needy, incorrectly give benefits to the indigent, incorrectly deny benefits to the needy, or correctly deny benefits to the indigent. If you raise the bar on standards for receiving benefits, you remove most of the type-two error (false positives), but you induce an almost equal amount of type-one error (false negatives). Conversely, if you lower the bar, you'll remove almost all type-one error, but find much more type-two error.

That got a little off subject. To answer the OP's question, I would say that it wouldn't work much better. The issue of truancy is twofold: many students don't care about education enough, but not providing them food wouldn't help. They need to be shown a future which is better (through education) than that which they have. Many other students (some studies say more) are truant because they *have* to be. At least in the U.S, a lot of truancy and dropouts are so young men and women can get jobs to provide for their families, or so they can take care of siblings while their parents work. Not for nothing, but it's easier to instill the virtues of a good education when you have time to spend to your kids, and help them with school.

To Necrophagist: that's a fine attitude, and from the perspective of an adult, it's completely defensible. The question (for me) is less how we treat adults, but how we treat children. The largest group of impoverished people in America today are children. One in five children is born into poverty in *this* country. Now, we can blame the parents for irresponsibility, but do you punish the children for the mistakes their parents made, or do you provide enough to give those kids an opportunity in this world aside from poverty?

If your answer is "no, the parents screwed up, they get nothing", I respect that, and they made their own bed. But, if you punish the parents, most of the time you punish the kids. And while they may grow up to be lazy, and indigent, themselves, that's not the norm. I've known people who had to live on welfare during their young lives, and none of the ones I knew grew up to say "oh, hey, I'll just not work." The myth of the indigent, lazy, leech on society is vastly overestimated.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I think what you have to say it what's worse: watching teens knock back a beneficial service but still helping the many many people who take full advantage of it OR trying to physically punish truants for making a choice about their own life OR then removing the service from both truants and students OR punishing everyone left, right and centre for letting this happen to them.

I don't want to punish people for making a choice about their live. Not being given something that isn't yours is not a punishment.
What the system would do is qualify the right. You have to work to reap the benefit. The money will be available, the bar being set isn't very high either. This way the people who need it will still have it, its only those who don't deserve it (for the vast majority) who will be denied.

If you don't want to punish someone for making a poor choice (i.e. applying non inherent consequences to their actions) then why do you want to reward people for making a poor choice (i.e. offsetting the inherent consequences for their actions though state sponsored aid). In both cases your applying an abritray outcome on their behavior.

That said, there is unfortunately no right answer for this question. People can gas on about new regulations and oversight and rewriting the laws and all of that jazz - at the end of the day the system will still be abused by many and inadequate for many more. Taking the system away eliminates abuse and harms those who truly need a hand. I guess we could just switch back to the old system where the people were taxed and got nothing in return, other than perhaps an army and a navy if the aristocracy could be bothered when the bandits come, but I suspect things probably sucked then.

 

[Eskay]

In the end, if your level of compassion is so low that all welfare should be abolished, I no longer have any use for you except as food.

Are we being accused of immorality by a cannibal?

Eclectic Dreck:

You seem to be arguing here that everything is shit and it always will be. Systems can be improved, but not through apathy. Constant refinement increases efficiency.
How is this rewarding people for making a poor choice? Its the opposite, they make bad choices and they don't get benefits. I'm trying not to refer to it as a punishment (though I incorrectly did in my first post) as that gives it an appearance of cruelty which simply isn't there. Welfare is a crutch for those who need it, it should not be a lifestyle choice. Available to the truly needy, denied to the lazy. It is in no way unfair to not fund those who can't be bothered to work.

The outcomes needn't be arbitrary, the idea is simply put, but no doubt subtleties would be worked in to compensate for special cases. But essentially yes, I am applying set outcomes to certain behaviour, or to put it another way, consequences to peoples actions.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

What will they eat? Ramen has no protein. Hmmm. Necrophagism. I know, I'll feed all the poor. Rich people are high in protein and fat. Time to sharpen the knives.......

Okay, maybe I should explain a little. I won't go into my life story or my wife's, despite the deep relevance. I won't quote over-used statistics. I will say every believer in a god who hates welfare but doesn't have better solution has missed the point. In the end, if your level of compassion is so low that all welfare should be abolished, I no longer have any use for you except as food.

We already had the cannibalism proposal in "A modest Proposal". Please do not contest with the great Swift. You cannot. You simply cannot. It would be like watching a small duckling challenging a brown bear to a wrestling match.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Ok, I just got accused of apathy and of improperly taking on Swift. Wow, good day for me.

Swift was a political satirist trying to desperately point out the depth of problems in his society. I'll take him on any day, and we'll both be laughing at the pub while you're standing around whining that I shouldn't be talking to him.

In this country, I watch the highest paid make 400 times more than the lowest paid. They tried that in France. Didn't work so well. I've watched good people fall apart because medical care was unavailable. Families who try their best to stay stable but in end can't do it on their own. Rich liberals talk about social need at high class parties they got to in their limos. Conservatives who profess a belief in god yet have abandoned all pretense to compassion. I work hard every day for my family, for the poor, and for a better world. This despite multiple disabilities. I can not blame any of the bums I see looking for a free ride. The empires of the world have always balanced their finances on the backs of the poorest. After thousands of years of this we haven't found better solutions, we've found ways to put a civil veneer on it. Instead of racial slavery we have wage slavery.

We built the empires based on ambition and greed, not resolve and compassion. There will always be lazy people. For every lazy person, there's three more who for reasons of mental health problems, poor environment or just plain exhausted frustration look like a lazy person. We complain about those at the bottom, and then watch an empire hand out corporate welfare to companies still giving out huge bonuses.

Fact: The fates of the poorest are easily in the hands of those above them. Even the lazy are fixable. Sun Tzu said there are two catagories, four types: Ambitious and lazy, talented and stupid. The lazy he had uses for, whether talented or not. The ambitious and stupid he said were the bane of a campaign, best to do away with them.

Yet, here I read "No Welfare!" That adds up to punishing everyone with problems because you can't be bothered to find social compassion. Those of you who posted otherwise, good for you. Yes, we need better solutions. We will never find those solutions in empires based on greed and ambition. The lazy are the symptom, not the problem. Go read a little book called "Ishmael"

I'm no political satirist, certainly no Swift. I am pissed. Thoroughly ragingly pissed. Yes, I proposed eating the rich. Until the world gets fixed I will propose the most horrible things to people who sit comfortably posting on a thread at a site devoted to escapism while right outside their door needless suffering continues to rise. Then I'll go work to do what I can. When it all isn't enough, I will go hang out at Sir Yog's, raise a toast to Swift, and the three of us will drown our tears in laughter.

 

[Eskay]

Text

Let's get this ad hominem attack malarkey out the way first. I'll admit I could do more to improve the world, but I've raised over £5000 pounds for charity in my time and work for free in social security tribunals to get people who've unfairly lost their benefits back. The purpose of this is get those who've been deemed lazy incorrectly back what their entitled. The world has a lot of problems to get 'fixed'. If we can't discuss one of them in isolation then what the point? Nothings going to solve all the world's problems at once, shouting horrible things isn't going to help though. "do away with" the stupid people?!?! damn, I just wanted to take their welfare away.
(yes, yes, I know not all uneducated people are stupid, but let's be honest, it helps)

I believe in the social security system as a great institution of our society. It is from this that I hate to see it abused by those who simply can't be bothered to do anything themselves. You say you work to help the poor and disabled? Surely then it enrages you when those who don't have real problems sap resources from them.

Finally a word of advice, ignore the trolls who shout provocative slogans without backing up their argument. They'll bring you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

The problems of Swift's society was that there were too many people, and so a Malthusian dynamic came into play and lowered the population. In essence, starving babies to death, etc, etc.


Blackout, you are trolling. You may seem to think I am some sort of irksome conservative aristocrat who wishes to do away with the welfare system and see the peasants put in their rightful place. And you would be right. But that's just one of my many personalities, alter egos and shoulder demons. In reality, I like welfare. I'm just saying that your argument is that somehow the rich are responisble for the plight of the poor. Somewhat true, but it is also the fault of the poor breeding like the human rabbits they are .

 

[internutt]

I am currently on the Job Seeker's Allowance. Unlike many others whom I see at the Job Centre claiming benefits I am there with loads of qualificatins and I am treating the situation as a paid job to find a job.

I have been unsuccessful so far looking for work, but that has mainly been due to travel problems. However I am to be off the scheme as quickly as possible. and get into work.

 

[Captain Blackout]

Would a better solution be to cut off the welfare of truants? Consider most on benefits have no qualifications, so surely we should punish those who are in that situation by their own laziness.

What are they going to eat?

Nothing, no work no food.

People won't simply sit about and say "oh well, I can't eat". They will steal. Lock them up if you like, but that costs a whole lot more.

K, they can starve in prison.

I'm down for taking welfare down. It's a crutch for the lazy and irresponsible. It's draining the country's resources. It supports the process of over-population. It's an unnecessary tax burden.

Fuck 'em. I don't make a lot of money, but I would NEVER go on welfare or WIC. If I can't support a child, I'll wear a damn condom.


There are others, but these two will do nicely.

My first comment I went for really black humor to call out this kind of thinking. I got called apathetic and told I shouldn't make proposals like Swift's.

1) I'm not apathetic. I'm mean vindictive and ruthless but not apathetic.

2) If you tell me my comments are "like watching a small duckling challenging a brown bear to a wrestling match." I am coming after you. Play the brown bear. I'll play the duckling. We'll see what happens.

Sun Tzu's warning about stupid ambitious people is a good one. Look at what happened in America when banks got welfare recently. We complain about welfare to the poor, but welfare to the rich is costing the planet an awful lot more.

I used to complain about poor people taking the system for a ride. I don't anymore. Why? Because rich people created the system, didn't like the results, and then trashed the system.

To put it differently: Those in power could fix the problem of welfare to the poor tomorrow. We have enough resources to feed and house everyone. Granted, it would be minimal. And there's the problem that people breed like rabbits. Simple fix: If you have X number of kids, and the state is supporting you, two choices. No more support, we take kids away. Or, you get vasectomy/tubal ligation, get into classes on excellent parenting, and support continues.

I don't know what the "best" solutions are. I absolutely know we can do far better then we are doing now. Or, we could if people would stop considering rounding the poor up and starving them out as a solution. If we don't find better solutions to a lot of problems, the movie "Soylent Green" is going to look like a Disney attraction. Again, go read "Ishmael". The very empires of the world, the societies they encapsulate are not doing well, and welfare to the poor is the least of the issues.

Oh wait, that's right. I went for snark and brevity, wasn't good enough. I went for deeply passionate response based on the best knowledge I have, and I'm a troll. Fine, I'll wrap this up soon and get out.

If you don't want "ad homi whatever malarkey" don't take a swipe at the snarky curmudgeon. He might be an angry bear. Eskay, you have clearly done more then I in the world. I thank God for people like you. I feel your frustration. I just feel them very differently.

Fondant, the rich are fully responsible for the plight of the poor. They created the world we all live in, including the poor. Unfortunately too many in power sit on useless ideology (Bush's "promise ring program", brilliant solution for kids having kids BLARGH!) rather then look right across the ocean and find better solutions. I'm a troll? Fine, here I come with a really big club. I honestly, deeply, passionately believe societies are seriously in trouble via rampant capitalism. If you want to talk about welfare, you will run into bigger issues. Welfare doesn't exist in a vacuum.

I'm done with this thread. All cheer, be happy, throws your empty beers at the troll leaving the room. If any of you want further response from me, send a private message. However, for the love of God above, I challenge all of you to go read "Ishmael."

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Sun Tzu's warning about stupid ambitious people is a good one. Look at what happened in America when banks got welfare recently. We complain about welfare to the poor, but welfare to the rich is costing the planet an awful lot more.

I used to complain about poor people taking the system for a ride. I don't anymore. Why? Because rich people created the system, didn't like the results, and then trashed the system.

Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

We live in a sad age indeed when poor people are vilified and spat on by society for being poor and yet the rich are seen as so wonderful and mighty that they deserve handouts.

 

[Jeronus]

Would a better solution be to cut off the welfare of truants? Consider most on benefits have no qualifications, so surely we should punish those who are in that situation by their own laziness.

What are they going to eat?

Nothing, no work no food.

People won't simply sit about and say "oh well, I can't eat". They will steal. Lock them up if you like, but that costs a whole lot more.

People would steal rather than send their kids to school? Am I missing something?