A question about welfare?

Question

Everyone knows welfare can be abused. But who, exactly, are we helping by simply ripping it away from those who DO need it? It's like pills: they can be used correctly, or they can be abused. But how much sense does it make if we take pills of any abusable kind off the shelves because of those abusing them?

Now, before those select few choose to attack me based on my argument, let me make this clear: I am not an advocate for life-long welfare status. I recommend a system that allows those who need welfare to use it as they need it and, dependent on improvement over time, they can remain on welfare from 2 to 5 years. If someone has shown severely minor to no improvement, they will be dealt with concerning why they haven't. Comments?

Answer 1

It seems to me that the welfare system is not set up for people to succeed. I was on welfare to go to college. If I had a test and would not be able to make an appointment, they would not reschedule me. Instead, I would have to go down the offices on a morning that I can go and wait all day until they had a cancellation so that they could fit me in. If there were no cancellations, I would have to do the same thing on another day until they could fit me in. If I didn't get in within a certain amount of time, my benefits were suspended. As a full-time college student, a full-time/part-time (depending on my school schedule) employee, and a single mom, I did not have that kind of time nor could I afford to not have their help.

Also, for every dollar that I made at my job, I would lose more than a dollar in benefits. When I'm not makin much at my job, the loss of benefits really hurt.

Plus, though I was in school, I was supposed to take occupational classes. If not, I needed all my profs to sign a sheet saying I was in their class - that I was on welfare I did not want everyone to know.

I ended up graduating and getting a great job and I'm definitely paying the system. I think that if someone is working hard to get off welfare that the system should work with them and that if someone is just abusing the system that it should be harder for them. Just my opinion.

Answer 2

Welfare reforms did nothing to help the very people that welfare was designed to help.

Restrictions to education and training prevent people on welfare from obtaining the skills they need to support their children.

Welfare rhetoric has helped many (white) men get elected. For example:
Myth:Welfare mothers have more children to get more money in their checks
Fact: There is no difference in family sizes between welfare and non-welfare families. Additionally, the increase of $50 per month will not even pay for the Pampers.

Myth: Welfare recipients are lazy and do not want to work
Fact: more then 1/2 of adults on welfare have at least a part time job. Many stats purposely include ALL welfare recipients therefore showing that indeed, all 5 year olds on welfare are not holding down a job (slackers).

I could go on, but you get the idea. If we want to end welfare we need to offer real solutions to the people who are depending on it. Offerring counseling, mentoring, education, and childcare assistance would be a good start.

Answer 3

Is there anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to spend the public monies in this fashion?

The answer to that is a big, fat, resounding NO!!

So, that would necessarily make any federal welfare spending unconstitutional and therefore, illegal.

This is what you need to address first and foremost. Because, by the dictates of the 10th Amendment, the federal government has no other powers than what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution or the Amendments. So, a constitutional amendment would be needed to grant the government this power.

Then we can talk about whether it makes any sense for the government to be doing welfare. It should be done on a more local level, or done privately. With government, and federal government especially, you are assured of fraud, waste, abuse and corruption. What sane person would sign up to that?

Answer 4

I agree with you totally. We are not allowing people even the minimum amount of help by taking welfare away from them. The problem here is that the majority of poverty surrounds children and women. By allowing children to be cold and hungry we are not living in a very advanced culture. This certainly would show why the crime statistics and drug abuse is rapidly climbing. How else to numb out of a dismal situation. We need to institute wider education systems that advocate for the poor and help them to make healthy choices towards their futures.
When Canada instituted a snitch line for welfare it ended up being disbanded because there was not real use for it. To me that shows how little abuse actually takes place. The measly amount of money the poor recieve is not worth taking on a sad lifestyle for. Think about how much a single mother working 50 hours a week at minimum wage would make and then deducting what she might pay for rent, clothes, food etc for her and three children. Pretty sad. Please give to those who need.

Answer 5

I agree with you whole heartedly. but remember this is AMERICA. You can count on most systems being abused. Look at politics, those people are the leaders of abuse! Just like Oprah when she gave those cars away, I always thought she should have went to the welfare system, and found young women struggling with their children on buses and trying to better their lives, or women/men in shelters trying to seek employment and better living standards! My point is those who are really in need always get the short end of the stick, because those who are not as needy seem to prosper!

Answer 6

It is the duty of a free society to help those in need. Those that scream about fraud ought to take a look at the welfare we extend to corporations (i.e. tax breaks for oil companies). Americans claims that this is a Christian country and yet they forget that Christ advocated helping the poor as the most important mission of good Christians. In the long run not helping the poor costs us more money because hospital emergency rooms cost more than preventive health care.

Answer 7

The problem with welfare isn't the base concept, it is the branch of government that takes responsibility for providing it. Welfare and most other social services should be distributed and managed by local and state governments. The smaller governing body would be more flexible and familiar, more efficiently getting the help to those that need it.

Answer 8

we should be aware there are less fortunate individuals who may always need assistance for one reason or another, consider that some of the most demanding jobs are most often the least monetarily rewarding...many people hold on to these jobs because they werent fortunate enough to be handed an education allowing them to become a "professional". true there will always be abusers, but consider the abuses so rampant in society; the politicians who are supported by the greatest welfare system of all, our local/state/federal treasuries; our legal system itself given a free hand to tax, fine, confiscate property, etc just on the "suspicion" of some infraction, constantly burdening us all with frivolous unnecessary laws until its become like the tax code, impossible to comply with legally; corupt and vindictive law enforcement....ahhh i shouldnt have gotten started, lol....and no ive not been in legal trouble mysef if youre wondering, im just a frustrated observer...

Answer 9

2-5 years sounds good for those who actually need it. As for medicaid cards for children..those who qualify for it get it til they are out of school. (18-19 years old)

Answer 10

i think 2 years is plenty