A dem's view of the welfare system=rant.

[SpecM]

I can't get student aid from the government.
My wife and I are maybe lower-middle class, doing OK but sometimes money's tight, and I'm proud to say that we're getting ahead on debt. This semester, I applied for financial aid (I'm finnishing my associate's degree in automotive-service) and was declined. I appearently made too much money last year, I have no kids, and yes I'm a white male. But some of my wealthier friends get full-tution paid (local tech school, but still). Maybe I shouldn't complain... still I'm stuggling to pay for school AND everthing else (donations accepted via paypal haha).

sorry for the semi-rant

[Farbin Kaiber]

There are plenty of jobs available here for anyone with half a brainstem.

That s'plains my issues.

[Turf1600]

To work? Work where? Where I'm from if you lose your job you collect unemployment until it runs out then your fucked. There are no jobs. And there sure as hell are no jobs that will maintain a decent living........I've been lucky so far. But I don't see how some others can/will make ends meet.

There are plenty of jobs available here for anyone with half a brainstem.

[apexede30]

Cut off the welfare system and see how fucked up america gets. Hello Russia!

You mean cut the welfare system and see how skinny america gets? hello russia-- ?

[Farbin Kaiber]

I stopped reading at redbull325is's post. It ruined the flow of this discussion...

[DSP74]

To work? Work where? Where I'm from if you lose your job you collect unemployment until it runs out then your fucked. There are no jobs. And there sure as hell are no jobs that will maintain a decent living........I've been lucky so far. But I don't see how some others can/will make ends meet.

[Turf1600]

Cut off the welfare system and see how fucked up america gets. Hello Russia!

I'm willing to bet you people would find a way to work pretty quickly.

[scabzzzz]

Cut off the welfare system and see how fucked up america gets. Hello Russia!

[Hallen]

I beg to differ. I think it would be advantagous to a rich person for someone poor to remain in their current state. I think about how if I owned Section 8 rental properties, I wouldn't want my tenants to become home owners. In fact it would be financially beneficial if the children of my tenants grew up to be Section 8 recipients also. That way it establishes a self-perpetuating way of life and it helps me build my wealth.

I'd rather own all of the Section 8 properties in my community than to compete with other landlords. If keeping the poor people comfortable and complacent is what it takes to keep them from competing with me in the open market, then I would have to say that they can have my tax money to buy whatever they want. I am going to get it back anyhow.

To a degree you are right. There are unscrupulous and unethical people out there who are perfectly happy keeping the poor that way because they do make money off of it. But I think that is mostly a function of the government programs that allow these people to make money off of the poor. They perpetuate the state of poor people through working to have the government continue these welfare programs. And honestly, if I had an apartment block, I would not ever accept section 8 tenants. I suspect that it is a lot more hassle for the money than a nice clean complex with respectable people would be. It is all in how much you can or are willing to invest.

There is also the scarcity of goods thing. If I am rich where most people are poor, then it is easy for me to get all that I want. However, if few people are poor, most are financially stable and more are rich, then it is harder for me to get everything that I want because there is more competition for scarce resources. This in turn drives up prices and all of a sudden, I am not really rich anymore. However, that is a market reaction thing and not something that most rich people are going to try to actively control.

[Hallen]

I didn't really read this whole thread, but I can relate to DSP's initial post. My wife runs her own daycare business, and is part of a local network that gets her ALL KINDS of state grants and money for her business. This year, she got $1000 scott-free for purchasing anything she needs for her business, like yard toys, high chairs, dishes and utensils, anything that can be used for her business. And she gets another $1k this November. She also just recently enrolled her business in the USDA food program, which sends her a reimbursement check at the end of every month for all the food she feeds the 4 kids during the month, based on an average-scale of costs. It pays for all the food she uses during the month, and even more sometimes, it's great for her.

Now we're by no means hurting for money, certainly not for food. And while we don't "need" the money she's getting for the kid's food, it certainly helps in a big way with our budget. And the money she's getting isn't welfare, it's not like it's being wasted on us when it could be going to starving families, it's funded by the state through the USDA, specifically for childcare services. Even all the big super-expensive daycare places use it. If they're going to pay for such a major aspect of your business, why wouldn't you do it?

It is one of the programs that has a bit more of a purpose. It isn't in place to help you; it is in place to help working families afford care for their kids. Daycare costs can be a huge part of a young working family's budget. The food subsidies and other things you get is done so that you can keep the prices lower than you normally would have to charge for your service. That means more families can afford to do day care while they go to school or work... in other words so they can be productive. I don't have nearly as much of a problem with this kind of thing. It could be more tightly controlled for sure and I am sure there is waste, but the overall intent is better than most programs.

[Ray McCooney]

Welfare generally breeds laziness, it needs to be abolished or severely re-written. Its a system thats way to easy to abuse. Luckily some of us still have that old school honor and would rather suffer a little in exchange for the right to say we made it 100% on our own with out the states handouts.

Could not have said it any better myself Rob. Kind of rekindles that conversation we were having the last time I was at the garage concerning personal responsibility/accountability with respect to the mortgage/housing crisis. Spot on man.

[delatlanta1281]

OP
I wonder if the people from the first post help the homless or run a govt funded day care.

[2Big4a3Series]

"The rich" in this country is really misunderstood by most of the "poor". They don't want the poor to stay poor. That's silly. Scarce resources are always a problem, but keeping poor people poor does not grant the rich more money.

I beg to differ. I think it would be advantagous to a rich person for someone poor to remain in their current state. I think about how if I owned Section 8 rental properties, I wouldn't want my tenants to become home owners. In fact it would be financially beneficial if the children of my tenants grew up to be Section 8 recipients also. That way it establishes a self-perpetuating way of life and it helps me build my wealth.

I'd rather own all of the Section 8 properties in my community than to compete with other landlords. If keeping the poor people comfortable and complacent is what it takes to keep them from competing with me in the open market, then I would have to say that they can have my tax money to buy whatever they want. I am going to get it back anyhow.

[Vedubin01]

trashcop, Im with ya.


Heres another one for ya. My family gets a subsidy not to farm on our land. All we have to do is have a percentage of it bush hogged every year, and they wire money into the account. I meet with them tomorrow in regards to this very issue. Its a way to regulate the price of corn, beans, cotton, etc. If everyone did it the price would fall to peanuts (no pun intended) So they pay people not to farm to keep the big farmers alive.

[trashcop 80s 80s]

Oh man you sure know how to tell the old ladies off. What a serious badass.

Instead of forcing everyone to pay into social security for those old ladies, why don't we just force everyone to pay into their own privatized retirement fund? There would be a much higher rate of return and old grandma would be living it up instead of living near poverty off of an inefficient SS gov't handout. Private companies want to make money, so they try to be as efficient as possible which means your going to end up better overall, gov't programs could care less about efficiency because the money comes in regardless = failure.