Welfare Revised!

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: Additionally, with a bit of money they'd have a chance to drag themselves out of their pit of addiction, with no money at all, they'd more likely die in a ditch somewhere, or end up robbing people just to eat. ~Snipped

That's all good! Let's due lunch the first Thursday of next month. We should meet on the South side of "Da Ville" (Louisville, KY), I'll pick you up and drive you through the East side of the city. Here you can gain a first handed experience with your own eyes of what three, five, seven generations of 'Welfare' recipients due on "pay-day". These people are born into, raised with, and continue to multiply on Welfare! Most are fully capable! Some 'could' work! But, when the system does make one accountable, then why bother.

You are correct about not all recipients are drug users. My cousin from Marion county receives $750.00 a month from a former welfare recipient. She also carries a 9mm slug trench, with ballistic armor embedded in it where her left kidney used to be. Medically retired, and given his welfare while he serves life in prison, she can no longer wear the uniform, but runs the dispatch desk.

[PurpleXVI]

Hey, Felix, I'm no sheltered kid, I KNOW that some people are content to wallow in their own filth while they pop their next pill, do their next hit, smoke their next whatever.

But, you know, like I said, I'd rather pay a bit more taxes to keep them out of my hair, than have them shivving me in a dark alley to pay for their next fix. It's a sacrifice, but it keeps down crime.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that Denmark has a FAR more comprehensive and permissive welfare system than the US, yet we have a lower crime rate and less people who are total losses. I'm not trying to act superior, but you can use Scandinavia in general as an example of a powerful welfare system that doesn't seem to create a horde of lazy, wallowing drug-addicts and drop-outs.

Again, no offense intended, but I think you're letting generalizations take over a bit. I know that I'd generally be pissed at all aspects of a dude who shot someone I know, crippling them permanently, but upon examining it with cold logic, whether or not he's on welfare means jack. Plenty of people with good, well-paying jobs are criminals and maniacs. Hell, I'm willing to bet that the fewest drug-users are in the middle class, while the upper classes likely mirror the lower classes in number of addicts and users.

Lots of murderers and maniacs have had well-paying jobs, families and futures. But it's easier to be a nice guy when you do have those things. If you don't have a future, you're not sacrificing anything when you stab that guy or shoot that guy to get enough money to eat. If you don't have a family to come home to, you've got no reproachful stares, no shame, no disappointment to face when you jab that next needle into your vein and slip away from the world for a few more hours, if you don't have a job, you have nothing to lose by being lazy.

The way you get people out of these things isn't with threats, shunning and force. The way you get them out of it is compassion, friendship and support. Give them a family. Give them a feeling there's somewhere to go. Give them a feeling that someone cares. That's what's more likely to get them a job than threatening to take away their money. More likely to get them out a ditch than threatening them with starvation.

Some of them are probably dropped out for the express reason that they feel like the world doesn't care, that the state hates them, people hate them, that there's no purpose to it all. You'd just reinforce what keeps them in the ditch and indifferent to the suffering of whoever they might shoot, stab or step on while trying to survive.

And this is not based in any sort of idealist philosophy. This is based on fact and observation. Look at Scandinavia, where we apply the Compassion approach. Look at the US, where you(From my understanding.) generally apply the "Well if you're gonna screw up, feel free to go rot."-approach. The numbers should show which is more effective at helping society's weakest be contributing members of the greater whole.

[Felix The Assassin]

The generalizations came from modern US Sociology class, where-in no less than five students on 'support' talked about how their people know the limitations of the system. Not stereotyping that they are transplants from a certain devastated region, not allowing buildup of somebody getting over, just how they flaunted their knowledge of the system.

Yes I get support as well. But, I put 23 years into the Army, and paid my monetary share into the GI Bill. I have a upper limit, and a time line that I must adhere to in order to maintain my benefits. I also have to report my additional expenses, and turn in my grades. These five are worry free.

I will not debate that the US welfare system is broke. It has been broke so long, and allowed to run so corrupt that fixing it is almost an improbable task at this point in time.

[PurpleXVI]

Fair enough.

And I am not denying there are people who abuse the system, there always will be, no matter how the system is constructed. Even if you remove the system completely, there are people who will exploit the lack of oversight and support.

All I'm saying is that removing the money from the addicts could potentially lead to more crime and dangerous streets for honest citizens.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: ~Snipped ~All I'm saying is that removing the money from the addicts could potentially lead to more crime and dangerous streets for honest citizens.

I fully concur!

[Havock]

I think that a drug test to get a welfare check is a fantastic idea. It would save the welfare system millions and pay out only to the people who realy deserve it. A few weeks without a check and maybe some of them will go get jobs.

The idea that they will just go out an commit crimes to get money is also a valid one. This will also solve the problem, but in a diffrent way. The welfare junkies who turn to crime will either get locked up or done in. Either way the problem is solved.

Personaly, I am in favor of "done in". I think of it in terms of spiderman. If you let the bad guy get away, he will only go out an hurt more people,a.k.a. "Uncle ben". If you deal with the bad guy when he tries to hurt you, then he can't hurt anyone else , ever.

[PurpleXVI]

Well, the problem is that BEFORE they get locked up or killed, they might end up, you know, stabbing the hell out of some poor guy who took the wrong route home. Not to mention that you'd STILL be paying for them that way, except in this case they'd be in prisons, and possibly come out worse criminals rather than having the minimal chance of becoming useful, working people that getting paid a welfare check supplies.

The problem isn't solved that way, just exacerbated.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: Felix: I think we should cut down on welfare to the people who just waste it, rather than using it for what it was meant for(Getting back on your feet if random chance knocks you down.). Me: Well, I happen to disagree, I think it'd hurt more than it would help. You: The wealthy bankers are running our governments!

No. Lemme give you my version:

Felix: We should cut down on welfare to those who waste it, etc.

Purple: Well, I happen to disagree, I like giveaway programs, and I come from the
land of nanny government hand-holding and giveaways, and it's a Utopia here, I promise.

Timber: Funny, Felix, but to be realistic none of your income taxes ever go to the welfare programs anyway, just fyi.

Purple: Really, Timber? Mind telling me why that is? Mind if I insult you while you do it?

Timber: Sure, no problem, here's x,y, and z source of information so you can go edumacate yourself.

Purple: Wait, why are you off topic? You're talking about something totally irrelevant.:

Timber: Well, you asked, cutie pie, didn't you?

Laters.

[robertthebard]

Casual observation; I stayed with a girl that I had considered my sister for 15 years prior to moving into this apartment. At the time, I was working full time +, and couldn't be bothered to supervise what she and her crackhead friends were doing. After losing about 2,000.00 of personal property, including tools that I used to make money on the side, I moved before I had to catch a felony wrap.

Factoid 2: I worked at a small "Mom and Pop" mechanic shop for a couple of years, and while there, the crackheads would bring in huge cuts of meat that they bought with their foodstamps, to get more money for drugs.

Nutshell: It doesn't matter how much money they have, addicts are addicts, and will commit crimes to get the fix they need. Social programs won't stem the crime rate, not here. Prior to all cash assistance being paid out in direct deposit to a bank account, welfare checks were being stolen to support drug habits.

Prisons are paid for, whether somebody is in them or not, they have employees, and those employees don't get paid any more for supervising 100, or 1,000 inmates, and they don't get paid all that well. Personally, I think the drug testing for benefits would be a great idea. It would get a lot of the spongers off of the social programs, and maybe allow the people that really need them to get them. I know a few women that have multiple children, just to get a welfare check, so that they don't have to work. There's nothing wrong with them, other than they want to sit home and party, instead of getting a job. Drug tests would cut that out.

I've lived life on the wrong side of the tracks. I can tell you from personal experience that a lot of people drawing these benefits don't need them. I know one girl that got an Social Security check because she was stupid. Not handicapped, just stupid. She knew the drugs were doing her in, but she just kept doing them anyway. She got caught out, and got clean and what do you know, she's got a decent job now, working in the aircraft industry. Sometimes, taking away the crutch is the only way to make somebody walk.