What do you think of the Welfare system in the US? Does it work? Have you been a recipient of it? If so, did it work for you? Do you know examples of fraud? Do you know examples of it not working?
Here is a bit from Wikipedia about the welfare system in the US:
- Social programs in the United States are welfare subsidies designed to aid the needs of the U.S. population. Proposals for federal programs began with Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism and expanded with Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society.
The programs vary in eligibility requirements and are provided by various organizations on a federal, state, local and private level. They help to provide food, shelter, education, healthcare and money to U.S. citizens through primary and secondary education, subsidies of college education, unemployment disability insurance, subsidies for eligible low-wage workers, subsidies for housing, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, pensions for eligible persons and health insurance programs that cover public employees. The Social Security system is the largest and most prominent social aid program.[1][2] Medicare is another prominent program.
Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in Federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States—later (after 2010) expenditures are unknown but higher.[3] As of 2011, the public social spending-to-GDP ratio in the United States was below the OECD average.[4] Roughly half of this welfare assistance, or $462 billion went to families with children, most of which are headed by single parents. [5]
Total Social Security and Medicare expenditures in 2013 were $1.3 trillion, 8.4% of the $16.3 trillion GNP (2013) and 37% of the total Federal expenditure budget of $3.684 trillion.[6][7]
In addition to government expenditures private welfare spending in the United States is thought to be about 10% of the U.S. GDP or another $1.6 trillion.
What are your thoughts? A shout-out to the following people as I have either had conversations in the past about this with you or I think you'd provide insight to this discussion: theadvancedapes, b_b, hootsbox, fr33lunch, cgod, mk, minimum_wage, ghostoffuffle, kleinbl00, wasoxygen, humanodon and lil as well as anyone else.
Do you think that the welfare system helps people get back on their feet in the US or does it mire them in a perpetual cycle of dependance? Or, perhaps it does both and it's impossible not to do one without the other...?
I think the primary problem with this discussion is it implies that a social safety net has to be earned. That's fuckin' weird and progressive countries don't do it that way. You want to have a discussion about "welfare." That covers everything from SNAP (food stamps) to WIC (food stamps for parents of babies) to disability (cash payments to the injured or otherwise unable to work) to Medicare (reduced-cost medical treatment for the elderly and infirm) to school lunch programs to Stafford loans. Yet the onus is so deep that _wage went and threw "unemployment" in there, too. I have friends and acquaintances on just about every form of government benefit there is. Most of them paid in in some way or another. I have a friend who is considered 90% disabled because he has Lyme Disease. This means two things: (1) he is given enough money to live at 90% of the poverty level in the United States - that's $10,000 a year. (2) He is not allowed to work or he jeopardizes even that. And sure - if you can work, you shouldn't be on disability. But if you can only work a few days every couple of months because you're busy with fuckin' Lyme Disease the rest of the time, make hay while you can! So he gets paid through his dad. It's pretty fucked up. Me? I got a tip from a friend that California pays unemployment when you have a kid for paternity leave. So even though it was my dead season I got a phatty check for $5600 just for having a li'l taxpayer. More than half what my buddy made - but it was money I paid into the system. Doesn't mean they don't try their damndest to make you feel guilty about it. Even now I'm defending withdrawing $5600 from a fund that, by my seat-of-the-pants calculation, I've paid over $10,000 into. So when you phrase the question like this: I don't even think you're touching on the issues that matter. The basic problem is the United States insists on making people feel bad for getting money from anyone but a direct employer. It's fucking stupid. If I've got to subsidize four inner city moms in order to help their kids graduate high school and gain meaningful employment so they can pay taxes into the system rather than suck down funds through incarceration, it's a fucking bargain whatever it costs. "Merit" and "employment" are not related. We need to stop talking about it like it is.Do you think that the welfare system helps people get back on their feet in the US or does it mire them in a perpetual cycle of dependance? Or, perhaps it does both and it's impossible not to do one without the other...?
When I was in college I had bouts if poverty. I couldn't afford food and could barely make rent. I utilized a "food pantry" and was able to get pasta, veggies, canned goods etc. It was nice having that help, but the guilt I associated with it was intense. Why should it have been? I was a poor college kid and I now pay heavily in to that system. I'm signing my family up for a Food Gatherer organization that once a month will pick up a box of food/canned goods from your doorstep. It's a nice program.I think the primary problem with this discussion is it implies that a social safety net has to be earned. That's fuckin' weird and progressive countries don't do it that way.
this is true. Not only that, but regardless of what or how government assistance is consumed, it's always implied that there should be shame attached. Whether you have paid in to the system or not.
There was a story on "The World" the other day where they highlighted an NGO in India whose mission was to provide LED lanterns to people in areas without electricity. These people mainly use kerosene lamps after dark, which are expensive to operate and dangerous, besides. They were stunned to find that giving them away was not as easy as they thought it would be, but that selling them for $25 has been a smash hit. $25 is a ton of money for someone who lives on $2/day. Anyway, I guess the point is that the psychology of earning vs. charity falls squarely on the side of earning. I think that a similar thing might do well here. In urban areas I would love to see small business loans made available easily and cheaply. Not huge loans, but something where a person can start a food stand, open a lawn care business, etc. Small one or two person operations that the proprietor can feel proud of. There's no access to credit for most people who live in ghettos, and giving them a couple hundred bucks per week does very little to help their mobility, although it adds up to a lot of money in the long term. I would also like to see a WPA style program specifically targeted at inner cities. There are roadblocks to this from the right and the left, unfortunately (which probably means it's an awesome idea). We spend an unconscionable amount of money "helping" the poor in relation to the benefit we actually get to society for all that cash. I think a fundamental problem is that we think of "poor people" instead of "people who happen to be poor". The latter is a state of being, and the former is a moral judgement.
Micro-lending is a viable alternative. Organizations like Kiva.org have had great success rates. As Americans, I think we are quick to rally round kickstarter as though it were a micro-lender, but there are other options available.In urban areas I would love to see small business loans made available easily and cheaply. Not huge loans, but something where a person can start a food stand, open a lawn care business, etc. Small one or two person operations that the proprietor can feel proud of. There's no access to credit for most people who live in ghettos, and giving them a couple hundred bucks per week does very little to help their mobility, although it adds up to a lot of money in the long term.
Got a friend who works in sound. She grew up in Guadalajara. Dual Mexican/Swiss citizenship. She loves Unemployment. She thinks it's amazing that you get money for not working. No matter how many times I point out that it's money she's paid into the system, the idea of "something for nothing" blows her away.
Perhaps it is working, I don't know. It's a sincere question.If I've got to subsidize four inner city moms in order to help their kids graduate high school and gain meaningful employment so they can pay taxes into the system rather than suck down funds through incarceration, it's a fucking bargain whatever it costs.
Is this how it works? Are those kids growing up educated, exiting the welfare system, and paying back in to the system that benefited them?
Thought experiment time! Say you have 100 kids in an inner city school. You (Personally, some government org, charitable group) have resources, you think, to appropriately feed, clothe, transport, and educate them through high school. You follow up with them 1 year after, 5 years after, and 10 years after, and see how many of them are employed, how much they make, how much gets paid 'back' into the system. What if after 10 years, only half of them are employed? Less? What if most only have part time employment? What if only one kid has any meaningful job after 10 years, but he's a high paid (And assuming incredibly charitable) executive who donates orders of magnitude more than it cost to help him get to that position? It's a hard thing to establish a metric for.Is this how it works? Are those kids growing up educated, exiting the welfare system, and paying back in to the system that benefited them?
It's not really a sincere "question" though - it's a whole line of questioning that forms the fundamental liberal/conservative battle over social programs. You're really talking about lower-case-w welfare vs. prisons. I think, just like capitalism vs. socialism, the answer is somewhere in the middle, that answer entirely different depending on culture and entirely up to debate every time there's an election.
here's a letter from the state of Texas telling me I'm too poor to get unemployment compensation: anyone who's had to deal with this shit knows it's absurdly difficult to get in and stay in. these programs are designed to shove as many people out as possible, and only people with the technical knowhow and energy to fight them on the phone and by mail endlessly will ever see most of what they're legally eligible for. my lover has three health insurance policies, all either run by or mandated by the state. to get something as simple as nutritional supplements, which are necessary for their condition, they have to be rejected by the first two before the third will accept it. they are routinely denied medications that they depend on to survive. they spend hours every week on the phone, filling out forms, persuading medical staff with connections, just to get the things that keep them from dying, that they are already legally entitled to receive. they only have it so good because the laws guaranteeing these benefits were passed when the life expectancy for people with this condition was in the teens. it was a cheap "for the children" stunt for a few political points one election cycle. fortunately, medical science has outstripped the Texas legislative process. my conditions, on the other hand, aren't covered by any insurance. they're in the fuckin literature, I've been diagnosed by multiple medical professionals, there's a standard course of treatment, and meds come out of pocket. I expect I will never have surgery. thanks obama. food stamps, disability, shelter programs, etc, all have similar processes. even the NGO side of things is fucked up, I've worked there and seen the insides. gatekeeping bullshit all over the place. get over yourself food banks, nobody is scamming you. nobody's going to sit in your waiting room all day during work hours just so they can try to return an expired bag of rice to Fiesta. blow it all away. give me single payer healthcare, universal basic income, and a sharply progressive income tax. or full communism. for now I steal. edit: in reply to person below who's blocked me, this is why I'm a proponent of single payer and UBI, it removes all of that ambiguity and the means-testing that plagues us currently. healthcare becomes a right and the bureaucracy for everything else is replaced by the existing economic infrastructure. these solutions have their own problems but the current system is just pure nonsense.
I recognize that they both go into your pocket but the question of whose pocket they come out of is the question that keeps all this shit complicated and ornery.
You're talking about two things: taxpayer-funded initiatives and employer-funded initiatives. Unemployment insurance is employer-funded. Your letter demonstrates only that you didn't pay into the system enough to withdraw from the system - no money was paid on your behalf, so no money can be withdrawn on your behalf. Your lover's health insurance, however, is taxpayer-funded and is based on demonstrated need. It surprises me not a whit that "demonstrated need" in Texas is an utter and total quagmire. I recognize that they both go into your pocket but the question of whose pocket they come out of is the question that keeps all this shit complicated and ornery.
Like most I'm sure, I have heard of someone who "knows how to work the system" and isn't a damn shame and what-not. I don't have relationships with or associate myself with people that have a different moral compass than my own, so I do not know anyone directly who has committed this type of fraud. That said, I am certain that welfare fraud happens...but so does tax fraud, white collar crimes, insider trading, dine & dash, and whatever the fuck else you can think of that will make debating whether or not the acts of isolated individuals should condemn the under-privileged to a life spent digging themselves out of a hole that they were born in because of a shitty roll of the genetic dice a futile endeavor.What do you think of the Welfare system in the US?
It is as necessary a publicly funded program as Healthcare and Education.Does it work?
Not sure there. Has it worked? Can it work? Does it work categorically? The answer to the latter is complex. but I would respond in the negative. Have you been a recipient of it? If so, did it work for you?
My mother was a single mom raising two kids in a studio apartment in Garbage Grove, working two jobs, and getting fuck all from my father. She stood in line to get canned meat, powdered milk, dried beans, and whatever shitty leftovers government subsidies paid Big Farm to produce for its "down-trodden". To escape the shame associated from taking a "handout", my mother married the first thing with a paycheck that came knocking. Unfortunately for us kids, his paycheck came with regular physical and mental abuse. Do you know examples of fraud? Do you know examples of it not working?
I know several people who were on some form of welfare during their childhood but none of them are still on it. In fact, most of them are quite successful now as adults. Fear and shame are some strong motivators...
I think the system we have is duct tape on top of duct tape on top of... Most of the country's complex, out dated, massive bureaucracies are the same. The problem is you can't blow them up and start over, say, every ten years, which would be preferable if the world were a rational place. Not that the world would be that great if it were a rational place.