Let's look at the "abusers" and "those who could work but do not".

Sure, the cost of smoking them out might be high initially, but by smoking them out, a standard is set that that kind of behavior is not acceptable--leading to less people likely to abuse the system, and the cost of finding them goes down.

Here's a related example. Let's say we have two big corporations. Company A and Company B. Because they are big companies, they are the targets of all sorts of lawsuits. Company A's approach is to settle each case, because the cost of settling each case is less than the cost of litigating. Company B fights every case, even if they are in the wrong. Guess which one has lower legal costs? Company B. It is not the target of as many lawsuits because it has a reputation for fighting them. Company A has higher legal costs because lawyers know they will settle, and therefore target them more often.

If people keep bringing up funding and abuse in their replies, I have not. Again it's not about that.

The one factor we do not have info on is how many abusers are already dealt with? We have no idea of the percent that are not found out. Without that information, advocating either viewpoint is equally non productive.

In the real world, COmpany A will reach a point where their approach will be internally questioned and in all likelihood revised.

What programs did people have 100 years ago?? Why is the left so against letting the people who build, invested and took the risk, keep the rewards they earn?? If someone works 2 full time jobs to pay for their college (like I did) drives an old beater car, goes without cable TV or even a new TV,works their way up in jobs, chooses to risk what they have been saving to start their own business, works 80 hours a week without pay to make sure the bills are paid and the employees are paid. When the hard work, risk and investment finally start to pay off, what right does some liberal have to say that we can't keep what we invested and earned???? Why is it that some one can immigrate to the US and with in 2 years own their own business, but many born here (most who happen to vote dem) live on welfare or have union agents think for them??tep back and think about that for a while, as you know it is true.

Okay, eliminate abuse and funding from the problem. It's an attitude and motivation problem.

Expectancy theory: "The strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attrictiveness of that outcome to the individual." (Robbins, Stephen P., Organizational Behavior)

As it is now, there's no reason for those on welfare to even think that there will be some reward for working hard. They grew up in a trailor park or in the ghetto, where their parents, grand-parents, cousins, friends, and everyone they've ever known has lived. I don't think the thought of hard work = success occurs to many of them at all.

So... How do you motivate these kinds of people? Obviously throwing money at them isn't working.

Well, here's my personal take on government programs. This will be long because it's basically my life story. I didn't go to college out of high school. My girlfriend (now my wife for 32 years) got pregnant, I was in love with her and we got married and went to work. In the early 80s I had a great-paying job for a high school grad but lost it due to massive cutbacks and we struggled financially. We almost lost our house but were able to get mortgage assistance, a program that Reagan tried to cut several times but was repeatedly saved by the Dem Congress. After struggling trying to find work in a depressed area my wife and I decided I should go to college so I did, which was only possible due to Pell grants, student loans, PA tuition assistance, again programs that Reagan and the Republicans tried cutting over and over. Fortunately for me the programs survived and I deeply thank all of you who were taxpayers at the time. We even were on food stamps occasionally and my daughters were treated to free school lunches, the deadbeats. By the way, my oldest daughter is a schoolteacher, not a welfare bum, although I know Rush equates the two, and my youngest daughter works 2 jobs, the lazy @#$%^.

Jeez, I forgot to mention heating assistance. Thanks for that too!

Dave, you're welcome. I'm willing to ignore a few people people 'coasting' on government programs for every family like yours that can be helped to a better life.

Dave, it sounds like you and your wife had the motivation and ability to overcome those obstacles.

As a success story, doesn't it offend you to see so many who don't need the help taking advantage of it? Does it occur to you that maybe the reason you had a tough time getting help from the programs might have been that there were ten (guessing) people taking advantage of the programs unnecessarily for every one of you that needed the help? How many of the people who were using the programs at the same time you were are still using the programs?

Dave, it sounds like you used the programs as a "safety net". I'm supportive of safety nets. What I am not supportive of is lifetime benefits.

Bryan, It does offend me to see people take advantage of these programs but I tend to think that there are maybe 10 being helped for every one abuser, sort of the reverse of your assumption. I have nothing to base that on, only that I can't imagine anyone would want to live like that, hand to mouth, accountable to government agencies all the time. The paperwork alone was a PIA. My whole point was simply that these are not worthless programs. Without them I don't know what might have happened to us. Maybe we still would have overcome our hardships; I like to think so. My family helped us alot too but could have never to the extent that a whole society can help.

I've been deliberately ignoring the Racerbvd posts. Will someone tell me whether this post contained anything except the stereotypes that just get in the way of our discussion? Should I read, or not?

Too bad, you might learn something, and it is you who keeps stereotypes businesses.

Didn't we just have a discussion on the potential wisdom of a "living" minimum wage? These welfare folks would have to be idiots to get off welfare in favor of a full time minimum wage job without health benefits. They're not that stupid. I agree with Brian that if the incentive were there, working would be an easier concept to "sell."

It is in their nature to be self sufficient. These programs attempt to remove that from their psyche. Why?

I'd like to learn something Byron. I really do like that. I'd like to learn from you, too. I'd like for folks of your ilk to consider the possibility that the folks like myself who comprise the liberal half of your nation might be slightly less ignorant than you think we are. I'd like the lib-hatred speech to go away, so we can actually discuss these problems. When I discuss them with most of the cons here, I know with certainty that we are actually not that far apart in terms of what we want. Len and I disagree very frequently, but I have a strong impression that I'd like him as a person. I doubt he has horns, and I know I don't. And again, I think he and I can agree on 99% of stuff, and then consider carefully each other's ideas about the other 1%.

And then I run into hate-spewing folks like yourself who seem clearly out of touch. I hope I'm making myself clear. I'd love to read your insightful or constructive posts. Please post some.

bryan:

Unless I am mistaken, you have very limited life experience dealing with the "other side of the tracks". Am I correct?

len, as much as I respect your positions, they are skewed by something n the past that turned you away from objectivity on this subject.

Dave, we have similar backgrounds in the respect that we both got help at an early age (some college aid for years spent in the service)

And racer: What programs were there 100 years ago? Read your history. FInd out before asking. Families back then were in many cases large and extended, many times three generations in one house or apartment because wages were so low. That ani't the case today; too many prople out there to get all they can to worry about the life condition of others, even that of parents and siblings. Your lack of information on the subject of social improvement over the last two centuries shows me an individual who is, at the very least, not well read.

Any of you ever take the time to visit that widow trying to make it on $850 a month? ANy of you visit the shut-in confined to a wheelchair trying to survive on disability? Until you do, your attitudes will remain just as uninformed as ever.

"Lord, let me not judge my brother until I have walked a mile in his moccasins " (old Indian prayer)

I don't know why I bother.

Do you see any irony in this? Isn't this just an unnecessary welfare payout thinly-veiled? I'm assuming from my reading that you didn't really need the help- apologies if that reading is incorrect.

ubiquity0,

excellent post. It seems like I did the same things when I lived at home but it was simply something I did as a family member, not something I did for the tax breaks. :rolleyes:

Bryan, congrats on the $5K. Please tell me exactly how this isn't at least a little bit dishonest? Or, maybe you are just proving your point that for every one person that deserves some help, there are 10 who abuse the system.

Jim

Do welfare recipients have full-time jobs and go to college full-time? That's absolutely legal and justified for me to have claimed.

Abusing the system would be to have used the welfare system illegally. Finding tax breaks that you fit the criteria for is legitimate. At the time, though, I did have 3 different student loans coming due, and if I hadn't gotten the $5k, I might not have been able to save for a down payment on a house. College students aren't rich...

That's the tragedy...you don't need it. For one, you live with your parents, who I presume pay the majority of the bills.

There are decent, single mothers working very hard trying to eke by and give the best for their kids, who may not have family to help them out, that people like you denounce, yet you feel this is justified for you?

Great post ubiquity.

So you played the system. Not really much different from somebody who takes government assistance to feed the kids, IMHO.

Hmm, so its ok to get a payout from the government in this case as its not illegal? It appears to be allowed by the tax code (with the qualifier that you "cared for [your brother, sister] as you would your own child" ) so its arguably entirely legal. If the governments tax program allows the payout it must be ok right? Because its written in the tax code?

Are the 91% of welfare recipients that you argue are abusing the system acting illegally? Are they in violation of the terms of their welfare? Do you have studies or any reference to support this number?

Is the earned income tax credit not a welfare concept?

Moneyguy1
That is correct, families took care of their own, NOT the Government. You made my point. People didn't live beyond their means, so why should we have to pay for those who chose to do so History was one of my strong subjects and since my grandmother was one of 13 kids, and the lived on an old plantation house in TN. I am informed, and from your own post, how can you call it social improvement ??? When my grandmother was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, did we put her into a home, hell no, I took all the time off of work to be there for her up until the day she passed. What your statement tells me is that you aren't willing to make the sacrifices to help take care of your family, since you seem to think that it is a social improvement to have the government take care of your family:mad:



Sup, why do you think that personal responsibility is hate?? As for me being out of touch, you couldn't be more wrong, I grew up in a union home, as a child we vacationed with the man, a great man, who started the NMU, my father worked his entire adult life for the Union, and when he retired was the agent for the SE, plus we still vacationed with the heads of the unions, so I saw things first hand. I also know what it is like to climb the latter and fall, but, I picked myself up, and climbed even higher, I've been on both sides of the fence, the haves and have not, when I was down, I didn't cry about what others had, when I was at a job and saw that unless I married into the family, I wouldn't go any higher, I made the choice to go out on my own, that was 1986, and I'm still climbing, so don't tell that I'm out of touch, as I've suffered and prospered, I volunteer to help those in need and have. Why do liberal that personal responsibility is hate??? BTW, while working at the ship yards, one of the jobs I did to pay my way though college, because of my name, and being well spoken, it was suggested that I quit school, join the other union and work at the ship yard full time. I turned it down. I made my own way and because of that, my father was proud of me, when he passed, I had his respect, something not easy to get from him. I didn't need a union to get where I am, I could have gone a direction where my name and his contacts could have made my live very easy, but, I chose to be my own man, make my own deals and live my own life, under nobody's shadow. Yes, I suffered, but I paid my dues, earned my place, with out a union to do my thinking (of course, had I gone union, I would be up there as that is what I was groomed for)

Bryan, first, (and I've said this before) congrats on the house. It's a big step and one to be commended for somebody of your age.

BTW, I recently bought my first house. I'm also still paying student loans. My take on it is this: If you wouldn't have gotten the 5K, maybe you would have had to wait a year or so longer to buy that house. As you said, college students aren't rich. As a result, most college students don't buy houses.

Just a thought (perhaps a jealous one at that ;)) , since I wasn't able to buy my first house until I was 35.

And you'll probably love the tax breaks you'll be able to realize as a homeowner. Heck, with your accountant, the house will probably be paid off in a year.

Jim

I am one who does not like welfare. That being said, times were different then.

It took a village to raise a child. The man either stayed around or the brother/father/family of the woman helped.

Today, there are an incredible amount of single mothers. If they're married, and if the husband leaves the family, the woman is more than likely thrown into instant proverty. Quite often, the woman has no family/community support.

The dynamics of the family are quite different now than they were 100 years ago.

Again I'm not a supporter of welfare, but this is perhaps an explanation of why there may be a greater need today.

Well, I have a friend, recently divorced after a 23 year marriage, 4 kids. She wend back to school (no support from the deadbeat ex) and she is now an RN, the kids age rage from 10 to 21, she is 46, works long hours, and no one, not the government, the ex helped her. So, you can change things, she did and she isn't a very strong person. He ex did worse than leave, he just stopped doing any kind of work. She took responsibility for her poor choice in husband and her 4 kids, but there aren't any welfare checks or any other Government assistance. Like I said to sup, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, of course, the left thinks that is hate talk.

Can you have an intelligent, bipartisan discussion? Or is it impossible? That's not what the "left" thinks. :rolleyes:

Question. Who took care of the kids while she did that? Sounds like she had no help from the ex or her family. How did she afford daycare for 4 children while she did all that?

And BTW, before you go off on your silly "personal responsibility" tangent again, ASSuming things, I'm a professional with no children by careful planning and choice.

Took classes why the kids were in school, the older kids took care of the younger ones. You, sound like the type of lady I would like to meet, as I held off until I could afford to raise a family as I feel should. No tangent on you, as you and I are thinking on the same level, you have "personal responsibility" as do I (not that I haven't screwed up in the past, and yes, it cost me $$$$$$$$$$ The 16 year old still takes car of the 10 year old. Maybe that is my problem, the people I call friends aren't losers (well most of them) and the ones I respect the most have only been married once, so I use them as how I want to be.

I really didn't want this to go this way. I'm not saying it's not a legitimate discussion, just not what I was looking for.

My point had nothing to do with scamming the sytem or means testing or anything else of the nature. I wasn't trying to degrade or mock anyone on these programs. In fact I believe they are way down the list of those to blame, they are in reality the victims of liberal ideology.

I simply wanted to state the absolute failure of the philosophy. Maybe I'll try again later.

Bob, I have no idea what you're talking about. I can only assume you also took my sentiments incorrectly.

racer

My mother, dead since 1994, developed dementia. My wife and I took care of her at home until a few months before her death, at which time she went into a nursing home due to complications that could not be taken care of at home. I cared for a former wife who suffered from mental problems for years, and an aging aunt until recently. So go ahead. Don't answer questions, just continue to make assumptions about others. I respect your taking care of an aging relative. That was very good of you. But is doesn't change the fact that very few of us do. What I did, and I hope it goes for you was done out of love not just duty.

Unfortunately, since there are so many who do not offer this kind of care, some outside form of assistance is required.

Ever wonder why there are so many nursing homes? One study hinted that young people do not want to be continually reminded of their ultimate fate.

Bob, you have my respect, as I too put my family first (and my mother is also getting up in years) and I too know about dementia, you are correct, not something that that can really easly be taken care of at home. It takes va very strong person to deal with that, my hat is off to you. I did/do what I do out of love (I have a great aunt who needs lots of attention, again, it is out of love, but because it is family, my family, therefore, it is also my duty, not something to be put on someone else (as you stated, that is very easily done). I apologize for doubting your intentions.

Be nice to your kids, they will choose the nursing home you end up in:D

AIn't that the truth!!!

It seems to me that most anyone who has ever received social welfare can find a way to justify why they should have it, deserve it, are more needy or had more bad luck than others, etc. Human nature causes each to think their reasons for failure are somehow special, unpreventable...and certainly no fault of their own. Some will blame it on the low minimum wage...yet do nothing to prepare themselves to earn a higher one. The problem with social welfare is that it breeds a total lack of responsibility for one's actions by rewarding bad behavior. Liberals will never stop pushing social welfare because that is pretty much the only way they can get a significant number of votes...to buy them.

Well, it isn't true. The majority of people who receive welfare receive it for less than 5 years. Those who receive it long term are generally entitled to it and need it.

A couple of points:

1) There are plenty of people receiving forms of welfare and assistance from the govt who work very hard at their jobs - much harder than I do. Hell, I'm lazy. I worked my ass off for 3 whole years in a big investment bank before deciding that life wasn't all about money. I now average way under 40 hours a week. Lucky me! I work much less hard than probably the majority of people receiving assistance who have jobs. I'm just lucky I'm smart and have received a good education.

2) You worked your ass off, and took risks, to get to where you are now. Would it be ok for someone who does that, then ends up needing welfare to get it?


I've posted this a number of times before, but your standard of living is directly related to the degree to which a welfare safety net is provided. To take that away would inevitably lead to a widened gap between the rich and the poor.

IMHO, that would suck. Ghettos for those who can't "succeed", fear of the ghetto for those in the middle. Geez, I'm starting to sound like Orwell.

(edit) Oh, and one more thing.

Dodging tax (Bryan - I want to make it totally clear I don't mean you with this statement, I mean generically those who dodge tax) is IMHO worse than welfare fraud. At least those defrauding welfare could usually do with the money.

How many of you conservative guys think welfare fraud is worse than tax fraud instead?

Fint:

Why are agricultural subsidies, or in fact the moral hazard implied by insurance (in a way) any different?

Subsidies are bad policy. The government decides which industries should succed or fail and not the marketplace. Insurance, on the other hand, is just good planning.