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...