I beleive when it was originated, the massive welfare orginization was not yet in existance.

Another consideration, not a deal breaker but a consideration, is the impact this would have on the economy. One of the balances that has needed to be struck in my state is the type and volume of work that should be done by prison inmates. Our prison system could pay them $0.01 per hour, and have them working asbestos abatement contracts all over the state. That would eliminate private asbestos abatement contractors.

A program that builds 650,000 miles of roads, 78,000 bridges, 125,000 buildings, and seven hundred miles of airport runways would be doing hundreds of billions of dollars of commercial business that would otherwise be done by local general contractors, using law-abiding citizens who also have children and those construction workers' private-sector construction wages (attractive) would be lost to the economy.

Yeah, we could do what Moses says, and we're all for accountability and work in exchange for assistance, but what size would gubmint be if all the unlucky and lazy folks worked under these programs? And what impact would that have on our economies? You guys normally argue that the red-hot furnace of private enterprize is what keeps taxes DOWN and ingenuity up and causes sin and misfortune to disappear and leads to wealth and prosperity for everyone. Here you are talking about hosing that fire.

Work would be MANDATORY for those requiring public assistance. There is NO PAYCHECK! The work is compensation for the public aid received. Got it?

Labor intensive work that we cannot otherwise afford to do could be done. In depressed areas of the inner city, graffitti can be painted over, trees can be planted. Business owners could repaint/repair shops in depressed area with WPA work. For those with the aptitude, daycare centers can be staffed for poor working women. Litter can be cleared. Not all WPA projects compete with private enterprise. In my opinion, the economic and social gains far outweigh the continued cost of doing "business as usual".

SoCal: LOL!! That was a priceless post man...made my day.:D

I agree with the Moses plan. Totally dismantle welfare and recognize it for the massive social disaster that it is. I cannot fathom how people continue to support a program that encourages people to not work, have multiple children which they likely cannot care for, bonuses if the father has left the house, and penalties for working a minimum wage job.

There are all sorts of things that the WPA workers could be doing, here's a thought...how about the jobs that are currently being done by illegal immigrants??:eek:

Seems like a match made in heaven to me, take out the demand for illegal immigrants by providing low cost workers to employers to do a trade whether it be construction, farming, metalworking, etc. and provide a tradeskill learning venue for those who have no tradeskills.

I think that although Steve has stepped into a bit of a hornet's nest with the genetics comments (which I am sure he doesn't REALLY mean), he still is embodying the "prototypical" liberal in that people who do not succeed are not at fault in his mind, they were dealt a bad hand or society didn't support them enough. It's all back to the victim culture where you don't have any responsibility for your own future because the cards are stacked against you.

I keep waiting for a liberal to realize that the very programs that they espouse and think help the poor in fact perpetuate their poverty and assure their persistence in the lower class income bracket.

You seem to have very little tolerance for "details," and since we are talking about details, I'll guess just drop it. You want anyone that receives any kind of assistance to work for it.

I want a car that handles well, is a fast as my Porsche, and costs less.

I "got" both of those things, but I'll need a few details to make either of them a reality.

SoCal is clearly not having the same discussion that everyone else is having. If I say my two daughters are very different from each other, is he going to hit the CAP LOCK KEY and shout about how absurd it is to conclude that females are genetically predisposed to being different?

Get off whatever accusation is clouding your remarks, or at least perhaps ask a question or two about it. Your remarks seem to have something to do with class warfare or something, I can't quite figure out what it is. Everyone else seems to be simply making the observation that folks' destinies seem to be tied in to their innate predispositions (genetics, having nothing to do with race or class warfare or anything else except randomness) combined with what their environment teaches them.

BTW, if it were that simple, don't you think poverty in America would be non-existent? You think we have a welfare system that doesn't work because people actually want it that way? Or because they are too dumb to "get" your three-sentence solution to a problem that has perplexed us for decades?

No wonder there is such a gap between libs and conservatives ... if I truly believed the issue of welfare was so easy to solve, I'd be frustrated too!

I believe the WPA was around during a time that, as one person mentioned, was before the "welfare" system. It was also before unemployment payments for the unemployed.

Perhaps irrelevant to this debate:
My great uncle was one of the unemployed millions in depression-era America. He went to work in the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) which was one of the WPA programs. While in the CCC, he received education and wages - both of which he needed. Nearly 75% of his money went to help support his family. When WWII came along, he became a decorated paratrooper in the European theater.

Personally, I applaud those who would abolish our current welfare system. I would support a "work-fare" system. I think it's a very simple choice to make: If you work, you get paid. You may even learn some new skills to help you in your life. If you don't want to work, then nobodys going to force you... but you aren't going to get paid to sit on your ass. I really see no constitutional infringement or inhumanity in a policy such as that. I do see hand-out programs as a socially disabling policy.

And that's really the point. The money spent on welfare is trivial compared to the social devastation that it brings.

How about this. The old guy at Kragen is working there because he is bored. He does not need the money, because he worked from the time he was 14 until he was 60 for the same company, and makes more now than he did when he was working. He has no bills, because he was frugal and did not live beyond his means, paid his house and vehicles off and is set for life. This describes my father-in-law, a hardcore southern democrat, who is as conservative as my ex-wife is fat and lazy.

It is impossible to differentiate those unable to work from those that are unwilling. I like all the WPA and CCC ideas. If I am feeding, housing and dressing them, they should at least pick up some trash by the side of the road.

Just to stir the pot a bit. While I agree that there are individuals more capable than others, I would not agree that even a below average person is incapable of supporting themself. Even if they are not too bright, or physically gifted, most are able to work. It is not a coincidence that hardworking people are lucky enough to be financially successful.

A conservative will tell someone, I know you can do better, I want to make you better able to take care of yourself.

A liberal will say, you are doing the best you are able to do, here is a check.

Schizophrenia. If you accept the original premise, everything that follows makes perfect sense. If you can accept that we are being monitored by aliens, the tin foil hat and searching for signals on a broken transistor radio seems kind of reasonable.

In a similar way, if you accept a fundamental tenet of liberalism; That most people cannot be expected to take care of themselves, then all the social projects make perfect sense. We need welfare. We need rehab on request. We need counselling. We need limitless support. It all makes sense.

Rick,
No, I meant the genetices, traits distribuiton remarks.
I just leave it open that they may have had traits which did not enable them to succeed, but I do not presume that is the case for all. To say it isn't so, defies logic. How can you have great successes on one side because of innate traits and then truncate the distribution curve on the other side?

My thrust was to perhaps alter one's view on such a person. You seem to display the view that everyone can make it, it's all up to them. You know that is not possible.

On current programs, yes, they have dimished the innate trait to be self sufficient and that is wrong. It is not good to have families on welfare continually and onto the next generation.

Huh...well I would argue that YES, it is possible for ANYONE to make it in this country. I mean that. Anyone. There are plenty of examples if you open your eyes.

There is a bell shaped curve in this country, but I argue that the curve measures hard work and determination, not some sort of genetic ability or lack thereof. Those who succeed work their butts of for it, those who sit on those collective butts never get anywhere.

Not only that, I would argue that it is demeaning and downright supressive to suggest that the poor in this country can never make it no matter how hard they try. That kind of thinking creates a permanent lower class with no incentive to try and succeed at all. Perhaps that is what the Democrats really want...a never ending voter base. To hell with the actual people, they're genetically inferior anyways.

Wow. That is one warped view of liberalism. I don't think you would find a single liberal that would agree with that "fundamental tenet of liberalism."

No wonder you are angry. You think the people on the other side of the aisle are blithering idiots. Wow.

I agreed with your basic premise that people capable of working should work as a condition of government assistance, yet you were not interested or capable of discussing how that principle could be implemented. Now I know why.

You were asking for a detailed blueprint which I haven't the time or inclination to provide.

When you said, "I agreed with your basic premise that people capable of working should work as a condition of government assistance." That was good enough for me. In essence, we agree. I am happy to let folks brighter than me work out the details.

And for the record, I am neither angry nor conservative. By every objective measure I am a liberal/libertarian. In the same way that many Republicans have betrayed the principles of financial conservatism, many Democrats have abandoned the principles of common sense when discussing welfare reform.

Rick, I suggest you have made the protoypical conservative reponse.
Given your assumptions, your concusions are correct.

Socal, if that's all your reading here, then that's all you'll find.

Steve, which assumptions have I made that you have not specifically stated in this thread?

Jeez Steve, the only responses to any opposing views you're giving basically say:

"yep, just what a Republican would believe"

You neither defend or reinforce your point. You're neither deep nor intellectually superior.

Quite trollish, I dare say.

I hate liberals and conservatives, both of them lie, cheat, and steal.