nuttyjoe

I don't think welfare should be abolished; just re-defined. When a man whom has worked for twenty years at one factory loses his job due to circumstances beyond their control (outsourcing, factory closing, or anything else) is he not elgible for help from our society? Is this really a bad thing?
What I meant by re-defining welfare was that we need to scrutinize more carefully the recipients and applicants for these programs. The programs themselves also need to be clearly defined. Perhaps putting time limits on such programs might push more to get off of them, and stop looking to live off of them.
I actually read a post on another thread awhile back (I can't remember who posted it) that stated "Welfare should be a hand up; not a hand out"! I agree with this entirely.
PN; I'm actually surprised at your post. While you were over in Iraq; were you totally oblivious of the many American wounded (some seriously; and some who will be disabled for life? Many of these brave soldiers were not "lifers". They were doing a "short stint" for a couple of years in the military. They will not have lifetime government benefits. Should we just let them die off (your words)? Do we not owe them for their service?

fxashun

If I have lifetime benefits, I don't see how they aren't giving 100% disability to some of the other gruesome injuries I've seen coming from over there.

__________________
I'm politically correct, handsome, intelligent, and modest.

nuttyjoe

Your situation just might be different than everyone else's, FX. The other day on CNN; I was watching a piece that dealt on veterans and whom they would support in the upcoming Pennslyvania primary. Some of these men admitted that they lived in shelters because they were homeless.
We don't owe these people something?
I agree with wanting to get out of a ghetto. I don't believe anyone consciously chooses to want to live there. But, that want has to extend to doing what is necessary to keep themselves from getting in there, and also doing what is necessary to get out if they are already there.
But I'm a realist in that I know we can't solve every problem for everybody. I'm sure with true effort, some of us might find that getting out is not easy; (as FX said) but it is possible (and preferable); and I think any such programs need to be structured along the lines of "helping" instead of "doing for".
There is an old saying about "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life. Lately, there seems to be entirely too many whom have added another line to that old saying: "Why should I learn to fish if I'm going to get it for free"?
That's what really bugs me.

waitingtables

I agree, nutty. When a system pays you to do nothing, and punishes you for trying, something is wrong. It needs to be a hand up, not a hand out.

nuttyjoe

I have a feeling that most people share our view, WT. Now, just as soon as America can start re-defining "welfare" into "socio-economic assistance to give those in need some helping hands up, and stop giving entirely too many handouts; we can fix the system.

pensacola_niceman

You know goddamn good and well I wasn't referring to soldiers wounded in battle. The government does take care of them; however, I know that there is room for improvement in that area. That's a discussion for another thread.

I believe most of us who lose their jobs to outsourcing (or whatever reason) are eligible for unemployment compensation, so that's a bad example. Employers are required by law to provide unemployment insurance, so it's not even a government handout.

Workman's comp covers those injured on the job.

The ones I was referring to as "dying out" would be those who are permanent welfare recipients with very little or no incentive for ever getting a job. Many of these people supplement their income by having more babies and committing crimes (such as selling drugs).

Catus Felidae

A lot of the problem with the system, is the system itself. In the past two years I have known two people, both white women, who were bilking social security disability. One clamied a 'bad back' that would not allow her to stand at a job, or sit at a job. However, she was able to sit at her home computer all day doing geneology research, and didn't seem to interfere with anything else she wanted to do. The other was recieving benefits for being blind, but had a valid drivers license and worked part time as a waitress.

Both were finally caught, but only after someone complained.

A few more checks in the system would save a boatload of money.

__________________
Bother not the cat. For they are sneaky and will piss on thy keyboard.

fxashun

Yup, it's them damn white women....shoulda known.

__________________
I'm politically correct, handsome, intelligent, and modest.

pensacola_niceman

White people are more adept at bilking social security. Black people are better at collecting welfare.

Katczinsky

According to TANF stats, white and black recipients both receive around the same with blacks receiving a little more. Keep in mind however that blacks make up less than 13% of the population. These two facts are indicative only that the poor are disproportionately black and vice versa. The insinuation that the mere collection of welfare by blacks is equivalent to "bilking social security" is unsubstantiated and borrows from a racist perspective that has been prevalent in privileged white America for some time now. Perhaps if the whites were the ones being exploited and blacks had the monopoly on privilege and the means of production, white America would be more accepting of the idea of welfare. Abuse of the system is the exception and not the rule.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72