What, me Welfare?

MD: You're right. That quote makes it seem like I believe government should attempt to cure all the ills in society. I believe they should help where they can. It is their responsiblity to promote the general welfare. If they aren't going to do that then what the hell are we paying them for.

TC: Being a mother is a full time job (or so I'm told). It would help if we had the kind of country where everybody took responsibility for their own condition, and if man followed God maybe we wouldn't need welfare. But, he doesn't and we do.

Dreamstone and Researcher: I'll ask this question again because no one really answered it, what would you do with the old, disabled, and needy after you ended these social programs? You would have millions of people with no jobs--some unable to work--unable to get medication--unable to feed their children--unable to find jobs in this jobless recovery, and unable to afford training and education. How would you tackle this new drain on our economy and the middle class?

I'd turn them into soylent green. Seriously.

I don't particularily like social security, but in some cases it is needed, such as in the cases you mentioned above. 50% of all Americans today don't have savings, they live paycheck to paycheck. The damage that they are going to do on programs like social security is going to be titanic. This is why these programs aren't viable in the real world. Social security already pays an average of $500 a month. Its going to drop far below that. There is no easy solution to this, but it is clear social programs aren't helping

I think it's clear to you, dreamstone, but I believe they are helping. Here's an example: You have medicare and social security benefits that go to support seniors in nursing facilities. They wouldn't be able to afford the cost of being cared for without it. This also supports a whole sector in our economy. If you suddenly remove medicare and social security from this equation you will have millions of failed facilities and massive job loss in that sector. Going even further, you would have elderly forced to live off of their children which would put a drain on the middle class buying power...the things you support aren't realistic. They would send a ripple affect through every sector from nursing to retail.

Sure, we need to get the drug addicts and drunks off of social security before the baby boomers start drawing checks...but I have yet to hear a way of completely ending these programs without causing major damage to our economy.



[Edited on 12-11-2003 by Saphronia]

If you'll note...I *never* said that those programs should be ended--Cut off totally. What we need is to reform them back into a less-regulated, but *efficiently* regulated system that's designed to get the "bums" back to work or off the taxpayers' backs. However, we can't merely give up totally on those who seriously *can't* help themselves either. We need stricter controls on the programs to ensure that those who truly need the help get it while denying it to those who truly *don't* need it.

This is more of a middle ground (but an *efficient* middle ground) between the two extreme viewpoints that don't solve anything.


[Edited on 13-11-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

"Researcher: I'll ask this question again because no one really answered it, what would you do with the old, disabled, and needy after you ended these social programs?"

If you can't solve the problem, change the problem. The topic of the thread is WELFARE, AKA AFDC - Aid For Dumb C---make that, Cows. Not Medicaid, social security or "these social programs?"

In my personal experience, welfare recipients are not needy. They're lazy. I have worked every day since high school graduation. These leeches either graduated high school, or chose not to. Either way, their lifestyle is the result of their choices, and my lifestyle is the result of my choices.

You leave me at a loss Researcher, because I can't answer your prejudices and generalizations. These things are fixed in your mind, and it would be like banging my head against a wall to try to get you to see the error in judging the whole program by a few you've come in contact with and I think you even admit that the program worked for you sisters.

I'll just point to my previous statements, since the 1996 welfare reform act the rolls have seen double digit decreases on both sides--those signing up for TANF and those leaving TANF for soild employment. Since 1996 the number of children recieving TANF has been cut in half.

I'll put those numbers up against your personal experiences any day.

I made my point above unclear. We need to find an alternative to social security and we need to find it soon. There is a literal economic disaster on the way, and no matter how much we pump into social security, its not going to change anything. Baby boomers and present retirees all on the same social security check? Its absolutely ludicrous. There is not enough money in social security to stretch that far. Unless social security taxes are bumped up dramatically, Social Security will soon be even less than the pittance it is today, and everybody will suffer then. That economic sector you mentioned earlier will be totally wiped out, along with government savings. The only real way to avoid this is imposssible at this point, we allowed these programs to exist for far to long, they are not the temporary programs of the 30's they are permanent programs that are structured like temporary ones. We are running out of money, and where does this money go? Out of the country, whether by trade or drugs. An alternative must be found, but in the meantime I advise all ATS members,
!!!Put half of your paycheck in savings or you will be screwed come 65!!! (Or 70, since that is what the new retirement age may be bumped to)

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
So Ivan, does that blanket-statement also cover the *millions of extra people made jobless* since Bush jumped into the driver's chair? The very same people who *used to be capable of paying that money to the government* from their paychecks before then?

Welfare should have stayed in it's originally intended form...A *temporary* help so that people screwed over by politicians like Bush have a chance to get back up on their feet after he's knocked them down.

ive never had a democrate, communist, socialist, get me a job.....

there are poor people in a capitalist society. some of you are sugessting that there should be no poor people. that equals communism. socialism to a lesser extent.

I'd also like a loudmouth liberal to address my point, I'd like to hear how putting gas on a fire can put it out.

The start of the econy's decline began in the Clinton Era, when he made stocks grow higher through that classic liberal methos, hot air.