- This topic has 4 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
Saw this today that claims there are a record number of homeless people in NYC. With the economy in the shape it is I can believe that but what jumped out at me was a comment buried in the last paragraph. They are interviewing a homeless woman who works but cannot afford rent, this is the advice she says she was given:
Miles said she was advised by some agencies to quit her job and go on welfare. She said she does not want to set that example for the children.
I applaud this woman for wanting to make it on her own and am appalled that she would be advised to quit her job to qualify for benefits. As far as I am concerned this woman who is working deserves more help from the state than anyone who chooses not to work. I am very curious as to what “agencies” would advise someone to quit their job, are these government agencies or community groups like the much derided ACORN? I sincerely hope this woman manages to work it out so that she can have a home without giving up her dignity, her comments reflect the bootstrap mentality that once made America great.The story is here: Group: Record Numbers Of Homeless In NYC
That is interesting. I could understand an agency saying that the woman should seek welfare if she is making a borderline salary and trying to feed children, but to simply go on welfare in lieu of working? It amazed me how much assistance some people can get from the state. A psychologist I know has told me that the poor people she has counseled sometimes have a higher income through welfare than she makes doing her clinical work.
We like to say that America is not a welfare state but in many ways it is. My problem with welfare is not that people get it, it is that people get it and then have no further incentive to better themselves and instead become resigned to their fate because they get by OK on welfare. Welfare should be kind of like prison, you can survive but not live decently, that provides an incentive to find a job. There should also be some kind of deal where welfare payments phase out after a recipient re-enters the workforce but they don't stop automatically.I was just shocked that an agency would counsel someone to quit working. Apparently America is not the country I thought it was. That is advice I would expect a European to get, not an American.
For welfare there should be a strict time limit, drug testing, and working for free (like trash pickup or whatnot)
I would go so far as to say there should be no welfare. But that is the strong Libertarian streak in me coming out. I am politically conflicted, i think the libertarians are right on most issues except for foriegn policy. I am not fundamentally opposed to welfare, I just think there needs to be something more to it than just money payments. As it stands welfare is a disincentive to work as this story demonstrates by the “advice” this woman was given.
Oregon used to (perhaps still does) have a workfare program that was designed to get people trained up and into jobs. It had many strong points but one big weakness… so many were second or third generation recipients with no work ethic. In an NPR interview I heard, years ago, on trainer had to supply and teach the use of an alarm clock to an adult!While some of the homeless today have mental or physical limitations that would make them, potentially, less able to benefit from such a program (my community has a % that when interviewed on TV News indicated they are homeless by choice) many are victims of the economic times and just need a hand. If the help is given correctly, they and society benefit.Too bad we can't find that middle ground rather than the one size fits all that perpetuates the current handouts to the professional recipients.
Too bad we can't find that middle ground rather than the one size fits all that perpetuates the current handouts to the professional recipients.
That middle ground is what I would like to see. It is probably unreachable because many of the people that have government social service jobs are crusaders and have a lack of common sense. I know I see it all the time in the army and it has to be just as bad if not worse in non-uniformed service, at least the military is halfway efficient.
... probably unreachable because many of the people that have government social service jobs are crusaders and...
...are graduates of the system; seems most of the people I talked to at the Welfare office when I worked with county governmnets were former clients... the system paid for their education and they majored in social welfare. Logical, no?
I think there might be five problem areas with welfare. The traditional rationale for having the government be in charge of welfare may be that private entities do not have the incentive, resources, or capabilities to tackle the problem altogether. The other edge of the sword, however, is that the government doesn't have the same incentive to reduce the number of people on welfare, and it doesn't address the problem with a good amount of efficiency.To tackle welfare well, you pretty much have to take into address all five of these issues. Welfare is a unique social problem in that we as a people have a moral duty to help those in need by providing the service, but at the same time we want to reduce the number of people who receive it (because this would mean there are fewer poor people in need of it).I recall reading something Justice Scalia said once - paraphrasing here - something about how all government welfare is bad in the sense that it removes the ability for private citizens to be virtuous. I think that is true in the sense that the government giving a handout is not the same as a citizen giving a handout. I thought that was an interesting, though less-discussed, angle to this whole debate.
I recall reading something Justice Scalia said once – paraphrasing here – something about how all government welfare is bad in the sense that it removes the ability for private citizens to be virtuous. I think that is true in the sense that the government giving a handout is not the same as a citizen giving a handout. I thought that was an interesting, though less-discussed, angle to this whole debate.
Thanks for bringing this up.I agree that there is a crucial difference between public and private assistance. I give to charity because I think it is the right thing to do. Government handouts are essentially paid for by extortion, I have to pay taxes or I go to jail. Therefore I am left paying for programs I deem unnecessary or wasteful, by the same token the amount I can give to charity is reduced by the amount of my individual tax burden. In short, I am left able to pay less to programs I support by being forced to pay for programs I do not.I have advocated getting rid of the income tax for years. That alone would do much to curb the size of government. No income tax would mean Congress could not keep coming back to the trough to refill their money-bucket for every feel-good and pork project they can think of.
