The country really needs to overhaul welfare. We need to go back to the days where welfare money went to the very old, the very young, and the infirm. Not a dime should go the the lazy drones that wont work, or criminal invaders.
Apparently you've never heard of James J Braddock....far from lazy yet had to rely on welfare for a short time. Point being that there are people who just need a helping hand to get back up on their feet. What about a mother of three kids who is unexpectedly widowed and has been out of the workforce for several years and now has to get a job? A person in this situation usually isn't able to command a huge salary and therefore might need some help at the beginning. In your scenario, a person like this wouldn't qualify for help because she would be neither old, young or infirm. That doesn't seem right to me. Unfortunately no matter what system we have there will always be scumbags who are lazy and milk the system. But I don't think we should shut off that mother of three kids just because of scumbags. At least in my opinion.
If that is the way you see things...it certainly is your right. For me, I prefer: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
We need welfare reform We need for people to understand that federal government should not engage in social programs at all.
Not sure if you are joking or being serious. If you are serious, who determines each individual's ability and who determines each individual's needs?
I'm serious as a heart attack. We can all do it jointly. But...at very least, if you are in need of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, educational opportunity,..it should be available. No need for people ever to be in need of any of those things.
So there will still be lots of lazy drones getting help from welfare even in your system. See, no system is perfect : )
Question...for you and the ones who think the way you do on this issue: Forcing lazy, incompetent people to work in order to "earn a living" almost always ends up with diminished productivity. Not only do lazy, incompetent people NOT carry their weight, they often decrease the ability of others working near them to maximize theirs. We actually end up with less by forcing those people to participate in production. So...if that were shown to be true (and I think it can be)...would you folk prefer that they be forced to dig holes and fill them in for five days each week (worthless work just for the sake of work)... ...or simply eliminate them by some means or another?
All true and as for ""there will always be scumbags who are lazy and milk the system" that would include the wealthy,too
Some of the wealthy, like SOME of the poor milk the system....don't pay their fair share of taxes, cheat/bribe/money launder their way into college...some of the wealthy are lazy, like SOME of the poor are lazy.... Just pointing out that the poor are not the only flawed humans...
The issue isn't about "flawed humans". It is about people who choose not to work and collect welfare.
You missed the point. The issue is lazy people not working and collecting. The thread isn't about the different types of "flaws" of people from all different income levels. If you want to talk about that feel free to start a thread.
What is the percentage of welfare recipients who are like the woman in your story compared to the lazy ones sucking the system? Considering we all suffer from the cost of welfare by the fact that we are pouring money into it at the expense of not paying for other things that benefit society I believe those numbers should be evaluated. We may have to consider cutting off those few that truly deserve it. The whole nation shouldn't have to bleed for a few individuals.
If they bring their laziness to a job they will quickly find themselves out of a job with no way to pay to sustain themselves. Then they will simply become homeless. That is their choice and not the nations responsibility.
What about determining each individual's ability to provide for the collective? Would this be solely economic, as in if a person produces a lot of wealth, then he must donate the majority of that wealth to the collective and only keep what he himself "needs" with thos needs being determined by society? Or would we monitor the academic and physical development of youngsters and then, say, when they turn 16 years old, we direct them into training institutions and careers that we deem would best profit the collective? In other words, the collective would determine who is a doctor, and who is a garbage collector, and who just gets to sit on the couch?
No matter how good the initial intention was after awhile the system gets gamed by con artists and falls apart...
The US already obsesses over efficiency in its welfare system (ie ensuring the dollar goes to the genuinely poor). Its bad, however, at effectiveness (ie ensuring the dollar reduces poverty intensity). Weird set-up if you ask me. Take so called scrounging where welfare discourages work. This is a small fry problem compared to, for example, tax evasion.
No. I've never even been to the doctor. You are referring to a previous discussion where I said I could be covered under our states system if I ever needed it but I haven't even signed up for that. It exists but I have never used it. So far all I have done is pay state taxes to support it for other people.