http://www.newsbatch.com/welfare.htm

This has a lot of interesting little tidbits on welfare.

Now, I know a large percentage of welfare is based on Medicaid, and it is mostly for a good cause:

But is what welfare really doing? Is it allowing those who messed up their lives to "get back on their feet," or is it wasting America's budget?

You all had seem them in high school. Kids who thought they were "too cool" to do homework, pay attention in class, etc, etc. Some of them may be living off your tax dollars now.

I am currently trying to find a source, but I read in a book "Chilren's Almanac for the 21st Century," that in a 1996 study, the government spend more money on welfare than education.

What does this mean? Are we ruining the lives of our children to fix the ones that willingly ruined theirs?

Comments would be appreciated.

__________________

If you aren't referring to Social Security disability benefits, which I know from meeting many poor people to be an absolute necessity, I think that there is one major reason welfare programs, referring to direct wealth transfers, must remain in tact: Single parenthood. Now, some might argue that single parents on welfare chose to be single parents. That is almost never the case. Usually there is an unexpected betrayal, a break up and a desertion. I know enough about human psychology to know that no amount of "personal responsibility" can anticipate such events. There are, no doubt, single fathers on welfare, but for the most part the problem is deadbeat fathers. If there were a more efficient way of tracking them down and making them provide financially for their ex-wives/girlfriends and their children, some welfare programs would probably be unnecessary.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Yes, this happens, and I apologize for ignoring that fact. Thank you for reminding me.

It would be nice, though, to see people get to know each other more before committing to love, or marriage, before something like what you said happens. But I doubt that to happen.

But honestly, if you are a single parent living on welfare, wouldn't it be more curteous to put your kid in a foster home and find him/her capable parents?
I am not necessarily supporting this, just wondering.

Comments?

__________________

I think they should do away with welfare. To many people are living off of it and are not disabled. Im not saying throw the disabled ones that cant work into the streets. Yes those people that HONESTLY cannot work should be taken care of... Unless it was self done like through drugs or that kind of nature. Atleast do a more thorough investigation into people that try to get on welfare. Now days when you think of welfare you think the people that are on it are the trashy, lazy, bastards that squander the money and just get a easy way out. That gives a bad name for the people that actually and honestly need it.

The End

you just read a opinion by Author: Kielbasa

What about impoverished single parents and their children?

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Read what i said. I said the ones that HONESTLY....HONESTLY cannot work, whether due to illness or impoverty...But i think they should only be taken care of untill they can gett back on their feet not for the rest of their life.

Is the trouble welfare? Or the welfare programs that we have? All bureaucratic creations become bloated and full of loopholes if not watched closely. It's true of welfare. It's true of intelligence. It's true of the military. I would suggest that welfare is overdue for an overhaul and reassessment. But let us not forget that welfare programs exist for a reason. We really as a society have two options: pay some amount to keep people who can't/don't work alive or let them die. Whether we have programs or not, this choice is made.
Without the organization of bureaucratic welfare, people are left on an individual basis to save their loved ones or let them die. Very few can choose the latter and those who would are of a highy questionable moral nature. But for a single person or family, especially if not well-off, taking care of another for whatever reason is excessively expensive. The result is choosing between getting your kids educational advancement or letting your parents or brother live. That is why in some countries, maany considered more socialist than our own, old people are left to die so that parents can feed their kids. Welfare is about destroying the need to make such a choice. Thus it is important for true meritocracy (for the people who would have to support the disabled, old, chronically unemployed, or even useless) and for maintaining moral integrity and unconditional love in the family unit.
The problem is found in determining who is worthy of welfare and then we run into the problem with all bureaucracy. Setting a single, consistent standard is tough. Obviously we take care of the disabled and the old. But what about chronically unemployed and children of impovered? They may not be as "worthy", but they are in need of some kind of help. But how do we determine who is chronically unemployed and why and what kind of help they need? It's tough. That's why we have the current overly-general system.
The ideal free market solution is an end to bureaucratic problems and the use of market forces to supply the most efficient, effective, and customized forms of welfare. But since welfare is a public good, there is no incentive to take up the burden.
So the solution lies somewhere in getting the private sector involved and creating incentive. Somehow the private sector must be able to collect as much as the public sector can, if not more without the inefficiencies of marketing. Furthermore competition as we know it in the market is an inefficiency for such a public good in that all money given to a failed charity is waste.
So what we need is a bureaucracy that's purpose is merely to act as the middle man- the center for charity. I would suggest that the central bureaucracy be run as a private corporation with funding from the government. The overhead would be researchers pinpointing where needs were and studying charities to find the package most deserving of investment. The corporation would collect donations privately and get funding from the government.
And here's another idea. To encourage giving to the corporation, we make a tax form. Taxpayers can give out of their return, and subject to the same deduction rules as other charitable donations, any amount to the corporation. And while general funding for the corporation is distributed by bureaucrats, the taxpayer can check off the kind or scope of service he/she wishes the donation to go to (ie. kind:family services or skills training, scope: local, national, or international). A limited power of the purse for taxpayers willing to give a little more.
Probabl some flaws. After all I doubt this system will be implanted. But I think the cost of a corporation using skilled researchers would be less than the waste of charity competition, charity redundancy, and charity marketing.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Pick most important:

Welfare or Education

US picked welfare.

__________________

I think that some welfare money would be better spent as education money. I think the two are interrelated. Once again the problem is how we apply welfare. I think many who receive welfare would do better receiving educational welfare. Also more education would theoretically cut the necessary welfare (only up to a point).

Speaking of education, aren't you suupposed to be working on a project? Slacker!

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Amen to that! More budget is spent on welfare than education, which I think is morally isane. Wasting good money for the futures of others to pay for those who mostly likely willingly destroyed their lives.

As for this comment:

I am only looking up to you, Java.

Besides, education isn't important. I am wasting my life so I can live on welfare.

__________________