I don't think there has actually been a entire thread ever devoted to welfare and i took a break a while ago and cant find the thread i was arguing about it on before, so i decided to make this one.

Now for the words that seem to irritate every con on the forum. Welfare works!

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

As a concept, I agree with it. I think the real question is about implimentation and where we draw the lines. It can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how it is done. I suppose this makes it comparable to just about everything else.

Maybe you could help draw the lines for us regarding the welfare you support and where you think it does not work.

Also, while we are at it, what do you guys think of the Republican Party's corporate wellfare schemes that are giving away hundreds of billions to not so needy corporate interests.

FYI The Medicare Reform Bill gives me all the ammo I need for my point on corporate welfare in case anyone wants to rumble.

I'm my opinion welfare should be less than minimum wage, but still a significant amount. Easily enough to live off. It should be increased if supporting a family relative to the size of it. There is always going be who don't want a job living off the dole but i don't see another way to provide a life line to those genuinely looking for a job. If there is another way, ill be happy listen.

Providing the moneys going into strengthening business's and not to shareholders i like the sound of it. Sounds like the rebirth of Keynism. But I'm not that familiar with corporate welfare and as the republicans are using it its probably bad. Could you explain more about it to me?

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Nice reply DanM...the secret to making it work, is making sure it is not abused. How they go about doing something like this, is way above my head. All I know is that they need to investigate further who is getting it and why. One thing I feel might be of use here, is forcing people who can work, to work. They shouldn't just say, ok, you got the signature that you were looking for work, and here is your check. The system needs revamping, and I'm sure Bush is right on top of this issue...(sarcasm in case you can't tell)

The corporate welfare I described was a matter of the government giving money away to corporate interests because they were able to buy political influence. No constructive process at all.

Regarding individual wellfare, I think it should bridge a gap, but not be a permanent choice. For example, I have no problem with assistance for people who are going to school so they can earn a living and provide for their families. Of course safeguards should be in place to make sure it is not abused, but this could go a long ways towards retraining our workforce for more economically viable jobs. Maybe a steelworker could retrain to be a nurse or a textile worker could retrain to be an electrician? If they could be given some help with living costs while they retrain, then it becomes a much more viable option for people with families and it helps the economy by providing the workers it needs in the areas it needs.

If a person does not wish to go to school, then I believe there should be some form of public works tied to receipt of welfare. I am a little fuzzy on the details, but I think people should work for what they receive if they are physically able.

Forcing to people to work it usually unsuccessful. Mainly because all you are doing is finding a job for them and there are already civil servants doing that. You have to remember the reason they can't get a job is because there are none available at the time. You fill jobs up with people who don't want to work they won't put any effort in and will eventually get fired. That job could have gone to someone looking to find work and would have given that job there all.

Margret Thatcher tried to decrease unemployment by slashing the dole. It didn't work. All it succeeded in doing was given those on the dole a harder life.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

When they don't put the effort in, and eventually get fired, they should be taken off the list. They should know going into this, that if they lose their job, they are on their own, unless they become disabled. Simple as that, no more money, no more assistance...this gets rid of people who don't care, and only want to live off the system and leaves more money for those who actually want to use it UNTIL THEY FIND A JOB!!! It should only be an emergency fund for those in between jobs.

If someone is doing a work program for wellfare, then of course you let them off to do job interviews. Otherwise, they should be helping out the government that gives them money. It could be working on a road crew or picking up trash on the side of the road or whatever. I just think its better for everyone if the person gives something back in exchange for what they are being given.

Remember, this only applies to people who do not want to retrain for more marketable job skills. Not everyone who applies for wellfare.

In my eyes, welfare can be a God send to alot of people. There are many, many success stories. But there are many, many abuses of the system as well. I think that it would be far to say that no matter how perfect a sytem that we would try to put in place for welfare, there would be those who figure out how to abuse it. With that said, if a person need welfare and doesn't work, fine, give them help. If after a certain amount of time, they do not find their own employment, then they will have to do things such as pick up trash on the side of the road, or other public works jobs that people don't enjoy, in order to continue ot collect welfare. You want to motivate people off of welfare? Make them clean public bathrooms for a while and see how long it is before they become self-motivated.

-Demosthenes

__________________
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

You are saying exactly what I am thinking. Only you articulate it much better. Thanks.