What is Assistance for the Poor?

[DragonStryk72]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/255483_10151228105010390_997965019_n.jpg

Okay, so my brother posted this on facebook. Now, the premise here's a bit interesting, in that the wording of the question very deeply skewed the responses. However, by and large, it comes down to the idea that the two questions are asking different things. Welfare has become synonymous with our Welfare system, a broken down machine that the government refuses to revamp despite many levels of abuse, and being decades out of date for our needs.

But then, the welfare system was never supposed to be permanent in the first place. It was an emergency measure to help us through the Depression, and people on both sides harp on whether it was a good or bad decision, but that's not the point of the discussion here. That system was started back before computers were common use, before online income was even a thought, and before it was simply assumed that we would all go to college, to say nothing of the growth of the credit industry.

So, while I don't doubt the veracity of the numbers presented here, I do see it as being separate issues. Of course people want to help the poor, but they don't want to spend money supporting a system that clearly hasn't really been working for some time, and that is being rabidly abused across the country.

[logroller]

Perhaps a definition of welfare and assistance for the poor should be provided with the question, because I actually think more should be done for the welfare of our people, poor or not. For example, subsidizing technology, water, food, education etc-- all good things dor the general welfare, but why should that be poor-focused? That's like giving the weakest player the ball in an effort to improve team performance. I suppose I could ask a similarly dichotomy by comparing, "should we do good?" And "should we do things that make us feel good?" I think the 2008 elections would reflect the results.

[Kathianne]

Perhaps a definition of welfare and assistance for the poor should be provided with the question, because I actually think more should be done for the welfare of our people, poor or not. For example, subsidizing technology, water, food, education etc-- all good things dor the general welfare, but why should that be poor-focused? That's like giving the weakest player the ball in an effort to improve team performance. I suppose I could ask a similarly dichotomy by comparing, "should we do good?" And "should we do things that make us feel good?" I think the 2008 elections would reflect the results.

When it comes to welfare, I think of a cycle of poverty, something I'd wish on no one. Assistance to the poor is what most think of as a temporary 'fix' in some area of need: housing, food, clothing.

Healthy humans 'want to do good,' imo, it 'feels good.' Giving $$$ to the government is not 'doing good,' it's compulsory with draconian penalties if caught not complying with. I'm not saying taxes aren't necessary, just not 'doing good.'

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Right now the poor need jobs. Right now the about to be poor need jobs. Right now the middle class need jobs! Right now America needs jobs! Where is that promised lazer focus on jobs from obama? Thats right --NOTHING-- is more important than him getting ANOTHER THEM TO FINISH THE DESTRUCTION.-Tyr

[fj1200]

Perhaps a definition of welfare and assistance for the poor should be provided with the question, because I actually think more should be done for the welfare of our people, poor or not. For example, subsidizing technology, water, food, education etc-- all good things dor the general welfare, but why should that be poor-focused? That's like giving the weakest player the ball in an effort to improve team performance. I suppose I could ask a similarly dichotomy by comparing, "should we do good?" And "should we do things that make us feel good?" I think the 2008 elections would reflect the results.

Because we don't give things to people that can otherwise take care of themselves. Your premise that subsidization is a good thing for the general welfare is false IMO; it skews the outcome of what it would be otherwise. If we subsidize water then water will be wasted, if we subsidize higher education then we subsidize an inefficient organization centered around higher education. We subsidize loans to go to college and then we're shocked when graduates enter the job market with a lot of debt. Either you think the outcome will be better without subsidization, i.e. free market solution, or you think that someone/some group is capable of creating a superior outcome; I see little evidence of the latter.

[tailfins]

Perhaps a definition of welfare and assistance for the poor should be provided with the question, because I actually think more should be done for the welfare of our people, poor or not. For example, subsidizing technology, water, food, education etc-- all good things dor the general welfare, but why should that be poor-focused? That's like giving the weakest player the ball in an effort to improve team performance. I suppose I could ask a similarly dichotomy by comparing, "should we do good?" And "should we do things that make us feel good?" I think the 2008 elections would reflect the results.

You must be fairly young. Welfare is the old term for the TANF program. Here is an illustration of the old meaning of the term:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmwOWmd7c98&feature=related

It's amazing how the lyrics about Lyndon Johnson apply to Obama.

[DragonStryk72]

Right now the poor need jobs. Right now the about to be poor need jobs. Right now the middle class need jobs! Right now America needs jobs!

Problem is, the current welfare system is against you getting a job and getting off the system. Having been on Food stamps myself for a time, I watched people knowingly game the system for years, and nothing bad happened to them for it, even when the workers knew it was going on. Meanwhile, I watch person after person who is really hard up and trying, get screwed over, cause they got a part-time job at McDonalds, and it was at least something. Well, apparently, you can feed a wife and three kids on that money, cause that can get you immediately kicked from the program. Way to go on actually obtaining work, as a reward, we'll destroy you financially. Oh sir, I'm so sorry you failed your 50th job interview in a row, when you keep leasting almost no availability, and show up in baggy jeans and a t-shirt to the interview.