Peach_follows

Well let me start out by saying, I have 2 children and am on welfare....

Now, Im not proud to have to be so needy. But, it seems to be my only means of survival. I always seem to be working through crisis' or horrible depressions (for VERY good reason) that make it difficult for me to find work.

Recently I ran into someone who was very belittling of people on welfare. Infact he made it into a racial issue (which I know is total non-sense). The whole conversation left me feeling low, embarrased, and like an utter statistic.

So heres my question: What do you think about the welfare system and people who use it?

Do you think its unfair that some people work hard, while others depend on gvernment assistance?

Do you think lower of people who take advantage of the system, and tax payers money?

Or do you think that its ok for people to use the help if they really need it?

__________________

Who needs a spray can, when you're a femmebot?
http://www.myspace.com/j1gg481tt

NevesElocin

To answer your first question, no I don't think its fair. No one should have to work hard while another person benefits from their work while they get next to nothing for it.

But on the other hand I don't think any less of people who accept the help if they really need it. I only think lower of the people who are not trying to improve their overall condidtion.

But as far as government assistance goes its fine in my eyes, just don't abuse it.

__________________

My love for you only grows with time...I want to create something beautiful with you.

Chubz

I wouldn't say that those who are on welfare don't work hard, though there are people who do take welfare payment when they don't actually need it. Recently, there was a thing about homelessness in the news, and they talked to several young people who were waiting for their cheque, and the only reason they could give for not working was that they just didn't want to....

A person I worked with recieved welfare while working part time, even though my manager had offered him full-time employment. The reason he didn't take up the offer was because he made more money simply working part time and recieving welfare. If he worked full time, the government would tax him more, so he wouldn't make as much. It wasn't like he was in a financial crisis or anything, he was just milking the system for his benefit. He only wanted to work a certain amount of hours each week, the maximum he could before the government increased the tax on his cheque.

Now, that doesn't mean everyone who is on welfare is milking the system. For most people, it is hard to make ends meet because of low wages staying low, while prices for everything go up. Rent, food costs, gas, everything is going up in price. So if someone is making minimum wage, they are going to have a tough time being able to purchase all that they need. So yes, the government should assist.

The 'welfare state' was created during the depression (which included the creation of 'public works,' like the guys who fix roads....it wasn't a necessity, but the government just created public works to give some people some sort of jobs). But now governments are getting rid of the welfare state, and putting more weight on private charities to fill the void left by the government. (welfare payments decrease, and many people rely on food banks, which are private charities NOT run by the government).

Pretty much the government is almost completely bailing on the welfare state, because it doesn't make them money. They want private charities to take over for the needs of people, while the government is focusing on keeping big business happy, because the only thing that really matters in a capitalist economy, is that big business turns a profit. It doesn't matter about the little guy.

At the beginning of your post you said you have two kids....well, that's fair enough reason to be recieving welfare in this day and age. Unless you are making well above the minimum wage, and working full-time, there's no way someone can afford the costs of three people. Many people can barely pass by on just looking after themselves.

Most people don't realize how unfair the capitalist system is, so blame is put on the victim when it comes to welfare, which causes depression for many people, and many start to believe it to be 'their' fault. Which in most cases it's not. It's the system's fault (capitalism is not about monetary equality by any means).

So yes, people do need to use government assistance to help them. The majority of the cases are actually legit, but people tend to generalize the entire group as being slackers, when that's not true. The people that generalize more than likely have very little understanding of the actual inequality created by the capitalist system. But on the other hand, you have people that complain when gas prices go up several cents, even though they might not be on welfare. Why? Because those cents add up, especially when buying gas, which takes a decent chunk of out someone's wage. It makes a difference, and if everyone was making good money (especially CEO money) then it wouldn't be a problem, because they can afford it. But with the decline of the welfare state, and the privitization of pretty much everything, costs keep rising and rising.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Legend

It is unfair to give welfare to people who are capable of making their living on their own. It is also a no-brainer for families that need the money to get the assistance. The biggest problem are those people who use their elderly parents to cheat on the system and/or using other loopholes to get the assistance.

I am definitely okay with my money going to help needy families. When I was younger for a short period of time, a relative of mine lost their father (my uncle) and had to go through a tough time (both financial and the heartaches). My aunt had the ability to make money and she did, but it wasn't enough. So I definitely know somewhat how it is to grow through that situation.

One thing I would really like to see is to have the government find a way to bog down on the leechers. It is the same group of trash that the government went from giving money to foodstamps. And I know some people look down on food stamps at the back of their mind, and the people who uses it probably doesn't like to be seen holding it.

__________________
Cheer up, sleepy jean.
Oh, what can it mean.
To a daydream believer
And a homecoming queen...yeahhhhhh

Peach_follows

Wow Chubz, Thanks for your insight... Its really appreciated. I must say the idea of the government rejecting "the welfare state" is a frightening thought for me. I DO have many mental health issues, brought on by severe cisis' that make it almost impossible for me to focus clearly on job search. Let alone a job. And being as I'm a SINGLE mother of 2, not recieving any regular child support... Government Assistance such as Cash, Food Stamps, and Housing are what my family depends on until I can become a healthy productive member of society (which is my goal).
I worry that I would not get the same ammount of help from private charities.

__________________

Who needs a spray can, when you're a femmebot?
http://www.myspace.com/j1gg481tt

princesslady

i do not think so at all. my mom was on welfare for a while and it's not nessacarily just for people wo dont work, it's for people who can't work or who work their asses off but still aren't cutting it.mit's not like they can sit around all day and say "i want welfare" , no. i know how limited it is to get welfare and my mom used to get about 500 a month for welfare becuz of me and my cousins and siblings. but things hAPPENED. BUT THRE IS NOTHING WRONG WTH WELFARE, AND THE PERSON WHO MADE THAT COMMENT IS A JACKASS. i bet he said majority of blacks are on welfare and thats kinda true. but that doesnt make it a fact. i can name a few folks who are not black and on welfare

__________________

Arrianna

Do you think its unfair that some people work hard, while others depend on gvernment assistance?

Depends on the reason.

Do you think lower of people who take advantage of the system, and tax payers money?

Take advantage of it? Yes, defiantly. Now define take advantage of it. To me that means milking the system as Chubz mentions.

Or do you think that its ok for people to use the help if they really need it?

Of course they should if they really need it. That is what is there for.


Chubz does a pretty good job of covering it but he neglects one thing. The system is being RETURNED to private charities. That is where it was before and it has been found to get a larger return for the buck. More money gets to the intended people without ending up in other pockets along the way when you use a private charity then government bureaucracies. Local charities are also in a better position to understand and deliver the needs for their particular area. I am all for seeing housing and food needs returned to private charities. It gives people an direct investment in doing good when they contribute directly to the charity then when it is forcibly taken from them and redistributed. It gives better results for the receiver. Win-win in my view.

I doubt that mental health and some other medicinal provisions by the government will disappear though. There is to great a need and until we see reforms in tort law and lowering of insurance costs for doctors that need will not go away anytime soon.


PS. princesslady you just contradicted yourself. In more then one way I may add.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l

Chubz

Ah, good point, forgot about that. That reminds me though, I was reading an article from 'The Economist' just awhile ago, and it was about the wealth of Victorian England and how charitable they were, and how they ran poor-houses and hospitals over in England, and funded higher education. (I just ran upstairs to grab the copy....I remembered it was still in my room). Of course, the education part kind of went back to the pockets of Victorian gentlemen, because access to higher education at that time would have been limited to class, especially in Britain.

But The Economist also has a graph showing the percent of Britain's population who contribute to charity, and the amount of disposable income for a household. In 1996, around 70% of the population in Britain gave to charity, while the amount of disposable income at the time was around 600 pounds. Compare that to 2006, where only around 57% of the population contributed to charity, while disposable income was nearly 800 pounds.

Also, to add to what Arrianna said, as I mentioned with public works being created during the depression, the entire welfare state was a means of trying to control the system. It was supposed to be a temporary measure for keeping the economy moving. That is why there has always been a stigma about those on welfare as being lazy, because the government never really intended to keep it around, yet it still remains.

I can see the merit in having certain programs returned to private charities, as like Arrianna said, it gives people a direct investment into charity. However, looking at the numbers from The Economist, it could be a problem if charities soon become reliant upon people for money. Having the government involved gives access to a bigger pool of funding (though I suppose that depends on budgets that are passed). Though, companies do give money back to charitable organizations (mind you, it's tax deductable for them).

The only real problem I have with governments moving away from a welfare state is that it then means the governments' position economically is to look out for the interests of big business only. It would really be a case of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Economic policies would only affect the higher ups in society, which are a small small minority.

Now, it probably sounds like I'm demonizing big business, but just incase it does, I'll say that capitalism is the society we live in, and the only way capitalism can continue is if a government is liberalist economically. A government HAS to cater to small l liberalism and big business for the society to continue.

So to finish up my rambling....Arrianna is right that "it gives people an direct investment in doing good when they contribute directly to the charity then when it is forcibly taken from them and redistributed. It gives better results for the receiver." Money is always lost somewhere in the machine when handled by any government, and budgets simply throw the money around and might not produce the best results in areas that need them. Having charities means the results will be done locally for the required needs. But, on the other hand, I'll say that I don't think governments should completely get rid of the welfare state. The Depression was caused because governments did not want to get involved in the economy, and so when the stock market crashed there was no safety-net because governments didn't put any in place.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Miroku4444

I think its a good system, just too many people abuse it.

No i think it stinks, and the people taking unfair advantage of the system should feel ashamed of themselves.


Yes i do. I think they are the lowest of low. Just not right. Ive heard cases where women are on welfare, and living with they're Boyfriend thats making good money. The women then use the extra cash for fur coats and jewelery.

Other bad cases are where the women have more babies to get a bigger welfare check. Then proceed to hardly spend money for the kids, and blow the money on crap.


Yes if they honestly need it like in your case, then its way ok for me. Welfare is suppose to go to the ppl like you who really need it.

__________________


"You'll hunt me. You'll condemn me, you'll set the dogs on me. But that's what has to happen."

PsiKnot

I don't actually think that the government gives help to enough people. I pay taxes to support the govt. in their efforts to help the public. There should be no hunger or homeless in this country. Hell, raise taxes untill we can get this problem under control. Thats my take.

__________________

Thinking is the leading cause of death among the stupid.
Signature and Avatar made by Zackraa. Thanks!

KimiFemi

well Peach
there should be no need for people to look down on those who need assistance
it's rediculous and single parents usually always need help
my mother couldn't keep a job when she had me
she was only 20 and her family would not help watch me while she was working
so she had to depend on welfare to get food for me
and she stayed home watching me and teaching me everything I needed to know and I was able to start school at 4 years old instead of 5

well anyway the point is that some people really do need the help and as long as you are not just being lazy and you're not trying to milk to gov't then everything should be ok
but those few people who are cheating the system are making everyone else look bad and there should be a way to stop that

__________________
Secret Love


"Love everyone unless they dont love you back"
http://z13.invisionfree.com/Deaths_d...ex.php?act=idx