The United States has always been admired for its spirit of entrepreneurship, vivaciousness, positivity against all odds, and ability to uphold the ideals it was founded on. However, these things are being threatened by the cycle of dependence produced by the system better know as “welfare”.
When faced with the problem of the economically disadvantaged, we have three options:
(1) Do nothing. Ignore the problem and hope it goes away. This is to some extent what the federal government did before the Great Depression in 1935. People below the poverty line were mainly supported by their families, private charity, and to a small degree state and local government. Local officials determined the distribution of what meager government funds existed to help those in need. The attitude of people towards the poor was that they somehow deserved their plight, and this was their just reward. Many of the “poor houses” were in horrendous condition and kept that way intentionally so only the truly desperate would become dependent.
(2) Give people money, in hopes that the problem will go away. This is the choice of most Liberals. Offer people money to appease the masses, increase the size of government, increase the budget, increase government power, and get more votes from low-income citizens. Unfortunately, this approach simply doesn’t work. Throwing money at people doesn’t solve their problems any more than giving money to a child will teach them how to save for college or retirement later in life. You have to help them in other ways; giving someone a hand out is a short-term solution.
(3) When faced with a hungry man, you have two options: you can give him a fish, and feed him for a day. Or, you can teach him how to fish, and then hope he’ll be able to provide for himself and others indefinitely. This is the long-term solution, and the approach we need to take.
Welfare, also known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), was created in 1935 in response to the Great Depression. However, the true “War on Poverty” began in 1965 with President Johnson’s Great Society. The Great Society expanded the welfare program to include the Social Security Act and the Economic Opportunity Act, and it has been a Great Failure. Despite some fluctuations, the poverty level is essentially exactly the same today as it was 40 years ago, even after the $3.5 trillion dollars spent.
30% of welfare recipients begin because of an out-of-wedlock birth; and since 1960 the illegitimate birth rate has risen by nearly 25%. This is due to government incentives for irresponsibility provided by welfare initiatives, and the lack of visible consequences for teen pregnancies and births to individuals who cannot financially support children only encourages other to do the same. The cycle of dependency is so desperate that at any given time nearly 65% of the recipients of welfare will continue to receive benefits for 8 years or more, and children raised in families dependent on welfare are seven times more likely to become dependent on the welfare program themselves.
Almost 11% of our GDP is currently spent on welfare programs; if we could cut that in half it would make a tremendous difference in the economy, creating jobs and resulting in even greater economic growth in the long run when we introduce more tax cuts. Finally, making adoption easier and encouraging more private charitable organizations to become involved will make a huge difference in the lives of these families. Private charities are more capable of spending money and identifying those who need it; in 1994 combined federal, state, and local governments spent $35,756 per family under the poverty level, and clearly very little of that actually reached the beneficiaries.
I believe in giving economically disadvantaged people a hand up and not a hand out. Welfare creates dependency, destroys the need for personal responsibility, and tears families apart. It should be eliminated altogether, not made larger through a requirement for work or increased spending into the existing failure of a system. In it’s place: cut taxes, encourage economic growth, and use tax incentives encouraging private charitable organizations that can more effectively identify and assist the truly economically disadvantaged.
References:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ta3-9.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_3.html#welfare
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I especially like the 'hand up not hand out' part.
A viable solution is that the government could provide opportunities for quality education in poor areas to break the cycle of generational poverty. But I guess that's just crazy talk. We'd rather keep people in poverty by giving them a paltry check each month than educate them.
I agree.
It doesn't work on the reservations either. We give them money and say, "Ok you use this to make your schools better, or create more jobs." The unemployment rate in 2005 was 42%.
The unemployment rate was below 6% I believe in 2005.
It was 42% on the reservations, which shows the utter failure of socialized welfare.
Yet, still, the Democrats call for it, using it as a carrot at the end of a stick to get the turtle to move as they wish. (The turtle being the common sheep voter)
Democrats, supporting and rooting for America's enemies since the end of World War 2.
Hey you are stealing my thunder!
; )
not stealing! just.... borrowing . .. without your permission or knowledge.... with no intention of returning...
ok.. stealing.
Bastard.
I'm putting you on my Shit List with the people who think we should take math out of high school.
; )
ha! Conflict of Interest!
1.) I'm going to be a high school math teacher.
2.) You previously stated that you wanted me to be a certain kind of 'donor'
3.) I don't have a third point, but in a class on giving sermons, they said to always have 3 to 5 points.
Darn.
Well you better get over there and defend the cause of math, because they are going to put you out of a job.
I give up, they just won't give in to reason or being mocked. Obviously reading comprehension and critical thinking are too harrrrrrrrd and we should just give upppppppppp.
On with capitalism!
you are absolutely right about not giving people fish. nobody "chooses" to be poor. but it certainly seems that many of the impoverished are not exactly "choosing" to be rich. i rarely see a very wealthy man at a 7-11 buying a 12 pack of pabst blue ribbon and a pack of gold coasts at 1:58 am. most of the poor are poor because they continue to make bad choices. and so my well endowed friends, the best help... is no fucking help at all.
xstiffx
Good Job! Well done.
But you know, poor and rich people have totally different mindset. What does it mean to be "poor" and "rich"? Is it more like who is "successful" and who is not? People can achieve greater things if they try harder. Sometimes, I feel the poor people are abusing the rich people...as if they are taking advantages of the more "rich" people. There have been many successful people out there who made themselves worthy out of nothing. If only people would try...they have nothing to lose anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
Exactly! Many poor people have a mindset that, somehow, the government is responsible for their poverty, and that they deserve the government's help. This is what is called the "entitlement" mindset, and it began with programs like the New Deal and such.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that government can arbitrarily decided to give away funds to those it deems needy. The thing that many people has lost sight of is that those tax dollars are ours, and if we didn't give them to the government to waste, we could use them more efficiently to help those who truly need help.
Charity is the responsibility of the private citizen, not the government.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
I agree with you 100%. You made very good points.
"Don't let anyone ever make you feel like you don't deserve what you want." - 10 things I hate about you
Where are all the Liberals? Not a single person disagrees with me on this post? And it's Ranked High? What is happening to ProU?
Something is fishy here...
I agree with everything that was written in this blog. Fortunately the worst of this problem was addressed back in the mid-1990s when the Republicans captured Congress and finally shoved some major reforms past Bill Clinton. (He vetoed it three times and now tries to take credit for it). Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin was the guy who pioneered these ideas when he was Governor there.
One of the big reasons that our poverty rate has stayed fairly constant over the past 40 years is that we keep importing more poor people. The 13 to 25 million illegal immigrants that are in America and their children are a very large part of the poverty statistic. Whenever an American claws his way out of poverty he is immediately replaced by another poor illegal. The burden (11% of GDP) on taxpayers never lifts.
Most LEGAL immigrants to America do fairly well in our economy. They may be poor when they arrive but because our legal immigration system tends (not nearly enough) to select for educated people, most legal immigrants have the tools to thrive and all of the statistic show that most do quite well.
But illegal immigrants are a different bunch. The vast majority lack a high school education. Any study of poverty demographics quickly reveals that people who fail to get an education are vastly over-represented in the chronic poor. And they are far more likely to have children out of wedlock which is another causual characteristic of the poor. And their children are far more likely to not complete highschool so the cycle of poverty continues into the following generations.
And beyond their direct contribution to poverty, illegals have an indirect effect too, They are in direct competition for the low end jobs in our economy with our own native born poor. They depress wages and reduce opportunities. Many for example work in construction. Even a decade ago, construction was a low-end blue collar middleclass job. It provided a career path where tradespeople could advance from labor to journeyman as they gained skills. Since it has been flooded with illegals it is now only a path to more poverty.
I think it is fine to expect our native born poor to take much of the responsibility for their own condition and to adopt behaviors (like not having children out of wedlock) that will help them get out of poverty. But we have a responsibility to quit stabbing them in the back by importing people who depress their wages and take the jobs they need. And we should quit transforming low end middleclass jobs into poverty jobs.
I'm on board with reforming welfare. But if we really want to end poverty, we should QUIT IMPORTING EVER MORE POVERTY.
A lot of what you're saying is true and you back up your points so well.
I hate hearing about people who just sit around all day and don't work and just draw money from wellfare cause it's enough for them to live on. That's not fair to the rest of the tax paying population that works for their money. Why should we have to give these people money so they can sit on their ass all day and watch TV?
One thing that I have to say is that I have sympathy for the children of these people. I know somebody whose family does not have a lot of money. They live in a very small and cramped house. He, on the other hand, is trying his hardest to make something of himself. He is going to college, (on a full scholarship because his parents can't pay for it) he has two jobs, and he is doing his best to turn his life into something better. But, it seems that whenever he has money, something takes it from him. It's either his car breaks down, or he has to buy books for school, or his school is taking money for some odd reason, or he has to pay for fees at school. It just seems that having SOME help would advance him even further in the direction he is going. I feel that is one of the only scenarios that people should get financial help from the government.
___________________________________________________________________
"Is it true, said Candide, that people in Paris are always laughing?"
-Voltaire
We all have empathy for the economically challenged, and their children.
Which is why I wrote my other blog about early adoption and child welfare reform.
http://www.progressiveu.org/134337-why-i-passionately-support-early-adop...
It used to be, before Johnson's "Great Society", that only the children of welfare families received welfare, and not their parents. But all of that changed, and now it's very easy for 2nd and even 3rd generations to become dependent on welfare just like their parents and parent's parents.
So we have to help people help themselves; by eliminating the welfare system altogether. This will force these children's parents to either sink or swim. Those that sink, will be assisted by private charities with tax credits (much better at allotting dollars effectively to the economically challenged). Those that simply can't or won't support their children should be forced to give them up for adoption early in that child's life, so as to give them a chance before it's too late. It's not fair for a child to suffer for simply being born, or to keep pumping money into a system that spawns more and more children into families that can't support them without funding forced from the paychecks of hard-working Americans who also need to send their children to college, or save for retirement.
that all sounds nice on paper but how can you seriously take somebody's child away from them?!
There are some parents that do no deserve to have children and some that love their children but at the time do not have the financial resources to give that child EVERYTHING they need...so at that very moment we are just going to take that child away from their family?
Do you realize how messed up that is? So many people go through horrible depression etc when finding out that they were adopted. It's impossible to just adopt out every children, there would be thousands.
___________________________________________________________________
"Is it true, said Candide, that people in Paris are always laughing?"
-Voltaire
*sigh*
Go back and read this blog:
http://www.progressiveu.org/134337-why-i-passionately-support-early-adop...
Just because a woman has eggs and a man has sperm, and they feel like having sex does not give them the right to bring a child into this world. It's a responsibility.
children shouldn't have to choose between a loving home and a financially stable one. They should have both. If you are living off of government checks each month, and barely able to get by, bringing a child into the world is completely irresponsible.
If you can't provide basic neccesities for your child--food, clothing, shelter--the responsible thing to do would be to let someone who can do it. You can't eat love or wear it to keep you warm at night. Love, alone, does not make you a good parent.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
I agree with much of what you stated. I'm not sure that #2 is "the choice of most liberals" though. Most of my liberal friends would prefer programs that help people get on their own feet.
To those who advocate removing the children of poor people, I think that would create more problems. There are already so many kids without homes to adopt them because most of the prospective adoptive parents want healthy, Caucasian children.
I would like to see a lot more surgical sterilization encouraged, though, preferably BEFORE any accidental pregnancies happen. Maybe the government could offer that "hand up" in free tutition and job training and paid work experience only as long as pregancy (or impregnantion in case of a male) is avoided. The assistance could continue after a birth only with a vasectomy or tied tubes.
It wouldn't end the cycle of dependency altogether but it would make it a lot more manageable and would prevent the case of welfare moms having four or five undernourished kids
Welfare help in return for voluntary sterilization. An interesting idea. Not a new idea though. I would like it best so long as I was the one who got to pick who got sterilized. And that has always been the problem with eugenics.
I wasn't sure from your post if you were identifying yourself as a liberal or if you were saying you had liberal friends? I don't think many conservatives would dare advance such an idea in public even if they secretly believed it was a good idea. Many conservatives would be opposed for religious reasons. About the only conservatives that I can imagine seriously advocating such a thing would be whacko skinhead types that were so far right around the political spectrum that they had come full circle to the whacky end of the political left which is where most politically motivated murder usually occurs (think Stalin, Mao).
Is this an idea that is being resurrected from the liberal left as a solution to poverty?
I think you're completely wrong. Poor people shouldn't have to work, because, obviously, they can't get jobs. You see, these poor disadvantaged people get so caught up in the wheels of this world that they're unable to find work to support themselves. This is exactly why we should start giving these people money: The more money we give them the better off they'll be. If we give them enough, they'll be able to get good jobs, a place to live, and food to eat. That will eventually allow them to become full fledged tax-paying citizens, supporting others in their endeavors to become home-having people.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
you said that you want to give a hand up and not a hand out to the people, but are you more than willing to give a hand out to corporation.
i think that welfare reform for corporation should be reform. stop giving billions of no bid contract to corporation like halliburton, blackwater, big farming corporation in kanses. let these corporation make money off the people and not the federal government.
oh will, but than again, if my theory is correct, you are probaly the largest supportor of handouts for corporation and oppose all form of reform in giving hand up to the corporation. handouts to corporation no hand ups, that it the motto?
beside, giving money to private charity is extremely corrupt. many of the money under the faith bases initiative went to all the millionaire cronies instead of the people that desperately need it. if you make welfare reform private, than millionaire cronies are more likely to get the money instead of the people that desperately need it. there will be hand out to the millionaire cronies instead of a hand up to the people.
a handout to corporation instead of a hand up seem to be big government compassionate conservatism today. that is so sad, what a shame. i am not meant to offened you, but that is just what i believe. so much welfare being given to the corporation as hand outs instead of hands up.
Thank for the idea for a future blog.
I will address this issue, I promise.
Actually, with the exception of the united way, private charity overhead is AMAZINGLY low.
On the other hand, government 'charity' (I.e. Welfare) has amazingly high overhead, meaning that only a tiny amount of the money spent ever gets to the people.
Some private charities are able to show that up to 97 cents out of every dollar make it to the people, rather than the charity.
Yet, the left, and you apparently, hate the private charities, thinking that the 3 cents they keep is somehow evil, but the 95 cents the government keeps is good.
that is big government, you know. here you are advocating for smaller government, yet you want government to take away the children of indiviuals. that is big government in extreme. and who will be funding the taking away of childrens? the beauracrate in washington, d.c.?
for someone who want smaller government, you sure want government to expanded to a degree where they can snatch someone child away from them. and where would these children go if they don't get adopted, into the military to die for oil or for the enrichment of the magacorporations? would these children that didn't get adopted die in some foreign country where they probaly be forgotten while millionaires make a profit off of their deaths?
You are stretching a bit.
If you read farther back in my blog, you will find I advocate early adoption. This is because children who are adopted earlier in life, as infants, are less likely to suffer emotional problems and more likely to be adopted permanently. By removing children early rather than shuffling them through foster care for years giving their biological parents "chances", we would significantly reduce the costs of the foster care and adoption system.
The Reply button is there for a reason: Use it.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
I've noticed that alot of people who commented refered to " poor people" making it seem to me that they are not poor. Iam a welfare child and i now have a son of my own. Yes i do recieve food benefits for my son but not cash because of my choice not to. To me it seems that you dont know what it is like i see the people around me trying sooo hard to have money. "junking" if they have to( if you dont know what that means its when a person goes around and picks up junk metal and scraps it for money). MY uncle works on roofs yet still cannot provide for his two children. One of the major reasons me and many people i know go on welfare is for medical. Things are so high its hard even for the working american. If my son got sick i dont know what i would do. Now iam not saying its ok for people to sit around and do nothing i believe we should work someway for what we get. taking away welfare completely would devestate the poverty class of americans. As for adoption, i could never give up my son. Even if i could even if people all over gave their children up for adoption there is only so many places these children could go. Then those families would end up in the same situation we are in. more efforts should be made to make people feel like they have a chance. For instance the price of a college education is crazy. Maybe if people felt like they had a chance to make it they would give for of a effort.
I was poor and am stil deemed poor. There was a time we could barely afford groceries and you know what, we never went to the government for money, we went to family and then charities.
I understand where you are coming from, but welfare is not the answer. Charities can help pay for medical better than welfare can.
I've noticed that alot of people who commented refered to " poor people" making it seem to me that they are not poor. Iam a welfare child and i now have a son of my own. Yes i do recieve food benefits for my son but not cash because of my choice not to. To me it seems that you dont know what it is like i see the people around me trying sooo hard to have money. "junking" if they have to( if you dont know what that means its when a person goes around and picks up junk metal and scraps it for money). MY uncle works on roofs yet still cannot provide for his two children. One of the major reasons me and many people i know go on welfare is for medical. Things are so high its hard even for the working american. If my son got sick i dont know what i would do. Now iam not saying its ok for people to sit around and do nothing i believe we should work someway for what we get. taking away welfare completely would devestate the poverty class of americans. As for adoption, i could never give up my son. Even if i could even if people all over gave their children up for adoption there is only so many places these children could go. Then those families would end up in the same situation we are in. more efforts should be made to make people feel like they have a chance. For instance the price of a college education is crazy. Maybe if people felt like they had a chance to make it they would give for of a effort.
I've noticed that alot of people who commented refered to " poor people" making it seem to me that they are not poor. Iam a welfare child and i now have a son of my own. Yes i do recieve food benefits for my son but not cash because of my choice not to. To me it seems that you dont know what it is like i see the people around me trying sooo hard to have money. "junking" if they have to( if you dont know what that means its when a person goes around and picks up junk metal and scraps it for money). MY uncle works on roofs yet still cannot provide for his two children. One of the major reasons me and many people i know go on welfare is for medical. Things are so high its hard even for the working american. If my son got sick i dont know what i would do. Now iam not saying its ok for people to sit around and do nothing i believe we should work someway for what we get. taking away welfare completely would devestate the poverty class of americans. As for adoption, i could never give up my son. Even if i could even if people all over gave their children up for adoption there is only so many places these children could go. Then those families would end up in the same situation we are in. more efforts should be made to make people feel like they have a chance. For instance the price of a college education is crazy. Maybe if people felt like they had a chance to make it they would give for of a effort.
I have been poor. I have lived in the basement of my grandparent's townhome because we could not buy one of our own.
I've lived on welfare and food stamps as a child.
One thing we did not do is use it as a crutch. We sacrificed. We worked hard. no vacations, no fancy toys for me. We worked. Worked on houses to fix them up. Repaired many things, rather than buying new.
We were poor and, within 10 years, sold a house for over 200k.
Now I am in what is considered the upper lower class to lower middle class.
I am going to college and working hard so that I can pay cash. No more debt.
Welfare is a useful tool to help people, but it is being abused widescale. The help welfare gives eases the bitter nature of poverty. Unless, like my family, a family on welfare has the discipline and desire to sacrifice and work hard to better themselves, they can easily fall into a pit of dependence on welfare.
People who support this widescale welfare always call critics rich, without ever knowing if they are.
Which is why I support privatized "welfare". Private charities are better capable of (a) soliciting donations from people who care and have money (unlike the tax system, which forces people from all levels of the economic scale to "donate"), (b) distributing that money from people in need (thereby differentiating from the truly needy and those who are lazy and want a hand out), and (c) helping people get back on their feet without creating dependence, and maintaining people's self-worth by not treating them like animals (which the welfare system manages to do quite effectively).
Private Charities (not counting the United Way, which drives members around in limos) are MUCH better stewards than the government.
Time and time again this is proven.
The United Way is weird. They are different in every area. Some are better than others... just ask for an annual report and full break-down before you donate, so you can distinguish whether the one in your area of a "good" one or a "bad" one. Some United Ways are so bad that less than 30% of donations actually make it to the people in need.
I find it odd that the united way is also the favorite charity of the left.
Odd that they would clamp on to the LEAST efficient charity.
Of course, they also believe that more money will stop AIDS and Africa and whining about Darfur will stop the genocidethere.
That's a liberal for ya .. heh.
I tend to donate to pro-veteran groups and also the Salvation Army bellringers.
I find it odd and United-Way ish that somehow two of my best articles got rated way down last night.
Wtf.
In government class last year, we had a debate. The topic was, "Are all people on welfare lazy?" A vast majority said yes. This infuriated me. Yes, there are lazy people on welfare, but there are also people like my mother:
She divorced my father because he was into drugs and she didn't want us growing up around that. Not long after that, she was in a vehicle accident on the way home from a friend's wedding rehearsal, due to an idiot who wasn't looking where he was going and ran a stop sign. This accident completely messed up her back, and she was unable to go back to her waitressing job. She used the insurance money from the accident to put herself through a community college. Despite having been told her enitre life that she was too stupid for college, she did extremely well, and recieved a full scholarship to a university. She still had enough insurance money left at this point to move us to the town the university was in, pay the first few month's rent on a duplex, and get a washer and dryer for it. She had also obtained a new vehicle after the accident.
While she attended school and for a few years after, we recieved food stamps, rent assitance, heating assitance, child care assistance (at a very good daycare), and Title 19 (free health insurance, which paid for nearly everything - I really miss it). Once she made enough to do without one form of assistance, my mother would stop recieving it, and we are no longer recieving any of the above. There have been many times when we've had to scrape to get by, but she's always made it work. My sisters and I were free lunch recipients for several years, with my junior year being the first I had to pay for school lunch, though at the reduced price. I'm now in college (with no free or reduced anything foodwise), and my sisters, in middle school and high school, get reduced lunch - 30 cents for breakfast and 40 cents for lunch, as opposed to $1.05 for breakfast and $1.85 for lunch that everyone else pays. If there comes a time when my mother can afford to not have my sisters on reduced lunch, she will stop applying for it.
I don't need drugs - I have genetics.
Explain to me something.
Why is it that every time I write an article about welfare, people find the need to not read that article, directly or indirectly accuse me of calling all people on welfare lazy, and then proceed to tell me their life story about being poor?
It's relevant, in a way, but did you really have a point? Examples are just that, examples, and without supporting statistics, they really mean nothing but a sob story. Here's a tissue. *hands you a tissue*
We've all had a rough life in one way or another. I'm trying a help those who are economically disadvantaged... will you try helping too, by suggesting a solution, perhaps?
1) I did read the article.
2) I was accusing nobody of anything.
3) I don't need the tissue - who's crying?
4) I was actually semi-agreeing with you - a private charity probably would have helped us to be independent sooner, instead of taking the seven or eight years that it did.
I don't need drugs - I have genetics.
"I believe in giving economically disadvantaged people a hand up and not a hand out." Yes, good point here. Though not all poor people are slackers who are waiting on others for help, there are still some of those out there. People who are in bad economic situations need help to "get back on their feet (so to speak)" and then should be left to their own devices. That common quote "give a man a fish" proves all this.
Well done, engkatiemarie, and congrats on becoming this week's featured blogger.
Thanks.
: )
I wonder if a program could be established that would require welfare recipients to do some sort of community service for their benefits would help social reform. If people were forced to "work" for their benefits by, let's say, picking up garbage on the side of the road, maybe they would would work harder to find employment.....It would be like killing two birds with one stone. Encourage people to stop depending on welfare as well as helping to clean up their communities.