I understand that the unfortunate that receive or "need" welfare or charity are in that situation for many possible reasons:
- Bad with genetics (ie intelligence, mental health, ambition, easily addicted, etc)
- Bad luck with environment (ie Parents, schools, support system, inheritence, etc)
- Loss of hope and related motivation
- Bad decisions with lasting negative consequences (ie drugs, unplanned kids, debt, etc)
- Poor values (ie rather play system than get real job)
I know people that are trying to help relatives or friends escape these circumstances. Thankfully it isn't me since the task is increadibly challenging.
13 comments:
I think your "many possible reasons" boils down to only a couple of valid ones: making a bad choice or being cheated out of opportunity by government. Bad choices we all understand, unwed motherhood being chief among them, but the other big one includes things like being born into a welfare home-- generational dependency-- or being deprived of a good public education by the government-run schools. I would also add the "welfare trap" that offers better benefits (and no penalties) for staying on welfare than for trying to get out.
That said, I think it becomes fraud the moment somebody decides that they can live better on the dole than they could through honest work, and stops trying.
In many cases (before reform, at least, and continuing), women with "no man in the house" collect checks even though they have additional children while receiving benefits. That's another, popular form of fraud since obviously there WAS a man in the house at some point. The big problem with screaming "fraud" at these folks is that it is the government that allows and even encourages such irresponsibility by the very existence of the welfare "entitlement" system. Having relatives and friends or even churches and NGOs help people in these circumstances is the only "right" way to do it, because it will only apply to those willing to help themselves, and that naturally eliminates the fraudsters.
J. Ewing
I am always amazed how fast you bypass personal responsibility and bad luck, and jump right to "it's the government's fault".
The challenge I have is that "perception is reality". Meaning as long as someone truly believes they are disabled or not capable of working, they aren't... Are these folks committing fraud when they are absolutely certain that they have no other choice?
See fraud to me is knowingly misrepresenting ones status or capability in order to gain a benefit. So a lot of these capable workers may not be too bright, however they are not then committing fraud.
Food for Thought
Fraud Defined
I did not "bypass personal responsibility and bad luck," I merely accept that personal responsibility is perhaps the principal cause of falling into poverty. That says nothing about how people can get themselves OUT of poverty. In my experience, the people who fall into poverty by way of bad luck generally escape fairly quickly because they had the skills to stay out of poverty and know how it can be done.
I will concede your point that people can lose hope while on welfare and believe they have no other choice. That is not fraud and may perhaps be a very realistic assessment of the "welfare trap." It is at least not fraud from the recipient, but I would claim it is fraud on the part of government to claim that you are helping these people by crushing their individual human dignity, pride and sense of personal responsibility, while simultaneously badmouthing the taxpayers for not doing enough.
There are a few people that occasionally make the news by collecting welfare benefits under six different names, or something like buying a new car with food stamps. Those are certainly cases of welfare fraud but the perpetrators are not stupid. They have figured out how to game the system. The fraud is that government has created a system which can be so easily gamed by some, while failing to deliver what was promised to all the rest. Whatever happened to "a hand up, not a handout"?
J. Ewing
You are thinking short term bad luck. I am talking Parents that do not teach life and behavior skills, mental illness, low IQ issues, emotional illness, genetic disabilities, etc. These aren't fixed by another roll of the dice, and yet a child lands in that boat purely by luck. And many of these may require long term handouts unfortunately. (G2A Weakening)
Also, the "Government" is nothing more than the will of the People. Blaming the "Government" lets the People off the hook for the choices they are making. Thus avoiding our own contribution to the situation. (ie it's the Politician or Bureaucrat, I'm blameless) Probably makes most people feel better, to me it is just a cop out.
Haven't you ever seen those bumper stickers, "Don't blame me, I voted for ______"? I could use a little help, here, in getting politicians elected that would not only grasp the immensity and immediacy of the problem, but actually fix it. It seems simple enough. Start with overriding Obama's flouting of existing welfare law by waiving the work requirements.
The "long term bad luck" people are a varied lot, and that's one reason why one-size-fits-all government welfare doesn't work. Those in generational welfare cases, who never learned work habits and who disdain education, need some tough love. Low IQ is often a result of a lack of mom's personal responsibility during pregnancy (not to mention prior to). Birth defects we cover through government disability and Special Ed, but I'm not sure we get good value from the latter in some cases because of one-size-fits-all government rules. Have I covered everything? In most cases, IMHO, "bad luck" is caused by somebody else's lack of personal responsibility. That doesn't help the victim in the here and now, but many of these problems are preventable.
In simple terms (I think), I want a "no excuses" welfare system. Everybody should be contributing to their own sustenance, it's simply a case of what and how long it is going to take to get them to where they ought to be. Government cannot do that with a hide-bound rule book. Private charity that treats everyone as an individual, with respect, and EXPECTS the best from them, CAN do it. I've seen it. But first the government has to quit sending that free check every month, just for doing nothing.
J.
By government disability, I assume you are discussing social security and medicaid. Is this correct?
I am not sure if ""bad luck" is caused by somebody else's lack of personal responsibility" in most cases, however I do agree it happens. Yet the consequence (ie resulting human) does exist either way, and I am pretty sure the irresponsible party isn't going to clean up their own mess in the case of irresponsibility.
I am always amazed at the number of people with Down's syndrome, Autism, Mental disabilities, etc. Now who is the irresponsible party that we need to straighten out.
I must not be communicating well. I specifically said that personal irresponsibility's effects had to be dealt with by somebody else, but that we should act to reduce the amount of irresponsibility we allow. No additional money for children conceived while on welfare to "single mothers" for instance. A strict limit on time on welfare for everybody without work or progress towards it. Requirements that welfare kids attend school and don't cause trouble. Return us to home visits to make sure kids are being fed, the money isn't spent on drugs or booze, etc. That sort of thing.
IN the meantime, true (i.e. individual human, not government) compassion for those for whom accident or irresponsibility have created a disadvantageous start in life, and a "hand up" to make them as productive and fruitful a life as possible.
J.
So you would with hold the 2nd kid's food payment because his stupid welfare Mom got pregnant? Or if that Mom couldn't stay on the wagon.
So you would with hold the 2nd kid's food payment because his stupid welfare Mom got pregnant? Or if that Mom couldn't stay on the wagon.
Well, yes I would, but I would "granfather in" that rule and let it be widely known-- you get PG, the FATHER pays, not us. Also, we should be offering, as part of our "hand up" program, AA or something like it, to everybody on welfare. In fact, it should be mandatory drug testing and treatment. You can't be a productive member of society if you are drug-addled. Of course, there are two ways to go at this: One is to transition to a system of private charities, who generally don't tolerate such nonsense, or some sort of program with a strong work requirement (forcing most off) and having individual case workers trying to get the rest of the people off, rather than keeping them on.
J.
It sounds good and perfectly rational. Too bad we don't live in China where it may work. Also, can't get blood from a turnip or teach those who don't want to learn.
Also, just think of all the public employees need to enforce this.
I firmly believe that with the bulk of the recipients off the rolls and working for a living, the existing welfare workers could do what they went into that line of work to do and help people towards self-sufficiency, independence, self-actualization or whatever you choose to call the natural state of a free human being. Yes, there would be some who would refuse to give up their cushy dependence and their learning would be harsh. But there are probably as many people now who are in similar straits, but TRYING, but whom government does not choose to help, so struggling to get by will be nothing new. The idea should not deter us from helping those who help themselves, and freeloaders will just have to quit freeloading. People have to know there are consequences for their choices, and compassion for circumstances they did not choose. The current government system offers neither.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment