Do welfare/govt handouts create dependance

yes. Unfortunately, my family has gotten on that train...my grandmother lost her husband in the early 50s, they had 8 kids and she went on welfare. I don't fault her, it was the 50s and times were different, she didn't have the skills nor was there the jobs available to her at the time...

but four generations away, more than half the family is STILL on welfare and sees no reason to get off...in fact those of us that have gotten OFF welfare are viewed as 'fools' and 'idiots'.

just like in any family...if your family is in medicine, you are more likely to grow up to be a doctor, if your family is in the retail business, you are more likely to grow up to be a shop owner...you have an 'in', a head start by having family that can help you and show you the ropes.

so it is with welfare. Children learn that if they go to this office and fill out this paperwork or go to that doctor and say certain things....every month a check will come to the mail. and you have the rest of the month free to do as you please.

 

It is a huge problem, and not an easy circle to break to get the kids to realise that there is a need to do it, and a point to trying, even when their parents don't see it. Any solution has to be a serious and long-term commitment to improving opportunity, the ability to take opportunity, and the desire to take opportunity - opportunity and incentive need to go hand in hand, but compulsion and abandonment will only create resistance instead of apathy (not a good thing to happen). A simplistic removal of welfare (and/or an enforced 'hard labour' program) will only make those people bitter, and drive many of them into supporting themselves by illegal means - that's not good for anyone (them, the victims of crime, the cost of law enforcement, etc., etc.).

There are those who are utterly dependant on welfare through generations of their families. That doesn't mean that the concept of welfare, and helping those who found themselves in a situation where they couldn't help themselves for some reason, was wrong. It just means that the other measures that need to go alongside it to allow people to get out of that situation haven't been put in place properly. The introduction of welfare was a good and decent thing for humanity, and it has saved many lives - that doesn't mean it has historically been operated correctly, with all of the correct tools to enable and encourage people to get off welfare and back into work. It hasn't, and over the generations that means there are families with no memory of employment, work ethic, or realisation that there is a better way (better for themselves, as well as better for society and everyone else in it). Dealing with the results of that will mean taking time and patience to do it properly, using every possible means to do it, not by seeking a 'quick fix' to make headlines about having 'solved the problem' overnight - that kind of thing cannot possibly succeed.

Of course, the unfortunate truth is the politicians (of whatever type) aren't usually very good at looking at the long term, because it doesn't really help them win their next election (especially if things get worse before they get better, which is so often the case with the solution to any long-term issue, and if it costs money in the short term to save moeny in the long term, which it absolutely will)! What is needed is a politician of real vision and dedication, who is willing and able to take the long term view, and can take the people with them in such a project - politicians able to do that don't come along very often, unfortunately, especially at times when 'the people' are so utterly resistant to spending additional money in the short term (even though it will be of huge benefit for the future).

In solving this kind of problem, you have to 'speculate to accumulate', and spend money to set a number of things in place for the long term, adjusting the way they work over the years as their results become apparent. Unfortunately, any politician who came up with such a plan at the moment would, I strongly suspect, be dismissed and slammed for their efforts, and be out of office before any of their efforts actually came anywhere close to fruition. The plans would be abandoned, and everyon would go on wringing their hands in dispair and blaming each other for a problem that will just keep getting worse.

Such is the nature of politics. If it's not going to make fantastic headlines NOW, it's just not going to happen.

 

They can work, but it all depends on how they're designed and who's using them.

There is no simple answer to this.

 

If any programs should exist (which I don't think they should) they should provide minimal assistance, less than a job. For why should one work for money when he can get the same amount sitting at home?

 

there is nothing wrong with this

generational welfare is a fault of inefficent government not the individuals, its a sign that these people need more taxpayer funded ladders to climb out because welfare is the best option for them at the moment

they need more money for job training and education not less money

 

I certainly agree that welfare assistance shouldn't remove the financial incentive to work, and it is one of the areas where things have gone wrong. People who need to accept an income decrease in order to get a job, especially once they start having to pay the costs of working (transport to their place of work and so on), aren't being entirely unreasonable if they think that it isn't 'worth it' to them because they would be worse off by doing it. It's all very well to say that work is a habit to get in to, and a short term cut will lead to a longer term income improvement, but that isn't always the case for the lowest paid/skilled people without partcular prospect of advancement, and the initial cut might mean them losing their homes and so on before any 'improvement' happens.

There are several ways to deal with that - a minimum wage is a very useful tool, for a start. There are also ways of using the tax system, allowing them to keep some of their welfare when they start work (to ensure that they aren't losing anything), providing help for working families on very low incomes, and so on. The welfare/benefit trap of being better off on welfare than in work is a big incentive issue that governments need to get to grips with. Again, it might mean a little cost in terms of helping the lowest paid workers, especially in the short term, but in the long term it's going to be less expensive than having generations of families entirely reliant on the welfare system.

It's one of the things that needs to be in place to deal with the whole issue, but it does mean that people need to recognise that, to a certain extent, 'giving money to poorer people' is a necessary thing for the good of everyone. Again, taking a simplistic approach of just cutting benefits to suddenly those reliant on welfare in a significantly worse position won't do much to encourage them to go out and get work, and even if it does it doesn't deal with the opportunity deficit that is suffered by unqualified/unskilled/demotivated people who have never worked (especially ones that come from 'the bad part of town', and/or welfare-reliant families).

Incentive needs to be addressed, but in a way that will actually work, not just make very poor people even poorer to the point of destitution and desparation, with no apparent (legal) escape from their position. In order to get them into work, they obviously need incentive, but they also need opportunity (in terms of helping to ensure that jobs are created (and no, I don't mean just creating pointless jobs at the taxpayer's expense!), helping people to gain the skills to do those jobs, and making sure the jobs are available without prejudice cncerning their 'family background', 'residential area', and so on) . Either one of those things without the other will be no use at all.

 

I agree. I would never force someone to work if they really didn't want to. I also wouldn't give them a house to live in, buy their food, give them cash for booze and drugs.

 

I would not disagree with doing away with government subsidies but I worked for 40 years, invested my money instead of pissing it away, and now I live off my investments with no Social Security or other pension. I get no handouts and am not dependent on anyone. I caught me food and saved some, unlike liberals and other nitwits.

 

They can work and I have a perpetual motion machine you can invest in. Send me your money, now. Oh, wait, the government is investing in that already, aren't they? Solyndra stock anyone.

No, they can't work if the goal is to eradicate poverty. What they do is perpetuate and increase poverty.

 

they are demonizing the poor when they say handouts create dependance since there is nothing wrong with that

welfare assistance SHOULD remove the financial incentive to work because it forces the free market to provide a better living for low income earners so that they don't have to quit their jobs for an easier lifestyle on government dependence

its the governments job to provide good lifestyles to the people, business only goal is higher profits and they don't care about the people especially low income earners

 

No, it isn't. It is the government's job to ensure that everyone has the freedom, incentive and opportunity to provide good lifestyles for themselves through their own endeavor.

 

Well, have we cured poverty?

 

Huh? Sounds contradictory.

 

we may have to disagree then as freedom and opportunity are included within a good lifestyle, no one should be forced to work for rights that they are entitled to.

business is the enemy of the people and government is their friend

 

In my opinion, nobody is 'entitled' to wealth that they haven't earned. What they should be 'entitled' to is the opportunity to earn wealth (according to their own efforts and abilities) for themselves, which is where governments can act ion their interests. In a civilised society, they should also be 'entitled' to expect a basic level of help to prevent them from becoming destitute when they are unable to earn for themselves, either through lack of 'ability' (because of health, disability, or whatever) or lack of opportunity (through lack of available jobs for them to do, or disadvantage due to lack of education, training, background and so on). To an extent that applies to incentive and motivation - lack of that is a limiting factor that governments can and should also provide assistance for (it is in the interests of the whole of society for them to do so). None of that, though, is the same as them being 'entitled' to a good standard of living when they are simply unwilling to work for it, despite them being offered a good level of support, help and opportunity.

 

The short answer is yes, they do create dependency. Because the welfare check recipients get lazy over time because they know that if all else fails at looking for steady employment, there will be a welfare check waiting in their mailbox.

And when you have something like that to fall back on, you'll just fall back for good. then blame everybody else for your slacker ways.

Do away with Welfare or cut it down to 3 years max, and watch how many motivated future taxpayers you'll have in this country.

 

I find it incredible that so far eight people don't think handouts and welfare create dependancy. I wonder how many of the eight are working?

 

The problem with that approach is not so much that welfare 'creates' a dependency problem, but that in some sections of society (and in association with the issue of lack of opportunity) it has already 'created' a dependency problem. The problem is already well established, and it wasn't caused by welfare alone - the social factors that forced people into the situation of dependency and demotivated those parts of society still exist, and simply removing welfare won't solve that.

'Do away with Welfare or cut it down to 3 years max', without properly addressing the issues of incentive and opportunity to defeat the culture of hopelessness and pointlessness with regard to work, and just watch the crime rates rise (not to mention the suicide rate) - that's not a good thing for anybody.

Welfare is necessary to help those who can't help themselves, but what is even more important is to not dismiss those on welfare, but to help them. That requires thought, long-term planning and investment, and will be a difficult road, but it is the only way to actually begin to solve the problem.

Probably the most important part of that investment is in education, of course - if you can get the message through to kids at an early age, and consistently throughout their schooling, that they can get on in life and better themselves through their own efforts, despite where they have started off and what they see in their parents and other people around them, that's a huge step forward. Obviously, that has to go hand-in-hand with the educational quality being good, and actually giving them the tools to do that (and there need to be other measures to assist in providing opportunity, of course). That isn't cheap or easy in communities where hopelessness and dependency have been well established over generations, but it still has to be done.

People do need to recognise that the whole of society benefits from investment in the poor to provide opportunity and incentive, and reduce dependency - abandoning them and cutting them off would have a serious detrimental effect for everybody else. It may not always be popular for politicians to want to spend the hard earned tax from others on investments in the people who aren't paying much tax themselves (particularly when times are hard), but the reality is that it is actually in the interests of every taxpayer (and if that isn't done in the short term, in the long term the money will just have to keep pouring out in welfare payments (or massively increased police and other budgets to deal with the crime levels, if welfare were abolished) anyway).

At a basic level, what it comes down to is a fairly simple choice:

1. Continue forever to pay taxpayer money out in welfare payments to people who don't see the point in work, have no incentive to work, and little opportunity to find work even if they want to.

2. Abandon those people, scrap (or radically reduce) welfare, and pay out the same taxpayer money in policing the consequences, and dealing with the damage done by crime (as the population at large live in genuine and justifiable fear of the crime wave, while violent confrontations with and between criminals increase, insurance premiums massively increase, and so on).

3. Spend some additional money now to invest in the future to reduce the dependency on welfare by giving future generations the incentives and opportunities to break the cycle and actually get away from the problems of hopelessness and dependency, which should bring cost reductions in the long-term future.

I know which option I think is right, and best for everybody (those currently on welfare, and the taxpayers that have to pay for it), but it's not something that sems to be an immediate vote winner for a transient politician trying to get themselves elected, especially in the current financial climate. 'I'll cut your taxes by cutting their welfare' seems like a much easier message for people to swallow than 'I'll invest in those currently dependant on welfare', even though the costs of that could be far more damaging in the long term.

 

Welfare alone doesn't create dependency. Welfare combined with a lack of hope, incentive and opportunity to find work, perpetuated over generations, does.

 

I've been working for the past six years and I don't think welfare creates dependence.

 

Welfare eliminates the incentive. The liberals destroy any sense of hope. Opportunity is severely limited by the education industry. And, if you can get a check for doing nothing, why worry?

 

I'm proud of you. Somehow, I doubt you're the norm.

 

So how do you explain the multiple generations of people/families still leeching off the system? How do you explain "crazy checks". Google it. It will make you sick that people are allowed to exploit the system this way. How do you explain the huge numbers of so called socialist security claims for stupid crap like depression? Hell I know of a person who gets $3600 a month from "disability" because he found a stupid shrink to say he was agoraphobic. This dude plays golf 3 days a week and is constantly around people. The system creates a laziness and dependency and anyone who says otherwise is living is a dream world not based in reality.

Before I was successful I lived in mississippi amongst the poor people. Many of these people spent hours trying to figure a way to get a "draw". This means a disability check from S.S. Its a career goal for people there. It was sad. They spent so much time trying to milk the system so they didnt have to work. Their kids learned how to do this as well. Exploiting the system is a lifestyle for many of the people I knew. It was truly pathetic. The (*)(*)(*)(*) system is broken and needs to be repealed.

Here is another scam the leeches have been handing down for decades.
Mother tells daughter to get pregnant by multiple men. Daughter has multiple babies by more than one dude. Mom calls DCFS and says daughter cant take care of kids properly. DCFS agrees and takes kids. Mother steps in to become the kids "foster" parent. The foster system pays out huge money every month for each kid. Kids get expensive shoes and playstations 3's while mom and daughter get big screen tvs and nice cars. Have you ever wondered how people in the ghettos are able to afford those expensive cars they drive? Its not from hard work thats for sure!!!!!

 

I don't believe in "having" an opportunity set out for me by the system, I believe in "making" my own opportunities regardless of what the system does or does not offer. Welfare is geared towards single moms not single able-bodied Men anyway.

Neccessity is the mother of invention. all people need is the resources that are already out there and get about being productive citizens.

handing out some mandatory opportunity will double over into dependency again and cause more complaining and more squatting on the system.

the welfare system is designed to help those who first help themselves, but mostly single moms who need it the most. then it's time to get off of it and get on your feet as not to sack the system. it's meant to be temporary aid. not life-long aid.

Crime can't stand a chance vs. Creativity.

If no jobs are out there, keep looking or start your own business.

I went almost 2 years without a job some years ago and crime never crossed my mind, so I decided to jump onto a landscaping crew, it was all that there was at the time for a guy with no college degree and not much training in any trade except landscaping. so I took it and ran with it. Now I work in IT and fix computers.

It's all about individual will. and I refuse to sit on welfare eventhough I had to use it at one point in my life. what a miserable way to live. I don't see how some people can utterly "live" off welfare.

p.s.- you are correct about getting educated. that helps a bunch. and it's not always in a schoolhouse. you can get on-the-job education too.

 

Absolutely. 'Education and training' - school, on the job training, apprentice training, etc., etc.. It needs to be available, though - that's what I mean by 'opportunity', not any kind of 'government provision of publicly-funded jobs' or anything. Opportunity is about making sure that people can get access to proper training to allow them to gain the skills to use to get themselves into the job market, as well as generally setting up the economy so that people/companies can employ people, of course! It's not about creating 'artificial jobs' to just give them money in some false pretence of employment. People do need to 'make their own opportunity' to an extent, of course, but realistically (particularly in the case of people who come from generations of welfare dependent families, where they have no 'work-friendly' role models to guide them) they need help to gain both the ability and the motivation to do that, and need to be given some hope that they have a decent chance of succeeding (making their own efforts worthwhile - as a general principle, if people don't see any realistic possibility of a return on an investment, they won't invest - that principle extends to training and working hard in order to escape welfare dependence).

It's not that escaping welfare dependance is impossible at the moment, of course, but just very much harder than it is for people who have no personal or family background in such dependence to stay clear of it. It's doubly hard, because it appears to them that the hopes of success are so limited, and that is a very strong de-motivating factor. It's all very well to say 'well that's their problem - they should try anyway', but the reality is that it really isn't that simple, and investing in giving them the tools and motivation to try is worthwhile for the whole of society (quite apart from being morally right, of course, especially since it was society that created the circumstances that led to the existance of these groups in the first place, even though it was done with the best of intentions).

In terms of crime, not everyone will turn to it, of course, but out of sheer desparation and hopelessness many more inevitable will tha would be the case if they weren't in that situation. Poverty and hopelessness ALWAYS creates a natural breeding ground for criminality. ALWAYS.

As for 'creating your own business', again that's very much harder to do if you have no money, and no way to get any money (because nobody will lend it to you on the basis of the effect that your background, address and so on have on your percieved 'creditworthy-ness').

I have also had several years of unemployment. I was lucky in having a family that supported and encouraged my efforts to get myself out of that, and I did get out of it through hard work and getting training - not everyone has that kind of support (as was said earlier in the thread by someone who has a family that thinks they are daft to not want to live on welfare).

It's called the 'poverty trap' for a reason. It's very hard to get out of it. Not impossible, but very hard. People who are born into reasonably well-off (and well-motivated) families, that go to 'good' schools, and live in 'nice' areas, and so on simply have a much, much higher chance of succeeding in life than those that come from a poor, welfare dependant background from 'the wrong side of town'. Not only is it actually harder for those people, the relative improbability of success prevents many of them from trying (as I said above about 'investment' - almost no chance of a decent return, so it isn't worth investing). It is possible for many, many more people to escape that trap than currently do, but they need assistance and support to be able to get the personal tools to do it, and they need encouragement to realise that it is something worth doing.

Abandoning those people will just create an 'underclass', living in virtual (and/or actual) slums, that is riddled with abject poverty, homelessness, starvation, disease and criminality, and that effects the whole of society practically, as well as morally - solving that kind of problem is largely why welfare systems were invented in the first place, and if you just remove that system you will simply re-create the original problem. The solution has to be to help people to help themselves, not to just pay them to do nothing (or to do 'artificial jobs' that don't actually need doing, for that matter!), or simply to abandon them completely. It's the hardest of the 3 'options', of course, and requires the most thought, investment and long-term planning, but it's still the only one with any chance at all of success.