The welfare family---

It is typical to hear people speaking as if they are outraged at the welfare system due to the incentive provided to welfare mothers to have more babies. As if the incentive is so great, that mothers on welfare will keep 'pumping' out the babies at an exorbitant rate to get rich quick. This continues the growth of the economic liabilities and increases the numbers recieving benefits which in turn call for more and possibly higher taxes to pay for such. It is this fundamental reason why many people suggest and believe that, A-welfare has failed, and B-welfare will never work. It has been compared to attempting to put out a fire with gasoline and other clever anologies. There are of course othe complaints about the system however I have chosen to tackle this one first. Welfare can and does assist in the reduction of poverty provided the appropriate social networking runs paralel to the assistance. This is a generalization and has specific reasoning for a particular region, stae, or nation. I have posted several links of the comparisons to other welfare systems which have greatly reduced poverty, child poverty, and feul poverty. These may inevitably be invoked on this thread as discussion advances however they will most likely be the focus of my next topic.

The Tier-One Economy operates independently of the Tier-Two economy in many ways. It is possible and prevalent for great wealth to be accumulated in the upper tier regardless of the size of the lower tier or changes in the lower tier. However, stronger social programs aimed at shrinking the size of the lower tier lead to even greater wealth in the upper tier. A survey of gross domestic product of countries around the world easily shows that shrinking the lower tier results in exponential benefits to the upper tier. I have cited several links which display the various methods a state may employ to eliminate the alleged incentive to procreate, I will also post some family size comparisons as it is also thought that welfare families are considerably larger than non welfare families. I welcome opposing viewpoints with credible citations when needed. Keep in mind that not all public assistance is welfare, as some studies use this medium to gauge various statistics, it may manipulate specific outcomes in terms of a debate on welfare.


This link displays family cap policies per state.
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/...ormFamilyCapPolicies/tabid/16306/Default.aspx

This is a very intersting study out of Yale indicating their findings regarding the effects of family cap policies.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp877.pdf

This one mentions family size comparisons.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12321292

This is another interesting read (yet not too lengthy) regarding the various methods to reduce out of wedlock births and the success rate thereof.
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp102293.pdf


While there is most certainly many other very good studies and reports, I do not want to flood this OP with too much and will allow the others to be invoked as needed. I look forward to the respectful debate which may ensue.

 

The income gap is not being caused by people getting rich. Its caused by the poor ranks swelling simply because there are more and more being born into this economic group. Welfare, and the more that's provided, tends to lead people to come to rely on it. Instead of cutting people off so if they do have more children they will be forced to work they are rewarded with more money to take care of them.
People should not be having children if they cant afford to take care of them. If they do than they need to be prepared to deal with the hardships. Welfare does not punish them for living beyond their means.

 

Social networking may allow for people to remove themselves from tier two. Education has been a sought after goal, the idea is that if these people are educated (primarily through further assistance) then they may aspire to jobs which pay better than their current lifestyle which according to sensible economics will incetivze them to obtain these jobs which were previously unavailable. Problem with this is, depending on the current economic status quo, you may just end up with a bunch of people all dressed up with nowhere to go. You would also have a glut of semi skilled and trained workers and an expediture for the paid training. This is one example of social networking to shrink tier two and gro the benefits of tier one exponetially. Like I mentioned earlier though, there is specific reasoning for these various programs depending on the status quo. As I just described, education and training could help, yet could also fail miserably and make things worse.

You must have missed the premise of the OP and the link cited which display family cap policies per state. More links allude to their effectiveness.

It doesnt do anything for, or against people having children who cannot reasonably afford them. How do you want to punish them, they are reproducing just as other classes do. Many studies, including at least one of which I cited, suggests economics is unrelated to child birth. I know when I had a daughter it had more to do with not wanting to use a condom than what it was going to cost me.

 

Well I pretty much agree with you and very good post by the way. People having children does not have to do with economics I will agree but I also don't believe they should be giving help beyond stop gap measures. Welfare should be there to help and not to sustain for a long period of time.

As far as your view I absolutely agree with you. The key to helping the "Lower tier" I believe your referring to them as is the key. The current economic situation won't last forever so having people able to get schooling is the most important factor.

I would like to see unemployment benefits dropped from their 2 year or whatever is cycle to about 3 months and that money sent to financial aid. Also have a set amount of welfare payments that is the maximum you can receive no matter how many children you have.

 

I guess before the 1960's implementation of Welfare, people were starving in the streets by the tens of thousands.

 

Actually they were during the depression.

 

How about the 40's, 50's and early 60's? Millions must have died.

 

I'm not fond of welfare. I've never been on welfare. I don't foresee being on welfare in my future. But let's call it the way it is; There are (xx) jobs available. There are (xxxxxxx) people out of work, not by their own choice in the majority of cases. There are only (xx) jobs because 'we the people' voted in incompetent people that, one way or another, permitted American jobs to 'leach out' of the country. (American's voted them in because American voters are either stupid and/ or didn't pay attention).
ERGO: We the people created the situation we are in. We allowed it to occur. We are responsible. People that have been forced to rely on welfare because 'we the people' have made horrendous decisions picking our inept political leaders. (As we will do again this year). We the people have no valid cause to deny the victims of our own stupidity the privilege of food and shelter. Our wrong decisions created the need for welfare.

 

Unemployment was around 2.2% during WW2, following the war unemployment went up a little bit but the rest of the developed world was in shambles. The U.S was in high demand and jobs and living standards were on the rise. We still had public assistace, yet people were working so they did not need it.

 

We've proven that extended welfare like we have today is not required. We have gotten by just fine without it in the past. Welfare as it is structured today is enough for some to make life livable for them according to their standards.

That is wrong. Welfare was created to help people through rough spots, not sustain them for a lifetime. I assure you that if you dump welfare and unemployment people will find ways to get by.

They have in the past.

 

Prior to the 1960's Public Assistance was for the elderly or disabled, which I'm in favor of.

 

In the past it was a good paying factory job that didn't need a college education is what sustained workers for a lifetime. But, with our new and improved free market, Chinese workers now have good paying factory jobs that don't need a college education.

 

Good point and that fact of no one starving to death must make these current welfare libs look foolish at best.

 

We simply replaced family, church, morality, and chasity with the state and free love. How'd that work out?

_

 

That's a strong assertion of the point the OP negates, but no evidence is offered. Does anyone have any real data on this issue?

 

You really think the income gap is coming from lots of people becoming millionaires? Not likely, I didn't offer proof because this should be common sense.

 

The Australian system is primarily delivered by (for profit) private businesses. The quicker they find people a job and get them off welfare, the more money they make.

The system is quite intrusive and the longer you are on welfare, the more intrusive it becomes and the more assistance with training, interview techniques, etc. it provides.

The end point for welfare is an "either/or" situation; as in "either you aren't trying or you are completely mentally disabled". If the former, goodbye welfare, if the latter then you will be put on a disabled pension.

The other dimension is that no kid or young person gets welfare unless they are undergoing subsidised training or have gone back to school.

This system was put together by hard headed economists, not bleeding heart Liberals. We do not want to create a dependent sub culture, although there are always a few total loss oxygen thieves.

 

the only way to end the welfare class is to cut them off. Yes there will be heartwarming stories about the evil of it but people will adjust.

 

Gotta better idea, how about we get rid of free trade, bring our jobs back, and throw everyone who supported free trade into prison for treason. Yes there will be heartwarming stories about the evil of it but people will adjust.

 

Depends on who you ask.

 

Thats what I said, we had public assistance yet did not need welfare because of very special circumstances. First, going to war gave evryone a job, after that the rest of the developed world was in shambles, more jobs came to fill any which were lost following the wars end. On top of that the U.S was the worlds largest oil exporter which is always a plus.

 

Geez....darn poor people are just ruining everything for you guys huh?

 

Incorrect as I stated in my previous post to mr peabody. Do you have anything arguing contrary to the OP?

 

So you agree with the OP?

 

This will actually probably be the focal point of my next thread. Not that I cannot adress the issue, Its just I would rather tackle this particular issue before moving on. Thanls for compliment about this thread too, I appreciate it.