The Republicunts Go Marie Antoinette One Better

[Psykhronic]

When you make unsupported blanket statements about the poor, you're going to get some shit around here. Such as, that this welfare is highly abused. Damn poor people 'abusing' the very system that otherwise doesn't give a fuck about them.

And your 'solutions' are impractical in America.

[Isun]

Children will go without meals. One of the biggest if not the biggest cause of learning disability is poor nutrition. In other words going without meals.

The food stamp program has been one of the most effective programs in this country. The mean spirited republicans have shown that they don't care at all for their fellow americans unless they are either rich or can do something for the politician.

[Tonus]

If you had created public messhalls where daily hot meals were delivered for the poor to come and eat, it would be a better alternative to this food stamp/welfare check thing.

I think we've got a better infrastructure for providing something like food stamps to people across the country, than for providing free meals in public spaces. I think that it's much the same for the other social services that are provided here. They fit our circumstances as a nation and I think they work pretty well, even given the inefficiency.

[kılıç_mehmet]

When you make unsupported blanket statements about the poor, you're going to get some shit around here. Such as, that this welfare is highly abused. Damn poor people 'abusing' the very system that otherwise doesn't give a fuck about them.

And your 'solutions' are impractical in America.

Well it is, is it not? It just begs to be abused because the poor who are on it don't see the reason in being poor workers. I don't condemn those who abuse it, they simply don't have a better alternative other than to be on welfare. What, find a job and still eat the same food while your life standards won't get any higher?
Why work, for fucksake?
And they don't, they do abuse the welfare system. Not to say that there aren't those who cannot work and need the support of society, however I'm sure that there are a lot of able bodied people who are on it.
If a system gets abused, it means it's not working properly. However you are defending a system that gets both abused, and is not really a solution to poverty in any way.
And call me heartless for discussing other alternatives.
As for practicality, do you believe that giving money or food to poor people is actually the solution for anything? Except in times like great famines, or natural disasters, epidemics, and etc, such things should not be the solution.
Poor people exist everywhere, and frankly, those who don't work in any way, contribute very little to society. The solution is not to throw at them your leftovers, but to give them a means to earn their own money without looking back to a less-exhausting alternative. But these people choose welfare over work, because working holds no extra benefits for these people.

The reason that welfare abuse is not 100% is not because poor people are not prone to abuse it. It's not just poor people, everyone in this world looks for a hand-out or a way to get easy money or a day's sustenance. Poor people aren't really different, they'd live on welfare for the rest of their lives if the government supplied them with it.

[Psykhronic]

I do not remember actually stating what I think the solution is. I fail to see a problem with abuse, especially since you have no stats to back it up. I do not believe getting rid of these programs is the answer, nor do I believe they are the heart of the problem. My country needs more jobs, and on top of that, jobs with living wages (after all, working people can go on welfare). Welfare is only meant to be short-term (unless there is a long-term disability), so we should make living wage jobs, education, training, etc available to ensure there are means to be lifted out of the need for assistance. The system as a whole needs revamping and fine-tuning, not specifically welfare, and needs to be done in a way that recognizes how the United States operates. Right now especially, cutting programs that help the poor is not going to help lift them out of poverty in the US economy.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I do not remember actually stating what I think the solution is. I fail to see a problem with abuse, especially since you have no stats to back it up. I do not believe getting rid of these programs is the answer, nor do I believe they are the heart of the problem. My country needs more jobs, and on top of that, jobs with living wages (after all, working people can go on welfare). Welfare is only meant to be short-term, so we should make living wage jobs, education, training, etc available to ensure there are means to be lifted out of the need for assistance. The system as a whole needs revamping and fine-tuning, not specifically welfare, and needs to be done in a way that recognizes how the United States operates. Right now especially, cutting programs that help the poor is not going to help lift them out of poverty in the US economy.

Well, since you do not have jobs with living wages for people with no real trade whatsoever, this seems to be going for the long term, any no one is actually looking at the problem itself. Even with or without numbers, I think that the abuse of this system lies in its perpetuation of it. I have not said that there are people who live off high on this, how well can you live off on welfare either?
And why working people receive welfare is really beyond me, so it seems as though finding people jobs isn't going to solve this shit either. So people are going to be on this for some time, as it seems, and all that you can think of is the continuation of it.
If it does not help them, why is it there?
I mean, similar programs were there in our eastern provinces, where they receive extra payment for each new child they pop up, and with the new influx of refugees, a lot more money had to be allocated to their "welbeing". No one thought of cutting on the baby-boom, nor stop the influx of refugees, the real causes of the problem.
I personally think that welfare should only be accessible to people who have no means of feeding themselves. Working people, or work-able people ought not to receive it.

I didn't say to cut it all entirely, though why really keep the above mentioned people on welfare? What's the point?

[Psykhronic]

They don't have jobs with living wages and have kids to feed, etc. There are reasons why able bodied people are on welfare. Yeah, finding them jobs wont do any good if the jobs DO NOT PAY LIVING WAGES. You cannot cut that out of the equation.

What will cutting welfare solve in the context of America's current situation?

[kılıç_mehmet]

They don't have jobs with living wages and have kids to feed, etc. There are reasons why able bodied people are on welfare. Yeah, finding them jobs wont do any good if the jobs DO NOT PAY LIVING WAGES. You cannot cut that out of the equation.

What will cutting welfare solve in the context of America's current situation?

Well my friend, there are a lot of people in my country who have kids and live on the minimum wage, but they still live. They eat one bread less than you or me, but they still live. Raise the minimum wages to suit the country's current economic climate. Of course, since you Americans lack any form of collective thought that could perhaps aim to bring about a rise in national well-being, increasing taxes to fund better social programs like providing your unskilled labor with jobs is not going to fly, neither is the raising of the minimum wage because it won't fit in with your rich multi-national corporates.
Well, either cut off welfare entirely, or bring about a real welfare state that aims for social engineering and healthy communities.
Hybrid systems almost always never work. You're capitalist, yet you have the government going around distributing tax-payer money to people?
Of course people are going to object.
You have unemployment and poverty, yet you want more immigration and "immiration reform" that will legalize your illegal aliens, making jobs less accessible for the natives.

Since you've been giving welfare to these guys for some time now, cutting off welfare would cause most to still pull through in one way or the other, by finding some minimum wage job as an unskilled laborer, but would probably struggle still, perhaps think twice before not using a condom while fugging.
Design a real welfare system, for I think this is quite like throwing bones to a dog.

[Psykhronic]

I never said anything about wanting immigration - and I haven't seen any numbers suggesting they are a burden on the welfare system. I don't endorse illegals using welfare, but I fail to see how it is worthy of being an issue at this time.

The minimum can, and has been, raised before and could happen again. Hell, my state has been steadily raising minimum wage for years. On the federal level, it's more difficult, but possible, and the idea is gaining a lot of traction among the public and even Obama is in favor of it - it may take more time, but I guarantee the minimum wage will increase.

Increasing taxes is hard, I'll agree. I hesitate to say it's never going to happen though.

Again, I fail to see how cutting welfare is going to help America in it's present situation.

[Isun]

Welfare today is essentially subsidizing corporations for their low pay. Worse, because company's like walmart that pay minimum wage it is hurting our economy. An economy depends on consumers buying products. As long as we continue to subsidize on average $6,000 per person to corporations we need to have welfare to pay for what they are not willing to pay

I would love to eliminate the need for welfare. But to do that we need to stop subsidizing corporations for their low wages. Health care needs to be taken from corporations and medicare for all people from birth to death. Tax subsidies need to be eliminated for corporations.