Welfare
By joshua_w
@joshua_w (501)
Malaysia
August 12, 2008 5:10am CST
You may be aware that right-wing politicians frequently argue against welfare on several grounds. Opponents of welfare would say that someone down on his luck would have to pull himself out of his own predicament. The government was not responsible for his misfortune and therefore it's not the government's responsibility to help him then. They argued that if you can't make it in this world, then you will be poor. And if you can do well, you will succeed and become wealthy.
Then, there are some who are more compassionate and agree that the plight of the poor is indeed saddening, but it's still not the government's duty to help them. Perhaps, the charities should help them, but not the government.
But the real world, and life itself paints a different picture as many of you would know. Life, as we all know is not fair. Skill and knowledge are not the only determinant of whether we succeed in life. Luck itself do play a role in our life, maybe even a major role. The poor-they might be poor owing perhaps to a lack of skills or knowledge. But let us not forget that they could be poor because they were born into poverty and hardship, the so-called poverty cycle or poverty trap really do exist.
Welfare critics also claim of the 'welfare trap'; that someone receiving government incentives would be dependent on it and finds no motivation to look for a job. In other words they could become lazy. A good point there but it should not be applied to everyone, nor should it be used to rebuff the case for welfare. The flaw exist in the implementation not welfare itself.
I'm sure many would say that providing for the poor is the right thing to do. It is our moral rights. Arguing along a similar line, we should help the poor because economists often blame great disparity of income as a source of detriment to the economy of a country. Many of the poor and those in poverty are born into those circumstance through no fault of their own. Therefore, our society and its government should address this problem through another solution which many of us would have been aware of deep down- equal opportunities. Equal opportunities in the form of, for example, free healthcare and education that is made available to all. With education comes self-advancement and it's one of the most important tools in the fight against poverty.
Almost everyone laud the free market these days, but there is still a flaw in this model. Yes, poverty. In economics term, should the government let the free market forces run unhindered and therefore we don't help the poor or should it interfere with those forces to help those who are not so lucky in life?
Your opinion then on whether welfare and providing for the poor is the right thing for the government to pursue? Are the poor the government responsibility, and should the government provide welfare for them?
6 people like this
8 responses
@zandi458 (28102)
• Malaysia
12 Aug 08
It is part and parcel of the Government's duty to eradicate poverty. the government of the day should see that the country richness is equally shared among its citizen. Being poor and unemployed is one of the worst misfortunes that can befall a person or family and has many harmful influences on the society at large. The government should step in to help. It is unjust that the poor should suffer for conditions which they cannot in any way control.
In order not to be self reliance on aids from the government, more skilled work training should be given to these people. They should then be evaluated once they are employed through this government sponsored training. By and by the number of people claiming poverty line benefits will be greatly reduced. Poverty is a major handicap in nation building. We cannot deny that even the rich and advanced countries do still face this economic ills. The present high cost of living will surely create more misfortunes among citizens and only the government can relieve these misfortunes.
@joshua_w (501)
• Malaysia
14 Aug 08
'Sharing richness' as you mentioned is always a noble goal as it bridges the income inequality among the people. Of course, a great income disparity is the source of many social ills in many countries, particularly developing countries, of which i'm living in one.
Another case for welfare then. Your arguments here are really good. Which bring to the point that there are many from the poor that do not or, maybe could not further their formal education because of their conditions. The skilled work training that you mentioned was a good way to help them join the workforce and hopefully to a better life. It might also reduce the numbers of those claiming for welfare, as you'd said.
From your profile, i see that we lived in the same country. And i'm sure you would know of the turmoil we're in now.
1 person likes this
@reckon21 (3479)
• Philippines
13 Aug 08
[i]Welfare is one of the primary concern and duty of the
Government.Politicians and other personalities
in the Government must work with the welfare of the
whole citizen in their society.However,in behalf of their effort
fighting poverty and making solutions within is not easy to achieve.
There must be a partnership between government and people in the society.
[/i]
[/i]2 people like this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
12 Aug 08
I think there are rare occasions that a little help is necessary. People cranking kids out and not wanting to work is not one. I look at down turns in the economy. I lived in Michigan when the BIG layoffs at the car companies of the 80s. People in 200k homes and no job. I think first off, you should sell that home, this gives you cash while looking for a new job. People may have to take jobs they don't like but they can do that while looking for a job they do. Churches are great venues for help. If you have no faith, then there are other outlets as well. What ever happened to family and neighbors taking care of each other. I don't like the government taxing me for charity. I should be able to choose where my money goes. There are a lot of programs I do not agree with. Welfare in general, you do not have to take any classes, just show up and they pay you. I do like WIC, it is for a good cause and you are required to learn proper nutrition. Rarely do you see a women who has recd this program, at 7-11 using her foodstamps to buy slurpees. I can always tell at the grocery store who gets food stamps. They have all convenience foods, even though they are at home and can cook from scratch. I do not receive food stamps, I buy off brand and cook mostly from scratch. I had to work for each dollar that I spend.
Regarding healthcare, there are outpatient clinics that cost 50 bucks to go. This is what my co-pay with insurance is......
I could rant about this all day, but to wind it down, I work damn hard for my money and I hate to see it squandered away.
1 person likes this
@joshua_w (501)
• Malaysia
15 Aug 08
I do not know how welfare program in your country works. Charities welfare or aid organization are different than state welfare in the sense that there is a limit to what charities could do for the poor, whereas the government have the power through policies to extend more assistance to the people in general.
It is true that state welfare, like all government's spending, is funded by the people's tax money. And many don't agree to their tax money being used to 'subsidize' the poor. But you could think of it this way-most countries practised what is called 'progressive taxation' which taxes the rich more than the less-affluent. So, in this way, the poor woud not be burden with high taxes and feel discouraged to find employment. Also, this type of taxation helps to distribute income more evenly to the whole populace and reduce income disparity between the rich and poor.
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
13 Aug 08
Part of the problem with welfare is that fact it does very little to help the recipient become self-sufficient.
1 person likes this
@joshua_w (501)
• Malaysia
14 Aug 08
Yes, welfare does not help much when it comes to self-sufficiency, but it addresses the immediate needs of those who are poor not by choice. If the government don't help them, who will. There are not many people who are as rich as Bill Gates and have a philanthropic nature as him.
1 person likes this
@soooobored (1184)
• United States
13 Aug 08
I randomly took a long treatment of this topic earlier today in one of my posts, so I'm only going to give a brief response here... Just so you're not offended!
I think that welfare has created a cycle of poverty, and that because welfare was introduced by the government, the government is therefore responsible for correcting the issues that lead to poverty. The largest burden to welfare right now are generational recipients; the ones that have grown up with parents on welfare, and don't know how to support themselves.
Reforming welfare won't work; PRWORA in 1996 was written to enforce a work requirement to receiving welfare benefits; but the vendors that run these programs need to meet strict unrealistic program requirements, and therefore push to the limits of the guidelines governing the program making even doctor's appointments count as "working hours". So increasing welfare benefits or expanding the net so that more can receive them will not work.
Educational programs need to be introduced EARLY in schools, teaching kids about birth control options, predatory lenders, and general life skills. Resume writing, interviewing techniques, even proper hygiene should be addressed early. Waiting until high school is worthless, a lot of these kids drop out by the ninth grade (or even have kids by then).
I don't want to seem callous, there are people who benefit from short term welfare and turn their lives around. But the vast majority fall into the categories you discussed above; they will stay on and figure out how to work the system to their greatest advantage. Ie, if I work x number of hours, then I can retain my cash, food stamps and childcare. But if I increase to y I can keep just the food stamps and childcare, and the clock won't run out on my cash benefits.
Great post, I really think we need to start getting creative about solving this problem!!
1 person likes this
@joshua_w (501)
• Malaysia
15 Aug 08
No offense taken. And please don't take offense in what i'm about to say. It's just my view.
"Welfare has created a cycle of poverty, and that because welfare was introduced by the government, the government is therefore responsible for correcting the issues that lead to poverty". Don't agree that welfare has created a cycle of poverty though. The 'poverty cycle' is not caused by welfare. Poverty necessitate welfare. It is a humane policy. It's the 'implementation' of those welfare policies that may cause a person to be 'trap' in the cycle. The state should correct those issues, yes but it is not welfare itself that causes poverty.
Your following paragraphs illustrate that well. i 'm not familiar with your welfare program in your country but feel that reform movement that don't work needs to be reassess to fine-tune any faults in implementation. Again, it's the implementation. Maybe increasing welfare benefits only to the hardcore poor and not all the poor is viable.
As for 'generational recipients' of welfare, well, there should be disincentive or a total prohibition perhaps on the next generation receiving welfare benefits. Benefits of another kind say, free or cheaper education and healthcare should be proposed instead. Or, as Zandi remarked in an earlier post, to give out skilled/vocational training to those children of the poor who are not academically inclined. There is equality of opportunities for them to lead a better life instead of giving monetary rewards all the time which tends to make people dependent on help.
@joshua_w (501)
• Malaysia
20 Aug 08
Still believe that provision of basic amenities and institutions like higher education, healthcare, together with welfare assistance for the hardcore poor are the best solutions in overcoming poverty.
The lack of 'opportunities' tends to perpetuate the poverty cycle. We need to provide 'more and equal' opportunities to as many people in education, healthcare, housing, for them to have a better life.
Thanks Liz for your intelligent comments.
@soooobored (1184)
• United States
18 Aug 08
I agree with a lot of what you say. I would say right now that my issue with the US welfare system is that it is a blanket program, and more qualitative measures are needed to treat poverty. Even within my state, welfare works in some counties and not others, which shows that yes, it can work, just not the same everywhere!
1 person likes this
@lixiaos77 (1030)
• Shijiazhuang, China
13 Aug 08
Even the most wealthy county can not support a welfare system efficiently. welfare policy cousume the wealth that diligent people accumulate and slow down the economy. The politician can get more support if he promise that he will enforce new welfare policy. Actually he should promise more work opportunities in stead of welfare policy.
1 person likes this
@joshua_w (501)
• Malaysia
14 Aug 08
Contrary to popular beliefs, a welfare policy does not "consume the wealth that diligent people accumulate and slow down the economy". Perhaps, you are only thinking in terms of welfare as handouts and 'food coupons' to maybe the able-bodied poor who can work but chose not to.
Welfare is more than that. Providing equal opportunities to the poor such as free healthcare and education are also 'welfare' per se. When the state steps in to rectify the social inequities caused by the interaction of a pure free market forces, it is the right thing for a caring government to do, don't you think?
Maybe politicians would gain more support in advocating a more 'humane' policy as you mentioned but think of it in the long-term; if we do not provide for the poor by providing equality of opportunity as mentioned, wouldn't it caused more social problems and economic uncertainties?
"If the next Einstein was born into a poor family (through no fault of his own), his potential might never show itself unless he had the necessary educational opportunities, didn't have to worry about dropping out of school to feed his siblings, and wasn't too sick to be thinking about physics." - John Lee
1 person likes this
@bamakelly (5191)
• United States
12 Aug 08
Welfare has been in existence for a long time. It seems that it will probably still exist for many more years. There are more laws that have been enacted toward the system which does make the poor or indigent need to find work if they want to stay on the program.
I live in the United States. I guess you could say that it is one of the best countrys in the world. The "melting pot" so to speak. Our country seems to want to help the destitute through public assistance. Some people really do deserve these things and they can't help it. 
@joshua_w (501)
• Malaysia
14 Aug 08
Poverty is still one of the major flaw of the free market economic system; a system that places economic decisions on the individuals rather than the state, based on the law of demand and supply.
If we could view poverty as an undesirable thing for a civilized society; a fact of life that "life is not fair to all", then eradicating poverty should be a main concern for all.
So, the case for 'welfare' is that the government should step in to help those in poverty, as these are people who cannot help themselves. I think this issue will not be resolved in our lifetime. But every small steps towards solving it would be a good step forward.
@myrandge (43)
• China
13 Aug 08
welfare should be provides to all the people .
something is uncertainly.so everyone may need some help from others.
in other word,if you don't have work,and your income could't afford your family,do you think that the country should help you at the time?
1 person likes this
