Mocking The Poor

[Freedom]

We should ask why that does not exsist? I think a rather compelling argument could be made that it just might be the government programs that were enacted that created the current culture of welfare and attitudes in general. And you know you can stop beating Wade up, I am sure that you can tell that he like Nehor is not just some dumb rube that has no idea what is really going on.

Well, clearly he is ignoring the thousands that suffered and died because of a lack of a social net, people who tried to find work but could not. Regardless of the causes of the current situation, we are still here and it needs to be addressed. I don't think Wade has any idea of the condition of the very poor. He lives in a very sheltered world behind research and a life of no obligation to any spouse or children. Education is the key, and those who are being raised in poverty will only gain access to this through social programs. The reason the social programs came about was to help the very poor from suffering. The problems have always existed, and the condition of the very poor is much better today. There is some abuse, but the underlying challenges of poverty have been around for thousands of years and calling it a 21st century problem is naive. 

[wenglund]

Wade,

Read some history. Clearly there is a role for social welfare to prevent the poverty of earlier ages. Clearly there are those who need help and cannot get it. Yes, your grandmother was a wonderful person, but she had friends to watch her children, a church to give her extra food, and a culture of involvement. Today this does not exist. We can lament it or we can accept it and take measures to prevent the younger generation from following the steps of their parents. You seem to feel that any proposal to fund programs for the poor is socialism and destructive to society. Not every having married nor having raised children has sheltered you from the realities of the modern age. I am in my childrens schools almost every day and I volunteer as much as I can, but many children need support because we no longer have extended family or churches. These children need support and if they receive the proper support at a younger age, they will come out of poverty. This has been proven again and again. There are also many who, unlike your mother, lack the capacity to be employed either due to mental illness or learning disabilities. 

 

I have yet to mention the "s" word in this thread, and I don't deny the need for welfare. In fact, I have posited welfare as a moral imperative.

 

Rather, my challenge is with certain means, rather than certain ends. We both wish to help the poor and see them raised out of poverty. It is just that I have discovered through considerable research that supplanting individual and shared responsibility, with government compulsion, and turning over matters of the heart to relatively cold and distant government bureaucracies, tends to make matter worse for all parties rather than better, contrary to what you have concluded.

 

When I entered thread I asked whether people cared if government programs accomplished their objectives or not. I did so because I have gotten the sense from observing public discourse that, in large part, people don't care. What matters to them is that politicians have good intents. If the intent are successfully realized, then great, but if not, no problem. This is their choice, To each their own.

 

What matters to me, though, is not just the good intent, but avoiding wasting tax-payer money, and instead rationally devoting limited resources towards proven means that best realize the good intent.

 

My reasons for posting in this thread is that I figured that I was not alone in this thinking, and that while people may have been led to believe government welfare works, that they would see things differently once presented with the facts. If they don't, and wish to see things otherwise, then to each their own.

 

Whatever the case may be with you, you do raise a good and valid point--i.e. what is to be done about people who lack adequate private support systems and employment opportunities? What is the best way, if any, to assist those who fall between the social cracks?

 

These are questions deserving of viable answers. I simply submit that such cracks are not rationally filled by wielding a government welfare sledge hammer.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 20, 2014 by wenglund

[M.CowanBerghofer]

Concerning those two verses I don't think they have any direct correlation. I believe that we should stick to the literal definitions of these two words and not try to figure out new, vague and possibly wrong definitions of things. Theorizing over points of doctrine is all well and good, and we can find truth by doing so, but letting the pendulum swing too far is unhealthy. The common sense definition of mocking and the one I found on the web states that to mock (verb) is to "Tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner." One can see how the command not to mock and the command to not withhold of ones substance to poor relate. If one is mocking the poor, he/she DEFINITELY won't be giving to the poor. If one is not giving to the poor, perhaps the reason why is because he/she is mocking the poor. I believe that the footnotes can lead us to different subjects that are similar.

[BCSpace]

These children need support and if they receive the proper support at a younger age, they will come out of poverty. This has been proven again and again.

 

I agree.  But I would not agree that proper support means offering welfare dependency.  That has been disproven throughout recent history.

[The Nehor]

Well I certainly can enjoy those comments. But sometimes the mods and others have a hard time with them. I figured there was a bromance developing between you 2.

 

So far my PMs asking for his phone number for a hot date have gone unanswered. Hope springeth eternal.....

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, clearly he is ignoring the thousands that suffered and died because of a lack of a social net, people who tried to find work but could not. Regardless of the causes of the current situation, we are still here and it needs to be addressed. I don't think Wade has any idea of the condition of the very poor. He lives in a very sheltered world behind research and a life of no obligation to any spouse or children. Education is the key, and those who are being raised in poverty will only gain access to this through social programs. The reason the social programs came about was to help the very poor from suffering. The problems have always existed, and the condition of the very poor is much better today. There is some abuse, but the underlying challenges of poverty have been around for thousands of years and calling it a 21st century problem is naive. 

I am curious, did you watch the video I posted with Milton Friedmon on the Donahue show in the 70's? It is very relevant to what you are saying. If not I can post it. I promise it is not a very threatning video.

 

Of course I think you are right about something and that is education is indeed the key. But it appears that once again having the government do it seems to muck things up a bit.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

My reasons for posting in this thread is that I figured that I was not alone in this thinking, and that while people may have been led to believe government welfare works, that they would see things differently once presented with the facts. If they don't, and wish to see things otherwise, then to each their own.

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As Stuart says, "You are free to have your own opinions. You are not free to have your own facts".

[wenglund]

So far my PMs asking for his phone number for a hot date have gone unanswered. Hope springeth eternal.....

 

Please don't take it personally. I have been a dismal failure at romance, and so bromances are somewhat out of the question.

 

Besides, I was mortally afraid that since you look a bit like Jeff Daniels, and I look a bit like Jim Carrey, people might mistake us for...

 

 

...and my debilitating shyness couldn't handle all the adoring public attention.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[nebula]

Mosiah 4:26I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.Apparently, he forgot to include housing, secular education, transportation, big screen TVs and Obamaphones.

The only item on that list unnecessary for survival in today's society is the TV, and the government doesn't customarily hand out free big screen televisions. I get the sense that you may be unfamiliar with the reality of the welfare system in the United States. The stipends given to welfare recipients are minimal, there are strict restrictions on what can be purchased with EBT cards, and all recipients are required to regularly submit proof of a job search and to attend job training courses. A large number of welfare recipients are already employed but living below the poverty line.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The only item on that list unnecessary for survival in today's society is the TV, and the government doesn't customarily hand out free big screen televisions. I get the sense that you may be unfamiliar with the reality of the welfare system in the United States. The stipends given to welfare recipients are minimal, there are strict restrictions on what can be purchased with EBT cards, and all recipients are required to regularly submit proof of a job search and to attend job training courses. A large number of welfare recipients are already employed but living below the poverty line.

Yeah and we all know those are all heavily enfourced. I really don't think it is quite like you are telling us. This was covered in another thread but you can side step the rules and by booze at the grocery store with your ETB. You could probably even buy a loto ticket with your card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP_izYhdehY

 

yeah they require you to look for a job but who is really checking?

[nebula]

You can't buy booze or lottery tickets with an EBT card. You can't even buy important non-food items like toilet paper or soap. If you bring a mix of food and non-food items to the register and pay with your EBT card, the non-food total will remain until you supply another means of payment.

Of course there must surely be ways to bend and break the rules-- aren't there always?-- but it's not as lax as system as you make it seem here.

[Calm]

Our medical benefits card recognises the difference between prescription and nonprescription items and won't pay for the latter even if in the same purchase. I simply pay with a different method the uncovered section. Surely the technology is there to do thatwooth ETB cards as well which is how it appears to be described by nebula.

If the store clerk is being deceptive and willing to put in the wrong code, that could work I assume but avoiding intentional fraud involving both customer and seller might require a noncost beneficial system.

[Calm]

. This was covered in another thread but you can side step the rules and by booze at the grocery store with your ETB. You could probably even buy a loto ticket with your card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP_izYhdehY?

Is this just claimed or actually shown in this video?

[nebula]

That video's ridiculous! They purposefully chose the worst possible candidate to represent welfare recipients. It's entertaining but not representative of the population. I've met a lot of people on food stamps, and none of them resembled that guy. They were overwhelmingly single mothers of young children, employed in low-level food service positions.

[wenglund]

You can't buy booze or lottery tickets with an EBT card. You can't even buy important non-food items like toilet paper or soap. If you bring a mix of food and non-food items to the register and pay with your EBT card, the non-food total will remain until you supply another means of payment.

Of course there must surely be ways to bend and break the rules-- aren't there always?-- but it's not as lax as system as you make it seem here.

 

I haven't heard of an EBT card. Sounds like a good idea that may cut back on food stamp fraud--people used to, and may still, sell their SNAP coupons for cash (see HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2014 by wenglund

[nebula]

In NJ, at least, they've phased out food stamps altogether-- not sure about the rest of the country. It is still possible to trade EBT benefits for cash, but to do so you'd have to hand the physical card and your PIN to someone else, with no real guarantee you'll get it back. The card makes fraud a lot less desirable.

[thesometimesaint]

I haven't heard of an EBT card. Sounds like a good idea that may cut back on food stamp fraud--people used to, and may still, sell their SNAP coupons for cash (see HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The key is fraud, an illegal act. There will always be those that through illegal/immoral means game the system. Even the Church isn't immune from such. But it is uncommon, and we(The Church, and our governments) do take serious precautions to prevent it.

[Freedom]

Social programs are not about handing out money to lazy people who don't want to get a job. This is the lie that the extreme right wants to perpetuate. The extreme right that mostly resides in southern states where welfare is most rampant. Government welfare includes public schools, employment training, addition recovery programs and psychological therapy. To say that the government just messes it up is to suggest that the private sect does a better job. The private sector does nothing so this argument is ridiculous. 

 

We need government programs. We are not living in the middle ages. People have real needs that requires an organized network. More support workers in schools, more social workers monitoring welfare recipients, more medical support for the mentally ill, more job training for the under employed. These programs work. 

 

Do not turn this into socialism versus free enterprise. The government is the best organization to deliver many services. Policing, road construction, schools, and hospitals would not function if not for government involvement. 

 

Providing something for free certainly tends to devalue it, but somethings should be free. Everybody should be entitled to an education. I do not see how providing a tax funded high school diploma is detrimental to society. Work training programs are often abused, this is true. I see 15 people enroll and one or two pursue jobs; many have little motivation to turn their education into employment because they paid nothing for it. There are simple solutions to this and I see them work. It is called support staff to monitor the recipients. Spend $1,000,000 on staffing and save $1,000,000,000 in abuse. 

 

So this is where we need to focus the welfare programs

1) psychological and emotional support for underprivileged or abused children in the schools.

2) long term care for the mentally ill to keep them from bringing guns into schools and movie theaters

3) education education education

4) life skills training for the underemployed or single mothers - they are there because they just don't know any better. They don't know any better because they did not have a supportive support worker during their impressionable years. 

 

Putting someone on welfare is an easy solution and it hides the problem. Getting them off welfare takes the type of concerted effort only a government is capable of providing. The government will only provide it if the voters demand it. Most homeless people have an diagnosed or untreated mental illness. Many unskilled workers have a learning disability. They are not capable of much, but they still deserve to have a decent life and not be forced to live off cat food when they are too old to work. 

[wenglund]

The key is fraud, an illegal act. There will always be those that through illegal/immoral means game the system. Even the Church isn't immune from such. But it is uncommon, and we(The Church, and our governments) do take serious precautions to prevent it.

 

To an extent, I agree. In the article to which I linked, the director of SNAP indicated that fraud was on the decline, and that it was only 1%.

 

In one respect, this doesn't sound so bad. 1% doesn't seem like much.

 

However, when you figure that the SNAP budget for 2011 was $73 billion (see HERE), this means that there was almost a billion dollars that year in fraud for that program alone--and it is supposedly one of the welfare programs that is the least vulnerable to fraud. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2014 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That video's ridiculous! They purposefully chose the worst possible candidate to represent welfare recipients. It's entertaining but not representative of the population. I've met a lot of people on food stamps, and none of them resembled that guy. They were overwhelmingly single mothers of young children, employed in low-level food service positions.

Of course it was not meant to represent the population as a whole. The point of the video was to show that it can be taken advantage of and that no one is doing anything about it.

 

Cal, this video just show one example of some one fully able to make their own way but through loop holes in the system has taken advantage of it. He does not purchase booze or loto tickets.

[thesometimesaint]

To an extent, I agree. In the article to which I linked, the director of SNAP indicated that fraud was on the decline, and that it was only 1%.

 

In one respect, this doesn't sound so bad. 1% doesn't seem like much.

 

However, when you figure that the SNAP budget for 2011 was $73 billion (see HERE), this means that there was almost a billion dollars that year in fraud for that program alone--and it is supposedly one of the welfare programs that is the least vulnerable fraud. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

We don't build jails for those that don't commit crime. Fraud is a deliberate illegal act that should be(is) prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Let's not throw the baby out with its bathwater. IE; Even the Church recognizes that some will commit fraud against it. We take steps to try to minimize it. We don't stop helping the poor just because some abuse the system.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I wanted to ask a question.

What brings people out of poverty?

The reason why I ask this is that I think welfare and social programs are not really an issue. I think they should be there to help those that really do need it.  I am curious what people will say so I don't want to muddy up anyone's answers with what I will say so I am not going to finish my reasoning just yet..

[thesometimesaint]

I wanted to ask a question.

What brings people out of poverty?

The reason why I ask this is that I think welfare and social programs are not really an issue. I think they should be there to help those that really do need it.  I am curious what people will say so I don't want to muddy up anyone's answers with what I will say so I am not going to finish my reasoning just yet..

 

There are several factors that influence a successful transition out of poverty. Education, opportunity, resources, even plain old luck plays a part.

[wenglund]

Social programs are not about handing out money to lazy people who don't want to get a job. This is the lie that the extreme right wants to perpetuate. The extreme right that mostly resides in southern states where welfare is most rampant.

 

Since I am not one, I can't speak to your stereotypical depiction of southern "extreme right" views.

 

What I can speak to is my own pragmatic perspective that, in spite of good intents, government welfare programs create a number of unintended negative consequences that hurt the most the people the programs are intended to help the most, including inadvertently creating a disincentive for them to work. 

 

And, unlike with your series of bald assertions, I have gone through the effort of researching claims on both sides, and I have substantially documented my conclusions (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and I have also gone the extra mile and provided a number of plausible explanations for why the government may be the wrong tool for the right job (see HERE).

 

But, people are free to tune out whatever doesn't comport with their world view, and keep on throwing hard-earned taxpayer money at counterproductive entitlement programs--that is, until the government runs out of other people's money and can no longer  borrow against their children's future.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

To an extent, I agree. In the article to which I linked, the director of SNAP indicated that fraud was on the decline, and that it was only 1%.

 

In one respect, this doesn't sound so bad. 1% doesn't seem like much.

 

However, when you figure that the SNAP budget for 2011 was $73 billion (see HERE), this means that there was almost a billion dollars that year in fraud for that program alone--and it is supposedly one of the welfare programs that is the least vulnerable fraud. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

While preventing fraud is good we do need to be careful that we do not spend even more money hunting down fraud that is not cost-effective.

If we truly want to save money the best fraud to go after is income tax fraud which probably costs the government about 400 billion dollars a year. While some are willing to throw money at welfare programs to stomp out fradulent claims very few are eager to beef up the IRS. Obviously it is not solely an economic motive.