My Thoughts On Welfare

[SilverFox1405241541 0]

I wrote a long writing about my opionions on some issuses. I've changed some already lol but here's an excerpt. I'm just curious what people think of some of my writings."You my think that you know the US welfare system. Many people who have never been there go on and on about how they think it should be fixed; yet how could they fix it? In plain terms many of the opponent's of government welfare don't know what the hell they are talking about; many have never been there & many are well to do middle class or richer. I'll tell you this now: I've been there, done that and suffered at the hands of the welfare system. Chances are I know many times more about the welfare system. So get read to learn about the Welfare System from one who knows what he's talking about. The myth of "Free" Government "Handouts"The biggest accusastion and deception of the opponent's of government welfare is that its "Free Handouts" of the "Majorities Money" to the "Minority". This statement is simply put a total and absolute lie. There are very few or no "free handouts" anymore; the government is a much a miser as [the banker who put ppl on railroad]. The opponent's of government welfare have stated the following false accusastions:• The Government welfare is free;• The vast Majority of welfare users are there by thier own chosing;• The users of welfare come to expect everything from the government;• The users of welfare "leech" the taxpayers of thier funds.The truth is:• The Government Welfare takes hours of telephone work and negotiating;• The vast Majority of welfare recipents are victims trapper by the upper class;• The users of welfare expect basic necesities of human life from the government in exchange for thier loyalty and patriotic support of the government;• The users of welfare get the dregs and left overs of the taxpayers funds, the upper class "fat cats" get the vast majority of it.Here are several quotes from Burgeoise opponents of welfare with my response to them:• "People expected the government to provide everything"(Br. No. 101; Oct. 8th, 2006)--Wrong, people expect to get thier own living, however, if one can't provide for his own housing, healthcare and food (the 3 basic neciesties of human life) then it is the duty of the government, with its vast monies to provide for human life.• "These People chose not to get a living cuase its the easy road to leech the government"(Parap. Br. No. 101; Sep. or Oct. 2006 as well as many occuancies)--Wrong sir, there is a minority of people with that mentality; however you'll more likely to find that mentality in the circles of those on Capitol Hill than those in Padera.• "People's dependance on welfare gives the government control of them"(Br. No. 101; Oct. 8th, 2006 & m.ot.)--True, however the fact is the government gains control of them by forcing them into dependance on the welfare.• "The needs of the majority or the needs of the few" (Br. No. 101)--Point. However you've got it the wrong way. A large percent of Americans, more and more each year are impoverished or slipping into poverty. Let's get more specific, according to the US Census, 18 percent of the Texas population was in poverty in 2005 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey). We must understand that the US Census Bearu can't collect info from transient populance and people who simply don't reply to the Census and therefore we come up with an estimate of 29%; accounting 5% to the Censuses inability to collect data from everyone in Texas and the other 6% to changinge condidtions and the influx of Katrina refugees. The Census Beura its self sets large error margins. While both figures (18% and 29%) are very conservative, they are good guesses. Obviously the needs of the minority is an understatement when we look at the benefits given to the upper 10% of the populance in the form of tax breaks, government contracts and economic development; those who profit from such things are the true minority.• "The Government Can't afford it!"--It can't? Truly it can't? Why then can it afford 8 trillion dollars of debt and afford to spend billions of dollars on fire works, parades and other "cultural events". Why can it afford trillions of dollars to "economic development" and why millions in Seguin alone to "historical preservation", as important as "historical preservation" and "cultural events" are we must face the hard reality: Which is more important? Parties or people's quality of living? Let your consicnce me your guide. • "It'll make us lazy like the European Countires"--So what if it does? Is production more important than quality of living? Let your consicne be your guide. Also might I note that "lazy" nations like France, Germany and the UK are among the top economic, military, diplomatic and social powers of the world; as opposed to welfareless nations like Mexico, Suadi Arabia, and other nations."

[vitorious1405241541 0]

Great points, I wont be countering anything really I am completely on your side. Conservative propaganda is so good that to even mention it would be 'liberal propaganda' ;)I have been on Employment Insurance it isnt quite Social Assistance (Canadian welfare or as we like to call it Pogee) but its government supported (funded by all workers as deductions from your pay). Technically I was getting my own money back, I was only on assistance for 3 months but had I needed it longer for a physically ailment I would have drawn from the public 'pool'.The fact of the matter in smaller communities this type of thing happens all the time. Families will get together to support a sick relative, donations are taken for grieving parents. Perhaps its the voluntary basis that makes it easier to stomach.Income tax is so astronomically high here (after sales tax your paying around 50% of your earnings back to the government, depending on your tax bracket) that any talk of tax sends people into a panic but that has to do with inefficiencies and just poor management if you were to figure out how much it costs people to help those 'in need' it would be negligible.You are very right that the critics who have never been in that position have no right to judge.-Jordan

[Chesso 0]

I'm from Australia and it's a somewhat similar case here and you are right.But the problem is the people who abuse and exploit it on purpose, most of them don't even need it. I think perhaps that is what they are targetting, there just going the wrong way about it.

[SilverFox1405241541 0]

"Great points, I wont be countering anything really I am completely on your side. Conservative propaganda is so good that to even mention it would be 'liberal propaganda'"That's a good one!"he fact of the matter in smaller communities this type of thing happens all the time. Families will get together to support a sick relative, donations are taken for grieving parents. Perhaps its the voluntary basis that makes it easier to stomach."Yes. However most of the Us lives in big cities. Here where I live (town of 23k) that only happens for prominiet familes sadly...at least i know it didn't in my family (my mom's disabled)."You are very right that the critics who have never been in that position have no right to judge."Yay someone with a similer views! Your post made my day...lolz I live in the super-conservative state of texas! To hear someone with sense like me is gladdening. I think that if our elected "representatives" managed expenses better they could cut taxes but not welfare...I wish this was a perfect world, sadly (or maybe glady) it ain't. lolChesso:"But the problem is the people who abuse and exploit it on purpose, most of them don't even need it. I think perhaps that is what they are targetting, there just going the wrong way about it."Yes I agree. Just well, I don't know...I don't see many abusers TODAY. But like a decade ago it was more common. Maybe if they staffed better and **** it'd help...or they cared and didn't just want to save a buck (or 20 thousand).

Edited February 28, 2007 by SilverFox (see edit history)

[lonebyrd 0]

I have to agree with everything silverfox said. Unfortunatly right now, I have to be on disablity and have been for some years due to mental illness. I receive Social Security money, insurance, and also state insurance. But I've tried to work. It's not pretty. I end up back in the institution. I need the help. And I know many people like myself that are in the same position. But like Chesso said, there are people who abuse and exploit it. I have a relative and her husband who had the choice to either get unemployment or go on state. They chose to go on state and not look for work. That is abusing the system. It is for people like this that others look down on people on welfare. They expect everyone to be a 'freeloader', when actually most people need it to survive.

[Rid 0]

First thing I would like to get out: I am deep in the lower income range. Last year my total earnings were well under ten thousand dollars Canadian.

Second thing I would like to point out: I am very, very conservative.

Now, here is where you are wrong, and how the right really sees such things.

⢠The Government welfare is free;⢠The vast Majority of welfare users are there by thier own chosing;
⢠The users of welfare come to expect everything from the government;
⢠The users of welfare "leech" the taxpayers of thier funds.
The truth is:
⢠The Government Welfare takes hours of telephone work and negotiating;
⢠The vast Majority of welfare recipents are victims trapper by the upper class;
⢠The users of welfare expect basic necesities of human life from the government in exchange for thier loyalty and patriotic support of the government;
⢠The users of welfare get the dregs and left overs of the taxpayers funds, the upper class "fat cats" get the vast majority of it.

1. Government welfare is free/Government Welfare takes hours of telephone work and negotiating.
No conservative assumes that government welfare is free. We know that you have to go through a process to get there. One of the problems conservatives have with welfare is this process, which is mainly caused by stagnant bureaucracy that eats up money when it should be going to people who actually need it.

2. The users of welfare come to expect everything from the government/The vast majority of welfare recipients are victims trapped by the upper class.
I can vouch a difference between low welfare and high welfare here. In Canada, the number of people on welfare has been growing since the 90's. Canada provides a significantly larger sum of money to recipients of welfare than does the USA. The USA, however, has shown either a decrease or relatively stable number of people on welfare in recent years, despite the fact that recipients receive much less money. According to liberal theory, if they receive less money it is harder for them to get out. Yet statistically, less money seems to make it easier to get out. Your statement that the vast majority of welfare recipients are victims trapped by the upper class is also false. When was the last time a poor person gave you a job? Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, and he employs tens of thousands of people. I've never known a single poor person to have even one employee.

3. The users of welfare come to expect everything from the government/The users of welfare expect basic necesities of human life from the government in exchange for thier loyalty and patriotic support of the government.
My question to you is: why haven't people been saving money in case they actually do end up on welfare? I put $20 away every pay check for saving for a rainy day, and soon I will be opening an RRSP that will take an additional $20 off each pay check. I'm poor, I live paycheck to paycheck with my g/f, but I don't buy needless things. When I have a bit of spare money, after everything is said and done, I might treat myself, but for the most part, I'm making sure that I will make it through the next month with money to spare. Here in Canada, there are many people on welfare who actually do expect everything from the government, because it is enough to live off of, and they don't need to bother working to make more money so that they can be more comfortable. They are happy with where they are because it is enough. In America, where welfare is much less, if you manage your money with some intelligence you will be fine. There are significantly more opportunities in the USA than there are in Canada, and little to no excuse to need welfare if you have been smart with your money.

4. The users of welfare "leech" the taxpayers of their funds/The users of welfare get the dregs and left overs of the taxpayers funds, the upper class "fat cats" get the vast majority of it.
The first statement is, in reality, what many conservatives believe. Taxpayers work hard for their money, even if it doesn't seem like it. Sure, the owner of McDonald's doesn't do anything, but whether or not he does anything, his business, that he had to work at to start up, is now the number one entry level job in North America, and one of the highest demanded items on a resume. Your statement that upper class "fat cats" get the vast majority of taxpayer funds also has no substance or logic. Over 50% of Americas tax dollars come from the top 2% of income earners. If someone is making more money because they worked hard or were lucky, why doesn't he have a right to do as he wishes with that money?

There are many non-profit organizations willing to help people less fortunate, especially churches. There are plenty of free classes for job improvement and other self-help, all you have to do is look and ask.

[Chesso 0]

When he says rich fat cats, bill gates would be the prime example.There are incomes much lower, yet much higher than a poor person. Were not just "lower or higher", there are varying levels, such as small business owners.They complain about taxes, and instead slap higher proft margins on products, and drive poor people even poorer....... that's probably a good example of what he meant. And it's the big guys that are doing it on basic things like bread and meat.Better quality, fresh bread is cheaper at an asian owned bakery than it is at woolworths, a place like woolworths that sells stuff so quick they should be able to afford lower prices, but instead there prices raise faster than small business owners.Heh.

[Rid 0]

Bill Gates is a part of that 2% that provides over 50% of the tax dollars of the USA. He also donates millions of dollars to charity every year.Poor people aren't driven poorer by rich people. Poor people quite often drive themselves poor by purchasing things they do not need. As you have pointed out, better quality bread at an Asian baker is cheap, so since it is so cheap, it would make sense for poorer people to purchase bread there, would it not? Yet how many actually do?Just because a store sells things quick doesn't mean that it makes huge profits. Think about this, coming from a person who is just now beginning his own small business: The company needs to pay (in no particular order) investors, cashiers, customer support, accounting, management, lawyers, cleaning crews, overnight stock crews, shipping and handling, taxes, benefits, rent, penalties, water bills, electricity bills, huge phone bills, advertising and more. Don't forget that the employees you see are only a small part of what goes on behind the scenes. Advertising to get your attention will often cost in the hundreds of thousands to just make an attempt at getting your attention for 30 seconds. If you were to see a commercial for Walmart on a single channel ten times in one day, that may very well have cost Walmert as much as $10 million just to get your attention for 5 measly minutes of a day. What you see isn't always what is. How do you know what the profit margin, after all those expenses, really is? Did you know that many oil and gas companies, after all expenses, make only a few percentage points of profit out of their revenues? Compare that to a coffee company, who's product costs you what seems to be very little, while in reality their profit margin is often as high as 3000% after all expenses.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Rid (see edit history)

[Chesso 0]

Well considering woolworths bread among other things contradicts there slogan "the fresh food people", and they have absolutely no need to go as far as they do with advertising.... they are also wasting there own money on unecessary things.So apparently the richer waste more than the poor , guess the saying of "the more you have the more you use" applies well eh.

[Rid 0]

And having taken an advertising course, I can see how you don't understand the mass advertising either. As an example to help you understand, I'll use the example that was given to me.I can't remember the name, it was a few years back, but a new wine company had gone on to the market, and had nuzzled their way in. For the first few years, they did not do any advertising. The first time they advertised was a simple one page advertisement in a magazine. Their sales made a massive 70% jump within one month.The reason people go buy from big stores such as Walmart, Welworths, and others is because of the money put into advertising. Compare the price of a no name brand product to a well known product that is made almost exactly the same. Huge price difference. The reason for the price difference is mainly in advertising, yet more people are buying the well known product. Why? Because the advertising creates trust in the product. People know how it is illegal to falsely advertise, so they trust advertisements and are quite often willing to pay more for a similar product.There are other things involved in advertising, such as strategic advertising and subliminal messages. The fact that companies advertise is the reason people go to them. Companies do no spend money lightly. When they advertise, they have not just payed for the advertisement to be placed, but they pay to make sure that the advertisement will attract attention. If places like Welworths or Walmart were to stop advertising, you would be surprised at how quickly their sales would fall. After all, how would you know when the next big sale is on, or the next price drop is on, or what's new in the store? People don't want to go to the store to find out what is there, they want the information sent to them, and thus a business that advertises will receive more customers, but must also cover the cost of that advertising in their price.

[Chesso 0]

Really? you need to come visit over here mate, no name brand sells so much we can hardly get some of the essentials sometimes.And all I see on the shelves are the named brands.Money talks much better than any advertising *winks*.

[Rid 0]

All the good too you where you live. Where I am, and most places I have been, no name is often the last thing on the shelf.I've also read some of the ingredients of no name products... In some cases, I would rather pay the extra couple of bucks.

[Chesso 0]

To be honest, the no name products I use (ha just about everything), tastes exactly the same if not better.In alot of cases it's stuff off companies back burner they want to get rid of.Lose the label, lose the price, product isn't much different (in some cases).

[Rid 0]

Yes, in some cases. But I've yet to see juice that is 100% fruit juice from a no name brand other than a few store brands. I've also found that no name brand meats tend to be very poor quality, and more water than actual meat.

[Chesso 0]

lol I haven't ever seen home brand meat before. We only have regular/premium/heart saver, where the only difference is fat content.True about the juice, it's usually watered down, but considering the price, and if you drink it often it's actually better (less concentrated). I would also recommend drinking it through a straw (so it hits the back of your throat directly and doesn't take a swing at your teeth first).