Welfare reform

Remove all ads!

People that behave like that and treat their children in that way run a great risk of losing their children. Atleast where I am from, if you are unable to take of your child be it from stupidity, addiction or illness they are taken away from you if show again and again that you arent going to change. Sure this may be dramatic but I think it is better in the long run for everyone, children shoulndt *need* to go to a soupkitchen to get feed!

 

2.1% on welfare does not seem to support the need for sweeping changes.

In most countries approximately 1.5-2% of the population is considered "unemployable". It is true, not everyone have the ability look after themselves.

Some are too lazy, sure, and with those I have little sympathy. If on the other hand they are prepared to live permanently on next to nothing, then so be it. I'm not. They are not the majority.

There are other groups though, who through illness, bad luck (not permanent I know, but can be long term. As an example: a widow who looked after a number of children full time before her husband died. Without experience and perhaps the skills required, she's unlikely to be able to get a job to support the children and herself adequately), physical or mental disabilities, etc, etc.

I'd now be interested to hear how we should get these people off welfare, please? They have not the means to support themselves, so either we as a society do it, or no-one does.

Please do not suggest that charities should. That simply neglects our responsibilities as a society, and is a complete cop-out. To make people dependent on charity is demeaning. The support should come from all of us.

 

Welfare in its current form seems to take care of the people in need, as it's intended to do. There are certainly abuses, and better checks on the system could be useful. I don't think we currently need serioius welfare reform.
It would be nice if people (who could) took advantage of the education/work opportunities available and took some control over their lives. They would feel better about themselves and leave more resources available for those who are completely incapable of taking care of themselves.

 

The only really big problem I can see with the welfare system in the UK is that initially it stops people actually taking advantage of the educational services provided.
Their system works on a " people who become unemployed will more often than not find other emplyment within the first 3 months. If not then by 6 months certainly. The services to help people unemployed up to 6 months is very limited and they are constantly trying to find you ANY job, whether it's what you want to do or not.
An example here was a friend of mine who had just finished a degree to become an architect and was forced to take a minimum wage job in a shop. What a great step in the world for him eh?
While it is useful they will do "all" they can to help you into a job in this time frame at times, if you actually want to better yourself it is very difficult to do so. Luckily in my case I had been unemployed 6 months and was able to get on a course to learn what I want so I can better myself, and through a department within the job centre have been getting any support I need offered to me. I think that there should be something like this before 6 months have passed of living below the breadline on what is paid out for my curcumstances, and the hassles that have arisen during this time (there was many) should be looked at and something implemented to prevent tham happening again. This of course would be in a perfect world where the governments aren't only interesting in their own pockets and cronyism.

 

Well Sprite, the thing is when I was talking about a private infrastructure being in place I was referencing things like grocery stores etc. I don't think in the U.S. churches and charities have the system in place necessary to deal with over 5 million people on welfare (this might be much easier in nations with significantly smaller populations.)

Also, there is the whole constitutional problem. Imagine the hoopla over deciding who gets money to provide welfare -- do the Branch Davidians(sp?) or how about Scientologists etc? I also think by diverting the funding to tens of thousands if not more individual private organizations you actually increase the odds of a misallocation of resources.

Again, it might be more doable in a nation with a much smaller population.

 

Welfare needs to be cut-out almost completely, only those with a handicap preventing them from working should get any help. Welfare should also be handled like WIC checks, you can not own certain things and buy certain things. I hate that. The US govt. pumps sooo much money into welfare it sickens me. Argh. While we're at it, why not tackle govt. spending reform and how every govt employee should have wages cut too match civilian counter-parts, elected officials should make half what they make now, and no more rented cars for everyone, no expensive tax-payer funded parties, a la strom thurmonds b-day bash.