Welfare recipients should have to choose which benefits they want. They wouldn't get everything.
Of course in a perfect world all people would have access to food, housing, medical care, education ect. However that's not the world we live in. The truth is most Americans have to compromise on their family's basic needs. Many Americans forgo health insurance simply because they can't afford it. Others never pursue their dream jobs due to the increasing cost of education.
My point is why should a low income person be granted every benefit? We should have a cap to benefits. One person wouldn't be able to receive everything that's offered. This would entitle more individuals to share in some benefits. True, currently they aren't given enough of anything to live life well . However if they were forced to choose which benefits were most important to them the excess dollars could go to providing for more people. Which is the ultimate goal, help as many people as possible.
Ex. Unemployed mother of 3 wouldn't get housing, food, health care, childcare, legal services and an education. I know I'm picking on the most untouchable group. The children are the innocent ones, they should never suffer. However I'm going to because well let's face it it happens. Mom wants to go back to school make herself more desirable in the job market, tough she loses her free lawyer handling her lawsuit. Cut and dry.
We can't have it all. So if we stop trying to provide it all, we may be able to give a better quality of less. Low income families complain about the lesser services they receive. Well it's true they do receive lesser services simply because it isn't possible to provide better. I think my solution might rectify this.
Opinions? Suggestions? Please feel free to add on to my idea?
Comments (17)
i had a hard time voting for this so i have not yet done so. you are assuming that "low income" people are freeloaders. have you heard of the working poor?
i think we have too large a disparity between the rich and the poor in the country right now. the middle class is shrinking and this leaves the poor more vulnerable to ideas like the one you are suggesting.
as a country, we have no problem spending. the problem is where we spend. we have no problem taxing, the problem is who we tax. the wealthy have just as much sense of "entitlement" as the population you are addressing. many of them believe they have made their money and deserve to keep it. many of them forget the shoulders they have stood upon to create their wealth. i say, instead of attacking the poor, we should create a tax code that truly rewards investing in america and the citizens. we all know the tax code is the governments way of controlling market behaviors and those behaviors right now favor the rich.
if we could create market regulations and fiscal policy that really stimulated growth, we would see more people elevating their financial lives. remember, the middle class was created by such policies..
I am in no way implying low income=free loaders. I just feel this solution would be the best compromise to benefit the system which in turn would benefit the individuals. I am in no way attacking the poor. It's just factual there is this much money how do we divide it. This is general business practice. I just think the money would be better spent if more focused. How can you object to better services provided in return? It's not as if the current system is actually providing for all their needs. If it could provide for some completely and for a longer duration wouldn't that be better. It also would end any freeloader misconceptions. There would be no way to live solely off the system. Also all your ideas would just enhance my idea. More money, more jobs, less poverty, all great!
i guess i don't understand your premise. as a "low to middle" income earner who has increased earnings over the years, i know how hard it is to do this. i had help and luck. i had the benefit of an education. i have my health. not everyone gets breaks in life. sometimes i think, if i could do it, shouldn't anyone else be able, but i really don't know. it is easy to get discouraged and give up. i would like to see my taxes going toward helping more people like those who are struggling to improve their lives and the lives of their children.
short term, our federal budget is near collapse and we need to help more people get more means to spend money to stimulate the economy. we subsidize giant corporations with tax dollars to make bombs, administrate health care and god knows what else. this is wasteful and these tax dollars could go a long way to providing a hand up as opposed to a hand out. right now the biggest hand out is to those corporations not the poor as so many think.
The not for profits would be there for added assistance. They would be an integral part of the system.
fine. i still think we need to rethink the way we subsidize industries and corporations. look at GM, they are sending jobs to china. that is great for shareholders (right now we are the shareholders) but it is bad for the citizen...no job. corporations should get tax breaks when they provide jobs and i mean jobs with a working wage. people need jobs.
There are of course many factors to consider in individual cases, but in addition to what you've suggested there are some other sensible proposals. OPne would be that when a person applies for benefits (this could apply to a single mother or a married couple), it should be determined whther or not the woman is pregnant. It should be policy that if a woman gets pregnant after she has been approved for benefits, there will no increase if she has another child.
There should also be a concerted, deliberate effort to put an end to generatoional welfare. There are some areas where benefits should be increased, such as some allowance for a parent working and earning some wages without losing benefits. If we want people to make an effort to find work, but all they can get is a minimum wage job, byt the time they pay for childcare and transportation, they'd have less ability to support their family than they would on welfare.
The system needs a TOTAL overhaul.
Basically I like your idea because the entitlements do need to be thoroughly re-tooled. I've been on disability and SSI and Medicaid.
How many could be chosen? 1 or 3 or 10?
I know its un-answerable right now but you might be on to something. Right now there are certain options. Food stamps for example. I never got them, I never asked.
I also could have had a handicapped plate on my car and parked in Handicapped spots. Maybe I should have but that's not the point. The point is what options? I know its hypothetical but in consideration it will make a difference.
The other point or question is what if instead of this being fully federally funded have applicants apply for grants, maybe to go to school or start their own business and the government would match a portion of it? I don't know if this will work any better than your idea in its initial concept but I'm just tossing it out there.
What ever happened to workfare?
I feel that if some one is on Welfare they should treat it like Unemployment benefits.
They should be required to look for work...
Is that a requirement already?
I also feel that Food, Shelter, Medical, and Education are basic human rights that benefit society as well as the individual. Smart people make smart choices.
Medical should be socialized, Because Capitalism is always chasing the Lowest labor cost and the highest profit. Curing a disease is less profitable than maintaining it. Take diabetes for example Stem cells have cured monkeys and mice... cancer, heart disease, AIDS. How long has it been since we have seen a cure for anything. small pox, Polio, Penicillin: How long can the new technology not find cures like these?
Education through 12th grade is already socialized. How hard would it be to extend that education 1,2,3,4 more years? Would it really be that much of a tax burden?
Shelters for the homeless should have more capacity, and get people the help they need; social services, employment, work training,
Showers, a laundry, Kitchen. Be safe.
Food could be supplemented with Community gardens this would provide a job for a person or persons in charge.
People needing work could help themselves by working for the Education, Medical, Shelter, or Food organizations.
Incentives like community service for schooling, would help people help themselves. People need work; there is so much work to be done.
Go to school work at the shelter for 6 mos. or a year. Want food do dishes at the shelter. Need medical, work in the kitchen.
Etc.....
I like a lot of what you have there Geoff.
I don't know. 'Workfare' does sound like something I've heard of.
I like the direction you go with the earning it and the
community gardens and socializing medicine.
I put the grant idea in because of the paperwork you have to do
to get the welfare/entitlements. May as well go ahead and apply
for a couple of grants while you are at it. Besides, If you do
set up consequetive grants, you may be able to get off of
welfare sooner. Oh, maybe add credit rehab programs and phones.
Its so important to have a phone and almost impossible to get
by without the internet but that can be done on phones.
jones_geoff
Sounds like the grand plan of Chairman Mao. Curious that even the Chinese are losing interest in Communism.
AMEN!
Most will want a "ce pho". That's cell phone to you who speak English.
Maybe, but the reality of things is that you can't get a
job without a phone. I was thinking that people that
receive these benefits eventually get a job and stop
needing said benefits.
If it still sounds like Mao Tse Tung
maybe he had something. You don't take over large nations
without having a brain cell or two to rub together.
Let's face it. People live off the system everyday. It is eaiser to rip of the taxpayers, than too work. Just think, it is handed down to the next Gen. Who are VOTER'S. No one wants to HURT the VOTER'S.
So we will get up go to work, pay our Taxes. So the gravy train can go on until someone wakes up, and say's I'm a VOTER also, and VOTES to CHANGE the system....
halinator11
I don't know the percentages, but some do get jobs. It has been known for decades though that there is "generational welfare". A repetitive cycle of the children of welfare recipients growing up and going on welfare themselves, sometimes with never having had a job. As for taking over large nations, it requires less brain cells than it does armed enforcement at one's disposal. China and Chairman Mao are examples of hard-core Communism. There's good reason it has never worked to any credible extent, and never will. Obama and Liberals in America believe they can make it work here simply because they would starting off with a lot of "money in the bank"....Enough goods and established manufacturing to bribe and coerce people into accepting it.
? What happens when technology gets so advanced that all the workers are replaced with robots?
Aren't we about there now?
Tax the robots and we all can live like the Gov't, the Military, and the Welfare recipients,
"OFF OTHER PEOPLES (ER I MEAN MACHINES)TAXES.............;-)
Then all the flamers who had a few too many beers before writing can have some one else (er I mean something) to feel better
than.
"EGALITARIANISM" it's a great concept look it up if you don't know what it means, It is what the founders of the constitution
wanted America to provide as it was written in "The Constitution."
Star Trek Failed to Cover what happens when the "Replicator" comes on line. Unlimited consumer goods, (food, clothing, shelter,
cars, etc.) that require NO HUMAN LABOR, built to atomic precision. That is closer than you think; See Erick K. Drexler's "Engines of Creation"
Nanotechnology, or www.zyvex.com
What do people do when they have everything they want for free?
Hunter Gathers used to get what they needed just by wandering around...
Agrarians planted seeds then stored them for the next planting...
Then they invented Money...
The most important commodity in the "Nanotechnology Age" Will be IDEAS (designs, patterns, methods) Not Conspiracy theories, Hate mongering, and prejudice.....
If it works keep it, if it doesn't trash it. That is what we should be doing with old antiquated "Industrial Era" ideas, besides we are in the "Information Age"; Aren't we?
The 'government' objection (not that I would agree) would be that the 'poor' are in need because they already have trouble choosing what to do with their available resources. What are you going to do, tell someone on welfare that they can't have what they need because they were ALREADY given the choice, and they made a bad decision? I don't think so. Still, there's something in your post, something about the choice, maybe between less of some benefit in exchange for a higher personal savings level? I mean, the way it is now it's like there's no way to save up for a down-payment on a house without loosing all benefits at once. I'm voting for your comment. There's potential in there somewhere.