Do we have a moral obligation to help the 'less fortunate'?

What I think you fail to understand is that there is almost no such thing as the welfare you describe. In my state there are three types of welfare, all for legitimate purposes. The first, and most likely to be abused, is called ADATSA, (don't ask me what exactly that stands for) it is for treatment of folks with drug and alcohol problems. There is a limit on how much eligibility someone has and it is a three month program that pays for treatment. Three month extensions are sometimes granted but six months is the maximum. The second kind is TANF, which is temporary assistance for needy families. This is what an unwed mother or mother with small children who gets left, or leaves her husband is eligible for. There is a 60 month total one can use this in a lifetime. Job training and job search skills are taught.

The final kind is called GAU/GAX, which is general assistance unemployable and I am not sure what the X is. This is for folks who are unable to support themselves through gainful employment. Now I have a close relative that fits this category, although she has been awarded SSA/SSI benefits. In any case these people are almost always pending a decision from the Social Security Administration about disability benefits. If you ever knew anyone who won their Social Security benefits, you will know it is a difficult process, and while I am sure their are abuses, as there are in any program of this type, I think most of the folks legitimately need the assistance.

Take the case of my aunt, see this is where it gets somewhat tricky. She has physical and mental disabilities that make long term gainful employment an impossibility at this time. She is receiving treatment and making every effort to improve. She has no desire to stay on the dole, but for now it seems to be a necessary evil. She is a capable woman capable of very fine work, the trouble is, she is not capable of keeping a schedule or of maintaining stability, or holding a job for the long term. The worst part though, is that she has medical needs that are EXTREMELY costly. She would have about a snowball's prayer in hell of finding insurance that would even accept her, and even if she did it would be cost prohibitive to all but the very wealthy. The Medicare and Medicaid she receives are a Godsend, and if not for them, she would very likely be dead. Her conditions are treatable and even somewhat reversible thank God, but as with any such thing it can be slow going.

Here's the flaw in that system. As I already stated, my aunt is a very smart and capable woman, aside from her problems. She would very likely be capable of earning her own living in some way, perhaps something non-conventional. The trouble is, that if she was to do that, all of the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars of medical care would land squarely in her lap. The program does not allow for folks to be self supporting, yet continue to provide medical care that they need. Basically it offers every incentive to stay disabled, since it is the only way such people can get adequate medical care. My aunt can potentially get her medical conditions to a state in which she has some light at the end of the tunnel, but as I said it is a long arduous process. She has had opportunities to do work which would have paid for her living, and given her much needed self esteem, but because of the trap of medical care she has had to turn such opportunities down.

So you can see that my opinion is that there is no significant welfare problem in this state. In any system there are abuses, but they are far less common than you would think. For the most part whining about welfare, (1% of the federal budget) is just a Republican mainstay so they can avoid dealing with actual issues. It gives them a common villain and we all know what political capital that affords them. The welfare reform of the 90s is what put us where we are today. Welfare reform has been finished, mission accomplished, for years now! If anything needs to be reformed it's health care.

You folks that have never needed help like this, or never had close family members who have, you can spout your bullshit opinions until the cows come home, but I guarantee, that if anyone in your family, or God forbid you yourself is ever up against it, you'll change your tune with a quickness!
 
Altron, I left home @ 16 because I come from an abusive background. I needed to go on welfare to pay rent etc while I finished high school. I also got the student allowance to put my through university. What would you have people like me do?

Exactly! There are a lot of people with legitimate need, who use these programs and move on successfully because of them. For every case of abuse you show me, I'd be willing to bet I can show you ten or more cases of legitimate need! The abuses make people angry and rightly so, but people get so wrapped up in those few cases, that they miss the whole damn point and what is actually going on.

Like I said before, it's hard for you to empathize, being sound and fit and productively employed, harder still if everyone you know is that way as well. You probably couldn't understand it completely if it didn't happen to you or yours, but the reality is a lot different than the hype!
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
I turned down 2 stimulus checks, or offers, but they a going to dd this next one.
I wonder if they mind if I use it to put some rhetoric out there.:evilgrin:
 
Oh I should also add, that if my aunt did not have help from family, she would not be able to afford to live without housing that was mostly subsidized even with the SS checks.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
my mom retired and started drawing and we split a very stretched out loan,
my dad left us with.
I could make the house payment alone which is the way we set it up, but
I wouldn't be able to keep the lights on, so that's then where my brother comes in.
So budgeting, especially with 3 half grown kids to raise, is essential.
That's why I'm growing more food.
We don't qualify for any other gov assistance, and don't want it, if I can help it.

it's still a shameful thing if it's within a persons power, not to try to do Something.
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
So Alton, you see from many of these posts how providing assistance to the less fortunate is not just a "moral obligation" it is essential to the coherence of a modern society.

There needs to be something in place to help those that become physically unable to support themselves, or who are born unable to support themselves. There needs to be a safety net for someone who loses their job due to no fault of their own, etc., even if it's only temporary help.

I am not saying that a communist society (or socialist society) is the way to go, nor would a purely capitalist society work either. There are legitimate reasons why individual members of a society need financial or medical help. And I recognize that there are many ways to abuse the system, this can't be helped.

I used to work for my state determining eligibility for Welfare (AFDC) and Food Stamps. Both of these are Federal programs, but many states will kick in extra money to increase the benefit amount. Texas does not. We had a work and education program in my state that required anyone on AFDC that did not have children that were too young for school to sign up. Employers received incentives to hire people off the welfare list and the state subsidized (or fully paid for) child care as needed for work. This part didn't work very well, as most of the people on Welfare wanted to stay right where they were. However, there was a education program and I was able to get one young mother through university on grants and scholarships. She had thought that her one mistake (being a teen mother) had ruined her life and that she was destined to be poor forever. She was very grateful when she found out otherwise. I'm sure she's making good money for herself and her daughter now.

I also recall a family that showed up at our office applying for benefits. When I told them how much they were eligible for, the father was very upset and accused me of lying to him. He had come from California and they were receiving 10 times what I said he was eligible for. I had to pull out one of the huge volumes of law and show them they were getting the full amount in Texas. Apparently California deeply subsidizes the welfare checks. The family left a week later to head back to California.
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
There's use and then there's the abuse, however that's why rules must exist in order for any system to work. Too lax and there's abuse, too strict and there's no use. Still, rules are better than ditching the whole thing.
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
I also recall a family that showed up at our office applying for benefits. When I told them how much they were eligible for, the father was very upset and accused me of lying to him. He had come from California and they were receiving 10 times what I said he was eligible for. I had to pull out one of the huge volumes of law and show them they were getting the full amount in Texas. Apparently California deeply subsidizes the welfare checks. The family left a week later to head back to California.
Notice that California is also in much worse financial shape than Texas. This isn't the sole reason, of course, but it sure doesn't help things.

Here are the California facts and figures for public assistance for January 2009 (PDF).

I'm not sure how much of this is funded by the state and how much of it is funded by the feds, but people getting public assistance were paid a total of $2.383 billion in January 2009. That's for SSI, CalWORKs, food stamps (the "Golden State Advantage card" is used for food stamps and sometimes other cash aid, as it's more secure than stamps which you could use to pay someone for drugs, ammo, etc.), etc. If January 2009 is "average," (it's not because the number of people applying is up) then that comes out to $28.596 billion a year being paid out in various public assistance programs to Californians.

It sure would be nice if the data sheet said how much comes from California state funds and how much comes from federal funds.

This, of course, also makes no mention of Medi-Cal.

Now, in looking at Schwarzenegger's budget, link here (PDF), the department of Health and Human Services (which covers food stamps, welfare, Medi-Cal, etc.) is budgeted for $37.985 billion in 2009-10, which is 28.2 percent of the state's spending. The only thing the state spends more on is K-12 education, at $40.736 billion or 30.2 percent. A lot of people complain about how we build so many prisons and don't spend on the schools, but the department of Corrections and Rehabilitation gets $9.858 billion, 7.3 percent. For comparison, higher education (community colleges, CSU system, UC system) gets $13.089 billion, 9.7 percent.

True, the HHS department does things besides just mail out cash aid. But still, it's pretty obvious that that's a hell of a lot of helping those less fortunate. This, of course, at a time when the state was expected to have a budget gap of $14.8 billion that was expected to grow to $41.6 billion by the end of 2009-10 if things kept going as they were.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
Altron, I left home @ 16 because I come from an abusive background. I needed to go on welfare to pay rent etc while I finished high school. I also got the student allowance to put my through university. What would you have people like me do?

exactly what you did.

but, then, there's going to be a much deeper stigma attached to doing so here, due to a large percentage of bible-thumping fascists, opposed to NZ, where even the sheep have rights.
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
A moral obligation was given us by Jesus; but that obligation was not to be endowed by Caesar. It was a personal, not government function. It was also a personal choice to do so, not something which was required.
There, but for the grace of God, go I.
 

H2O boy

New Member
conclusion-assistance is good, dependence is bad

when it stops becoming temporary it needs to be eliminated unless one is permanently disabled. wheelchairs and seizures are pretty hard to fake

why no one in authority from either school of thought canot process and implement this is beyond me
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
Notice that California is also in much worse financial shape than Texas. This isn't the sole reason, of course, but it sure doesn't help things.
<<snippety snip>> (see original post for more)
I found this quote from October 27, 1997 that shows a huge gap between what Texas provided and what California provided (and what the national average was at the time) at the time.
"Texas AFDC payments are among the lowest in the nation. Maximum monthly AFDC benefits for a three-person family in Texas are $188, compared to nearly $700 in California and a national average of $363."
UT Austin researchers determine Lone Star Image System project did not prevent welfare fraud

AFDC is apparently now TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), an emphasis on the "temporary assistance" that AFDC was designed for.

TANF Info for Texas

From this page, it looks like a household with one parent (or*one caretaker) and 2 kids would receive $244/month in cash assistance through the TANF program in Texas, plus food stamps and Medicaid (for medical expenses). There was (and probably is still) a big waiting list for housing assistance. So I don't think a family new to TANF would be able to survive long on this amount unless they were sponging off a family member or friend. This is why that family moved back to California.
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
How long's the waiting list for Section 8 down there? In my county, it's something like two years.

My aunt (disbled) and cousin (her daughter) were living on about $3,000 a year for quite a long time. Section 8 is what kept them from living in the car (which never had more than $5 in gas in it... luckily in the early 1990s $5 bought a lot more gas).
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
How long's the waiting list for Section 8 down there? In my county, it's something like two years.

My aunt (disbled) and cousin (her daughter) were living on about $3,000 a year for quite a long time. Section 8 is what kept them from living in the car (which never had more than $5 in gas in it... luckily in the early 1990s $5 bought a lot more gas).
I have no idea. I couldn't find info on the length of time, but I got the idea that it depends on what city/town you live in as to the length of time on the waiting list.
 

BeardofPants

New Member
exactly what you did.

but, then, there's going to be a much deeper stigma attached to doing so here, due to a large percentage of bible-thumping fascists, opposed to NZ, where even the sheep have rights.

Well, the bible-thumping fascists will be happy to know that I'm now a 'productive member of society', then. :faptard:
 
Top