Forum Post: Break the Welfare Cycle ?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 8, 2011, 12:13 p.m. EST by Rico
(3027)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Not all parents are qualified to be parents, and we perpetuate the welfare class when we raise children in an environment that teaches them nothing but drugs and violence.
Here's a REALLY RADICAL idea for folks to chew on ....
Perhaps those that can't afford to stay off public support should be employed on public infrastructure projects and their children raised in state monitored (not run) orphanages until such time as the parents can get back on their feet and provide for them. In this way, the children are not raised in a dysfunctional environment and we break the cycle of poverty.
I KNOW this is radical, but it's not unlike what often occurred during the Great Depression. My father was one such Depression orphan; his parents left him at the orphanage while they went to different places in the country where they could find work. Once things got better, they reclaimed him. He had nothing but fond memories of his time at the orphanage and often stated it was likely far better for him than traveling around with a parent, living in a worker camp, etc, as he had a stable "home," stable friendships, uninterrupted schooling, etc.
Please don't FLAME me... I'm not sure I like it either, but it IS an interesting thought and it HAS worked in the past.
Thoughts ?
I agree with what you are trying to accomplish with OWS. I agree with the general strategy of following the money to bring to light the changes need for America. From about 1972 to today the government continued to grow with less real revenue growth. The government provided more services to an ever growing work force and population, which is not the real problem. At the same time it increased the contracting out of government services and increased the Civilian Military Defense Complex. The government budget may have been able to provide the services and Military increases but it could not pay for the continuing increases of in contracting out of services to the private sector. The ever increasing government revenue stream going to the private sector for services and profit is large part of the 14.3 trillion public debt. The private sector also has a huge legislative lobby system which is very influential in increasing the flow of taxpayer money to the private sector coffers. I don't think spending cuts is really going to solve the long term problem with the deficit and the public debt. I believe a change in how the government works is needed to solve this type of problem. Maybe consider something like eliminate all for profit companies doing business with, selling products to and providing services to or for the U. S. Government. If all companies were not for profit this would reduce government spending by about 30% without substantially employment loses. Good companies that I would what to do business with the government will set-up a not for profit division for the government work and transfer efficiencies between the divisions.
I'm confused. If there is no profit, then why would any company elect to do business with the government ? If you want to do as you say, you'd essentially have to ABSORB all those business directly into the government so there's no "profit," and all the employees are simply Government workers. Unfortunately, we have AMPLE proof that removal of the profit and gain incentives result in reduced innovation and productivity. As it stands, we try to strike a balance by REGULATING the profit the private firms can charge. This seems like reasonable middle ground to me.
The debt problem may be more complex than you assume. As the world's reserve currency, we end up having to print dollars in proportion to the grown in the global economy (google "Bretton Woods" and "Triffin Dilemma"). Add in the tendancy of the world to run to the dollar for "safety," and you'll see that even as we print them in abundance, the cost of borrowing dollars remains ridiculously low... there's still just too much demand. This situation will change as the world transitions to IMF SDRs which are essentially the "Bancor" the ecomonists argued for at Bretton Woods, but that will take a long time, and we enjoy almost unlimited credit until it happens.
There are a number of things we could do with the dollars we have to print to satisfy world demand. We COULD just print them and distribute them to the citizens in the form of tax rebates, but where's the political power in doing THAT ? From the politician's perspective, it's MUCH better to inject those dollars where they see fit as THAT allows them to serve their constituents and financial supports. It's POWER.
Consider for example, "stimulus." The government TRIED to pump about $1 trillion into the economy, but then found they couldn't do so quickly because there are a LOT of laws regarding Federal Contracts. An alternative would have been to simply make one stroke of the pen and give US that money. Either way, it ends up in the economy, but the way they PREFER gives them a LOT of POWER.
If all this interests you, you can find more at my other posts:
A discussion of the nature of money : http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-is-money/
Some background on my support of OWS: http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-percenter-ready-to-join-if/
A proposal to TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT : http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/
Hi Rico, Agree. Excellent. People in need must also to be encouraged to NOT produce any more babies. I see welfare moms, with food stamps, with multiple children, no guy in site, and pregnant. Best Regards, Nevada
Yep. We can't REQUIRE mothers on welfare be on contraceptives (it's our RIGHT... even though I can't support another and the world population stretches the planet's capacity ! ). I once pondered whether we could CUT the general payments then PAY people a certain amount if they VOLUNTARILY accepted a 6 month contraceptive injection.
Doesn't foster care work like that? I do think that giving people infrastructure jobs is a good idea.
Yes, foster care might work.
Yes, I like infrastructure jobs, by why do we have to pay for it AGAIN ? We're ALREADY paying a huge chunk of society to sit at home collecting unemployment. Heck, if they can't find work after a reasonable period, why not PUT them to work doing something that benefits the Nation ?
If anyone gets a job working for the state you're going to have to pay for it anyway, giving the job to someone wont really up the bill any since someone was going to take it.
True, but why would we leave SOME on long-term unemployment? SHouldn't we put them to work ?
By the way... 'hivemind' ... is that an Ender's Game reference or from elsewhere ?
Heck as far as I'm concerned, if you need the government to house you, you will live in government housing. Half your day will be spend working for the government in menial tasks like filing, janitorial work, etc. The other half will be spent on educating you for a better job.
Yep. Why for example, do we need an "Infrastructure Bank" and "Job Programs" focused on infrastructure when we're ALREADY paying people to sit at home ?
In addition, there IS this problem of the poverty cycle. My post was inspired by the PBS special on the problems in fixing graduation rates of African Americans in our inner-city high schools. Nearly EVERYTHING the teachers talked about was the problem the kids being into the classroom because their parents are often drunk/drug addicts/missing, because they life in a community full of crime and violence, etc. All these factors derail the children and many end up back in the same poverty cycle in which they are raised. I thought of my father's experience and then decided to post it just to see how people might react.
"Perhaps those that can't afford to stay off public support should be employed on public infrastructure projects "
Get some information on TANF. These women are already being required to work unless they are disabled.
I agree. The federal government faciliates the welfare state that we now have. It's touted as a way to "help", but in reality it just allows for an endless cycle of poverty, school dropouts, teenage mothers and drug users.
Under Bill Clinton, laws were passed to end perpetual welfare and get people back to work. Unfortunately, under Obama, the welfare society has been reinvigorated, leading to more and more who are dependent on the state to provide for their existence.
Don't look to the government for help on this anytime soon. A significant portion of those on welfare are drug addicts. In a recent case in Florida, the court barred the state from drug testing welfare recipients on the grounds it violates the 4th (unreasonable search and seizure). What are the chances we can require they go to work?
Can't answer for Obama... haven't been watching, but the PBS special on the problem with inner city schools focused almost ENTIRELY on the problems in the home.
" Unfortunately, under Obama, the welfare society has been reinvigorated"
What is your evidence for this?
What, specifically, has President Obama changed that has reinvigorated what you call "welfare society"?
Obama and the congress, in 2009, expanded funding for TANF as part of the "stimulus" package. Like everything else in this piece of shit legislation, it did nothing to stimulate the economy and in this case just perpetuated poverty. Giving more money to poor people doesn't help - it makes for more poor people.
Yeah, I know. Now you think I'm really mean... I don't care, I'm one of the lucky ones, blah blah blah.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Benjamin Franklin
The founding fathers were brilliant.
We should take all kids away from their parents when they are born and raise them in Govt run centers. That way we can be sure that we have good quality citizens.
Too extreme for MY tastes, but I think Plato once recommended that ;o)