When Welfare Goes Wrong...
 

28 years, no work

Why has Elizabeth never had a paid job?


When you have welfare systems you almost always get people who abuse and play the system to a professional level, and it's a balancing act, deciding if the cost of the abusers can be stomached in order to make sure those who really need help still get it. But in this case I feel the sytem -rather than being abused- is almost abusing people by enabling them to be plain and simple losers. There's no built in kick-up-the-butt, or at least there wasn't until it was too late.

Just plain lazy, i call it. And the daughter (who had a baby at 16) needs a Waaahbmulance:



I know, I know, I don't know the full story, I haven't walked in their shoes and I shouldn't jusdge, but I am, damn it. Although I'm judging "the system" more than them. I don't think these people are living the Life of Reilly off the taxpayer. but I think they'd be a damn sight better off and happier now if the welfare system hadn't supported their lazy arses so much.

[/rant]

your thoughts?

looooosers like them shouldn't get a friggin dime. I am all for helping those that need help, but NOT permanently! NFW.

Here is an interesting article. I just googled it and this was one of the first to come up.

Here is another interesting take on the subject -
Source(s): Wikipedia/2007 Federal budget

I get to see my tax dollars at "work" all too often.

There are actually people who do need that complete government support, but those folks are truly few and far between.

Even for the ones who do need welfare, I get irked when they talked about getting "paid." Paid to do what? Sit on your ass and watch stolen cable and smoke cigarettes? Paid to reproduce?

I've voiced my opinions about welfare elsewhere around here, I'm sure. One of my strongest opinions has to do with folks being completely cut off benefits if they test positive for recreational drugs or alcohol.

In my mind, it is not the government's job to babysit you and coddle you when you're down and out. The gov. is there to promote social stability, protect rights, and support public works such as roads, parks, etc.; it should not be a nanny-state like this because all they are doing is giving people a ticket out of personal responsibility. My parents came from very little (running around barefoot in the ghetto) and have worked damn hard to bring themselves up and get where they are today. People who don't do the same don't deserve jack shit. I'm sorry if you have a disability, etc. but that's life and if you don't want a huge bloated government that wastes billions of dollars, then don't ask for programs and handouts.

On the flip side, if we do continue these programs, there should be extremely strict regulations and time limits put into place. Documented, current proof of disability or illness signed off by a legit medical professional in order to receive benefits. A time limit on how long you can be supported by unemployment with no option for extension except for acceptable unforeseen documented medical circumstances, etc.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this too, screw it, but as much as it would be an invasion of privacy, etc., I think people should have to go through a review and approval process before reproducing. People who want to adopt have to go through the same thing, why shouldn't dumbasses and drug addicts have to do the same? People who do not have the independent monetary ability to properly care for children should not be allowed to have children; it's child cruelty to allow a child to live in squalor just because a couple of morons decided they wanted a baby. We're overpopulated as it is and huge numbers of kids are cycling through foster homes waiting to be adopted. Same reasoning for why I will never purchase a dog but instead adopt one from a shelter, and encourage all who know me to do the same.

I have no pity for people who live off of the system and don't work as hard as my parents did to better their lives. I probably sound like an asshole right now but oh well, flamesuit on. :flamer:

Some people should die. That's just unconscious knowledge.

Welfare dependency is a trap, agreed. And some people are just bone lazy.

I am extremely skeptical about this .

I'd need some very robust studies before I buy that, and I'm too busy working to look for them. :p

My solution to welfare cheats? Do not provide guaranteed money. Provide guaranteed work. Same amount of money, for maybe 2 or 3 days per week dumb labouring, thus giving them time to go look for a real job or bum around at home watching daytime TV if they prefer. I don't care if it is picking up litter or digging holes and filling them up again, the point is to make it moderately unpleasant. If it is productive or in some way useful, so much the better.

Of course, it can't work for single mothers, age pensioners etc, but they're exempt, since they aren't cheating. This targets the slackers.

:2cents:

now you see, I would support a program that bought them shoes. Just not hooker shoes, big ticket sneakers, or lazy-arse slippers;)

Yup, they shoulda just offed Stephen Hawking at birth... I mean, like, what did he ever do for society, stuck in that wheelchair with that Darth Vader voice thingy.......

Nah, I'm anti abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. I don't recall Hawking ever applying for welfare ;)

I would support this, but no crocs either.

There are plenty of people who need help long term because of disabilities.

You don't sound very sorry. You sound more like a person that says they're sorry when what they really mean to say is, 'I don't care if you have a disability...'.

Maybe it's ok for you to say so. Personally I think people who find themselves in a bad situation through no fault of their own should be entitled to help from the society they're born into. Maybe some people do take advantage of the situation, and like Zen, I don't believe it's 20% or more, but for every one of those people who do take advantage, that's at least 4 others who're doing the right thing and trying to get back on their feet.

After the comments I've seen around this place on what some people think of charities etc, I wouldn't buy into the whole, 'there are programs to help people short term'. It'd seem to me that there are a lot of people who don't give a shit about helping anyone who's down on their luck.

See now I should have more clear here. What I don't approve of is the government stepping in with the broad stroke that is welfare and wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. I am very much for programs to help people back up on their feet through voluntary societies such as Habitat for Humanity, etc. I prefer smaller govt. that only directs people's lives when it absolutely has no other choice. Some people genuinely do need a hand and we should stand together as communities to help one of our own. We should help those in genuine need become self sufficient again, but leave them to their own devices after that. Welfare is giving a man a fish when we should instead be teaching him how to fish, and if he screws up from there it's not on us.

I was previously on the path to becoming a special education teacher before I took an interest in firefighting (if you can't tell I have a thing for serving the community in times of need). I most certainly do care for those who are disabled, but looking to the inefficient government is not the answer IMO. Voluntary societies are; we need a serious resurgence of them.

Well you probably need less people involved in their own life and greed and more interested in their community if you want more people to volunteer.

Personally, I think those days are over. At least the days when a large percentage of people considered it a duty or part of their lives once they retired or found themselves in a financially stable position. These days, people think about travelling and doing things for themselves when they retire etc. Not their community.

Yeah yeah I know there are still some about who fit the old mold, but nowhere near the number there used to be. I know my family has always been involved in programs like 'meals on wheels' and 'homecare' etc, and those of my aunts and uncles who volunteer are always saying how there's just not the number of people helping out that there used to be.

It's a sad reflection of society and where we're headed. Unfortunately, it's also a true one.

It's also worth taking into account that of the x% fraud, a large chunk of that will be extremely minor. People claiming unemployment/disability and also doing a little cash in hand work a few times a year. I honestly don't have a problem with that kind of low level scamming of the system...a few extra ££s in the hands of some single mum who is struggling bothers me a whole heap less than the millions (billions now) that we as tax payers have given to the wealthy.

I, uh, I agree. With Dana! I agree with Dana! :)

He got it automatically -he's British.

lol bloody hell, someone grab a calendar and mark this momentous event :P

I admit, I don't know the first thing about how things work on YOUR Island, but I wonder if your phraseology is accurate. You say 'tax payers have given to the wealthy.' Would it be more accurate to say 'millions of their earnings that you've allowed them to keep'?

Personally, I hadn't thought of it that way, but that is probably an accurate statement.

I was referring to the rescue packages for banks etc.

Ah...she needs to join The Cellar, and have you lot walk her through the process (like you did with me). Thanks, again! Loving my new job.

Even at 10% I don't find that dollar amount to minor. Maybe the UK's burden as a percentage of the total tax amount is smaller, but I am pretty sure Calif has a budget larger than the UK. So no, it is not an "extremely minor" amount of money.

Flint, the Cellar is a helpful place, no doubt.

But you wanted that job, and you looked for resources to help you get it. You interviewed for it, and hit it out of the park.

The resources are almost always available to those who are willing & able to make the effort to look for them.

Shhh. he thinks he owes us, don't blow this.

I agree that welfare should only be given to those who truly need it. I think it harms the recipient far more than it harms society as a whole.

On the other hand, don't count on fixing welfare to make a big dent in your tax dollars (in the US). Do a google search for "government spending pie chart" and/or "government spending welfare".

I found this interesting. I know they have a bias, but it's certainly not hidden. They also supply the sources for their figures.

A giant drug-addicted alcoholic part-time blow-job giver for drugs and alcohol was worried that they were going to take away her welfare, or whatever it was. She was afraid she might have to look for a J-O-B. Someone asked her "when was the last time you worked?" She thought for a second and said "Nahnteen Sebenty Nahn."

Seriously.

At least she worked.

Most of the worthless turds I deal with on a regular basis haven't ever worked.

A fellow cheered my heart yesterday ... he had missed his outpatient appointments and need a prescription for his meds from our doc. Why had he missed outpatient? Not the usual reasons ... oversleeping, too stoned, too drunk, etc.

He was working.

Jobs are few and far between for landscapers right now, even more than it would usually be as we are in the transitional season between grass and snow, so he's taking every opportunity he can ... his outpatient center can't get him appointments that match his schedule better, and since he has to work to eat (and real work, not something like being self employed in the personal entertainment services industry), he's skipping outpatient. He recognized that he was getting a little paranoid without his meds and came in. So he could keep working.

I have truly rarely seen the like.

Heh...true!

I feel for those who struggle like your outpatient guy...kudos to him for trying!

From dar's link. It doesn't break down the actual welfare #'s exactly, but 1/3 for that which is wrought with fraud (IMO) is still a heck of a lot. Of course so is the defense portion.

The other chart...

I would like to see some examples of that. I've seen the opposite for the most part. Just methods and reasoning are different.

All you have to do is read the threads about charity/ies that've been started over the last couple of months. You can see it however you want of course, but I don't necessarily agree with your own ideas on charity, so perhaps that's the problem. You'd be one of the ones that I'd consider less charitable.

ETA: not that it should matter to you what I think. It's only my opinion based on my own definition of charity.

luck has less to do with it than will.

ORLY? You think me wanting to help those who I KNOW need help is bad? Instead of handing out my money to random people on the street who could be outlaws, druggies, drug dealers, plain ol' lazy asses, conmen? So I keep my money because I know my parent's have less in their retirement than I do in savings, one day they'll be my burden. I keep it so that when my neighbor comes by for $20 to by a bed, I'll have it. I keep it so when my coworker is short rent, I can spot her it. How about my cousins that have a shitty mom, am I uncharitable because I hope my change will help them in college rather than give it to a bum? How about all of the hours I've spent volunteering? Or visiting elderly in nursing homes? What about me, wanting to save my money for people I know are in need vs those I think are cons is uncharitable?

Like I said, my ideas on charity are different to yours.

I just think it's easy to help people you care about, but I admire you for wanting to do so. Some people don't even go that far.

To be honest, my opinions on charity have changed a lot over the years. I haven't always felt the way I do today, but I guess some events helped me see that I could do better than I had been.

Maybe in 20 years you'll feel differently too. Maybe you wont. Either way it's your choice how you spend your money.

My point is: that I am NOT less charitable than you are. Your ideas are different maybe, but that doesn't make my contribution any less. Besides that, I never said that I only help those I care about. I said I prefer to help those I KNOW need it. That just tends to be those I'm around. I care about everyone, I'm just not gonna help you if I don't KNOW you need help. You keep inferring that I'm saying something I'm not. I doubt I will ever feel like I should hand my money to a bum on a street.

Ummmm, yea, Ali already said that. She is not completely disagreeing with you from what I have read.

lol...ok whatever. Don't get your panties in a twist.

That is what she said merc. Exactly that I am less charitable.

Ali: Maybe you should own up that you made assumptions that are wrong, based on very little information that you misinterpreted? Instead of saying that I'm "getting my panties in a twist." Very mature BTW.

Well you do seem a little bit upset. Sorry if that's my fault, but you really shouldn't let nasty old women like me affect you that way. ;)

As I said, my ideas on charity are different to yours and if you want it plainly, then yes, I do believe anyone who doesn't care to give to strangers or 'bums' as you so nicely put it, is less charitable than someone who chooses to show their charity closer to home.

Who's right or wrong? Does it matter? Why does it matter to you so much that I have the opinion I do? Do you think there's something wrong with how you choose to give? If so, change it. If not, be happy that you've made the right decision for you at this point in your life.

But as the discussion progressed she modified and recognized that there may just have been differences in how you looked at charity.

Again, though, you're trying to make nice-nice, you're inserting and adding things into what I've said. Strangers are not the same as homeless (there like that word better), I am perfectly willing to help charities (that I trust) that help strangers, or people I don't know. I trust the the charity is helping those it KNOWS needs help, therefore by my association with them I am helping people I KNOW need help. Not necessarily people I know personally or have relations with. Right now I don't have the ability to help monetarily or physically as much as I want to, so I prioritize. Yes it is easier to help those I'm closer too, but that isn't my only goal. I still would not give money to homeless, I would give to a homeless shelter, soup kitchen, ect. Those charities that help the homeless a lot more in the long run than my pocket change would.

Not really, she said from the beginning that the ideas/types of giving might be different, but she has stuck to her idea that my type of giving is less charitable. Which based purely off the fact that I don't believe in giving homeless (which has now come to encompass all strangers apparently) cash out of my pocket because I don't really think it actually helps them.

Just forget it mtp. :) You're wonderful. Very charitable. You should be very proud.

I'm terrible and simply shouldn't speak to people like you the way I do. ;)

But just keep in mind for next time; if you're going to ask me to back up what I say, I will, and since you were the one that asked, you were the one I used as an example.

For the record once and for all, any charity is good. I just think it's better if you don't feel the need to put conditions on your charitable deeds. To me, it's takes away from the other things you do.

Right I will: It is your business if you want to be financially irresponsible with your charitable donations and investments. I can and will feel good knowing that my charity fed a hungry person instead of buying heroin needles.

:) good for you.

Failure is when law abiding tax payers support intentionally non-working citizens. These are typically minority groups looking for a hand outs instead of completing a simple high school deree and getting a job. Hence, they are liberals and vote for a person as President based on race and not experience. This is the same in my home town. How sad, depressing, and tragic.

You misunderstand me Merc: I wasn't suggesting that fraud accounts for a 'minor' amount of money; I was suggesting that of the amount we lose to fraud, a large percentage of that will be made up of a lot of minor acts frauds for minor amounts of money. The vast majority of those who fiddle the system do not do so for great amounts of money. There will be a few hardcore people who take a lot out of the system, but the majority of fraud is the kind I've already mentioned: people claiming unemployment whilst sneakily doing a few hours of cash-in-hand work.

Like I said before: I find it difficult to begrudge that extra £30 a week (or whatever) to some parent who is struggling to get Christmas pressies for their kids, or new school shoes. Unfortunately, these small-scale frauds are the ones that are chased most. Because their combined weight is so heavy, and because casual workers are easy to spot (investigators traul the 'hotspots' like building sites, bars and market stalls, particularly at this time of year) they are caught and punished.

Personally, I'd leave those alone and focus on the ones who are really taking the piss. There are people out there claiming every possible benefit; lying to the authorities about their partner living with them, when their partner earns more than the fraud investigators. Families living quite well thankyou very much and still claiming all the benefits they can. They're much harder to catch, requiring stakeouts and full-on investigations. So we focus most heavily on the small fry.

What I wold like to see is a moritorium on prosecutions for those taking on Christmas work. Those jobs are rarely anything more than a few weeks' work. The money they earn will go back into the economy: the poor don't save, they spend. At present, if someone is claiming benefits they can take on up to 16 hours a week of work without losing those benefits...but their benefit is reduced accordingly: they are allowed to keep £10 of what they earn over and above their benefits each week. We should be letting them keep a higher amount. If people could legitimately claim benefits and also earn, say £30 a week above their benefits, more people would end up in legitimate (and protected) part-time employment, which may well be a stepping stone to more permanent or full-time work.

As it is, in order to survive and give their families a decent life, many are trapped into illegal and unstable part-time work, dictated by how willing thir employer is to conspire in their fraud.

While I agree with some of what you say Dana, I disagree with the last line "many are trapped." I call BS, at least for the most part here in the states. There are a zillion programs for those willing to get off their asses and work at looking/finding work. Currently the situation has changed obviously, but in the general sense, again at least here, there are many opportunities for those that wish to seek them out.

Ok, I understand now and generally agree with this assessment. Thanks.

Again, American vs UK citizens. It does seem that an awful lot of US citizens are genetically lazy. If they are not governed by a punitive system then they will take every opportunity not to work.

Luckily, there is only a minority of people in this country who live this way. Of course we have our own burden of the generally criminally minded, drug addicts of one sort of another etc. But I appreciate the American fear that if you had better welfare, just about every American would take advantage of it. We do have a welfare state and not every Brit takes advantage of it, lucky old us.

We're the same as the UK in a lot of ways. There are great safety nets provided by the government for those in need. Most of the time, most people do the right thing, but there are some scammers which they chase down.

Actually, a few years ago new legislation came in that once your kids were in school, you had to work part time or study in order to recieve any further benefits. I think this is a good idea. Of course, some people still get out of going to work, but most people take advantage of the fact that centrelink (social security) has all sorts of programs set up to help people with this task.

There aren't really a zillion programs, and though it may seem that way to eeyore, I mean classic, everyone in the country isn't sucking off the government's teat, nor would everyone even if it were easier to cheat the system.

Talking of programs, how many of the programs which are being run in the States, to help people improve their circumstances, are run by private organisations, and how many of them are badly run and/or badly conceived (usually in the wake of some knee-jerk political reaction to bad unemployment figures) ?

In the UK, there are some good programs to help people get back into work and some good routes back into the workforce, with help from trained advisors...

Then there are the rest of the programs, which are appalling. They rake in our tax money in contracts, and deliver badly conceived and badly run courses/sessions, with untrained/undertrained, badly paid and disillusioned staff. The attitude of many people working within the system towards their clients is, frankly, shocking.

Out of the dozen or so Basic Employability Training courses (literacy, numeracy, life-skills and job search skills) operating in this area, before the goal posts changed and drove everyone ot of business, the one I worked at was pretty chaotic. We operated on a shoe string, in classrooms held together with sticking plaster and good will. With bookcases we'd filled with books we'd all bought or borrowed and learning materials we'd designed and made (along with the standard curriculum stuff, which just repeats the kind of learning that put these people off school in the first place).

In order to buy ourselves time to tackle the mountain of paperwork, we'd end up letting them sit there working through their glossy DfES workbooks, ticking off the sections they'd *coughs* 'mastered'. We did this for maybe two afternoons a week. I always felt really shit about it. particularly for those who were at the lowest ability levels, because they couldn't even do the workbooks. Wordsearches and picture books.

We were known to be the best in the area. There was almost universal shock in the field locally, when our company wasn't successful in its bid under the new system. Other companies just left them doing word searches for weeks at a time. They taught them nothing, and treated them like children: authoritarian and humiliating.

In job search, we coached them in interviewing, letter writing, helped them with CVs, coached them in phone techniques, and sat with them (sometimes) when they made phone calls. We telecanvassed local employers to try and get them to take on our clients on a 'Job Trial' thereby protecting their benefits if the job went drastically wrong, I went to an interview with someone, to a local superstore that used to take on learning disabled workers on Job Trials and often employed them at the end. Those jobs did not go on our figures until they'd been employed there for at least 2 months.

Other companies, I know, were putting jobs on their books, when they'd got someone a day's work, or a week in one of the local packing plants. How does that help someone who has been unable to form regular patterns of work?

Just because a program claims to be helping doesn't mean it actually is.

The only program here that I know of is the Texas Workforce Commission, and it's state-run. I was quite impressed with how well it was run the one time I was in there (you are required to show up for at least one orientation class in order to collect unemployment, which I did for a few weeks when Acclaim went belly-up.) Between their classes, free computer use, excellent job search website, and abundance of state positions that are exclusively filled by people in the unemployment system, I was only further convinced that the only people who can't get a job using their system are the ones who don't want one.

A well-run course can usually help a lot of people. Despite ours being a bit shambolic, we tried hard, and a good percentage of our clients found stable employment (there for a year or more) and a fairly high percentage got their literacy and numeracy certificates, which are a requirement for a lot of jobs.

Of the ones who didn't get work, some were players, most were just fundamentally ill-equipped for life, or had huge gaps in their CV from years of not having help and were therefore not the most desirable prospect for employers, or had criminal records, or drug and alcohol problems. I ended up as a de facto social worker and shoulder to cry on for some of them. I'd listen to their stories, which for them seemed very matter of fact, but left me thinking if I was them I'd have thrown myself off a roof by now.

See, most people on in the system get picked up and funnelled through various channes into work or training. Over a period of about five years the unemployment figures fell sharply. The ones who came to us, were the ones who had proved unreachable.

There was a case in Australia where a private company won a contract to help long term unemployed.
I cannot remember the numbers exactly but the rest of this is correct:
They were paid $5,000 for each long-term (more than two years)unemployed person they helped. "Helped" was defined as being in paid work for at least 30 hours a week for four weeks.
So the company had them sit at a desk and phone businesses in the yellow pages asking if they had any vacancies, which if there were, were listed on the company's placement service.
They paid the person $15/hour, kept this up for four weeks, and then finished the contract, i.e. dump the person and get a new one. Repeat cycle.
Expenses = $1,800 in wages, plus phone calls. Income = $5000 plus any job leads. Actual help delivered to unemployed person = minimal.

Some people rip off the system. Sometimes, they are wearing suits and ties. Sometime, trakkies, hoodies and ugg boots.

So, just to take a slightly different tack (but not much), there is a program run by a local newspaper here called "Warm The Children". Families in need are referred by social workers, teachers etc, and they are given up to $90 per child to spend on new winter clothing at a local store. To ensure this happens, each family is assigned a volunteer shopper who has to sign off on the purchase order that the money was spent on appropriate clothing. They find it hard to find volunteers because it's a "police" job. But they have a lot of money to spend because people like to buy new winter coats for poor kids. It seems to me that they could "do so much more good" If they gave twice as many families $50/child gift certificates (non-transferable) for alocal nice second hand store. Possibly the Salvation Army. And then the families wouldn't need volunteer shoppers -the nicest things those places sell are the clothes.

But no, apparently people want to buy new winter coats for poor children, so more money if raised if this is the plan. and more families get helped, despite the product being five times more expensive. So the nice used clothes stay in the thrift stores to be bought by skinflints like me.

I am a volunteer shopper for the first time this year (they're desperate, nobody wants to play shopping police) and I'm thinking it might feel weird spending more on one child than I do on all of mine together, when they're the ones who can't afford the clothes and I could if I chose to? But perhaps because thriftiness is not my primary reason for buying second-hand, I can take pride in finding a bargain and being environmentally friendly and supporting a good cause. Maybe if second-hand shopping was a necessity for me, and I needed charity to clothe my kids for winter, getting nice new clothes would sweeten the pill?

OK having typed it out and though about it some more, it probably won't feel weird. Just sad that it's the way it has to be to get those kids into warm clothing. but at least when they outgrow them, maybe they'll get recycled through a second-hand store and bought by people like me. :)

you mean a punitive system like the free market?