Corporate and Social welfare

[Guest072311]

Welfare, when did it start, what does it cover? The good, the bad and the ugly.

[Longermonger]

I usually here, "...blah blah blah why should I have to pay blah blah blah when all they do is sit at home blah blah blah shitting out more kids blah blah blah too lazy to even look for a job blah blah blah..." when my co-workers talk about welfare. They're also hardcore free marketers. Until something bad happens (like 911) and they immediately yell, "Somebody's gotta DO SOMETHING!" followed by massive corporate welfare. They don't even blink an eye at corporate welfare unless a Democrat is in office.

Keep in mind that loans are loans and bailouts are bailouts. And even the U.S. Government can paint itself into a corner if they are lax on regulation for most of a decade.

[BigMikeinKC]

Just don't feed them 'cause they will just breed like stray dogs.

I have one child. Is the fact that my insurance company charges me the same family rate as a person with six, welfare or socialism? Can't call it capitalism as I am subsidizing someone who can't keep willie in his pants.

[Guest052813-01]

I am going to seem heartless and cruel, but IMHO, welfare is an unneccessary evil. Prior to the evolution of the "New Deal", a person's extended family took care of its members that were unable to find employment or could not work. It was only because of the availability of unemployment benefits, ADC and other welfare programs and their extensions made welfare a way of life rather than as a helping hand until someone was able to get up and work for themselves.

As with everything else, there are exceptions to every rule, and there is probably a very small percentage that require extended assistance due to circumstances beyond their control.

[dirty dog]

I have no problem with helping those who are truly in need. My concerns with welfare relates only to the scams and abuses.

[kcbigpapa]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

I have no problem with helping those who are truly in need. My concerns with welfare relates only to the scams and abuses.

Agree. Corporate or social. Social welfare should not be a way of life and corporate welfare should not be for the huge corporations that already have billions in net earnings every year.

Does someone deserve to be on welfare for 20 years? No. 10 years? No. 5 years? Maybe up to 5 years if they are making an effort to improve themselves through education to land a decent job.

Does Exxon deserve to have special tax incentives for oil exploration? IMHO, no. That is their business and should be the cost of doing business. Oil exploration is in their best interest. It is hard for me to give tax incentives to a corporation that was netting roughly $40 billion a year in the last few years.

IMHO, corporate welfare should be involved when the result is keeping jobs in America, but not just as a negotiating ploy. For example, I don't want Microsoft to say we are going to move all of our operations to India unless we get huge tax incentives to stay here. I want it to be for the struggling company that as a last resort has to move their manufacturing plants overseas such as Levi-Strauss, Rubbermaid, etc.

[kccountryboy]

I agree that welfare is a necessary evil. While the ideaology behind it is good. The system is badly abused. I feel welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out. Those who have been on it their whole lives should be kicked off. If those who abuse the system put half as much work into finding a decent job and working to support themselves as they put into staying on welfare, they could be quite wealthy. However, the system seems to reward laziness. I work with several people in the inner city who want to make more money. But they want to be paid more in cash so as to not loose their government subsidies for food, shelter, and even utilities. Others want a raise. I tell them if they would show up everyday, it would be like getting a raise. These people do not generally appreciate that reply. When they give me a little grief about it, not getting a raise that is, my response is this.

"Why should I give you a raise? A raise in income is for those who consistently perform their job well and even strive to do it better each time. You do not. Congratulations, you were at work on time every day last week. However, I have your time cards from the previous 3 months where you were on time only "x" number of times. I keep track. If you continue to improve your job performance, you will earn a raise, and I will be happy to give it to you. I will NOT however, give you more money just because. You must first prove you deserve it. I will not deny that you need more money, stay away from the boat and you would have more."

This does not generally go well with the employee, however, the truth is not always flowers and puppies. Those employees who are deserving of a raise, get it. Every year, without hesitation. It is ususally more than cost of living increase and more than the national average for the industry. I reward those who work and try hard, as I have done. I do not reward those who don't. The federal government does enough of that already.

[BigMikeinKC]

Just wanted to point out that Medicare has more fraud than the welfare system. Not the patients, but the suppliers.

[kccountryboy]

Big Mike, you are absolutely correct that there is a great deal of fraud in the healthcare system as well. I do not know if it is more or less, but it is substantial. I think many health care providers over bill medicare and medicade in order to compensate for the monies they lose in providing health care to those who do not pay. they see it as a blank check as long as they can justify it on paper. Since many seem to think that receiving medical attention is a right and not a privilige, the general populous is footing the bill through medicare and medicade. The frivolous law suits do not help which demand high pay outs for mistakes. This drives up costs of insurance premiums. I have a friend who is a surgeon and he pays a ridiculous amount each month for malpractice insurance.

It is like asking you to go to work for nothing for the same period of time that a doctor would spend on the patient and telling you, they have to right to your product or service, free of charge.


I do believe that we need health care reform, just not the one the politicians are shoving down our throat at this time with special exemptions and things of that nature. I do not want national health care because it is not, in my opinion, as effective. People from canada come the US to receive care faster than they would in canada. And they pay out of pocket! The system we have is competitive, which fosters research and new methods and procedures to be the best of the best as well as the fastest. I would gladly support a system like this. They still call the last guy in a graduating class doctor, but I would rather have the first in his or her class.

[lacrew_2000]

Welfare is well intentioned...but its gotten out of control. If you take an animal out of the wild, put it in a zoo, and start feeding it...it can never go back to the wild and find its own food.

I think the same thing goes for people. You take a part of a persons spirit away, if you continue to give him/her handouts. It may be well intentioned; but, it can be damaging. We now have multigenerational welfare families. Kids grow up with their parents, uncles, grandparents, etc all on welfare - and don't even get exposed to a lifestyle that involves work and reward.

I've always been in favor of 'workfare'. If the person is able bodied, have him do Something to earn his welfare check. Not to be mean or vindictive - just to get the person used to the idea of being rewarded for work.

Corporate welfare - I work on the periphery of projects where companies pit different cities against each other, in order to get the best hand-out - tax abatement, free utility installation, reduced water rates, you name it. I think we would all be better off if this was made illegal across the board. Why does shoestore A have to pay property taxes, while the Wal Mart (with a shoe department) gets a tax break?

[kccountryboy]

lacrew, I completely agree with you on both points. I think that having the person work for their "welfare check" would be a great way to fix the situation. Have them clean the parks, paint public buildings or even be the janitor in a public building. There are several jobs that these individuals could do to help justify their check. Many positions which they could and should fill are ones that require no technical training. I don't mean to be judgemental, but it is not that hard to clean things or paint a house or building. I know there are also many skilled trades that they would not be suited for unless they had the proper training. The benefits could be two fold, the individual has a job for which they are paid and at the same time giving back to the community as a whole.

Drug and alcohol testing for qualification is another method that I feel should be implicated. Test positive, no check. While this would increase the cost of operations to the system, it could in the long, or even short run, drastically reduce the tax burden. If an individual or any member of the family tests positive for illegal drugs, they the check is less or non-existant. I think the same tactic should be used for all forms of government aid. They are doing something illegal, that is also costly, why should joe taxpayer help them with their habit. They need money and I don't want to fund their addictions. If they can afford to buy drugs, booze or cigarettes, why cant they pay their rent, utilities or buy bread, milk or other staples.
While wic and food stamps cannot be used to purchase certain products such as those mentioned above by law. They very often are. I have had on several occasions been offered these subsidies in exchange for cash. I do not purchase them. I do not want to perpetuate the problem. I know they will find someone else, but it will not be me.

[jaybee]

[Drug and alcohol testing for qualification is another method that I feel should be implicated. Test positive, no check. While this would increase the cost of operations to the system, it could in the long, or even short run, drastically reduce the tax burden. If an individual or any member of the family tests positive for illegal drugs, they the check is less or non-existant. I think the same tactic should be used for all forms of government aid. They are doing something illegal, that is also costly, why should joe taxpayer help them with their habit. They need money and I don't want to fund their addictions. If they can afford to buy drugs, booze or cigarettes, why cant they pay their rent, utilities or buy bread, milk or other staples.
While wic and food stamps cannot be used to purchase certain products such as those mentioned above by law. They very often are. I have had on several occasions been offered these subsidies in exchange for cash. I do not purchase them. I do not want to perpetuate the problem. I know they will find someone else, but it will not be me.[/QUOTE]



i agree if my employees have to pee in a jar for their pay check, all assistance should have to pee for their check too.