Social Welfare Programs

The US congress is in the process of cutting (or reducing the growth rate, if you want to be politically correct) spending on many social welfare programs. One reason cited was that these programs "aren't working as intended". This got me thinking... How should social welfare programs work? What is their *real* goal? Naturally, I think there are many goals, but I'm curious what other people think the real justification for social welfare spending.

Safety Net:
During the 1930s a wide range of programs aimed at keeping people going while the economy was in the great depression. This was intended to prevent people from losing everything through no fault of their own.

Guilt Trip:
In the 1960s images of poverty stricken children in Appalachia instigated the "war on poverty" and "the great society" programs. How could the richest nation on earth allow such conditions to exist within its borders?

Bribery:
In the 70s rising crime rates prompted "throw more money at it" attitudes with the hope that we could spend our way to stability. And in the 1980s Reagan cited "welfare queens" who lived high off government programs (although no actual examples were ever found). The theory of bribery is that if you keep poor people at a high enough level, they won't go around taking rich people's things by force (robbery, burglary, etc).

Empowerment:
In the 1990s the rallying cry was "welfare to work". The theory here is that the goal of welfare is to get people on their feet and out the door. Intial success is sometime attributed to the booming economy at the time and many question the long term sustainabilty of such policys, but the jury is still out.

What do you feel is the primary reason to spend governmental money on social welfare programs?

ZuZu,

<3 you but you confused me. The poll asks "What is the PRIMARY goal of social spending?"

but in your writeup, you ask "How should social welfare programs work?"

so i'm not sure if you're asking what our view is of the goal of current social spending, or our view on what the goal should be.

Pie.

Eeep, sorry, I meant it to be "what it should be" in your opinion.

Thanks, I just wasn't sure to vote idealistically or cynically

<----sorry, wasn't thinking. for me they're the same.

I think charities do a better job with social spending. Government spending should be as the constitution states. Government charity is wasteful and doesn't do what it's intended to do.

Charities did a fine job before the government stepped in.

The charities do a better job as a safety net and empowering people to get back on their feet. Governments create a welfare class for the purpose of procuring votes. That's my opinion.

Oof, what kind of cynic am I? You're right, though, the Nihilist option is also a valid choice.

This may be true as Government spending in all areas is wasteful. I vote for private police force too.

Is there evidence that charities on a large scale do more to empower people and get them back on their feet?

could you cite your references for this? You conclude with 'that's my opinion' but you state these as facts. I'd be really curious to know more about this.

That depends, do you buy into the economic theory of externality?

How broad a category would you consider social welfare to be? I voted for "empowerment" because I would include public schools and colleges as the biggest and most effective social welfare program.

My philosophy on this is that you get what you pay for. Spend lots of money on schools and you get a more educated population. Spend lots of money to make sure people have a safety net in their old age and eventually you get a huge population of retired folks. Spend lots of money to make sure unemployed people don't starve or lose their houses and you tend to end up with lots of healthy comfortable unemployed people.

The more skilled and competent people are, the more able they are to be productive and to take care of themselves and their families without relying on government handouts. So my money would be on education or empowerment.

here's one

Destitute pea pickers in California. Mother of seven children. (depression era)

Yes, I would include this.
One of the consequences of the Reagan tax reform that affected me was that my assitanceship stipend in graduate school became taxable.

wow.
Somewhere to the right of Gengis Khan politically are we?

Do you have any facts to back up all those opinions?
I would take issue with almost every one.

- government charity is wastefull? (by what measure?)
- it fails to accomplish its goals? (what goals are they?)
- private charities do a better job as a safety net? (nothing but a big belly laugh for that idea)
- its a plot to get votes? (for democrats one must assume?)

I have never seen or read any evidence to support these kind of Reaganistic assumptions, care to point it out?

I bet you still believe in trickledown ecomonics

Yes, that's from about 30 miles south of where I live - my Maternal Grandmother worked the fields there at that time.

I'm not getting what that's citing?

I was just pointing out how well things were going before the government stepped in and messed it all up (according to Kevn).

Meaning to say... not that good!

'Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.'

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

There are tons of studies and research on the web, do a search. A government that spends $1200 for a hammer is not the people I want distributing charity.

Ok - now I've read the quote , but it says "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."

and you never said anything about this. I'm asking about these statements:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevn Klein
Government charity is wasteful and doesn't do what it's intended to do.

This reference you provided makes no mention of Government waste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevn Klein
Charities did a fine job before the government stepped in.

This reference you provided makes no mention of Private charity vs Government effectiveness, nor any historical data to back up the above statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevn Klein
The charities do a better job as a safety net and empowering people to get back on their feet.

This reference you provided makes no mention of this, either.


I am not trying to incite you, Kevn, I just think you have a habit of putting the cart before the horse. In this thread, for example, you seem to have decided that charities are better than the governmental welfare, and then you made several statements regarding this BELIEF that are written as if they are factual. I'm just asking for the factual data to support this information; without you're simply stating "Kevn believes X, Y, and Z" but can't explain why.

I made it quite clear it's an opinion just for that reason. I don't have the time to dig up what s obvious to me. I know there are strong supporters of welfare that would want me to prove what I said, so by stating it's an opinion leaves you in the position of either proving my opinion wrong by doing your own footwork, or differing with my opinion with your own opinion.

Only partially.

Either way, I meant wasteful as in inefficient, not wasteful as in a total waste. Second sentence was tongue in cheek.

oh ok!

* Over 85% of charities in New York are actually fronts for prostitution.
* Private Charities are proven to actually create poor people.
* In a landmark 2003 California Appeals case, charities were shown to cause nut cancer.

just sayin'

See? That works, now we just let people who read the thread decide which opinion they accept.

we're heading back to intelligent design, ain't we?

The government's job isn't to provide social safety for those who refuse to work, it is to provide infrastructure for the parts of society that DO work.

The sooner we get government out of the charity business, the sooner solutions to poverty and social safety will surface.

Right on. Let the rioting begin! The lower classes only recourse is to overthrow the overseers.