When US politicians talk about this as an issue, do they mean scrapping welfare? What's wrong with it at the moment, and what can be done, with the (percieved) limits of the average American's willingness to consider themselves part of a society?
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 20 March 2003 13:17 (twenty-three years ago)
Welfare is an issue constantly flogged by the right-wing because its very, very easy to score points with it: "Those lazy welfare mothers living free off your hard work" etc etc. The reality is that most people who go on welfare get off it within two years, that the money they get from welfare hardly gives them a comfortably life, and the % of the budget devoted to welfare is tiny. It should be a non-issue with most people.
Some right-wingers definitely want to scrap welfare. One of their schemes going is "workfare", I do not know the exact details, but after a time limit the women are forced to go to work and lose their benefits. This worked ok until the economy tanked - no job means many families are screwed.
The current economic system in the US is designed to have about 5% unemployment, therefore it is actually unfair to demand people to "go out and get a job!" and deny them benefits if they become unemployed. Ideally, the 5% unemployed should be constantly rotating, but in reality it doesn't work out like that.
― fletrejet, Thursday, 20 March 2003 13:36 (twenty-three years ago)
What can be done?
Well one thing might be a reform of American public education so that people leave high school informed about the history of the republic, its ideals of liberty and possibility and so have a context within which to think about campaign promises/advertising and to consider the perils of living in a vastly unequal society. Unfortunately this would have to be based on increased spending and training on education - which looks even less likely than proper welfare reform. It's very difficult to maintain much social hope about things as they are.
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Thursday, 20 March 2003 13:43 (twenty-three years ago)
What Fletrejet says is all true. Most people don't have a clue about welfare. In your WHOLE life, you are only allowed to claim up to 2 years. That's nothing. For a government that you're paying such massive taxes to, they do a fairly shitty job of looking out for their citizens.
I think the plan here is: get rid of welfare, get rid of social security, get rid of the idea that prosperity is something we can all achieve, put half the population in the poor house, a fairly large percentage totally destitute and then, because the economy is just "so dire", loosen up on the minimum wage laws. This way, we can have a nice little system of rich vs. poor and the sort of slave labor you see in 3rd world countries.
And it will all just sort of naturally evolve... and the government will say it's having to cut this or that for the budget and dickheads like George Bush will come on TV and say things like "our nation is strong, our resolve is strong, our foundation is strong" to the portion of the population that can actually still afford cable.
Or something like that. Anyway, I think we should eat the rich.
― Scaredy Cat, Thursday, 20 March 2003 13:46 (twenty-three years ago)
get rid of the idea that prosperity is something we can all achieveNo, the idea is very important. But remove all methods of getting there apart from appearing on Fox TV shows.
and the sort of slave labor you see in 3rd world countries
And start bring American Jobs home! That'll show those No Logo moaning minnies.
(aaargh why do I always sound like such a cynical fucker? I'm nice really. Honest.)
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 20 March 2003 15:07 (twenty-three years ago)