Domspeak Forums Discussions Off Topic & Politics Welfare & Work (QotD)

Another "Question of the Day" from Just Facts Daily

Correct me if I am wrong on this. But, weren't social programs intended to be temporary aid? Now, it is expected to be an on going supplement and, in some cases, a way of life for people.

The programs were implemented with the sales pitch of being temporary.
Many believe (and I'm one of them) that the programs were intended to create a permanent voting base for Democrats.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But, I will add three thoughts: 1. FDR did a service to the American people with the TVA project. That put working men back on their feet in a way that restored their sense of pride and paid them well through their hard work. 2. Some people, like my maternal grandmother, had worked beyond hard her entire life. She was widowed three times due to the coal mines. She raised a house full of children on her own with no aid for many years. She had a milk cow, chickens, raised a garden and even raised a big every year, which she slaughtered on her own. She took in neighbor's laundry, which she washed on a wash board. It was just barely enough to keep everyone fed and clothed. In fact, there were times when the kids went to bed hungry. When FDR passed legislation that resulted in her getting a modest check every month, it was appropriate for the situation. There are situations that call for on going help, which should require the recipients doing their part.

The Democrats motivation in attracting life long voters on welfare was probably a factor. But, it did some good too. It just got taken far too far over the years. Now they are giving illegal immigrants benefits while American citizens struggle...and they are doing it with their tax payer dollars. Did you hear about the school district in Massachusetts that had to deny school bus service to 150students because they were out of funds? Meanwhile, a separate government agency stepped in a funded buses to transport students who are here illegally.

It is all a self serving sham by the government. But, aid to those who truly need it, should be given.

I think we agree here.
My contention is that aid should come from as source that is as local as it can be: family; community; city; county; state; and, as a last resort, federal.
Democrats like to implement one-size-fits-all policies that often miss the target and are generally wasteful and open to abuse/fraud.

Yes, we agree. I will add only that when help from churches, family, ect. isn't available, there should be state or federal assistance. I will share a personal story with you. I have a cousin who is my age. When we were young women we were both pregnant at the same time. I stood next to her at a funeral, talking about our life plans. She said she was going on welfare. I must have looked shocked because she quickly followed it up with, "I don't want to but I want stay at home with my baby." Heck, I did too but I, at least, had to work part time to supplement my husband's income. Skip to today, she has lived off of government assistance her entire life. She is raising her grandchildren now and struggles a lot. There are times I've helped her out financially. While she has been a wonderful grandmother, raising three young children in her 50's, she has never held a job. She rode the welfare train, not expecting the big reform of the mid 90's. Even after that, she has never worked even a part time job. I feel badly for her but can't help but look at the quality of our lives and think back to that moment in our early 20's. Our lives have gone so differently because of that one defining decision. Once some9one gets into the system, regardless of how difficult living off of social benefits has become, it is difficult for them to re enter society as a contributing member. Sad.

What people living off the government's nipple don't understand is that it can all be taken away in a minute. It is idiocy to depend on anyone else to provide for you.

Good story. Insightful.

I suspect they know intuitively.
That is why they are such adamant supporters of the Democrats.
They are scared to death that Republicans will reduce or eliminate assistance and, as pointed out in Cheyenne's latest post, they are clueless/helpless to survive without it.