Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

does anybody have a good definition of the term welfare? I am having a hard time determining what welfare stands for..
if I see a motorist pulled off the side of the road in the middle of the Mojave desert stranded because their spare tire was deflated when they went to change the flat tire they had, am I supposed to stop and offer assistance? after all the motorist definitely was a "loser" not having an inflated spare tire to replace his flat.. could be this motorist is on the same level of ineptitude as the welfare recipient in temporary need of some food stamps, since both did not prepare themselves and both are to blame for their condition, so if the tea bagger's logic is valid, I should drive on by not even giving them a second glance since they do not deserve anything since it was their fault they are in the predicament they are now in.spending a few more dollars as tax to the federal government would equate to my labor and time invested in stopping and helping this stranded family?. is this a good definition of WELFARE? and can we say any form of helping someone that is down and out, albeit temporarily, as welfare, oh, the stranded motorist has the option of walking out of the desert so he no doubt does not need the help , but it would be a little more comfortable getting the help..ey?

"Relief"

In the US:

United StatesMain article: Social programs in the United States

President Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act, August 14, 1935The Welfare system in the United States began in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive need-based aid from the federal government.[17][dubious – discuss] Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits.[17] In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman receiving Welfare assistance; by 1980, the percentage increased to 10%.[17] In the 1970s, California was the U.S. state with the most generous Welfare system.[18] Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the taxpayers.[19] In 2008, 28.7 percent of the households headed by single women were considered poor.[20] The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2010 jumped to 40.7% compared to 8.8% for married-couple families.[21] California, with 12% of the U.S. population, has one-third of the nation's welfare recipients.[22]

In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act changed the structure of Welfare payments and added new criteria to states that received Welfare funding. After reforms, which President Clinton said would "end Welfare as we know it,"[19] amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[23][dead link] Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of Welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[24][25] It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[19][24][26] In FY 2009, white families comprised 31.2% of TANF families, black families comprised 33.3%, and 28.8% were Hispanic.[25]

In a 2011 article, Forbes reported, "The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested Welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total Welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)".[27]

Canada:

CanadaMain article: Social programs in Canada
Canada has a Welfare state in the European tradition; however, it is not referred to as "Welfare", but rather as "social programs". In Canada, "Welfare" usually refers specifically to direct payments to poor individuals (as in the American usage) and not to healthcare and education spending (as in the European usage).[14]

The Canadian social safety net covers a broad spectrum of programs, and because Canada is a federation, many are run by the provinces. Canada has a wide range of government transfer payments to individuals, which totaled $145 billion in 2006.[15] Only social programs that direct funds to individuals are included in that cost; programs such as medicare and public education are additional costs.

Generally speaking, before the Great Depression, most social services were provided by religious charities and other private groups. Changing government policy between the 1930s and 1960s saw the emergence of a Welfare state, similar to many Western European countries. Most programs from that era are still in use, although many were scaled back during the 1990s as government priorities shifted towards reducing debt and deficits

Dane Ellis Allen wrote:does anybody have a good definition of the term welfare? I am having a hard time determining what welfare stands for..
if I see a motorist pulled off the side of the road in the middle of the Mojave desert stranded because their spare tire was deflated when they went change the flat tire they had am I supposed to stop and offer asssitance? after all the motorist definitely was a "loser" not having an inflated spare tire to replace his flat.. this motorist is on the same level as the welfare recipient in temporary need of some food stamps, since both did not prepare themselves and are to blame for their condition, so if the tea bagger's logic is valid, I should drive on by not even giving them a second glance since they do not deserve anything since it was their fault they are in the predicament they are now in.. is this a good definition of WELFARE?

Its highly doubtful that the motorist is collecting Spare tire /off road assistance in 7 different states. Most likely When he gets home, he wont sell off the donated parts of the car repair for cigarettes and beer . I'm also guessing he has his own tire iron. In any case, even the finest Samaritans aren't lining up at a food-stamp line... They simply appear from time to time, when a real and true need... calls for it.

In this day and age, you might be better to drive on for your own welfare.

food stamps provides temporary relief, if you think I am sticking up for mammies popping kids out to live off the checks they provide you have me all wrong..

Dane Ellis Allen wrote:food stamps provides temporary relief, if you think I am sticking up for mammies popping kids out to live off the checks they provide you have me all wrong..

Well I was beginning to wonder...

As for the Food Stamp Line...My point was to illustrate that Samaritans (Any giving person) aint handing out food stamps. They show up when and where its dire and needed... But thos samritans are now being 'forced" to hand over wealth.

That's the issue...Nothing to do with hard or soft hearts...Its everything to do with coercion. To prove my point, Why aren't you volunteering to take in a Mexican immigrant family...Gawd knows they really need the help. Why arent you outright , willingly sponsoring, feeding, clothing them and getting their kids into a school?..Were talking just one family.

I guess you are hard hearted if you don't?

PaperDog wrote:

Dane Ellis Allen wrote:does anybody have a good definition of the term welfare? I am having a hard time determining what welfare stands for..
if I see a motorist pulled off the side of the road in the middle of the Mojave desert stranded because their spare tire was deflated when they went change the flat tire they had am I supposed to stop and offer asssitance? after all the motorist definitely was a "loser" not having an inflated spare tire to replace his flat.. this motorist is on the same level as the welfare recipient in temporary need of some food stamps, since both did not prepare themselves and are to blame for their condition, so if the tea bagger's logic is valid, I should drive on by not even giving them a second glance since they do not deserve anything since it was their fault they are in the predicament they are now in.. is this a good definition of WELFARE?

Its highly doubtful that the motorist is collecting Spare tire /off road assistance in 7 different states. Most likely When he gets home, he wont sell off the donated parts of the car repair for cigarettes and beer . I'm also guessing he has his own tire iron. In any case, even the finest Samaritans aren't lining up at a food-stamp line... They simply appear from time to time, when a real and true need... calls for it.

There you go sighting extremes again ... ...

Prevost82 wrote:

PaperDog wrote:

Dane Ellis Allen wrote:does anybody have a good definition of the term welfare? I am having a hard time determining what welfare stands for..
if I see a motorist pulled off the side of the road in the middle of the Mojave desert stranded because their spare tire was deflated when they went change the flat tire they had am I supposed to stop and offer asssitance? after all the motorist definitely was a "loser" not having an inflated spare tire to replace his flat.. this motorist is on the same level as the welfare recipient in temporary need of some food stamps, since both did not prepare themselves and are to blame for their condition, so if the tea bagger's logic is valid, I should drive on by not even giving them a second glance since they do not deserve anything since it was their fault they are in the predicament they are now in.. is this a good definition of WELFARE?

Its highly doubtful that the motorist is collecting Spare tire /off road assistance in 7 different states. Most likely When he gets home, he wont sell off the donated parts of the car repair for cigarettes and beer . I'm also guessing he has his own tire iron. In any case, even the finest Samaritans aren't lining up at a food-stamp line... They simply appear from time to time, when a real and true need... calls for it.

There you go sighting extremes again ... ...

I'll admit 7 was an exaggeration Nowis more like 2.. Perhaps the salient truth is just too much to bear in print. Alas Prevost, grab some non-government issued popcorn and watch this for good information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SLnAMg8rOA

Anything you get that did not belong to you, you did no work for, and was not given by choice.

I'll share and consider opportunities to do so as a gift from God. It's my call though.

I despise 'sharing' at the point of a gun. that's not sharing when the govt swine do it. It's extortion.

Some many people now are used to others paying their bills - its frankly embarassing to see people act that way.

It's gotten so bad that a woman walked into our church office recently, threw a bunch of bills on the desk and said, "I need you to pay these."

We have a benevolence fund and on occassion we've helped out non members with various bills or issues.

Not this one. Unbelievable and tragic. Tragic because someone has so much sense of entitlement that they just assume it is somebody else's DUTY to pay their way.

Talbot

Prevost82 wrote:

PaperDog wrote:

Dane Ellis Allen wrote:does anybody have a good definition of the term welfare? I am having a hard time determining what welfare stands for..
if I see a motorist pulled off the side of the road in the middle of the Mojave desert stranded because their spare tire was deflated when they went change the flat tire they had am I supposed to stop and offer asssitance? after all the motorist definitely was a "loser" not having an inflated spare tire to replace his flat.. this motorist is on the same level as the welfare recipient in temporary need of some food stamps, since both did not prepare themselves and are to blame for their condition, so if the tea bagger's logic is valid, I should drive on by not even giving them a second glance since they do not deserve anything since it was their fault they are in the predicament they are now in.. is this a good definition of WELFARE?[/quote

Its highly doubtful that the motorist is collecting Spare tire /off road assistance in 7 different states. Most likely When he gets home, he wont sell off the donated parts of the car repair for cigarettes and beer . I'm also guessing he has his own tire iron. In any case, even the finest Samaritans aren't lining up at a food-stamp line... They simply appear from time to time, when a real and true need... calls for it.

There you go sighting extremes again ... ...

Please go PHUK A MOOSE PALEEZE! Just because your CHICKEN sh*t little FROZEN TUNDRA has RODE the back of the greatest country in the world! All the while you hate us you LITTLE PHUK! How DARE YOU! What I meant about you being a traitor is that YOUR LITTLE PISS ASS COUNTRY! Took in our DESERTERS! Now you HAVE THE NERVE to be divisive YOU LITTLE PHUKIN PRICK!

FOLKS please understand what a Sh!thole this PHUKED up @sshole of a country is PALEEZE!

Case in point, right under my roof: I have a 270lb mass of muscle living under my roof who happens to be my autistic son. If there wasn't any government relief for him, disability and medicaid, he would be DEAD. Not suffering. Not struggling to survive. DEAD. I could have, perhaps should have, told the authorities to come get him many years ago. We did try to give him a trial residency at Kansas' premier facility. After a few days they told us to come get him. The staff was SCARED of his power. By having him live with me I'm saving y'all beaucoup taxpayer bucks.
There's MILLIONS of people who have handicapped sons, daughters, parents, siblings, etc. live with them.
For every person who is abusing the welfare system, receiving food stamps they "don't deserve", etc. there may be dozens or HUNDREDS of people whose very survival depends on what paltry aid they are receiving.
I am "allowed" to get paid about $10/hour to watch my son 35 hours/month when in fact I conservatively watch him about 15 hours per day.
I have been investigated twice by Protective Services for abusing my son when my son attacked me. Believe me where you exist, in your worst nightmare you don't want to mess with my son. When the investigators saw the size and strength of my son they promptly dropped the cases.
I ramble on, and you're probably wondering what I'm getting to, and it's this. When I hear people complain about somebody who doesn't deserve the relief they are receiving, unless you personally know that person, unless you know the circumstances they are involved with, then I would say you don't know what the fu*k you're talking about.

fisherman bob wrote:Case in point, right under my roof: I have a 270lb mass of muscle living under my roof who happens to be my autistic son. If there wasn't any government relief for him, disability and medicaid, he would be DEAD. Not suffering. Not struggling to survive. DEAD. I could have, perhaps should have, told the authorities to come get him many years ago. We did try to give him a trial residency at Kansas' premier facility. After a few days they told us to come get him. The staff was SCARED of his power. By having him live with me I'm saving y'all beaucoup taxpayer bucks.
There's MILLIONS of people who have handicapped sons, daughters, parents, siblings, etc. live with them.
For every person who is abusing the welfare system, receiving food stamps they "don't deserve", etc. there may be dozens or HUNDREDS of people whose very survival depends on what paltry aid they are receiving.
I am "allowed" to get paid about $10/hour to watch my son 35 hours/month when in fact I conservatively watch him about 15 hours per day.
I have been investigated twice by Protective Services for abusing my son when my son attacked me. Believe me where you exist, in your worst nightmare you don't want to mess with my son. When the investigators saw the size and strength of my son they promptly dropped the cases.
I ramble on, and you're probably wondering what I'm getting to, and it's this. When I hear people complain about somebody who doesn't deserve the relief they are receiving, unless you personally know that person, unless you know the circumstances they are involved with, then I would say you don't know what the fu*k you're talking about.

Bob , I am truly sorry for what you have to endure everyday, with your son. I find it extremely admirable (and I sincerely applaud you ) that you have stood by him throughout his life, even when he made things difficult. The manner in which you handle your situation makes you a top father, to beat all fathers...

There is absolutely no dispute about the benefits of receiving real government aid for real problems...And Yes, we sure as hell need that system. .We can and should fund and perpetuate goodwill and care.

But I can tell you that the fraud and abuses of our welfare system are pushing upwards, close to a billion dollars in losses... The reason you receive such a paltry sum (when you could legitimately receive more) to care for your son, is directly caused by the takers in the system who DONT need the aid, or who need less than they claim and receive.

The whole argument centers around the disparity between tax payers, who support these programs, and the absolutely terrible leadership that runs these programs and influences and drives cost effectiveness into the ground. It is simply costying America too much now... Something has to be done, to bring it all back to proper scope.