Holes in the social safety net: Keeping the poor in their place

reply to post by MacSen191

Sounds like your part of the country is more like mine.

It's families like yours, who work hard and pay their bills and still struggle, who often get passed over for assistance.

reply to post by Sestias


Who is forcing you to remain in your area? No one.

Why would you CHOOSE to stay in a place with depressed wages?


Any and all forms of welfare are unconstitutional, hence they need to be stopped immediately.

reply to post by slackerwire

Speaking for myself, I'm committed to the work I'm doing here. I also have family in the area.

However, there are people with skills and at least a basic education and a desire to get ahead working at minimum wage or just a little above it everywhere. I guess those who are more fortunate choose not to see them.

I believe the Constitution mentions providing for the "general welfare" of its citizens. How that's interpreted is a matter of debate but there's nothing that prohibits a social safety net.

reply to post by Sestias


You couldn't be more wrong.

General does not mean individual.

Lets take a look at the words of those who actually wrote the document. .

- "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison

- "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

- "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

And now some words from other Presidents....

- [I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

- I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887

Sorry, you're just plain wrong.

Originally posted by Sestias

What do you do, in a capitalist society, to help the poor?

In case anyone is not awake it is only the lower and middle classes that are subject to capitalism. The upper classes don't have to play by the same rules. They screw up and the goverment is there to save their asses. But instead of $3,000 we are talking about millions and billions of dollars to bail them out.

reply to post by slackerwire


The opinions of various presidents are interesting but they are not the Constitution itself. There are as many who had a different interpretation.

reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity


When it's a government bailout for the rich or tax breaks or subsidies for businessea, nobody calls it sponging off the government or shouts that it's unconstitutional. In truth it's corporate welfare.

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by slackerwire

 

The opinions of various presidents are interesting but they are not the Constitution itself. There are as many who had a different interpretation.

Uh, a few of the people I quoted actually WROTE and SIGNED the document.

Who better to determine Constitutionality than the authors?

I couldn't come close to what my girlfriend welfare mom makes. Or we would be married. 21,000 a year cash, free medical for her and 3 kids $300.00 - $500.00 in food stamps section 8 housing pays most of her rent in a 3 bedroom house. Still I don't ever see her with any "left over money". These "poor" people know the system and word of any program spreads like wild fire. Not to mention some get prescription meds that are sold for up to $5.00 a pill. So that is another $400.00 a month. How did this woman save $3000.00 what was she saving for? A car? Oh and something called HEAP in Ca will pay a months utility bills once a year. I'd just like medical insurance....bil

reply to post by nuevobilly

Ms. Capetillo said she was saving for a washing machine (a few hundred dollars at most) and possibly send her child to college someday. For all I know it was for a Carribbean cruise, or maybe just as a hedge in case of a disaster, and it doesn't matter to me what her dream was. If she saved for it seems to me she should be encouraged to save more, not spend every dime to satisfy the government that she had absolutely nothing and never would have anything.

California, I think, is more generous in welfare benefits than many places, but the cost of living is higher too. Sounds like your girlfriend is doing well, maybe better than she should considering the government is paying for it. There are cases of real welfare fraud and that, of course, is not what I'm advocating.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by Sestias]

reply to post by Sestias


Ending all forms of welfare would put a stop to all forms of abuse ya know.

Its not what should happen, its what NEEDS to happen.

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by Sestias

 

Ending all forms of welfare would put a stop to all forms of abuse ya know.

Its not what should happen, its what NEEDS to happen.

If that were to happen we'd be the only country in the industrialized west that didn't have any programs for the poor, the elderly and/or the disabled.

You are alluding to the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists at the time the Constitution was written. Jefferson began as an Anti-Federalist and later changed his views; for example during his presidency he accomplished the Louisiana purchase and added new states to the union, neither of which were strictly provided for in the Constitution. Madison was definitely an Anti-Federalist, and his views should be understood in that context. The Federalists ultimately won the dispute.

The creation of Social Security was deemed Constitutional under the interstate commerce clause.

A large part of welfare programs are funded by counties and states, and that cannot be faulted even by an anti-Federalist. Insofar as the programs are subsidized by the Fed, they are open to dispute by modern-day anti-Federalists, but so far they have mostly been upheld by the Supreme Court.

reply to post by Sestias


I am the last person on ATS who needs a little history lesson concerning the Federalists vs the Anti- Federalists.

If states want to fund their own welfare programs, more power to them. That being said, the federal government also has no constitutional power to fund such socialized programs.

I think it's a safe assumption to say that SCOTUS isn't always correct, therefore their "interpretation" of what is and what isn't Constitutional is subjective.

Ever bother to research how the New Deal was actually found to be Constitutional? If not, try googling the term "court stacking".

reply to post by slackerwire

I think we're not going to agree on the Constitutionality of social programs or the value of the New Deal. You're more of an original intent Constitutionalist than I am. I see nothing that convinces me that the Consitution prohibits social activism. The "general welfare" is improved by the existence of a social safety net. IMO some programs, like medicare and medicaid, are more economically and effectively run by the central government (a single-payer system) than they might be if the states administered them alone.

As far as Roosevelt goes, the SCOTUS ruled against him a number of times, so they didn't just rubber-stamp everything he wanted. The New Deal did much to lift us out of the depression and people are still enjoying the benefits of it today. Roosevelt was arguably the most popular president in U.S. history, elected to office four times consecutively. The New Deal ushered in a three-decades-long period of prosperity and bipartisanship, with a Congress that worked together instead of separately. Some people did, and some people always will, call the New Deal socialism, but it isn't. Socialism, according to Marx, is when the state owns the means of production; in this country the means of production are privately owned and probably always will be.

But I think this thread has gotten sidetracked. My original question was how we, as a society, can maintain a social safety net that doesn't keep the people in it down and how that safety net should function.

Food Stamp recipients who are under 60 years of age and do not meet the Social Security Administration's definition of "disabled" ARE allowed to have up to $2000.00 in liquid assets, i.e. cash, checking or savings.

Ezzi

reply to post by Sestias


You may want to take a refresher course on Constitutional law.

Simply because something isn't prohibited by it doesn't mean it is a defacto authorization. Governments powers are few, and well defined. Anything else they wish to do is Unconstitutional.

reply to post by ezziboo

Understood. The woman cited in the OP saved $3,000--$1,000 more than the guidelines allow. That was in the 90's, though. Today, I think some states allow up to $3,000 for a couple. According to most welfare guidelines, if you reach more than that amount you should go off assistance. What usually happens is the people do go off assistance, their assets get used up in a month or so, and then they go back on again. The point of assistance is that it is supposed to be temporary, until people can get on their feet and be able to support themselves. No one can be self-supporting with only $2,000 in reserve; the first medical emergency would put them right back where they were before.

My argument is that the poor should be encouraged to build up assets, including savings, because that is what will ultimately help them get ahead when, hopefully, they will go off assistance. One of the reasons the poor stay poor is because they can't save up enough to afford, say, a down payment on a house, which would give them some economic security in the future.

There has to be a reasonable limit on how many assets a welfare recipient can have, but IMO it is now much too low. The government should encourage, rather than discourage, savings.

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by Sestias

 

You may want to take a refresher course on Constitutional law.

Simply because something isn't prohibited by it doesn't mean it is a defacto authorization. Governments powers are few, and well defined. Anything else they wish to do is Unconstitutional.

Depends on who is teaching the course. Barack Obama taught law at the University of Chicago, and if I'm not mistaken one of the courses he taught was Constitutional law.

It could be taught by a Federalist.

reply to post by Sestias


Kind of ironic since most of the policies he proposes to put in place if elected are inherently unconstitutional

Why people choose to interpret the Constitution instead of relying on the actual words is truly mystifying. I guess they need to see words that don't exist in order to fit their own personal agendas into it.

Originally posted by Sestias
The "general welfare" is improved by the existence of a social safety net. IMO some programs, like medicare and medicaid, are more economically and effectively run by the central government (a single-payer system) than they might be if the states administered them alone.

YOU don't even believe this BS you are spewing through your computer. I know this because you and every other thief or supporter of theives have done nothing but complain complain complain. IF you REALLY believed that we are better off bc of this system, then why the hell are you all STILL complaining.

BH (the poster that supports obama) is on welfare and she STILL sounds like she is complaining, yet she is online which means she has internet access, does it not?!! WTF ..... put down your drugs and booze ppl, it is affecting your state of clarity.

They could steal more out of our pockets to pass out to all of you who refuse to do WHAT IT TAKES to live to your desired level of comfort, but you all would STILL be complaining.

Have you ever heard the analogy... give someone a fish and they'll be full for a day; teach someone to fish and they'll be full for life. or build someone a fire and they'll have warmth for a night; teach someone to build a fire and they'll never be cold.

So, here's your lesson. Use your brain, get a job that makes you happy w/ the desired income you want, quit living off of other ppl's money and please please please stop complaining and using lame excuses for why you feel you are entitled to our EARNINGS (bc it is more than money, it is the fruit of our labors)!!!



[edit on 27-7-2008 by justamomma]