I haven't stirred up a good debate in a while. :)
I briefly discussed this with a good friend a few weeks ago over drinks. He had his opinions; I had mine. And I'm curious what the rest of you think. Let me start by saying I believe welfare is MOSTLY GOOD. It has it's pros and cons, like anything else.
I've reached a point in my life where my day to day struggle of scraping by paycheck to paycheck has actually led me to apply for temporary state assistance. I balanced out my finances recently-- laid out my income and expenses; cay payment, car insurance, cell phone, car maintenance and gas, babysitting, groceries and rent (including bills involved with rent like water and electric). I came to realize that once all my bills are paid in a week, I am left with 50 dollars. That is 50 dollars for emergency use or savings. Buying a home will cost more than what I currently pay in rent. My rent plus 50 bucks a week... that will never buy me a thing. My kiddo and I are doomed to rent for the entirety of our future, right? Wrong. This is where I accept the fact that I need help.
I think welfare, if used correctly, is a great thing. For situations like mine, if I can get help for a year with food stamps or child care... that gives me a year I can put money I never had before into my savings account-- a year to find other sources of income-- a year to get my finances in order. And after that year, maybe just maybe... I will have saved enough to pay my car off. BAM! There's $80 less a week I have to spend. There's $80 a week on top of that 50 a week I had last year. I just increased my weekly income by EIGHTY BUCKS because I accepted help for a year. That's eighty dollars more I have I can put toward a home-- get out on our own and live life.
But here's where I think state assistance becomes an issue; there aren't enough limitations. Obviously, some people aren't physically or mentally capable of working. They are the exceptions. But a healthy 24 year old woman with no kids... why should we be paying for her to live? She should be hunting for a job while receiving her assistance, not just living freely for her whole life. And proof of applying should be submitted to the state. Also, I think welfare should have a time limit (depending on the situation). In 6 month, 1 year, 2 year intervals, etc... Whatever fits the situation best. You've got two parents with three children, both unemployed. Give them a one year deadline to find jobs and then re-evaluate the case. If they still need help, ok! Help! And my last issue... food stamps. *sighs* Here is where I will make some people angry.
I work in the grocery business. I understand everyone wants to splurge some. But when I see a regular customer in several times a week buying lobster and t-bones or pre-made party platters on their food stamp card, it bugs the Hell out of me! I am paying for these people to live like royalty. And I can't even afford chicken on my 40 hours a week; let alone a surf 'n turf special! Now, in some situations... maybe this family went a few weeks eating really cheap stuff so they could afford a fancy dinner on their food stamp card. Okay--great. But it's the ones you see EVERY DAY buying top of the line items that really get under my skin. Or the ones who roll through with an entire grocery cart full of Snickers and Diet Coke. WOW! I see my hard earned dollars are going somewhere really beneficial.
I believe food stamps should operate similar to WIC. There should be set items they cover. Shouldn't cover candy and sodas... or PARTY PLATTERS. (Yell at me all you like.)
And lastly... drug testing. This is very controversial. There was a time I felt like drug testing should be required for welfare. But I never realized how expensive this kind of thing was. It would end up costing the state more by testing everyone than by just giving them the benefits their pay allows for. Also... let's say for example a meth loving mother of two applies for food stamps because she can't hold a job. She fails the drug test... and guess who suffers? Not the mom. She'll find other ways to get her drugs. But not these kids of hers aren't getting any food-- any insurance. The kids are suffering because their parents are idiots. Drug testing, while great in concept, only would create more issues. It would cost tax payers more to support the system, and we'd have more starving deprived children running around.
It's a sad situation, really. While I believe that Welfare is a great thing when used correctly, there are those handfuls of people who abuse the system that make it difficult on the rest of us. They make people like me (who haven't even received my benefits yet, as I've only JUST applied) look like we are parasites. So, yes... in my personal opinion, welfare is GOOD. It's a great thing to have for those in need. But I think the welfare program should be reviewed, revamped, rewritten... re-whatever... to make it more logical and practical for those on it, and those paying into it.
*steps off my soapbox*
And how about you...? :)
