How *Welfare* Changed America......

by teenyuck 20 Replies latest jw friends

  • teenyuck
    teenyuck

    Found this article in the latest US News and World Report. The issue is dealing with American milestones. Some of the articles include 100 documents that define our nation to the one I am going to post. The whole magazine is very interesting....

    This article is interesting. And thought provoking.....

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030922/usnews/22safety.htm

    Casting a Wide Net

    By Joannie Fischer
    While some American ideals are held sacred, such as the right to life and liberty, many others fluctuate with the tides of history. But few ideas in the American mind-set have reversed themselves so completely, and transformed the nation so profoundly, as the notion of whether government ought to lend its neediest citizens a helping hand.
    For the entire first half of the United States' existence, Americans ardently rejected the notion of a public safety net for even the most vulnerable citizens. Indeed, the idea of welfare was considered "un-American"--something repugnantly European. Yet over much of the past century, the country has engaged in the rapid-fire construction of a net so extensive and elaborate that about half of all government spending now goes to some kind of assistance. And we're not talking about just the down and out anymore: Nearly every American citizen receives some form of aid these days, regardless of need.

    Early Americans were known for their distinctive anathema toward government handouts, a distaste historians attribute to both the opportunities of their expansive adopted land and the personalities of those who chose to move here. Up to 1870, half the nation's workers were farmers, landowners with extended families that pitched in during tough financial times or illness. But this all-for-one mentality didn't extend far beyond the family. It was still a nation of immigrants with little in common, says historian Larry DeWitt. Indeed, the country lacked any sense of ethnic unity that might have inspired more generosity. What relief did exist for the poor usually came from private or local coffers, but accepting welfare was not a simple choice: Those who took aid often lost the right to vote and sometimes even had to wear a large "P" (for poor) on their clothing.

    The industrial revolution radically transformed America's economy and lifestyle, but it didn't put a chink into this bootstrap mentality. With "more jobs seeking men than men seeking jobs," as one early historian put it, it was hard to fathom that any willing worker could not provide for himself or his family. So even as most European nations were creating programs of welfare and "social insurance," Herbert Hoover was winning the 1928 election by denouncing the European model as "paternalism."

    Rugged. Hoover's attitude didn't soften when the stock market crashed a year later, plunging a good chunk of the population into unemployment and homelessness. When 25,000 World War I veterans marched to the White House to request early payment of financial bonuses they had been promised, the president's response was to tear-gas them. That was the American safety net in 1932.

    But by then the American public was learning some sad lessons. The Great Depression had shown that bootstraps just didn't work for many Americans. Even those most willing to lift a shovel, and even those who had socked away a lifetime of savings, could be made destitute by perverse twists of fortune. Almost overnight, support swelled for the very un-American idea that the government should bear responsibility for helping the unfortunate. Franklin Roosevelt was swept into office to create a "New Deal" between government and citizens.

    Roosevelt called an emergency session of Congress and in 100 days transformed the role of U.S. government forever by creating all manner of assistance programs. His largest legacy was passage of the Social Security Act, which led to the vast system of benefits for the retired, disabled, unemployed, and poor. They're all still in place today. The demand was overwhelming: By the time the first checks were drafted, over 35 million people had signed up, and today the program covers 98 percent of workers.

    The New Deal marked a turning point "as decisive as 1776 or 1860," argues historian Kenneth Davis. Not only did it transform the U.S. government from "a smallish body that had limited impact on the average American into a huge machinery that left few Americans untouched," but it also resulted in "a previously unthinkable reliance on government to accomplish tasks that individuals and the private economy were unwilling or unable to do."

    While FDR's expansion of the government's role in helping those in need was astonishing and unprecedented, that was just the beginning of official compassion in the United States. After World War II, the GI Bill helped put a safety net under some 15 million returning vets, not only with cash assistance but with vocational training and educational scholarships.

    Rehab. This idea--that welfare might come in the form of services, not just cash--came to fruition in the 1960s and was advanced most vigorously by Lyndon Johnson. The bedrock idea of the Great Society was entitlement: Americans by birthright were not only free but guaranteed a certain level of comfort. New government programs like Head Start and the Job Corps made that point, but LBJ's most stunning safety net innovation was the creation of Medicaid and Medicare. Those two programs declared for the first time that no American--poor, elderly, disabled--should go without decent healthcare.

    Since these innovations, America has struggled to maintain its ethos of self-reliance and hard work. The Reagan administration cut back on spending for such things as public housing and job training, and the Clinton administration demanded more personal responsibility in redefining "welfare as we know it." Even so, taxpayer support of assistance programs has doubled since the '60s, to roughly 50 percent of the federal budget.

    What's more, it's no longer a partisan issue. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle elbow one another out of the way to claim credit for expanding the safety net. Both houses of Congress are grappling now with plans to add prescription drug benefits for the 40 million Medicare and Medicaid recipients struggling with their pharmacy bills.

    The revolutionary pamphleteer Thomas Paine argued that the "government is best which governs least." That sentiment inspired Thomas Jefferson and other architects of a small federal government. But as the nation has grappled with economic downturns, that laissez-faire philosophy has lost some of its appeal, and modern citizens have come to expect a government that intervenes to soften the landing when they fall.

    Hmmmm........

    Government that is small and governs least....who'd a thunk it?!

  • Utopian Reformist
    Utopian Reformist

    Supposing the statistic quoted in the article was true, that "nearly half of all government spending was on aid/assistance", then I humbly ask where should money that is collected from the general population be spent?

    Be careful when the few rich and powerful attempt to divert opinions. It is easy to succumb to the mentality that the poor, immigrants and foreigners are the cause of all of our woes.

    When is the last time you heard of a welfare recipient receiving $140 million dollars for "chairing" an organization? How many working class, middle class, working poor, do you know have their own private mansions, jets?

    Do you realy believe any of the rich would ever use their power or resources to save the rest of us if a national collapse occurred?

    Get real.

  • William Penwell
    William Penwell

    I have come to the conclusion that neither the Democrat's or Republican's are no better at handling the tax payers money. It all to do with priorities. Policies in where your money goes depends on which special interest groups, that push their own political agendas, has put their political parties in power.

    Will

  • Simon
    Simon
    half of all government spending was on aid/assistance

    That seems very high. Is as much spent on welfare as defense for instance?

    It probably comes down to the definition of 'welfare'. Is a tax cut to some rich guy classed as welfare?

    For me, welfare should be the safety net that captures the poor and disadvantaged and provides the basics. People should be able to live and exist on wlefare but not enjoy it.

  • teenyuck
    teenyuck
    I humbly ask where should money that is collected from the general population be spent?

    Less money would be collected....less programs, less money collected.

    Money should be spent on programs for infrastructure. Roads, public safety, education.

    Entitlement has *many* people, rich and poor, with their hands out. What can they get from the government.

    When is the last time you heard of a welfare recipient receiving $140 million dollars for "chairing" an organization? How many working class, middle class, working poor, do you know have their own private mansions, jets?

    Richard Grasso? The NYSE head? According to all reports, he earned it and was awarded the compensation....since he was not on welfare, what does his compensation, working, have to do with welfare? You are comparing totally different situations.

    As for working class, middle class and working poor owning mansions and jets, that is a joke. You are so against anyone having wealth that you want to take away what someone has earned and give it to everyone else.

    Do you realy believe any of the rich would ever use their power or resources to save the rest of us if a national collapse occurred?
    No, I don't think the rich would use their power or resources to save the rest of us....why should they? Are they required to? Is that a prerequiste to be wealthy?
  • teenyuck
    teenyuck

    I would guess that the author of the article is including corporate welfare (usually defined as tax breaks etc.) and tax loopholes the super wealthy use.

    The *super wealthy*, while paying a substantial portion of taxes, still can afford tax attorneys to set up trust funds, etc. to avoid paying taxes and yes, this is considered welfare. So they are getting a piece of the pie.

    William P. is correct, both parties are tied to special interests and lobbiests. They take money from these groups and then vote in favor of laws that would help that special interest.

  • William Penwell
    William Penwell

    teenyuck

    I get sick and tired during an election of all the promises that they will do this or that and then when they get in, they pay off all their political debts with our money and raise our taxes. Don't get me wrong I don't mind if the money is going to good causes. Welfare was set up to help the underprivileged to get by on but not for people that are capable of working to live on it. On the other hand you have the rich guy that is getting financial tax breaks and tax advantages at the expense of the taxpayers. So who pays for all this? The average taxpaying working persons like myself. I heard it once said that 5% on each side of the political spectrum, special interest groups, are the ones that set policies and the rest of the 90% are the ones that pay for them.

    Will

  • ashitaka
    ashitaka
    but not for people that are capable of working to live on it.

    I've known both groups. I've known truly disabled people, or single mothers who were left hanging by the jerk husband, and this provision was a lifesaver. The unskilled mother of 3 certainly couldn't afford a babysitter on a minimum wage job. The husband was taking care of it, and he left. That I agree with.

    Still, others, even on my own street, were on welfare, making babys with multiple fathers, like it was a business. Irresponsible scum.

    As for benefits for rich people, that makes me sick: giant tax breaks for corporations. Want to know how to not cut jobs, even create them???? DON'T GIVE THE FREAKIN' CEO'S GIANT RAISES EVERY YEAR.

    I hate rich people.

    ash

  • teenyuck
    teenyuck
    As for benefits for rich people, that makes me sick: giant tax breaks for corporations. Want to know how to not cut jobs, even create them???? DON'T GIVE THE FREAKIN' CEO'S GIANT RAISES EVERY YEAR.

    I hate rich people.

    Flat tax. Above a certain income level. Meaning if you earn below $20,000 you don't pay. Everyone else pays the same flat tax. (it is not that simple, however, you get the drift) The rich would pay their share.

    As for CEO's getting pay raises....they have to get pay raises. They should be based upon performance. This will and is changing. The boards of public companies are usually friends of the CEO, so guess who says yes to the CEO compensation package? The board. Now, with accountabililty to the shareholders (the little people, through mutual funds and 401ks), boards are realizing that they are accountable and are realizing that CEOs and other high level execs have been over compensated, *sometimes*.

    If you don't give them a raise, there will always be another company out there who will. A company that was performing could lose a great CEO who led the company and the company could start to slide. That is what drives compensation. If the public company slides, they start laying people off, which makes the stock slide and then the stock holders question why the CEO was not kept and/or compensated better.

    I don't hate rich people. Maybe one day I'll win Lotto and be one. Then I'll look for every tax shelter I can find, I already know a great tax attorney; I just cannot afford him yet....

  • proplog2
    proplog2

    The world has become so complex that the old model of subsistence no longer applies. There IS NO way to be poor with DIGNITY anymore.

    Where's our 40 acres and a mule?

    Here are my suggestions:

    There should be free medical care for low income people. It should be provided at governement run facilities where most of the general testing & exams could be done by nurse/practitioners or paramedics.

    Government should NOT subsidize rent. Instead there should be government housing. Cement block bare-bones facilities with heat/air-conditioning, good plumbing, hot water, stove refrigerator. Government housing should be scattered around metropolitan areas so that they don't develop into pockets of slums.

    Food stamps should be eliminated. They should go back to commodity depots with generic canned foods, local fresh vegetables. Powdered eggs, powdered milk. Sacks of flour, corn meal, oat meal - grits etc. Blocks of cheese. No Ice Cream. No snack foods.

    Of course there would be some stigma if a person lived in this kind of facility. But it would be quite easy to save up money and improve your standard of living. No one would die of starvation or freeze to death.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit