Haven't had time to respond to this lengthy, but uninformed post until now. Just poured myself a nice glass of wine and decided to take some time to rejoin this discussion.
I knew you or Ph would play the "antecdotal evidence" card at some point. So dismissive because my extensive experience in this area doesn't fit how you think the system works. My company has probably taken housing vouchers for more than 60 households in the last 4 years. Not one voucher holder in that time period has used that voucher as a temproary safety net for their family. Not one. Every single one of them is still on Section 8 housing, taking food stamps and having their utilities subsidized every month. They live in fully renovated houses that have hardwood floors, central heat/air and new plumbing and electrical. The only Section 8 tenants we have lost in that time period are the ones who had their Section 8 taken away because they didn't keep their power on despite their utilities subsidy every month.
And we do take our commitment as responsible landlords above and beyond what is required. On at least 5 occasions in the last 2 years my staff has intervened on behalf of a tenant when they were in danger of losing their children to DFCS for not having enough furniture or food in the house despite the food stamps they get every month and the vouchers that are available for furniture simply by filling out an application. So, you can trust me when I tell you that the system does create significant dependency in a large percentage of its beneficiaries, who have virtually no life skills. I notice that you haven't defined what you think the "right" is for people to have children that they are never going to be able to provide for without taxpayer assistance. Your fantasy world doesn't call for any accountability for bad decisions in these instances and gravely underestimates the number of families that are chronically dependent on government assistance.
Do I have all the answers? Nope. Wish I did, even though my business benefits from the current system. It's great to have long-term tenants whose rent is paid by electronic deposit every month! But I know it's not good for the country overall. The problem is that you are talking about decades/generations of dependency on the gov't for virtually all of their living expenses. You are going to change that mindset overnight. Maybe a limit on the number of kids that you can get a check for and/or a time limit for that support? Tougher requirements as far as the work/school obligation for Section 8 recipients? The online classes most of these girls take to meet their requirement are a joke and will never lead to meaningful employment for them. I think the Atlanta Housing Authority showed tremendous insight when they tore down all the old housing projects in an attempt to disperse throughout the city the people living in these concentrated areas of poverty. But as painful as it sounds, you are going to have to provide some sticks as along with the carrots when it comes to getting people off the government teat.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and for bringing this thread back to reality.
You started your post saying my post was uninformed, and then proceeded to post very little I disagree with or have disagreed with on this thread. I agree, there is a class of people in America that is perpetually dependent on welfare.
The only thing we disagree on is why.
You blame the existence of the welfare system itself on perpetuating a class of Americans dependent on welfare. With that I disagree.
I blame the prevalent economic philosophy in modern America that shifts wealth disproportionately to the top. A system that rewards making money over hard work. A system where bankers and investors are given an abundance of opportunity to build tremendous wealth very quickly, and Americans who have no wealth from which to build are left making low wages that remain low, if they can find a wage at all. And if they do find a living wage, they find it almost impossible to build any wealth as their cost of living demands rise and rise, and they fall back under the poverty line.
It appears you advocate cutting their welfare to urge them, with that metaphorical stick, to become self-sufficient. That if they just tried harder and/or changed their lifestyle that they could do it - but the existence of free money de-incentivises that. I have heard this argument for many years and haven't seen any evidence it is accurate except when conditions are right. There has to be
opportunity for them to grab onto for that to work. When there isn't any, I fail to comprehend what they can do.
there are more applicants than there are openings for jobs, that is a fact. Do they have the same opportunities you and I have enjoyed? Can they get a small-business loan to start an enterprise? do they have an uncle or parent that leaves them a few bucks from which to build off? No - I believe America has a poor class that will remain poor until our economy produces enough opportunity to lift them out. Then, and only then, will the "stick" approach bear fruit.
You can call my opinion 'fantasy,' but I believe the facts are in my favor.
So you and I share the same goal - get people off welfare as much as possible and allow welfare to exist as a temporary measure. I disagree that drug testing and cutting them off will achieve anything within the current environment. Americans who want to see the program reduced dramatically need to support a system that progressively shifts America's wealth, proportionally, to the middle and lower middle - creating the very opportunities needed for the program to serve its intended purpose.
I can't understand how anyone can argue the facts on the ground: as the banking/financial sector has gained an ever-increasing percentage of GDP, and real wealth has expanded at the top through tax breaks, and making money is rewarded over hard work...the poor class has expanded and in turn welfare rolls have expanded. We are experiencing the results of this disproportionate system as we speak. And while this fact is glaring- you're clamoring for a slash and burn approach that makes little sense. Americans haven't changed that much in the past 30 or 40 years, the financial environment has....
edit: and frankly, I wonder sometimes if the real power-players at the top have any problem with that at all. Why would they? They have become very very rich recently. Very rich