where is welfare

[~gd]

Well, Social Security *is* a form of welfare. The term "welfare" has become so politically loaded that it's actual definition is kind of ignored, now.

I have a different opiniom. I paid into SS my entire working life, the amount returned to me is based on what I paid in, it is not based on need. welfare on the other hand is based on need only. the people drawing it may have been employed in high paying jobs and things changed so their employment no longer produced enough income to support them or their family. There are a few drawing that never worked a day in their life. and I won't even mention 'welfare babies', but I do get offended when I am included with the welfare drawers.~gd

 

[Leta]

Well, I didn't mean to offend you, but it's not an issue for opinion, it's a fact. From Wikipedia:

Welfare: "Welfare refers to a broad discourse which may hold certain implications regarding the provision of a minimal level of wellbeing and social support for all citizens without the stigma of charity. This is termed "social solidarity". In most developed countries, welfare is largely provided by the government, in addition to charities, informal social groups, religious groups, and inter-governmental organizations. In the end, this term replaces "charity" as it was known for thousands of years, being the act of providing for those who temporarily or permanently could not provide for themselves."

Welfare State: "A welfare state is a "concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization."

The whole point of Social Security is to provide for people too old to work. (Also, to get older workers retired and younger workers gaining experience, but that's a side issue.) Lots of people draw on Social Security who haven't paid in- Survivor's Benefits, as one example, surviving spouses, even surviving ex-spouses! Even *multiple* surviving ex-spouses.

And the whole "I paid in" thing doesn't make it any different from any other form of welfare. As a single working woman, I paid in tens of thousands of dollars in state and federal taxes. I got married, then pregnant, then we fell on hard times and got $300 in food stamps for about 18 months. So if we drew $4200 in food stamps, it doesn't begin to cover all that "I paid in"- which, to me, is absolutely, totally fine. I am not keeping score. I have paid in more than I've gotten out- cool. That's a sign I've done okay for myself. I have no problem with elderly people living indoors, with heat, and not having to eat cat food. I'm happy to help pay for that. But it's silly to say that Social Security isn't a type of welfare, it absolutely is. The only people who are well versed in public policy and deny this are, sadly, politicians and their apologists, who are merely playing a game of semantics.

 

[tortoise]

Don't forget about Social Security Disability. Some could die quickly without their benefit and medical care.

 

[~gd]

Well, I didn't mean to offend you, but it's not an issue for opinion, it's a fact. From Wikipedia:

Welfare: "Welfare refers to a broad discourse which may hold certain implications regarding the provision of a minimal level of wellbeing and social support for all citizens without the stigma of charity. This is termed "social solidarity". In most developed countries, welfare is largely provided by the government, in addition to charities, informal social groups, religious groups, and inter-governmental organizations. In the end, this term replaces "charity" as it was known for thousands of years, being the act of providing for those who temporarily or permanently could not provide for themselves."

Welfare State: "A welfare state is a "concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization."

The whole point of Social Security is to provide for people too old to work. (Also, to get older workers retired and younger workers gaining experience, but that's a side issue.) Lots of people draw on Social Security who haven't paid in- Survivor's Benefits, as one example, surviving spouses, even surviving ex-spouses! Even *multiple* surviving ex-spouses.

And the whole "I paid in" thing doesn't make it any different from any other form of welfare. As a single working woman, I paid in tens of thousands of dollars in state and federal taxes. I got married, then pregnant, then we fell on hard times and got $300 in food stamps for about 18 months. So if we drew $4200 in food stamps, it doesn't begin to cover all that "I paid in"- which, to me, is absolutely, totally fine. I am not keeping score. I have paid in more than I've gotten out- cool. That's a sign I've done okay for myself. I have no problem with elderly people living indoors, with heat, and not having to eat cat food. I'm happy to help pay for that. But it's silly to say that Social Security isn't a type of welfare, it absolutely is. The only people who are well versed in public policy and deny this are, sadly, politicians and their apologists, who are merely playing a game of semantics.

I must warn you that I am starting to take offence in your expressing your opinion as fact. I do not like being called silly by one who is uninformed. You are confusing food stamps with SS which are run by different departments of the government. SS does not cover everybody for example you could have been a school teacher and if you paid into your union fund, have not paid into SS and when it comes to retirement you would be paid by your union not the government. Most of Congress draw from both a pension fund that they set up for themselves [you only have to serve one term to be covered] and SS that they paid into from their non public employment. Just paying taxes is not the same as paying SS, If none of your husbands paid into SS you will not be getting Survivor's benefits. Also note that you only pay SS on earnings, not on investments or lottery winnings [you will pay income taxes on them however]
Now about that wikipedia stuff you mentioned, they attempt to cover the whole world not just the US, and there are different welfare systems in most countries. You need only to look at the quoted Welfare State section to see that. And I might even grant that SS is a part of the overall welfare system for the USA, but the part is not the same as the whole. One of your children might have been born with a defect or suffered an injury that prevented him from ever working a day in his life. Welfare in one form or another will provide for him right up to burying him at the ripe age of 100. If neither you nor his father paid into SS not one cent of his support will be paid by SS but he will be covered by many other general welfare systems paid from other tax sources.
Basically we are disagreeing about word usage you think welfare and the Social Security are identical. they are not!

 

[Beekissed]

One of your children might have been born with a defect or suffered an injury that prevented him from ever working a day in his life. Welfare in one form or another will provide for him right up to burying him at the ripe

I'm not so sure of the accuracy of this statement. I've known children to receive SS funding on what their mother would have earned if she had worked and lived and not killed herself. Their mother hadn't worked a day of her life but those children still received Soc. Sec. until they turned 18.

The same with children born with mental or physical defects...they are covered under Soc. Sec. for their primary source of income/support and not welfare funds.

There really isn't any need to get or feel offended by any of the statements made on this thread~they have been quite inocuous, so any feelings of offense need to be handled at the source~namely the person feeling them without due provocation.

 

[2dream]

I don't normally chime in on threads of this nature - however - There is a big difference and totally different funding for many so called welfare programs - Actual Social Security Benefits paid to retired workers who have not only themselves paid into the system but their employers have had to match those funds as well. So - having said that, I do not feel Social Security Benefits which have already been paid not only by the employee but the employer as well can be considered welfare in any form. Just because the government chose to tap into those funds to balance the budget and now they are all used up does not make me responsible for their mismanagement nor should it mean if I draw from those funds that I am considered part of the social support system. I would have gladly handled my own financial affairs had I been given a choice and will also be happy to do so now if the government will refund me all that I and my employers have paid in. Plus interest of course. Self employed people know exactly what I mean. They not only have to pay their normal share of Social Security but they must match those funds as well out of their own pocket.
As for being insulted - no I am not. But I do think that it is very wrong to lump all government payments into the term welfare payments.

 

[so lucky]

There is Social Security, (SSA) such as we who work/worked for a living pay in, then ideally draw back out when we retire. You can work hard all your life, but if you don't get paid much, you won't get much SS when you retire. If you are declared disabled by the Disability Determinations judges, you get an amount based on what your earning potential would be had you not gotten disabled. (SSD) That's where people get upwards of $2,000 per month or more, if they earned a lot before their disability. Then there is Supplimental Security Income (SSI). This is the kind people who do not/can not work are able to get. I think around here it is about $330 per month. There are moms eager to have their child diagnosed early in life with bi-polar, or some other serious disorder, so they can apply for SSI for the kid. It's a lifetime income.

I, too, resent having SSA and "welfare" lumped together, whether by a forum poster or by the government. And Wikipedia is not a good source of fact.

 

[Beekissed]

I know that welfare has become a dirty word to many, mainly because of those who abuse it, but I can't see why people are so averse to the mere thought that it may be similar to other government programs such as SSI. I know many people bringing in SSI and DSSI who have not worked a day in their lives but are merely drawing on other's contributions to the program. That isn't much different, if you pause to think about it, than welfare...it is both a condition where someone who didn't pay into it is now drawing upon it.

Welfare was and is a good program for those who sincerely need it. There are many living in nursing homes right this minute who have Medicaid as their primary insurance and Medicare only as secondary. There are many who use the welfare system for just what it was designed for...for temporary help in times of financial need so that families can eat, have shelter and clothing.

Please don't make the mistake of assuming that any and all welfare programs are a dirty word and only used by lazy and dishonest people. Our tax dollars fund this program and many just like it...if you work and pay taxes, you have paid your dues into the welfare system. How is that any different than those who do the same with the SSI system and then avail themselves of it when needed?

 

[2dream]

Oh Bee, I don't think welfare is a dirty word at all. I sincerely hope you did not think that is what I meant. I think it is totally necessary in a lot of cases. You are so right about people in nursing homes not to mention a million others with problems that must be handled. I do think though that people who have paid into a mandatory retirement program plus paid all their other taxes are really disgruntled about how their money has been forcefully taken from them and mishandled. Social Security was never suppose to be included with other social programs.
Now it is not only included by politicians but by the general public as well. I would think that anyone who has paid into the Social Security program would be angry. We know our tax dollars are used for many programs - some of which are welfare programs to help those in need. I have no problem with that concept. Render unto Ceasar his due. But my Social Security benefits are suppose to be mine and mine alone. That was there intended purpose. Actually I never agreed with their intended purpose. I just never had a choice in the matter and I think there in lies the rub for most people. It is a forced pay retirement account - which must be matched by our employers, and now our great leaders have used our money for unintended purposes and have recently been threatening us by trying to avoid giving us our due. They have lumped Social Security in with all the social programs. So many business do not offer any type of retirement plans at all. There reasons in most cases is due to Social Security. They are already matching those funds, why match any others or even contribute to any others.
Their employees have social security, right! I am almost 60 years old. And I know that like me there are a lot of other people out there thinking. What the heck happened to my money and what do they mean welfare?