A question no one has ever answered for me

[Tapate50]

I have come to realize that this forum looks at politics way more than I do. I think a lot of the views on this forum are very idealistic though, not that there is anything wrong with that. I live in a part of the country where we have 2 and 3 generations of lifelong welfare recipients are common. I see perfectly capable workers sitting in their yard all day. I was getting a police report at the station when I overheard a woman tell what I can only assume is her daughter or son, to cancel her application at the local fast food place because it would affect her monthly check. I see people taking advantage of the system daily, and can't help but think expanding benefits is just more reason for people not to get to work. Before anyone starts yelling racist, this is an issue beyond race, because I see all types pulling the same program. But the problem is that it doesn't stop, they teach their own children the ins and outs of the system and it perpetuates itself.

My question is : How long til we have more people on the government dime then off it? I was always told growing up "If you got more people riding in the cart than pulling it, you won't get very far". Taxing productivity seems pretty counter productive to me. And no, I don't have a solution. If you get a firm population on the government dime, how long til they hold the country hostage in an polarizing election against someone willing to cut benefits?

[thethe]

Would you rather get paid 400 dollars a week to do nothing or 450-500 dollars a week to work 40 hours?

The government makes the decision pretty easy.

[sturg33]

I'm of the opinion that welfare is theft and should be abolished. It clearly doesn't work.

If you look at our "poverty lines", the number of Americans going under expands yearly.

More Americans go on food stamps every year, the number will likely never reverse

Unemployment benefits continue to rise- now nearly two years. TWO YEARS!!

I believe you if you remove the safety net, the laziness and lack of production decreases.

I've always been a big fan of Switzerland. But I saw the other day that they are voting on a bill that will guarantee every adult (not just working adults) a monthly salary of $2,800. I sincerely hope it passes so that their entire economy will collapse and nobody from the west will get any ideas.

[thethe]

I'm of the opinion that welfare is theft and should be abolished. It clearly doesn't work.

If you look at our "poverty lines", the number of Americans going under expands yearly.

More Americans go on food stamps every year, the number will likely never reverse

Unemployment benefits continue to rise- now nearly two years. TWO YEARS!!

I believe you if you remove the safety net, the laziness and lack of production decreases.

I've always been a big fan of Switzerland. But I saw the other day that they are voting on a bill that will guarantee every adult (not just working adults) a monthly salary of $2,800. I sincerely hope it passes so that their entire economy will collapse and nobody from the west will get any ideas.

I don't think its smart to use traditional logic with a country like Switzerland. Their countries demographics is homogeneous that results from their economic/social policies will not translate to other diverse nations.

[50PoundHead]

4/1% of the population is on welfare (not including food stamps or unemployment compensation), so I think we have a ways to go before the Bastille is stormed.

Link: http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

sturg, inequality in the country is at an all-time high, so yeah, I guess the lines of the poor are getting longer. Middle class incomes have been stagnant since the 1970s and the rich have gotten richer (and tax rates have been static or declining--especially post-Bush tax cuts--since that time).

Inequality (2013 article): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629

Taxes (2010 article): http://wallstreetpit.com/22914-avera...t-40-year-low/

For all the complaining you do (and it is generally polite complaining), it looks like your side is winning. Taxes are low internationally and rich people keep getting richer. What's not to like?

PS--Speed limits are theft as well, because the more time I have to spend driving, the less time I could be working and making money.

[sturg33]

4/1% of the population is on welfare (not including food stamps or unemployment compensation), so I think we have a ways to go before the Bastille is stormed.

Link: http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

sturg, inequality in the country is at an all-time high, so yeah, I guess the lines of the poor are getting longer. Middle class incomes have been stagnant since the 1970s and the rich have gotten richer (and tax rates have been static or declining--especially post-Bush tax cuts--since that time).

Inequality (2013 article): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629

Taxes (2010 article): http://wallstreetpit.com/22914-avera...t-40-year-low/

For all the complaining you do (and it is generally polite complaining), it looks like your side is winning. Taxes are low internationally and rich people keep getting richer. What's not to like?

PS--Speed limits are theft as well, because the more time I have to spend driving, the less time I could be working and making money.

I'll check out those articles when I have some more time. But I am not thrilled with the inequality in this country. The rich are getting richer because the Federal Reserve is pumping trillions of play money into banks - and that is distributed directly to the top. As I'm sure you know, I'm very anti-fed so I'm not happy with the bubble it has created.

[Tapate50]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...in-six-charts/

Welfare is just one part of the equation. How many people would vote for a candidate that was willing to cut some of their benefits, ala directly affect them negatively if it was in the best interest of our country long term? I wager not many.

[50PoundHead]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...in-six-charts/

Welfare is just one part of the equation. How many people would vote for a candidate that was willing to cut some of their benefits, ala directly affect them negatively if it was in the best interest of our country long term? I wager not many.

I always thought that Romney should have re-thought that comment. To me, it was a calculated comment aimed at dividing the country. I'm not going to scream that it was about race, but my guess is most everyone in the room in which he made that comment was white.

We are all "takers" to some extent. We all benefit from national defense. Our property is protected by the police. The value of the currency is ensured by the federal government. Most kids go to public schools. Homeowners get subsidized rent through the mortgage interest deduction. So, at a very basic level, we all benefit from the order created and the services provided through the social contract. We can argue about the scope (and the numbers since the housing bubble burst and subsequent economic downturn are inflated) of the benefit structure, but I see the system as becoming more convoluted as instead of more insidious. It needs to be more straightforward instead of all these little pools that people swim in and out of. I think then voters can make a more reasoned judgment about what they want.

[thethe]

Why would a person who receives government assistance in the form general welfare checks or food stamps ever vote for a candidate who pledges to cut those benefits? Most people do not look to the future, they worry about the now so when someone goes to the voting pool they will vote for the candidate that doesn't want to take money from them.

[50PoundHead]

Why would a person who receives government assistance in the form general welfare checks or food stamps ever vote for a candidate who pledges to cut those benefits? Most people do not look to the future, they worry about the now so when someone goes to the voting pool they will vote for the candidate that doesn't want to take money from them.

(1) How many of these people vote?

(2) If someone can get a job that provides them more money from their welfare check, why would the vote to remain where they are? Sure, there's the leisure/work trade-off, but I don't think most people on welfare are really enjoying themselves immensely.

[thethe]

(1) How many of these people vote?

(2) If someone can get a job that provides them more money from their welfare check, why would the vote to remain where they are? Sure, there's the leisure/work trade-off, but I don't think most people on welfare are really enjoying themselves immensely.

(1) is a good question. I would imagine in this current day of over information that those numbers would be out there. How accurate they are is a different story.

(2) is something I feel strongly about. More often than not the "abusers" of welfare do not have any discernible skills that will command a weekly paycheck that far exceeds their welfare benefits. What incentive is there for them to then find these amazing jobs at Walmart of McDonalds?

[Tapate50]

(1) How many of these people vote?

(2) If someone can get a job that provides them more money from their welfare check, why would the vote to remain where they are? Sure, there's the leisure/work trade-off, but I don't think most people on welfare are really enjoying themselves immensely.

I would wager a good many of them vote, at least around here they do.

I wager no 2 is wrong for a healthy % of the population. Couple that welfare check\food stamp\etc... with a random odd job that will pay you in cash, and you got a pretty decent deal going. I believe in the deep south we have a very unmotivated workforce. When these issues come up with folks from other areas, they simply can't fathom the culture that has been created.

[CK86]

A good friend of mine is on food stamps. She can't pay rent at the moment but gets a ton for food that she pays her rent by buying all the food for her, her child and my roommate. Despite the freebies, she finished college and now has just gotten a job doing what she wants to do. She has no desire to stay in her current economic status and is working to move up.

I believe part of that desire comes not only from having a kid but also she sees around her two successful young professionals working hard and getting what they want in life. I have two apartments ( she's staying in one of them), got promoted and am on the way up the corporate ladder. My roommate has gotten multiple promotions at work and is constantly trying to get the next job he can. I believe sometimes all someone needs is a positive example and attitude.

She will not be reliant on the government for much longer and couldn't be happier about it. I believe some safety nets in society should be there provided you are trying to improve yourself. Even requiring 10 hours a week of community service would be a step in the right direction. Make there be an incentive to get better. The economic reality sucks too much at this time to remove safety nets especially when the only ones that are having their income increase is those at the top.

[50PoundHead]

A good friend of mine is on food stamps. She can't pay rent at the moment but gets a ton for food that she pays her rent by buying all the food for her, her child and my roommate. Despite the freebies, she finished college and now has just gotten a job doing what she wants to do. She has no desire to stay in her current economic status and is working to move up.

I believe part of that desire comes not only from having a kid but also she sees around her two successful young professionals working hard and getting what they want in life. I have two apartments ( she's staying in one of them), got promoted and am on the way up the corporate ladder. My roommate has gotten multiple promotions at work and is constantly trying to get the next job he can. I believe sometimes all someone needs is a positive example and attitude.

She will not be reliant on the government for much longer and couldn't be happier about it. I believe some safety nets in society should be there provided you are trying to improve yourself. Even requiring 10 hours a week of community service would be a step in the right direction. Make there be an incentive to get better. The economic reality sucks too much at this time to remove safety nets especially when the only ones that are having their income increase is those at the top.

I just think there is this myth that people enjoy being poor and sponging off the government.

[Tapate50]

I just think there is this myth that people enjoy being poor and sponging off the government.

I see that "myth" every single day. Come down, ill be glad to show you around.

[57Brave]

I believe part of that desire comes not only from having a kid but also she sees around her two successful young professionals working hard and getting what they want in life. I have two apartments ( she's staying in one of them), got promoted and am on the way up the corporate ladder. My roommate has gotten multiple promotions at work and is constantly trying to get the next job he can. I believe sometimes all someone needs is a positive example and attitude. "
////

I'd like to add opportunity. There are whole swaths of this nation where you can have the positive examples aplenty and come out of college with the right attitude ( I think all but everyone comes out of college with the right attitude) but unless there is somewhere to ply your wares you are stuck. I too see a problem where someone can make as much on welfare as they do working at McDonalds / Wal-Mart.
McDonalds will pay as little as the "law will allow" - as did the factories of the 1890's.

[weso1]

Some become dependent on it and some don't. I don't really think that should be difficult to admit. It's not that those who become dependent on it enjoy it. It's more like for some people it's easier and safer than trying to do something else. I know people who are dependent on it, who could work but choose not to. I'm not a pscyhologist, so I don't want to get into the psychology, but it is what it is. To ignore it is irresponsible. At the same time I know there are those who get money, are embarrassed to get that money and want to work. We can go through all these individual stories, but it doesn't really prove anything.

What we want is for those who really need the help to get the help. It's in the best interest of people who want those to get that help to make sure the system doesn't become flooded with those who take advantage of the system.

[57Brave]

Can anyone tell me the rate of welfare fraud?
How many cases were prosecuted last year?
The hoops one has to jump through to become qualified to receive benefits?
How one stays eligible?

Is unemployment welfare?
Are food stamps welfare?
What states have the highest rates of welfare use and abuse?
Is disability welfare?

Betcha half the posters ranting on and on with obscure stories of how he knew a guy who knew a guy --- can't answer half the quetions above?

Try this one --- what is the average age of welfare recipients? and, how many children are involved?
What is the racial breakdown?
Latino rates?
Denominational rates?

My lord, 3/4 y'all don't know what you're talking about

[weso1]

Well, I was going to answer your questions until I understood that it was just a case of Steak Sauce from the internet trying to be smug. Steak Sauce and those he agrees with are the only ones who know what they're talking about guys. Continue to ignore the problems with the welfare system and watch what happens to it.

[ESP47]

We are all "takers" to some extent. We all benefit from national defense. Our property is protected by the police. The value of the currency is ensured by the federal government. Most kids go to public schools. Homeowners get subsidized rent through the mortgage interest deduction. So, at a very basic level, we all benefit from the order created and the services provided through the social contract. We can argue about the scope (and the numbers since the housing bubble burst and subsequent economic downturn are inflated) of the benefit structure, but I see the system as becoming more convoluted as instead of more insidious. It needs to be more straightforward instead of all these little pools that people swim in and out of. I think then voters can make a more reasoned judgment about what they want.

How are we all takers? I pay about $700/mo for national defense, police protection, public schools etc. If you're a worker, you're a giver. If you're receiving government benefits, you're a taker. Lets not make it more complicated than it really is.