Vedder said Department of Labor statistics show four programs in particular contribute to Americans' increasing dependence on government.

 

• Food stamps, or The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as it's now known. Nearly 30 million more Americans receive them than in the year 2000.
  
• Social Security Disability: 3 million Americans received payments in 1990 -- today it's 8.6 million.
  
• Pell grants: 3.9 million students were awarded them in 2000. Today it's 9.7 million, even though nearly half of graduates work in jobs that require no degree.
  
• And extended unemployment benefits: 26 weeks had been the standard -- today it's 52 weeks or more for many.
  

Read more: Are government benefits fueling US poverty? | Fox News

My good friend just got engaged to a girl who lives in section 8, gets a 4 bedroom town house on the state of KY's tab, food stamps, medicaid. He lives with her, of course it's not claimed, they have a kid together now on top of her other two. The live it up each weekend with no rent and minimal bills. The state needs to monitor and enforce rules better.

My good friend just got engaged to a girl who lives in section 8, gets a 4 bedroom town house on the state of KY's tab, food stamps, medicaid. He lives with her, of course it's not claimed, they have a kid together now on top of her other two. The live it up each weekend with no rent and minimal bills. The state needs to monitor and enforce rules better.

 

In no way does that sound like an appealing life to me. What makes people willingly live at subsistence level?

In no way does that sound like an appealing life to me. What makes people willingly live at subsistence level?

 

I have met many many people that are willing to just get by as long as they can drink, smoke, bump uglies, and get into other peoples business on the governments dime.

My good friend just got engaged to a girl who lives in section 8, gets a 4 bedroom town house on the state of KY's tab, food stamps, medicaid. He lives with her, of course it's not claimed, they have a kid together now on top of her other two. The live it up each weekend with no rent and minimal bills. The state needs to monitor and enforce rules better.

 

Are either one of them gainfully employed?

I have met many many people that are willing to just get by as long as they can drink, smoke, bump uglies, and get into other peoples business on the governments dime.

 

All of those things sound great but eventually I want more drinks, a better smoke and... classier... women. I just can't imagine what it's like not to.

My good friend just got engaged to a girl who lives in section 8, gets a 4 bedroom town house on the state of KY's tab, food stamps, medicaid. He lives with her, of course it's not claimed, they have a kid together now on top of her other two. The live it up each weekend with no rent and minimal bills. The state needs to monitor and enforce rules better.

 

Show me a section 8 property and I will show you several examples of this same situation. I have seen situations where the male half and father of all three of the children lived with his unmarried girlfriend. She received rent, food stamps WIC,and a medical card for her and all three children. He got up each morning, went to work in his year old sports car and banked everything he made.

 

Yes I turned them in. No, the situation did not change until they moved out two years later.

All of those things sound great but eventually I want more drinks, a better smoke and... classier... women. I just can't imagine what it's like not to.

 

I hear you but the sacrifice for those luxuries is a big one.

Two simple truisms: If you subsizise something, you get more of it. If you tax something, you get less of it. Since those programs sudsidize poverty, the answer is yes.

Two simple truisms: If you subsizise something, you get more of it. If you tax something, you get less of it. Since those programs sudsidize poverty, the answer is yes.

A real simple math equation that many cannot comprehend

A simple case of what were intended to be great programs being abused. Definitely need some kind of reform in this area because it's clearly getting out of control.

When you create welfare programs that can be abused for life, without incentives to get off or deadlines this is what happens. I'm not against 52 weeks of unemployment if the person proves they are actually trying to get a job. What happens now is you have people who just go through the phone book find company names and say they applied. I'm not one for more gov't spending, but if we spent more on enforcement of the programs and weeded out the abuse the gov't overall would be more efficient and spend less money over time. I'm for short term help to get people on their feet, I'm not for generation after generation dependence on the gov't. Sometimes people need to fail to feel the need to succeed, and for some reason people in this country and the gov't itself has created a group of people who do not fear failure because of the dependence on other peoples money.

When you create welfare programs that can be abused for life, without incentives to get off or deadlines this is what happens. I'm not against 52 weeks of unemployment if the person proves they are actually trying to get a job. What happens now is you have people who just go through the phone book find company names and say they applied. I'm not one for more gov't spending, but if we spent more on enforcement of the programs and weeded out the abuse the gov't overall would be more efficient and spend less money over time. I'm for short term help to get people on their feet, I'm not for generation after generation dependence on the gov't. Sometimes people need to fail to feel the need to succeed, and for some reason people in this country and the gov't itself has created a group of people who do not fear failure because of the dependence on other peoples money.

 

A great question would be, does it cost more to hire the agents to investigate unemployment claims and welfare applications, find violations, and then enforce the agency's rules, or just pay the unemployment and welfare without increasing the number of agents? I don't know, I am just asking.

I can think of another group of people that get completely government paid food, housing, health care and education. Those that are incarcerated! Is there really much of a difference between the two groups? Both are really giving up their freedom in exchange for government dependence.

The safety net has becomne the safety hammock.