March 5, 201313 yr Those who NEED and PROPERLY use it outnumber those who ABUSE it. That is what I think. I don't think there are existing statistics that can prove each argument. Of course we are all free (so far during the reign of Emperor Obama) to think as we please, but I think the opposite is true. Welfare and the very issue we are talking about has probably been (metaphorically speaking) the father of thousands if not another decimal place of children who came into this world not by family planning but because of financial planning born by ignorance. And of course they need the welfare now, because many have been left to their own devices due to the poor education and parental skills of those who brought them into the world. One cannot begin to fix a problem until one admits their IS a problem.
March 5, 201313 yr I posted the link already. Do you really want to know or just argue a point? I find it funny that people don't understand that portions of our population are willing to lay on their behinds, procriate, and live off of government subsidence. The info you posted earlier made it very clear. A child allows you to get into the program, which provided a rent free dwelling, paid utilities, a cell phone, $90 spending money, and $90 in food stamps. This doesn't even mention free health care. There is a portion of our population that is more than willing to live in these conditions, as long as they don't have to work a lick. I wonder what would happen to the numbers of welfare recipiants if we made it come with mandatory labor to collect it? I am sure there are some fun labor jobs where state and federal programs could use some not so free labor.
March 5, 201313 yr Here is a really good statistical link. Welfare Statistics | Statistic Brain What it shows is that it is more profitable to be on welfare in many states than work a job at the wage that many are qualified for (see below): Welfare Statistics Share This Statistic Verification Source: US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, CATO Institute Date Verified: 10.15.2012 Welfare is the organized public or private social services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups. Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits. The Welfare system in the United States began in the 1930s, during the Great Depression. Opponents of Welfare argue that it affects work incentives. Welfare Statistics Total number of Americans on welfare 4,300,000 Total number of Americans on food stamps 46,700,000 Total number of Americans on unemployment insurance 5,600,000 Percent of the US population on welfare 4.1 % Total government spending on welfare annually (not including food stamps or unemployment) $131.9 billion Welfare Demographics Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 % Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 % Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 % Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 % Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 % Welfare Statistics Total amount of money you can make monthly and still receive Welfare $1000 Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job 40 Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job 7 Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher 9 Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) Time on AFDC Percent of Recipients Less than 7 months 19% 7 to 12 months 15.2% 1 to 2 years 19.3% 2 to 5 years 26.9% Over 5 years 19.6% Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S. State Hourly Wage Equivalent Hawaii $17.50 Alaska $15.48 Massachusetts $14.66 Connecticut $14.23 Washington, D.C. $13.99 New York $13.13 New Jersey $12.55 Rhode Island $12.55 California $11.59 Virginia $11.11
March 5, 201313 yr I posted the link already. Do you really want to know or just argue a point? No, I'm genuinely asking. The thing you posted before (which I didn't see a link with it) didn't indicate a figure, but you said it was roughly $90 a month for having a child. That's hardly profitable in my estimation. If you want to argue that welfare programs are bad because some people fraudulently participate, then it is one thing. And I wouldn't bother participating in a thread about that. But if someone is arguing that there are specific programs that incentivize terrible decisions through the ability to profit by them, then they should be able to link to those programs' criteria and show how a person could stand to gain more than they would lose by choosing them. That's all I'm asking.
March 5, 201313 yr No, I'm genuinely asking. The thing you posted before (which I didn't see a link with it) didn't indicate a figure, but you said it was roughly $90 a month for having a child. That's hardly profitable in my estimation. If you want to argue that welfare programs are bad because some people fraudulently participate, then it is one thing. And I wouldn't bother participating in a thread about that. But if someone is arguing that there are specific programs that incentivize terrible decisions through the ability to profit by them, then they should be able to link to those programs' criteria and show how a person could stand to gain more than they would lose by choosing them. That's all I'm asking. Without having the child, you are not eligable for the overall program, which includes free housing, free food, free phone, free utilities, aided public transportation, and $90 spending money. As you see by Doomer's latest post, it is very profitable in some states. More profitable than working a job that pays double the minimum wage. Keep in mind, many people see any type of existance as a plus that doesn't require them to work.
March 5, 201313 yr Without having the child, you are not eligable for the overall program, which includes free housing, free food, free phone, free utilities, aided public transportation, and $90 spending money. As you see by Doomer's latest post, it is very profitable in some states. More profitable than working a job that pays double the minimum wage. Keep in mind, many people see any type of existance as a plus that doesn't require them to work. According to a Google search, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program has been disbanded since 1996. It was replaced with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which is a block grant to states to administer as they see fit. In Kentucky it is called the Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program and according to their website it offers a maximum of $186 a month grant to a family with one dependent child whose monthly income is less than $742 for a maximum of 60 months over their lifetime. It also says 89% of grants go to females, so I'll infer that means the overwhelming majority are single mothers. I do not envy anyone eligible for this program.
March 5, 201313 yr Maybe I read it wrong but I thought this person spent $800k on a house. Wouldn't the IRS start to wonder where the money was coming from to buy that house? I realize there are a lot of people who make money in ways that aren't legal and still get help from the government. But I didn't realize someone who was spending that kind of cash could too. Does the IRS communicate with Welfare benefit offices? I don't know. I wouldn't call our government efficent, that is why I don't like giving them more money to waste. But you see guys with nice cars collecting welfare checks all the time. The best famous person example is ODB, the rapper was still collecting welfare checks after multiple hit records.
March 5, 201313 yr No, I'm genuinely asking. The thing you posted before (which I didn't see a link with it) didn't indicate a figure, but you said it was roughly $90 a month for having a child. That's hardly profitable in my estimation. If you want to argue that welfare programs are bad because some people fraudulently participate, then it is one thing. And I wouldn't bother participating in a thread about that. But if someone is arguing that there are specific programs that incentivize terrible decisions through the ability to profit by them, then they should be able to link to those programs' criteria and show how a person could stand to gain more than they would lose by choosing them. That's all I'm asking. Again I think the term "profitable" is where we are hung up. Are you or I willing to live in those conditions, I think not. But thousands of people find this life very nice and easy. If you have one kid and already on gov't assitance all another kid means is more benefits. It is a never ending cycle that is a real problem in this country. But it is hard to talk about because then people start using terms such as dog whistle or racisim. Until the programs push people to earn for themselves, the problem will only continue to grow, as the problem has grown for the last 3 or 4 decades.
March 6, 201313 yr According to a Google search, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program has been disbanded since 1996. It was replaced with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which is a block grant to states to administer as they see fit. In Kentucky it is called the Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program and according to their website it offers a maximum of $186 a month grant to a family with one dependent child whose monthly income is less than $742 for a maximum of 60 months over their lifetime. It also says 89% of grants go to females, so I'll infer that means the overwhelming majority are single mothers. I do not envy anyone eligible for this program. I am saving my empathy for those trying to work but at low paying jobs while still having to pay FICA and other taxes with no relief from the government. Whatever the entitlement program is called now, it is more profitable for many to take advantage of the program than enter the work force...so some things are broken. I know people who have made this choice.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.