Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For years I've heard opponents to welfare or those pushing for reform say that welfare makes people "dependent" on the gov't. My question is how do you determine that welfare recipients are "dependent" on the government vs those who actually need assistance from the gov't?
Can a person be dependent on welfare if they qualify for the benefits? If you qualify then haven't you been determined to be a person who actually needs these benefits? So if you qualify and actually need welfare benefits then the dependent label shouldn't be applied to you.
I have always dismissed such balderdash as nothing but thinly-veiled hatred toward the poor borne out of a deficit in human compassion. Someone who sincerely was concerned about such "dependency" would advocate changes to remove every obstacle to people earning their own way and securing their own future (i.e., they would be occupied making sure there are living wage jobs for every person willing and able to work) rather that working so hard to flush poor people down the toilet by depriving them of the means to survive without suffering the miseries associated with inadequate food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, and opportunity.
This is a complicated topic in some ways, theres a lot of arguments on both sides, often with partial truths in them.
The argument I think you are referring too is more about the fact that the ability to get welfare often leads to the requirement for it. IE if only those poor people TRIED harder they wouldn't be on welfare, thus welfare causes a dependency that would otherwise not be there.
Theres a bit of truth in that, but not nearly enough to actually make it actually true in any reasonable number of cases.
Speaking as somebody who collects disability welfare, I must agree that it does breed dependence. While I have little choice in the matter myself, there are people who feel they are entitled to welfare for seemingly no reason.
The reason welfare makes people dependent on them is that once people start getting used to the idea that the government has their backs they start planning their lives on the assumption that they will get welfare. A great example are people who have kids they can't afford by choice because they assume they will just get child benefits. And then once those benefits are cut they complain they have lost "their rights".
Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree that some of the hate welfare users get is unwarranted, but you are kidding yourself if you think welfare doesn't breed any kind of dependency.
EDIT: I think much of welfare should be replaced with public work/community service and income subsidies honestly. It would give people the money they need but without destroying their work ethic as much. Even people struggling with some kind of disability like myself should have to work in such programs to the best of their ability. Then perhaps the "lazy welfare bum" stereotype would be reduced it's popularity.
For years I've heard opponents to welfare or those pushing for reform say that welfare makes people "dependent" on the gov't. My question is how do you determine that welfare recipients are "dependent" on the government vs those who actually need assistance from the gov't?
Can a person be dependent on welfare if they qualify for the benefits? If you qualify then haven't you been determined to be a person who actually needs these benefits? So if you qualify and actually need welfare benefits then the dependent label shouldn't be applied to you.
Here is a previous post of mine that describes the issue
The welfare gap is the disincentive of those receiving welfare to actually get off welfare because as you make more money the amount of benefit you receive is decreased leaving you with less total money than you would have if you did not earn more money.
Every state is different because the amount of benefits received is different, needless to say, blue states generally have better welfare benefits than red states exaggerating this issue. Illinios welfare system was recently reviewed.
For single-parent families, benefits could reach $47,894. For two-parent families, benefits reached up to $41,237 in value.
Combined income and welfare benefits peak at a $12 hourly wage -- after that, benefits begin to drop. Single parents would have to make between $35 and $38 hourly to make up for the benefits that they lose earning at a $12 hourly rate.
If a single mother working for $8.25 to $12 per hour receives a pay raise, bumping her earnings up to $18 per hour, she will end up with one-third fewer resources due to a loss of welfare benefits.
This is further proof that welfare reform is needed. A mix of tapering off benefits over time to encourage people to earn more money and changing the rate at which benefits are reduced as income is increased to reduce the incentives to not earn.
Rate this post positively
Earn $1 over the income eligibility requirement and you lose the entire benefit.
Single mom with 2 kids...gets $511 a month in SNAP (USDA website)
But her net income cannot exceed $1650/month or $412/week (USDA website)
Say she gets a raise...$425/week or $1700/month which now kicks her out of SNAP.
She gained $52/month with that raise but lost $511 in SNAP. Did she come out ahead ?
Our system is set up such that the poor will most likely remain poor.
Now if it were a dollar for dollar decrease that would work and be an incentive to get a better paying job.
That would help people wean off welfare benefits.
It seems that the left has no faith in the underclass, they think that they are hopeless and worthless and need to be pacified to prevent them from rioting and burning down the city. That is why they keep pushing public housing, and welfare, and all of the social programs. The pro business community or those who are economically literate or those who understand human nature know however that when you take these people off benefits, you are opening the floodgates on their potential productivity. These people will all contribute to the workforce if given a motivator and that contribution will cause economic growth across the system. Pushing down the cost of labor, pushing down the cost of living, pushing down the cost of housing, this is the ideal environment for growth, and those at the bottom benefit from that kind of growth.
So give them a motivator - give them all jobs with wages that allow them to pay their own way and secure their own future and the problems vanish. Don't make excuses. Just do it. The left will not stop you from offering those jobs. Go ahead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
