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.
IMO it makes it even harder to get out of poverty when any motivation to do so is removed. It has never been easy, but when one knows that even if he/she never lifts another finger he/she will be provided for, courtesy of the US taxpayer, there is no reason to do anything differently. Knowing that the guv'mint will provide no matter what can be a huge initiative killer, and believing the guv'mint SHOULD provide fosters that large sense of entitlement many welfare recipients live by.
IMO what is sad is seeing any ambition, initiative, or drive directed not towards self-improvement, but towards getting ever more "free stuff" paid for by the taxpayer.
Where are the poor who receive so much 'free stuff' from the taxpayer that they have no incentive to work? Do you know how much they actually receive? I worked with the poor in Nevada, a parent with 2 kids received $383 cash every month and $437 in SNAP benefits. They also receive medicaid. The wait for subsidized housing is about 6 years. There are no apartments in Northern Nevada available for $383 a month, so mom has to either sofa surf or live in a weekly motel by selling her snap benefits for 50 cents on the dollar. Unless she has access to child care, how does she even look for a job?
Doesn't sound like a way of life that would remove incentive to work, does it? And these aren't 'lifetime' benefits, they are restricted in duration, in some states to as little as 12 months.
I think that one of the hardest things to do in this day and age, is to get ones self out of poverty, there are so many things working against you. I grew up in a lower middle class family, just barely above the poverty line, however, we had the means to grow everything we ate, my dad hunted for meat,the only thing my parents had to buy was dry goods. Times have changed, and that change works against you if you are at or below the poverty line. Like Citylove101 posted, the benefits are there, if you can use them, if you are in a rural area and in poverty your chances are even worse than if you were in a city enviroment, access to benefits are there, but useless if no one accepts them.
I'm retired now and am doing very well, I invested in my future at a young age and now it is paying off. When I left home at the age of 17, I joined the military, I told myself I wasn't going to live from hand to mouth. I put myself through college via the G.I. Bill and worked evenings to help pay for my college, no student loans. Yes, it paid off, I do remember where my roots were and where I came from, thanks to the life lessons from my dad and the values that he instilled in me, I'm satisfied at where I'm at today. It wasn't easy, it was a lot of hard work and the determination to make something of myself.
It is hard to get out of poverty, but a sure fire way to stay in poverty is to continue to reproduce.
Where are the poor who receive so much 'free stuff' from the taxpayer that they have no incentive to work? Do you know how much they actually receive? I worked with the poor in Nevada, a parent with 2 kids received $383 cash every month and $437 in SNAP benefits. They also receive medicaid. The wait for subsidized housing is about 6 years. There are no apartments in Northern Nevada available for $383 a month, so mom has to either sofa surf or live in a weekly motel by selling her snap benefits for 50 cents on the dollar. Unless she has access to child care, how does she even look for a job?
Doesn't sound like a way of life that would remove incentive to work, does it? And these aren't 'lifetime' benefits, they are restricted in duration, in some states to as little as 12 months.
The welfare Cadillac myth of Ronnie Reagan days has been cemented in the American consciousness, and that alone has been a large component of the reluctance to do anything of any real consequence with regard to US poverty rates. Yeah, the welfare moms have been financially upside down since the Clinton sponsored TANF reform efforts, this reform wasn't an answer to the problem of reliance on aid as much as it was an answer to the high cost of aid, proof that most of America doesn't really concern themselves with the growing poverty rates but moreover the cost of any remedial solutions.
The generational aspect isn't any mystery either, it used to be that parents income activities were passed on to future generations, ergo, welfare and other assistance programs and the navigation of their labyrinth of rules now constitutes a kind of expertise, much like a skilled trade.
I'm always a bit puzzled by the presence of so much ignorance when this subject of assistance comes up, but, I also know this has been a real favorite subject for scrutiny by the radio jocks that seem to be the replacement for an education that may help someone when seeking the truth of things. Things have changed, and that fact is the one hurdle for those who fail to see poverty and unemployment as an adjunct to an already dire employment situation the world over.
Poverty has been a persistent factor in the economies of most nations, ours in America is no exception. Complex stuff that would require a fairly large amount of time and effort to study is now viewed as just another soundbite that one can take to the bar or workplace and sound knowledgeable.
The dynamics of a changing economic structure that seems headed for the total elimination of human labor adds to the mix of reasons for the growth in numbers of those who have become permanently economically marginalized, and the political apologists continue to invoke the Horatio Alger admonition to pull oneself up to, not only a self sustaining position, but moreover, a stunning turnaround of financial success. We do in fact love our myths.
I can see a day coming in America if not the entire modern global economic system wherein the laboring classes will be phased out and the interim solution to techno-displacement with regard to employment will be a kind of wage for simply existing. In short, the final step in the institutionalizing of poverty.
I am for helping the disabled that cannot take care of themselves. That is, those through no fault of their own don't have the cognitive or physical ability to provide for themselves. I believe this is right because we should be compassionate enough to do this. Everyone alive is only one bad car accident or physical attack away from being there themselves.
What bothers me is that most of the takers have nothing wrong with their brain and are able bodied enough to do something. These are the clueless, not the helpless.
To put what I'm saying into perspective, here is my own personal experience. Decades ago when my kids were little and in their first years of school something was sent home with one of them. I would always read what came home with them. It was the info for the free lunch program. According to the income vs how many kids at home blah blah, we qualified for it. It really bothered me when I read that. I never asked for it and we didn't need it, but here was government bs being sent to me from the school telling me I was poor when I wasn't. I didn't think I was. We paid our bills. Made the payment on our little bitty old house and had plenty to eat. We were a one income family that had to watch spending more closely than others maybe, but nobody ever went without eating and we could even afford a modest vacation now and then. We had goals and just kept working at it. We were happy, so I always have to ask myself how many are taking services because they are there, they are free, but it isn't needed? Our definition of poverty maybe isn't really poverty.
I am for helping the disabled that cannot take care of themselves. That is, those through no fault of their own don't have the cognitive or physical ability to provide for themselves. I believe this is right because we should be compassionate enough to do this. Everyone alive is only one bad car accident or physical attack away from being there themselves.
What bothers me is that most of the takers have nothing wrong with their brain and are able bodied enough to do something. These are the clueless, not the helpless.
To put what I'm saying into perspective, here is my own personal experience. Decades ago when my kids were little and in their first years of school something was sent home with one of them. I would always read what came home with them. It was the info for the free lunch program. According to the income vs how many kids at home blah blah, we qualified for it. It really bothered me when I read that. I never asked for it and we didn't need it, but here was government bs being sent to me from the school telling me I was poor when I wasn't. I didn't think I was. We paid our bills. Made the payment on our little bitty old house and had plenty to eat. We were a one income family that had to watch spending more closely than others maybe, but nobody ever went without eating and we could even afford a modest vacation now and then. We had goals and just kept working at it. We were happy, so I always have to ask myself how many are taking services because they are there, they are free, but it isn't needed? Our definition of poverty maybe isn't really poverty.
Anecdotal evidence has been discussed as a thing that usually skewers the big data involved in the many university studies that have concluded the causes of poverty to be quite complex, and often times very individualistic traits lead to a person's individual poverty, but common traits and common circumstances still persist as the aggregate data.
Your example is hardly something to be utilized in any empirical study of American poverty, and therefore can't be evidence of much beyond what you yourself interpreted it to mean. Eligibility does not connote a demand, and yes people do take advantage of these programs, from wealthy bankers to the mom on welfare. Clueless? I'd be asking how that came to be your definition of the sole cause for aid in America.
It appears that you took the government's poverty levels as unfounded evidence of your own poverty, an assumption you don't agree with. You provided no numbers for us to look at, you assumed this stated level to be an affront to your notions of your own financial standing instead of seeing that levels need to be inclusive of many factors not just those affecting you.
Maybe a more scholarly approach to this subject would change your mind at least in terms of your own take on a perceived slight by government, and no, the official definition of poverty is actually quite low on the scale of eligibility. In my previous post I pointed out the fact that things have changed, and substantially so in the last ten years. Techno displacement of workers leaves us all in doubt as to the charge of laziness or cluelessness as a valid across the board cause for modern day poverty.
I donate because I can't bear the thought of children being hungry. I don't know why it bothers me so much because when I was growing up, I know for a certainty that my parents would have let us 4 kids starve before they got welfare. It just wasn't done. And I never thought about getting welfare. I know quite a bit about illegals because of working to help them back in my young, naïve years, and they do get food stamps and money. They're not supposed to, in black and white, but you must not listen to our fearless leader who said in his speech they would be getting every available amount of social services there are. They even got a hotline to call and turn people in who wasn't giving them their "rights." The goof made it a law for citizens to have insurance, but not them because we pay for theirs. Hell, I see it every time I'm at the grocery store.
I do believe we should always help American citizens. You never know. You could be in that situation one day. Sort of like an insurance, if you will. I feel better when I help people. Also, the truly disabled should get help without question as should the elderly, IMO.
I do think we should be able to say "Hey, no more kids!" if we're supporting them. Of course they say they can have as many as they want. It's their right, and so on and on. But, a lot of people don't have kids because they can't afford them. They are called responsible people. I never thought of asking the government or anyone to pay for my children to be born. Heres a hint - If you can't afford to bring a child into the world, then you most assuredly can't afford to raise it. But, they get thousands more with each child they have. They don't even have to work to get a fortune back in taxes because they have so many kids they file on, and if they don't , the illegals say the rest of their kids are in Mexico and they get thousands on them!
I agree! Why don't they make them do something besides procreate? I've never understood that. They would feel better about themselves, surely.
BULL! They get so much welfare that we have Hispanic friends who say some have been able to buy houses here and in Mexico with all the money! They get money on their food stamp cards too. I can't think of a single thing illegals don't get.
Exactly. For some reason, everyone who comes into America now, automatically gets free benefits. They can move here, never work a day here, and live well, then retire on our SS money. It's ridiculous, and it needs to change. We, as citizens can't do that. They have many more rights than we do.
But, if you do those things, and live in a special city, a sanctuary city, you get a Get Out of Jail Free card! What a crazy world we live in, called obamanation.
I won't address all your vitriol, just your response to me. If you know of illegal immigrants receiving benefits, what have you done about these "friends"? Write about them on an anonymous forum? Many illegal immigrants can receive benefits for their US born children. Who are considered citizens. I assure you, it isn't enough money to buy a couple of homes. Give me a break.
For all those crying about the needy taking your money, what have YOU done? Where do YOU volunteer? How many poor people have you even interacted with, beyond ignoring them at intersections and outside gas stations?
I can sleep at night, knowing whatever small part I play makes sure the local poor in my area can get food without censure. I make no apologies for thinking they deserve at least that much.
It is hard to get out of poverty, but a sure fire way to stay in poverty is to continue to reproduce.
This is very true but not sure how you solve this? If you make less than X then you get your kid taken from you? Keep in mind that for some (myself included) having kids puts a drive in you like no other.
I agree that having "baby-mamas" with multiple kids and going to live off of society for the rest of their lives isn't acceptable either.
I never even heard of this one.. until the government in my state is kicking
this off.. evidently it's already in place in most cities around the country. Thoughts ?
Fiat currency is the greatest evil in the world right now. The world will never change until this uber-evil international currency counterfeiting ponzi scheme is permanently overthrown.
The ability to buy votes with IOUs to the future at 6 percent interest paid to the central bankers for loans of counterfeit currency is the source of this mess.
Without it, the politicians would have to raise raise raise taxes to such levels that they would be thrown out of office if they didn't ruin the economy first.
INstead, they have a blank check and unlimited credit to overspend and drive a deficit ridden policy to hell. And our status as the world's reserve currency enables us to launder these IOUs across the entire planet. If it were not for this, we would long ago have either ended the deficit mentality or we would have raised taxes to Scandinavian levels of confiscation.... 60 percent and more on the middle classes.
Procreation is a voluntary activity. If parents cannot provide for their children the children should be taken from the parents and put into state work/education camps where the children are provided a bland but adequate diet, provided a minimal education and then in labor camps in their spare time in agricultural fields. Those that show aptitude should be allowed a more advanced education in the trades and those with genuine scholastic aptitude should be provided with advanced educational opportunities. In this way, the children would be filtered, those with no motivation and low intelligence or ability would spend their life inthe work camps and should be sterilized. Those who show initiative and ability promoted into the trades and those with the intellect and motivation would have advanced educational opportunities.
The parents themselves should be sterilized and likewise put into work camps, only away from their children or given the option of assisted suicide.
There you go, problem solved. We no longer need illegal aliens and third world immigrants for menial labor in the fields, and we would finally have a system that properly motivates the poor to improve their condition by applying themselves. As I said, if they don't like it, state sponsored suicide is an option.
Perhaps you should move to North Korea. Sounds like you would fit it there very well.
Anecdotal evidence has been discussed as a thing that usually skewers the big data involved in the many university studies that have concluded the causes of poverty to be quite complex, and often times very individualistic traits lead to a person's individual poverty, but common traits and common circumstances still persist as the aggregate data.
Your example is hardly something to be utilized in any empirical study of American poverty, and therefore can't be evidence of much beyond what you yourself interpreted it to mean. Eligibility does not connote a demand, and yes people do take advantage of these programs, from wealthy bankers to the mom on welfare. Clueless? I'd be asking how that came to be your definition of the sole cause for aid in America.
It appears that you took the government's poverty levels as unfounded evidence of your own poverty, an assumption you don't agree with. You provided no numbers for us to look at, you assumed this stated level to be an affront to your notions of your own financial standing instead of seeing that levels need to be inclusive of many factors not just those affecting you.
Maybe a more scholarly approach to this subject would change your mind at least in terms of your own take on a perceived slight by government, and no, the official definition of poverty is actually quite low on the scale of eligibility. In my previous post I pointed out the fact that things have changed, and substantially so in the last ten years. Techno displacement of workers leaves us all in doubt as to the charge of laziness or cluelessness as a valid across the board cause for modern day poverty.
What has clearly has happened is that the governments definition of poverty isn't the dictionary definition. I'm asking how many are taking that don't actually need it. If you believe wealthy bankers are among those taking free stuff then why aren't you asking the same question?
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.
