Why is the gov't actively seeking new recruits for welfare?

inlet13

...in all forms.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/feds-too-few-americans-turn-to-government-for-assistance/article/2506052#.UDvXPKNj58H

Feds: Too few Americans ‘turn to government for assistance’

More Americans rely on their families for assistance than the government, so federal officials have undertaken an effort to help people to apply for federal assistance.

“Given that only 15 percent of you turn to government assistance in tough times, we want to make sure you know about benefits that could help you,” USA.gov announced today. The ”government made easy’ website has created a “help for difficult financial times” page for people to learn more about the programs.

The government got that statistic from a poll asking Americans what helps them the most during tough times. Here are the results:

Savings 44%
Family 21%
Credit cards/loans 20%
Government assistance 15%

“Government assistance comes in different forms—from unemployment checks and food assistance to credit counseling and medical treatment,” USA.gov reminded readers.

This leg of the financial assistance push has ended. “Although our campaign to highlight Help for Difficult Financial Times has ended, we know that your struggles may continue,” said USA.gov today. “We will keep updating the tools and information we provide to help you get back on your feet.”

Godfather.

I collected disabilty for 30 days not to long ago and office was full of what looked like con-artist, some of them (2) where straight up told that they had no money coming to them and one of the guys was there in his work uniform a city bus driver, anywat the government always made it so hard to aply any help, my aunt needed help she lost her house, job pretty much everything but her car at the time that was only about 3 years old that her son bought her, welfare told her she had nothing coming because of the value of her car, she had to sell the car in order to get help so with crap like this happening it's no wonder the other 85% would rather depend on family or other means than the government.

Godfather.

Zoso

inlet13 wrote:

...in all forms.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/feds-too-few-americans-turn-to-government-for-assistance/article/2506052#.UDvXPKNj58H

Feds: Too few Americans ‘turn to government for assistance’

More Americans rely on their families for assistance than the government, so federal officials have undertaken an effort to help people to apply for federal assistance.

“Given that only 15 percent of you turn to government assistance in tough times, we want to make sure you know about benefits that could help you,” USA.gov announced today. The ”government made easy’ website has created a “help for difficult financial times” page for people to learn more about the programs.

The government got that statistic from a poll asking Americans what helps them the most during tough times. Here are the results:

Savings 44%
Family 21%
Credit cards/loans 20%
Government assistance 15%

“Government assistance comes in different forms—from unemployment checks and food assistance to credit counseling and medical treatment,” USA.gov reminded readers.

This leg of the financial assistance push has ended. “Although our campaign to highlight Help for Difficult Financial Times has ended, we know that your struggles may continue,” said USA.gov today. “We will keep updating the tools and information we provide to help you get back on your feet.”

what is wrong with making is easier for people who need assistance to get it? Why make people jump through hoops?

InsideMan

I would be interested to have the federal government clarify who it polled for said statistics.

brianlux

Godfather. wrote:

I collected disabilty for 30 days not to long ago and office was full of what looked like con-artist, some of them (2) where straight up told that they had no money coming to them and one of the guys was there in his work uniform a city bus driver, anywat the government always made it so hard to aply any help, my aunt needed help she lost her house, job pretty much everything but her car at the time that was only about 3 years old that her son bought her, welfare told her she had nothing coming because of the value of her car, she had to sell the car in order to get help so with crap like this happening it's no wonder the other 85% would rather depend on family or other means than the government.

Godfather.

I assume by "con-artists" you mean the people applying for assistance, not the office workers themselves. Although that certainly does occur no doubt, there's also the flip side to that. In 1993 a small but extremely loud explosion of hydrogen and oxygen gasses when off near the right side of my head and caused permanent nerve damage and 24/7 tinnitus in my hearing. For years my sound tolerance was collapsed for anything over about 35dB (normal conversation is about 60 dB). It took me years of exasperating work to get a small settlement- a fraction of what I would have gotten if I'd broken or lost a limb or body part or had visibly scarring injury. Why? Because my injuries, though permanent, are invisible and difficult to measure. The same thing is true with many mental disorders- ptsd, anxiety disorder, etc.

As far as government offices go, I've dealt with them various times in three states and found that they vary greatly. This surprises me a bit because I would think they would be more uniform that way but I didn't find that to be so.

Also, it sounds like your experience would indicate that the government is not as willing to part with assistance as the OP article would suggest. Also, maybe it would be interesting to read more about this from a more neutral news source.

As for polls, if I'm not mistaken, the OP is wary of polls.

dancepartner

i too, wonder about polls. We think because the facts came from a poll, it must be true. What is true though: polls are someones paid agenda. And, there's mega-bucks spent on just where to conduct which poll.

Cosmo

When in doubt... which I usually am because there is so much political partisanship that slants things to support their own beliefs, rather than simply looking to find the truth... I went to the source:
http://www.usa.gov/citizen/topics/family/help-for-difficult-financial-times.shtml
...
Please, decide for yourself... as an indivudually minded American that does not have his lips firmly grasped around either an elephant's or a donkey's dick.
Thank you... this has been a public service announcement.

brianlux

Cosmo wrote:

Please, decide for yourself... as an indivudually minded American that does not have his lips firmly grasped around either an elephant's or a donkey's dick.
Thank you... this has been a public service announcement.

Go Beavers

Inlet, you're probably wondering why because you're applying free-market principles to something that doesn't necessarily fit that type of thinking. Public assistance is there to meet a need, and they are trying to remove barriers to access that need. That's it. The limits and requirements have already been set, and the person finds out if they qualify after they get to the office. You alluded in the food stamp thread that if it was more difficult and uncomfortable for people, that they would get out in the workforce sooner. I guess you're saying there's plenty of jobs to be had out there, I'm not sure. Be careful though, you wouldn't want to give a good outlook on the employment situation in the U.S.

Johnny Abruzzo

Godfather. wrote:

I collected disabilty for 30 days not to long ago and office was full of what looked like con-artist, some of them (2) where straight up told that they had no money coming to them and one of the guys was there in his work uniform a city bus driver, anywat the government always made it so hard to aply any help, my aunt needed help she lost her house, job pretty much everything but her car at the time that was only about 3 years old that her son bought her, welfare told her she had nothing coming because of the value of her car, she had to sell the car in order to get help so with crap like this happening it's no wonder the other 85% would rather depend on family or other means than the government.

Godfather.

This sounds supportive of the Administration's initiative here. Say it ain't so!

Cosmo

Godfather. wrote:

I collected disabilty for 30 days not to long ago and office was full of what looked like con-artist, some of them (2) where straight up told that they had no money coming to them and one of the guys was there in his work uniform a city bus driver, anywat the government always made it so hard to aply any help, my aunt needed help she lost her house, job pretty much everything but her car at the time that was only about 3 years old that her son bought her, welfare told her she had nothing coming because of the value of her car, she had to sell the car in order to get help so with crap like this happening it's no wonder the other 85% would rather depend on family or other means than the government.

Godfather.

...
That's fine and dandy... that only 15% seek help from the government, ain't it? Some people don't have the family support system you and I have... and some have family suport... but, their relatives are as broke as they are.
As for your Aunt... what does it tell you that owning a car nullifies getting financial assistance? I mean, her having financial problems and going to the government for help means that the other 85% had failed her.
...
Finally... I cannot read minds... I cannot see into other people's lives. Maybe a guy is a bus drivers uniform is there to help out his mom with her financial assistance... maybe. I don't know what a bus driver gets paid, but it might not be enough to help his own family (wife and kids) and he doesn't have enough to help his other family members. I don't know.

unsung

Trying to get Mexican recruits too!!!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda- ... icipation/

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

Trying to get Mexican recruits too!!!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda- ... icipation/

...
Does anyone actually fact check the things they find on the Internet?
Please, go to the source and decide for yourself.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/FactSheets/reaching.htm

Go Beavers

Cosmo wrote:

unsung wrote:

Trying to get Mexican recruits too!!!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda- ... icipation/

...
Does anyone actually fact check the things they find on the Internet?
Please, go to the source and decide for yourself.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/FactSheets/reaching.htm

Why fact check with all the web pages out there that will tell me what I want to hear?

Prince Of Dorkness

I'm missing the part where they're recruiting for welfare.

I see them telling people that their tax dollars have paid for services and that they can use them should they need them... Including credit counselor and medical treatment.

How is this a bad thing?

brianlux

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I'm missing the part where they're recruiting for welfare.

I see them telling people that their tax dollars have paid for services and that they can use them should they need them... Including credit counselor and medical treatment.

How is this a bad thing?

Check out the "Political views" section of this link- it explains a lot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner

inlet13

Cosmo wrote:

When in doubt... which I usually am because there is so much political partisanship that slants things to support their own beliefs, rather than simply looking to find the truth... I went to the source:
http://www.usa.gov/citizen/topics/family/help-for-difficult-financial-times.shtml
...
Please, decide for yourself... as an indivudually minded American that does not have his lips firmly grasped around either an elephant's or a donkey's dick.
Thank you... this has been a public service announcement.

Is CNN good enough for you?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/ec ... /index.htm

There's a reason the government is trying to get more people on different forms of welfare.

Let's think about why...

satansbed

inlet13 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

When in doubt... which I usually am because there is so much political partisanship that slants things to support their own beliefs, rather than simply looking to find the truth... I went to the source:
http://www.usa.gov/citizen/topics/family/help-for-difficult-financial-times.shtml
...
Please, decide for yourself... as an indivudually minded American that does not have his lips firmly grasped around either an elephant's or a donkey's dick.
Thank you... this has been a public service announcement.

Is CNN good enough for you?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/ec ... /index.htm

There's a reason the government is trying to get more people on different forms of welfare.

Let's think about why...

because more people are failing between the cracks of society and the governments wants to catch them in the social safety net?

inlet13

satansbed wrote:

because more people are failing between the cracks of society and the governments wants to catch them in the social safety net?

You don't think there's a slightly likelihood that this makes them dependent on government and therefore more likely to support politicians that want to implement socialist-style policies?

Why anyone would support unnecessary expansion of welfare (when we're beyond broke) is beyond me. It's one thing to say , it's fine to have welfare programs and we may need more because the economy is rough... it's another to say - too many people are receiving assistance from their family. We need to get them to stop helping them, they got to turn to us. That thought process is retarded.

Johnny Abruzzo

This is like raising the debt ceiling - it's money already spent.

If people get the assistance they need then maybe the economy would also be stimulated a little more. But we all know Repubs don't really want that, because then they might lose...

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This is like raising the debt ceiling - it's money already spent.

If people get the assistance they need then maybe the economy would also be stimulated a little more. But we all know Repubs don't really want that, because then they might lose...

Explain how expansion of a government program, which obviously comes with an increased cost, is like raising the debt ceiling? How exactly is it "money already spent" if more and more people use these programs? That doesn't make sense.

Do you honestly think that taking $1 from Joe and handing it to Bob, stimulates the economy? Moreover, do you think that increasing debt does absolutely nothing to the economy? Have you ever heard of the term - interest?

Pom-poms are a-waving in here today.

inlet13

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I'm missing the part where they're recruiting for welfare.

I see them telling people that their tax dollars have paid for services and that they can use them should they need them... Including credit counselor and medical treatment.

How is this a bad thing?

Did "their" tax dollars pay for these services? For example, how exactly did a foreigner's tax dollars pay for food stamps?

Johnny Abruzzo

inlet13 wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This is like raising the debt ceiling - it's money already spent.

If people get the assistance they need then maybe the economy would also be stimulated a little more. But we all know Repubs don't really want that, because then they might lose...

Explain how expansion of a government program, which obviously comes with an increased cost, is like raising the debt ceiling? How exactly is it "money already spent" if more and more people use these programs? That doesn't make sense.

Do you honestly think that taking $1 from Joe and handing it to Bob, stimulates the economy? Moreover, do you think that increasing debt does absolutely nothing to the economy? Have you ever heard of the term - interest?

Pom-poms are a-waving in here today.

Nobody's taking anything from Joe. The gov't already has the money. Joe's taxes haven't changed.

Bob gets $1 and is about 99% likely to spend it on food or something, thus stimulating the economy. I don't see how it's that hard.

The benefits are already the law. There is a gov't agency in charge of administering these benefits and they are doing an outreach program, which is their job. So what the fuck is the problem? :roll:

Johnny Abruzzo

Also, since you're so insistent that we are in a "depression" then why are you opposed to people getting temporary help? This is when people need it most, right?

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Nobody's taking anything from Joe. The gov't already has the money. Joe's taxes haven't changed.

Bob gets $1 and is about 99% likely to spend it on food or something, thus stimulating the economy. I don't see how it's that hard.

The benefits are already the law. There is a gov't agency in charge of administering these benefits and they are doing an outreach program, which is their job. So what the fuck is the problem? :roll:

The money comes from somewhere. Tax money, or debt, is where it comes from. And, yes, if the program doesn't have enough money it will result in more debt. In fact, government is like a pot of money. There's not enough money for everything they like to spend on. Every single aspect of how they spend adds to our debt.

So you ask what's the fucking problem?

Answer - we're fucking broke.

The government is trying to get people who are receiving help from friends/family, to receive help from them.... when we're BROKE.

We have no money. We're borrowing to do this shit. It's beyond stupid.

It's one thing to say - yes, we have welfare programs to help people. It's another to actively seek new people. That's beyond stupid. And, no, it won't stimulate the economy because of the transaction costs and debt that are involved. A $1 to $1 shift, I suppose could be argued to stimulate the economy - do I buy that logic - no... but, I'll give you that. The problem - it's not a fucking $1 to $1 change of hands. We're broke. Our government is paying more than $1 because they need to borrow in order to pay it. Further, there's transaction costs associated with setting up a food stamp. This discussion is idiotic.

These programs should be there as a last resort. If people have other options, friends/family, the government shouldn't be trying to pull them away from them BECAUSE THE GOVT IS BROKE.

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

because more people are failing between the cracks of society and the governments wants to catch them in the social safety net?

You don't think there's a slightly likelihood that this makes them dependent on government and therefore more likely to support politicians that want to implement socialist-style policies?

Here's a paragraph from the CNN article you linked to:
"President Bush launched a recruitment campaign, which pushed average participation up by 63% during his eight years in office. The USDA began airing paid radio spots in 2004."

So which politicians are doing this for votes?

You keep dropping the pom-pom reference when you're the one using party line buzz words like 'dependent on government' and 'socialist-style'.

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Also, since you're so insistent that we are in a "depression" then why are you opposed to people getting temporary help? This is when people need it most, right?

I'll repeat this one more time. Here's what I'm opposed to:

The government trying to pull people away from other non-governmental forms of assistance. Why? One real good reason is we're fucking broke. That's the fucking point.

Our debt is one reason we're in the mess we're in.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

Here's a paragraph from the CNN article you linked to:
"President Bush launched a recruitment campaign, which pushed average participation up by 63% during his eight years in office. The USDA began airing paid radio spots in 2004."

So which politicians are doing this for votes?

You keep dropping the pom-pom reference when you're the one using party line buzz words like 'dependent on government' and 'socialist-style'.

Bush was a horrible, horrible President - maybe not as bad as Obama, but damn close... could be worse - who knows. If Republicans are pushing for it - they are idiots. If Democrats are - they are idiots. We're broke.

You're the one bring political parties into this, pom-poms. Not me. I'm saying unnecessary expansion of the program - right now - is stupid - given we're broke. I'm also saying seeking dependence on these programs is not a positive thing.

Republicans can be just as socialist-style or big government as Democrats in certain areas. I think you're trying to imply they can't, and I was bringing up political parties by saying those words. That's not true. Expansion of these policies - I believe - are expansion of big government and socialist style policies.... take those words as you will.

Johnny Abruzzo

Even with our record deficit and credit downgrade interest rates are still at record lows.

It's cheap for the government to borrow and any increased tax revenue from the economic stimulus could perhaps offset the spending.

If you're really worried about the "depression" then you should support government stimulation to the economy. I have a feeling you supported Bush sending people $100 bills in 2007 or whatever he did.

Welfare ain't the reason for our deficit. The main reasons are the unnecessary Bush tax cuts, the multi-trillion dollar wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and the Medicare Part D Act, all of which continue to pile up the deficit to this day.

brianlux

I honestly had no idea this was going to be one of those "we're becoming socialist" threads. Now it sounds like just so much more fear and division fodder.

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Even with our record deficit and credit downgrade interest rates are still at record lows.

It's cheap for the government to borrow and any increased tax revenue from the economic stimulus could perhaps offset the spending.

If you're really worried about the "depression" then you should support government stimulation to the economy. I have a feeling you supported Bush sending people $100 bills in 2007 or whatever he did.

Welfare ain't the reason for our deficit. The main reasons are the unnecessary Bush tax cuts, the multi-trillion dollar wars in Iraq & Afghanistan and the Medicare Part D Act, all of which continue to pile up the deficit to this day.

I'm an economist, bro.

Please don't tell me that I should support government stimulation. I don't support government stimulation. Reason - government "stimulation" has long run consequences - which are always negative. For example, our housing situation was brought forth by "government stimulation". The Fed lowered rates post-9/11 and kept them low for too long, our government also was encouraging "stimulation" within housing. It seemed to work, then the bubble popped and caused a dramatic recession. We responded with more "stimulus" - monetary and fiscal. Our government debt problem exploded. Now, we and other nations - who were even worse off originally with Debt/GDP - are in a bind. Our issues are driven by Debt/GDP now. Because we used this Keynesian approach. It's ignorant.

And to add to your last point - the main reasons for our debt are: deficits... lots of them. Sure, the wars were a large expense, as is medicare/medicaid, social security, Obamacare, stimulus, bailouts,... another reason was the recession. Mostly though - it's deficits... we're spending more than we're taking in.