The time I took a Government "Handout"

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

We (the USA) are a wealthy country with the means to take care of the vulnerable. Those who want to take these benefits away are borderline barbaric.

Yes, there is a lot of fraud, but clearly there is actual legitimate need in many more cases.

...
Thank you, Johnny.
I always thought part of being American was the base principle of the strong, helping the weak... the haves, helping the have nots.
When did all of that change?

Jason P wrote:

I agree that we can't put everyone into the same basket as well. It seems like opinions are treated like light-switches in these threads. On or off.

It's time to see that people with an opposing opinion may have dimmer switch installed.

not specifically you but some on the other side of the fence from me would say we were "the good poor" because we used assistance to get somewhere...kinda like good "negroes" and "fags" and "chicks" :roll: ...again this isn't directed at you specifically but that's how students have characterized my family as if we were one of the few who tried our asses of. we were one of the few that tried and got lucky as shit is more like it.

this is a long read but i think it fits in this thread

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/new ... s-20120622

inlet13 wrote:

Why does the government do charity work best? In my mind, they aren't very good at even balancing a checkbook. They are very good at spending money on nonsense - like slug races. How in the world do you rationalize that they aren't wasting a lot of the money that's meant to be directed to these programs? Moreover, how do they provide checks to ensure there aren't "free riders"? Does anyone like paying for those free riders - the people who aren't looking for employment? How exactly are these gov't programs teaching people so they don't end up back with the same problem? Does the government have as much of an incentive to get them a job and off the books as a private enterprise would? Why can't one choose how they'd prefer to donate? Why does it need to be forced via taxes to do it the one way?

Moreover, why do some here equate ALL people who disagree with "government" forms of welfare, as people who hate the poor? For all you know, they contribute a hell of a lot more (as a percentage of their wealth) than you do - both in taxes and in charitable donations, they'd just prefer to the charitable donations because they know the tax money goes to slug races, running up more debt, hiring more useless gov't positions and printing money to hide it all.

You have to look at it stepping outside your mind. You said somewhere else the blanket statement that the private sector is more efficient than the government. I think that's one of those phrases where it's often repeated, so eventually it's believed by many. But dig into that statement more. How do you measure efficiency? What services have been provided by the government but then handed over to the private sector only to see the company fail at executing it? Why do some areas of government get the trust of the public and others don't?

Look at food stamps. Administrative costs are kept low, where do you identify inefficiency in how it's run?

When you made the statement "providing checks", maybe you're referring to people who receive TANF, or cash welfare. The expectations of the recipient vary from state to state, but things were tightened up in the 90's and state's are raising the bar with expectations of the recipient. There are exemptions, but there is a work requirement when receiving tanf (again will vary state to state). Caseworkers also make home visits to follow up on what's being reported with the expectation. Remember that any program to develop skills and also trying to stop fraud is expensive in itself.

One can donate, but often the conservative argument relies on the notion that if taxes that went to public assistance was somehow given back to the individual, that an equal contribution to charitable organizations would occur. This doesn't play out in reality. When people get a tax kicker or 'stimulus' or whatever, they spend it on paying down some personal debt, saving some of it, and also buying crap made in China.

Go Beavers wrote:

One can donate, but often the conservative argument relies on the notion that if taxes that went to public assistance was somehow given back to the individual, that an equal contribution to charitable organizations would occur. This doesn't play out in reality. When people get a tax kicker or 'stimulus' or whatever, they spend it on paying down some personal debt, saving some of it, and also buying crap made in China.

To me this is almost a separate issue. Specifically, how one-time tax kickbacks are useless and arguably counterproductive. At the end of the day, those kinds of approaches don't change expectations and thus they don't change behaviors. Whether the purpose is charitable donations or boosting the economy, if I have no reason to believe that a notable paradigm shift has occurred in tax policy, my general habit patterns related to spending, giving, and saving aren't really going to change very much.

unsung wrote:

Nothing wrong with a bit of help to get you back on your feet. It's those that get it cradle-to-grave that are the problem.

How many get it cradle to grave? I guess you mean those that could work but abuse the system in some way. I think people over estimate how often this happens and then use that as the basis for their argument that the country is being destroyed be all these people with a sense of entitlement and that no one has a work ethic anymore. Then spending on public assistance programs is made into the villain rather then other areas of spending.

usamamasan1 wrote:

What is the % of USA population on govt assistance again?
A joke it is.
We need stronger family units for starters.

how can we have stronger family units when both parents have to work because of a decimation of the middle class? the logic of some conservatives makes little sense take away assitance, then beg for stronger families. outsource jobs, but get pissed about joblessness. make it harder for families to be families then ask for more family values. how can this work?

here's a quick read on welfare fraud... http://spritzophrenia.wordpress.com/201 ... n-the-usa/