Why are those who are on governmental assistance seen as lazy?

[freedombecki]

Some people see the phone deal seems like a bribe to me, with Obama benefitting on voting day.

Bribery is against the law unless you are an elected politician anymore.

This used to be a country where people were happy to be considered equals.

Now, it's just who can take power by bribing masses of voters with promises and goodies that other people foot the bill for. No experience needed except for being a good con artist.

And that's what we have.

 

[KissMy]

Most of Wal-Mart's & McDonald's employee's are on Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SNAP, Social-Security, Earned Income Tax Credit etc. If you taxed these employees it would just make them even more dependant on government, These employees work hard. The US Government is subsidizing Wal-Mart & McDonald's business. Their Owners, Executives & Shareholders are sucking off of the governments tits by collecting huge dividends for underpaying their workers so the US Government will have to subsidize them. Thus Shareholders get rich off of Government while doing no work for their millions in dividends. Shareholders of companies who underpay workers sound like Welfare Queens to me.

 

[syrenn]

Most of Wal-Mart's & McDonald's employee's are on Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SNAP, Social-Security, Earned Income Tax Credit etc. If you taxed these employees it would just make them even more dependant on government, These employees work hard. The US Government is subsidizing Wal-Mart & McDonald's business. Their Owners, Executives & Shareholders are sucking off of the governments tits by collecting huge dividends for underpaying their workers so the US Government will have to subsidize them. Thus Shareholders get rich off of Government while doing no work for their millions in dividends. Shareholders of companies who underpay workers sound like Welfare Queens to me.

the problem we have here is getting people to work more then 15 hours a week....

if they work full time they have to give up their entitlements......


Why work full time when you can suck off the system and make more money?

 

[Bfgrn]

Most of Wal-Mart's & McDonald's employee's are on Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SNAP, Social-Security, Earned Income Tax Credit etc. If you taxed these employees it would just make them even more dependant on government, These employees work hard. The US Government is subsidizing Wal-Mart & McDonald's business. Their Owners, Executives & Shareholders are sucking off of the governments tits by collecting huge dividends for underpaying their workers so the US Government will have to subsidize them. Thus Shareholders get rich off of Government while doing no work for their millions in dividends. Shareholders of companies who underpay workers sound like Welfare Queens to me.

the problem we have here is getting people to work more then 15 hours a week....

if they work full time they have to give up their entitlements......


Why work full time when you can suck off the system and make more money?

Bull. Employers limit hours so they don't have to offer healthcare or other benefits to part time employees.

 

[AmyNation]

Most of Wal-Mart's & McDonald's employee's are on Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SNAP, Social-Security, Earned Income Tax Credit etc. If you taxed these employees it would just make them even more dependant on government, These employees work hard. The US Government is subsidizing Wal-Mart & McDonald's business. Their Owners, Executives & Shareholders are sucking off of the governments tits by collecting huge dividends for underpaying their workers so the US Government will have to subsidize them. Thus Shareholders get rich off of Government while doing no work for their millions in dividends. Shareholders of companies who underpay workers sound like Welfare Queens to me.

the problem we have here is getting people to work more then 15 hours a week....

if they work full time they have to give up their entitlements......


Why work full time when you can suck off the system and make more money?

Most people want to work more then 15 hours a week, it's typically the employeer who doesn't want to pay out benefits that limit employees to a certain number of hours.

A person working 40 hours a week at McDonalds will still collect welfare because that job doesn't pay enough to support anyone.

Also, why do we blame the poor for the broken system? Those who live on the edge are trying to survive and every penny counts. We don't blame the rich for taking tax loopholes, and yet when a poor person knows that the diffrence between working 36 hours a week and working 40 is the loss of their welfare, and they choose not to work that extra 4 hours, they are leeches on the system.

 

[Newby]

Most of Wal-Mart's & McDonald's employee's are on Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SNAP, Social-Security, Earned Income Tax Credit etc. If you taxed these employees it would just make them even more dependant on government, These employees work hard. The US Government is subsidizing Wal-Mart & McDonald's business. Their Owners, Executives & Shareholders are sucking off of the governments tits by collecting huge dividends for underpaying their workers so the US Government will have to subsidize them. Thus Shareholders get rich off of Government while doing no work for their millions in dividends. Shareholders of companies who underpay workers sound like Welfare Queens to me.

the problem we have here is getting people to work more then 15 hours a week....

if they work full time they have to give up their entitlements......


Why work full time when you can suck off the system and make more money?

Most people want to work more then 15 hours a week, it's typically the employeer who doesn't want to pay out benefits that limit employees to a certain number of hours.

A person working 40 hours a week at McDonalds will still collect welfare because that job doesn't pay enough to support anyone.

Also, why do we blame the poor for the broken system? Those who live on the edge are trying to survive and every penny counts. We don't blame the rich for taking tax loopholes, and yet when a poor person knows that the diffrence between working 36 hours a week and working 40 is the loss of their welfare, and they choose not to work that extra 4 hours, they are leeches on the system.

Should you expect to be able to support yourself or a family on what someone would make working fulltime at McDonalds? How high do you want to raise the price of a hamburger? Until people are no longer willing to pay for it, therefore no one has a job at all?

It's a world job market now, nothing is going to change for US workers unless we find some niche that workers in 3rd world countries cannot supply, or until 3rd world countries are living under the same standards we are and demand a similar wage. Until one of those two things happens, there's no changing it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There is a growing trend of college students unfortunately applying for governmental assistance since many of these students do not have enough sufficient income to sustain themselves. This is not new as we see many college students across the country applying on welfare. But my main concern is about Romney's 47% as being taker's of assistance I have to ask why do people label welfare recipients as "lazy?" Are we looking at those who don't attain jobs? Are we looking at the fact that its a race issue?

Why is it wrong for a college student who qualifies to apply for aid?

 

[AmyNation]

the problem we have here is getting people to work more then 15 hours a week....

if they work full time they have to give up their entitlements......


Why work full time when you can suck off the system and make more money?

Most people want to work more then 15 hours a week, it's typically the employeer who doesn't want to pay out benefits that limit employees to a certain number of hours.

A person working 40 hours a week at McDonalds will still collect welfare because that job doesn't pay enough to support anyone.

Also, why do we blame the poor for the broken system? Those who live on the edge are trying to survive and every penny counts. We don't blame the rich for taking tax loopholes, and yet when a poor person knows that the diffrence between working 36 hours a week and working 40 is the loss of their welfare, and they choose not to work that extra 4 hours, they are leeches on the system.

Should you expect to be able to support yourself or a family on what someone would make working fulltime at McDonalds? How high do you want to raise the price of a hamburger? Until people are no longer willing to pay for it, therefore no one has a job at all?

It's a world job market now, nothing is going to change for US workers unless we find some niche that workers in 3rd world countries cannot supply, or until 3rd world countries are living under the same standards we are and demand a similar wage. Until one of those two things happens, there's no changing it.

I never said anything about changing the price of a hamburger to accommodate workers and no I don't think people expect to support a family solely on min. wage.

 

[Newby]

Most people want to work more then 15 hours a week, it's typically the employeer who doesn't want to pay out benefits that limit employees to a certain number of hours.

A person working 40 hours a week at McDonalds will still collect welfare because that job doesn't pay enough to support anyone.

Also, why do we blame the poor for the broken system? Those who live on the edge are trying to survive and every penny counts. We don't blame the rich for taking tax loopholes, and yet when a poor person knows that the diffrence between working 36 hours a week and working 40 is the loss of their welfare, and they choose not to work that extra 4 hours, they are leeches on the system.

Should you expect to be able to support yourself or a family on what someone would make working fulltime at McDonalds? How high do you want to raise the price of a hamburger? Until people are no longer willing to pay for it, therefore no one has a job at all?

It's a world job market now, nothing is going to change for US workers unless we find some niche that workers in 3rd world countries cannot supply, or until 3rd world countries are living under the same standards we are and demand a similar wage. Until one of those two things happens, there's no changing it.

I never said anything about changing the price of a hamburger to accommodate workers and no I don't think people expect to support a family solely on min. wage.

But if they paid a wage that could truly support a family, the food would not be affordable for anyone. Those jobs were never intended to support a family to begin with.

 

[AmyNation]

Should you expect to be able to support yourself or a family on what someone would make working fulltime at McDonalds? How high do you want to raise the price of a hamburger? Until people are no longer willing to pay for it, therefore no one has a job at all?

It's a world job market now, nothing is going to change for US workers unless we find some niche that workers in 3rd world countries cannot supply, or until 3rd world countries are living under the same standards we are and demand a similar wage. Until one of those two things happens, there's no changing it.

I never said anything about changing the price of a hamburger to accommodate workers and no I don't think people expect to support a family solely on min. wage.

But if they paid a wage that could truly support a family, the food would not be affordable for anyone. Those jobs were never intended to support a family to begin with.

No one is arguing that they should raise the cost of food to help workers support a family or that min wage. jobs are intended to support a family.

 

[KissMy]

the problem we have here is getting people to work more then 15 hours a week....

if they work full time they have to give up their entitlements......


Why work full time when you can suck off the system and make more money?

Most people want to work more then 15 hours a week, it's typically the employeer who doesn't want to pay out benefits that limit employees to a certain number of hours.

A person working 40 hours a week at McDonalds will still collect welfare because that job doesn't pay enough to support anyone.

Also, why do we blame the poor for the broken system? Those who live on the edge are trying to survive and every penny counts. We don't blame the rich for taking tax loopholes, and yet when a poor person knows that the diffrence between working 36 hours a week and working 40 is the loss of their welfare, and they choose not to work that extra 4 hours, they are leeches on the system.

Should you expect to be able to support yourself or a family on what someone would make working fulltime at McDonalds? How high do you want to raise the price of a hamburger? Until people are no longer willing to pay for it, therefore no one has a job at all?

It's a world job market now, nothing is going to change for US workers unless we find some niche that workers in 3rd world countries cannot supply, or until 3rd world countries are living under the same standards we are and demand a similar wage. Until one of those two things happens, there's no changing it.

Hamburger flippers, shelf stockers & store clerks are service jobs that are not easily outsourced like manufacturing jobs. Yet government supports unions driving up wages on manufacturing jobs thus driving them out of the USA.

 

[Aristotle]

There is a growing trend of college students unfortunately applying for governmental assistance since many of these students do not have enough sufficient income to sustain themselves. This is not new as we see many college students across the country applying on welfare. But my main concern is about Romney's 47% as being taker's of assistance I have to ask why do people label welfare recipients as "lazy?" Are we looking at those who don't attain jobs? Are we looking at the fact that its a race issue?

Why is it wrong for a college student who qualifies to apply for aid?

I never said its wrong but typically people tend to associate "laziness" to people of color when clearly Americans are taking advantage of government assistance.

 

[Aristotle]

There is a growing trend of college students unfortunately applying for governmental assistance since many of these students do not have enough sufficient income to sustain themselves. This is not new as we see many college students across the country applying on welfare. But my main concern is about Romney's 47% as being taker's of assistance I have to ask why do people label welfare recipients as "lazy?" Are we looking at those who don't attain jobs? Are we looking at the fact that its a race issue?

Part of the problem is ...your pet college students think many jobs are beneath them.

lots of dishwasher jobs out there... lots of maid jobs... lots of babysitting jobs...


Just becasue you have a degree is not a guarantee of getting the job of your choosing..in the field of your choosing.

Give me a break with this freggin comment. Me and ten other graduates with our Masters worked at temp jobs because we all were laid off. No jobs were hiring due to budgets and the real jobs were out of state but the problem is the other states pay less than California. Not only will it cost us to move but this doesn't factor out storage cost, finding housing etc.

What did we do? Apply for welfare and work temp jobs. A buddy of mine who has his J.D recently got a job doing housekeeping cause his firm closed and he needed some money to stay afloat.

I bounced from temp job to temp job. I even became a bouncer for a night club. My rent was always late because my unemployment paid half of what I made

No family to take me in, near being homeless. Worked as a delivery driver for pizza hut and I had an accomplished academic background. I made shit. You don't know how it feel to have people ask you "you have that many degrees and your working here?" So please spare me.

Its obvious your not a college student, this reality is all too common.

 

[Polk]

People that actually use gov't assistance/welfare for its intended purpose are generally and often lumped in with those who intentionally misuse it and game the system in order to get out of actually having to work for a living. I sadly know people who do this and have done this for so many years that it's practically their profession. It's pathetic honestly, but it's even more pathetic because for the ones that actually need this service because of a truly unforeseen circumstance get put through the ringer because of those who have destroyed the integrity of this process.

Simply put: It's guilt by association. If you're on welfare, you're automatically lazy is what society now tells us. Regardless of the actual reason that caused said welfare. Noserious efforts have actually been made to separate the scam artists from the rest and until that happens, this perception will persist.

The problem is that we don't have a mechanism that sorts perfectly, and it's really not possible to create one. You'll either create a system that's too restrictive, thereby harming some in legitimate need of assistance, or that's not restrictive, which will result in some people abusing it.

 

[Polk]

We can't GUARANTEE outcomes without COERCING folks on welfare to overcome the obstacles that hold them back.. I hate coercion a lot more than I worry about dependence. Especially when it results in Granny getting tossed from Govt housing because her visiting Nephew dealt a couple bags of weed out of her apartment.

So being on welfare SHOULD be a self-assessment of all the decisions that got you there.

The number of folks who are not properly skilled for a 21st century job is gonna reach unbelievable proportions really quickly --- IF america remains economically competitive in a World market. If we DON'T remain competitive --- there won't be enough bucks to HAVE welfare...

No one should be coerced. They should be allowed to experience the consequences of their actions. If Granny loses her apartment because she allowed her living space to be used for her nephews drug dealing, she should be out on the street.

That's fine if the law required knowledge, but it doesn't.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There is a growing trend of college students unfortunately applying for governmental assistance since many of these students do not have enough sufficient income to sustain themselves. This is not new as we see many college students across the country applying on welfare. But my main concern is about Romney's 47% as being taker's of assistance I have to ask why do people label welfare recipients as "lazy?" Are we looking at those who don't attain jobs? Are we looking at the fact that its a race issue?

How is it a race issue? Being on welfare is not something that is race specific. Just the way you frame this question makes me distrust your intent.

Romney's point was that the people who are living off of government assistance and have no desire to stop and go to work for themselves are not going to support him. Do you deny this?

The spin that romney said "everyone who is on some form of govt assistance are lazy" is just what I called it, spin, and its not honest to what he actually said.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

the problem we have here is getting people to work more then 15 hours a week....

if they work full time they have to give up their entitlements......


Why work full time when you can suck off the system and make more money?

Most people want to work more then 15 hours a week, it's typically the employeer who doesn't want to pay out benefits that limit employees to a certain number of hours.

A person working 40 hours a week at McDonalds will still collect welfare because that job doesn't pay enough to support anyone.

Also, why do we blame the poor for the broken system? Those who live on the edge are trying to survive and every penny counts. We don't blame the rich for taking tax loopholes, and yet when a poor person knows that the diffrence between working 36 hours a week and working 40 is the loss of their welfare, and they choose not to work that extra 4 hours, they are leeches on the system.

Should you expect to be able to support yourself or a family on what someone would make working fulltime at McDonalds? How high do you want to raise the price of a hamburger? Until people are no longer willing to pay for it, therefore no one has a job at all?

It's a world job market now, nothing is going to change for US workers unless we find some niche that workers in 3rd world countries cannot supply, or until 3rd world countries are living under the same standards we are and demand a similar wage. Until one of those two things happens, there's no changing it.

That's the facts jack! Seriously awesome post.

 

[Polk]

There is a growing trend of college students unfortunately applying for governmental assistance since many of these students do not have enough sufficient income to sustain themselves. This is not new as we see many college students across the country applying on welfare. But my main concern is about Romney's 47% as being taker's of assistance I have to ask why do people label welfare recipients as "lazy?" Are we looking at those who don't attain jobs? Are we looking at the fact that its a race issue?

How is it a race issue? Being on welfare is not something that is race specific. Just the way you frame this question makes me distrust your intent.

Romney's point was that the people who are living off of government assistance and have no desire to stop and go to work for themselves are not going to support him. Do you deny this?

The spin that romney said "everyone who is on some form of govt assistance are lazy" is just what I called it, spin, and its not honest to what he actually said.

The race framing is a legitimate as long as the issue is being framed as being about "strapping young bucks driving around in Cadillac's eating t-bone steaks."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There is a growing trend of college students unfortunately applying for governmental assistance since many of these students do not have enough sufficient income to sustain themselves. This is not new as we see many college students across the country applying on welfare. But my main concern is about Romney's 47% as being taker's of assistance I have to ask why do people label welfare recipients as "lazy?" Are we looking at those who don't attain jobs? Are we looking at the fact that its a race issue?

How is it a race issue? Being on welfare is not something that is race specific. Just the way you frame this question makes me distrust your intent.

Romney's point was that the people who are living off of government assistance and have no desire to stop and go to work for themselves are not going to support him. Do you deny this?

The spin that romney said "everyone who is on some form of govt assistance are lazy" is just what I called it, spin, and its not honest to what he actually said.

The race framing is a legitimate as long as the issue is being framed as being about "strapping young bucks driving around in Cadillac's eating t-bone steaks."

Ummmmm ok..........maybe elaborate a little for me?

 

[Meathead]

The people on welfare are generally seen as lazy because they won't work and are quite arrogant about collecting welfare. It is something they are owed by virtue of being alive. That's why they vote democrat. They vote for the party that promises more welfare rather than the party that would give them a job.

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

8 Myths About "Welfare Queens", Debunked

Whites and Welfare: GOP and the Food Stamp Fallacy

It's amazing that this thread got to the 8th post before the race-pimping began. No one else broached or even suggested it before this post. It is sort of a knee-jerk response I suppose.