oldsoul
Gold Member
Easy, he/she posted a gragh showing wealth disparity, and said that is proof that the rich are doing more harm with their "scams". All the gragh shows is wealth disparity, not how much damage a certain group of people are doing with their "scams". It is not a large step to go from this to "class warfare".So, class warfare is going to be your tactic? Why don't we look at WHY people are where they are? The fact that they are there tells me nothing, the reasons for their position in the "pie" are really quite important.Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.
Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).
TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.
According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)
If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.
You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.
That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.
I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.
All you have to do is follow the money
Our poor people are in that tiny sliver of 40% of Americans with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. How much would their scamming the system impact the overall slice of the pie? Almost nothing
Now lets look at the 1% with 34.6% of the wealth. How much does their scamming the system impact their slice of the pie? Keep in mind they have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians to help them do so
To simply say that the rich have more and therefore they need to give more is not even fair to the people you are intending to help. I say this because that position assumes that those in the lower brackets CANNOT improve their situation without help. Will they ever be one of the top 1%? Probably not, but they do have the ability to improve their situation none the less. Unless the entire "pie" is distributed equally (regardless of an individuals value to the economy), there will always be diparity. So, using the disparity arguement is disingenuous, at best.
Class warfare? How did you get that out of rightwinger's remarks?
All s/he was saying is that the potential negative impact that can result from one's/a group's "scamming" any aspect of "the system" (be it the welfare system, the tax system, etc.) is greater from "scams" effected by/for well off folks than from those effected by/for destitute folks. At least that's what I think he was saying.
Now, to be fair, one could surmise, from the gragh, that the rich COULD do more damage IF they are scamming the system. It does not, however, prove that they ARE scamming the system. The following link privides proof of the scamming of the welfare system:
Welfare Fraud
As does this one:
REPORT: The Worst Examples Of Welfare Fraud And How To Fix Them