How Liberal Policies Keep People in Poverty

[hazlnut]

I know this will make the far left have a collective seizure, but it's true that liberal policies that encourage the breakup of families and a nanny state are the main reasons that people do not pull themselves up. The left only sees two extremes, the super wealthy and the dirt poor. The reason they never bring up the middle class is because it's in the way of their plans. They are systematically destroying middle class and they'd rather people forgot it even exists. All we hear is taking more from the rich and giving to the poor with no expectations of people involved in their own progress. Of course, it's middle class they take from, but the media isn't about to look too hard at what liberal policies actually achieve. They only report on the intentions, not the disastrous results.

Encouraging dependency also encourages single parenthood and a lack a concern about community. The entitlement mentality keeps people focused on what government can do for them, not what they can do for themselves, their families or their communities. That responsibility was turned over to government long ago. Over 50 years of welfare and government programs and the result is more people lined up for help and fewer climbing out of poverty. It's more than a failed system. It's by design and that makes it far worse.

Obama Disregards What Hispanics and All Americans Need to Achieve American Dream

Straw man much?

 

[itfitzme]

I know this will make the far left have a collective seizure, but it's true that liberal policies that encourage the breakup of families and a nanny state are the main reasons that people do not pull themselves up. The left only sees two extremes, the super wealthy and the dirt poor. The reason they never bring up the middle class is because it's in the way of their plans. They are systematically destroying middle class and they'd rather people forgot it even exists. All we hear is taking more from the rich and giving to the poor with no expectations of people involved in their own progress. Of course, it's middle class they take from, but the media isn't about to look too hard at what liberal policies actually achieve. They only report on the intentions, not the disastrous results.

Encouraging dependency also encourages single parenthood and a lack a concern about community. The entitlement mentality keeps people focused on what government can do for them, not what they can do for themselves, their families or their communities. That responsibility was turned over to government long ago. Over 50 years of welfare and government programs and the result is more people lined up for help and fewer climbing out of poverty. It's more than a failed system. It's by design and that makes it far worse.

Obama Disregards What Hispanics and All Americans Need to Achieve American Dream

So before the era of welfare or help, everyone in the US was not in poverty?
In the 19th century the US govt. gave you free land, is that not welfare or help?

No. The land didn't belong to the government in the first place. Land belongs to whomever occupies and uses it first.

That isn't actuay true. It "belongs" to someone because the social rules afford them the right to possession and use.

Otherwise, it belong to whomever can kick the shit out of you.

And, specificay applied to you, you don't actualy have any fundamental, natural and real right of posession simply because no one is obligated to be cooperative with an asshole like you. The only natural right you have is to be treated as you treat others. So, fundamemtally, as you are a sociopath attempting to appeal to false authority, you have no claim to social rights or norms.

 

[Pheonixops]

I know this will make the far left have a collective seizure, but it's true that liberal policies that encourage the breakup of families and a nanny state are the main reasons that people do not pull themselves up. The left only sees two extremes, the super wealthy and the dirt poor. The reason they never bring up the middle class is because it's in the way of their plans. They are systematically destroying middle class and they'd rather people forgot it even exists. All we hear is taking more from the rich and giving to the poor with no expectations of people involved in their own progress. Of course, it's middle class they take from, but the media isn't about to look too hard at what liberal policies actually achieve. They only report on the intentions, not the disastrous results.

Encouraging dependency also encourages single parenthood and a lack a concern about community. The entitlement mentality keeps people focused on what government can do for them, not what they can do for themselves, their families or their communities. That responsibility was turned over to government long ago. Over 50 years of welfare and government programs and the result is more people lined up for help and fewer climbing out of poverty. It's more than a failed system. It's by design and that makes it far worse.

Obama Disregards What Hispanics and All Americans Need to Achieve American Dream

Are you a single parent, in poverty, and dependent on government because of those so-called "Liberal policies"? If so, please explain how you got to that position.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well now, that is pure bs. No where does the BLS CPS have a count of;
"People that don't want a job because they are collecting unemployment or welfare."

Your "interpetation" of the survey stats is entirely your own imaginary fabrication.

And you have no argument.

"That's BS!!!!"

Is not an argument.

Yeah, it is an argument because I've analyzed the BLS CPS data and know what the survey questions and categories are.

Yeah, it is unsubstantiated BULLSHIT because there is no CPS or CES categories for "don't want a job because I am collecting unemoyment or other assistance." It is simply stupid bullshit.

But you cannot explain why they can't or won't look for work. It's bullshit alright...from you.

 

[Duped]

Okay. So take Medicaid and food stamps away from the poor.

How soon before, en masse, they start getting less poor?

As I indicated: some people will remain poor as they have no ambition. If you pay someone to sit on their ass, they are not going to get off of it.

As soon as they get jobs - maybe two jobs each. Why should others pay for their food, and health when they have to pay for their own? This is more than simple mechanics, this is a mindset, generational, habitual type of thing. No one should grow up looking for the government ( tax payers ) to give them. Stop the programs, feel the pain, make better choices - less pain for less people in the end. Do you think 47, million people on food stamps is a good thing - how about 100, million - better?

The accusation is that the policies keep people poor. The only proof that could be true would be if ending the policies would substantively, measurably, reduce poverty.

No one making the above accusation has been able to make any argument to support the claim that ending the policies would result in fewer poor people.

Over time it would - you just don't want to accept it. Welfare encourages poverty - it gives you enough to be complacent so you can pass on those genes; it is perpetual

 

[GreenBean]

I know this will make the far left have a collective seizure, but it's true that liberal policies that encourage the breakup of families and a nanny state are the main reasons that people do not pull themselves up. The left only sees two extremes, the super wealthy and the dirt poor. The reason they never bring up the middle class is because it's in the way of their plans. They are systematically destroying middle class and they'd rather people forgot it even exists. All we hear is taking more from the rich and giving to the poor with no expectations of people involved in their own progress. Of course, it's middle class they take from, but the media isn't about to look too hard at what liberal policies actually achieve. They only report on the intentions, not the disastrous results.

Encouraging dependency also encourages single parenthood and a lack a concern about community. The entitlement mentality keeps people focused on what government can do for them, not what they can do for themselves, their families or their communities. That responsibility was turned over to government long ago. Over 50 years of welfare and government programs and the result is more people lined up for help and fewer climbing out of poverty. It's more than a failed system. It's by design and that makes it far worse.

Obama Disregards What Hispanics and All Americans Need to Achieve American Dream

Cloward and Pliven pointed out that the number of Americans subsisting on social services probably represented less than half the number who were actually eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven presented calculations that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand what they viewed as entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, theoretically would be "a profound financial and political crisis" - basically an initiating domino that would eventually lead to the economic collapse of the USA and leave Humanity ripe for the ensuing onslaught of Marxism or other illogical derivatives of it. Rudolph Giuliani, while serving as NY City Mayor attempted to expose Cloward-Pliven in the late 1990s. As part of his drive for welfare reform he accused the militant scholars by name and cited their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage.

Ignorance of welfare rights can be attacked through a massive educational campaign Brochures describing benefits in simple, clear language, and urging people to seek their full entitlements, should be distributed door to door in tenements and public housing projects, and deposited in stores, schools, churches and civic centers. Advertisements should be placed in newspapers; spot announcements should be made on radio. Leaders of social, religious, fraternal and political groups in the slums should also be enlisted to recruit the eligible to the rolls. The fact that the campaign is intended to inform people of their legal rights under a government program, that it is a civic education drive, will lend it legitimacy. - Cloward and Piven - The Weight of the Poor

Cloward- Pliven Strategy

Obama is no fool. He is not as incompetent as he seems, or at least his handlers aren't. To the contrary, they are brilliant. They know exactly what they're doing. Purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within

 

[Clementine]

If liberal policies keep people in poverty, then ending liberal policies would cause people to get out of poverty.

To prove that isn't bullshit,

you have to identify the liberal policies, assume that they were ended, and then demonstrate how people then get out of poverty because the policies were ended.

That's how an argument works. Or in this case, doesn't work.

It's not about doing away with welfare, it's about changing things and expecting people to do more in order for their lives to improve. Taking the welfare to work requirement out of the system is just one way that liberals help ease people into dependency permanently.

There is proof that the liberal way doesn't work. Doubling welfare rolls and few getting out of poverty means that either they suck at helping people or they are intentionally encouraging people to stay on welfare.

I recall one woman who was on welfare and had a few children. She found a job and intended to become self-sufficient. The welfare office told her that she would immediately lose all benefits if she did that. Then they told her that if she stayed on welfare longer, they would help pay for child care. If that type of thing isn't enticement, then I don't know what is.

If a person chooses to get a job, the system doesn't help ease them out of welfare, it spits them out if they get big ideas about making it on their own. It's crazy that the longer they are on it, the more bennies they get. Many might pass on the job opportunity simply because it's smoother sailing to stay put.

Liberals keep saying that welfare doesn't offer enough, though in some states it would take at least a $45,000 salary to fund the housing, food, medical, free cell phones and other benefits they receive. It's clear that liberals want people totally comfortable on welfare and there is absolutely no incentive to leave that for a job that wouldn't afford them the same standard of living.

My son, who graduated college last year, makes less than half of what it would take to pay for one small family on welfare. He still pays taxes, lives in a tiny apartment and started at minimum wage for a good company. He has already gotten a raise and promoted to a higher position. Long way to go, but he's doing things the old fashioned way. I'm sure he'd like to live in a bigger home, have cheaper healthcare, more money for food and no charge for his cell phone. He has too much pride to take from others and would rather go without until he earns it. Most of us were that way years ago. Yet, the liberals see my son as a tax payer who needs to pay his fair share and the people who get twice as much as he does without working as more worthy of his earnings. Why do they punish those who work and still say they aren't doing enough while those idle people just keep having more kids and expect a bigger check for their trouble?

How many lifetime, 5th generation welfare recipients even graduated high school? How many would even qualify for a decent job or have the skills to move up? What is their incentive to leave the liberal plantation and do with less until they earn a higher salary?

The left knows exactly what they are doing. Welfare rolls have doubled on Obama's watch as jobs disappeared and more young people headed to the welfare office instead of school. And they want to keep going down this path knowing that it doesn't work. Able-bodied people should have to work for welfare. There are plenty of jobs they could do that would save local tax payers money. If they knew they had to work to obtain any kind of welfare, they'd probably just get a job to begin with and not look to welfare as a first choice for survival. It should be a last resort. Knowing that work was in the future one way or the other, young people would opt to stay in school and increase their chances of getting a better job instead of just having kids to get a check.

If there aren't some kind of consequences for stupid decisions, there is nothing to stop young people from making them.

 

[rdean]

If liberal policies keep people in poverty, then ending liberal policies would cause people to get out of poverty.

To prove that isn't bullshit,

you have to identify the liberal policies, assume that they were ended, and then demonstrate how people then get out of poverty because the policies were ended.

That's how an argument works. Or in this case, doesn't work.

Yea, like the redistribution of the country's economic wealth to the top 1%.

Oh wait.....

 

[rdean]

If liberal policies keep people in poverty, then ending liberal policies would cause people to get out of poverty.

To prove that isn't bullshit,

you have to identify the liberal policies, assume that they were ended, and then demonstrate how people then get out of poverty because the policies were ended.

That's how an argument works. Or in this case, doesn't work.

It's not about doing away with welfare, it's about changing things and expecting people to do more in order for their lives to improve. Taking the welfare to work requirement out of the system is just one way that liberals help ease people into dependency permanently.

There is proof that the liberal way doesn't work. Doubling welfare rolls and few getting out of poverty means that either they suck at helping people or they are intentionally encouraging people to stay on welfare.

I recall one woman who was on welfare and had a few children. She found a job and intended to become self-sufficient. The welfare office told her that she would immediately lose all benefits if she did that. Then they told her that if she stayed on welfare longer, they would help pay for child care. If that type of thing isn't enticement, then I don't know what is.

If a person chooses to get a job, the system doesn't help ease them out of welfare, it spits them out if they get big ideas about making it on their own. It's crazy that the longer they are on it, the more bennies they get. Many might pass on the job opportunity simply because it's smoother sailing to stay put.

Liberals keep saying that welfare doesn't offer enough, though in some states it would take at least a $45,000 salary to fund the housing, food, medical, free cell phones and other benefits they receive. It's clear that liberals want people totally comfortable on welfare and there is absolutely no incentive to leave that for a job that wouldn't afford them the same standard of living.

My son, who graduated college last year, makes less than half of what it would take to pay for one small family on welfare. He still pays taxes, lives in a tiny apartment and started at minimum wage for a good company. He has already gotten a raise and promoted to a higher position. Long way to go, but he's doing things the old fashioned way. I'm sure he'd like to live in a bigger home, have cheaper healthcare, more money for food and no charge for his cell phone. He has too much pride to take from others and would rather go without until he earns it. Most of us were that way years ago. Yet, the liberals see my son as a tax payer who needs to pay his fair share and the people who get twice as much as he does without working as more worthy of his earnings. Why do they punish those who work and still say they aren't doing enough while those idle people just keep having more kids and expect a bigger check for their trouble?

How many lifetime, 5th generation welfare recipients even graduated high school? How many would even qualify for a decent job or have the skills to move up? What is their incentive to leave the liberal plantation and do with less until they earn a higher salary?

The left knows exactly what they are doing. Welfare rolls have doubled on Obama's watch as jobs disappeared and more young people headed to the welfare office instead of school. And they want to keep going down this path knowing that it doesn't work. Able-bodied people should have to work for welfare. There are plenty of jobs they could do that would save local tax payers money. If they knew they had to work to obtain any kind of welfare, they'd probably just get a job to begin with and not look to welfare as a first choice for survival. It should be a last resort. Knowing that work was in the future one way or the other, young people would opt to stay in school and increase their chances of getting a better job instead of just having kids to get a check.

If there aren't some kind of consequences for stupid decisions, there is nothing to stop young people from making them.

People are on welfare because Republicans destroyed the economy under Bush. Duh! Ever hear of "deregulation"? Ever hear of "deregulation in connection to Wall Street"? Duh! You can't blame that on Democrats. It's the GOP that's the party of Wall Street. Who doesn't know that? Remember "occupy Wall Street"? Those weren't conservatives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If liberal policies keep people in poverty, then ending liberal policies would cause people to get out of poverty.

To prove that isn't bullshit,

you have to identify the liberal policies, assume that they were ended, and then demonstrate how people then get out of poverty because the policies were ended.

That's how an argument works. Or in this case, doesn't work.

It's not about doing away with welfare, it's about changing things and expecting people to do more in order for their lives to improve. Taking the welfare to work requirement out of the system is just one way that liberals help ease people into dependency permanently.

There is proof that the liberal way doesn't work. Doubling welfare rolls and few getting out of poverty means that either they suck at helping people or they are intentionally encouraging people to stay on welfare.

I recall one woman who was on welfare and had a few children. She found a job and intended to become self-sufficient. The welfare office told her that she would immediately lose all benefits if she did that. Then they told her that if she stayed on welfare longer, they would help pay for child care. If that type of thing isn't enticement, then I don't know what is.

If a person chooses to get a job, the system doesn't help ease them out of welfare, it spits them out if they get big ideas about making it on their own. It's crazy that the longer they are on it, the more bennies they get. Many might pass on the job opportunity simply because it's smoother sailing to stay put.

Liberals keep saying that welfare doesn't offer enough, though in some states it would take at least a $45,000 salary to fund the housing, food, medical, free cell phones and other benefits they receive. It's clear that liberals want people totally comfortable on welfare and there is absolutely no incentive to leave that for a job that wouldn't afford them the same standard of living.

My son, who graduated college last year, makes less than half of what it would take to pay for one small family on welfare. He still pays taxes, lives in a tiny apartment and started at minimum wage for a good company. He has already gotten a raise and promoted to a higher position. Long way to go, but he's doing things the old fashioned way. I'm sure he'd like to live in a bigger home, have cheaper healthcare, more money for food and no charge for his cell phone. He has too much pride to take from others and would rather go without until he earns it. Most of us were that way years ago. Yet, the liberals see my son as a tax payer who needs to pay his fair share and the people who get twice as much as he does without working as more worthy of his earnings. Why do they punish those who work and still say they aren't doing enough while those idle people just keep having more kids and expect a bigger check for their trouble?

How many lifetime, 5th generation welfare recipients even graduated high school? How many would even qualify for a decent job or have the skills to move up? What is their incentive to leave the liberal plantation and do with less until they earn a higher salary?

The left knows exactly what they are doing. Welfare rolls have doubled on Obama's watch as jobs disappeared and more young people headed to the welfare office instead of school. And they want to keep going down this path knowing that it doesn't work. Able-bodied people should have to work for welfare. There are plenty of jobs they could do that would save local tax payers money. If they knew they had to work to obtain any kind of welfare, they'd probably just get a job to begin with and not look to welfare as a first choice for survival. It should be a last resort. Knowing that work was in the future one way or the other, young people would opt to stay in school and increase their chances of getting a better job instead of just having kids to get a check.

If there aren't some kind of consequences for stupid decisions, there is nothing to stop young people from making them.

Nothing you said addressed what I said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ending programs that help the poor won't end poverty. It would just make the poor poorer.

Which is what conservatives want. Conservatives believe your life should directly reflect your wealth, or lack of it.

Your health should be directly related to how much healthcare you can afford. Your education should be directly related to how much you can pay for it at market prices. Your nutrition should be directly related to your ability to pay for food. etc. etc.

Conservatives revere suffering, as long as they're not the ones who have to do it.

 

[itfitzme]

Cloward and Pliven pointed out that the number of Americans subsisting on social services probably represented less than half the number who were actually eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven presented calculations that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand what they viewed as entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, theoretically would be "a profound financial and political crisis" - basically an initiating domino that would eventually lead to the economic collapse of the USA and leave Humanity ripe for the ensuing onslaught of Marxism or other illogical derivatives of it. Rudolph Giuliani, while serving as NY City Mayor attempted to expose Cloward-Pliven in the late 1990s. As part of his drive for welfare reform he accused the militant scholars by name and cited their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage.

Ignorance of welfare rights can be attacked through a massive educational campaign Brochures describing benefits in simple, clear language, and urging people to seek their full entitlements, should be distributed door to door in tenements and public housing projects, and deposited in stores, schools, churches and civic centers. Advertisements should be placed in newspapers; spot announcements should be made on radio. Leaders of social, religious, fraternal and political groups in the slums should also be enlisted to recruit the eligible to the rolls. The fact that the campaign is intended to inform people of their legal rights under a government program, that it is a civic education drive, will lend it legitimacy. - Cloward and Piven - The Weight of the Poor

Cloward- Pliven Strategy

Obama is no fool. He is not as incompetent as he seems, or at least his handlers aren't. To the contrary, they are brilliant. They know exactly what they're doing. Purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within

1966? Interesting but 48 years old. And the cited stats for the article are from 1959. That is 55 years ago, more than half a centrury. Then you make a deluded leap to Obama in 2014.

The anti-liberals see only two extremes, "absolute freedom" and "absolute socialism". And, regularly, they post made up pictures as if it had some bearing on reality.

 

[Sunshine]

I know this will make the far left have a collective seizure, but it's true that liberal policies that encourage the breakup of families and a nanny state are the main reasons that people do not pull themselves up. The left only sees two extremes, the super wealthy and the dirt poor. The reason they never bring up the middle class is because it's in the way of their plans. They are systematically destroying middle class and they'd rather people forgot it even exists. All we hear is taking more from the rich and giving to the poor with no expectations of people involved in their own progress. Of course, it's middle class they take from, but the media isn't about to look too hard at what liberal policies actually achieve. They only report on the intentions, not the disastrous results.

Encouraging dependency also encourages single parenthood and a lack a concern about community. The entitlement mentality keeps people focused on what government can do for them, not what they can do for themselves, their families or their communities. That responsibility was turned over to government long ago. Over 50 years of welfare and government programs and the result is more people lined up for help and fewer climbing out of poverty. It's more than a failed system. It's by design and that makes it far worse.

Obama Disregards What Hispanics and All Americans Need to Achieve American Dream

yep... the goal of the left elites is to destroy the middle class.....and create a dependent underclass...

it's why liberals focus on 'minimum wages' for the bottom barrel jobs instead of robust business development that would create good jobs and more more middle class workers....

it's why liberals focus on 'gay marriage' and sexual 'liberation' instead of real marriages and family values that would prevent abortions and all those poor dependent mothers living off government handouts....

So there were no abortions before Roe vs Wade?

When community midwives were in charge the defective baby was set up on the windowsill to freeze.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Clementine]

Jesus said that " the poor will always be with you " That is because the dumb, lazy, criminal minded, nuts, and their enablers will always be among us. However, when you reward irresponsibility you get more of it, and that is precisely what liberal policies do at the expense of the tax payer. If you want less of something - punish it.

You got that right. Apparently, the left wants less middle class tax payers because we get punished for making our own way. Obamacare may be the final blow that takes us down.

Once middle class is gone, hello socialism and onto to communism.

 

[Clementine]

If liberal policies keep people in poverty, then ending liberal policies would cause people to get out of poverty.

To prove that isn't bullshit,

you have to identify the liberal policies, assume that they were ended, and then demonstrate how people then get out of poverty because the policies were ended.

That's how an argument works. Or in this case, doesn't work.

It's not about doing away with welfare, it's about changing things and expecting people to do more in order for their lives to improve. Taking the welfare to work requirement out of the system is just one way that liberals help ease people into dependency permanently.

There is proof that the liberal way doesn't work. Doubling welfare rolls and few getting out of poverty means that either they suck at helping people or they are intentionally encouraging people to stay on welfare.

I recall one woman who was on welfare and had a few children. She found a job and intended to become self-sufficient. The welfare office told her that she would immediately lose all benefits if she did that. Then they told her that if she stayed on welfare longer, they would help pay for child care. If that type of thing isn't enticement, then I don't know what is.

If a person chooses to get a job, the system doesn't help ease them out of welfare, it spits them out if they get big ideas about making it on their own. It's crazy that the longer they are on it, the more bennies they get. Many might pass on the job opportunity simply because it's smoother sailing to stay put.

Liberals keep saying that welfare doesn't offer enough, though in some states it would take at least a $45,000 salary to fund the housing, food, medical, free cell phones and other benefits they receive. It's clear that liberals want people totally comfortable on welfare and there is absolutely no incentive to leave that for a job that wouldn't afford them the same standard of living.

My son, who graduated college last year, makes less than half of what it would take to pay for one small family on welfare. He still pays taxes, lives in a tiny apartment and started at minimum wage for a good company. He has already gotten a raise and promoted to a higher position. Long way to go, but he's doing things the old fashioned way. I'm sure he'd like to live in a bigger home, have cheaper healthcare, more money for food and no charge for his cell phone. He has too much pride to take from others and would rather go without until he earns it. Most of us were that way years ago. Yet, the liberals see my son as a tax payer who needs to pay his fair share and the people who get twice as much as he does without working as more worthy of his earnings. Why do they punish those who work and still say they aren't doing enough while those idle people just keep having more kids and expect a bigger check for their trouble?

How many lifetime, 5th generation welfare recipients even graduated high school? How many would even qualify for a decent job or have the skills to move up? What is their incentive to leave the liberal plantation and do with less until they earn a higher salary?

The left knows exactly what they are doing. Welfare rolls have doubled on Obama's watch as jobs disappeared and more young people headed to the welfare office instead of school. And they want to keep going down this path knowing that it doesn't work. Able-bodied people should have to work for welfare. There are plenty of jobs they could do that would save local tax payers money. If they knew they had to work to obtain any kind of welfare, they'd probably just get a job to begin with and not look to welfare as a first choice for survival. It should be a last resort. Knowing that work was in the future one way or the other, young people would opt to stay in school and increase their chances of getting a better job instead of just having kids to get a check.

If there aren't some kind of consequences for stupid decisions, there is nothing to stop young people from making them.

Nothing you said addressed what I said.

Yes, I did. I thought I was clear in saying we don't end welfare programs, just change them to actually be effective, and that mean taking out some the added policies that liberals put in.

Ending welfare for citizens isn't the answer because there are people in need who have no choice. We have always had a safety net, one that people only turned to as a last resort and because it didn't provide anything other than basic necessities, it wasn't something people wanted to stay on any longer than they had to.

Liberals and some idiot Repubs slowly changed it over the years to make people more comfortable and help them settle in for the duration of their lives. The incentive for getting off welfare has all but been removed. That is what I mean when I say liberal policies are bad. They encourage people to stay on welfare rather than improve themselves and get off of it. By improve, I mean make themselves more desirable to employers. That generally means at least obtaining a GED and perhaps using the available programs to attend trade school. Programs do everything from help pay tuition to provide money for daycare if you have kids.

Many of these programs have been around forever and they are good because they offer the chance for people to climb out. When benefits keep increasing, there is no incentive to attend school just to get a job that doesn't afford the same standard of living that welfare does. If people suddenly find themselves employed and off welfare, they are expected to pay for some of the things, like health care or phones, that they now get for free. Of course, many would still qualify for some aid, but they would have to earn money and pay other bills themselves. For many, it would currently be a step down to become employed and there is no incentive to add working to their day without upgrading their standard of living.

Even those who live in states where they get just enough aid to get by would find that after working 40 hours a week at starting wages, they would still have just enough to get by. People have come to expect that putting in that much effort should improve their situation, but don't stop to think that they should do that anyway. The left has insured that there is no longer any shame in able-bodied people living off others because they've pushed the entitlement mentality. I don't want people to feel bad if they truly need help, but given the mind blowing number of able-bodied people on the doles, I think they are taking the easy way out because they know they could never get a good job with their history, so they wait for more and more aid to keep them going.

Changing the rules to forcing able-bodied people to work would mean no free ride and it would prompt young people to take their future more seriously and prepare better for it by getting an education. Liberals seem to be against any consequences for bad choices, at least when it comes to their base.

The liberal policy that needs to stop is handing over billions of tax payer dollars with no explicit plan to make people get off their butts and do their part. They need to work in exchange for aid. Just like parents sometimes need to give their kids a firm, but loving, kick in the butt to get them motivated, the government needs to let the able-bodied idle people know that there is no such thing as a free lunch and don't allow them to get too comfy on the liberal plantation.

Get back to basics. No spending money. No spending EBT money on cigarettes, alcohol, pot or anything that isn't absolutely necessary. People caught misusing funds should have the amount of the illegitimate expenses removed from their monthly stipend. That way people will know if they abuse it, they lose it. We need to bring back welfare to work and start with at least 30 hours of community service each week until the person finds a permanent job. Gradually reduce the amount of aid they get until they are on their feet.

 

[itfitzme]

Here is a nice chart of the percentage of population on food stamps.

It had fallen to it's lowest level in 2001 before climbing again. The recession of 2009 drove it to the current level of 14.83%.

Carter .....January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981 Rose....
Reagan ...January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 Fell......
Bush I .....January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993 Rose....
Clinton ....January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001 Fell ..... Booming economy
Bush II ....January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 Rose ... China entered global markets
Obama ...January 20, 2009 – ........................ Rose ... Recession of 2009

It is curiously that the rise and fall of aid almost lines up with presidential terms. It would be erroneious to draw conclusions based on this.

It would be great to identify other driving factors between the performance of the economy and government aid. That's the whole thing, isn't it. The 2001 and on economic issues are obvious. Every recession and every period of rising unemployment are different. Every state also has different rules for assistance.

Never the less, economic conditions drive aid, not the other way around. The "gov't assistance causes people to not work" narrative is simply bullshit. It, as they say, putting the cart before the horse.

Food Stamps Charts

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why the right hates him -