It is officially better to be on welfare than to work

[NYcarbineer]

I thought the standard conservative argument was that despite decades of the 'war on poverty',

America's poor were worse off now, and more numerous, than ever?

Now you'd have us believe the opposite? That America's poor have it too good?

lol, make up your mind.

 

[TNHarley]

You think so?

Try it.

I know of a few people that have quit their job to be on welfare full time. This one guy quit his 2800 dollar a month job for 3200 in welfare. He was 110 pds over weight... Also know this girl that lost her job in the medical field because she wanted to be cut back to part-time so she could stay on TENNCARE. They just fired her. Now she is making more money. She leased a 2013 Ford Fusion last week.

I know a few people who are full of SHIT.

Sorry but if welfare was all it was cracked up to be, I'd quit my 22k a year job for it.

But it's not, and you're a full fledged ******* liar. It must feel awful being such a liar. I used to be like you back in the day when I was a conservative. Make up outlandish claims, fabricated stories just to try and make a point and feel like I have the upper hand.

But god damn, glad I wised up to that almost a decade ago.

Lol you dont have to believe me. I dont just make up shit. I knwo sometimes it hard for people like you to accept reality. I dont hold a grudge.

 

[RDD_1210]

I thought the standard conservative argument was that despite decades of the 'war on poverty',

America's poor were worse off now, and more numerous, than ever?

Now you'd have us believe the opposite? That America's poor have it too good?

lol, make up your mind.

None of what the say or believe is consistent. Pick pretty much ANY topic and they can be shown to argue for two conflicting ideas on the same issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

The details themselves dont really matter here. The truth is that the chart is correct. The marginal cost of getting off welfare is too high. So people stay on it rather than get jobs.

And that bolded part just about perfectly sums up everything you and the rest of the fake conservatives stand for. Well said.

You're kinda stupid, aren't you?

 

[Claudette]

What? They work?

Lies sure do come easily to you nutters. That entire post is nothing but a lie.

Sure it is. Just keep telling yourself that everyone on Welfare deserves it.

Your a gullible fool and its just to bad that you aren't forced to support them all by yourself. I'm sure you would be singing a different tune then. Your laughable.

Does everyone on welfare take advantage of the system? Is there anyone on welfare who genuinely needs it and is working to get off of it?

Sure there are folks who don't take advantage.

There are also loads out there that do take advantage of the system and know how to work it so they never have to work. I know a few of those folks personally.

If you think they aren't out there then your fooling yourself my friend. Your taxdollar is supporting them quite well.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There are instances where the welfare recipient is dis-incentivized to work or working more.
Where I work, some employees will refuse the opportunity to be scheduled more hours because doing so would reduce the amount of their assistance more than the income from the added hours.

Please elaborate on that claim.

Grocery industry.
If their income exceeds a certain level, they will experience a reduction in benefits, which makes sense, but it's not worth it to them to work more hours so they decline.

These people have jobs and are on public assistance? What is the level you are talking about? Got numbers?

 

[freedombecki]

So according to this 'theory', I should be seeing people on welfare owning just as nice a home and driving just as nice a car as someone making 60,000 a year.

Where would I go to see that?

Somewhere you didn't have to pay city, county, state, and federal taxes on the $60,000.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From Mississippi to ‘The Corner’: A Tale of Right-Wing Wrongness

Problem is, the chart is full of errors. I traced it back to the man who made it, a newspaper publisher in Mississippi, and found that the math, methodology, and logic he used to generate the chart, as well as an op-ed he wrote to accompany it, are wholly unsound. To make matters worse, despite the chart’s cringe-worthy flaws, very few outlets on the Internet, from small-scope blogs to a handful of forums hosted by major national publications, bothered to fact-check it. The story of the chart is a distressing new Exhibit A for those who argue that, practically speaking, there’s no longer any such thing as objective reality in the digital age.

I sent the chart to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and its researchers replied with a lengthy dossier of the chart’s errors. For starters, Emmerich overestimated the federal tax liability of the $60,000 family by failing to distinguish between gross and taxable income (the $60,000 family only has $40,400 in taxable income, according to the CBPP) and by ignoring the child tax credit, which benefits wealthier families more than poorer ones. The family making $60,000 would actually pay only about $8,043 in payroll and income taxes, not $13,034. As for Medicaid, CBPP pointed out that a family making $14,500 wouldn’t actually be eligible in Mississippi, where the cutoff level of qualifying income for a family of three is a paltry $8,064 per year. Even if that family were eligible, however, Emmerich’s estimate of their benefits is way off. Medicaid is a relative bargain for Mississippi—the state spends, on average, $2,510 a year per adult beneficiary and $1,659 per child beneficiary, according to the most recent numbers.

Perhaps more frustrating than the chart’s numerical errors is the language that accompanies it. In the column he penned for his newspaper, Emmerich’s claimed that the family making $14,500 has more “disposable income” than the family making $60,000, a reference to the “total” numbers at the bottom of the chart. But the chart conflates disposable income with economic benefits. Some items on the chart, like the tax credit, are disposable income, unrestricted money the families can use as they please. But other items, like food stamps, are government benefits that must be used for specific purposes. Adding these two types of items together is like adding apples and oranges.

When I asked Emmerich about his decision to use “disposable income” in his column to describe the totals in his chart, he quickly acknowledged that “‘economic benefit’ … is the more precise term.” But this error had already done its damage: As Emmerich’s chart and column gained momentum around the Internet, people continued to refer to its totals as “disposable income.” Then, like Emmerich, they used this descriptor to take an absurd leap of logic, asserting that, with money in their pockets, poor people have no incentive to hold jobs.

Interesting article. The problem is it has nothing to do with the chart from the Pennsylvania Secretary of Public Welfare.

 

[Darkwind]

The chart IS correct. Posting a blogger does not discount the truth of the chart.

******* morons the left have become.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The details themselves dont really matter here. The truth is that the chart is correct. The marginal cost of getting off welfare is too high. So people stay on it rather than get jobs.

The chart isn't correct, idiot.

Oh god I can hear you now...

"THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT! THE CHART IS CORRECT!"

Just keep repeating it, my beloved friend.

That makes more sense than insisting it isn't, then using an article about another chart to prove it.

Just saying.

 

[RDD_1210]

Sure it is. Just keep telling yourself that everyone on Welfare deserves it.

Your a gullible fool and its just to bad that you aren't forced to support them all by yourself. I'm sure you would be singing a different tune then. Your laughable.

Does everyone on welfare take advantage of the system? Is there anyone on welfare who genuinely needs it and is working to get off of it?

Sure there are folks who don't take advantage.

There are also loads out there that do take advantage of the system and know how to work it so they never have to work. I know a few of those folks personally.

If you think they aren't out there then your fooling yourself my friend. Your taxdollar is supporting them quite well.

Never said there aren't plenty of people taking advantage. There are. So how do you differentiate those who are taking advantage and those who truly are using the system the way it is meant to be used.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are instances where the welfare recipient is dis-incentivized to work or working more.
Where I work, some employees will refuse the opportunity to be scheduled more hours because doing so would reduce the amount of their assistance more than the income from the added hours.

Please elaborate on that claim.

There are a lot of people who work and collect Social Security, but no one I know that does that is willing to work more than the rules let them before they take a cut in their benefits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The details themselves dont really matter here. The truth is that the chart is correct. The marginal cost of getting off welfare is too high. So people stay on it rather than get jobs.

And that bolded part just about perfectly sums up everything you and the rest of the fake conservatives stand for. Well said.

I don't see you, or anyone else, posting anything that even comes close to disproving any of the assertions made in the article or the chart. The best anyone did was Cowman posting an article about a chart from a newspaper in Mississippi that has nothing to do with the chart I posted. That was a pathetic argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What? They work?

Lies sure do come easily to you nutters. That entire post is nothing but a lie.

Sure it is. Just keep telling yourself that everyone on Welfare deserves it.

Your a gullible fool and its just to bad that you aren't forced to support them all by yourself. I'm sure you would be singing a different tune then. Your laughable.

Does everyone on welfare take advantage of the system? Is there anyone on welfare who genuinely needs it and is working to get off of it?

Only the smart ones.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought the standard conservative argument was that despite decades of the 'war on poverty',

America's poor were worse off now, and more numerous, than ever?

Now you'd have us believe the opposite? That America's poor have it too good?

lol, make up your mind.

I am pretty sure we point out that, despite the war on poverty, there are more people on welfare than ever before. I am also pretty sure we point out that they are much better off than they were years ago because trickle down works.

 

[RDD_1210]

The details themselves dont really matter here. The truth is that the chart is correct. The marginal cost of getting off welfare is too high. So people stay on it rather than get jobs.

And that bolded part just about perfectly sums up everything you and the rest of the fake conservatives stand for. Well said.

I don't see you, or anyone else, posting anything that even comes close to disproving any of the assertions made in the article or the chart. The best anyone did was Cowman posting an article about a chart from a newspaper in Mississippi that has nothing to do with the chart I posted. That was a pathetic argument.

What would you like me to say? I've been down this road with you before on different topics and you refuse to discuss like an adult even when proven to be undeniably incorrect. So why would I bother with you again? That's lunacy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought the standard conservative argument was that despite decades of the 'war on poverty',

America's poor were worse off now, and more numerous, than ever?

Now you'd have us believe the opposite? That America's poor have it too good?

lol, make up your mind.

None of what the say or believe is consistent. Pick pretty much ANY topic and they can be shown to argue for two conflicting ideas on the same issue.

My guess is I am much more consistent than you, want to test my hypothesis?

 

[RDD_1210]

I thought the standard conservative argument was that despite decades of the 'war on poverty',

America's poor were worse off now, and more numerous, than ever?

Now you'd have us believe the opposite? That America's poor have it too good?

lol, make up your mind.

None of what the say or believe is consistent. Pick pretty much ANY topic and they can be shown to argue for two conflicting ideas on the same issue.

My guess is I am much more consistent than you, want to test my hypothesis?

LOL, sure. Go for it!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And that bolded part just about perfectly sums up everything you and the rest of the fake conservatives stand for. Well said.

I don't see you, or anyone else, posting anything that even comes close to disproving any of the assertions made in the article or the chart. The best anyone did was Cowman posting an article about a chart from a newspaper in Mississippi that has nothing to do with the chart I posted. That was a pathetic argument.

What would you like me to say? I've been down this road with you before on different topics and you refuse to discuss like an adult even when proven to be undeniably incorrect. So why would I bother with you again? That's lunacy.

Can you show me one time you have proven me undeniably wrong? If you managed to prove it, how did I still manage to deny it? Is it possible you don't understand English?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So according to this 'theory', I should be seeing people on welfare owning just as nice a home and driving just as nice a car as someone making 60,000 a year.

Where would I go to see that?

Somewhere you didn't have to pay city, county, state, and federal taxes on the $60,000.

The chart said a NET income of 57,000. That means taxes have already been taken out.

NOW, where in the world are people on welfare owning the same sort of homes and cars as people netting 57,000 a year?