So if you pay into the system and take something out, that doesn't make you a recipient???

[tyroneweaver]

Are there more welfare recipients in the U.S. than full-time workers?

Politicfact here seams to have adopted the logic that any defense is better than no defense.
They ignore the fact that this many people receiving payouts is ridiculous; even if a few are paying into the system. Black/white thinking here
Sorta like if you caught someone stealing a dime and you accused them of stealing a nickel; they aren't guilty of stealing
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are there more welfare recipients in the U.S. than full-time workers?

Politicfact here seams to have adopted the logic that any defense is better than no defense.
They ignore the fact that this many people receiving payouts is ridiculous; even if a few are paying into the system. Black/white thinking here
Sorta like if you caught someone stealing a dime and you accused them of stealing a nickel; they aren't guilty of stealing
.

Nonsense.

The problem is you and most others on the right ignore the facts concerning what constitutes public assistance.

Indeed, you and most others on the right are comprehensively ignorant as to what public assistance actually is; otherwise you wouldn't be making failed, ridiculous attempts to vilify the programs and those who participate in them.

Let's look at some examples from your cited article:

“Jeffrey has chosen to use the most expansive definition. The number Jeffrey cited includes the "traditional" type of welfare, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, but also programs such as Medicaid and food stamps.”

Working Americans are eligible for food stamps and Medicaid, or Medicaid with a share of cost.

“He’s not comparing the number of households with a means-tested beneficiary to the number of households with a full-time worker. That would have been an apples-to-apples comparison. Rather, he’s comparing the number of households with a means-tested beneficiary to the number of full-time workers.”

Children, the elderly, those retired, incapacitated persons with minor children, and disabled Americans are eligible for programs such as Medicaid, they are also unable to work, and thus rendering the claim that 'more' Americans are receiving public assistance than working as false.

“While the claim is based on real numbers, it’s a fundamentally flawed, apples-and-oranges comparison. The number of "welfare" recipients -- unlike the number of workers -- is enlarged by the inclusion of children and senior citizens. The comparison also ignores that many "welfare" recipients actually work, so trying to separate the two categories creates a false dichotomy. We rate the claim False.”

Correct.

Take also into consideration the fact that the vast majority of those who receive public assistance do so for only a short period of time, never to return to a public assistance program.

 

[Spinster]

This is an astronomical problem and it continues to gain momentum. Today people are apathetic, unmotivated, ill equipped, lazy, greedy, and reliant. Fifty years ago there were no fall-back systems in place. Having this kind of thing now, people figure it's no big deal if they "can't" make it, so they don't try. Once folks depend on this sort of thing, they expect more and more of their needs should be handled for them. They become complacent and no longer strive to survive. Once you're on food stamps, you expect welfare, then you want social security disability when you don't have one, just because you figure it's owed you. Social security was supposed to be a forced retirement supplement which we paid into, but has become many's wet nurse. We're well on the road to having government take care of all our needs, and as a result we'll continue to relinquish more of our rights.

 

[SwimExpert]

Are there more welfare recipients in the U.S. than full-time workers?

Politicfact here seams to have adopted the logic that any defense is better than no defense.
They ignore the fact that this many people receiving payouts is ridiculous; even if a few are paying into the system. Black/white thinking here
Sorta like if you caught someone stealing a dime and you accused them of stealing a nickel; they aren't guilty of stealing
.

dafuk?

 

[Rotagilla]

This is an astronomical problem and it continues to gain momentum. Today people are apathetic, unmotivated, ill equipped, lazy, greedy, and reliant. Fifty years ago there were no fall-back systems in place. Having this kind of thing now, people figure it's no big deal if they "can't" make it, so they don't try. Once folks depend on this sort of thing, they expect more and more of their needs should be handled for them. They become complacent and no longer strive to survive. Once you're on food stamps, you expect welfare, then you want social security disability when you don't have one, just because you figure it's owed you. Social security was supposed to be a forced retirement supplement which we paid into, but has become many's wet nurse. We're well on the road to having government take care of all our needs, and as a result we'll continue to relinquish more of our rights.

The food stamp program is administered by the Dept. of Agriculture and they are proud(!) of the fact that with record numbers of americans on food stamps, they are able to handle the demand.

The National Park system is administered by the Dept. of the Interior.

When you visit a national park you'll see signs that say "Please don't feed the animals".

The logic being that if you give them handouts they lose the ability to fend for themselves and start relying on the handouts. They then become dangerous and aggressive toward humans if they don't receive enough free food.

 

[Claudette]

This is an astronomical problem and it continues to gain momentum. Today people are apathetic, unmotivated, ill equipped, lazy, greedy, and reliant. Fifty years ago there were no fall-back systems in place. Having this kind of thing now, people figure it's no big deal if they "can't" make it, so they don't try. Once folks depend on this sort of thing, they expect more and more of their needs should be handled for them. They become complacent and no longer strive to survive. Once you're on food stamps, you expect welfare, then you want social security disability when you don't have one, just because you figure it's owed you. Social security was supposed to be a forced retirement supplement which we paid into, but has become many's wet nurse. We're well on the road to having government take care of all our needs, and as a result we'll continue to relinquish more of our rights.

Bingo.

Years ago people survived without welfare, Medicaid or the rest of that social crap that we taxpayers are now saddled with.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say one group of people should be forced to take care of another group. Nowhere does it say that we taxpayers need to babysit anyone.

There are loads on welfare, freeloaders, who've made a good living using someone
else's money. Of course they love it. Its easy to raise kids when someone else is footing the bills.

Freeloaders abound in America.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is an astronomical problem and it continues to gain momentum. Today people are apathetic, unmotivated, ill equipped, lazy, greedy, and reliant. Fifty years ago there were no fall-back systems in place. Having this kind of thing now, people figure it's no big deal if they "can't" make it, so they don't try. Once folks depend on this sort of thing, they expect more and more of their needs should be handled for them. They become complacent and no longer strive to survive. Once you're on food stamps, you expect welfare, then you want social security disability when you don't have one, just because you figure it's owed you. Social security was supposed to be a forced retirement supplement which we paid into, but has become many's wet nurse. We're well on the road to having government take care of all our needs, and as a result we'll continue to relinquish more of our rights.

Name the rights you have lost by providing disabled people with welfare.

 

[Claudette]

Advise us why the families of these folks arent' taking care of them???

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say one group of people should be forced to take care of another group.

Preamble to the Constitution advocates uniting to promote the general welfare for We the People which includes everyone.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution

 

[Claudette]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say one group of people should be forced to take care of another group.

Preamble to the Constitution advocates uniting to promote the general welfare for We the People which includes everyone.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution

That's Promote for the general welfare, not provide. Big difference. Nowhere does it say in the constitution that a group of people need to babysit another group of people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Advise us why the families of these folks arent' taking care of them???

Advise us as to why families must be impoverished because the breadwinner(s) become disabled and can no longer work???

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say one group of people should be forced to take care of another group.

Preamble to the Constitution advocates uniting to promote the general welfare for We the People which includes everyone.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution

That's Promote, not provide. Big difference.

Semantics don't solve problems. Explain exactly how YOU would "promote" the general welfare of We the People.

 

[Claudette]

Advise us why the families of these folks arent' taking care of them???

Advise us as to why families must be impoverished because the breadwinner(s) become disabled and can no longer work???

Advise us where the families of these folks are??

 

[Claudette]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say one group of people should be forced to take care of another group.

Preamble to the Constitution advocates uniting to promote the general welfare for We the People which includes everyone.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution

That's Promote, not provide. Big difference.

Semantics don't solve problems. Explain exactly how YOU would "promote" the general welfare of We the People.

Semantics my ass.

Its not my responsibility to promote anything for anyone's welfare.

Its up to that individual to take care of himself. Failing that his family needs to step up to the plate.

Of course you can invite them all to your house so YOU can promote their welfare.

 

[Obiwan]

Advise us why the families of these folks arent' taking care of them???

Advise us as to why families must be impoverished because the breadwinner(s) become disabled and can no longer work???

If they were working and became disabled, that would qualify them to get Social Security Disability (which they paid into)...


Sitting on your lazy fat ass smoking crack doesn't...

 

[Spinster]

This is an astronomical problem and it continues to gain momentum. Today people are apathetic, unmotivated, ill equipped, lazy, greedy, and reliant. Fifty years ago there were no fall-back systems in place. Having this kind of thing now, people figure it's no big deal if they "can't" make it, so they don't try. Once folks depend on this sort of thing, they expect more and more of their needs should be handled for them. They become complacent and no longer strive to survive. Once you're on food stamps, you expect welfare, then you want social security disability when you don't have one, just because you figure it's owed you. Social security was supposed to be a forced retirement supplement which we paid into, but has become many's wet nurse. We're well on the road to having government take care of all our needs, and as a result we'll continue to relinquish more of our rights.

Name the rights you have lost by providing disabled people with welfare.

I said we WILL continue, that being social security to support retirees AND those fakers on disability as the funds diminish and go into the red. Duh!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Advise us why the families of these folks arent' taking care of them???

Advise us as to why families must be impoverished because the breadwinner(s) become disabled and can no longer work???

If they were working and became disabled, that would qualify them to get Social Security Disability (which they paid into)...


Sitting on your lazy fat ass smoking crack doesn't...

I hear the people talk when we feed the homeless, they call it "getting a crazy check"

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say one group of people should be forced to take care of another group.

Preamble to the Constitution advocates uniting to promote the general welfare for We the People which includes everyone.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution

That's Promote, not provide. Big difference.

Semantics don't solve problems. Explain exactly how YOU would "promote" the general welfare of We the People.

Semantics my ass.

Its not my responsibility to promote anything for anyone's welfare.

Its up to that individual to take care of himself. Failing that his family needs to step up to the plate.

Of course you can invite them all to your house so YOU can promote their welfare.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from this OP topic.

Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is an astronomical problem and it continues to gain momentum. Today people are apathetic, unmotivated, ill equipped, lazy, greedy, and reliant. Fifty years ago there were no fall-back systems in place. Having this kind of thing now, people figure it's no big deal if they "can't" make it, so they don't try. Once folks depend on this sort of thing, they expect more and more of their needs should be handled for them. They become complacent and no longer strive to survive. Once you're on food stamps, you expect welfare, then you want social security disability when you don't have one, just because you figure it's owed you. Social security was supposed to be a forced retirement supplement which we paid into, but has become many's wet nurse. We're well on the road to having government take care of all our needs, and as a result we'll continue to relinquish more of our rights.

Name the rights you have lost by providing disabled people with welfare.

I said we WILL continue, that being social security to support retirees AND those fakers on disability as the funds diminish and go into the red. Duh!

In other words you were lying when you claimed that you were "relinquishing your rights" in order for the government to provide welfare.

Thank you for clarifying.