It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What percentage of Americans get government assistance?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

butcherguy
I don't know.

But I do know that my ex-wife gets food assistance, cash assistance, they pay for at least part of her housing.

She has a nicer car than I own. She is currently trying to gain weight so that she can get a free gastric bypass operation... courtesy of Medicaid.

Oh, and even though she doesn't have a job, and hasn't ever paid me a cent of child support, she somehow managed to pay for breast enlargement surgery.

Why do I bother holding down a job??? (other than pride?)


Hmmm... She'll get hers after that bypass... That is one of the worst things you can do to your body. Everyone I know who has done it has had a ton of problems and they say they would never have done it had they know how bad it would be. Let people be stupid... They'll eventually get theirs... You can't control her so why waste time worrying about it?




posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


I'd be very careful about using The Heritage Foundation as a source for, well, anything.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Here in the UK we do not have food stamps, but we have free food banks run by

charities, where people who cannot manage on the benefits can get free food.


Yesterday I watched a TV programme on the BBC in which 5 people ( 2 soap stars,

a journalist, an entrepreneur, and I forget who the other was) each of who spent

three days with families who were on benefits, they had on average £1 per person

per day for food to manage on....


I had some sympathy for one family (two adults with two children) who were

saying that sometimes the adults went without food, so that the children could

eat, that was till the camera panned on the mother who was "smoking" and

talking on her mobile phone ........ 20 cigarettes average price £7. 80p per pack

and they only had £1 per person per day for food??

In my book some people have their priorities all wrong



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Well, first it depends on how you define assistance. And second, I'm sure that pretty much 100% of the Fortune 500 do.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SilverStarGazer
 

Yes, I know several people that have had the surgery and all have had negative side effects, two were near death.
I don't worry about it, but it does irritate me a bit that people like her take advantage of the system. She is fully capable of earning a living, but would rather soak up tax dollars.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

darkbake
reply to post by greencmp
 

I can definitely see the benefit in a healthy, self-reliant community of families, churches, small businesses and the like. Think of the family - it is a structure that can protect itself. The same thing with a community church (regardless of religion). Both of these are in direct competition with the Government for the services they provide.

If you weaken the family and the community to the point where everyone are strangers, you have easy pickings for the government to come in and offer "assistance."

What I see as the liberal goal is a country full of individuals with no attachments to each other who have their needs met by the system, and they really do function kind of similar to slaves, however with a higher quality of life.


I see entertainment being important, but not much original thought. That might even be discouraged. So basically, give someone a lobotomy, have everything at work laid out for them, put a television and smart phone in their living quarters - now, that could honestly be an attractive lifestyle to some people.
edit on 14amFri, 14 Mar 2014 07:58:50 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 14amFri, 14 Mar 2014 07:59:15 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


I've been saying that for a while.

Another thing to consider is that while you also have people who are living on benefits or need them to close their loops, you also have the army of bureaucrats who administer those programs and also need them to make their own living. They also depend on government and on average make at least 1/3 again more in their function than they would in a similar/analogous job in the private sector.

Now, you may not agree with what someone makes in the private sector, but why exactly does such a wide disparity exist across the board, job for job. You would think that there would be some things that are more valued for private than public and vice versa, but that's not the case.

And, then you get the big picture that 70% of government spending is writing checks to people.

So, we are indeed becoming a nation of wealth transfer. Take from some to give to others.

That isn't what we were supposed to be, and it's all being done in the name of being compassionate.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by darkbake
 


I'd be very careful about using The Heritage Foundation as a source for, well, anything.


Except that a lot of times, you can find Heritage Foundation articles that use U.S. government agencies as the source for their own numbers. So, if you are using statistics as your evidence, and the stats come from the government, but you pulled them from a think tank source ... does merely have them from a think tank instead of direct from the government agency somehow change the stats? Numbers are numbers, it's the analysis that provides the spin.

And in this case, the paper in question also cites their methodology. Instead of torpedoing the paper just because it comes from a think tank with which you disagree, go pick apart their methods and conclusions and show why they are wrong.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I'm adding this to my ATS for a more thorough read later. I will say if you've found a place that is revealing realistic stats I'm looking forward to seeing that. I've seen 10-12% and there is no way that is right for my area - nor the area I've been looking at in California. This forced dependency needs to get a lot of public attention so people will wake up (see what's truly happening - a slow but sure pied piper leading the masses to dependency.

And the OP is right on target - if on "any" assistance that comes from the government you're also scrutinized by the government (accountable to them) - all because it meets one or more basic needs that you can't meet yourself - because of the government. It isn't just individuals but also regulations on businesses (no more sole ownership as the government decides if you will stay open when you run it their way) - a hand in absolutely everything. I almost wish I didn't know about it as it's that frightening.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kurthall
 


All, any illegal immigrant that have children born in the US are born citizens this allow for the illegal immigrant mothers to be able to get any benefits under the law for their born US citizens children.

That is why most illegal immigrants the first thing they try is to have as many American born children as they can.


All children born on U.S. soil are automatically granted U.S. citizenship. This allows many illegal immigrant mothers to qualify for national, state and local welfare programs. While this process is not explicitly illegal, it does allow otherwise ineligible women to receive welfare benefits. Many citizens see this as a type of welfare fraud and use it as evidence justifying more legal restrictions for immigrants.


Read more: www.ehow.com...



edit on 14-3-2014 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I see how some view those who use the system, and I get just as frustrated by the energy that goes into how to get more or stay on it longer rather than how to step away from it (a solution). But there is a huge loss of motivation and self efficacy involved in here as well. And there is a reason for that.

Some variables to look at:

1). They make way more by being dependent. They know this. Earn money - get less in benefits - make less in the long run as the government takes away or punishes. Being vulnerable means getting basic needs met long term.

2). Way of life and generational. Patterns set long ago and alternatives not modeled.

3). Loss of motivation first generation as the government does #1 (punishes financially if you begin to earn rather than realistically helping to wean off dependency). Loss of motivation because they keep you busy with so much red tape this becomes your full time job. Loss of motivation because people feel hopeless and despondent as it is, and agencies make them feel like another number and are often punitively minded (treat like bad person and/or as incapable and/or as beneath).

All reported to me in my research time and time again.

Education - that is one reason but the above three are the most common I have found thus far. With education - if you take loans out and go to school the government will reward with benefits "if" you have someone in the household working part time (10-20 hours a week). This is good but many are going to school just to keep their benefits (because working too much lowers them). So these are people who don't have a desire to go to college and would be happy to just work.

Now we have forced health insurance, creating an additional incentive for being poor. What a screwed up time to come up with this idea - was it on purpose are are they just blind to the condition of the Nation?

There will always be lazy people who find ways to scam but this isn't the majority of the people on assistance. These are the stereotypes. Most want badly to get off of it. When will they be worn down? How many will escape it? I won't know for about 10 years when I add to my research (and I've just begun the first phase). Conditioning is a real problem in here. Some are able to stay outside of its grasp but as time goes on this number is getting smaller and smaller.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   

darkbake
, and his was inspired by Obama telling people to "prioritize" their budget by cutting out cable and cell phone services so they could afford his health care.


Gee.. I thought this was the Affordable Care Act? If it's so affordable.. why would you have to give up cable or phone usage to afford it?

Has anyone signed up for this crap? How much does it actually cost?

BTW.. What is the answer to the question What percentage of folks are on assistance? I read through the first page and never saw any percentage given.

I keep hearing things like it's 60 percent of the country - thats hard to swallow - whats the real number?
edit on 14-3-2014 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


It's about 50-60%. If you include free or reduced lunch programs the numbers go up. But it is difficult to get precision on this because your dealing with the government and different answers are given. It's something I'm working on now. Let's just say - the numbers are alarming. Especially since the entire point of this program was to make sure people didn't starve or go without the most basic of needs. It's quite telling of the economic state of our Country.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   


(October 23, 2013)
In the fourth quarter of 2011, 49.2 percent of Americans received benefits from one or more government programs, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.

In total, the Census Bureau estimated, 151,014,000 Americans out of a population then estimated to be 306,804,000 received benefits from one or more government programs during the last three months of 2011. Those 151,014,000 beneficiaries equaled 49.2 percent of the population.


Census: 49% of Americans Get Gov’t Benefits; 82M in Households on Medicaid




[ old related thread ].......
Under Obamanomics, America Morphs Into Welfare Nation



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I agree. Companies get far more government tax dollars than any person does, but corporate welfare isn't as sexy as personal welfare. You can't put a face on it and demonize it as easily, and that's exactly how your corporate masters like it.

Go point at that guy in the corner, he's different, he's not like you. Just ignore the ones pulling the puppet strings.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by darkbake
 


I'd be very careful about using The Heritage Foundation as a source for, well, anything.


Checking your link to learn more. The original quote of 49% came from Google, which got its source from the census.


JohnPhoenix

Has anyone signed up for this crap? How much does it actually cost?

BTW.. What is the answer to the question What percentage of folks are on assistance? I read through the first page and never saw any percentage given.


Those are super good questions. I earn around $800 a month at the moment. I get rent for $300 or so (which has strings attached), I spend around $200 on food, and $150 or so on bills (electric, internet) which leaves me with $100 or so - but my parents are already paying for my gas and my cell phone bill.

At any rate, my Affordable Care Act price was going to be $400 if I signed up for it, through the official website from Washington State. I can't afford that.

As for the answer, it is around 49% for basic assistance, like some posters mentioned, I think that number could go up if other things are included.
edit on 15amSat, 15 Mar 2014 02:27:10 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Dianec
 


Thanks, DianeC, that was a really informative analysis.

I really like your "Alternatives are not modeled" reason. I think that is something huge to look at. I notice that a lot of times in poor cultures (which is honestly becoming a majority of the nation) there are peer pressure aspects that are very hard-line that keep people from progressing.



Now we have forced health insurance, creating an additional incentive for being poor. What a screwed up time to come up with this idea - was it on purpose are are they just blind to the condition of the Nation?


I have been wondering about that myself - this has to be literally one of the worst times in history to suddenly introduce a new, unexpected bill into the monthly budget. Do the politicians really understand how bad the economy is?

They are all getting paid a salary, which automatically makes them better off than many of us.
edit on 15amSat, 15 Mar 2014 02:33:47 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 15amSat, 15 Mar 2014 02:34:12 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   

greencmp
reply to post by darkbake
 


It is bad for your own work ethic/self worth to live off the dole but, more importantly, it isn't free money, it comes from taxpayers and a huge proportion of it never actually finds any people in need.

Therefore, not only does it not perform its stated function, the cost of the failed attempt harms the economy.
edit on 14-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


Sure.... Exactly how much of your tax dollars goes to welfare where you live? FYI It does perform it's stated function I have no idea why you think it "harms the economy" and actually got stars for this belligerent misconception.

"Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy."
edit on 15-3-2014 by 3u40r15m because: eh..



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Thanks for your chart. As a side note, I'm not hostile towards people who get assistance. But I do think that it is strange, or at least notable, that getting government assistance is becoming more and more commonplace. I see that as more of a problem with the system than the recipients.

I don't think it is fair to blame recipients of aid for something that they cannot change, as they are not bureaucrats.

The biggest red flag that I see with the gigantic rate of government assistance would be the idea that the government could take away certain rights or civil liberties from upwards of 50% of the population in the guise of it being a contractual relationship.

Now, you could say that someone receiving food stamps should stand up to the man and whatnot and throw their hand-outs on the ground to make a philosophical statement, but that would be one of the last things on their minds when they are doing the budget.
edit on 15amSat, 15 Mar 2014 02:46:16 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by 3u40r15m
 


I agree here, 3u - my main point is that the fact that we have to have almost exactly half of our country on government assistance to me means that something is broken in the system. I think the government aid is being used to patch more systematic holes that need to be addressed.

And what happens to an entire generation that is out of work? How is that going to effect their kids? It will be a disaster - think of the amount of work and life skills that are going to be lost to the entire country for all time because of this.

That kind of stuff doesn't come back unless people are re-educated or something, because it is usually passed down from parent to kid under normal circumstances.

My point is, the "Make half the country dependent on the government" thing will probably take one of two directions, one, a slave class (similar to serfs) emerging along with a noble class, or two, people decide after the fact that they want to have skilled labor and the like and taxpayer money is put into that, honestly, the second option is what I'm pushing for.
edit on 15amSat, 15 Mar 2014 05:10:02 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

3u40r15m

greencmp
reply to post by darkbake
 


It is bad for your own work ethic/self worth to live off the dole but, more importantly, it isn't free money, it comes from taxpayers and a huge proportion of it never actually finds any people in need.

Therefore, not only does it not perform its stated function, the cost of the failed attempt harms the economy.
edit on 14-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


Sure.... Exactly how much of your tax dollars goes to welfare where you live? FYI It does perform it's stated function I have no idea why you think it "harms the economy" and actually got stars for this belligerent misconception.

"Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy."
edit on 15-3-2014 by 3u40r15m because: eh..


The point is that very little of my tax dollars actually make it to the needy, 15% of the allocated resources is my estimate.

The harm is the missing money from the pockets of citizens and the misconception (belligerent or otherwise) is yours.

If you want to defend the poor and needy then defend the poor and needy, don't defend the welfare state which worsens their plight and dissuades people from being personally charitable.







 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join