posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 05:49 PM
originally posted by: Merinda
And despite the fact that the majority of recepients do work is a well known fact !!
It's also known that they can work the system.
A single mother in Pennsylvania who is working full-time at minimum wage can work the system and have enough disposable income after all her
assistance programs to have more at hand than a family of four with a $65K/year income.
So, yes, she is working. The thing is that if she miscalculates, she loses a LOT in terms of income because she will lose her assistance in or more
areas. Certainly, she loses more than she could make by going it alone.
However, at what point is it fair for her to be living better off the state than the people who have tax liability to help her realize that standard
of living? And second, why should her assistance be all or nothing to the point where it is better for her to mediate herself and her potential to
continue to accept all that state assistance to make her living rather than try to climb out of the pit toward full independence?
Well, I can at least answer the last question -- That's because it benefits politicians more to have a pool of voters who are eternally indebted to
them for their living. If the single mother is eternally in fear of government taking away her living, she will always vote for the person who
promises to never take it away, and she will sound like all of you who accuse those of us who don't want to continually subsidize this woman when we
suggest that maybe she ought to be encouraged to find ways to support herself rather than spend her life in fear the government could take away her
After all, what will happen in places like California and Detroit when the dependent finally understand the hard way ... that the government actually
doesn't have an endless supply of free money, that there is no "stash" that never runs out?