Study: NY Welfare Recipients Eligible For More In Benefits Than Teachers Earn

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by neo96

 

are you really opineing that no one should ever receive welfare ?

PS - try answering my original question

edit on 19-8-2013 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)

Try reading what I say how about that ?

HOW MANY TIMES do I have to keep linking what I said because some people REFUSE to read it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Said it the op.

Said it agian

And saying it once more

ONCE AGAIN

Some people need to stop being so willfully obtuse.

reply to post by neo96


thank you for contradicting yourself :

The only thing anyone is 'entitled' to is the money they earn on their own.

That's it

you were saying ?

The article in question not-withstanding, here is what I see everyday as a grocery store checker.

I see people come in purchasing large amounts of food on EBT. They sometimes come in as a group and buy $300 worth of food or more. They purchase it on one individuals card and share it among families, "because they get so much more than they can use themselves". That is a direct quote from one. They do this with WIC items as well. Some of these folks have a $1000+ balance AFTER these purchases.

I see people come in and purchase top of the line products for one day meals such as large bbq's in which they are entertaining friends. Often, they comment about needing to stop by the liquor store afterwards, "since you don't sell it here".

I see people come in wearing designer clothing, using iphones, pulling those EBT cards from designer bags.

Now, I don't begrudge the poor from utilizing services if they truly need it. I've been there too. I don't see a problem with someone who lost their job, got ill, whatever, using these services as a hand-up. I've been there, too. But, it hacks me off whenever I am working my fanny off and my family lives without tv, cell phones, etc., and I can't even afford to shop at the store I work for, because they are a small, home-owned outfit and as such, prices are higher than Aldi.

The new welfare state is not what it was whenever I was a single mother going to school. I remember wearing the same three outfits to class and my daughter and I decorating our Christmas tree with paper ornaments and popcorn strings because that's all we could afford. I remember being so thankful to God and our church whenever we were selected to receive a food basket because I honestly didn't know how we would eat for the next two weeks. I shopped at the cheapest place in town for the cheapest food in town and I never entertained anyone.

My family and I may struggle, but we make it without help. I see families that honestly need the services they receive. You can tell when they come in. They look like they need it, mostly. Most who are temporarily having a hard time are very ashamed to use the EBT card. Another troubling thing I have been noticing over the last few months is an unusual amount of new EBT users who are elderly. I don't have a problem with them using it. I feel like most of them have surely earned it, but I find it concerning that a large number of these people who I believe would have been too proud for welfare are using it. It makes me take notice of just how sad our state of affairs has become.

reply to post by neo96


How much "welfare" was given to those who legally came to America from 1850-1920?

How much "welfare" was given to those who became citizens from 1850-1920?

How many people were on some sort of "disability" between those times also? How did those people survive back then?

Just wondering if you had those statistics Neo.

Thanks.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Nope simple fact people on welfare do not earn that money.

So someone was saying.

People are not entitled to welfare, they are GIvEN other peoples money who did earn it.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by neo96

 

thank you for contradicting yourself :

The only thing anyone is 'entitled' to is the money they earn on their own.

That's it

you were saying ?

Just imagine how much one earns in their lifetime, and Government has decided whats best for your "earned' money.



Illegal Wars.

The Buying of Companies, and Bailing them out.

Too big to fail.

The Waste.

Trillions in Debt.

Green Programs, such as Solyndra. 1200 jobs lost.

Robbing programs such as Social Security.

I could go on and on.

But...Let Governmemt decide whats best for you. Cause they have all the answers. They are ALWAYS right.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by neo96

 

How much "welfare" was given to those who legally came to America from 1850-1920?

How much "welfare" was given to those who became citizens from 1850-1920?

How many people were on some sort of "disability" between those times also? How did those people survive back then?

Just wondering if you had those statistics Neo.

Thanks.

edit on 19-8-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)

That's easy. None

Because?

Let's see here.

GW Bush's Mother Barbara is related to former President Franklin Pierce (POTUS 1853 - 1857).

And GW Bush's Father is a descendent of:

James Smith Bush (1825–1889) Father of Samuel P. Bush;

Samuel P. Bush (1863–1948), Father of Prescott Bush and Son of James Smith Bush


So it HAD to be Bush's fault somewhere

reply to post by sonnny1

Too big to fail.

Welfare is 'too big to fail'

Social Security is 'too big to fail'

That 200 bucks a month for singles, and hundreds more for 'families' all so people can stuff their bellies full of GMO foods.

That 1000 buck a month 'safety net' who would have a better standard of living invested anywhere else.

Hell it's a slow death, but they sure spin it differently.

The government has been bailing out corporations under the guise of the 'war on poverty' since the New Deal.

American's longest corporate sponsored war in American history, and the most costliest.

What a complete, and utter joke.

reply to post by matafuchs

correction: what both "parties" are doing

see words of wisdom below:

Originally posted by wrabbit2000

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by neo96

 

Don't blame the people, blame the ones responsible - your government.

Just my opinion.

Agreed here. It's the same thing that makes the immigration issue so sticky when considering people who really did just come with full intent to work. I imagine your country isn't much different.

The Government makes the system. Sets the rules. Then not only encourages people to join up (openly advertising in campaigns on the topic here at times, no less) but let the economy go to hell so bad that a good many people now have no choice.

Then, as if for the grand finale' of nerve, they actively push the public who isn't taking the benefits to hate those who are ...and those who are taking the benefits to blame the fact they are on the people who aren't.

Damn..You'd almost think it might have been a scenario written in some old Psychological Warfare manual, huh?

siighhh... just like you wrabbit, posting mostly "sane" stuff and then suddenly batting one out of the park and out of the state with a Totally "Insane" Post like the above :shk:

you do realize this constant see-sawing keeps you from taking up your Rightful Position as a Bishop, nay Cardinal of the CUT?

Oh well, I Suppose I'll just have to declare you, for now, though not of the faithful,
a "Mad" Prophet

[lol, I See that laughing wasn't the only thing xuenchen forgot]

reply to post by TheMagus


I've just been burying my bunny ears back into the most recent White House submitted budget for a new project I'm working on...and so, fresh and familiar with the numbers. It rubs my fur real hard in the wrong way to see a pittance of a program in Welfare slammed when 2/3rds of the entire federal budget at present is taken by entitlement programs which have absolutely nothing to do with that.

If your house is burning down....do you run around to fix the rain gutter that's been falling off for a year or do you call the fire department before the place burns to the ground?

What is actually KILLING us isn't TANF, SNAP, Commodities, School Lunches or anything of that class. It's over a trillion in Social Security Old Age Retirement (Per year real soon and hasn't really BEGUN to explode yet) and over a trillion in combined subsidized medical of all forms out of tax money, also no where NEAR what it's going to be in coming years as a BIG generation goes into long term, age related health issues.

This...would piss off people with power, influence and AARP cards. It would infuriate a growing large % of the nation either sucking medical benefits by choice and comfort or taking them for lack of any other choice left by those in power right now.

Sure....Social Security has been paid into and those folks DID pay for it. They also elected, for decades, the politicians who SPENT IT. Life sucks...but I've paid into it as well. At 40? It'll have imploded and taken our nation with it before I get to the right age. .....but hey, it's A LOT more fun to pick on and bash families that've been run over by Obama's hope parade.

reply to post by wrabbit2000

Sure....Social Security has been paid into and those folks DID pay for it. T

Well they paid 6% in to it the rest is made up by the employer's that still doesn't cover it or by taking from money from people to pay for those who are, and for decades before they ever see a cent, and when they started paying in to that the value of the dollar was considerably more than by the time it is their turn.

That is why it is running massive deficits as it was never designed to be self sufficient.

Feel free to disagree.

reply to post by neo96


Well, indeed.. I do disagree and I figure you knew I would. lol...

Social Security is broke and failing fast because it's been a 'pay as you go' system as opposed to banked funds generating interest for a very long time now.

Hey, that works great if you have enough workers to support the retired class in society. This really gets right back down to the VERY core basics of geography and civilization. When those taking and not producing exceed those left to support it, the society falls in quality of life, it collapses or both.

In fact, it HAS worked great because the ratio worked until the Baby Boomers started into the system and retirement a few years ago. A trickle is a flow now and a flood to come. These numbers which are crippling now are fixing to become outright back breaking.

I'm working with the 5000+ line budget files and those just aren't fit to post for an example but the White House is kind enough to do a little parsing of their own material for us.

White House Historic Budget Tables

The one you're looking for is; Table 13.1—Cash Income, Outgo, and Balances of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds: 1936–2018

The file size isn't anything. 107k. It's very wide though so Google chokes on it. If you have Excel, it loads right up and runs smooth as glass. The specific lines you're looking for are the Surplus to Deficit of each fund broken down. It's a very ugly picture of a very ugly set of programs through VERY serious mismanagement by both parties for decades.

By contrast, to see GOOD management and a system that is NOT "Pay as you go" to require a worker ratio just to make payments?

How Privatized Social Security Works in Galveston

Pardon the Perry stuff. It's out of the Primary season but it's as good a snapshot as any for the basic facts of the system those folks built in one very bright exception ...so bright, Congress passed laws to insure no one else could follow them and do it again.

I looked through the study and I didn't find it to be bogus. They acknowledged that most recipients don't get the full package. I think the fact that, from a purely monetary standpoint, being on the assistance programs is a better alternative to working for a single mother is legitimate.

I think it is a serious issue in our society, the amount of transfer payments. The problem is that any type of reform with respect to poverty assistance would be a very complex process. You can't just end the programs, or even cut them in half. An action like that would just devastate too many people.

We need to substantially change our economy and workforce. There should be a private sector alternative to government programs- some kind of all inclusive community where expenses are driven down through purchasing power and jobs/training is provided. A major issue with the entire system is the cost of living. The medicare number shouldn't be so high because health care costs are inflated. Food prices would be driven down if there were local production specifically for the poor at non profit costs. Housing could cost much less if units were rented in a community non-profit setting.

I think a good direction to go would be to decrease the presence of government in all of these things- health care, housing, education, poverty...but there has to be a major initiative of building an organization that can absorb these sectors. I think a deficit is better than people homeless and starving- but the best would be to be able to handle these problems in a private non-profit manner.

reply to post by wrabbit2000

In fact, it HAS worked great because the ratio worked until the Baby Boomers started into the system and retirement a few years ago. A trickle is a flow now and a flood to come. These numbers which are crippling now are fixing to become outright back breaking.

I don't think so don't think government should be in the business of providing 'safety nets'.

Where people should be providing for their golden years themselves instead of government taking money from them for decades, and then TAXES them to cover the shortfall.

Then decades later they have to beg government for it.

Where as private retirement accounts over the same period of time makes more money, that yeilds higher income tax revenue for government, and can access anytime during their lives for when the SHTF.

Thus not being dependent upon anyone not their neighbors, not their government.

Oh BTW I need to clarify my usage of the world 'welfare' when I say it I mean ALL social programs because they consume more wealth than they generate..

See and those few bucks people pay in to medicare doesn't cover the benefits received, and anyone on SS has medicare automatically deducted.

This also creates more debt because everyone is using it hardly anyone is paying for it, and the difference is made up by scamming new people, and TAXING others to cover the difference.

The entire system is screwed up and I would never have said SS or Medicare and any government program works well, and the biggest reason they haven't is that 17 trillion dollars in debt on one set of books, and the 100+trillion on another set of books.

That all line corporate pockets.

Feel free to have your say, but don't think we are going to agree on this.

reply to post by neo96


The thing is.... We DO agree on most and that's what makes this hard. What we don't agree on is the nature and timing of going after these benefits. Not the need for very dramatic reform of the whole thing. Really, the WHOLE thing. However, NOT when the nation is at it's lowest. Not when we're hurting the most. Don't do elective surgery on a patient when they're already fighting unrelated infections. It tends to kill the patient.

In this case.. Well, we NEED the programs in the most basic way. By that I mean, there has to be something to support the elderly and for our lifetimes in time span anyway. Why? Because everyone has been promised there would be. Hence...a majority do NOT have retirement. Ergo.... Have no program? Then bring MANY body bags. I'm not over dramatizing because those programs are the only difference between today and the Great Depression.

Unemployment is brutal. Headlines this morning indicated about 8 states driving that media hoopla about better figures while 3x's that many saw the rate go UP. ooops.... Fuzzy math by those guys again. They make a habit of it and count on no one noticing the correction later. So we don't even have the producing workers to help support their own elderly relatives (Or themselves in enough cases, if programs terminated).

Now SHOULD this all be Uncle Sam's duty to wet nurse? No.. It shouldn't. Then again, it wasn't Uncle Sam's toy to BREAK in the first place. They did break it though and really, broke it like Humpty Dumpty over the last 13 years. Given that? They broke it...Yes, they DO need to maintain the support which is keeping some alive right now ..until they've fixed what they ruined. THEN kick people off the rolls who won't go work....when the rates aren't still climbing or holding at record high levels.

reply to post by wrabbit2000

The thing is.... We DO agree on most and that's what makes this hard. What we don't agree on is the nature and timing of going after these benefits. Not the need for very dramatic reform of the whole thing. Really, the WHOLE thing. However, NOT when the nation is at it's lowest. Not when we're hurting the most. Don't do elective surgery on a patient when they're already fighting unrelated infections. It tends to kill the patient.

Really a moot issue anyway no one listens to me, and hell those people in Washington will never do anything about it.

This patient is already on life support the doctors are prescribing aspirin to kill cancer.

reply to post by neo96

Really a moot issue anyway no one listens to me

Don't see yourself short. You carry the respect of a lot of people around here and I'd count myself among them. People do listen and consider...even if we don't always agree.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by neo96

 

Don't blame the people, blame the ones responsible - your government.

Just my opinion.

Agreed here. It's the same thing that makes the immigration issue so sticky when considering people who really did just come with full intent to work. I imagine your country isn't much different.

The Government makes the system. Sets the rules. Then not only encourages people to join up (openly advertising in campaigns on the topic here at times, no less) but let the economy go to hell so bad that a good many people now have no choice.

Then, as if for the grand finale' of nerve, they actively push the public who isn't taking the benefits to hate those who are ...and those who are taking the benefits to blame the fact they are on the people who aren't.

Damn..You'd almost think it might have been a scenario written in some old Psychological Warfare manual, huh?

Bang on the nail.

Your government (and ours in the UK), have deliberately targeted everyone who takes from the taxpayer and while you're distracted and hating on them, our corrupt governments can get on with their corrupt jobs of taking care of just themselves and their wealthy accomplices by screwing every honest citizen further into the ground.

Even working people are now being pinned with a 'scrounger' label just because they are forced to claim benefits due to poverty wages. How can these people be scroungers when they work?

I would never object to taxpayer money being used to help poor people with their basic human needs, never.

What I do object to, is whilst politicians and MP's are telling us we should not be taking taxpayer money for any reason, they entitle themselves to robbing the pot of millions to provide multiple homes and luxury lifestyles just for themselves and their hangers-on. They don't have to be means-tested to receive taxpayers money like the rest of us have to. They can just TAKE what they want, however much they want, whenever they want, even though their tax-dodging offshore bank accounts are bulging with cash.

I think that if we're talking about people who are abusing the taxpayer and the system - politicians have made it so only they can abuse the system.

The system was created to improve our society by getting poor people off the streets, and ensuring they don't go hungry and no need to steal or beg in the streets just to survive. A society would be safer with few poor people.

It wasn't created for rich people to plunder, but that's how it's ended up. Politicians have made it so that everyone asking for any taxpayer assistance is subjected to rigorous medicals, and have their bank statements raked through to prove they're destitute. No-one escapes this - except politicians. If we insisted the same rules apply to them as the rest of us, they wouldn't be entitled to a penny.

I can never understand why welfare-haters can't/don't/won't see this - it's so blatant you can't miss it.

I'm afraid I got ripped off then, in the year I had to be on it.
Approx 5,100 a year in food stamps. (like 420 a month)
Approx 6,300 a year in cash.
For me and 2 little kids. This was 1994-1995 in MI.

This is exactly why I worked so hard, to get the job I have. Which is the point of the program anyway right? (or suppose to be.)

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by neo96

 

Ya know Neo, my best friend whom died years ago of kidney failure loved his job. He was a janitor at a college. When he had to have a kidney transplant and afterwards he got better and wanted to go back to work, he found out that because if he worked, he would lose his ability to buy his medication (which he needed to stay alive)..............

So does his choice to not work to live make him lazy? [I am not insinuating you said anything like that, but using it as an example of how people fall into different situations and categories)

Yes! Some people are just looking for an easy ride. But I would be willing to bet that other members of ATS know of people whom were in the same or similar situation as my friend was..............

Like I said, "Don't hate the player, hate the game!".

Survival can become and ugly monster..............

I really don't think Neo was having a go at genuine cases like your example, but you have to agree that there are a lot of professional welfare claimers. It's all they'll ever have to do. I've claimed benefits in the UK before, when I've struggled to find work, but I know plenty people who still claim because they'd rather not and keep claiming government money.