2%? Welfare Fails the Poor March 3, 2004 In 2000, the United States spent $25.5 billion dollars on welfare, with about half of those funds coming from state governments. Despite the vast resources spent on welfare to help the poor, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute says that welfare has done more harm than good. One of the biggest problems with welfare, Tanner says, is the perverse incentives it gives recipients to have children -- arguably the underclass' largest problem. While women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits, removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock births takes away a major incentive to avoid them. More than three-fourths of more than 20 major studies on welfare recipients show a significant link between benefit levels and out-of-wedlock childbearing. Unfortunately, the non-economic consequences of illegitimacy, such as delinquency, mental illness and child abuse, have a tendency to perpetuate the problem. Also, children of single-parents are major contributors to neighborhood crime. Research shows that a 50 percent increase in welfare benefit levels leads to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men. Welfare has hurt the poor in other ways, says Tanner, including: •Welfare pays better than work for many recipients, thus eroding the incentive to find employment and working out of poverty. •Welfare promotes intergenerational dependence -- 29.3 percent of recipients had parents who received welfare as children and a remarkable 7.5 percent are third-generation recipients. •Saving and the accumulation of wealth -- one of the most important ways to break out of poverty -- is discouraged through low asset eligibility thresholds. Even the financing of welfare has deleterious effects on the poor -- for example, taxes on investment prevent job creation, and government spending on inefficient programs crowds out more efficient private-sector spending. Source: Michael Tanner, "The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society," (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2003). Previous Article / Next Article Full Article List notice this was 2004, I will look for more current figures, but we both know they will be far worse. when you figured that 7 percent were third generation wellfair..this system needs to be fixed
The 2% I referred to were people who knowingly accepting welfare payments that he/she were not legally eligible for. That's not an exact number and I'm sure it varies from program to program. Your article is arguing the ineffectiveness of welfare which is a whole other debate entirely.
I don't think the question of 2% accepting payments they're not eligible for matters. I bet it is way less than 2% anyhow. It's that half or more of the people on it shouldn't be, and the safety net is there to catch you when you fall, not be your hammock. They used to talk about welfare as a hand up not a hand out. Make it truly that way and it's a winner.
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc72b.pdf (CNN) -- For most of American history, the average farmer, shop owner or entrepreneur could live an entire life without getting anything from the federal government except mail service. But those days have gone the way of the Pony Express. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that 49% of the population lives in a household where at least one person gets some type of government benefit. The Heritage Foundation's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks government spending and creates a weighted score adjusted for inflation of federal programs that contribute to dependency. It reports that in 2010, 67.3 million Americans received either Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Social Security, support for higher education or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions -- an 8% increase from the year before. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/opinion/spalding-welfare-state-dependency Over 100 million US residents on welfare According to an excerpt from the committee’s new presentation, nearly one-in-three US residents receive government assistance — and that’s not even including those benefitting from Social Security or Medicare. Over 100 million people in the United States are now receiving some form of federal welfare, GOP reps claim, a figure they’ve found after combing through statistics collected from the US Census’s Survey of Income and Program Participation. Paired with recent figures out of the Census Bureau, that brings the percentage of people residing in the States receiving some form or another of federal welfare at nearly one-in-three, given that the country’s population is estimated to be around 314 million, according to the department’s most recent statistics.
Bud, when we are talking multi generational..It does not take much to realize that it has become a game not to mention seconed generation at nearly 30 fricken percent
Wait twenty years until some of these broods being raised today take their turn and the trough. Momma's with no hubby raising seven or so each with some disability or other that each sweeten the family take in subsidies. Enough so that research into the what and how is their business and can't be waisting time on this job routine. Can you imagine the expertise these families with have when they all can contribute the effort.
OK I will try to remove emotional appeals from the equation, although, IMO, emotions are a good thing. For me, thank god congressman, the president and judges have emotions. First, lol at "voluntary temporary cessation of voting as a condition of welfare receipt". You might see it as voluntary. I guess the choice is starve or be homeless or give up your right to vote. I don't consider that voluntary. Really it is if you are on welfare you lose your right to vote, plain and simple. Without researching the issue, I believe the right to vote is a deeply embedded constitutional right that should not be used or played with because some people in the welfare system abuse it. That is going into dangerous territory. That idea punishes a lot of innocent people who have no control over their situation. It would be a policy that falsely assumes many people can get out of welfare and to me is like taking a sledgehammer to kill a fly. It also would mean we would have a society where I can get drunk, drive, get into a crash blow twice the legal limit . . . walk out of jail and do it again the next day and still be able to vote. I can walk into Fred Meyers, steal $800 dollars worth of stuff, run from the police, spit on them and resist arrest and still be able to vote. I can hit my wife and still be able to vote. I can wave a knife around in a public area or at police threatening to kill them, and still be able to vote. I can jack off in front of kids and still be able to vote. But if the gov't helps me out because I have no source of income I can't vote. What the hell is up with a system like that? While somehow you think this idea has legs and should be pursued, I can guarantee that this is something that will never happen. It so offends the basic ideas of being a citizen in the US that no way any gov't (republican or democrat) does this. OK my turn, do you not feel any sympathy for some of the people on welfare. There have been stories (alway are) of people knowing others abusing the system. There are just as many stories of people being in real need of help. Do you think, on a human level, it is wrong to take away something as important as the right to vote because someone has no source of income and needs help from the gov't? Is there any understanding at all of what they are going through how life really is not great for them. And then to treat them like felons and say on top of that you can't vote. Do you, emotionally, feel that is the right thing to do. Take away one of the few rights you are born with because they are poor just so you can weed out the abusers. Isn't there another way? Also, could you explain how taking away someone's right to vote will in fact weed out the abusers?
We've already passed the threshold. We're now a socialist country that still depends on capitalism to support it. The voters are never going back to softening welfare or government grants. The new "middle-class" is going to be not much different than today's lower class, and those at the top end will continue to widen the gap. Why do you think even Obama, who champions the "middle class", is having yet another $32,400/plate dinner in LA next week? He's not even running again! It's to keep the gravy train rolling, while the sheep continue to fight it over over Team GOP or Team Democrat. When was the last time any leader of the GOP or Dems had a $50/plate dinner with the middle class, to hear their concerns and gain their influence?
Just hang on papag . . . my money is on a Republican president next term. And Obama is helping pave that path, no matter how much money he raises for the democrats.
Hey we agree on something. There are subtle differences, but not much would change. With all this banging on Obama (he has helped your cause), I figured you were just counting the days until a republican president is in office. I'm thinking to be a sport, I should agree to take the democrat in the next election in a bet with you. I feel like it would be giving my money away, but if I'm going to bet on the next election it would probably be fair to make it with you and let you have the pick.
Fuck he has. When did that happen? We make less money now, and my wife's job now entails of government exchange "experts" telling them where they are missing, when they know more than the "experts", and even when they show the "experts" how they fucked up, it doesn't matter. This country is miserable right now. It's fitting that both the Super Bowl were delayed, and now the opening of the NFL season is delayed. This entire country is stuck waiting for something positive to happen, for some act of some god to get us moving while we sit around dithering.
I meant that you are very critical of Obama and that his actions in office has given you lots of material to be critical of.
``There's another fellow,'' muttered Scrooge; who overheard him: ``my clerk, with fifteen shillings a week, and a wife and family, talking about a merry Christmas. I'll retire to Bedlam.'' This lunatic, in letting Scrooge's nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge's office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him. ``Scrooge and Marley's, I believe,'' said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. ``Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?'' ``Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,'' Scrooge replied. ``He died seven years ago, this very night.'' ``We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,'' said the gentleman, presenting his credentials. It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word ``liberality'', Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back. ``At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,'' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ``it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'' ``Are there no prisons?'' asked Scrooge. ``Plenty of prisons,'' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. ``And the Union workhouses?'' demanded Scrooge. ``Are they still in operation?'' ``They are. Still,'' returned the gentleman, `` I wish I could say they were not.'' ``The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?'' said Scrooge. ``Both very busy, sir.'' ``Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,'' said Scrooge. ``I'm very glad to hear it.'' ``Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,'' returned the gentleman, ``a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'' ``Nothing!'' Scrooge replied. ``You wish to be anonymous?'' ``I wish to be left alone,'' said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.'' ``Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'' ``If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.'' ``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman. ``It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!''
My bad. Misread your post. I can't stand either party at this point, but the Dems are in control, and have been for almost 5 years at this point. [video=youtube;-JeRwop6LAI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JeRwop6LAI[/video]
Just came across this on reddit, found it relevant and believable. Seems to me there are better areas of the country to focus our time and money on fixing, which will actually indirectly help the welfare "problem".
