Discussion on Welfare and other Social Programs

[aaron]

maybe they've had that car for quite some time? maybe they're stuck in a lease or upside-down on the payments? maybe it was a gift? maybe they just lost their job? maybe it's not even their car?

Means Tested. It's rarely applied because (almost universally) states spend nearly no money on auditing and examining claims.

Next time you're driving through a run down neighborhood, look closely at how nice the cars are versus the crappy homes they are parked in front of. SUV's with $1000 rims. Then keep an eye out for how many houses have satellite TV dishes.

You see, I agree that welfare options are necessary. I think that a social safety net gives people a chance to fall down and pick themselves back up. A single mother struggling to pay the bills? I'll never question her receiving WIC. A disabled man living in a state with terrible healthcare (i.e. My own state of Texas, sadly) is a definite candidate for a little support. But when I see able bodied people enjoying numerous luxuries using public funds to buy their food, it's not jealousy that makes me upset or suspicious. It's frustration at the likelihood that the person in question represents my tax dollars being wasted when there is someone else in true need who is being shut out of the system.

And you want to know who appointed me to care? I did when I paid my taxes.

you're using the exact same logic here, though, in assuming that because someone has nice "things" and is using government assistance, then they are automatically gaming the system and shouldn't use it. i have seen this logical fallacy trumpeted time and time again and i personally believe it boils down to what people thing "poor people" SHOULD look like or how they SHOULD behave. my (personal) problem with this line of thinking is that it is completely uncalled for and makes it all the more demeaning for the person on the receiving end of the benefits. i've been on wic, and i've been on snap, and it fucking sucks. it sucks even more when you pull out the card (or checks, if you're using WIC) and people look at you like you should be wearing rags, using a flip phone, and driving away in something like Jed Clampett's jalopy.

[aaron]

I have seen one case similar to what Flake was saying, at a Handy Andy. I personally found that case very suspect, seeing as the brand new BMW still had paper plates on it. I just don't really see someone who is actually in need of food stamps having a brand new car like that, unless it is a case where they are borrowing it or some such.

right, ok, sure, but the point here is, who the fuck cares? who appointed you the judge of that person's character or right to receive government assistance? the point of the program is to help people. Not to "help people but."

Well, in the case that person did own the car, then they are a flat out idiot who shouldn't get government help. If you are on food stamps and decide to buy a high dollar expensive car like that, you really shouldn't be given help anymore.

i am glad that you now decide who is granted and denied government assistance, then.

[BoneSnapDeez]

Woah woah woah on this one. If the house is a rental and a previous tenant had gotten satellite, they could've left the dish behind when the moved. Many homes I've lived in had dishes on them, even though we didn't actually have service. Hell my current house has a dish and we don't have any kind of cable at all.

Do people really not know that satellite service providers don't remove the dishes? I have a non-functioning dish on the house I rent, as a matter of fact. I'm not taking that shit down.

[Luke]

Do people really not know that satellite service providers don't remove the dishes? I have a non-functioning dish on the house I rent, as a matter of fact. I'm not taking that shit down.

For Halloween you should wrap it in foil and attach a Speak n' Spell and a telephone to that sucker and phone home.

[Flake]

@Aaron: Did you not take note of the very specific way I worded my beef? Luxury. Newest. Latest. If I see someone whip at the SNAP card and later notice them getting into a nice car that's a couple of years old, I won't even remember it a few minutes later. If I see someone using benefits while talking on an iPhone 5S, then YES, I am going to make assumptions.

Being on benefits sucks. It's not supposed to be fun. The idea is to prevent people from falling into such abject poverty that their ability to find gainful employment or take care of their children vanishes.

If someone receiving benefits is going to spend their money on nice things that many hard working, tax-paying citizens cannot reasonably purchase for themselves, then they need to be removed from the rolls to make room for a person or family that is legitimately in need.

Again, I pay taxes. That is money coming out of my pocket. I have zero problem paying taxes when the money is used wisely. Recently San Antonio raised the sales tax by a fraction to provide money for a pre-kindergarten program. Pissed a lot of people off but not this guy: The science was there to indicate that it meant that the students that took part would have a much better chance of getting ahead in life. That's a great use of my money. But if I see my money being spent poorly or pissed away, I feel I have the right to be annoyed.

[Jmustang1968]

The obvious point being made is that those getting government assistance shouldn't be shelling out for luxuries if they cannot afford food and necessities for themselves. Or it is the line of thinking 'government has me taken care of for food, so now I can buy these'.

While welfare helps out those with no means to take care of themselves like children and disabled, it has also allowed a mindset of fiscal irresponsibility. People living beyond their means while not saving and/or taking care of essentials. But they don't have to as they know they have that government safety net. It isn't laziness, but more so a case of skewed priorities in these instances. It then fosters resentment from those who are responsible when they have to shoulder the burden of those who aren't. These people work hard just to make ends meet and provide for their family while they see others with nicer luxuries than them getting gov assistance.

[AppleQueso]

Look, these boogiemen abusing welfare and getting luxuries that people who don't need welfare can't afford are an extreme minority.

The idea of painting the entire system as something that encourages a "mindset of fiscal irresponsibility" because of a handful of cases and random anecdotes is ridiculous.

These people work hard just to make ends meat

Hungry I take it?

[aaron]

@Aaron: Did you not take note of the very specific way I worded my beef? Luxury. Newest. Latest. If I see someone whip at the SNAP card and later notice them getting into a nice car that's a couple of years old, I won't even remember it a few minutes later. If I see someone using benefits while talking on an iPhone 5S, then YES, I am going to make assumptions.

Being on benefits sucks. It's not supposed to be fun. The idea is to prevent people from falling into such abject poverty that their ability to find gainful employment or take care of their children vanishes.

If someone receiving benefits is going to spend their money on nice things that many hard working, tax-paying citizens cannot reasonably purchase for themselves, then they need to be removed from the rolls to make room for a person or family that is legitimately in need.

Again, I pay taxes. That is money coming out of my pocket. I have zero problem paying taxes when the money is used wisely. Recently San Antonio raised the sales tax by a fraction to provide money for a pre-kindergarten program. Pissed a lot of people off but not this guy: The science was there to indicate that it meant that the students that took part would have a much better chance of getting ahead in life. That's a great use of my money. But if I see my money being spent poorly or pissed away, I feel I have the right to be annoyed.

you are aware that, nationally, the US Gov't only spends 10% of tax dollars on assistance programs? and only about half of that is spent on welfare and unemployment combined? Texas' percentages are even lower. spend some time here if you're truly concerned about where "your money" is going.

the underlying point that i have been trying to make here is, if you see your money being spent poorly or pissed away, you need to be pissed off at your lawmakers, not at the person receiving the benefits because they don't "deserve" them.

[Flake]

the underlying point that i have been trying to make here is, if you see your money being spent poorly or pissed away, you need to be pissed off at your lawmakers, not at the person receiving the benefits because they don't "deserve" them.

Oh, you think that my frustration is reserved solely for undeserving recipients? Well, allow me to disabuse you of that notion. I hold the lawmakers of my state in the greatest contempt (See: Ted Cruz). Again, "Means Tested" is the gold standard here. If someone has requested to benefit from tax payer money, it's not their choice whether or not they are scrutinized. The vast majority of people need those benefits and I am glad they have them. As for those who receive benefits when they shouldn't? I'll continue to resent them.

[Jmustang1968]

Look, these boogiemen abusing welfare and getting luxuries that people who don't need welfare can't afford are an extreme minority.

The idea of painting the entire system as something that encourages a "mindset of fiscal irresponsibility" because of a handful of cases and random anecdotes is ridiculous.

These people work hard just to make ends meat

Hungry I take it?

Typed it on my phone, so it was an autofill.

Not just a handful of cases with fiscal responsibility. Many live beyond their means. When unfortunate circumstances strike, they then have no nest egg or plans to fall back on. And, they don't have to as they know they will be taken care of. Therefore, people have no incentive to not live beyond their means.

I don't fault people themselves for taking money. If someone is going to give you free money, it is irrational to turn down the help. Only a few of the most prideful will do that. My problem is with the system, and the effects it causes.

Case in point, a few years ago my wife's company was bought out and they laid everyone off. I make 6 figures now and her income was supplementary. However, she was eligible to get the full unemployment allowance each month. That shouldn't happen.

Before people jump on me thinking I lived the life of privilege, I grew up in a borderline lower middle class/poverty family. I received the discounted school lunches etc.