Britain: One third of homes dependent on benefits

Daily Telegraph ^ | February 12, 2007 | Brendan Carlin, Political Correspondent

[kinoxi]

That sucks.

[Truth29]

Only one third? So much more progress to be made. /sarc

[BlessedBeGod]

Only one third? So much more progress to be made. /sarc

Yes, if only they were lucky enough to have a Hillary! of their very own.

[Paleo Conservative]

I bet the proportion of Muslims dependent on benefits is even higher.

[expatguy]

And yet to even consider it would be considered racist.

England is on it's last leg and America is soon to follow.

[AZRepublican]

>welfare policies intended to create a grateful electorate

That pretty much sums it up for America as well.

[Caipirabob]

So there's apparently a correletion between the availability of Socialist subsidy programs and the number of people who partake in them? Ya don't say...

How about a correlation betweem the tyranical tax burden forced upon people and the number of families subsequently driven to rely on government handouts? There's the real story.

[visualops]

"create beholden voters rather than independent people"

The plan is proceeding on schedule.

[Northern Alliance]

In many single-parent homes with two children, the proportion of families that would be financially crippled without state support is now as high as 61 per cent.

Told you so. It all goes back to the demonization of men throughout the western world which in turn lead to government endorsement, then financial and legal support of single parent (aka no husband) families. What we used to, and correctly so, called 'broken homes'.

[Rte66]

Other than war news, that's the saddest thing I've read in quite a while.

[SauronOfMordor]

The collapse, when the productive classes can no longer support the unproductive, will not be pretty

[Always Right]

if you want more of something you subsidize it

[voletti]

Thats the 'Atlas Shrugged' line. My own view is that thats not gonna happen, even though it should, once in a while.

[yankeedame]

"create beholden voters rather than independent people" The plan is proceeding on schedule.

==============

Yup, and I believe the word is "serfdom".

[listenhillary]

December 1, 2006
The 2006 Index of Dependency
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/cda06-11.cfm

USA
On the eve of the Great Society programs, some 22 million people (12 percent of the population in 1962) received assistance through the programs listed in Table 2 that existed at the time. Today, 52.6 mil­lion people (18 percent of the total U.S. popula­tion) receive some level of assistance through the programs included in the Index.

Growth in both income and non-financial sup­port among program participants has accompanied the expansion of people receiving assistance. Per capita financial and non-financial support stood at about $6,400 in 1966. By 2005, this support had grown to slightly over $25,000. (See Chart 9.)

[freeangel]

Thank you for those stats. We're not far behind Britian and will make great strides in catching up in the next 2 years thanks to pelosi, clinton, et al.

[listenhillary]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/cda06-11.cfm

Historically, individuals and local entities have typically provided more assistance than they do today. However, particularly during the 20th cen­tury, government has gradually provided more and more services that were previously provided by self-help and mutual aid organizations. Lower-cost housing is a good example. Mutual aid, religious, and educational organizations long had provided limited housing assistance, but after World War II, the federal and state governments began to provide the bulk of low-cost housing. Today, the govern­ment provides nearly all housing assistance.

Health care is another example of this pattern. Before World War II, Americans of modest income typically obtained health care and health insurance through a range of community institutions, some operated by churches and social clubs. That entire health care infrastructure has since been replaced by publicly provided health care coverage, largely through Medicaid and Medicare. Whether or not the medical and financial result is better today, the relationship between the person receiving health care assistance and those paying for it has changed fundamentally. Few would dispute that this change has affected the total cost of health care and the politics of the relationships among patients, doctors, hospitals, and those needing care.

Financial help to those in need has also changed profoundly. Local, community-based charitable orga­nizations once played the major role, which resulted in a particular relationship between the person receiving help and the community. Today, Social Security and other government programs provide much or all of the income in indigent and modest households. Unemployment insurance payments provide nearly all of the income to temporarily un­employed workers that was once provided by unions, friendly societies, and local charities. In­deed, income assistance is quickly becoming a gov­ernment program with little if any connection to the local civil society.

This shift from local, community-based, mutual-aid assistance to government-provided assistance has clearly altered the relationship between the person in need and the service provider. In the past, the person in need depended on help from people and organizations in his or her community. The community knew the person's needs and tai­lored assistance to meet those needs within the community's budgetary constraints. Today, housing and other needs are addressed by government employees who typically do not know the person and have no tie to the community where the needy person lives.

Both cases involve a dependent relationship. However, the dependent relationship with civil society includes expectations of the recipient per­son's future civil viability or ability to aid another person. The dependent relationship with the polit­ical system has no reciprocal expectations. The former is based on mutual and reciprocal aid with future aid dependent on the recipient returning to civil viability, which in turn is essential to the life of civil society itself. The latter is usually based on unilateral aid in which the recipient's return to civil viability is not essential. Indeed, "success" in such government programs is frequently measured by the program's growth rather than the outcomes it produces. While the dependent relationship with civil society leads to a balance between the interests of the person and the community, the dependent relationship with the political system runs the risk of generating political pressure from interest groups— such as provider organizations, local communities, and the aid recipients themselves—to expand federal support.

[sergeantdave]

"...when the productive classes can no longer support the unproductive, will not be pretty"

The state will order people to work to support the unproductive. Those who refuse will be sent to work camps.

[mewzilla]

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Ronald Reagan