Posted on 07/26/2016 8:36:44 AM PDT by milton23
I wonder if we have the right to criticize people who are taking government assistance who also have tattoos.
After all, we are paying the bills and have the right as taxpayers to make sure that our money is well spent. If they are using our money (not theirs) to add a new tattoo to their bodies, then we have a right to complain.
Welfare was supposed to be a safety net, not a hammock... (I can't take credit for this, I read it years ago on a billboard near my hometown).
Another was "Welfare was supposed to be a temporary hand-up, not a multi-generational lifestyle."
Yes, I see many orders with expensive food items that are paid with EBT cards. If I'm honest it does bother me that they are not better at managing the resources they have.
There is a larger point that needs to be mentioned. Many many people are hurting these days and for some people the EBT benefits are their only source of food and income. The first of the month is always very busy when benefits are reloaded.
I find it interesting that I often hear that Social Security is in danger of running out of money.
I find it interesting because I never hear of welfare being in danger of running out of money.
Agreed. Times are tough for some and those people should be helped.
The stigma of taking money from the government is all but gone now. I’d like to think that the shame of not being responsible for oneself and “carrying your own weight” discouraged the lowlifes. It probably did.
Anyway, life is tough for most but getting up each morning at the crack of dawn when one can sleep in, working hard and developing useful skills when one can stay home and watch TV, is a must. It drives a person forward in life instead of backwards. Welfare is a dead end.
I had a cell phone in the 90’s
They will starve to death.
Cui bono?
Yes, those businesses want and support the welfare that profits them.
Be a very strange person that thought otherwise.
I imagine many would prefer a healthy growing economy that provided their profits naturally. But that’s not what we have or are likely to see anytime soon.
Oh yeah, and if the government wasn’t subsidizing consumer spending (welfare) it would be quite a blow to the media that would lose advertising revenue.
I've seen this, a few times, and quietly helped. Easy to tell the people who just need a little hand from those who are working the system.
Mom used to work in DHS. Had a client who made a conscious choice to enter the system - she and her husband got laid off at the same time from the local plant. He went back to school (got a 4 year degree in three years) while she stayed at home with the kids and made their budget work. Raised a garden, made a lot of clothes from scratch, etc etc etc.
They had a three year plan...he got his degree, went back to work at a much better job (accounting or finance related? maybe?)and they got off the welfare rolls. Basically, the system worked exactly as designed. For once.
Anyhoo, this lady's shopping system was *flawless*. Coupon for everything, worked the sales mercilessly. They didn't eat Crab Legs and Lobster every night, but neither did they go hungry. Mom asked her to come in and do a "shopping" seminar, maybe combine it with a "how to cook on 5 dollars a day" kind of thing - figured that some of the DHS clients could use the help....
...only people who showed up were Mom and other DHS employees. Depressing.
Grocers are the biggest boosters of SNAP because they are the real beneficiaries of the SNAP funds, in more ways than one.
The food retailers can charge higher prices to everyone, when half of the customers are getting their food for “free” and couldn’t care less what it costs.
The flip side is, these same retailers can depress wages for their employees, because food stamps and other freebies are available to subsidize the low wages.
The low-wage employee pays less into Social Security, and because SNAP benefits are not considered income (even though it is) it’s not subject to SS taxation. The employee eventually realizes that this was a bad deal all along when it becomes time to draw a tiny SS check.
Mean while the employer immediately saves more bucks by paying less in SS matching funds, as well as wages.
The difference is that Social Security is presented as a pension program. In the aggregate, contributions + investment income = expenditures ... or so they say. They say it’s “running out of money” because expenditures are going to exceed income.
Direct welfare payments, on the other hand, are funded out of general revenue. If more revenue is needed, just tax the people more.
The businesses are ultimately making out like bandits on OUR tax dollars. Hell Yes I’m blaming them, also!
PING!
Because they pay for it with food stamps and then sell it for cash.
I blame LBJ. He is responsible for almost all that ails this nation today. He was an uncouth, licentious, hateful animal of a human. And I am not convinced he had nothing to do with the murder of JFK.
Quark: "Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working.
But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people... will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon.
You don't believe me? Look at those faces. Look in their eyes."
- - Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - The Siege of AR-558
Exactly. When does helping someone in need make them complete dependents.
Good analogy — Star Trek. :)
Sounds like you are a Trekkie. Me too.
Although Roddenberry could be a little goofy with his plots, sometimes he was spot on. Most of the time, his plots had an underlying meaning and message. It was the sixties after all. :)
A very good analogy to the Democrat party and modern politics is the “Day of the Dove” episode in the early series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Dove
Democrats are the evil entity that thrives on anger and hatred and all Americans are the participants fighting amongst each other in an on going “war.”
And if there wasn’t hatred (mostly from identity politics mostly ginned up by the Democrats and everyone blaming everyone), Democrats would be out of a job. No one would vote for them.
Bottom line: Democrats thrive on an environment of hatred and anger and as you mention above complete dependency on the government. All bad IMHO. I think that most people on FR agree.
Sadly, a few decades ago, the attitude was different. If you didn’t work; why aren’t you working? And a person shouldn’t be on public assistance. It was frowned upon. Why is this? Because it was believed that a person gained self respect from hard work and that it was demeaning to be on public assistance. Not any more apparently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.