Liberals to Call on Tea Party to Denounce Ties to Sarah Palin!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The system does not allow people to work their way off the dole. If they make an extra $100, they lost $150 or $200 in benefits. So they either have to make the jump from poor to middleclass in one step, or they stay on the dole.

This is actually a very good point, and one I have often raised when discussing welfare programs and the system we have established. Welfare in America is a TRAP! Once you've become dependent on the welfare, there is no practical way to escape the trap. I'm sure there are welfare recipients who enjoy a decent lifestyle by forging checks, stealing shit, robbing people, selling drugs, or whatever, but an honest and ethical person on welfare is pretty much screwed.

The thing is, the Liberal mush-brains who implemented these programs, don't really care that it's an inescapable trap, in fact, that plays into their favor, as these people become political slaves, keeping the liberal in power so they can continue to receive a few crumbs to stay alive.

 

[cawacko]

You're full of BS on your assertion that earning $100.00 means you'll lose $150 to $200.

But then, you could back this up by posting what ever ruling you're referring to. (doubtful)

I can't find the article but it was on the SF Chronicle website about tenants in a city government run housing project. To live there tenants had to meet certain economic criteria (hardships) and the article showed how an advance/growth in pay could disqualify people from the housing but not put them in any better position. The incentive was completely perverse.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It is an exaggeration, but essentially true. I have no backup other than my own experience. I availed myself of some gov't services when I went back to college. I was married with kids at the time. I do remember that a combined income of $550 a month for an intact family meant we did not qualify for medicaid or madicare.

If it is an exaggeration, then it can not be essentially true.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I can't find the article but it was on the SF Chronicle website about tenants in a city government run housing project. To live there tenants had to meet certain economic criteria (hardships) and the article showed how an advance/growth in pay could disqualify people from the housing but not put them in any better position. The incentive was completely perverse.

So which set of circumstances are you trying to discuss.
The original assertion, or the one that you're now trying to present??

 

[WinterBorn]

If it is an exaggeration, then it can not be essentially true.

Don't be ridiculous.

Suppose my income went from $525 per month to $600 per month, and my gov't assistance drops by $110. My original statement would be an exaggeration but still be essentially true.

 

[WinterBorn]

So which set of circumstances are you trying to discuss.
The original assertion, or the one that you're now trying to present??

I said....

"The system does not allow people to work their way off the dole. If they make an extra $100, they lost $150 or $200 in benefits. So they either have to make the jump from poor to middleclass in one step, or they stay on the dole."

That fits what SF is saying. The numbers were not researched and will not fit every situation. But the fact of the post is still accurate. If you look at what I bold-faced, you can easily see what I meant.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Don't be ridiculous.

Suppose my income went from $525 per month to $600 per month, and my gov't assistance drops by $110. My original statement would be an exaggeration but still be essentially true.

Don't be ridiculous.
Suppose your income went from $525 per month to $600 per month, and your gov't assistance drops by $25. Your original statement wouild be an exaggeration but still would not be essentially true.

 

[cawacko]

So which set of circumstances are you trying to discuss.
The original assertion, or the one that you're now trying to present??

What is different in what I said?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I said....

"The system does not allow people to work their way off the dole. If they make an extra $100, they lost $150 or $200 in benefits. So they either have to make the jump from poor to middleclass in one step, or they stay on the dole."

That fits what SF is saying. The numbers were not researched and will not fit every situation. But the fact of the post is still accurate. If you look at what I bold-faced, you can easily see what I meant.

No, it is not accurate; because then how do you explain the people that are able to get off the "dole"??

You also are looking at this, with a very narrow view.
One can be in the upper poor/lower middleclass, instead of the guidelines that you have offered.

 

[cawacko]

Break-up families with its welfare policy? So the answer is to let people starve unless they live together? Yea, I suppose that's one way to keep families together. Not my idea of compassion.

Keep multiple generations of families on the dole? It's difficult to seek employment when one has to decide between eating and buying a decent pair of pants for a job interview. Again, not exactly compassionate.

Failing schools? Again, where is the government to correct the problem. Guns? Bullying? How do they deal with that problem in wealthy neighborhoods?

Of course no one considers the kids may not be learning because they are starving due to no breakfast at home because government compassion consists of a starvation level of helping.

Yea, real compassion.

Have you actually ever been to America? My guess is no because we don't have starving kids sitting out in the street dying. This isn't a third world country. And the government already gives free lunches to poor kids at school so kids are eating. And the problem in America is not to many skinny kids it's to many fat kids.

And no most people aren't choosing between dying (not eating) and getting a pair of pants. If there are those people they represent well under 1% of the population.

So yeah basically you want a Russian style communist system where the government gives you everything. That worked out real well for the people didn't it? So compassionate of you.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, it is not accurate; because then how do you explain the people that are able to get off the "dole"??

You also are looking at this, with a very narrow view.
One can be in the upper poor/lower middleclass, instead of the guidelines that you have offered.

I am looking at it from the view that was afforded me by being there.

I am sure many people do it the way I did. The get enough education to make the step up. Others suffer thru what amounts to a drop in total income in order to move upward and get out of the system.

It is certainly accurate. It has been documented, as CAW said.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I am looking at it from the view that was afforded me by being there.

I am sure many people do it the way I did. The get enough education to make the step up. Others suffer thru what amounts to a drop in total income in order to move upward and get out of the system.

It is certainly accurate. It has been documented, as CAW said.

You saying that it's accurate, only based on your view, does not make it so.
If they're so poor, how do they earn enough to get that education, and how does someone take what amounts to a drop in "total income" in order to move upward??

 

[WinterBorn]

You saying that it's accurate, only based on your view, does not make it so.
If they're so poor, how do they earn enough to get that education, and how does someone take what amounts to a drop in "total income" in order to move upward??

The problem is likely that the different forms of assistance are not in any package form. So an increase of income results in a drop in food stamps, a drop in welfare payments, and an increase in rent of gov't subsidized housing. None of those alone would amount to losing more than the increase in your income. But when added up, they do mean you make more from your job and have less.

An example:

I make $1 above minimum wage while I am a college student. My wife is a stay-at-home Mom. We get food stamps, utility assistance, and pay only a small amount of rent in a gov't subsidized apartment.

When I graduate, I got a job making over $40k a year to start. So in one step I made it from poor to middle class.

But if I had stayed and gotten incemental raises, my rent would have increased with each raise. My utility assistance would have decreased (or disappeared) with each increase. And my food stamps would have dropped by virtually the amount of my raise.



As for affording the education, between Pell Grants, student loans, and work study, almost anyone can go to college. YOu just have to pinch pennies until Lincoln screams.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The problem is likely that the different forms of assistance are not in any package form. So an increase of income results in a drop in food stamps, a drop in welfare payments, and an increase in rent of gov't subsidized housing. None of those alone would amount to losing more than the increase in your income. But when added up, they do mean you make more from your job and have less.

An example:

I make $1 above minimum wage while I am a college student. My wife is a stay-at-home Mom. We get food stamps, utility assistance, and pay only a small amount of rent in a gov't subsidized apartment.

When I graduate, I got a job making over $40k a year to start. So in one step I made it from poor to middle class.

But if I had stayed and gotten incemental raises, my rent would have increased with each raise. My utility assistance would have decreased (or disappeared) with each increase. And my food stamps would have dropped by virtually the amount of my raise.



As for affording the education, between Pell Grants, student loans, and work study, almost anyone can go to college. YOu just have to pinch pennies until Lincoln screams.

You referred to a drop in total "INCOME", not available funds.
So, which is it??

 

[WinterBorn]

You referred to a drop in total "INCOME", not available funds.
So, which is it??

When I talked about a drop in "total income", I meant everything that was used to support my family.

Combining the financial income earned with all the benefits afforded by the various gov't agencies.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

When I talked about a drop in "total income", I meant everything that was used to support my family.

Combining the financial income earned with all the benefits afforded by the various gov't agencies.

But you haven't proved that there would be a drop.
You did throw out an unsubstantiated assertion; but have shown nothing to support it's validity.

Using round numbers, to keep it simple; if you were making $500 a month and were getting $500 a month, then you're "total income" was $1,000 a month.
If you get a raise and are now making $550 a month and you now only get $475 a month; then your "total income" is now $1,025 a month, which would be an increase of $25 a month.

 

[WinterBorn]

But you haven't proved that there would be a drop.
You did throw out an unsubstantiated assertion; but have shown nothing to support it's validity.

Using round numbers, to keep it simple; if you were making $500 a month and were getting $500 a month, then you're "total income" was $1,000 a month.
If you get a raise and are now making $550 a month and you now only get $475 a month; then your "total income" is now $1,025 a month, which would be an increase of $25 a month.

Or, I was making $500 a month, receiving $300 a month in food stamps, getting $50 a month in utility assistance, and receiving $150 in rent subsidy. Giving me $1,000 in total income.


Then I get a raise to $550, my food stamps drop to $275, my utility assistance drops to $30, and my rent subsidy goes down to $125. None of the individual programs will decrease their support by as much as my raise. But the cumulative results is a loss.

 

[Good Luck]

You're full of BS on your assertion that earning $100.00 means you'll lose $150 to $200.

But then, you could back this up by posting what ever ruling you're referring to. (doubtful)

Try this one on for size:

http://www.snap-step1.usda.gov/fns/index.jsp

Enter a family of 3, one parent, two children, no assets, one income, no child support or other income received, 650/month rent, 180 utilities.

They make $1900/mo they qualify for $215-$225 SNAP benefits.

They make an additional $100 mo to make $2000/mo, and they are no longer eligible for SNAP benefits.

There are MANY other examples if you care to look for them. Not only that, but most often people are receiving several types of assistance. They all go down with increased income so the total loss in benefits from all types of assistance will punish the ambitious person more times than not.

As for those who do manage to break out - it is most often those who are willing to make do with less for a while.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Or, I was making $500 a month, receiving $300 a month in food stamps, getting $50 a month in utility assistance, and receiving $150 in rent subsidy. Giving me $1,000 in total income.


Then I get a raise to $550, my food stamps drop to $275, my utility assistance drops to $30, and my rent subsidy goes down to $125. None of the individual programs will decrease their support by as much as my raise. But the cumulative results is a loss.

Or you get a raise to $550, you food stamps don't drop at all, your utility assistance doesn't change, and your rent stays stable.
You're now ahead of the game.

We can continue to play the numbers game, until you provide something to support your original assertion; which I don't think you can do.

 

[WinterBorn]

Or you get a raise to $550, you food stamps don't drop at all, your utility assistance doesn't change, and your rent stays stable.
You're now ahead of the game.

We can continue to play the numbers game, until you provide something to support your original assertion; which I don't think you can do.

Since all three forms of assistance is based on income, to suppose they would not change is to ignore the way the system is set up completely.

The link provided by GoodLuck shows the same thing.