Motts growing nightmare

[WinterBorn]

They stay on welfare 'cause it's easy. They don't "see" a way out because they have not learned by "example" growing up, that they got nothing coming except that which they are willing to work for. Dignity is a motivator; dignity is earned; without dignity people have no inner drive. Lacking dignity people can become very self destructive and selfish.

http://hcom.csumb.edu/welfare/resour...ths_facts.html

"Less than half of the families that receive AFDC receive it for more than 36 months overall and most families receive aid for no more than two years at a time."

"AFDC and Food Stamp benefits combined provide less than a poverty level income in all states and their value has been going steadily downward for many years."

"The most typical family size is a mother and one child and the birthrate among women receiving AFDC is lower than that in the rest of the population."

"Spending on all the public assistance programs that provide poor families with aid to meet their basic living needs, including medical needs, amounts to about 6% of the total federal budget."




Granted, the study is a few years old. But the popular myths concerning welfare are wide spread.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

From that link you can see:

"Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6

Number of children
-------------------
One 43.2%
Two 30.7
Three 15.8
Four or more 10.3"


So just over 80% of those receiving AFDC are on it for less than 5 years.

[WinterBorn]

Look, that's not what I'm getting at. Riding waste and corruption from the system is important and we all want that but it won't solve the problem.

We, as a people, either need to tighten our belts and make some tough decisions about cutting popular programs or we will need to raise taxes. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It can solve some of the problem. If the money were spent carefully and the waste eliminated, we could avoid many of the shortfalls we currently face.

Cost overruns of $295 Billion??



The fact that the gov't continues to waste money at such an astounding rate, and nothing is done, shows a trend of fiscal irresponsibility.

How about a gov't version of the Sarbanes-Oxley? Hold the top people responsible for waste & fraud.

[Canceled2]

http://hcom.csumb.edu/welfare/resour...ths_facts.html

"Less than half of the families that receive AFDC receive it for more than 36 months overall and most families receive aid for no more than two years at a time."

"AFDC and Food Stamp benefits combined provide less than a poverty level income in all states and their value has been going steadily downward for many years."

"The most typical family size is a mother and one child and the birthrate among women receiving AFDC is lower than that in the rest of the population."

"Spending on all the public assistance programs that provide poor families with aid to meet their basic living needs, including medical needs, amounts to about 6% of the total federal budget."




Granted, the study is a few years old. But the popular myths concerning welfare are wide spread.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm

From that link you can see:

"Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6

Number of children
-------------------
One 43.2%
Two 30.7
Three 15.8
Four or more 10.3"


So just over 80% of those receiving AFDC are on it for less than 5 years.

So about 50% of families recieve it for longer than 36 mos. Likewise we are on the 6th generation of families that have grown up on welfare and stayed on welfare. These stats do not account for women who return to welfare after a short time off... Welfare is a way of life for generations. That some are able to use it as a stop-gap and manage to get away from it for good is not the norm, but always a good thing.

Ask any social worker who works with welfare recipients and I guarentee that they'd agree with my viewpoint.

I do not see welfare recipients as bad people...I see welfare as a bad system.

[WinterBorn]

So about 50% of families recieve it for longer than 36 mos. Likewise we are on the 6th generation of families that have grown up on welfare and stayed on welfare. These stats do not account for women who return to welfare after a short time off... Welfare is a way of life for generations. That some are able to use it as a stop-gap and manage to get away from it for good is not the norm, but always a good thing.
Ask any social worker who works with welfare recipients and I guarentee that they'd agree with my viewpoint.

I do not see welfare recipients as bad people...I see welfare as a bad system.

I am sure there are some that get off and return to the system. But I couldnt find any hard statistics or documented facts to show that is the norm.

What every site I found shows is that the majority use it as a stop-gap and get off the system.

[USFREEDOM911]

Then the government should have no right to force a person to sacrifice their life for their country (draft). Why would anyone die for their country when their country doesn't give a damn if they're fed or housed?

Who would give their life for their country when their country would sit by while the person goes hungry? Who would give their life for their country when their country would watch their spouse die because of lack of medical care? Or watch a family member suffer because they can't afford medical care?



Government should be for the benefit of people. All people.

Strawman argument.
There is no draft.

Failure

[apple0154]

Time to put this crap out of its misery. WE THE PEOPLE are no more the 'government' than charles manson is jesus christ. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. That means that we elect people to represent us in government, which hardly ever works out anyway.

Regardless, we are ultimately responsible.

'general welfare' is not a clause to ensure every individual has a lifetime job, home, pension, or any other entitlement. You should humbly apologize for your misconstrued misconstruction.

Time to consult your dictionary. When responsible for the welfare of anything it means the well-being.

there wasn't, and isn't. People can get an education to become a doctor and provide that care while getting paid for their services. capitalism at its finest. the government has no authority to mandate any care at all.

Of course the government has the authority. That is it's obligation, to promote the general welfare. That is one of the "fundamental purposes and guiding principles" of the Constitution. It is so written.

appeal to emotion

No, straight forward questions. If the ones I asked are not the intentions of the Founding Fathers then changes need to be made.

[apple0154]

Strawman argument.
There is no draft.

Failure

That doesn't change the fact a draft can be implemented at any time.

[Minister of Truth]

Then the government should have no right to force a person to sacrifice their life for their country (draft). Why would anyone die for their country when their country doesn't give a damn if they're fed or housed?

Who would give their life for their country when their country would sit by while the person goes hungry? Who would give their life for their country when their country would watch their spouse die because of lack of medical care? Or watch a family member suffer because they can't afford medical care?

Americans would. One might die for their family, which feeds, clothes, and houses them, but one might also die for their country, which maintains ordered liberty, so that they have the ability to live an existence not befuddled with chaos and barbarism.

[SmarterthanYou]

Regardless, we are ultimately responsible.

but WE are not the government.

Time to consult your dictionary. When responsible for the welfare of anything it means the well-being.

general welfare of the united states, not united states citizens. key point you're ignoring.

Of course the government has the authority. That is it's obligation, to promote the general welfare. That is one of the "fundamental purposes and guiding principles" of the Constitution. It is so written.

can you cite to any piece of historical documentation that points to 'general welfare' as being authority for the government to provide anything for an individual citizen?

[USFREEDOM911]

That doesn't change the fact a draft can be implemented at any time.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

MAJOR FUCKING FAILURE ON ROADAPPLES LOGIC

[Liberty]

If they are unable to give what is expected then they would be receiving help.

Not if they make to much money to qualify.

What if their beliefs dictate that they can't except money because it's stolen money? Money taken from people who were not willing to give. Would you take money from your friend if he was taking it from your neighbor at gunpoint.

Sure, people have a right to ownership. They also have an obligation to help others.

For generations people were born and lived their lives in the same community. Over time, each person contributed. It balanced out, more or less.

Today, people frequently move. They don't have a chance to contribute to their community. That is where taxes enter the picture.

I have no obligation to help others. I have a responsibility to provide for myself and my family. The more money the gov't takes from me, the harder it is to provide for myself and my family.

[Liberty]

I always find it funny when people comment on how welfare and other government programs are detrimental to those receiving help. Invariably it boils down to those who are expected to help not wanting to part with their money.

How much of your money, and wealth, taken from you, would it take for you to say this is wrong?

[apple0154]

but WE are not the government.

Unfortunately, many people do not see it that way. After all, we do select who will represent us.

general welfare of the united states, not united states citizens. key point you're ignoring.

Ignoring? If a man is responsible for the welfare of his family are not his wife and children his family? If a Captain is responsible for a ship are not the occupants his responsibility? How can one be responsible for a country and not responsible for the citizens of that country.

can you cite to any piece of historical documentation that points to 'general welfare' as being authority for the government to provide anything for an individual citizen?

Whether or not there is any historical documentation makes little difference. What is written, is written. The question is, "Does the welfare of the country mean the welfare of it's citizens?" If not, what does it mean? What other answer is plausible?

[apple0154]

How much of your money, and wealth, taken from you, would it take for you to say this is wrong?

That would depend on the wealth of others. Or stated another way is my share equal to what others contribute.

[apple0154]

Americans would. One might die for their family, which feeds, clothes, and houses them, but one might also die for their country, which maintains ordered liberty, so that they have the ability to live an existence not befuddled with chaos and barbarism.

Ahhh, that's precisely the point. Inner city, depressed areas with drug gangs, robberies and shootings, looting due to lack of basic necessities, enduring pain when treatment is available but they can't afford it....what of those people whose lives are filled with chaos and barbaric conditions?