How can you get off welfare if you are a single mom with three kids? And lots of women use illegal substances so their children are born with disabilities so they get more money.
If you find a minimum wage job that pays you $1500 a month and you receive $1500 a month for welfare, you would stay on welfare since there are travel costs as well as babysitting costs so you would make less even if you found a job.
If you find a minimum wage job that pays you $1500 a month and you receive $1500 a month for welfare, you would stay on welfare since there are travel costs as well as babysitting costs so you would make less even if you found a job.
Yes leYgar , they are right where the government prefers them to be .. until we allow taxpayers to appoint one family member an honorary recipient then we will continue to be divided by comments like the ones in this thread.. stevie ray should be able to protect a family member by enrolling them in a package for free housing, food school healthcare money etc... at the point the lines will be blurred between who is on welfare because they are eligable or who was protected by a taxpaying family memebr, theyre plus 1, if u will
when the hourly wage is less than or equivalent to welfare, most often say, what is the point? they get more services with public assistance than when they are trying to work. few understand the principle behind working, establishing a resume and connections, etc. many aren't focused on long term goals because when they live paycheck to paycheck, every day/week/month there is a threat to their livelihood.
if you're ok with mediocrity and have no ambition to get more than whatever the government feeds you, i guess it's ok.
i do see plenty of people grinding out two jobs daily. unfortunately they are all dead end jobs. they don't have the skills to advance to a real career, and at some point the manual labor will catch up to their poor health. the cost of living has greatly exceeded what minimum wage jobs can afford to pay. at the same time, i think the priorities of how people choose to spend their money and time also is a major reason why they stay poor.
everyone has to go through the grind for success. some are more motivated and focused than others. however, there is no doubt that if you are a) poor b) uneducated and c) come from a broken family, you have so many hurdles to surpass in an already hypercompetitive environment, i am not surprised by so many failures. success is not impossible, but some need a little more help than others. and expecting these people to just magically be resourceful and help themselves is a bit of a contradiction. people aren't born to rise up the socioeconomic ranks. they have to learn, just like everyone else. i think that's why public assistance exists. however, it has definitely backfired letting the ignorant stay ignorant and facilitating them to reproduce.
if you're ok with mediocrity and have no ambition to get more than whatever the government feeds you, i guess it's ok.
i do see plenty of people grinding out two jobs daily. unfortunately they are all dead end jobs. they don't have the skills to advance to a real career, and at some point the manual labor will catch up to their poor health. the cost of living has greatly exceeded what minimum wage jobs can afford to pay. at the same time, i think the priorities of how people choose to spend their money and time also is a major reason why they stay poor.
everyone has to go through the grind for success. some are more motivated and focused than others. however, there is no doubt that if you are a) poor b) uneducated and c) come from a broken family, you have so many hurdles to surpass in an already hypercompetitive environment, i am not surprised by so many failures. success is not impossible, but some need a little more help than others. and expecting these people to just magically be resourceful and help themselves is a bit of a contradiction. people aren't born to rise up the socioeconomic ranks. they have to learn, just like everyone else. i think that's why public assistance exists. however, it has definitely backfired letting the ignorant stay ignorant and facilitating them to reproduce.
there are a lot of 'free-riders' too
what i mean is there are people that pay no taxes on their income, unless you want to count soc.sec and medicare withholding as taxes.
usually these free riders don't even know they are paying zero in income tax and they are the ones that cry the loudest about welfare
what i mean is there are people that pay no taxes on their income, unless you want to count soc.sec and medicare withholding as taxes.
usually these free riders don't even know they are paying zero in income tax and they are the ones that cry the loudest about welfare
When I was a professional firefighter/paramedic on a big city department I went to the hood quite often (the lower the socio-economic status of the area the more 911 calls we responded to). We went to a 14 year old non-causasian democrat who was 8+ months pregnant, having contractions. We ask her "is the father coming with you today?" as we're preparing her for transport....she says she's not sure who the baby-daddy is.....we ask, really? Then ask her if she's ready to be a mom and she said, "I'm gonna get my check!" We said, what check? She said, "from the government! I'm gonna be gettin my check!" True story.
Funny how "Red" states are always the highest welfare recipients....
As usual, this flaming libtard political hack not giving us the complete picture.
[h=1]It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.[/h]
BY FRANK CAMP2 YEARS AGO
SHARE
SHARE
This map from the Tax Foundation details various states' reliance upon federal aid. As one can see, there is quite a bit of variety across the United States on the levels of federal tax dollars each state receives. Why is that?
[FONT="]SPONSORED VIDEO:As Polls Close, Few Surprises So Far
[COLOR=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.8)]
<video playsinline="" webkit-playsinline="" id="tout-video-iz4r2fih85ih_html5_api" class="vjs-tech" poster="http://thumbnails.tout.com/poster_custom/e4d58ae95e339a74_784926.jpg" preload="auto" src="blob:http://ijr.com/6b9bc340-7c72-4244-b383-f9789a4c3ef5" style="box-sizing: inherit; position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 758.4px; height: 427px; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"></video>
The highest federal aid recipients are: Mississippi (45.3%), Louisiana (44%), Tennessee (41%), South Dakota (40.8%), Missouri (39.4%), Montana (39%), and Georgia (37.9%).
As you may have noticed, almost all of these are “red” states controlled by the Republican Party (Missouri is an exception).
What gives? We have a couple of factors to look at here to get a clearer picture of what's going on. First, let's look at income tax levels by state - also from Tax Foundation 2012:
Two states are interesting in particular: North Dakota, and South Dakota. While N. Dakota only receives 20.5% of its revenue from federal aid, S. Dakota receives 40.8%.
How can that be? They appear very similar legislatively—both mostly Republican—they have very similar poverty rates, as noted by The Bismarck Tribune.
So, what is the reason behind the extraordinary difference in federal aid? The difference may lie in income taxes.
N. Dakota has an income tax while S. Dakota does not. According to The Argus Leader, in an article from May 2014:
“North Dakota ranks 49th with just 21 percent of its general revenue funds coming from federal dollars. That state benefits from oil revenues...It has an income tax. And the amount of state general fund dollars it spends each year is twice as much or more than South Dakota spends.”
Jason Dilgess, Gov. Daugaard's budget chief explains it rather frankly:
“The policy makers in our state have decided we want to keep taxes lower for our citizens...As a result, we try to get as much federal participation as we can.”
Variance in state tax revenue may make up a large portion of the seemingly odd differences in such similar states.
The next thing to look at is state budget levels. If the federal government sends out about the same amount of aid to each state per capita, then it will make up a bigger percentage of the state budgets that are lower.
Let's look at the top 20 states in total government spending per capita, which will tell us more precisely what's going on in each state (FY2013):
| 1. Alaska | $16,103 |
| 2. Wyoming | $15,673 |
| 3. West Virginia | $12,037 |
| 4. Delaware | $9,897 |
| 5. Massachusetts | $8,597 |
| 6. Hawaii | $8,250 |
| 7. Vermont | $7,923 |
| 8. North Dakota | $7,896 |
| 9. Connecticut | $7,745 |
| 10. Rhode Island | $7,481 |
| 11. Wisconsin | $7,448 |
| 12. Arkansas | $7,246 |
| 13. New Mexico | $7,047 |
| 14. New York | $6,773 |
| 15. Pennsylvania | $6,684 |
| 16. Oregon | $6,566 |
| 17. Iowa | $6,320 |
| 18. Mississippi | $6,189 |
| 19. Maryland | $6,115 |
| 20. Minnesota | $6,102 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
Using the 2012 political map (prior to the fiscal year 2013), only 6 out of 20 states were “red states”: Wyoming, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Mississippi and Minnesota.
Of the top 10 spenders per capita, 7 were blue states: West Virginia, Delaware, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Alaska was split legislatively, leaving 2 red states in the top 10: Wyoming and North Dakota.
Next, looking at states by their budget solvency gives us an even clearer picture of what's going on, and if a state is spending beyond its means:
The Top 5 states were red or split states: Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming, Wisconsin, and Utah.
And the bottom 6 states were: New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, Hawaii, Illinois and California - all solidly blue states.
In addition, the southern red states in the initial map of federal aid recipients are much more likely to have higher poverty rates. The impoverished, those who are more likely to need federal aid in a state, tend to vote Democratic according to Pew Research:
When it comes to choosing a party’s candidate in the voting booth, one pattern in modern American politics is so familiar it has become a truism: the rich vote Republican, the poor vote Democratic. And while the reality of the situation is much more nuanced, in broad strokes it has been the case that Republicans have consistently garnered disproportionate levels of support from the financially well-off, while the least financially secure Americans have been significantly more likely to back Democrats.
In other words, due in part to low voter turnout among the impoverished, it may not be that the majority of constituents who vote to turn a state “red” are the ones causing a state to have a higher level of federal aid in its state budget. Another way of putting this is that the majority of poor people who are reliant upon federal aid to make ends meet may not be voting majority Republican in a given state.
The point is: Don't simply judge a state by its cover. There are numerous complexities that underlie statistics, and these complexities must be explored in order to make informed opinions.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
mother at age 15
grandmother at age 30
great grandmother at age 45
often times by design
zitface copy/pasting another article he hasn't read or even comprehends.
The author argues that "So, what is the reason behind the extraordinary difference in federal aid? The difference may lie in income taxes." yet can't explain how Nevada & Florida (solidly behind Obama in 2012) has NO state income tax yet aren't in the top 29 of the largest welfare states. Yet nearly all the "Red" states even those with state income tax are.
The author argues that "So, what is the reason behind the extraordinary difference in federal aid? The difference may lie in income taxes." yet can't explain how Nevada & Florida (solidly behind Obama in 2012) has NO state income tax yet aren't in the top 29 of the largest welfare states. Yet nearly all the "Red" states even those with state income tax are.
In Oregon, a heart-warming story appeared in the Oregonian newspaper. Written from a liberal's point of view. I teared up a little, but still was able to read between the lines. The story was about a 23 year-old woman (white) on "assistance". 2 kids. She was going to college on the taxpayers' dime. Taking math and "READING"?? There' College level reading now? Failing the math class, but passing "Reading". Living in a 2 bedroom rental house. Typical rent for that type of house is about $1400. But she's in "subsidized housing". According to the article, it's sad, but she can barely afford the rent....later in the article we find that HER share of the rent is $35. THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH!! Ya know why they make her come up with the $35.00? Because if they didn't charge her anything, they'd have to call it "FREE HOUSING" and that would really piss off the taxpayers.
