Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-30-2013, 08:08 AM   #1
Oldgamer
Diamond Member
 
Oldgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,223
Default Myths stereotypes surrounding welfare / welfare recipients

I always believe that educating yourself on a subject matter is important, because so many people are mislead by misinformation or tend to base their arguments on myths, stereotyping or their own biases or prejudices, and not actual facts. I have recently seen a few posts that are incredibly harsh and misleading concerning people who are on welfare or live in housing projects and who are on food benefits programs. I would imagine that most who post such things have never had any real hardship in their life or have had to go through the process of getting on welfare, or food benefits so its easy to assume a lot when one is truly uniformed and buys into the myths so often played out in the media.

**Some of the statistical information I post below are dated back in the late 90s and early 2000. However most of it still holds true even now, and if you google research it you will find the information is still accurate in some aspects and that the numbers still follow these patterns.

One thing that has caught my attention recently is posts concerning the poor and some asking "why don't they just move to a place where they can afford to live"? As absurd as a question like that is, sadly there is no real thought behind it, and screams "biased and ignorant". If a person is "poor" and has a family it would be almost impossible to have the money to make such a move. Not to mention one may still remain jobless, or have difficulty getting a job that pays at or above minimum wage regardless where they may move to. Moving is incredibly expensive. Most people who are poor can barely afford the gas in a vehicle (and that is assuming they have a vehicle). In addition all things are relative, for example moving from California where the economy in that state is very high compared to Texas, still doesn't change the poor person's financial situation or ability to be housed. Jobs pay far less in Texas as opposed to California. So one is still stuck with the "housing affordability" situation regardless if rent is less in Texas compared to California.

Most may not remember when during the Reagan era the term "welfare queen" was coined. In reality reporters tried to find the very person(s) that the president and others claimed to have committed the welfare fraud and found that no such person really existed. It was something that was essentially made up or "exaggerated" to push an agenda against poor minority mothers who were in the welfare system.

Quote: The term "welfare queen" became a catchphrase during anti-welfare dialogue and eventually became a permanent feature of American folklore. Media hype from the 1980s to the 1990s also aided in perpetuating the idea.

The term came under criticism for its supposed use as a political tool and for its derogatory connotations. Criticism focused on the fact that individuals committing welfare fraud were, in reality, a very small percentage of those legitimately receiving welfare. Use of the term was also seen as an attempt to stereotype recipients in order to undermine public support for AFDC.

The welfare queen idea became an integral part of a larger discourse on welfare reform, especially during the bipartisan effort to reform the welfare system under Bill Clinton. Anti-welfare advocates ended AFDC in 1996 and overhauled the system with the introduction of TANF. Despite the new system’s time-limits, the welfare queen legacy has endured and continues to shape public perception".

Some other myths and arguments concerning welfare recipients:

1) Welfare rewards people for doing nothing, destroying their dignity and character.

Fact: A study by the Cato Institute claimed to prove that welfare paid better than work (at least, low-wage work) therefore logically no one would choose to work if they could go on welfare! The study, however, was later shown to be terribly flawed and statistically innacurate. See analysis of flawed report here: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-flawedcato.htm

In March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view that welfare encourages two-parent family breakup" or that it significantly reduces the incentive to work.

Note: The GOA report was summarized in Frances Piven and Richard Cloward, "The Historical Sources of the Contemporary Relief Debate," The Mean Season: The Attack on the Welfare State, Fred Block, Richard Cloward, Barbara Ehrenriech and France Piven, editors, (New York: Pantheon, 1987), pp. 58-62


The root of most opposition to welfare, among Conservatives and Libertarians, is the argument "The `Welfare State' is a threat to liberty. Welfare threatens to make all citizens dependent on a central government. The Welfare system gives government too much power. People who work for their own income are more independent. People who are not taxed to support others are more independent. Therefore doing away with the welfare system will promote independence and liberty."

This argument is not subject to factual analysis. It is basically a matter of philosophy. Do you believe that human beings are interdependent on each other: that we are not only nobler, but wiser, when we help each other out over rough spots? Or do you believe that the human race is stronger when people who can not make it through rough spots on their own are allowed to die? Do you believe that each of us is the beneficiary of countless good things we did not create and gifts we did not earn: electricity, medical hygiene, computer technology, the printing press, to name a few? Or do you believe that you are entirely a "self-made person"? Do you believe that government is a social compact to keep us off each other's backs, or a social compact to care for each other?

2) Another myth about people who are poor or are on welfare benefits is that they do not pay taxes. They do in fact pay taxes. According to the congressional office budget data the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available — not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes. See article: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Also take into account the sales tax that the poor pay for goods and services to live.

3) Welfare recipients commit a lot of fraud, at the expense of American working people.

FACT: Besides the fact that a lot of welfare recipients are American working people, a study in Massachusetts showed that vendors committed 93% of welfare fraud. This aspect of the welfare system drastically needs reform: it is harming recipients as well as taxpayers. But all of the political attention is on limiting the amount of money going to recipients.

And although the fraud by welfare vendors is terrible, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the burdens on the American taxpayer of military fraud, government waste, and corporate welfare. The Savings and Loan bailout alone cost $132 billion. And the bank bailouts of 2008-2009

4)Supporting welfare is a burden causing financial hardship to working class Americans.

FACT: Together, AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and Food Stamps are by far the largest items of the welfare budget. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1% percent of the combined state and federal budgets.

Food stamps also took up 1% percent. (Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1990-92," Report 93-832 EPW and earlier reports.)

If you expand the definition of "welfare" to include all one-way transfers of benefits for which no services or repayment are required in exchange (such as student grants, school lunches and pensions for needy veterans) then welfare takes up only 12 percent of the combined budgets. (Sources: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, "Cash and Noncash Benefits for Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and Expenditure Data, FY 1990-92," Report 93-832 EPW, and earlier reports; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Government Finances, series GF, No. 5, 1992.)

What is creating a financial hardship on working- and middle-class Americans? The rising percentage of American wealth gravitating to the top 1% of the population.

A counter-argument says that money given to wealthy citizens and corporations gets spent in ways that benefit the rest of the economy, and all people, including charitable donations. Yet money that is given to the very poor also gets spent: locally, in ways that benefit the grocer and the landlord and other small businesses. Money that goes to the wealthy often ends up being saved or invested overseas, circulated back into stocks that continue to drive up inflation, or spent on expensive houses that got built where affordable housing used to be.

In 1990, the poorest income group -- under $10,000 -- actually gave the highest share to charity: 5.5 percent. (Survey by Gallup Organization and Independent Sector, cited by Boston Globe, "U.S. Charities See Increase in Gifts," December 16, 1990)

This post is incredibly lengthy and I will stop here, but have so much more to say on this subject. The best I can do if you are interested in facts and understanding the "welfare" class and situation is to read as much as you can on the subject matter. One of my sources for some of the information I listed above is a very good (old article) online that you can view here: http://anitra.net/homelessness/colum...ightmyths.html

There are numerous updated statistics and resources to read online if you want a better understanding.

Bottom line is, it's easy to throw out biased arguments, and denigrate people who are on the lowest rung economically. It's easy to discount the actual facts but in doing so we do a disservice to our country and to it's people by not looking at things factually and working toward real resolutions that can help the poor out of poverty.

Last edited by Oldgamer; 01-30-2013 at 08:25 AM.
Oldgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:15 AM   #2
nehalem256
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 15,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgamer View Post

And although the fraud by welfare vendors is terrible, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the burdens on the American taxpayer of military fraud, government waste, and corporate welfare. The Savings and Loan bailout alone cost $132 billion.
Of course food stamps alone costs ~$75 billion. EVERY YEAR.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgamer View Post
And the bank bailouts of 2008-2009
Notice how there is no dollar figure attached to this cost? Could it be because the cost is actually negative?
nehalem256 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:16 AM   #3
Oldgamer
Diamond Member
 
Oldgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,223
Default

Forgot to add this: "Working for Pennies" http://open.salon.com/blog/spywoman7...eing_a_welfare

article published by a highly educated mother who found herself unemployed for far too long of a time, and ended up having to resort to government welfare. She was one of those who bought into all the myths and stereotypes and found herself on that end. What she has to say is very enlightening.
Oldgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:20 AM   #4
Oldgamer
Diamond Member
 
Oldgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nehalem256 View Post
Of course food stamps alone costs ~$75 billion. EVERY YEAR.




Notice how there is no dollar figure attached to this cost? Could it be because the cost is actually negative?
Actually all you have to do is look it up online. No one said helping the poor wasn't going to cost. Compared to what is spent on Corporate welfare and other government waste that really is a drop in the bucket in my opinion. There have been many many famous well known people who had at one time been on welfare and were poor. Being on welfare doesn't translate into being lazy and never having to work. People do eventually get off welfare and become active productive citizens again. Taking a moment to read some of the information I posted will help in this discussion.

It's easy to throw out numbers and bash the poor, but does little to open constructive dialogue on this matter or solve issues related to the poor.
Oldgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:24 AM   #5
ichy
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,932
Default

"Corporate welfare" is a meaningless term that people who're making excuses for parasitic deadbeats like to throw around.
__________________
“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”
-Christopher Hitchens
ichy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:24 AM   #6
Doc Savage Fan
Diamond Member
 
Doc Savage Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Empire State Building - 86th Floor
Posts: 8,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgamer View Post
Most may not remember when during the Reagan era the term "welfare queen" was coined. In reality reporters tried to find the very person(s) that the president and others claimed to have committed the welfare fraud and found that no such person really existed. It was something that was essentially made up or "exaggerated" to push an agenda against poor minority mothers who were in the welfare system.
Really? Are you sure about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_fraud

Quote:
The executive director of the Illinois Legislative Advisory Committee on Public Aid in 1977 claimed that Linda Taylor of Chicago used 14 aliases to obtain $150,000 for medical assistance, cash assistance and bonus cash food stamps. He claimed that she went from district to district with many disguises, using more than 100 aliases. She is believed to form the basis of Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen", and was sentenced for two to six years.
The title "Welfare Queen" was actually given to Linda Taylor by Illinois fraud investigators...not Ronald Reagan. See 8th paragraph. BTW...Linda Taylor was white if that makes any difference to anyone. Oh...and she did drive a Cadillac..when she wasn't driving her Lincoln.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19780614&id=V98pAAAAIBAJ&s jid=XNYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4382,2396493
__________________
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
- Albert Einstein
Doc Savage Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:25 AM   #7
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
 
SpatiallyAware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,958
Default

Psh.


Cash aid is destroying our country.

Food stamps are the only appropriate form of aid. Don't have a place to live? Go to a shelter. You should not be able to get any government to pay for a cushy multiple bedroom home unless you are TRULY disabled. Not 'disabled in the head' so you can get your $2000 disability check, but unable to walk.

But, we have people who think it's acceptable to pay lazy people $36k a year to live in a new york condo because "it's inconvenient to live outside of the city."


See my signature.
SpatiallyAware is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:30 AM   #8
nehalem256
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 15,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgamer View Post
Actually all you have to do is look it up online. No one said helping the poor wasn't going to cost. Compared to what is spent on Corporate welfare and other government waste that really is a drop in the bucket in my opinion.
What corporate welfare are you talking about? Most of the time "corporate welfare" seems to mean that the US has one of the largest marginal corporate income taxes in the world and then reduces it to be inline with world standards through tax breaks.

This is not really "corporate welfare".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgamer View Post
There have been many many famous well known people who had at one time been on welfare and were poor. Being on welfare doesn't translate into being lazy and never having to work. People do eventually get off welfare and become active productive citizens again. Taking a moment to read some of the information I posted will help in this discussion.

It's easy to throw out numbers and bash the poor, but does little to open constructive dialogue on this matter or solve issues related to the poor.
So lets look at one of these people who are "off welfare"

Quote:
Take the case of 29-year-old Jennifer Stepp, who lives in Reading, Pa. Like 14 million other people in the U.S. who live in families headed by single mothers, she's poor. And she faces incredible odds.

Stepp has three children by three different fathers. The father of her eldest child, 10-year-old Isaiah, is serving 30 years in federal prison for armed robbery.

"He's met my son one time, when he was a baby. And he decided that he didn't want him," she says.

Stepp's middle child, 8-year-old Shyanne, usually sees her father every other weekend. But the father of her younger son is also in prison. Stepp says he's been behind bars for selling cocaine since she was pregnant. He has never met 1-year-old Makai.

....

Now, Stepp and her kids live in a three-bedroom apartment in the city. She doesn't let her kids play in city parks, because she's worried about crime and broken glass. Her employer, Opportunity House, pays half the rent. It's one of many things her employer does to help her out.

Stepp says her parents also struggled, and they didn't really show her how to apply for a job or to college. She had to figure it out herself. Still, her safety net is pretty broad. Her mother stops by many nights to help put the kids to bed. Stepp also gets food stamps and medical aid for the kids.

After her kids go to sleep, around 10:30 p.m., Stepp has a chance to reflect. She says it bothers her that single mothers sometimes get a bad name, that people think they just have babies and collect welfare. She says she briefly received welfare benefits a few years ago, but not now.
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103...ide-safety-net

So technically she is not a lazy welfarer anymore. But she is still a charity case. And all because of choices she repeatedly made.
nehalem256 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:36 AM   #9
s0me0nesmind1
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,511
Default

1. Humans are just like any other animal - as we are a mammal as well. See all those signs that say "Don't feed the birds"? Why do people think that humans are above and beyond the receptors of becoming dependent on handouts - much like animals do. Humans are no different. If you need factual evidence to back that up, you're retarded.

NEXT Round o' Bullshit!

2. When you pay sales tax with welfare dollars, you didn't acquire/work for the dollars you paid the taxes in. This point is negated by this fact alone.

NEXT!

3. Everyone commits a lot of fraud. No one is claiming that non-welfare citizens don't. 0 Point here.

NEXT!

4. You're a dumbass. Supporting the welfare program is 2-fold which is something liberals fail to grasp EVERY SINGLE TIME. Not only are welfare recipients TAKING from the pool of legal tax payers, but they are NOT contributing as an american citizen should. So they are not only NOT paying taxes to support the fundamentals that all citzens are using (1x the loss) - but they are also TAKING from the system, thereby making it a DOUBLE LOSS (2x).


I'm sorry, you lose. Get the fuck out.
s0me0nesmind1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:39 AM   #10
s0me0nesmind1
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpatiallyAware View Post
Psh.


Cash aid is destroying our country.

Food stamps are the only appropriate form of aid. Don't have a place to live? Go to a shelter. You should not be able to get any government to pay for a cushy multiple bedroom home unless you are TRULY disabled. Not 'disabled in the head' so you can get your $2000 disability check, but unable to walk.

But, we have people who think it's acceptable to pay lazy people $36k a year to live in a new york condo because "it's inconvenient to live outside of the city."


See my signature.
Bill Mahr (A liberal rat that calls himself libratarian) said this quote on his show last week actually - he said 1/13 people are "legally" disabled. Even being rightfully disabled is disgusting. Even if I was disabled I would be horrified to be on a list consisting of that much shame and indecency.
s0me0nesmind1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:40 AM   #11
ichy
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpatiallyAware View Post
Food stamps are the only appropriate form of aid. Don't have a place to live? Go to a shelter. You should not be able to get any government to pay for a cushy multiple bedroom home unless you are TRULY disabled. Not 'disabled in the head' so you can get your $2000 disability check, but unable to walk.
The real problem with housing assistance is that there's no time limit on it. I'm fine with Section 8 as a form of temporary assistance to help people get on their feet. I am NOT ok with people receiving it for years and years.
__________________
“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely soley upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”
-Christopher Hitchens
ichy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:45 AM   #12
nehalem256
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 15,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ichy View Post
The real problem with housing assistance is that there's no time limit on it. I'm fine with Section 8 as a form of temporary assistance to help people get on their feet. I am NOT ok with people receiving it for years and years.
The problem with Section 8 housing is there is commonly multi-year waiting lists for it. So it essentially inherently cannot be used for temporary assistance.
nehalem256 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:49 AM   #13
Oldgamer
Diamond Member
 
Oldgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Savage Fan View Post
Really? Are you sure about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_fraud



The title "Welfare Queen" was actually given to Linda Taylor by Illinois fraud investigators...not Ronald Reagan. See 8th paragraph. BTW...Linda Taylor was white if that makes any difference to anyone. Oh...and she did drive a Cadillac..when she wasn't driving her Lincoln.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19780614&id=V98pAAAAIBAJ&s jid=XNYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4382,2396493

Here is a news article for you here http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=4138,2275149

Quoting other various news sources: Reagan's story and stories never quite checked out, and he never mentioned any woman by name.

Quote: What is most obnoxious about the Welfare Queen myth is that it is traced directly back to Ronald Reagan, who was indulging in gleeful hyperbole to outrage his Republican base. It has probably done more than any other conservative talking point in living memory to encourage Americans to be cruel to their neediest neighbors, even when some of those Americans are receiving some form of government assistance themselves.

In my "quotes" in my original post the information came from an outdated article but is in fact showing that the myth perpetuated by this exaggerated story is still that a myth.

Quote: What Reagan actually said, according to Wikipedia: “During his 1976 presidential campaign, Reagan would tell the story of a woman from Chicago’s South Side arrested for welfare fraud: ”She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”
The real life inspiration, according to Wikipedia: ”In 1976, the New York Times reported that a woman from Chicago, Linda Taylor, was charged with using four aliases and of cheating the government out of $8,000. She appeared again in the newspaper while the Illinois Attorney General continued investigating her case. The woman was ultimately found guilty of “welfare fraud and perjury” in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.”
So one woman scammed the government out of a total of eight thousand dollars and got caught and sentenced. From this one woman’s situation, Reagan creatively invented multiple imaginary dead fake veteran husbands (not true), a six-figure “annual salary” ($8,000 is four digits and not enough to live on for a year), a dozen fake Social Security cards (not correct), 80 aliases (no) and 30 fake home addresses (also no) and so on…in short, he created the Welfare Queen stereotype by wildly exaggerating information about a real person who got caught doing something wrong and who was punished for her criminal act.

Right from the beginning, when Reagan first told the infamous Welfare Queen story, there wasn’t anyone who actually got away with welfare fraud in real life!
One middle-aged woman inspired Reagan’s anecdote, and she got caught! She was punished! That fairy tale The Gipper told us has led to a lot of misery, most of it directed at the weakest members of our society: those who are the least capable of defending themselves. Are we a country of unkind assholes who lack compassion for our neighbors, now?

The same people who believe in the Welfare Queen myth also believe that people on government assistance are out blowing all that “free money” on iPhones, fancy shoes and lobster. In truth, the government provides pre-paid phones to low-income people who take part in welfare-to-work programs.

Quote: When is the last time you spotted a payphone in the wild? (Was it in working order?) The government provides phones to people so they can apply for jobs. It is a bit difficult to hang out around the last surviving payphone in your area (again, if there is one) all day hoping an employer will call you. (What is more likely to happen if you hover around a payphone all day long is that the local police will assume you are selling drugs.) The government also provides phones because it needs these people to check in often and make sure that they are actually applying for work, because if they are not actively participating in job training or trying to find work, they lose the few benefits they qualify for.
Are you feeling the urge to gnash your teeth and shake your fist about so-called “Obamaphones” now? It’s such a crazy liberal idea, loaning poor people a phone to use! It was particularly smart of Obama to travel back in time to the mid-1980s to start a program that helped low-income people afford telephone service. Wait…what?

It probably won’t surprise you to find out that some studies have shown that the “Welfare Queen” story incites racial animosity. A more unkind person might even speculate that it was deliberately intended to stir up resentment and anger to make it easier for Americans to accept cuts to social safety net programs. A supposedly lazy and dishonest blackity-black-black lady, in liberal Chicagoland, claiming dead veterans’ benefits (and more than one, can you believe it?) and managing to bilk the government out of a whole eight thousand bucks? How dare she?! What is the world coming to when people can get away with stuff like that. GOSH.

Except, again, as we have learned, Linda Taylor didn’t get away with anything. Ultimately she served years in jail and paid restitution. Crime did not pay. Gut social programs anyway! Better ten thousand starving children and babies than the chance that one woman get a penny more of “our” tax dollars than she is entitled to…even though over 91% of all government assistance recipients are the elderly, the disabled, children and the working poor (so much for the idea of an army of shiftless welfare recipients sitting at home on the couch, eating government cheese and food stamp-purchased bonbons all day).

O.K. Kai of the 40 Acres And A Cubicle blog comments: “The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Havard University published a study entitled “The Welfare Queen Experiment” in which Black and White participants watched news clips about a “lazy welfare recipient” named Rhonda. Separate test groups watched news stories that showed a photo of either a black Rhonda or white Rhonda for a few seconds. Each group was also given a survey to measure attitudes toward race, gender and welfare. White participants showed a 10% increase in anti-black sentiments when Rhonda was Black and surprisingly, an increase of 12% when Rhonda was White. This suggests that the Welfare Queen archetype and the distorted view of Black Americans on welfare is well-entrenched in the White American psyche. The majority of welfare recipients are non-urban and White.

The majority of food stamp recipients have jobs or are children, so comparing paychecks to food stamps makes no sense.”

Quote: Let’s get this one thing straight: there are no Welfare Queens out there driving Cadillacs, having five kids specifically to get extra financial benefits from the government, getting free iPhones, and somehow getting rich off “your” money. NONE. There never were.
You’re perhaps thinking of Ann Romney with her multiple Cadillacs, her five tax deductions sons (who have undoubtedly benefited from generous — un(der)-taxed loans — financial gifts from their parents), and her $77,000 tax deduction for her so-called “therapy horse” … and we know we still haven’t even seen all the tax shelters and tax havens the Romneys have benefited from.

Again you can do your own research. The quotes from above come from an author who I do feel is on a liberal biased side, but he makes very good points. Here is the article source if you want to read it: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10...myth-must-die/
Oldgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:53 AM   #14
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
 
SpatiallyAware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ichy View Post
The real problem with housing assistance is that there's no time limit on it. I'm fine with Section 8 as a form of temporary assistance to help people get on their feet. I am NOT ok with people receiving it for years and years.

Housing aid should only provide the bare essentials.

You should not be able to get housing aid and live in a 'house'. Not aid which provides a brick house so you're safe, that's close to good schools for the rat kids, and close to shopping centers so you can walk to work. Those are all conveniences.

That's the main issue here... We have people on disability with multiple kids, living in houses paid for the government, getting cash aid, getting 90% of their food for churches so they can sell their EBT cards, I mean the entire thing is screwed.


Government aid should never provide a living that's better than what you could get on minimum wage.

Also, if you're accepting aid you should not be able to vote - period.
SpatiallyAware is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:54 AM   #15
Oldgamer
Diamond Member
 
Oldgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nehalem256 View Post
The problem with Section 8 housing is there is commonly multi-year waiting lists for it. So it essentially inherently cannot be used for temporary assistance.
In Texas they did away with the voucher HUD housing program. It used to be like a lottery. Only about something like 100-200 people of year would "win the housing assistance voucher". If your poor in Texas and have no housing Texas essentially says your shit out of luck.

Your right, there are some decent HUD housing, some here in and around Houston, and places like the Woodlands. But 5-6 year waiting list to get in one if you do qualify. But they are landlords who voluntarily work with poor people to provide this. There just isn't enough out there to house all the poor homeless people. No one wants to build a housing apartment anywhere near them either. This in part due to the stereotyping and stigma associated with the housing for poor. People have it in their minds that it going to be some drug infested area, and crime ridden. The apartment that houses the poor disabled in the Woodlands area near me is actually very nice. It's gated, and has immaculate security.
Oldgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:54 AM   #16
nehalem256
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 15,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgamer View Post
The majority of food stamp recipients have jobs or are children, so comparing paychecks to food stamps makes no sense.”

Quote: Let’s get this one thing straight: there are no Welfare Queens out there driving Cadillacs, having five kids specifically to get extra financial benefits from the government, getting free iPhones, and somehow getting rich off
What is your point. Read the article I linked from NPR. Or just my quotes from it. This is a woman profiled by NPR to be representative of single mothers.

Did she have 5 kids to get extra benefits. Probably not. She was just repeatedly abjectly stupid. From my perspective the difference is zero.

Despite the woman "being off welfare" she is still a complete charity case.
nehalem256 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:57 AM   #17
Hayabusa Rider
Elite Member
 
Hayabusa Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 37,913
Default

This is NY specific, but a few years ago every child on medicaid from the age of 2 or 3 through 12th grade got a check for the purpose of buying school supplies. It was a few hundred million dollars. The more kids you had the more you got. We had some families getting well over a thousand dollars. Booze, cigarettes, electronics, HDTVS, and more flew off the shelves. What was left? School supplies.

Two things. First make welfare cashless. No change back. Like health savings cards let them be good for certain categories and a limit on what they are. It's assistance, not meant to be a lifestyle.

Second, if you are able you work. You learn to come in and do a job properly. It may be cleaning graffiti off the walls, but you do it or else your pay isn't going to be so great. Tie that to education with a carrot and a stick in terms of financial rewards. We have subpopulations who are completely unacquainted with what earning a living is.

Of course we need what we don't have and that a policy encouraging domestic job growth, but if we ever had it and positions opened up the concept of doing something for a living wouldn't be completely foreign to so many.
__________________
My favorite TV quote by Mr. Spock

"I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline; I object to power without constructive purpose."
Hayabusa Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:58 AM   #18
sm625
Diamond Member
 
sm625's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,785
Default

Anyone who is qualified to receive any sort of benefits should apply for them. It would be stupid not to, given the fact that every wall street junky is grabbing for the same dollars. It's a feeding frenzy, and its every man for himself. It will go on this way until it is gone, and the final bubble pops. Then people start eating each other. But until then, party on like its frickin 1999.
__________________
I am looking for a cheap upgrade to my 3 year old computer.
AT forum member #1: Buy a 4790k

I am looking for a way to get 10 more fps in TF2.
AT forum member #2: Buy a 4790k
sm625 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:59 AM   #19
Doc Savage Fan
Diamond Member
 
Doc Savage Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Empire State Building - 86th Floor
Posts: 8,501
Default

Quote:
But as the original manuscript for Reagan biographer Craig Shirley’s book about the 1980 campaign, “Rendezvous with Destiny,” shows — not only did the Washington Post document that Reagan was right — but so did the New York Times:
Chicago’s justice system was cracking down on people such as Reagan’s famed “welfare queen” Linda Taylor who was finally convicted of using multiple aliases and bilking the taxpayers out of thousands of dollars. (New York Times, March 19, 1977) Reagan had made much of the woman in the 1976 campaign as an example of the “waste, fraud and abuse” that the federal and state welfare agencies engaged in. It was much disputed at the time over exactly how much she stole. Human Events, Reagan’s favorite weekly newspaper, claimed one thing and some in the media claimed another about the amount of her excesses. The Washington Post account verified the conservatives’ charges about the woman, stating that she’d stolen over $150,000, had 26 aliases, three Social Security numbers, 30 different addresses around the city and “owned a portfolio of stocks and bonds under various names and a garage full of autos including a Cadillac, Lincoln and a Chevy wagon.” She incidentally had several dead husbands and had just returned from a trip to Hawaii, presumably to avoid the last bit of the winter of 1977. All of her ill-gotten goods were courtesy of the US taxpayer. “Prosecutors say there is no category of public aid—welfare payments, rent subsidies, medical reimbursements, Food Stamps, transportations allowances, child-care expenses, survivors’ benefits –that Taylor had neglected to apply” for. The Post re-dubbed her, “The Chutzpa Queen.” (Washington post, march 13, 1977 page 3)
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/08/ch...#ixzz2JTGf5MQZ
__________________
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
- Albert Einstein
Doc Savage Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 08:59 AM   #20
Oldgamer
Diamond Member
 
Oldgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpatiallyAware View Post
Housing aid should only provide the bare essentials.

You should not be able to get housing aid and live in a 'house'. Not aid which provides a brick house so you're safe, that's close to good schools for the rat kids, and close to shopping centers so you can walk to work. Those are all conveniences.

That's the main issue here... We have people on disability with multiple kids, living in houses paid for the government, getting cash aid, getting 90% of their food for churches so they can sell their EBT cards, I mean the entire thing is screwed.


Government aid should never provide a living that's better than what you could get on minimum wage.

Also, if you're accepting aid you should not be able to vote - period.

Again your perpetuating myths about housing assistance or welfare. Jeesh look at the language you use "rat kids"?? seriously??

Welfare recipients are not living large at taxpayers expense. Welfare recipients must work for their cash benefits. They have to constantly be sent to job interviews set up by their case workers and cannot refuse any job offer, regardless of what it is. They are not allowed to sit on their bums and do nothing. It is a constant hunt for work daily and there is much involved especially in their reporting of this. Also, welfare is capped, you only get so many years of assistance and then you can receive no more. So people cannot live perpetually off welfare.
Oldgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 09:00 AM   #21
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
 
SpatiallyAware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgamer View Post
<snip>


Quote: Let’s get this one thing straight: there are no Welfare Queens out there driving Cadillacs, having five kids specifically to get extra financial benefits from the government, getting free iPhones, and somehow getting rich off “your” money. NONE. There never were.



<snip>
Absolutely completely false, this is a very common thing. You think these people are going to accurately report any of this crap? They put the cars in cousins/kids names to avoid getting caught.

These people gaming the system are very smart about this stuff. It's well-known to claim 'back disc disorders' (difficult to 100% verify) in order to get free pain meds to get high on or resell. They also know which mental disabilities to claim which can't be easily verified.


Welfare abuse is rampant, all because we make it very easy and profitable to abuse the system.
SpatiallyAware is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 09:02 AM   #22
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
 
SpatiallyAware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgamer View Post
Again your perpetuating myths about housing assistance or welfare. Jeesh look at the language you use "rat kids"?? seriously??

Welfare recipients are not living large at taxpayers expense. Welfare recipients must work for their cash benefits. They have to constantly be sent to job interviews set up by their case workers and cannot refuse any job offer, regardless of what it is. They are not allowed to sit on their bums and do nothing. It is a constant hunt for work daily and there is much involved especially in their reporting of this. Also, welfare is capped, you only get so many years of assistance and then you can receive no more. So people cannot live perpetually off welfare.

Sorry, but I have 0 respect for these families consisting of multiple kids just to get a welfare check. Sure, they may grow up to be productive members of society, but until then they're just rats leeching off of everyone else.

I hate that this is how it is, but that's just life. I don't think the kids are bad, and it is the family's fault (and our fault for allowing it...), but nevertheless it is what it is.
SpatiallyAware is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 09:03 AM   #23
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
 
SpatiallyAware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,958
Default

And huge mega LOL at welfare recipients who "work" for their cash benefits... You've gotta be kidding be, do you really believe this crap?


Have you ever spent any time in low income areas? Your posts make me think you've sat in one too many ultra-liberal rich kid debate sessions, as none of this is how things actually work.
SpatiallyAware is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 09:04 AM   #24
Oldgamer
Diamond Member
 
Oldgamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpatiallyAware View Post


Welfare abuse is rampant, all because we make it very easy and profitable to abuse the system.
And you know this how again? By reading false, misleading sources via biased media outlets?

Or do you personally know ALL these so called scammers??
Oldgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 09:06 AM   #25
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
 
SpatiallyAware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldgamer View Post
And you know this how again? By reading false, misleading sources via biased media outlets?

Or do you personally know ALL these so called scammers??

It's because I grew up in a welfare environment. I know the saturday night conversations amongst parents, I know exactly how the system is abused and how it all goes down.

I know it based on my personal experiences, not due to any media anything.
SpatiallyAware is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.