Skip to comments.Why the Poor Don't Work, According to the Poor
Posted on 09/24/2013 7:39:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Conservative Republicans have officially made it their mission to end food stamps as we know them. Such was evident last week, when the House GOP voted to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as food stamps are now known, by $39 billion over a decade and begin bulking up its work requirements, along the lines of welfare reform in the 1990s.
Whether you believe this a good or humane idea probably boils down to your take on a single question: why don't the poor, who make up the overwhelming majority of food stamp recipients, go to work? In 2012, more than 26 million 18-to-64-year-old adults lived under the poverty line; about 15 million of them didn't have a job during the year. Is the economy to blame? Or are personal choices at fault?
If you're a liberal, your answer is probably pretty cut and dry, and these days likely involves the word "recession." But conservatives tend to take a different view. They argue that whereas unemployment among middle class families rises and falls with the health of the job market, poverty is shaped and fueled mostly by cultural forces, that the poor could work if they wanted, and that the safety net lulls them into indolence. One of their key data points on this front comes from the Census. Each year, the bureau asks jobless Americans why it is they've been out of work. And traditionally, a only a small percentage of impoverished adults actually say it's because they can't find employment, a point that New York University professor Lawrence Mead, one of the intellectual architects of welfare reform, made to Congress in recent testimony.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
|Year||Total||Ill or Disabled||Retired||Home or Family Reasons||Could Not Find Work||School or Other|
How ‘bout “all my benefits put together add up to 60% more than the minimum wage”?
Wasn't the recession officially over 4 years ago? Aren't we now enjoying the fruits of Obama's fundamental transformation economy? Aren't things better now than they have ever been because we excel in fraternal socialist leadership?
Interesting comment in the article:
“Of the millions of apparently impoverished college students in the country, how many are essentially living on loans or their Pell Grants?”
Cry me a river....I worked full time while attending college AFTER my military service. Left school with no debts too. It can be done, just need to have the will and chose a college one can afford and a program one can achieve something besides a piece of paper with.
DING DING DING DING DING
The GOP needs to spend a lot less time worrying about the poor and a lot more time ending the job killing regulatory agencies. (ending the importation of cheap illegal labor is another big one)
I watch the Michigan legislature and I see a pretty stark difference between republican and democrat behavior. The republicans are all about ending regulations for the most part and the democrats are all about getting more regulations.
“Retired” isn’t really a reason for being poor. If I were in that category, I would find a job, as I’m sure, would most FReepers. I suspect that those categorized in this way probably retired and then became either ill or unable to find work.
I think that's spread among: "ill/disabled", "retired", and "home or family reasons".
Those 3 add up to about 65%, or 2/3rds.
I'm sure there are people truly disabled, or well past retirement age. But, the benefits certainly provide an incentive to "stay" disabled or ill, or take early retirement.
"Home or family reasons" is largely personal choice, starting with the choice to bear and raise a child without a father present. I don't doubt there are situations where it was thrust upon them, but given how voluntary single-mother families have exploded since benefits were available, I don't think the involuntary situations are that common.
1. They are lazy. They don't want to work ... because it is work.
2. They are drug addicts or drunks. They are content to do the bare minimum to get their next fix.
If we the working people voted to impose work requirements and drug testing on all welfare recipients ... not many of us would complain about helping any of the ones that are left.
Some of the business professors thought is was both interesting and factual. They shared it with one of the female professors who was an English prof but able to horn her way in to teaching one of the graduate level classes in the business department because potential MBAs were thought to be poor writers and poor communicators since most of us had gotten into the program from backgrounds (engineering, math, finance, economics, etc.) were results and problem solving ability were more valued.
Needless to say, I wasn't a popular guy for awhile with the PC crowd and was very glad that (a)I'd already taken my required class and earned my "A" from this particular prof before she learned my right-wing views and (b)that these were strictly night school classes where my exposure to the hippies were considerably less.
Best of all, since Ronald Reagan was president at the time, I could point out that the policy prescriptions which I recommended were actually being implemented with good results.
Consider too... they have been brought up with the idea that the all government assistance is OWED to them, no matter what!
A lot of them are 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation able-bodied bust-out’s, and who are conditioned by the MSM and the ‘educational’ system to BE unemployable!
Work doing what? How many of those able to work actually acquired a marketable skill? And how many of those are semi-literate dropouts without any abilities an employer would want?
I have no problem helping those truly in need,
but the abuses infuriate me.
How many of those 15 million are U.S. Citizens, and, more importantly, how many of those 15 million have NEVER worked for a living, but are 4th generation inner-city tribal parasites?
These "poor" are mere tools on the Democrat Plantation, who have no intentions of EVER being employed and doing other than living off others' earnings, handed to them in so many ways, shapes, and forms.
You should have 3 years (or less) allowable living on Assistance, and then, you are on your own!
You look at some of our poor people, and it seems that they are getting plenty to eat.
I don’t mean to get personal and mean spirited in a public policy debate. But, a number of our poor are actually headed to obesity. And you hear stories of how schools send home backpacks full of food to tide them over, for the weekend, and it appears that these programs could use some cuts. And nobody is going to starve if these cuts happen.
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.