I think it's actually shown that more generous benefits means people stay unemployed longer (going through lots Econ history readings now and quite a lot of studies show this, because people look for jobs more suited for them when benefits are higher), so there is a tiny bit of truth there. Plus what you are suggesting basically says 'we should depress wages even further' (if you increase the number of people desperate for jobs) which isn't exactly going to get the economy going again. But I would look more at vacancies per unemployed (beveridge curve thing).
The OP and some of the responses in this thread displays a profound lack of knowledge regarding the welfare system as currently constructed...or destructed, dependent upon the state in which you reside. To maintain food stamp eligibility: Employment Requirements Generally ABAWDS between 18 and 50 who do not have any dependent children can get SNAP benefits only for 3 months in a 36-month period if they do not work or participate in a workfare or employment and training program other than job search. This requirement is waived in some locations. With some exceptions, able-bodied adults between 16 and 60 must register for work, accept suitable employment, and take part in an employment and training program to which they are referred by the local office. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in disqualification from the Program.
There should be a safety net in any civilized country however it should be a hand up and and not a hand out.
I meant 1900s. I type on my cell. But to the point, there are plenty of jobs. Just nobody wants to work them. Here in KY you can drive down the road and see help wanted signs EVERYWHERE. The problem is, my buddy collects his unemployment check of $746 every two weeks. Why would he get a job for $9/hr when he gets more living off the government? I meant every word I said. If you want to collect unemployment because you REALLY can't find a job, then I have two suggestions. A) require a drug test and B) have them do community service to earn it. Pick up trash, paint over graffiti, sweep streets. Don't just give them $750 every two weeks. I make a good living, especially for my age. If I find a job and bust my ass working it, why cant others? Because its easier to live in Section 8 housing (free rent), collect unemployment (free bill money), collect food stamps (free food), and then get paid $1500 a month for every kid you shouldn't have had in the first place. You will see if you cut those things off, that many people will either go to jail attempting to steal from others, which requires more police, guards, etc (which creates more jobs), or get a job. You can call me names all you want, but laziness breeds laziness. Unfortunately, the ones who depend on the government for their monthly handouts are having a lot more kids then the ones who don't. Eventually it will catch up to us and drive our country into the ground, as if it hasn't already.
On a side note, you can take those requirements that I know nothing about and shove them up your ass, because that's not what goes on. Going back to a friend of mine, he collects his unemployment without looking for a job, though he says he does, and he can simply request his check online without ever stepping foot in the unemployment office. Additionally, he does his eligibility reviews online, meaning he can get his handout without them ever seeing his face. Like I said, there are TONS of jobs. Hell down the street from where I live now, there is a mcdonalds, a Webster, a goodyear, and a BP with help wanted signs ON THE STREET. Nobody wants to work 40 hrs a week to make less then what they can get for free.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I'm sure you would want to know that you are forming your opinion on flawed information. First off, I'm assuming you are aware that our economy had a really bad stretch recently that has a lot to do with a surge in people needing assistance, right? There is not a single state in the country that pays anywhere close to $1500 per child in TANF benefits. Alaska pays the most of any state and the average, per family (not child) is a little over $600. In Texas the average TANF check is $195. Which ranks us at about #44 of the 50 states. That doesn't buy a whole lot of crack now, does it? The average food stamp allotment per person is $133 per person nationwide. In Texas, that total slips to $125 per person per month. What is your monthly grocery allotment? I've worked in the welfare business for over 25 years and have seen that the vast majority of recipients are no different than you. Regardless of what you think of yourself. There are some who scam the system much like our wall Street scum but not near what you seem to believe. Edit: and by the way, unemployment benefits are not welfare.
Let's take one hick ass town in some random countryside and use that to represent the entire country. Let's do that.
He's forming his opinion based on the actions of his 'buddy' -- that aside I didn't realize meth labs have started carrying unemployment insurance for their employees. Good to see Kentucky moving forward towards first world statehood.
I hate to quote myself, but after seeing your other post, I need to modify this statement. Most of the welfare recipients I've encountered are very different than you JD88. [Edit: personal attack removed. My apologies.]
Oh, really? Then why do you write like the "1900's" were ancient history? "Think about America in the 1800s. The most powerful country in the world. How much in food stamps did our govt give out then? How much free housing? I bet it was a lot less then then it is now." - JD88 Dude, the "1900's," if that was what you really meant (and I think you meant 1800's, but why be picky?), ended only a bit over a decade ago. So why are you writing an OP that reads like the century ended long, long ago, and far, far away? Are you that young? So young that the Rockets championships were back when "men were men" and food stamps weren't used nearly as much? "Free housing" wasn't used nearly as much? That it was a "lot less than it is now?" (to quote you own sentence) Seriously? What, exactly, are you trying to say? With all due respect, you aren't making the slightest bit of sense. I suggest that you go to the library, or use Google, or some other resource, and discover the history of social programs in the United States during the 20th Century. It might enlighten you. And while you're at it, look up the position of the United States as a world power in the 1800's, and the social programs that existed there at that time. No thanks required for the suggestions.
I totally get what you mean. The only people who should get handouts are big corporations and Wall Street who needs subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks in order to make some more billions of dollars instead of lesser billions of dollars. OTOH, people who are getting laid off from big corporations should not be getting thousands of dollars to keep them and their families afloat while they look for new work. After all, we need to keep giving the rich aka hardworking people more money or they may become lazy bastards if they lose their money.
Man if LBJ hadn't been a total dumbass and sent combat troops to Vietnam... Crazy that we're now on the opposite spectrum and helping poor people is reviled.
Good to know good old American greed supersedes human life. Take away welfare and abandon the poor; then they'll see what true class warfare is like.
He did -- the 1800s were the classic years of the US before God moved back to heaven and the migrants started flocking in like retart geese.
On a more enjoyable "note" this discussion reminded me of this Zappa song that is still as relevant today as it was when he shocked the world in 1966 with this little ditty... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TiVFfOOm_GI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Backward ass bigoted deep southern states like yours fought unions, failed to fully industrialize until the New Deal and WWII and shut a quarter of their population out of all of the institutions that created the middle class and pipelines to consistent steady employment up until the '70s. Welfare and section 8 housing exists because it keeps n------ out of your boardrooms and backyards.
I just want the rich to be taxed at the same rate they were under Ronald Reagan. What do you have an issue with Reagan? Was he too liberal for you? You compare the fact that today's middle class family has to work two jobs to provide the same standard of life to their kids as they had with one breadwinner to whiny 20-something's? Are you really that out of touch with average people?
Why wouldn't he? Reagan raised taxes during his administration. No matter how you look at it, that can only be the work of a liberal communist.
I think I see the problem here. OP is either perpetually covered in sex jelly or he lives in Kentucky. Either way, bad deal.
