The Welfare Cycle

Just saw a Detroit Public School teacher on TV answer the question, “Why did you decide to teach”? with:

“Well, I decided to teach because I was working as a job coach to help women come from welfare into the work force but the women were turning down premium job leads so I said that I had to find out what happened; they were comfortable with being on welfare, their Moms were on welfare, their grandmothers were on welfare, it was a cycle that had to be broken so I said that I had to get into the teaching system and teach girls when they are young so that I can help break that cycle.”

Impossible; Welfare can't be comfortable can it?

 

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”


Benjamin Franklin

 

Considering the number of people on welfare has been shrinking over the last 20 years, I am not sure how serious of a concern this is. Unless one counts retirees and veteran pensions as "welfare."

 

Food stamps have doubled

 

The labor participation rate is at 1970's levels and what's being done with disability should be criminal.

 

I assume this isn't serious. Welfare might be something specific to you, bit only semantics has reduced anything.

 

Hell we piss away 100 billion in improper welfare payments each year

 

I'd really like to read where you got that from. I'm not calling b/s, but I'm saying it doesn't feel like it. When I watch about 5 out of 10 people pay for food with a USA flag card or the checks or whatever they use, maybe vouchers?

 

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/10/25/census-welfare-recipients-outnumber-full-time-workers

 

Guilty as charged. Welfare is something specific. Not just to me, but anyone who likes words to have meaning.

 

How come they count households with anyone receiving gov benefits (like say grandma, or a wounded veteran, etc) as everyone in the household, but only workers and not everyone in the full time worker's house? Sorry, those numbers are meaningless. Look up the raw numbers and you'll see what I mean. The Census gave those numbers as households which were then extrapolated into "people in those households." Yet Fox "News" didn't give the same treatment to the number of full time workers.

 

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republ...?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor

 

We spend more than that on welfare.

 

Define welfare.

 

A program that gives money or a service to an individual group.

 

So yes, if you count social security or veteran benefits, we spend more.

 

The numbers I provide don't include social security, but that is a pay role tax on the front end and welfare at the back end.

 

Plus mother jones would be one of the last place I'd look for accurate numbers

 

SMH American Chopper running out of ideas.