It's because I'm Irish isn't it?

[Steave]

To a point that's how ours works.

[drachefly]

Food for children should not have strings attached.

[FreakyBoy]

[I]t should rest with charitable institutions not the government.

Why is it inherently better for "charitable institutions" to do things instead of the government? And where do you draw the line? The vast majority of "charitable institutions" would not exist without government grants.

[giggles]

To be fair, maybe half of the people using welfare actually need it. There are so many factors in the opposing groups of thought that are all relevant. I've been on welfare. I used Medicaid and food stamps when I was pregnant because neither my husband nor I was employed. My son was on medicaid for his first year and when it came up for renewal, he was rejected. Why? Because our combined income plus the option of insurance through our employer made us ineligible. The problem with there is that our income barely pays for child care, food, bills, and gas let alone adding a health insurance premium to be taken out of our checks before we even see them. We can't afford it. There is a gap between those who qualify and those can actually afford to sustain themselves. Yet, I see people who qualify for the simple fact that they refuse to get a job, whether they are offered the job or not, and spend it all on trivial things. There have been instances of people putting in applications to my employer, getting the interview, and being offered the job on the spot where they turned it down just because they wanted proof that they were seeking employment. Welfare is a double edged sword. I can see the pros and I see the cons all the time, but I'm sorry if I don't agree with losing 1/4 of my paycheck so someone can go get their nails filled or make a payment on their Bently-wannabe or get a new hairdo. I'm perfectly fine helping people like the security guard who normally works with me. She has 3 kids and a job (even if she didn't I would be okay with it) trying to make things better for the kids and not focusing on herself. Even with the help, she can barely afford it all.

[Grillick]

To be fair, maybe half of the people using welfare actually need it.

Citation needed.

Everyone can think of an example they've witnessed personally, or that they've heard about through the grapevine or seen on the news. That doesn't meant the problem is actually widespread.

[weatherwax]

Yet, I see people who qualify for the simple fact that they refuse to get a job, whether they are offered the job or not, and spend it all on trivial things. There have been instances of people putting in applications to my employer, getting the interview, and being offered the job on the spot where they turned it down just because they wanted proof that they were seeking employment. Welfare is a double edged sword. I can see the pros and I see the cons all the time, but I'm sorry if I don't agree with losing 1/4 of my paycheck so someone can go get their nails filled or make a payment on their Bently-wannabe or get a new hairdo. I'm perfectly fine helping people like the security guard who normally works with me. She has 3 kids and a job (even if she didn't I would be okay with it) trying to make things better for the kids and not focusing on herself. Even with the help, she can barely afford it all.

Ahhhh. This is where I disagree. I also have anecdotes about people who misused their gov'ment money. And while that irritates me, I don't really care in the long run because I, personally, have seen more who need it and use it to varying degrees of success than I've seen abuse it. And I don't really give a $*^+ about 18% of my paycheck (combined fed, social security, state and medicare taxes) getting funnelled away, so long as people like my sister can feed their babies and people like friends of mine who worked through college can eat more than just ramen and mac n cheese with no milk, and a dude actually looking for a job can afford a phone for someone to call him (which was a MAJOR problem in the employment offices of Joplin).

I'd say the only problem I have with SNAP is that there is very little, food-wise, that you can't buy -- which is totally different from WIC, which specifies the type and sometimes the brand of food you can get. Unfortunately, crappy food is also cheaper food. I'd say, increase the amount of money and slash out stuff like chips, soda, and kool aid, which are used as sides and primary drinks thanks to cheapness (I know they were in my extremely full house growing up) or stuff with lots of sugar. So, gov'ment money for healthy stuff, use your own dime if you want poptarts.

[giggles]

Citation needed.

There is no citation. Any numbers you find are going to be skewed because who would be honest about it? Who in their right mind would tell someone, "No, I don't need welfare. I just don't want to work."? Or how about, "No, I don't need welfare. I'd just rather use the money I would have fed my kids with to buy myself something." You're not going to get an accurate ratio. Yes, I will admit that it was my opinion, but it isn't unfounded or an overreaction. I've been to the welfare office. I've seen what the people are like. I've seen high school girls who were pregnant getting medicaid because mommy and daddy don't want to pay for it. I've seen the suburban house wife come in to remove her now ex-husband from the account.

Ahhhh. This is where I disagree. I also have anecdotes about people who misused their gov'ment money. And while that irritates me, I don't really care in the long run because I, personally, have seen more who need it and use it to varying degrees of success than I've seen abuse it. And I don't really give a $*^+ about 18% of my paycheck (combined fed, social security, state and medicare taxes) getting funnelled away, so long as people like my sister can feed their babies and people like friends of mine who worked through college can eat more than just ramen and mac n cheese with no milk, and a dude actually looking for a job can afford a phone for someone to call him (which was a MAJOR problem in the employment offices of Joplin).

I'd say the only problem I have with SNAP is that there is very little, food-wise, that you can't buy -- which is totally different from WIC, which specifies the type and sometimes the brand of food you can get. Unfortunately, crappy food is also cheaper food. I'd say, increase the amount of money and slash out stuff like chips, soda, and kool aid, which are used as sides and primary drinks thanks to cheapness (I know they were in my extremely full house growing up) or stuff with lots of sugar. So, gov'ment money for healthy stuff, use your own dime if you want poptarts.

Food stamps is similar. There are certain things you can't buy with it, but it's more forgiving than WIC. For instance, energy drinks are not included nor are bottled coffees. Even certain kinds of food are not covered. Food stamps I agree with. SNAP I do not. Children's Medicaid I agree with. Adult medicaid is sort of a case-by-case thing. Pregnancy is one thing, but when you already have insurance and are fully capable of paying for it then no, you don't need medicaid. There was, at one point, a Women's Health Program that would provide once a year doctor visits to your Gyno and cover the cost of birth control, but the qualifications were drastic. It was a bare minimum income requirement that really only worked for those living off of tips and below minimum wage pay. I even agree with TANF since it's temporary and they re-evaluate every time it's coming up for expiration. I think TANF is the one you have to provide proof of an employment search.

[weatherwax]

I've seen high school girls who were pregnant getting medicaid because mommy and daddy don't want to pay for it.

Oosh. I'd point to her as totally in need of medicaid. She got pregnant, probably because she didn't have sufficient birth control, and now mom and dad refuse to help her out in any capacity? No taking her to see someone about her options, no helping her out if she keeps the kid so that she can at least get a high school degree and have a better chance of feeding her kid in the future? You know how many kids I've seen struggle greatly, just because they happened to get pregnant at an inopportune time in their lives and mom and dad threw them to the wolves? Parenting FAIL. Give that minor some assistance.

Pregnancy is one thing, but when you already have insurance and are fully capable of paying for it then no, you don't need medicaid.

I think I'm with you, here, in our current health care system. Of course, I want medicare/medicaid to be the national health care system, so in that sense I suppose I think everyone needs medicaid.

[LeoChopper]

There is no citation. Any numbers you find are going to be skewed because who would be honest about it?

As a rule, if there's no good way to document the existence of a problem, it tends to be less serious than people first imagine. Dramatic cases stick in our minds much better than normal ones.

[OldCrow]

We support the common good by having our infrastructure, and we likewise support the common good by ensuring our people are not dying in the streets. No one is helped by a citizenry living in poverty, and everyone is helped when our people can be assured that, no matter how far they fall, they will not die because of it.

The common good is a lie - your dog doesn't own your house.

Unfortunately, crappy food is also cheaper food. I'd say, increase the amount of money and slash out stuff like chips, soda, and kool aid, which are used as sides and primary drinks thanks to cheapness (I know they were in my extremely full house growing up) or stuff with lots of sugar.

Healthy food is not unaffordable, nor necessarily more expensive than junk food. That's a big fallacy.

My son was on medicaid for his first year and when it came up for renewal, he was rejected. Why? Because our combined income plus the option of insurance through our employer made us ineligible.

A question for you (because I don't know)...to apply for these programs and to keep qualifying for them, how much figurative prostrating is required at the feet of a bureaucrat who will approve your claims based on how well you satisfy them that you deserve their attention? I'm been told by my sister (who does social work policy development for a government agency) that low level administrators acting as "gatekeepers" and essentially power-tripping by abusing their ability to say no is a systemic problem in some programs/offices/regions. I suspect it's a feature inherent to bureaucracies that distribute benefits, and can't be eliminated.

[giggles]

My son was on medicaid for his first year and when it came up for renewal, he was rejected. Why? Because our combined income plus the option of insurance through our employer made us ineligible.

A question for you (because I don't know)...to apply for these programs and to keep qualifying for them, how much figurative prostrating is required at the feet of a bureaucrat who will approve your claims based on how well you satisfy them that you deserve their attention? I'm been told by my sister (who does social work policy development for a government agency) that low level administrators acting as "gatekeepers" and essentially power-tripping by abusing their ability to say no is a systemic problem in some programs/offices/regions. I suspect it's a feature inherent to bureaucracies that distribute benefits, and can't be eliminated.

We might have qualified, but we don't pay utility bills or a mortgage, we don't have car payments, and they don't count travel expenses like gas to get to and from your job that is giving you the money. Honestly, the stress and expenses involved with having a child and working full-time are making me consider quitting my job, going back to school, and getting back on food stamps and my son on medicaid. Then again, last time I ran out of money before the end of the month because everyone else in the house decided to just eat the food I had bought with food stamps instead of using their own money. In truth, you can adequately feed two adults and a toddler for about $200 a month, but food stamps provides ~$200/person. I was the only one on the program and I was feeding myself (pregnant) and my husband. Getting in the program is pretty easy if you know the parameters. The problem being that any change has to be reported within 10 days or else you get arrested for fraud on a federal level. Yay jail time!

[weatherwax]

Healthy food is not unaffordable, nor necessarily more expensive than junk food. That's a big fallacy.

Okie dokie then, I have been corrected. Of course, using their examples, I think another matter is time -- it takes more time to make a roast chicken than to pop out the hamburger helper. I also think it takes some skill to roast a chicken properly, unnecessary for a box of mac n cheese. Also, it's really addictive. Not giving excuses, just ruminating on reasons why people go for the junk.

To apply for these programs and to keep qualifying for them, how much figurative prostrating is required at the feet of a bureaucrat who will approve your claims based on how well you satisfy them that you deserve their attention? I'm been told by my sister (who does social work policy development for a government agency) that low level administrators acting as "gatekeepers" and essentially power-tripping by abusing their ability to say no is a systemic problem in some programs/offices/regions. I suspect it's a feature inherent to bureaucracies that distribute benefits, and can't be eliminated.

Holy hell!! No one I've ever known, friends, co-workers, roommates, family, EVER had to "prostrate" themselves to get food stamps or other government assistance. It was as simple as going to the DMV for a license: wait in line, talk to someone, show your qualifications. Sometimes there was a small wait of a few days to process info if the person was borderline.

What the hell are they doing up there in Canada?? They hire on Kafka enthusiasts up there?

[OldCrow]

I'll certainly grant you the issue of time - but isn't that a universal thing, asking how one trades off between allocating different resource costs (in this case, money versus convenience). It's very different from having no choice because of resource constraints. And not something that could be fixed by regulation - prepared foods (junk or healthy) will always be more expensive than buying ingredients and cooking yourself.

The addiction component may well be a real affect - but is it a significant one? Not everyone who drinks alcohol becomes alcoholic and it's hardly credible that MacDonald's is more addictive than alcohol...at the end of the day I don't know, and I doubt the authors of the study do either; they know that rats tended to exhibit a chemical change (similar to one reported in human drug addicts) that correlated with obesity. It could be significant, or it could be saccharine all over again.

[FreakyBoy]

The common good is a lie - your dog doesn't own your house.

What is it about conservatives that is so inherently selfish, so inherently self-righteous, that they constantly insist that not only should they be entitled to everything "they produce" (assuming that they, in fact, are the sole producers, which is rarely the case. I do almost all the day-to-day work; my manager still makes twice as much as me), but that people that don't produce deserve to die?

I don't care that some people leech off the government (and by extension, off me). I really don't. I view it as an acceptable cost of not living in a society where the poor are left to starve and suffer and the rich live in constant fear of poverty-stricken masses deciding the social contract isn't working for them.

[quantumcat42]

What one does with one's own time and resources is one thing; what one thinks should be done with everyone else's tax dollars is another. One can be selfless and generous with one's own money, but still believe that welfare is not a net positive influence on society.