WELFARE QUEENS
Overheard outside the racquetball court: “I think they should do away with ALL WELFARE. I’m sick of supporting the lazy bastards who are not willing to work for a living.”
Two notes to add perspective:
#1. One guy was retired and collecting $650 per month Social Security for each of his two toddlers. The other was a retired State employee collecting a generous pension.
#2. I just heard an AM Radio talk show host say exactly the same words driving into town.]
These guys are still conjuring up images of the “Welfare Queen”, an obese pregnant woman in flip-flops and hair curlers with six kids double-parking her brand new Cadillac in front of the Welfare Office. I don’t remember when the Right first promoted that as the typical welfare recipient, but it worked then and it works now for radio wing-nuts like Savage and Galligar.
A big mistake the Limbough dittoheads and FOX NEWS zombies make is accepting anecdotal information as evidence of a trend. If you see an “obese pregnant woman in flip-flops and hair curlers with six kids double-parking her brand new Cadillac” in front of the welfare office, it doesn’t mean all welfare recipients are “obese pregnant woman in flip-flops and hair curlers with six kids double-parking her brand new Cadillac”. In fact, many women collecting welfare are escaping abusive relationships and are off the rolls and independent within two years.
If you believe this chart (from the Library of Congress) you’ll see that people making under $10,000 a year family income are collecting less than 18% of the entitlements budget. Entitlements seem to be evenly distributed across socio-economic classes. Hmmmm! Do you think the retired insurance salesman will volunteer to give up his kid’s $1300 Social Security Checks to stop all entitlement programs?
----------------------------------------------------Percent of -----------------------Percent of
Income ---------------------------------------------all households -------------- all benefits
-----------------------------------------------
Under $10,000 ---------------------------------------16.4% --------------------------17.8%
$10,000 - $20,000 --------------------------------18.8 ---------------------------- 21.7
$20,000 - $30,000 ----------------------------------17.0 ----------------------------17.2
$30,000 - $50,000 ---------------------------------- 23.6 ----------------------------21.8
Overheard outside the racquetball court: “I think they should do away with ALL WELFARE. I’m sick of supporting the lazy bastards who are not willing to work for a living.”
Two notes to add perspective:
#1. One guy was retired and collecting $650 per month Social Security for each of his two toddlers. The other was a retired State employee collecting a generous pension.
#2. I just heard an AM Radio talk show host say exactly the same words driving into town.]
These guys are still conjuring up images of the “Welfare Queen”, an obese pregnant woman in flip-flops and hair curlers with six kids double-parking her brand new Cadillac in front of the Welfare Office. I don’t remember when the Right first promoted that as the typical welfare recipient, but it worked then and it works now for radio wing-nuts like Savage and Galligar.
A big mistake the Limbough dittoheads and FOX NEWS zombies make is accepting anecdotal information as evidence of a trend. If you see an “obese pregnant woman in flip-flops and hair curlers with six kids double-parking her brand new Cadillac” in front of the welfare office, it doesn’t mean all welfare recipients are “obese pregnant woman in flip-flops and hair curlers with six kids double-parking her brand new Cadillac”. In fact, many women collecting welfare are escaping abusive relationships and are off the rolls and independent within two years.
If you believe this chart (from the Library of Congress) you’ll see that people making under $10,000 a year family income are collecting less than 18% of the entitlements budget. Entitlements seem to be evenly distributed across socio-economic classes. Hmmmm! Do you think the retired insurance salesman will volunteer to give up his kid’s $1300 Social Security Checks to stop all entitlement programs?
----------------------------------------------------Percent of -----------------------Percent of
Income ---------------------------------------------all households -------------- all benefits
-----------------------------------------------
Under $10,000 ---------------------------------------16.4% --------------------------17.8%
$10,000 - $20,000 --------------------------------18.8 ---------------------------- 21.7
$20,000 - $30,000 ----------------------------------17.0 ----------------------------17.2
$30,000 - $50,000 ---------------------------------- 23.6 ----------------------------21.8
$50,000 - $100,000 -----------------------------------19.1 -----------------------------15.9
SORRY, I can't get this chart to come out correct (I almost said "right")
BOTTOM LINE: EVERYONE IS ON THE DOLE
People who whine and moan about their hard earned tax dollars being doled out to deadbeats should take a look at the whole entitlements budget. They might become more outraged when the find out who the real welfare queens are. Total AFDC and Food Stamp budgets makes up less than 2% of all Federal and State Budgets. That’s about $24 Billion. That may sound like a lot, but the Federal subsidies just for private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion the same year.
Here’s a statistic that should steam up the fiscal conservative: Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has benefited from more than $1 billion in economic development subsidies from state and local governments across the United States. Why? It’s beyond me. But it’s sure easier to rant on about those deadbeats using food stamps in the local grocery store. So, add in subsidies for record profit making oil companies, mega farms, defense contractors and we get a better picture of the real welfare queens.
I agree that the welfare system of the 70s needed reform and it was successfully reformed under the Clinton Administration. On a National average, AFDF dropped 40% across the country and most of 40% are working now. That's good. But, I still believe that a civilized society has a responsibility to protect the disadvantaged, even if we have to protect some of them from themselves.
If this doesn’t change your perspective about “welfare”, then let’s use the almighty right wing “common sense”. If you stop all the welfare programs for the disadvantaged you’ll soon be stepping over those sleeping bodies when you come out of the Black River Club after your Rotary Luncheon and Award Ceremony. We wouldn’t want that now would we.
People who whine and moan about their hard earned tax dollars being doled out to deadbeats should take a look at the whole entitlements budget. They might become more outraged when the find out who the real welfare queens are. Total AFDC and Food Stamp budgets makes up less than 2% of all Federal and State Budgets. That’s about $24 Billion. That may sound like a lot, but the Federal subsidies just for private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion the same year.
Here’s a statistic that should steam up the fiscal conservative: Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has benefited from more than $1 billion in economic development subsidies from state and local governments across the United States. Why? It’s beyond me. But it’s sure easier to rant on about those deadbeats using food stamps in the local grocery store. So, add in subsidies for record profit making oil companies, mega farms, defense contractors and we get a better picture of the real welfare queens.
I agree that the welfare system of the 70s needed reform and it was successfully reformed under the Clinton Administration. On a National average, AFDF dropped 40% across the country and most of 40% are working now. That's good. But, I still believe that a civilized society has a responsibility to protect the disadvantaged, even if we have to protect some of them from themselves.
If this doesn’t change your perspective about “welfare”, then let’s use the almighty right wing “common sense”. If you stop all the welfare programs for the disadvantaged you’ll soon be stepping over those sleeping bodies when you come out of the Black River Club after your Rotary Luncheon and Award Ceremony. We wouldn’t want that now would we.
3 comments:
25 years ago my wife and I had been on Welfare in the beautiful state of Minnesota for about three years while attending school and raising our newborn son.
Fast forward 25 years, I have three kids, a Ph.D., successful career and a comfortable six figures income. I think I paid my financial debt to the society.
Unfortunately, the program that helped us so much is no longer available. People in similar situations today would not be able to collect Welfare while going to school, they would have to work.
The program was scaled down, because too many people were "abusing it".
Which leads me to one possible definition of the difference between a Democrat and a Republican:
A Democrat would support a program knowing that a few people were able to take full advantage of it and become good, contributing, involved citizens. The "good" people should be supported and motivated.
A Republican would prefer to shot down this program because there are a few bad apples who take advantage of it by becoming addicted to the monthly Welfare checks. The "bad" people need to be punished.
I too collected food stamps for myself, wife and two kids while in college. I lived off the GI Bill and worked 16 hours each weekend.
I still remember the rude treatment of the case worker and the dirty looks at the grocery check-out.
Our stories are not rare. Civilized societies have social safety nets. Many Republicans I know would prefer debtor prisons.
Post a Comment