By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aeolus451 on 20 January 2016
Edit Thread
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:
MTZehvor said:
Aeolus451 said:

If you call working 8 to 12 hours a day "overworking" then no wonder why we have such a difference stance on this. In general, people are having kids too young when they should be focusing on careers or schooling. The idea behind working in a dead end job or part time job (if you have to) that you're supposed to just pay the bills while going to school or do online classes or learn about how to run a small business to eventually start your own. If someone is just working a shit job and not doing anything to better their position in life then they are to blame for remaining where they are. You're not supposed to keep working at mcdonalds for the rest of your life. 

In truth, I don't have any sympathy for grown adults that are poor but haven't done much to get out of it. If they are government aid, they should be forced to take long term birth control regardless of what gender they are. Government aid in general sounds great on paper but in reality if it's too good as in it's better to be on it then working and paying your own bills, it gives no incentive for someone to better themselves. It actually keeps people poor versus actually helping them get out of poverity. There should be a ultimate time limit for it. I rather give 'em free college than free food or place to stay.

I do have sympathy for the kids which is why I think at least in the states that any teenagers from poor families wanting to go to college should be able to easily get a low interest student loan thats pays completely for whatever type of college degree they want regardless of their credit rating and provide a place to stay and have food to eat.

I'm all for helping someone that wants to better themselves but not anyone else. The rest can go fuck themselves if all they want is to milk the government tit til it's barren and they have nothing to show for it.

I only called working 12 hours a day overworking, and yes, I do think that's reasonable, especially since doctors refer to it as overworking as well. Working an additional four hours a day increases your chance of heart disease by 125%, increases your likelihood of dying early from any medical cause by 50%, and doubles your chances of depression (citing Gallup here). Assuming these people are working low paying jobs, whatever additional income they earn is likely going to be taken up by the increased medical expenditures.

Government aid in general sounds great on paper but in reality if it's too good as in it's better to be on it then working and paying your own bills, it gives no incentive for someone to better themselves.

This actually is not true. The vast majority (over 90%) of families who are recipients of welfare packages are off welfare in 3 years time (citing the Urban Institute on this one). There is a strong negative stigma which encourages people to get out of welfare dependency as quickly as possible. Over half of people who receive welfare this year will be people who did not receive it last year. In other words, welfare is a constantly changing group; very few people simply "farm the system," as it were.

Do you honestly believe that?  

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Average Time on AFCD (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
Time on AFDC Percent of Recipients
Less than 7 months 19%
7 to 12 months 15.2%
1 to 2 years 19.3%
2 to 5 years 26.9%
Over 5 years 19.6%

Personally, I know of at least 20 people that have been on welfare for over 5 years or more. 

I'm honestly not sure where to start with this. First off, AFDC was shut down and replaced with TANF in 1996. Your statistics are, at the very least, nearly 20 years old.

Secondly, AFDC was only a portion of welfare programs, designed to help out single mothers. Single mothers, hopefully somewhat obviously, are going to have far less chances to pursue sufficient work to escape poverty (taking care of a child tends to eat into your time). Honestly, the fact that only 20% stayed in this program for more than 5 years is pretty impressive in and of itself.

With that said, even if we do look exclusively at public benefits programs like TANF, the majority are still off within 3 years, using as up to date statistics as are avaliable. 90% are off in five years time.

The 90% number I referenced earlier is admittedly somewhat outdated; no reputable study (that I'm aware of, at least) has been performed on the entire welfare receiving population since the turn of the century. It may not be 90% at this point. With that said, if roughly 90% of public benefits program recipients are off in at least 5 years time (2012 statistics), then I can't imagine the number would be worse for welfare taken as a whole, given most public benefits programs are aimed at people who have either medical probems or some other significant impediment to finding and keeping a job.

And finally, 20 people that you know does not consitute a statistically significant survey size for a country that contains over 300 million individuals.

 

The 5 year thing I'm more willing to accept because of there's a 5 year federal time for TANF but I did found out something interesting about it. Once the 60 month limit is reached they are dropped from it, at that point they can apply for a hardship extension (what entails as hardship is defined by the state). There is no time limit on the extension. The number of families receiving assistance for more than 60 months must not exceed 20 percent of the state's average monthy caseload. 

In other words, on paper or statistically, no one will receive more than 5 years of TANF but in reality they do. In regards, to the site I linked earlier, it was up to date supposedly so i thought that AFDC was a current program but I was mistaken.