I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying both situations can happen. I know when we went on food stamps I had alot of stuff you think someone on food stamps shouldn't have. Luckily we are off those now.
Indeed, a situation like that can occur. However its also situations like that I think that bug some people and highlight the points. Are you truly "needy" and requiring of government assistance from Tax Payers when you do still have means to gain money? You bought your 32" plasma for example, and its done you well, but now you're at a place where you're in need of food. Yet rather than sell your TV and use that money for necessities you're able to keep it and get government assistance, meanwhile someone employed and paying taxes that help go to that assistance is saving and scraping up what money they can after necessities are paid for to attempt and buy a TV similar to that.
This is akin to something I've said before. Being truly "in poverty" to me is meaning you're ONLY striving for the necessities in life and even then you can't make due. If you're going out to happy hour every wednesday and spending $30 on drinks...if you're a new xbox game, even if its used, every month...if you're buying booze or smokes weekly...etc then you're not really "in poverty" to me because you're spending your money on non-necessities.
I'm not one of those people that think people on welfare, even a minority of them, are living like kings with all top end appliances and money flowing while on the government dollar. What I do think though is there are many who make horrendous financial decisions with regards to prioritizing and they are able to continually do so because they are essentially playing with house money. Why bypass using some of your little bit of cash to buy a 12 pack of Bud Light and a carton of smokes when you don't have to spend that on food because you've got food stamps. Why save up money to buy a nice outfit for interviews when that's going to just take time in finding a job and then actually having to work for that job, none of which is fun, when you can spend that money on a splurge purpose that can make day to day life more interesting since you know you can get by on what little assistance you get.
I think a lot of people are happy to scrape by at a level where they feel "comfortable", and if their ideal of "comfortable" is low it doesn't take much to get there. If you provide them enough social net where they feel that they can at least get by, and do so without much work and with less stress and more comfort then if they worked at the bottom of the barrel and tried to claw their way up, many people are going to just push and be fine with the spot they're in.
Essentially, if you remove rock bottom and make it cushiony then some people may end up hitting that cushion and go "You know, compared to the IMMEDIETE alternative its not that bad".
Now, with all that said...we have the system in place now and I don't have problems with people who use it. I'd have no problem with you keeping your TV and going on food stamps, the systems there, you've paid into taxes as has your family, no problem with it. My issue would be attempting to label yourself as "in poverty" because of it. And my issue is people who abuse those systems rather than use them for their purpose which is to help transition you into a situation where you no longer need them.
I went through that myself. When I first moved into the northern virginia area I was working for 26k a year for the federal government, with 15k worth of student loans due (not counting interest), and needing a two bedroom apartment for myself and my, at the time, 8 hours a week at minimum wage working student girlfriend. I ended up getting into a government subsidized apartment that saved me about $300 a month (Was paying $1050 a month). During that time I wouldn't consider myself in poverty or even "poor". I had a computer, my gf had one as well. Had a TV, a WII, nice phone, plenty of work clothes. But for that first 6 months or so until she graduated and got a full time job we cut back massively. We bought generic food instead of name brand. If we went out to the bar with friends we'd have at most one drink each that we'd nurse and then do water. We found cheap ways to do dates and spend evenings together such as air popped popcorn that her dad gave us and a $1 redbox movie. We scrimped by, with a little under $200 a month to use for expenses after the bills got paid.
But I managed to use the chances available by moving to that area to get a better job that lead to advancement. She managed to get a good job as well. We improved our situation and eventually moved out of those apartments because it was no longer necessary income wise to live there even though we technically could've stayed and continued to have the incredibly good rent for the area.
This to me is a contrast to two of my roommates for one year of college. Because they were 18 they were technically no longer a dependent. Neither worked, but both had parents that gave them money whenever was needed for college. They spent the excess amounts of their college loans to buy things like an anaconda and a big TV for their room. They applied and went onto foodstamps. They did this so they could then spend the money they got from their parents on things like a custom beer pong table, booze, and things to start brewing "absynthe" (I use that loosely). They had no need to be on food stamps, even if they wanted to do half of the luxury type things they did they'd have been fine. They did it simply to screw the system and have more cash to waste on frivilous things simply because "they could".
I'm not saying my situation is necessarily uncommon, I'm not saying theirs is extremely common. I do believe however that it feels often that the latter is more common than the former. Or, more to the point, that the latter is more impactful because its the ones that lingers on for much, much longer.
Just my few takes on it. Interesting discussion
