Easier to get Welfare than to get a job?

[humbolt]

No, it has little basis in reality. Um, I'll repeat, it is accepted t by those disassociated from reality, it is a fantasy, an illusion of your own making. My effort? It is your creation.

It has at least as much a basis in reality as the vaunted War on Women. If Obamacare isn't herding cattle, I've never seen it, and I have. The effort I referred to is the economic effort of the left.

Of course, that is objectively measured. What a stupid argument, starvation does not create jobs....FFS!You are still deluding yourself in the belief that I accept your original analogy.

Objectively measure, but not interpreted, as we all have seen. Nobody here has argued that starvation creates jobs. You're the only one that keeps on mentioning such a thing. We have starving people all over the place? News to me. Haven't you heard? We have a "fat" problem in this country. I haven't seen the bodies piling up all around the place with people who've died from starvation and abuse. Are you seeing them? Hmmmm. Again, I already mentioned that you're completely free to reject my analogy. I'd just like to see a rational argument against it, and not some goofy starving people thing.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Is it really easier to apply for and obtain welfare/unemployment than it is to get a job? Is the government helping to foster dependency?

It's Easier to Get Welfare Than to Work - Reason.com

http://nation.foxnews.com/food-stamps/2012/01/16/how-easy-it-get-food-stamps

Thoughts?, Observations?, Experiences?

Is there a point?

If you don't earn a certain amount of money - yes - the process is simple to apply for government aide.

In order to find employment you have to have previous work history, provide your education background, a resume. . . you're not just applying to receive money when you work. You're applying (strike that) showing, to that company, that you qualify to work there, and you will be an important asset. They are not supporting you just because you need to put food on the table. You have to satisfy various requirements and continue to do so.

That's because it's a JOB

Employment is not WELFARE.

What a ridiculous 'argument' to try to make.

They want it to be harder to get on welfare - they should push employment standards DOWN. :shrug:

I don't care what is required of someone in order to qualify for welfare - employment is always harder to come by AND keep. HENCE why it's called 'work' :roll:

If jobs were a dime a dozen - we wouldn't have welfare. LOL

 

[Hypersonic]

You must be in a union shop or those people would be fired.

Nooe my department is non-union. Obviously you don't work in the healthcare field. It's quite eazy to do lazy work without drawing attention from H.R

 

[Hypersonic]

You must be in a union shop or those people would be fired.

My department is non-union. Obviously you don't work in the healthcare field because it's quite eazy to do lazy work without drawing attention from H.R

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It has at least as much a basis in reality as the vaunted War on Women. If Obamacare isn't herding cattle, I've never seen it, and I have. The effort I referred to is the economic effort of the left.

2 diversions and a continued failure to support your delusion.

Objectively measure, but not interpreted, as we all have seen.

? WTF? Are you seriously arguing that the the recovery since 2009 has not been "interpreted"?

Double wow.

Nobody here has argued that starvation creates jobs.

When one argues that soup kitchens limit economic activity, you are arguing less food supplements will cause economic activity...ie starvation boosts GDP. Dumbest argument evah.

You're the only one that keeps on mentioning such a thing. We have starving people all over the place? News to me. Haven't you heard? We have a "fat" problem in this country. I haven't seen the bodies piling up all around the place with people who've died from starvation and abuse. Are you seeing them? Hmmmm. Again, I already mentioned that you're completely free to reject my analogy. I'd just like to see a rational argument against it, and not some goofy starving people thing.

LOL...it is your continuing irrationality undercutting your own argument, I hardly have to do anything to see you destroy whatever point you had.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well I'm different because I've been working since a teenager. But since you are generalizing what is many? What is the number? I see a lot of lazy people with jobs now. Hell I work with some now who barely just do enough of their work. How are they different than those who are lazy and on welfare?

Are you kidding me? How is working to support yourself, even if that entails not doing much of anything, different than simply demanding your "fair share" of the wages of others? Gosh I don't know; why should anyone work if they are entitled to the basic necessities of life just by being an economic failure living in the land of entitlement?

 

[polgara]

You are back to the same argument again, you are not recognizing the part of DC that is limiting the legislative action on real jobs efforts. You recognize that NAFTA and various other bit of legislation have decimated the manufacturing base, you see that conservative groups are the ones pushing the "for himself" libertarian mantra....and yet you still put down this administration's attempts to work towards greater levels of recovery. Sequestration, cutting of SNAP benefits, stopping real jobs programs.....are not what this administration wants.

Gimme, do you know the number of jobs bills the House has sent to Harry Reid, if any? What has this administration attempted that would produce greater levels of recovery? We as taxpayers are still on the hook for billions of dollars for the GM and Chrysler bailouts. It's been nearly five years, but other than failed attempts by companies that that we gave billions to for solar that went bankrupt after taking taxpayer money, and the short-lived Cash for Clunkers program which provided a brief increased volume of sales for the car companies, what meaningful has been done to improve American workers' lives? Nearly half of the population is trying to get by on part-time jobs, when they were previously full time workers. That's not the House's fault, it's the administration making the moves that caused this. Maybe what is needed is more businessmen in DC, and fewer lawyers and "experimenters" who teach in college and have no idea what to do in business. We really don't have time for that now, IMO. eace:

 

[Hypersonic]

Nobody said living on welfare was easier. The OP said getting welfare was easier than getting a job. To get a job you have to build a resumee, apply for the jobs either physically or electronically, dress up, be on your best behavior, generally be drug free, and put forth your best effort. Then you MIGHT get a job.

With welfare you can just stumble down to the welfare office in your elmo sweatshirt and flip flops. I think the latter sounds a LOT easier to get. If you'd like to show me how that's not true, feel free.

But this (the above) is my point. There is really nothing easy about welfare or obtaining a job. For one, the psychological effect of asking government assistance is humbling. I waited over 8 hours to get an EBT card then had to wait another 2 hours to activate the damn thing. I had $200 measley dollars to last me two months. I applied from job to job for SIX ****ING MONTHS and I have two college degrees. Being on welfare taught me two things, actually three:

1) Doesn't matter if you have a college degree. Life is about who you know not what you know.

2) Regardless how much taxes you pay to fund Social Security or other federally mandated programs, if you are single with no dependants you'll still get the short end of the stick.

3) Judging by what you guys say here you have no clue how hard it is to get a job these days. I have a buddy that did housekeeping couple years ago and he has a Juris Doctorate. His firm went under and he couldn't find work so he had to do what he had to do.

 

[Hypersonic]

Interesting point. Does it not provide evidence that the current application makes it difficult for people with a real need to obtain sufficient assistance, yet a bit too easy for those who do not have that need. One group is sucking the resources that the other (such as yourself) should be getting.

Dude welfare is based on annual income, dependants, whether you own a house or a car etc...

Let me give you an example when I went on welfare I had a 2008 Toyota Yaris prior to it being repo'd. When I spoke to the social worker she asked me if I was renting, which I was and who my landlord was. Since the house I am living in was owned by my sister the office denied me a hotel voucher because 1) I have a place of residents and 2) As an unwritten rule I am renting among family as opposed to non-family.

Oh wonder why I never received G.R or more money on my EBT? Well, since I was so honest to report that I have personal transportation I was denied bus tokens, G.R and substantial money on my EBT Because.......


Drum roll........


1) I am single with no dependants

Remember my 2008 Toyota Yaris? Oh yea by me reporting I had a car the welfare office said my car is a financial assest, therefore if I truly needed money I ought to sell my car. Now, they don't tell you that but that is how the office department determines how much you need. In essence you are forced to lie or have a sympathetic case worker. You guys keep acting like welfare is easy.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

But this (the above) is my point. There is really nothing easy about welfare or obtaining a job. For one, the psychological effect of asking government assistance is humbling. I waited over 8 hours to get an EBT card then had to wait another 2 hours to activate the damn thing. I had $200 measley dollars to last me two months. I applied from job to job for SIX ****ING MONTHS and I have two college degrees. Being on welfare taught me two things, actually three:

1) Doesn't matter if you have a college degree. Life is about who you know not what you know.

2) Regardless how much taxes you pay to fund Social Security or other federally mandated programs, if you are single with no dependants you'll still get the short end of the stick.

3) Judging by what you guys say here you have no clue how hard it is to get a job these days. I have a buddy that did housekeeping couple years ago and he has a Juris Doctorate. His firm went under and he couldn't find work so he had to do what he had to do.

You're taking this as an all out criticism on people who take welfare. I never criticized them at all, I just said that it is positively, 100% easier than getting a job. From what you're telling me about how hard of a time you've had, you MUST agree with me that welfare is easier to get than a job, so what are we really even debating here?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Gimme, do you know the number of jobs bills the House has sent to Harry Reid, if any?

We already covered this before, I linked you to a summary showing that NONE of those so called "jobs bills" from the GOP House have anything to do with actually directly funding any sort of employment.

What has this administration attempted that would produce greater levels of recovery?

Lots of things, like not allowing GM to vanish.

We as taxpayers are still on the hook for billions of dollars for the GM and Chrysler bailouts.

Mmm not so much, FIAT has already paid off its Chrysler loans to the US, GM is still on schedule.

It's been nearly five years, but other than failed attempts by companies that that we gave billions to for solar that went bankrupt after taking taxpayer money, and the short-lived Cash for Clunkers program which provided a brief increased volume of sales for the car companies, what meaningful has been done to improve American workers' lives? Nearly half of the population is trying to get by on part-time jobs, when they were previously full time workers. That's not the House's fault, it's the administration making the moves that caused this. Maybe what is needed is more businessmen in DC, and fewer lawyers and "experimenters" who teach in college and have no idea what to do in business. We really don't have time for that now, IMO. eace:

How is it the fault of the administration that the HOUSE GOP has not put forth nor is in the mood to increase stimulus to be a catalyst for employment? How in the world do you ignore sequestration while defending the House GOP?

 

[tech30528]

Interesting enough this is the first year (my 6th) of being in business that I will make more than any one of my employees do. But as someone who is self employed, I am not eligible for ANY of these government programs. No unemployment, no food stamps. A few years ago when I was losing my house and facing financial ruin I tried. Sorry, the government does not support those who risk everything and create new jobs.

 

[Hypersonic]

Well it depends on who you are working for. If it's a private company job, then the public funds are not involved. If it's a public job, then it is coming from our tax dollars, and yes there is no difference.

I work for a Catholic Hospital so its a private and non-profit. But regardless unless I work in a department where its strictly based on individual tasks and results requiring direct accoutability people can do just enough to not get written up or fired.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Interesting enough this is the first year (my 6th) of being in business that I will make more than any one of my employees do. But as someone who is self employed, I am not eligible for ANY of these government programs. No unemployment, no food stamps. A few years ago when I was losing my house and facing financial ruin I tried. Sorry, the government does not support those who risk everything and create new jobs.

False, I was self employed as is my significant other, we received SNAP benefits.

It is based on income, not on the type of employment.

 

[humbolt]

2 diversions and a continued failure to support your delusion.

? WTF? Are you seriously arguing that the the recovery since 2009 has not been "interpreted"?

Double wow.


When one argues that soup kitchens limit economic activity, you are arguing less food supplements will cause economic activity...ie starvation boosts GDP. Dumbest argument evah.


LOL...it is your continuing irrationality undercutting your own argument, I hardly have to do anything to see you destroy whatever point you had.

Are you capable of an honest assessment? My analogy is self-evident. As I said much earlier, you can't have it both ways on any number of issues, yet you continue to pursue it. And it also looks as if your reading skills are suspect. Either the recovery is underway, or it isn't. If it is underway, since 2009 as you contend, then why did the numbers on food stamps continue to increase after 2009? The need for supplements should be decreasing - certainly significantly by now. You haven't bothered to address that conflict, which is at the very center of the entire issue. Starvation? That's your very own little meme. I want you to have it, too. You look good with it. That you've failed to even understand the point of this probably explains why you haven't felt the need to make one of your own - other than the bodies piling up everywhere from starvation. Anyway, you can have the last word. I have no doubt it'll be completely logical. And ARod will be playing baseball for the Yankees next year, too.

 

[Arbo]

Do you know why there've been shortages? Nationalization. The fact that government's don't currently have the social technology to accurately judge supply.

But does that disqualify socialism? No. Because "deficient socialists" like Raul Castro, Imre Nagy, J.S. Mill, and so on, tolerate the inequality produced by markets for their benefits. That's modern socialism: communitarian, hyper-democratic, and following in the tradition of latter-stage Marxism.

Every socialist that has been 'in charge' anywhere, is deficient, by the mere definition of socialism. But nice attempt at a dodge of reality.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Are you capable of an honest assessment? My analogy is self-evident. As I said much earlier, you can't have it both ways on any number of issues, yet you continue to pursue it. And it also looks as if your reading skills are suspect.

Right, your personal fantasy...is "self evident"....in your head.

Either the recovery is underway, or it isn't. If it is underway, since 2009 as you contend, then why did the numbers on food stamps continue to increase after 2009? The need for supplements should be decreasing - certainly significantly by now. You haven't bothered to address that conflict, which is at the very center of the entire issue.

Hint: Employment is a lagging indicator, SNAP enrollment lags even further.

Starvation? That's your very own little meme. I want you to have it, too. You look good with it. That you've failed to even understand the point of this probably explains why you haven't felt the need to make one of your own - other than the bodies piling up everywhere from starvation.

Why would starvation happen NOW....when we are increasing SNAP? You made the claim that restricting SNAP would boost GDP. The ball is in your court to prove that new fantasy.

Anyway, you can have the last word. I have no doubt it'll be completely logical. And ARod will be playing baseball for the Yankees next year, too.

FFS...you certainly enjoy forecasting fantasies! It is logic at its best!!!

 

[tech30528]

False, I was self employed as is my significant other, we received SNAP benefits.

It is based on income, not on the type of employment.

Not what I was told here in Georgia. At the time my income was actually negative as we were living off of credit cards and my wife was a full time student. By self employed, do you mean freelance or the actual owner of a company?

 

[Org]

Every socialist that has been 'in charge' anywhere, is deficient, by the mere definition of socialism. But nice attempt at a dodge of reality.

And what is that mere definition of socialism?

 

[Hypersonic]

I had a high school friend who lived at a homeless shelter and went to visit him often. It was 4 stories high and served several hundred. They got a free bed and 3 meals a day. The problem being many of them had EBT cards and sold them for drug/alcohol money. Which is what he did too. He was offered free HUD housing with the caveat he would be subject visits to make sure wasn't abusing alcohol/drugs. He declined and stayed where he was. He said most of his buddies make the same choice. This was one shelter out of about a dozen in the area. Multiply by thousands thru out the country and what do we have?

A good contribution to our 16 trillion dollar debt.

So I take it reading from the above the answer is no. Look, addicts have been doing this for years, even non-addicts. People in urban often use a barter system where some may exchange stamps (pre-EBT) for something of value. All which requires risk. If you cared about what your "high-school friend" was doing you would have reported him for fraud so the government can cut his assistance and send him to jail. If you were sooooo concerned about where our tax dollars were going, instead of trying to take some moral high ground by disussing it here as if to substantiate your claim about government failure. The fact that you knew what he was doing makes you morally responsible. He is an addict and what do addicts do? They do whatever is necessary to get their fix. How does a person like you mitigate that addiction as in your "friends" case? You tell the authorities, which you failed to do. Your inaction sustained his way of life hence your ethical in that situation was no different than his.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Not what I was told here in Georgia. At the time my income was actually negative as we were living off of credit cards and my wife was a full time student. By self employed, do you mean freelance or the actual owner of a company?

Independent contractors/self employed.

Again, it is based on income primarily, secondarily on savings along with tangible assets. I know how zeroed out you have to get to qualify, you cannot show more than $500 in the bank and have more than @$2500 in monthly net household income for 2 adults for San Diego County. Our mortgage was more than that.

 

[Hypersonic]

Are you kidding me? How is working to support yourself, even if that entails not doing much of anything, different than simply demanding your "fair share" of the wages of others? Gosh I don't know; why should anyone work if they are entitled to the basic necessities of life just by being an economic failure living in the land of entitlement?

The difference is work ethics. I already explained in depth my personal experience....

A lazy person who has a job may say, " I'll just do enough to get by." A lazy person on government assistance may say, " I'll apply to just enough jobs to appear that I'm looking for work." Both in this example upon receiving their checks both pay state and federal. Only difference is one has an occupation the other doesn't but how are they so different if work ethic isthe same?

 

[ttwtt78640]

The difference is work ethics. I already explained in depth my personal experience....

A lazy person who has a job may say, " I'll just do enough to get by." A lazy person on government assistance may say, " I'll apply to just enough jobs to appear that I'm looking for work." Both in this example upon receiving their checks both pay state and federal. Only difference is one has an occupation the other doesn't but how are they so different if work ethic isthe same?

Who is forced, by law, to provide funds for the check? Who has the option to just say no (or goodbye)?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Who has the option to just say no (or goodbye)?

You do, no one forces you to remain in this country.

 

[Woodman909]

You guys keep acting like welfare is easy.

I merely posted the article and asked the question. By providing information about your experience you contribute to and have enhanced the discussion.