Entitlement programs

[disneysteve]

where is the evidence to suggest that large numbers of people are simply goldbricks out for a free ride?

I bet for every person you know like that, you know many who are barely surviving.

But the truly needy outweigh the cheats, no doubt.

I agree with you on all points. I don't think the majority abuse the system. I think there are many people who are truly needy and I think they far outweigh the cheaters. The point, though, is that if you could somehow tighten up the system to lessen the abuse, there would be a lot more to go around for those who truly need it.

Let's assume the 43 million figure is correct. If 95% are truly needy and the benefits they receive are adequate to meet their needs, that leaves 5% or 2.15 million people who are abusing the system. If they each get $100/month, that comes to $215 million/mo. or over $2.5 Billion per year wasted. Congress may not think so, but I consider that to be a lot of money that could be put to far better use.

Another way to look at things.... I posted about the food stamp ads on the Doritos and Red Bull displays. Change the system to not allow garbage like that to be purchased with food stamps and again, you would free up millions or even billions that could be put to better use.

I also think there is an inherent problem with a system that discourages people from going back to work because they will lose their benefits if they do. That needs to be fixed. People shouldn't be able to make as much or more on public assistance than they can working a regular job. Here I think healthcare becomes the leading issue, not food stamps. On welfare, they get free medical coverage. Go back to work and they lose that. People can't afford to do that. One relatively minor illness could wipe them out. Here's where we need to come up with some type of mandatory national health plan that covers all workers.

[Mjenn]

I know I always jump in with the 'America is not the world' arguement, but having lived in several different countries I would say Americans have the least sense of 'entitlement' of the places I have lived because they have some of the least entitlements. And many people who I know who qualified for entitlements, wouldn't take them in the US out of sheer pride. I have not encountered a similar attitude towards welfare in other countries. There the attitude is, I paid my taxes so this money would be there if, god forbid, I ever need it. So when I need it, yes, I take it.

Most of the countries that I have lived in have provided - health care to everyone - right off the bat.

Where I live now -

parental leave for over a year for Moms & Dads -paid for by the state - 80-100% of your salary
welfare - if you qualify includes enough money for a newspapers subscription - in the last country I lived in welfare money included enough to be able to own a TV - these countries include these things because they believe welfare money should help you to live at a basic living standard for the country - and the countries have a very high living standard.
sick leave - for up to 1 year - and then support in finding a new job
housing subsidies - which you can use for any apartment - based on family size and income
No food stamps - you are just given sums of money you can use on anything.

All of this comes out of my tax money. And I think it is great. There are people who take advantage. Sure. But most people, when given a chance, want to work, And I would hate to lose some of this safety net because of a few cheaters.

So no, I don't think the US is over the top when it comes to entitlements. But I do agree with DisneySteve that if there were a better way of patrolling them, it would lead to more money for those people who need it. And that I think is an inherent flaw in most welfare systems.

[snafu]

I figure a single individual who is not physically or mentally challenged isn't eligible for much and the vast majority of those eligible for government benefits are children. Sadly the adults who spend $$$ for Red Bull or Doritos aren't providing the nutrition intended. Many, no matter their level of education, are woefully ignorant about managing their resources effectively. Too bad benefits aren't linked to learning how to cook, stay out of debt, manage money how food and exercise keeps you healthy etc.

[Aleta]

When I was a little kid the government gave out food. The food was peanut butter, butter, beans, rice, flour,shortening, etc. There were no Doritos's, red bull, etc. I know because my family's church was one of the points that had the food where people would line up for it. Food stamps in Fla won't allow you to buy any food that is made (hot) from the deli's so the stores have come up with what they call cool chicken (Rotissere). Not to mention all of the WIC stamps for children. When my husband and I had hard times; we relied upon the pantry that I had bought in advance. As long as I see people with cell phones, expensive tennis shoes - I have a problem with it.

There is no longer any shame for anyone to get assistance. Don't get me wrong, some people need some help FOR A WHILE but it becomes dependecy. This program needs to be reformed. People are starting to accept this way of life as being entitled for someone else taking care of them.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Mjenn, I wish there were more people who would share experiences like yours. It is very interesting to me to hear your observations from other places in the world.

Aleta, I'm guessing that you are remembering the food distributions of the early 1980s. Those were commodities bought up for years by the federal government primarily to support prices at a level where farmers might be able to stay in business and, secondarily, to provide a national food back-up. However, during the recession of that time, when people became aware that so much food was in storage, there was a cry to use it immediately to feed people. Kansans and Missourians will particularly remember the truck after truck that left our huge, frigid caves, to distribute butter and cheese through-out the country. It was a mind boggling amount. In addition to the good you mention, there were large cans of pork, reminding me of the pork one gets in carry out Chinese restaurants. There were also canned vegetables. Peas is what I remember, but there must have been more than that.

I do wonder what kind of government food stores we now have.

I'm not sure if you know that the commodities distribution was in addition to foods tamps, not a replacement. Also, people could get certified locally (Maat55 might approve), and need not be food stamp eligible in order to get the food. One just had to present reasonable need. I was working in a homeless shelter at the time. Quite a few of our guests received these foods. At that time they had not been eligible for food stamps despite their immense need. At that time one had to have a kitchen, cooking facilities, in order to qualify for food stamps. If you said you were homeless you could not get the FS, even if you had a kitchen available to you in a shelter. Even if you knew how to bank a slow fire over a heavy pot of simmering beans down by the old railroad track, you could not get food stamps.....Commodities food became available to such people in the '80's when (again as Maat55 would probably like) it was left to local people to determine who was in need.

There have been other times when direct food distribution was done by the federal government. The earliest version of the WIC program was like that, and sadly it was not as responsive to the actual needs of infants and nursing mothers as its later nutritionally-targeted food voucher version was. The earliest sort of "food rescue" efforts by the federal government were largely just dry corn and wheat. Sometimes it was milled; sometimes not.

[Aleta]

JoanofArc; No, the time period that I'm talking about was in the mid 50's. There were no food stamps back then. As a matter of fact, they used the same food distribution for areas that flooded.

My point is that the government was doing a better job of giving families food that was healthier.

There is a quote and I'm sure that Maat knows it but it says that you should never put money into someone's hands that never worked for it. Money is precious and especially to those who labor for it. That is why we have always had hand=outs to people who had their needs taken care of and not their wants.