Why work?

[Barbella]

A new study finds that a New York mother of two is eligible for $38,004 in welfare benefits--a sum more than the annual salary of a New York entry-level school teacher.

The study, conducted by the CATO Institute, says in many states welfare pays better than work. Topping the list of wage-equivalent benefits for a mother and two children was Hawaii at $60,590. Idaho came in last with $11,150.

The study found that 33 states and the District of Columbia offer welfare benefits that pay recipients more than an $8-an-hour job would. Twelve states and the District of Columbia offer welfare packages that pay better than a $15-an-hour job does.

"There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy," writes CATO senior fellow Michael Tanner. "But they're also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work."

In total, the U.S. federal government now has 126 low-income programs. A full 72 of those welfare programs offer individuals cash or in-kind benefits.

Since President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared "war on poverty," U.S. taxpayers have spent over $15 trillion on anti-poverty programs--a total nearly equal to America's national debt.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...gible-For-More-In-Benefits-Than-Teachers-Make

 

[middleview]

A new study finds that a New York mother of two is eligible for $38,004 in welfare benefits--a sum more than the annual salary of a New York entry-level school teacher.

The study, conducted by the CATO Institute, says in many states welfare pays better than work. Topping the list of wage-equivalent benefits for a mother and two children was Hawaii at $60,590. Idaho came in last with $11,150.

The study found that 33 states and the District of Columbia offer welfare benefits that pay recipients more than an $8-an-hour job would. Twelve states and the District of Columbia offer welfare packages that pay better than a $15-an-hour job does.

"There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy," writes CATO senior fellow Michael Tanner. "But they're also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work."

In total, the U.S. federal government now has 126 low-income programs. A full 72 of those welfare programs offer individuals cash or in-kind benefits.

Since President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared "war on poverty," U.S. taxpayers have spent over $15 trillion on anti-poverty programs--a total nearly equal to America's national debt.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...gible-For-More-In-Benefits-Than-Teachers-Make

What a load of bullshit. After her husband died in 2008 my girlfriend got foodstamps for a few months...$168 per month. Unemployment came to $400 or so per month. Try doing as these guys suggest. Even with section 8 housing allowance, there is no way someone on welfare is doing well unless they've broken the law and are collecting as more than one person.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

A new study finds that a New York mother of two is eligible for $38,004 in welfare benefits--a sum more than the annual salary of a New York entry-level school teacher.

The study, conducted by the CATO Institute, says in many states welfare pays better than work. Topping the list of wage-equivalent benefits for a mother and two children was Hawaii at $60,590. Idaho came in last with $11,150.

The study found that 33 states and the District of Columbia offer welfare benefits that pay recipients more than an $8-an-hour job would. Twelve states and the District of Columbia offer welfare packages that pay better than a $15-an-hour job does.

"There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy," writes CATO senior fellow Michael Tanner. "But they're also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work."

In total, the U.S. federal government now has 126 low-income programs. A full 72 of those welfare programs offer individuals cash or in-kind benefits.

Since President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared "war on poverty," U.S. taxpayers have spent over $15 trillion on anti-poverty programs--a total nearly equal to America's national debt.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...gible-For-More-In-Benefits-Than-Teachers-Make

How about this. I have a cousin who used for work at the Waffle House. 40 hours a week at $12.00 an hour.

He claimed, and won, disability for 'depression'.

His take home at the WH was about $1600 per month. His disability check is $1300. A net loss of $300.00. However, once you take out the gas he had to use to get to and from work...he breaks about even.

He can make nearly as much sitting on his ass and NOT working than he can busting his ass for 40 hours a week.

Which do you think he chose?

Oh, he gets food stamps as well.

 

[Sickofleft]

Welcome to the idiocracy. Gatorade for your plants can be found at the door, the Kardashians are on 24/7.

 

[Figjam]

How about this. I have a cousin who used for work at the Waffle House. 40 hours a week at $12.00 an hour.

He claimed, and won, disability for 'depression'.

His take home at the WH was about $1600 per month. His disability check is $1300. A net loss of $300.00. However, once you take out the gas he had to use to get to and from work...he breaks about even.

He can make nearly as much sitting on his ass and NOT working than he can busting his ass for 40 hours a week.

Which do you think he chose?

Oh, he gets food stamps as well.

...I salute you cb - you gave an actual example you know from personal experience.

...the problem is clear - disability is paid from what? I am guessing social security which has become the be-all end-all. Your cousin must be a mess because I wouldn't want to collect $1300/m even with food stamps...

...still "being poor" as a choice is something I struggle with because as noted before in another post, it has never occurred to me to kill a person just because I had a gun and was bored - it has never occurred to me to choose to be poor, not work and just "exist".

...most low-end workers I know are all trying to improve themselves - that does not mean there are people who "milk" the system but I have no reference for those types of people...

 

[Corruptbuddha]

...I salute you cb - you gave an actual example you know from personal experience.

...the problem is clear - disability is paid from what? I am guessing social security which has become the be-all end-all. Your cousin must be a mess because I wouldn't want to collect $1300/m even with food stamps...

...still "being poor" as a choice is something I struggle with because as noted before in another post, it has never occurred to me to kill a person just because I had a gun and was bored - it has never occurred to me to choose to be poor, not work and just "exist".

...most low-end workers I know are all trying to improve themselves - that does not mean there are people who "milk" the system but I have no reference for those types of people...

Dude, I grew up around people like Bobby (cousin). He's a real piece of work. But he's from a culture where getting 'my check' is not only accepted, it's encouraged. Most people will settle for a life of mediocrity that don't have to work for than a life of success that they have to work REAL hard for.

You can sit home, play XBOX all day...and smoke dope.

For some, Hell - for many....that's paradise here on Earth.

 

[middleview]

How about this. I have a cousin who used for work at the Waffle House. 40 hours a week at $12.00 an hour.

He claimed, and won, disability for 'depression'.

His take home at the WH was about $1600 per month. His disability check is $1300. A net loss of $300.00. However, once you take out the gas he had to use to get to and from work...he breaks about even.

He can make nearly as much sitting on his ass and NOT working than he can busting his ass for 40 hours a week.

Which do you think he chose?

Oh, he gets food stamps as well.

It sucks that he lives off of others, but it is a far sight away from the income quoted in the top post.

 

[middleview]

Dude, I grew up around people like Bobby (cousin). He's a real piece of work. But he's from a culture where getting 'my check' is not only accepted, it's encouraged. Most people will settle for a life of mediocrity that don't have to work for than a life of success that they have to work REAL hard for.

You can sit home, play XBOX all day...and smoke dope.

For some, Hell - for many....that's paradise here on Earth.

For every one of them there are folks who are really hurting. One friend of mine, an IT worker, has had maybe three years of earnings to get by on for the last 8....his 401k is all gone, lost his house and is about to get kicked out of his rented apt. He's on every kind of government program he can find and can't afford to pay for Cobra..so no health insurance for him, wife and daughter.

The welfare queen is a figment of republican imaginations.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

It sucks that he lives off of others, but it is a far sight away from the income quoted in the top post.

Add up all the other folks doing the same thing. It's an epidemic.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

For every one of them there are folks who are really hurting. One friend of mine, an IT worker, has had maybe three years of earnings to get by on for the last 8....his 401k is all gone, lost his house and is about to get kicked out of his rented apt. He's on every kind of government program he can find and can't afford to pay for Cobra..so no health insurance for him, wife and daughter.

The welfare queen is a figment of republican imaginations.

No, it is not. I know these people. grew up around these people. They are as real as the nose on your face. And they OUTNUMBER the folks who are 'really hurting'.

And, on a side note, how in the hell can ANYONE in IT be out of work for 5 out of the last 8 years?

 

[Yuri Zhivago]

A new study finds that a New York mother of two is eligible for $38,004 in welfare benefits--a sum more than the annual salary of a New York entry-level school teacher.

The study, conducted by the CATO Institute, says in many states welfare pays better than work. Topping the list of wage-equivalent benefits for a mother and two children was Hawaii at $60,590. Idaho came in last with $11,150.

The study found that 33 states and the District of Columbia offer welfare benefits that pay recipients more than an $8-an-hour job would. Twelve states and the District of Columbia offer welfare packages that pay better than a $15-an-hour job does.

"There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy," writes CATO senior fellow Michael Tanner. "But they're also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work."

In total, the U.S. federal government now has 126 low-income programs. A full 72 of those welfare programs offer individuals cash or in-kind benefits.

Since President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared "war on poverty," U.S. taxpayers have spent over $15 trillion on anti-poverty programs--a total nearly equal to America's national debt.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...gible-For-More-In-Benefits-Than-Teachers-Make

there is an easy answer , why you are stupendously brain damaged idiot.
Those links you use is your diagnosis, swine

 

[Yuri Zhivago]

No, it is not. I know these people. grew up around these people. They are as real as the nose on your face. And they OUTNUMBER the folks who are 'really hurting'.

And, on a side note, how in the hell can ANYONE in IT be out of work for 5 out of the last 8 years?

no, they do not outnumber.
Most disabilities are temporary and has to be veridied by medical commission , to continue benefit. If someone got hurt at work , yes, that someone has to be supported until he/she gets well, not throwing on the street to rot and stink for you displeasure.
There are some serious disabilities, which i am fine with too, if i work and am healthy and make enough to be able to have some part of my taxes to be used to help that person- OK.
I am not going to decry that .

 

[Corruptbuddha]

no, they do not outnumber.
Most disabilities are temporary and has to be veridied by medical commission , to continue benefit. If someone got hurt at work , yes, that someone has to be supported until he/she gets well, not throwing on the street to rot and stink for you displeasure.
There are some serious disabilities, which i am fine with too, if i work and am healthy and make enough to be able to have some part of my taxes to be used to help that person- OK.
I am not going to decry that .

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

I, and the statistics, beg to differ.

 

[barbarap]

You all do know that since the welfare reform act of 96/97, recipients are required to either work, be involved in work training or be going to school and that there is a lifetime cap of 60 months for benefits..... Right?

 

[Corruptbuddha]

You all do know that since the welfare reform act of 96/97, recipients are required to either work, be involved in work training or be going to school and that there is a lifetime cap of 60 months for benefits..... Right?

I'm not talking about welfare. I'm talking about disability. Welfare, in my mind, is a whole other problem.

 

[justoffal]

What a load of bullshit. After her husband died in 2008 my girlfriend got foodstamps for a few months...$168 per month. Unemployment came to $400 or so per month. Try doing as these guys suggest. Even with section 8 housing allowance, there is no way someone on welfare is doing well unless they've broken the law and are collecting as more than one person.

You're not very good with numbers....but then I find that liberals generally dispise math.

An average mother of 2 in North America on Public assistance has an average implied wealth of about 45K/year. Adding up free rent or nearly free rent ....about 800 a month for a two bedroom apartment, 100 percent medical coverage for a family of three.....about $700/month and a food stamp stipend of approximately $350/month.....and let's not forget the Eagle shit! The monthly check for just under $1000.00 for a family of three and you have about $33.6K in untaxed income. To make that as a tax payer you would need roufly 33.6 * 1.33 or 44.6K in pre tax income. So um yes....Why work when you take home less than that or why spend 40 to 50 hourse a week away from home and family when you can be home watching oprah and eating lobster? Let's not forget that a working mother also has to pay for child care at the rate of about $150.00/week........

Like I said...you're not very good with math.

JO

 

[justoffal]

You all do know that since the welfare reform act of 96/97, recipients are required to either work, be involved in work training or be going to school and that there is a lifetime cap of 60 months for benefits..... Right?

That no longer applies....try to keep up....and Guess who did away with that mandate?

That's right....Barry the savior ..
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...inistration-ends-welfare-reform-as-we-know-it


JO

 

[Barbella]

How about this. I have a cousin who used for work at the Waffle House. 40 hours a week at $12.00 an hour.

He claimed, and won, disability for 'depression'.

His take home at the WH was about $1600 per month. His disability check is $1300. A net loss of $300.00. However, once you take out the gas he had to use to get to and from work...he breaks about even.

He can make nearly as much sitting on his ass and NOT working than he can busting his ass for 40 hours a week.

Which do you think he chose?

Oh, he gets food stamps as well.

Ummmm....which do I think he chose? Hmmmm....that's a tough one.....

 

[Barbella]

You're not very good with numbers....but then I find that liberals generally dispise math.

An average mother of 2 in North America on Public assistance has an average implied wealth of about 45K/year. Adding up free rent or nearly free rent ....about 800 a month for a two bedroom apartment, 100 percent medical coverage for a family of three.....about $700/month and a food stamp stipend of approximately $350/month.....and let's not forget the Eagle shit! The monthly check for just under $1000.00 for a family of three and you have about $33.6K in untaxed income. To make that as a tax payer you would need roufly 33.6 * 1.33 or 44.6K in pre tax income. So um yes....Why work when you take home less than that or why spend 40 to 50 hourse a week away from home and family when you can be home watching oprah and eating lobster? Let's not forget that a working mother also has to pay for child care at the rate of about $150.00/week........

Like I said...you're not very good with math.

JO

Liberals seem to only see the actual cash these people get paid. They "forget" about the various "allowances", and bills they DON'T have to pay.....

 

[Arkady]

A new study finds that a New York mother of two is eligible for $38,004 in welfare benefits--a sum more than the annual salary of a New York entry-level school teacher.

The study, conducted by the CATO Institute, says in many states welfare pays better than work. Topping the list of wage-equivalent benefits for a mother and two children was Hawaii at $60,590. Idaho came in last with $11,150.

The study found that 33 states and the District of Columbia offer welfare benefits that pay recipients more than an $8-an-hour job would. Twelve states and the District of Columbia offer welfare packages that pay better than a $15-an-hour job does.

"There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy," writes CATO senior fellow Michael Tanner. "But they're also not stupid. If you pay them more not to work than they can earn by working, many will choose not to work."

In total, the U.S. federal government now has 126 low-income programs. A full 72 of those welfare programs offer individuals cash or in-kind benefits.

Since President Lyndon Baines Johnson declared "war on poverty," U.S. taxpayers have spent over $15 trillion on anti-poverty programs--a total nearly equal to America's national debt.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...gible-For-More-In-Benefits-Than-Teachers-Make

Do you work? If so, why?

I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. I had a second cousin who found that her budget got even tighter when she got a job than it was when she was on welfare, because the job paid crap and childcare is expensive. But she did it anyway, because she wanted to provide her daughter a good example. And, besides, she knew that comparing the welfare benefit to an entry-level position was misleading, since if you work a job, you're positioning yourself to move up a ladder, and you'll do so soon enough. Sure enough, within a few years, she had advanced considerably and they were much better off than if she'd just sat around collecting benefits.... especially with the deadlines on welfare benefits imposed under Welfare Reform.

There's a right-wing mythology that suggests our high unemployment rate in this country is because people are insufficiently motivated to work. That's an interesting theory -- and one that needn't lead a person to conservative conclusions.... you could motivate people to work by hiking the minimum wage and mandating better benefits, not just by worsening welfare assistance. But, interesting theories need to be tested against reality. And, in this case, the theory doesn't hold up. If our unemployment rate was high because people weren't motivated to work, that would mean more demand for workers than supply. That, in turn, would mean rising wages. Wages have, instead, been falling, overall, especially for low-level workers. That suggests that supply of workers has been outstripping demand. As such, turn the screws on welfare payments, in the hopes of further motivating people to work, would only make the problem of falling wages worse. Already, there's an over-supply of willing workers so desperate for a job that they're competing against each other for positions and driving down the price for labor. Even if you can make them compete even harder, that won't create any more jobs, it'll just drive the rate down even more.

In another world, where wages are rising quickly towards all-time highs, and yet the unemployment rate remains quite high, we could reasonably ask whether maybe a significant number of people have decided it's just not worth their effort to work when welfare is so generous. But that's not the world we live in, so it's pointless to pretend it is.