How Welfare should be according to Anti-Welfareists

Post Reply New Topic

People asking for federal aid in fact have to provide proof of income. Yes, you sincerely have to be poor. It's not like just anyone can get such aid, nor will that ever be the case that anyone could just get aid without really needing it.

So it would be a bad idea to put anything in savings while on SSI...I am thinking.

Why would there be a no questions asked welfare/disability system?....Also though even if that were the case do most people really want to live on up to 700 a month maximum?

In my case yes, I have no idea how it is in other states though. Usually I don't have much left after the first week of the month anyway lol.

They do background checks and such (at least they do here), you have to have proof that you need it, it's not a handout service.
In my case, I had to prove my lack of income, I had to provide reasons for needing assistance with official papers, etc. It actually takes most people up to a year to get the assistance.
After they receive the info, they'll either accept or deny the claim for pretty much whatever reasons that they see fit in terms of criteria in the application process. It's pretty specific too, they'll go through the whole household's income and count it in with what you've already given them (if you're living with someone), and if their income alone passes the point of acceptable income then they'll deny a claim.
Again, that's just from where I'm at, no idea what the process is for other states.

It would seem its the same in my state...but yeah I am not really worried about even having enough money to potentially save. Luckily my mom is only going to charge minor rent and she and her boyfriend already pay the other house bills, so that will leave me with a little more money to spare for things besides rent and bills...if I move out I'd probably have to find a room-mate, I doubt I could afford rent on my own anywhere if I still wanted to afford other things.

Yeah, that's how it is for me too, though I rent the room lol. It's nice here, but probably this summer I'll be moving into an apartment again. Right now, I have a few bills but it's mostly phone and netflix (about $80 in total, thinking about down grading netflix to basic though). Normally I have enough to get some snacks or coffee and some monthly entertainment.

Have any of the anti welfarists considered that putting money into the hands of people who will spend it, is a way to stimulate economic activity? Welfare money is not disappearing into a void, you know.

That is a good point.

lol an excellent point, maybe all major monetary systems and lobbyists should be told this

Actually, if you remove contributions to churches from the statistics, liberals actually average a tiny bit higher in charitable donations. Although even those numbers are misleading, as it is a very real possibility that many who donate to their church may give more to secular charities with that money. Using any of those BS studies is not really proof of anything for either side.

As for blood donations, since a much higher percentage of conservatives are churchgoers and a large percentage of blood drives are held at churches, that skews your figures significantly. If there were more blood drives in poor urban areas, I imagine the numbers would be quite different.

Trying to claim some sort of moral high ground based on "average" members of a party is fraught with problems. Since the demographics of each side are so different, there are very few comparisons you can make that aren't plagued by mitigating factors. Liberals have a higher IQ on average (although several conservative think tanks funded their own studies in response that showed the opposite by significantly manipulating the data to exclude certain portions of each side), but most liberals fail to mention that the highest average IQs are among self identified Tea Party supporters. Liberals, on average, have higher levels of education than conservatives, but those numbers don't tkae into account the lower high school graduation rates.

If you want some practice at looking at numbers to try finding the major limitations and flaws, here are a few liberal statements backed up by fact. See if you can figure out why these statements are misleading.

Liberal states have lower average divorce rates than conservative states.
Liberal states have lower average teen pregnancy rates than conservative states.
Liberal states have lower average property crime rates than conservative states.
Protestant females begin having sex at a younger than average age.

All of these statements are technically true, but do not address any other factors that come into play. These types of statements (from both sides) show a correlation, but do not address the fact that whether someone is conservative or liberal often does not actually come into play. It's like saying your football team is the best because you can pick out the average stats for your players that put them in the best light, which proves and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

I'll make you a deal. If you don't lump libertarians with conservatives, I won't lump conservatives with liberals.

It's not coming from a void either, you know. It's coming from the hands of people who will spend it. And the administration of that transfer reduces the efficiency of those dollars.

That is like lumping liberals and the American Communist party together. A few overlaps in the general philosophy, but taken in different directions and to different extremes.

Do you have any studies backing that up (just to save me the effort of searching for some)? I know there have been studies showing a correlation between lower income levels and a higher per dollar impact on the economy, with SNAP resulting in the largest per dollar return for the economy as a whole. Those in poverty don't save their money and sit on it; they have to spend it as fast as they get it. The circulation of money is what drives this economy, not a wealth increase. As inefficient and wasteful as the government can be, it is the largest single contributor to increasing GDP by far.

It's federal money, aka government money. It may not be coming from the void either, but it does come from an administration that would waste that money if it were not being used for helping people, and considering how many billions of dollars the government wastes on spy programs and war alone, the waste trumps any other spending point by ridiculous amounts, why make such a fuss about welfare, that is actually helping people, and not about the waste that is hurting them?