Why do people think that social programs give money to the lazy or promote laziness?

[IbleedBnG83]

I have always wondered why it is people think that under Obama or which democratic candidate is in office, that "lazy" people will benefit from social programs. The only "reasoning" i could fathom is because the government has programs to help the less fortunate (in one capacity or another), that are not able to work. However thats the problem. The large, overwhelming majority of the people who benefit from the social programs that the government has instituted help the needy and not the lazy.

How many people do you know say, "Hmmm, I won't work because I'll get money from the government!"

My mother has worked for the Social Security Administration for 20+ years. A lot of changes have been made. But I can't tell you how many people are out there that have terminal illnesses or disabilities that need help. Don't misunderstand me, there will always be people that slip through the cracks. But these people that are "cheating" the system aren't exactly living comfortably. For every one person that gets government assistance that doesn't deserve it, there are thousands of people that do.

Whatever happen to helping your fellow man. Should we allow our homeless to rot. The ill to die, or the disabled to parish? We as a nation are built to improving the quality of life. Thats for everyone, not just the wealthy or the educated. We don't want to have a cast system like India do we?

Allow me to digress. I really want to know where the notion that government assistance goes to the "lazy" and promotes laziness?

[#98QBKiller]

Whatever happen to helping your fellow man. Should we allow our homeless to rot. The ill to die, or the disabled to parish? We as a nation are built to improving the quality of life. Thats for everyone, not just the wealthy or the educated.

I think we definitely need to help our fellow man, but at the same time our social programs need to be cleaned up.

[Popeman38]

I have always wondered why it is people think that under Obama or which democratic candidate is in office, that "lazy" people will benefit from social programs. The only "reasoning" i could fathom is because the government has programs to help the less fortunate (in one capacity or another), that are not able to work. However thats the problem. The large, overwhelming majority of the people who benefit from the social programs that the government has instituted help the needy and not the lazy.

How many people do you know say, "Hmmm, I won't work because I'll get money from the government!"

My mother has worked for the Social Security Administration for 20+ years. A lot of changes have been made. But I can't tell you how many people are out there that have terminal illnesses or disabilities that need help. Don't misunderstand me, there will always be people that slip through the cracks. But these people that are "cheating" the system aren't exactly living comfortably. For every one person that gets government assistance that doesn't deserve it, there are thousands of people that do.

Whatever happen to helping your fellow man. Should we allow our homeless to rot. The ill to die, or the disabled to parish? We as a nation are built to improving the quality of life. Thats for everyone, not just the wealthy or the educated. We don't want to have a cast system like India do we?

Allow me to digress. I really want to know where the notion that government assistance goes to the "lazy" and promotes laziness?

Some people simply believe that the Federal Government should not be in that business. Take Social Security. It was never meant to be a retirement account for EVERYBODY. It was OASDI (Old age, survivors, and disability insurance), designed to assist the elderly who did not have a family to take them in, widows who did not work (different time in this country, women were not liberated), and those with disabilities. It has been perverted to the point it is an "entitlement" once you hit 62. Now 67. By the time I reach retirement age, it will be 72-77. And the boomers will bankrupt the system since the doodoo heads in Congress just voted a 5.8% increase to the benefits. More retirees than ever and the least money ever = increase? IDIOTS.

Charities should care for others. If the govt taxed us less and with a flat tax (different debate), the most generous nation on earth would have even more money to contribute to these causes. Nothing the Federal Govt touches gets better or more efficient. In fact, the opposite happens.

[Special K]

Just because people may be against wide-ranging, abuse-riddled government social programs does NOT mean they do not want to help their fellow man. It means they don't think more government programs are the correct way to help their fellow man.

[Old Bay]

There are definitely people out there who need the help, but there are those who take advantage of the system as well. I don't mind helping out someone who's busting their ass trying to make it...but then again, I don't want to help my dead beat aunt who does nothing but drink and fritter away her life.

[Dictator]

How many people do you know say, "Hmmm, I won't work because I'll get money from the government!"

throughout my life, I've known two.

One was a very obese lady (she died from being so freaking fat). She was "disabled". She got $ from the government.

The other is my S-I-L. She too is "disabled" and mooches off of the government and anyone else stupid enough to give her anything. She could go to work, but she knows how to milk the system enough so that she doesn't need to go to work.

This is in no way saying that everyone collecting gov't $ is like this, however, the system is in dire need of major overhauls.

[MoeRedskins]

How many people do you know say, "Hmmm, I won't work because I'll get money from the government!"

Is that a serious question? I am all for temporary government aide, temporary being the word. Most homeless people want to be homeless, if they didn't then we wouldn't have so many homeless people.

[IbleedBnG83]

Just because people may be against wide-ranging, abuse-riddled government social programs does NOT mean they do not want to help their fellow man. It means they don't think more government programs are the correct way to help their fellow man.

Point taken.

But how does it promote Laziness?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Point taken.

But how does it promote Laziness?

What is the motiviation to excel and take personal responsiblity when you know the gov't will bail your ass out?

[IbleedBnG83]

Is that a serious question? I am all for temporary government aide, temporary being the word. Most homeless people want to be homeless, if they didn't then we wouldn't have so many homeless people.

Are you effing kidding me!?!?!?!?!?!??

Listen, seriously listen. Most homeless people are homeless because of illnesses(mental and physical).

[edgun88]

Ever think that some needy people just don't work hard enough?

[mjah]

Well, to be perfectly honest, there are lazy people out there who get social program money despite not doing much. Lots of them.

Just as there are lazy people who are gainfully employed by, say, the Federal Government despite not doing much. I've seen plenty of them too, and in a sense they're benefiting from an unspoken social program: The Federal Not Getting Fired Despite Deserving It Program.

And there are lazy people in private industry who are essentially a drag on a corporation's cost structure without contributing to revenue or support.

People see what they want to see. If they object in principle to seeing their money go to help the less fortunate of all stripes, then they'll focus on the "least deserving" of the less fortunate and pay less attention to the folks who more desperately need the help.

One of my most left-leaning friends -- think Howard Dean fanatic in 2003 -- owned a house in one of Boston's south-side predominantly black neighborhoods (Dorchester). She told me that half the neighborhood seemed to be in Section 8 housing, yet they were driving around in giant SUVs and their kids all had the latest cellphones. They actively questioned her as to why she bothered working, when she could stay home, file Section 8, and live pretty well (for Dorchester, anyway).

It's hard to forget things like that, even if there are millions of less-visible folks out there who genuinely are the wheat to that anecdote's chaff. If we're going to "clean up" our social programs, the first step is to figure out how to quickly differentiate between the users and the abusers.

[dwbiggs]

Are you effing kidding me!?!?!?!?!?!??

Listen, seriously listen. Most homeless people are homeless because of illnesses(mental and physical).

And alot are homeless because they are lazy and don't want to deal with the responsibilities of having a home, bills, family...etc.

[IbleedBnG83]

What is the motiviation to excel and take personal responsiblity when you know the gov't will bail your ass out?

How many people have become that way that you know?

I understand the theory, but it doesn't necessarily translate into reality.

The mortgage bailout I can agree. But most people aren't going into situations thinking this.

I work for the government and assess people for millions of dollars a year. Those people are ****ed but and aren't getting bailed out. They are also not expecting to be.

[IbleedBnG83]

And alot are homesless because they are lazy and don't want to deal with the responsibilities of having a home, bills, family...etc.

Please, tell me where you are getting this idea from. Again, I have experience in the public sector and private sector of working with homeless. This is not the case I assure you.

For every "lazy" person you mention, there are thousands upon thousands that are in need.

[#98QBKiller]

It's not just individuals that abuse the system either...i.e. Fannie Mae spending $6k on golf outings after being seized by the government.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Sorry, I worked at a grocery store, I saw firsthand how people abused the Welfare system...it is a complete joke. These people dont need handouts, they need to be enrolled in classes on how to better manage their money.

[Koolblue13]

Welfare was started to help War Widows. Then it was mover to areas like upstate PA and WV, where huge industries completely vanished and left people with no opportunity to find jobs or with money to move their families towards locations with work.

I can see the value in those things. Outside of a woman raising a family with multiple children or the physically disabled(not fat, that is 100% a choice), there should be zero financial benefits to anybody living in an area with work.

The solutions are difficult to understand, but if we are going to continue to move the manufacturing jobs out of the country, those in rural, small town America will only suffer more. We seem to want to continue making the problems worse, while at the same time, creating more spending on entitlement programs to aid it.

That makes zero sense. We are only adding to the problem. You make more on welfare than a 40 hour a week job that pays the minimum wage.

If you live in an urban area, have both arms and legs, have children in wedlock, but are working alone to raise them, you should not be getting a penny for being out of work.

You are lazy.

[lovetoaster]

There are definitely people out there who need the help, but there are those who take advantage of the system as well. I don't mind helping out someone who's busting their ass trying to make it...but then again, I don't want to help my dead beat aunt who does nothing but drink and fritter away her life.

Exactly what I was thinking. There are people that certainly need help and are in terrible situations. But there are also people that put themselves in those situations again and again, and take advantage of the system to allow them to keep making terrible decisions.

There are many programs that need some serious cleaning up. They were not meant to be depended on, they were meant to help people get out of their current state and move on to bigger and better things.

One problem is that they just have the wrong focus. Times and conditions have changed for a lot of people since many programs were introduced. There needs to be motivation for people to make a better life for themselves. Many people do not need motivation from a third party, they have their own. But some do.

There are some people that need more help, and in other forms than we are currently offering. But there are also people that need to be weaned off of the benefits that they currently receive.

The current systems are also way too easy to manipulate. I will never froget going to the grocery store when I was in college and seeing one of my friends with a guy that I had never met before. He was wearing clothes that were probably four times more expensive than I was wearing and drove a brand new SUV. He was buying steak and seafood and talking about having a cookout at his condo. Then paid for his stuff with food stamps.

[IbleedBnG83]

Again, the programs don't promote laziness nor does it directly contribute to a means. Its still does more good, than it does help those that may not necessarily deserve it.

Many of you don't seem to accept the idea that most people who use the help, ACTUALLY NEED THE HELP.

If "you" don't believe that if we help a thousand people while one slips through than its a success, than I suppose I understand your issue. But I think most people would agree that helping the truly needy, even if a small percentage don't need it, that its worth it.

[zoony]

One of my most left-leaning friends -- think Howard Dean fanatic in 2003 -- owned a house in one of Boston's south-side predominantly black neighborhoods (Dorchester). She told me that half the neighborhood seemed to be in Section 8 housing, yet they were driving around in giant SUVs and their kids all had the latest cellphones. They actively questioned her as to why she bothered working, when she could stay home, file Section 8, and live pretty well (for Dorchester, anyway).

It's hard to forget things like that, even if there are millions of less-visible folks out there who genuinely are the wheat to that anecdote's chaff. If we're going to "clean up" our social programs, the first step is to figure out how to quickly differentiate between the users and the abusers.

My wife is a teacher at an inner-city Title 1 school - which means that the school gets Federal money because of the economically disadvantaged neighborhood its in.

Can't remember the exact percentage, but I'm pretty sure over 90% of the kids there are on a school-lunch program, which means that the government pays for the kids breakfast and lunch.

So if you want to have your faith in our system completely **** on, I would urge any of you to show up at that school in the morning or afternoon when the kids are getting dropped off or picked up. Cadillac Escalades with spinners, new Chevy Tahoes, tricked out Mercury Mountaineers, the works.

It's absolutely disgusting-and speaks to a complete failure of our system. Of course, that's just the surface. The other part of it is the $150 shoes and designer clothes and Playstation 3's and Wii's, etc.

These kids are being raised with values instilled in them that work is for suckers. Who can blame them? Maybe it is. :whoknows:

Future generations - Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Why would anyone want to rise out of that?

[MoeRedskins]

Are you effing kidding me!?!?!?!?!?!??

Listen, seriously listen. Most homeless people are homeless because of illnesses(mental and physical).

I disagree, I believe they are homeless b/c they think that they live better on the streets begging the getting a job. Outside the East Falls Church metro station is the same homeless couple (at least used to be, haven't seen them in a while) and they had a nice little camp ground set up off the on-ramp for 66 East off of Route 7. I think they have since moved, but you're telling me that those people, who are out there every day, can't do something a little more productive?

[#98QBKiller]

Sorry, I worked at a grocery store, I saw firsthand how people abused the Welfare system...it is a complete joke. These people dont need handouts, they need to be enrolled in classes on how to better manage their money.

I can attest to that. I worked in a grocery store for 4 years through high school and people come in there driving SUVs with rims and wearing nice clothes using a welfare check, because they're either working an under-the-table job or selling drugs.

But there are people that do need it. That's why I'm for cleaning up the existing programs instead of abolishing them completely and I think we can start with the regular drug testing of welfare receipients.

[zoony]

Sorry, I worked at a grocery store, I saw firsthand how people abused the Welfare system...it is a complete joke. These people dont need handouts, they need to be enrolled in classes on how to better manage their money.

I think education is the way out. But it has to be forced on them, boot camp style. With the lack of family support that most of these welfare kids have, simply throwing money at the problem to build nicer schools with fancier computers and better paid teachers is not going to do anything. The kids now don't take advantage of what they have- there is nobody there (usually) pushing them to do so. certainly not their parents, in most cases.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

I can attest to that. I worked in a grocery store for 4 years through high school and people come in there driving SUVs with rims and wearing nice clothes using a welfare check, because they're either working an under-the-table job or selling drugs.

But there are people that do need it. That's why I'm for cleaning up the existing programs instead of abolishing them completely and I think we can start with the regular drug testing of welfare receipients.

Exactly, some people DO need it, but it should only be for a very brief time. If they dont show the initative to find a job, cut the funding.

The thing that really got me though with the people using the foodstamp cards was that they would buy the dumbest things with it...like expensive crab legs...I mean seriously :doh:...that money is for your FAMILY, it could be better spent on something else.