I love it when they play ‘bait and switch.’ This article focuses upon the ‘racist element’ of the now infamous ‘welfare queen.’
Personally? I am white, so most of the people I meet on assistance are, well, white. So, when an ‘informed’ person tells me that most people are talking about ‘black people’ on welfare, I am inclined to trust that opinion, UNLESS I know better.
And I do. Isn’t that ironic?
Yes, fraud happens. And, fraud is rare.
My friend and I were talking about those using the system when they shouldn’t. And the reality is not in the fraud. The reality is in the system.
Her cousin is on assistance, ironically in New Jersey, beside Pennsylvania. (Pennsylvania is the state in the article I re-blogged.)
And her cousin can afford a house, a car, and raise her children.
She has been on assistance her whole adult life – more than 20 years.
My friend is struggling to go back to work.
But, her cousin finds it easy to remain on assistance.
Why? I believe the problem with assistance is three-fold.
First, there is a real need. There is real poverty in America. And it is easy to make us ‘feel bad.’ Then we ignore the problem.
Second, charity was stolen from the domain of the Churches (Religion) and surrendered to the Government.
Have you ever met a beggar? Did you give them some money, or buy them a meal? Did they say, “I am glad you gave me my entitlement?,” or, did they say, “Thank you?”
I thought so.
Third, Government always costs more than non-profits.
So, let us compare. All Federal Welfare payments account more than $20,000 per person receiving assistance payments.
They usually only chart ‘welfare’ spending, and they do not include the percentage from medicaid used for insurance coverage.
When you included all the cost, we are spending around $2,000 per month per welfare recipient.
Not ‘JUST’ $403 per month in the example.
Real COST. Real DOLLARS.
We should limit welfare payments to what we are told is paid. That would be a savings of about $800 million a year.
I love it when they play ‘bait and switch.’
Let us switch the argument BACK TO REALITY.
There are many people on assistance who do not need assistance. But, there are many more people who do need assistance, but they are ‘given’ more than what they need.
So, you see them in front of you at the grocery store buying junk food. Then they answer their iPhone.
I think the study I saw was that people on assistance typically have more ‘disposable’ income than someone earning $60,000 per year.
So, in their bait and switch, they want you and me to have less money to spend out of our pay check, than someone living on a low income job and receiving assistance.
Is it any wonder some people stay on assistance?
In February of this year, a blogger wrote about their experience observing an 11th grade classroom. The post discusses a student performing a poem that mocks a poor woman who encourages her seven children to steal food. When the character confronts police officers and runs into the drug-addict father of her children, she delivers the punch line – “You can have my welfare check!”
According to the post’s author, when asked who the poem was referring to, the student said “Minorities, because they’re the main ones on welfare.”
Besides the obviously skewed viewpoint the poem expresses, it is alarming to note that the girl reading the poem was one of two black students in the classroom – the rest being white.
This unsettlingly common view of cash assistance recipients in the U.S. dates back to the 1976 presidential campaign, when Ronald Reagan popularized a hyperbolic framework for female welfare…
View original post 791 more words