Maine Most Welfare Dependent State (health insurance, deed, wages)

[Zarathu]

Originally Posted by wabanaki

you would have though states with higher percentage of minority would have more welfare recipients.

You want to start a race war? This is the way to start the conversation. This kind of talk borders on racism.

[Valley Living]

That article is down right embaressing! I'm mighty proud to be a contributing member of society, however when I here stories like these it makes me furious! I know sooooooo many people who abuse the system and are transplanted from other states to Maine due to the ease of obtaining public funds. I once asked a couple from Tennessee what brought them to our town and they responded by saying "Free housing, free schooling, and lots of general assistance." and they appeared to be really proud of their argument! I was completely dumbfounded and respected them way too much to respond!

[OutDoorNut]

Originally Posted by Zarathu

And you would be surprised how many people on welfare don't really give a d@mn if you post their names. I had a family one time who the rotary chose them to receive a T-giving turkey, and I asked them if it would be ok. They responded in complete seriousness(they were a third generation welfare family), "Of course, like the Good Book says, 'Its better to receive than to give.' " I started to explain that they had it upside down, but they were clueless.

The real problem is over time we have developed whole groups that exist on welfare, and believe that they deserve this. Posting their names won't make much difference to them.

Good point.

Probably the people who would by far be hurt the most by having their names posted, are the people and families who legitimately cannot support themselves.

[cebdark]

Originally Posted by Valley Living

I know sooooooo many people who abuse the system and are transplanted from other states to Maine due to the ease of obtaining public funds.

Yep. I see that as well. Usually we call it "Greyhound Therapy."

I do think there should be some requirement to "pay back" some benefits.

Many years ago, those who wanted food stamps for example were required to volunteer some time doing service work for non profits like hospitals or municipal/community buildings if they were physically able.

One of the benefits of that was that some were hired on once they proved to have or learned skills.

Somehow, we've seemed to step away from that now, and IMHO, it's most unfortunate.

[maineguy8888]

I am a master social worker, so I know a bit about this. In my own personal view (developed over the years), welfare is different from tax breaks, or many government programs for farmers. Welfare is usually given to people who don't have a business that employs people (although that happens on rare occasion).
What's more disturbing than the raw numbers is the mindset and the culture changes. Fifty years ago, even thirty, "welfare" was definitely something that most people would have really liked to stay away from. We're losing that, little by little. Now, it's just something you go get. There's often no real "weight" or "significance" attached to it.
I'm not saying it's not needed. But some people fought like hell in the past to stay off it, and all to the good for them. That's much rarer these days, I think.

[chaosX5]

Originally Posted by wabanaki

you would have though states with higher percentage of minority would have more welfare recipients.

Good point........

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by maineguy8888

I am a master social worker, so I know a bit about this. In my own personal view (developed over the years), welfare is different from tax breaks, or many government programs for farmers.

Tax "breaks"?

Hmmmmmph. C got her PTIN and started doing tax returns professionally last year. The "breaks", in some cases, really amount to another form of welfare that doesn't show in the stats.

I get really ticked off when she tells me about people who are "getting back" far more than they paid in. It's one thing to have an income that's low and get your deductions returned, but getting a return that exceeds the deductions is another form of "wealth redistribution"...except that there are a lot of us who aren't wealthy by any measure who are paying to support this.

[bangorme]

Originally Posted by Zarathu

What makes you think that a socialist utopia is one where no one works?

In a real socialist utopia, it is more equal so that there are no rich people and no poor people, and while everyone works, everyone's wage is the same. There is much theory and discussion about this, but none of it involves people not working. It involves the loss of wealth from the rich to the poor so that everyone is the same. All rent is standard, all food prices are regulated to be the same. Equity is the key in every aspect. Work a 16 hour day? You get the same as they guy who worked a standard day of 8 hours.

The only problem is that humans are not mature enough to handle that. Most people want the opportunity, if working hard, to make more money than the person next to them.

But as a theory, utopian socialism has nothing to do with the talking heads discussions today in political circles that are trying to find a way to take out the current administration.

Be that as it may, I am no fan of utopian socialism. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK IN PRACTICAL TERMS, NO MATTER HOW HIGH FALUTIN THE THEORY. There is no real incentive to do anything.

But I wish that people who are bandying the term would take the time to learn a little about what it is and what is not, and not just tag along with more of the media sound bytes dumped out by the talking heads.

Z

I've got no idea where most of this comes from. "In theory," moonbeams can cure cancer... depending on whose theory you use.

Socialist country's have very high levels of "disability" payments (e.g. Netherlands). The Netherlands has had a long dalliance with socialism and also very high rates of disability compensation (read welfare in many cases). Cuba, does it a different way, they have low levels of unemployment (and probably disability compensation), but almost everyone is employed by the Cuban government (another form of welfare). Like Cuba, most socialist countries either severely moderate its practice or destroy their private sector economy.

It really has nothing to do with maturity, but a lot to due with human nature. If you provide for humans, they tend to like it. The old saying "You get paid the same for marching as for fighting" comes to mind here.

[broadbill]

Did anyone actually read the article in the link Maineah posted?

The first two paragraphs:

Maine is the most welfare-dependent state in the nation, according to a report released today by the Maine Heritage Policy Center.

The conservative think tank and advocacy group said dependence skyrocketed during the Baldacci administration, with enrollment and spending growing by 70 percent. At the same time, it said, Maine's poverty level remained relatively flat.

What a surprise: A conservative think tank decides to call out Maine as the most welfare-dependent state when we are weeks away from a guberanatorial elections where we have a conservative candidate (LePage) running on a platform of of welfare reform. Must be a coincidence, right?

I love this little ditty too:

The group is nonpartisan and does not endorse candidates, Bragdon said. Its report does point to many of the same concerns raised during the campaign by Waterville Mayor Paul LePage, the Republican candidate. But, it also raises new issues that the group hopes will be discussed by political leaders, Bragdon said.

nonpartisan and does not endorse candidates...riiiiggggghhhhhht.

[bangorme]

Originally Posted by broadbill

nonpartisan and does not endorse candidates...riiiiggggghhhhhht.

Well, this doesn't mean they are impartial, or without a perspective.