Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't even have to read the article...Look who is publishing it.
And the fact that the disabled are listed after the elderly gives the impression that the elderly are the biggest expense.
Not where I live...In Texas alone 1.5 million children are on Medicaid (receiving food stamps and all the other benefits) while only about 300,000 elderly are getting any Medicaid benefits.
Also, listing the disabled makes the article just outright silly...Hello!!!..the damned lazy cheats in our society claim to be disabled.
This article is meaningless.
Again, Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements...people paid for them like they paid any insurance or pension...If you want to complain about someone getting more than they put in, you can start with government workers (including all politicians) right down to the local level.
Disability now includes ADHD, "high-functioning" autism, stress, depression and headaches. Far too many able-bodied types are getting nice fat disability checks, essentially paid not to work. In addition they're handed food stamps, free housing, and much more.
$1000 a month is a "fat" disability check? Minimum wage pays better.
My wife's friend copied one of her friends. Basically she did the math. Paycheck (subtract) childcare bills (subtract ) gas costs and car maintenance then compare to the benefits that she could get with WIC, unemployment and other programs.
Turns out she realized that she was really only working for $2 something an hour - because if she stayed home she wouldn't need to pay for day care or at the pump.
She made a choice to not work, lies to get better benefits AND the link in the original article claims that this is a dignified "working household" because her husband works while she admittedly games the system.
Since when is it the government's responsibility to fund stay at home moms?
And exactly why is one/tenth going to non-elderly, non disabled households? That's absurd -- but it means that welfare handouts could easily be cut 10%. Stop giving it to non-elderly and non-disabled.
And redefine disability to be only real disabilities. We have to get out the notion that working for a living is too cruel or too hard on people. People with ADHD should be able to do something with themselves. They have arms and legs, they have IQ's over 65. In fact work benefits them. Work benefits almost everyone.
I have yet to understand why laying around doing nothing with yourself is supposed to help depression, stress, ADHD and all the rest.
Social security for those who paid in for 50 or more years I can certainly understand. I definitely cannot understand how someone works for 10 years and then expects free checks from the government the rest of their lives. As for disability -- that's why you buy long term disability insurance. If you want to guarantee your future, you should do so, but stop expecting the world owes you a living.
Welfare to single mothers should not last any longer than maternity leave for working women. That would be 3 months and then it's back to work they go. Paying people to have babies is silly --- there is no good reason to hand women free cash money for 5 years because they decided to have a baby they couldn't afford and have no husband to help them support it. They can work, just like so many working mothers do.
I'm guessing that 10% goes to baby mamas but just imagine the screams of bloody murder if someone tried to take away that entitlement (or the kids).
The Social Security checks for 10 years of work are based on earnings and what the worker paid into the system - pretty much the same way employer pensions work (usually 5 or 10 years of work vests you into the pension benefits) so someone who worked 10 years earning $N per year will get half as large a check as someone who worked 20 years earning $N per hour. Nothing extraordinary here.
You do realize that that is a manipulated number that chooses to factor out people who aren't working, but could?
"And the percentage of working-age adults in the labor force — what's called the participation rate — fell to 63.3 percent last month. It's the lowest such figure since May 1979."
You do realize that that is a manipulated number that chooses to factor out people who aren't working, but could?
"And the percentage of working-age adults in the labor force — what's called the participation rate — fell to 63.3 percent last month. It's the lowest such figure since May 1979."
Which doesn't translate into a 46% unemployment rate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
