Do You Agree?

[WickedPissah]

Only if the youngest child is over the age of 5 does this apply in Mass, btw.

Good to know.

that just encourages them to keep having more kids so they always have one under 5 and don't have to work

In Massachusetts, you can be on snap for 2 years in a 5 year period at least that's what i was told. I'm not sure if the other forms of assistance is the same though.

[Anonymous 1]

I mean, you cared enough to bring it up.

Okay. That’s one state.

In Massachusetts. You have to show proof you applied for jobs and the employer signing off that you came in for an interview.

I don't know about other states though.

I think TN does it as well. Not sure. I've seen somethings about their welfare system.

I'm not that invested in what the ins and outs are in other states on welfare. From various news articles sure but other than that who really cares.

[WickedPissah]

I mean, you cared enough to bring it up.

Okay. That’s one state.

I think TN does it as well. Not sure. I've seen somethings about their welfare system.

I'm not that invested in what the ins and outs are in other states on welfare. From various news articles sure but other than that who really cares.

Not a lot of other posts going on today. It's like a bunch of books on the sales rack and you gotta pick one.

[Anonymous 4]

What if they haven’t hit arough patch and don’t truly need the help? What if they just don’t want to work have made bad decisions/etc.?

I don’t care what you call them, but I fully support them. DH and I are high income earners and pay scary amounts of state and federal taxes, but we support programs that make sure people have basic necessities if they hit a rough patch and need help.

That doesn't work here. Even if you only get food stamps they make you volunteer 20 hours a week unless you are disabled if you don't have a job.

If you're an ABW between the ages of 18 and 49?

[Anonymous 4]

Welfare and the defense budget are approximately tied for the largest government expenditures. I’d say that makes welfare worthy of concern.

I feel like you should get what you pay for: congresspeople can afford better medical care.

I don’t believe corporations should have the tax freedoms they do, but they’re providing jobs. If they go away, the country will be in worse shape, arguably.

Why? It’s usually the recipients’ fault they’re on welfare.

Is it a corporations fault if they need a tax shelter? A government bailout? They get it no guilt involved. Do the congressmen deserve better healthcare than their constitutes get? And what my kids will pay back in debt is certainly more than they will in welfare. Idk about you but I've bigger worries than what an EIC recipient or a HUD renter does. Climate change and health care tops that list. Long as they're not committing fraud and they meet the criteria I'm not complaining. If I don't agree with the programs I write my representatives which others can do Also.

Should it not also be a concern for the amount spent on defense? Is it really all "defense"?

[carterscutie85]

What if they haven’t hit arough patch and don’t truly need the help? What if they just don’t want to work have made bad decisions/etc.?

That doesn't work here. Even if you only get food stamps they make you volunteer 20 hours a week unless you are disabled if you don't have a job.

If you're an ABW between the ages of 18 and 49?

I don't know but when I got them they made me volunteer. But then my Mom gets them and she doesn't have to volunteer so I suppose there's a cutoff somewhere.

[Anonymous 4]

1. I've never heard anyone call all the things on the list "entitlements"

2. Lot's of folks get some of the listed "earned" benefits who didn't "earn or pay" for them. For example children can get SS survivor's benefits, and you can collect SS against a spouses income - even if you never earned a paycheck. Many others collect far more than they ever paid into these programs.

3. Instead of dividing people and judging who should or should not get food, medical care or housing aid, I'd rather help those who need it and focus on more jobs, more skills, and better health outcomes so more people can become self-reliant.

I'm sure we will be seeing lots of divisive memes now that their are new voices talking about job programs and expanded health care. I suspect a lot of these posts are crafted to stir resentment for any effort to improve lives.

In regard to number 2, why shouldn't SS benefits be like any other financial investment, ie. 401K?

[MonarchMom]

1. I've never heard anyone call all the things on the list "entitlements"

2. Lot's of folks get some of the listed "earned" benefits who didn't "earn or pay" for them. For example children can get SS survivor's benefits, and you can collect SS against a spouses income - even if you never earned a paycheck. Many others collect far more than they ever paid into these programs.

3. Instead of dividing people and judging who should or should not get food, medical care or housing aid, I'd rather help those who need it and focus on more jobs, more skills, and better health outcomes so more people can become self-reliant.

I'm sure we will be seeing lots of divisive memes now that their are new voices talking about job programs and expanded health care. I suspect a lot of these posts are crafted to stir resentment for any effort to improve lives.

In regard to number 2, why shouldn't SS benefits be like any other financial investment, ie. 401K?

Do you mean like a 401K in that you can name a beneficiary? In that regard, it makes sense for a widow or widower to be able collect against a deceased spouse's benefits. I was referring to the provision where spouse can collect "spousal" benefits equal to an 50% of the workers benefit, even when they never earned income. So that couple gets 150% of the benefit earned.

I'm not saying this is wrong, just that no all SS is "earned"

[Anonymous 1]

Sure, but the deceased person earned that SS. It wasn’t just handed out.

1. I've never heard anyone call all the things on the list "entitlements"

2. Lot's of folks get some of the listed "earned" benefits who didn't "earn or pay" for them. For example children can get SS survivor's benefits, and you can collect SS against a spouses income - even if you never earned a paycheck. Many others collect far more than they ever paid into these programs.

3. Instead of dividing people and judging who should or should not get food, medical care or housing aid, I'd rather help those who need it and focus on more jobs, more skills, and better health outcomes so more people can become self-reliant.

I'm sure we will be seeing lots of divisive memes now that their are new voices talking about job programs and expanded health care. I suspect a lot of these posts are crafted to stir resentment for any effort to improve lives.

In regard to number 2, why shouldn't SS benefits be like any other financial investment, ie. 401K?

Do you mean like a 401K in that you can name a beneficiary? In that regard, it makes sense for a widow or widower to be able collect against a deceased spouse's benefits. I was referring to the provision where spouse can collect "spousal" benefits equal to an 50% of the workers benefit, even when they never earned income. So that couple gets 150% of the benefit earned.

I'm not saying this is wrong, just that no all SS is "earned"

[MonarchMom]

Sure, but the deceased person earned that SS. It wasn’t just handed out.

In regard to number 2, why shouldn't SS benefits be like any other financial investment, ie. 401K?

Do you mean like a 401K in that you can name a beneficiary? In that regard, it makes sense for a widow or widower to be able collect against a deceased spouse's benefits. I was referring to the provision where spouse can collect "spousal" benefits equal to an 50% of the workers benefit, even when they never earned income. So that couple gets 150% of the benefit earned.

I'm not saying this is wrong, just that no all SS is "earned"

Yes. In the case of a deceased spouse that is true. In the case where both spouses are alive, and able to collect 150% of the benefit, it is not "earned"

Again - not saying it is wrong, just not such a clear cut issues as it is presented.