New Study: 49.1% of population receiving Gov't benefits

[Dolomite_supafly]

http://www.breitbart...eiving-benefits

According to US Census Bureau data, 49.1% of the US population lives in a household where at least one member is receiving government benefits:

The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.

The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession. As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government.

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

Dolomite

[Guest pfries]

Thus the 51% right. I do not see that figure "fixing" itself; yes I have gotten aid in the past as a crutch when SHTF that is what it is there for not for making a living. The more reliant we become on the government as a society the faster Obamanites get what they want. Sad times we are witness to in my opinion.

Edited May 28, 2012 by pfries

[Sam1]

I think we should be like the Philippines where my wife is from... If you want to eat, you will work. If you want a house, you will work. If you want healthcare, you will work. etc..

There is such a small group of people with the sense of entitlement issue there because most of the people work their asses off, and the ones that don't are pretty much outcasts.

[jcoosi]

When you put your trust in men you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

[zmtd8]

I think we should be like the Philippines where my wife is from... If you want to eat, you will work. If you want a house, you will work. If you want healthcare, you will work. etc..

There is such a small group of people with the sense of entitlement issue there because most of the people work their asses off, and the ones that don't are pretty much outcasts.

That sounds great, but it just isn't possible. The problem is that some people can't work and we can't just let them starve in the streets. The other problem is that people do not use government benefits as a "crutch". It is there to help people get on their feet, but then they receive the benefits and realize hey I can get more money from sitting at the house and doing nothing that I would if I worked. People then become lazy and it is really sad.

[Oh Shoot]

This is why the Dems keep close to half the vote no matter what -- as our country fails due to more big brother/big gummit policies, more people vote to keep their "gimmies", perpetuating more of the same downhill trend.

This is why you'll never again see a more conservative candidate than Mitt with a chance to win -- at least not until after a big crash with lots of pain for most everyone.

- OS

Edited May 28, 2012 by OhShoot

[nightrunner]

That sounds great, but it just isn't possible. The problem is that some people can't work and we can't just let them starve in the streets.

And why not? If you cant work in some capacity, and there are very few that cant, you had better hope that you have family to take care of you, or find a charity organization, church or otherwise to help. If not your SOL.

Its not the governments responsibility to take care of the citizens basic needs.

[wewoapsiak]

It's a bit of a misleading article. 49.1% live in a household where at least one person is receiving benefits, and some of these benefits you can be working and still receive. Granted I'm not naive enough to think no one abuses the system but it's not always as simple as get a better job, or get a 2nd or 3rd job.

"26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid" correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't people on Medicaid still have to pay something?

Also, do VA benefits fall into the% the article left out?

[DaveTN]

This is why the Dems keep close to half the vote no matter what -- as our country fails due to more big brother/big gummit policies, more people vote to keep their "gimmies", perpetuating more of the same downhill trend.

This is why you'll never again see a more conservative candidate than Mitt with a chance to win -- at least not until after a big crash with lots of pain for most everyone.

- OS

Exactly.

It would take one heck of a powerful republican with a plan, that people would believe, would put this country back to work to beat a democrat that is promising government hand-outs and health care. None of the republicans running against Obama is that man.

[Dennis1209]

As with most government figures, the numbers are skewed to make the government look better. Look at what they use to calculate inflation and who they count for unemployment figures, etc.

The numbers are well over 50% when you add those receiving such handouts as Section 8 housing, Earned Income Tax Credit and other wasteful spending.

[Dennis1209]

And why not? If you cant work in some capacity, and there are very few that cant, you had better hope that you have family to take care of you, or find a charity organization, church or otherwise to help. If not your SOL.

Its not the governments responsibility to take care of the citizens basic needs.

That's right! Before FDR you had voluntary charity, family, church, neighbors and community volunteer organizations. Now it's the Robin Hood nanny state, taking from the productive by force of law and giving it to the politicians choice for votes. It diminishes the ability to provide for your own family.

[Caster]

That's right! Before FDR you had voluntary charity, family, church, neighbors and community volunteer organizations. Now it's the Robin Hood nanny state, taking from the productive by force of law and giving it to the politicians choice for votes. It diminishes the ability to provide for your own family.

That's right. They should have rolled FDR, wheelchair and all, off a hill somewhere.

Let's not forget that the remaining 51% aren't all supportive either. Many are paying no taxes. The wise and wealthy move their money out of country to a safer economy. AND, how many in the remaining 51% are actively trying to GET government hand outs?

[Oh Shoot]

Exactly.

It would take one heck of a powerful republican with a plan, that people would believe, would put this country back to work to beat a democrat that is promising government hand-outs and health care. None of the republicans running against Obama is that man.

Oh, I think Mitt can take it, because of over disillusionment with O; but point is, he's only in the running because he's not a conservative.

- OS

[Sam1]

That sounds great, but it just isn't possible. The problem is that some people can't work and we can't just let them starve in the streets.

Last year I had 27 broken bones with 9 major fractures and some of those were sticking out of my body, lost 40-50% of my blood, have over 10 pounds of metal rods, plates screws and hinges holding me together (xrays are crazy looking) 18 or 19 surgeries now... & was back at work in less than 60 days from the accident. Heck I was doing homework about 48 hours after they woke me up, and trying to do work from there but the boss wouldn't let me.

Sorry but I just don't buy the whole pity argument, if someone wants to do something, they will figure out a way. There is a one armed, one legged guy that races a motorcycle as fast as anyone with 4 limbs is, still can't figure out how he holds on having basically an entire side missing, but he sure as hell does it.

[StPatrick]

Oh, I think Mitt can take it, because of over disillusionment with O; but point is, he's only in the running because he's not a conservative.

- OS

I tend to agree with you on both points. Based on the polling I've been watching (especially the internals - the big number rarely tells the true or whole story), the Romney campaign is in good position. A month from now, I expect public opinion / intrade / etc. to have the race a dead heat. If Walker and Kleefisch stave off the recall attempt in WI, which appears to be nearly in the bag, that will add to a new "dead heat / Obama in danger" narrative, and also put a crack in the traditional "blue wall" needed for a Dem victory. Money spent in WI is not spent in PA, NV, CO, NM, etc. Then again, the emerging electoral map has to be taken into account. VA and NH are no longer red (though NC is safely back in the fold, no matter what anybody tries to tell you, and FL is close), but PA, which has been a tease since 1984 may come around this time. Targeted campaigning and spending coupled with timely harnessing of the news cycle will win the day.

Ultimately, the Romney campaign has to take advantage of events as they occur to shape a new narrative, e.g. O is in over his head, and get it to the undecideds and independents early and often. If the preference cascade begins and nonpartisan folks begin to be unafraid to express opposition to the President in public, Romney will win, and may not even need that to get there. Based on the variance in approval ratings between O and Joe (approx 50/50 v. 35/55/10), this has already begun. If you take into account that Joe has no accomplishments, it can be inferred that people are more comfortable expressing their displeasure towards the administration when directed towards Biden as opposed to Obama, as there was nothing historic or important about Joe's ascension to the VP position, contra Obama.

As for Romney not being a conservative...no doubt. On the plus side, he's been tacking right, and his agenda will be dictated by the house. Everyone who considers themselves politically conservative needs to do what they are willing and able to get the most electable conservative candidates into congress.

The Senate looks like it will be between 51-48-1 and 53-46-1 R-D-I (Sanders, Socialist-VT being the I). Even if Romney gets huge numbers, this will not change much.

[zmtd8]

Ok I am on your side here. I disagree with welfare programs I do. But let me rephrase my point, and I do not know statistics so I am going off what I see and personal experience. A lot of people on welfare have children. Now is it that kids fault that their parents don't work? So if you cut it out, you will have starving children.. Like I said I agree with you that people should work and there shouldn't be welfare, IF there was another way to make sure the children were fed.

[Sam1]

The children will not starve, people will find a way to feed them... they do it everywhere in the world on a daily basis. granted they may not have hamburgers and fries every night, but the parents could easily grow some stuff, or cook rice/beans/cornbread or learn to hunt.

People are resourceful, but until you kick that crutch out, they have no reason to be.

[zmtd8]

The children will not starve, people will find a way to feed them... they do it everywhere in the world on a daily basis. granted they may not have hamburgers and fries every night, but the parents could easily grow some stuff, or cook rice/beans/cornbread or learn to hunt.

People are resourceful, but until you kick that crutch out, they have no reason to be.

I wish I could say you were probably right, but these people are unwilling to work. You really think they are going to go out and do something for themselves or their kids? If so, you have a lot more faith in humanity than I do.

[Sam1]

I wish I could say you were probably right, but these people are unwilling to work. You really think they are going to go out and do something for themselves or their kids? If so, you have a lot more faith in humanity than I do.

If they are so lazy that they would let their children starve, then they should not be allowed any rights over those children and they should be removed from the house. To support those children that have been removed, they should be assigned to jobs in community service and the money saved by them performing the tasks would be sent for support of the children. If they don't want to do that, they should be put in jail. And, we need a jail system like in Korea, if the inmate wants toilet paper, someone in their family pays for it, or they work. Same goes for any other supplies and I believe they even charge for electricity but don't quote me on that one.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Sam1

[zmtd8]

Sounds like an idea to me..

[StPatrick]

Ok I am on your side here. I disagree with welfare programs I do. But let me rephrase my point, and I do not know statistics so I am going off what I see and personal experience. A lot of people on welfare have children. Now is it that kids fault that their parents don't work? So if you cut it out, you will have starving children.. Like I said I agree with you that people should work and there shouldn't be welfare, IF there was another way to make sure the children were fed.

Therein is the challenge. We have created a system wherein a person can remain a child in practice long after their bodies have reached adulthood. The outstretched helping hand has become a license to never grow up, never take accountability, and face no consequences beyond living a fairly wretched life. Repeated for multiple generations, what was poor, despicable, and wretched has become acceptable. There is minimal social pressure to be better, with major social pressure on those who try to do so. We have created a self-perpetuating cycle of generational poverty from which there are few methods of escape, even fewer within the law, and we see the results daily. When everyone is accountable for anything, be it the welfare of a person or cleaning out a refrigerator, nobody is accountable.

[zapfbroad]

If u Eliminate the quotient 'willing to work' & substitute 'you have no choice if u want to live' these numbers would change. Frankly I just don't care about these people. +1 to Darwin. Same people that sit at tncare talkin on a $400 phone too loud about gettin 'white girl wasted' in tha club, clickin their $60 nail job & smackin gum. Or usin the ebt card at fast food places.. their resourcefulness needs to be redirected from how to Work the system to something more meaningful & rewarding. There are legitimate reasons why some people can't hold jobs including significant medical illnesses. But people don't smoke marijuana for cataracts only either..

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[StPatrick]

Zap, I don't agree with what you tried to do above. It doesn't belong here.