Posted 3 years ago on April 24, 2012, 6:57 p.m. EST by elf3
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
And when I say subsidies don't include elderly or severely sick or disabled.
I have always supported a safety net for those in need. But over the past few years I have come to a conclusion that the welfare system is more to the advantage of corporations than it is to the poor here is why I believe this:
Someone on welfare can make more money than someone who is poor yet works full time.
The welfare system fraught with fraud but the politicians refuse to crack down or investigate taking away from those who are in deep need.
All welfare money actually in the end gets diverted back into the pockets of corporations (grocery stores, clothing, gas/ big oil, landlords, universities etc.) which allows the economy to limp along / retail to survive while working people have been laid off in droves by them. They just tax the few left whose salaries have also been downsized / stagnant so in stead of a demand for higher wages and jobs, there is more demand for welfare; which only hurts the working poor even more, and takes away from the little they had to give to others so they can support consumerism on their dime.
In stores where welfare is a prominent form of payment - prices are higher than in other stores.
There is no law stating that the money must be used on the child.
Store clerks must cash people out on EBT who can buy five times the amount that the store clerk can afford.
Section 8 rentals drive up apartment prices for the working poor because it is a guaranteed check for the landlord. The state also doesn't check to make sure how many people live there or if those living with the recipient have a criminal background. The state also pays the landlord for fixes and repairs.
Those in the service sector have to pay for someone else to go to school with their taxes while he or she has no upward mobility and drives up the cost of education since the state only cries for more taxes to cover it and doesn't penalize the colleges. Also has to pay for someone else to have a child while he/ she can not afford to. But then gets taxed even more to pay for the recipients'/ children's education and food.
While they get subsidized utilities - instead of an outcry for lower prices it raises prices for the rest of us since the state doesn't really care - only demands more of the taxes from the working poor to pay for it.
There is a whole lot wrong with these scenarios. Anyone else think it's a faulty system?
It's the poor taking from the other half of the poor (since the rich have every write off under the sun and we no longer have a middle class - 50 percent of Americans earn less than $26,000 per year). Add up food stamps, section 8, car and cell and cable and utility, as well as university charges and daycare, clothing stipends - seems like the other half of the poor is living pretty well (and corporations can still get a return courtesy of the working stiffs). I bet corporations support welfare, and lots of it - let's them keep on laying off more workers yet still have consumers - otherwise they may have been screwed and shot themselves in the foot - instead they let the taxpayers bail them out - again...only this time they can hide behind the poor - brilliant and the politicians get to seem pious.)
Welfare enables corporations to split all their shifts down to part time since those on welfare must work a few hours to get their money. It also enables them to get around benefits which the working poor can't afford but welfare recipients don't need because the state pays for it.
Maybe it's just easier to accept subsidies than to be part of the endless struggle of the working poor - but the corporations don't mind ... it's all going into their bank accounts in the end after all.
If the other half of the poor had no safety net- instead of crying for more of your taxes - they'd also be crying for change.