A nice refutation of the "Welfare Cadillac" meme

[Foxboy]

At this blog:
The Blog. "Why Poor People Buy Nice Things"
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''

-- James Nicoll

[Dartz]

"Now now now, we all know it's they're own fault they're poor. If they were good christians and gave that ten dollars to their local church instead of spending it selfishly on themselves, God would provide everything. It's God's will that poor people be poor, and we're not allowed to interfere with God's will, because obviously they've done something to deserve it. They need to find Christ and invest in Christ before reaping the returns from our Lord. "

This is what people Actually Believe.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Rajvik]

In my mind there is a difference between working poor who actually get out there and do and the welfare queens that just live off the system. I have no problem with the first getting help to improve their lives and get past that working poor point to actual middle class. The second on the other hand really tick me off. Nothing wrong with them except that (in the US at least) they seem to be nothing but lazy.

Also ms. single mom, where is the daddy? He helped make the kid he should at least be paying half the kids upkeep and healthcare.
 

[Dartz]

Dead. Missing. Broke. Imprisoned. Otherwise gone somewhere where it'd take much too much time and effort to track down.... time and effort that will only pay back after months in the red that just cannot be afforded when food on the table is the most important thing.

The 'Welfare Queen' meme has worn thin. It's emotive, but it's utterly empty. Actual rates of fraud in welfare systems cost far less than the mechanisms in place to minimise fraud. Welfare Queens as a rule either do not exist, or are so vanishingly rare as to be genuinely exceptional. The vast majority of people on welfare either want to work in some fashion, want to contribute, are an artist or otherwise follower of a non-standard occupation, or may genuinely feel that it is simpler better for their child's future if they don't spend 10-12 hours a day working minimum wage, or at the beck-and-call of Wal Mart which does not give a fuck about a child's schedule. Childcare costs alone - if one doesn't have a willing neighbour - can eat up most of a week's paycheck.

In which case you could argue that such welfare is an investment in the future of the child, as much as it is in the parent.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[NifT]

Dartz wrote:

---

Childcare costs alone - if one doesn't have a willing neighbour - can eat up most of a week's paycheck.

Three quarter's of a minimum wage check for daycare, in my area.