These statements, the likes of which I expect we’ll all hear more of in coming months, reinforce three harmful narratives about low-income Americans: People who receive benefits don’t work, they don’t deserve help and the money spent on the social safety net is a waste of money.

Based on my research and 20 years of experience as a clinical law professor representing low-income clients, I know that these statements are false and only serve to reinforce misconceptions about working class and poor Americans.

Myth ONE
The first myth, that people who receive public benefits are “takers” rather than “makers,” is flatly untrue for the vast majority of working-age recipients.

Consider Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, formerly known as food stamps, which currently serve about 42 million Americans. At least one adult in more than half of SNAP-recipient households are working. And the average SNAP subsidy is $125 per month, or $1.40 per meal – hardly enough to justify quitting a job.



In early December, House Speaker Paul Ryan said, “We have a welfare system that’s trapping people in poverty and effectively paying people not to work.”

Not true. Welfare – officially called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families – has required work as a condition of eligibility since then-President Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996. And the earned income tax credit, a tax credit for low- and moderate-income workers, by definition, supports only people who work.

Workers apply for public benefits because they need assistance to make ends meet. American workers are among the most productive in the world, but over the last 40 years the bottom half of income earners have seen no income growth. As a result, since 1973, worker productivity has grown almost six times faster than wages.

Society should support these people out of basic decency, but there are self-interested reasons as well. To begin with, all working adults have been children, will someday be old and, at any time, might face calamities that take them out of the workforce. The safety net exists to rescue people during these vulnerable periods. Indeed, most people who receive public benefits leave the programs within three years.

Moreover, many public benefits pay for themselves over time, as healthier and financially secure people are more productive and contribute to the overall economy. For example, every dollar in SNAP spending is estimated to generate more than $1.70 in economic activity.


Myth TWO
The second myth is that low-income Americans do not deserve a helping hand.

This idea derives from our belief that the U.S. is a meritocracy where the most deserving rise to the top. Yet where a person ends up on the income ladder is tied to where they started out.

Indeed, America is not nearly as socially mobile as we like to think. Forty percent of Americans born into the bottom-income quintile – the poorest 20 percent – will stay there. And the same “stickiness” exists in the top quintile.

As for people born into the middle class, only 20 percent will ascend to the top quintile in their lifetimes.

Myth THREE

The third myth is that government assistance is a waste of money and doesn’t accomplish its goals.

In fact, poverty rates would double without the safety net, to say nothing of human suffering. Last year, the safety net lifted 38 million people, including 8 million children, out of poverty.


The Welfare Queen

For instance, the “welfare queen” – a code word for an African-American woman with too many children who refuses to work – is a fiction.

The facts of welfare are that most recipients are white, families that receive aid are smaller on average than other families and the program requires recipients to work and is tiny in relation to the overall federal budget – about half a percent. Yet, the welfare queen is an archetype invoked to generate public antagonism against the safety net. Expect her to make frequent appearances in the months to come.

Americans should demand fact-based justifications for tax and entitlement reforms. It is time to retire the welfare queen and related tropes that paint needy Americans as undeserving.

https://theconversation.com/3-myths-about-the-poor-that-republicans-are-using-to-support-slashing-us-safety-net-89048

The problem is people get into low paying jobs and stay there. I have a friend who works at CVS. She doesn't have kids and has a husband to supplement her income. But damn people should have some ambition

A couple months ago I had a friend who was complaining he was broke because he only worked 36 hours. I told him my son worked 56 and they are hiring. He quickly said he doesn't like it there. People stick with these low paying jobs because higher paying jobs require more work or longer hours. People pretend they are trying but they aren't.

some people do, MANY people ARE trying but there are conditions for just about everything and MANY people just dont start with the resources or contacts or education, experience ,,,, et cetera to meet them, especially when going up for those same jobs against others who DO.

I have more that one way of looking at this. (1) I busted my azz to get what I've got. I worked 2 and 3 jobs at times. Went without a lot of sleep.

But on the other hand, (2) I missed a lot. I missed a lot of time I could have spent with my kids when they were small. Now, they never call and I rarely see them. I blame myself because I was so busy. I won the battle, but I lost the war.

Now, when I look back at it, I wish I had been more willing to settle for less. Sometimes I wish I had stuck with a job that may not have paid as well but would have given me more time at home.

At one time in my life, I was "big" after the material things. Now, not so much.

If someone wants to stick with a job that doesn't pay, "big", I say, more power to them. Because most that I know, know how to live within there means. The ones that I know, they may not have everything they want in material things. But at least they have their families. And most are together and raising their families.

Unlike many others that all they can think about is finally reaching the brass ring. When all you can think about is the brass ring, sometimes more important things fall by the wayside. Some get lost forever.

IF you choose a lower paying job because it is easier or allows you more personal time or is a better work-life fit for you, that is fine. It is NOT my responsibility as a tax payer to make up the difference!! You either learn to live within your means or go without - your choice.

Wow, just so much to say on this subject!!! Start with education - IF you don't have a high school diploma or GED, you belong in school. No school, no benefits.

Benefits should be based on your income level and that should be calculated with a minimum based on 35 hours a week at your state minimum wage. That should be the minimum assumed income.

When a school district is feeding kids more than lunch, SNAP benefits should go to the school district or whoever is paying the bill. Obviously the parent is not using those benefits for their child.

Standard of living of recipients - If I as a taxpayer are helping support you, then your standard of living should be substantially below mine!! The concept that someone on assistance should have a middle class standard of living is just wrong. I support the idea of a roof over their head and food to eat but not much more; basic health care probably should also be part of that. TV - no; phone - no; vehicle - no; pre-made meals - no.

One thing that does need to be corrected is the hard income caps where benefits are cut off. It needs to be a sliding amount so that for every increase in income, the beneficiary gets some portion of it. Expecting someone to work more or take a higher paying job that results in a benefit reduction so that their actual income falls is not reasonable; would anyone work more for a smaller income? I think NOT!!

Stereotypes in general can be harmful. People base there “beliefs” on what they “experience”. So let’s just say for the sake of argument a person sees a poor person who witnesses them being lazy etc etc etc. instead of discerning and thinking ok this particular individual may act this way; they generalize it and associate all poor people as this way, or all white people or all black people. People need to simply take the time and learn the facts before assuming or judging. A lot of people want to see the world as one way or the other.... reality the world is a lot of shades of gray.

Responses based on emotion from some of those on the right, leading to pseudo rational logic emotion based rebuttal from a leftist addressing something that isn't even relevant to make it seem like a problem.


That doesn't matter.
But I agree.
They are "makers." I remember neighbors that would max out their foodstamps and wic, freeze the milk, then try to sell it to (me, and) other neighbors.
There were a lot of "welfare queens" in the neighborhood, with a husband or family that worked (like the lady that tried to sell me the food she bought with food stamps for cash).

I remember many people using the paper food stamp dollars to buy a 5 cent piece of candy multiple times, then use the change to buy liquor and cigarettes, sometimes to sell to minors who'd pay double or quadruple the cost.
I remember watching so many people load up all organic foods and the expensive frozen pizzas I could never afford into the back of their lexus (or other new car I also couldn't afford), paid for with food stamps.

Recently stormy daniels was arrested in an OH stripclub.
I think she was caught up in an Ohio thing.
I know in Dayton one major stripclub was shut down, and a whole bunch of arrests in others, were made not that long ago. Huge prostitution and opioid epidemic problem.
But another consistent theme in shutting down the strip clubs and/or making arrests was welfare fraud. Strippers and people trying to sell/turn their benefits into cash (or drugs and sex).
Seriously. On the radio: "charges include solicitation, drugs, and welfare/food stamp fraud."

I agree the vast majority of people on welfare like food stamps are "makers," and use government assistance as simply another revenue stream to maximize income. It's just another way of "making" money.
Go to work, punch a clock, pull a lever, sell a widget, fill out some paperwork, go to the government office, fill out some forms, jump through hoops, deal with stress, it's all the same.


But that doesn't mean there is incentive to get a better job or work more or improve enough to jump tax brackets, which might end the benefits.

The point/rebuttal is especially moot when the author also notes:
"...the program requires recipients to work..."
"hardly enough to justify quitting a job..." well no sht sherlock, seems they can't quit or they lose their benefits.


Deserve doesn't really matter.
What matters is in a representative republic based system of government of different states, should a centralized government have the tyrannical power to force citizens to give the government money in order to redistribute some of it to those that the government decides should get it (wealthy and/or poor), and "should" the government even be allowed to know what you make (4th amendment?).

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."
Do people in Iowa that make enough money to pay taxes "deserve" to have their money taken from them by people in Virginia that are originally from Oregon that grew up in Kenya to give to "poor" people in Idaho?

"Should" the people with jobs and incomes have the "freedom" to choose where to spend their money? On themselves, their communities, the guy standing on the corner with a sign, or the lady down the street with the 3 kids who's just maybe not making enough?

In our system of government, or ideal system of government, "should" the choice and efforts be based on individual choice and individual personality and individual morals?
Or group identity? Forcing morality and determination of "deserving" onto you by people you personally didn't vote into office and don't represent you? Centralization of morality?
If it's so great that the government has a "safety net" for poor people...can you simply accept the idea that the government is making just as good a decision by giving bailouts, and passing laws that benefit "the rich?" Especially since on a total amount they are paying the most in taxes, which is providing the safety net?

Other than that IMO the asinine "low-income Americans do not deserve a helping hand." statement and rebuttal makes it seem like government makes/has all this money completely separate from the taxpayers, like a rich uncle with the "right" nephews saying "hey! No fair! we were nice to you, don't give it to those poor nephews!" and the poor nephews saying "no, please, we're starving! Give us some money pwease!" and the centrist nephews saying "now now right people, the poor deserve some of uncle sugars money too, you have to learn to share, it's not like it's your money, we need to be fair."


That's like saying "it's a myth that sticking your fingers in the dyke is a waste of time and doesn't stop leaks. In fact, if you took your fingers out of the dyke, the flow through rate would more than double!" and believing that really offers anything to the conversation.




But they aren't getting them, most especially due to articles/opinions such as linked in the OP, that simply cherry pick and polish what "facts" they want to use.
And even if they were, there's no guarantee for discernment of relevancy as opponents and proponents will use facts however they want to obfuscate and impose bias into it and only address the issues they can easily fight against which are typically inane and/or specious.
e.g. the linked article/opinion.


Great.
You've just described reality for every human(ish) being for the past 300 or so million years.
At most just replace the word "jobs" with "resources" or "food" or "territory" or "ideology" or "cave painting space" or "mates" or "black friday deals."

they are more people abusing the system.

for instance most people cant gets ui. everyone I talked to denied.

social assistance is a joke too, you have rrsp. you get rid of that first.

so when you retire your broke and cant retire.

as for some ui offices I heard they get a bonus for not handing out ui claims. if they cut it down.

no the government does not care for the people any more,

Even Dallas, TX. mayor Rawlings (D),
says poor people are dishonest, and
more likely to commit fraud.

For those unfamiliar with Dallas,
Dallas is the liberal ******** of northeast
Texas.

[quot,,



For those unfamiliar with Dallas,
Dallas is the liberal ******** of northeast
Texas.



Well, I am not moving. there!!!


It's not right to stereotype the poor There is always going to be poor people.

But for those who are lazy without having a Disability are deserving of No Government funds!!'. Let them find Work any JOB and feed their family and take care of their Own needs.

concise but on the point

first , one person is not everyone, they are still an individual with an individual opinion that may or may not be based on actual facts

second, TX is not liberal. Its like quoting what a klansman says about blacks becuase they live in the north instead of the south, and the north is the least racist ....or to be fair, quoting a militant new black panther member talking about whites for the same above stated reason ....

Well, I am not moving. there!!!


It's not right to stereotype the poor There is always going to be poor people.

But for those who are lazy without having a Disability are deserving of No Government funds!!'. Let them find Work any JOB and feed their family and take care of their Own needs.






although people will find loopholes, this is already what the system is set up for. Citizens pay plenty into that tax system or contribute plenty to the economy over their lifetimes to 'deserve' to be able to turn to that tax system when the economy or infrastructure is such that they fall on hard times as to need a little help.

CASH is already set up with a work minimum. Food is something that is only based on income level, something working and non working get because people need to eat to live, LITERALLY, and especially children who rely on parents and guardians to feed them, parents and guardians who are the adults who sometimes find themselves because of economic and infrastructure having difficulty doing that.

First, I never said the state of Texas is liberal.
However, if you're capable of learning anything,
Dallas, TX., is a liberal city.

You went from defending the poor against stereotypes,
to defending a democrat for stereotyping the poor.

no. I said the state of Texas is not liberal. Dallas is IN Texas.
I learn every day. I enjoy learning.
And I did not 'defend' anyone else since I merely posted my own opinions.