I'm guessing you two aren't very old.
First, you're arguing something written on the back of a truck.
Second, "something happening" doesn't automatically qualify you for government assistance in the U.S. Having children makes a big difference, but if have any type of asset - house, car, property, money - the government won't lift a finger to help you. You have to be destitute or close to it before the government will even think about helping you. What happens is people have kids early, get on Medicaid for the kid, get food stamps, find low income housing, and then get stuck. They can't earn over a certain amount or they lose benefits, yet they can't support themselves and their kids(s) without assistance. If you have more kids, you not only get more benefits, but you can actually own more stuff and still qualify for benefits. So, people have more kids, because...why not? What else are they going to do?
I'm guessing you are a privileged idiot or a child, if you cannot see how massive changes in circumstances, especially those listed, would warrant assistance. Personally I'm mid30s, so definitely not young. Yes, there are people who abuse the system, but they are hardly the majority.
You must be from a small town. I like in the new York / new Jersey area and people 100% abuse the system. Maybe 12% don't. The reason this is being brought up because it's occurring more and more. My mom was a single mom since I was born and she started working 2 jobs right away. Thank God I never lived off welfare. And even in our lowest lows we never went to get it. But there's people who do the math according to how many kids they got so they can get more money and it's disgusting.
A) amazing grasp of math right there. B) So damn lucky for you and your mom that she was healthy enough to work those jobs, but in this economy, working 2 jobs and paying childcare for the extra hours wouldn't cover near the bills. And no, Houston damn sure isn't a small town and neither is Las Vegas. You sound like your "facts" are coming from the same place most Facebook "news" comes from.
While some people definitely abuse the system, it isn't the majority on a country wide level.
Also, as guest eluded to, part of the problem is that the system actually encourages people to never get off the system. A lot of this is actually that government assistance does not go away is small enough increments. If making only $325 a month qualifies you for enough aid to get by, but $350 a month means you get $100 less a month in various forms of government aid, you aren't going to ever work towards bringing in more money. Even though if you lost aid slowly you could probably work yourself up to the point you didn't need it.
Also- unpopular opinion here: everyone should actually receive government aid. Every citizen of the United States should get a certain amount in food stamps and a certain amount in housing assistance and a certain amount for various other things like toiletries and transportation. And those amounts should be livable on. Not luxuriously, but livable.
Even Wealthy McHidesHisMoneyOffShores should get food stamps that could feed him, and a certain amount of money that can go towards paying his mortgage or house insurance. And some amount of money that can be spent on whatever needs arise.
And taxes should just be high enough across the board, a percentage income tax no matter how much money you make. Obviously government aid is not taxed.
So your tax dollars don't go to programs you don't benefit from, even if you do lose money. And making more money will never result in less aid, nor will not working actually result in more aid. Children should not increase the amount given for more than two children, however services should be available to help children. (For example, school lunch should just always be provided by the government. )
I know this isn't perfect, but it's better than the system we have now for a couple reasons.
1. Rent/mortgage subsidization will make homelessness a rare problem. I expect these subsidization should cover an effencicy apparent just about anywhere. (Obviously some property values are higher, but it should at least cover apartments of this size in at least part of most cities in each state) In places where homelessness is still a problem, the government should build efficiency apartments for rent.
2. Life can't easily leave you with nothing. Certainly you can still encounter financial hardship, but you'll always have something.
3. The fact that you don't strictly speaking need an income to survive will allow workers far more power in negotiating wages and working conditions. Which will promote healthier work environments.
I clearly said that they have been known to, not that all or even the majority do. The phrase, for that matter the combined extreme ideologies alone, indicates it is a marginal percentage.
Taxes should go towards medical care for people who are already here and to scientific funding and education, not funding food stamps for unnecessary children - adopt orphans instead, does it really matter about raising a child that has your own eye or skin color? That's very vain
First, you're arguing something written on the back of a truck.
Second, "something happening" doesn't automatically qualify you for government assistance in the U.S. Having children makes a big difference, but if have any type of asset - house, car, property, money - the government won't lift a finger to help you. You have to be destitute or close to it before the government will even think about helping you. What happens is people have kids early, get on Medicaid for the kid, get food stamps, find low income housing, and then get stuck. They can't earn over a certain amount or they lose benefits, yet they can't support themselves and their kids(s) without assistance. If you have more kids, you not only get more benefits, but you can actually own more stuff and still qualify for benefits. So, people have more kids, because...why not? What else are they going to do?
Also, as guest eluded to, part of the problem is that the system actually encourages people to never get off the system. A lot of this is actually that government assistance does not go away is small enough increments. If making only $325 a month qualifies you for enough aid to get by, but $350 a month means you get $100 less a month in various forms of government aid, you aren't going to ever work towards bringing in more money. Even though if you lost aid slowly you could probably work yourself up to the point you didn't need it.
Also- unpopular opinion here: everyone should actually receive government aid. Every citizen of the United States should get a certain amount in food stamps and a certain amount in housing assistance and a certain amount for various other things like toiletries and transportation. And those amounts should be livable on. Not luxuriously, but livable.
And taxes should just be high enough across the board, a percentage income tax no matter how much money you make. Obviously government aid is not taxed.
So your tax dollars don't go to programs you don't benefit from, even if you do lose money. And making more money will never result in less aid, nor will not working actually result in more aid. Children should not increase the amount given for more than two children, however services should be available to help children. (For example, school lunch should just always be provided by the government. )
I know this isn't perfect, but it's better than the system we have now for a couple reasons.
2. Life can't easily leave you with nothing. Certainly you can still encounter financial hardship, but you'll always have something.
3. The fact that you don't strictly speaking need an income to survive will allow workers far more power in negotiating wages and working conditions. Which will promote healthier work environments.