You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Dollar amounts and percentage points: Is this what sums us up?
Some will never realize the 47% are not choosing to be in that category. And the bulk of the 47% were at one time a part of the 53%. Point being that we all need help at some point, not as a lifestyle, but as a crutch. The problem is the GOP is not only interested in making sure welfare is not a lifestyle....which I agree with, but they want to get rid of the crutch as well.
Yea, your situation is exactly the one that Mitt was referring to.
Anecdotal accounts of folks in serious need of help and services are fine, if the other side gets to use similar stories of those that aggressively abuse the system. The "threat" to assistance for those in need such as your daughter is not real. Its not that hard to hold your family harmless to implement needed entitlement reform.
The measurement of "compassion" cannot be how many people require public assistance. It should be how many able-bodied people who want to work, can work. We need a president who doesn't measure his success by numbers on foodstamps.
I do not know if it is 47%, 37% or exactly what percentage. I do know that one taxpayer cannot support him/herself and one more or even one half more. It is not sustainable. One in six Americans on food stamps is not sustainable. Whatever the issue, be it slackers or legitimate need, we will not survive as a prosperous nation if that many need "help". Having the US government spend money advertising EITC, food stamps, mortgage support, unemployment insurance, free medical assistance, etc. is moving us in the wrong direction. Productive jobs are the only answer.
Mitt was talking about the cycle of dependency/entitlement that is many generations deep now. The modern version started with Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." I am glad that Mitt said something. People don't want to hear it and they feel like they are victims but it needs to be said. Entitlements and entitlement mentality is destroying this country from within.
I feel sympathy for this women but I couldn't help but wonder, why isn't the husband paying alimony and child support?
I have never met or heard of one conservative that wants to do away with assistance for people who need it. Most of them do want to ensure that we're not creating more victims, and a dependency on assistance which is where many, many people are today. If you need help, help should be there for you. I'm happy that a portion of my taxes go to those in need. 47% is too high and unneccessary.
This "culture of dependance" nonsense is overblown. When the economy is good, people go out and get jobs. They don't pass them by because they because they are more comfortable being "dependent," get small fixed payments and having less than all of their neighbors. There may be a few isolated exceptions to this, but the general rule is that people want to work when there is work to be had. When the economy is bad, people lose their jobs and often have a hard time finding new ones. They aren't unemployed because they want to be. They have few options. The same is even more true for seniors and children (the majority of people who rely on government assistance).
I'm one of the 47 percent. I am on three years of renal Medicare to supplement my employment health insurance -- which I doubt I'd have otherwise. Medicare pays for hospitalization and procedures related to kidney failure. This coverage was approved by the Nixon administration and Congress at a time when there really were death panels at hospitals deciding who "deserved" such an expensive surgery. I received a living-donor kidney from my best friend, have complied with all my medical instructions and prescriptions before and since the transplant, and work one full-time job and a part-time one. I'm a married, church-going homeowner. Yet I'm sure I'd fall through some loophole in the conservatives' "really needs help" test. I just hope I never have to find out.
She should probably not be so offended. $360 x 2 plus a thousand dollars a month = $20,640/yr And that is just is probably the tip of the iceberg. Of course rich people get subsidies also. Tax credits, mortgage deductions, differing rates on investments vs earned income. And the current generation is getting more out of SS and Medicare than they put in. I guess with the exception of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and the Koch Brothers we are all takers, not givers.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks