So you get those shit wages, and then discover that the shit wages don’t stretch to pay the rent, the utilities, transport to work, AND food. Then what? You can have a bus pass to get to work, or you can have dinner this week, but you can’t have both. Pick one.
Do you seriously not understand that most SNAP recipients are either children, elderly, or disabled, and that most non-disabled adults aged 18-65 who receive SNAP are either working, actively looking for work, or participating in job training?
Do you think that elementary school kids in SNAP households should be compelled to drop out of school and go work in the fields to earn their own way? Around one-third of those receiving SNAP are under the age of 12; how many hours should they be expected to work in order to eat?
Do you think that little old ladies in their 70s and 80s should be forced to rejoin the workforce (and in what capacity)? For example, of the 23 million SNAP households in 2013, three million of them were elderly people (aged 65+) living alone. If their income (including Social Security or other retirement) isn’t enough to feed them, what exactly and precisely should they do?
I point towards the UK as evidence that progressives do wish to see citizens/subjects dependent on the State. Since 1945 the Labour Party has almost never fought for fewer UK citizens to be dependent upon the State. I do not view the US as exceptional; I certainly don’t view current US progressives as exceptional. What has happened in Europe is coming the way of the US; and what’s coming your way is a further increasing budget on welfare & state aid* until the money runs short. *
Just as it’s little advantage for Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Exxon Mobil or Walmart to have *less *consumers using Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Exxon Mobil, Walmart products & services, it’s little political advantage for big government progressives to have less citizens dependent upon the goods & services provided by big government progressives.
Is this phenomenon distinguishable from starting programs that help people that are badly in need of help, though? What sinister things does the Labour Party do to hold down people who receive aid?
I didn’t quite say the Labour Party did anything sinister to hold down people who receive aid. What I believe is that it’s fairly obvious the party doesn’t wish to see people live independently of state aid. As peoples prosperity rises state aid doesn’t stop. It just gets paid out in different forms of aid. Some of this is welfare mission creep(working tax credits) and some of it was deliberate policy to guarantee certain forms of universal aid(child benefit).
Sorry, I cannot give you evidence. It’s quite difficult to find candid emails sent by Peter Mandelson admitting to this policy of maintaining dependancy of UK subjects. However, I can point to human nature and the nature of political parties; and their nature is not to knowingly slit their own political throats.
Do you really find it implauable that the self interested motives of a corporation are largely the same self interested motivations of a political party? If Apple dont wish to lose customers then you can bet your bottom dollar that the Labour Party dont wish to lose theirs either. In order for the Labour Party not to lose voters they need to keep a substantial amount of them on various forms of state aid.
… or, you know, just do a better job than the Conservatives.
Considering that Mandelson was the architect of New Labour, which was marked by a move away from traditional Labour policy on economics and government spending, you probably couldn’t have chosen a worse example.
Hunh. When you mentioned 1996 I thought you were going to talk about replacing AFDC with TANF. I’m not sure how SNAP was affected in 1996.
OK so SNAP is for food right? I am pretty sure that there is some point beyond which even the likes of Bernie Sanders would limit the allotment of money you get for food.
So you are OK with Social Security, Meciare, Medicaid (a significantly more expensive means tested benefit) but you don’t like SNAP because of fraud?!?!? Do you have any idea how much fraud there is in SNAP compared to Medicare in terms of total dollars?
Heck there is fraud in every system, its illegal and depending on the level of fraud you can either lose your benefits for a period of time or you can go to jail for years. So what is it about the fraud in food stamps that you find particularly detestable? Is it because you actually see that fraud but not the other fraud? Is it because you see people on food stamps with smartphones, ipods and brand new sneakers? Is it because you see people buying junk food or cigarettes with it?
My choice of Mandelson was the least important part of my answer. I could have picked any policy wonk or senior advisor. I chose one at random. I think it was quite a decent example all told. It was under New Labour that such policies as working tax credits were brought in; an excellent example of the mission creep of state aid.
I don’t believe Child Benefit is merely helping those in need. CB has become means tested, it is an improvement, but for most of it’s history it was universal; as is such things as winter fuel allowance for pensioners. The rich and poor receive this fuel allowance.
It really is no problem if we can afford it and if it works. My contribution to this thread is not to debate the rights & wrongs of benefits. My point simply was that for much of the political class(the Labour Party and others) keeping people dependent upon welfare is a benefit for much of that political class. I have no doubt much of our current welfare expenditure is needed, but im also sure much of it is not.
No it doesn’t create dependency. Being poor creates dependency, and all the slogans in the world about how bad welfare is isn’t going to help when you’re starving