GENERATION WELFARE: Over 50% of America’s Youth Living in Households on GOV ASSISTANCE

Originally published at: GENERATION WELFARE: Over 50% of America’s Youth Living in Households on GOV ASSISTANCE | Sean Hannity

A stunning new report from CNS News Thursday shows the staggering extent to which America’s youngest generation is accustomed to government assistance, with new data showing over 50% of people under 18 living in a household receiving tax-payer funded aid.

According to data released by the Census Bureau, there are approximately 73.5 million people under the age of 18 in the United States and 38.4 million of them reside in a household where at least one person “benefits from a means-tested government program.”

That equates to 52.1% of all children in the United States.

“These included the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), Medicaid, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the National School Lunch Program,” writes CNS.

The study also finds the group least likely to receive means-tested aid are those 75 years of age or older, at just 18.8%.

Read the stunning report at CNS News.

Are low income home-buying programs included? How about programs like free heat?

Many where I live take advantage.

But I thought this was the best economy in the history of the universe? What?

That’s an important question.

My first reaction to the headline was that the article aimed to point out the growth of government programs.

Statistically, one of the quickest paths to poverty is to be a single mother.

There was a very infrequent poster on the old forum (can’r remember what name he used) who once spoke of the availability of various entitlements—among which he considered Unemployment Insurance—to be more of an incentive to fail.

At first I thought he was full of beans. Now I’m wondering if it isn’t the economy that’s the problem, but an attitude of entitlement & little incentive not to fail.

Why work two jobs or even full time when one wants to keep that EITC coming? Or qualify for a low income housing loan?

Lose that job? Can always fall back on UI, & whose usually the first to go in layoffs? 1. Part timers & temps, and 2) repeatedly warned problematic employees.

Why stick to the number of children who can be reasonably afforded on one’s own budget when there’s, if nothing else, free food as a fall back.

Pure opinion & speculation, but maybe it isn’t the economy that’s the problem, but the attitude of entitlement.

Single dads were also listed as a population in the linked article receiving benefits for themselves and/or children.

However, as a rule, they tend to comprise a minority of single parents, & statistically it was something like 81% of households headed by mom got some assistance, while about 64% of single fathers received them.

Single parenting is a problem not only as a matter of welfare participation, but in the effects it has on kids in general. Yet it’s practically the norm (and maybe IS the norm) in our society today.

IMO It isn’t just growth, availability of more government programs, but the lack of stigma associated with them that’s a part of the problem.

As one poster points out, it used to be embarrassing to take from New Deal programs. Seems like “Great Society” reforms, it’s not only destigmatized, but many ADULTS have attitudes like whiny :tired_face: kids.

If THEY’RE getting it, why not me, too:sleepy: seems to be the norm in some parts. I actually had a friend whose told me, “My taxes pay for that, why shouldn’t I get it (Food Stamps) too?” She was pissed because there is a background check & financial verification necessary to get assisted; she didn’t get a coupon book or EBT card to take home that day, &, contrary to the ideas of some, this individual wasn’t an illegal, but a native born.

Also, an increase of unskilled immigrants when we’re no longer an agrarian economy, IMO, contributes to the number of welfare dependents. Most of these individuals have a work ethic & do work, God bless ‘em, & may even be a part of married, two parent households. However, the type of jobs they may be able to get will most likely qualify them for assistance.

I understand when someone is widowed, or in circumstances they didn’t foresee, or, like Gabrielle Douglas’ mother, Natalie Hawkins, was signed onto disability by her doctor & not receiving child support. Was she supposed to not feed her children?

The attitude of “What’s for the truly poor is for me, too”, is part of the problem & must go. JMNSHO