Campaign!

G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

Welfare queen

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Guide to:

U.S. Politics

Icon politics USA.svg
Hail to the Chief?
Persons of interest
[It's] a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency
Paul Ryan... who paid for his university education by living off his father's Social Security benefits.

"Welfare queen" was a term out of many other dumb terms coined by Saint Reagan, this time to refer to people who scam the government through the welfare system to live easy on taxpayer money without trying to work. Reagan gave a very memorable speech in 1976 which described a welfare queen drawing an easy living by scamming veteran's and Social Security benefits from four (fake) dead husbands, as well as using eighty different aliases. The closest case to the one he described was of a single woman who scammed the government out of $8,000,[1] and who, upon further investigation, wasn't emblematic of welfare users in general. [2] Whoops. (Also, welfare fraud was probably the least evil crime she committed, also being suspected of kidnapping and murder.)

Today, "welfare queen" has evolved into a more general version of dog whistle politics against the new evil of "entitlements." While there are always going to be fraudsters and other people who badly abuse such programs, given the difficulties that private insurers of all kinds seem to have with the exact same problem (and openly advertise the fact that they increase your rates to deal with it) the only obvious difference would seem to be whether everyone else makes up for it in taxes to the government or premiums to insurance companies (or similar).

It plays very well into pitting people of different classes and races against each other. Race resentments very much factor into this, since only certain kinds of people (disadvantaged minorities) are portrayed living on welfare.[3] Many opponents of welfare use the welfare queen stereotype as a way to rile up members of the lower middle class and working poor against those on welfare/unemployment/Social Security/Medicaid benefits. This is by making wild claims that welfare queens are living "high on the hog" while the poor folks have to work hard to barely scrape by.[4]

One argument that popped up in the health care debate[5][6] is that people on Medicaid get free medical care on your dime, using purely the example of the documented rates of "plastic surgery" for Medicaid patients, while poor folks pay an arm and a leg to wait forever to see a general practitioner. What was not said is that the term "plastic surgery" in a hospital contains covered procedures for the replacement of skin for burn patients and rebuilding of parts removed for cancer surgery (such as mastectomies). Medicaid (and every other insurance) has never covered any purely cosmetic surgery, and you'll find the same around the world[7] — but apparently it's difficult for Republicans to do research.

Stereotyping welfare recipients is an easy way to get voters to get rid of these programs. It also has the benefit of manipulating the very people who benefit from these programs the most into getting rid of them.

Contents

[edit] Pull out your irony meters, folks!

The vast majority of welfare recipients live in red states.[8]

[edit] Even more irony

Putting Reagan's Hollywood past into perspective, for some reason conservatives have really taken a liking to the 1986 film Ferris Bueller's Day Off,[9] despite the movie's entire premise being a teenager who weasels out of an education, breaks the law, and ruins his rich friend's car just because he wants to.[10]

[edit] It's actually the opposite

Observational evidence indicates that increasing state welfare support through increased spending is associated with increased social engagement, and, in particular, increased desire and willingness to work.[11].

[edit] The real welfare aristocracy

A few bucks on welfare is nice and all, but where does all that money get spent? Wal-Mart took in 13 billion dollars in revenue from foodstamps in 2013.[12]

[edit] See also

[edit] Footnotes

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools