[michaelmrose]

> I see people stop working because they'd rather not deal with others when they already have their needs met.

While some folks do get benefits when they could be working many more are denied anything despite obviously being disabled and the money that is paid is a relative pittance that few would choose given any alternative.

> I see people who continuously pop more kids to keep the gravy train running - this is an issue.

This is basically a myth. There are TANF in most states has a lifetime limit of 5 years or less and we are talking about $283 per month for a single parent single child household and it doesn't scale linearly. The next child nets you an additional $44 for instance. Exact figures vary by state.

People effectively sell vouchers or food benefits because they are desperately poor and need other things. As the refrain goes "food stamps don't buy diapers". In the case of WIC the vouchers may be for things that they literally don't need can't eat which will expire and thereby be lost.

This is an example of the inefficiency of buying things for people instead of letting them buy their own things.

[arenaninja]

> This is basically a myth. There are TANF in most states has a lifetime limit of 5 years or less ....

Because you can't imagine it or haven't seen it that doesn't mean it's a myth. I have known women who continuously have more kids from different fathers. I think many people ignore the fact that people can also qualify for getting their rent paid, free healthcare for the kids, etc. I have seen it in several different states, lived in the same apartments as them and now know about them from their family members who are my acquaintances.

But I agree with you on inefficiency. As I said, I think we need a holistic approach that looks at the overall needs and gets rid of some of the programs and just hands out cash as you said maybe.

[phil21]

> This is basically a myth.

It's very interesting to me that so many people these days are telling me what I've personally witnessed is not real.

Amazing how my personal bubble growing up apparently are the only ones committing such acts and literally no one else if you go by the stats.

[michaelmrose]

If 2+2=4 it doesn't matter if you "witnessed" it being 3. Anyone who has actually interacted with poverty in the past 30 years would know that benefits are miserly, sparse, and limited.

Notable virtually no cash money which is basically required to live and work requirements for other benefits.

Welfare is what poor people rely on in addition to working not what they do instead of working.

This is why virtually everyone on food stamps is either temporarily between jobs, working, retired, disabled.

You can't just keep having kids and actually live indoors because the government will give you more food stamps but not more money.

What part of tanif being a few hundred a month and having a lifetime maximum of 5 years isn't getting through?

More kids = more poverty. The only angle to work is child support not welfare which is obviously the disconnect here.

[arenaninja]

I don't think I have seen something as disingenuous on HN as trying to negate somebody else's life experience by saying "2+2=4". I won't be engaging the contents of a bad faith argument.

[pnutjam]

Thanks, the popping out babies is such a garbage take. It's not designed to argue in good faith, it's just a moron talking point.

[arenaninja]

Just because a plurality or even majority of people aren't doing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. As I've stated, I'm recounting these scenarios from my experience which isn't vast but it tracks in every state/city I have lived in (and I have lived in several).

It's a miserable living experience for their children. Welfare queens do exist even if they don't look like the media portrays them.

As I stated, I'm not against social programs, but I think there's substantial waste and program goals need to be realigned. It needs to be reimagined, and not from ivory towers like the techno-elite that gathers here on HN.

[pnutjam]

It's just a silly scenario. Nobody gets more in assistance then it costs to raise a child.

People might scam the system because they can't afford the kids they have, but nobody is having more kids just to scam the system.

[phil21]

> Nobody gets more in assistance then it costs to raise a child.

Absolutely utterly false. Witnessed it personally.

[michaelmrose]

Please give an example case in a real place based on actual benefit programs that exactly exist with links to information on said programs.

[pnutjam]

The 100% truth is that you had no idea of any of the detail about whatever you saw. Unless someone has a massive trust with a procreation requirement, there is no free ride for children in America.

[phil21]

I had direct 100% access to every single aspect of one individuals life. Talked directly about the subject dozens to hundreds of times.

I absolutely know both the financial details as well as personal motivations. Others in that sphere I do not have as much intimate knowledge of but they follow the same pattern and social circles.

This topic is something HN (or rather the demographics that tend to post on HN) simply has a giant blind spot on.

It's not so much that each kid is a net benefit. It's that having kids are a requirement to access many government programs in my state. Single folks simply don't get help. I still know people in my past life who have never worked a single day and have had all expenses paid for by the state using such programs. Add some child support in and it's a way to live, even if a pretty crappy one. There is also very little planning for when the benefits end as the kids age out.

I really think every young adult should have to spend a year living in a section 8 complex as an assistant super. It may open many eyes to the state of the US and our social condition.