Debunking the Welfare Queen argument

[Catmatic Leftist]

How do you debunk the Welfare Queen argument?

[PhoenixAsh]

What is the welfare queen argument?

[socialistjustin]

The argument is that people on welfare live like kings. They live this way because they cheat the system. Apparently they all have Cadillacs.


The way to argue against this is to take these idiots to people you know to be on welfare and show them their luxurious lifestyle. Anybody making this argument obviously has never been in the position of needing help.

[DarkPast]

Myth: There are Welfare Queens driving Welfare Cadillacs.

Fact: Reagan made up this story.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/2clorbar.JPG

Summary

Reagan's story of a Welfare Queen driving a Welfare Cadillac was apocryphal. Even so, there is no evidence that welfare cheating is a significant problem; besides, individual welfare payments are too small for recipients to live well.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/2clorbar.JPG

Argument

Conservative politicians have a talent for telling memorable anecdotes that capture the essence of their beliefs on any particular issue. One of the most enduring of these came from Ronald Reagan on the subject of welfare. He cited a Chicago "Welfare Queen" who had ripped off $150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands. The country was outraged; Reagan dutifully promised to roll back welfare; and ever since, the "Welfare Queen" driving her "Welfare Cadillac" has become permanently lodged in American political folklore.

Unfortunately, like most great conservative anecdotes, it wasn't really true. The media searched for this welfare cheat in the hopes of interviewing her, and discovered that she didn't even exist.

As a bit of class warfare, however, it was brilliant. It diverted public attention from insider traders in their limousines to Welfare Queens in their Cadillacs, even though the former were stealing thousands of times more from the American people than the latter. Just one example of the cost of white collar crime would become apparent a few years later, when President Bush bailed out the Savings & Loans industry with $500 billion of the taxpayer's money -- enough to fund 20 years of federal AFDC.

Questions of class warfare aside, there is no evidence that there is a significant problem with welfare cheating. In 1991 less than 5 percent of all welfare benefits went to persons who were not entitled to them, and this figure includes errors committed by the welfare agency.

Nor are people getting rich off welfare. The two largest welfare programs are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps. In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job. There are other welfare programs, of course, but they either pay a minuscule fraction of these two programs, or, if larger, are collected by only a small percentage of welfare recipients. The typical welfare recipient remains among the poorest members of society.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarequeen.htm

[Blake's Baby]

The thing is, the Queen of the United Kingdom, and indeed the Dominions, is a welfare queen. Her houses are funded by the taxpayer, her expenses (eg staff) are paid by the taxpayer, her family is looked after by the taxpayer.

So, yes, there is at least one 'welfare queen' and that's the queen.

We have the same shit in the UK of course, 'dole scroungers' is the term, implying anyone unemployed is cheating the system. 'Bludgers' I believe is the term in Australia. Everywhere has its own version of 'the underserving poor'. The simple refutation is: OK, you try living on welfare then. I think very few eg American presidents would agree to take that kind of wage-cut.

[Manic Impressive]

you can also tell them that unemployment is necessary in capitalism in order to keep wages low.

[Sir Comradical]

You mean this one?

http://www.henrymakow.com/mini-QueenElizabethII.JPG