welfare

Cockney Rhyming Slang

blame

class struggle

class warfare

poverty

proletariat

rich

socialism

subsidy

corporate welfare

is an example of a race-coded policy, a policy which is has little to do with race but which implicitly evokes racial imagery and attitudes in order to stimulate opposition or support.

Research by Martin Gilens, however, leads us to consider another possibility race-coded policies. Race-coded policies are race-neutral, yet have become linked with black Americans in the minds of white citizens. Giles argues that welfare is an example of such a policy. Gilens maintains, 'Although poliitcal elites typically use race-neutral language in discussing poverty and welfare, it is now widely believed that welfare is a 'race-coded' topic that evokes racial imagery and attitudes even when racial minorities are not explicitly mentioned. Thus, because welfare is linked to race, Gilens hypothesizes that opposition to welfare policy among whites largely stems from their racial attitudes.'

is problematic in that when you start paying people to be poor, you wind up with an awful lot of poor people.

When you start paying people to be poor, you wind up with an awful lot of poor people. Milton Friedman

is such that the social safety net should be people helping people rather than government helping people since only 30 cents out of every earmarked tax dollar makes it down to the intended beneficiary while that number is 90-95 cents out of a dollar when it is generously given to United Way or the Salvation Army.

I want people to wonder why is it that we spend so much money on welfare when 70 cents out of the dollar never makes it down to the intended beneficiary I want people to wonder whether or not if they had their own money back and given the tremendous generosity of the American people would it be better to give the money to something like United Way where I worked there one summer when I was in when I was practicing law for Salvation Army in those organizations that 90 95 cents of the dollar gets down to the intended beneficiary as opposed to only 30 cents on the dollar when the federal government does it so even if you argue that we need to have some sort of social safety net and I certainly feel that way that social safety net ought to be provided by people helping people not government helping people

is defined by the liberal as share-the-wealth and by the conservative as soak-the-rich

is not a loving act, for the love is not felt when a state administrator stuffs a welfare check into an outgoing mail.

Where is love exchanged? Where is the love felt when a state administrator stuffs a welfare check into an outgoing mail?

is problematic on the grounds that the safety net should not be used as a hammock.

Of course we have compassion. We just don't believe the safety net should be used as a hammock.

is problematic in that just as if you subsidize apples, you get more apples, so too with unemployment. If you subsidize it, you get more of it.

If you subsidize apples, you get more apples; if you subsidize unemployment, you get more of it.

is a public safety net strung up in the 1960s to catch the casualties of the free market system and keep them tangled in the webbing for generations.

A public safety net strung up in the 1960s to catch the casualties of the free market system and keep them tangled in the webbing for generations.

welfare, n.All

welfare