# How does society benefit from welfare?



## Some Guy (Aug 1, 2012)

Similar to the thread regarding same-sex marriage and debating why or why it shouldn't allowed with regard to society as a whole.  Just apply it now to welfare. 

So, how does welfare benefit society as a whole?  How does it not?


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 1, 2012)

1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.

2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.


Now...I am not a big fan if Welfare in it's current form. I personally think they ought to keep their benefits, but I strongly believe that there is plenty of public works projects out there that need done. Putting them on the job, with on the job training will give them work experience, skill sets that will be marketable, empower them, rather than stigmatize them, and help improve our shitty infrastructure.

JMO.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 1, 2012)

Society does not benefit from welfare.  Welfare recipients do.  Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> 1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
> 
> 2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.
> 
> ...


I think it should be a loan, with a strict limit on what one can receive, and a definite repayment plan.  Of course, the result would be the same as if the recipients were simply handed a years worth of a living wage: in a few months most would be right back where they started.  Why?  Because, for most, their sorry lot in life is not simply a condition of circumstance.  It is a condition brought on by choices made.  And giving out money does absolutely nothing to change the pattern of choices made that land most on welfare.

Now, welfare expenditures are not really that huge of a problem.  Unless one considers the damage done by making poverty livable.


----------



## Gem (Aug 1, 2012)

> So, how does welfare benefit society as a whole?



It acknowledges that sometimes, despite our best intentions and actions, we end up out of a job and we, and our families, need some assistance in order to be able to look for and begin a new job and get back on our feet.

It stops people from starving and/or begging in order to survive during these tough times, and ideally...by each of us paying a "little" of our tax dollars to this system we a) do not have to spend MORE money on the negative outcomes that would come from having unemployed homeless people and their families on the streets and b) provides all of us with an "insurance policy" of sorts in case WE are ever the ones in need of a little help to get back on/stay on our feet.



> How does it not?



When the welfare system provides people with enough of the basic necessities of life that they do not feel the need to try for more...you will have people trying to REMAIN on welfare...rather than using it as a temporary measure.  When those people have children who are born and raised to know nothing else...that will be their "normal" and they will continue to live within that lifestyle, teaching it to their children.  When you do not require people to move on from welfare either by providing enough job training opportunities or help finding jobs...or by requiring them to find SOME type of employment or limiting the time a person can receive welfare...you risk setting up a system where people would rather live on welfare than live on wages they can receive from employment.

A welfare-dependent culture is one that creates a populace that is dangerously vulnerable to political manipulation since they have a vested interest in voting for whichever party has promised them the most benefits.  Because of this, unscrupulous parties then have an interest in not only keeping those on welfare receiving those services, but also have an interest in INCREASING the numbers of people on welfare in order to increase their voting constituency.  

All of which leads to increasing corruption and increasing ignorance from an increasingly dependent segment of the population which seeks to maintain its lifestyle as it gets bigger and bigger...which further validates its existence, thus aiding the continuation of this devastating cycle.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 1, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > 1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
> ...



why a loan? why not just let them work it off as I propose?


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



Isn't that the same thing?  In short, I think your proposal is excellent.  But it falls short, as many welfare recipients would do, in a federal jobs program, exactly as they have done in life, which is to say they would not thrive.  Many recipients are simply not interested in pulling their weight, and would bog down such a program.  And so, when kicked out, they should have their future benefits terminated, and be forced to repay that which they have yet to pay.   Tax intercepts work very well.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 1, 2012)

Gem said:


> > So, how does welfare benefit society as a whole?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great post, I however think the first part of what you said is what leads to the second part of what you talked about.

To me there is no upside to welfare, it breeds dependence. In fact seeing as the US has become a welfare nation one could argue that welfare is a leading cause for poverty in the US. If the argument was that being on welfare helped lift people out of hard times and poverty then why with historic amounts of welfare do we also have historic amounts of poverty and downward movement in wealth of individuals in this country?

Outside of making someone feel better, welfare is used purely as a way to secure votes. To me anyone that feels welfare is good for a society is like talking to someone who does not believe in evolution.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> 1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
> 
> 2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.
> 
> ...



What do you see the long term effects being with such a program? 

I see major issues. Everyone who falls into that form of welfare is guaranteed a job, no matter how good or bad they do that job, Government wont allow strict standards or discrimination. Then you have to pay these people for whom would rarely want to get out of a job they cant be fired from and work for someone that demands a higher standard from an employee. Next you have to keep Government projects going, that takes money. If that state or federal project does not go through then what happens? What happens if politicians start running on more Government projects so that welfare people have job security?

I guess I see a huge list of problems with the Government providing jobs to its citizens.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 1, 2012)

So, moonglow, you think that giving taxpayer money to someone is beneficial to society because they will spend that money?    Uh.......ok.


----------



## California Girl (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



Work it off? As in make them government employees? Or do we fire the government employees and fill those jobs with welfare recipients? 

Good theory, does not hold up to practical application.


----------



## California Girl (Aug 1, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> So, moonglow, you think that giving taxpayer money to someone is beneficial to society because they will spend that money?    Uh.......ok.



The taxpayer could just as easily spend that money, if he wasn't being forced to support other people with his money.


----------



## Gem (Aug 1, 2012)

Avorysuds Wrote:


> To me there is no upside to welfare, it breeds dependence.



While I am deeply disappointed with our current welfare system, and often disgusted by the stories that come out of it...I can't help but picture the scene in Cinderella Man when Russel Crow playing James J. Braddock says, "I believe we live in a great country, a country that's great enough to help a man financially when he's in trouble. But lately, I've had some good fortune, and I'm back in the black. And I just thought I should return it."

Now...the libertarian in me, which has become much louder lately...says that we need to leave welfare to private charities and organizations...organizations that say, "We'll gladly pay your rent for 3 months while you look for work...we'll expect you to volunteer doing [fill in the blank] in return." or whatever.  

Bottom line, I guess...I deeply believe that sometimes in life we all need a helping hand and that Americans, as a whole, are loving, giving people who WANT to help out their neighbors.  I doubt seriously, whether government is capable of being that hand without causing significantly more trouble than the help it provides.


----------



## SayMyName (Aug 1, 2012)

In so much that it may help forstall rioting in the streets, it has little benefit at all but to ease our own sense of guilt.


----------



## Swagger (Aug 1, 2012)

SayMyName said:


> *In so much that it may help forstall rioting in the streets*, it has little benefit at all but to ease our own sense of guilt.



Indeed. Every civilisation is and was three meals away from anarchy.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 1, 2012)

Gem said:


> Avorysuds Wrote:
> 
> 
> > To me there is no upside to welfare, it breeds dependence.
> ...



Again, I agree with you but fact is we have welfare and we have seen what it becomes. If you start welfare with very strict rules as to who can use it, how long and how much they get, in so many years you will have people buying their beer with cash so they can buy dinner with their welfare card.


----------



## Mr Natural (Aug 1, 2012)

Yes, what America needs is more beggars in the streets.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 1, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> Yes, what America needs is more beggars in the streets.



I like your point, welfare keeps the beggars at home. No politician wants to see the poverty they helped create in the streets where it could cost them an election. Great point Mr.Claen.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 1, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



Who said there wouldn't be incentives to do good and high quality work? first off... you have to think about this in the right way. Let's suppose you are on welfare....not only that, but you are the worst kind of abuser of the system. All of a sudden here comes that asshole Steelplate with his referendum on bringing back the CCC and WPA. It gets through Congress and is signed by the President making it Law.

Now you have to work....just to receive the benefits you used to get for doing nothing. You start out as a general laborer on some public works project. Busting your ass, doing all the most physical labor....sounds pretty shitty, doesn't. it? You have one of three choices.....suck it up and keep working for those benefits, or get a real job that isn't so demanding. The third option is to excel at the laborer job to earn the right to be trained into something better.....once you receive that training, there is no bump in pay....you're still working for your benefits. At some point, you are going to say....I can do better....and you will.

I know...a lot of you want an instant solution. But an instant solution is just pissing in the wind, because no politician is going to simply cut them off....they want re-elected....and it doesn't matter which party....you make enough people outraged, you're gone.

Will there be people who never get out of the system? Sure....I can see people who are hopelessly addicted that may never get out of laborer mode....people with legitimate physical and/or mental handicaps to the point where they can't work at all...but even a guy in a wheelchair can answer phones and whatnot...I'm talking debilitating.


----------



## Vidi (Aug 1, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> Similar to the thread regarding same-sex marriage and debating why or why it shouldn't allowed with regard to society as a whole.  Just apply it now to welfare.
> 
> So, how does welfare benefit society as a whole?  How does it not?



Welfare helps prevent rebellions.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...


There arre a  significant number of true parasites that simply have no intest in working.  There are lots of incentives to do good, high quality work in the private sector.  But lots of recipients avoid those incentives like the plague.  

And how much do you pay someone for their work?  It seems to me like those that are simply averse to work always have a political party to fall back on to claim that life is just not fair.  And lots of those that do comply with the demands you set forth are just a bit less averse to work.   But will jump on any excuse to claim that they are too hard done by.  And there is a political party that will be sympathetic to their " plight".  Your idea is an absolutely excellent start.  But there is a much larger problem, and that is that half of the country would coddle these people for their votes.  Which is a tremendous disincentive.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 1, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Similar to the thread regarding same-sex marriage and debating why or why it shouldn't allowed with regard to society as a whole.  Just apply it now to welfare.
> ...



Let em rebel.   Nothin that law enforcement can't handle.  Of course, that still leaves them on welfare, but perhaps a good head cracking followed by a jail sentence wil teach them a lesson.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Aug 1, 2012)

> How does society benefit from welfare?



It doesn't. It is a detrimental aspect of society. The government absolutely adores the idea though. Right along with bombing people into peace.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> 1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
> 
> 2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). *Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.*
> 
> ...



Clarify this for me, why can't you leave the money in the pockets of the people who earned it.  Don't they spend money?  Or is it only the people who are gifted money stolen from others who spend profligately enough to satisfy government?  What is wrong with allowing people receiving stolen money to spend their own (albeit) meager earnings on things they need, instead of things they want?


----------



## Staidhup (Aug 1, 2012)

Without a well established and entrenched welfare component of our society liberal politicians would not be reelected. The welfare package proposed in the 1930's was designed as a temporary safety net not a new class of citizens, but then again give a worthy concept to a politician and they thoroughly trash it.


----------



## Ariux (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> 1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.



Maybe.



> 2. It helps keep the economy rolling



You're a f-ing retard.  Paying people not to work hurts the economy, as well as gives them the leisure time to cause trouble, hurting the economy even more.  (Money will get spent, whether it's used as welfare or used for something else.)



> Now...I am not a big fan if Welfare in it's current form. I personally think they ought to keep their benefits, but I strongly believe that there is plenty of public works projects out there that need done.



You're forgiven for you retarded point above.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 1, 2012)

Staidhup said:


> Without a well established and entrenched welfare component of our society liberal politicians would not be reelected. The welfare package proposed in the 1930's was designed as a temporary safety net not a new class of citizens, but then again give a worthy concept to a politician and they thoroughly trash it.



"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."  There are almost always unintended consequences that are completely overlooked when the stated intent of such programs is so noble and inarguable.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 1, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > 1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
> ...



This is the clean zone, you can't call people names or you will be banned at some point.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 1, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



truthfully? I think the "true parasites" aren't the norm....I think that there's plenty of them, but not the norm. If they don't want their benefits, fine....go sell crack...whatever. He'll eventually get caught or get shot, or die of addiction. You can't plan for every contingency. But....benefits for work, opportunity to learn skills to get you permanently out of the system and into the mainstream is a hell of a lot better than what we have.....not to mention that it's cheap labor to help solve our huge infrastructure problem...so the taxpayer gets a return on the investment as well.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> Society does not benefit from welfare.  Welfare recipients do.  Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.



That's a short sighted view. 

"Welfare" takes many forms. The op didn't say if they meant the enormous corporate welfare, ranching and farming welfare or the woman who is struggling to keep a roof over her head and food on the table. 

Its very IN to criticize that single woman who tries to play by the rules and feed and clothe her kids. The dead beat dad is down the street, drinking with Joe Walsh and other teepots. 

The real problem is corporate welfare.THAT is in the trillions of dollars. 

Next comes welfare ranching and farming. Does anyone else know of a business that is perpetually propped up by TAX money?

Stop shitting on single mothers - its really small bucks. If you want to stop "welfare", if you want benefit the tax payer, go for corporate welfare. 

(Yeah, I know ... that would mean voting against the Queen of Corporate Welfare, Mittens himself, but that's the reality.)


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...


I doubt that there is much of a return on investment but I agree with you for the most part.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 1, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Society does not benefit from welfare.  Welfare recipients do.  Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.
> ...


The corporate welfare need sto be drastically scaled back as well, which would mean voting against the champion of welfare losers..... Barack Hussein obammy.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 1, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



so, we should vote for a true corporatist like Willard "the rat" Romney?....naahh, I'll take my chances with Obama.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



No doubt you will. You know there will be absolutely no pressure from his party or constituents to embrace the type of reform you stated you believed in.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 1, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Society does not benefit from welfare.  Welfare recipients do.  Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.
> ...



This is true. Social welfare is small peanuts in comparison. As to the utility of social welfare, it is necessary because capitalism has periodic and sometimes systemic downturns which leave people out of work who would otherwise still be working.


----------



## CZKG_Crockett (Aug 1, 2012)

*When someone gets welfare, they don't have the desire to better their lives.  Why work when you get get a check for sittin at home and doin nothin?  There is so much fraud in the welfare system that its not really benefitin anyone.  Those who work have to pay more taxes to cover those who are not working.

If welfare put money into the pockets of people who in return put it into business, then why are inner cities so run down and poor and violent?  All you are doin is takin that money out of one persons hands who worked for it, and puttin into the hands of someone who didn't.  Redistribution of wealth is not the way to better society.*


----------



## Sallow (Aug 1, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> Society does not benefit from welfare.  Welfare recipients do.  Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.



Well..all you have to do is check history to see what happens when wealth disparity becomes huge.

You get populist revolt. And in many cases, like in China and Russia, the outcomes, suck.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



A very few hundreds of dollars to the poor single mom as opposed to TRILLIONS of corporate welfare dollars to Mittens and his cronies.

Simply no comparison.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



At least with the Obama plan..you had the survival of the financial and auto industry.

Romney was talking about letting them totally collapse..so a company like Bain could swoop in..sell off assets and ship jobs overseas.

For a hefty profit.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 1, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



and that my friend, is one of the biggest problems with our country. A complete lack of community and patriotism in Corporate America. I can understand profits, I can understand obligations to stockholders...what I can't understand is screwing the strongest country in the world to achieve an impossible goal of perpetual growth.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

> When someone gets welfare, they don't have the desire to better their lives.



Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Wow. Its amazing that some actually believe this. Especially since so many SAY they are "Christians". There are times when people need a hand up. In the past, I've helped people and every single one of them have gone on to do for themselves. 

If I had listened to the likes of fux or lushbo, I wouldn't have helped those people. 

Besides which - we are human being. We don't stand by while our own species starves to death in front of us.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



Yes, and he also said he wanted to let housing collapse, people go homeless so the wealthy could buy their homes and then rent them back to them. 

Damn but that stinks. 

Just that one issue is enough to make be vote against him. The man is SCUM.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 1, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



That's the difference between left and right. 

Profits yes.

But screwing over the rest of us? Taking our homes and jobs? NO.

You nailed it.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 1, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Some Guy said:
> ...



Yeah! Just like when McAurther threw those WWI veterans out of their Hooverville with the Army,while they were asking Congress for their war bonus early to help them with existing during the Great Depression.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 1, 2012)

CZKG_Crockett said:


> *When someone gets welfare, they don't have the desire to better their lives.  Why work when you get get a check for sittin at home and doin nothin?  There is so much fraud in the welfare system that its not really benefitin anyone.  Those who work have to pay more taxes to cover those who are not working.
> 
> If welfare put money into the pockets of people who in return put it into business, then why are inner cities so run down and poor and violent?  All you are doin is takin that money out of one persons hands who worked for it, and puttin into the hands of someone who didn't.  Redistribution of wealth is not the way to better society.*



The welfare system is in no way a redistribution of wealth.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 1, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



Corporate welfare is HUGE.  But guess what, corporations have a habit of recycling those welfare dollars back into pols' campaign coffers.  Do you need any more hints as to why so much more money is pumped into so-called "corporate" welfare.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Society does not benefit from welfare.  Welfare recipients do.  Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.
> ...



Stay on topic.  We are speaking of welfare.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 2, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



They are not your homes if they are mortgaged.  They are not your jobs unless you own th company.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 2, 2012)

The welfare mentality is that you are owed by everyone because you take your next breath.


----------



## AnonymousIV (Aug 2, 2012)

I think the way to eliminate the war on poverty, is to start with the poorest people, by sending out social workers, to teach good habits when they are small, and follow them, and teach them about sex. But, do it in a home setting not an office. Make those things you gripe about a point to teach and incorporate in their lives.   They receive Government monies, there are responsibilities that go with that.  There worlds are so cold, that a friend stopping by, that has a special relationship with mom or dad or both, would be great for their esteem. I think it would open up jobs especially to the military. And just be a good thing all the way around. Time? Yes it will take a lot of time. Call the Government Program, Setting Down Children Right


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Steelplate said:


> 1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
> 
> 2. It helps keep the economy rolling(imagine if those people had crappy jobs AND had to pay out of pocket for all of the expenses that come with a household). Money in people's pockets means money spent, money spent means profits for business.
> 
> ...



And people object when I suggest raising the minimum wage to a living wage.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

AnonymousIV said:


> I think the way to eliminate the war on poverty, is to start with the poorest people, by sending out social workers, to teach good habits when they are small, and follow them, and teach them about sex. But, do it in a home setting not an office. Make those things you gripe about a point to teach and incorporate in their lives.   They receive Government monies, there are responsibilities that go with that.  There worlds are so cold, that a friend stopping by, that has a special relationship with mom or dad or both, would be great for their esteem. I think it would open up jobs especially to the military. And just be a good thing all the way around. Time? Yes it will take a lot of time. Call the Government Program, Setting Down Children Right



For people who are working, there should be a living wage, for those not working, I'm all in favor a dormitories, make them share rooms and kitchen privileges, have someone come in to teach them how to shop and how to cook and clean up after themselves.  Teach them how to care for children and have them share the burden while learning how to get a job and keep it.  If they can't find a job in a certain amount of time, then let's give them one, even cleaning garbage up off the street is better than doing nothing.  And pay them enough to live on, then it's not charity, it's work and they can get a better self image and work their way up to a better job.

Our current system sucks, we have people who are working their buns off and living in tent cities and we have people with 5 kids by 5 different fathers that are sitting on their butts being paid by our government simply because they were stupid enough to have children they couldn't afford.

Currently, a high-school girl who get's pregnant gets help immediately from our government, she even gets more funds and more opportunities to attend college or trade schools.  Meanwhile what do the father's get?  A bill for the kid.  Why not give the father opportunities for college and trade school so that they can get a job and actually pay the child support they are being charged?


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



If they aren't our homes, why are we paying the taxes on them?


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



That is part of the topic.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



If they are your homes, why are you still making payments on them?


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > 1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
> ...


That's because the cashier at McDonald's is not doing a job worth a living wage.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



I asked you first.


----------



## Some Guy (Aug 2, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> CZKG_Crockett said:
> 
> 
> > *When someone gets welfare, they don't have the desire to better their lives.  Why work when you get get a check for sittin at home and doin nothin?  There is so much fraud in the welfare system that its not really benefitin anyone.  Those who work have to pay more taxes to cover those who are not working.
> ...



How do you figure?  When the government takes money from someone who has earned it via paying income, property or sales tax and gives it to someone who hasn't, that's definitely redistribution of wealth.

Good point made earlier that welfare was created with good intentions.  You don't want the poor living on the streets and possibly turning to crime to make ends meet if you can help it.  Like anything the government does though, it's basically been used to try to get votes.  If you have someone who's dependent on it and it's comfortable enough to where you don't need to get off of it then why bother?

Welfare definitely has it's place, but for the good of the nation and those who need to use it, it needs to be relatively painful.  I like the idea of work programs in combination with education, training and drug testing (along with military service as another option).  It would obviously cost tax dollars to administrate such services but the hope is that it would level out in the long haul (less people claiming benefits due to having the basic skills and motivation to make a better life elsewhere).


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



The lowest paid job in the richest country in the world should be a living wage job, everything should go up from there.


----------



## Mr Natural (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



But everything, including prices, will go up from there and we'll be right back to where we started only everything will cost more.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 2, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



And yet you guys are all for the Citizen's United ruling.

Go figure.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > 1. It keeps people from starving in the streets.
> ...




Really?

I guess we are in agreement!


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



Oh please, yeah the prices will go up a little, but in relationship the raise will be worth it for the mw worker.  The middle class and the rich will be paying more out of their pocket for something and our income gap may start to decrease, which is a good idea as no nation can long stand when the majority of it's wealth is in the hands of a few.

This was recognized by philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle long before we were born, you'd think all these people who went to the Ivy League schools would recognize their wisdom.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 2, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Society does not benefit from welfare.  Welfare recipients do.  Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.
> ...



This post strikes me as purely partisan. I have never in my life as of yet hear a single person attack that single mom that played by the rules and needs help to feed and clothe her children. You seem incredibly confused or are purposely misrepresenting the truth. People attack welfare queens, oddly you used that term later in your post to describe corporate welfare, so its obvious you know what the term is and know what it applies to.

You then attack Mitt, a guy that is not even President and claim he has  a political corporate welfare that is greater than the current President who by actual fact, data and reality has possibly done tens of thousands of times more corporate welfare than Mitt. 

Basically Id need to see you post a link for what Mitt wants to do or has done for corporate welfare and then Id need a link showing what Obama has done with it over the last 3 and a half years. Everything I found shows welfare spending dramatically increased under Obama, its hard to find a graph splitting corporate welfare spending and social welfare spending, oddly under Bush it was easy to find, lol.


If you wanted to do away with corporate welfare you needed to vote for Ron Paul, =D Only guy with a true record on not supporting it with actual votes. Something tells me you don't like Paul though.


----------



## Some Guy (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Oh please, yeah the prices will go up a little, but in relationship the raise will be worth it for the mw worker.  The middle class and the rich will be paying more out of their pocket for something



How does the minimum wage worker not pay more as well?  If a product or service is going to cost more due to increased overhead to provide it, how does it not affect everyone who would buy said product or service?  It wouldn't apply to luxury items but take a grocery store. If the bag boys make $15 per hour instead of $8 and the low margin grocery store needs to increase prices to make up for it, the minimum wage worker pays more for it.

I suppose your theory is that the minimum wage worker, for an 8 hour day and (for example) a $2 per hour bump, makes $16 more per day, which more than makes up for the added cost of milk, for example.  But if milk costs 10 cents more, eggs cost 10 cents, more, a bag of chips costs 10 cents more: it all adds up.

And minimum wage is a job killer.  I get the 'living wage' argument with relationship to it but when 70% of business owners in America are small business owners, the minimum wage could be the difference between a paid job being available and not.  If someone can only feasibly offer $6 per hour for 30 hours a week but can't by law, no additional job created.  Even if it's not a livable wage, it could be a decent job for a teenager to take where he/she otherwise might not be able to find one.  That job could be the reason he/she keeps out of trouble, learns some valuable life lesson and helps propel them up the chain in the future.  Plenty of projection there but it's a valid point.

It also makes the assumption that the business owner wouldn't resort to RIFs (reduction in force) to keep the same profit margin.  If you've got a company that deals in commodities where mere pennies can be the difference between someone shopping with you versus another store (and also probably having a low profit margin), if you're keeping the full force on for $2 more per hour for all of them and your competitor cuts a couple jobs in order to keep the prices down, you'd have to adapt in kind in order to compete... unless there's something special about your product that justifies the higher price.  So, you could have 4 jobs lost between two stores right there due to the minimum wage increase.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Society does not benefit from welfare.  Welfare recipients do.  Everyone else just has a lighter wallet.
> ...



Ahhh. Or you could look at America prior to FDR and see the massive growth of the middle class. With the biggest welfare system America has ever had you can clearly see the eroding of that middle class.

Why go out of the country and look at Governments whos systems are vastly different than ours for comparison? How about Italy and Greece, how is their welfare system holding up?


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 2, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



I need numbers, and seeing that I have looked up corporate welfare spending to social welfare spending and know you're in fact wrong, I won't wait for a response seeing as it will be as nonsensical as the post you just made.

Most that dont support social welfare also dont sup[port corporate welfare. You go back and forth between politician and the voters, thats the issue. Obama clearly supports corporate welfare seeing as he has been doing it on the largest scale in American history, so does your vote for Obama mean you support corporate welfare?


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



It seems you have a very very very limited understanding of the impact of raising minimum wage. I honestly think I should leave it at there is no point in debate on the issue with you as you seem content with your limited and incredibly wrong view of minimum wage. 

Lol, I cant even help but think how many jobs would disappear overnight and businesss that go under due to parole eclipsing their entire budget if you had your way. Of course Im talking about small businesses, where 5 employees can run them 75k a year alone  

But as I said, what would be the point of debate... prices would only slightly increase right? lol, wow...


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Years ago, Pizza Hut claimed that if they provided medical care for their employees that they'd have to raise the price of their pizzas by 50 cents each.  All of my friends agreed that in return for more people having health insurance they'd be happy to pay an extra $.50 per pizza.  Then a study was done showing Pizza Hut had greatly exaggerated the cost and it would have only raised the price of their pizzas by pennies.  They still refused to do it.  BTW, this was when mw had close to 1/3 more spending power.  Greed is the only reason for the continued decrease in the power of mw.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Next time you might want to try and read what I post. Pizza hut is not a "small business." Like I said, you very much support a huge corporation, you destroy the small business's, thus, your incredible lack of understanding of the issue.

Not to mention you're talking about HI and not minimum wage. Your study shows pennies of increased overhead costs for HI per employee, are you suggesting that min wage should only go up by pennies per employee?

So I'll go ahead and prove my point. Againsheila, what do you think minimum wage should "generally" be as of today. Just a guess so we can take this debate passed &#8220;blah blah blah&#8221; and so I can prove that you have no real interest in the true costs and impact of a wage increase. Lets says a states min wage is 8.00$ an hour as of today, where do you "feel" it should be around.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



I've said this before but everyone ignores it and asks again and again and again.  Minimum Wage at 40 hours per week should provide enough income for one person to provide an apartment with utilities, food, transportation and medical care with a little extra to pay for clothes and other necessities for himself.  I do not think that is unreasonable.  My brother, working a mw job back in 1969 was able to get his own apartment (granted he slept on the floor and had lawn furniture in his living room) he was able to buy a new car on payments and take college courses in the evenings.  Today on mw, you can't even put a roof over your head.  How can anyone get ahead if they can't even survive?


----------



## Jackson (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



MW jobs are meant for entry job workers to establish a resume and a work ethic.  It is to pay for car insurance and possibly prapare for college tuition in the future.  It can be used for welfare work requirements.  From there, a worker can go to cashiers in stores and restaurant help where they can earn tips and then factory work and vocational training.  From the MW jobs any worker can decide their own path.  The government has programs up the gazoo.


----------



## Some Guy (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> I've said this before but everyone ignores it and asks again and again and again.  Minimum Wage at 40 hours per week should provide enough income for one person to provide an apartment with utilities, food, transportation and medical care with a little extra to pay for clothes and other necessities for himself.  I do not think that is unreasonable.  My brother, working a mw job back in 1969 was able to get his own apartment (granted he slept on the floor and had lawn furniture in his living room) he was able to buy a new car on payments and take college courses in the evenings.  Today on mw, you can't even put a roof over your head.  How can anyone get ahead if they can't even survive?



That was crystal clear in your earlier posts so i'm not sure who's ignoring it.  That's fine to have that view.  I think you're way too narrowly focused on the minimum wage earner only without too much regard to how it impact overall employment as well as wage of those above minimum wage.


----------



## Some Guy (Aug 2, 2012)

Jackson said:


> MW jobs are meant for entry job workers to establish a resume and a work ethic.



I wouldn't call them "meant" for entry level workers.  They're minimum wage jobs because they only require the most basic of skills, skills that most everyone has.  They're easy to understand and perform in most circumstances and only require a small amount of training.  As such, they're well filled by teenagers and indeed act as a springboard to better things, or at least that's the idea.

As our society becomes less manufacturing based and more information based, it's getting ever harder to make a good living simply by the sweat of your brow.  You need to know something, more than the next guy, in order to make some good money.

If you raised the minimum wage enough to where anyone making it can afford housing, health care, furniture, clothes, etc, then there would be fewer, perhaps far less fewer minimum wage jobs available due to the rise in overhead.


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



So there is no debate because you won't give an answer as to what you think minimum wage should even be around.

One argument is that minimum wage can go up because such a low % of people are on it, but what people don't mention is the % of people very close to minimum wage. 

Some issues you will run into is that if you bumped min wage up lets say a full 2 dollars from the 8 dollar figure the ramifications are dramatic. Firstly the employer has to come up with the payroll and taxes for these employees, then there are the people that were once making 1 dollar over min wage that now got a raise. Next is that now at 10$ an hour that is the starting point, meaning when people want a raise it actually costs the employer far more.

Lets figure payroll without taxes for 8$ an hour and 5 employees full time for a small business no taxes.
 8x40x4x12 = 15,360per employee. 15,360x5 = 76,800$ a year for 5 employees. 
Now lets figure a 2 dollar wage increase.
10x40x4x12 = 19,200per employee. 19,200x5 = 96,000 a year for 5 employees. 

The difference is 19,200$ a year for the employer. Now, what if that employer was only making 70,000 a year for their self? 50,800$ is what the employer now makes, thats far less to invest with, what if one year a recession happens and they lose 30% of their business? 

The point Im trying to make is already the employer either needs to fire 1 full time employee or raise their prices. The only other option is to pray to God that a recession does not hit like they do once every 10 years. Were not even getting past payroll and already the UE rate will jump or prices will have to rise. All jobs are not created equal, by that I mean if a Person that speaks poor English, cant spell and zero experience can walk on the job and do it *right*, it probably was not a job that deserved higher pay. 


I believe you have a lot to think about when it comes to raising the min wage, I suggest you do some research and go into it without a bias point of view or the answer will only offend you.

If welfare, SS, Medicare Medicaid, min wage and unemployment were all such great programs then why do we have more people in poverty today than before these programs? Why is the middle class shrinking so quickly over so many years?


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Jackson said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



Who decided that mw jobs are "entry" jobs?  When was that decided?  Do you have any idea how many mw workers are not people who just entered the workforce?  That they aren't living at home and going to high school?


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > I've said this before but everyone ignores it and asks again and again and again.  Minimum Wage at 40 hours per week should provide enough income for one person to provide an apartment with utilities, food, transportation and medical care with a little extra to pay for clothes and other necessities for himself.  I do not think that is unreasonable.  My brother, working a mw job back in 1969 was able to get his own apartment (granted he slept on the floor and had lawn furniture in his living room) he was able to buy a new car on payments and take college courses in the evenings.  Today on mw, you can't even put a roof over your head.  How can anyone get ahead if they can't even survive?
> ...



A rising tide raises all boats....


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 2, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > MW jobs are meant for entry job workers to establish a resume and a work ethic.
> ...



QFT.

Next people would elect politicians that would outlaw firing employees, then people could have riots if anyone ever tried to take away their welfare job.

Wonder if that has happened yet...... ...... .. . . . . . . .  In another country =D


----------



## Avorysuds (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Some Guy said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Correct, thus the raise in MW becomes pointless seeing as shortly after people will realize they are in the same boat.

In fact thats not correct because that tide would sink a few boats (un-employe people)


----------



## Some Guy (Aug 2, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> Some issues you will run into is that if you bumped min wage up lets say a full 2 dollars from the 8 dollar figure the ramifications are dramatic. Firstly the employer has to come up with the payroll and taxes for these employees, *then there are the people that were once making 1 dollar over min wage that now got a raise.*



I think it's even bigger than that.  If i'm making $9 per hour right now with an $8 minimum wage rate, and the minimum wage is raised to $10, i'm not settling for $10: i want $11 now.  It would apply for basically everyone on the payroll if they value themselves at some rate above what the minimum is.  So, either bump them up, have them be disgruntled (and probably do a poor job as a result, or worse) or risk losing them to another place.

I said it before but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.  If a small business owner has a job to offer at $6 per hour and someone wants to take it, it seems like a nice mutual agreement as the employee is under no obligation to take that job if they don't want to.  They're more than welcome to seek out a job that pays more.  And if they're worth it: they'll get it.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 2, 2012)

Minimum wage raises occur not to help people have more, just to maintain a standard of living.  That occurs over a long period of time.  Frankly, I'm not interested in helping someone maintain a lifetime of under achievement.  Minimum wage should have a maximum length of time a person qualifies to receive that pay level.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 2, 2012)

Society should develop a culture of charity freely given, not a system of government support for an extended period of time.


----------



## Jackson (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Perhaps my perception is askew.  I was sitting here thinking about it.  I have seen older people working as bag "boys" and greeters at KMart, so you are probably right.  I will have to rethink this.  Thank you.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Jackson said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



Wow!  You're welcome...


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 2, 2012)

Sallow said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



Which "you guys" are you discussing.  I am definitely against that ruling.  I am firmly against any entity that is not an individual capable of casting a vote having the ability to contribute to any campaign.  I have often mentioned my ideas about how funding for political campaigns should be limited.  Unions, corporations, and various non-profits, etc, are not welcome to buy government for their benefit.


----------



## Steelplate (Aug 3, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Minimum wage raises occur not to help people have more, just to maintain a standard of living.  That occurs over a long period of time.  Frankly, I'm not interested in helping someone maintain a lifetime of under achievement.  Minimum wage should have a maximum length of time a person qualifies to receive that pay level.



really? First, you guys say that wages are market driven, now you allude that the minimum wage is just another form if welfare and that itself should be limited.

So...what you are basically saying that anyone who has a strong back and a weak mind doesn't deserve to live a comfortable life?

sorry, I disagree.....and that's just one of the reasons why I'm pro-union. Unions suck, but when you have people continually trying to hurt everyday people....they are a necessary evil.


----------



## Some Guy (Aug 3, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Minimum wage raises occur not to help people have more, just to maintain a standard of living.



I don't think that's the case.  I think it's one of those issues of "fairness."  I think the minimum wage law is perceived (by some) to be the government protecting the little guy from the corporation who would like nothing more than to basically enslave their workers with a $1 per hour wage.  As i alluded to earlier, that's only really possible if all the companies that sell a product or service collude to make it happen.

Corporations, companies, business, whatever not only have to be competitive with the product or service they sell but they also have to be competitive with the wages/salaries they offer to their employees in order to get good people to work for them (or any people are all).


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 3, 2012)

The problem isn't welfare, its the definition of needy.  It's the equality that exists between the old, sick, feeble, and the strapping young who can afford facial piercings and full body tattoos.   Not wanting to work is the same as not being able to work.  

In the most primitive cultures there was an understanding that the old were cared for, women with infants were fed and sheltered.  The sick were tended.  But, the young warrior who just never felt like hunting was driven out of the village to survive or die on his own.   The woman who refused to weave or cook was beaten by the other women.

Our culture today doesn't have the sense available to the common wolf pack.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 3, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Because that is the way it works.  You also have to pay the registration on that car the bank is letting you drive for a small fee.


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 3, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



They are not entry level jobs.  They are, by and large, dead end jobs.   What do you think an acceptable "living wage" is?  Any idea for a number, or is this just some great moonbeam idea floating around in your head that has no real world application?


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 3, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Minimum wage raises occur not to help people have more, just to maintain a standard of living.
> ...



Of course they colluded to make it happen.  What, you think our government decided on it's own to increase our legal immigration to more than all the other nations combined?  To ignore the illegals who break our laws to get here?  You don't think it was planned that Tyson bus in illegals, and when caught, pay a small fine that's actually less than they'd pay if they hired American workers?

Remember, Americans reduced their birthrate to less than replacement value.  If our government actually protected our borders, the lower wages would be MUCH higher due to demand.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 3, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



There's that question again, which has been answered time and time again.  Someone else can do that math to find a figure  but it should be enough for ONE person to provide for their own shelter, utilities, transportation to and from work, medical care, food and clothing.


----------



## copsnrobbers (Aug 3, 2012)

Have you looked at the subculture in this country? Entitlements like welfare suck.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 3, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Well, there's the rub...basic shelter, clothing, and food is not what most people want.  They want their McMansions, designers labels, and filet mignon.  Can't get that on minimum wage, but you can obtain basic necessities.


----------



## Peach (Aug 3, 2012)

Why are those who sometimes rant about STATISTS asking how the society benefits? Individuals do, and of course the US economy does also.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 3, 2012)

gallantwarrior said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



There is no rub there.  MW is basic the lowest, it doesn't promise a skyscraper apartment with a view or steak every night.  It should promise a roof over your head and a good balanced diet as well as money to pay for all those other things I mentioned.


----------



## rdean (Aug 3, 2012)

Some Guy said:


> Similar to the thread regarding same-sex marriage and debating why or why it shouldn't allowed with regard to society as a whole.  Just apply it now to welfare.
> 
> So, how does welfare benefit society as a whole?  How does it not?



Coach explains it to Glenn Beck:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U]Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid - YouTube[/ame]


----------

