Welfare Queen says Working is Stupid

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are Welfare Recipients mostly Republican?
Posted on February 22, 2012 by Tino


Paul Krugman is in puzzlement, having observed that Red States get more welfare funding, while Republican voters oppose the welfare state. He portrays Republicans as “Moochers” who are either hypocritical or too stupid to know their own best interest.

But as we know, states do not vote, individuals do. There is only a paradox if Republican voters receive welfare at above average rates while voting against it. From the Gellman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats. Republican voters earn significantly more than Democrats, even though Red state earn less than Blue states.

Krugman reports no individual level data, so let me. The Maxwell Poll has detailed information about welfare use. The data is from 2004-2007. During this period in these polls a plurality of voters supported Democrats. I will graph the two-party vote, more data is at the end.


Hardly surprising, we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.

You have similar results in this recent NPR-Poll. Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats.

Share of Recipients of each program that self-identified as supporters of Republican party in 2004-2007 Maxwell Poll:

Gov. Subsidized Housing 12%
Medicaid: 16%
Food Stamps: 20%
Unemployment Compensation: 21%
Welfare or public assistance: 22%
Disability benefits from government 25%

Are Welfare Recipients mostly Republican? | Tino Sanandaji

The Democrat leaning poor just don't vote. Those who are financially insecure largely opt out of the political system altogether. Those that are most dependent on government welfare programs are the least likely to vote. That opting out disproportionately affects Democratic support.


Among the poor that vote for Republican, do so because of issues that have little to do with social welfare, abortion, same sex marriage, immigration, and terrorism.

Pew: The poor like Democrats, but don't vote for them

The blacks like Democrats too. A large percentage of them don't vote either, but the Democrats scramble to win that vote and in fact, many say that the minority vote will wipe out the Republican party. The black population in this country is only 13%.

Ask yourself: what does the Democrat party have to offer people but free stuff? Nothing.

Liberals and Demorats don't pay attention to politics, this is true. Look at the cable news ratings compared to Fox. Look at how many liberal outlets on the radio and television have failed. PBS, NPR and others would not be around today if not for taxpayer support. They just don't attract enough audience.

But a little here and a little there, their support of the Democrat party is priceless.

It seems from your post, you're saying that welfare is a major reason why the poor vote Democrat. The question why members of any demographic group vote a certain way involves a number of issues because we are all different..

The poor, at least those that do vote, do lean Democrat for a lot of reasons other than the size of their government check. Republicans have fought to keep wages low by blocking minimum wage increase. They have been fighting to destroy unions forever. Most Republican tax proposals increases taxes on those least able to pay. They support legislation that weakens civil rights. In general, Republicans support most legislation the middle and upper class over the poor. Thus there are good reason why the poor leans Democrat that have nothing to do with welfare.

However, there are lot of poor people who vote Republican who are Christian conservatives, and swayed by many of the same issues as higher income tax payers such as terrorism, healthcare, and immigration.

It doesn't have to be a government check to "give them anything."

I can't go through your lengthy list of what you THINK Republicans are for, but let's look at what Sanders and Clinton are preaching about. If it were up to Sanders, he would take away most of the wealth from the wealthy. Of course his followers "assume" that they will end up with that wealth. Free college! Liberals love to talk about free stuff--but never talk about who is going to pay for free.

Then we have the equal pay nonsense. Yes, the Democrats can point to statistics that show men make more than women, but no evidence as to why. They just leave the impression that it must be gender discrimination. So they tell half of our population that they will pass an equal pay law, even though that law was already passed in 1962.

Hillary (like Sanders) complains about those evil one-percenters. Her followers ignore the fact that she is a one-percenter. Criminal justice reform. That's a hot one. Blacks commit a disproportional amount of crime in this country--especially theft and violence, so Hillary wants to do something about getting them out of jail.

Paid family leave. Yes, it's not bad enough that businesses leave this country due to all the expense it takes to have employees in the US, now she is promising Americans even more paid time-off from work.

It all boils down to making more government dependents and giving people more stuff. As you can see, it doesn't have to be a check from the government.

At the heart of your posts seems to be the belief that government social programs create dependency and that dependency is destroying the will to work. If generous government social programs are destroying the incentive to work, then why are 60% of families on food stamps working? And why do most families receiving welfare payments have at least one family member working? And why are most families on TANF off in 21 months?

I don't believe social programs are stopping people from working but I do believe some of the programs need a better phase out as income increases, some of the programs such as child care for the working poor needs to be expanded, and benefits should be based on total income without excisions.

I believe just the opposite.

I remember during the heart of the recession, my neighbor lost his job because the company closed. Granted, he put in a lot of years with his company and deserved unemployment, but he made sure he milked it right to the very last week.

After taxes, he was getting close to 400 a week. Why should he look for a job? After all, 400 a week after taxes is about a 13 dollar an hour job. It would be foolish to accept anything under 16 dollars an hour and give up the unemployment checks.

For him, it would be stupid to accept anything under 20 dollars an hour because he was working for cash under the table on top of his unemployment check. It was a year or so paid vacation for him.

I don't want to repeat the same stories over and over again, but I've seen plenty of times where these social programs do support not working. We have 93 million Americans of working age that are not working or looking for work, 45 million on the SNAP's program, and I'm told by the Obama administration that our economy is sailing like a boat.

 

[Flopper]

The Democrat leaning poor just don't vote. Those who are financially insecure largely opt out of the political system altogether. Those that are most dependent on government welfare programs are the least likely to vote. That opting out disproportionately affects Democratic support.


Among the poor that vote for Republican, do so because of issues that have little to do with social welfare, abortion, same sex marriage, immigration, and terrorism.

Pew: The poor like Democrats, but don't vote for them

The blacks like Democrats too. A large percentage of them don't vote either, but the Democrats scramble to win that vote and in fact, many say that the minority vote will wipe out the Republican party. The black population in this country is only 13%.

Ask yourself: what does the Democrat party have to offer people but free stuff? Nothing.

Liberals and Demorats don't pay attention to politics, this is true. Look at the cable news ratings compared to Fox. Look at how many liberal outlets on the radio and television have failed. PBS, NPR and others would not be around today if not for taxpayer support. They just don't attract enough audience.

But a little here and a little there, their support of the Democrat party is priceless.

It seems from your post, you're saying that welfare is a major reason why the poor vote Democrat. The question why members of any demographic group vote a certain way involves a number of issues because we are all different..

The poor, at least those that do vote, do lean Democrat for a lot of reasons other than the size of their government check. Republicans have fought to keep wages low by blocking minimum wage increase. They have been fighting to destroy unions forever. Most Republican tax proposals increases taxes on those least able to pay. They support legislation that weakens civil rights. In general, Republicans support most legislation the middle and upper class over the poor. Thus there are good reason why the poor leans Democrat that have nothing to do with welfare.

However, there are lot of poor people who vote Republican who are Christian conservatives, and swayed by many of the same issues as higher income tax payers such as terrorism, healthcare, and immigration.

It doesn't have to be a government check to "give them anything."

I can't go through your lengthy list of what you THINK Republicans are for, but let's look at what Sanders and Clinton are preaching about. If it were up to Sanders, he would take away most of the wealth from the wealthy. Of course his followers "assume" that they will end up with that wealth. Free college! Liberals love to talk about free stuff--but never talk about who is going to pay for free.

Then we have the equal pay nonsense. Yes, the Democrats can point to statistics that show men make more than women, but no evidence as to why. They just leave the impression that it must be gender discrimination. So they tell half of our population that they will pass an equal pay law, even though that law was already passed in 1962.

Hillary (like Sanders) complains about those evil one-percenters. Her followers ignore the fact that she is a one-percenter. Criminal justice reform. That's a hot one. Blacks commit a disproportional amount of crime in this country--especially theft and violence, so Hillary wants to do something about getting them out of jail.

Paid family leave. Yes, it's not bad enough that businesses leave this country due to all the expense it takes to have employees in the US, now she is promising Americans even more paid time-off from work.

It all boils down to making more government dependents and giving people more stuff. As you can see, it doesn't have to be a check from the government.

At the heart of your posts seems to be the belief that government social programs create dependency and that dependency is destroying the will to work. If generous government social programs are destroying the incentive to work, then why are 60% of families on food stamps working? And why do most families receiving welfare payments have at least one family member working? And why are most families on TANF off in 21 months?

I don't believe social programs are stopping people from working but I do believe some of the programs need a better phase out as income increases, some of the programs such as child care for the working poor needs to be expanded, and benefits should be based on total income without excisions.

I believe just the opposite.

I remember during the heart of the recession, my neighbor lost his job because the company closed. Granted, he put in a lot of years with his company and deserved unemployment, but he made sure he milked it right to the very last week.

After taxes, he was getting close to 400 a week. Why should he look for a job? After all, 400 a week after taxes is about a 13 dollar an hour job. It would be foolish to accept anything under 16 dollars an hour and give up the unemployment checks.

For him, it would be stupid to accept anything under 20 dollars an hour because he was working for cash under the table on top of his unemployment check. It was a year or so paid vacation for him.

I don't want to repeat the same stories over and over again, but I've seen plenty of times where these social programs do support not working. We have 93 million Americans of working age that are not working or looking for work, 45 million on the SNAP's program, and I'm told by the Obama administration that our economy is sailing like a boat.

If he was getting $400/wk unemployment after taxes in my state he would have been making about $800/wk after taxes. I think being short $400/wk is a pretty good incentive to get a job considering that unemployment goes away in 26 weeks.

 

[Dragonlady]

Wages don't increase because it's a nice thing to do. Wages increase when the consumer is willing to pay more for a product or service that has better paying jobs. Until that time comes, companies will try to make their product or service as cheap as possible to attract customers.

They do nothing more than you or I, it's just that you don't like to but yourself in that same boat.

If you need a lawn care company, do you hire one that will take care of your lawn for $60.00 a cut, or do you hire the service that will do the same job for $30.00 a cut? If your car needs a major repair, do you get three estimates and choose the highest one, or do you choose the lowest one providing they do the same exact work? If you need a new roof on your home or a new furnace installed, do you pick the highest bidder of the three estimates you got, or do you pick the lowest one?

If you are honest and tell me you always choose the lowest one provided you get the same quality of product or work, then you are doing nothing more than lowering wages for those workers.

For starters, I avoid giving my business to large corporations, if at all possible. I'm not interested in supporting companies which pay their executive millions, while paying workers minimum wage. I will not shop at Walmart no matter how cheap their crap is.

I recently bought a custom made sofa-bed. I bought a quality unit which was made in Canada and I purchased it from a local family owned furniture store.

When I need work done, I always hire local small business owners. If I needed a new roof, I'd hire my son-in-law to do it. I buy meat, fruit and produce from the local farmer's market.

Canadians don't shop for price the way Americans do. It's why American business models don't always work here. Americans are prepared to sacrifice their friends and neighbours jobs for cheap goods, Canadians, not so much.

I can't debate you on that topic because I'm not a Canadian nor do I know their business dealings. But here in the US, the reason non-skilled labor makes little money is because they have no skill. Consumers will always go with the cheapest price most times and not even look at where the product is made. That's why Walmart is the number one store in America today.

When we were forced by unions to pay great wages to non-talented workers, our jobs eventually left for other countries and others were replaced by automation. That's because we weren't even buying our own products. They were too expensive.

You can't blame industry or government for the desires of the people. If the majority want cheap crap and they don't care where it's made or who sells it, that's what the markets will aim for. They will look to cut costs on labor, they will look to where they can save on taxes and regulations, they will do whatever it takes to provide the consumers with what they want.

And then they'll bitch like hell because so many of their friends and neighbours can't find jobs and are receiving social assistance. Americans seem grossly uninformed of the effects of shipping their jobs offshore. Personally, I'd rather pay a bit more for my goods - better quality and service, and see the money go to local trades and crafts people, and stay in the local economy, than to pay taxes to the government, who will have to pay their workers to process program applications and pay them a pittance to do nothing.

In Canada, companies that outsource are publically shamed and people boycott them. Royal Bank issued a public apology and brought the jobs home when it was revealed their customer service was being done from a call centre in India. Bell Canada tried the same thing, but had to bring their call centres home because of customer complaints.

Americans have long bowed down to big business as the job creators. But it's a symbiotic relationship. And the never-ending drive for more and more profit, is destroying the American economy, because American workers are getting squeezed out of the American dream as their stagnant wages buy less and less. Companies manage for short term profits, and not long term growth.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The blacks like Democrats too. A large percentage of them don't vote either, but the Democrats scramble to win that vote and in fact, many say that the minority vote will wipe out the Republican party. The black population in this country is only 13%.

Ask yourself: what does the Democrat party have to offer people but free stuff? Nothing.

Liberals and Demorats don't pay attention to politics, this is true. Look at the cable news ratings compared to Fox. Look at how many liberal outlets on the radio and television have failed. PBS, NPR and others would not be around today if not for taxpayer support. They just don't attract enough audience.

But a little here and a little there, their support of the Democrat party is priceless.

It seems from your post, you're saying that welfare is a major reason why the poor vote Democrat. The question why members of any demographic group vote a certain way involves a number of issues because we are all different..

The poor, at least those that do vote, do lean Democrat for a lot of reasons other than the size of their government check. Republicans have fought to keep wages low by blocking minimum wage increase. They have been fighting to destroy unions forever. Most Republican tax proposals increases taxes on those least able to pay. They support legislation that weakens civil rights. In general, Republicans support most legislation the middle and upper class over the poor. Thus there are good reason why the poor leans Democrat that have nothing to do with welfare.

However, there are lot of poor people who vote Republican who are Christian conservatives, and swayed by many of the same issues as higher income tax payers such as terrorism, healthcare, and immigration.

It doesn't have to be a government check to "give them anything."

I can't go through your lengthy list of what you THINK Republicans are for, but let's look at what Sanders and Clinton are preaching about. If it were up to Sanders, he would take away most of the wealth from the wealthy. Of course his followers "assume" that they will end up with that wealth. Free college! Liberals love to talk about free stuff--but never talk about who is going to pay for free.

Then we have the equal pay nonsense. Yes, the Democrats can point to statistics that show men make more than women, but no evidence as to why. They just leave the impression that it must be gender discrimination. So they tell half of our population that they will pass an equal pay law, even though that law was already passed in 1962.

Hillary (like Sanders) complains about those evil one-percenters. Her followers ignore the fact that she is a one-percenter. Criminal justice reform. That's a hot one. Blacks commit a disproportional amount of crime in this country--especially theft and violence, so Hillary wants to do something about getting them out of jail.

Paid family leave. Yes, it's not bad enough that businesses leave this country due to all the expense it takes to have employees in the US, now she is promising Americans even more paid time-off from work.

It all boils down to making more government dependents and giving people more stuff. As you can see, it doesn't have to be a check from the government.

At the heart of your posts seems to be the belief that government social programs create dependency and that dependency is destroying the will to work. If generous government social programs are destroying the incentive to work, then why are 60% of families on food stamps working? And why do most families receiving welfare payments have at least one family member working? And why are most families on TANF off in 21 months?

I don't believe social programs are stopping people from working but I do believe some of the programs need a better phase out as income increases, some of the programs such as child care for the working poor needs to be expanded, and benefits should be based on total income without excisions.

I believe just the opposite.

I remember during the heart of the recession, my neighbor lost his job because the company closed. Granted, he put in a lot of years with his company and deserved unemployment, but he made sure he milked it right to the very last week.

After taxes, he was getting close to 400 a week. Why should he look for a job? After all, 400 a week after taxes is about a 13 dollar an hour job. It would be foolish to accept anything under 16 dollars an hour and give up the unemployment checks.

For him, it would be stupid to accept anything under 20 dollars an hour because he was working for cash under the table on top of his unemployment check. It was a year or so paid vacation for him.

I don't want to repeat the same stories over and over again, but I've seen plenty of times where these social programs do support not working. We have 93 million Americans of working age that are not working or looking for work, 45 million on the SNAP's program, and I'm told by the Obama administration that our economy is sailing like a boat.

If he was getting $400/wk unemployment after taxes in my state he would have been making about $800/wk after taxes. I think being short $400/wk is a pretty good incentive to get a job considering that unemployment goes away in 26 weeks.

If you remember, DumBama extended unemployment for over a year during the recession if I remember correctly. The state unemployment ran out but you got switched over to federal unemployment.

If your state pays 800 a week, that's even more incentive to stay unemployed. That's equal to a job paying over $20.00 an hour before taxes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wages don't increase because it's a nice thing to do. Wages increase when the consumer is willing to pay more for a product or service that has better paying jobs. Until that time comes, companies will try to make their product or service as cheap as possible to attract customers.

They do nothing more than you or I, it's just that you don't like to but yourself in that same boat.

If you need a lawn care company, do you hire one that will take care of your lawn for $60.00 a cut, or do you hire the service that will do the same job for $30.00 a cut? If your car needs a major repair, do you get three estimates and choose the highest one, or do you choose the lowest one providing they do the same exact work? If you need a new roof on your home or a new furnace installed, do you pick the highest bidder of the three estimates you got, or do you pick the lowest one?

If you are honest and tell me you always choose the lowest one provided you get the same quality of product or work, then you are doing nothing more than lowering wages for those workers.

For starters, I avoid giving my business to large corporations, if at all possible. I'm not interested in supporting companies which pay their executive millions, while paying workers minimum wage. I will not shop at Walmart no matter how cheap their crap is.

I recently bought a custom made sofa-bed. I bought a quality unit which was made in Canada and I purchased it from a local family owned furniture store.

When I need work done, I always hire local small business owners. If I needed a new roof, I'd hire my son-in-law to do it. I buy meat, fruit and produce from the local farmer's market.

Canadians don't shop for price the way Americans do. It's why American business models don't always work here. Americans are prepared to sacrifice their friends and neighbours jobs for cheap goods, Canadians, not so much.

I can't debate you on that topic because I'm not a Canadian nor do I know their business dealings. But here in the US, the reason non-skilled labor makes little money is because they have no skill. Consumers will always go with the cheapest price most times and not even look at where the product is made. That's why Walmart is the number one store in America today.

When we were forced by unions to pay great wages to non-talented workers, our jobs eventually left for other countries and others were replaced by automation. That's because we weren't even buying our own products. They were too expensive.

You can't blame industry or government for the desires of the people. If the majority want cheap crap and they don't care where it's made or who sells it, that's what the markets will aim for. They will look to cut costs on labor, they will look to where they can save on taxes and regulations, they will do whatever it takes to provide the consumers with what they want.

And then they'll bitch like hell because so many of their friends and neighbours can't find jobs and are receiving social assistance. Americans seem grossly uninformed of the effects of shipping their jobs offshore. Personally, I'd rather pay a bit more for my goods - better quality and service, and see the money go to local trades and crafts people, and stay in the local economy, than to pay taxes to the government, who will have to pay their workers to process program applications and pay them a pittance to do nothing.

In Canada, companies that outsource are publically shamed and people boycott them. Royal Bank issued a public apology and brought the jobs home when it was revealed their customer service was being done from a call centre in India. Bell Canada tried the same thing, but had to bring their call centres home because of customer complaints.

Americans have long bowed down to big business as the job creators. But it's a symbiotic relationship. And the never-ending drive for more and more profit, is destroying the American economy, because American workers are getting squeezed out of the American dream as their stagnant wages buy less and less. Companies manage for short term profits, and not long term growth.

This has been going on for decades in our country, it's just the last several years it really started to catch up on us.

I remember going Christmas shopping one time at a discount store back in the early 80's. We were standing in line and an elderly gentleman noticed I was staring at him as he shook his head back and forth.

He felt he needed to explain. He told me he was from Europe and he was confused about the consumer goals in our country. He said "In Europe, you may only have one baseball, but it's the best baseball money can buy. You are proud of your baseball, cherished your baseball and even brag about your baseball to your friends. Here in the US, nobody cares about a good baseball, they care about how many baseballs they can get for the lowest amount of money. This will come back to haunt you Americans some day."

The old man was absolutely correct. He knew more about our country back then than many Americans today.

 

[Flopper]

It seems from your post, you're saying that welfare is a major reason why the poor vote Democrat. The question why members of any demographic group vote a certain way involves a number of issues because we are all different..

The poor, at least those that do vote, do lean Democrat for a lot of reasons other than the size of their government check. Republicans have fought to keep wages low by blocking minimum wage increase. They have been fighting to destroy unions forever. Most Republican tax proposals increases taxes on those least able to pay. They support legislation that weakens civil rights. In general, Republicans support most legislation the middle and upper class over the poor. Thus there are good reason why the poor leans Democrat that have nothing to do with welfare.

However, there are lot of poor people who vote Republican who are Christian conservatives, and swayed by many of the same issues as higher income tax payers such as terrorism, healthcare, and immigration.

It doesn't have to be a government check to "give them anything."

I can't go through your lengthy list of what you THINK Republicans are for, but let's look at what Sanders and Clinton are preaching about. If it were up to Sanders, he would take away most of the wealth from the wealthy. Of course his followers "assume" that they will end up with that wealth. Free college! Liberals love to talk about free stuff--but never talk about who is going to pay for free.

Then we have the equal pay nonsense. Yes, the Democrats can point to statistics that show men make more than women, but no evidence as to why. They just leave the impression that it must be gender discrimination. So they tell half of our population that they will pass an equal pay law, even though that law was already passed in 1962.

Hillary (like Sanders) complains about those evil one-percenters. Her followers ignore the fact that she is a one-percenter. Criminal justice reform. That's a hot one. Blacks commit a disproportional amount of crime in this country--especially theft and violence, so Hillary wants to do something about getting them out of jail.

Paid family leave. Yes, it's not bad enough that businesses leave this country due to all the expense it takes to have employees in the US, now she is promising Americans even more paid time-off from work.

It all boils down to making more government dependents and giving people more stuff. As you can see, it doesn't have to be a check from the government.

At the heart of your posts seems to be the belief that government social programs create dependency and that dependency is destroying the will to work. If generous government social programs are destroying the incentive to work, then why are 60% of families on food stamps working? And why do most families receiving welfare payments have at least one family member working? And why are most families on TANF off in 21 months?

I don't believe social programs are stopping people from working but I do believe some of the programs need a better phase out as income increases, some of the programs such as child care for the working poor needs to be expanded, and benefits should be based on total income without excisions.

I believe just the opposite.

I remember during the heart of the recession, my neighbor lost his job because the company closed. Granted, he put in a lot of years with his company and deserved unemployment, but he made sure he milked it right to the very last week.

After taxes, he was getting close to 400 a week. Why should he look for a job? After all, 400 a week after taxes is about a 13 dollar an hour job. It would be foolish to accept anything under 16 dollars an hour and give up the unemployment checks.

For him, it would be stupid to accept anything under 20 dollars an hour because he was working for cash under the table on top of his unemployment check. It was a year or so paid vacation for him.

I don't want to repeat the same stories over and over again, but I've seen plenty of times where these social programs do support not working. We have 93 million Americans of working age that are not working or looking for work, 45 million on the SNAP's program, and I'm told by the Obama administration that our economy is sailing like a boat.

If he was getting $400/wk unemployment after taxes in my state he would have been making about $800/wk after taxes. I think being short $400/wk is a pretty good incentive to get a job considering that unemployment goes away in 26 weeks.

If you remember, DumBama extended unemployment for over a year during the recession if I remember correctly. The state unemployment ran out but you got switched over to federal unemployment.

If your state pays 800 a week, that's even more incentive to stay unemployed. That's equal to a job paying over $20.00 an hour before taxes.

The unemployment duration is now 26 weeks in all states except Montana. During the recession congress raised it temporarily to 76 weeks.

I made a mistake in calculating the unemployment so I recalculated it using the online calculator below and included the percent unemployment is of wages. In most states, unemployment is lower than my state.
According to my states online calculator, your neighbor would loose about half his income by depending on unemployment which is a pretty big incentive to get a job since his unemployment would expire in 26 weeks.

Yearly Income =$100,000
Weekly Income =$1923
Weekly Unemployment =$664
Percent of Income = 34%

Yearly Income =$50,000
Weekly Income =$962
Weekly Unemployment =$481
Percent of Income = 50%

Yearly Income =$40,000
Weekly Income =$769
Weekly Unemployment =$385
Percent of Income = 50%

Yearly Income =$30,000
Weekly Income =$577
Weekly Unemployment =288
Percent of Income = 50%

ESDWAGOV - Calculate your benefit
Here's How Long Unemployment Benefits Now Last In Each State

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't have to be a government check to "give them anything."

I can't go through your lengthy list of what you THINK Republicans are for, but let's look at what Sanders and Clinton are preaching about. If it were up to Sanders, he would take away most of the wealth from the wealthy. Of course his followers "assume" that they will end up with that wealth. Free college! Liberals love to talk about free stuff--but never talk about who is going to pay for free.

Then we have the equal pay nonsense. Yes, the Democrats can point to statistics that show men make more than women, but no evidence as to why. They just leave the impression that it must be gender discrimination. So they tell half of our population that they will pass an equal pay law, even though that law was already passed in 1962.

Hillary (like Sanders) complains about those evil one-percenters. Her followers ignore the fact that she is a one-percenter. Criminal justice reform. That's a hot one. Blacks commit a disproportional amount of crime in this country--especially theft and violence, so Hillary wants to do something about getting them out of jail.

Paid family leave. Yes, it's not bad enough that businesses leave this country due to all the expense it takes to have employees in the US, now she is promising Americans even more paid time-off from work.

It all boils down to making more government dependents and giving people more stuff. As you can see, it doesn't have to be a check from the government.

At the heart of your posts seems to be the belief that government social programs create dependency and that dependency is destroying the will to work. If generous government social programs are destroying the incentive to work, then why are 60% of families on food stamps working? And why do most families receiving welfare payments have at least one family member working? And why are most families on TANF off in 21 months?

I don't believe social programs are stopping people from working but I do believe some of the programs need a better phase out as income increases, some of the programs such as child care for the working poor needs to be expanded, and benefits should be based on total income without excisions.

I believe just the opposite.

I remember during the heart of the recession, my neighbor lost his job because the company closed. Granted, he put in a lot of years with his company and deserved unemployment, but he made sure he milked it right to the very last week.

After taxes, he was getting close to 400 a week. Why should he look for a job? After all, 400 a week after taxes is about a 13 dollar an hour job. It would be foolish to accept anything under 16 dollars an hour and give up the unemployment checks.

For him, it would be stupid to accept anything under 20 dollars an hour because he was working for cash under the table on top of his unemployment check. It was a year or so paid vacation for him.

I don't want to repeat the same stories over and over again, but I've seen plenty of times where these social programs do support not working. We have 93 million Americans of working age that are not working or looking for work, 45 million on the SNAP's program, and I'm told by the Obama administration that our economy is sailing like a boat.

If he was getting $400/wk unemployment after taxes in my state he would have been making about $800/wk after taxes. I think being short $400/wk is a pretty good incentive to get a job considering that unemployment goes away in 26 weeks.

If you remember, DumBama extended unemployment for over a year during the recession if I remember correctly. The state unemployment ran out but you got switched over to federal unemployment.

If your state pays 800 a week, that's even more incentive to stay unemployed. That's equal to a job paying over $20.00 an hour before taxes.

The unemployment duration is now 26 weeks in all states except Montana. During the recession congress raised it temporarily to 76 weeks.

I made a mistake in calculating the unemployment so I recalculated it using the online calculator below and included the percent unemployment is of wages. In most states, unemployment is lower than my state.
According to my states online calculator, your neighbor would loose about half his income by depending on unemployment which is a pretty big incentive to get a job since his unemployment would expire in 26 weeks.

Yearly Income =$100,000
Weekly Income =$1923
Weekly Unemployment =$664
Percent of Income = 34%

Yearly Income =$50,000
Weekly Income =$962
Weekly Unemployment =$481
Percent of Income = 50%

Yearly Income =$40,000
Weekly Income =$769
Weekly Unemployment =$385
Percent of Income = 50%

Yearly Income =$30,000
Weekly Income =$577
Weekly Unemployment =288
Percent of Income = 50%

ESDWAGOV - Calculate your benefit
Here's How Long Unemployment Benefits Now Last In Each State

Our state works a little bit like that only for those who didn't earn a lot of money. But our maximum is the same no matter how much you make.

I believe my neighbor made something like $18.00 per hour when he was working. Did he bring home as much or more on unemployment? Well yes, but not with unemployment alone. Again, he worked for cash on the side.

And of course, you are assuming that the people taking such a loss are those who live check-to-check. Many people don't. If you are married and your wife or husband brings in a good buck, the money is not actually needed that badly. Or if you owe no money such as credit cards, car payments or a mortgage, all you really have to worry about is utilities, food and maybe property taxes.

And here is a dated piece I read a few years back. I find it unbelievable, but this is what the article said:


Many jobless in U.S. don't collect unemployment

 

[Dragonlady]

Your forefathers also knew the dangers of letting corporations get too large. That's why they passed the anti-trust legislation at the turn of the 20th century, so that companies couldn't be so large that they priced the competition out of existence. Reagan abolished much of the anti-trust legislation in the 80's, and American corporations went on a spending spree, buying up companies, selling off their assets, and pocketing the profits. Thousands of jobs were lost as a result, but the short-sighted, bottom line managers saw their profits and their salaries rise.

I remember reading an economics piece back in the 70's which essentially said that the Harvard Business School model, which stressed bottom line management, and made higher profits the holy grail of business, would destroy the American economy.

Profit is important, but the Harvard model didn't examine the economic impact to entire communities of these decisions. No business can't operate at a loss for long. Profitable companies seek even bigger profits by driving out Mom and Pop stores, forcing them to close. Nobody goes into business and hopes to break even, or worse. But when profit is the only thing that matters, companies do things that, while legal, are certainly not moral, and which destroy jobs here.

America needs jobs which pay a living wage to all full time members of the work force, without the augmentation of food stamps, or other forms of social assistance for workers. And here's the thing of it. Wages paid are tax deductible for the. With a corporate tax of 35%, every additional dollar paid to workers really only costs the company 65 cents, because they'd be taxed on that money as profit otherwise.

Walmart is a prime example. Three or four years ago, Walmart was the second most profitable company in America, and paid out record dividends. But at the same time, Walmart was assisting its employees to apply for food stamps, medic-aid, and any other forms of social assistance they could qualify for. Walmart employees received so much aid, that every American taxpayer contributed $2,500 of their federal tax bill to the Walton Family, whether or not they ever set foot in Walmart. Walmart employees received $9 billion in federal assistance. How much money do the Waltons need? Wouldn't you like to get your $2,500 back?

Because Walmart is the largest retailer in the US, other retailers found it hard to compete price-wise, so they adopt similar practices to stay competitive, and wages in an entire sector were pressured downward.

MacDonald's put out a financial budgeting package for its full-time employees, which assumed the employee had a second job and was also receiving food stamps. That's pretty much an admission on their part that no one can live on their wage and benefits.

Companies need to be small enough that they can't control an entire industry and force an entire segment of the economy to have their profits augmented in this way. It may be legal but it's not fair to their employees or to the taxpayers.

This is what is driving food stamp usage during the Obama years. Which is it - higher taxes or cheap goods. You can't have both.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your forefathers also knew the dangers of letting corporations get too large. That's why they passed the anti-trust legislation at the turn of the 20th century, so that companies couldn't be so large that they priced the competition out of existence. Reagan abolished much of the anti-trust legislation in the 80's, and American corporations went on a spending spree, buying up companies, selling off their assets, and pocketing the profits. Thousands of jobs were lost as a result, but the short-sighted, bottom line managers saw their profits and their salaries rise.

I remember reading an economics piece back in the 70's which essentially said that the Harvard Business School model, which stressed bottom line management, and made higher profits the holy grail of business, would destroy the American economy.

Profit is important, but the Harvard model didn't examine the economic impact to entire communities of these decisions. No business can't operate at a loss for long. Profitable companies seek even bigger profits by driving out Mom and Pop stores, forcing them to close. Nobody goes into business and hopes to break even, or worse. But when profit is the only thing that matters, companies do things that, while legal, are certainly not moral, and which destroy jobs here.

America needs jobs which pay a living wage to all full time members of the work force, without the augmentation of food stamps, or other forms of social assistance for workers. And here's the thing of it. Wages paid are tax deductible for the. With a corporate tax of 35%, every additional dollar paid to workers really only costs the company 65 cents, because they'd be taxed on that money as profit otherwise.

Walmart is a prime example. Three or four years ago, Walmart was the second most profitable company in America, and paid out record dividends. But at the same time, Walmart was assisting its employees to apply for food stamps, medic-aid, and any other forms of social assistance they could qualify for. Walmart employees received so much aid, that every American taxpayer contributed $2,500 of their federal tax bill to the Walton Family, whether or not they ever set foot in Walmart. Walmart employees received $9 billion in federal assistance. How much money do the Waltons need? Wouldn't you like to get your $2,500 back?

Because Walmart is the largest retailer in the US, other retailers found it hard to compete price-wise, so they adopt similar practices to stay competitive, and wages in an entire sector were pressured downward.

MacDonald's put out a financial budgeting package for its full-time employees, which assumed the employee had a second job and was also receiving food stamps. That's pretty much an admission on their part that no one can live on their wage and benefits.

Companies need to be small enough that they can't control an entire industry and force an entire segment of the economy to have their profits augmented in this way. It may be legal but it's not fair to their employees or to the taxpayers.

This is what is driving food stamp usage during the Obama years. Which is it - higher taxes or cheap goods. You can't have both.

I think there are some things you really don't understand about American business.

First of all, a tax write-off does not mean if you write-off ten dollars, the government gives you that ten dollars back. What it means is that if you write-off ten dollars, you simply don't pay any tax on that ten dollars spent which is very little in the scope of things.

Secondly, American business does not run on profit. Their goal is growth.

As an example: let's say you inherited a good amount of money or perhaps hit a lottery or something. After taxes, you have a half-million dollars. All your bills are paid, so the smartest thing you could do with that money is to invest it.

Since you know little about investing, you contact somebody that does. He or she advises you on two choices for a conservative growth: Company one is a company that's been around a long time with a promising future. Their growth is 2.5% Company two also has been around a long time. But their growth is 5.8%. So which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, Company one earns a gross income of 1.5 billion dollars. Company two has a yearly gross income of 2 million dollars. Does this new information change your decision on where you are gong to invest?

Of course not. As an investor, you could care less about their gross earnings. You care about growth because the higher the growth, the more money you make.

American industry heavily relies on investors to operate and grow. It really doesn't matter how much they gross.

 

[Flopper]

At the heart of your posts seems to be the belief that government social programs create dependency and that dependency is destroying the will to work. If generous government social programs are destroying the incentive to work, then why are 60% of families on food stamps working? And why do most families receiving welfare payments have at least one family member working? And why are most families on TANF off in 21 months?

I don't believe social programs are stopping people from working but I do believe some of the programs need a better phase out as income increases, some of the programs such as child care for the working poor needs to be expanded, and benefits should be based on total income without excisions.

I believe just the opposite.

I remember during the heart of the recession, my neighbor lost his job because the company closed. Granted, he put in a lot of years with his company and deserved unemployment, but he made sure he milked it right to the very last week.

After taxes, he was getting close to 400 a week. Why should he look for a job? After all, 400 a week after taxes is about a 13 dollar an hour job. It would be foolish to accept anything under 16 dollars an hour and give up the unemployment checks.

For him, it would be stupid to accept anything under 20 dollars an hour because he was working for cash under the table on top of his unemployment check. It was a year or so paid vacation for him.

I don't want to repeat the same stories over and over again, but I've seen plenty of times where these social programs do support not working. We have 93 million Americans of working age that are not working or looking for work, 45 million on the SNAP's program, and I'm told by the Obama administration that our economy is sailing like a boat.

If he was getting $400/wk unemployment after taxes in my state he would have been making about $800/wk after taxes. I think being short $400/wk is a pretty good incentive to get a job considering that unemployment goes away in 26 weeks.

If you remember, DumBama extended unemployment for over a year during the recession if I remember correctly. The state unemployment ran out but you got switched over to federal unemployment.

If your state pays 800 a week, that's even more incentive to stay unemployed. That's equal to a job paying over $20.00 an hour before taxes.

The unemployment duration is now 26 weeks in all states except Montana. During the recession congress raised it temporarily to 76 weeks.

I made a mistake in calculating the unemployment so I recalculated it using the online calculator below and included the percent unemployment is of wages. In most states, unemployment is lower than my state.
According to my states online calculator, your neighbor would loose about half his income by depending on unemployment which is a pretty big incentive to get a job since his unemployment would expire in 26 weeks.

Yearly Income =$100,000
Weekly Income =$1923
Weekly Unemployment =$664
Percent of Income = 34%

Yearly Income =$50,000
Weekly Income =$962
Weekly Unemployment =$481
Percent of Income = 50%

Yearly Income =$40,000
Weekly Income =$769
Weekly Unemployment =$385
Percent of Income = 50%

Yearly Income =$30,000
Weekly Income =$577
Weekly Unemployment =288
Percent of Income = 50%

ESDWAGOV - Calculate your benefit
Here's How Long Unemployment Benefits Now Last In Each State

Our state works a little bit like that only for those who didn't earn a lot of money. But our maximum is the same no matter how much you make.

I believe my neighbor made something like $18.00 per hour when he was working. Did he bring home as much or more on unemployment? Well yes, but not with unemployment alone. Again, he worked for cash on the side.

And of course, you are assuming that the people taking such a loss are those who live check-to-check. Many people don't. If you are married and your wife or husband brings in a good buck, the money is not actually needed that badly. Or if you owe no money such as credit cards, car payments or a mortgage, all you really have to worry about is utilities, food and maybe property taxes.

And here is a dated piece I read a few years back. I find it unbelievable, but this is what the article said:


Many jobless in U.S. don't collect unemployment

There are always people that are eligible for benefits that never apply.

• It usually takes 3 weeks after you appy to receive a check. Some people in low paying jobs believe they will have a job before they receive a check.
• People with high paying jobs, $200,000+ in states likes like Louisiana with a maximum benefit of $220/wk may just not consider it worth their time. If you're making $500,000 a year, $5600 over 6 months ain't much.
• Some people such as legal resident don't understand the law and thus never apply. Still others think unemployment is a stigma and try to avoid it.

BTW All states have a maximum unemployment benefit. The lowest is Louisiana @ $220/wk and the highest is Massachusetts at $679/wk.

Unemployment Benefits Comparison by State

 

[Dragonlady]

Your forefathers also knew the dangers of letting corporations get too large. That's why they passed the anti-trust legislation at the turn of the 20th century, so that companies couldn't be so large that they priced the competition out of existence. Reagan abolished much of the anti-trust legislation in the 80's, and American corporations went on a spending spree, buying up companies, selling off their assets, and pocketing the profits. Thousands of jobs were lost as a result, but the short-sighted, bottom line managers saw their profits and their salaries rise.

I remember reading an economics piece back in the 70's which essentially said that the Harvard Business School model, which stressed bottom line management, and made higher profits the holy grail of business, would destroy the American economy.

Profit is important, but the Harvard model didn't examine the economic impact to entire communities of these decisions. No business can't operate at a loss for long. Profitable companies seek even bigger profits by driving out Mom and Pop stores, forcing them to close. Nobody goes into business and hopes to break even, or worse. But when profit is the only thing that matters, companies do things that, while legal, are certainly not moral, and which destroy jobs here.

America needs jobs which pay a living wage to all full time members of the work force, without the augmentation of food stamps, or other forms of social assistance for workers. And here's the thing of it. Wages paid are tax deductible for the. With a corporate tax of 35%, every additional dollar paid to workers really only costs the company 65 cents, because they'd be taxed on that money as profit otherwise.

Walmart is a prime example. Three or four years ago, Walmart was the second most profitable company in America, and paid out record dividends. But at the same time, Walmart was assisting its employees to apply for food stamps, medic-aid, and any other forms of social assistance they could qualify for. Walmart employees received so much aid, that every American taxpayer contributed $2,500 of their federal tax bill to the Walton Family, whether or not they ever set foot in Walmart. Walmart employees received $9 billion in federal assistance. How much money do the Waltons need? Wouldn't you like to get your $2,500 back?

Because Walmart is the largest retailer in the US, other retailers found it hard to compete price-wise, so they adopt similar practices to stay competitive, and wages in an entire sector were pressured downward.

MacDonald's put out a financial budgeting package for its full-time employees, which assumed the employee had a second job and was also receiving food stamps. That's pretty much an admission on their part that no one can live on their wage and benefits.

Companies need to be small enough that they can't control an entire industry and force an entire segment of the economy to have their profits augmented in this way. It may be legal but it's not fair to their employees or to the taxpayers.

This is what is driving food stamp usage during the Obama years. Which is it - higher taxes or cheap goods. You can't have both.

I think there are some things you really don't understand about American business.

First of all, a tax write-off does not mean if you write-off ten dollars, the government gives you that ten dollars back. What it means is that if you write-off ten dollars, you simply don't pay any tax on that ten dollars spent which is very little in the scope of things.

Secondly, American business does not run on profit. Their goal is growth.

As an example: let's say you inherited a good amount of money or perhaps hit a lottery or something. After taxes, you have a half-million dollars. All your bills are paid, so the smartest thing you could do with that money is to invest it.

Since you know little about investing, you contact somebody that does. He or she advises you on two choices for a conservative growth: Company one is a company that's been around a long time with a promising future. Their growth is 2.5% Company two also has been around a long time. But their growth is 5.8%. So which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, Company one earns a gross income of 1.5 billion dollars. Company two has a yearly gross income of 2 million dollars. Does this new information change your decision on where you are gong to invest?

Of course not. As an investor, you could care less about their gross earnings. You care about growth because the higher the growth, the more money you make.

American industry heavily relies on investors to operate and grow. It really doesn't matter how much they gross.

I spent my entire career in banking and law, the last 20 years of it spent on Bay Street in Toronto. I have a pretty good grasp of how the economy functions, both in Canada and the US.

If I'm investing, I'm looking at a lot of factors, including the company's environmental record, the salary ratios within the corporation, i.e. how much more are the executives making versus the employees, the age of their manufacturing equipment, and their competition and what they're up to. I'm looking at their R&D, and yes the potential for sustainable growth is a factor. But I may not be your typical investor.

Americans corporations have grown so large and powerful that the tail is wagging the dog. Corporations are there to serve the people and provide them with products, and should be doing what's best for the country, not just the corporation. It's called being a "good corporate citizen".

 

[Flopper]

Your forefathers also knew the dangers of letting corporations get too large. That's why they passed the anti-trust legislation at the turn of the 20th century, so that companies couldn't be so large that they priced the competition out of existence. Reagan abolished much of the anti-trust legislation in the 80's, and American corporations went on a spending spree, buying up companies, selling off their assets, and pocketing the profits. Thousands of jobs were lost as a result, but the short-sighted, bottom line managers saw their profits and their salaries rise.

I remember reading an economics piece back in the 70's which essentially said that the Harvard Business School model, which stressed bottom line management, and made higher profits the holy grail of business, would destroy the American economy.

Profit is important, but the Harvard model didn't examine the economic impact to entire communities of these decisions. No business can't operate at a loss for long. Profitable companies seek even bigger profits by driving out Mom and Pop stores, forcing them to close. Nobody goes into business and hopes to break even, or worse. But when profit is the only thing that matters, companies do things that, while legal, are certainly not moral, and which destroy jobs here.

America needs jobs which pay a living wage to all full time members of the work force, without the augmentation of food stamps, or other forms of social assistance for workers. And here's the thing of it. Wages paid are tax deductible for the. With a corporate tax of 35%, every additional dollar paid to workers really only costs the company 65 cents, because they'd be taxed on that money as profit otherwise.

Walmart is a prime example. Three or four years ago, Walmart was the second most profitable company in America, and paid out record dividends. But at the same time, Walmart was assisting its employees to apply for food stamps, medic-aid, and any other forms of social assistance they could qualify for. Walmart employees received so much aid, that every American taxpayer contributed $2,500 of their federal tax bill to the Walton Family, whether or not they ever set foot in Walmart. Walmart employees received $9 billion in federal assistance. How much money do the Waltons need? Wouldn't you like to get your $2,500 back?

Because Walmart is the largest retailer in the US, other retailers found it hard to compete price-wise, so they adopt similar practices to stay competitive, and wages in an entire sector were pressured downward.

MacDonald's put out a financial budgeting package for its full-time employees, which assumed the employee had a second job and was also receiving food stamps. That's pretty much an admission on their part that no one can live on their wage and benefits.

Companies need to be small enough that they can't control an entire industry and force an entire segment of the economy to have their profits augmented in this way. It may be legal but it's not fair to their employees or to the taxpayers.

This is what is driving food stamp usage during the Obama years. Which is it - higher taxes or cheap goods. You can't have both.

I think there are some things you really don't understand about American business.

First of all, a tax write-off does not mean if you write-off ten dollars, the government gives you that ten dollars back. What it means is that if you write-off ten dollars, you simply don't pay any tax on that ten dollars spent which is very little in the scope of things.

Secondly, American business does not run on profit. Their goal is growth.

As an example: let's say you inherited a good amount of money or perhaps hit a lottery or something. After taxes, you have a half-million dollars. All your bills are paid, so the smartest thing you could do with that money is to invest it.

Since you know little about investing, you contact somebody that does. He or she advises you on two choices for a conservative growth: Company one is a company that's been around a long time with a promising future. Their growth is 2.5% Company two also has been around a long time. But their growth is 5.8%. So which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, Company one earns a gross income of 1.5 billion dollars. Company two has a yearly gross income of 2 million dollars. Does this new information change your decision on where you are gong to invest?

Of course not. As an investor, you could care less about their gross earnings. You care about growth because the higher the growth, the more money you make.

American industry heavily relies on investors to operate and grow. It really doesn't matter how much they gross.

I spent my entire career in banking and law, the last 20 years of it spent on Bay Street in Toronto. I have a pretty good grasp of how the economy functions, both in Canada and the US.

If I'm investing, I'm looking at a lot of factors, including the company's environmental record, the salary ratios within the corporation, i.e. how much more are the executives making versus the employees, the age of their manufacturing equipment, and their competition and what they're up to. I'm looking at their R&D, and yes the potential for sustainable growth is a factor. But I may not be your typical investor.

Americans corporations have grown so large and powerful that the tail is wagging the dog. Corporations are there to serve the people and provide them with products, and should be doing what's best for the country, not just the corporation. It's called being a "good corporate citizen".

I think they believe what's good for their business is good for the county. At times that's true but often not. When there's a conflict between the two, the business wins. It almost has to be that way because these mega corporations are controlled by bankers, investment trusts, and representatives of millions of anonymous investors worldwide. These people have only one interest and that's economic growth of the business. When their interest coincides with that of the nations they do business in then that's a plus. When they don't, then that's unfortunate.
This is why these businesses must be well regulated.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I'm happy that she's contributing to demand. There will always be people who abuse something, it's clear that the point of this thread is to portray the majority of welfare recipients as being like the caller in the video.

She's "contributing to demand?" Bernie Madoff also contributed to demand. Do you defend his activities as well?

Aren't the majority of welfare recipients just like the caller? Do you think they don't know they are sucking off productive people while they do nothing in return?

I responded to your absurd thread with a true statement that is also absurd. When this lady spends, she contributes to demand, it's a simple fact. Every system has people who game it, get over it.
Of course not, the majority work. "Sucking off productive people." Hah, those "productive people" need to realize that the mother receiving food stamps down the street is helping to keep their local walmart up and running.
For Wal-Mart, food stamp cutback adds new challenge
And it's not just walmart that takes a hit. There's absolutely no reason to butcher people's spending power, especially the people who spend most of their income. At a time when we need demand, if anything, we need to be expanding benefits. No one has to pay for it. Deficit spending is a wonderful thing.

Every system DOES have people who game it, that doesn't mean you just "get over it" No, it means you aggressively go after those who do and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Dragonlady]

Every system DOES have people who game it, that doesn't mean you just "get over it" No, it means you aggressively go after those who do and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

Spending 10 times what you will save seems like a spectacularly stupid way of going after them. The taxpayers were promised tax savings from this testing. It was a lie. And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare. The last time I checked, which was years ago, it cost $70,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. Not to mention the cost of the police investigations, court proceedings, and Legal Aid lawyers and prosecutors to put him/her there.

If the idea is to punish poor people, to humiliate them and to remind them that they are parasites on society who will steal from the taxpayers any way they can, then maybe conservatives are getting value for your money. But if your goal is to get people off drugs and help them to get clean and become productive, contributing members of society, it's a total failure, and an very expensive one at that.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Every system DOES have people who game it, that doesn't mean you just "get over it" No, it means you aggressively go after those who do and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

Spending 10 times what you will save seems like a spectacularly stupid way of going after them. The taxpayers were promised tax savings from this testing. It was a lie. And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare. The last time I checked, which was years ago, it cost $70,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. Not to mention the cost of the police investigations, court proceedings, and Legal Aid lawyers and prosecutors to put him/her there.

If the idea is to punish poor people, to humiliate them and to remind them that they are parasites on society who will steal from the taxpayers any way they can, then maybe conservatives are getting value for your money. But if your goal is to get people off drugs and help them to get clean and become productive, contributing members of society, it's a total failure, and an very expensive one at that.

The goal is to tell people "we will not reward bad behavior" period

It's more expensive? Doubtful, but what is your solution, just give anyone money who asks, no matter what they are doing ?

You liberals are stupid , and dishonest. There is NO WAY you would tolerate that behavior with your own money, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Liberal "logic" ---

"it costs a lot to arrest, convict, and detain murderers, so why do we waste our money making murder illegal?"

Same damn difference.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It only counts as CONTRIBUTES when its HER money.
Otherwise its RE-distribution of OTHER peoples money.

You have to excuse Dragon boi, he's kind of dumb and has no grasp of economics.

Urban Dictionary: Dovahkiin

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is literally a contribution to demand. Taxation destroys peoples money.
Taxes are paid via reserves, the bank reducing the account and the reserve balance is debited. Your money is gone.

Contribution to "demand" is not a contribution, retard.

Demand a dragon to fly around on, see what that gets you.

Contribution of VALUE is what makes and economy work.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm happy that she's contributing to demand. There will always be people who abuse something, it's clear that the point of this thread is to portray the majority of welfare recipients as being like the caller in the video.

She's "contributing to demand?" Bernie Madoff also contributed to demand. Do you defend his activities as well?

Aren't the majority of welfare recipients just like the caller? Do you think they don't know they are sucking off productive people while they do nothing in return?

I responded to your absurd thread with a true statement that is also absurd. When this lady spends, she contributes to demand, it's a simple fact. Every system has people who game it, get over it.
Of course not, the majority work. "Sucking off productive people." Hah, those "productive people" need to realize that the mother receiving food stamps down the street is helping to keep their local walmart up and running.
For Wal-Mart, food stamp cutback adds new challenge
And it's not just walmart that takes a hit. There's absolutely no reason to butcher people's spending power, especially the people who spend most of their income. At a time when we need demand, if anything, we need to be expanding benefits. No one has to pay for it. Deficit spending is a wonderful thing.

Every system DOES have people who game it, that doesn't mean you just "get over it" No, it means you aggressively go after those who do and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

How do you "game" the local grocery store? The fact is that people only game government.programs. That happens because the money doesn't belong to the people dispensing it. You'll find that gaming of private companies is almost non-existent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Every system DOES have people who game it, that doesn't mean you just "get over it" No, it means you aggressively go after those who do and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

Spending 10 times what you will save seems like a spectacularly stupid way of going after them. The taxpayers were promised tax savings from this testing. It was a lie. And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare. The last time I checked, which was years ago, it cost $70,000 a year to keep a prisoner in prison. Not to mention the cost of the police investigations, court proceedings, and Legal Aid lawyers and prosecutors to put him/her there.

If the idea is to punish poor people, to humiliate them and to remind them that they are parasites on society who will steal from the taxpayers any way they can, then maybe conservatives are getting value for your money. But if your goal is to get people off drugs and help them to get clean and become productive, contributing members of society, it's a total failure, and an very expensive one at that.

And if the broke and desperate druggies start pulling armed robberies to fuel their habits, it's going to cost taxpayers a WHOLE lot more money to deal with their problem than the $2,000 a year they're currently paying out for welfare.

I don't think so. Ammo is not that expensive in America.