CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

No, what happens when welfare is cut by greedy-stupid policies is that people riot and burn things down.

They dont just quietly starve to death, dude.

You are not listening to me.

I am not saying cut welfare, I am saying eliminate elgibilty to receive it if you have a job.

Who would want to work for walmart if they make less then the government offers them?

How would walmart survive ? They either die or raise their wages more.

I have never been poor so how does it work?

Is being on total welfare and not working more poor then working a minimum wage job and collecting some welfare?

So in essence company's like walmart subsidise the us government welfare program not the other way around.

"Is being on total welfare and not working more poor then working a minimum wage job and collecting some welfare?"

The difference is one of values and attitude.

1. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence.
   2. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
      
      These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are not listening to me.

I am not saying cut welfare, I am saying eliminate elgibilty to receive it if you have a job..

It is not that simple, dude. There are plenty of welfare programs that help people who are employed but who dont make enough from their jobs, like WIC.

Perhaps you should read up on the subject abit.

I am correct then company's like walmart subsidize the US government welfare program.

"So, yes, the staff at WalMart do get that $6.2 billion in aid (let’s not quibble about the way they’ve calculated the figure). But now we’ve got to try and work out whether it’s a subsidy to WalMart or not?

In order to do this think of if WalMart did not exist. Would those people still be getting $6.2 billion in aid? They would be, as the unemployed, getting Medicaid, school lunches, breakfast, Section 8 vouchers and so on. So, it’s not a subsidy to WalMart at all as the existence or not of WalMart doesn’t change the amount paid.

Actually, we can go further, these people would be getting more taxpayer money if WalMart didn’t exist. So the existence of WalMart reduces, not increases the amount of taxpayer money that has to be spent.

But we can go further than this too. The existence of these welfare payments means that the reservation wage rises. That is, an employer needs to pay people more to come into work because they get an income (however low that is) whether they work or not. I think we all agree that it’s absolutely correct that there is a welfare system but we do also need to recognise this fact. The existence of one makes wages higher than they would be without one. And that’s a cost to employers, a cost of the existence of said welfare system.

One final point here, about the EITC. This is a welfare payment that you only get if you are in work and your wages are low. This is indeed a subsidy to the employers. Indeed, it’s designed that way, to increase the wages that are received by the workers at no cost to the employer. Precisely to increase the incentive to go to work rather than just stay at home: that is, to overcome the effects of that rise in the reservation wage from the existence of the welfare system.

On net this all works out as a cost to WalMart, not a benefit. For that amount paid as a subsidy to the company via the EITC is very much smaller than the amounts lost as a result of that reservation wage rising. This must be so because the amount spent on the EITC is very much smaller than the amounts spent on all of the other programs."
Fantastical Nonsense About WalMart, The Waltons And $7.8 Billion In Tax Breaks

 

[PoliticalChic]

What are you subsidising ?
Thats right the big corporations who pay crap wages.

Which brings me to your second point.

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

"The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth..."

And...the very opposite is the minimum wage laws...

"FDR talked Congress into creating Social Security in 1935 and imposing the nation’s first comprehensive minimum-wage law in 1938. While to this day he gets a great deal of credit for these two measures from the general public, many economists have a different perspective. The minimum-wage law prices many of the inexperienced, the young, the unskilled, and the disadvantaged out of the labor market. (For example, the minimum-wage provisions passed as part of another act in 1933 threw an estimated 500,000 blacks out of work.)"
Great Myths of the Great Depression | Lawrence W. Reed

 

[Wyatt earp]

You are not listening to me.

I am not saying cut welfare, I am saying eliminate elgibilty to receive it if you have a job..

It is not that simple, dude. There are plenty of welfare programs that help people who are employed but who dont make enough from their jobs, like WIC.

Perhaps you should read up on the subject abit.

I am correct then company's like walmart subsidize the US government welfare program.

"So, yes, the staff at WalMart do get that $6.2 billion in aid (let’s not quibble about the way they’ve calculated the figure). But now we’ve got to try and work out whether it’s a subsidy to WalMart or not?

In order to do this think of if WalMart did not exist. Would those people still be getting $6.2 billion in aid? They would be, as the unemployed, getting Medicaid, school lunches, breakfast, Section 8 vouchers and so on. So, it’s not a subsidy to WalMart at all as the existence or not of WalMart doesn’t change the amount paid.

Actually, we can go further, these people would be getting more taxpayer money if WalMart didn’t exist. So the existence of WalMart reduces, not increases the amount of taxpayer money that has to be spent.

But we can go further than this too. The existence of these welfare payments means that the reservation wage rises. That is, an employer needs to pay people more to come into work because they get an income (however low that is) whether they work or not. I think we all agree that it’s absolutely correct that there is a welfare system but we do also need to recognise this fact. The existence of one makes wages higher than they would be without one. And that’s a cost to employers, a cost of the existence of said welfare system.

One final point here, about the EITC. This is a welfare payment that you only get if you are in work and your wages are low. This is indeed a subsidy to the employers. Indeed, it’s designed that way, to increase the wages that are received by the workers at no cost to the employer. Precisely to increase the incentive to go to work rather than just stay at home: that is, to overcome the effects of that rise in the reservation wage from the existence of the welfare system.

On net this all works out as a cost to WalMart, not a benefit. For that amount paid as a subsidy to the company via the EITC is very much smaller than the amounts lost as a result of that reservation wage rising. This must be so because the amount spent on the EITC is very much smaller than the amounts spent on all of the other programs."
Fantastical Nonsense About WalMart, The Waltons And $7.8 Billion In Tax Breaks

Eureka!

We all know the welfare program is not going anywhere, the us government welfare program needs company's. like walmart to subsidize them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That claim is patently false and one has nothing to do with the other, but you already knew that

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

"The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth..."

And...the very opposite is the minimum wage laws...

"FDR talked Congress into creating Social Security in 1935 and imposing the nation’s first comprehensive minimum-wage law in 1938. While to this day he gets a great deal of credit for these two measures from the general public, many economists have a different perspective. The minimum-wage law prices many of the inexperienced, the young, the unskilled, and the disadvantaged out of the labor market. (For example, the minimum-wage provisions passed as part of another act in 1933 threw an estimated 500,000 blacks out of work.)"
Great Myths of the Great Depression | Lawrence W. Reed

For example, the minimum-wage provisions passed as part of another act in 1933 threw an estimated 500,000 blacks out of work

Yup most of us know that, minimum wage came into effect to destroy black jobs. Democrats I hope their is a special place in hell for them

 

[Andylusion]

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

No, what happens when welfare is cut by greedy-stupid policies is that people riot and burn things down.

They dont just quietly starve to death, dude.

Wow. Your opinion of your fellow man is pathetic. In the 1990s, when they reformed welfare, and kicked literally millions off food stamps, they didn't just "quietly starve to death", or "riot and cause mayhem". What they did was GET A JOB. That's what happened. That's why the economy in the 1990s was good. People got off the dole, and started working. Shockingly when people produce goods instead of consuming goods, the GDP goes up, and the entire country benefits.

So I'll say it again. If these people want to riot and cause mayhem.... they deserve to starve to death. But that isn't' going to happen, and you know it. What's going to happen, is people like me, that have guns and munitions.... we're going to shoot people like that. We're not going to be swept away dude.

I actually know a guy with a disabled 50 cal. We can enable it, before we get swept away by ungrateful scum that think they have the right to burn down the city if they can't confiscate our money.

 

[Andylusion]

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

No, what happens when welfare is cut by greedy-stupid policies is that people riot and burn things down.

They dont just quietly starve to death, dude.

You are not listening to me.

I am not saying cut welfare, I am saying eliminate elgibilty to receive it if you have a job.

Who would want to work for walmart if they make less then the government offers them?

How would walmart survive ? They either die or raise their wages more.

I have never been poor so how does it work?

Is being on total welfare and not working more poor then working a minimum wage job and collecting some welfare?

So in essence company's like walmart subsidise the us government welfare program not the other way around.

It varies depending on the specific state.

Rhode Island total comes from starting with the $6,648 a year in cash welfare that a single parent with two children could receive, which is the only unrestricted cash that recipients would see.

So $6,648 Cash Welfare.
$6,249 per year in food stamps.
$12,702 in housing subsidies
$11,302 as the cost of buying health care coverage comparable to Medicaid
$275 in heating assistance
$300 a year under the Emergency Food Assistance program
$1,156 in food under the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program for pregnant women, new mothers and children up to age 5.

Not including Obama Phones, and other small programs and the like.

Total is about $38,000 a year in government subsidize for poor people.

By the way.... If you make over $32,000 a year, you are the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

Which as I have said many times before, the poorest people in our country are often the top 1% of the planet. The poorest people here, have a life that most of the planet can only dream about.

So when someone says "if you don't give them everything they want, they will riot", I think ungrateful scum like that should be shot. How much of a spoiled self-centered brat can you be? Go ahead and riot. We'll deal with you in the most appropriate manor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its a very simple proposition. If people in work still need assistance then we are subsidising their employers.
How can it be anything else ?

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

"The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth..."

And...the very opposite is the minimum wage laws...

"FDR talked Congress into creating Social Security in 1935 and imposing the nation’s first comprehensive minimum-wage law in 1938. While to this day he gets a great deal of credit for these two measures from the general public, many economists have a different perspective. The minimum-wage law prices many of the inexperienced, the young, the unskilled, and the disadvantaged out of the labor market. (For example, the minimum-wage provisions passed as part of another act in 1933 threw an estimated 500,000 blacks out of work.)"
Great Myths of the Great Depression | Lawrence W. Reed

For example, the minimum-wage provisions passed as part of another act in 1933 threw an estimated 500,000 blacks out of work

Yup most of us know that, minimum wage came into effect to destroy black jobs. Democrats I hope their is a special place in hell for them

1. Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’
   1. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.
   2. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??
   3. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”
   4. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.
   5. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?
   6. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.
   7. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!
   8. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?
      From “Race & Economics,” by Walter E. Williams.

BTW....not just blacks.

FDR had the same opinion of Jews and Asians.

 

[320 Years of History]

• Welfare Myths and Stereotypes
• What Works Is Work: Welfare Reform and Poverty Reduction
  
• House Agriculture Committee Farm Bill Would Cut Nearly 2 Million People Off SNAP
  
• The Facts on SNAP, Part 1: SNAP Provides Modest Benefits to Vulnerable People
  
• Setting the Record Straight: Safety Net Dollars Go to People — Not Red Tape
  
• The Facts on SNAP, Part 2: SNAP Supports Work
  
• The Facts About Food Stamps Conservatives Don't Want You to Hear -- The data shows there is little waste, fraud or abuse in the food stamp program.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• At least one individual partaking in this discussion has remarked on the fraud in the welfare system. There's no way round the fact that fraud does exist. What's often ignored is this:

Some of the most ardent supporters of increased efforts to crack down on fraud are welfare recipients themselves. For example, ninety-five percent of all aid recipients favored a fingerprinting program to prevent multiple case fraud. According to the director of research and statistics for the Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services, "[R]ecipients feel this will make the [welfare] program more credible. I think it's a good idea," said one welfare recipient." Another public assistance beneficiary argued, "If we can cut out the fraud, maybe those of us who really need the help will get it." These are the words of those in need, not the sound bites of their gilded advocates. Welfare recipients understand that the elimination of fraud is merely a proxy for a bigger issue--the continuing viability of the welfare system itself.​

The key point from what one'll find from reading the above is that for whatever be the challenges welfare programs need to overcome, the fact is those programs keep people from staving, being homeless and dying on the streets. Sure, we should try to eliminate as much graft as possible. Of course, we want to see people working not forever remaining on the public dole. But we don't need to "throw out the baby and the bath water" as part of doing so, and that's essentially what every conservative voice opposing welfare programs seems to want. Any fool can cut a program's budget and spend less money. What is needed, however, is enlightened and innovative ideas to maximize the efficiency of the expenditures we made. Frankly, I can't recall having ever seen ideas of that nature coming from many, if any, conservatives.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

Have you seen this proposal, Bear?

1. America has always supported a safety net for those in need. This has always been so, as we are a compassionate people. But what began as a safety net has transformed into a deluge of untenable spending that is jeopardizing our entire economic system. Our goal must be to protect the vulnerable at a cost our country can afford while offering everyone the maximum economic opportunity and personal freedom.

2. Newt Gingrich's discussion about welfare reform.
Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan.

The proposal goes like this: Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190). Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

a. Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

So quadraplegics would roll down in their beds to what, pick up trash on the parking lot?

How many times does the 'job', whatever that is in this case, get done? Is there a purpose to it other than to get people to go somewhere to punch a clock?

If people are doing this 40 hours a week, when are they taking classes to get new skills? When are they doing work searches?

What job skill are they learning? How to stand in line and do menial work?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, that is a prescription for riots and mayhem that will cost the economy far more than the welfare policies.

Sheesh.

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

No, what happens when welfare is cut by greedy-stupid policies is that people riot and burn things down.

They dont just quietly starve to death, dude.

"...starve to death..."

Be serious.

Have you ever had to step over bodies of folks who have 'starved to death'????

Even during the Depression that wasn't the case....


"According to my quick reading of the Life and death during the Great Depression by José A. Tapia Granadosa and Ana V. Diez Roux, the only noticeable increase of mortality was suicide, with a noticeable decline of mortality in every other category.

According also to Michael Mosley, life expectancy actually rose through the Great Depression. In his Horizon programme Eat, Fast and Live Longer he claims

From 1929 to 1933, in the darkest years of the great depression when people were eating far less, life expectancy increased by 6 years.

seeing as the US diet was far higher than starvation standards before the GD, even a serious reduction would have been unlikely to induce starvation level conditions in the majority of the population. And with enough food available overall, and the US always having had a very active local charity network, it's quite likely there would have been help for at least the majority of those who could not afford to feed themselves. In fact for quite a few people a somewhat leaner diet may well have contributed to the increased life expectancy. –"
Sources: David Stuckler, Christopher Meissner, Price Fishback, Sanjay Basu, Martin McKee. 2011. "Banking crises and mortality during the Great Depression: evidence from US urban populations, 1929-1937." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. (link)

Price Fishback, Michael Haines, and Shawn Kantor. 2005. "Births, Deaths, and New Deal Relief During the Great Depression."

How many people in the US starved to death during the Great Depression?



Liberal/Democrat policy is a great hoax, a fraud perpetrated on the electorate.

It's true aim is to keep Democrats in power.

Guess who 80% of welfare recipients vote for.

So along with 'FDR caused the Real estate bubble collapse of 2008' you are now adding 'The Great Depression was good for everybody' to your list of ridiculous claims.

Do you ever stop and just listen to yourself?

BTW, few people ever starve to death, though starvation is the root cause for their death. While they are starving their bodies become more vulnerable to disease, hypothermia and accidents. Not to mention that the starvation itself is quite distracting, which debilitates people from doing their jobs properly. This also causes disease to spread more quickly, affecting the employed, the wealthy as well as the working starving poor.

Did you know for example that prior to WW2, most people had difficulty with getting their body energy levels up, which is why Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola became so popular as the sugar input helped their body energy. IF someone was 'on a diet' it was to GAIN weight, not lose it.

You really want to return the whole population to all that?

Whatever party you think would adapt such a platform 'Let Them Starve' is never going to win a majority, right?

 

[Wyatt earp]

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

Have you seen this proposal, Bear?

1. America has always supported a safety net for those in need. This has always been so, as we are a compassionate people. But what began as a safety net has transformed into a deluge of untenable spending that is jeopardizing our entire economic system. Our goal must be to protect the vulnerable at a cost our country can afford while offering everyone the maximum economic opportunity and personal freedom.

2. Newt Gingrich's discussion about welfare reform.
Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan.

The proposal goes like this: Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190). Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

a. Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

So quadraplegics would roll down in their beds to what, pick up trash on the parking lot?

How many times does the 'job', whatever that is in this case, get done? Is there a purpose to it other than to get people to go somewhere to punch a clock?

If people are doing this 40 hours a week, when are they taking classes to get new skills? When are they doing work searches?

What job skill are they learning? How to stand in line and do menial work?

Jim we are not talking about that and you know it..

I already know your situation and I already said I feel for you...

We are not talking about eliminating welfare for people like you, hell we would give you The skin off our backs..

.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Is being on total welfare and not working more poor then working a minimum wage job and collecting some welfare?"

The difference is one of values and attitude.

Wasting peoples productive time in their life is not a service to anyone.

Again, any party adopting such a program is doomed to never winning an election, you know, like the Libertarian Party is never going to win the general elections.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim we are not talking about that and you know it..

I already know your situation and I already said I feel for you...

We are not talking about eliminating welfare for people like you, hell we would give you The skin off our backs..
.

Yes, I know, you are talking about the Mythical Lazy Bum Who Wont Work species which is not only rare, but generally misidentified.

Thank you for your sympathy, too, BTW, but the most aggravating part of my condition is being in the collateral verbal damage when people talk about the Lazy Bums.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So when someone says "if you don't give them everything they want, they will riot", I think ungrateful scum like that should be shot. How much of a spoiled self-centered brat can you be?

That you ignore the cost of living in the USA to make such claims and then show complete disregard for people who are barely scraping by says far more about you than you imagine.

Go ahead and riot. We'll deal with you in the most appropriate manor.

'We?' You mean you and the four other Libertarians in your county who will never have any impact on national politics because no one is so amoral, selfish and willing to see others suffer that you can ever win an election? That 'we'?

 

[320 Years of History]

By the way.... If you make over $32,000 a year, you are the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

That may be, but for U.S. citizens, that's irrelevant. What matters is where they stand relative to their countrymen. Were there consistency of some sort among costs of living and standards of living across the world, then sure, the metric you cited would have some value in a discussion about people living in the U.S.

In Mississippi, one can buy this 3500 sq. foot home for less than $140K.

In D.C. you couldn't buy it were it unrenovated and run-down-but-still-standing for less than $500K, and you'd be lucky to play only $500K for it.

So the value of $32K/year in income is very relative to where a person is, and not at all relevant as a number in and of itself. Things are similarly irrelevant at the other end of the income spectrum.

So what is one to take from that as goes welfare and earnings? The thing one needs to have is transferrable skills so that if one cannot earn enough to live in D.C. or NYC or some other pricey place, one should move to where one's skills, and what employers will pay for them (or what one can earn as a self-employed individual), is enough to allow one to afford a reasonable lifestyle there.

 

[320 Years of History]

If people are doing this 40 hours a week, when are they taking classes to get new skills? When are they doing work searches?

During the remaining 128 hours of the week.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Remember....policies do not die with the President who established same.

Hey maybe you could explain that idea to those that blame Obama for all the increase in debt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

Have you seen this proposal, Bear?

1. America has always supported a safety net for those in need. This has always been so, as we are a compassionate people. But what began as a safety net has transformed into a deluge of untenable spending that is jeopardizing our entire economic system. Our goal must be to protect the vulnerable at a cost our country can afford while offering everyone the maximum economic opportunity and personal freedom.

2. Newt Gingrich's discussion about welfare reform.
Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan.

The proposal goes like this: Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190). Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

a. Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

So quadraplegics would roll down in their beds to what, pick up trash on the parking lot?

How many times does the 'job', whatever that is in this case, get done? Is there a purpose to it other than to get people to go somewhere to punch a clock?

If people are doing this 40 hours a week, when are they taking classes to get new skills? When are they doing work searches?

What job skill are they learning? How to stand in line and do menial work?

Be serious, Jimmy.

First of all, quadriplegics are not living on welfare. Entirely different program.

But...let's do the math, if it will make you feel better.

There are +/- 330,000 individuals with spinal cord injuries of any kind....

There are 110 million on welfare in the US.

So....if we simply continue to provide whatever quadriplegics get, and cut the rest....


....we can cut welfare to .003% of what it is now?

Deal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

That's not how it works. You don't demand X wage, and then the employer pays it, anymore than I can come to your home, demand you pay me $100 to mow your grass, and then you have to pay it.

What is difficult about that?

If their business model means the taxpayer has to subsidise their underpaid employees then it is a bad business.Why should the taxpayer subsidise corporate profits ? Why do corporations need a handout ?

Just eliminate elgibilty for welfare, if you have a job you can not collect.

Presto problem solved.

Have you seen this proposal, Bear?

1. America has always supported a safety net for those in need. This has always been so, as we are a compassionate people. But what began as a safety net has transformed into a deluge of untenable spending that is jeopardizing our entire economic system. Our goal must be to protect the vulnerable at a cost our country can afford while offering everyone the maximum economic opportunity and personal freedom.

2. Newt Gingrich's discussion about welfare reform.
Newt refers to a proposal by Peter Ferrara, who was in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald Reagan.

The proposal goes like this: Block grants would still be provided to the states, and states would guarantee a day’s work assignment (paying the minimum wage) to everyone who reports to their local welfare office before 9:00 a.m.

According to Newt, “The welfare office would provide free daycare for participants’ small children”, and the children would “receive medical care and treatment when necessary” (page 190). Moreover, those working a certain number of hours would receive a Medicaid voucher for private health insurance as well as housing assistance so they could purchase a home. They would also receive the earned-income tax credit. Newt also affirms that the disabled would be trained for some line of work.

a. Based on minimum wage of $7.25, or $15,000 for a full year’s work, plus EITC, which is $3,000 with one child, and $5,000 with two, plus $1,000 per child tax credit. This plus the in-kind transfers of child care and health care, are an adequate safety net. “What I like about this proposal is that it would give welfare recipients work experience and job skills rather than setting welfare against work.” Newt Gingrich’s To Save America 7: Welfare Reform, Health Care

1. The system would also end all incentives for having children outside of marriage, as a parent would have to work to support a child.

So quadraplegics would roll down in their beds to what, pick up trash on the parking lot?

How many times does the 'job', whatever that is in this case, get done? Is there a purpose to it other than to get people to go somewhere to punch a clock?

If people are doing this 40 hours a week, when are they taking classes to get new skills? When are they doing work searches?

What job skill are they learning? How to stand in line and do menial work?

"If people are doing this 40 hours a week, when are they taking classes to get new skills? When are they doing work searches?"

There are 168 hours in a week.

Does that answer your question?


Gainfully employed folks do it all the time.....as in having two jobs.

I have several friends who work as teachers.....they are constantly going to graduate school to move up the pay scale.
And not getting welfare.