CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[CrusaderFrank]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

"We all pay in"? Are you ignorant? How would that even make it a "right" even if true?

Its a social contract that binds us all together for the common good.

So is religion

 

[JimBowie1958]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

Why are you having a child if you can't afford one?

Where did he say he was having a child or that he cannot afford one?

And every child is a blessing and no number crunching pencil head has ever said that I have heard, 'Hey, honey, we can afford a whole 1.2 children extra, so lets get you pregnant now! Mmk?'

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

"We all pay in"? Are you ignorant? How would that even make it a "right" even if true?

Its a social contract that binds us all together for the common good.

So is religion

No it isnt, religion is divisive. Welfare is paid for by all and enjoyed by all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No it isnt, religion is divisive.

Religion is not divisive any more than having your own opinion is divisive.

We all have our own unique ways of responding to the Creator and it is not to belittle another soul to say that we disagree with them about God, even if they think he is a white male who hurls thunder bolts from the sky like idiots.

OK, well that last part was belittling, but those idiots deserve to be belittled, lol.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.

That is a false statement. It is not a right. Just as the government enacted those programs they can take them away.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

Why are you having a child if you can't afford one?

Where did he say he was having a child or that he cannot afford one?

And every child is a blessing and no number crunching pencil head has ever said that I have heard, 'Hey, honey, we can afford a whole 1.2 children extra, so lets get you pregnant now! Mmk?'

There was a phone in show over here a few years back and a woman with four kids was explaining how life on benefits was no picnic and a real struggle. The tory bastard on the panel started sniffing about women who had loads of kids they couldnt afford.

She then explained that her husband had died from cancer the year before. People can be too quick to judge on appearances. Our lives cant be planned to the last detail.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.

That is a false statement. It is not a right. Just as the government enacted those programs they can take them away.

No they cant. We pay in every month for an array of benefits including pensions. The government cannot take that away without bringing down the country. It is a pie in the sky suggestion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.

That is a false statement. It is not a right. Just as the government enacted those programs they can take them away.

And governments have been over thrown for as little as supporting the wrong color of chariot racer.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

She then explained that her husband had died from cancer the year before.

Most people are not on welfare due to that type of situation. 70% of welfare cases in the United States are women with children born outside of wedlock.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

No it isnt, religion is divisive.

Religion is not divisive any more than having your own opinion is divisive.

We all have our own unique ways of responding to the Creator and it is not to belittle another soul to say that we disagree with them about God, even if they think he is a white male who hurls thunder bolts from the sky like idiots.

OK, well that last part was belittling, but those idiots deserve to be belittled, lol.

There are over a hundred versions of the Christian Church. And thats just Christianity. Welfare is universal and doesnt care which version of the bible you read.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.

That is a false statement. It is not a right. Just as the government enacted those programs they can take them away.

No they cant.

Yes, I assure you, they can.

We pay in every month for an array of benefits including pensions. The government cannot take that away without bringing down the country. It is a pie in the sky suggestion.

You think that means anything? My father is white. He is half Irish-half Italian. He took a trip to Italy last year to visit one of his cousins. His cousin is a retired federal worker and hadn't received his pension check in over a year because the Italian government could no longer afford to pay it to him.

Even Denmark, the Utopia of every socialist parasite, has been talking about scaling back its welfare benefits because they can't afford them anymore.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Seriously dude? If you give a poor person a dollar more an hour instead of him drinking natural lights he will drink bud lights...

Instead of him buying a 19inch t.v. he will buy a 50 inch...you see the pattern here?

Those are not the poor Tony is referring to, and why do you expect the poor to not ever get 50 inch TVs anyway?

Good grief, they are poor, not dead.

How anyone can save 20% more money

1. Track your spending.
When I meet with clients the first thing I ask is "How much do you think you spend each month on average?" I've noticed that over 95% of the people I meet with underestimate their spending by 25% or more. This is dangerous for a couple of reasons.

First, if you don't know what you spend on average, it will be very difficult to build a plan that mandates how much you really can save and how much you'll spend when you retire.

What I ask people to do is simply track their spending without necessarily cutting back. Once people actually keep tabs on where the money goes, they spend more mindfully. That's right. Just by watching what you spend the magic will happen and you'll actually spend less. Don't believe me? Why not give it a try yourself?


2. Eliminate high cost debt.

Just because you aren't able to pay off all your old debts doesn't mean you are stuck with enormously expensive interest costs. Consider refinancing your debt with lower cost options and use the savings to get out of debt that much sooner. Every dollar you save in interest cost is better than a dollar earned. That's because you don't really have to do anything in order to achieve these savings.
.....

Great advice. My wife an I have saved around 13% of our income since graduating college and getting her first job, but prior to that, money was tight. We had a very difficult time saving anything, and we had to pretend the money was not there.

But you cant do that when your son has an ear infection and you have no medical insurance. You have to take that money that you do know is there and spend it to get the kid healthy.

There are over-riding factors.

No I noticed that with my own spending rabbits...

When

Why do they need a/c?

The heat in Texas requires AC. Most of the Souths population would not be living there were it not for readily available AC.

Why do they need a car?

Because modern urban and suburban environments/planning assumes you have a car in the USA. And since we refuse to adequately fund mass transportation, people MUST have cars to get most jobs.

Why do they need a cable bill?

So they dont go insane and devour the fat rich people that they think are robbing them.

The entire premis of this goes to a few well wrote books on psychology..

It basically says...If you throw the poor peanuts they won't riot and loot

Give them their free obama phones, 50 inch t.v.s and mtv all is cool..

 

[Tommy Tainant]

She then explained that her husband had died from cancer the year before.

Most people are not on welfare due to that type of situation. 70% of welfare cases in the United States are women with children born outside of wedlock.

Its an extreme example but just as relevant as the "lazy bitch" stereotype. In reality it doesnt matter as the key issue is to ensure that the children are looked after.
And if the corporations paid their due nobody would care.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

She then explained that her husband had died from cancer the year before.

Most people are not on welfare due to that type of situation. 70% of welfare cases in the United States are women with children born outside of wedlock.

Its an extreme example but just as relevant as the "lazy bitch" stereotype. In reality it doesnt matter as the key issue is to ensure that the children are looked after.

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

And if the corporations paid their due nobody would care.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

She then explained that her husband had died from cancer the year before.

Most people are not on welfare due to that type of situation. 70% of welfare cases in the United States are women with children born outside of wedlock.

Its an extreme example but just as relevant as the "lazy bitch" stereotype. In reality it doesnt matter as the key issue is to ensure that the children are looked after.

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

And if the corporations paid their due nobody would care.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

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

Which brings me to your second point.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There are over a hundred versions of the Christian Church. And thats just Christianity. Welfare is universal and doesnt care which version of the bible you read.

And yet there are over a hundred nations with different variations on welfare, and none of them agree as to which is best either.

You frame your assertion on uneven ground and you wind up with a conclusion that does not follow every time.

 

[Andylusion]

First, it always amazes me, how we have said for decades that the minimum wage causes job losses, and then when it happen, just as we say it will happen, every single time you claim that "but it was due to something else".

Did we say that the entire financial melt down was due exclusively to one economic policy? No. I don't know anyone anywhere that has suggest this.

But was it a contributing factor? Yes. Can you prove it wasn't?

Second, even if we put that argument aside, the fact is your side claims routinely, and even in this thread, that with a hike in the minimum wage the economy will boom. That people will have prosperity and higher wages, and economic growth, and so on.

Your side has made this claim hundreds on hundreds of times. Not ONE TIME......... NOT EVEN ONCE..... has that actually happened.

People were screaming that $5.25 was too law in the 1990s. In the 2000s, you said if only we can bump it up to $7.25. Now it's $7.25, and you are claiming it needs to be $10 or $15. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, the only result is that you claim it's not enough, and it needs to be higher, and people are on starvation wages.

So most rational people, look at the two sides, and what they claim the result of hiking the minimum wage will be.... and notice that your claims of Utopia have never come true, and our claims of job loss have always come true.... And quite frankly, for a person to assume that obviously the people who have been wrong every single time, are still right because "well it was something else that caused the problem".... is insane.

Did you not notices that the majority of job losses throughout the great recession, were at the lowest income level, which would be affected by minimum wage laws, rather than the high income level that would be affected by a financial melt down?

Please explain the mechanics of how a international bank losing money a Mortgage Backed Security, would magically cause high school students at McDonalds to lose their jobs? I'd love to hear your theory on how that worked.

So what you are really saying is that Macs/Wal mart/whoever have a business model that cant work without all of us subsidising it with public handouts ?

Perhaps we would be better off without them. Other companies would come in and fill the void.

Or perhaps they would settle for a little less profit.

First, their business model would work, with or without, handouts.

Second, the myth that we are subsidize walmart is just that. It's a myth. Not true.

Third, if you removed Walmart, the other companies would in fact fill the void.... with the exact same wages, and business model.

The fundamental laws of economics, don't magically change because you eliminate a company. Under the same economic system, you will have the same economic results. This doesn't magically change because you banned Walmart or something.

Fourth and finally, no, they are not going to settle for a little less profit.

Not going to happen. Never has in the history of the world, and it's not going to happen today.

There is a couple of things, that I think people like you either don't know, or don't consider.

When you say that Walmart earned $10 Billion, that is Walmart Corporate. Not individual stores. Each store, is run as a separate business. Same with McDonald and Wendy's and so on. Each store has it's own revenue, it's own expenses, and it's own profit margin. Each one pays it's own employees, with it's own revenue from sales.

What's my point? Corporate might have some money, but that doesn't mean the store has money. Corporations do not subsidize stores. If you have to pay the store money, to keep that store open, then the corporation would have more profits closing the store.

So the rule is, the store has to make or break, on it's own. Therefore, if your store doesn't have the money to pay works $15/hr..... then it can't.

And while you think that somehow Walmart has endless cash to pay employees, I think fail to notice that Walmart has one of the slimest profit margins in the industry.

Walmarts profit margin was just 2.6%, with an average of only 3.3%.

That means that for every $100 of goods sold, Walmart makes a profit of just $3.00. Three dollars. And you think they can afford to just give everyone a massive raise? Not a chance.

People like me ?

Really ?

Corporations always bitch about everything that affects their bottom line. But faced with a problem they just adapt. That would be a mix of raising prices and cutting other expenditure.

The benefits to the economy would be considerable.Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

Lower welfare means reduced taxation means greater consumer spending. Its a virtuous circle that would ultimately benefit the likes of WalMart.

Poor people spend all their income, they dont stash it away in Panama.

And you wonder why they are still poor??

I see, you think they spend it all by choice?

Christ, there are a lot of silver-spoon-up-the-ass people here.

Generally yes. There was a lady in Canada that won $10 Million dollars. In under 10 years, she was completely broke, didn't own a car even, living in an apartment, and riding the bus to an low-wage job.

How can anyone possibly end up impoverished after winning $10 Million? She blew it all.

Did you know that most lottery winners end up bankrupt in under 10 years? Because getting millions doesn't change the way you live, that resulted in you being poor. As long as you keep living your life poor, you'll remain poor, no matter what you do.

Now take Steve Jobs for example. When he was fired by Apple computer, he ended up with $10 Million. What did he do with the money? He bought a small company, and invested into it. In 2006, Steve sold Pixar, which he bought for $10 Million, for $7.4 Billion to Disney.

This is true across the board. When you consume your income, then you remain poor. When you invest your income, you become rich.

When you live frugally, you become wealthy. When you lives beyond your means, and spend all you have, you end up poor.

For the vast majority of all people in especially America, the reason they are in the situation they are in, is due to the choices they have made.

 

[Andylusion]

She then explained that her husband had died from cancer the year before.

Most people are not on welfare due to that type of situation. 70% of welfare cases in the United States are women with children born outside of wedlock.

Its an extreme example but just as relevant as the "lazy bitch" stereotype. In reality it doesnt matter as the key issue is to ensure that the children are looked after.

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

And if the corporations paid their due nobody would care.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

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

Which brings me to your second point.

Please. Spare me your lies. We are not subsidizing most corporation. Just stop with your lies. You are not fooling anyone but those who are already fools.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

She then explained that her husband had died from cancer the year before.

Most people are not on welfare due to that type of situation. 70% of welfare cases in the United States are women with children born outside of wedlock.

Its an extreme example but just as relevant as the "lazy bitch" stereotype. In reality it doesnt matter as the key issue is to ensure that the children are looked after.

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

And if the corporations paid their due nobody would care.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

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

 

[Tommy Tainant]

She then explained that her husband had died from cancer the year before.

Most people are not on welfare due to that type of situation. 70% of welfare cases in the United States are women with children born outside of wedlock.

Its an extreme example but just as relevant as the "lazy bitch" stereotype. In reality it doesnt matter as the key issue is to ensure that the children are looked after.

When you subsidize something you get more of it. Subsidize poverty, get more poverty. LBJ's Great Society initiatives destroyed American inner cities.

And if the corporations paid their due nobody would care.

Corporations have nothing to do with this discussion.

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 ?