Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[Papageorgio]

Should he move to an alleged, Right to Work State and advocate for a legal right to work?

Idiot!

You mean people do not have a right to work in those states?

No, they currently don't. We need Persons in those States to advocate for Truth in Legislative Advertising laws.

You could first target Congress and the "Affordable HealthCare Act", that could be the first change.

Then you could go work on the "Fairness Doctrine."

My favorite was the "Patriot Act"
Who could vote against something like that?

No kidding, terrible bill and name.

 

[Dragonlady]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We want them on foodstamps if they're hungry. Provide jobs that pay them enough to keep their families fed and less people would need them.
Any other questions?

Or they could get a better job themselves. Or get 2 jobs like i have had to do.

We have 30 million working Americans who require government assistance

Can you look at our economic statistics and identify 30 million better jobs or 30 million second jobs waiting to be filled?

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

If it were as easy as you say, 47% of Americans wouldn’t be receiving government assistance in some form or another.

And just for the record, it’s Republicans who insist that instead of raising the minimum wage, the earned income credits be increased, this keeping the working poor dependent on government handouts instead of giving them a proper wage.

Every Democratic effort to raise minimum wages has resulted in increases in the EIC instead. It’s Republicans who have worked very hard in maintaining the dependency of the working poor on the government, and resisted efforts to make people less dependent on government.

 

[TNHarley]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We want them on foodstamps if they're hungry. Provide jobs that pay them enough to keep their families fed and less people would need them.
Any other questions?

Or they could get a better job themselves. Or get 2 jobs like i have had to do.

We have 30 million working Americans who require government assistance

Can you look at our economic statistics and identify 30 million better jobs or 30 million second jobs waiting to be filled?

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

If it were as easy as you say, 47% of Americans wouldn’t be receiving government assistance in some form or another.

And just for the record, it’s Republicans who insist that instead of raising the minimum wage, the earned income credits be increased, this keeping the working poor dependent on government handouts instead of giving them a proper wage.

Every Democratic effort to raise minimum wages has resulted in increases in the EIC instead. It’s Republicans who have worked very hard in maintaining the dependency of the working poor on the government, and resisted efforts to make people less dependent on government.

More fallacious arguments.

 

[hadit]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We want them on foodstamps if they're hungry. Provide jobs that pay them enough to keep their families fed and less people would need them.
Any other questions?

Or they could get a better job themselves. Or get 2 jobs like i have had to do.

We have 30 million working Americans who require government assistance

Can you look at our economic statistics and identify 30 million better jobs or 30 million second jobs waiting to be filled?

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

If it were as easy as you say, 47% of Americans wouldn’t be receiving government assistance in some form or another.

And just for the record, it’s Republicans who insist that instead of raising the minimum wage, the earned income credits be increased, this keeping the working poor dependent on government handouts instead of giving them a proper wage.

Every Democratic effort to raise minimum wages has resulted in increases in the EIC instead. It’s Republicans who have worked very hard in maintaining the dependency of the working poor on the government, and resisted efforts to make people less dependent on government.

The problem here is that you can't arbitrarily set a "proper wage" and expect economics to bow to your whim. If a machine can make burgers 24/7 at $10/hr, guess what's going to happen when you set the MW at $15/hr. If 62% of the work force makes $20/hr or less (it does), guess what's going to happen when you set the MW at $15/hr.

If you could really set the MW at some arbitrary level with no negative impact, why not just set it at $100/hr and be done with poverty once and for all? Obviously, no one seriously recommends that because they understand (even if they vociferously insist otherwise) that raising the MW DOES have a negative effect if you kick it up too high too fast. The only way for it to work is to keep it low enough so it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could bump it a dollar or so every few years with few immediate effects, but the higher it goes, the more often you're going to hear how hard it is for kids and the unskilled to find work at all. Kick it up high enough fast enough, and the effect becomes more severe.

It's really kind of a moot point anyway, because automation is going to replace nearly, if not all, repetitive manual labor work in the near to mid future. A machine can make burgers 24/7 more exactly the same than humans can, and their costs keep coming down. Machines can sweep and mop floors as well as or better than humans can. In fact, software can automate routine computer coding tasks, rendering some programming obsolete. Insisting on jacking up the MW for low skilled, manual labor jobs is fighting last century's battle.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or they could get a better job themselves. Or get 2 jobs like i have had to do.

We have 30 million working Americans who require government assistance

Can you look at our economic statistics and identify 30 million better jobs or 30 million second jobs waiting to be filled?

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

OK

Show me a labor report with 30 million unfilled jobs

You missed about half my post, buddy.
The other half is irrelevant anyways. What if one area of the country has 60% of the jobs?
Also, that number doesnt reflect how many of those people would ACTUALLY be willing to change their lives for the betterment of themselves and their family.
Your post is a circle jerk made for idiots. Try again?

It is your solution, not mine
You claim we do not need welfare or food stamps because all people need to do is find a better paying job or work two jobs

I am merely asking you to support your solution by identifying 30 million unfilled "better jobs" or second jobs waiting to be filled

Otherwise, we can only assume that your solution does not solve the problem

Well how about this: when all those jobs are filled, then we'll worry about it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let's face reality. The days of high paying, unskilled jobs are gone and are not coming back. You cannot graduate from high school, do shift work at the mill for 40 years, send your kids to college and retire comfortably with a full pension at 65, and forcing employers to pay artificially high wages for work that is not worth the pay is not the answer.

Probably not

But with record profits and a 50% cut in taxes, employers cannot claim they cannot afford higher wages

What is with you on the left with what somebody can afford? It has less to do with what they can afford than it does overpaying labor.

If you want to make money based on the companies financials, then get a job that has profit sharing. If you can't find a job with profit sharing, then buy stock in the company you work for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We want them on foodstamps if they're hungry. Provide jobs that pay them enough to keep their families fed and less people would need them.
Any other questions?

I have one. When are you going to open up your own business to provide such jobs???

 

[hadit]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

We want them on foodstamps if they're hungry. Provide jobs that pay them enough to keep their families fed and less people would need them.
Any other questions?

How are you going to do that? You're the president, you have the bully pulpit, you can push legislation through. How are you going to "provide" those jobs? Before you answer, though, consider: You are also responsible for the effects your prescription will have on businesses. If you do something that causes thousands to go under, kicking millions out of work, it's on you.

Go.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do Republicans want to take food stamps and welfare away from people who need it?

They don't.

Yes they do. They believe assistance fosters dependence. That the poor are to blame for their poverty. They’re lazy. They won’t quit smoking pot so they can pass a drug test. They don’t want to work so many hours that they’ll lose their benefits.

Ray nails every rightwing talking point about the poor every single thread. Every lie that Republicans tell the taxpayers about how the poor are living the high life on their tax dollars.

The lie is in the term, "who need it". The Republican goal is to help only those who truly need help, and to get even those to the point where they no longer need help. That's the difference between the democrat and the Republican approach. The democrat approach apparently is to get as many people dependent on government assistance as possible, because they continually find new things they think the government should provide.

I love when Republicans attack the poor for receiving a few benefits that republicans think they really don't "need" You don't need a color TV, you don't need air conditioning, you don't need access to the internet

Meanwhile, they extend a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires
Where is the "need"??

People receiving welfare are getting something from other people. With tax cuts, nobody is getting anything. Government is just taking less from those people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do Republicans want to take food stamps and welfare away from people who need it?

They don't.

Yes they do. They believe assistance fosters dependence. That the poor are to blame for their poverty. They’re lazy. They won’t quit smoking pot so they can pass a drug test. They don’t want to work so many hours that they’ll lose their benefits.

Ray nails every rightwing talking point about the poor every single thread. Every lie that Republicans tell the taxpayers about how the poor are living the high life on their tax dollars.

It has nothing to do with what Republicans tell anybody. When you see it first hand, when it goes on right next door to you, when you've experienced it, that's how you know about poor people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Obama did not increase the food stamp rolls. They increase in the early years of his term as the result of the aftermath of the GWB presidential fuck up. The same with unemployment which was low by the time Obama left office. Stop lying!

From one of your very own: the Communist News Network.

It's true that the food stamp rolls have swelled more under Obama's tenure than under his recent predecessors. Also, his 2009 Recovery Act allowed even more people to sign up.

The number of people in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has soared to an average 44.7 million in fiscal 2011, up 33% from fiscal 2009. Obama's stimulus act made it easier for childless, jobless adults to qualify for the program and increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013.

Is Obama the 'food stamp president?'

did that refute that the GREAT RECESSION caused the need for more people needing food stamps?

oh and why not give us how many food stamp recipients dropped in numbers in 2014, and 2015 and 2016?

I'll do better than that, I'll show you:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did he say anything about coddling the people or cradle to grave government?

Giving people a fair wage is “coddling” them? What about the notion of protecting people from exploitation?

Why should the middle class be required to subsidize low wage workers for the most profitable corporations in the world?

If you can’t afford to pay your workers a living wage, you shouldn’t be in business. Period.

Businesses don't start for the reason to pay people a living wage. Businesses start to create a product or service for a profit.

Until there is a law that states a business cannot exist unless they pay a living wage (whatever that is) then anybody has the right to start or own a business paying what they desire.

Yes, government forcing industry to pay wages they demand is coddling people. It's not up to government to make businesses pay you more than you are worth, it's up to you to make yourself worth more to business.

If a business pays their employees so little they qualify for federal aid then the federal government should get reimbursed from that company.

Now that's a good plan. Shut down all these companies because that's all forcing them to pay government would do. More stuff from China, that's what we need for employment in the US.

who said shut down?

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

LOL, so you want Americans unemployed and starving.....................

Idiot

Where do you people get that tripe from. It is made up bovine excrement. We want people to have economic opportunity and earn a living wage . Which party is it the advocates giving huge tax cuts to the wealth and chump change to working people.? Which party wants to deprive millions of people health care ? Who wants to destroy medicare and social security?

It is because of right wing policies that the social safety net is needed more than ever. It is an outrageous lie to say that we want more people on food stamps and welfare . What we want is for those programs to be there for people who get screwed by the system. You should read Regulating the Poor by Piven and Cloward

The worst part of that social safety net is that for employers who do not pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare.....

We just cut their taxes in half so they have to pay even less to support that safety net

Hate to tell you this, but it is not the employer's responsibility to "pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare". It's his responsibility to generate a profit so the company can thrive and grow. As long as it is doing that, he can hire and pay workers. When jobs cost more money than they generate, guess what happens to the jobs?

If society insists on everyone having a certain level of income, than society should be honest, create the welfare program and fund it. Stop trying to make businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Hate to tell you this but when people don't make enough to feed their families they go on food stamps at the taxpayers expense. They also buy less which in turns puts other jobs at risk.

Then society should insist on welfare programs to guarantee everyone an arbitrary income. That's the honest way to do it. Did you miss that part of my post? Stop reading after the first sentence, perhaps?

Sounds like socialism

 

[hadit]

Giving people a fair wage is “coddling” them? What about the notion of protecting people from exploitation?

Why should the middle class be required to subsidize low wage workers for the most profitable corporations in the world?

If you can’t afford to pay your workers a living wage, you shouldn’t be in business. Period.

Businesses don't start for the reason to pay people a living wage. Businesses start to create a product or service for a profit.

Until there is a law that states a business cannot exist unless they pay a living wage (whatever that is) then anybody has the right to start or own a business paying what they desire.

Yes, government forcing industry to pay wages they demand is coddling people. It's not up to government to make businesses pay you more than you are worth, it's up to you to make yourself worth more to business.

If a business pays their employees so little they qualify for federal aid then the federal government should get reimbursed from that company.

Now that's a good plan. Shut down all these companies because that's all forcing them to pay government would do. More stuff from China, that's what we need for employment in the US.

who said shut down?

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

 

[hadit]

Where do you people get that tripe from. It is made up bovine excrement. We want people to have economic opportunity and earn a living wage . Which party is it the advocates giving huge tax cuts to the wealth and chump change to working people.? Which party wants to deprive millions of people health care ? Who wants to destroy medicare and social security?

It is because of right wing policies that the social safety net is needed more than ever. It is an outrageous lie to say that we want more people on food stamps and welfare . What we want is for those programs to be there for people who get screwed by the system. You should read Regulating the Poor by Piven and Cloward

The worst part of that social safety net is that for employers who do not pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare.....

We just cut their taxes in half so they have to pay even less to support that safety net

Hate to tell you this, but it is not the employer's responsibility to "pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare". It's his responsibility to generate a profit so the company can thrive and grow. As long as it is doing that, he can hire and pay workers. When jobs cost more money than they generate, guess what happens to the jobs?

If society insists on everyone having a certain level of income, than society should be honest, create the welfare program and fund it. Stop trying to make businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Hate to tell you this but when people don't make enough to feed their families they go on food stamps at the taxpayers expense. They also buy less which in turns puts other jobs at risk.

Then society should insist on welfare programs to guarantee everyone an arbitrary income. That's the honest way to do it. Did you miss that part of my post? Stop reading after the first sentence, perhaps?

Sounds like socialism

That's why they want to force business to subsidize the welfare system. They can hide it better that way.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Why do Republicans want to take food stamps and welfare away from people who need it?

They don't.

The rich already got richer; social welfare cuts were on the table for the right wing. Y'all, recanting now.

Name a welfare program that gets less money next year than this one and we can talk.

Children's health care?

Numbers?

Prior to Sept. 30, 2017, billions of dollars. After Sept. 30, 2017, $0.00.

Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia

 

[Thinker101]

Which you don't do by simply mandating an artificially high wage. If that were possible, we'd just set the MW to $100/hr and be done with poverty altogether.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. The left subscribes to rational choice theory whenever possible.

Whenever possible?! You mean whenever convenient.

Social costs also have to be considered. The right wing seems to care about merely lucre.

Ok, and what social costs need to be considered?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

How about answering the question...dumbass.

 

[Dragonlady]

Businesses don't start for the reason to pay people a living wage. Businesses start to create a product or service for a profit.

Until there is a law that states a business cannot exist unless they pay a living wage (whatever that is) then anybody has the right to start or own a business paying what they desire.

Yes, government forcing industry to pay wages they demand is coddling people. It's not up to government to make businesses pay you more than you are worth, it's up to you to make yourself worth more to business.

If a business pays their employees so little they qualify for federal aid then the federal government should get reimbursed from that company.

Now that's a good plan. Shut down all these companies because that's all forcing them to pay government would do. More stuff from China, that's what we need for employment in the US.

who said shut down?

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

You have it backwards. People working full time jobs shouldn’t NEED to receive assistance from the state. If your income from your full time job is so low that you qualify for food stamps and Medicaid then your employer is getting the subsidy. He pockets more profit by paying you less than you need to live.

Walmart is fully capable of paying higher minimum wages but chose to keep wages as low as possible and have employees get public assistance, and they were the second most profitable company in the US. Walmart managed to pay $11+ in Canada, and higher taxes overall, and still be the most profitable company in Canada, without having government subsidize wages.

I know of no first world country in the world which depends on so much cheap labour as the US.

Illegal immigration exists to provide a large pool of easily exploitable cheap labour, and it has been Republicans who have openly encouraged it, just as it has been Republicans who insist on earned income credits instead of increasing the minimum wage.

Republicans do everything possible to keep the working poor beholding to the government. A reasonable minimum wage tied to inflation would help.

 

[rightwinger]

I'll take up bank robber if given that choice.

Or you could find a better paying job, or start your own business. Interesting that gaining money illegally is your solution.

Should he move to an alleged, Right to Work State and advocate for a legal right to work?

Idiot!

You mean people do not have a right to work in those states?

Daniel likes to pretend "right to work" means that he has the right to collect unemployment without having to have held a job first. You have to translate.

Right to work means just that

Why are 172 million Americans not working?

 

[rightwinger]

We have 30 million working Americans who require government assistance

Can you look at our economic statistics and identify 30 million better jobs or 30 million second jobs waiting to be filled?

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

OK

Show me a labor report with 30 million unfilled jobs

You missed about half my post, buddy.
The other half is irrelevant anyways. What if one area of the country has 60% of the jobs?
Also, that number doesnt reflect how many of those people would ACTUALLY be willing to change their lives for the betterment of themselves and their family.
Your post is a circle jerk made for idiots. Try again?

It is your solution, not mine
You claim we do not need welfare or food stamps because all people need to do is find a better paying job or work two jobs

I am merely asking you to support your solution by identifying 30 million unfilled "better jobs" or second jobs waiting to be filled

Otherwise, we can only assume that your solution does not solve the problem

Well how about this: when all those jobs are filled, then we'll worry about it.

That is not a solution

You claim people can just take better jobs or work two jobs

The jobs are not there