Did I get welfare wrong??????

[Moonbeam]

No... You be wrong! Moonbeam has always maintained that welfare is broken because it don't seem to foster a movement into the workforce for many.... Of course, not all the folks who receive welfare have workforce potential.

I see welfare as a safety net for those who have no other option. Women or men with a quiver of kids to care for and the other spouse split the scene. Or, some other real life condition that presents the option to starve or subsist on the bare minimum resource contributed by society's tax payer. This bit I see as caring for the least of us.
I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a permanent welfare recipient.

I think the way to achieve the objective the OP points to can be had in more economically sane methods... Target funds as a stimuli toward business who provide the jobs the welfare to work potential can grasp. There exist a plethora of sound economic applications for funds of the magnitude mentioned in the OP's link. AND, recognize some folks will always be on welfare... Those who can work but won't work when the jobs exist need to move to Louisiana and join the bearded crew shooting ducks for food.

[I recall a post by Moonbeam oh... about 10 years ago where he posted Eisenhower's final speech without attribution.... It garnered all manner of comment which the slick Moonster used to prove once again the insanity of some in the face of seeing the package and not the content.]

That was the one where Corn said the opinion expressed displayed an obvious lack of military experience behind it.

 

[CanOWorms]

Yes, you have welfare wrong. Welfare is more than giving people material things. For example, white privilege may be one of the biggest forms of societal and governmental welfare humanity has ever experienced.

We probably don't need to give people material welfare if we criminalize abuse of white privilege. Making opportunities equal is what's important. If we don't want to criminalize this type of social terrorism, then those profiting from privileges need to have their wealth transferred for material welfare for others.

 

[LunarRay]

Yes, you have welfare wrong. Welfare is more than giving people material things. For example, white privilege may be one of the biggest forms of societal and governmental welfare humanity has ever experienced.

We probably don't need to give people material welfare if we criminalize abuse of white privilege. Making opportunities equal is what's important. If we don't want to criminalize this type of social terrorism, then those profiting from privileges need to have their wealth transferred for material welfare for others.

In another 300 or so years we'll probably see today as being similar to what today looking back 200 years provides.

 

[Abraxas]

Indeed it does. Today we learned the following:

1. Some conservatives are easily impressed by short, nonsensical letters to the editor.
2. Some conservatives don't fact check, can't read, or are dishonest as an inspection of the National Park Service website indicates that while it discusses not feeding the animals at some length, the states reasons are it alters natural behaviors, causes injuries to humans, is unhealthy for the animals, brings the predators of the fed animals to human inhabited areas but not that it teaches them not to take care of themselves.
3. Some conservatives consider the poor to be animals.

You remind me of the episode of South Park where one of the characters was concerned that the homeless might somehow get enough money to buy a home and if the homeless had houses how would you know they were homeless. You and some of the others here seem so terrified of the idea that a person who has been dealt a bad hand by life or even made some bad choices might get a break you didn't that makes them not completely miserable and destitute. Be honest with me, is your desire to avoid helping the poor just an ego thing where you measure your self worth by being better than the worst off in society or do you actually somehow manage to contort your brain into believing, to use your animal example, that leaving them to fend for themselves in an eat or be eaten environment is somehow good for them as opposed to letting them get used to a higher standard of living than poverty?

 

[WelshBloke]

This is confusing. It's really, really bad when people inherit money, but it's really, really good to give people money.

Its really, really bad when a very small number of people get given an astronomical amount of money, but its really, really good to give a large amount of people a modest amount of money.

Any easier for you to understand?

 

[compuwiz1]

Yes, you have welfare wrong. Welfare is more than giving people material things. For example, white privilege may be one of the biggest forms of societal and governmental welfare humanity has ever experienced.

We probably don't need to give people material welfare if we criminalize abuse of white privilege. Making opportunities equal is what's important. If we don't want to criminalize this type of social terrorism, then those profiting from privileges need to have their wealth transferred for material welfare for others.

How are you not branded and banned as a racist by now?

I'm getting pretty sick of you throwing down on whitey all the time.

 

[1prophet]

Yes, you have welfare wrong. Welfare is more than giving people material things. For example, white privilege may be one of the biggest forms of societal and governmental welfare humanity has ever experienced.

We probably don't need to give people material welfare if we criminalize abuse of white privilege. Making opportunities equal is what's important. If we don't want to criminalize this type of social terrorism, then those profiting from privileges need to have their wealth transferred for material welfare for others.

Funny how Asians can run circles around whites and their privilege to the point of passing them up.

 

[Matt1970]

Indeed it does. Today we learned the following:

1. Some conservatives are easily impressed by short, nonsensical letters to the editor.
2. Some conservatives don't fact check, can't read, or are dishonest as an inspection of the National Park Service website indicates that while it discusses not feeding the animals at some length, the states reasons are it alters natural behaviors, causes injuries to humans, is unhealthy for the animals, brings the predators of the fed animals to human inhabited areas but not that it teaches them not to take care of themselves.
3. Some conservatives consider the poor to be animals.

You remind me of the episode of South Park where one of the characters was concerned that the homeless might somehow get enough money to buy a home and if the homeless had houses how would you know they were homeless. You and some of the others here seem so terrified of the idea that a person who has been dealt a bad hand by life or even made some bad choices might get a break you didn't that makes them not completely miserable and destitute. Be honest with me, is your desire to avoid helping the poor just an ego thing where you measure your self worth by being better than the worst off in society or do you actually somehow manage to contort your brain into believing, to use your animal example, that leaving them to fend for themselves in an eat or be eaten environment is somehow good for them as opposed to letting them get used to a higher standard of living than poverty?

Wow the butt hurt is strong with you. It's amazing how your whole belief system can be made to look so pathetic by a couple sentences. You have no desire to actually help people, otherwise you would be advocating for more programs that train people for different lines of work, not just blindly throwing money at them making sure they understand which side of the isle is more supporting of handouts.

 

[Matt1970]

It's called mandatory spending versus discretionary and social security is paid for by mandatory taxes and that tax money cannot be used for anything else. Cutting social security doesn't mean we now have more money for other things or that we can now pay down debts with the savings.

And yet it continually is.

 

[michal1980]

It's called mandatory spending versus discretionary and social security is paid for by mandatory taxes and that tax money cannot be used for anything else. Cutting social security doesn't mean we now have more money for other things or that we can now pay down debts with the savings.

social security money has been used for other things for decades.

 

[Abraxas]

Wow the butt hurt is strong with you. It's amazing how your whole belief system can be made to look so pathetic by a couple sentences. You have no desire to actually help people, otherwise you would be advocating for more programs that train people for different lines of work, not just blindly throwing money at them making sure they understand which side of the isle is more supporting of handouts.

So is it a reading thing then? You seem to not understand what "butthurt" actually means or you wouldn't be using it in this context.

Here's the deal, that doesn't make my belief system look pathetic, it makes yours look pathetic. You are the one defending an article that is demonstrably reliant upon incorrect information, other than, of course you aren't defending it so much as just mindlessly attacking me.

As a matter of fact, I support job training programs but I also support a negative income tax for the lowest and non-earners because right now, according to a study by Oxford, half of all jobs currently on the job market will have been replaced by a machine within 20 years. Already related to that is there is a shortage of jobs available, last I checked somewhere between 3 to 5 times as many unemployed and under employed for every position open in America. Since I know anything mathematically speaking isn't going to register through the fact-proof Republican bubble, let me put this in simpler terms. Even if you could train up every single unemployed and underemployed person in America for the jobs that are open and filled every open position, you would still have millions of unemployed and underemployed.

What is more, that is again only the unemployed and underemployed, not even touching on the people who are working but working in crappy low wage jobs that require government assistance to make ends meet like the people working McDonalds and Wal-Mart. I know, I know, get a better job. Problem again is we have more people who want to work than there are good jobs out there and so "get a job" is decreasingly viable as a solution.

I know the odds of this registering with you is pretty low, since you have already been told what to think and by God you are going to think it (stay the course, integrating new information is for suckers!), but I just thought you should know your newpaper snippet makes you look ridiculous in comparing the poor to animals, not me.

 

[Jaskalas]

... and so "get a job" is decreasingly viable as a solution.

This may surprise you, but I for one agree. The future looks like a legion of poor and unemployed to care for. The issue is I don't think throwing money at the problem is a stable or viable solution. We need to think bigger than that.

If the basic needs can be met at a fraction of the cost, providing for them suddenly becomes possible. Basically we want to recognize the trend of cheap labor, of automation, and run wild with it. Encourage it. Make it so the cost of basic goods and services is nil.

Instead of throwing money at the problem, we need to eliminate money from the problem. "Welfare" needs to be entirely re-imagined or we're simply not going to be able to afford it.

 

[QuantumPion]

I always thought that argument was kind of dumb. Yeah it's bad to feed wild animals, but of course we feed animals in zoos. And slaves.

 

[QuantumPion]

I like the idea of a negative income tax or guaranteed minimum income. But only as a replacement for all other welfare, handouts, and subsidies.

 

[Matt1970]

So is it a reading thing then? You seem to not understand what "butthurt" actually means or you wouldn't be using it in this context.

Here's the deal, that doesn't make my belief system look pathetic, it makes yours look pathetic. You are the one defending an article that is demonstrably reliant upon incorrect information, other than, of course you aren't defending it so much as just mindlessly attacking me.

As a matter of fact, I support job training programs but I also support a negative income tax for the lowest and non-earners because right now, according to a study by Oxford, half of all jobs currently on the job market will have been replaced by a machine within 20 years. Already related to that is there is a shortage of jobs available, last I checked somewhere between 3 to 5 times as many unemployed and under employed for every position open in America. Since I know anything mathematically speaking isn't going to register through the fact-proof Republican bubble, let me put this in simpler terms. Even if you could train up every single unemployed and underemployed person in America for the jobs that are open and filled every open position, you would still have millions of unemployed and underemployed.

What is more, that is again only the unemployed and underemployed, not even touching on the people who are working but working in crappy low wage jobs that require government assistance to make ends meet like the people working McDonalds and Wal-Mart. I know, I know, get a better job. Problem again is we have more people who want to work than there are good jobs out there and so "get a job" is decreasingly viable as a solution.

I know the odds of this registering with you is pretty low, since you have already been told what to think and by God you are going to think it (stay the course, integrating new information is for suckers!), but I just thought you should know your newpaper snippet makes you look ridiculous in comparing the poor to animals, not me.

I wouldn't expect you to think anything different. In your mind everyone on welfare is a victim. The stories of families that have been on welfare for generation after generation is a myth to you. The welfare trap is a lie.

 

[werepossum]

This is confusing. It's really, really bad when people inherit money, but it's really, really good to give people money.

+1

The difference is when people get too much money and no longer need government. If people don't need government, they do not properly fear government. And that's bad, m'kay?

 

[BoberFett]

I like the idea of a negative income tax or guaranteed minimum income. But only as a replacement for all other welfare, handouts, and subsidies.

And If people receiving it are still poor and hungry? We let them starve and live on the streets? Or we give them more free money?

 

[bshole]

And If people receiving it are still poor and hungry? We let them starve and live on the streets? Or we give them more free money?

No, then we give them guns and the address of the nearest millionaire.

lol...

 

[Orignal Earl]

Funny how Asians can run circles around whites and their privilege to the point of passing them up.

Funny that eh.
In Asia, a small number of whites run circles around Asians and their privilege to the point of passing them up

 

[Abraxas]

I wouldn't expect you to think anything different. In your mind everyone on welfare is a victim. The stories of families that have been on welfare for generation after generation is a myth to you. The welfare trap is a lie.

Not everyone, but a lot are, including a lot of people in the so called welfare trap. The problem is that welfare doesn't pay enough to get people to leave areas with little opportunity, poor quality education systems, no jobs, etc. and so as long as you have people born into those areas odds are better than average they will end up on welfare of some kind too. Of course it is generational - people tend not to keep their children in wealthy areas while they live in poor ones.

Is there some abuse in the system? Sure. Are there steps that can be taken to eliminate waste? Of course. Does that make your position any less stupid when you start from the premise that the poor are animals and that denying them assistance is good for them? Not a bit.

 

[QuantumPion]

And If people receiving it are still poor and hungry? We let them starve and live on the streets? Or we give them more free money?

There's no way to force people to live responsibly. If there was than there would be no need for welfare to begin with. You could give everyone $100k a year and there would still be people poor and hungry and on the streets because they waste it on drugs, gambling, etc.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Lets not forget about corporate welfare. In industries that make billions each year in profit, companies get government subsidies. Why?

Did you cook up an investment scheme that screwed up the entire world economy and put your company in the red? No worries, here is a bail out.

I do find issues with crack heads getting free government money. And, the perpetually unemployed need to be cut off at some point.

But, I think it's far worse to have those who screw with the world economy AND their own financial well being to be given a get out of trouble "loan". Also, if you dodge taxes or are incorporated somewhere where you do not have to pay US government taxes, you should not see a single penny in corporate welfare from the government.

I mean, we expect to pull out all foreign aid when a French waiter ignore an American - why shouldn't a company in receipt of corporate welfare get cut off when it botches the economy.

 

[nehalem256]

There's no way to force people to live responsibly. If there was than there would be no need for welfare to begin with. You could give everyone $100k a year and there would still be people poor and hungry and on the streets because they waste it on drugs, gambling, etc.

I think you mean there is no way to force people to live responsibly so long as you worship their right to freedom

 

[QuantumPion]

Not everyone, but a lot are, including a lot of people in the so called welfare trap. The problem is that welfare doesn't pay enough to get people to leave areas with little opportunity, poor quality education systems, no jobs, etc. and so as long as you have people born into those areas odds are better than average they will end up on welfare of some kind too. Of course it is generational - people tend not to keep their children in wealthy areas while they live in poor ones.

Bullcrap. How much does it take to move out of the inner city to someplace with jobs? $50 for a bus ticket and $300 for first month rent sharing an apartment.

 

[QuantumPion]

I think you mean there is no way to force people to live responsibly so long as you worship their right to freedom

If parents can't force their children to live responsibly, even with unlimited control over their lives and constant individual attention, how do you expect the government to force adults to do so?