Did I get welfare wrong??????

[Moonbeam]

I have always believed that giving people things for free will not help them but here is evidence that I may be mistaken. Perhaps the low self esteem some people express doesn't really mean that their self esteem isn't actually still there:

https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/35246939860-ec3a6c3e

Please remember that like me you have an opinion, but like me, your opinion may be wrong. I see here evidence of things I don't believe and the only conclusion that seems rational to me is that my opinion may be wrong.

The amazing thing about this data is that direct giving of money is cheap in comparison to any other technique to solve this problem.

I have known for years that the truth is hidden by its immediate unlikelihood and this may be just such a truth, so unlikely as to be immediately dismissed. Can our brains get past our assumptions to consider that our notions of how to help people are nuts at present?

 

[BUnit1701]

Or you could be easily influenced by propaganda puff pieces. Tough call.

 

[Jaskalas]

Eradicating poverty in the United States would cost $175 billion – a quarter of the country’s $700 billion military budget.

You can't seriously believe this tripe.

We already spend multitudes more than our military budget in order to address "poverty". I guess we aren't handing it out correctly?

 

[boomerang]

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

 

[boomerang]

Or you could be easily influenced by propaganda puff pieces. Tough call.

Don't forget puff pieces translated from Dutch with manufactured quotes from the sixties.

 

[boomerang]

You can't seriously believe this tripe.

We already spend multitudes more than our military budget in order to address "poverty". I guess we aren't handing it out correctly?

I'm going to venture a guess that the wrong people have been handing it out. We've got the right people now. Yes, pretty sure of that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Or you could be easily influenced by propaganda puff pieces. Tough call.

If you want to dismiss something you can call it a puff piece and that will satisfy a simple mind that there's nothing there. My questions were more directed to people who can actually consider ideas critically.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can't seriously believe this tripe.

We already spend multitudes more than our military budget in order to address "poverty". I guess we aren't handing it out correctly?

Yes I can. I didn't dismiss it as tripe. I wondered if there is something to it. I am interested in what the truth really is not what I want it to be. Therefore I don't instantly tell myself I'm looking at tripe when I see what may be actual experiments and research that may have taken place. I am skeptical but not blinded by my own assumptions. I look at what waste there is in welfare that this idea might have an answer to, direct hands free gifting to the poor.

 

[BUnit1701]

I'm going to venture a guess that the wrong people have been handing it out. We've got the right people now. Yes, pretty sure of that.

No no, its not that, its that we attached strings, so its no good. You just have to hand them the cash, step back, and watch the prosperity start.

 

[BoberFett]

I fail to see how a mincome experiment works when only a small portion of the population gets it, funded by the rest of the working stiffs who pay into the system but get nothing back. In the Dauphin experiment, it was 30% of the population who then went on to be artists and songwriters. How nice for the 30%. What about the other 70% who still had to do real work to pay for those people to do whatever they wanted?

 

[cubby1223]

There is a HUGE difference between "Here is a one-time handout of $3,000" and "You are guaranteed $2,000 every month for life."

From the article:

If they had any, people reason, they would probably spend it on fast food and cheap beer, not on fruit or education.

All we have to do is look at what people are buying with their link cards. The data is there. It isn't a "I wonder what would happen," the gov't has the data that tells us what is happening.

Life is all about percentages. Some people use handouts as a stepping stone to rebuilding their lives, while others use it as an excuse to be lazy. The only point of contention is where the dividing line is between the two sides.

 

[OCGuy]

Are you actually trying to find work? Are you avoiding twisting the meth pipe or slamming dope between the toes so nobody knows?

If you answered yes to these questions, you are doing welfare wrong.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes I can. I didn't dismiss it as tripe. I wondered if there is something to it. I am interested in what the truth really is not what I want it to be. Therefore I don't instantly tell myself I'm looking at tripe when I see what may be actual experiments and research that may have taken place. I am skeptical but not blinded by my own assumptions. I look at what waste there is in welfare that this idea might have an answer to, direct hands free gifting to the poor.

Oh, well I wouldn't want my terrible "assumptions" to get in the way.

Let's preserve the military budget, slash the other 82% down to $175 billion and watch poverty disappear. What could possibly go wrong!? I mean, it's science right?

My silly conservative-defective brain thinking it wouldn't work.

 

[BoberFett]

You can't seriously believe this tripe.

We already spend multitudes more than our military budget in order to address "poverty". I guess we aren't handing it out correctly?

There's an idiot who claims that $200B/yr could eliminate poverty worldwide. I'm not sure how less than $100/yr per person is going to change the world, but liberals are the party of science, so it must be true...

 

[cubby1223]

There's an idiot who claims that $200B/yr could eliminate poverty worldwide. I'm not sure how less than $100/yr per person is going to change the world, but liberals are the party of science, so it must be true...

it was in the U.S., and ~$900 per person per year.

But analyze the numbers and say it is $900 in increased taxes for 66% of the population, and $1,800 in handouts to the other 33% of the population.

It's money not going to union-driven grocery stores, or specialty grocery stores owned and run my middle-class people, and instead $1,800 spent at Wal*Mart because poor people cannot afford to pay for union labor. And the middle class continues to get squeezed even further. It's more jobs at Wal*Mart, and fewer jobs elsewhere. It's store suppliers squeezed for even more cost reductions due to Wal*Mart, rather than independent stores who work along with suppliers.

Thanks Moonie! You have demonstrated well your skills in thinking things through!

 

[Matt1970]

 

[ivwshane]

You can't seriously believe this tripe.

We already spend multitudes more than our military budget in order to address "poverty". I guess we aren't handing it out correctly?

You do know that social security is paid for right? Including it in a graph of the US budget isn't really honest.

 

[glenn1]

I have always believed that giving people things for free will not help them but here is evidence that I may be mistaken. Perhaps the low self esteem some people express doesn't really mean that their self esteem isn't actually still there:

https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/35246939860-ec3a6c3e

Please remember that like me you have an opinion, but like me, your opinion may be wrong. I see here evidence of things I don't believe and the only conclusion that seems rational to me is that my opinion may be wrong.

The amazing thing about this data is that direct giving of money is cheap in comparison to any other technique to solve this problem.

I have known for years that the truth is hidden by its immediate unlikelihood and this may be just such a truth, so unlikely as to be immediately dismissed. Can our brains get past our assumptions to consider that our notions of how to help people are nuts at present?

If giving it away with no work requirements reduces the amount we spend on welfare then go for it. Indeed I'll demand you do it that way to save taxpayer funds.

 

[stormkroe]

OP, you didn't have to pretend like you used to have a textbook-conservative ideology on welfare and were magically transformed to be our friend.

 

[cubby1223]

You do know that social security is paid for right? Including it in a graph of the US budget isn't really honest.

You've said some stupid shit on this forum before, but I think this one might take the prize.

Within the federal government, money comes in, and money goes out.

Just because there is different headings on why you pay taxes, whether it's income tax, sales tax, ss tax, medicare tax, etc., money in is money in and it all goes to the same place.

And money that goes out is money that goes out.

You don't get to pick and choose what you want to call a part of the budget and what isn't. If it's money being paid out, it is a part of the budget. Just because there is a separate line item on our pay stubs designating an amount for social security, doesn't mean you get to declare it excluded from the budget.

What is your argument? Why is it so important to you to not have Social Security highlighted as a budget item? There is a reason other than "it's paid for" that made you post your response. Just say it. Stop pussyfooting around the edges. Say what you want to say.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You can't seriously believe this tripe.

We already spend multitudes more than our military budget in order to address "poverty". I guess we aren't handing it out correctly?

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day.

Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Teach a man how to make a fire and all that shit.

I obviously don't live in the US. But maybe that money would be better spent encouraging SMEs, R&D, etc. instead of welfare?

Also, almost a quarter of your budget is going toward healthcare, which is completely broken and a completely different issue.

 

[cubby1223]

OP, you didn't have to pretend like you used to have a textbook-conservative ideology on welfare and were magically transformed to be our friend.

Yes, he does have to pretend. He is an attention whore and if he doesn't act this way he wouldn't receive what little attention he can grasp.

 

[LunarRay]

Yes, he does have to pretend. He is an attention whore and if he doesn't act this way he wouldn't receive what little attention he can grasp.

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.]

 

[disappoint]

I like how "All other activities" isn't broken down into "Hookers, Blow, and Yachts for Congress"

 

[ivwshane]

You've said some stupid shit on this forum before, but I think this one might take the prize.

Within the federal government, money comes in, and money goes out.

Just because there is different headings on why you pay taxes, whether it's income tax, sales tax, ss tax, medicare tax, etc., money in is money in and it all goes to the same place.

And money that goes out is money that goes out.

You don't get to pick and choose what you want to call a part of the budget and what isn't. If it's money being paid out, it is a part of the budget. Just because there is a separate line item on our pay stubs designating an amount for social security, doesn't mean you get to declare it excluded from the budget.

What is your argument? Why is it so important to you to not have Social Security highlighted as a budget item? There is a reason other than "it's paid for" that made you post your response. Just say it. Stop pussyfooting around the edges. Say what you want to say.

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.