Did I get welfare wrong??????

[MagickMan]

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

lol...

More BS from this worthless PoS. You plan to take responsibility for their deaths? I'm sure the security people that the millionaires employ won't have issues with shooting some armed hobos.

Still waiting for you to go hunting rich people so you can "pillage" their estates, or are you just a loudmouthed coward?

 

[Abraxas]

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.

Let's pretend for a moment everyone has 350 that they can use for something like that. How do you propose they line up these apartments in distant cities? Do they just show up and wander in off the streets in the hopes they find an apartment the first day? Do they have a job lined up already so they can have a second month's rent? Are they leaving behind all their families or do they need bus tickets for them as well? I'm sure a few people have made a similar arrangement work but you can't seriously be pretending that $350 and a dream is going to be a working model for large numbers of people to escape generational poverty.

 

[Incorruptible]

More BS from this worthless PoS. You plan to take responsibility for their deaths? I'm sure the security people that the millionaires employ won't have issues with shooting some armed hobos.

Still waiting for you to go hunting rich people so you can "pillage" their estates, or are you just a loudmouthed coward?

He is nothing but a coward. He advocates killing them yet he is too much of a coward and wants others to do it.

 

[Orignal Earl]

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.

Capitalists on the coasts kept screaming that everybody in the dust bowl should just up and leave too. The 20% that left to seek fortune elsewhere were treated like shit everywhere they went. The 80% that stayed with the help of socialism, turned the desertification around and saved like most of America

 

[cubby1223]

Capitalists on the coasts kept screaming that everybody in the dust bowl should just up and leave too. The 20% that left to seek fortune elsewhere were treated like shit everywhere they went. The 80% that stayed with the help of socialism, turned the desertification around and saved like most of America

Wow that comment of yours was mighty stupid!

The plains supply a necessary resource that is in demand to the rest of the country, to the rest of the world. The land just needed to be worked and the weather return to normal.

Poor people living in poor sections of cities, have no resources that are in demand elsewhere.

What do they have? What resource is there that they can use to their advantage and sell to other people for income?

You made the comments. You made the comparison. It's time for you to show you can actually think your arguments through to the end.

 

[Matt1970]

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.

So now it's about location. Got it.

 

[Abraxas]

So now it's about location. Got it.

I know this is difficult for someone with your limited mental hardware to grasp but poverty and welfare are complex problems that have a lot of contributing factors, including geography. Shocking, I know.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Wow that comment of yours was mighty stupid!

The plains supply a necessary resource that is in demand to the rest of the country, to the rest of the world. The land just needed to be worked and the weather return to normal.

Poor people living in poor sections of cities, have no resources that are in demand elsewhere.

What do they have? What resource is there that they can use to their advantage and sell to other people for income?

You made the comments. You made the comparison. It's time for you to show you can actually think your arguments through to the end.

The inner cities are like the deserts that greed created. The desert had no value either. It took a lot of work and years, and help from the gov to turn it around.
You hold the same stance that rich folk on the coast held. It's not worth it, let it die .
Luckily , lots of people were able to think it though

 

[Matt1970]

I know this is difficult for someone with your limited mental hardware to grasp but poverty and welfare are complex problems that have a lot of contributing factors, including geography. Shocking, I know.

They are complex problems that are not solved by just throwing money at them. I guess it takes someone with "limited mental hardware to grasp"

 

[Abraxas]

They are complex problems that are not solved by just throwing money at them. I guess it takes someone with "limited mental hardware to grasp"

Please, explain to me how you intend to solve poverty without spending any money. I'll wait.

 

[Matt1970]

They are complex problems that are not solved by just throwing money at them

 

[spittledip]

It really probably depends on who the money is given to. There is such a stigma associated with welfare that it is probably very difficult to not take on a certain view of oneself when having to get on welfare. There also is a welfare culture that alot of kids grow up in, so being on welfare is the "normal" thing for them. Sure, they might have some desire to get off of it, but only the strong ones can pull away. Often times the weak ones who end up staying on welfare will ridicule those who are able to break away b/c the fact that some are able to break away implies there is some deficiency with those who do not. It is a vicious thing.

I suppose a new program could be helpful for new recipients b/c it would have the opportunity to avoid that "welfare stigma" that is partially responsible for keeping people down.

A really huge problem is the American independent, self-sufficient attitude. Hand-out programs really fly in the face of this mentality. I think that possibly for the same reason that those who are stuck in the system ridicule those attempting to free themselves, those who are outside the system ridicule the system itself b/c it challenges the identity that they hold so dear. I think if all people realized how needy they really are, things like hand-out programs would not be such a big deal.

The independent mentality is a real sickness. Not that it is bad to be independent, but to be independent to the point that you significantly isolate yourself from those around you and you block out the potential that you might have other needs that you in your self-sufficiency can't meet.

 

[Incorruptible]

Please, explain to me how you intend to solve poverty without spending any money. I'll wait.

So you want to spend other peoples money on poverty?

 

[Victorian Gray]

They are complex problems that are not solved by just throwing money at them

And who has proposed "just throwing money at them"? Give us some names and examples of where/when that's been proposed.

 

[Matt1970]

And who has proposed "just throwing money at them"? Give us some names and examples of where/when that's been proposed.

/facepalm......

 

[HeXen]

America before Welfare:

After Welfare:

Yep, looks like America's future would be much better off without it.

 

[shady28]

..

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?

Here's the problem with most of the assumptions that are occurring here. For one, we already give money to people - link cards etc. So why isn't that working???

This experiment was a one time lump sum.

Once you spend it, you're done. You're back on the street, homeless, if you didn't make good use of it. And you may never have another shot.

I would support that for all entitlement programs.

Hell, make it $25,000. Ok, we see you have had no income for X amount of time, you have no assets, and you've been living on the street for X+ years.

Fine, here's $25k. You're on your own now. You can't get 25k again for 25 years. But you can do whatever you want with that 25k.

Yep, I would support that, absolutely.

However, if you are trying to use that to mean a permanent monthly stipend - nope, that is not what that experiment showed. That's what we have now and it does not work.

 

[Moonbeam]

Here's the problem with most of the assumptions that are occurring here. For one, we already give money to people - link cards etc. So why isn't that working???

This experiment was a one time lump sum.

Once you spend it, you're done. You're back on the street, homeless, if you didn't make good use of it. And you may never have another shot.

I would support that for all entitlement programs.

Hell, make it $25,000. Ok, we see you have had no income for X amount of time, you have no assets, and you've been living on the street for X+ years.

Fine, here's $25k. You're on your own now. You can't get 25k again for 25 years. But you can do whatever you want with that 25k.

Yep, I would support that, absolutely.

However, if you are trying to use that to mean a permanent monthly stipend - nope, that is not what that experiment showed. That's what we have now and it does not work.

My interest is in whether this experiment actually worked as advertised and if so is it better than what we are doing at present. I said nothing about a monthly stipend. You can see all the brain dead dismiss any possibility of this working as opinions that come from their asses. I feel pretty much the same way but I and while I think people don't value what they get for free, I could possibly be wrong. If real world data were to proves that true I need to change my mind not try to distort reality to say what I think it means.

 

[spittledip]

The inner cities are like the deserts that greed created. The desert had no value either. It took a lot of work and years, and help from the gov to turn it around.
You hold the same stance that rich folk on the coast held. It's not worth it, let it die .
Luckily , lots of people were able to think it though

Actually this is a pretty good analogy... and probably a replication of sorts of the situation we have presently with welfare. Unfortunately I think the welfare situation might be a lot more complex making it more difficult to treat. We aren't dealing with weather and people abusing the soil, we are dealing with people.

 

[Abraxas]

And who has proposed "just throwing money at them"? Give us some names and examples of where/when that's been proposed.

Be careful, Matt spent literally minutes creating that straw man, wouldn't want you to go and break it.

 

[Incorruptible]

Welfare costs the taxpayer a lot of money and it's a waste. You don't have a right to other peoples money and the real solution to poverty is jobs.

 

[Abraxas]

Welfare costs the taxpayer a lot of money and it's a waste. You don't have a right to other peoples money and the real solution to poverty is jobs.

Listen, the whole moron rightwinger persona is played out here. I'll give you points for persistence but you aren't funny, you aren't creative, you aren't original. I have to imagine at this point pissing into a swamp isn't even as entertaining for you as it used to be. I doubt anyone here really takes you seriously anymore after you called Obama "boy" and then feigned ignorance as to why people considered racist so at this point you probably aren't even getting the satisfaction of fooling people. Isn't there some other board out there on the whole wide internet you can go and annoy instead of P&N where the lunatic frothing 12 year old act might be novel?

 

[Moonbeam]

Welfare costs the taxpayer a lot of money and it's a waste. You don't have a right to other peoples money and the real solution to poverty is jobs.

Welfare saves the taxpayer a lot of money and benefits society. It is paid out of taxes and the tax man has a right your money. The real solution to poverty is money. There, do you see how stupid you are?

 

[Abraxas]

They are complex problems that are not solved by just throwing money at them

Perhaps you could clarify why everyone else is "just throwing money at it" when they propose spending but when you admit spending would be required it is somehow not?

 

[shady28]

My interest is in whether this experiment actually worked as advertised and if so is it better than what we are doing at present. I said nothing about a monthly stipend. You can see all the brain dead dismiss any possibility of this working as opinions that come from their asses. I feel pretty much the same way but I and while I think people don't value what they get for free, I could possibly be wrong. If real world data were to proves that true I need to change my mind not try to distort reality to say what I think it means.

Change your mind to what?

The experiment shows some percentage of homeless people 1 year later will no longer be homeless given some resources to pull themselves up. I think the article said 30%.

How many of those 30% would no longer have been homeless 1 year later without help?

How many become homeless again within 5 years?

And what do we do with the 70%?

Lots of unanswered questions.

In this test, they all knew it was a test - as such it was a one time deal.

I seriously doubt any such program turned "official" would be a one time deal.