GOPer: We Must 'Divide And Conquer' People On Public Assistance

[Oldgamer]

"we need to get these people to look down on them" he says..

Then you look at the overwhelming amount of government handouts that go to the top 1% who get Billions in welfare subsidies and don't need them, welfare tax breaks, welfar TARP, and we can thank him (and others like him) for one thing - exposing the under-handed tactics that will prey on members of the disabled community to try to get them to do their dirty work by "looking down" on other Medicaid beneficiaries. Not as stealth as Karl Rove but just as feeble in moral compass department.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

When was this? 2011? Or am I missing something here?

 

[Oldgamer]

Here is a very good video, on who the biggest welfare queens really are. If you don't want to watch the whole thing just skip ahead to 6:38 and find out the obvious about who the biggest welfare user in the country is. http://www.upworthy.com/if-you-thin...ill-you-see-what-really-rich-folks-do-with-it

And another thing I would like to add to this, just how poor do we want the poor to be? I mean people carry on if they see a poor person enjoying a mcdonalds hamburger, or lighting up a smoke, but seriously, do we want them to be so poor, and just hammer the hell out of them anytime they want to just have a brief reprieve from their miserably existence? I don't mind a really poor or disabled, or elderly person being able to once in awhile enjoy a vice, or scrounge a little money to do something for themselves since their life is already hard enough at it is.

It's as if some of you just really want to punish the hell out of the poor, the needy, the disabled, and the elderly.. for what? Being poor? Damn some of you are heartless as hell.

 

[BoberFett]

"we need to get these people to look down on them" he says..

Then you look at the overwhelming amount of government handouts that go to the top 1% who get Billions in welfare subsidies and don't need them, welfare tax breaks, welfar TARP, and we can thank him (and others like him) for one thing - exposing the under-handed tactics that will prey on members of the disabled community to try to get them to do their dirty work by "looking down" on other Medicaid beneficiaries. Not as stealth as Karl Rove but just as feeble in moral compass department.

We should get rid of corporate welfare too.

Glad to see you're on board.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The point is that anecdotes don't mean anything.

Of course some abuse occurs. That will literally never stop being true in any possible system. No business can prevent 100% of theft, they just put in economical measures to make it minimal and anticipate the losses as breakage. Same thing with welfare. There will always be some breakage, which we should work to prevent, but only if it's economical - that's why drug testing for welfare is dumb, because it costs more than it saves. The question is how MUCH and what the cost will be to prevent what remains: not just cost in terms of tax dollars, but cost in terms of legitimately needy people (including, overwhelmingly, children) who don't get what they need.

Do you have actual evidence of high levels of welfare abuse?

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-11-02/6-11find.htm
There's the Department of Labor estimating in 2001 (so a while ago, before any measures resulting from this testimony) that unemployment insurance fraud was 1.9% of payments.

According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkage_(accounting) (citing National Retail Security Survey (2009) University of Florida), "The total shrink percentage of the retail industry in the United States was 1.52% of sales in 2008 according to the University of Florida's, National Retail Security Survey.[1] In Europe, shrinkage was about 1.27% of sales, and the same figure for Asia Pacific was 1.20% according to the Global Retail Theft Barometer 2008.[2]"

So that's pretty reasonable, altogether. Not ideal, obviously, and we can always look at ways of doing better, but hardly a reason to gut the program.


My points are:
1) We should base our society around the principles of serving others above ourselves and being kind and non-judgmental to our neighbors, and
2) Self-professed Christian Republicans are hypocrites.

I think you'd find we actually have a lot of overlap in our views about welfare, but I feel like because I suggested welfare is in need of reform, you're lumping me in with a Republican mindset of welfare. To wit, I never once mentioned drug testing welfare recipients, which I'm opposed to. My biggest concern, and something which BoberFett touched on earlier, is that there are plenty of cases where it is economically advantageous for people to choose welfare over getting a job, and that is a problem that shouldn't be happening.

Let's go with some anecdotal evidence. I have a friend who was in the Army for a number of years and got out after doing a couple tours. He was using the GI Bill to go to college, which is a great resource for veterans. He was also collecting unemployment, which was based around the income he had while in the Army. Eventually, he started looking for work, because he was bored sitting around doing nothing when he wasn't in school, but every job he was qualified for paid significantly less than what he got from unemployment, and if he took a job, his unemployment benefits would end. He was being paid to NOT work even though he would rather have been working. A couple years later, his unemployment runs out, and now there's a two-year gap in his employment history which impacts his ability to get a job ("full-time student" is a decent excuse for not working, but it can still impact your desirability for prospective employers). And he's hardly alone in this; a lot of the guys he served with had similar situations when they came back, where they deliberately avoided working as the pay was less than unemployment benefits post-service.

Obviously we want to provide aid for children in poverty; it's not their fault that they were born into a shitty situation. And it's great that we have resources like the GI Bill that allow servicemen and women to attain an education after military service to gain additional skills and knowledge. But we also have to consider that there are ample opportunities for abuse throughout our welfare system, and that many times just handing someone money is not the best way to improve their overall circumstances. I would like to see something like the GI Bill but for non-military folks, a way to give people job training or access to higher education rather than monthly checks. Give them the tools and incentive to improve their situation, not keep them tied to government resources ad infinitum. Provide better oversight to make sure that people on unemployment are actually seeking work, rather than applying to the bare minimum of jobs required to stay in the program. We have to incentivize people to take responsibility for their own success, and rarely is that accomplished through paying them to stay poor.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

When was this? 2011? Or am I missing something here?

Yup... being drudged up now as he won the GOP nomination for NC yesterda to try and unseat Hagan.

 

[nehalem256]

"we need to get these people to look down on them" he says..

Then you look at the overwhelming amount of government handouts that go to the top 1% who get Billions in welfare subsidies and don't need them, welfare tax breaks, welfar TARP, and we can thank him (and others like him) for one thing - exposing the under-handed tactics that will prey on members of the disabled community to try to get them to do their dirty work by "looking down" on other Medicaid beneficiaries. Not as stealth as Karl Rove but just as feeble in moral compass department.

I have an idea. Lets increase marginal corporate taxes to 100% and counteract this with tax breaks that keep corporate tax revenue the same. Then we can claim all corporate profits are government welfare!

Also, I am not sure how comparing welfare recipients to greedy financial corporations is exactly going to be winning them any friends?

 

[Newell Steamer]

When we do stop taking care of people with cerebral palsy, watching over the elderly and feeding the hungry - can we ensure all those savings go straight to corporations?

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-welfare-tax-breaks-subsidies/

I mean, $154 billion just isn't enough for corporations making billions in profits each year!!

 

[Jimzz]

You're right, it is.

So can I put you down for cutting everything drastically?

Yep, across the board cuts. Everybody should have to feel it at least a little.

ONLY cutting SS will not fix the debt, ONLY cutting DoD will not fix... and so on. Everything should be on the table.

Me and my wife make a good living but are not high enough for the .1% benefits but not low enough to get the low wage benefits. So cutting would not affect us as much, immediately, as many others. That and we save a LOT more % wise than most so even if we both got laid off we would have many years before we went broke.

 

[Jhhnn]

Depends, are they living that way because of something outside their control, or are they able bodied and just not willing to do what is needed to earn their keep?

As if there are jobs for everybody seeking them.

Where are those great & wonderful Job Creators!, anyway?

For anybody with a lick of sense, the usual right wing shaming & blaming falls apart in the absence of enough jobs to go around.

Oh, wait... I did reference "anybody with a lick of sense" which rules out the usual ravers entirely.

 

[BoberFett]

As if there are jobs for everybody seeking them.

Where are those great & wonderful Job Creators!, anyway?

For anybody with a lick of sense, the usual right wing shaming & blaming falls apart in the absence of enough jobs to go around.

Oh, wait... I did reference "anybody with a lick of sense" which rules out the usual ravers entirely.

What company have you started, and how many people does it employ?

 

[marincounty]

I agree that having unemployment or disability or welfare payments being larger than a paycheck is a problem.
The solution is not a race to the bottom by reducing benefits, but to incentivise work by increasing wages. Too much of the revenue goes to shareholders and executives, and a little trickles down to the workers. Wages have been stagnant for years.

 

[hal2kilo]

They just won't tell them that they are really cutting their own throats.
Like the cut backs will only happen to the least deserving. I wonder who will be on those panels?

 

[Zaap]

What company have you started, and how many people does it employ?

I'm guessing Whiny Shitheads INC, specializing in posting whiny drivel to internet forums and bitching about "the rich". Anyone who shows up with no skills, a complete inablitiy to do for self, and lots of pent up leftist emo-rage is hired instantly. $40+ an hour just to sit around spamming forums all day. Several WSI employees clearly work this forum.

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
It's not that this is an absolute principle, it's that I don't believe that it's a substantial reality. We have work requirements, cut-offs, and a million other checks on welfare. Yes, there's absolutely some waste and corruption in any system ever designed by man, but at some point you just have to accept that. I think efforts to fight this "problem" of lazy welfare recipients is at best irrational, and at worst cynical code for punishing the poor to feel better about ourselves, and additional cuts to welfare will hurt vastly more genuinely needy people than it will somehow incentivize the "lazy" to make "good" choices.

SNIP

Obama removed the work requirements. The safety net is once more a hammock.

You can't get blood out of a turnip. When you reward people for making babies, it should come as no surprise that people are making babies.

Yep. If one is a poor and uneducated woman, having illegitimate children is the one surefire way to get her own apartment and income.

I think you'd find we actually have a lot of overlap in our views about welfare, but I feel like because I suggested welfare is in need of reform, you're lumping me in with a Republican mindset of welfare. To wit, I never once mentioned drug testing welfare recipients, which I'm opposed to. My biggest concern, and something which BoberFett touched on earlier, is that there are plenty of cases where it is economically advantageous for people to choose welfare over getting a job, and that is a problem that shouldn't be happening.

Let's go with some anecdotal evidence. I have a friend who was in the Army for a number of years and got out after doing a couple tours. He was using the GI Bill to go to college, which is a great resource for veterans. He was also collecting unemployment, which was based around the income he had while in the Army. Eventually, he started looking for work, because he was bored sitting around doing nothing when he wasn't in school, but every job he was qualified for paid significantly less than what he got from unemployment, and if he took a job, his unemployment benefits would end. He was being paid to NOT work even though he would rather have been working. A couple years later, his unemployment runs out, and now there's a two-year gap in his employment history which impacts his ability to get a job ("full-time student" is a decent excuse for not working, but it can still impact your desirability for prospective employers). And he's hardly alone in this; a lot of the guys he served with had similar situations when they came back, where they deliberately avoided working as the pay was less than unemployment benefits post-service.

Obviously we want to provide aid for children in poverty; it's not their fault that they were born into a shitty situation. And it's great that we have resources like the GI Bill that allow servicemen and women to attain an education after military service to gain additional skills and knowledge. But we also have to consider that there are ample opportunities for abuse throughout our welfare system, and that many times just handing someone money is not the best way to improve their overall circumstances. I would like to see something like the GI Bill but for non-military folks, a way to give people job training or access to higher education rather than monthly checks. Give them the tools and incentive to improve their situation, not keep them tied to government resources ad infinitum. Provide better oversight to make sure that people on unemployment are actually seeking work, rather than applying to the bare minimum of jobs required to stay in the program. We have to incentivize people to take responsibility for their own success, and rarely is that accomplished through paying them to stay poor.

Well said indeed, sir. The more people working, the better off the society. (Or at least up until retirement age and until we hit people for whom working would be an actual physical struggle for reasons beyond their control; one could make a point that employment beyond those levels is the sign of a poor society.) Yet providing these incentives is extremely difficult. Without going back to a tariff system, I don't see how unskilled people can compete with third world labor and be better off than on welfare. Even just setting up a system which meets the minimum needs of people who must be on assistance but leaves a gap between them and people working is extremely difficult, especially on a national level.

 

[Zaap]

Too much of the revenue goes to shareholders and executives, and a little trickles down to the workers.

Lets see a list of all these companies who have larger percentage of earnings paid out as dividends to shareholders than they have operating expenses paying for labor. For once, put up.

I want to see this list (as does every other investor on the planet) so I can get in on investing my money with these companies.

 

[nehalem256]

Yep. If one is a poor and uneducated woman, having illegitimate children is the one surefire way to get her own apartment and income.

No problem. Just define having several bastard children with different incarcerated felons as not abuse! No abuse of the system found!

 

[Victorian Gray]

Strikes me that if welfare in the U.S. is such a good life then all the people bitching are acting in a totally irrational manner. Rather than complaining you should all be lining up to get on this great gravy train. Free big screen tv's, new Cadilacs, t-bone steaks and champagne for all, amirite!

Seriously, if it's that easy to live the good a life why does anyone bother? The welfare offices should have daily lineups that go for blocks with people clamoring for the 'good life'.

 

[werepossum]

Strikes me that if welfare in the U.S. is such a good life then all the people bitching are acting in a totally irrational manner. Rather than complaining you should all be lining up to get on this great gravy train. Free big screen tv's, new Cadilacs, t-bone steaks and champagne for all, amirite!

Seriously, if it's that easy to live the good a life why does anyone bother? The welfare offices should have daily lineups that go for blocks with people clamoring for the 'good life'.

By that argument we should have no problem with thieves as long as the thieves aren't stealing enough to have a really good life.

 

[cubby1223]

I do, aside from the first sentence. Otherwise it's disgusting and completely out of touch with reality. Nobody (or at most a tiny, statistically insignificant amount of people, since in a large enough population there will be SOMEONE to fit any description) chooses to depend on government and doesn't want something better for their life. There's not always an opportunity for something better. This is just another way for 'just world fallacy' zealots who rig the economic system in their own favor to blame and spit on those at the losing end of that system.

It's also deeply unchristian, not that any Republicans care about something piddling like that.

There are a lot of people, sure they don't explicitly choose to be dependent on government, they just choose to live their life taking advantage of scamming the system and "working" as many government handouts as they can.

All you're doing is nit-picking words, such that it just needs to be phrased more accurately to your liking then your argument no longer holds.

 

[BoberFett]

Strikes me that if welfare in the U.S. is such a good life then all the people bitching are acting in a totally irrational manner. Rather than complaining you should all be lining up to get on this great gravy train. Free big screen tv's, new Cadilacs, t-bone steaks and champagne for all, amirite!

Seriously, if it's that easy to live the good a life why does anyone bother? The welfare offices should have daily lineups that go for blocks with people clamoring for the 'good life'.

That argument is old and tired. Try again.

 

[Jhhnn]

What company have you started, and how many people does it employ?

Nice attempted duh-version. Your "question" is immaterial.

 

[BoberFett]

Nice attempted duh-version. Your "question" is immaterial.

Just wanted to see what kind of big bad job creator you were. The answer, as expected, is none.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm guessing Whiny Shitheads INC, specializing in posting whiny drivel to internet forums and bitching about "the rich". Anyone who shows up with no skills, a complete inablitiy to do for self, and lots of pent up leftist emo-rage is hired instantly. $40+ an hour just to sit around spamming forums all day. Several WSI employees clearly work this forum.

I thought you were talking about yourself until you got to the leftist part...

Whiney shitheads? Review the posts & the topic, sir. The legislator in the OP is doing the whining, along with his sycophants here... Whining about how the powerless are ruining America, scapegoating the weak for the actions of the powerful.

 

[Oldgamer]

I thought you were talking about yourself until you got to the leftist part...

Whiney shitheads? Review the posts & the topic, sir. The legislator in the OP is doing the whining, along with his sycophants here... Whining about how the powerless are ruining America, scapegoating the weak for the actions of the powerful.

+1000