Government Welfare State: Creating Dependency

[bshole]

Personally I think it is completely wrongheaded to allow able-bodied people to remain on public assistance indefinitely

Ok, you throw them off of public assistance. If they are unable to find a job, they then either quietly starve to death OR resort to violence against innocent civillians to get food. We tried this once before and it was pretty damn ugly, that is why public assistance was started in the first place. Apparently ordinary citizens didn't like seeing the unemployed starving to death on the street.

 

[brandonb]

I have not looked at the numbers for the fast-food restaurants.

But for Walmart say I think 90%+ of the costs are for inventory. Which means even if you doubled wages the cost of goods would go up less than 10%.

The operating margin for Walmart is ~6%?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_margin

That's not high. That means 6% is left to pay for rent, bills, taxes, etc after paying their employees. I haven't looked at their numbers, but I'm guessing a $3+ raise an hr would make Walmart take a loss.

Edit - I looked at their numbers, they have 2.2 million employees.

 

[jackstar7]

Anecdotes: The only kind of evidence that the internet demands.

 

[nehalem256]

The operating margin for Walmart is ~6%?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_margin

That's not high. I haven't looked at their numbers, but I'm guessing a $3+ raise an hr would make Walmart take a loss.

Edit - I looked at their numbers, they have 2.2 million employees.

I understand Walmart has slim operating margins. That is why I said RAISE THEIR PRICES. In which Walmart would keep the same prices.

I also understand that it gets very complicated because if Walmart raises there prices and Target doesn't people will stop shopping at Walmart.

But I think there is a fair case to be made that in the cost equation of Capital + raw materials + labor that labor has been devalued too much.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Anecdotes: The only kind of evidence that the internet demands.

Funny, most of life is anecdotes. Like when NY decided to have close to 200 million given out as a one time check to families on medicaid with school age kids for the purpose of buying school supplies. Stores ran out of alcohol, ATMs went dry, HDTVs flew off the shelf, and this was reported by multiple sources. What was left? School supplies. Our then governor said it couldn't be true, that the dozens of sources including reputable businesses and articles were anecdotal, inferring they were not true. On the internet that might be so, but again not in life. Working in the inner city and hearing how people are congratulated for becoming pregnant so they can get a larger check is also anecdotal, and completely true and too often the case.

 

[Incorruptible]

Ok, you throw them off of public assistance. If they are unable to find a job, they then either quietly starve to death OR resort to violence against innocent civillians to get food. We tried this once before and it was pretty damn ugly, that is why public assistance was started in the first place. Apparently ordinary citizens didn't like seeing the unemployed starving to death on the street.

Nice fear mongering. Welfare must be ended and we would save billions of tax dollars. You dont have the right to someone elses money.

 

[iLL_Skillz]

Ok, you throw them off of public assistance. If they are unable to find a job, they then either quietly starve to death OR resort to violence against innocent civillians to get food. We tried this once before and it was pretty damn ugly, that is why public assistance was started in the first place. Apparently ordinary citizens didn't like seeing the unemployed starving to death on the street.

OR you and other like-minded individuals donate to charities or volunteer to help these people yourselves. The idea that if the Government doesn't provide assitance that none will be provided, is a fallacy. Take the responsibility away from the government, and give the people their own money back. Then, if you care so much about the unemployed (or any other cause for that matter), then YOU can spend YOUR resources to fix the problems as YOU wish.

 

[JEDI]

"Somebody need to pay for my 15 kids" is just an example. She clearly thinks its everyone else's responsibility. This is only possible because government has provided a way for her to extort support from others. How many food stamps do you think she is getting? Free housing? Utilities? Healthcare? It wouldn't matter if it was just one of these because it legitimizes the constant pillaging of your paycheck to provide for those who will not help themselves, but honestly, why should they? With this system in place it encourages more of this behavior not less.

forced birth control for those on welfare and SSI.

or go the carrot route: 1/2% more per month if u get a birth control shot for every month u do it. far cheaper than the gov paying for a kid for 18yrs

obviously males cant get the extra 1% since theres no effective male shot

 

[mistercrabby]

What's the difference between that woman and this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting

Values. Not rich or poor. Values.

I'm so glad everyone agrees. (-;

 

[NoStateofMind]

OR you and other like-minded individuals donate to charities or volunteer to help these people yourselves. The idea that if the Government doesn't provide assitance that none will be provided, is a fallacy. Take the responsibility away from the government, and give the people their own money back. Then, if you care so much about the unemployed (or any other cause for that matter), then YOU can spend YOUR resources to fix the problems as YOU wish.

This.

 

[nehalem256]

What's the difference between that woman and this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting

Values. Not rich or poor. Values.

I'm so glad everyone agrees. (-;

She isn't on welfare and her children are not bastards from 3 fathers

 

[jackstar7]

OR you and other like-minded individuals donate to charities or volunteer to help these people yourselves. The idea that if the Government doesn't provide assitance that none will be provided, is a fallacy. Take the responsibility away from the government, and give the people their own money back. Then, if you care so much about the unemployed (or any other cause for that matter), then YOU can spend YOUR resources to fix the problems as YOU wish.

So you want no shared responsibility, or is it just for the ideas and projects you personally approve of?

I find value in the safety net and vote for people who preserve it.

It's a society, if you don't want to be part of it, I am sure you have plenty of options to leave it all behind.

 

[nehalem256]

So you want no shared responsibility, or is it just for the ideas and projects you personally approve of?

I find value in the safety net and vote for people who preserve it.

It's a society, if you don't want to be part of it, I am sure you have plenty of options to leave it all behind.

Actually I think that is what liberals want. That is why they are willing to allow animals to pop out children with baby daddy after baby daddy without imposing any responsibility on those people.

 

[Incorruptible]

So you want no shared responsibility, or is it just for the ideas and projects you personally approve of?

I find value in the safety net and vote for people who preserve it.

It's a society, if you don't want to be part of it, I am sure you have plenty of options to leave it all behind.

Its people like you who are whats wrong with the country. You dont have a right to someone elses money. Abolish welfare and private charity would take over and do a much better job while not using force and stealing from hard working people.

But no you would prefer the government use force to steal from one group of people to give to another in order to make them dependent and get votes.

 

[Svnla]

What's the difference between that woman and this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting

Values. Not rich or poor. Values.

I'm so glad everyone agrees. (-;

The family from the link is not on welfare/food stamp/various freebies programs. They also did not say "somebody need to pay for my "<fill in the blank> number of" kids from "<fill in the blank> number of deadbeat "daddies". Michelle has all of her kids by one husband, Jim, not from several different daddies (note that I did not say husbands).

 

[iLL_Skillz]

So you want no shared responsibility, or is it just for the ideas and projects you personally approve of?

I find value in the safety net and vote for people who preserve it.

It's a society, if you don't want to be part of it, I am sure you have plenty of options to leave it all behind.

You find value in a safety net. Rally people to your cause and help provide one. Use your own values to determine how it is run. If you come up with a particularly useful method, I may even donate.

I will say that I am not opposed to a basic safety net at the state/local for those truly on hard times, for temporary relief to help get them back on their feet. I am opposed to federal beaurocrocies and regulations that are inefficient and provide indefinite benefits at great cost.

Many current programs are not strictly authorized under the Constitution. If "society" truly wants Congress to have these powers, then pass an amendment to grant them.

 

[jackstar7]

Its people like you who are whats wrong with the country. You dont have a right to someone elses money. Abolish welfare and private charity would take over and do a much better job while not using force and stealing from hard working people.

But no you would prefer the government use force to steal from one group of people to give to another in order to make them dependent and get votes.

I don't want anyone else's money. I want the government to have the money it needs to serve the citizenry in all the ways we've decided are important: militarily, financially, and otherwise. Those representatives who pursue shared responsibilities that I do not agree with do not get my vote.

You want an oligarchy...or anarchy, and I'm not for either of those.

But hey, thanks for your opinion and for not referring to your fellow citizens as "animals" with derision.

 

[jackstar7]

You find value in a safety net. Rally people to your cause and help provide one. Use your own values to determine how it is run. If you come up with a particularly useful method, I may even donate.

I will say that I am not opposed to a basic safety net at the state/local for those truly on hard times, for temporary relief to help get them back on their feet. I am opposed to federal beaurocrocies and regulations that are inefficient and provide indefinite benefits at great cost.

Many current programs are not strictly authorized under the Constitution. If "society" truly wants Congress to have these powers, then pass an amendment to grant them.

You can take them to court. I'm sure if you have a case there are lawyers who would love to sue the government.

 

[iLL_Skillz]

You can take them to court. I'm sure if you have a case there are lawyers who would love to sue the government.

Obviously my last comment is not realistic in the current landscape, due to many reasons, including a populace that is largely ignorant of the true meaning of the Constitution and the ideals it upholds, as well as a federal government whose only insentive is to grow in scope and power.

 

[Midwayman]

Ok, you throw them off of public assistance. If they are unable to find a job, they then either quietly starve to death OR resort to violence against innocent civillians to get food. We tried this once before and it was pretty damn ugly, that is why public assistance was started in the first place. Apparently ordinary citizens didn't like seeing the unemployed starving to death on the street.

Maybe they can find a coyote to get them into Canada?

 

[Aikouka]

There is essentially no cost of living increase that would help this woman. And while we may "need" the poor I think we could get by on a lot less of them.

I hesitate to call women like this "people". I mean did you miss the part where:

http://theothermccain.com/2012/07/0...r-the-man-who-fathered-10-of-her-15-children/

So not only can she not feed her children, but she cannot even raise them to be semi-decent human beings.

I didn't miss anything, but to be fair, I consider this woman to be a rather extreme outlier. Social assistance does get abused by people, but that doesn't mean that everyone abuses it. It's really a bummer that everyone on social assistance gets painted with the same brush just because of poor examples like this woman. :\

 

[bshole]

The idea that if the Government doesn't provide assitance that none will be provided, is a fallacy.

Is that really true? During the Great Depression, before we had safety nets....

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/children_depression/depression_children_menu.cfm

President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent

.

More than 200,000 vagrant children wandered the country as a result of the breakup of their families.

This is what happened in the not too distant past when there was no safety net. Charity obviously did not pick up ALL the slack. The Great Depression was the impetus for the safety net. Americans of that time were appalled at the human misery they saw all around them and the government responded to their concerns.


Since the attitude of all Republicans appears to be that those on welfare are "animals", it is really difficult to see how charity would be able to fill the void.

That is why they are willing to allow animals to pop out children with baby daddy after baby daddy without imposing any responsibility on those people.

Those supporting the abolishment of welfare would do well to remember that many of those on welfare right now OWN GUNS. If you think they are going to sit passively by and starve, I think you are sadly mistaken. I am sure alot of nice middle class whites will be victimized (and perhaps murdered) if such legislation passes. It would be like the war on drugs X 3.

Most importantly, welfare is not fiscally breaking America. Social security and medicare are. The numbers are staggering.

The unfunded liablity for medicare/prescription drugs/ss is currently $123 trillion (more than 1 million dollars per taxpayer).

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[nehalem256]

I didn't miss anything, but to be fair, I consider this woman to be a rather extreme outlier. Social assistance does get abused by people, but that doesn't mean that everyone abuses it. It's really a bummer that everyone on social assistance gets painted with the same brush just because of poor examples like this woman. :\

Well take this other example from NPR:

Take the case of 29-year-old Jennifer Stepp, who lives in Reading, Pa. Like 14 million other people in the U.S. who live in families headed by single mothers, she's poor. And she faces incredible odds.

Stepp has three children by three different fathers. The father of her eldest child, 10-year-old Isaiah, is serving 30 years in federal prison for armed robbery.

"He's met my son one time, when he was a baby. And he decided that he didn't want him," she says.

Stepp's middle child, 8-year-old Shyanne, usually sees her father every other weekend. But the father of her younger son is also in prison. Stepp says he's been behind bars for selling cocaine since she was pregnant. He has never met 1-year-old Makai.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103593/to-beat-odds-poor-single-moms-need-wide-safety-net

This is a woman that NPR (hardly a right-wing rag) decided to profile presumably to drum up support for poor single mothers.

The woman has 3 Bastard children from 3 fathers (2 of whom are in prison).

Is she really much better than the woman from the OP?

 

[jackstar7]

Obviously my last comment is not realistic in the current landscape, due to many reasons, including a populace that is largely ignorant of the true meaning of the Constitution and the ideals it upholds, as well as a federal government whose only insentive is to grow in scope and power.

How unfortunate that we only have you knowing the real truth of the Constitution.

Curse your powerlessness!

 

[bshole]

How unfortunate that we only have you knowing the real truth of the Constitution.

Curse your powerlessness!

For whatever reason, I found this laugh out loud funny. Are you a writer for Jon Stewart or something?