I get conservative guys point about public assistance

[Jaskalas]

Yeah however it still doesn't address why a Mother hopes her twins are autistic so she can get $1200 in benefits to pay bills.
a) what a horrible thing to want
b) shouldn't the $1200 be spent on treatment not telecom & furniture debt?

I address it by agreeing that our current "welfare" system has failed us, and I propose its replacement.
Capitalism needs a social safety net, just not the one we have today.

 

[kinev]

I'm within spitting distance of the federal poverty line and still give about a third of my after tax income to a human trafficking survivor friend of mine. Nice try, asshole, but you've just run into one of the few people who can actually make this argument and not be a total hypocrite. I suspect I survive on something like $8,500-$9,000 a year when all is said and done. Never ran the exact numbers, but that's a fair estimate given my expenses.

I know, I know, you've ever run into anyone else who can say this. Sorry to burst your sanctimonious bubble. This computer, by the way, is scrap from work; I got permission to take it.

Oh, I assumed you consisted on a meager salary (hence the examples I gave of a social worker and a 1BR apartment). I'll accuse you of being a hypocrite when you act like a raging hypocrite. Everyone can give more; we just do the cost-benefit analysis (stock ticker) to decide when we've given enough. The federal poverty line (which I assume your above or you would have said "below" and not "within spitting distance") is $13,860. Let's go with that, even though your salary is probably higher...spitting distance, remember. Making $13,860 puts you in the top 9.78% of richest people in the world according to http://www.globalrichlist.com/ . Assuming $9,000...you're still in the top 16.98%. Why don't you give half of that $9,000 away to international charities? Someone as giving as you, a woman that TRULY cares about the value of people, would still be one of the top 25.02% richest people in the world with $4,500/year? I can send you the bank account routing number or paypal of a vetted, international charity that could do so much with the other half of your take home! Think of all of the people that you could save! After all, you TRULY care compared to all of the people that you made unfair generalizations about. That computer you're on that you got permission to scrap from work...think of the poor people who don't even have a job to scrap a computer from! Don't they deserve a computer, too? I'm sure someone would be willing to take it and put it to good use because you care so much. Do you know what a luxury frozen ground turkey would be to someone in sub-Saharan Africa? And FROZEN?!?! You have a freezer? That puts you above 73% of the households in India in 2014 (http://www.economist.com/news/inter...chilled-food-changing-lives-cool-developments). Don't you truly care about those millions of people? Why don't you sell your freezer to help them? You care, right? It's all about helping people and not the smugness of spending other people's money, right?

What about the teacher in Ethiopia who you make 4 times the salary of (http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/economy/davos/global-wage-calculator/)? If you weren't a hypocrite, you'd send that $4,500 to her and others like her. But, we both know you won't, and you just use that little stock ticker inside your own chest to determine that doing that is going too far with your own charity (which I agree with you, it is, but you judge others for coming to the same conclusion). Much easier to use other people's money and then use a feeble attempt at a guilt trip to say that you're better than they are. You doubled down on your own supposed superior generosity because, like I said, that's your identity. Everyone has a limit on the charity that they're willing to give; even you. Those "soulless", "dark", "diseased", "inhuman", "sociopathic" conservatives that you deride are just a reflection of your own decisions, although they have the self-awareness to recognize it. You do not. Oh, and they give more to charity, too... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html http://ijr.com/2015/03/276715-diffe...tives-demonstrated-one-simple-powerful-story/ http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I address it by agreeing that our current "welfare" system has failed us, and I propose its replacement.
Capitalism needs a social safety net, just not the one we have today.

Apologies I misunderstood

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Aaaaaaand welcome to the ignore list, Kinev. I'm not even going to dignify that pile of false analogies, non-sequiturs, and outright deception (e.g., the conservatives give more absolute dollars, but it's mostly to their own churches, and that study doesn't track the actual benefit to the needy...) with the point by point deconstruction it's begging for. This is so amateur it feels like I wasted my time even replying...

 

[Jhhnn]

The flip side is that we are all poor. Would having no billionaires to to point our fingers at make it better? I'm not for tax breaks for the rich, I believe in a progressive tax system, they should be taxed hire, and the loopholes removed. But the anger because we have wealthy people is misguided.

I get upset by the self righteous moralizing & the whining about somebody else gets something that the whiner doesn't get. I get upset for white-knighting unfathomable greed at the top. It's completely out of control. What use does a mega billionaire have for more money other than power? How's that trickle down economic theory working out for everyday Americans? You know, like a quarter of Pemiscot county that lives in poverty?

 

[jackstar7]

If you want to make choices and hold positions based on anecdotes, that's your choice.

But you can make better choices by looking at larger pools of data and you don't even need to bring empathy into the equation. You can be totally self-interested and still see the value in social safety nets being expanded, not retracted.

 

[crashtech]

If you want to make choices and hold positions based on anecdotes, that's your choice.

But you can make better choices by looking at larger pools of data and you don't even need to bring empathy into the equation. You can be totally self-interested and still see the value in social safety nets being expanded, not retracted.

There does look to be a serious problem of diminishing returns; the poverty level has been relatively constant despite dramatic increases in inflation adjusted dollars:

Hopefully there can be devised more effective means of lifting people out of poverty than just throwing money and benefits at them, the current strategy is a demonstrably less efficient every year.

http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html

 

[edcoolio]

When it only takes the work of 1% of the population to support the automation to supply 100% of the needs of the population how is the other 99% going to afford to live with no work?

• UBI
• Prison
• Let em die and decrease the surplus population
• Revolution

I'll leave it to the reader to determine which if these are the conservative and liberal view points.

The "liberal and conservative" viewpoints do not matter. It is, always has been, and always will be, an issue of politically expedient socioeconomic control. Did it ever really matter to the little guy if you lived under the leftist dictatorship of Stalin vs the rightist dictatorship of Hitler?? Of course not. You were totally screwed in either case.

It isn't about work. Cars or houses. Or any such other nonsense. It is about:

Food

Potable Water

Once 1% of the population completely controls these two things, they will control the other 99%.

Food and water are the ultimate weapons... and the 1% knows it.

 

[edcoolio]

There does look to be a serious problem of diminishing returns; the poverty level has been relatively constant despite dramatic increases in inflation adjusted dollars:

Hopefully there can be devised more effective means of lifting people out of poverty than just throwing money and benefits at them, the current strategy is a demonstrably less efficient every year.

http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html

I'm thinking that graph you showed probably has more to do with the above than with ROI of USA Welfare programs. Purchasing power decreases, so you have to give more money (that is worth less) to purchase the same necessities of life.

Your graph does, however, show success in STABILIZING the poverty rate at between 10% and 15%.

This sounds more reasonable when put into context. That is, the unstated (but very real) goal to keep the rate just low enough and stable enough to stave off any revolutionary elements.

The poverty rate is one of the most reliable indicators of governmental instability.

 

[Jaskalas]

Hopefully there can be devised more effective means of lifting people out of poverty than just throwing money and benefits at them, the current strategy is a demonstrably less efficient every year.

http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html

The math thoroughly supports that, if taxed at 100%, every single couple would have ~1.76 million to start a family with.
Therefore, the problem CAN be solved with enough money applied to solve it.
I simply ask for a quarter to apply the same basic principles.

The current system is filled with holes and limitations that do not make any sense. It lacks the nest egg, which is a key component of EVERYONE having home, transport, and education. The monthly income after that is padding to cover disability, unemployment, social security, et al. It does not leave you behind if you find a job, so there is no trade off to punish working. No incentive to increase costs with more kids. No pyramid scheme to make a later generation pay off the debt. It brings balance and stability to a system that is in chaos.

It also frees us to pursue the free market and cheapen the cost of goods even if it costs us jobs. That has, and will, continue to occur regardless but at least we'll be prepared. A safety net compliments the free market nicely. We just have to drop old dogmas and wake up to the fact that we are a wealthy nation, the economy is about to radically upend itself, and UBI is the only clear path forward.

Long story short, the math proves it can work.

 

[Jhhnn]

There does look to be a serious problem of diminishing returns; the poverty level has been relatively constant despite dramatic increases in inflation adjusted dollars:

Hopefully there can be devised more effective means of lifting people out of poverty than just throwing money and benefits at them, the current strategy is a demonstrably less efficient every year.

http://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html

What the graph really means is that a lot more people would live in poverty w/o the increase in spending. It means that concentration of income & wealth is ongoing.

 

[crashtech]

(snip)

I'm thinking that graph you showed probably has more to do with the above than with ROI of USA Welfare programs. Purchasing power decreases, so you have to give more money (that is worth less) to purchase the same necessities of life.

Your graph does, however, show success in STABILIZING the poverty rate at between 10% and 15%.

This sounds more reasonable when put into context. That is, the unstated (but very real) goal to keep the rate just low enough and stable enough to stave off any revolutionary elements.

The poverty rate is one of the most reliable indicators of governmental instability.

From the link:

The figures have been adjusted for the costs of inflation and stated in 2014 dollars.

So something is going on. Maybe it's an indication that the inflation numbers are way off.

Maybe this makes it seem like I'm against the safety net, but I'm not. It seems that something else needs to be done to make the money spent more effective. It could be something as simple as having life skills courses every year from middle school forward so that everyone ends up with basic knowledge of how to budget money, etc.

 

[Jhhnn]

From the link:


So something is going on. Maybe it's an indication that the inflation numbers are way off.

Maybe this makes it seem like I'm against the safety net, but I'm not. It seems that something else needs to be done to make the money spent more effective. It could be something as simple as having life skills courses every year from middle school forward so that everyone ends up with basic knowledge of how to budget money, etc.

You're looking right past the problem-

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1390437-income-inequality-the-reasons-the-consequences/

The amount spent on social programs simply doesn't fully compensate for the shift of income to the top.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

@Jhhnn & @crashtech the rate of increase to inflation doesn't really apply to this discussion or do either of you guys think throwing (let's just make up a number) 6k per month at Her & Her Family would have significantly different results or do you think it would just equal more pain meds and other treatments but the house may have better furnishings. Would an outcome like that be helping them?

Maybe I'm wrong and I'll admit I'm judging I don't see a big rise in benefits being used toward special schooling or Physical Therapy or even a surgery to alleviate pain permanently. I don't see a mother with more money being involved in better food choices but I'll agree there would be less ramen noodles.
I see the extra funds being used for things that don't last like a better car or better furniture.

It's not about her getting stuff for "free" or what you & I pay for that stuff it's about does throwing more money at it just lead to more bad choices or worse parenting and is it right or even kind to do that?

For example and it's an extreme example that I'm not proposing it's just for thought.
The pay day loans, those are always poor decisions the fees and rates charged have historically been close to loan sharking (is the term usury?) if there was no income there would be no pay day loans and she would be forced to develop a better safety net with friends and family that would likely have more healthy terms attached to them.

 

[crashtech]

Specifically as to your anecdote, it's hard to say, but from the stats it's clear there are about 4-5% of people who just aren't ever reached by social welfare programs for whatever reason, this is true in just about every country's figures that I have seen. I've experienced firsthand the frustration of trying to help people in need, friends and co-workers, who for various reasons* are stuck on a path that leads nowhere, despite everyone's good intentions. But that doesn't relieve us of the obligation to keep trying.

*In my experience, their addiction to drugs or alcohol, and/or their mental illness accounted for all my failures to help someone out.

 

[Jhhnn]

@Jhhnn & @crashtech the rate of increase to inflation doesn't really apply to this discussion or do either of you guys think throwing (let's just make up a number) 6k per month at Her & Her Family would have significantly different results or do you think it would just equal more pain meds and other treatments but the house may have better furnishings. Would an outcome like that be helping them?

Maybe I'm wrong and I'll admit I'm judging I don't see a big rise in benefits being used toward special schooling or Physical Therapy or even a surgery to alleviate pain permanently. I don't see a mother with more money being involved in better food choices but I'll agree there would be less ramen noodles.
I see the extra funds being used for things that don't last like a better car or better furniture.

It's not about her getting stuff for "free" or what you & I pay for that stuff it's about does throwing more money at it just lead to more bad choices or worse parenting and is it right or even kind to do that?

For example and it's an extreme example that I'm not proposing it's just for thought.
The pay day loans, those are always poor decisions the fees and rates charged have historically been close to loan sharking (is the term usury?) if there was no income there would be no pay day loans and she would be forced to develop a better safety net with friends and family that would likely have more healthy terms attached to them.

Fantasize often? We can either throw more jobs & better wages at it (not likely) or more money in the form of income redistribution. Or we can just go with FYGM.

 

[Jmegapac]

I don't know why so many are upset that she is "abusing" the disability program. I can see a lot of people doing the same thing in her situation.

• The woman (Kathy), who believes the twins are autistic, is the grandmother. Kathy, 55 years-old, hurt her shoulder while working at a gas pump hose factory. She is on disability.
• Kathy's daughter, Franny, is the twins' mother. She has a mild version of Down syndrome and has an IQ of about 75. Even worse is that her condition seems to be getting worse as she cannot remember the most basic of things without having pain in her head. Based on the article she cannot take care of her twins and the house on her own. She is on disability too.
• There are four kids in the house: a 12 year-old girl, two 10 year-old boys (twins), and a 4 year-old girl, all from Franny.

You are Kathy, a 55 year-old, with a bad shoulder. You have a 32-year old daughter, with an IQ of 75, and cannot take care of her own four children by herself. What options do you have really? You could try to get a job, but is that going to bring in a lot more money than what you would receive from SSDI? If you do get a job, who is going to take care of the kids? Franny? She cannot even remember to put a 4-year old into a car seat. You are the only "adult" in the house to take care of the kids. You have all the responsibility in the world to take care of the family and no one else will help you.

Perhaps Franny could get a job instead. But who is going to hire her? Even if she gets hired, will she be able to keep the job? Probably not.

You could argue that Kathy and Franny should take responsibility for their decision. But it is not as if Kathy wanted to have a child with mental disability. Franny had hopes of going to college when she was a child. She clearly could not do that due to her condition.

I just do not see what other choice Kathy has at this point than to increase her monthly income in any way possible while leaving herself with time to take care of her daughter and the grandchildren. Wanting to believe that her two grandchildren have autism based on their ADHD and disruptive mood disorder sounds like it is the only outlet she has to hold the family together.

 

[Geekbabe]

Social spending is a gamble, it always has been. On one end you can restore people to good health & they return to being productive members of society. On the other end you have people who will not be capable employees no matter what.

I believe in a compassionate society we need to care for both. Even if the woman in this story could find a job it would likely be at a place like Walmart with wages so low she would still qualify for Medicaid & food stamps. What about those kids? I can't imagine any sane childcare provider taking them on.

I worked night shift when my son was small, he slept at night & that was the only way I could get child care, even then I paid a hefty price for it.

It remains to be seen if the social gamble that my autistic son will be employable will work. Given this administration's tendency to devalue the disabled I have my doubts. I live in a blue state & pray he gets a forward thinking employer who understands the small accommodations he will need will be far outweighed by his value to the company.

What I do know is this, wave after wave of kids who are Austistic enough to require special schooling are turning 22 every year & there are meager supports there for them. What will we do then?

 

[Geekbabe]

@Jhhnn & @crashtech the rate of increase to inflation doesn't really apply to this discussion or do either of you guys think throwing (let's just make up a number) 6k per month at Her & Her Family would have significantly different results or do you think it would just equal more pain meds and other treatments but the house may have better furnishings. Would an outcome like that be helping them?

Maybe I'm wrong and I'll admit I'm judging I don't see a big rise in benefits being used toward special schooling or Physical Therapy or even a surgery to alleviate pain permanently. I don't see a mother with more money being involved in better food choices but I'll agree there would be less ramen noodles.
I see the extra funds being used for things that don't last like a better car or better furniture.

It's not about her getting stuff for "free" or what you & I pay for that stuff it's about does throwing more money at it just lead to more bad choices or worse parenting and is it right or even kind to do that?

For example and it's an extreme example that I'm not proposing it's just for thought.
The pay day loans, those are always poor decisions the fees and rates charged have historically been close to loan sharking (is the term usury?) if there was no income there would be no pay day loans and she would be forced to develop a better safety net with friends and family that would likely have more healthy terms attached to them.

I have stage IV cancer, guess how much of a fiscal " safety net" friends & family" have provided me with? With the exception of helping me to adopt a rescue cat & a birthday party. ( both very appreciated) The level of assistance has been exactly zero. I get offered lots of prayers from people who want to see me lose health insurance but not much else.

My family & friends are working people,,I woukd imagine the family of the woman in this story are as poor as she is.. you can't give what you don't have.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I have stage IV cancer, guess how much of a fiscal " safety net" friends & family" have provided me with? With the exception of helping me to adopt a rescue cat & a birthday party. ( both very appreciated) The level of assistance has been exactly zero. I get offered lots of prayers from people who want to see me lose health insurance but not much else.

My family & friends are working people,,I woukd imagine the family of the woman in this story are as poor as she is.. you can't give what you don't have.

I find that most people who claim that others in need just 'work harder' or 'get support from people other than me' have never actually been in the shit before. Once you've had a gutcheck of realization that either you're paying rent, or your family is eating, but not both for this month, your opinions on social programs tends to shift.

 

[Zaap]

Posting when drunk, huh?

I LOVE how you recognized yourself as the mush-brained leftist. You're one of the poster-children.

 

[dainthomas]

I find that most people who claim that others in need just 'work harder' or 'get support from people other than me' have never actually been in the shit before. Once you've had a gutcheck of realization that either you're paying rent, or your family is eating, but not both for this month, your opinions on social programs tends to shift.

Whenever I hear someone going on about how lucky people on welfare are to be getting all that free money, I know they are completely clueless and I can safely disregard anything they have to say.

 

[Geekbabe]

I find that most people who claim that others in need just 'work harder' or 'get support from people other than me' have never actually been in the shit before. Once you've had a gutcheck of realization that either you're paying rent, or your family is eating, but not both for this month, your opinions on social programs tends to shift.

I wish I could just work harder to fix things fiscally but at age 60, with cancer & a demanding job, it just can't happen on a regular basis. As things stand I am going to somehow force myself to work overtime just to pay for the huge increase in health care costs coming next month.

 

[chucky2]

I don't know snip

I'm a large proponent of social benny reform, however if what you've described is accurate, this is the type of situation we need to be throwing more money at people and not less. I'm fine with my tax dollars helping someone actually (not, con job "actually") in this situation. What I'm not fine with is seeing an able bodied over 18 male, in newish clothes, trying to sell is Links card, then I'm behind him in line with this - also well dressed woman/mom - and 3/4 of the sh1t on the checkout conveyor is non-essential. I check out with my 3 things, walk out, and there they are loading up their 2013 BMW.

We need serious reform, so the people that need the actual assistance can get it with less hassle, and get more of it. But trusting the same Politicians to appoint the same department heads that will oversee this reform, is folly. We need sweeping changes, and it can't be from people that have been part of the system. The System is what has got us into this mess in the first place.

 

[chucky2]

I have stage IV cancer, guess how much of a fiscal " safety net" friends & family" have provided me with? With the exception of helping me to adopt a rescue cat & a birthday party. ( both very appreciated) The level of assistance has been exactly zero. I get offered lots of prayers from people who want to see me lose health insurance but not much else.

My family & friends are working people,,I woukd imagine the family of the woman in this story are as poor as she is.. you can't give what you don't have.

I had two parents with late stage cancer, and now just one. Don't take this the wrong way, but unless these Friends and Family are hard up themselves, and/or you burned quite a few bridges, they sound a lot less like Friends and Family and more like acquaintances. I hope you've got at least a small few that can help you when you need it.