The governments roll in controlling poverty

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
We should create some kind of government mandated insurance. For as long as you have a job, you pay into this insurance. If you suddenly lose your job, you can collect this insurance. Why has nobody ever thought of this?

Welfare is designed for people who simply do not work. It's not an insurance plan, and it probably hurts society more than it helps. I'm a strong supporter of homeless shelters and soup kitchens, but welfare seems to trap people. In a lot of cases, welfare pays more than minimum wage, so there's no reason to get off welfare. No sane person would go from working 0 hours per week to 40 hours per week (or 29 hours per week due to Obamacare) and get absolutely no income increase.

If the government was in the business of helping people, it would provide free day care for everyone in the country while removing welfare. This would knock down the #1 barrier that stops people from being able to work - children. Giving the service to everyone ensures that people don't feel like they are getting fucked by the system because poor people get free stuff but middle class people don't.
Government housing projects should probably be ended as well. We've tried that experiment for decades and it fails every time. The projects always turn into crime fortresses. Go to youtube and search for a "Cabrini Green" documentary. It's a project in Chicago that is only marginally safer than Liberia or Congo.

I have an idea. People have stronger ties to their families like they did 100 years ago. If you are down on your luck you go live with a family member.

Problem solved.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
We should create some kind of government mandated insurance. For as long as you have a job, you pay into this insurance. If you suddenly lose your job, you can collect this insurance. Why has nobody ever thought of this?

Welfare is designed for people who simply do not work. It's not an insurance plan, and it probably hurts society more than it helps.

100% this. I made the same basic point in the WIC thread.

There is a massive difference between programs that are designed to support people who are temporarily down on their luck vs. supporting people who are making unsustainable life choices. And it isn't hard to design programs to support the former instead of the latter.

I have an idea. People have stronger ties to their families like they did 100 years ago. If you are down on your luck you go live with a family member.

Problem solved.

So if you lose your job for 6 months you should abandon your mortgage and move in with your parents?

Yeah that seems totally practical and not disruptive at all :hmm:
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
Well, yeh, except that even the authors of the cited study admit that reality differs from their hypothetical projections, which are just that, projections-



page 43-

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

There's more hedging along the way, as well.

What the usual ravers fail to recognize is that welfare payments prevent economic collapse in some areas, like Mississippi, where ~40% of the state budget is federal money, occurring at twice the level of their tax contribution to federal coffers.

The CATO institute is a well known rightwing group that produces deliberate misinformation garbage.

If you spend any time looking at the whitepaper it is ridiculous. they average in as many as 126 different programs 74 of which are community programs that provide nothing directly to indivduals and assume in their calculations that all TANF recipients take advantage of all of these programs. And totally ignore the fact that a vast majority of these programs are available to anyone who would be working for minimum wage. But yet they assume that the minimum wage employee isn't taking advantage of any of these programs.

So their statement that welfare pays more than minimum wage in 35 states is pure fabricated bullshit manufactured to give right wingers a stiffie.

I would also like to point out that if you remove unemployment compensation from the picture, all 126 of these programs including TANF account for less than 8% of government spending. So if you did away with all forms of so called welfare tomorrow it would barely make a dent in our annual deficits.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
100% this. I made the same basic point in the WIC thread.

There is a massive difference between programs that are designed to support people who are temporarily down on their luck vs. supporting people who are making unsustainable life choices. And it isn't hard to design programs to support the former instead of the latter.



So if you lose your job for 6 months you should abandon your mortgage and move in with your parents?

Yeah that seems totally practical and not disruptive at all :hmm:
Meh buy a smaller house and pay it off faster :p
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
The CATO institute is a well known rightwing group that produces deliberate misinformation garbage.

If you spend any time looking at the whitepaper it is ridiculous. they average in as many as 126 different programs 74 of which are community programs that provide nothing directly to indivduals and assume in their calculations that all TANF recipients take advantage of all of these programs. And totally ignore the fact that a vast majority of these programs are available to anyone who would be working for minimum wage. But yet they assume that the minimum wage employee isn't taking advantage of any of these programs.

So their statement that welfare pays more than minimum wage in 35 states is pure fabricated bullshit manufactured to give right wingers a stiffie.

I would also like to point out that if you remove unemployment compensation from the picture, all 126 of these programs including TANF account for less than 8% of government spending. So if you did away with all forms of so called welfare tomorrow it would barely make a dent in our annual deficits.
He probably didn't know. I can feel the intensity coming through in your wording heh.
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,917
23
81
no.
i dont want the govt helping me out if my parents' savings run out and i never have a job.

in fact, i want to die if i have to live on govt welfare and i also want to know how many people truly care about helping me from their own heart. i imagine that it is getting more and more difficult to receive private charity but that is largely because the govt is spending so much.

i also understand the fact that some people who cant help themselves also cant enjoy life without the salary of a DC bureaucrat, but that doesnt mean that people should be forced to pay for it. in fact, no one should be forced to pay for anything unless theyve taken someone else's property or life.

perhaps all govt employees should leave the country and set up a monarchy somewhere else if they want so much uniformity and loot from others. every single president has been illegitimate for fucks sake.

Your parents/whoever did a good job brain washing you to think you're a waste of human life if you live on government assistance. The fact is, government assistance exists for people who were dealt a shitty hand in life (for example, you). Just because your dad's money runs out doesn't mean you're worthless.