Welfare vs Economic Inequality

[mikegg]

Send them to the OPs neighborhood so he can pay for their shit; welfare by one-way bus ticket. SF loves those homeless people, what's one more?

Why are you so angry?:\

 

[Farmer]

This is a extreme example of people playing the system, I hope stuff like this does not happen all the time.

It happens far more often than you think. People who are concerned about "the greater good" are generally individuals who make more than enough to get by, or are highly educated. People on welfare typically do not fall into either category.

As many have said, we've created a vicious cycle: welfare is given based on how many children you have. Individuals on welfare raise more children. Having grown up depending on welfare, the majority of these children, when of age, vote for officials who support welfare, and, in general, "wealth redistribution". The cycle perpetuates.

As anyone can see, this is a positive feedback that is entirely unsustainable, a tumor which drains a nation's resources. In an expanding economy, this might go unnoticed since the growth in overall productivity overshadows the growing welfare system. In a recession, it is made painfully obvious.

You could do some sort of publicly funded government works programs, but that's the socialism a lot hate around here.

Despite being a conservative I am not opposed to this. The American infrastructure is decaying and we are in dire need of an overhaul, and there is more than enough manpower. I just would prefer if this would happen through private companies, but there are obviously many obstacles to that happening.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I don't care if they work past minimum wage so long as they are working period, just stop giving them money for nothing. Hell, even the communists with their "to each according to their need" figured that out.

No such thing as unlimited job supply.

 

[mikegg]

Yes. Well, maybe not to death, just severe malnutrition perhaps. And "need" is not a useful or accurate description when the problem is largely self-created by people dropping out of school, having babies as teenagers, doing drugs, etc. What you're missing is that without a motivating factor (like hunger), there are huge amounts of people who will sit on their ass and not do shit. Or worse yet, get in the way of people who actually are doing something useful. You're presuming that everyone is self-motivated when the exact opposite is normally the case.

And you're presuming that everyone is unmotivated. I would love to know what the ratio of welfare recipients are - motivated or unmotivated. You're telling me that most people are unmotivated - fine. Find me sources. Even if you are able to prove me wrong, it doesn't make what I wrote in OP wrong.

We'll never be able to get rid of people that don't contribute to society. But if there's more economic equality, then there will be less welfare. You CANNOT dispute this.

It's not just the jobs and having purchasing power. It's using the money for better schools, better neighborhoods, better police forces, better counselors, more college funds, etc. All of these can contribute to less dropouts, babies at teenage years, druggies, criminals, etc.

You're looking at the small picture. I'm looking at the big picture. We have more and more welfare - not because people are being born less motivated. It's an entire system that's producing more welfare dependent citizens.

 

[Farmer]

And you're presuming that everyone is unmotivated. I would love to know what the ratio of welfare recipients are - motivated or unmotivated. You're telling me that most people are unmotivated - fine. Find me sources. Even if you are able to prove me wrong, it doesn't make what I wrote in OP wrong.

If you had the option of working 2 jobs for $2.1K a month, or having the government hand you $2K a month on welfare, allowing you all the time to take care of your family instead of none of it, which would you pick? It's not about "motivation," it's a very easy economic decision.

I feel you should understand fairness: suppose this person's neighbor does work 2 jobs and pays taxes. Because of work, he cannot spend anytime with his family. Why should he sacrifice his time with his family just so that his neighbor can spend all the time in the world with hers? If I were him, I'd be motivated to drop my jobs and go on welfare.

In other words, welfare is just too good a deal.

 

[lotus503]

It happens far more often than you think. People who are concerned about "the greater good" are generally individuals who make more than enough to get by, or are highly educated. People on welfare typically do not fall into either category.

As many have said, we've created a vicious cycle: welfare is given based on how many children you have. Individuals on welfare raise more children. Having grown up depending on welfare, the majority of these children, when of age, vote for officials who support welfare, and, in general, "wealth redistribution". The cycle perpetuates.

As anyone can see, this is a positive feedback that is entirely unsustainable, a tumor which drains a nation's resources. In an expanding economy, this might go unnoticed since the growth in overall productivity overshadows the growing welfare system. In a recession, it is made painfully obvious.



Despite being a conservative I am not opposed to this. The American infrastructure is decaying and we are in dire need of an overhaul, and there is more than enough manpower. I just would prefer if this would happen through private companies, but there are obviously many obstacles to that happening.

stop being reasonable you may be mistaken for a moderate
I agree I think given our crumbling infrastructure and the fact we are already paying a lot of people government subsidies via welfare and unemployment, a national government run rebuilding program is a damn good idea. While I somewhat like the idea of private companies, i'm tired of the corporate welfare I dont think I want more of my tax dollars going to the profit margins of private business.

 

[lotus503]

I don't like arguing with liberals, but if you had the option of working 2 jobs for $2.1K a month, or having the government hand you $2K a month on welfare, allowing all the time to take care of your family, which would you pick? It's not about "motivation," it's a very easy economic decision.

In that cut and dry scenario it exposes issues with the welfare system. however its not that cut and dry, majority of the folks on food stamps are employed, and something like half of welfare recipients have worked in the last 12 months.

as the economy has worsened the number of folks on public assistance has increased, so we have to address the economic factors not just cut spending.

 

[mikegg]

I don't like arguing with liberals, but if you had the option of working 2 jobs for $2.1K a month, or having the government hand you $2K a month on welfare, allowing all the time to take care of your family, which would you pick? It's not about "motivation," it's a very easy economic decision.

But here's an idea: instead of the government lobbyists gifting the already rich people more and more money, put that money into the college system so that the ALREADY poor can go. Give more people college educations. Make our workforce smarter. Win back jobs from other countries. Create more jobs through a better engineering workforce.

So now, this guy that you are talking about, instead of having to choose between 2 jobs and $2k/month from welfare, he's a god damn engineer and he can go to Paris for vacation every year.

With economic equality, it's not about taking money and then writing a check to the poor. It's about funding the things that helps society instead of a few ultra rich hoarding all of it.

Welfare isn't as simple as motivated vs unmotivated. It's mostly at the society/country level. It's not at the personal level.

 

[mikegg]

Honestly, If I'm a kid about to start middle school, I don't think I'll make it to where I'm now. With college costs and budget cuts every quarter for schools at all levels, and the economic conditions, I probably won't make it to where I'm now. I might have to use welfare.

Let's create conditions so that kids growing up now can actually have futures. Let's redistribute the wealth more so we can invest in a better society. Welfare is the end result of a system. It's not as simple as motivated vs unmotivated.

 

[glenn1]

But here's an idea: instead of the government lobbyists gifting the already rich people more and more money, put that money into the college system so that the ALREADY poor can go. Give more people college educations. Make our workforce smarter. Win back jobs from other countries. Create more jobs through a better engineering workforce.

So now, this guy that you are talking about, instead of having choose between 2 jobs and $2k/month from welfare, he's a god damn engineer.

With economic equality, it's not about taking money and then writing a check to the poor. It's about funding the things that helps society instead of a few ultra rich hoarding all of it.

Welfare isn't as simple as motivated vs unmotivated. It's mostly at the society/country level. It's not at the personal level.

More college education? Dude, in the inner cities you're lucky if even half the population has finished high school. Your student body would be illiterates whose main motivation would be their next crack pipe hit, not calculus. Did you just arrive from Mars and your only insight into human nature comes from TV shows?

 

[Matt1970]

Honestly, If I'm a kid about to start middle school, I don't think I'll make it to where I'm now. With college costs and budget cuts every quarter for schools at all levels, and the economic conditions, I probably won't make it to where I'm now. I might have to use welfare.

Let's create conditions so that kids growing up now can actually have futures. Let's redistribute the wealth more so we can invest in a better society. Welfare is the end result of a system. It's not as simple as motivated vs unmotivated.

There just isn't enough at the top, and the takes money to make money applies here. Once you strip the money from the top they have less ability to make more so the next go around of redistribution is less than the one before.

 

[Lithium381]

The problem OP is that raising taxes is pointless until the Politicians that make the policy that spends those taxes are held in check on their level of spending. There are a lot of conservatives, Tea Party, etc. people who would willingly (grudging, puking, screaming, but, would do it) pay increased taxes if they knew that those taxes would actually be used to pay down the Fed and their State debt.

The reason why the big pushback started in '08 was because the crash woke large parts of The Masses out of their stupor and made them go, WTF?!?!, why are the Politicians continuing to blow money at this rate?!?!?

Asking people who have finally awoke to the problem that is Politician to turn around and support increased taxation, that is, giving the problem (aka Politician) more money to then blow is just a non-starter. It's like saying, Hey, come on, be a good sport, give the rapist who just nailed your daughter another <x> minutes alone with her. Who in their right mind would ever consider such a thing?

If you want to get people on the bandwagon of increased social services, first get people to reign in Politician. If you can do that, you'll have a chance during that reformation of getting social services revamped so they actually can be useful to a greater number of people. Or perhaps Politician will do something about cheap goods entering the country (not likely, but hey, maybe they'll try?). Etc. etc.

Asking folks who are already paying the largest part of the nations taxes to pay more so more social services people can scam the system longer and the Politicians can blow more money in a burp burp burp fashion is not going to work. That well, it's dry.

Chuck

I would be thrilled to give 40% taxes straight off the top if the government could spend it correctly. . although most of the time in this sense "correctly" is a very subjective thing.. .

one problem is taxes try to make equal what someone earns NOW, now what they already have. The rich are already rich . .

 

[HNNstyle]

Welfare is more than just giving to the poor. It's about redistributing income and artifically creating jobs as someone has to collect the money associated with food stamps, medicaid, and medicare. Be assured that the people collecting the money are making 6 figures, at least in the medical field I know that they do.

 

[chucky2]

I would be thrilled to give 40% taxes straight off the top if the government could spend it correctly. . although most of the time in this sense "correctly" is a very subjective thing.. .

one problem is taxes try to make equal what someone earns NOW, now what they already have. The rich are already rich . .

Right, that's the crux of the whole "funding" issue. We don't have a funding problem for the yearly budget deficit, we simply have a spending problem. They spend far far more than they take in. They want to keep doing that, and to cover their greed/uselessness/laziness, just raise taxes on anything they can get away with to bring funding up to expenses. Forget about even touching the debt...they know for a fact they'll never ever get around to that.

Which is why I keep saying...talking about raising taxes on anyone is a non-starter. Let the Pols get into parity with current receipts, even under that, then we can start talking about giving them more cok, er, money.

Chuck

 

[lotus503]

Right, that's the crux of the whole "funding" issue. We don't have a funding problem for the yearly budget deficit, we simply have a spending problem. They spend far far more than they take in. They want to keep doing that, and to cover their greed/uselessness/laziness, just raise taxes on anything they can get away with to bring funding up to expenses. Forget about even touching the debt...they know for a fact they'll never ever get around to that.

Which is why I keep saying...talking about raising taxes on anyone is a non-starter. Let the Pols get into parity with current receipts, even under that, then we can start talking about giving them more cok, er, money.

Chuck

You simply cant cut spending in any meaningful way without tanking the economy. That really the issue, its systemic, built around debt and spending. I am all for making drastic changes to the system, but not cutting spending within the existing system.

 

[chucky2]

You simply cant cut spending in any meaningful way without tanking the economy. That really the issue, its systemic, built around debt and spending. I am all for making drastic changes to the system, but not cutting spending within the existing system.

You know, I'd be fine with that, I really would. Except, that will always be the excuse. There will never be a time where the Pols will actually cut spending to keep in parity with tax receipts (and when I say that, I mean, not raising taxes to the spending level and then saying, 'Look, we balanced the budget!').

Because it is an absolute fact they will never cut their spending back, I can't buy the 'We can't afford to cut it now, but, trust us, we'll cut it later when times are good' reasoning.

Find another avenue, because that line of reasoning is another non-starter.

Chuck

 

[lotus503]

You know, I'd be fine with that, I really would. Except, that will always be the excuse. There will never be a time where the Pols will actually cut spending to keep in parity with tax receipts (and when I say that, I mean, not raising taxes to the spending level and then saying, 'Look, we balanced the budget!').

Because it is an absolute fact they will never cut their spending back, I can't buy the 'We can't afford to cut it now, but, trust us, we'll cut it later when times are good' reasoning.

Find another avenue, because that line of reasoning is another non-starter.

Chuck

And I agree it will never get cut regardless of what they say they will do.

That's why we need to fix the actual system of government, how it works and operates, until we do that nothing changes at all.

We could chicken and egg all day but it doesn't change the fact Washington is full of pigs, feeding at the trough of special interests.

 

[chucky2]

And I agree it will never get cut regardless of what they say they will do.

That's why we need to fix the actual system of government, how it works and operates, until we do that nothing changes at all.

We could chicken and egg all day but it doesn't change the fact Washington is full of pigs, feeding at the trough of special interests.

There is no fix. At one time I thought there might be a legit fix, but, the problem is, we will never get Pols who are serious about living within a realistic means elected in enough numbers to actually influence the policy to the degree necessary to have effective change.

Never.

Given that, I've very much taken a 'Laissez les bons temps rouler' viewpoint. Sure, I will still b1tch about spending, but, really, there is no point even thinking about it. It is quite clear spending is what will happen, damn the consequences.

We owe it to the future completely F'd generations to live up these very good times!

 

[lotus503]

There is no fix. At one time I thought there might be a legit fix, but, the problem is, we will never get Pols who are serious about living within a realistic means elected in enough numbers to actually influence the policy to the degree necessary to have effective change.

Never.

Given that, I've very much taken a 'Laissez les bons temps rouler' viewpoint. Sure, I will still b1tch about spending, but, really, there is no point even thinking about it. It is quite clear spending is what will happen, damn the consequences.

We owe it to the future completely F'd generations to live up these very good times!

Well its like most things, completely unsustainable thats why they will drag this country down as slowly as possible, by the time we do have to pay the piper, none of the shits that causes the mess will be around.

I am more of a rip the bandaid off kind of guy and would prefer immense pain now at the sake of actually fixing systemic problems.

However the coming bond collapse has the ability to bring the shit down in short order, thats why the Fed will be doing QE as long as they can do QE.

Delay Delay Delay

 

[chucky2]

Yep, that's why I say, Laissez les bons temps rouler. We owe it to the future gens to be able to tell them how nice it really was...

 

[fskimospy]

Well its like most things, completely unsustainable thats why they will drag this country down as slowly as possible, by the time we do have to pay the piper, none of the shits that causes the mess will be around.

I am more of a rip the bandaid off kind of guy and would prefer immense pain now at the sake of actually fixing systemic problems.

However the coming bond collapse has the ability to bring the shit down in short order, thats why the Fed will be doing QE as long as they can do QE.

Delay Delay Delay

There's really no evidence that fed bond purchases are keeping interest rates low.

 

[lotus503]

There's really no evidence that fed bond purchases are keeping interest rates low.

fed purchases are keeping it low its sort of the point.
bond prices are inversely related to yields, yields will eventually start increasing, and when they do, prices will fall.

 

[fskimospy]

Well its not so much that fed purchases are keeping it low in as much as
bond prices are inversely related to yields, yields will eventually start increasing, and when they do, prices will fall.

Right, but the evidence seems to suggest that we won't have to worry about that until we have experienced an economic recovery, making that sort of thing much easier to handle. That's why I'm not really sure what QE had to do with it.

 

[lotus503]

Right, but the evidence seems to suggest that we won't have to worry about that until we have experienced an economic recovery, making that sort of thing much easier to handle. That's why I'm not really sure what QE had to do with it.

Its a balancing act frankly I think were on the wrong side of. all I can do is prepare myself and my assets for what I thinks going to happen.

Same way I did during the Tech bubble and the same way I have during the RE bubble.

But we are in agreement, other than opinion there is nothing to say what will or wont happen. when i say the bonds are in a bubble and going to collapse its my opinion based on facts and circumstances.