Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is the problem with the welfare state.

pCP3b_a2Zoo

I would say a society is judged on how it treats it's most vulnerable and disadvantaged TI.

-AD

Lol

I don't like how the vid focused on only black people. I know many more entitled, young, white girls who are looking for handouts. Some of them get pregnant on purpose so they can go on better welfare.


But what happens if everyone is guaranteed a living wage of $25,000 a year, $50,000 for married couples? Believe it or not, the guaranteed living wage idea is a libertarian idea and it has been successfully tested. So what happens if we replace welfare with the guaranteed living wage idea? The details of that system have a person using a "graduated" reduction in benefits, depending on how much money you make. Some have suggested locality pay (so it would be less than 25K in Arkansas but much more in Hawaii, for example) adjustments to this minimum living wage idea.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
This is the problem with the welfare state.

pCP3b_a2Zoo

You shouldn't judge the Welfare system solely on those that abuse it, there are people that actually need it

Because there are bad people in a system doesn't mean that every person in said system is bad.

Originally posted by Quincy
Because there are bad people in a system doesn't mean that every person in said system is bad.

Exactly. Seeking government aid is far better than going out and committing crime to make ends meet. At least that person is trying to stay afloat.

Originally posted by Robtard
You shouldn't judge the Welfare system solely on those that abuse it, there are people that actually need it

Thats the point, the system is ****ed and liberals have done nothing to change it. All they have done is make it worse. Now add in amnesty executive order 2014 and it's only going to make it worse.

Originally posted by Stoic
Exactly. Seeking government aid is far better than going out and committing crime to make ends meet. At least that person is trying to stay afloat.

How about getting a job like a normal person.

Did you mean to use "don't" both of those times there?

edit: Solid edit well done well done good sir

i actually want a link card, but i don't qualify. The government says i cant get free food unless i have some bastard kids or get a lower paying job.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Thats the point, the system is ****ed and liberals have done nothing to change it. All they have done is make it worse. Now add in amnesty executive order 2014 and it's only going to make it worse.

So conservatives have no responsibility creating this ****ed system

Originally posted by Quincy
Did you mean to use "don't" both of those times there?

edit: Solid edit well done well done good sir

The only thing you have done is dirty your own post with edits

Originally posted by Lestov16
So conservatives have no responsibility creating this ****ed system

As DDM mentioned earlier it was because of the liberals. They brought about the guaranteed wage. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not mean . Sit on my ass and get the government to take care of me.

I will admit there are some who are lazy and abuse the system. What do you suggest be done?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
As DDM mentioned earlier it was because of the liberals. They brought about the guaranteed wage. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not mean . Sit on my ass and get the government to take care of me.

DDM said "libertarian"

Originally posted by Robtard
DDM said "libertarian"

Same shit..just more radical.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I will admit there are some who are lazy and abuse the system. What do you suggest be done?

Cut it off. Make people get jobs. It's really that simple.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Same shit..just more radical.

Okay then

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Cut it off. Make people get jobs. It's really that simple.

And the people who are physically and/or mentally not capable of working who are on welfare?

Originally posted by Robtard
And the people who are physically and/or mentally not capable of working who are on welfare?

Obviously I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the bums who refuse to do anything and want Obama bucks as video mentioned. Make no mistake this is what people believe.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Obviously I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the bums who refuse to do anything and want Obama bucks as video mentioned. Make no mistake this is what people believe.

If your stance is: "We need Welfare reform." for the purposes of weeding out the abusers and such, then sure, that is a reasonable stance and I agree with you.

But the way you were coming off in here was: "End all Welfare, **** everyone and screw the Welfare loving Liberals!" Just an fyi.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Cut it off. Make people get jobs. It's really that simple.

You mean end welfare entirely?

Originally posted by Robtard
If your stance is: "We need Welfare reform." for the purposes of weeding out the abusers and such, then sure, that is a reasonable stance and I agree with you.

But the way you were coming off in here was: "End all Welfare, **** everyone and screw the Welfare loving Liberals!" Just an fyi.

I think the first and most productive step towards welfare reform is making it illegal to spend welfare funds on drugs and alcohol, and give monthly (or weekly) drug tests to all recipients. If you want weed and beer, you gotta work for it. Beggars can't be choosers.

Originally posted by Lestov16
You mean end welfare entirely?

Drastically reduce it to the very few and sick who need it.

If someone gets money for no work, they will not work.

If someone stops getting money for no work, they will work.

The trouble is that the root of the problem lies within lack of education, and there is no way to force a kid into school/college against their will if they lack a desire to pass. If the youth were properly educated they would have no problem getting jobs. However they grow up uneducated and only qualify for the menial job market, which is ferociously competitive, and when they can't get jobs there, that's when they resort to welfare and/or crime.

I know many entry level jobs that start as high as $19.00 without an education. Why does someone need to go to school necessarily when there is work available here and now. I mean even McDonalds starts at $10.00 an hour now.

I got my job right out of university, so I really don't have any extensive experience when it comes to job searching let alone job searching in the United States.

But I have a hard time believing that there are no jobs for uneducated workers. Going by the video in the opening post it seems to me that the unemployed don't want to work, or at the very least they won't settle for just any job, which is the wrong mentality.

One thing could be to limit what you can purchase with food stamps to the cheaper brands of vegetables, potatoes, rice, pasta, beans, fish and meats. if people want to eat out, buy soda or candy they should have to work.

There are restrictions on what you can and can't buy with food stamps, the allowing of junk food is silly, should be done based on nutritional value, which would weed out candy, soda and most other junk food

Source: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

edit: nvm, you were saying basically the same thing

Originally posted by Robtard
There are restrictions on what you can and can't buy with food stamps, the junk food thing is silly, should be done based on nutritional value, which would weed out candy, soda and most other junk food

Source: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items
Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible itemsEnergy drinks that have a nutrition facts label are eligible foodsThese do not make sense.

Abolish these and you'll see an increase in the demand of jobs.

Originally posted by Astner
I got my job right out of university, so I really don't have any extensive experience when it comes to job searching let alone job searching in the United States.

But I have a hard time believing that there are no jobs for uneducated workers. Going by the video in the opening post it seems to me that the unemployed don't want to work, or at the very least they won't settle for just any job, which is the wrong mentality.

One thing could be to limit what you can purchase with food stamps to the cheaper brands of vegetables, potatoes, rice, pasta, beans, fish and meats. if people want to eat out, buy soda or candy they should have to work.

Agreed on all points.

Originally posted by Astner
Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible itemsEnergy drinks that have a nutrition facts label are eligible foodsThese do not make sense.

Abolish these and you'll see an increase in the demand of jobs.

Seems like you're implying that people on assistance who could work, would work, if they couldn't get soda, cookies and candy for free anymore.

Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems like you're implying that people on assistance who could work, would work, if they couldn't get soda, cookies and candy for free anymore.

Seems a bit of a stretch to me.
No. What I'm saying is that people who don't work should settle for base foods. It makes no sense that the government should feed them candy, sodas and energy drinks.

Originally posted by Astner
No. What I'm saying is that people who don't work should settle for base foods. It makes no sense that the government should feed them candy, sodas and energy drinks.

Fair enough

Welfare is complete garbage. People will exploit any system in existence and the liberals use the weakness of the system to claim easy votes.

I remember that woman screaming "Obama is gonna pay my mortgage and take care of me!." Right after the first election.

Originally posted by Astner
Abolish these and you'll see an increase in the demand of jobs.
Originally posted by Robtard
Seems like you're implying that people on assistance who could work, would work, if they couldn't get soda, cookies and candy for free anymore.

Seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Originally posted by Astner
No. What I'm saying is that people who don't work should settle for base foods. It makes no sense that the government should feed them candy, sodas and energy drinks. caught you being inconsistent, Astner. i know you're a supersmart physicist, but i still caught you.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Cut it off. Make people get jobs. It's really that simple.
I'm libertarian/liberal/democratic, but I agree.

Feeding people for free is why people don't wanna work to become better individuals.

Yes, it's a good program for the underprivileged, but many lazy ****ers who are physically fit and can apply for jobs are taking advantage of it.

Originally posted by Robtard
And the people who are physically and/or mentally not capable of working who are on welfare?


Wouldn't they be recieving social security/disability benefits as oppossed to traditional welfare?

Originally posted by red g jacks
caught you being inconsistent, Astner.
How am I inconsistent? I think that you should limit what you can buy with food stamps to the essentials. In part to increase the desire of an employment for freeloaders, and in part because refined sugar and caffeine is not something that government should provide as a substitute for food.

As for people selling food stamps, couldn't you just print them out with a name and birth date and then do an ID check at the register?

Originally posted by Astner
How am I inconsistent? I think that you should limit what you can buy with food stamps to the essentials. In part to increase the desire of an employment for freeloaders, and in part because refined sugar and caffeine is not something that government should provide as a substitute for food.

As for people selling food stamps, couldn't you just print them out with a name and birth date and then do an ID check at the register?

In Louisiana, foodstamps are issued on a type of debit card now. That significantly cut down much of the fraud.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I'm libertarian/liberal/democratic, but I agree.

Feeding people for free is why people don't wanna work to become better individuals.

Yes, it's a good program for the underprivileged, but many lazy ****ers who are physically fit and can apply for jobs are taking advantage of it.

I appreciate you honesty.

Seems your liberal counterparts like Rob alienate you in this thread when you speak against the group think of the party.

Originally posted by Astner
How am I inconsistent? because when robtard said this:

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems like you're implying that people on assistance who could work, would work, if they couldn't get soda, cookies and candy for free anymore.

you responded with this:
Originally posted by Astner
No. What I'm saying is that people who don't work should settle for base foods. It makes no sense that the government should feed them candy, sodas and energy drinks.
when really, based on this:
Originally posted by Astner
Abolish these and you'll see an increase in the demand of jobs.
you should have responded with this:
Originally posted by Astner
Yes.

Wow red you really do a good backseat mod.

I'll vote for you next time around.

since when is calling people out on bullshit considered modding.

Originally posted by red g jacks
since when is calling people out on bullshit considered modding.

Joking Yello!

Originally posted by red g jacks
because when robtard said this:

you responded with this:

when really, based on this:

you should have responded with this:
Fair enough. I don't think that everyone would want to work just because they could no longer buy soda or energy drinks, but it would definitely put people in a situation where getting a job would be a greater incentive.

On top of that I don't think that the government should distribute refined sugar and caffeine to the people as a substitute for food.

Does that make more sense to you?

i wasn't disagreeing with you, just pointing out that you didn't stick to your guns... but i would agree that govt supplied food should be sustenance based if only for the fact that it would make the country healthier and alleviate some of the medical costs we get strapped with. though i do think maybe we should feed poor/lazy people caffeine in the form of coffea/tea.

Poor people are poor in America cause they refuse to work. The opportunities are endless here. Legal Immigrants come here and become millionaires. Why? Cause they work and don't sit on their asses with government hand outs. How hard is it to wake up and go to work. I mean really?

Oh, so AsbestosFlaygon is a liberal and Time Immemorial is a Democrat. Because saying things makes you them, regardless of actions and opinions. I, for example, am the pope.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, so AsbestosFlaygon is a liberal and Time Immemorial is a Democrat. Because saying things makes you them, regardless of actions and opinions. I, for example, am the pope.

We've been meaning to talk to you about that.

Oh dude Bardock I've been hearing alot about you as the pope. Apparentely you said dogs are cool to go to heaven. I support you.

Of course you support me, I'm infallible.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, so AsbestosFlaygon is a liberal and Time Immemorial is a Democrat. Because saying things makes you them, regardless of actions and opinions. I, for example, am the pope.

Yes we know you were abandoned as a child.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Poor people are poor in America cause they refuse to work. The opportunities are endless here. Legal Immigrants come here and become millionaires. Why? Cause they work and don't sit on their asses with government hand outs. How hard is it to wake up and go to work. I mean really?

I get up and go to work 7 days a week, working two different jobs (averaging 60--65 hours a week) and I barely get by between rent, food, college loans, etc so I can totally understand that there are people out there who may be put in a situation where they need assistance. Not everyone is born with the same advantages.

Originally posted by Lunacyde
I get up and go to work 7 days a week, working two different jobs (averaging 60--65 hours a week) and I barely get by between rent, food, college loans, etc so I can totally understand that there are people out there who may be put in a situation where they need assistance. Not everyone is born with the same advantages.

Thats simply impossible. You are either living over your head in debt, rent, and personal expenses or vastly underpaid. Like I said early it is very easy to get a job starting at $19.00. If that is not enough money to get by, I dunno what is.

Originally posted by Lunacyde
I get up and go to work 7 days a week, working two different jobs (averaging 60--65 hours a week) and I barely get by between rent, food, college loans, etc so I can totally understand that there are people out there who may be put in a situation where they need assistance. Not everyone is born with the same advantages.
Maybe you are overspending, or buying things that you want that go over your budget.

It's impossible to live in poverty with the minimum wage in the US.
Even the lowest income earner SHOULD be able to buy his/her NEEDS easily, considering the US has one of the lowest prices for consumable goods like foods, even with tex.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Maybe you are overspending, or buying things that you want that go over your budget.

It's impossible to live in poverty with the minimum wage in the US.
Even the lowest income earner SHOULD be able to buy his/her NEEDS easily, considering the US has one of the lowest prices for consumable goods like foods, even with tex.

Agreed. He is either just lying/trolling, which working 7 days a week sounds like it. Literally its impossible to work 60-70 hours a week and not have a day off. If he was working that much he would not have any time to spend any money on anything besides gas to get to work, food and bills. With all those hours and over time and he cant get by. Total crap.

I call bullshit.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Agreed. He is either just lying/trolling, which working 7 days a week sounds like it. Literally its impossible to work 60-70 hours a week and not have a day off. If he was working that much he would not have any time to spend any money on anything besides gas to get to work, food and bills. With all those hours and over time and he cant get by. Total crap.

I call bullshit.

At one point in my life, I worked 60 hour work weeks. My average pay was $16 an hour due to the overtime. I had more money than I could possibly spend without blowing it on silly things like expensive mid-life crisis cars.

I just can't buy the idea that someone is barely able to pay their basic bills, in the US, working 60 hour work weeks. Even in Manhattan, as long as you are willing to have 1 roommate, you can live off of 60 hour work-weeks and still have change.

Originally posted by dadudemon
At one point in my life, I worked 60 hour work weeks. My average pay was $16 an hour due to the overtime. I had more money than I could possibly spend without blowing it on silly things like expensive mid-life crisis cars.

I just can't buy the idea that someone is barely able to pay their basic bills, in the US, working 60 hour work weeks. Even in Manhattan, as long as you are willing to have 1 roommate, you can live off of 60 hour work-weeks and still have change.

Glad we all agree that guy is full of shit.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
it is very easy to get a job starting at $19.00.

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa158/Bardock42/stewieheadtilt_zpshytbxrlu.gif

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Like I said early it is very easy to get a job starting at $19.00. Out of curiosity, what jobs are those?

Originally posted by dadudemon
At one point in my life, I worked 60 hour work weeks. My average pay was $16 an hour due to the overtime. I had more money than I could possibly spend without blowing it on silly things like expensive mid-life crisis cars.

I just can't buy the idea that someone is barely able to pay their basic bills, in the US, working 60 hour work weeks. Even in Manhattan, as long as you are willing to have 1 roommate, you can live off of 60 hour work-weeks and still have change. you're assuming overtime when he said 2 jobs. it could be 30 and 30 which would give him no over time.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
Maybe you are overspending, or buying things that you want that go over your budget.

It's impossible to live in poverty with the minimum wage in the US.
Even the lowest income earner SHOULD be able to buy his/her NEEDS easily, considering the US has one of the lowest prices for consumable goods like foods, even with tex. it really varies from place to place. for instance i live in the south right now and it's easy as hell to get by here even on minimum wage cause the living expenses are so cheap. when i lived in south florida minimum wage was damn near the same as it is here and yet the living expenses were way higher. minimum wage down there was 7 something and yet a shitty apartment could easily run you 800 a month. throw in utilities, transportation, school and food and you could very easily find yourself strapped.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But what happens if everyone is guaranteed a living wage of $25,000 a year, $50,000 for married couples? Believe it or not, the guaranteed living wage idea is a libertarian idea and it has been successfully tested. So what happens if we replace welfare with the guaranteed living wage idea? The details of that system have a person using a "graduated" reduction in benefits, depending on how much money you make. Some have suggested locality pay (so it would be less than 25K in Arkansas but much more in Hawaii, for example) adjustments to this minimum living wage idea.



Always been a fan of this.

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/human-interest/12-things-that-only-the-working-poor-truly-understand/

Originally posted by NemeBro
Out of curiosity, what jobs are those?

Apprenticeships jobs, metal workers, governemnt contractor jobs, furniture installers, linemen for power companys, electricians, CNS, information technology fields, many more.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you're assuming overtime when he said 2 jobs. it could be 30 and 30 which would give him no over time.

True. And this is likely the scenario that he was in. And how do you make time to interview for other jobs if you whole day is taken up? Simple: you don't sleep until you have a definitive interview and you take time off from one job.

Originally posted by Bardock42


Always been a fan of this.

Do you know more about that idea? I feel as though my knowledge of that idea is still too sparse to comfortably talk about it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa158/Bardock42/stewieheadtilt_zpshytbxrlu.gif

Yes we know you were abandoned as a child.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you know more about that idea? I feel as though my knowledge of that idea is still too sparse to comfortably talk about it.

I know a little bit about the topic, but I am by no means an expert. There are many different implementation ideas as well, and like you said there's libertarians just as much as left wing and right wing groups that promote this.

There are a couple main reasons why I favour a system like this and that's a) to take the strain and stress of having to fight for your social security off anyone, thereby freeing people to pursue other endeavours, whether paid or not b) to fight the stigma of being on welfare and c) to reduce bureaucracy and make the system more efficient.

I think the system you described would most fall under what is called a "basic income" (i.e. every citizen gets a payment of a certain amount regardless of any other situation they are in, including millionaires). That is also the system I favour, because it would simplify the delivery of the money, and decrease the need for oversight, that is whether someone is actually eligible to get support, etc.

Over the amount that everyone gets, I also favour a flat tax, something between 40-50% on all income (regardless of whether it is capital gains, wage, inheritance, etc.)

The ramifications of a true basic income are not well understood though. It seems good to me, but perhaps there are big issues that would come up in that system as well (for one it may be possible that the stigma of not working, and the valuing of careers over everything, is an important part of a functioning economy, but I am not so sure it is)

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know a little bit about the topic, but I am by no means an expert. There are many different implementation ideas as well, and like you said there's libertarians just as much as left wing and right wing groups that promote this.

There are a couple main reasons why I favour a system like this and that's a) to take the strain and stress of having to fight for your social security off anyone, thereby freeing people to pursue other endeavours, whether paid or not b) to fight the stigma of being on welfare and c) to reduce bureaucracy and make the system more efficient.

I think the system you described would most fall under what is called a "basic income" (i.e. every citizen gets a payment of a certain amount regardless of any other situation they are in, including millionaires). That is also the system I favour, because it would simplify the delivery of the money, and decrease the need for oversight, that is whether someone is actually eligible to get support, etc.

Over the amount that everyone gets, I also favour a flat tax, something between 40-50% on all income (regardless of whether it is capital gains, wage, inheritance, etc.)

The ramifications of a true basic income are not well understood though. It seems good to me, but perhaps there are big issues that would come up in that system as well (for one it may be possible that the stigma of not working, and the valuing of careers over everything, is an important part of a functioning economy, but I am not so sure it is)


This is very fascinating. I am with you on the flat tax idea, too, but not as steep...but maybe the cost of true universal healthcare, basic income, etc. would require a flat tax of something like 40%. But if everyone was guaranteed a certain level of basic income, the flat tax wouldn't hit the poor and the middle class wouldn't have to worry about passing an income bracket. It would also allow people to plan more responsibly. It also means people wouldn't get depressed and kill themselves when they lost their jobs as a primary income earner for their family (it happened far too often post 2008 crash...and that's sad).


I want to know more about this. As a fan of a flat tax, it is not too much of a stretch to jump to a basic income concept.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Poor people are poor in America cause they refuse to work. The opportunities are endless here. Legal Immigrants come here and become millionaires. Why? Cause they work and don't sit on their asses with government hand outs. How hard is it to wake up and go to work. I mean really?
The problem is most American youths lack the educational background to compete with legal immigrants from other countries.

Majority of legal immigrants have completed tertiary/post-graduate education or certificates of specialization.
Hence, companies will prefer these persons who are competitive and know what they are doing.

Though it all goes back to laziness to complete a college degree.
Maybe it has something to do with the focus of universities/colleges on co-curricular activities instead of academics, like sports and arts.
Or maybe it's a culture thing.

I presume Time Immemorial is absolutely about corporate welfare and wants that abolished as well.

How would you go about ending corporate welfare?

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
I presume Time Immemorial is absolutely about corporate welfare and wants that abolished as well.

How would you go about ending corporate welfare?

Cut it off as well.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Cut it off as well.




I'm all about fair taxes.

Originally posted by Bardock42


Always been a fan of this.

Agree, here in USA there really does need to be some sort of FICA supplemental wage to make up the difference from real pay to living wage pay. Perhaps FICA would have to be raised on sales/service of 12.5% and employee/employer raised to 12.5%.

Could get rid of unemployment insurance and welfare programs too. Maybe not Medicaid and Foodstamps. And it could be like the Medicare system of payments where higher cost states residents get more money and lesser cost of living states get less.

Do that and cut the corporate tax rate to 10% with an alternate minimume corporate tax of 1%, sorry GE nor more getting billions in a tax refund anymore. Pay your fairshare.

And for those who are able bodied and able minded that can not find a job, these folks would be part of a labor pool to clean up the water shed and trained to be construction workers for plumbing, (very antiquated systems that need upgrading) and to help get electricity underground (many ice storms causing power lines to go down, along with various weather events). These projects are shovel ready.

If not able bodied/minded; go on disablility which should also be on a living wage depending on geographical area.

And numerous roads and bridges need to be upgraded and new ones built. Of course, might be a good time to upgrade the rail lines too, for transporting goods. Not too sure about commuter trains.

Martin L Gross wrote many books about this. He died last year or so. He mentioned half the cost of the programs are paid to adminster the program and a direct payment to recipents of about $24k would cut the program costs in half.

there will always be people who abuse the system but this shouldnt make the system seem any less relevant than it is. The system is obviously not perfect. There are people that should have access to benefits whom can't, because of technicalities and there are people that bleed the system dry just because they can. Personally, i view public assistance as an evolution of the times. It reminds us that we are a community. Those of us whom are capable and have success can share it with others that have fallen on hard times or legitimately can't support themselves.

It's frustrating to see see people abuse the system while others who really need it are denied the same benefits but that doesn't mean there aren't people receiving the benefits that really need it.

Out of all the the resources of public taxes that are being wasted in the economy, welfare is the least of my worries and complaints. I don't mind other citizens receiving tax dollars. It's the money that's being pocketed and wasted on cronyism by politicians that bother me,