http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/st...ays-more-than-work-in-most-states/



Another case of why we have a ton of people who will not work. I do not blame them, why should they? They are being screwed over in life, so they in turn screw the system. I have to wonder why anyone would be surprised. It is human nature to take advantage, as we see with corporations, and other business people. Notice this study is by the Cato Institute.

Interesting. With the exception of a few states it looks a lot like the 2012 electoral map.

Quoting Jetsgo (Reply 1): Interesting. With the exception of a few states it looks a lot like the 2012 electoral map.

I would not doubt it. You cannot beat free stuff. The Republicans give out free stuff to the wealthy, and the corporations. The Democrats are wiser, they give out frees stuff to the voters. Who is smarter?

That pretty well demonstrates a need to change minimum wage and employer costs. It is pure folly that employers are stuck with the financial burden of nanny care and that they need to use that relief to pay above the poverty line. Otherwise you are going to exceed this grow even higher.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3): That pretty well demonstrates a need to change minimum wage and employer costs. It is pure folly that employers are stuck with the financial burden of nanny care and that they need to use that relief to pay above the poverty line. Otherwise you are going to exceed this grow even higher.

I most certainly agree, something has to change. The system is rigged. Whose side is the winner and loser? We are all the losers, except the wealthy of course.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter): I do not blame them, why should they?

I thought you were against greed? You dislike the fact that I think I should be able to keep more of the money that I actually earn rather than see it go to taxes, but you don't blame people for keeping themselves on welfare to make a few bucks more?

Makes a strong argument to eliminate or discontinue welfare.

Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter): Notice this study is by the Cato Institute.

Red flag. Right-wing think tank with an agenda. I would take this study with a large grain of salt.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5): I thought you were against greed? You dislike the fact that I think I should be able to keep more of the money that I actually earn rather than see it go to taxes, but you don't blame people for keeping themselves on welfare to make a few bucks more?

Distortion, you miss the point. When the government will pay you more for not working, because of the greed of corporations, I do not blame them. This will change only when the system of exploitation ends here, it will only get worse, so be ready to pay for it. I paid for 42 years, you have a long way to go. Enjoy the ride.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 6): Makes a strong argument to eliminate or discontinue welfare.

It will not, cannot happen, we will always have welfare in this world of the haves and have not's. The Capitalist system breeds welfare. Thank goodness we have it.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 7): Red flag. Right-wing think tank with an agenda. I would take this study with a large grain of salt.

Correct, That is why I thought it wise to point that out. We know they are not always truthful in their articles, as all people with agendas are.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 6): Makes a strong argument to eliminate or discontinue welfare.

Time to cut off the junkie.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 8): When the government will pay you more for not working, because of the greed of corporations, I do not blame them.

The problem is that the government overpays so you should blame them. You don't blame them because the reality conflicts with your ass backwards, "gimme free stuff" agenda.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 8): This will change only when the system of exploitation ends here,

I pay the taxes of 1.6 people, partly so others can make money by not working, and you think it's the people getting free money who are being exploited?

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 6): Makes a strong argument to eliminate or discontinue welfare.

Or, better, to raise the minimum wage.

-Mir

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11): I pay the taxes of 1.6 people, partly so others can make money by not working, and you think it's the people getting free money who are being exploited?

Obviously you don't pay enough, you shopuld be paying the taxes of 2 people and be happy that you're helping those less fortuinate than yourself.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 13): Obviously you don't pay enough, you shopuld be paying the taxes of 2 people and be happy that you're helping those less fortuinate than yourself.

If I feel the need to help people, I'll help people. My (theoretical) millionth dollar is infinitely more important to me than some trailer dweller's first.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11): Time to cut off the junkie.

I have a friend that works in one of the social welfare offices here in Roanoke. Every once and a while I will go down there and meet him for lunch. I am always amazed at the line-up of pregnant women waiting to get in.
He says they just don't want to work, so they get pregnant and come get the freebie coupons. Multiply this by millions and you can see why the system is broken! Badly! They just keep on having babies and those of us who pay taxes keep on paying the tab. What fun!  

You have to be careful with studies like this one.

This is the fellow who identifies Social Security, the Veterans Administration, military retirement and civilian federal pensions as 'entitlement' programs and includes them in his figures.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 7): Quoting WarRI1 (Thread starter): Notice this study is by the Cato Institute. Red flag. Right-wing think tank with an agenda. I would take this study with a large grain of salt.

   Not only right wing think tank, but "Daily Caller" is openly to the right itself. I think a fair bit of salt is required.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16): You have to be careful with studies like this one. This is the fellow who identifies Social Security, the Veterans Administration, military retirement and civilian federal pensions as 'entitlement' programs and includes them in his figures.

  

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 15): Badly! They just keep on having babies and those of us who pay taxes keep on paying the tab. What fun!

So what's your choice? Cut off welfare? Abortion, Eugenics?


http://scientopia.org/blogs/authorit...doesnt-pay-more-than-minimum-wage/

People do have an incentive to work under minimum wage, especially under Cato's Normal family scenario.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 18): So what's your choice? Cut off welfare? Abortion, Eugenics?

Posing the question this way seems to hold the rest of us hostage to the consequences of a few people's poor decisions, doesn't it? I don't have a complete answer, but providing a financial incentive for the kind of behavior that we don't want to see (planned or unplanned pregnancy without a way to support the child) is not much of a solution either.

Would this kind of pregnancy - if it is indeed the issue that it is being presented to be - become less common if people knew that their only option other than starvation would become giving the child up for adoption?

That may sound hard hearted but I don't think it's any more cruel than having kids that you're not in a position to raise properly in the first place. Or any more cruel than taking money from one person - for which they have surrendered the most precious and finite resource they have (time) - and giving it to someone else under these particular circumstances.

I understand that accidents happen but I'm responding to the premise that some segment of society is deliberately having children in order to collect a check. I have no data on how widespread that practice actually is. I'm not against welfare in general because I recognize that shit happens to good people and our economic system isn't perfect. I am against people gaming the system if that is what is happening.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 19): Posing the question this way seems to hold the rest of us hostage to the consequences of a few people's poor decisions, doesn't

No, it is a serious question. The fact that you feel like a "Hostage" is because you have thought very little of the solutions. I have grown sick and tired of folks bashing policy without offering alternatives. There is a reason their are policies, because the alternatives are not as palatable.
As the rest of your argument shows, we can't fix stupid, and some solutions we have to deal with.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 19): and giving it to someone else under these particular circumstances.

And who would take them? And at what cost?

Quoting Jetsgo (Reply 1): Interesting. With the exception of a few states it looks a lot like the 2012 electoral map.

Yeah, but on average, blue states are net payers into the Fed govt and red states are, on average, provided welfare provided by blue states. If you look at the govt purely as a transferer of wealth.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 19): but providing a financial incentive for the kind of behavior that we don't want to see (planned or unplanned pregnancy without a way to support the child) is not much of a solution either.

Of course not. The average human being is incredibly smart. If you pay people to fail, then failure becomes their job. It's how they make their living. And apparently welfare people in Hawaii for example live a non-poor middle class lifestyle.

When you properly account for subsidized rent & prison costs, I believe many "poor" people consume far more than I do. And that means I work and study hard purely for fun... and because it's the social norm for my peer group.

[Edited 2013-08-22 08:13:17]

Quoting casinterest (Reply 20): No, it is a serious question. The fact that you feel like a "Hostage" is because you have thought very little of the solutions. I have grown sick and tired of folks bashing policy without offering alternatives. There is a reason their are policies, because the alternatives are not as palatable. As the rest of your argument shows, we can't fix stupid, and some solutions we have to deal with.

No, I feel like a hostage because there seems to be a presumption that children born for the purpose of collecting welfare is my/our problem to solve, as opposed to the parents' problem. Again, the specific point I was responding to was "people who game the system by being rewarded for having children (either carelessly or intentionally) that they can't support."

I think I have a right to bash the current solution without providing an alternative because I'm not getting paid to do so, unlike a whole lot of people who are. But even so I have considered it so here is my thought:

- If you have one or more children when you apply for welfare, they 'count'. Because bad things happen and new parents can find themselves between a rock and a hard place. I get that.
- Additional children born while on welfare do not result in additional benefits. If you're getting a check from me I get input on your reproductive choices.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 20): And who would take them? And at what cost?

Like I said, I don't know what the actual scope of this problem is (ie how many kids really are being born for 'bennies' - the whole issue could likely be a strawman) so it's hard to say how many kids we are talking about. But if this issue is real then I reject the idea that even the most progressive/enlightened society has an obligation to continually cater to people who are deliberately or negligently creating problems. At some point people have to feel some discomfort in order to change. If that means we need to set up an orphanage to meet the short term needs of the innocent kids at greater cost I'd prefer that to perpetuating the parents' behavior via individual payouts.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 22): At some point people have to feel some discomfort in order to change.

That change may not be to your benefit. That change could be bad. It could be crime.

Withholding "welfare" will not stop people that do not know any better from being better.
Sure their are some folks that are on welfare through bad luck, but many are there due to abuse, lack of education, and cognitive impairments. Not everything can be changed by withholding welfare. Especially since your decision harms the most innocent person in the whole mess. The kids.

I should probably add this disclaimer to all of my posts: I am of the opinion that there are right-wingers who are out there to simply stir the pot and make as much money and noise for the very very wealthy and/or Christianity and there are Republicans who are educated and make decisions based on what they read from multiple sources.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 2): The Republicans give out free stuff to the wealthy, and the corporations. The Democrats are wiser, they give out frees stuff to the voters. Who is smarter?

Considering the wealthy right-wing are rigging the voting...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11): I pay the taxes of 1.6 people, partly so others can make money by not working, and you think it's the people getting free money who are being exploited?

I am going to suggest this again to you:

Live like the majority of people in this country. Work two or three low wage jobs because that's all you can get with your college degree in computer science or accounting or whatever.

Also, you sound like welfare lasts forever. It does not.

And, one last point: the right-wing lumps food stamps and Medicade in with welfare. They are three different things.

Sadly I'm just another statistic whose Employment Insurance ran out after 9 months. Tried to avoid applying for welfare but bills; increasing rent and power costs forcing me to do just that.

I've applied to many positions and other than a few interviews my struggle continues.

Here in Nova Scotia, $10.5/hr minimum wage is over double what I get in welfare allowance. I don't know how Americans on minimum can get by on just $7.25....

Quoting seb146 (Reply 24): Considering the wealthy right-wing are rigging the voting...

How dare you bring Grover Norquist into this discussion ! For shame !

Quoting casinterest (Reply 23): Especially since your decision harms the most innocent person in the whole mess. The kids.

Well maybe but maybe not. I'm talking about a pretty specific case, not randomly ripping the sippy cup out of kids' mouths because we're cheap bastards. The idea is that when you remove the incentive you'd have fewer people bringing kids into the bad situation to begin with. If a person's motivation for having a child really is to increase eligibility for welfare to begin with, or they're already in a bad situation and won't take some pretty simple precautions to improve their family's prospects because they know the government is standing by to assist, what kind of parenting are they doing anyway?

It's a bad deal for kids either way, I'll grant that!

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 25): Sadly I'm just another statistic whose Employment Insurance ran out after 9 months. Tried to avoid applying for welfare but bills; increasing rent and power costs forcing me to do just that. I've applied to many positions and other than a few interviews my struggle continues. Here in Nova Scotia, $10.5/hr minimum wage is over double what I get in welfare allowance. I don't know how Americans on minimum can get by on just $7.25....

Sorry to hear it. This is what welfare is for and I sure as hell wouldn't begrudge you for it.

If this is true, it tells me that we pay too much in welfare.

Look, we have gotten ourselves into a deep mess. People are incentivized to not work. When we extended unemployment (I know, it's not welfare, but it's instructive) we allowed folks to sit on the sidelines longer...finding themselves. I know 3 people who 'suddenly' found work when their 'benefits' ran out. One of them is my brother.

We need to make it hard for people to get welfare. We need to stigmatize welfare. We need to go back to actual food stamps, not those EBT cards, where, I believe you can get cash from an ATM.

We received food stamps when we were growing up. My mom and dad were mortified to use them at our local supermarket, where they might be seen. My mom would avoid a certain cashier at C-Town because she was friendly with her.

My parents worked as hard as they could to get us off welfare. And, they succeeded.

Welfare has a place, but it should be a hard place.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 25): I don't know how Americans on minimum can get by on just $7.25....

People working minimum wage aren't supposed to be "getting by". Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be transistional. Minimum wage employers are supposed to be training grounds where young folks learn how to be employees. You're not supposed to try and live in minimum wage.

When I was working minimum wage jobs (high school and some college), the minimum wage was $3.35. There was no expectation that I live on that. It was pocket money. It was cash to go on dates or to a movie or pay for gas.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 27): If a person's motivation for having a child really is to increase eligibility for welfare to begin with, or they're already in a bad situation and won't take some pretty simple precautions to improve their family's prospects because they know the government is standing by to assist, what kind of parenting are they doing anyway?

Not much to be honest, but at the same time why do the cops always try so hard to prevent someone trying to comit suicide? You have to try , even if they turn their back, because it is not just them at risk. If they mess up bad enough, then they go to jail, and the kids wind up in the foster system.... Oh joy.

Can we please define "welfare" before this thread goes any further?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): We need to make it hard for people to get welfare. We need to stigmatize welfare.

It is and it is.

BTW, people actually do work and receive food stamps and Medicade. Why? They don't make enough to feed their family and can not afford health care even with a job or two or three.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): We need to go back to actual food stamps, not those EBT cards, where, I believe you can get cash from an ATM.

There are two separate accounts. One is strictly for food and can only be used for food at the point of purchase. There are some people who can make cash withdraws from a separate account for things like diapers and such. And, yes, that is abused by some.

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 27): Sadly I'm just another statistic whose Employment Insurance ran out after 9 months. Tried to avoid applying for welfare but bills; increasing rent and power costs forcing me to do just that.

BMac-

Sorry to read of your travails. But keep in the forefront of your mind, you are NOT a statistic. Is there a possibility through Service Canada of a re-training program ? Or, if it's possible, doing an internship ? If that could work, it's a foot in the door.

Welcome to Harper's World.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): We need to stigmatize welfare.

With due respect to BMac's situation, when I was growing up, I was told welfare was a stigma. As for UI (EI up here) only funded it, never claimed. But if someone needs it, I say "go for it".

Quoting casinterest (Reply 29): Not much to be honest, but at the same time why do the cops always try so hard to prevent someone trying to comit suicide? You have to try , even if they turn their back, because it is not just them at risk. If they mess up bad enough, then they go to jail, and the kids wind up in the foster system.... Oh joy.

Well I suppose you are right, there. Definitely need to find a way to cut out the nonsense with the 'welfare kids' if that is what is happening though.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 31): Is there a possibility through Service Canada of a re-training program ? Or, if it's possible, doing an internship ? If that could work, it's a foot in the door.

Thanks for responding,

I have an interview next week for a training program (environmental engineering) sponsored by the NovaScotia (provincial) government. There is only 15 seats but I'm hoping with my experience and previous Diplomas I will be one one the successful applicants...

[Edited 2013-08-22 10:43:53]

Quoting seb146 (Reply 30): It is and it is.

Really? Where? The Obama Administration is actively promoting welfare. The Obama Administration has gutted the Clinton welfare reform. Speaking of which: I remember that soon a couple of years after it passed, Mrs. Clinton, lamented the fact that there were less folks on welfare than there were prior to its passage. I saw the reduction as a success, she saw it as a failure.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 30): There are two separate accounts. One is strictly for food and can only be used for food at the point of purchase. There are some people who can make cash withdraws from a separate account for things like diapers and such. And, yes, that is abused by some.

At no time should anyone be allowed to 'cash-in' their EBT cards for cash. Never. In fact, I would support that people receiving welfare only be allowed to shop in certain stores (I realize that there is some of that, but I suggest it be even more restrictive) and be allowed only to buy 'store-brand' products, if available. I want those folks to buy Kroger Toasted Oats instead of General Mills Cheerios. I want welfare to be psychologically painful in order to force folks to try to better themselves.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 30): BTW, people actually do work and receive food stamps and Medicade. Why? They don't make enough to feed their family and can not afford health care even with a job or two or three.

Yes, that was my parents. They worked and still received welfare. But, they improved on their positions. They changed jobs when necessary...but only after securing a new job. They skimped and saved. They (we) did without.

Like, I said...welfare, WIC, SNAP, etc. all have a place in our society, but it should be a hard place...a place of last resort and a place where people are fighting hard to get out of.

If I'm not mistaken, men do not qualify for welfare. Is that correct?
In order for a women to receive welfare, she has to get knocked up.
If so, did all these women on welfare just find themselves pregnant?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 34): The Obama Administration has gutted the Clinton welfare reform. Speaking of which: I remember that soon a couple of years after it passed, Mrs. Clinton, lamented the fact that there were less folks on welfare than there were prior to its passage. I saw the reduction as a success, she saw it as a failure.

Or course it's a bad thing for her. She wants power and control. The way things are going, we'll all be sucking off of Hillary's government teat.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 34): be allowed only to buy 'store-brand' products, if available. I want those folks to buy Kroger Toasted Oats instead of General Mills Cheerios. I want welfare to be psychologically painful in order to force folks to try to better themselves.

Well that is a bit extreme. Perhaps they need to learn to manage on their own. Many do buy the generic brands but if they chose to buy gourmet Dijon mustard of arugula at Whole Foods, then that is their problem by the end of the month.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 34): At no time should anyone be allowed to 'cash-in' their EBT cards for cash.

  

Quoting Superfly (Reply 35): Well that is a bit extreme. Perhaps they need to learn to manage on their own. Many do buy the generic brands but if they chose to buy gourmet Dijon mustard of arugula at Whole Foods, then that is their problem by the end of the month.

I agree with Superfly on this. Can't take away personal responsibility here, otherwise they won't learn.

the real issue are the ones that are on Welfare with Side jobs. Then they are double dipping.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 33): I have an interview next week for a training program (environmental engineering) sponsored by the NovaScotia (provincial) government. There is only 15 seats but I'm hoping with my experience and previous Diplomas I will be one one the successful applicants...

That's good to hear !   

Keep me posted (by IM if you prefer).

Quoting Superfly (Reply 35): Many do buy the generic brands but if they chose to buy gourmet Dijon mustard of arugula at Whole Foods, then that is their problem by the end of the month.

No, it is our problem because then these same folks and their sponsors in congress will say that the money they currently get is not enough.

Listen, I'm all for personal responsibility, but if you want to buy the name brands you like, you can do it without my money. When you take from the me, I should be able to tell you how to spend that money you take.

You want to buy Grey Poupon, then work harder and try to improve your condition in life, otherwise settle for Kroger Dijon Mustard.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 38): You want to buy Grey Poupon, then work harder and try to improve your condition in life, otherwise settle for Kroger Dijon Mustard.

Sure, but what if it was a good week? A splurge here or there is not a bad thing if you are saving overall and living within the constraint of the Food stamp. Heck it might even be the last week on the stamps and they are celebrating a new job.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5): I thought you were against greed?

Hard to call that level of poverty as greed.

There are a lot of people in this country at the bottom of the economic scale that would love a job that pays above the poverty line, but it is the greed at the corporate level that will keep that from happening.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5): You dislike the fact that I think I should be able to keep more of the money that I actually earn rather than see it go to taxes, but you don't blame people for keeping themselves on welfare to make a few bucks more?

People don't really care if you are making nice, plump income. But don't consider a "few bucks more" the same for people in poverty as it is for you. Enjoy your fat paycheck and discover that paying a good tax accountant can reduce that 1.6 ration you are so obsessed about.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11): Time to cut off the junkie.

Time to move the minimum wage to a level above the poverty line and move people off welfare. All we have now is corporate welfare with a below poverty level minimum wage and individual welfare that is the result of corporate welfare.

Quoting Mir (Reply 12): Or, better, to raise the minimum wage.

That is too logical and solves too many problems. Sort of like getting rid of employer provided nanny care.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14): My (theoretical) millionth dollar is infinitely more important to me than some trailer dweller's first.

This doesn't look like trailer living

Iron Lung

Those days are fortunately gone, but they show the reality that medical conditions can keep people from working. Your assumptions that people receiving benefits are trailer trash are pretty far from reality.

Quoting ImperialEagle (Reply 15): They just keep on having babies and those of us who pay taxes keep on paying the tab. What fun!

As long as we have a minimum wage below the poverty line there will be long lines of people looking for benefits - even people who are working.

Move the minimum wage to ABOVE the poverty line and things change. Move the burden of nanny care off the employers back and things will change. Stay where we are and that line at the welfare office will only continue to grow.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 16): This is the fellow who identifies Social Security, the Veterans Administration, military retirement and civilian federal pensions as 'entitlement' programs and includes them in his figures.

That is prety impressive. I guess all the Vets you see at the VA Clinics are Trailer Trash. Same for those old folks who paid into the system for decades while the earned an honest living - just more trailer trash, eh?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 21): If you look at the govt purely as a transferer of wealth.

Until you look at the government funds that flow into those red states. Look at Texas - how heavy an investment do we have the for military bases and what is the annual budget for operations and personnel? How much money has gone into roads and other infrastructure development, how about the billions that flow into medical research (MD Anderson's share of the federal dollar would probably stun all of us) and how much money flows into the state for medicare, Medicaid and medical education.

Texas gets a hell of a lot of federal dollars so that transfer of wealth is a bit of a distortion.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): People working minimum wage aren't supposed to be "getting by". Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be transistional.

But there aren't enough higher paying jobs to transition to. Not everyone can be a doctor/lawyer/engineer...or even a plumber/mechanic. Yes, some people can make the transition, but many will be stuck in low-wage jobs no matter how hard they work.

If 50% of all jobs are low-wage, then a lot of people will be stuck in them for most of their lives.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 34): Never. In fact, I would support that people receiving welfare only be allowed to shop in certain stores (I realize that there is some of that, but I suggest it be even more restrictive) and be allowed only to buy 'store-brand' products, if available. I want those folks to buy Kroger Toasted Oats instead of General Mills Cheerios.

But trying to code in all the "brands" that are allowed and not allowed would be highly cost prohibitive. You really want to spend millions more to have government bureaucrats tell you what brands are acceptable? And what about when the name brand is on sale and is cheaper than the store brand? I've seen that happen many times...under your system you'd then be forcing people to pay more and not take advantage of the sale.

I think minimum wages should be lowered if not abolished all together. Low wages mean lower costs which keeps industry and manufacturing local.

Pensions should be abolished, especially in ageing societies where it is simply not feasible for people to get paid post retirement as there are more people not working than working. Unfortunately, the concept of saving for retirement from youth is not part of the culture.

Thirdly, people should only be rewarded for the contributions to society. No unemployment benefits. If penalties are severe enough, people will also refrain from going into illicit activities. Death penalties should be mandatory for drug and firearm related offences.

In reference to the comments regarding Republicans giving handouts to the wealthy, why not impose an investment based income tax scheme? Have the wealthy get a tax break based on their investment into either their local or national economy. This tax break should only be offered AFTER they've spent their money, not handed to them before - there is no incentive for them to spend otherwise.

***I frequently visit the United States, I'm currently at the tail end of a 6 week trip to Chicago. I am often met with stunned looks that someone of my age (18) possesses such conservative views. It is a shame that no government will do any of the above as it would be political suicide and never get passed. Despite what I have posted above, I would never vote right wing.

There are advantages to having a single ruling party along with smaller opposition parties to keep checks and balances in place.

[Edited 2013-08-22 13:39:09]

Quoting SIA747Megatop (Reply 42):

So basically become Singapore. I don't know whether Americans would like that, but as someone residing here I'd say no thank you, if I wanted any of that I would have moved to Singapore.

Assuming this is true or even taking 20% off the numbers of the higher ranked states these numbers are insane.
Assistant State Attorneys in Florida don't even make over $40k.

Now Florida seems to have it under control but let me give you two personal stories for those who believe these people really deserve it. Now I will also add that I think minimum wage should go up. Not suddenly but there does need to be a change in minimum wage. At the same time I think all Government pensions from any level from city, state and federal need to be abolished. There is zero reason with some of the salaries government workers make, especially at the city, county or federal level why they need pensions. They can save up like so many others have to.

I know of two people who have quit their jobs because after doing some calculations and one of them was approached by a social worker they were told the government would pay them more money not to work. There is a problem with that.

We want to help poor people. Lets not give them money but give them things. We give them Section 8 housing already. That is fine, and actually it is good for the economy because so many of these places are owned by private investors. We should not be writing checks to the poor. They need food? They can go to a select few grocery stores and use their food stamps on food only. They need the electricity paid? Sure bring in your bill and the government will pay the utility company directly. Need clothes? Sure tell us what you need and the government will give you a voucher to go to a select store and purchase what you need.

So how is giving things better? Well first we would limit the value of the things. Second it would ensure that the money is actually being used for vital needs. And maybe the limitations on what you can buy and where you can buy it would create and incentive to go get a job and work. Right now many prefer to just not work.

Often Cuban immigrants who come to the U.S. now will stay with relatives for a year before they can get their green-card. Once they get their green-card they can get welfare. What do you think happens to the family of the immigrant? They no longer help their family member, the immigrant has some kids and bingo government is paying them money. It happens. We need welfare, we just need to change how the system works and how much we give.

Quoting SIA747Megatop (Reply 42):

Well you are certainly from Singapore. Thanks but no Thanks.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 24): Live like the majority of people in this country. Work two or three low wage jobs

I don't have to and I'll explain why.

I didn't screw around too much. I didn't decide I needed to go smoke instead of go to class. I didn't get smashed and miss class with a hangover. I didn't become an alcoholic or a drug addict. When I went to school, I took it reasonably seriously and did my work.

None of that is really that exceptional. Plenty of other people did the same. None of that required my parents or anyone else in my family to be a millionaire.

You, and a lot of the rest of the country it seems, are just making excuses.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 24): And, one last point: the right-wing lumps food stamps and Medicade in with welfare. They are three different things.

All of them cost me money, so I really don't care that much.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): We need to stigmatize welfare.

Very much so. It should carry a major embarrassment factor with it, rather than "Hey look! Free stuff from the government!"

Quoting seb146 (Reply 30): They don't make enough to feed their family and can not afford health care even with a job or two or three.

Not my problem.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40): Hard to call that level of poverty as greed.

People are intentionally not getting jobs because they'll make more money living off the government.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40): People don't really care if you are making nice, plump income.

And I don't really care if uneducated folks get no welfare at all.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40): But don't consider a "few bucks more" the same for people in poverty as it is for you.

It's actually way more important to me, because it's mine.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40): Time to move the minimum wage to a level above the poverty line and move people off welfare.

Having to pay $15 for a crummy hamburger doesn't help me that much.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41): Not everyone can be a doctor/lawyer/engineer...or even a plumber/mechanic.

But I can. Problem solved.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41): Yes, some people can make the transition, but many will be stuck in low-wage jobs no matter how hard they work.

That's a serious problem, so let's keep it their problem and not make it mine as well.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 30): Can we please define "welfare" before this thread goes any further?

A noble idea, sometimes abused, but absolutely, positively needed when disaster strikes. As I said before, to me welfare is a product of Capitalism. Capitalism, a vicious system, which bestows great wealth on many, moderate wealth for many, and unfortunately great poverty for many. A system of top down exploitation in which there are varying degrees. My take on it anyway.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 35): If I'm not mistaken, men do not qualify for welfare.

I believe that normally both men and women qualify, but don't assume that a healthy guy will get it as easily as a very pregnant woman.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 35): Perhaps they need to learn to manage on their own.

If you want to get to that level then you need to start classes on personal finance in the 7th grade and continue each year.

There re a lot of university students that don't have a basic understanding of personal finance. Amazing that high schools & universities require 2 years of a foreign language, but nothing on personal finance that can make a significant improvement in the students' lives.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 25): Sadly I'm just another statistic whose Employment Insurance ran out after 9 months. Tried to avoid applying for welfare but bills; increasing rent and power costs forcing me to do just that.

The fact that you had Employment insurance demonstrates that you had a job. Lots of people in your situation with the GOP Great Recession still impacting unemployment and this situation will take a generation to be resolved, if it can be fully resolved at all.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 25): Here in Nova Scotia, $10.5/hr minimum wage is over double what I get in welfare allowance.

You're better than the US with the $10.50 level, but it's even better than that. You include health care where we expect our people on minimum wage to pay for their own medical insurance. Aw

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 25): I don't know how Americans on minimum can get by on just $7.25....

They don't. Lots of other ways to make ends meet. Sell drugs, rob a liquor store, etc.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): If this is true, it tells me that we pay too much in welfare.

Welfare still keeps Americans below the poverty level. That is far from "too much". It not only drags those families down it also drags this country down.

But as long as you support corporate welfare we will continue to have below poverty line minimum wages.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): People working minimum wage aren't supposed to be "getting by".

And they sure aren't "getting by". But then that minimum wage is in place to support corporations and their profits.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be transistional.

Tell that to adults working for minimum wage with any little hope for their future.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): Minimum wage employers are supposed to be training grounds where young folks learn how to be employees.

When you talk about that you have to start with the training program. The best example I have seen was the apprenticeship program at Qantas for their engineers. Starts around age 16 and lasts 3 to 4 years. At the end of their apprenticeship (assuming they pass their tests) they move into jobs that pay adult wages at a level where the engineers can make a living and support a family. An "apprenticeship" in flipping burgers doesn't count.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): You're not supposed to try and live in minimum wage.

And you don't - so why not raise it to a level where decent people can get by?

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 28): It was pocket money. It was cash to go on dates or to a movie or pay for gas.

You are exceptionally fortunate - just look at those families trying to make it on what you considered "play money".

Quoting seb146 (Reply 30): BTW, people actually do work and receive food stamps and Medicade.

That is because Corporate America (and the politicians in their pocket) are not going to allow a living wage above the poverty line. That low wage that results in food stamps and Medicaid is corporate welfare. Cold hard fact that conservatives will continue to support.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 30): They don't make enough to feed their family and can not afford health care even with a job or two or three.

Which is why we need to get with modern civilization and shift the cost of core hare to a tax based system. Other countries managed to do that pretty well - achieving better outcomes than the US - but our right wing politicians aren't going to upset their political cash flow so we have problems with minimum improvements with programs like ObamaCare.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 33): There is only 15 seats but I'm hoping with my experience and previous Diplomas I will be one one the successful applicants..

Best of luck getting a seat. Your situation is one that some overly confident needs to give a lot of thought to. You worked hard to get the Diplomas, you have experience and now you're out of a job - and looking for more training. Lots of people believe it will never happen to them - and are shocked when factors beyond their control (like the GOP Great Recession) leaves them out in the cold.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47): I believe that normally both men and women qualify, but don't assume that a healthy guy will get it as easily as a very pregnant woman.

What about a healthy pregnant woman?

Quoting flymia (Reply 44): Assuming this is true or even taking 20% off the numbers of the higher ranked states these numbers are insane. Assistant State Attorneys in Florida don't even make over $40k.

His numbers include every Social Security recipient as 'welfare' from an 'entitlement program' and the 'value' of Medicare they receive as a second entitlement program. So a retiree receiving $1,500 per month from SS with Medicare valued at $1,500 per month - inputs as a welfare value of $36,000 per year.

It is all playing with statistics.

Some clueless person above quoted the untrue 47% figure.

The truth is that for one year back in the mid-2000s - 47% of the people filing federal income tax returns paid no income tax.

Of that 47% - about 1/3 of them were Social Security recipients who had either no additional income or no-tax investment income - and thus owed no federal taxes.

Most of the other 2/3 of the people who paid no income tax were working poor who receive minimum wage. Their total income was too low to owe taxes if they take the standard deduction.

Now - if those people had made a million dollars each and paid no income tax - no one would be complaining about welfare.

[Edited 2013-08-22 21:14:56]

[Edited 2013-08-22 21:15:49]