How to Eliminate Welfare? (rating, retirement, program, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have an odd definition of intelligence. There is most definitely a correlation between intelligence (not innate intelligence, but willfully learned intelligence) and having a job. Intelligence is not someone who can recite the dictionary but chooses to play Warcraft 18 hours a day. Intelligence is someone who does their homework in school, works for good grades, works hard in college or trade school, and continues working hard for that paycheck and that promotion. THAT is intelligence.
Working is not a sign of intelligence; it might imply other traits, i.e ambition, a moral position that all people should work, or it might simply imply being employed to avoid boredom - but there are plenty of people who go to work every day and have an IQ of 80.
Intelligence: Definition
Intelligence is a combination of the ability to:
Learn. This includes all kinds of informal and formal learning via any combination of experience, education, and training.
Pose problems. This includes recognizing problem situations and transforming them into more clearly defined problems.
Solve problems. This includes solving problems, accomplishing tasks, fashioning products, and doing complex projects.
From that definition, you would be hard pressed to call the person playing World of Warcraft stupid and the one flipping burgers smart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5
The definition of eugenics is as follows:
the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.
I know what eugenics is and I was referring to this comment of yours:
Quote:
People who CAN work, and who don't "desire" to, should starve to death.
and this:
Quote:
In order to evolve to be more intelligent and hard working, that means we want the most intelligent and hard working folks to procreate more, and the less intelligent and lazy folks to procreate less, and well, die off really.
Your words, not mine... By the way, Nazis are not the only ones who believed in Eugenics so your attempt to accuse me of using Godwin's law was a fail.
They will beg, borrow or steal to get what they want when the money runs out. How would you keep them from doing that? If someone can't support their kids, they need to remove them from their home. This will remove procreating for more cash. Most of the kids aren't being taken proper care of anyway so this would be a win-win.
Your whole attitude toward the poor reflects your naivete, I strongly suggest you volunteer to work at a food bank, or in a job center for the poor, then maybe you will understand that the poor are just like you and I, the vast majority care for their kids and don't go out and beg or steal. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of good hard working Murican's get arrested for child abuse and theft.
To eliminate welfare it needs to go back to the way it was before the gov. took it over. It used to be that each town/ city would fund their own system out of their own money. If it was like that today I'm pretty sure that the fraud and abuse would be gone and people that were on the welfare would be on it for a shorter time.
Welfare was meant to be a crutch to help people through a rough patch but way too many use it like a wheelchair to roll through life.
What happens when the $20,000 runs out?
To eliminate welfare it needs to go back to the way it was before the gov. took it over. It used to be that each town/ city would fund their own system out of their own money. If it was like that today I'm pretty sure that the fraud and abuse would be gone and people that were on the welfare would be on it for a shorter time. Welfare was meant to be a crutch to help people through a rough patch but way too many use it like a wheelchair to roll through life.
Quote:
Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Social Security Act was enacted in 1935. The act, which was amended in 1939, established a number of programs designed to provide aid to various segments of the population. Unemployment compensation and AFDC (originally Aid to Dependent Children) are two of the programs that still exist today .
I'm not sure how long ago towns funded welfare, but the major components of our current system have been in effect for 80 years.
To eliminate welfare it needs to go back to the way it was before the gov. took it over. It used to be that each town/ city would fund their own system out of their own money. If it was like that today I'm pretty sure that the fraud and abuse would be gone and people that were on the welfare would be on it for a shorter time.
Welfare was meant to be a crutch to help people through a rough patch but way too many use it like a wheelchair to roll through life.
Completely untrue, you obviously don't know anything about welfare and didn't read this thread. Most welfare is limited to 5 years, generally requires you to have a job, and even with all that is nowhere near enough to let you "roll through life".
Working is not a sign of intelligence; it might imply other traits, i.e ambition, a moral position that all people should work, or it might simply imply being employed to avoid boredom - but there are plenty of people who go to work every day and have an IQ of 80.
Intelligence: Definition Intelligence is a combination of the ability to: Learn. This includes all kinds of informal and formal learning via any combination of experience, education, and training. Pose problems. This includes recognizing problem situations and transforming them into more clearly defined problems. Solve problems. This includes solving problems, accomplishing tasks, fashioning products, and doing complex projects.
From that definition, you would be hard pressed to call the person playing World of Warcraft stupid and the one flipping burgers smart.
Yep, we define it differently.
intelligence in·tel·li·gence (ĭn-těl'ə-jəns) n.
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, especially toward a purposeful goal.
In my book, if you sit around and play WoW all day to the point where you need the gov't to provide you with handouts so that you can eat, it doesn't matter if you have an IQ of 180, you are dumb as rocks. And if you have an IQ of 80 but you manage to get and hold a job that pays you well enough to support your family and do what you want out of life, then you are a genius. I've taken zillions of IQ tests, I even belong to Mensa, and I know that IQ tests only test the capacity to acquire knowledge. The capacity to apply it, especially toward a purposeful goal, is something completely different, and rather more important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
I know what eugenics is and I was referring to this comment of yours:
If someone out in the wild who is perfectly healthy and capable decides to not go out and hunt/farm and get food, and they therefore have nothing to eat, they starve and die. No one made them starve and die, they did it themselves. If someone in civilization who is perfectly healthy and capable decides to not go out and work in order to get food, and they therefore have nothing to eat, they starve and die. No one made them starve and die, they did it themselves. This is survival of the fittest, natural evolution. It's personal choices, none of my business.
That's not anywhere near eugenics. Eugenics is if we had a program where we give out food stamps, but in order to accept food stamps, you have to submit to a physical or chemical neutering. Eugenics is a breeding program where you forcibly control breeding in order to either get rid of or promote certain characteristics. Eugenics is where someone else gets in your business and makes the choice for you on whether or not your genes get to carry on. If you know what eugenics is, then you know this, and you are deliberately deceiving people who read this forum in order to try to win a debate with emotionally charged falsehoods.
BLAZER PROPHET
in response to the original post ..
The experiment can start and end with me and I'll give them a report on whether the experiment was successful
I know what the result would be ..
Results would be inconclusive and require a re-trial
Issue number 1 is if you gave everyone 20k a year then costs would rise to meet this extra surplus in consumer spending. Housing prices for instance rise according to how much people are willing to pay for the house as a whole. As families more and more converted to a duel earner household guess what went up, housing. Households had more income to put to real estate and therefore bidding went up and the market as a whole went up. This increased all other associated costs. The same would happen if you just "gave" people 20k more a year across the board. People would put that towards their primary asset, real estate. Everyone would be bidding more and voila, housing prices just doubled.
Secondly giving everyone 20k would cost 6 trillion a year.
Issue number 1 is if you gave everyone 20k a year then costs would rise to meet this extra surplus in consumer spending. Housing prices for instance rise according to how much people are willing to pay for the house as a whole. As families more and more converted to a duel earner household guess what went up, housing. Households had more income to put to real estate and therefore bidding went up and the market as a whole went up. This increased all other associated costs. The same would happen if you just "gave" people 20k more a year across the board. People would put that towards their primary asset, real estate. Everyone would be bidding more and voila, housing prices just doubled.
Secondly giving everyone 20k would cost 6 trillion a year.
My understanding is that the proposal is per household. There are about 124 million households in the U.S. It would cost around 2.48 Trillion.
Not sure exactly what would happen to real estate. $20K a year is about 1600 a month before taxes. In a lot of markets that would not go very far, ie: Seattle you'll pay $1200 for a 600sf 1br, so in a place like that where most everyone is already making much more than 20K in order to live there, it would probably not have much of an effect.
In low CoL markets that much would buy you a pretty nice place, hard to say what it would do there.
Also, as I understand it, this is packaged as an replacement to the social safety net, which I take it would stand in for social security, unemployment and all anti-poverty initiatives.
If it also stood in for medicaid & medicare - if you had to use that 20K to pay for your health insurance - it would break even compared to what we currently spend, maybe save a little bit. The current federal budget is $3.8 Trillion.
Looking at where out money currently goes: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/b...-101/spending/ We spend out most of it on various forms of mandatory and discretionary "welfare" counting medicare, social security, unemployment etc...
Government and Military looks like it costs us only around 1.1 out of 3.8 Trillion. That leaves 2.7 Trillion to work with - enough money to hand out 20K for every household and still have 200+ Billion left over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
