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.
First of all, it's still welfare. Since the government doesn't produce money, they have to take it from someone to give to someone else.
Secondly, will everyone pay taxes? If not, then it's just a massive redistribution of wealth. Those that pay are just getting "their" money back, and those that don't pay are getting someone else's.
Lastly, if someone is on welfare, chances are that $20,000 will get pissed away. So the ones that already manage their money just fine will have money, and those that don't will still be broke. So now what to do? They still won't be able to afford healthcare, food, shelter, etc.
Brilliant idea - give folks that have proven they can't or are unwilling to earn a living, and give them cash they can squander.
This hasn't been a problem in any study of basic income to date. In fact, people in poverty tend to be thriftier than average. The small minority that are mentally ill will still need care, but they'll have $20k to spend on it which is better than we do now.
It will also be good for companies, since we could dispense with minimum wage. Instead of paying the equivalent of $15/hr for a robot to do the job we don't think is worth feeding a human to do (while the government pays the prospective fry cook to sit around doing nothing), the government pays our fry cook a living wage and the company can just pay $2/hr to him to operate the fryer for some extra spending cash. So while we're redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, it's really just a simplification of what we were doing with minimum wage, and in a way that handles marginal cost/benefit more rationally.
Lastly, if someone is on welfare, chances are that $20,000 will get pissed away. So the ones that already manage their money just fine will have money, and those that don't will still be broke. So now what to do? They still won't be able to afford healthcare, food, shelter, etc.
This is all Reagan's doing. Reagan put a face to welfare, it was that of a black, unwed mother of too many children. Overweight and lazy and with loose morals. This led directly to the welfare reforms that Clinton signed into law and STILL everyone thinks that welfare recipients are mostly lazy and black and that they receive it for life. None of this is true. The majority of welfare recipients are white and thanks to the welfare reforms of at least 15 years now, it is limited to 5 years. Section 8, Food Stamps, WIC, Home Heating Assistance, etc., etc. the majority clientele for ALL of these programs are white. That is how and why they were started. When Conservatives started to care about the money (because so much of it had left, headed you know where) more than the people they needed a way to turn Americans against being the generous, helpful almsgivers that they are intrinsically wired to be. What better way than to put a black face on that which you want them to turn against. Works every time.
Welfare is older than me. So is Social Security. So is Medicaid. I have to think there was a very good reason that people went through so much trouble to get these programs up and running. But that's just me. If Conservatives of 2015 don't think they are needed and need to defund them for whatever reason... again, who am I. But I suspect that if we did actually do that. Well I don't think it would take too long to see why they were crafted in the first place.
As to the quoted... we have the evidence of welfare states in other parts of the world AND our own country to show that there is no evidence that more than a very small portion of the population ever need assistance. In an earlier post Ruth4Truth outlined the many ways that opportunities to be self-sufficient have been denied to Americans. Americans that end up being told by the very people responsible for moving their jobs overseas that they are good for nothing and lazy.
This is all Reagan's doing. Reagan put a face to welfare, it was that of a black, unwed mother of too many children. Overweight and lazy and with loose morals. This led directly to the welfare reforms that Clinton signed into law and STILL everyone thinks that welfare recipients are mostly lazy and black and that they receive it for life. None of this is true. The majority of welfare recipients are white and thanks to the welfare reforms of at least 15 years now, it is limited to 5 years. Section 8, Food Stamps, WIC, Home Heating Assistance, etc., etc. the majority clientele for ALL of these programs are white. That is how and why they were started. When Conservatives started to care about the money (because so much of it had left, headed you know where) more than the people they needed a way to turn Americans against being the generous, helpful almsgivers that they are intrinsically wired to be. What better way than to put a black face on that which you want them to turn against. Works every time.
Welfare is older than me. So is Social Security. So is Medicaid. I have to think there was a very good reason that people went through so much trouble to get these programs up and running. But that's just me. If Conservatives of 2015 don't think they are needed and need to defund them for whatever reason... again, who am I. But I suspect that if we did actually do that. Well I don't think it would take too long to see why they were crafted in the first place.
As to the quoted... we have the evidence of welfare states in other parts of the world AND our own country to show that there is no evidence that more than a very small portion of the population ever need assistance. In an earlier post Ruth4Truth outlined the many ways that opportunities to be self-sufficient have been denied to Americans. Americans that end up being told by the very people responsible for moving their jobs overseas that they are good for nothing and lazy.
I don't agree with you on some issues, however, this one I do agree with. Yes, overall there are by far more whites on public assistance than blacks but black only make up a little over 30% of the population. I remember when I was a kid there was a huge social stigma on a person for being on welfare, people didn't like having to get government handouts and if they did it was only for a short time. This type of mentality has completely changed in today's world, and I think it is due to the total amount of people relying on public assistance and the ease at which it can be obtained.
Let's not lump Social Security or Medicare into these programs, because they are not hand outs, you paid for them all your working life, they are not entitlements.
Take all the monies collected for all social services and then pay every single person in the country over the age of 18 $20,000 per year. But all social services are fully eliminated. No welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment, no housing money.... NOTHING.
People can take their $20K and use it to live on if they don't desire to work. Or, if they want to achieve more they can work in any way they want to. No one needs to beg for money. That's over. And the money is static.
How think ye?
Alternatively, we could give every single person ZERO and tell them to go find a job. They really do that in some countries and the people seem to do OK relying on their extended families. Of course, that'll never happen here.
This is all Reagan's doing. Reagan put a face to welfare, it was that of a black, unwed mother of too many children. Overweight and lazy and with loose morals. This led directly to the welfare reforms that Clinton signed into law and STILL everyone thinks that welfare recipients are mostly lazy and black and that they receive it for life. None of this is true. The majority of welfare recipients are white and thanks to the welfare reforms of at least 15 years now, it is limited to 5 years. Section 8, Food Stamps, WIC, Home Heating Assistance, etc., etc. the majority clientele for ALL of these programs are white. That is how and why they were started. When Conservatives started to care about the money (because so much of it had left, headed you know where) more than the people they needed a way to turn Americans against being the generous, helpful almsgivers that they are intrinsically wired to be. What better way than to put a black face on that which you want them to turn against. Works every time.
Welfare is older than me. So is Social Security. So is Medicaid. I have to think there was a very good reason that people went through so much trouble to get these programs up and running. But that's just me. If Conservatives of 2015 don't think they are needed and need to defund them for whatever reason... again, who am I. But I suspect that if we did actually do that. Well I don't think it would take too long to see why they were crafted in the first place.
As to the quoted... we have the evidence of welfare states in other parts of the world AND our own country to show that there is no evidence that more than a very small portion of the population ever need assistance. In an earlier post Ruth4Truth outlined the many ways that opportunities to be self-sufficient have been denied to Americans. Americans that end up being told by the very people responsible for moving their jobs overseas that they are good for nothing and lazy.
The complete irony of all of this, is that the ones to complain about welfare the most are conservatives, yet conservative states take in more welfare money than liberal states. So if/when conservatives defund these programs, they'll be the ones suffering the most.
It's also interesting how Republicans have been able to turn low income citizens against themselves. Numerous times I've seen/heard people say something like "I use/have used welfare programs, I wouldn't have been able to feed my kids without it BUT too many people abuse it, so we must put a stop to it" and then they go out and vote to take away their own programs. Brainwashing at its finest.
Alternatively, we could give every single person ZERO and tell them to go find a job. They really do that in some countries and the people seem to do OK relying on their extended families. Of course, that'll never happen here.
Or we could just pay them a living wage so they don't need welfare.
Changing the base construct doesn't really "eliminate" welfare but only alters the money path to a small extent. The fact of the matter is that welfare, both kinds, will continue to be a staple of American economics. For starters few here in America really understand that TANF distribution pays millions into the coffers of entities such as Walmart, Target, Amazon, and other retailers who ultimately could be considered to be the real beneficiaries of a re-distribution scheme generally thought of as a handout to the poor.
This obvious roundabout of federal dollars, taken through taxes, and then redistributed to the merchant class seems to be a situation that could easily be construed as a kind of welfare for the merchant class, or on another front be considered as simply a program to aid to the poor. Actually, both views are valid I guess, as it stands, the merchants are receiving our tax dollars as a positive on their balance sheet, and the poor do get the benefit. So, does American business need the poor as much as the poor needs business, the answer is obvious to most, but certainly not all.
Threads on Welfare can be seen as an earnest attempt to address the real concerns of poverty in America, or they could be seen as a opener to the usual kind of partisan politics that seems to be so common here. My view of the entire circle of welfare dollars is indisputable, it's all about the path those dollars are on that allows us a view of the TOTAL benefit of those dollars, and in that view is the inclusion of another all too often hidden aspect of what we call welfare. It's not all about the poor, but moreover where the poor spend those "free" dollars..
I think that everyone on this post realizes that there are a LOT of welfare cheats -- people who will, for example, sell a $20.00 gift card to a "food only" store for $10.00 so they can buy a pack of cigarettes instead.
My idea for the very poor and/or homeless would be to have taxpayer-paid VERY basic, no-frills apartments with gas, electric, water, and trash pick-up included. Very basic and nutritious food, cleaning, and grooming supplies would be distributed weekly based on the number of people living in each apartment, and that a very basic wardrobe that might even contain secondhand clothing in good condition would be issued twice a year (warm weather clothing in April and cold-weather clothing in October). Bus passes would be issued for transportation. There would be no money or "discretionary" EBT-type cards distributed whatsoever. Medical care (also free to the residents) would consist only of necessary vaccinations, yearly check-ups, necessary prescriptions, diagnostic tests, first aid and emergency treatment, life-saving surgery, and only necessary and non-cosmetic dentistry. However, free job training would be available to whoever wants it, and people would also be free to work and earn extra money for "extras" such as electronics, cars, manicures, etc. There would be one social worker for every 20-25 families to oversee things and provide guidance if needed and/or requested.
Yes, I am talking about a very bleak and prison-like (but livable) environment that would hopefully encourage people to work to improve their lives so that they could move out of that environment. In other words, something that would encourage people to get OFF "welfare" instead of making it more attractive to stay on it.
Take all the monies collected for all social services and then pay every single person in the country over the age of 18 $20,000 per year. But all social services are fully eliminated. No welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment, no housing money.... NOTHING.
People can take their $20K and use it to live on if they don't desire to work. Or, if they want to achieve more they can work in any way they want to. No one needs to beg for money. That's over. And the money is static.
How think ye?
That description is not accurate.
The article says they are considering a "universal income." That is, EVERYONE gets income, if they are below a certain income level. It's not exactly for the purpsoe of eliminating welfare.
It won't eliminate welfare, of course, because of children. Drug addict or alcoholic parents may spend the money on their vices (they can't help it; they're addicted), leaving their children without housing or food. A civilized society would take care of those children....welfare.
When I was poor, I think I was responsible enough financially to spend money where it was needed. But many poor people are not, I think. For the reason that they are not experienced at having money and managing it.
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.
