Quote:Work for welfare was on of the best things we've done in a long time, I hate that it's gone.
It was an idiotic thing. The point of welfare was to take care of people who didn't have jobs available to them, not to subsidize big business, which is what work for welfare has the effect of doing.
When people leave the workforce and receive welfare that's actually an economic positive, as it constrains the labor force and creates upward pressure on wages. Work for welfare has the opposite effect, just as disenfranchised undocumented immigrants in the workforce do.
Quote:I didn't hear about that. I would be too afraid of getting caught to try and cheat the system. That and it's just wrong.
http://youtu.be/-GVP7dmcHBQ">YouTube</a>
Pretty ridiculous we the tax payer have to pay for this. Scumbag, he's not the first or the last.
Quote:It was an idiotic thing. The point of welfare was to take care of people who didn't have jobs available to them, not to subsidize big business, which is what work for welfare has the effect of doing.
When people leave the workforce and receive welfare that's actually an economic positive
Hahahaha. Great story. Compelling and rich
Quote:Hahahaha. Great story. Compelling and rich
What an intellectually stimulating reply. Congratulations on raising the level of discourse yet again, Zordon.
Quote:Hahahaha. Great story. Compelling and rich
That makes as much sense as Hillary saying employers don't create jobs.
Quote:Pretty ridiculous we the tax payer have to pay for this. Scumbag, he's not the first or the last.
I like how Fox news trots this surfer guy out when they want to talk about welfare, but
never attack Corporate welfare. Because we know that welfare abuse
only exists on the social side, and certainly not on the corporate side. I mean I'm sure those fortune 500 companies really <i>need</i> those subsidies to survive.
Quote:I like how Fox news trots this surfer guy out when they want to talk about welfare, but never attack Corporate welfare. Because we know that welfare abuse only exists on the social side, and certainly not on the corporate side. I mean I'm sure those fortune 500 companies really need those subsidies to survive.
Just stop with your agenda. I'm talking about this guy and others like him.
Quote:Just stop with your agenda. I'm talking about this guy and others like him.
I'll stop with mine, when you stop with yours.
I mean guys like that make up what... maybe 2% of the welfare program? Food stamps have one of the
lowest fraud rates of all federal assistance.
That guy is a SNAP recipient right?
http://www.hungercoalition.org/food-stamp-myths
Quote:
The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP—and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children—more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year."
Quote:
“SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. SNAP fraud has actually been cut by three-quarters over the past 15 years, and the program’s error rate is at an all-time low of less than 3 percent. The introduction of EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards has dramatically reduced consumer fraud. According to the USDA, the small amount of fraud that continues is usually on the part of retailers, not consumers.
Quote:I'll stop with mine, when you stop with yours.
I mean guys like that make up what... maybe 2% of the welfare program? Food stamps have one of the lowest fraud rates of all federal assistance.
And that low fraud rate is partially because of the stigma that society assigns to people who receive federal assistance. Whereas corporate welfare is embraced and celebrated by the right. Paraded around as some kind of job creation scheme, as if jobs can't exist without wealthy corporations being given money by the very people they're supposed to be creating jobs for. It's like a bizarre system of kick-backs and it really needs to stop.
I know someone who receives SNAP, and they have a job. It's a part time job, because it's the only thing they can find. (And it's not a stable job, because they could lose it at any time). They're also partially disabled (they can't stand for long periods of time) due to a surgery they had to have.
I know another person who tried to get SNAP, but couldn't because they made too much money. (she needed assistance, because she was trying to pay her way through college, as well as her rent and other bills. Thankfully she was able to find some assistance to pay for college that she doesn't have to pay back, though it's only $1000/semester. Which sounds like a lot until you realize the cost of college. She gets it because her father was killed in action, though it's not through the government)
It's easy to show the people who abuse the system. They're most certainly out there. It's unfortunate, but it's going to happen no matter what you do. I don't think that Surfer Represents SNAP or welfare recipients. We know there are people out there who just want to leech off of others. But they're going to find a way to do it. And anything done to try to prevent the fraud will either fail (they tried to prosecute the surfer guy btw, they weren't able to) or just make it harder for the people who are honest to get help they need, while only making it a little harder for the lazy.
Bill Gates once said "I choose a lazy person to do a hard job, because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it." That goes for welfare too. They'll figure a way around any provisions made to keep them out, because they'd rather do that than work.
Quote:That makes as much sense as Hillary saying employers don't create jobs.
In a way they don't. Jobs are the result of some kind of increase in demand. More employers aren't going to make more jobs if the demand can't justify the increase in production. If an employer has determined his costumers demand equals three jobs he's not going to hire four people just because he has a tax break.
Quote:your not serious right?
When you use such poor spelling, punctuation, and capitalization it's hard to tell if you're serious or just trying to make a really dumb joke.
Quote:No.
But to his point can you name a few members of the Republican party who has reached out to the urban community?
Probably as many Dems who reach out to the non-urban communities.
Quote:When you use such poor spelling, punctuation, and capitalization it's hard to tell if you're serious or just trying to make a really dumb joke.
I'm no grammar king that's for sure, but I'm asking do you really believe that it's an economic positive when people stop working and start collecting welfare?
Quote:I'm no grammar king that's for sure, but I'm asking do you really believe that it's an economic positive when people stop working and start collecting welfare?
It's not what I think, it's the reality of it.
Strong social welfare that simply provides people for a level of living somewhere above the poverty line sets a floor on wages and makes business pay people significantly more than they can get by drawing social welfare benefits, dispersing wealth more widely and flatly increasing the fluidity of the base of the economy and resulting in a stronger economy than what we currently have where welfare functions as a subsidy to low pay low benefit employers like McDonald's and Wal-mart.
Quote:It's not what I think, it's the reality of it.
Strong social welfare that simply provides people for a level of living somewhere above the poverty line sets a floor on wages and makes business pay people significantly more than they can get by drawing social welfare benefits, dispersing wealth more widely and flatly increasing the fluidity of the base of the economy and resulting in a stronger economy than what we currently have where welfare functions as a subsidy to low pay low benefit employers like McDonald's and Wal-mart.
That's not what you said, you said that "
When people leave the workforce and receive welfare that's actually an economic positive..." so I'll ask again do you really believe that?
what you just described is changing the way the system works, we can debate that all day, I'm asking about the comment you made stating welfare as an economic positive.
Quote:That's not what you said, you said that "When people leave the workforce and receive welfare that's actually an economic positive..." so I'll ask again do you really believe that?
what you just described is changing the way the system works, we can debate that all day, I'm asking about the comment you made stating welfare as an economic positive.
I just explained it, I'm sorry you didn't understand what I'm talking about.
When the labor force shrinks the price of the quantity of labor demanded necessarily increases, which has two effects.
First, it drives up wages for labor, which increases and distributes more widely spending power, and increased spending power creates a positive feedback loop that increases the marginal propensity to consume. In effect money given to people at the bottom of the labor force as the strongest stimulative effect on the economy.
Second, it increases the tax base. With wages increasing the federal tax base widens out, something Republicans claim they want.
Really, the only downside to a real social welfare system with no idiotic requirement to work or limit on benefits is the possibility of disenfranchisement for people who want to work but remain out of the labor pool for too long. Though I think adding more social welfare to make all public universities free to anyone straight up to PhD level would also fix that problem.
