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.

 

Sure if welfare wasn't being funded by the remainder of the working class and they where simply leaving the market and sustaining themselves your argument might have a leg to stand on. that's not the case, the welfare doesn't come from a magical government tree fund, it's funded through the taxation on the remainder of the working class. Welfare isn't the equivalent of older generations leaving the workforce to make room for new generations, your argument is flawed on so many levels it's to frustrating to get into.

 

It's not shrinking when people collect welfare over working, they're still being "paid" still have a net cost on the economy, they're just not producing anything.

---

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.

 

If that were the case, with as many people who are on some form of welfare/entitlement program, wages should be BOOMING. That's not the case. At all. And giving money to the bottom of the labor force, most of whom don't know jack about managing their money and easily go into debt, is certainly not a stimulative effect. Unless you call going into credit card or some other form of debt stimulative. 


 

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.

 

There is already a problem with folks who have been out of work for so long. They either don't see the point in going back since they can still collect money without doing much of anything for it, or they've been out for so long their skill set is no longer useful or they're considered 'too old' to be hired. Heck, my stepsister was laid off from her job several years ago and it took her at least 3 years to find another one. With her experience no one wanted to hire her because they were afraid that, with the right offer she would jump ship, so she had to live on severance pay and social programs until her current employer hired her. She could have stayed on social programs for awhile if she wanted but that's not how she thinks. She doesn't want to depend on the government for her 'paycheck' and no one should.


 

There are many reasons why a social welfare system is bad news. It makes people who have no ambition or drive anyway very lazy and ingrains an entitlement attitude. 

---

No, the welfare system isn't making people lazy.


If that were the case, we'd be seeing a labor shortage right now.  Which we're clearly not seeing. 


Businesses would be needing to attract employees by offering higher wages if we had a labor shortage.  We don't have that, so obviously wages aren't being driven up.  For every job opening, there's at least 3 job seekers looking for that job.  


Not sure why you can label those people as 'lazy' so easily.  You certainly don't know most people who are on welfare, and you might know a few of the lazy ones.  But to judge an entire group off of a minority of that group is ridiculous.  It'd be like judging Jags fans on Jungle Cat.

 

I mean, sure.  You could make the jobless more desperate for a job by cutting out their 'entitlements'.  Then some of them will turn to crime (which will increase crime rates), others will just starve (Yay?)  while others might create their own jobs (but the majority won't)  

 

"Oh but they're communities will help them!" you say.  


So why aren't they already?  Because of taxes?  I mean that's kind of guessing.  "If we lower taxes, people will be more willing to help out!"  Or.... they'll save their money.  Or spend it on themselves.  We live in a 1st world country, and yet 1 in 6 Americans are food insecure.  Surely if the communities were helping out, that number would be much lower.  I mean 1 in 10 would be progress.


I've known a lot of people who needed federal assistance.  People who weren't fortunate to have family that would help them, and would have starved without it.   I'd say Welfare is far from a 'bad thing'.    

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Rand Paul for starters

 

So he says something like getting rid of Jim Crow is a benefit to the minority community?

 

Probably as many Dems who reach out to the non-urban communities. 

 

Which is alot more. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Sure if welfare wasn't being funded by the remainder of the working class and they where simply leaving the market and sustaining themselves your argument might have a leg to stand on. that's not the case, the welfare doesn't come from a magical government tree fund, it's funded through the taxation on the remainder of the working class. Welfare isn't the equivalent of older generations leaving the workforce to make room for new generations, your argument is flawed on so many levels it's to frustrating to get into.

 

It's not shrinking when people collect welfare over working, they're still being "paid" still have a net cost on the economy, they're just not producing anything.

 

We already have welfare, but currently it functions in multiple nonsensical parts of the market.

 

First there's the work for welfare stuff that serves as a way to inflate the labor market and depress wages from the start, then there's also the fact that it functions as a subsidy for big business to pay lower wages.

 

Second is that it's applied through corporate subsidies, things like fossil fuel subsidies. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014...tax-breaks

 

Of course something else that needs to be done in concurrency to welfare reform to make it a free ride instead of a corporate subsidy is removal of all free trade agreements and restoration of tariffs for all items by default with free trade only to occur for import of raw materials to be used in manufacture.

---

Here's another example of welfare fraud

 


VIDEO: You Need To Hear Who This Woman Says Is Responsible For Supporting Her And Her 12 Children
 

http://americanoverlook.com/video-you-ne...dren/29470

---

Here's another example of welfare fraud

 


VIDEO: You Need To Hear Who This Woman Says Is Responsible For Supporting Her And Her 12 Children

 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://americanoverlook.com/video-you-need-to-hear-who-this-woman-says-is-responsible-for-supporting-her-and-her-12-children/29470'>http://americanoverlook.com/video-you-need-to-hear-who-this-woman-says-is-responsible-for-supporting-her-and-her-12-children/29470</a>

Loss for words...it's our fault she has 15 kids 3 baby daddies, no job, and daddies are in jail...I have a solution to future morons. Dont have children that you cannot take care of. It's wrong to do to the children. It's no ones fault except the mother.

---

I've read the first three pages of this thread and cant do anymore....it seems like someone leans more socialist/communist in their political ideas here.  Scary.

---

I've read the first three pages of this thread and cant do anymore....it seems like someone leans more socialist/communist in their political ideas here. Scary.

Remember when Americans were against the commies? Now liberals more and more are agreeing to these ideologies.

---

Its all the black woman's fault.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Its all the black woman's fault.

 

No one's said nor suggested that stop playing the race card it makes you look pathetic.

---

So he says something like getting rid of Jim Crow is a benefit to the minority community?

 

 

Which is alot more. 

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/a...s-20130410

---

No one's said nor suggested that stop playing the race card it makes you look pathetic.

 

I cant find a article on google that talks about a white person on welfare.

 

Can you help me out with that?

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

I cant find a article on google that talks about a white person on welfare.

 

Can you help me out with that?

 

Look in this thread they where just talking about a surfer on welfare (gasp he was white). Shut up with the stupid race card.

---

I cant find a article on google that talks about a white person on welfare.

 

Can you help me out with that?

 

To turn an issue like this into a black/white issue is sad.  

 

There are quite a few areas in Jacksonville where a large majority of people that are on welfare are white.

---

Look in this thread they where just talking about a surfer on welfare (gasp he was white). Shut up with the stupid race card.

 

Good catch.

 

I wish you can tell Fox news the same thing. 

 

To turn an issue like this into a black/white issue is sad.  

 

There are quite a few areas in Jacksonville where a large majority of people that are on welfare are white.

 

Unfortunately, the way blacks, and white are portrayed when receiving welfare benefits in the media are vastly different. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

Good catch.

 

I wish you can tell Fox news the same thing. 

 

 

Unfortunately, the way blacks, and white are portrayed when receiving welfare benefits in the media are vastly different. 

 

I've never done a ton of research on the topic, but I found this site interesting.

 

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

 

Very eye opening.

---

Look in this thread they where just talking about a surfer on welfare (gasp he was white). Shut up with the stupid race card.

Exactly. The video is posted in the thread. Liberals love the race card.

---

 

 

Unfortunately, the way blacks, and white are portrayed when receiving welfare benefits in the media are vastly different. 

I hate to say this but the black folks tend to put themselves out there to be taken advantage of by the media, whether it be print, TV or social media. And whether they intend to or not. You don't see hispanics portrayed in the media like blacks either. Or asians.

 

For the most part blacks are the ones who are the most vocal about race and social welfare programs and such and is why you see it more often. 

---