Welfare Pays More Than Minimum Wage In 35 States

[Falvlun]

It's so easy to say that <those people> say/do this, but they also say/do that.
If you don't have actual examples of someone saying both things, then I suspect
that it's mere empty stereotyping....a convenient way to dismiss someone's views
because they're in <that group>.

I'm not sure what you are precisely talking about here. What "both things" are you referring to?

As for people who support all those things that I listed: no minimum wage, low taxes for business, low taxes for the super rich, etc, I can't believe you think that such a person is fictional, as it describes the conservative approach to economics.

 

[DallasApple]

Things like making welfare payments gradually taper off as work is obtained, rather than an all or nothing scheme, or perhaps making training classes or other "work-prep" classes a part of the process.

That is how disability works.(if its working right)

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure what you are precisely talking about here. What "both things" are you referring to?

From an earlier post....

....the more problematic situation is the massive drain on our economy that the corporations are putting us through. I have just found it rather ironic that several people who litterally hate welfare queens are absolutly okay, nay, actually supporting the exact same concepts on a larger scale with far more damage.

These 2 things were my original objection.

As for people who support all those things that I listed: no minimum wage, low taxes for business, low taxes for the super rich, etc, I can't believe you think that such a person is fictional, as it describes the conservative approach to economics.

This fit the described person in the post above. Moreover, you phrase it in a loaded way (see portion I underlined). What is called "conservative economics" is typically about low marginal tax rates for all. (Note also that LIbertarians & conservatives aren't identical regarding economics.) What I object to is claiming that Tea Party types oppose welfare for the poor, but favor it for the rich, without providing any evidence of such people. I'm highly skeptical that such a person exists in significant numbers.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Damn successful people who pay their own way in life makes the rest of us look like the losers we are.

How dare they want to actually keep the money they worked for and not give it away to someone who does not work.

What is wrong with them?

 

[Curious George]

I really do not see any problem with the amount of spending in social welfare programs except that it is too little. We should spend more on welfare programs. If we want to talk about changing and improving these programs, I am all for any change that would better these programs. But taking away money from such programs is hardly going to better any of these programs.

As far as the study in the op, table 18 (I believe) is a better picture, but still not quite accurate since a minimum wage, single parent of two would also qualify for Medicare. The study is not an attack on minimum wage, it makes this clear. Rather, it is an attack on government funding of welfare programs. But I am curious as to what we are discussing? Are we discussing the skewing of statistics in the study such as making conclusions about welfare based on a very small population of welfare recipients? Yeah, the study does do that. Or are we discussing how it is potentially possible for a single parent of two to make more than minimum wage for at least one year? Yeah, our welfare system does do that. The standard of living, however for a family on welfare is not high. Living off welfare is possible, but not fun. Are we talking about abuses of the welfare system? Yeah, those occur too. I would think that these topics are far less stimulating than discussions of productive change.

 

[Curious George]

Damn successful people who pay their own way in life makes the rest of us look like the losers we are.

How dare they want to actually keep the money they worked for and not give it away to someone who does not work.

What is wrong with them?

You seem to be suffering from the delusion that a person made this money for his or her self. Rather, the system enabled this person to make such monies and should contribute to the society on which they are dependent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Damn successful people who pay their own way in life makes the rest of us look like the losers we are.

How dare they want to actually keep the money they worked for and not give it away to someone who does not work.

What is wrong with them?

I'd say it's ingratitude to the society that allowed them to be successful, frankly.

Sometimes it's also lack of foresight: a person helped out of poverty may be a potential customer... or at the very least a potential customer to your customers.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This fit the described person in the post above. Moreover, you phrase it in a loaded way (see portion I underlined). What is called "conservative economics" is typically about low marginal tax rates for all. (Note also that LIbertarians & conservatives aren't identical regarding economics.) What I object to is claiming that Tea Party types oppose welfare for the poor, but favor it for the rich, without providing any evidence of such people. I'm highly skeptical that such a person exists in significant numbers.

There are quite a few. Personal experience is what I'm drawing from. It is loaded but in reality what is the difference between tax dodging while reaping the benifits of American corporate-hood and welfare acceptance?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are quite a few. Personal experience is what I'm drawing from. It is loaded but in reality what is the difference between tax dodging while reaping the benifits of American corporate-hood and welfare acceptance?

Some of the big-shot donors of the Tea Party might, but I don't see it much from the typical Tea-Partier.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Some of the big-shot donors of the Tea Party might, but I don't see it much from the typical Tea-Partier.

I'm talking about extremely low taxes. Not specifically the subsidies they recieve. Most tea party members are against taxation of anyone including major corporations so they are in fact supporting offshore tax loopholes and like. Some do some don't though I might add.

 

[Skwim]

One of the problems with getting people off welfare is that there's place for them to get off to. A lot of people just don't have the innate wherewithal to fend for themselves much less themselves and their children. These, plus all those with the ability but not the mental or physical condition---think debilitating drug habit. Unless we resort to genocide these people will always be with us. One option to curtail this segment of the population is mandatory reversible birth control for chronic welfare mothers of one or more children. Not sure how this would be administered or carried out, but IMO it's an option that deserves consideration.

​

If we're not willing to fork over the money and services to insure these people live decent lives, then I feel we should be willing to reduce their growing numbers by limiting their arrival on the planet. Otherwise we're no better than those who raise animals in cages so small they can't turn around.

​

 

[Curious George]

One of the problems with getting people off welfare is that there's place for them to get off to. A lot of people just don't have the innate wherewithal to fend for themselves much less themselves and their children. These, plus all those with the ability but not the mental or physical condition---think debilitating drug habit. Unless we resort to genocide these people will always be with us. One option to curtail this segment of the population is mandatory reversible birth control for chronic welfare mothers of one or more children. Not sure how this would be administered or carried out, but IMO it's an option that deserves consideration.

​

If we're not willing to fork over the money and services to insure these people live decent lives, then I feel we should be willing to reduce their growing numbers by limiting their arrival on the planet. Otherwise we're no better than those who raise animals in cages so small they can't turn around.

​

And I feel that we should simply take the money. Now what is more just taking away money from a person or their ability to have kids?

 

[Skwim]

And I feel that we should simply take the money. Now what is more just taking away money from a person or their ability to have kids?

Want to rephrase that?

 

[Aquitaine]

Want to rephrase that?

I think what he means is, what is worse - taking "their" dole money away, or their ability to have kids?

 

[Curious George]

I think what he means is, what is worse - taking "their" dole money away, or their ability to have kids?

No, I meant taking away money from people who do not want to fork it over, or taking away welfare recipients ability to have children.

 

[Curious George]

Want to rephrase that?

Sure, add a comma after "just." But if you prefer we could also use ethical, humane or fair instead of just.

 

[Skwim]

Sure, add a comma after "just." But if you prefer we could also use ethical, humane or fair instead of just.

Okay.

Now what is more just,

1. taking away money from a person or

2. taking away their ability to have kids?

1. We have a single mother with a child and we take away her ability to support them, plus take the chance she will have another child or more, who will also be in the same bad financial shape.

OR

2. We We have a single mother with a child, who retains her ability and to support the two of them, plus insure her financial burden will not be increased by an additional child(ren).


Hmmm. Doesn't seem to be that tough of a decision.

 

[Curious George]

Okay.

1. We have a single mother with a child and we take away her ability to support them, plus take the chance she will have another child or more, who will also be in the same bad financial shape.

OR

2. We We have a single mother with a child, who retains her ability and to support the two of them, plus insure her financial burden will not be increased by an additional child(ren).


Hmmm. Doesn't seem to be that tough of a decision.

No we have one person with less money

Or one person without the ability to have kids.

If we should choose one, which is more just?

 

[Skwim]

No we have one person with less money

Or one person without the ability to have kids.

If we should choose one, which is more just?

Okay, the more just thing to do is to insure that those living have a decent life rather than insure they and the additional child(ren) in the family have a poorer life,

I would rather see a sterilized woman---say through tubal ligation---and her child have a "good life" rather than see a fertile woman with 2-3-4-5 children have a poor life.



Will that do it?

 

[Curious George]

Okay, the more just thing to do is to insure that those living have a decent life rather than insure they and the additional child(ren) in the family have a poorer life,

I would rather see a sterilized woman---say through tubal ligation---and her child have a "good life" rather than see a fertile woman with 2-3-4-5 children have a poor life.



Will that do it?

Is anything too sacred to permit regulation?