A New Concept in Handling Welfare

Come on PoliticalChic, we know that liberalism is right, it's only our hatred and greed that keeps us from being liberal. You can't say things that aren't liberal and not be lying about it, it's not possible. Geez...

Their hearts may be in the right place....it's their collective (pun intended) heads in which the problems reside.




I dont see anything there to PROVE helping people hurts people.

back your lies with some facts

Thank you for asking that!
Exactly the entre I was looking for:



1. Here we see an inherent weakness in Liberal thinking, that is that they are the smartest of folks, and their brilliance is necessary for other to prosper. The sequitur is that the people that they guide are stupid. No, the problem is that, with government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.



2. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf


b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.



How'd I do?

C'mon...admit it: hit it out of the park!!!
 
Their hearts may be in the right place....it's their collective (pun intended) heads in which the problems reside.




I dont see anything there to PROVE helping people hurts people.

back your lies with some facts

Thank you for asking that!
Exactly the entre I was looking for:



1. Here we see an inherent weakness in Liberal thinking, that is that they are the smartest of folks, and their brilliance is necessary for other to prosper. The sequitur is that the people that they guide are stupid. No, the problem is that, with government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.



2. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf


b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.



How'd I do?

C'mon...admit it: hit it out of the park!!!

:clap2: The moron walked right into that one!

Deflection, Ad hominem, non sequitur or 'crickets' in 3...2...1...
 
I dont see anything there to PROVE helping people hurts people.

back your lies with some facts

Thank you for asking that!
Exactly the entre I was looking for:



1. Here we see an inherent weakness in Liberal thinking, that is that they are the smartest of folks, and their brilliance is necessary for other to prosper. The sequitur is that the people that they guide are stupid. No, the problem is that, with government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.



2. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents. http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf


a. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First, increased
marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf


b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.



How'd I do?

C'mon...admit it: hit it out of the park!!!

:clap2: The moron walked right into that one!

Deflection, Ad hominem, non sequitur or 'crickets' in 3...2...1...

Didn't she though? ROFL!
 
where are your numbers coming from and what is welfare?

Looks to me like you stuffed the numbers, which is just typical....

FEDERAL welfare DOES NOT COST US in taxes $679 billion a year

No, it doesn't, it costs far more than that. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is over $1.60 trillion alone.
 
would any of you be willing to stand in front of Jesus and tell him helping people is wrong?

You should Google the definition of the logical fallacy "begging the question." For an excellent example of how it works, read your question.
 
Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent

Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

$3.69 trillon budget proposal

1. Social Security $738 20%

2.National Defense $738

3. Income Security $567

4. Medicare $498

5.Net Interest $251

6. Health $381

7. Education $122

8. Veteran’s Benefits $122

9. Transportation $91.55

10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94
 
A New Concept in Handling Welfare



1. If the government got out of the business of welfare spending, do you have any idea how much our taxes would go down? Welfare consists of the fourth largest expenditure of our government, at $679.2 Billion annually. How would our taxes go down if that expenditure went away completely? Enormous tax cuts for all!


2. If welfare would be considered a Charity as in American Red Cross, serviced by the states via a privatized company as a ”for profit” entity , it could be done.

3. Religious, organizations, corporations, unions, charities, philanthropists, private individuals would donate through their taxes as tax credits for any amount designated, and it would be sent to that state that the donator lived or established their residence. For businesses overseas, the home office would designate what state should receive the donation. Everyone would make use of the tax advantage because their donation comes right off their tax bill.

4. States would write their own requirements for welfare, most conforming to the “work first, education second and fiscal hand up, third. A two year limit on welfare for able bodied recipients would encourage those to seek employment or further their skills to find employment in the time they have on the welfare rolls..

5. No longer would tax payers be forced to participate on paying for welfare through their taxes. But find an incentive on their own tax bill by finding a credit. And the government who has handled the welfare problem with fraud and waste and political ammunition would be set aside.

6. This would include welfare, ADC, food stamps, and rent subsidizing. Only the infirmed and elderly would be exempt from the requirements and no executive order could overturn the requirements of each state’s mandate.

7. Private enterprise has always proven to be the most effective managers of money. It’s time we get the waste and fraud out of welfare.

Welfare spending

US Welfare Spending for 2012 - Charts

If "Private enterprise has always proven to be the most effective managers of money." why do we always have to bail them out?

"always have to bail them out?"

Really - you bailed out the banks jackass, oh and then seized GM...

You act like you're bailing out main street....

My position was let the banks fail and let GM fail....

Your inability to process facts does not make the fact that businesses' fail and are no better at handling money than the govt.
 
Last edited:
Whether through government agencies or private non-profits, the need and expenditures would remain the same – the taxpayer would realize no ‘savings.’ Indeed, as a consequence of the needless complexity and waste inherent in such a proposal, the individual taxpayer would likely end up spending more on public assistance and getting less in the way of services.

The collection of funds for the "Welfare Corporation" , we'll call it is volunatary. No longer mandatory part of our tax money so our tax money, as it is could go to driving down the deficit or brought back to tax payers in terms of tax cuts.

Moreover, such a proposal would contribute to an increased likelihood of fraud and abuse on the part of the private non-profits, requiring additional government monitoring and oversight with the usual added expenses, including those associated with criminal investigation and prosecution.

The Welfare Corporation would be a for "profit organization".

Last, there is an array of Federal and state laws, policies, and case law which govern the appropriate and efficient administering of public assistance programs, including the effectiveness of the programs and accountability. Public monies are public monies, regardless how collected and administered, the above proposal would require the creation of a whole new bureaucracy to meet those accountability requirements.

This is a state issue, not a federal program. It would be open to audit as any private business would be.

As with most other conservatives, the OP has succeeded in exhibiting his comprehensive ignorance of the subject of public assistance, motivated only by animus toward those less fortunate and the least able to protect themselves from political attack.

There is no animus meant for those least able to protect themselves but a program to meet the needs of those most in need of help. With the focus first on employment, education and skills trades and temporary fiscal help for able bodied people to become marketable again.It is meant for those at the bottom to eventually come out of poverty, not dwell in it.

it just eats at you to see people get welfare. get a hobby and try not to dwell upon it so much.
 
Whether through government agencies or private non-profits, the need and expenditures would remain the same – the taxpayer would realize no ‘savings.’ Indeed, as a consequence of the needless complexity and waste inherent in such a proposal, the individual taxpayer would likely end up spending more on public assistance and getting less in the way of services.

The collection of funds for the "Welfare Corporation" , we'll call it is volunatary. No longer mandatory part of our tax money so our tax money, as it is could go to driving down the deficit or brought back to tax payers in terms of tax cuts.

Moreover, such a proposal would contribute to an increased likelihood of fraud and abuse on the part of the private non-profits, requiring additional government monitoring and oversight with the usual added expenses, including those associated with criminal investigation and prosecution.

The Welfare Corporation would be a for "profit organization".

Last, there is an array of Federal and state laws, policies, and case law which govern the appropriate and efficient administering of public assistance programs, including the effectiveness of the programs and accountability. Public monies are public monies, regardless how collected and administered, the above proposal would require the creation of a whole new bureaucracy to meet those accountability requirements.

This is a state issue, not a federal program. It would be open to audit as any private business would be.

As with most other conservatives, the OP has succeeded in exhibiting his comprehensive ignorance of the subject of public assistance, motivated only by animus toward those less fortunate and the least able to protect themselves from political attack.

There is no animus meant for those least able to protect themselves but a program to meet the needs of those most in need of help. With the focus first on employment, education and skills trades and temporary fiscal help for able bodied people to become marketable again.It is meant for those at the bottom to eventually come out of poverty, not dwell in it.

it just eats at you to see people get welfare. get a hobby and try not to dwell upon it so much.

It just eats at me that the government doesn't try to help the people out of poverty.
 
Whether through government agencies or private non-profits, the need and expenditures would remain the same – the taxpayer would realize no ‘savings.’ Indeed, as a consequence of the needless complexity and waste inherent in such a proposal, the individual taxpayer would likely end up spending more on public assistance and getting less in the way of services.

The collection of funds for the "Welfare Corporation" , we'll call it is volunatary. No longer mandatory part of our tax money so our tax money, as it is could go to driving down the deficit or brought back to tax payers in terms of tax cuts.

Moreover, such a proposal would contribute to an increased likelihood of fraud and abuse on the part of the private non-profits, requiring additional government monitoring and oversight with the usual added expenses, including those associated with criminal investigation and prosecution.

The Welfare Corporation would be a for "profit organization".

Last, there is an array of Federal and state laws, policies, and case law which govern the appropriate and efficient administering of public assistance programs, including the effectiveness of the programs and accountability. Public monies are public monies, regardless how collected and administered, the above proposal would require the creation of a whole new bureaucracy to meet those accountability requirements.

This is a state issue, not a federal program. It would be open to audit as any private business would be.

As with most other conservatives, the OP has succeeded in exhibiting his comprehensive ignorance of the subject of public assistance, motivated only by animus toward those less fortunate and the least able to protect themselves from political attack.

There is no animus meant for those least able to protect themselves but a program to meet the needs of those most in need of help. With the focus first on employment, education and skills trades and temporary fiscal help for able bodied people to become marketable again.It is meant for those at the bottom to eventually come out of poverty, not dwell in it.

it just eats at you to see people get welfare. get a hobby and try not to dwell upon it so much.

Aside from the fact that it destroys character, is this, "get a hobby and try not to dwell upon it so much" what you did when the bigger kids took your lunch money?
 
Whether through government agencies or private non-profits, the need and expenditures would remain the same – the taxpayer would realize no ‘savings.’ Indeed, as a consequence of the needless complexity and waste inherent in such a proposal, the individual taxpayer would likely end up spending more on public assistance and getting less in the way of services.

The collection of funds for the "Welfare Corporation" , we'll call it is volunatary. No longer mandatory part of our tax money so our tax money, as it is could go to driving down the deficit or brought back to tax payers in terms of tax cuts.

Moreover, such a proposal would contribute to an increased likelihood of fraud and abuse on the part of the private non-profits, requiring additional government monitoring and oversight with the usual added expenses, including those associated with criminal investigation and prosecution.

The Welfare Corporation would be a for "profit organization".

Last, there is an array of Federal and state laws, policies, and case law which govern the appropriate and efficient administering of public assistance programs, including the effectiveness of the programs and accountability. Public monies are public monies, regardless how collected and administered, the above proposal would require the creation of a whole new bureaucracy to meet those accountability requirements.

This is a state issue, not a federal program. It would be open to audit as any private business would be.

As with most other conservatives, the OP has succeeded in exhibiting his comprehensive ignorance of the subject of public assistance, motivated only by animus toward those less fortunate and the least able to protect themselves from political attack.

There is no animus meant for those least able to protect themselves but a program to meet the needs of those most in need of help. With the focus first on employment, education and skills trades and temporary fiscal help for able bodied people to become marketable again.It is meant for those at the bottom to eventually come out of poverty, not dwell in it.

it just eats at you to see people get welfare. get a hobby and try not to dwell upon it so much.

It just eats at me that the government doesn't try to help the people out of poverty.
Where are the charities when they need to help someone out of poverty? They don't train people for free with a trade.
I don't understand why they don't help themselves out of poverty, but seriously, that little old lady using SNAP, you hate her?, That big black man uses AFDC cause he has kids and can't get a job, you hate him. Is it the true abusers you hate which account for less than 10% of those on welfare.
Or is it the family of 5 white kids that you hate?
Privatize, hell the catholics get millions from the govt. to help through charities, I have never seen one catholic church have an open day where they feed the hungry by donating food. Why is it you must be a member of that See to get any help?
Private charities help themselves more than they help the needy. There are some really good christian hearted organizations out there that do what they can and give it away to all, but they are few and far between.
 
Your inability to process facts does not make the fact that businesses' fail and are no better at handling money than the govt.

Wow, just wow.

The most ignorant thing ever? I dunno...but close.

The most ignorant is you, from falling on your head when you were born.

Do you like to be hateful instead of conversational?

The intellectual three year old's word of the day, "hate." Grow up, Skippy. When you have no intellectual content, then ad hominem is the easy cop out, isn't it?
 
If you take a welfare check, you need to stand a post on a border for 4 hours a day, 7 days a week, and attend a college 4 hours a day, 5 days a week, until such time as you earn at minimum, an AA degree in something NOT OF the liberal arts. Since you will be either working on defending the borders, a law enforcement degree would go a long ways. If you are assigned to work on roads or bridges, an engineering degree toward those disciplines would be a good idea. If you are put to work picking up trash along the highways, waterways, or city streets, a degree in waste management would be appropriate.

The point being. If we're going to feed and house your ass, we expect some effort from you in return. And we'd like to see a return on our investment, meaning that you apply your education go getting a job and paying taxes; helping to reduce the need for wealth redistribution.

Or you can go hungry.

Freedom, its a hard thing, because it does not mean you have the freedom to take what is Mine.
 
Conservative advocacy of ‘charities’ as some sort of replacement for current public assistance programs is classic reactionary ignorance and Dickensian naïveté - it’s no longer the 19th Century, no matter how much most conservatives wish it to be.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top