All you welfare haters... how about this?

[Cecilie1200]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

One, you have no idea how ownership of and responsibility for our "infrastructure" is organized.

Two, you have no idea how such things are funded.

Three, you're dumb enough to believe the problem is that not enough money is currently being spent, rather than that it is misspent.

Four, you're dumb enough to believe that the federal government has even more money to throw after the money that's already being misspent.

Five, you mistakenly think that it is the American taxpayer's responsibility to give people jobs.

Six, you think the federal government isn't ALREADY paying for welfare recipients to get training, daycare during training, etc.

Other than that, your idea is interesting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why don't we stop outsourcing our charity to the government and take up our God given responsibility to serve our fellow man ourselves? Why don't we keep the commandment to work six days and rest on the Seventh? Why don't we keep ourselves from being idle, but instead seek to better ourselves and our positions and to do our duties toward our families?

Do this, and we won't need government run healthcare, period.

One of the reasons FDR took his "government charity" in the direction of make-work programs like the CCC and the WPA was because back then, people were ashamed of taking charity and didn't want it if they couldn't work for it and feel like they earned it.

I think even FDR would be shocked at how easy it is to buy votes from useless drones these days.

On a similar note, did you know that when boxed cake mixes were invented, they required nothing more than water to be added to them? The companies had to take them back and jigger the recipes to require housewives to add more ingredients and work a little more at it, because they actually felt like it was TOO EASY.

Man, have we lost THAT mindset and then some.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm more inclined to think we'll end up just like the movie "Idiocracy".

So you're saying you're beginning to see the world like a eugenicist?

 

[Charles_Main]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

Who says we hate Welfare? Understanding that Big Government Welfare programs are often wrought with Abuse, Fraud, and inefficiency. Does not mean you hate Welfare. Being against Obama's Health Care Law does not mean you hate Welfare.

I want welfare to be there for the people who actual need it. What I do not want is to see Programs like Medicare, and SS. Collapse under the Weight of their Unsustainable Fiscal Situations. I don't want to see our entire Medical Care system Turned on it's head, and fucked up by Government Bureaucrats as a means to Insure about 10% of us.

You lefties love to act like everything is black and white. You are either for Welfare, or you hate Welfare and wan poor People to die. Life simply is not that easy. I want there to be a sound Social welfare net in this country. I want my kids to have SS to count on as well as me. I want those who need it to be able to continue to count on Medicare.

Just because I do not agree with your way of providing a social Welfare net, does not mean I do not want to provide one. Despite you lefties claiming other wise. You do not have a monopoly on compassion.

Frankly I think you guys are just so caught up in the idea of being helpful to everyone that needs it. That you fail to see the long term picture. You fight tooth and nail for every penny ignoring the fact that we simply can not sustain this kind of spending. We risk Causing the economic Collapse of the United States if we continue to just spend money as if it has no meaning. Then how many Needy people will we be able to help out?

It is simple math, and logic people. We can not help anyone if the whole damn house of cards comes toppling down. There will be 100 times more suffering, and hunger, and homelessness, and sorrow down the road. If we do not get our fiscal house in order now.

Plain and simple.

Now as far as the IDEA proposed by the OP.

I think it is a sound idea. The Problem would be the Unions. Who would never allow the Federal government to employ hundreds of thousands of workers at anything less than the Best Union rate out there. To do the kinds of things you are talking about. Mark my words. In the end it would be Democrats and their alliance with Unions. That would kill your idea.

 

[American Cowboy]

How about welfare leaches just pay it back when they get on their feet? Then it is a hand up and not a hand out. You pay it back, your no longer a leach.

They would have no incentive to "get on their feet." They should have to work to earn the taxpayer's dollars and even though they might hate that, it really would, as you have mentioned, and for many of them, grow their self-esteem and the resulting pride might empower them to move up and on. Benjamin Franklin said the best way to help people out of their poverty is to make them uncomfortable.

Their incentive would be to get off it sooner than later, so they did not owe that much. Plus, you put a limit on the amount they can owe. Welfare limits.

 

[Londoner]

Big-government socialism saved the Reagan family farm.

Therefore it is evil.

Reagan's father was saved by FDR's BiG Government. He was given a government job. Socialism!

This is why Reagan was a staunch supporter of FDR and the New Deal (until 1954 when he entered the top tax bracket).

Point is this: FDR didn't see the Reagans as Welfare Queens. He didn't see Government support as evil. Why? He trusted the American people. He thought that if you gave them a leg up during hard times, than they would make something of themselves.

He saw government support as an investment in people.

FDR believed that poverty destroyed human capital -- so he taxed surplus wealth in order to invest in the American worker. The result was the postwar middle class, the most productive group of Americans in history.

Reagan had different feelings. He believed capital owed nothing to the country which created the roads, energy grids, damns, and infrastructure necessary for profits. He believed capital owed nothing to the Pentagon which protected its access to foreign labor and resources (a.k.a "supply chains". Where do you think your Walmart toaster comes from? It comes from dangerous places that must be militarily stabilized. The tax payer pays for this, but the share holder makes bank, i.e., socialize costs, privatize profit). Reagan believed capital should be able to bypass the American worker for Chinese sweat shops. Reagan wanted to relieve capital from expensive middle class labor costs. (And Clinton followed him every step of the way)

Which is to say: the point of the Reagan Revolution was to give cheap labor to capital. The result was that the middle class had lower wages and fewer benefits. Consequently, the middle class could no longer consume as much. What did Reagan do? He lorded over the most significant economic shift in America history. He shifted America from wage-fueled consumption (1945-1980) to debt-fueled consumption (1980-2008). That is, starting in 1980, Americans received 3 credit card offers a week. Reagan drove down wages (by freeing capital to go to the 3rd world), than he handed out Master Cards so that Americans could maintain the standard of living that used to be provided by the jobs he shipped to China.

Under Reagan, America went from the leading creditor nation to the leading debtor nation. We had structural deficits as far as the eye could see. The American economy, lacking real wages, was fueled by bubbles and credit for 30 years. Each bubble was larger than the last until . . .

(you know how it ends).

America swallowed poison in 1980.

(But yes: it's funny that FDR's big government saved Reagan. FDR thought he was making an investment in a fellow American. Unlike Reagan, he trusted the poor. He thought that if you prevented poverty from destroying people, you might be saving a future president. FDR believed that the American worker was worth investing in -- so he saved people like Jack Reagan. Some people think it was a wise investment. Others . . . not so much.)

 

[grunt11b]

I have a problem with the uber rich capturing productive gains in the last three decades.

This is why I am liberal. Conservatives refuse to look at this problem while expounding the "labor productivity"? or welfare distributions. Then they turn around and violate Bastiat's and Locke's assump0tion and ignorantly proclaim that we are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

Seriously, RW Kooks are absent from political discussion, even though they utter inanities about the free market.

Yes, god forbid those evil people who created a business and hired many employees actually gain a profit for there troubles.

 

[grunt11b]

Big-government socialism saved the Reagan family farm.

Therefore it is evil.

Reagan's father was saved by FDR's BiG Government. He was given a government job. Socialism!

This is why Reagan was a staunch supporter of FDR and the New Deal (until 1954 when he entered the top tax bracket).

Point is this: FDR didn't see the Reagans as Welfare Queens. He didn't see Government support as evil. Why? He trusted the American people. He thought that if you gave them a leg up during hard times, than they would make something of themselves.

He saw government support as an investment in people.

FDR believed that poverty destroyed human capital -- so he taxed surplus wealth in order to invest in the American worker. The result was the postwar middle class, the most productive group of Americans in history.

Reagan had different feelings. He believed capital owed nothing to the country which created the roads, energy grids, damns, and infrastructure necessary for profits. He believed capital owed nothing to the Pentagon which protected its access to foreign labor and resources (a.k.a "supply chains". Where do you think your Walmart toaster comes from? It comes from dangerous places that must be militarily stabilized. The tax payer pays for this, but the share holder makes bank, i.e., socialize costs, privatize profit). Reagan believed capital should be able to bypass the American worker for Chinese sweat shops. Reagan wanted to relieve capital from expensive middle class labor costs. (And Clinton followed him every step of the way)

Which is to say: the point of the Reagan Revolution was to give cheap labor to capital. The result was that the middle class had lower wages and fewer benefits. Consequently, the middle class could no longer consume as much. What did Reagan do? He lorded over the most significant economic shift in America history. He shifted America from wage-fueled consumption (1945-1980) to debt-fueled consumption (1980-2008). That is, starting in 1980, Americans received 3 credit card offers a week. Reagan drove down wages (by freeing capital to go to the 3rd world), than he handed out Master Cards so that Americans could maintain the standard of living that used to be provided by the jobs he shipped to China.

Under Reagan, America went from the leading creditor nation to the leading debtor nation. We had structural deficits as far as the eye could see. The American economy, lacking real wages, was fueled by bubbles and credit for 30 years. Each bubble was larger than the last until . . .

(you know how it ends).

America swallowed poison in 1980.

(But yes: it's funny that FDR's big government saved Reagan. FDR thought he was making an investment in a fellow American. Unlike Reagan, he trusted the poor. He thought that if you prevented poverty from destroying people, you might be saving a future president. FDR believed that the American worker was worth investing in -- so he saved people like Jack Reagan. Some people think it was a wise investment. Others . . . not so much.)

Is that how it's being taught in college these days? or did you get that from Joe Bidens website?

 

[hipeter924]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybA66cT4_Tg]YouTube - Justin Bieber "Baby" Parody - "Pay Me" by the Politician featuring The Lobbyist for Big Business[/ame]

It's all this topic really warrants.

 

[auditor0007]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

I've always been fine with that. Which is how roosevelt actually set it up originally. people even had to get up and got to where the work was. and you know what? they did. there was no free handout and people were motivated

There is one big problem with this idea. Paying people, welfare recipients, to do the work is not a major obstacle. Yes it would cost taxpayers some money, but as you say, we would get something in return. The biggest problem is the cost of repairing our infrastructure. Currently it is estimated that we need approximately $2.5 trillion in infrastructure to bring us up to date. The problem with this is that a substantial amount of that cost is not labor, but supplies. And to do what you state will cost taxpayers more than anyone is currently willing to spend when we already are trying to cut spending. Nice idea, but the timing is not very good.

 

[The Rabbi]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

The most idiotic proposal on this site this week.
Congratulations!

 

[The Rabbi]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

I've always been fine with that. Which is how roosevelt actually set it up originally. people even had to get up and got to where the work was. and you know what? they did. there was no free handout and people were motivated

There is one big problem with this idea. Paying people, welfare recipients, to do the work is not a major obstacle. Yes it would cost taxpayers some money, but as you say, we would get something in return. The biggest problem is the cost of repairing our infrastructure. Currently it is estimated that we need approximately $2.5 trillion in infrastructure to bring us up to date. The problem with this is that a substantial amount of that cost is not labor, but supplies. And to do what you state will cost taxpayers more than anyone is currently willing to spend when we already are trying to cut spending. Nice idea, but the timing is not very good.

Didnt Obama sell one of his many stimulus programs as an infrastructure builder? Didnt most of that money go to unions, propping up local governments, and other boondoggles?
Why is this any different?

 

[Flaylo]

I don't have a problem paying them to work. It's the getting something for nothing that I have problems with because it corrupts the body and the mind.oh and FYI, usually isnt smart to talk down to the people you are trying to talk with. Just saying.

I feel the same way too, especially about big corporations like GE who get big refunds after paying no taxes and I feel the same about big companies in general who get tax breaks and cuts while little to very low taxes.

 

[Steelplate]

There is one big problem with this idea. Paying people, welfare recipients, to do the work is not a major obstacle. Yes it would cost taxpayers some money, but as you say, we would get something in return. The biggest problem is the cost of repairing our infrastructure. Currently it is estimated that we need approximately $2.5 trillion in infrastructure to bring us up to date. The problem with this is that a substantial amount of that cost is not labor, but supplies. And to do what you state will cost taxpayers more than anyone is currently willing to spend when we already are trying to cut spending. Nice idea, but the timing is not very good.

Well, all I have to say about that is this. Our wealthiest citizens use our infrastructure more heavily than the general citizenry. It's their Trucks on the road causing the most wear and tear, they would benefit the MOST from smart grid technology that will increase our efficiency to that of Europe and Japan(80-90%).

To sit there and say "we can't do it, we're broke." Is just plain wrong. The reason we're broke is that our revenue stream is way down. From the mid 70's on... it hovered around 33% of GDP. Now it goes anywhere from 26-28%.

It's an investment people. Hoover Dam, TVA, the Interstate System, railroads...All of those things were done on the Federal dime. I mean C'mon... You want to Compete with the Chinese? The Chinese are pouring vast amounts of money into their infrastructure. It makes them more efficient and more competitive IN ADDITION to their slave labor policies.

Stop our Business and Banking Community from investing in a Communist Country. Piddly shit like lowering their already obscenely low taxes isn't going to do it. We need mandates and regulations that prevent it from happening. Let the damned Chinese make their own wealth instead of taking ours away from our great country.

 

[midcan5]

Welfare is one of those topics that define who you are more than they define the welfare recipient. If you believe everyone is cheat then welfare recipients are cheats, if you believe there is such a thing as bad luck, death, economic swings, children in need, an often unfair playing field, outsourcing, recessions, depressions, then you realize welfare is often required in a just society. Working doesn't work for a few reasons, among them are the individual circumstances, travel, experience, a living wage, and care for their own home situation. These things have been tried. America wastes millions billions trillions on useless weapons and war that make the few rich, why not also take care of the needy. Seems sane and sensible.

See this stuff. "Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust


"If The $5.15 Hourly minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.
A Minimum Wage employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.
Such A Worker would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.
In 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.
In 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000."

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't have a problem paying them to work. It's the getting something for nothing that I have problems with because it corrupts the body and the mind.oh and FYI, usually isnt smart to talk down to the people you are trying to talk with. Just saying.

I feel the same way too, especially about big corporations like GE who get big refunds after paying no taxes and I feel the same about big companies in general who get tax breaks and cuts while little to very low taxes.

No. You don't really care about character. If you did, you would be a completely different poster.

 

[editec]

The CCC is a good idea.

On a much smaller scale such organizations still exist.

Maine Department of Conservation Bureau of Parks & Lands: About the Bureau

They are mostly funded though grants from the FEDS, but they are NGOs.

Now I happen to know something about MCC (see above link) and think they do excellent work cheap.

 

[Robert]

We start a new age "Conservation Corps"? If you don't know what the Conservation Corps was... then you are either.

A. Too young
B. Too ignorant of history

What my proposal for welfare reform is this:

We have a crumbling infrastructure.. our roads and bridges suck, our water supplies are outdated, our electrical grid runs at approximately 34% EFFICIENCY!!!!

Let's get our current welfare recipients working.... for... you guessed it... The Federal Government.

Now before you scream socialism(like you always do), hear me out. In the beginning, we take our welfare folks and mandate them to work for their benefits. We train them, we offer them child care(for those single mothers out there), and we make the jobs as conveniently located as possible.

NOW... pay attention... IT WILL COST MORE TO DO THIS THAN THE CURRENT MODEL!

But, you will be getting something for your tax dollar, won't you? Not only that, but I personally feel that a sense of EMPOWERMENT beats a sense of ENTITLEMENT tenfold. You get these people into a real world working environment and most of them will respond.

Sure... there may be a certain percentage that will be a ditch digger for the rest of their lives, but so what? Even as a ditch digger, you are getting productivity for your tax dollar.

While I laud your sentiments the problem is not welfare the problem IS THIS FUCKING "PRESIDENT" not doing anything about unemployment. He has all kinds of plans to bail out his banking buddies or Oil barons but NOTHING to spur our economy on to create Job's to help the average citizen of our Nation.

 

[NoNukes]

I have a problem with the uber rich capturing productive gains in the last three decades.

This is why I am liberal. Conservatives refuse to look at this problem while expounding the "labor productivity"? or welfare distributions. Then they turn around and violate Bastiat's and Locke's assump0tion and ignorantly proclaim that we are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

Seriously, RW Kooks are absent from political discussion, even though they utter inanities about the free market.

The uber rich are all liberals. Guess how much money Nancy Pelosi has stashed away.

Saying that the uber rich are all liberals sounds pretty ignorant. Do you have any statistics to back this up?

 

[editec]

I have a problem with the uber rich capturing productive gains in the last three decades.

This is why I am liberal. Conservatives refuse to look at this problem while expounding the "labor productivity"? or welfare distributions. Then they turn around and violate Bastiat's and Locke's assump0tion and ignorantly proclaim that we are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

Seriously, RW Kooks are absent from political discussion, even though they utter inanities about the free market.

The uber rich are all liberals. Guess how much money Nancy Pelosi has stashed away.

Saying that the uber rich are all liberals sounds pretty ignorant. Do you have any statistics to back this up?

Nothing but word games.

Ask him to define "liberal".