How To Wean the Dependent Off Welfare

[ba1614]

"Sit on your ass and collect welfare then, that is every Americans god given right apparently."

Where did I say that? As a business owner of over 25 years now, I see hard working people making a low wage and dont find it all that acceptable. You do. You seem to have a dislike for them. WHy?

I was referring to the people you were talking about, not you specifically.

PS, It would be helpful if you would quote the whole post for context.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I've told you I don't know how many there are, and I don't know how much it costs, how many times do you want me to admit that?

Whatever the number is, it would be a fantastic place to start "weaning people off welfare", and denying there are folks taking advantage is simply asinine.

We cannot have a meaningful discussion about "weaning people off of welfare" ( in and of itself a fucked up way to describe our goal ) if we cannot agree on who we are trying to wean....how much we will save and what will become of those who are weaned.

Let's say that we are talking about a million people. A million able bodied adults who, due to laziness, refuse to work an available job and rely on tax dollars for their existence.

Putting them at poverty level with admin costs, lets say that this costs us about $10'000,000,000 per year. All of which is pumped back into the economy....supporting jobs across this country.

If we cut those million people off, will we save $10,000,000,000?

Think, please. Before responding.

lol you want to talk reality and then pull numbers out of your ass.

I don't buy into the progressive logic of government handouts to the useless with borrowed money being a good stimulus, use of taxpayer wealth, or supporting jobs, regardless of how many times Pelosi tells you it is. Jobs that rely on handouts from government is just another way people are being deluded into thinking government is the answer, they are not. People being productive and spending money they EARN is what sustains an economy, not a fake government funded economy.

And before you deflect to government bailing out big business, I don't support government bailing ANYONE out.

Well...if I pulled numbers out of my ass.....was I high or low? Enlighten me.

 

[Katzndogz]

The colonies used the British Poor Laws.

Do you know what the Poor Laws were?

Tudor attempts to tackle the problem originate during the reign of Henry VII. In 1495, Parliament passed a statute ordering officials to seize "[a]ll such vagabonds, idle and suspected persons living suspiciously and then so taken and set in stocks, there to remain by the space of three days and three nights to have none other sustenance but bread and water, and there after the said three days and three nights, to be had out and set at large and then to be commanded to avoid the town."[17] No remedy to the problem of poverty was offered by this; it was merely swept from sight, or moved from town to town. Moreover, no distinction was made between vagrants and the jobless; both were simply categorised as "sturdy beggars", to be punished and moved on.[18]
In 1530, during the reign of Henry VIII, a proclamation was issued, describing idleness as the "mother and root of all vices"[19] and ordering that whipping should replace the stocks as the punishment for vagabonds. This change was confirmed in statute the following year, with one important change: a distinction was made between the "impotent poor" and the sturdy beggar, giving the old, the sick and the disabled licence to beg. Still no provision was made, though, for the healthy man simply unable to find work. All able-bodied unemployed were put into the same category. Those unable to find work had a stark choice: starve or break the law. In 1535, a bill was drawn up calling for the creation of a system of public works to deal with the problem of unemployment, to be funded by a tax on income and capital. A law passed a year later allowed vagabonds to be whipped.[20]
For the able-bodied poor, life became even tougher during the reign of Edward VI. In 1547, a bill was passed that subjected vagrants to some of the more extreme provisions of the criminal law, namely two years servitude and branding with a "V" as the penalty for the first offence and death for the second. Justices of the Peace were reluctant to apply the full penalty.[21] The government of Elizabeth I, Edward VI's successor after Mary I, was also inclined to severity. An Act passed in 1572 called for offenders to be bored through the ear for a first offence and that persistent beggars should be hanged.

Did you REALLY think that the British Poor Laws compelled the King to tax the merchants and hand out gold pieces to the poor?

A lawyer ought to understand the need to cite one's source.

What would be the fun in that! Look it up. If we really had British Poor Laws, we'd be opening workhouses.

 

[ba1614]

"Sit on your ass and collect welfare then, that is every Americans god given right apparently."

Where did I say that? As a business owner of over 25 years now, I see hard working people making a low wage and dont find it all that acceptable. You do. You seem to have a dislike for them. WHy?

self hatred/ignorane/lying...

your pick.

Asshole works too, I hear that a lot from progressives, thankfully my ego is solid and can handle it.

 

[ba1614]

We cannot have a meaningful discussion about "weaning people off of welfare" ( in and of itself a fucked up way to describe our goal ) if we cannot agree on who we are trying to wean....how much we will save and what will become of those who are weaned.

Let's say that we are talking about a million people. A million able bodied adults who, due to laziness, refuse to work an available job and rely on tax dollars for their existence.

Putting them at poverty level with admin costs, lets say that this costs us about $10'000,000,000 per year. All of which is pumped back into the economy....supporting jobs across this country.

If we cut those million people off, will we save $10,000,000,000?

Think, please. Before responding.

lol you want to talk reality and then pull numbers out of your ass.

I don't buy into the progressive logic of government handouts to the useless with borrowed money being a good stimulus, use of taxpayer wealth, or supporting jobs, regardless of how many times Pelosi tells you it is. Jobs that rely on handouts from government is just another way people are being deluded into thinking government is the answer, they are not. People being productive and spending money they EARN is what sustains an economy, not a fake government funded economy.

And before you deflect to government bailing out big business, I don't support government bailing ANYONE out.

Well...if I pulled numbers out of my ass.....was I high or low? Enlighten me.

No idea, but if you can link to them I'll apologize for saying you pulled them out of your ass.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unless the poor are cut off from government assistance, all the jobs we create for them, across the country will be filled by poor unskilled and low skilled immigrants from other countries.

LOL, rightwing talking point conflict! Alert! Alert!

What happened to the other rightwing talking point that immigrants just come here for the government assistance programs??

lol, least intelligent poster on USMB strikes again!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[initforme]

How about we get them off welfare and make sure the jobs they get start off at a wage they can actually raise a family with? If you mess that opportunity up then fend for yourself? I dont know but minimum wage jobs should not be considered "jobs" or anything related to an actual "job"

 

[LoneLaugher]

lol you want to talk reality and then pull numbers out of your ass.

I don't buy into the progressive logic of government handouts to the useless with borrowed money being a good stimulus, use of taxpayer wealth, or supporting jobs, regardless of how many times Pelosi tells you it is. Jobs that rely on handouts from government is just another way people are being deluded into thinking government is the answer, they are not. People being productive and spending money they EARN is what sustains an economy, not a fake government funded economy.

And before you deflect to government bailing out big business, I don't support government bailing ANYONE out.

Well...if I pulled numbers out of my ass.....was I high or low? Enlighten me.

No idea, but if you can link to them I'll apologize for saying you pulled them out of your ass.

Lazy fuck.

We spend 131 billion per year on welfare ( excluding food stamps and unemployment ) and of that, about 9 percent goes to adults who are neither elderly nor disabled.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

That doesn't mean that they are employable, just not elderly or disabled.

Try harder.

 

[regent]

Which government programs did we have prior to 1776? Please enlighten us.

The colonies used the British Poor Laws.

Do you know what the Poor Laws were?

Tudor attempts to tackle the problem originate during the reign of Henry VII. In 1495, Parliament passed a statute ordering officials to seize "[a]ll such vagabonds, idle and suspected persons living suspiciously and then so taken and set in stocks, there to remain by the space of three days and three nights to have none other sustenance but bread and water, and there after the said three days and three nights, to be had out and set at large and then to be commanded to avoid the town."[17] No remedy to the problem of poverty was offered by this; it was merely swept from sight, or moved from town to town. Moreover, no distinction was made between vagrants and the jobless; both were simply categorised as "sturdy beggars", to be punished and moved on.[18]
In 1530, during the reign of Henry VIII, a proclamation was issued, describing idleness as the "mother and root of all vices"[19] and ordering that whipping should replace the stocks as the punishment for vagabonds. This change was confirmed in statute the following year, with one important change: a distinction was made between the "impotent poor" and the sturdy beggar, giving the old, the sick and the disabled licence to beg. Still no provision was made, though, for the healthy man simply unable to find work. All able-bodied unemployed were put into the same category. Those unable to find work had a stark choice: starve or break the law. In 1535, a bill was drawn up calling for the creation of a system of public works to deal with the problem of unemployment, to be funded by a tax on income and capital. A law passed a year later allowed vagabonds to be whipped.[20]
For the able-bodied poor, life became even tougher during the reign of Edward VI. In 1547, a bill was passed that subjected vagrants to some of the more extreme provisions of the criminal law, namely two years servitude and branding with a "V" as the penalty for the first offence and death for the second. Justices of the Peace were reluctant to apply the full penalty.[21] The government of Elizabeth I, Edward VI's successor after Mary I, was also inclined to severity. An Act passed in 1572 called for offenders to be bored through the ear for a first offence and that persistent beggars should be hanged.

Did you REALLY think that the British Poor Laws compelled the King to tax the merchants and hand out gold pieces to the poor?

If you are arguing that the poor laws were not good, I agree. Great Britain worked on the theory of superior people and inferior people. At the top of the heap were the royalty, next came the Church and the Nobles. At the bottom of the heap were the poor, the lazy drunkards, the ones that were incapable of becoming dukes and earls, so they were an inferior people. It was a neat class system ordained by custom and by laws. America carried over some of the British class system, but mostly by custom. The poor are still labeled as lazy drunkards, and some are, but it is usually the way some people with jobs explain the poor and disabled. If we did not explain the poor and disabled as lazy drunkards some of us might feel bad?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I went to catholic school which my parents paid for. In fact they paid twice because I did not use the public schools that we paid for via taxes.

How big is the Catholic Church's tax exemption in the US, compared to non-religious businesses?

now you are thinking like Henry VIII

If I thought like Henry VIII, my ex-wife would have even less brains than she has now.

 

[ba1614]

Well...if I pulled numbers out of my ass.....was I high or low? Enlighten me.

No idea, but if you can link to them I'll apologize for saying you pulled them out of your ass.

Lazy fuck.

We spend 131 billion per year on welfare ( excluding food stamps and unemployment ) and of that, about 9 percent goes to adults who are neither elderly nor disabled.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

That doesn't mean that they are employable, just not elderly or disabled.

Try harder.

Holy fuck man, now you've gone from discussing welfare to "..this analysis covers Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP, unemployment insurance, SNAP, SSI, TANF, the school lunch program, the EITC, and the refundable component of the Child Tax Credit. "

 

[DiamondDave]

Well...if I pulled numbers out of my ass.....was I high or low? Enlighten me.

No idea, but if you can link to them I'll apologize for saying you pulled them out of your ass.

Lazy fuck.

We spend 131 billion per year on welfare ( excluding food stamps and unemployment ) and of that, about 9 percent goes to adults who are neither elderly nor disabled.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

That doesn't mean that they are employable, just not elderly or disabled.

Try harder.

Entitlement Spending Chart United States 2007-2017 - Federal State Local Data

 

[zeke]

I am always amazed when I hear of people working very hard to bring the American people a lower and lower standard of living. Unions are shit. Employers don't "owe" anyone jobs. Fire you without cause. Blah and blah and on and on and all designed to LOWER the standard of living for the middle and lower classes. Declining wages, less benefits, fewer raises. That is a decline in standards from what a great many of us have experienced in the work place.

I would think that none of you posting here are in the muti million dollar earnings range.
Most in the middle. Maybe upper middle. The middle class has been shit on. And shit rolls down hill. So you take it out on the poor person. But like you all say; the very rich pay all the Federal Income taxes. Or most. SO pretend YOUR tax dollar (piddly that it is) is only being spent on what you like (military,war, corp subsidies). Cause you sure aren't of the very rich.

Maybe you won't be so pissed off at the poor. Cause your taxes ain't paying for them.
Your blood pressure wil stay lower, you will be more healthy and then the Medicare costs will be lower for you in the future. Or you won't stroke out worrying about that lady with three kids getting 1000. dollars a month. (That's nirvana I'd say, prolly got a TV and a refrig) If you stroke out, you will apply for SSDI and Medicaid and you hate those programs. SO quit hating the poor. They are trying to survive in a situation not of their making, just like me and you. Will they suck up welfare monies????if its offered........sure they will........just like any good CEO does. You got to survive. Just ask Wall Street about welfare.


Here's a question. Who supports forced birth control of women and men on welfare.
If you don't have a child while still a teen, you do much better in life. SO forced birth control if on welfare.

Get pregnant, loose welfare. Kids drop out of school, no more welfare. Something has to be done to improve high school graduation rates for poor people and stop the nunber of teenage pregnancies.

Doing nothing to undeucated poor people with children but cuttin their monies out will not be a success. You need a carrot and a stick to change behavior.

 

[LoneLaugher]

In the end, nutters fear a myth. The myth of throngs of lazy uninspired and unashamed masses milking them for their hard earned money.

It is a myth. But a powerful one. It drives their entire political philosophy and they will not let go of it....no matter how many times they are shown that it is false.

One dollar is too much. Right, BA? I wonder if that stands for bad ass?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

I am always amazed when I hear of people working very hard to bring the American people a lower and lower standard of living. Unions are shit. Employers don't "owe" anyone jobs. Fire you without cause. Blah and blah and on and on and all designed to LOWER the standard of living for the middle and lower classes. Declining wages, less benefits, fewer raises. That is a decline in standards from what a great many of us have experienced in the work place.

I would think that none of you posting here are in the muti million dollar earnings range.
Most in the middle. Maybe upper middle. The middle class has been shit on. And shit rolls down hill. So you take it out on the poor person. But like you all say; the very rich pay all the Federal Income taxes. Or most. SO pretend YOUR tax dollar (piddly that it is) is only being spent on what you like (military,war, corp subsidies). Cause you sure aren't of the very rich.

Maybe you won't be so pissed off at the poor. Cause your taxes ain't paying for them.
Your blood pressure wil stay lower, you will be more healthy and then the Medicare costs will be lower for you in the future. Or you won't stroke out worrying about that lady with three kids getting 1000. dollars a month. (That's nirvana I'd say, prolly got a TV and a refrig) If you stroke out, you will apply for SSDI and Medicaid and you hate those programs. SO quit hating the poor. They are trying to survive in a situation not of their making, just like me and you. Will they suck up welfare monies????if its offered........sure they will........just like any good CEO does. You got to survive. Just ask Wall Street about welfare.


Here's a question. Who supports forced birth control of women and men on welfare.
If you don't have a child while still a teen, you do much better in life. SO forced birth control if on welfare.

Get pregnant, loose welfare. Kids drop out of school, no more welfare. Something has to be done to improve high school graduation rates for poor people and stop the nunber of teenage pregnancies.

Doing nothing to undeucated poor people with children but cuttin their monies out will not be a success. You need a carrot and a stick to change behavior.

clearly what . this country needs are more taxpayer supported civil servant public employee welfare jobs. for the common good. lol

 

[ba1614]

In the end, nutters fear a myth. The myth of throngs of lazy uninspired and unashamed masses milking them for their hard earned money.

It is a myth. But a powerful one. It drives their entire political philosophy and they will not let go of it....no matter how many times they are shown that it is false.

One dollar is too much. Right, BA? I wonder if that stands for bad ass?

It is for the healthy useless after a little while, like the 6months I expressed earlier, yes it is.
And no, it doesn't stand for "bad ass", I'm a teddy bear and anything but a bad ass.

 

[ba1614]

I am always amazed when I hear of people working very hard to bring the American people a lower and lower standard of living. Unions are shit. Employers don't "owe" anyone jobs. Fire you without cause. Blah and blah and on and on and all designed to LOWER the standard of living for the middle and lower classes. Declining wages, less benefits, fewer raises. That is a decline in standards from what a great many of us have experienced in the work place.

I would think that none of you posting here are in the muti million dollar earnings range.
Most in the middle. Maybe upper middle. The middle class has been shit on. And shit rolls down hill. So you take it out on the poor person. But like you all say; the very rich pay all the Federal Income taxes. Or most. SO pretend YOUR tax dollar (piddly that it is) is only being spent on what you like (military,war, corp subsidies). Cause you sure aren't of the very rich.

Maybe you won't be so pissed off at the poor. Cause your taxes ain't paying for them.
Your blood pressure wil stay lower, you will be more healthy and then the Medicare costs will be lower for you in the future. Or you won't stroke out worrying about that lady with three kids getting 1000. dollars a month. (That's nirvana I'd say, prolly got a TV and a refrig) If you stroke out, you will apply for SSDI and Medicaid and you hate those programs. SO quit hating the poor. They are trying to survive in a situation not of their making, just like me and you. Will they suck up welfare monies????if its offered........sure they will........just like any good CEO does. You got to survive. Just ask Wall Street about welfare.


Here's a question. Who supports forced birth control of women and men on welfare.
If you don't have a child while still a teen, you do much better in life. SO forced birth control if on welfare.

Get pregnant, loose welfare. Kids drop out of school, no more welfare. Something has to be done to improve high school graduation rates for poor people and stop the nunber of teenage pregnancies.

Doing nothing to undeucated poor people with children but cuttin their monies out will not be a success. You need a carrot and a stick to change behavior.

clearly what . this country needs are more taxpayer supported civil servant public employee welfare jobs. for the common good. lol

Even just paying people to sit on their ass, I mean it's a stimulus you know, and jobs depend on them handouts!!

lol Poor America

 

[Jarlaxle]

I dont need a better job, I'm not on the dole.

I studied, worked hard, got an engineering degree and a good job, and support myself. Government support to me was limited to student loans which I paid/am paying back. a $500 pell grant, and the free rail/bus transit I got as a student in NYC.

Considering I have lived in NYC my whole life, I have paid back the free transit, and I have more than paid back the pell grant.

Free transit?

Have you no shame? I would rather walk than accept welfare subway rides

You are an Idiot sometimes RW. What Student in NYC does not get a Transit Pass?

Dude...he's an idiot SOMETIMES?! When is he NOT an idiot?!

 

[Jarlaxle]

USMB nutters......to a person....are fucking jealous of people who barely get by. How dare those poor people have anything nice or entertaining!

Assholes.

And I know how low their taxes are, because my taxes aren't that high, and I have no dependents, nothing to deduct whatsoever;

most of the rightwing complainers have kids that are knocking thousands off their tax bills,

they don't pay squat and still complain about it.

Let's get rid of the big handout you get for having a couple useless snot faced kids you breeders!!!!
lolol

Exactly. They mistake their good fortune for diligence. They work hard....but no harder than the guy across town who didn't catch a break. Motherfuckers can't stand the thought of NOT being able to look down on someone and shake their arrogant heads.

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUM, you're dumb as toast.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Single parent families is another whole issue, and the lack of the traditional family, imo, is a big reason for the state of America. But there's lots of single parents making it while working and not on the welfare, it's not easy though and that's why the welfare cases take the easy way out.

I've said from the start I support looking out for those who don't have their health.

It's quite comfortable considering it's free, shelter, cable, cell phones, food, xbox, the "poor" have never had it so good throughout history.

I support remedial education for anyone who needs it, welfare not required.

The best person for the job should get the job. No consideration of anything else should be given.

No, the government should not help anyone discriminate in who they hire, this is the problem, folks want and expect government to make their decisions for them.

Judge Judy said it best, "if you can say "do you want fries with that" you can find a job".

So many new things to comment on....so tedious.

The best person for the job? Decided by who? The employer, of course. We know ALL employer ALWAYS hire based on that factor alone. They never, ever use other criteria in making their hiring decisions.

And...............how many are there?

Decided by the employer of course, I can't imagine anyone telling me who I must hire. holy fuck are you progressives this far offside that you want to tell people who to hire?

Of course they are!

(But I suspect you knew that...)