A Certain Kind of Poor Folk

[PoliticalChic]

Let me take a moment and check the links and data you've provided.....

Oh....you forgot to provide any.


Possibly you meant that 'never support' to reflect Liberal/Progressive myths.
Isn't that the case?

It's pointless to post links, because you don't read them. Hell, you don't even bother to read the links that YOU post.

You don't even post for intellectual discussion, you're just looking for opportunities to make fun of liberals and demonstrate your amazing ability to post insults instead of ideas.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/290455-the-lazy-poor.html#post7141372

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

I see what you're doing. I'll go link by link.

1. No program...No nothing will EVER EVER EVER END POVERTY. So to pretend the goal of welfare is to END poverty is a lie
2. Obama...yes, that CAN happen but you have yet to show where that DOES happen on a large enough scale as to end welfare completely. The bath is dirty so you want to throw out the baby too
3. Welfare reform! Cool!
4. More Welfare, More Poverty - Opinion piece that again suggests that Welfare programs are meant to END poverty. Not the case see #1
5. Does Welfare Dimish Poverty - See #1
6. Working Works in State-Based Welfare Reform - Great I agree. Why you posted this I don't understand tho

It may not be possible to end poverty. I can't say for certain one way or the other. However, the goal has to be to reduce poverty as much as possible doesn't it? It certainly doesn't make sense to increase poverty.

So what's wrong with trying to come up with a better way to decrease poverty? It really just feels like you are knee-jerking because someone spoke against the way welfare is working (or not working.) Is there something inherently wrong with trying to examine a system to see if there might be a better way to accomplish it's goals?

Any way you say it, less poverty is good. If we could end poverty, great. If not, then let's try to find the most effective way to reduce it as far as possible. The point is these programs don't encourage people to start earning on their own. If we are going to have government welfare programs that needs to be a key part of them; an incentive to start working and earning on your own.

The incentive for getting off welfare, to those who are employable, is the availability of a job that meaningfully improves one's economic condition.

When you take away a poor person's welfare and force them into a low wage job that nets no more than they got on welfare,

all you've done is added one more person to the ranks of the working poor.

(my bold)

The point is even if they are netting no more than they were when they were on welfare they are actually supporting themselves rather than society supporting them. Nobody is supporting me while I look for a "job that meaningfully improves [my] economic condition." I'm working and searching.

Better one more working poor than one more not-working poor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It may not be possible to end poverty. I can't say for certain one way or the other. However, the goal has to be to reduce poverty as much as possible doesn't it? It certainly doesn't make sense to increase poverty.

So what's wrong with trying to come up with a better way to decrease poverty? It really just feels like you are knee-jerking because someone spoke against the way welfare is working (or not working.) Is there something inherently wrong with trying to examine a system to see if there might be a better way to accomplish it's goals?

Any way you say it, less poverty is good. If we could end poverty, great. If not, then let's try to find the most effective way to reduce it as far as possible. The point is these programs don't encourage people to start earning on their own. If we are going to have government welfare programs that needs to be a key part of them; an incentive to start working and earning on your own.

The incentive for getting off welfare, to those who are employable, is the availability of a job that meaningfully improves one's economic condition.

When you take away a poor person's welfare and force them into a low wage job that nets no more than they got on welfare,

all you've done is added one more person to the ranks of the working poor.

The two main elements of Liberal propaganda: bilge and claptrap.

1. So...keep taking your neighbor's hard-earned funds until the proffered employment meets with your standards.

What kind of bottom-feeder believes, or even writes that trash?



2. The truth is the poster isn't the only one to advance this thinking.
Obamunists foist it on the nation by making it so very easy to steal....er, accept welfare largesse.
Obama removed the work requirement.
What is he trying to accomplish?



3. "Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.

“I’m sort of a foodie, and I’m not going to do the ‘living off ramen’ thing,” he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he’d prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. “I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it’s great that you can get anything.”
Hipsters on food stamps - Salon.com



4. But a minor tempest hit Ohio’s Warren County after a woman drove to the food stamp office in a Mercedes-Benz and word spread that she owned a $300,000 home loan-free. Since Ohio ignores the value of houses and cars, she qualified.
“As soon as people figure out they can vote representatives in to give them benefits, that’s the end of democracy,” Mr. Young said. “More and more people will be taking, and fewer will be producing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?pagewanted=4&ref=thesafetynet



What the heck happened to shame?

So end food stamps if you can get the votes for it. End Medicaid. End housing subsidies. End cash assistance. End public education.

Once you've done all that, tell us how and when America's poor get out of poverty.

 

[Foxfyre]

The incentive for getting off welfare, to those who are employable, is the availability of a job that meaningfully improves one's economic condition.

When you take away a poor person's welfare and force them into a low wage job that nets no more than they got on welfare,

all you've done is added one more person to the ranks of the working poor.

The two main elements of Liberal propaganda: bilge and claptrap.

1. So...keep taking your neighbor's hard-earned funds until the proffered employment meets with your standards.

What kind of bottom-feeder believes, or even writes that trash?



2. The truth is the poster isn't the only one to advance this thinking.
Obamunists foist it on the nation by making it so very easy to steal....er, accept welfare largesse.
Obama removed the work requirement.
What is he trying to accomplish?



3. "Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.

“I’m sort of a foodie, and I’m not going to do the ‘living off ramen’ thing,” he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he’d prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. “I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it’s great that you can get anything.”
Hipsters on food stamps - Salon.com



4. But a minor tempest hit Ohio’s Warren County after a woman drove to the food stamp office in a Mercedes-Benz and word spread that she owned a $300,000 home loan-free. Since Ohio ignores the value of houses and cars, she qualified.
“As soon as people figure out they can vote representatives in to give them benefits, that’s the end of democracy,” Mr. Young said. “More and more people will be taking, and fewer will be producing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?pagewanted=4&ref=thesafetynet



What the heck happened to shame?

So end food stamps if you can get the votes for it. End Medicaid. End housing subsidies. End cash assistance. End public education.

Once you've done all that, tell us how and when America's poor get out of poverty.

People this day and age get themselves out of poverty the way they have always gotten themselves out of poverty. By providing for themselves while they get a hand up here and there by people willing to give them a chance, by those who encourage them, and help along the way. None of which is likely to come from the government. The same way my husband and I and all our friends got ourselves out of poverty in the early years. And we did it without a single dime of federal or state money because there was none available to us.

But when you have a government paying you for being poor, it is much harder to muster the gumption to do the hard work of prospering yourself. It is scary to move out of the government nest, and large numbers of people won't try. And the children who grow up in that kind of environment see it as the easiest way of life and embrace it.

If we are going to have government charity, at the very least compassion would require people to get up, get themselves cleaned up, and go out to do community service in return for their welfare check. If they have to work for a small government check, they just might decide that they would prefer to put in the effort to merit a bigger check in the private sector and thereby move out of the ranks of the 'poor'.

Again from Benjamin Franklin:
" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.--Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766"

 

[PoliticalChic]

The incentive for getting off welfare, to those who are employable, is the availability of a job that meaningfully improves one's economic condition.

When you take away a poor person's welfare and force them into a low wage job that nets no more than they got on welfare,

all you've done is added one more person to the ranks of the working poor.

The two main elements of Liberal propaganda: bilge and claptrap.

1. So...keep taking your neighbor's hard-earned funds until the proffered employment meets with your standards.

What kind of bottom-feeder believes, or even writes that trash?



2. The truth is the poster isn't the only one to advance this thinking.
Obamunists foist it on the nation by making it so very easy to steal....er, accept welfare largesse.
Obama removed the work requirement.
What is he trying to accomplish?



3. "Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.

“I’m sort of a foodie, and I’m not going to do the ‘living off ramen’ thing,” he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he’d prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. “I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it’s great that you can get anything.”
Hipsters on food stamps - Salon.com



4. But a minor tempest hit Ohio’s Warren County after a woman drove to the food stamp office in a Mercedes-Benz and word spread that she owned a $300,000 home loan-free. Since Ohio ignores the value of houses and cars, she qualified.
“As soon as people figure out they can vote representatives in to give them benefits, that’s the end of democracy,” Mr. Young said. “More and more people will be taking, and fewer will be producing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?pagewanted=4&ref=thesafetynet



What the heck happened to shame?

So end food stamps if you can get the votes for it. End Medicaid. End housing subsidies. End cash assistance. End public education.

Once you've done all that, tell us how and when America's poor get out of poverty.

"Not religion, nor law, the mode is solidarity. Notice how often a member of said group relies on “we” and “us” when speaking."
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

 

[regent]

Evil, be it hunger, illness, crime or whatever will never be eliminated by laws or pressure from society, but what society tries to do is reduce the number of victims of the evils. We make laws, build hospitals and jails and try to help those that are destitute. Do some people ride on the gravy train, of course, there comes a point in programs where it is no longer cost effective to have fifty social workers to catch one example of fraud, just as medicine cannot expect to cure everyone. For a democracy, however, the numbers in the middle class is important to preserve the democracy.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

So end food stamps if you can get the votes for it. End Medicaid. End housing subsidies. End cash assistance. End public education.

Once you've done all that, tell us how and when America's poor get out of poverty.

Imagine all those programs did disappear overnight. Do you imagine that all of the people living off of them would simply give up and die? I personally believe that given no other choice they will stand up and make something happen for themselves. Mankind has a remarkable will to live. Isn't it denigrating to say that they are not capable of living life without our help?

But what about those who really can't support themselves you say? Do you imagine for a second that the average American is so heartless as to watch people die without stepping in to lend a hand? People will help. Have no doubt in your heart.

What doesn't make sense is paying $1 to the government so that they can give $0.20 to people who need it.

 

[Dragonlady]

What doesn't make sense is paying $1 to the government so that they can give $0.20 to people who need it.

Then insist on a reasonable minimum wage. Wages have not kept pace with GDP. Stop subsidizing low wage sectors dominated by large highly profitable multinationals, who encourage their employees to get food stamps and medicaid.

Start insisting that the working poor and the lower middle class get a fair shake in their wages. They they won't need food stamps and income assistance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evil, be it hunger, illness, crime or whatever will never be eliminated by laws or pressure from society, but what society tries to do is reduce the number of victims of the evils. We make laws, build hospitals and jails and try to help those that are destitute. Do some people ride on the gravy train, of course, there comes a point in programs where it is no longer cost effective to have fifty social workers to catch one example of fraud, just as medicine cannot expect to cure everyone. For a democracy, however, the numbers in the middle class is important to preserve the democracy.

"Democracy" is one of those terms that often require more definition than that posed by a dictionary.




Familiar with Talmon?

1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

a. Cultural totalitarianism is rule by the individual freed from all external authority or constraints, morality fully privatized with Judeo-Christian traditions under attack.

b. Moral and cultural relativism are predominant; no lifestyle is better than any other.

c. Paradoxically, relativist doctrine becomes absolutely unassailable: it brooks no challenges or deviations.





Talmon draws a distinction between “liberal democracy” and “totalitarian democracy,” both of which he sees as arising in the 18th century and coming into collision in the 20th.

“Liberal democracy” regards politics as a matter of trial and error, and political systems as pragmatic contrivances; it is solicitous of individualism and recognizes that there are legitimate areas of human activity outside the realm of the political.

“Totalitarian democracy” preaches absolute truth and a messianic vision of a “pre-ordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive”; its politics is but one aspect of an all-embracing philosophy. Both “liberal” and “totalitarian” democracy affirm the value of liberty; but for the first, liberty means individual spontaneity, for the second, reconciliation to an absolute, collective purpose—a kind of self-willed slavery, in fact.


Wanna guess where America stands today?

 

[WillowTree]

"Those who live on welfare should not live better than those who provide it."

 

[regent]

Evil, be it hunger, illness, crime or whatever will never be eliminated by laws or pressure from society, but what society tries to do is reduce the number of victims of the evils. We make laws, build hospitals and jails and try to help those that are destitute. Do some people ride on the gravy train, of course, there comes a point in programs where it is no longer cost effective to have fifty social workers to catch one example of fraud, just as medicine cannot expect to cure everyone. For a democracy, however, the numbers in the middle class is important to preserve the democracy.

"Democracy" is one of those terms that often require more definition than that posed by a dictionary.




Familiar with Talmon?

1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

a. Cultural totalitarianism is rule by the individual freed from all external authority or constraints, morality fully privatized with Judeo-Christian traditions under attack.

b. Moral and cultural relativism are predominant; no lifestyle is better than any other.

c. Paradoxically, relativist doctrine becomes absolutely unassailable: it brooks no challenges or deviations.





Talmon draws a distinction between “liberal democracy” and “totalitarian democracy,” both of which he sees as arising in the 18th century and coming into collision in the 20th.

“Liberal democracy” regards politics as a matter of trial and error, and political systems as pragmatic contrivances; it is solicitous of individualism and recognizes that there are legitimate areas of human activity outside the realm of the political.

“Totalitarian democracy” preaches absolute truth and a messianic vision of a “pre-ordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive”; its politics is but one aspect of an all-embracing philosophy. Both “liberal” and “totalitarian” democracy affirm the value of liberty; but for the first, liberty means individual spontaneity, for the second, reconciliation to an absolute, collective purpose—a kind of self-willed slavery, in fact.


Wanna guess where America stands today?

And who decided where America stands today?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evil, be it hunger, illness, crime or whatever will never be eliminated by laws or pressure from society, but what society tries to do is reduce the number of victims of the evils. We make laws, build hospitals and jails and try to help those that are destitute. Do some people ride on the gravy train, of course, there comes a point in programs where it is no longer cost effective to have fifty social workers to catch one example of fraud, just as medicine cannot expect to cure everyone. For a democracy, however, the numbers in the middle class is important to preserve the democracy.

"Democracy" is one of those terms that often require more definition than that posed by a dictionary.




Familiar with Talmon?

1. The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

a. Cultural totalitarianism is rule by the individual freed from all external authority or constraints, morality fully privatized with Judeo-Christian traditions under attack.

b. Moral and cultural relativism are predominant; no lifestyle is better than any other.

c. Paradoxically, relativist doctrine becomes absolutely unassailable: it brooks no challenges or deviations.





Talmon draws a distinction between “liberal democracy” and “totalitarian democracy,” both of which he sees as arising in the 18th century and coming into collision in the 20th.

“Liberal democracy” regards politics as a matter of trial and error, and political systems as pragmatic contrivances; it is solicitous of individualism and recognizes that there are legitimate areas of human activity outside the realm of the political.

“Totalitarian democracy” preaches absolute truth and a messianic vision of a “pre-ordained, harmonious and perfect scheme of things, to which men are irresistibly driven, and at which they are bound to arrive”; its politics is but one aspect of an all-embracing philosophy. Both “liberal” and “totalitarian” democracy affirm the value of liberty; but for the first, liberty means individual spontaneity, for the second, reconciliation to an absolute, collective purpose—a kind of self-willed slavery, in fact.


Wanna guess where America stands today?

And who decided where America stands today?

How about you decide, based on the post.

 

[Foxfyre]

What doesn't make sense is paying $1 to the government so that they can give $0.20 to people who need it.

Then insist on a reasonable minimum wage. Wages have not kept pace with GDP. Stop subsidizing low wage sectors dominated by large highly profitable multinationals, who encourage their employees to get food stamps and medicaid.

Start insisting that the working poor and the lower middle class get a fair shake in their wages. They they won't need food stamps and income assistance.

Because of a husband who got transferred a LOT, I had to start over again and again and again and generally accepted minimum wage jobs to get my foot in the door. I was NEVER kept at minimum wage for more than a few weeks. And I have apprenticed myself to learn a trade for no pay at all more than once. That has paid off big time for me once I learned the ropes, however.

Minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a living wage but was intended to prevent employers from engaging in figurative slave labor by using trainees and apprentices who were paid little or nothing. No employer can keep a good employee at minimum wage past the training period, and no good employee ever has to accept minimum wage any longer than is necessary to learn the job.

Likewise, government welfare in any form was initially never intended to be a way of life for people, but was an emergency, temporary measure to help people over a bad patch. And it initially involved giving people a chance to retain their dignity and self respect by working for the government check they receive.

Let's focus on restoring basic American values in which people are willing to work for and prove that they merit a living wage. And in which people expect to earn, as much as possible, what they get.

Encouraging dependency in any form is not compassion. It is a certain way to enslave people and require them to do the government's bidding with that vise ever tightening the more the people become dependent.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

What doesn't make sense is paying $1 to the government so that they can give $0.20 to people who need it.

Then insist on a reasonable minimum wage. Wages have not kept pace with GDP. Stop subsidizing low wage sectors dominated by large highly profitable multinationals, who encourage their employees to get food stamps and medicaid.

Start insisting that the working poor and the lower middle class get a fair shake in their wages. They they won't need food stamps and income assistance.

I don't think raising the minimum wage is necessarily the answer though. Do you know who would be hurt by a raise in the minimum wage? The small business owner. Without an increased income they will be asked to suddenly pay a great deal more to their low-wage employees. A large corporation may be able to absorb the difference, but a small company that is barely staying afloat in this economy will be affected immediately. The only possible response they could have would be to raise their prices or cut their workforce. So in increasing the minimum wage you would correspondingly make everything more expensive or increase unemployment. How is that going to help the poor? They make more money and spend more money or they lose their job altogether.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let me take a moment and check the links and data you've provided.....

Oh....you forgot to provide any.


Possibly you meant that 'never support' to reflect Liberal/Progressive myths.
Isn't that the case?

It's pointless to post links, because you don't read them. Hell, you don't even bother to read the links that YOU post.

You don't even post for intellectual discussion, you're just looking for opportunities to make fun of liberals and demonstrate your amazing ability to post insults instead of ideas.

Really? So we have a USMB member who posts an interesting topic, provides a basis for the topic, provides appropriate links, and puts it out there for discussion, and has received little but personal insults, like yours, from the Left for her trouble, and SHE is the one who posts insults instead of ideas?

There's nothing at all wrong with bias. All intelligent people have it. But bias without anything substantive to back it up is more accurately called prejudice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What doesn't make sense is paying $1 to the government so that they can give $0.20 to people who need it.

Then insist on a reasonable minimum wage. Wages have not kept pace with GDP. Stop subsidizing low wage sectors dominated by large highly profitable multinationals, who encourage their employees to get food stamps and medicaid.

Start insisting that the working poor and the lower middle class get a fair shake in their wages. They they won't need food stamps and income assistance.

1. While legislative bodies have the power to order wage increases, they have not as of yet found a way to order commensurate increases in worker productivity that make the worker’s output worth the higher wage.


2. Employers, of course, are free to make adjustments in their use of labor. Often said adjustments are at the expense of the workers who are most disadvantaged in terms of their marketable skills. They will lose their jobs, or not be hired in the first place.

a. The workers who suffer most are the most marginal, usually youths, and racial minorities, disproportionally represented among low-skilled workers.

b. Not only are the above made less employable by minimum wage laws, but they lose the opportunity to upgrade their skills via on-the-job training.



3. The weight of research by academic scholars concludes that unemployment among some segments of the work force is directly related to legal minimum wages,
See K.R. Kearl, et al., “What Economists Think,”
and Alston, Kearl, and Vaughn, “Is There Global Economic Consensus,” both in the ‘American Economic Review.’




4. Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’

a. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.

b. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??

c. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”

d. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.

e. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?

f. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.

g. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!

h. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?
From Walter E. Williams' “Race & Economics,” chapter three.


How ya' like me now, DragonLazy?