Can Trump Turn Welfare into Workfare

[Conservative65]

Something like 70% of Wal-Mart full time employees qualify for food stamps

Should you raise the fake poverty limit to make that 99%?

The only thing FAKE about the govt calculated poverty level, IS that it is too low.....

Currently, that percentage is around 15%. That's the same percentage it was before Johnson's War on Poverty started and, as of today, spent $22 trillion. Thanks for proving it was wasted.

What was wasted? Poor is relative. We have the largest economy in the world. Our poor are not even poor enough by third world standards, and the national socialist right wing, likes to complain about it.

You said giving social welfare would eliminate the cycle of poverty. $22 trillion wasted and the percentage in poverty today is the same as it was before the $22 trillion was wasted. So much for the cycle being broken.

 

[danielpalos]

Something like 70% of Wal-Mart full time employees qualify for food stamps

Why should someone offering such low level skills get anything in the way of social welfare if what is causing their situation is their offering of low level skills?

to eliminate a cycle of poverty?

It only perpetuates poverty. The U.S. has tried that for 50 years under Johnson's war on poverty. $22 trillion wasted in an effort to eliminate the cycle and still we have the same percentage in poverty today as before the $22 was wasted. On top of that, the people in poverty today are the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those in poverty BEFORE the $22 trillion.

It doesn't work to give someone something that is at or above what they can earn based on their skills. They have no reason to do better.

You are confusing poor with poverty. Poor is relative. Poverty is defined by our government.

we have wasted more on our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; which Only increase poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

Something like 70% of Wal-Mart full time employees qualify for food stamps

Should you raise the fake poverty limit to make that 99%?

The only thing FAKE about the govt calculated poverty level, IS that it is too low.....

Currently, that percentage is around 15%. That's the same percentage it was before Johnson's War on Poverty started and, as of today, spent $22 trillion. Thanks for proving it was wasted.

What was wasted? Poor is relative. We have the largest economy in the world. Our poor are not even poor enough by third world standards, and the national socialist right wing, likes to complain about it.

You said giving social welfare would eliminate the cycle of poverty. $22 trillion wasted and the percentage in poverty today is the same as it was before the $22 trillion was wasted. So much for the cycle being broken.

I would like to take this time and opportunity to "blame the national socialist right wing" for requiring a socialized work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Capitalism does not require a work ethic, Only that capital circulate.

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

Guess what the national socialist right wing, preferred to do first with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

 

[Conservative65]

Something like 70% of Wal-Mart full time employees qualify for food stamps

Why should someone offering such low level skills get anything in the way of social welfare if what is causing their situation is their offering of low level skills?

to eliminate a cycle of poverty?

It only perpetuates poverty. The U.S. has tried that for 50 years under Johnson's war on poverty. $22 trillion wasted in an effort to eliminate the cycle and still we have the same percentage in poverty today as before the $22 was wasted. On top of that, the people in poverty today are the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those in poverty BEFORE the $22 trillion.

It doesn't work to give someone something that is at or above what they can earn based on their skills. They have no reason to do better.

You are confusing poor with poverty. Poor is relative. Poverty is defined by our government.

we have wasted more on our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; which Only increase poverty.

Poor (adj.) - lacking sufficient money to live at a normal standard

Poverty (noun) - the state of lacking a sufficient amount

The line at which the government define poverty is relative. It's base don changing factors.

You lose but you're a born loser.

We've wasted $22 trillion trying to do something in a manner you said would eradicate poverty.

 

[Conservative65]

Should you raise the fake poverty limit to make that 99%?

The only thing FAKE about the govt calculated poverty level, IS that it is too low.....

Currently, that percentage is around 15%. That's the same percentage it was before Johnson's War on Poverty started and, as of today, spent $22 trillion. Thanks for proving it was wasted.

What was wasted? Poor is relative. We have the largest economy in the world. Our poor are not even poor enough by third world standards, and the national socialist right wing, likes to complain about it.

You said giving social welfare would eliminate the cycle of poverty. $22 trillion wasted and the percentage in poverty today is the same as it was before the $22 trillion was wasted. So much for the cycle being broken.

I would like to take this time and opportunity to "blame the national socialist right wing" for requiring a socialized work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Capitalism does not require a work ethic, Only that capital circulate.

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

Guess what the national socialist right wing, preferred to do first with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

In typical left wing fashion, you blame anyone or anything other that where the blame lies.

You don't solve poverty by giving people something they didn't earn.

We could solve having all the freeloaders living on social welfare by executive order. Cut those programs and it would be sink or swim.

 

[danielpalos]

Something like 70% of Wal-Mart full time employees qualify for food stamps

Why should someone offering such low level skills get anything in the way of social welfare if what is causing their situation is their offering of low level skills?

to eliminate a cycle of poverty?

It only perpetuates poverty. The U.S. has tried that for 50 years under Johnson's war on poverty. $22 trillion wasted in an effort to eliminate the cycle and still we have the same percentage in poverty today as before the $22 was wasted. On top of that, the people in poverty today are the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those in poverty BEFORE the $22 trillion.

It doesn't work to give someone something that is at or above what they can earn based on their skills. They have no reason to do better.

You are confusing poor with poverty. Poor is relative. Poverty is defined by our government.

we have wasted more on our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; which Only increase poverty.

Poor (adj.) - lacking sufficient money to live at a normal standard

Poverty (noun) - the state of lacking a sufficient amount

The line at which the government define poverty is relative. It's base don changing factors.

You lose but you're a born loser.

We've wasted $22 trillion trying to do something in a manner you said would eradicate poverty.

just national socialist right wing ignorance masquerading as fact?

we have wasted more on our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; which Only increase poverty.

The poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure. They are updated each year by the Census Bureau. The thresholds are used mainly for statistical purposes — for instance, preparing estimates of the number of Americans in poverty each year.--https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

 

[Conservative65]

Why should someone offering such low level skills get anything in the way of social welfare if what is causing their situation is their offering of low level skills?

to eliminate a cycle of poverty?

It only perpetuates poverty. The U.S. has tried that for 50 years under Johnson's war on poverty. $22 trillion wasted in an effort to eliminate the cycle and still we have the same percentage in poverty today as before the $22 was wasted. On top of that, the people in poverty today are the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of those in poverty BEFORE the $22 trillion.

It doesn't work to give someone something that is at or above what they can earn based on their skills. They have no reason to do better.

You are confusing poor with poverty. Poor is relative. Poverty is defined by our government.

we have wasted more on our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; which Only increase poverty.

Poor (adj.) - lacking sufficient money to live at a normal standard

Poverty (noun) - the state of lacking a sufficient amount

The line at which the government define poverty is relative. It's base don changing factors.

You lose but you're a born loser.

We've wasted $22 trillion trying to do something in a manner you said would eradicate poverty.

just national socialist ignorance masquerading as fact?

we have wasted more on our wars on crime, drugs, and terror; which Only increase poverty.

Just facts you ignore.

What increases poverty is thinking that giving money to someone that didn't earn it will cause them to do better. It's failed to the tune of $22 trillion.

 

[danielpalos]

The only thing FAKE about the govt calculated poverty level, IS that it is too low.....

Currently, that percentage is around 15%. That's the same percentage it was before Johnson's War on Poverty started and, as of today, spent $22 trillion. Thanks for proving it was wasted.

What was wasted? Poor is relative. We have the largest economy in the world. Our poor are not even poor enough by third world standards, and the national socialist right wing, likes to complain about it.

You said giving social welfare would eliminate the cycle of poverty. $22 trillion wasted and the percentage in poverty today is the same as it was before the $22 trillion was wasted. So much for the cycle being broken.

I would like to take this time and opportunity to "blame the national socialist right wing" for requiring a socialized work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Capitalism does not require a work ethic, Only that capital circulate.

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

Guess what the national socialist right wing, preferred to do first with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

In typical left wing fashion, you blame anyone or anything other that where the blame lies.

You don't solve poverty by giving people something they didn't earn.

We could solve having all the freeloaders living on social welfare by executive order. Cut those programs and it would be sink or swim.

You don't know what you are talking about. Why socialize our work ethic on a national basis?

Capitalism does not require a work ethic, Only that capital circulate.

 

[Conservative65]

Currently, that percentage is around 15%. That's the same percentage it was before Johnson's War on Poverty started and, as of today, spent $22 trillion. Thanks for proving it was wasted.

What was wasted? Poor is relative. We have the largest economy in the world. Our poor are not even poor enough by third world standards, and the national socialist right wing, likes to complain about it.

You said giving social welfare would eliminate the cycle of poverty. $22 trillion wasted and the percentage in poverty today is the same as it was before the $22 trillion was wasted. So much for the cycle being broken.

I would like to take this time and opportunity to "blame the national socialist right wing" for requiring a socialized work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Capitalism does not require a work ethic, Only that capital circulate.

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

Guess what the national socialist right wing, preferred to do first with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

In typical left wing fashion, you blame anyone or anything other that where the blame lies.

You don't solve poverty by giving people something they didn't earn.

We could solve having all the freeloaders living on social welfare by executive order. Cut those programs and it would be sink or swim.

You don't know what you are talking about. Why socialize our work ethic on a national basis?

Capitalism does not require a work ethic, Only that capital circulate.

The work ethic of capitalism is why people have capital. The freeloading ethic of socialism is why those that aren't willing to earn their own way ever have a dime.

 

[danielpalos]

What was wasted? Poor is relative. We have the largest economy in the world. Our poor are not even poor enough by third world standards, and the national socialist right wing, likes to complain about it.

You said giving social welfare would eliminate the cycle of poverty. $22 trillion wasted and the percentage in poverty today is the same as it was before the $22 trillion was wasted. So much for the cycle being broken.

I would like to take this time and opportunity to "blame the national socialist right wing" for requiring a socialized work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Capitalism does not require a work ethic, Only that capital circulate.

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

Guess what the national socialist right wing, preferred to do first with the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

In typical left wing fashion, you blame anyone or anything other that where the blame lies.

You don't solve poverty by giving people something they didn't earn.

We could solve having all the freeloaders living on social welfare by executive order. Cut those programs and it would be sink or swim.

You don't know what you are talking about. Why socialize our work ethic on a national basis?

Capitalism does not require a work ethic, Only that capital circulate.

The work ethic of capitalism is why people have capital. The freeloading ethic of socialism is why those that aren't willing to earn their own way ever have a dime.

You still don't know what you are talking about. Why socialize our work ethic on a national basis?

Capitalism does not require a work ethic, Only that capital circulate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

And what order might that be?

 

[danielpalos]

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

And what order might that be?

to faithfully execute a federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes. Equal protection of the law, is in our Constitutions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

And what order might that be?

to faithfully execute a federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes. Equal protection of the law, is in our Constitutions.

Why do you try and use terms you don't even understand? Equal Protection was actually written for former slaves and their family. But just for shit giggles, what's unequal about not giving people the option to collect a benefit they didn't deserve?

You can't solve poverty by paying people to stay poor. All you really would do is expand poverty. We've been paying people to stay poor for decades now. Do you see an end to poverty yet?

 

[danielpalos]

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

And what order might that be?

to faithfully execute a federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes. Equal protection of the law, is in our Constitutions.

Why do you try and use terms you don't even understand? Equal Protection was actually written for former slaves and their family. But just for shit giggles, what's unequal about not giving people the option to collect a benefit they didn't deserve?

You can't solve poverty by paying people to stay poor. All you really would do is expand poverty. We've been paying people to stay poor for decades now. Do you see an end to poverty yet?

I always use terms i understand, whenever possible.

you are simply clueless and Causeless.

have you never read any of the civil rights acts.

how would someone stay poor with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

And what order might that be?

to faithfully execute a federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes. Equal protection of the law, is in our Constitutions.

Why do you try and use terms you don't even understand? Equal Protection was actually written for former slaves and their family. But just for shit giggles, what's unequal about not giving people the option to collect a benefit they didn't deserve?

You can't solve poverty by paying people to stay poor. All you really would do is expand poverty. We've been paying people to stay poor for decades now. Do you see an end to poverty yet?

I always use terms i understand, whenever possible.

you are simply clueless and Causeless.

have you never read any of the civil rights acts.

how would someone stay poor with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States?

You actually believe that 14 bucks an hour isn't poverty? Do you think you could support a family of four on 14 bucks an hour???

 

[danielpalos]

We could solve simple poverty in our Republic, by simple executive order.

And what order might that be?

to faithfully execute a federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes. Equal protection of the law, is in our Constitutions.

Why do you try and use terms you don't even understand? Equal Protection was actually written for former slaves and their family. But just for shit giggles, what's unequal about not giving people the option to collect a benefit they didn't deserve?

You can't solve poverty by paying people to stay poor. All you really would do is expand poverty. We've been paying people to stay poor for decades now. Do you see an end to poverty yet?

I always use terms i understand, whenever possible.

you are simply clueless and Causeless.

have you never read any of the civil rights acts.

how would someone stay poor with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States?

You actually believe that 14 bucks an hour isn't poverty? Do you think you could support a family of four on 14 bucks an hour???

No, it isn't. A minimum wage is simply that. Did you forget your right wing dogma?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And what order might that be?

to faithfully execute a federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes. Equal protection of the law, is in our Constitutions.

Why do you try and use terms you don't even understand? Equal Protection was actually written for former slaves and their family. But just for shit giggles, what's unequal about not giving people the option to collect a benefit they didn't deserve?

You can't solve poverty by paying people to stay poor. All you really would do is expand poverty. We've been paying people to stay poor for decades now. Do you see an end to poverty yet?

I always use terms i understand, whenever possible.

you are simply clueless and Causeless.

have you never read any of the civil rights acts.

how would someone stay poor with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States?

You actually believe that 14 bucks an hour isn't poverty? Do you think you could support a family of four on 14 bucks an hour???

No, it isn't. A minimum wage is simply that. Did you forget your right wing dogma?

Hate to break it to you, but yes, $14.00 an hour is poverty unless you're single and living with your parents. That is unless you live in one of those liberal states where it's almost as good as minimum wage.

Which horse runs faster, the one with a carrot dangling in front of him or the one with a pile of carrots? Giving the horse a pile of carrots only makes him fat and lazy. Showing him how to get the carrot keeps him healthy and trying.

I strongly suspect you are on some sort of social programs(s) based on your posts. Oh yes, you will deny that of course. You will tell me you're wealthy, have your own business, retired at a young age; most liberals have the same story. But maybe.....just maybe........ if you give up being here on USMB day in and day out, try to advance yourself by getting a job and promoting yourself, you may find much more success than depending on other people's money to get by in life.

 

[danielpalos]

to faithfully execute a federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes. Equal protection of the law, is in our Constitutions.

Why do you try and use terms you don't even understand? Equal Protection was actually written for former slaves and their family. But just for shit giggles, what's unequal about not giving people the option to collect a benefit they didn't deserve?

You can't solve poverty by paying people to stay poor. All you really would do is expand poverty. We've been paying people to stay poor for decades now. Do you see an end to poverty yet?

I always use terms i understand, whenever possible.

you are simply clueless and Causeless.

have you never read any of the civil rights acts.

how would someone stay poor with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States?

You actually believe that 14 bucks an hour isn't poverty? Do you think you could support a family of four on 14 bucks an hour???

No, it isn't. A minimum wage is simply that. Did you forget your right wing dogma?

Hate to break it to you, but yes, $14.00 an hour is poverty unless you're single and living with your parents. That is unless you live in one of those liberal states where it's almost as good as minimum wage.

Which horse runs faster, the one with a carrot dangling in front of him or the one with a pile of carrots? Giving the horse a pile of carrots only makes him fat and lazy. Showing him how to get the carrot keeps him healthy and trying.

I strongly suspect you are on some sort of social programs(s) based on your posts. Oh yes, you will deny that of course. You will tell me you're wealthy, have your own business, retired at a young age; most liberals have the same story. But maybe.....just maybe........ if you give up being here on USMB day in and day out, try to advance yourself by getting a job and promoting yourself, you may find much more success than depending on other people's money to get by in life.

A minimum wage of fifteen dollars and hour and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour solves simple poverty and helps privatize costs. Welfare as we currently know it, will still exist, but we want to increase market share for more cost effective programs. Which means, less people on actual welfare.