Should The Government Cut Back On Welfare Benefits or Should They Be More Generous?

[Rotagilla]

The welfare system is way too large right now, and discourages work by the generous payments it gives out, and the way it is structured. If we were to cut welfare benefits, the government would save money through less welfare funding, and earn more money through income taxes since more people would be getting jobs via the discouragement of living off a super small pay-check.

That's a state-by-state issue.

What?..you of all people advocating for states rights? comical...

And the welfare (public assistance to the poor and working poor) system is relatively small.

Incorrect..as usual...

Get better educated about the difference between welfare and entitlements and where they overlap.

look in the mirror when you say that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The welfare system is way too large right now, and discourages work by the generous payments it gives out, and the way it is structured. If we were to cut welfare benefits, the government would save money through less welfare funding, and earn more money through income taxes since more people would be getting jobs via the discouragement of living off a super small pay-check.

Promoting the general welfare is in our social Contract.

Promoting the welfare, yes. Providing the welfare, no.

 

[Agit8r]

I'd say leave the discretionary social programs about where they are. If we want to cut costs, we should cut back on redistributing money to people through the tax code itself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It should be cut drastically. The reason we have income inequality is because we have made poverty a viable option for too many people.

What kinds of jobs are available to most of the poor? Remember that many of the poor live in blighted small towns and rural communities or in urban ghettos far from many employment opportunities. Many of the poor are not only hungry, but poorly educated. Are there a lot of job creators scrambling to serve them with decent employment?

Or are you just arguing from anecdote and typical Conservative bumper sticker thinking?

Is it easier to sneer at the disadvantaged or actually provide a decent job for them? Should we always favor the easy path?

There are jobs available. Not as many as Obama wants us to believe, but we make poverty a viable option. That is the problem

Is that why the Black unemployment rate is still in double digits? Because there are jobs available? What jobs? Where?

Speaking for myself, we in the transportation industry need all the help we can get. Hell, some of those jobs are willing to hire you and pay you while you learn. Just go to any want ads section or go to Craigs List and type in transportation. Look at those hundreds of jobs out there for anybody to take.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime

But what do you do if there are no fish in his pond?

Tell him to get a job and then buy the fish at the store.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It should be cut drastically. The reason we have income inequality is because we have made poverty a viable option for too many people.

What kinds of jobs are available to most of the poor? Remember that many of the poor live in blighted small towns and rural communities or in urban ghettos far from many employment opportunities. Many of the poor are not only hungry, but poorly educated. Are there a lot of job creators scrambling to serve them with decent employment?

Or are you just arguing from anecdote and typical Conservative bumper sticker thinking?

Is it easier to sneer at the disadvantaged or actually provide a decent job for them? Should we always favor the easy path?

You don't get a "decent" job, you take any job available. After a while, you work your way up to a decent job. Nobody starts at the top.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But I thought you said obama was doing great at stimulating the job market?
So which is it,obama fucked up the job market or he improved it?

We are seeing trickle down in all its glory

Somehow it never manages to reach the people who need it most

Why am I not surprised

you're not suprised because you're mentally-defective dummy. at the same time you're saying trickle-down is a failure your friends are bragging about obama's unemployment figure. either we have trickle-down or we dont. which is it?

Trickle down affects the wages that are paid (or not paid) you have a job but not one you can support yourself on. Welfare comes in and makes up the difference
It is how the rich benefit off of welfare. Let the taxpayer support my workers

How about people stop trying to raise a family while working at MickyD's?

If that is all you have that is all you have. There was a time you could raise a family doing menial work.
Supply side policies ended that

No, the American consumers wouldn't support those jobs. That's why they are gone.

 

[danielpalos]

The welfare system is way too large right now, and discourages work by the generous payments it gives out, and the way it is structured. If we were to cut welfare benefits, the government would save money through less welfare funding, and earn more money through income taxes since more people would be getting jobs via the discouragement of living off a super small pay-check.

Promoting the general welfare is in our social Contract.

Promoting the welfare, yes. Providing the welfare, no.

both are in our supreme law of the land.

 

[kaz]

Yes, comrade, not taking people's money is the same as giving people money. All money is the people's money

So you took a handout to raise your kids

Why should you get to pay less taxes than someone without kids. It was your choice to have them

Right, comrade, government not taking people's money is "giving" them money. You mentioned that, comrade big guy

In fairness, Corporate Fatcats have benfited from Corporate Welfare for many many years. They always have their hand out. Don't kid yourself thinking otherwise.

Usually liberals by "corporate welfare" mean allowing companies to deduct their expenses. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean something else? I need a better definition.

I also have zero idea what your pulling that out of your ass means that I'm somehow "kidding" myself since it has nothing to do with what I said

Corporate Fatcats and Government are partners in crime. They're not the adversaries you see them as. Our Government can now best be described as a Government/Corporate Complex. Our nation is all about Corporatism now. Businesses are in bed with Government and always have their hands out. It is what it is.

Post after post you write vague crap that doesn't address anything I said while you say I said things I didn't say. If you want to stop being a moron at some point and have an actual conversation I'll be here

 

[Wyatt earp]

Its mystery than a bus

Let's provide transportation and housing in those areas that have more jobs. We can't have another Grapes of Wrath

You fucken retard....that reply doesn't deserve a response.

You think the poor have the resources to relocate to a new area? You think they will be welcomed once they get there?

how did they get where they are now leftard?

Usually there were jobs
Those jobs are now gone. What better solution do you have than welfare

But I thought you said obama was doing great at stimulating the job market?
So which is it,obama fucked up the job market or he improved it?

He improved it for the states that didn't vote for him.... I always thought that was hilarious the left always praises his job creation numbers then crys about no jobs in the cities

 

[kaz]

Yes, comrade, not taking people's money is the same as giving people money. All money is the people's money

So you took a handout to raise your kids

Why should you get to pay less taxes than someone without kids. It was your choice to have them

Right, comrade, government not taking people's money is "giving" them money. You mentioned that, comrade big guy

It's not much different, kaz. Using the tax code to manipulate people is no less corrupting than using 'benefits'. It's all the same corporatist game.

Right, so government not taking my money is giving me money. so much for you being a libertarian

Settle down and focus. Government taking more from those who don't do as the state specifies, and taking less from those who do, is state coercion. Surely you get that, yeah?

Calm down, no worries. Not sure why you ask if I get something we didn't discuss. Cars with bigger engines go faster. Surely you get that, yeah?

As to what we were actually discussing, the point I disputed by Comrade RW was his statement that tax deductions = welfare. Government not taking your money is the same as government giving you money. It is only possible to give that which is yours. Surely you get that, yeah? Therefore, if government not taking your money = government giving you money, that means all money is the governments, including that which you earned. Else they can not give it to you by not taking it.

I can't believe I have to explain that to someone who thinks he's a libertarian.

As for the statement you made up, yeah, our tax system is fucked. It should be simple and flat. However, that I think money I earned is not government's to give me means that I support our tax system is frankly just stupid

 

[kaz]

Begging the question. They aren't benefits, they are handouts

Take it up with the OP

Why, you gave your manhood to the OP?

How does being born in our society mean you merit handouts?

Do you take a deduction.....I mean handout on your children as dependents?

How about your mortgage handout

It isn't a handout, it's our money.

No it's someone's else's money because you paid nothing in taxes to get back via the deduction. Thus it's a handout.

I don't speak gobbledygook, can you translate that to English?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You fucken retard....that reply doesn't deserve a response.

You think the poor have the resources to relocate to a new area? You think they will be welcomed once they get there?

how did they get where they are now leftard?

Usually there were jobs
Those jobs are now gone. What better solution do you have than welfare

But I thought you said obama was doing great at stimulating the job market?
So which is it,obama fucked up the job market or he improved it?

He improved it for the states that didn't vote for him.... I always thought that was hilarious the left always praises his job creation numbers then crys about no jobs in the cities

Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. All government can do is make it easier or harder for the private sector to do so. Unfortunately, DumBama is the most anti-business President in my lifetime.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You think the poor have the resources to relocate to a new area? You think they will be welcomed once they get there?

how did they get where they are now leftard?

Usually there were jobs
Those jobs are now gone. What better solution do you have than welfare

But I thought you said obama was doing great at stimulating the job market?
So which is it,obama fucked up the job market or he improved it?

He improved it for the states that didn't vote for him.... I always thought that was hilarious the left always praises his job creation numbers then crys about no jobs in the cities

Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. All government can do is make it easier or harder for the private sector to do so. Unfortunately, DumBama is the most anti-business President in my lifetime.

Meh, state governments help create local jobs by being business friendly

See Nikki getting Volvo in South Carolina and a host of other off shore jobs

See Texas creating (or stealing as the liberals would say) most of the jobs during Obama's receccison

Only what the federal government can do is create public sector jobs, create private sector jobs through Union military contracts or hinder private sector job growth... which Obama was great at with Obama care, threat of a raise in the minimum wage and just by being a democrat , no one wanted to invest much with this president because he is so anti business.

 

[danielpalos]

how did they get where they are now leftard?

Usually there were jobs
Those jobs are now gone. What better solution do you have than welfare

But I thought you said obama was doing great at stimulating the job market?
So which is it,obama fucked up the job market or he improved it?

He improved it for the states that didn't vote for him.... I always thought that was hilarious the left always praises his job creation numbers then crys about no jobs in the cities

Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. All government can do is make it easier or harder for the private sector to do so. Unfortunately, DumBama is the most anti-business President in my lifetime.

Meh, state governments help create local jobs by being business friendly

See Nikki getting Volvo in South Carolina and a host of other off shore jobs

See Texas creating (or stealing as the liberals would say) most of the jobs during Obama's receccison

Only what the federal government can do is create public sector jobs, create private sector jobs through Union military contracts or hinder private sector job growth... which Obama was great at with Obama care, threat of a raise in the minimum wage and just by being a democrat , no one wanted to invest much with this president because he is so anti business.

So, if the private sector doesn't want to invest to create jobs, why do they need a special tax rate called, capital gains that is not taxed as ordinary income?

Full employment/part-time employment should correlate to full and part-time jobs availability.

Why don't our elected representatives to federal government become as fond of micromanaging those tax rates are they are regular income tax codes.

 

[Impenitent]

Werewolves of Congress

♬ I saw a werewolf with the farm bill in his hand
Walking the streets OKC in the rain
He was looking for the Sooner hungry and damned
Gonna give 'em a piece of personal disdain

Ah-oooh, werewolves of Congress
Ah-oooh

If you hear him howling about runaway entitlements
Better not re-elect him
Little old lady starved late last night
Werewolves of Congress again

Ah-oooh, werewolves of Congress
Ah-oooh

He's the tightfisted gent
Who filibustered to raise your rent
He'd rather cut taxes for the rich, Than have money for welfare spent

Better stay away from him
He'll repossess your new heart, Jim
And replace it with despair
Werewolves of Congress

Ah-oooh, werewolves of Congress
Ah-oooh

I saw the incumbent hit the landing strip
He was screaming for more red meat
Came straight from The Fellowship
Werewolves of Congress playing trick or treat

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Usually there were jobs
Those jobs are now gone. What better solution do you have than welfare

But I thought you said obama was doing great at stimulating the job market?
So which is it,obama fucked up the job market or he improved it?

He improved it for the states that didn't vote for him.... I always thought that was hilarious the left always praises his job creation numbers then crys about no jobs in the cities

Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. All government can do is make it easier or harder for the private sector to do so. Unfortunately, DumBama is the most anti-business President in my lifetime.

Meh, state governments help create local jobs by being business friendly

See Nikki getting Volvo in South Carolina and a host of other off shore jobs

See Texas creating (or stealing as the liberals would say) most of the jobs during Obama's receccison

Only what the federal government can do is create public sector jobs, create private sector jobs through Union military contracts or hinder private sector job growth... which Obama was great at with Obama care, threat of a raise in the minimum wage and just by being a democrat , no one wanted to invest much with this president because he is so anti business.

So, if the private sector doesn't want to invest to create jobs, why do they need a special tax rate called, capital gains that is not taxed as ordinary income?

Full employment/part-time employment should correlate to full and part-time jobs availability.

Why don't our elected representatives to federal government become as fond of micromanaging those tax rates are they are regular income tax codes.

Capital gains is a tax that brings in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourages people to invest.

Remember that not all investments create jobs either. A business can invest in a huge warehouse, but only create about three or four jobs for the people that are going to operate that warehouse. Or they may invest in robotics or machinery that requires few if any employees to run them.

Right now there are McDonald's restaurants that are investing in automation in an attempt to have an employee-less store. Sure, there may be a few people there to oversee the operations, but now you have to push buttons on a keypad for what you want and your hamburger is going to be made by machines on an assembly line.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Usually there were jobs
Those jobs are now gone. What better solution do you have than welfare

But I thought you said obama was doing great at stimulating the job market?
So which is it,obama fucked up the job market or he improved it?

He improved it for the states that didn't vote for him.... I always thought that was hilarious the left always praises his job creation numbers then crys about no jobs in the cities

Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. All government can do is make it easier or harder for the private sector to do so. Unfortunately, DumBama is the most anti-business President in my lifetime.

Meh, state governments help create local jobs by being business friendly

See Nikki getting Volvo in South Carolina and a host of other off shore jobs

See Texas creating (or stealing as the liberals would say) most of the jobs during Obama's receccison

Only what the federal government can do is create public sector jobs, create private sector jobs through Union military contracts or hinder private sector job growth... which Obama was great at with Obama care, threat of a raise in the minimum wage and just by being a democrat , no one wanted to invest much with this president because he is so anti business.

So, if the private sector doesn't want to invest to create jobs, why do they need a special tax rate called, capital gains that is not taxed as ordinary income?

Full employment/part-time employment should correlate to full and part-time jobs availability.

Why don't our elected representatives to federal government become as fond of micromanaging those tax rates are they are regular income tax codes.

If you were a billionaire would you want to invest in brick and motar company's during Obama's recession the past 7 years?

If you wanted too your net worth would be a hundred bucks....

That's why you are a poor ass socialist poster on USMB..

Give a poor ass socialist a million dollars he will only have $3 bucks to his name a year latter.

Its a fact.

 

[Moonglow]

But I thought you said obama was doing great at stimulating the job market?
So which is it,obama fucked up the job market or he improved it?

He improved it for the states that didn't vote for him.... I always thought that was hilarious the left always praises his job creation numbers then crys about no jobs in the cities

Government doesn't create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. All government can do is make it easier or harder for the private sector to do so. Unfortunately, DumBama is the most anti-business President in my lifetime.

Meh, state governments help create local jobs by being business friendly

See Nikki getting Volvo in South Carolina and a host of other off shore jobs

See Texas creating (or stealing as the liberals would say) most of the jobs during Obama's receccison

Only what the federal government can do is create public sector jobs, create private sector jobs through Union military contracts or hinder private sector job growth... which Obama was great at with Obama care, threat of a raise in the minimum wage and just by being a democrat , no one wanted to invest much with this president because he is so anti business.

So, if the private sector doesn't want to invest to create jobs, why do they need a special tax rate called, capital gains that is not taxed as ordinary income?

Full employment/part-time employment should correlate to full and part-time jobs availability.

Why don't our elected representatives to federal government become as fond of micromanaging those tax rates are they are regular income tax codes.

If you were a billionaire would you want to invest in brick and motar company's during Obama's recession the past 7 years?

If you wanted too your net worth would be a hundred bucks....

That's why you are a poor ass socialist poster on USMB..

Give a poor ass socialist a million dollars he will only have $3 bucks to his name a year latter.

Its a fact.

So says the non-millionaire...

 

[rightwinger]

A benefit of being in our society

Begging the question. They aren't benefits, they are handouts

Take it up with the OP

Why, you gave your manhood to the OP?

How does being born in our society mean you merit handouts?

Do you take a deduction.....I mean handout on your children as dependents?

How about your mortgage handout

It isn't a handout, it's our money.

You writing your children off on your taxes is as much a handout as a welfare mother gets.

Why should others pay to support your children or your mortgage?