CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[Holos]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

OP,

Who are the poor and jobless that you have perceived in your own experience? Can you give me examples from your empirical perception?

It does not seem appropriate to me to have a debate on charity and welfare before we have well established in agreement who are the people to receive those possible benefits.

 

[oldsoul]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

 

[oldsoul]

One of the advantages of charity, is the charity might cut off the able bodied person that just doesn't want to work and welfare never will. As far as single moms go I'm all for helping them out, but it is a little like rewarding them for there poor choices in husband material. I once bumped into a welfare queen with 9 kids by 9 different fathers. Welfare was her work of choice. Welfare IS needed, but we should do a lot more policing of recipients than we do. Of course that means more federal workers who can't be fired.

100% untrue. TANF only allows 5 years of lifetime benefit.

So you're saying we should punish the children for their mothers' mistakes...specifically related to how desirable they are to men? That's some Taliban thinking right there. You must be a Christian.

How about putting an educational stipulation on benefits extending beyond a certain period? Expect people to better themselves and get off the govt. dole.

 

[Andylusion]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

This is exactly right. I figured out that the entire left-wing movement, is entirely based on myth. Without myths, no one would ever vote left-wing. In this case the myth is "other people will pay their wages". No..... Consumers always pay ALL wages.

So when you demand someone's wage go up, you are demanding that you pay more for products, goods and services.

 

[GaryDog]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

If you raise the minimum wage, those jobs will disappear, and thousands will be unemployed. Not a solution.

Proven false, time and time again.

 

[GaryDog]

One of the advantages of charity, is the charity might cut off the able bodied person that just doesn't want to work and welfare never will. As far as single moms go I'm all for helping them out, but it is a little like rewarding them for there poor choices in husband material. I once bumped into a welfare queen with 9 kids by 9 different fathers. Welfare was her work of choice. Welfare IS needed, but we should do a lot more policing of recipients than we do. Of course that means more federal workers who can't be fired.

100% untrue. TANF only allows 5 years of lifetime benefit.

So you're saying we should punish the children for their mothers' mistakes...specifically related to how desirable they are to men? That's some Taliban thinking right there. You must be a Christian.

How about putting an educational stipulation on benefits extending beyond a certain period? Expect people to better themselves and get off the govt. dole.

Again, that's essentially what TANF already does.

 

[GaryDog]

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

This is exactly right. I figured out that the entire left-wing movement, is entirely based on myth. Without myths, no one would ever vote left-wing. In this case the myth is "other people will pay their wages". No..... Consumers always pay ALL wages.

So when you demand someone's wage go up, you are demanding that you pay more for products, goods and services.

Paint in broad strokes much? Speaking of myths, tell us about how the trickle-down theory of economics has worked so well to burgeon the middle class.

 

[Andylusion]

One of the advantages of charity, is the charity might cut off the able bodied person that just doesn't want to work and welfare never will. As far as single moms go I'm all for helping them out, but it is a little like rewarding them for there poor choices in husband material. I once bumped into a welfare queen with 9 kids by 9 different fathers. Welfare was her work of choice. Welfare IS needed, but we should do a lot more policing of recipients than we do. Of course that means more federal workers who can't be fired.

100% untrue. TANF only allows 5 years of lifetime benefit.

So you're saying we should punish the children for their mothers' mistakes...specifically related to how desirable they are to men? That's some Taliban thinking right there. You must be a Christian.

How about putting an educational stipulation on benefits extending beyond a certain period? Expect people to better themselves and get off the govt. dole.

Does not work. Education is not the solution. Cramming information in your head, doesn't do anything. You have to actually use the information you have.

I know people who have a architecture degree, and work at McDonalds. I know people who have engineering degrees, and work for $10/hr on an assembly line.

Equally I know people who have no education whatsoever, and make six figures. I know a guy who became a salesmen, worked his way up, and landed a job as a gasoline whole salesmen. He makes six-figures, and has no college education whatsoever.

If people actually needed education, they could get it.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

If you raise the minimum wage, those jobs will disappear, and thousands will be unemployed. Not a solution.

Proven false, time and time again.

Except it has been proven true hundreds of times.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

OP,

Who are the poor and jobless that you have perceived in your own experience? Can you give me examples from your empirical perception?

It does not seem appropriate to me to have a debate on charity and welfare before we have well established in agreement who are the people to receive those possible benefits.

My opinion on that is no more valid than yours.
My personal view is that a society should protect the weakest members. The old,the sick and so on. There also needs to be a safety net to protect those who stumble. If we dont do this our communities will implode.

 

[GaryDog]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

Name it. Seriously, what's the "real solution"? It's funny to me how you conservatives insist that people get a job and get off the dole, and when people do exactly that, you blame THEM for not getting a good enough job.

 

[GaryDog]

One of the advantages of charity, is the charity might cut off the able bodied person that just doesn't want to work and welfare never will. As far as single moms go I'm all for helping them out, but it is a little like rewarding them for there poor choices in husband material. I once bumped into a welfare queen with 9 kids by 9 different fathers. Welfare was her work of choice. Welfare IS needed, but we should do a lot more policing of recipients than we do. Of course that means more federal workers who can't be fired.

100% untrue. TANF only allows 5 years of lifetime benefit.

So you're saying we should punish the children for their mothers' mistakes...specifically related to how desirable they are to men? That's some Taliban thinking right there. You must be a Christian.

How about putting an educational stipulation on benefits extending beyond a certain period? Expect people to better themselves and get off the govt. dole.

Does not work. Education is not the solution. Cramming information in your head, doesn't do anything. You have to actually use the information you have.

I know people who have a architecture degree, and work at McDonalds. I know people who have engineering degrees, and work for $10/hr on an assembly line.

Equally I know people who have no education whatsoever, and make six figures. I know a guy who became a salesmen, worked his way up, and landed a job as a gasoline whole salesmen. He makes six-figures, and has no college education whatsoever.

If people actually needed education, they could get it.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

If you raise the minimum wage, those jobs will disappear, and thousands will be unemployed. Not a solution.

Proven false, time and time again.

Except it has been proven true hundreds of times.

Okay, fire away with whatever hack source you have that says this.

Minimum Wage Mythbusters

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."


Will raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour kill jobs?

Among many business owners, the link between wage hikes and layoffs is self-evident. That view was once shared in liberal quarters -- in 1987, for example, the New York Times opposed raising the federal minimum wage to $4.35 an hour because the newspaper believed it would cause unemployment to rise.

But research since then suggests a more ambiguous relationship between pay and employment. An influential 1995 study by economists David Card and Alan Krueger -- who looked at 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania before and after New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05 an hour -- found "no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment."

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Welfare is more often used by single mothers to raise their children. It is a vital (and economically beneficial) program.

I remember once that Romney's wife during the '12 campaign talked about motherhood as the "hardest job on the planet", and therefore no one should question her struggle as a parent to 5 kids with a mega-rich husband. If that's the case, the REAL heroes in society are the single mothers. Unless you think motherhood is only a tough job if a man (and primarily a rich man) legitimizes it by agreeing to marry the mother in question.

Charity is nice, but it's been proven to not be nearly enough. It's unreliable, often comes with undue religious strings, and it's not universal. No comparison here.

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

 

[Andylusion]

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

This is exactly right. I figured out that the entire left-wing movement, is entirely based on myth. Without myths, no one would ever vote left-wing. In this case the myth is "other people will pay their wages". No..... Consumers always pay ALL wages.

So when you demand someone's wage go up, you are demanding that you pay more for products, goods and services.

Paint in broad strokes much? Speaking of myths, tell us about how the trickle-down theory of economics has worked so well to burgeon the middle class.

Sure no problem. Every job that exists, exists because of trickle down economics. Every job, with few if any exceptions, must by definition be provided by a richer person who has the money to pay the wages for that job.

No one has ever gotten a job working for someone who was poorer than themselves. If the person I am applying to work for has only $30,000, how can he pay me $50,000?

So trickle down economic is how all jobs are created.

Even self-employed, ultimately owe their jobs to trickle down economics. After all, how would the self employed mechanic repair a car, if not for the tools, parts, and so on, that is provided by the wealthy?

A self-employed accountant, is usually working for a rich person who needs his services. The self-employed graphic artists, is typically employed by the wealthy.

Without trickle down economics, no middle class would have ever existed to begin with. And any loss of the middle class, can be laid at the feet of attempting to disrupt trickle down economics.

 

[GaryDog]

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

This is exactly right. I figured out that the entire left-wing movement, is entirely based on myth. Without myths, no one would ever vote left-wing. In this case the myth is "other people will pay their wages". No..... Consumers always pay ALL wages.

So when you demand someone's wage go up, you are demanding that you pay more for products, goods and services.

Paint in broad strokes much? Speaking of myths, tell us about how the trickle-down theory of economics has worked so well to burgeon the middle class.

Sure no problem. Every job that exists, exists because of trickle down economics. Every job, with few if any exceptions, must by definition be provided by a richer person who has the money to pay the wages for that job.

No one has ever gotten a job working for someone who was poorer than themselves. If the person I am applying to work for has only $30,000, how can he pay me $50,000?

So trickle down economic is how all jobs are created.

Even self-employed, ultimately owe their jobs to trickle down economics. After all, how would the self employed mechanic repair a car, if not for the tools, parts, and so on, that is provided by the wealthy?

A self-employed accountant, is usually working for a rich person who needs his services. The self-employed graphic artists, is typically employed by the wealthy.

Without trickle down economics, no middle class would have ever existed to begin with. And any loss of the middle class, can be laid at the feet of attempting to disrupt trickle down economics.

Swing and a miss.

 

[Andylusion]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

OP,

Who are the poor and jobless that you have perceived in your own experience? Can you give me examples from your empirical perception?

It does not seem appropriate to me to have a debate on charity and welfare before we have well established in agreement who are the people to receive those possible benefits.

My opinion on that is no more valid than yours.
My personal view is that a society should protect the weakest members. The old,the sick and so on. There also needs to be a safety net to protect those who stumble. If we dont do this our communities will implode.

Ridiculous claim. For thousands of years of human history, no such safety nets existed, and their societies didn't implode. Nor did our own before we had social safety nets. In fact most of the social programs we had today, there was no demand for at the time of their creation. They had to be sold to the public by politicians looking for ways to gain a captive voter base, paid for by the people they were creating the programs for.

It's a ridiculous to say society would implode without government stealing money from the poorest people, to give back to them a tiny portion of the money taken, in exchange for votes.

 

[Andylusion]

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

This is exactly right. I figured out that the entire left-wing movement, is entirely based on myth. Without myths, no one would ever vote left-wing. In this case the myth is "other people will pay their wages". No..... Consumers always pay ALL wages.

So when you demand someone's wage go up, you are demanding that you pay more for products, goods and services.

Paint in broad strokes much? Speaking of myths, tell us about how the trickle-down theory of economics has worked so well to burgeon the middle class.

Sure no problem. Every job that exists, exists because of trickle down economics. Every job, with few if any exceptions, must by definition be provided by a richer person who has the money to pay the wages for that job.

No one has ever gotten a job working for someone who was poorer than themselves. If the person I am applying to work for has only $30,000, how can he pay me $50,000?

So trickle down economic is how all jobs are created.

Even self-employed, ultimately owe their jobs to trickle down economics. After all, how would the self employed mechanic repair a car, if not for the tools, parts, and so on, that is provided by the wealthy?

A self-employed accountant, is usually working for a rich person who needs his services. The self-employed graphic artists, is typically employed by the wealthy.

Without trickle down economics, no middle class would have ever existed to begin with. And any loss of the middle class, can be laid at the feet of attempting to disrupt trickle down economics.

Swing and a miss.

Swing and a miss.

 

[Andylusion]

What we are finding here is that welfare is now being supplemented by Charity. Most towns now have foodbanks which are run by the Salvation Army. You cant just turn up though.You have to be referred by a Dr or other kind of professional. Its a sticking plaster rather than a solution.

In California lots of working poor are showing up at soup kitchens to eat. These are charitable too.

Between the soup kitchens and the unemployment the out of luck people can barely eat and live.

The Crash of 2008 is still with us in large measure.

And it was all brought to us by Lehman Brothers.

Its madness that a person who works full time cant put a roof over his head and feed himself.
Housing costs in the UK are extortionate and even well paid youngsters have to live with their parents.

Changes to benefits rules have also exacerbated the problem. You can get your benefits stopped buy being 10 minutes late for an appointment. Get stuck in traffic and starve for a week. What does that individual do ?

Need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage around $15 to $20 per hour.

The Kennedy Clan has been telling us this for decades already.

So, you would be willing to spend 2-3 times as much for your Big Mac then right? And for your groceries, car, gas, home, utilities, entertainment, etc., etc.
Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road. How about a real solution for a change?

You would actually have more money in your pocket to buy that Big Mac. Increasing the minimum wage will reduce the tax burden as we will not be subsidising low wage employers.

Then why didn't it work in Venezuela, Greece, or even in the US in 2007 to 2009? We drastically increased the minimum wage in 2007. Why are people even talking about increasing the minimum wage, after a massive increase?

It doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

 

[Holos]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

OP,

Who are the poor and jobless that you have perceived in your own experience? Can you give me examples from your empirical perception?

It does not seem appropriate to me to have a debate on charity and welfare before we have well established in agreement who are the people to receive those possible benefits.

My opinion on that is no more valid than yours.
My personal view is that a society should protect the weakest members. The old,the sick and so on. There also needs to be a safety net to protect those who stumble. If we dont do this our communities will implode.

How should those with the funds to protect and maintain safety do so effectively and continuously if the fundamental assumption determining social cohesion is first that society has weaker members, despite any personal experience or any differentiation of value towards opinion?

I believe your opinion may have more value than mine on topics in which I still have questions about.
Why can you not believe the same so that I may also share greater value through my opinions?

 

[Michelle420]

Should we help the poor and jobless with charity or welfare ?

Charity -
Pros - No cost to the state
Giver feels they are doing good.

Cons - Not guaranteed
Feudal

Welfare -
Pros - We all pay in so it is a right.
Universal

Cons - Subject to political interference.
Workhouse stigma.

Anybody can fall on hard times so how do we help them get through it and back on the road to success ?

NB - I am not interested in the junkie round the corner who never works and drives a better car than you. Stick to the big picture.

Special Thanks to you Tommy Tainant
for starting a new thread to discuss this key issue.

* Pros to charity instead of welfare is that people can give and receive the ONE ON ONE attention and counseling needed that makes charities so successful.

The people I know who have worked in govt social work, in mental health, etc. complain that they can't work with people in that capacity. They have no capacity to offer what is really needed, but can only manage what is outlined for them.

The recipients from the welfare warriors, to the people complaining about CPS, can also tell you what's wrong with the system. It punishes them for trying to get ahead and limits them to sticking to staying stuck. The public housing tenants I volunteer with in my district wrote innovative federal legislation to change this welfare relationship to a proactive system of training families to get out of poverty. We are still working on organizing the help to enforce the laws and budgets written for this, that has been sitting stagnant since 1994 because of the political popularity of keeping the system as is, and keepin poor people stuck in poverty and prisons to protect govt jobs and contracts!!!

People have been pimping the poor through bad govt that benefits the profiteers.

Tommy Tainant if you read the book on the NEW JIM CROW it exposes the prison system that feeds the welfare cycle.

this isn't helping, it's profiting off the poor by keeping them politically dependent and enslaved under a no win system.

* Another Pro is OWNERSHIP. When people do the work themselves, they can replicate it and teach others to fish once they've been taught how to fish. With ownership and localized responsibility for one's own programs and resources, there is DIRECT accountability and community building. There is mutual education going on. We wouldn't have problems with police and residents not trusting each other if they worked together helping their own communities to get out of poverty, keep off drugs and out of prisons, and rebuild their schools and community centers as well as invest in businesses and medical facilities to grow together.

* Pros to govt programs through taxation:
What I'd recommend is using the given systems of VA, prisons, welfare and educational loans to set up MICROLENDING and training,

Where citizens are REWARDED with tax breaks or interest on LOANS where they have a CHOICE of which persons or programs to sponsor.

We still need accountability for taxes, where these are coming from and where they are going, which is centralized by federal govt. But from there, we can delegate to the states and the people so there is more direct representation and accommodation of diverse populations by state, by region or by party.

This delegation can be done collectively by PARTY where I'd recommend the Democrats take on the prison system which would also involve sponsoring immigrants, and I'd add to that the epidemic of trafficking victims who need SPECIALIZED care which the parties can organize by DISTRICT instead of federalizing everything through Congress which isn't designed to manage on such a personalized level as people need who are recovering from prison, trafficking, drugs etc.

I'd recommend the Republican Party take on reforming the VA and managing the military and border issues that require national security resources.
Why not build teaching hospitals, military prisons, and detention for dangerous criminals along the border?

This can still create jobs and educational internships for students and immigrant workers, but it ISN'T HANDOUTS. it's based on free market supply and demand, and competition to provide the best cost-effective services to reach the most people with the given resources.

If Republicans and corporate interests have more money than the poor being served, or the service providers being trained, the lenders can get tax breaks or interest from lending and mentoring the others to take on business and govt leadership. So this can help minorities WITHOUT HANDOUTS. People can choose which lenders or mentors to receive help from, and people choose who to sponsor or lend to. So it's free choice, and people will lend and receive from the most effective programs to keep them accountable.

Earned Amnesty
based on the campus plans from Freedmen's Town
national historic district under Congresswoman Lee
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

The role that only GOVT can fill is law enforcement, public safety and national security.
If we create jobs around that, then the social work can be delegated to the charitable programs and reserve govt for the functions that only govt can provide, so that govt is better focused and not bogged down in social programs better done by localized groups per community.

* Another PRO to handling welfare by Govt is RESTITUTION FOR CRIMES.
Again something only GOVT can administrate.

For example, with RICO and trafficking laws, victims of crimes including the community affected can claim property abused for organized crime as part of restitution.
For immigration and labor violations, for capital offenses, what if we passed laws requiring restitution for the same amount of time of the capital sentence? So inmates could serve time working the same jobs that sweatshop slaves are doing, and "trade citizenship" with immigrant workers on the waiting list who would love the opportunity to work for a living wage as a productive law abiding citizen. This prison exchange could either provide restitution for all the border crimes, or serve as a deterrent. Either way it would speed the end to corruption and criminal abuses violations and gangs along the border.

To manage health care for larger populations than currently served, I would recommend that the prison system be overhauled and converted into medical treatment centers, not just to serve the dependent prison population but to hold wrongdoers to pay restitution for the COSTS incurred by crimes in order to fund preventative health care for all.

Since this involves public health and safety and national security,
of course, govt has to be involved. But for the mental health treatment and "spiritual healing" required to successful diagnose treat and cure criminal illness, that part can be delegated to private programs designed to work "one on one" with each person and family affected.

That part is NOT something govt can micromanage, especially where spiritual healing and recovery is involved with cases of drug and criminal abuse and addictions.

So church and state, private and public initiatives would have to work together
to delegate the respective roles and programs under the right authority to manage both.

Thanks Tommy Tainant!
If you can manage more threads like this, hammering out the points,
there is hope we can fix our parties and govt yet! Let's do this!

Well said.


Also no more welfare to bail out banks or failed corporations,

 

[boedicca]

Charity Pro: a virtuous endeavor performed by decent members of Civil Society.

Welfare Pro: welfare destroys human capital, making people passive and dependent upon the state. Such people will not be capable of rebelling against the Killer Robot Owning Elite when they launch the Big Purge of Surplus Humanity once automation replaces most unskilled labor.