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.

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.

Would you be willing to refer me your sources for human history?

 

[320 Years of History]

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

There remain homeless and hungry people in the U.S., yet we have both welfare and charity. It's not clear to me that the "one or the other" approach has any hope of working better than the "both" approach we currently have in place.

It depends largely on how the Charity is setup. And beyond that, it depends on the individual.

What people refuse to accept is that at some level, an individual that has his needs met, simply won't improve their lives if they don't want to.

When people are actually starving, is when they will actually change in some cases.

Several years back there was a blog about a lady who ended up in a messy divorce, and had no skills. She ended up on welfare and public housing for just a few weeks. The reason she was only on it for a few weeks, was because she met people in the public housing, who had no desire, no will, no motivation, no self-worth that caused them to want to change their situation.

This terrified her, and she got a job as quickly as she could and fled from the public housing, because she knew if she stayed there, she would end up with the same mentality.

Now she has a nursing degree, and a stable job.

The one good thing about most Charities, is that they push people to move forward with their lives. The shelter I was at, required that you meet with counselors to move forward with your life. Now you could still live there, and eat there, but you had a specific amount of time, and you had to meet with potential employers. If you refused to do anything, then you had to leave.

Government generally doesn't care about that. As long as you vote for Democrats which hand out free goodies, they don't care how long you are on the government dole. You can waste your life away in poverty and misery, so long as you vote for Democrats.

Red:
??? Say what? What "depends?" I wrote that in a nation where both charity and state sponsored/run welfare exist, there remain homeless and hungry people. That doesn't "depend." It is so.

If you want to make the case that the preponderance of those people are voluntarily destitute, by all means do so. I don't think that such an argument will be convincing for a quick visit to any homeless shelter to ask the people there and who depend on the shelter's largess will find few, if any, folks who have chosen homelessness and hunger as the state of their existence and who have cast off their financial resources to be so.

Green:
Perhaps that explains why all those "working poor" folks don't do what it takes to boost their financial fortunes so they can become working middle class or working "better off than middle class." I'll be sure to point JimBowie1958 to your post. He'll find it most informative regarding his great concern for folks who find themselves underemployed, or at least paid less than they are accustomed to being paid. I'm sure it never crossed his mind (nor mine) that those folks are contentedly living their lives because "their needs are met" and don't really deserve, need or want his advocacy. That should be a load off his mind; now that you've spoken and pronounced their circumstances as being willful, there's no need for him to press on with his UBI ideas.

I don't agree with Jim's overall conclusions about the UBI, but I don't agree with you either because one implication of your remark as presented is that the needs one must have met can be satiated in a static way. Well that's just not so. For example, I could stop working and I would still have housing, food, entertainment, etc.; however, I would have those things only until the money runs out. Then I'd have to change dwellings, pare back on some of my expenditures. Eventually, I could be in a position where my needs aren't met.

Additionally, needs come in varying degrees. The types of needs we are discussing in this thread are the most basic sort of needs there are.

Of the needs at the base of the "pyramid," folks will generally do whatever they have to in order to have them met. People don't just stop striving to fill the needs superior to biological/physiological needs merely because they have food and shelter.


Blue:
That makes no sense at all given that Democrats are the champions of the idea that government can solve the ills of the people governed. If voting Democratic were to foist one surely into poverty and destitution, there'd be no viable tax base that can fund the government.

 

[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.

Would you be willing to refer me your sources for human history?

How can anyone prove a negative? If the Ancient Egyptians had social security, it was not recorded in any book I have ever read.

 

[GaryDog]

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.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

 

[GaryDog]

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.

Would you be willing to refer me your sources for human history?

How can anyone prove a negative? If the Ancient Egyptians had social security, it was not recorded in any book I have ever read.

Would you disagree that the U.S. is the most prosperous economy in human history, and never more so than from about 1946 til today?

 

[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.

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.

I think I need pair of those glasses you are wearing Andy.
Look through history and ask yourself which period of time you would have preferred to live through.

Lets go back a century when women didnt have a vote.

Go back a bit further when we had slavery.

Or a bit further when we pushed infants up chimneys and put people with deformities in freak shows.

When the local lord owned everything because his dad owned it before him.When we had rotten boroughs and the vote was confined to the wealthy.

There has never been a better time to live than this and it is due to progressive politicians refusung to put up with the status quo.
Health,education,housing,human rights all of these things were opposed by the establishment, a living wage is the latest fight.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

No you don't, just walk in and live in the town...

 

[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.

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.

Would you be willing to refer me your sources for human history?

How can anyone prove a negative? If the Ancient Egyptians had social security, it was not recorded in any book I have ever read.

We call them mathematical maxims, symbolical sets with restrictions and continuities.

 

[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.

No you don't, just walk in and live in the town...

Not in the food banks I have helped.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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 instead of 3% of the working population makes minimum wage and dirt poor you want like 45% of the working population to make minimum wage?

Guess what they are still poor

Btw what is your definition of a livable wage? In blue liberal hell holes like San Francisco and New York you would need to make $55 bucks an hour..

In red states at $15 bucks an hour you live like a king.

Also note after federal taxes, claiming 4 dependents and after obozo health care take home pay is

$7.50= 40 hours= $295 a week

$15=40 hours= $450 a week

$20 =40 hours=$500 a week

$30 =40 hours=$600 a week

Notice who the hell is getting all your money?

Not you

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

No you don't, just walk in and live in the town...

Not in the food banks I have helped.

Have a link?

 

[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 instead of 3% of the working population makes minimum wage and dirt poor you want like 45% of the working population to make minimum wage?

Guess what they are still poor

Btw what is your definition of a livable wage? In blue liberal hell holes like San Francisco and New York you would need to make $55 bucks an hour..

In red states at $15 bucks an hour you live like a king.

Also note after federal taxes, claiming 4 dependents and after obozo health care take home pay is

$7.50= 40 hours= $295 a week

$15=40 hours= $450 a week

$20 =40 hours=$500 a week

$30 =40 hours=$600 a week

Notice who the hell is getting all your money?

Not you

Wow. I'd fire your CPA if I were you.

 

[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.

No you don't, just walk in and live in the town...

Not in the food banks I have helped.

Have a link?

How it works | Network Foodbank | Trussell Trust

Have you got a link ?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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 instead of 3% of the working population makes minimum wage and dirt poor you want like 45% of the working population to make minimum wage?

Guess what they are still poor

Btw what is your definition of a livable wage? In blue liberal hell holes like San Francisco and New York you would need to make $55 bucks an hour..

In red states at $15 bucks an hour you live like a king.

Also note after federal taxes, claiming 4 dependents and after obozo health care take home pay is

$7.50= 40 hours= $295 a week

$15=40 hours= $450 a week

$20 =40 hours=$500 a week

$30 =40 hours=$600 a week

Notice who the hell is getting all your money?

Not you

Wow. I'd fire your CPA if I were you.

You don't have a clue do you?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

No you don't, just walk in and live in the town...

Not in the food banks I have helped.

Have a link?

How it works | Network Foodbank | Trussell Trust

Have you got a link ?

This link is so massive try me...

Anderson Homeless Shelters and Services - Anderson SC Homeless Shelters - Anderson South Carolina Homeless Shelters

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

No you don't, just walk in and live in the town...

Not in the food banks I have helped.

Have a link?

How it works | Network Foodbank | Trussell Trust

Have you got a link ?

This link is so massive try me...

Anderson Homeless Shelters and Services - Anderson SC Homeless Shelters - Anderson South Carolina Homeless Shelters

In fairness, Tommy Tainant, you posted a link to UK-related content. I don't know it to be so, but things can be different -- universally or just sometimes -- between UK free food provision processes and requirements and U.S. ones.

• How to Qualify for Food Banks | eHow
  
• Salvation Army Food Pantry
• A Food Banker Explains How Food Banks Work — The Billfold

 

[Wyatt earp]

No you don't, just walk in and live in the town...

Not in the food banks I have helped.

Have a link?

How it works | Network Foodbank | Trussell Trust

Have you got a link ?

This link is so massive try me...

Anderson Homeless Shelters and Services - Anderson SC Homeless Shelters - Anderson South Carolina Homeless Shelters

In fairness, Tommy Tainant, you posted a link to UK-related content. I don't know it to be so, but things can be different -- universally or just sometimes -- between UK free food provision processes and requirements and U.S. ones.

• How to Qualify for Food Banks | eHow
  
• Salvation Army Food Pantry
• A Food Banker Explains How Food Banks Work — The Billfold

Ok I didn't pay attention..what I know from food banks in the US you just show up..and can only visit once a month..some just car pool andd visit all the local ones and get a great haul.


My damn kitchen is always full..due to my three roommates now.

I got two girls and a guy that go to the local university.. My daughter and her boyfriend and friend

 

[Andylusion]

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

There remain homeless and hungry people in the U.S., yet we have both welfare and charity. It's not clear to me that the "one or the other" approach has any hope of working better than the "both" approach we currently have in place.

It depends largely on how the Charity is setup. And beyond that, it depends on the individual.

What people refuse to accept is that at some level, an individual that has his needs met, simply won't improve their lives if they don't want to.

When people are actually starving, is when they will actually change in some cases.

Several years back there was a blog about a lady who ended up in a messy divorce, and had no skills. She ended up on welfare and public housing for just a few weeks. The reason she was only on it for a few weeks, was because she met people in the public housing, who had no desire, no will, no motivation, no self-worth that caused them to want to change their situation.

This terrified her, and she got a job as quickly as she could and fled from the public housing, because she knew if she stayed there, she would end up with the same mentality.

Now she has a nursing degree, and a stable job.

The one good thing about most Charities, is that they push people to move forward with their lives. The shelter I was at, required that you meet with counselors to move forward with your life. Now you could still live there, and eat there, but you had a specific amount of time, and you had to meet with potential employers. If you refused to do anything, then you had to leave.

Government generally doesn't care about that. As long as you vote for Democrats which hand out free goodies, they don't care how long you are on the government dole. You can waste your life away in poverty and misery, so long as you vote for Democrats.

Red:
??? Say what? What "depends?" I wrote that in a nation where both charity and state sponsored/run welfare exist, there remain homeless and hungry people. That doesn't "depend." It is so.

If you want to make the case that the preponderance of those people are voluntarily destitute, by all means do so. I don't think that such an argument will be convincing for a quick visit to any homeless shelter to ask the people there and who depend on the shelter's largess will find few, if any, folks who have chosen homelessness and hunger as the state of their existence and who have cast off their financial resources to be so.

Green:
Perhaps that explains why all those "working poor" folks don't do what it takes to boost their financial fortunes so they can become working middle class or working "better off than middle class." I'll be sure to point JimBowie1958 to your post. He'll find it most informative regarding his great concern for folks who find themselves underemployed, or at least paid less than they are accustomed to being paid. I'm sure it never crossed his mind (nor mine) that those folks are contentedly living their lives because "their needs are met" and don't really deserve, need or want his advocacy. That should be a load off his mind; now that you've spoken and pronounced their circumstances as being willful, there's no need for him to press on with his UBI ideas.

I don't agree with Jim's overall conclusions about the UBI, but I don't agree with you either because one implication of your remark as presented is that the needs one must have met can be satiated in a static way. Well that's just not so. For example, I could stop working and I would still have housing, food, entertainment, etc.; however, I would have those things only until the money runs out. Then I'd have to change dwellings, pare back on some of my expenditures. Eventually, I could be in a position where my needs aren't met.

Additionally, needs come in varying degrees. The types of needs we are discussing in this thread are the most basic sort of needs there are.

Of the needs at the base of the "pyramid," folks will generally do whatever they have to in order to have them met. People don't just stop striving to fill the needs superior to biological/physiological needs merely because they have food and shelter.


Blue:
That makes no sense at all given that Democrats are the champions of the idea that government can solve the ills of the people governed. If voting Democratic were to foist one surely into poverty and destitution, there'd be no viable tax base that can fund the government.

And yet I have met people who did not strive to self-actualize. I know several in fact. So while you claim it's not true, the facts are it is. People who have been in those situations, say the same thing.

In the 1990s, I was working at Wendy's. We had a lady come in, and get a job, and on her first day told us she intended to only work until she could qualify for food stamps again. She even gave us the exact date she would qualify, and shockingly stopped showing up for work.

Now this lady will never leave her position as a low-wage worker on the verge of poverty. Where is your claim that she will be motivate to self-actualization? Where is the pyramid in her life? She works as little as possible, and has living off the government as a goal.

Lastly, what Democrats claim, and what Democrats do, are two very different things. If the Democrats actually pushed a policy system that fixed the problem, the problem would go away and they would lose their voter base. If everyone was rich, they wouldn't be able to gain votes by proclaiming themselves a solution to the problem. Their "solutions" have never solved anything. That's not up for debate, it's just fact. The only debatable aspect is that you claim they really believe it will solve things, and I say that they know it won't solve anything. They know it won't. Why do they still champion government solutions? Votes. That's why. They want you to vote for them.

Have you ever met someone on welfare that believed Republicans wanted what was best for the country? Of course not. Democrats know this. The Democrats never give their own money to help the poor. Republicans do. Democrats give other people's money to help the poor. Why? Because they don't care about the poor. They care about votes. Always have.

 

[Michelle420]

I have volunteered at a food bank and you have to meet requirements. You have to be extremely poor and the food you get is out of date past shelf life that has been donated by grocery stores. It would have been thrown out.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

We've got several nobel laureates, you've got your own rote assertions backed up by nothing. But you do you, buddy!

Venezuela had economists too. So did Greece. So did those that supported the minimum wage hike in 2007. In fact, so did the Obama Stimulus package.

Want to know the common thread for all of them? They were all wrong.

But you do you.... and screw over everyone in the process. Facts are less important, than having Nobel medal... right?