What have the poor done to deserve our support?

[editec]

The issue is not which kind of 'charity' is most efficient, government or private. The issue is that government charity creates a class of poor who are never anything but poor, make their beds daily in their own misery, cannot see the opportunities that are out there for them in this great country, and have given up their freedom for a type of miserable security that no one would choose without having it foisted upon them.

What do private charities do to wean people out of poverty?

Government welfare agencies offer educational support and jobs programs to provide a way out of poverty. Millions of Americans have taken advantage of these programs

And are still dependent on the gov't. The only gov't program that has offered a way out of poverty for people is a career in the military.

WELFARE by another name.

 

[zeke]

Yea right. Private charities are going to pick up the slack when welfare is eliminated.

Food banks are operating at capacity. Catholic Social Services are operating at capacity. And this is with the increase in food stamps recipients and welfare reciipients.

So how is it that private charities will pick up the slack when they can't help everyone that needs help right now?

 

[zeke]

Wefare can be fixed.

Cross train each welfare recipient to do the jobs of the case managers. Then the welfare person can learn some marketable job skills and the case managers can learn just how tuff it is to make it on welfare. Which should allow case managers to become more effective at moving people from the ranks of welfare to the ranks of the working poor. Rotate positions every quarter.

You have to remember that welfare is an industry that employ a LOT of people. The industry needs poor people to have a reason to exist.

So now you Repubcons want to eliminate even more jobs in the fastest growth industry in America.

And to think that the large increase in poor people is the result of Repubcon policies, you would think Repubcons would be proud that their efforts have paid off so handsomely.

 

[The Rabbi]

Private Charity Isn't Enough

4,000 Pastors Respond: Private Charity Isn’t Enough

Did you actually read any of this? The first link says private charity can't eliminate poverty because there is no accepted definition of poverty. The government can't eliminate it either for the same reason.
Second, the gov't has crowded out much private charity through its own efforts and also high tax rates. In the 19th Century we saw the largest amount of private endowments for universities, hospitals, etc etc. All of that paid for by private capital from those evil 1%ers.

And how well off were the poor in the 19th Century? Were they all educated?

Was there a point there?

 

[The Rabbi]

Wefare can be fixed.

Cross train each welfare recipient to do the jobs of the case managers. Then the welfare person can learn some marketable job skills and the case managers can learn just how tuff it is to make it on welfare. Which should allow case managers to become more effective at moving people from the ranks of welfare to the ranks of the working poor. Rotate positions every quarter.

You have to remember that welfare is an industry that employ a LOT of people. The industry needs poor people to have a reason to exist.

So now you Repubcons want to eliminate even more jobs in the fastest growth industry in America.

And to think that the large increase in poor people is the result of Repubcon policies, you would think Repubcons would be proud that their efforts have paid off so handsomely.

We need fewer people on welfare, not more.

 

[Seawytch]

Did you actually read any of this? The first link says private charity can't eliminate poverty because there is no accepted definition of poverty. The government can't eliminate it either for the same reason.
Second, the gov't has crowded out much private charity through its own efforts and also high tax rates. In the 19th Century we saw the largest amount of private endowments for universities, hospitals, etc etc. All of that paid for by private capital from those evil 1%ers.

And how well off were the poor in the 19th Century? Were they all educated?

Was there a point there?

You tell me. You were the one that brought up the 19th Century as a beacon. Were the poor better off in the 19th Century or the 21st?

 

[Katzndogz]

As an employer I made a futile attempt to hire someone on welfare through a welfare to work program. You can't just hire them, they go to work and that's the end of it. There are reams of forms to fill out. ALL your income and expense information has to be compiled and sent to the case worker to evaluate. Not just once, but there are monthly AND quarterly reports. Case workers make spot inspections of the business and interviews of the employer and all employees. It isn't easy. It is time consuming and very expensive. I elected not to do it. What ever hours I got out of that employee would be taken up twice or more by filling the qualifications.

 

[High_Gravity]

As an employer I made a futile attempt to hire someone on welfare through a welfare to work program. You can't just hire them, they go to work and that's the end of it. There are reams of forms to fill out. ALL your income and expense information has to be compiled and sent to the case worker to evaluate. Not just once, but there are monthly AND quarterly reports. Case workers make spot inspections of the business and interviews of the employer and all employees. It isn't easy. It is time consuming and very expensive. I elected not to do it. What ever hours I got out of that employee would be taken up twice or more by filling the qualifications.

This is an interesting post, so hiring someone off the welfare rolls is a hard tedious task so alot of employers will just forego it altogether?

 

[zeke]

We need fewer people on welfare, not more.


Well no shit. Why don't you propose just how it is that these welfare recipients are going to get that working poor job.

Where are the Repubcon "job creators". I mean, what could be better than employing a person with no skills and no education? You only have to pay them minimum wage.

 

[The Rabbi]

And how well off were the poor in the 19th Century? Were they all educated?

Was there a point there?

You tell me. You were the one that brought up the 19th Century as a beacon. Were the poor better off in the 19th Century or the 21st?

Actually rich people were no better off i nthe 19th century than the 20th. So the comparison is pretty nugatory.
We had much more private endowment of charities and they were much more effective. Think of Hull House for starters, and all the immigrant aid programs.

 

[The Rabbi]

We need fewer people on welfare, not more.


Well no shit. Why don't you propose just how it is that these welfare recipients are going to get that working poor job.

Where are the Repubcon "job creators". I mean, what could be better than employing a person with no skills and no education? You only have to pay them minimum wage.

Someoen with no skills isn't worth minimum wage. That's why they're unemployed. Reduce min wage and we can see some job growth. And as people develop skills from their starter job they will earn more.

 

[zeke]

When you get that minimum wage job with no benes, how long are they going to keep it?

When you can't pay for child care, how long are you going to work.

If you get sick and fired for missing work, oh well.

From the discussions I read on here, people would think it is easy to be poor. They have big screens, but they bought them from a person that sells stolen goods. They have a cell phone. Whoop t do. How they gonna conduct their "bidness" without a cell phone? So they have medical issues. That is what 911 calls are for. And hospital emergency rooms.

Much easier to be rich. As long as you don't want to tax them more. Then it is really REALLY hard to defend your money.

But it is much easier if you have poor people to blame for not paying taxes. Then rich people can say that if poor people don't pay income taxes then why should they pay even more income taxes.

Doesn't make any difference if the fact poor people pay no income tax is the result of the tax writing policies put in place by the Repubcons so the stupid Dems would go along with the tax package that lowered the tax rates on the wealthy.

It is the poor persons fault.


Poor people have really sucky lobbyists.

 

[zeke]

Someoen with no skills isn't worth minimum wage. That's why they're unemployed. Reduce min wage and we can see some job growth. And as people develop skills from their starter job they will earn more.

No, they are unemployed because no one seems to have a job to do that doesn't require some sort of skills.

And what kind of employer hires an unskilled worker that is paid less than minimum wage and then spends time and money trying to train them. Which one of the Repubcon "job creators" has implemented this policy?

And reducing minimum wage? OK How will that help to reduce poverty. How will that not reduce the standard of living for all?

And what is wrong with accepting a lower standard of living for the vast majority of Americans. I mean after all, it has been reported here many times that our poor people live like kings compared to the poor around the world. Our middle class live like the ruling class everywhere else. Don't they?

So I think that in an effort to keep from ever asking the very richest to pay more of their money to the guvmint, we should all say that we are more than happy to accept a lower standard of living for our kids and future generations.

I mean we don't want to piss off the "job creators". We might all be working for less than minimum wage.

Good "speaking" with you all. I gotta go evict a poor person from my rental house. And I don't feel real good about it. But f**k those poor people. Unless they got their EIC check, which will let them pay their past due rent and still have a place to live. Whether they eat or not is not my problem. Nor is it a problem for most of the Repubcon posters on here. Good for us eh?

 

[newpolitics]

the case over public welfare programs is a simply case of misattribution and oversimplification over what is the cause of poverty. republicans paint dependance as the problem, because it allows them to shrink government by then getting rid of these programs that promote dependance, supposedly. this doesn't make it reality.. sure, there are SOME people that abuse the welfare system and rely on it too heavily, but it is only a percentage, and likely a small one at that. shrinking government isn't the golden answer that solves all problems, because contrary to Reagan's campaign slogan, government is not the problem, entirely. It can be, but it not always, and never is it the ENTIRE problem. Reality is a little more complicated that we would like. For one, those born into poverty need to expend a tremendous amount of energy to break free from it. Jumping social class's is not easy, similar to an electron breaking its current energy orbit (can't remember the exact terminology). Republicans insist that everyone has the instant ability to decide their lot in life, simply because this is america. On paper, this sounds good, but in reality, again, it is not that simple, and why should people have to expend the tremendous amount of energy and risk to reach a higher socio-economic class: bragging rights amongst friends? It shouldn't be necessary to be middle-class or rich to gain health care and live without massive pain and suffering. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and taking care of our citizens should not be equated with european style socialism or any other one-liners designed to deliver fear into anyone who introduces such concepts in the discussion.

 

[rightwinger]

We need fewer people on welfare, not more.


Well no shit. Why don't you propose just how it is that these welfare recipients are going to get that working poor job.

Where are the Repubcon "job creators". I mean, what could be better than employing a person with no skills and no education? You only have to pay them minimum wage.

Someoen with no skills isn't worth minimum wage. That's why they're unemployed. Reduce min wage and we can see some job growth. And as people develop skills from their starter job they will earn more.

Now we can see why you are such a rocket scientist

Just what we need to help people escape poverty....slashing wages and benefits

So Rabbi...according to your economic model. If you are paying some guy minimum wage to sweep your floors, if you slash minimum wage you will now hire two guys to sweep your floors

 

[9thIDdoc]

"But lots of people are. And they are the problem, simply because they cause a demand on other people's resources."

And that is also fine and dandy but that gives you no right to slander those who make no such demands.

If you wouldn't demand the taxpayer subsidize your gasoline in every post I might take you seriously.

You've lost it. I've never demanded the tax payer subsidize my gasoline in any post.

Do you have some explaination or do you commonly just spout whatever wild-assed lie pops into your head?

Again.

 

[The Rabbi]

When you get that minimum wage job with no benes, how long are they going to keep it?

When you can't pay for child care, how long are you going to work.

If you get sick and fired for missing work, oh well.

From the discussions I read on here, people would think it is easy to be poor. They have big screens, but they bought them from a person that sells stolen goods. They have a cell phone. Whoop t do. How they gonna conduct their "bidness" without a cell phone? So they have medical issues. That is what 911 calls are for. And hospital emergency rooms.

Much easier to be rich. As long as you don't want to tax them more. Then it is really REALLY hard to defend your money.

But it is much easier if you have poor people to blame for not paying taxes. Then rich people can say that if poor people don't pay income taxes then why should they pay even more income taxes.

Doesn't make any difference if the fact poor people pay no income tax is the result of the tax writing policies put in place by the Repubcons so the stupid Dems would go along with the tax package that lowered the tax rates on the wealthy.

It is the poor persons fault.


Poor people have really sucky lobbyists.

Aww poor people. It's just really tough. Much easier to sit back and get dat gummint check. Let's make it easy for everyone. Hey, let's just send everyone a gummint check every month and no one will have child care worries or problems paying rent.

 

[candycorn]

We need fewer people on welfare, not more.


Well no shit. Why don't you propose just how it is that these welfare recipients are going to get that working poor job.

Where are the Repubcon "job creators". I mean, what could be better than employing a person with no skills and no education? You only have to pay them minimum wage.

Someoen with no skills isn't worth minimum wage. That's why they're unemployed. Reduce min wage and we can see some job growth. And as people develop skills from their starter job they will earn more.

Now we can see why you are such a rocket scientist

Just what we need to help people escape poverty....slashing wages and benefits

So Rabbi...according to your economic model. If you are paying some guy minimum wage to sweep your floors, if you slash minimum wage you will now hire two guys to sweep your floors

You really have to wonder why he hasn't left in shame.

 

[The Rabbi]

Someoen with no skills isn't worth minimum wage. That's why they're unemployed. Reduce min wage and we can see some job growth. And as people develop skills from their starter job they will earn more.

Now we can see why you are such a rocket scientist

Just what we need to help people escape poverty....slashing wages and benefits

So Rabbi...according to your economic model. If you are paying some guy minimum wage to sweep your floors, if you slash minimum wage you will now hire two guys to sweep your floors

You really have to wonder why he hasn't left in shame.

I hope you mean Nutwinger. I guess it never occurred to him that if you expect people to work their way up you need to have somewhere they can start. With a high min wage it cuts out lots of starting jobs, like theater ushers and the like, that teenagers typically got back in the 50s, 60s etc. Now there is hardly any way a teenager can get job experience so they are more employable.
We raised the min wage and teenaged unemployment went through the roof. And the Dems want it even higher.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Quote: Originally Posted by 9thIDdoc
Quote: Originally Posted by The Rabbi
Quote: Originally Posted by 9thIDdoc
"But lots of people are. And they are the problem, simply because they cause a demand on other people's resources."

And that is also fine and dandy but that gives you no right to slander those who make no such demands.
If you wouldn't demand the taxpayer subsidize your gasoline in every post I might take you seriously.
You've lost it. I've never demanded the tax payer subsidize my gasoline in any post.

Do you have some explaination or do you commonly just spout whatever wild-assed lie pops into your head?
Again.