CDZ Why do Conservatives believe that America is no longer great?

[oldsoul]

What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations. The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

 

[320 Years of History]

What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

 

[oldsoul]

What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

 

[rightwinger]

What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations. The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

You are easily diverted by shiny objects

You have been convinced that the ills of our society are perpetrated by those who have the least while you ignore the sins of those who have reaped the most from our society

 

[320 Years of History]

What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

 

[320 Years of History]

You are easily diverted by shiny objects

You have been convinced that the ills of our society are perpetrated by those who have the least while you ignore the sins of those who have reaped the most from our society

LOL My grandmother from time to time would say something very much like that, and I've never heard anyone outside my family use that reference. Granny had in mind a particular creature. Is that the connotation of your saying it too?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

One stipulation that you didn't mention was Obama's order to remove the TANF(Newt Gingrich's contract with America) so people could have unlimited WELFARE(stop putting the nice words to it).
Day 8: Obama edict repealed 1996 welfare reform's work requirement

Day 8: Obama edict repealed 1996 welfare reform's work requirement

Part eight of the Washington Examiner's 10-part series "With the Stroke of a Pen: How Obama abuses executive power to make the law of the land."

Figures liberals would have no clue on what the O. admin has been doing, to fundamentally transform America. Maybe they need to pull their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[rightwinger]

What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

All you have to do is follow the money

Our poor people are in that tiny sliver of 40% of Americans with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. How much would their scamming the system impact the overall slice of the pie? Almost nothing

Now lets look at the 1% with 34.6% of the wealth. How much does their scamming the system impact their slice of the pie? Keep in mind they have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians to help them do so

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

All you have to do is follow the money

Our poor people are in that tiny sliver of 40% of Americans with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. How much would their scamming the system impact the overall slice of the pie? Almost nothing

Now lets look at the 1% with 34.6% of the wealth. How much does their scamming the system impact their slice of the pie? Keep in mind they have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians to help them do so

Our poor people don't even come close to the rest of the worlds poor . Then you libs, many who sit in their parents basement, smoke dope, get government cheese, and live under their parents healthcare, complain how life isn't fair. And Obama really has helped out with shovel ready jobs, that weren't really shovel ready, but gave billions of dollars to his liberal elite special interest groups who gave him donations to his campaign. So instead of reaching out and helping everyone use their God given talents to the best of their abilities, he and his other political hacks, put enough barriers infront of you and tell you , you cant make it, because those EVIL reach people(Warren Buffet is a liberal who pays a lower tax rate than his secretary) have all the money and you don't. Shame on you for not voting once for Hope and Change, but twice, as you deserve all the misery that Obama for 7 years now has FORCED upon you. I am done with this post, it isn't worth debating with the left, because they have a GREEN ENVY HAZE infront of their eyes and that will never change.

 

[rightwinger]

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

All you have to do is follow the money

Our poor people are in that tiny sliver of 40% of Americans with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. How much would their scamming the system impact the overall slice of the pie? Almost nothing

Now lets look at the 1% with 34.6% of the wealth. How much does their scamming the system impact their slice of the pie? Keep in mind they have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians to help them do so

Our poor people don't even come close to the rest of the worlds poor . Then you libs, many who sit in their parents basement, smoke dope, get government cheese, and live under their parents healthcare, complain how life isn't fair. And Obama really has helped out with shovel ready jobs, that weren't really shovel ready, but gave billions of dollars to his liberal elite special interest groups who gave him donations to his campaign. So instead of reaching out and helping everyone use their God given talents to the best of their abilities, he and his other political hacks, put enough barriers infront of you and tell you , you cant make it, because those EVIL reach people(Warren Buffet is a liberal who pays a lower tax rate than his secretary) have all the money and you don't. Shame on you for not voting once for Hope and Change, but twice, as you deserve all the misery that Obama for 7 years now has FORCED upon you. I am done with this post, it isn't worth debating with the left, because they have a GREEN ENVY HAZE infront of their eyes and that will never change.

You should be happy you are not in Bangladesh is not relevant

 

[oldsoul]

What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

Upon accually looking at the link you privided (I did not have the time perviously), I find the statistics you provided to be quite enlightening. Here is the parts I find really interesting:

• 110,489,000 people reciving welfare, of a total of 318.9 million (US cencus bureau)
• 19.6% stay on welfare over 5 years
• 10,200,000 on unemployment

Now if a person combines those on welfare with those on unemployment you get a total of 120,689,000, recieving some sort of money from the government. If my calculations are correct, that would mean that well over 1/3 of Americans recieve government money. If less than 20% stay in that state for over 5 years, one would have to admit that most of those who are able to improve their situation enough to no longer qualify return to a situation where they do within 3 years. That assumes that everyone receives welfare at some point in their life, which I know is not accuate. So, what would you say that tells us about the welfare system in our country? I say it does little to nothing to correct the long-term problem of poverty. Therefore, why are we "doubling-down" on the system that has proven to be ineffective? By "doubling-down" I mean we continue to pour more and more money into the programs that are not working in the long-term.
US Government Welfare Spending History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing

 

[320 Years of History]

Our poor people don't even come close to the rest of the worlds poor . Then you libs, many who sit in their parents basement, smoke dope, get government cheese, and live under their parents healthcare, complain how life isn't fair. And Obama really has helped out with shovel ready jobs, that weren't really shovel ready, but gave billions of dollars to his liberal elite special interest groups who gave him donations to his campaign. So instead of reaching out and helping everyone use their God given talents to the best of their abilities, he and his other political hacks, put enough barriers infront of you and tell you , you cant make it, because those EVIL reach people(Warren Buffet is a liberal who pays a lower tax rate than his secretary) have all the money and you don't. Shame on you for not voting once for Hope and Change, but twice, as you deserve all the misery that Obama for 7 years now has FORCED upon you. I am done with this post, it isn't worth debating with the left, because they have a GREEN ENVY HAZE infront of their eyes and that will never change.

Purple:

1. The comparative status of the poor in other nations has no germanity to this discussion. Those people aren't citizens of the U.S.
2. Even if it were germane, need the determinant of abjectivity in the U.S. be equated to that of other nations' paupers?
3. If you want to use other countries citizens and circumstances as the basis for comparing and implying what the U.S. should do and what circumstances are and are not acceptable, fine, but then do so consistently. The next time you get into an abortion discussion, be sure to mention how abortion is handled in the rest of the world; when the matter of the 2nd Amendment comes up, be sure to mention the rest of the world's views on gun control. Be sure to use the same internationally derived bases of comparison for the rest of the views you choose to propone.

Red:
I bid you show me (1) the barriers of which you write, and (2) the quotes, that give legitimacy and veracity to your assertion.

One stipulation that you didn't mention was Obama's order to remove the TANF(Newt Gingrich's contract with America) so people could have unlimited WELFARE(stop putting the nice words to it).
Day 8: Obama edict repealed 1996 welfare reform's work requirement

Day 8: Obama edict repealed 1996 welfare reform's work requirement

Part eight of the Washington Examiner's 10-part series "With the Stroke of a Pen: How Obama abuses executive power to make the law of the land."

Figures liberals would have no clue on what the O. admin has been doing, to fundamentally transform America. Maybe they need to pull their heads out of where the sun doesn't shine.

How dare you deign to present that puerile line of argument in response to me!!! You clearly haven't a clue to whom you replied. Review my posting history and you'll find I don't share half truths in order to make a point to aggrandize a given point of view. You are correct that I didn't present the view that Mr. Obama "gutted" welfare reform. I didn't because although people have uttered as much, it's simply not true: not in fact, not in spirit, and not in origin.

In the typical style of folks who want to use any action for political purposes, you have misrepresented the verity of Mr. Obama's actions re: welfare policy.

• What Obama Really Did to Welfare Reform

Did it slip your purview that 29 Republican governors specifically asked for the waivers that the Republican party subsequently cited as "Obama's gutting welfare reform?" 29 GOP governors! How many states even had GOP governors at the time? Thirty.

Pink:
The sitting governors at the time damn near unanimously requested the waivers, got them, and then sat idly by while the GOP hacks lambasted Mr. Obama for gutting welfare reform by eliminating the work requirement. Their temerity in doing so, and yours in repeating that lie, is what deserves shame, yet you had the gall to write "shame on you." How dare you!!!

 

[oldsoul]

What do you see as the "end state" goal that we should seek to achieve?

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

All you have to do is follow the money

Our poor people are in that tiny sliver of 40% of Americans with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. How much would their scamming the system impact the overall slice of the pie? Almost nothing

Now lets look at the 1% with 34.6% of the wealth. How much does their scamming the system impact their slice of the pie? Keep in mind they have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians to help them do so

So, class warfare is going to be your tactic? Why don't we look at WHY people are where they are? The fact that they are there tells me nothing, the reasons for their position in the "pie" are really quite important.
To simply say that the rich have more and therefore they need to give more is not even fair to the people you are intending to help. I say this because that position assumes that those in the lower brackets CANNOT improve their situation without help. Will they ever be one of the top 1%? Probably not, but they do have the ability to improve their situation none the less. Unless the entire "pie" is distributed equally (regardless of an individuals value to the economy), there will always be diparity. So, using the disparity arguement is disingenuous, at best.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

All you have to do is follow the money

Our poor people are in that tiny sliver of 40% of Americans with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. How much would their scamming the system impact the overall slice of the pie? Almost nothing

Now lets look at the 1% with 34.6% of the wealth. How much does their scamming the system impact their slice of the pie? Keep in mind they have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians to help them do so

So, class warfare is going to be your tactic? Why don't we look at WHY people are where they are? The fact that they are there tells me nothing, the reasons for their position in the "pie" are really quite important.
To simply say that the rich have more and therefore they need to give more is not even fair to the people you are intending to help. I say this because that position assumes that those in the lower brackets CANNOT improve their situation without help. Will they ever be one of the top 1%? Probably not, but they do have the ability to improve their situation none the less. Unless the entire "pie" is distributed equally (regardless of an individuals value to the economy), there will always be diparity. So, using the disparity arguement is disingenuous, at best.

Unless people like Liberal Warren Buffet uses his buddy Obama to stifle the chance of the middle class from getting out of poverty. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/u...ma-vetoes-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill.html?_r=0

Obama Vetoes Bill Pushing Pipeline Approval

Buffett Wins Big From Railroad Crude Shipments

Canadian crude finds its way to U.S. refineries via rail and barge
Another major North American oil production center that is also being serviced by railroad shipments is Alberta's oil sands.

There are times when the 1% needs to be picketed by the OWS, but those 99%'er don't know to go after Warren because he says he is in for the fight, but then screws over those 99%'ers so Warren can get more OBSCENE PROFITS. Only the EVIL republicans are the reason for the poor, except that liberals cant see who the REAL ENEMIES of America really are. When you think like a liberal...

 

[320 Years of History]

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

All you have to do is follow the money

Our poor people are in that tiny sliver of 40% of Americans with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. How much would their scamming the system impact the overall slice of the pie? Almost nothing

Now lets look at the 1% with 34.6% of the wealth. How much does their scamming the system impact their slice of the pie? Keep in mind they have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians to help them do so

So, class warfare is going to be your tactic? Why don't we look at WHY people are where they are? The fact that they are there tells me nothing, the reasons for their position in the "pie" are really quite important.
To simply say that the rich have more and therefore they need to give more is not even fair to the people you are intending to help. I say this because that position assumes that those in the lower brackets CANNOT improve their situation without help. Will they ever be one of the top 1%? Probably not, but they do have the ability to improve their situation none the less. Unless the entire "pie" is distributed equally (regardless of an individuals value to the economy), there will always be diparity. So, using the disparity arguement is disingenuous, at best.

Class warfare? How did you get that out of rightwinger's remarks?

All s/he was saying is that the potential negative impact that can result from one's/a group's "scamming" any aspect of "the system" (be it the welfare system, the tax system, etc.) is greater from "scams" effected by/for well off folks than from those effected by/for destitute folks. At least that's what I think he was saying.

 

[rightwinger]

Eliminating the NEED for welfare. The "end state" that I see as possible is to have an economy so robust and thriving that the few people that need help would only need it for a short time, and would easily be cared for with private donations.

The biggest hurdle in the way of this is the "welfare class". People who, for what ever reason, choose not to get off welfare, but instead make a "career" of finding ways to stay on it. Quite simply, they don't want to work. Why should my tax dollars go to someone who refuses to get off the couch and find a job? Of course there is also the built-in incentives to stay on welfare too. Remove those and you will find that more people are willing to work. Also, why do we pay (in many cases) union wages for general labor, when those taking "assistance" could just as easily do the work, and gain job experience at the same time? The answer is really quite simple, those in power want to pander to the "welfare class" and therefore will never make them work for anything if they can help it. Meanwhile, they continually say that the "1%ers" are not paying their fair share. As noted above, we could take ALL of their income and it still wouldn't make more than a dent in the deficit.

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

All you have to do is follow the money

Our poor people are in that tiny sliver of 40% of Americans with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. How much would their scamming the system impact the overall slice of the pie? Almost nothing

Now lets look at the 1% with 34.6% of the wealth. How much does their scamming the system impact their slice of the pie? Keep in mind they have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians to help them do so

So, class warfare is going to be your tactic? Why don't we look at WHY people are where they are? The fact that they are there tells me nothing, the reasons for their position in the "pie" are really quite important.
To simply say that the rich have more and therefore they need to give more is not even fair to the people you are intending to help. I say this because that position assumes that those in the lower brackets CANNOT improve their situation without help. Will they ever be one of the top 1%? Probably not, but they do have the ability to improve their situation none the less. Unless the entire "pie" is distributed equally (regardless of an individuals value to the economy), there will always be diparity. So, using the disparity arguement is disingenuous, at best.

The issue is not class warfare or why people are where they are

The issue, which you, yourself brought up was who is scamming the system the most and who benefits the most
My post made it obvious

 

[320 Years of History]

Unless people like Liberal Warren Buffet uses his buddy Obama to stifle the chance of the middle class from getting out of poverty.

Boy, you sure like to bandy about labels. Ideas and policies aren't better or worse merely because they be invented or advocated by a liberal or a conservative.

 

[Muhammed]

Donald Trump's major talking point is that America is no longer great- so why do Conservatives believe America is no longer great?

When do Conservatives believe America stopped being great?

For starters, the presidency has been usurped by an enemy of America.

 

[oldsoul]

Red:
It's convenient to make that claim, perhaps even easy to assume it's actually true, but the data and stipulations of welfare regulations show it is not a legitimate concern right now and that it's not reflective of what goes on with the overwhelming majority of public assistance recipients.

Public assistance programs, since Bill Clinton's TANF reforms, have removed the incentive and ability to stay indefinitely on public assistance. The welfare reform law that was signed by President Clinton in 1996 largely turned control over welfare benefits to the states, but the federal government provides some of the funding for state welfare programs through a program called Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF).

TANF grants to states require that all welfare recipients must find work within two years of first receiving benefits. This includes single parents, who are required to work at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families are required to work 35 to 50 hours per week. Failure to obtain work could result in loss of benefits. It is also worth noting that, thanks to the pay offerings of companies such as Walmart, many who work at low wage jobs qualify for public assistance, even though they work full-time.

According to statisticbrain.com, the vast majority of TANF recipients, 80.4 percent, receive benefits for five years or less. Nearly 25 percent of all recipients receive benefits for less than a year. (The site still refers to the program by the old name of Aid To Families With Dependent Children. AFDC is the old name for the program, that was replaced by TANF in 1996. The site’s statistics are current, however.)

If instead you you are going to claim that the ~20% of folks who receive benefits for more than five years constitute the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated, then by all means, I'm eager to see the facts and figures that support that assertion. My gut says that nothing will be able to show that to be so, but my gut is hardly proof of my view or yours. So please, show me how eliminating the expenditures associated with that 20% is going to result in achieving the "end state" you note as the target; if it seems plausible and probable to work, I'll sign up to lead the charge of implementing it.

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

All you have to do is follow the money

Our poor people are in that tiny sliver of 40% of Americans with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. How much would their scamming the system impact the overall slice of the pie? Almost nothing

Now lets look at the 1% with 34.6% of the wealth. How much does their scamming the system impact their slice of the pie? Keep in mind they have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians to help them do so

So, class warfare is going to be your tactic? Why don't we look at WHY people are where they are? The fact that they are there tells me nothing, the reasons for their position in the "pie" are really quite important.
To simply say that the rich have more and therefore they need to give more is not even fair to the people you are intending to help. I say this because that position assumes that those in the lower brackets CANNOT improve their situation without help. Will they ever be one of the top 1%? Probably not, but they do have the ability to improve their situation none the less. Unless the entire "pie" is distributed equally (regardless of an individuals value to the economy), there will always be diparity. So, using the disparity arguement is disingenuous, at best.

The issue is not class warfare or why people are where they are

The issue, which you, yourself brought up was who is scamming the system the most and who benefits the most
My post made it obvious

Your post does nothing of the sort. It merely shows income disparity. It does nothing to show that one group or another is doing any specific thing. If that is what you mean to show, then find statistics on what the rich are doing to "scam" the system.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, while the statistics may not be in my favor, I accually have experience in this, do you? People do stay on welfare for their entire life, people do work the system, people do have the mentality that "the working man is a sucker". I wonder where that fits into your statistics.

You shouldn't have to wonder at all where those folks fit into "my" statistics. Merely looking at them would tell you those people are among the roughly "20 percent," not the 80.4 percent, noted in my last post above.

That the people whom you are aware of who "do work the system" and who "do have the mentality that 'the working man is a sucker'" do indeed exist as members of the the "20 percent," is specifically why I asked you to use whatever facts and figures you can come by to present a cogent case that they are indeed the "biggest hurdle" to our nation getting to the point that the need for public assistance be eliminated.

I didn't deny that some people abuse either the letter or spirit of public assistance programs, but I don't see any evidence suggesting they rise to the levels you think they do; I don't see anything suggesting they constitute "the biggest hurdle" to achieving the "end state" goals that you or I identified. You have, however, now asserted that you "have experience in this," so by all means, bring that experience to bear and show us the credible case you have to present.

All you have to do is follow the money

Our poor people are in that tiny sliver of 40% of Americans with 2 tenths of a percent of the wealth. How much would their scamming the system impact the overall slice of the pie? Almost nothing

Now lets look at the 1% with 34.6% of the wealth. How much does their scamming the system impact their slice of the pie? Keep in mind they have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians to help them do so

So, class warfare is going to be your tactic? Why don't we look at WHY people are where they are? The fact that they are there tells me nothing, the reasons for their position in the "pie" are really quite important.
To simply say that the rich have more and therefore they need to give more is not even fair to the people you are intending to help. I say this because that position assumes that those in the lower brackets CANNOT improve their situation without help. Will they ever be one of the top 1%? Probably not, but they do have the ability to improve their situation none the less. Unless the entire "pie" is distributed equally (regardless of an individuals value to the economy), there will always be diparity. So, using the disparity arguement is disingenuous, at best.

The issue is not class warfare or why people are where they are

The issue, which you, yourself brought up was who is scamming the system the most and who benefits the most
My post made it obvious

Your post does nothing of the sort. It merely shows income disparity. It does nothing to show that one group or another is doing any specific thing. If that is what you mean to show, then find statistics on what the rich are doing to "scam" the system.

The magnitude of money to be made or lost is obviously way beyond you

Let me put it this way:

Poor Person: Look, I got a free cell phone
Rich Person: Look, I just bought a new jet and wrote it off as a business expense