Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[danielpalos]

Everyone wants to do that. The question is how to do it effectively, wisely and economically. One side seems to argue that we should just simply open the money spigots and let people take as much as they can for as long as they can, while the other side seems to argue that it is better to limit assistance and make it contingent upon effort displayed by the recipient. One side seems to argue that such assistance is judged to be successful by ever increasing numbers of people accessing it, while the other seems to be arguing that fewer numbers of people accessing such help is a better measure of success.

It is not as simple as the childish argument that "We want to help people and you don't".

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

Financing it on the Peoples' dime is worse. How can the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer be an Individual problem.

No, it is financed by incentivizing corporate behavior that reduces poverty

What did a 50% corporate tax cut incentivize? Greed

just socialization of a national tax cut for the rich that the People get to pay for through increased debt?

 

[danielpalos]

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

You realize your local burger joint saw the price of beef double since the last minimum wage hike took place nine years ago?

The market adjusted for price increases due to the price of beef....it will adjust to increases due to higher wages

The right wing doesn't really believe in Capitalism, all talk is all they have.

 

[rightwinger]

It is much bigger than "get a job"
30 million Americans receiving public assistance have jobs

The problem is our lower skilled jobs no longer pay enough for people to support themselves and their families. While we bend over backwards to give tax cuts to employers, we do nothing to incentivize higher pay for their workers

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

Financing it on the Peoples' dime is worse. How can the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer be an Individual problem.

No, it is financed by incentivizing corporate behavior that reduces poverty

What did a 50% corporate tax cut incentivize? Greed

just socialization of a national tax cut for the rich that the People get to pay for through increased debt?

Exactly

More rob from the poor and pass it on to the rich

 

[emilynghiem]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Dear Hal-9000 as you can see from posts
between danielpalos me and others on the other thread about "problem with liberals"
the liberals like DP
do NOT believe that nonprofit charities and churches are
universally accessible and stable/sustainable enough to be relied on
to meet "equal protections" of the "general welfare" of all people EQUALLY.

relying on private sector and nonprofit/charity as free choices
does not "guarantee" to liberals that all people will be protected.

and liberals like danielpalos believe that health care is an inseparable
inalienable part of "general welfare" to the point this does not need to be
spelled out by law in writing, these liberals just believe that; similar to
how prolife people believe unborn lives are included in right to life and don't
need to be "spelled out or established by law" in order to be included inherently by nature.

Liberals like danielpalos do not get that freedom of choice
and right to individual liberties not being "deprived without due process"
applies to health care and other social support
that they believe is required for "equal justice under law"

Part of the reason is most people who do believe that the
church and nonprofit charities ARE enough to support people locally and universally
tend to be CHRISTIAN so they tend to rely on their churches OUTSIDE the govt.

Liberals who are not organized through their churches to provide stable
sustainable support believe in GOING THROUGH GOVT to have this
same level of support collectively that Christians on the right get from their
church and business networks they use INSTEAD OF GOVT.

In general Liberals who do not rely on God and relations with God to govern
social relations, institutions and choices RELY ON GOVT as their
central authority. So that's why they appear to "worship Govt and
Judges on the Bench" as their Popes and source of laws. That's why
they rely on the Supreme Court to establish what are "rights".

They don't use God so they use Govt as the central authority for
their secular beliefs in order to establish collective truth, will and rights for the people.

While Christians Conservatives and Constitutionalists on the right
connect directly with each other and with God through Christ or through
Constitutional laws and principles to establish truth and justice,
where people make agreements first, and then these contracts become law through govt AFTERWARDS.

The liberals use Govt to establish and impose collective policy for the people
instead of building a consensus among the people "or the church body"
and then having govt represent or reflect that consent of the governed people.

 

[emilynghiem]

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

You realize your local burger joint saw the price of beef double since the last minimum wage hike took place nine years ago?

The market adjusted for price increases due to the price of beef....it will adjust to increases due to higher wages

The right wing doesn't really believe in Capitalism, all talk is all they have.

Nor does the leftwing live up to "free choice" and "right to choose" danielpalos
but abuses govt to establish, dictate, mandate, regulate and penalize choices for people.
So this isn't "free choice" either.

Two wrongs don't make it right.
So the people get screwed by both parties,
unless we band together and hold both left and right
to Constitutional checks balances and limits on govt.

see www.ethics-commission.net


Where the parties' political beliefs are not shared by the public
or consented to by all the taxpayers, we need to team up and
demand/require that parties pay for their own programs and
promises they represent to their constituents or else it's fraud on donors
and supporters. If companies are required to provide the goods and services
they advertise to patrons who invest or pay their money there,
so should political parties be held to provide the services and
benefits they advertise to their members. Why aren't we demanding this
instead of letting the party leaders lie and get away with billions in fraud?

 

[August West]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Most food stamp recipients DO have jobs. Are you really that stupid or is it an act to get on SS.

 

[danielpalos]

Isn't it better for Americans to have jobs and self respect?

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Dear Hal-9000 as you can see from posts
between danielpalos me and others on the other thread about "problem with liberals"
the liberals like DP
do NOT believe that nonprofit charities and churches are
universally accessible and stable/sustainable enough to be relied on
to meet "equal protections" of the "general welfare" of all people EQUALLY.

relying on private sector and nonprofit/charity as free choices
does not "guarantee" to liberals that all people will be protected.

and liberals like danielpalos believe that health care is an inseparable
inalienable part of "general welfare" to the point this does not need to be
spelled out by law in writing, these liberals just believe that; similar to
how prolife people believe unborn lives are included in right to life and don't
need to be "spelled out or established by law" in order to be included inherently by nature.

Liberals like danielpalos do not get that freedom of choice
and right to individual liberties not being "deprived without due process"
applies to health care and other social support
that they believe is required for "equal justice under law"

Part of the reason is most people who do believe that the
church and nonprofit charities ARE enough to support people locally and universally
tend to be CHRISTIAN so they tend to rely on their churches OUTSIDE the govt.

Liberals who are not organized through their churches to provide stable
sustainable support believe in GOING THROUGH GOVT to have this
same level of support collectively that Christians on the right get from their
church and business networks they use INSTEAD OF GOVT.

In general Liberals who do not rely on God and relations with God to govern
social relations, institutions and choices RELY ON GOVT as their
central authority. So that's why they appear to "worship Govt and
Judges on the Bench" as their Popes and source of laws. That's why
they rely on the Supreme Court to establish what are "rights".

They don't use God so they use Govt as the central authority for
their secular beliefs in order to establish collective truth, will and rights for the people.

While Christians Conservatives and Constitutionalists on the right
connect directly with each other and with God through Christ or through
Constitutional laws and principles to establish truth and justice,
where people make agreements first, and then these contracts become law through govt AFTERWARDS.

The liberals use Govt to establish and impose collective policy for the people
instead of building a consensus among the people "or the church body"
and then having govt represent or reflect that consent of the governed people.

Dear, it is about actually solving simple socio-economic problems rather than merely help the rich get richer by covering their multitudes of sins.

 

[danielpalos]

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

You realize your local burger joint saw the price of beef double since the last minimum wage hike took place nine years ago?

The market adjusted for price increases due to the price of beef....it will adjust to increases due to higher wages

The right wing doesn't really believe in Capitalism, all talk is all they have.

Nor does the leftwing live up to "free choice" and "right to choose" danielpalos
but abuses govt to establish, dictate, mandate, regulate and penalize choices for people.
So this isn't "free choice" either.

Two wrongs don't make it right.
So the people get screwed by both parties,
unless we band together and hold both left and right
to Constitutional checks balances and limits on govt.

see www.ethics-commission.net


Where the parties' political beliefs are not shared by the public
or consented to by all the taxpayers, we need to team up and
demand/require that parties pay for their own programs and
promises they represent to their constituents or else it's fraud on donors
and supporters. If companies are required to provide the goods and services
they advertise to patrons who invest or pay their money there,
so should political parties be held to provide the services and
benefits they advertise to their members. Why aren't we demanding this
instead of letting the party leaders lie and get away with billions in fraud?

special pleading can be a form of diversion. a general welfare clause is more comprehensive than a common defense clause.

why not end the entitlement spending of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror. Only the right wing claims we need them but won't raise taxes to pay for them.

 

[rightwinger]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

 

[Thinker101]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

Maybe if your low skilled workers came into this country legally things would improve.

 

[danielpalos]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

 

[rightwinger]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

Maybe if your low skilled workers came into this country legally things would improve.

WTF are you babbling about?

 

[hadit]

It's simple economics. If a job pays more than it's worth to an employer, then it becomes a net loss. A company cannot operate with net loss jobs unless the other jobs generate more than enough revenue to cover the losses. Now, how do you propose to incentivize employers to maintain and pay for net loss jobs?

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

You realize your local burger joint saw the price of beef double since the last minimum wage hike took place nine years ago?

The market adjusted for price increases due to the price of beef....it will adjust to increases due to higher wages

Yes, and if the MW increase is small and done slowly enough, we won't see too much disruption. That's not what so many want, however. They want to double it quickly, which would disrupt over half the workforce. Too much too fast.

Do it slowly, and we would just see some of the low skilled jobs disappear.

The only way the MW really works is if you keep it like enough that it really doesn't make that much of a difference.

 

[hadit]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

Then you'll have to compensate businesses for carrying net loss jobs.

Here's the thing. Business exists to create a profit. It does not exist to do social engineering, it does not exist to provide a fiscal safety net to anyone, or to guarantee any lifestyle to anyone. Thus, trying to force business to pay artificially high wages is a losing proposition. Business will either raise prices or reduce workforces to compensate.

If you want to guarantee people a lifestyle, the honest way is to put it to the people to vote, raise taxes to pay for, and implement welfare.

Bottom line, if you want business to pay high wages, the job must generate enough revenue to pay for itself or be a justified cost. Companies cannot stay in business paying more for work than it generates.

 

[rightwinger]

I have no problem with giving tax cuts to job creators. As long as they can document that they have created jobs/increased pay

But giving all businesses a 50% cut in taxes while you cross your fingers and hope that some makes its way down to employees is ludicrous

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

You realize your local burger joint saw the price of beef double since the last minimum wage hike took place nine years ago?

The market adjusted for price increases due to the price of beef....it will adjust to increases due to higher wages

Yes, and if the MW increase is small and done slowly enough, we won't see too much disruption. That's not what so many want, however. They want to double it quickly, which would disrupt over half the workforce. Too much too fast.

Do it slowly, and we would just see some of the low skilled jobs disappear.

The only way the MW really works is if you keep it like enough that it really doesn't make that much of a difference.

We have not raised minimum wage in the last 9 years
The increase will have to cover the past 9 years as well as the next 9 till we get around to raising it again

$15 is reasonable

 

[rightwinger]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

Then you'll have to compensate businesses for carrying net loss jobs.

Here's the thing. Business exists to create a profit. It does not exist to do social engineering, it does not exist to provide a fiscal safety net to anyone, or to guarantee any lifestyle to anyone. Thus, trying to force business to pay artificially high wages is a losing proposition. Business will either raise prices or reduce workforces to compensate.

If you want to guarantee people a lifestyle, the honest way is to put it to the people to vote, raise taxes to pay for, and implement welfare.

Bottom line, if you want business to pay high wages, the job must generate enough revenue to pay for itself or be a justified cost. Companies cannot stay in business paying more for work than it generates.

We just cut their taxes in half

Taxpayers should not have to subsidize a low wage workforce

 

[hadit]

That's not a prescription though, because you still have the problem of those long term net loss jobs. A company's profitability waxes and wanes, and the first time it faces a shortfall, guess which jobs are on the line? Why not allow a lower wage for people trying to break into the job market and start climbing the ladder to more skilled, better paying jobs?

We do have that lower wage....we call it minimum wage
It has not increased in nine years

And we're hearing incessant cries to double it with no accounting for the impact such a move would have. More than 60% of the American work force earns $20/hr or less. At least that many will demand raises if the MW goes to $15/hr.

You realize your local burger joint saw the price of beef double since the last minimum wage hike took place nine years ago?

The market adjusted for price increases due to the price of beef....it will adjust to increases due to higher wages

Yes, and if the MW increase is small and done slowly enough, we won't see too much disruption. That's not what so many want, however. They want to double it quickly, which would disrupt over half the workforce. Too much too fast.

Do it slowly, and we would just see some of the low skilled jobs disappear.

The only way the MW really works is if you keep it like enough that it really doesn't make that much of a difference.

We have not raised minimum wage in the last 9 years
The increase will have to cover the past 9 years as well as the next 9 till we get around to raising it again

$15 is reasonable

You're ignoring the fact that over 60% of the American work force makes $20/hr or less, and most, if not all, of them are going to demand raises. I know I would if I was making $17/hr and all of a sudden I'm making only 2 bucks more than minimum. That's a huge impact.

 

[hadit]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

Then you'll have to compensate businesses for carrying net loss jobs.

Here's the thing. Business exists to create a profit. It does not exist to do social engineering, it does not exist to provide a fiscal safety net to anyone, or to guarantee any lifestyle to anyone. Thus, trying to force business to pay artificially high wages is a losing proposition. Business will either raise prices or reduce workforces to compensate.

If you want to guarantee people a lifestyle, the honest way is to put it to the people to vote, raise taxes to pay for, and implement welfare.

Bottom line, if you want business to pay high wages, the job must generate enough revenue to pay for itself or be a justified cost. Companies cannot stay in business paying more for work than it generates.

We just cut their taxes in half

Taxpayers should not have to subsidize a low wage workforce

Companies should not be welfare distribution centers either. Let's put it this way. If raising the MW was really sufficient to solve poverty, why not just take it to $100/hr and be done with it? Obviously, that wouldn't work. Therefore, it does have an impact on real life economics. The trick is to find a way to increase it without causing too many problems. Jacking it to $15/hr too quickly is not a good way.

Like I said, if you want a government mandated solution, be honest and create a welfare program.

 

[Thinker101]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

Maybe if your low skilled workers came into this country legally things would improve.

WTF are you babbling about?

Gee, I was replying to your dumbass comment...dumbass.

 

[Thinker101]

We will not see a reduction in foodstamps or welfare until we can get employers to pay higher wages to low skilled workers

Cutting their taxes in half will obviously not do it

Then you'll have to compensate businesses for carrying net loss jobs.

Here's the thing. Business exists to create a profit. It does not exist to do social engineering, it does not exist to provide a fiscal safety net to anyone, or to guarantee any lifestyle to anyone. Thus, trying to force business to pay artificially high wages is a losing proposition. Business will either raise prices or reduce workforces to compensate.

If you want to guarantee people a lifestyle, the honest way is to put it to the people to vote, raise taxes to pay for, and implement welfare.

Bottom line, if you want business to pay high wages, the job must generate enough revenue to pay for itself or be a justified cost. Companies cannot stay in business paying more for work than it generates.

We just cut their taxes in half

Taxpayers should not have to subsidize a low wage workforce

I agree, how about you start a company and pay your lowest level employee $15/hour. Let us know how that works out for ya.