Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[TNHarley]

We want them on foodstamps if they're hungry. Provide jobs that pay them enough to keep their families fed and less people would need them.
Any other questions?

Or they could get a better job themselves. Or get 2 jobs like i have had to do.

We have 30 million working Americans who require government assistance

Can you look at our economic statistics and identify 30 million better jobs or 30 million second jobs waiting to be filled?

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

If it were as easy as you say, 47% of Americans wouldn’t be receiving government assistance in some form or another.

And just for the record, it’s Republicans who insist that instead of raising the minimum wage, the earned income credits be increased, this keeping the working poor dependent on government handouts instead of giving them a proper wage.

Every Democratic effort to raise minimum wages has resulted in increases in the EIC instead. It’s Republicans who have worked very hard in maintaining the dependency of the working poor on the government, and resisted efforts to make people less dependent on government.

The rich get bailed out all the time and they have lots of money. How much more difficult is it for the poor.

I dont agree with that at all. Why bail out failure? Not to mention, it isnt OUR responsibility.

 

[danielpalos]

We want them on foodstamps if they're hungry. Provide jobs that pay them enough to keep their families fed and less people would need them.
Any other questions?

Or they could get a better job themselves. Or get 2 jobs like i have had to do.

We have 30 million working Americans who require government assistance

Can you look at our economic statistics and identify 30 million better jobs or 30 million second jobs waiting to be filled?

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

If it were as easy as you say, 47% of Americans wouldn’t be receiving government assistance in some form or another.

And just for the record, it’s Republicans who insist that instead of raising the minimum wage, the earned income credits be increased, this keeping the working poor dependent on government handouts instead of giving them a proper wage.

Every Democratic effort to raise minimum wages has resulted in increases in the EIC instead. It’s Republicans who have worked very hard in maintaining the dependency of the working poor on the government, and resisted efforts to make people less dependent on government.

The problem here is that you can't arbitrarily set a "proper wage" and expect economics to bow to your whim. If a machine can make burgers 24/7 at $10/hr, guess what's going to happen when you set the MW at $15/hr. If 62% of the work force makes $20/hr or less (it does), guess what's going to happen when you set the MW at $15/hr.

If you could really set the MW at some arbitrary level with no negative impact, why not just set it at $100/hr and be done with poverty once and for all? Obviously, no one seriously recommends that because they understand (even if they vociferously insist otherwise) that raising the MW DOES have a negative effect if you kick it up too high too fast. The only way for it to work is to keep it low enough so it doesn't really matter. Sure, we could bump it a dollar or so every few years with few immediate effects, but the higher it goes, the more often you're going to hear how hard it is for kids and the unskilled to find work at all. Kick it up high enough fast enough, and the effect becomes more severe.

It's really kind of a moot point anyway, because automation is going to replace nearly, if not all, repetitive manual labor work in the near to mid future. A machine can make burgers 24/7 more exactly the same than humans can, and their costs keep coming down. Machines can sweep and mop floors as well as or better than humans can. In fact, software can automate routine computer coding tasks, rendering some programming obsolete. Insisting on jacking up the MW for low skilled, manual labor jobs is fighting last century's battle.

It is no problem for our form of mixed-market economy. Congress can simply legislate some command economics to move some goal posts. They can stand around talking about it and take voice votes. That is how simple it really is.

 

[danielpalos]

Or they could get a better job themselves. Or get 2 jobs like i have had to do.

We have 30 million working Americans who require government assistance

Can you look at our economic statistics and identify 30 million better jobs or 30 million second jobs waiting to be filled?

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

If it were as easy as you say, 47% of Americans wouldn’t be receiving government assistance in some form or another.

And just for the record, it’s Republicans who insist that instead of raising the minimum wage, the earned income credits be increased, this keeping the working poor dependent on government handouts instead of giving them a proper wage.

Every Democratic effort to raise minimum wages has resulted in increases in the EIC instead. It’s Republicans who have worked very hard in maintaining the dependency of the working poor on the government, and resisted efforts to make people less dependent on government.

The rich get bailed out all the time and they have lots of money. How much more difficult is it for the poor.

I dont agree with that at all. Why bail out failure? Not to mention, it isnt OUR responsibility.

right wingers always say that.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do Republicans want to take food stamps and welfare away from people who need it?

They don't.

Yes they do. They believe assistance fosters dependence. That the poor are to blame for their poverty. They’re lazy. They won’t quit smoking pot so they can pass a drug test. They don’t want to work so many hours that they’ll lose their benefits.

Ray nails every rightwing talking point about the poor every single thread. Every lie that Republicans tell the taxpayers about how the poor are living the high life on their tax dollars.

The lie is in the term, "who need it". The Republican goal is to help only those who truly need help, and to get even those to the point where they no longer need help. That's the difference between the democrat and the Republican approach. The democrat approach apparently is to get as many people dependent on government assistance as possible, because they continually find new things they think the government should provide.

I love when Republicans attack the poor for receiving a few benefits that republicans think they really don't "need" You don't need a color TV, you don't need air conditioning, you don't need access to the internet

Meanwhile, they extend a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires
Where is the "need"??

People receiving welfare are getting something from other people. With tax cuts, nobody is getting anything. Government is just taking less from those people.

That won't work this time. Those tax cuts got financed and put on the Peoples' tab.

 

[danielpalos]

Businesses don't start for the reason to pay people a living wage. Businesses start to create a product or service for a profit.

Until there is a law that states a business cannot exist unless they pay a living wage (whatever that is) then anybody has the right to start or own a business paying what they desire.

Yes, government forcing industry to pay wages they demand is coddling people. It's not up to government to make businesses pay you more than you are worth, it's up to you to make yourself worth more to business.

If a business pays their employees so little they qualify for federal aid then the federal government should get reimbursed from that company.

Now that's a good plan. Shut down all these companies because that's all forcing them to pay government would do. More stuff from China, that's what we need for employment in the US.

who said shut down?

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

it is the other way around. only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[TNHarley]

We have 30 million working Americans who require government assistance

Can you look at our economic statistics and identify 30 million better jobs or 30 million second jobs waiting to be filled?

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

If it were as easy as you say, 47% of Americans wouldn’t be receiving government assistance in some form or another.

And just for the record, it’s Republicans who insist that instead of raising the minimum wage, the earned income credits be increased, this keeping the working poor dependent on government handouts instead of giving them a proper wage.

Every Democratic effort to raise minimum wages has resulted in increases in the EIC instead. It’s Republicans who have worked very hard in maintaining the dependency of the working poor on the government, and resisted efforts to make people less dependent on government.

The rich get bailed out all the time and they have lots of money. How much more difficult is it for the poor.

I dont agree with that at all. Why bail out failure? Not to mention, it isnt OUR responsibility.

right wingers always say that.

IDK but i always say it because thats how i feel.
You need to replace your hard drug habit with getting laid.. No joke.

 

[TNHarley]

If a business pays their employees so little they qualify for federal aid then the federal government should get reimbursed from that company.

Now that's a good plan. Shut down all these companies because that's all forcing them to pay government would do. More stuff from China, that's what we need for employment in the US.

who said shut down?

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

it is the other way around. only the right wing, never gets it.

You are a boring broken record

 

[danielpalos]

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. The left subscribes to rational choice theory whenever possible.

Whenever possible?! You mean whenever convenient.

Social costs also have to be considered. The right wing seems to care about merely lucre.

Ok, and what social costs need to be considered?

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

How about answering the question...dumbass.

the alternative to welfare.

 

[hadit]

Then society should insist on welfare programs to guarantee everyone an arbitrary income. That's the honest way to do it. Did you miss that part of my post? Stop reading after the first sentence, perhaps?

Sounds like socialism

That's why they want to force business to subsidize the welfare system. They can hide it better that way.

I do want business to subsidize the welfare program

They are exploiting it

They are paying what the job is worth. Tell you what, start your own business and pay workers. Let us know how that works.

If that is the case......get business to kick in more for welfare

It is supporting their workforce

Like I said, give it try.

 

[danielpalos]

Walmart would move out of the country if they were forced to stop exploiting poverty safety nets for employees?

No, they would simply increase the price of their products and you would pay for them. However industry may look at it differently. That was the failure of the big union days.

When unions were strong, they didn't just get ridiculous pays for their employees, it had a domino effect. If a non-union shop was in dire need of employees because of a strong economy, they had to pay similar wages of union places.

So when our pay scale went up one dollar in the US, China's went up four cents. When our pay scales went up a mother dollar, India's went up three cents. Eventually we priced ourselves out of the world market and this is where we are at today.

Even though individuals were making more money, everything else kept costing more money. So we really didn't get ahead in the long run.

I like to watch HGTV. When they look at homes for sale in the NE states or California, their homes that cost $800,000 there is something you can buy in my state for about $225.000, and in most cases get a larger yard.

But these states were strong supporters of unions and taxation. Now that the new tax plan only allows interest write-offs on mortgages under 750K, those are the states that are crying the most. Here? Nobody cares because very few people spend 750K or more on a home. Those kinds of homes are only affordable to rich people.

The states with high mortgage prices and interest voted democratic. In Trump's world, they must pay a price for having voted that way. To my knowledge, Trump has never even visited California in any official governmental capacity. The Divider in Chief has simply told the entire West Coast to get fucked. He has done the same thing to the northeast. But, for his special billionaire pals, they can still write off their private jets.

Yes, they did vote Democrat and that's why their cost of living is much higher than states that didn't.

Democrats are constantly focused on "paying your fair share" however when it comes to them doing the same, they object.

But, of course, the poorest county in all of America, is solidly Trump!

Trump has made America's 'poorest white town' hopeful again

The entire economy of this country depends on "welfare" money.

"Today, the town is a ghost of its former self. The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid -- 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security."

Donald Trump was voted in by these dirt poor towns

"The strength of the Trump vote puzzled Mr McCoy when he considers the local reliance on food stamps and welfare.

“Because social assistance like food stamps and welfare is what the Republicans are going to cut,” he said."

That's because they hope Trump will invigorate the economy and they will be able to WORK and not NEED assistance. This is the divide between left and right. The left assumes that everyone getting from the government wants to continue getting, while the right understands that they don't.

All the right wing does is use coercion, coming into an election cycle.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

 

[danielpalos]

Hate to tell you this but when people don't make enough to feed their families they go on food stamps at the taxpayers expense. They also buy less which in turns puts other jobs at risk.

Then society should insist on welfare programs to guarantee everyone an arbitrary income. That's the honest way to do it. Did you miss that part of my post? Stop reading after the first sentence, perhaps?

Sounds like socialism

That's why they want to force business to subsidize the welfare system. They can hide it better that way.

I do want business to subsidize the welfare program

They are exploiting it

They are paying what the job is worth. Tell you what, start your own business and pay workers. Let us know how that works.

Henry Ford knew how to make better use of his personnel.

 

[danielpalos]

There are jobs everywhere.
I have no sympathy for a person trying to feed their family with a high schooler job at Wendys for minimum wage. Also, if they cant afford to feed more heads without going on the dole, wrap up.
I swear, it really isnt that complicated.

If it were as easy as you say, 47% of Americans wouldn’t be receiving government assistance in some form or another.

And just for the record, it’s Republicans who insist that instead of raising the minimum wage, the earned income credits be increased, this keeping the working poor dependent on government handouts instead of giving them a proper wage.

Every Democratic effort to raise minimum wages has resulted in increases in the EIC instead. It’s Republicans who have worked very hard in maintaining the dependency of the working poor on the government, and resisted efforts to make people less dependent on government.

The rich get bailed out all the time and they have lots of money. How much more difficult is it for the poor.

I dont agree with that at all. Why bail out failure? Not to mention, it isnt OUR responsibility.

right wingers always say that.

IDK but i always say it because thats how i feel.
You need to replace your hard drug habit with getting laid.. No joke.

I can't find any nice girls who want to help me get really really good at full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work.

 

[danielpalos]

Now that's a good plan. Shut down all these companies because that's all forcing them to pay government would do. More stuff from China, that's what we need for employment in the US.

who said shut down?

Well what do you think would happen if you made employers responsible for paying for welfare their employees take? You'd close them down.

They need to stop trying to make employers subsidize the welfare system.

it is the other way around. only the right wing, never gets it.

You are a boring broken record

you are, full of fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

Hate to tell you this, but it is not the employer's responsibility to "pay well enough to keep their workers off of welfare". It's his responsibility to generate a profit so the company can thrive and grow. As long as it is doing that, he can hire and pay workers. When jobs cost more money than they generate, guess what happens to the jobs?

If society insists on everyone having a certain level of income, than society should be honest, create the welfare program and fund it. Stop trying to make businesses into welfare distribution centers.

Hate to tell you this but when people don't make enough to feed their families they go on food stamps at the taxpayers expense. They also buy less which in turns puts other jobs at risk.

Then society should insist on welfare programs to guarantee everyone an arbitrary income. That's the honest way to do it. Did you miss that part of my post? Stop reading after the first sentence, perhaps?

Sounds like socialism

That's why they want to force business to subsidize the welfare system. They can hide it better that way.

I do want business to subsidize the welfare program

They are exploiting it

The right wing likes to blame the poor for their, Individual lifestyle choices because according to them, it is definitely not, Institutional.

 

[danielpalos]

OK

Show me a labor report with 30 million unfilled jobs

You missed about half my post, buddy.
The other half is irrelevant anyways. What if one area of the country has 60% of the jobs?
Also, that number doesnt reflect how many of those people would ACTUALLY be willing to change their lives for the betterment of themselves and their family.
Your post is a circle jerk made for idiots. Try again?

It is your solution, not mine
You claim we do not need welfare or food stamps because all people need to do is find a better paying job or work two jobs

I am merely asking you to support your solution by identifying 30 million unfilled "better jobs" or second jobs waiting to be filled

Otherwise, we can only assume that your solution does not solve the problem

Well how about this: when all those jobs are filled, then we'll worry about it.

That is not a solution

You claim people can just take better jobs or work two jobs

The jobs are not there

They are all over the place. Need a link to Craigslist???

I love employment at will; but, some employers are not honest about their employment practices.

 

[Papageorgio]

Sadly, with you that's not possible. You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over.

in other words, you got nothing but repeal coming into an election cycle. I recommend, better solutions at lower cost.

No, you recommend a bunch of blargling. Your arguments have all been systematically destroyed many times, yet you seem to think they're still relevant.

in other words, you got nothing but repeal coming into an election cycle. I recommend, better solutions at lower cost.

So what is your better solution at a lower cost.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. I don't mind if the right wing, "sits out the next election cycle."

You are for healthcare reform, what does that mean? I’m all for healthcare reform.

What kind of healthcare reform? How would it work, what would be the key issues it would settle? How do you keep the cost down? Who would benefit? How would you take care of the existing system? How would it be implemented? Who would pay? How would it work after the failure of Obamacare? How would the medical profession be paid?

 

[Papageorgio]

Should he move to an alleged, Right to Work State and advocate for a legal right to work?

Idiot!

You mean people do not have a right to work in those states?

No, they currently don't. We need Persons in those States to advocate for Truth in Legislative Advertising laws.

You could first target Congress and the "Affordable HealthCare Act", that could be the first change.

Then you could go work on the "Fairness Doctrine."

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

 

[danielpalos]

in other words, you got nothing but repeal coming into an election cycle. I recommend, better solutions at lower cost.

No, you recommend a bunch of blargling. Your arguments have all been systematically destroyed many times, yet you seem to think they're still relevant.

in other words, you got nothing but repeal coming into an election cycle. I recommend, better solutions at lower cost.

So what is your better solution at a lower cost.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage. I don't mind if the right wing, "sits out the next election cycle."

You are for healthcare reform, what does that mean? I’m all for healthcare reform.

What kind of healthcare reform? How would it work, what would be the key issues it would settle? How do you keep the cost down? Who would benefit? How would you take care of the existing system? How would it be implemented? Who would pay? How would it work after the failure of Obamacare? How would the medical profession be paid?

Actually, this may happen by itself, if we can solve simple poverty. Market based products should appear to meet that new demand. In that manner, insurance products will be available which should help lower our costs via normal market forces.

 

[hadit]

No, they would simply increase the price of their products and you would pay for them. However industry may look at it differently. That was the failure of the big union days.

When unions were strong, they didn't just get ridiculous pays for their employees, it had a domino effect. If a non-union shop was in dire need of employees because of a strong economy, they had to pay similar wages of union places.

So when our pay scale went up one dollar in the US, China's went up four cents. When our pay scales went up a mother dollar, India's went up three cents. Eventually we priced ourselves out of the world market and this is where we are at today.

Even though individuals were making more money, everything else kept costing more money. So we really didn't get ahead in the long run.

I like to watch HGTV. When they look at homes for sale in the NE states or California, their homes that cost $800,000 there is something you can buy in my state for about $225.000, and in most cases get a larger yard.

But these states were strong supporters of unions and taxation. Now that the new tax plan only allows interest write-offs on mortgages under 750K, those are the states that are crying the most. Here? Nobody cares because very few people spend 750K or more on a home. Those kinds of homes are only affordable to rich people.

The states with high mortgage prices and interest voted democratic. In Trump's world, they must pay a price for having voted that way. To my knowledge, Trump has never even visited California in any official governmental capacity. The Divider in Chief has simply told the entire West Coast to get fucked. He has done the same thing to the northeast. But, for his special billionaire pals, they can still write off their private jets.

Yes, they did vote Democrat and that's why their cost of living is much higher than states that didn't.

Democrats are constantly focused on "paying your fair share" however when it comes to them doing the same, they object.

But, of course, the poorest county in all of America, is solidly Trump!

Trump has made America's 'poorest white town' hopeful again

The entire economy of this country depends on "welfare" money.

"Today, the town is a ghost of its former self. The vast majority of Beattyville residents get some form of government aid -- 57% of households receive food stamps and 58% get disability payments from Social Security."

Donald Trump was voted in by these dirt poor towns

"The strength of the Trump vote puzzled Mr McCoy when he considers the local reliance on food stamps and welfare.

“Because social assistance like food stamps and welfare is what the Republicans are going to cut,” he said."

That's because they hope Trump will invigorate the economy and they will be able to WORK and not NEED assistance. This is the divide between left and right. The left assumes that everyone getting from the government wants to continue getting, while the right understands that they don't.

All the right wing does is use coercion, coming into an election cycle.

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage!

Which is coercion. You really don't get what you're saying, do you?

 

[danielpalos]

Idiot!

You mean people do not have a right to work in those states?

No, they currently don't. We need Persons in those States to advocate for Truth in Legislative Advertising laws.

You could first target Congress and the "Affordable HealthCare Act", that could be the first change.

Then you could go work on the "Fairness Doctrine."

As a federalist, I would insist on equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, and a permanent federal solution to our border issues, via Commerce, well regulated.

And, I would abolish our income tax by abolishing our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

So, if I have a business and I don’t need a worker and you walk in and want a job, I’d be required to hire you?

Not sure what you mean. That would cause businesses to fold.

If all the taxes were because of crime, drugs and terror then you could, it seems that defense, welfare, SSI and Medicare still need to be funded, how would you fund them?

It means I would go on unemployment for one dollar an hour less than the current minimum wage. Let's assume it is fifteen dollars for the minimum wage. The unemployment compensation wage would be fourteen dollars an hour. Your firm would only be assessed general taxes for unemployment compensation not our burdensome, current regime.

By solving simple poverty in our Republic.