Why do democrats want more people on foodstamps and welfare

[hadit]

You're not being honest here, because you don't want unemployment, you want welfare. You don't want to just be paid because you got laid off and until you can find another job, you want to be paid, period, because you don't want to work at all.

Yes, I am. That is You, not me. In any case, why do You care if I want to stay poor on an at-will basis?

You can if you want, just don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize your lifestyle. Be honest and say you want to be on welfare and stop trying to call it UE. UE was created to help carry people to the next job who were let go through no fault of their own.

The point is, silly right winger who never gets it, to lower costs. Unemployment insurance is simply more cost effective.

You still don't get paid if you can work, but won't.

Only if the employers believe in a natural rate of unemployment.

No, because no one wants to give you what you don't earn, and don't need but can't get on your own.

 

[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.

You guys all get the same memo, word for word, dontcha?

No. How else can you express such a common sense truth?

The left routinely scorns the working poor who voted for Trump, accusing them of being so stupid that they voted against their own best interest. Naturally, the left refuses to even contemplate the idea that the working poor don't want government handouts if they can earn what they need and would see Trump as more likely to help them be independent than Hillary would have.

Do the prescriptions of the left offer hope of eventual independence or promises of continued dependence?

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

You guys all get the same memo, word for word, dontcha?

No. How else can you express such a common sense truth?

The left routinely scorns the working poor who voted for Trump, accusing them of being so stupid that they voted against their own best interest. Naturally, the left refuses to even contemplate the idea that the working poor don't want government handouts if they can earn what they need and would see Trump as more likely to help them be independent than Hillary would have.

Do the prescriptions of the left offer hope of eventual independence or promises of continued dependence?

The county that mentioned above have 57% of their people on food stamps, and is solidly Trump. Now, I have been out of work many times in my life. In fact, I have lived in 17 states, chasing jobs in the health insurance industry. The only time I had food stamps was when i was stuck in New Orleans after katrina, with no way to access my money in the closed bank. Yet, the 57% of the Trump voting population mentioned above did NOT move to follow employment opportunities. The democratic voting blacks in the South, for example, left the agricultural world when auto production began, and moved to Detroit to find work. The Trump faction, mentioned above, however, are insisting that Trump bring the jobs to them, and until he does, will just keep on cashing in those food stamps.

And you self righteously insist that the GOP is catering to those that want to work.

RIGHTTTT.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Right has such a short memory that they had forgotten their celebration of AT&T announcing $1,000 bonuses due to the new tax law, within about the 2 days span, before AT&T announced that they are laying off thousands of workers....

AT&T sued over layoffs—after promising more investment because of tax cut

You people on the left keep bringing this up and I don't understand the point. They were going to lay those people off anyway. What does their bonus have to do with it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

It is not supporting anything but the individuals. God you leftists are born liars.

 

[Dragonlady]

Walmart is fully capable of paying higher minimum wages but chose to keep wages as low as possible and have employees get public assistance, and they were the second most profitable company in the US. Walmart managed to pay $11+ in Canada, and higher taxes overall, and still be the most profitable company in Canada, without having government subsidize wages.

And I bet the prices of their goods is higher in Canadian stores than the US.

I know of no first world country in the world which depends on so much cheap labour as the US.

Minimum wage people are 3% of our workforce. No other country has only 3% of their workforce making our minimum wage?

Illegal immigration exists to provide a large pool of easily exploitable cheap labour, and it has been Republicans who have openly encouraged it, just as it has been Republicans who insist on earned income credits instead of increasing the minimum wage.

When has any Republican encouraged it? It's the Republicans who are fighting it. It's why Donald Trump was elected President.

It's Democrats who openly encourage it. Google California. Now a sanctuary state, gives illegals drivers licenses, allows them to attend their schools, rent apartments and buy homes.

Republicans do everything possible to keep the working poor beholding to the government. A reasonable minimum wage tied to inflation would help.

Since minimum wage would only increase inflation, then we would have out of control inflation.

Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, thereby encouraging another generation to sneak across the border. NAFTA was Reagan’s solution to the problem of illegal immigration. If Mexicans could get a good job at home, they’d stay in Mexico. In some ways, it’s worked.

Bill Clinton signed some of the toughest anti-illegal immigration laws into force but George W. Bush was pushing for amnesty and deportations of illegals wasn’t a priority. War and the housing bubble was. Democrats tried to increase fines against employers hiring illegals but Republicans refused.

Obama deported more illegals than any President in modern history. More than Trump did in his first year.

Illegal immigration has dropped like a stone since 2008. In part because of the recession, in part because of jobs created by NAFTA, but also in part because of Obama’s tightening of the border. There was net minus Mexican immigration during the Obama administration.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Walmart is fully capable of paying higher minimum wages but chose to keep wages as low as possible and have employees get public assistance, and they were the second most profitable company in the US. Walmart managed to pay $11+ in Canada, and higher taxes overall, and still be the most profitable company in Canada, without having government subsidize wages.

And I bet the prices of their goods is higher in Canadian stores than the US.

I know of no first world country in the world which depends on so much cheap labour as the US.

Minimum wage people are 3% of our workforce. No other country has only 3% of their workforce making our minimum wage?

Illegal immigration exists to provide a large pool of easily exploitable cheap labour, and it has been Republicans who have openly encouraged it, just as it has been Republicans who insist on earned income credits instead of increasing the minimum wage.

When has any Republican encouraged it? It's the Republicans who are fighting it. It's why Donald Trump was elected President.

It's Democrats who openly encourage it. Google California. Now a sanctuary state, gives illegals drivers licenses, allows them to attend their schools, rent apartments and buy homes.

Republicans do everything possible to keep the working poor beholding to the government. A reasonable minimum wage tied to inflation would help.

Since minimum wage would only increase inflation, then we would have out of control inflation.

Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, thereby encouraging another generation to sneak across the border. NAFTA was Reagan’s solution to the problem of illegal immigration. If Mexicans could get a good job at home, they’d stay in Mexico. In some ways, it’s worked.

Bill Clinton signed some of the toughest anti-illegal immigration laws into force but George W. Bush was pushing for amnesty and deportations of illegals wasn’t a priority. War and the housing bubble was. Democrats tried to increase fines against employers hiring illegals but Republicans refused.

Obama deported more illegals than any President in modern history. More than Trump did in his first year.

Illegal immigration has dropped like a stone since 2008. In part because of the recession, in part because of jobs created by NAFTA, but also in part because of Obama’s tightening of the border. There was net minus Mexican immigration during the Obama administration.

That's all fantasy land stuff there.

High deportation figures are misleading

Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years

https://nypost.com/2014/11/23/city-schools-warned-of-plans-to-enroll-2350-migrant-children/

Deportation orders up under Trump, fewer prevail in immigration court

Now when did Democrats try to increase fines for employers? Have a link?

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Right has such a short memory that they had forgotten their celebration of AT&T announcing $1,000 bonuses due to the new tax law, within about the 2 days span, before AT&T announced that they are laying off thousands of workers....

AT&T sued over layoffs—after promising more investment because of tax cut

You people on the left keep bringing this up and I don't understand the point. They were going to lay those people off anyway. What does their bonus have to do with it?

And you seem to forget that the whole point of the tax reform and repealing net neutrality was to encourage corporations to invest in order to create MORE jobs.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

It is not supporting anything but the individuals. God you leftists are born liars.

You and some others here need to get an education on welfare, the social safety net, and the essential role it plays in supporting the capitalistic system. There is a choice, welfare to help people when the labor market contracts to keep people viable for when their labor is needed again while maintain social order, socialism where everyone's needs are automatically met regardless and there is no wealth/ income disparity, or a Frech Revolution senerio.. You decide.

https://ubopehubym.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/10gk.pdf

Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare, 2012, 544 pages, Frances Fox Piven, Richard Cloward, 0307814645, 9780307814647, Random House LLC, 2012.
Piven and Cloward have updated their classic work on the history and function of welfare to cover the American welfare state's massive erosion during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton years. The authors present a boldly comprehensive, brilliant new theory to explain the comparative underdevelopment of the U.S. welfare state among advanced industrial nations. Their conceptual framework promises to shape the debate within current and future administrations as they attempt to rethink the welfare system and its role in American society ."Uncompromising and provocative....By mixing history, political interpretation and sociological analysis, Piven and Cloward provide the best explanation to date of our present situation...no future discussion of welfare can afford to ignore them."вЂ―Peter Steinfels,В The New York Times Book Review

Regulating the Poor

Piven and Cloward have updated their classic work on the history and function of welfare to cover the American welfare state's massive erosion during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton years. The authors present a boldly comprehensive, brilliant new theory to explain the comparative underdevelopment of the U.S. welfare state among advanced industrial nations. Their conceptual framework promises to shape the debate within current and future administrations as they attempt to rethink the welfare system and its role in American society.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Right has such a short memory that they had forgotten their celebration of AT&T announcing $1,000 bonuses due to the new tax law, within about the 2 days span, before AT&T announced that they are laying off thousands of workers....

AT&T sued over layoffs—after promising more investment because of tax cut

You people on the left keep bringing this up and I don't understand the point. They were going to lay those people off anyway. What does their bonus have to do with it?

And you seem to forget that the whole point of the tax reform and repealing net neutrality was to encourage corporations to invest in order to create MORE jobs.

It is. But what does that have to do with laying off people who's jobs have become extinct? Technology is a non-stop thing and will be the rest of our lives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You and some others here need to get an education on welfare, the social safety net, and the essential role it plays in supporting the capitalistic system. There is a choice, welfare to help people when the labor market contracts to keep people viable for when their labor is needed again while maintain social order, socialism where everyone's needs are automatically met regardless and there is no wealth/ income disparity, or a Frech Revolution senerio.. You decide.

Welfare is playing a role, it's making more and more Americans lazy.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people.

There are people who find themselves in bad situations beyond their control, but most are on welfare because of their own doings. Not paying attention in school, having children before you become an adult yourself, getting convicted of a felony and not being able to find a job afterwards are just a few reasons.

Our system of government rewards people for doing these things. It discourages people from trying.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You and some others here need to get an education on welfare, the social safety net, and the essential role it plays in supporting the capitalistic system. There is a choice, welfare to help people when the labor market contracts to keep people viable for when their labor is needed again while maintain social order, socialism where everyone's needs are automatically met regardless and there is no wealth/ income disparity, or a Frech Revolution senerio.. You decide.

Welfare is playing a role, it's making more and more Americans lazy.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people.

There are people who find themselves in bad situations beyond their control, but most are on welfare because of their own doings. Not paying attention in school, having children before you become an adult yourself, getting convicted of a felony and not being able to find a job afterwards are just a few reasons.

Our system of government rewards people for doing these things. It discourages people from trying.

You didn’t read Piven and cloward did you? If you did it’s apparently beyond your grade level


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Right has such a short memory that they had forgotten their celebration of AT&T announcing $1,000 bonuses due to the new tax law, within about the 2 days span, before AT&T announced that they are laying off thousands of workers....

AT&T sued over layoffs—after promising more investment because of tax cut

You people on the left keep bringing this up and I don't understand the point. They were going to lay those people off anyway. What does their bonus have to do with it?

And you seem to forget that the whole point of the tax reform and repealing net neutrality was to encourage corporations to invest in order to create MORE jobs.

It is. But what does that have to do with laying off people who's jobs have become extinct? Technology is a non-stop thing and will be the rest of our lives.

Sort of like Trump bringing back the coal industry?

 

[Borillar]

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

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Because foodstamps and welfare are better alternatives than having more Americans homeless and starving.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

How would that work? A good employer may have 100 people show up and want work, so he would need to pay 100 people $14 an hour for not working? At $1400 an hour that business would either fail or raise prices to compensate for the extra cost. That seems intrusive and burdensome.

I’d hire you and for $1 an hour more have you and every other applicant scrub my floors with a toothbrush and make you do every other terrible task.

Then you be happy spending 8 hours a day on your hands and knees scrubbing.

Employment is at-will. You won't need to hire anyone. They would just go on unemployment compensation.

You would only have to pay your employees a minimum wage or more.

And, be assessed a general tax for unemployment compensation if necessary. It would be less expensive because you would not need to deal with unemployment issues.

How do you run a business if you don’t hire anyone? Where does the money come from to pay for the unemployed? You said the business would be responsible for those they don’t hire. You are not clear on how this would work.

It is up to the Individual to stay poor on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

It is being paid now; I recommend simplification to complete coverage and lower costs.

Nope; employment is at-will. No more expenses in that sector from at-will employment issues.

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.

Again, you claim you want reform and now you claim it will fix itself. Could you clarify.

A, "two for one deal"?

Just say you can't clarify, it is much simpler than pretending you have an idea.

You are claiming to have an idea, so either share it or don’t. It really doesn’t matter to me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Because foodstamps and welfare are better alternatives than having more Americans homeless and starving.

Of course, that's what you think, that everybody on food stamps would starve or be homeless without them.

I think what you should do is look at what Maine did with their potential homeless and staving. They instituted requirements for food stamps for those who had no dependents. You either had to have a job working 20 hours minimum per week, be enrolled in a vocational program, or do 20 hours of volunteer work per month. Guess what the results were? Most of those people chose to starve and be homeless.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You and some others here need to get an education on welfare, the social safety net, and the essential role it plays in supporting the capitalistic system. There is a choice, welfare to help people when the labor market contracts to keep people viable for when their labor is needed again while maintain social order, socialism where everyone's needs are automatically met regardless and there is no wealth/ income disparity, or a Frech Revolution senerio.. You decide.

Welfare is playing a role, it's making more and more Americans lazy.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people.

There are people who find themselves in bad situations beyond their control, but most are on welfare because of their own doings. Not paying attention in school, having children before you become an adult yourself, getting convicted of a felony and not being able to find a job afterwards are just a few reasons.

Our system of government rewards people for doing these things. It discourages people from trying.

You didn’t read Piven and cloward did you? If you did it’s apparently beyond your grade level


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't need some leftist brainwashing book or article to counter what you see right in front of you. Do you know what I've seen?

I've seen people at the grocery store with four kids, a conveyor belt of prepared food they pay for with food stamps, and cartons of cigarettes, beer, wine, flowers, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and perfume that they pay for with cash.

A few years ago I evicted a couple with two kids who were getting later and later with rent. The mother didn't want to work because she was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps. They chose to lose their home and have an eviction on their record to keep the Fn food stamps. Again, they had the huge dog, three cats, both smoked as did their 12 year old daughter. She couldn't afford her own tobacco products, so the parents provided them.

Yes, they had their ObamaPhone, ordered pizza's and had them delivered, even stole gasoline out of one of my other tenants car. Now I understand the male got on disability for some minor healthcare issue because like his girlfriend, he didn't want to work either. It's easier for us working to support them.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

Democratic Party on Welfare & Poverty

Because foodstamps and welfare are better alternatives than having more Americans homeless and starving.

Of course, that's what you think, that everybody on food stamps would starve or be homeless without them.

I think what you should do is look at what Maine did with their potential homeless and staving. They instituted requirements for food stamps for those who had no dependents. You either had to have a job working 20 hours minimum per week, be enrolled in a vocational program, or do 20 hours of volunteer work per month. Guess what the results were? Most of those people chose to starve and be homeless.

Kind of like my 69 year old cousin. Too lazy to get out of his hospis bed to do community volunteering...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You and some others here need to get an education on welfare, the social safety net, and the essential role it plays in supporting the capitalistic system. There is a choice, welfare to help people when the labor market contracts to keep people viable for when their labor is needed again while maintain social order, socialism where everyone's needs are automatically met regardless and there is no wealth/ income disparity, or a Frech Revolution senerio.. You decide.

Welfare is playing a role, it's making more and more Americans lazy.

If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised when you end up with more irresponsible people.

There are people who find themselves in bad situations beyond their control, but most are on welfare because of their own doings. Not paying attention in school, having children before you become an adult yourself, getting convicted of a felony and not being able to find a job afterwards are just a few reasons.

Our system of government rewards people for doing these things. It discourages people from trying.

You didn’t read Piven and cloward did you? If you did it’s apparently beyond your grade level


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't need some leftist brainwashing book or article to counter what you see right in front of you. Do you know what I've seen?

I've seen people at the grocery store with four kids, a conveyor belt of prepared food they pay for with food stamps, and cartons of cigarettes, beer, wine, flowers, huge bags of dog food, cat litter, and perfume that they pay for with cash.

A few years ago I evicted a couple with two kids who were getting later and later with rent. The mother didn't want to work because she was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps. They chose to lose their home and have an eviction on their record to keep the Fn food stamps. Again, they had the huge dog, three cats, both smoked as did their 12 year old daughter. She couldn't afford her own tobacco products, so the parents provided them.

Yes, they had their ObamaPhone, ordered pizza's and had them delivered, even stole gasoline out of one of my other tenants car. Now I understand the male got on disability for some minor healthcare issue because like his girlfriend, he didn't want to work either. It's easier for us working to support them.

The fact that you invoke the Obama Phone myth is, in and of itself , enough to destroy and credibility that you might have had:

Rumors , claiming that “the Obama administration created a program to give free cell phones paid for by taxpayer money to welfare recipients.” All the elements of such statements are erroneous or exaggerated:


The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush.

All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.The Lifeline program only covers monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service for eligible consumers. It does not pay

cellular companies to provide free cell phones to consumers, although some cellular service providers choose to offer that benefit to their Lifeline customers.
Lifeline discounts are not available only to “welfare recipients” — these programs are implemented at both the state and federal levels, so qualification criteria can vary from state to state, but in general participants must have an income that is at or below 135% of the federal Poverty Guidelines, or take part in at least one federal assistance programs

Free 'ObamaPhones' for Welfare Recipients

And, your antidotal story about something you allegedly observed once in no way mitigates or refutes the logic and facts presented by Piven and Cloward

• 
  

 

[danielpalos]

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.

How about answering the question...dumbass.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.