50 years of Welfare

[GORDON]

So the modern food stamp program started in 1964, which I guess could be considered the beginning of the modern welfare system. That's 50 years.

In 2014 the federal government is set to spend $400b on welfare programs, and another trillion on medicare, if I am reading that right. I will just count the $400b, since it doesn't really change the relevance of my point.

Being, 50 years and trillions spent on the poor, and there are more poor people than ever, and the problem will never, ever be fixed with the current system.

So how do we fix it? How do we make it so that there are no more poor people, and everyone can take care of themselves?

And here's the difficulty level: "Cull" is not a valid solution.



Edited By GORDON on 1397503182

[TPRJones]

What are you trying to do, get right of the Democratic voting base?

There's no incentive for anyone get get off of welfare. That's by design.

[Vince]

Got to go with God on this one (or may have been His son) that said, "There will always be the poor among us."

[TheCatt]

Got to go with God on this one (or may have been His son) that said, "There will always be the poor among us."

Of course, he follows that with

For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'

[TPRJones]

Hmmm. If the poor are in a guaranteed neverending supply, then you know what I'm thinking?

Biofuel.

[Malcolm]

How do we make it so that there are no more poor people, and everyone can take care of themselves?

Some people simply cannot take care of themselves. You might want a different end state as your goal.

For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'

Damn you for beating me to that punch.

[GORDON]

The rule was no culling, so no, they will not be used as biofuel.

I will grant that "the poor will always be with us," but the other day I heard america has more people on welfare than the entire population of England.

SO.... let's say 5% of the people are just mentally incapable of living self sufficiently. If not housed and fed they will lie on the street in the rain and starve to death.

How do we fix that other 95%?

[TPRJones]

Technology. As technology advances it creates abundance. Look at what its like to be poor in the US now versus, say, 50 years ago. Big difference, primarily due to the abundance created by advancing technology.

So keep pushing technology forward, and eventually even the poor will have everything they could need or want.

[Malcolm]

SO.... let's say 5% of the people are just mentally incapable of living self sufficiently. If not housed and fed they will lie on the street in the rain and starve to death.

How do we fix that other 95%?

I'd be more charitable and up it to 10%, but whatever.

How do we fix that other 95%?

Determine who's a permanent case and who ain't. Make their aid finite. You will encounter three issues:

1. Problem is that if you give up on them, you create a someone who is willing to obtain income by a broader spectrum of means, i.e. a potential criminal. It's almost always cheaper to buy them off rather than turn them loose. But without a legit threat of being given up on, some people will never be motivated to change. Some never will anyway.

2. How much is enough? For how long?

3. You place huge power in the hands of the dudes making the call who's in the permanent bin.

Once you figure out those tiny details, the real work of putting it into effect comes.



Edited By Malcolm on 1397512665

[Vince]

Of course, he follows that with

For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'

I notice he didn't say Caesar should give them the money, but we should as individuals. Which I have no problem with.

Basically Jesus was saying we can't fix it, but you need to help a brotha out.

[Vince]

My solution (though there isn't one) is that we have it exactly backwards. Taxes should be flat and welfare should be scaling. Right now if you make over a certain amount your thrown off the bennies. I think if you earn $2 you should lose $1 in benefits. Don't make it harder to earn money. Don't take away an incentive to earn money.

[GORDON]

My solution (though there isn't one) is that we have it exactly backwards. Taxes should be flat and welfare should be scaling. Right now if you make over a certain amount your thrown off the bennies. I think if you earn $2 you should lose $1 in benefits. Don't make it harder to earn money. Don't take away an incentive to earn money.

I know a few small business owners, and the biggest complaint are the hoops through which they are forced to jump and moneyfucking they get from various governments from local to federal.

But back to the topic... will a flat tax fix the poverty problem in the USA? I would ask what everyone thinks the root cause is, but things are rarely so simple... so what do you suspect are the 3 main causes that we have 108,592,000 people on welfare?



Edited By GORDON on 1397676354

[Cakedaddy]

1. Lazy.
2. Don't want to work.
3. Are not self starters.

That's all there is in my opinion. There is nothing keeping people from working. They just don't want to work. It's easier to not have any responsibilities.

Well, except for the 5-10% that do not have the mental capacity to be in public.

[GORDON]

1. Lazy.
2. Don't want to work.
3. Are not self starters.

That's all there is in my opinion. There is nothing keeping people from working. They just don't want to work. It's easier to not have any responsibilities.

Well, except for the 5-10% that do not have the mental capacity to be in public.

There are those who would call you racist.

I think there are a lot of people in the inner cities who, due to the world they live in, are not allowed to improve themselves. The example I heard was the crabs in the bucket and one tries to escape but the others pull it back down. Is this situation not in the top 3?

[TPRJones]

Because they can be? If I didn't have the self-respect I do, I'm lazy enough that I'd quit and get welfare and not work all the damn time. I'd love to be paid to sit on my ass and play games all day.

Some people just don't see it that way, though, and instead look at it like getting away with something. Like you are stupid for not getting the free money.



Edited By TPRJones on 1397679164

[Vince]

But back to the topic... will a flat tax fix the poverty problem in the USA? I would ask what everyone thinks the root cause is, but things are rarely so simple... so what do you suspect are the 3 main causes that we have 108,592,000 people on welfare?

Well, my comment was less about the flat tax and more about sliding benefits for people on public assistance. Don't give them a choice between losing all their benefits and getting a job and bettering themselves. You usually don't start out living in the projects and your first job out of the gate being one that can get you out of the projects.

[Cakedaddy]

I don't agree with the crabs.

I think all of us here would be even more successful than we are, if we wanted to be. We just don't feel like it. We do as much as we need to to be as happy as we want to be. I am too lazy to be more successful than I am. Stimulus and reward.

[TheCatt]

The people on this forum are probably all in the top 10% of people who can do for themselves. There's a wide variety in people. I don't care how motivated you are, dumb is still dumb. Uneducated is still uneducated. Weak is still weak.

I really don't know what the answer is. I used to volunteer a lot at homeless shelters, food kitchens, meals on wheels, etc. The people you see are basically helpless. I have no idea what % of the people they are. I don't know what % of the people are basically one or two steps up from that.

Are some people lazy? Probably. But I think most people would like to work, work hard, and want to get things done. More than half the jobs in the US pay less than $40k a year. Try living on that. It isn't fun with a family to support, retirement savings to take care of, etc.

I don't begrudge the government taking my money for redistribution. Do I think the system is perfect? No. Do I know of a better way? Not really. I'd like to see it simpler, ala the welfare diminishing as income goes up/EITC type of stuff. I think the wealthy should pay more in taxes, though. I think the hedge fund income tax stuff is BULLSHIT (carried interest).

I kinda wish I could help people more, but I dont know how. So as far as I am concerned, me earning money to give to them via taxes is probably the most efficient way I can help.

[GORDON]

More than half the jobs in the US pay less than $40k a year. Try living on that. It isn't fun with a family to support...

As a minor aside, this argument really irritates me. Barring losing the ability to do the job in which you were making more, why are people starting families if they make less than that?

Also, some parts of the country are a lot cheaper to live in than others. $40k in Toledo is a good chunk of change. $40k in San Fran is a joke.

But anyway, y'all proceed. Just wanted to make the point that I dont have a lot of sympathy who make bad decisions and then cry over how hard it is to be a single mother/whatever.

[TheCatt]

I'm pretty sure it's inherit within a large # of people to make babies. Like instinctual even.