• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House bans welfare recipients' money from strip clubs, liquor stores

Harry Guerrilla said:
Nope.
There is no such thing, it's entirely subjective.
Click to expand...

No, its not, we have federal guidelines that specify poverty level. You don't want people to be able to earn enough to support themselves and you don't want to provide welfare. What is another option???

But alas, when keep going in circles.
You keep debating with a ghost or your just creating straw men and I'm posting out your continuous, dishonest debate tactics.
Click to expand...

How do can I avoid going in circles in trying to keep up with your circular logic that you don't want to pay a living wage for someone to support their family and you don't want to pay welfare, leaving no way out for those on welfare.

Look, you couldn't even say how much this would save, and I'm willing to bet you do not even know what the share of your taxes is for helping those in poverty.

From the study I referenced before: "In 2010, 46.9 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 -- the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty . This is the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty rates have been published (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 14)."

You said earlier you believed in welfare based on need. The number of people needing welfare has increased each of the last four years, don't you think your taxes should have been increased each of the last 4 years to meet that need?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
So you support a living wage as an alternative to welfare?
Click to expand...

Why do you want to hurt employment and keep people down economically. I've shown that a "living wage" harms the lowest fo the economic ladder, the ones you so want to help, and it holds back those tryign to move from min-wage to more money.

Is it guilt, politics or just not caring who gets harmed as long as an ideal is achieved?
 
Catawba said:
No, its not, we have federal guidelines that specify poverty level. You don't want people to be able to earn enough to support themselves and you don't want to provide welfare. What is another option???



How do can I avoid going in circles in trying to keep up with your circular logic that you don't want to pay a living wage for someone to support their family and you don't want to pay welfare, leaving no way out for those on welfare.

Look, you couldn't even say how much this would save, and I'm willing to bet you do not even know what the share of your taxes is for helping those in poverty.

From the study I referenced before: "In 2010, 46.9 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 -- the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty . This is the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty rates have been published (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 14)."

You said earlier you believed in welfare based on need. The number of people needing welfare has increased each of the last four years, don't you think your taxes should have been increased each of the last 4 years to meet that need?
Click to expand...

Wiki said:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[SUP][1][/SUP] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Click to expand...

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

scarecrow_thinking.jpg
 
MrVicchio said:
Why do you want to hurt employment and keep people down economically.
Click to expand...

Why don't you show me where the national unemployment rates have tracked increases in minimum wage to prove your ridiculous claim?
 
Catawba said:
Did you, or did you not say you believed in welfare based on need?
Click to expand...

Sure, but so far you keep twisting what I said, into straw men.
To quote you,

Catawba said:
No, its not, we have federal guidelines that specify poverty level. You don't want people to be able to earn enough to support themselves and you don't want to provide welfare. What is another option???
Click to expand...

Now you've contradicted yourself.
You now recognize that, I want welfare to be need based, but you just said I don't want to provide it.

You need to figure out what I'm saying first.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Sure,but so far you keep twisting what I said, into straw men.
To quote you,

Now you've contradicted yourself.
You now recognize that, I want welfare to be need based, but you just said I don't want to provide it.

You need to figure out what I'm saying first.
Click to expand...

You keep contradicting yourself.

You have said you do not support paying people a living wage and you have indicated you think someone making a minimum wage doesn't need welfare despite the facts that show they do. Since minimum wage is below the poverty line in many cases you are leaving no way out for millions on welfare.


That is no strawman.

Then you also said you believed in welfare for those that needed it. But when it was pointed out to you that the number of people on welfare has increased each of the last 4 years and asked if you thought your taxes should have been increased for each of the last 4 years to meet that need, you go into your strawman routine rather than answering.
 
Catawba said:
You keep contradicting yourself.

You have said you do not support paying people a living wage and you have indicated you think someone making a minimum wage doesn't need welfare despite the facts that show they do. Since minimum wage is below the poverty line in many cases you are leaving no way out for millions on welfare.
Click to expand...

Nope I didn't say that.
You made that up in your own head.

Catawba said:
That is no strawman.

Then you also said you believed in welfare for those that needed it. But when it was pointed out to you that the number of people on welfare has increased each of the last 4 years and asked if you thought your taxes should have been increased for each of the last 4 years to meet that need, you go into your strawman routine rather than answering.
Click to expand...

Because your arguments against me are nearly entirely made up.
If your post is a straw man, I don't have to defend it, I didn't make the argument, you did.
That's what a straw man is.

It's an argument that's, at least partially, made up.
You keep making up all these things, that I didn't say.

Show me, word for word, where I said, "Someone making minimum wage doesn't need welfare."
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Why don't you show me where the national unemployment rates have tracked increases in minimum wage to prove your ridiculous claim?
Click to expand...

Ridiculous claims? Sir I provided you with real world papers that took the whole matter into account. That you wish to turn a blind eye to data that refutes your position merely answers the question as to what motivates your desire for a "Living Wage". And that of course, would be political ideology. It's always nice when someone let's the truth out, however inadvertently.
 
MrVicchio said:
Ridiculous claims? Sir I provided you with real world papers that took the whole matter into account. That you wish to turn a blind eye to data that refutes your position merely answers the question as to what motivates your desire for a "Living Wage". And that of course, would be political ideology. It's always nice when someone let's the truth out, however inadvertently.
Click to expand...

Sir you provided a paper that stated there were more successes with a living wage than there were failures in a sampling of cities. It was not a study on national trends. And, they said the reason for failure of the living wage method in some cities is because it was voted down by various elected officials so there was never any actual living wage in reality.
 
Catawba said:
But they are in third world nations and are because the rich takes most of the income and gives the workers squat. This is your comparison of what we should aspire to?
Click to expand...

my point is that there are not as many poor as some would have us believe.....
Poor has been redefined to having only one car, or not having cable TV, or satellite TV, or an ipod, or not every member of the familly having a cell phone, etc.

we are retired on a good income, and have 2 houses, but we live our daily lives like the "poor" of the USA should be living. Our car is 12 years old, truck is 10 years old, we had cable TV at one house and satellite at the other, dumping both as well as land line telephones for 2 cell phones only. TV antennas are cheap, good ones on Amazon are about $40 and pull in all the network channels, plus PBS, and spanish channels, in case you speak spanish. Most of our furniture is from yard sales and thrift stores, except mattresses and bedding. For groceries, we shop the sales and clip coupons.
We got into the habit of being frugal at first, because we had to. Then we got out of the habit because we made lots of money. Now we are retired, and don't NEED to be frugal, but we do it anyway. It takes some effort, some planning, but most can do it.
 
UtahBill said:
my point is that there are not as many poor as some would have us believe.....
Poor has been redefined to having only one car, or not having cable TV, or satellite TV, or an ipod, or not every member of the familly having a cell phone, etc.

we are retired on a good income, and have 2 houses, but we live our daily lives like the "poor" of the USA should be living. Our car is 12 years old, truck is 10 years old, we had cable TV at one house and satellite at the other, dumping both as well as land line telephones for 2 cell phones only. TV antennas are cheap, good ones on Amazon are about $40 and pull in all the network channels, plus PBS, and spanish channels, in case you speak spanish. Most of our furniture is from yard sales and thrift stores, except mattresses and bedding. For groceries, we shop the sales and clip coupons.
We got into the habit of being frugal at first, because we had to. Then we got out of the habit because we made lots of money. Now we are retired, and don't NEED to be frugal, but we do it anyway. It takes some effort, some planning, but most can do it.
Click to expand...

......................

Catawba said:
"Poverty in the United States

The official poverty measure is published by the United States Census Bureau and shows that:

In 2010, 46.9 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 -- the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty . This is the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty rates have been published (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 14).

The 2010 poverty rate was 15.1 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 1997. This is the highest poverty rate since 1993, but 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for poverty estimates. (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 14).

The 2010 poverty rate for Hispanics was 26.6 percent, for Blacks 27.4 percent.
In 2010, the poverty rate increased for children under age 18 from 20.7 percent to 22.0 percent. (DeNavas-Walt 2010 p. 14).

20.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 19).

49.9 million people or 16.3 percent of the American people, do not have medical insurance (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 23).


"Minimum wage The United States enacts a minimum wage (as do some individual states) that tries to establish a floor for what can be paid as a wage by firms. The current minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. In 2008, the official U.S. poverty level for a family of 4 was $21,834 ( Census Bureau "Poverty Thresholds"). With a 40 hour week, a family of 4 with one minimum wage earner would earn $15,080, only 69 percent of the poverty level. The minimum wage level is not indexed to inflation, which means that the real benefits will be eroded by inflation."

"One way the EITC reduces poverty is by supplementing the earnings of minimum-wage workers. At the minimum wage’s current level, such a family can move out of poverty only if it receives the EITC as well as food stamps (CBPP EITC.)"

"Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) In 1996, TANF replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, which had been in existence since 1935. The TANF program provides block grants to states to provide assistance to needy families. States have discretion on how to use the funds."

"Lack of available child care can well keep single mothers from working as required"
Hunger in America: 2011 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts
Click to expand...
 
Anti poverty programs work for some, but I have relatives who choose to be poor....that kind cannot be helped.
It will take a culture shift to make a difference, and it could be that this recession, that hurt so many, will be the turning point.
Welcome to the 1950's....
 
Catawba said:
Sir you provided a paper that stated there were more successes with a living wage than there were failures in a sampling of cities. It was not a study on national trends. And, they said the reason for failure of the living wage method in some cities is because it was voted down by various elected officials so there was never any actual living wage in reality.
Click to expand...

a living wage isn't likely to be an incentive....minimum wage that you can live on smacks of welfare....
altho I would like to see minimum wage indexed to congressional pay.
 
UtahBill said:
Anti poverty programs work for some, but I have relatives who choose to be poor....that kind cannot be helped.
It will take a culture shift to make a difference, and it could be that this recession, that hurt so many, will be the turning point.
Welcome to the 1950's....
Click to expand...

Well, most people do not choose to be poor if there is an opportunity to make a living wage by working. I think that should be the policy rather than taxpayer supported welfare for ALL able bodied persons.

The recession was cause by deregulation of the banking industry, again, not the fault of the working class.
 
UtahBill said:
a living wage isn't likely to be an incentive....minimum wage that you can live on smacks of welfare....
altho I would like to see minimum wage indexed to congressional pay.
Click to expand...

Working full time to make a living sounds like welfare to you???
 
Catawba said:
Working full time to make a living sounds like welfare to you???
Click to expand...

if the pay is too high, yes....
artificially high pay via govt mandate is welfare....

my brother gets almost $800 per month for doing nothing, and lives on it. He is considered 50% disabled by the VA for poor hearing.
He does have a "house" that is paid for, inherited when our parents died.
He pays no property taxes, just utilities, internet, telephone, gasoline, groceries.
He isn't unable to work, just chooses not to, so it follows that he chooses to be poor.
It is an attitude that many have, even much of the working poor. They can, but WON'T, do what is needed to make more money....
When living in Idaho, 2 of my neighbors were bemoaning their low pay. I told them to apply at the INEL, they were hiring...but they didn't want to ride a bus for an hour to get to the job site, plus another hour to get back home.....most of us choose our situation, by lack of effort....
 
I grew up on welfare/food stamps. My mother would spend it on drugs and alcohol. Our cloths came from the goodwill store. Mom would send us out to raid peoples gardens and fruit trees. Most of the time we were lucky to have a pot of bone soup. By the time I was 14 my mother had me out breaking into cars,garages, and homes to steal what I could so she could sell it to buy drugs. Our home was a flop house for filthy hippies. I hated my life. I wanted to be like other kids. I blame my mother and the system that allowed her to be a slacker. Personally I believe that entitlement programs foster dependence on the government and should be eliminated. The only exception should be the disabled and some veterans. I escaped the life of my youth by joining the Army. For the first time I had structure and discipline. I am convinced that decision saved me from a life of crime, prison, or worse. If you want to help young people do whatever you can to help eliminate entitlement programs. Dependence on government is not the answer, I know, I lived it......SgtRock
 
UtahBill said:
if the pay is too high, yes....
artificially high pay via govt mandate is welfare....

my brother gets almost $800 per month for doing nothing, and lives on it. He is considered 50% disabled by the VA for poor hearing.
He does have a "house" that is paid for, inherited when our parents died.
He pays no property taxes, just utilities, internet, telephone, gasoline, groceries.
He isn't unable to work, just chooses not to, so it follows that he chooses to be poor.
It is an attitude that many have, even much of the working poor. They can, but WON'T, do what is needed to make more money....
When living in Idaho, 2 of my neighbors were bemoaning their low pay. I told them to apply at the INEL, they were hiring...but they didn't want to ride a bus for an hour to get to the job site, plus another hour to get back home.....most of us choose our situation, by lack of effort....
Click to expand...

SgtRock said:
I grew up on welfare/food stamps. My mother would spend it on drugs and alcohol. Our cloths came from the goodwill store. Mom would send us out to raid peoples gardens and fruit trees. Most of the time we were lucky to have a pot of bone soup. By the time I was 14 my mother had me out breaking into cars,garages, and homes to steal what I could so she could sell it to buy drugs. Our home was a flop house for filthy hippies. I hated my life. I wanted to be like other kids. I blame my mother and the system that allowed her to be a slacker. Personally I believe that entitlement programs foster dependence on the government and should be eliminated. The only exception should be the disabled and some veterans. I escaped the life of my youth by joining the Army. For the first time I had structure and discipline. I am convinced that decision saved me from a life of crime, prison, or worse. If you want to help young people do whatever you can to help eliminate entitlement programs. Dependence on government is not the answer, I know, I lived it......SgtRock
Click to expand...


I am proposing that able bodied people be required to work full time for a living wage as way for people to escape welfare. Isn't that what we should want?

Do either of you feel that a roof over your head, food to eat, indoor plumbing, health insurance, transportation to work, and day care so both parents can work, are too much too ask in return for full time work?
 
Catawba said:
I am proposing that able bodied people be required to work full time for a living wage as way for people to escape welfare. Isn't that what we should want?

Do either of you feel that a roof over your head, food to eat, indoor plumbing, health insurance, transportation to work, and day care so both parents can work, are too much too ask in return for full time work?
Click to expand...

Here is the problem. If the government provides all those services to me why should I attain them for myself. Why should I work hard and improve my level of education if the government is providing what I need. Entitlements do not encourage people to improve their lot in life. They do just the opposite. In the former Soviet Union the people lacked the entrepreneurial spirit, the motivation and desire to achieve. Is that what you want for America. Our country is great because we have the ability to achieve great things. Things that are made posible under a capitalist society. Entitlements create apathy and laziness.
 
SgtRock said:
Here is the problem. If the government provides all those services to me why should I attain them for myself. Why should I work hard and improve my level of education if the government is providing what I need. Entitlements do not encourage people to improve their lot in life. They do just the opposite. In the former Soviet Union the people lacked the entrepreneurial spirit, the motivation and desire to achieve. Is that what you want for America. Our country is great because we have the ability to achieve great things. Things that are made posible under a capitalist society. Entitlements create apathy and laziness.
Click to expand...

All what services? I'm not talking about the government providing a god-damned thing for able bodied people. I am talking working for a living wage versus welfare.

I prefer paying people to work rather than providing welfare, but that's just me.....................
 
Catawba said:
I am proposing that able bodied people be required to work full time for a living wage as way for people to escape welfare.
Click to expand...

Required to work? By whom?

Do either of you feel that a roof over your head, food to eat, indoor plumbing, health insurance, transportation to work, and day care so both parents can work, are too much too ask in return for full time work?
Click to expand...

In some cases, absolutely yes, are you even serious with this question? If you pick lint out of my belly button full-time, then your wages will not cover all of those things. If the wages are federally forced to be artificially high for jobs that are extremely low skill, then those jobs will be automated and we'll end up with fewer actual human jobs in existence.

You need to take a couple of economics courses and ask the professors and TAs questions like these. You have major gaps in your consequential thinking abilities with notions like these.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Required to work? By whom?
Click to expand...

Required by the government to work.



In some cases, absolutely yes, are you even serious with this question? If you pick lint out of my belly button full-time, then your wages will not cover all of those things. If the wages are federally forced to be artificially high for jobs that are extremely low skill, then those jobs will be automated and we'll end up with fewer actual human jobs in existence.
Click to expand...
What is it with you and bad analogies??? Low skill jobs now have a minimum wage, in my area it would take about a buck more to make that a living wage. If you don't need unskilled labor for a full time job, you don't have to hire him. If you need unskilled labor, pay him a buck an hour more in wages so the rest of us don't have pay taxes to subsidize your business.

You need to take a couple of economics courses and ask the professors and TAs questions like these. You have major gaps in your consequential thinking abilities with notions like these.
Click to expand...

What would you recommend, "How to **** the Poor 101?"
 
Catawba said:
All what services? I'm not talking about the government providing a god-damned thing for able bodied people. I am talking working for a living wage versus welfare.

I prefer paying people to work rather than providing welfare, but that's just me.....................
Click to expand...

Sorry Cat, think I misunderstood you. Here is the problem as I see it. Is it possible for corporations to be profitable and provide what you consider a living wage? That depends on what the standard of living is for employees. You also have to remember that America does not exist in a vacuum. We have to compete with the rest of the world. As employees in other countries wages and standard of living increase ours are decreasing. The middle class is vanishing in America. What can be done to reverse this. As it stands now America has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world only behind Japan. Tax rates around the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If I start a company in America I pay a corporate tax rate of 38%. Then if I choose to invest my profits I pay an additional 15% capital gains tax on top of the corporate tax. I can also pay state corporate taxes as high as 12% depending on where I start my business. How can I compete with someone who starts a business in a country where corporate taxes are less than 20%? The current administration wants to increase taxes on corporations. This will effectivly drive another nail in the coffin of the middle class.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom