• 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!

Doubling of Extreme Poverty Belies Welfare Reform Success Claims

read in a thread a while back what i thought was a decent idea

needed tweaking, but the base idea had a LOT of merit

our infrastructure is in disarray....i think most people would agree with that. Bridges, roads, and so many other projects that havent been kept up, or new ones that need building.....but funding has and will always be an issue.

just as we did back in the 30's and 40's i wouldnt mind seeing huge projects like these done.....

it would create jobs....

but i would want to see some decrease in other benefits to help pay for it.....we dont have to end the other programs....as some people wont benefit by the jobs program....but it should be enough that we can reduce them a bit

now this is from a conservative....and i am willing to see something like this done

helps the people and helps the country....win/win
 
gdgyva said:
....but funding has and will always be an issue.
Click to expand...

The only real reason that funding for infrastructure spending is an issue, is because so much of it is done by the states, and states can't print money. If we shifted more of the funding for infrastructure spending to the federal government, where it can be funded by the federal reserve purchasing treasuries, then funding wouldn't be an issue.

it would create jobs....
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And it would also create private sector profits from the construction spending, and private sector profits from the spending that results from the construction spending (and from the profits), etc. Plus, with improved infrastructure, everything becomes more efficient to make/transport, thus there is actually some deflationary pressure, which counteracts some of the inflationary pressure that government creates. Not to mention that these jobs, both direct and indirect, and business profits, widen the tax base.

but i would want to see some decrease in other benefits to help pay for it.....we dont have to end the other programs....as some people wont benefit by the jobs program....but it should be enough that we can reduce them a bit
Click to expand...

In theory, if we had more jobs, government means tested welfare spending would decline, as fewer people qualified for benefits, and others qualified for lower benefits. But just to make it politically viable, I would agree that we should simultaniously phase out welfare spending as we phase in more infrastructure spending.

now this is from a conservative....and i am willing to see something like this done

helps the people and helps the country....win/win
Click to expand...

Yea, but you are one of the few logical conservatives who can see the big picture and who are perfectly logical. Most don't seem capable of that. Your special.
 
imagep said:
I get those issues, but each one can be handled.

First, we would need to make sure that we aren't replacing current workers with welfare workers, these need to be newly created jobs representing an expansion of government hiring/spending/infrastructure creation. There is no need for "make work", there is plenty of valuable and work that needs to be done in this world. We could replace the underpass that is a quarter mile south of my business, it was created during the horse and buggy days, and despite the fact that the road connections an interstate to a major artery road in my city, we've never bothered to widen it or to raise the bridge so that trucks can drive through it, or to install a drain system so that it doesn't flood 6' every time it rains.

We don't need to directly create jobs for those on welfare, we need just to create more infrastructure jobs in general. So maybe the guy who is skilled at driving a bulldozer but is working at McDonalds can become the bulldozer driver for the new job, and some welfare person can takeover his/her job at McDonalds. Besides that, most infrastructure creation jobs don't really take a lot of skill. Someone can be taught in a day to operate heavy equipment (although I admit it make take years to become great at it), and it takes no skill to wave cars around or to put out red cones.

And it doesn't need to be a "program", we just need to establish a full employment policy, where the government will do whatever it takes to insure that there are ample jobs for everyone who is willing and able to work. If those jobs happen to be private sector, then great, but in the absence of that, I could point out quite a bit of valuable public sector work that needs to be done.

And if welfare payouts are insignificant, then it seems like it would be pretty darned easy to replace welfare with job-fair, it wouldn't take that much infrastructure creation would it?
Click to expand...

Unless we have full employment, then any new project or employment initiative is in fact going to draw such underutilized workers to it, if wages and conditions are desirable. Add in work for welfare people, and they are going to be in competition with them. And let's face it, most on long term welfare are there because they have issues- they aren't doing life very well, for whatever reasons, and for whoever's fault. Trying to re-train someone with ADD, or assigning heavy equipment operation to one with addiction issues may cause more expense in lost productivity than simply paying them their $700/month, or whatever the rate. For the same reasons, private industry is unlikely to hire them, or at least if they do, provide long term work solutions.

Renewing infrastructure is a good idea, and something that needs to be done. And some of the work there would be low skilled. But looking further out into the future, this may be insufficient. Mature societies tend to have a lot of built up infrastructure, although the US is a laggard here. Still though, in a decade or so, such projects may be built, at the same time as technology is taking an even bigger bight out of the employment market.

I agree though that we should have more public employment, that would be a factor in dealing with a low employment future. Better though, IMO, to just leave those at the margins out. If there are reasons why those would not be the most productive and happy, then leave work for the more engaged. Not just welfare recipients, but also university students, seniors, homemakers, and others. If they are doing something else, or can't do anything else, why try to squeeze them all into a limited number of jobs? If the issue is that they shouldn't be getting money for nothing, then it is only fair to examine everyone in society, to evaluate who gets money for nothing, and what their value really is. A daunting prospect, and one that will no doubt never materialize.
 
Ganesh said:
Unless we have full employment, then any new project or employment initiative is in fact going to draw such underutilized workers to it, if wages and conditions are desirable. Add in work for welfare people, and they are going to be in competition with them.
Click to expand...

Obviously, there must be enough jobs created for everyone, the currently unemployed, and welfare slackers. Your objection is noted, but rejected.

And let's face it, most on long term welfare are there because they have issues- they aren't doing life very well, for whatever reasons, and for whoever's fault. Trying to re-train someone with ADD, or assigning heavy equipment operation to one with addiction issues may cause more expense in lost productivity than simply paying them their $700/month, or whatever the rate. For the same reasons, private industry is unlikely to hire them, or at least if they do, provide long term work solutions.
Click to expand...

I would expect that each job created would have a certain set of requirements, and jobs for heavy equipment operators could be drug tested. But your example about paying the $700 a month for those who are un-employable does tend to make a decent case for the BIG.

Renewing infrastructure is a good idea, and something that needs to be done. And some of the work there would be low skilled. But looking further out into the future, this may be insufficient. Mature societies tend to have a lot of built up infrastructure, although the US is a laggard here. Still though, in a decade or so, such projects may be built, at the same time as technology is taking an even bigger bight out of the employment market.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point that there are lot's of jobs for the low skilled, and lots of higher skilled (or potentially higher skilled) people filling those low skilled jobs. We could create jobs at any particular level, and people would naturally migrate to the jobs that are best suited for them (with the aid of employer screening and decision making). And it's not like every welfare slacker is without the capability to operate at anything other than the lowest skill level.

I agree though that we should have more public employment, that would be a factor in dealing with a low employment future. Better though, IMO, to just leave those at the margins out. If there are reasons why those would not be the most productive and happy, then leave work for the more engaged. Not just welfare recipients, but also university students, seniors, homemakers, and others. If they are doing something else, or can't do anything else, why try to squeeze them all into a limited number of jobs? If the issue is that they shouldn't be getting money for nothing, then it is only fair to examine everyone in society, to evaluate who gets money for nothing, and what their value really is. A daunting prospect, and one that will no doubt never materialize.
Click to expand...

I alluded to this above, but I think there are steps that need to be taken step by step as our economy transitions. As scarcity becomes less of an issue due to improvements in technology, mankind will be able to afford more. I can't see us skipping from what we have now, direct to everyone getting free money from the government, without some sort of logical and necessary transition. And not only does it have to be logical and necessary, it needs to be politically viable. If we can't get universal health insurance today, or full employment today, we aren't going to get a BIG tommorow. If we could solve unemployment today and reduce our spending on means tested welfare, then we will be productive enough to more easily afford universal health insurance, and once we "get over" universal health insurance "destroying our medical system and collapsing our economy" (like conservatives are going to claim), then we can start to have serious and politically viable discussions about the BIG (one thing is that universal health insurance is effectively the same thing as a big, just limited to one necessary item that is preselected).
 
Baralis said:
I am very much against our current welfare system because I have personally seen way to many people that I felt abuse the system. I feel our current system fails to discourage abuse and also fails to give people a proper avenue to better themselves.

I do however feel we need to reform and even expand our system and just one of the changes I would like to see (among many) is guaranteed employment at least for a limited time. We have plenty of needy people, we also have plenty of work that could be done, so why are we not working toward a more useful system than simply giving people aid for essentially nothing in return? I believe a system that pays welfare recipients to help other less fortunate people (disabled, elderly, poor) in return for the assistance they receive would give our society a greater benefit to all those involved.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that but how would you draw the balance? What I mean is if somebody is working 40 hours a week in a government jobs program in return for their benefits, that gives them limited time to search for a regular, permanent, job.
 
BrewerBob said:
I agree with all of that but how would you draw the balance? What I mean is if somebody is working 40 hours a week in a government jobs program in return for their benefits, that gives them limited time to search for a regular, permanent, job.
Click to expand...

Many of the tasks that I envision for the system could be performed any day of the week and would not need to all be performed during the typical M-F schedule. This would allow persons to have a weekday off.
 
11947493_1104495072902042_4645357565999566418_n.jpg

Now, how we spend money is up for debate. I agree that some of the things we are doing doesn't make sense. I have always advocated on these boards to put money in schools and libraries. I think that is more constructive at reducing poverty than just giving people a paycheck.
 
sookster said:
View attachment 67191007

Now, how we spend money is up for debate. I agree that some of the things we are doing doesn't make sense. I have always advocated on these boards to put money in schools and libraries. I think that is more constructive at reducing poverty than just giving people a paycheck.
Click to expand...

I think the point you are trying to make would be more powerful if you didn't use such a bogus partisan pie chart to back it.

There are two types of Federal Spending, Discretionary, and Mandatory. Your chart does not show that. For example, Military spending as a percent of all federal spending is not 57%, it's only 16%.

Probably best to dump these fraudulent partisan creations if credibility is important.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/
 
gdgyva said:
not sure when your chart is from, or who did it?
having issue pasting the actual chart, but the link is provided
Click to expand...

Are pensions SS in that chart?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom