• 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

Required by the government to work.

All able bodied citizens are required by the government to work? That sounds like living under in a military dictatorship.

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.

We don't "have to" provide welfare money as a dependent variable on what private businesses do or pay.

What would you recommend, "How to **** the Poor 101?"

No, just any college level economics course. There are consequences to all the things you blindly assume are great ideas. If you artificially pump wages, it will play out in the market in ways you don't seem to be anticipating.


ANYWAY, the topic of this thread is what to do about welfare fraud and abuse. Let's assume the people really abusing welfare or getting it fraudulently don't have/can't get any job. Minimum wage hikes won't help them, nor will drug testing rich people. Those have been your main ideas for addressing this so far.
 
Seeing how 50% of American households do not pay federal income tax I find that hard to believe.How does someone who pays no federal income tax and getting welfare and food stamps benifit more from tax dollars that rich people?

Claiming 50% of American households don't pay federal income tax doesn't make it so.

Single: If taxable income is over $0, but not over $8,500. The tax is 10% of the amount over $0. Married filing jointly is $17,000 for the not over.

Source: Rate schedule (federal income tax) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Table A-2 lists the median household income of the quintiles and the third quintile has a median household income of $49,534 in 2009, down from $52,457 in 1999.

Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

Explain how someone making less than that median household income has enough deductions to bring their taxable income to 0!
 
All able bodied citizens are required by the government to work? That sounds like living under in a military dictatorship.

Then you are unaware that is what the current welfare law requires? Since 1996 welfare reform act there has been a requirement for abled bodied people to work within after 2 years of benefits with a 5 year lifetime maximum on welfare benefits.



We don't "have to" provide welfare money as a dependent variable on what private businesses do or pay.

For employers that do not pay a living wage for full time work, we taxpayers subsidize through welfare to bring their employee above poverty.



No, just any college level economics course. There are consequences to all the things you blindly assume are great ideas. If you artificially pump wages, it will play out in the market in ways you don't seem to be anticipating.

No, because the market determines prices of goods. One of the main tenets of economics is that demand is necessary to drive production. That can't happen when all the wealth is concentrated at the top out of reach of the majority of consumers. That has been the failure behind trickle down economics. This has been our experience for the last decade.


ANYWAY, the topic of this thread is what to do about welfare fraud and abuse. Let's assume the people really abusing welfare or getting it fraudulently don't have/can't get any job. Minimum wage hikes won't help them, nor will drug testing rich people. Those have been your main ideas for addressing this so far.

There are no large number of people abusing welfare to go to titty bars. 42 states already have laws against it, and the remaining 8 have the power to do the same thing. Its a non-issue. It was only a scheme by the GOP to demonize the poor, so it might easier to convince people to cut funding for welfare to pay for the spending increases on the military and further tax breaks for the rich that Romney has proposed..
 
Sir you provided a paper that stated there were more successes with a living wage than there were failures in a sampling of cities.
NO! You SOOOO misread that paper. What you were reading were the campgains to GET a Living Wage enacted. Which the paper discusses as places it's happened, places it's been tried and failed and using those as a control group for the effects of a living wage.

And the EFFECTS of a living wage are slightly higher wages, higher unemployment rates.

You really stepped in it here, catawba.
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.
You have shown here you completely failed to understand:

The paper
Why I used it
What was IMPORTANT.


All you did was screen through the method portion read what you wanted to read.
 
Then you are unaware that is what the current welfare law requires? Since 1996 welfare reform act there has been a requirement for abled bodied people to work within after 2 years of benefits with a 5 year lifetime maximum on welfare benefits.

Ok so your comment pertained to welfare recipients.

For employers that do not pay a living wage for full time work, we taxpayers subsidize through welfare to bring their employee above poverty.

Yes but we don't "have to" keep doing that pending businesses paying a "living wage." We could just turn the benefits off. There's no prerequisite.

No, because the market determines prices of goods. One of the main tenets of economics is that demand is necessary to drive production. That can't happen when all the wealth is concentrated at the top out of reach of the majority of consumers. That has been the failure behind trickle down economics. This has been our experience for the last decade.

Government wealth redistribution schemes will not right the system this day and age.

There are no large number of people abusing welfare to go to titty bars. 42 states already have laws against it, and the remaining 8 have the power to do the same thing. Its a non-issue. It was only a scheme by the GOP to demonize the poor,

I disagree, I think it's to demonize Democrats and their welfare statism.
 
You really stepped in it here, catawba.

What I had asked for, and have been waiting for, is your proof that shows national unemployment tracking each increase in minimum wage.
 
I don't appreciate that hick reference.
Just because it's the south doesn't make it hick.

It's actually what I consider a borderline racial pejorative.

It isn't that way in this part of the South, where people take pride in their redneck or hick heritage. Many people in my state share a story similar to my Grandparents on my Father's side, who came to this area from West Virginia during WWII, because job opportunites opened up. My Grandmother and Grandfather both worked in a shipyard during the war. I've spent months in West Virginia and Florida and years in both North and South Carolina. My brother lives in South Carolina, close to where I lived as a child. I know the South and I know the South has problems.

I'm glad to see Georgia coming along as well as it has. I once took part of a vacation to Tampa, Florida to explore Georgia on the way back. Georgia is one big state and has some interesting features.

When we get back to the subject of household income and the cost of living, the South doesn't shine the way people down there claim. There are cities in the South where households have good income, but the rural areas are impoverished. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem. Besides poverty, the South has some of the most regressive taxation in the United States. It isn't a mystery why these backward ways keep people down.
 
Ok so your comment pertained to welfare recipients.

Why yes, that is what we were talking about.



Yes but we don't "have to" keep doing that pending businesses paying a "living wage." We could just turn the benefits off. There's no prerequisite.

And spend the money instead on police and new prisons to take care of the poor that would then be willing to slice your throat for a loaf of bread? That would be short-sighted to the extreme, now wouldn't it?



Government wealth redistribution schemes will not right the system this day and age.


It seemed to be just fine with conservatives when they redistributed the wealth from the working class to the wealthy over the last 30 years. And its imperative if we are to revive our economy because a consumer economy, as we can plainly see, can't prosper when most of the wealth is at the top, out of reach of consumers.



I disagree, I think it's to demonize Democrats and their welfare statism.

You can disagree all you like. The Senate has no plans to take up this petty piece of diversion tactics.
 
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.

No response to my post Catawba? Maybe you just missed it. or maybe its hard to come up with a good emotional liberal arguement when faced with the facts.
 
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.

The effective tax rate for corporations is what they pay and it's low for an industrialized country.

You can tell a story about what you can entitlements, but the fact is those programs don't spend that much money and people wouldn't be eligible for the programs if they had a decent minimum wage.

For businesses to prosper, the wages in this country are too low. When the mean household income of the third quintile has decreased by three thousand dollars in ten years, that means there is a substantial lose of purchasing power and a business is going to be affected. Look at Table A-2:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

In 1999, the median household income for the third quintile was $52,457 and in 2009 it was $49,534. It doesn't take the brain of Einstein to figure out that even if all those other costs, like fuel and health care didn't increase, the economy would suffer for such a change. The government was having surpluses in 1999, but thanks to Bush, what was it like in 2009?

One of the benefits of being in the military is being immune to what's happening in our economy. I walked out of the military in a recession on Jan 13, 1974 and was working in a Research Center a week later. Let me see someone do it now!
 
And spend the money instead on police and new prisons to take care of the poor that would then be willing to slice your throat for a loaf of bread? That would be short-sighted to the extreme, now wouldn't it?

This always cracks me up. Conservatives are always accused of hating the poor, and yet look who assumes that, were it not for welfare, they'd all start slitting throats.

Unlike you and the other lefties, I think many of the poor can find other ways to meet their needs than resorting to bloodshed. I don't see the poorer folks in our society as potential monsters we have to keep fed to prevent them from becoming violent.

It seemed to be just fine with conservatives when they redistributed the wealth from the working class to the wealthy over the last 30 years.

You can't blame that on conservatives. We all contribute to that trend. How much money does the CEO of the company that makes the computer you're typing on have, would you guess?

And its imperative if we are to revive our economy because a consumer economy, as we can plainly see, can't prosper when most of the wealth is at the top, out of reach of consumers.

Everyone who has any money at all consumes. We're all consumers. Some of us have more money to use on consumption than others.

At this point, our greatest barrier to prosperity is national debt and the currency problems that will follow. The fact that not everyone who has a job has your notion of a "fair" amount of compensation is unimportant by comparison.
 
No response to my post Catawba? Maybe you just missed it. or maybe its hard to come up with a good emotional liberal arguement when faced with the facts.

Yes I guess I did miss it in the flurry of earlier posts. Sorry.

Originally Posted by SgtRock
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.

Yes, it is, a living wage is only a couple more bucks an hour than minimum wage. Given the 400% increase in CEO salaries, it should be no problem to increase labor cost slightly, just as they have done with minimum wage increases in the past.


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.

We compete by out educating them, out innovating them, like we used to do in the past. If you were planning on competing by making our workforce as undereducated and housing people in dormitories and feeding them a biscuit and a cup of tea for a 12 hour day, it aint't happening while CEO's and company owners get rich. You may as well go live over there if that is your plan.


The middle class is vanishing in America. What can be done to reverse this.


By reversing the things that brought it about - the flattening of our progressive tax system over the last year which included providing tax breaks for jobs overseas, catching minimum wage up to inflation so we have a stronger consumer base to create demand, and by reregulating the banks so we don't have another financial meltdown that takes trillions of taxpayer dollars and years to correct.

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.

"Corporate income-tax receipts typically fall during recessions, and they declined sharply after the 2008 financial crisis, which wiped out big swaths of profits across the huge financial sector. But U.S. profits have rebounded sharply in recent quarters, while tax receipts have stayed low.

So where is the money? There are a lot of moving pieces, budget watchers say, but one view shared inside Washington is that a temporary tax break—supported by both political parties—is a key reason.

This tax break, known as "bonus depreciation," has allowed companies to write off investments in goods like industrial equipment, manufacturing machinery and computers in the year in which they're bought rather than over time. The White House estimates the subsidy has saved companies roughly $55 billion in corporate income taxes over each of the past two years.

Companies just reporting fourth-quarter earnings made clear they have aggressively taken advantage of the tax break, which lasted in full through December."
Tax Break Pushes Corporate Taxes to Just 12.1% of Profits, Lowest Level in 40 Years - WSJ.com

I haven't heard of any plans to raise the corporate taxes, except for the big oil subsidies have you?
 
What I had asked for, and have been waiting for, is your proof that shows national unemployment tracking each increase in minimum wage.
What you got was the effect of a living wage in 100 cities vs cities that failed to enact a living wage, showing a loss of employment opportunities among the lowest of the economic scale. That's proof enough that raising min wage is ultimately detrimental. That you fail to admit this shows your utter dishonesty.
 
I am sorta ok with this... but there will be that percentage of people getting public assistance sitting around in parks homeless drinking booze and..... oh wait, never mind, already happening....

personally I feel that if you rely on others to feed or shelter you, they get to dictate what that is. Perhaps the greatest incentive of all is that it is just barely enough, and to move up the social economic ladder would be to profvde for oneself to make for a better life... I guess however one must have pride in order to feel the desire to move up....

Re-enforcing control and paternalism will only reduce incentives to become more financially independent.
 
This always cracks me up. Conservatives are always accused of hating the poor, and yet look who assumes that, were it not for welfare, they'd all start slitting throats.

If you push people too far, they fight back. The point is, you can only push people so far, and the working class has never been pushed harder since the Great Depression. That is going to be the big surprise in November for those that are so out of touch with how bad things are for people.


You can't blame that on conservatives. We all contribute to that trend. How much money does the CEO of the company that makes the computer you're typing on have, would you guess?

Supply side economics and deregulation are the hallmarks of the conservative party for the last 30 years. Hell your candidates are still proposing the same failed **** we've put up with for the last 3o years!



Everyone who has any money at all consumes. We're all consumers. Some of us have more money to use on consumption than others.

If that were the case, since we have record wealth at the top we should have record demand of production, right? 6 members of the walton family own as much wealth now as 93 million Americans. If each of those Waltons spends a million dollars on consumer items, is that going to stimulate the economy as much as if those 93 million American spent each $1,000 on consumer items? That's why tax cuts to the lower class do more to stimulate the economy.

At this point, our greatest barrier to prosperity is national debt and the currency problems that will follow. The fact that not everyone who has a job has your notion of a "fair" amount of compensation is unimportant by comparison.

No our greatest obstacle to prosperity is to create the demand necessary to grow production. Besides, Romney doesn't have any plans to lower the deficit. He has announced in fact that he plans to continue the same borrow and spend policies of Bush, except he has proposed even more spending and even greater cuts to the revenues.
 
What you got was the effect of a living wage in 100 cities vs cities that failed to enact a living wage, showing a loss of employment opportunities among the lowest of the economic scale. That's proof enough that raising min wage is ultimately detrimental. That you fail to admit this shows your utter dishonesty.

Are you saying there are no national records to support your claims, or that you can't find them.

If what you say is true, it should be no trouble to find, right?
 
So you now agree that many working full time making minimum wage need welfare?

I didn't say they shouldn't in the first place.

You know, it's funny how you only quote the portion of my post that you want, but not the other.
Where I call you out for being dishonest in your debate tactics.
 
If you push people too far, they fight back. The point is, you can only push people so far, and the working class has never been pushed harder since the Great Depression. That is going to be the big surprise in November for those that are so out of touch with how bad things are for people.

Really? What has changed in the political system in this country that will affect this surprise? I hope I’m wrong but I think it will be you who will be surprised to find out that NOTHING has changed.
 
It isn't that way in this part of the South, where people take pride in their redneck or hick heritage. Many people in my state share a story similar to my Grandparents on my Father's side, who came to this area from West Virginia during WWII, because job opportunites opened up. My Grandmother and Grandfather both worked in a shipyard during the war. I've spent months in West Virginia and Florida and years in both North and South Carolina. My brother lives in South Carolina, close to where I lived as a child. I know the South and I know the South has problems.

I'm glad to see Georgia coming along as well as it has. I once took part of a vacation to Tampa, Florida to explore Georgia on the way back. Georgia is one big state and has some interesting features.

When we get back to the subject of household income and the cost of living, the South doesn't shine the way people down there claim. There are cities in the South where households have good income, but the rural areas are impoverished. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem. Besides poverty, the South has some of the most regressive taxation in the United States. It isn't a mystery why these backward ways keep people down.

The South is a johnny come lately, largely because we were an agriculture region for so long.
Even after the civil war it was like that.

We've been industrializing a lot lately, that's mostly the reason for our new growth.
 
If you push people too far, they fight back. The point is, you can only push people so far, and the working class has never been pushed harder since the Great Depression. That is going to be the big surprise in November for those that are so out of touch with how bad things are for people.

There is no "pushing" to push back against or "fighting" to fight back against. People can group together and relocalize their economic activity and meet their own basic needs without some company having to provide them a "living wage." Or they can go around slitting throats. For some reason you seem to think they'll do the latter.

Supply side economics and deregulation are the hallmarks of the conservative party for the last 30 years. Hell your candidates are still proposing the same failed **** we've put up with for the last 3o years!

We would have had the same wealth concentration issues even with some other version of policy. This is the march of technological progress and overpopulation. This is what it looks like. Malthus saw it coming (in a different sort of way, but all the same), Marx saw it coming too. Too many people, less of a need for their labor. It goes way deeper than Republican policies.

If that were the case, since we have record wealth at the top we should have record demand of production, right?

No. Everyone who is alive consumes. We're all consumers.

6 members of the walton family own as much wealth now as 93 million Americans. If each of those Waltons spends a million dollars on consumer items, is that going to stimulate the economy as much as if those 93 million American spent each $1,000 on consumer items?

What could possibly be the point of asking a question like this? Who knows, who cares? The economy doesn't need to be stimulated.

No our greatest obstacle to prosperity is to create the demand necessary to grow production.

You're just parroting. You don't "create demand" when you take a dollar from one place and put it somewhere else. You just shift it around. You've subtracted it from somewhere else. Government is not our demand creator.
 
I didn't say they shouldn't in the first place.

You know, it's funny how you only quote the portion of my post that you want, but not the other.
Where I call you out for being dishonest in your debate tactics.

You indicated as much many times.

I reprint what's pertinent to the discussion. Why would I reprint your numerous insults and your quirky irrelevant BS?
 
The South is a johnny come lately, largely because we were an agriculture region for so long.
Even after the civil war it was like that.

We've been industrializing a lot lately, that's mostly the reason for our new growth.

A Johnny comes lately still knows how to cook a poke chop and leave the r off of it. The stupidity of the South is a choice.
 
Really? What has changed in the political system in this country that will affect this surprise? I hope I’m wrong but I think it will be you who will be surprised to find out that NOTHING has changed.

Really! What has changed are the effects being felt from the last decade of supply side economics, deregulation, and the open class war expressed by conservatives since the 2010 election when they made clear their plans to cut benefits to the middle class and the poor to provide even more tax cuts for the rich.

And its already changed. More than I ever thought possible given the dire economic condition fighting two wars and with the worst congress in history. We didn't continue to spiral into another Great Depression as was likely thanks to the stimulus the GOP opposed. And we have created more manufacturing jobs than under any of the last 4 presidents. We have withdrawn all troops from Iraq. Both McCain and Romney said they would have left them there. We are drawing down the troops from Afghanistan, to have them all out by the end of next year. Both McCain and Romney said it was too quick. We passed the first baby step toward UHC, Romney says he will undo health care reform. We have made the largest investment in clean energy in our history, and made the biggest reduction in CO2 in our history, while Romney's not sure yet if he believes in climate change. The middle class has received two tax reductions, while Romney plans to cut tax rates for the rich even further, and increase taxes for those under $40,000.

That just a few of our accomplishments off the top of my head, and that was done with the GOP requiring a super majority on almost every vote!
There is not a doubt in my mind that we will be making the correct choice in November!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom