• 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!

White House report: Most welfare recipients able to hold jobs, but aren't

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
61,937
Reaction score
19,052
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the United Press International

White House report: Most welfare recipients able to hold jobs, but aren't


July 12 (UPI) -- A White House report said Thursday most Americans living in poverty who receive government benefits are not working, even though they are able to -- a published backing for the Trump administration's plan to impose new work requirements for welfare recipients.

The 66-page report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers said poverty numbers of non-disabled adults are "a deeply flawed reflection of material hardship."

The study said most non-disabled working-age adults who receive Medicaid, 61 percent, do not work or work very few hours.

The other two major welfare programs, Medicaid and food stamps, have similar numbers. The report said more than two-thirds of SNAP food stamp recipients and 59 percent who receive housing assistance are unemployed.

COMMENT:-

The report appears to be accurate as far as it goes.

Unfortunately I was NOT able to find where in the report it showed the number of jobs that were AVAILABLE for those "welfare slackers" to get. NOR was I able to find where the report showed that those "welfare slackers" actually had either "work skills" or "job skills" (and the two are not the same thing) which would induce anyone to actually hire them if there was a job available. NOR was I able to find where the report showed that it would actually be "economically viable" for those "welfare slackers" to "hold a job" at the wages which that job would pay (assuming that there is a job available [and assuming that they had the "work skills" and/or "job skills" required for that job]).

[NOTE - By "economically viable" I mean that the job must pay enough to increase the person's income sufficiently to offset the additional costs that the person has to incur if they take that job. Those costs could include additional clothing costs, additional transportation costs, additional child care costs, additional food costs, and increased medical insurance costs, just for starters. If the employment income does not cover those increased costs, then the job is not "economically viable" for that person (although it might well be "economically viable for another).]
 
From the United Press International

White House report: Most welfare recipients able to hold jobs, but aren't


July 12 (UPI) -- A White House report said Thursday most Americans living in poverty who receive government benefits are not working, even though they are able to -- a published backing for the Trump administration's plan to impose new work requirements for welfare recipients.

The 66-page report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers said poverty numbers of non-disabled adults are "a deeply flawed reflection of material hardship."

The study said most non-disabled working-age adults who receive Medicaid, 61 percent, do not work or work very few hours.

The other two major welfare programs, Medicaid and food stamps, have similar numbers. The report said more than two-thirds of SNAP food stamp recipients and 59 percent who receive housing assistance are unemployed.

COMMENT:-

The report appears to be accurate as far as it goes.

Unfortunately I was NOT able to find where in the report it showed the number of jobs that were AVAILABLE for those "welfare slackers" to get. NOR was I able to find where the report showed that those "welfare slackers" actually had either "work skills" or "job skills" (and the two are not the same thing) which would induce anyone to actually hire them if there was a job available. NOR was I able to find where the report showed that it would actually be "economically viable" for those "welfare slackers" to "hold a job" at the wages which that job would pay (assuming that there is a job available [and assuming that they had the "work skills" and/or "job skills" required for that job]).

[NOTE - By "economically viable" I mean that the job must pay enough to increase the person's income sufficiently to offset the additional costs that the person has to incur if they take that job. Those costs could include additional clothing costs, additional transportation costs, additional child care costs, additional food costs, and increased medical insurance costs, just for starters. If the employment income does not cover those increased costs, then the job is not "economically viable" for that person (although it might well be "economically viable for another).]

An able bodied male is capable of working and if you cut them off they’ll either make those jobs available to them or starve.

There are many jobs with worker shortages that do on the job training, many jobs that pay ok require only 4 to 12 weeks of training for which student loans are available, so this is a question of will power and not practicality.
 
An able bodied male is capable of working and if you cut them off they’ll either make those jobs available to them or starve.

If the "able bodied male" lives in Cleveland and the job is in Sacramento, then they really don't have the option to take the job - do they?

There are many jobs with worker shortages that do on the job training, ...

True, and those jobs have minimum requirements, so if the "able bodied male" doesn't have them then they really don't have the option to take the job - do they?

... many jobs that pay ok require only 4 to 12 weeks of training for which student loans are available,

And if the job would "pay OK" for a single person with no dependants does it still "pay OK" for a single person with two children?

And if the person doesn't have a credit rating (well, other than "Absolutely do not loan this person any money.") then their eligibility for student loans is? What?

so this is a question of will power and not practicality.

Quite right - as long as you ignore reality.
 
If the "able bodied male" lives in Cleveland and the job is in Sacramento, then they really don't have the option to take the job - do they?
.

Why not?
 
True, and those jobs have minimum requirements, so if the "able bodied male" doesn't have them then they really don't have the option to take the job - do they?

And if the job would "pay OK" for a single person with no dependants does it still "pay OK" for a single person with two children?

And if the person doesn't have a credit rating (well, other than "Absolutely do not loan this person any money.") then their eligibility for student loans is? What?

Quite right - as long as you ignore reality.

Unless with certain disabilities, who cant work at McDonalds? Or run a cash register or stock shelves elsewhere? Or clean offices and schools? Etc?

What qualifications would they need?

And if something doesnt pay enough to feed your kids, you are still entitled to food stamps and other assistance. It's no excuse not to take a job that doesnt pay 'enough.'
 
If the "able bodied male" lives in Cleveland and the job is in Sacramento, then they really don't have the option to take the job - do they?



True, and those jobs have minimum requirements, so if the "able bodied male" doesn't have them then they really don't have the option to take the job - do they?



And if the job would "pay OK" for a single person with no dependants does it still "pay OK" for a single person with two children?

And if the person doesn't have a credit rating (well, other than "Absolutely do not loan this person any money.") then their eligibility for student loans is? What?



Quite right - as long as you ignore reality.

then he starves to death and thus without that drag on the society more oppurtunities for everyone.

like I mean you can always frame a no win situation to justify socialism. The reality is, yes a non-disabled man can move to take a job, has adequate minimum qualifications to get a job, caring for his dependents is not the role of the state, and their are churches and private charitable organizations for that type of thing, and it's not the welfare offices concern that he was too irresponsible to pay his bills.

There has never been mass famine in this country, people have always moved for new opportunity, and plenty of Americans are charitable and will be more so if the working ones weren't shouldering such a large tax burden, and also if the government supplied no welfare more people would join faith based organizations that would have the community and resources necessary to care for genuine hardship.
 
Last edited:
From the United Press International

White House report: Most welfare recipients able to hold jobs, but aren't


July 12 (UPI) -- A White House report said Thursday most Americans living in poverty who receive government benefits are not working, even though they are able to -- a published backing for the Trump administration's plan to impose new work requirements for welfare recipients.

The 66-page report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers said poverty numbers of non-disabled adults are "a deeply flawed reflection of material hardship."

The study said most non-disabled working-age adults who receive Medicaid, 61 percent, do not work or work very few hours.

The other two major welfare programs, Medicaid and food stamps, have similar numbers. The report said more than two-thirds of SNAP food stamp recipients and 59 percent who receive housing assistance are unemployed.

COMMENT:-

The report appears to be accurate as far as it goes.

Unfortunately I was NOT able to find where in the report it showed the number of jobs that were AVAILABLE for those "welfare slackers" to get. NOR was I able to find where the report showed that those "welfare slackers" actually had either "work skills" or "job skills" (and the two are not the same thing) which would induce anyone to actually hire them if there was a job available. NOR was I able to find where the report showed that it would actually be "economically viable" for those "welfare slackers" to "hold a job" at the wages which that job would pay (assuming that there is a job available [and assuming that they had the "work skills" and/or "job skills" required for that job]).

[NOTE - By "economically viable" I mean that the job must pay enough to increase the person's income sufficiently to offset the additional costs that the person has to incur if they take that job. Those costs could include additional clothing costs, additional transportation costs, additional child care costs, additional food costs, and increased medical insurance costs, just for starters. If the employment income does not cover those increased costs, then the job is not "economically viable" for that person (although it might well be "economically viable for another).]

Just s thought, to even get Medicaid in some States such as Texas one has to be making almost nothing, as for snap, isn't that the point, to help feed the poor. Do not get me wrong those that can work should be, if they can find work, and should be treated as those collecting unemployment benefits and have to show that they are looking for work. Those that milk the system should be removed and fraud cases filled where applicable.
 
From the United Press International

White House report: Most welfare recipients able to hold jobs, but aren't


July 12 (UPI) -- A White House report said Thursday most Americans living in poverty who receive government benefits are not working, even though they are able to -- a published backing for the Trump administration's plan to impose new work requirements for welfare recipients.

The 66-page report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers said poverty numbers of non-disabled adults are "a deeply flawed reflection of material hardship."

The study said most non-disabled working-age adults who receive Medicaid, 61 percent, do not work or work very few hours.

The other two major welfare programs, Medicaid and food stamps, have similar numbers. The report said more than two-thirds of SNAP food stamp recipients and 59 percent who receive housing assistance are unemployed.

COMMENT:-

The report appears to be accurate as far as it goes.

Unfortunately I was NOT able to find where in the report it showed the number of jobs that were AVAILABLE for those "welfare slackers" to get. NOR was I able to find where the report showed that those "welfare slackers" actually had either "work skills" or "job skills" (and the two are not the same thing) which would induce anyone to actually hire them if there was a job available. NOR was I able to find where the report showed that it would actually be "economically viable" for those "welfare slackers" to "hold a job" at the wages which that job would pay (assuming that there is a job available [and assuming that they had the "work skills" and/or "job skills" required for that job]).

[NOTE - By "economically viable" I mean that the job must pay enough to increase the person's income sufficiently to offset the additional costs that the person has to incur if they take that job. Those costs could include additional clothing costs, additional transportation costs, additional child care costs, additional food costs, and increased medical insurance costs, just for starters. If the employment income does not cover those increased costs, then the job is not "economically viable" for that person (although it might well be "economically viable for another).]

You could have just stopped with "White House Report" Because you just have to know that whatever follows that is going to be pure BS.
 
From the United Press International

White House report: Most welfare recipients able to hold jobs, but aren't


July 12 (UPI) -- A White House report said Thursday most Americans living in poverty who receive government benefits are not working, even though they are able to -- a published backing for the Trump administration's plan to impose new work requirements for welfare recipients.

The 66-page report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers said poverty numbers of non-disabled adults are "a deeply flawed reflection of material hardship."

The study said most non-disabled working-age adults who receive Medicaid, 61 percent, do not work or work very few hours.

The other two major welfare programs, Medicaid and food stamps, have similar numbers. The report said more than two-thirds of SNAP food stamp recipients and 59 percent who receive housing assistance are unemployed.

COMMENT:-

The report appears to be accurate as far as it goes.

Unfortunately I was NOT able to find where in the report it showed the number of jobs that were AVAILABLE for those "welfare slackers" to get. NOR was I able to find where the report showed that those "welfare slackers" actually had either "work skills" or "job skills" (and the two are not the same thing) which would induce anyone to actually hire them if there was a job available. NOR was I able to find where the report showed that it would actually be "economically viable" for those "welfare slackers" to "hold a job" at the wages which that job would pay (assuming that there is a job available [and assuming that they had the "work skills" and/or "job skills" required for that job]).

[NOTE - By "economically viable" I mean that the job must pay enough to increase the person's income sufficiently to offset the additional costs that the person has to incur if they take that job. Those costs could include additional clothing costs, additional transportation costs, additional child care costs, additional food costs, and increased medical insurance costs, just for starters. If the employment income does not cover those increased costs, then the job is not "economically viable" for that person (although it might well be "economically viable for another).]

All very nice AND inconsistent with numerous other studies on the subject. In general, people eligible for welfare and SNAP are working, often multiple jobs. Normally, I don't take exception to reports produced by the White House, the CBO, the BLM or the Treasury. Unfortunately, we have an exceptional dishonest president that runs a dishonest White House. Given that this study flies in the face of most known data on the subject, I cry "bull-hockey"

Earning it, Why work requirements don't work - Milken Institute Review
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-...-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs
https://www.thoughtco.com/who-really-receives-welfare-4126592
http://www.ibtimes.com/two-thirds-p...ng-or-have-family-member-whos-working-2292060
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...a-lee-says-60-percent-people-food-assistance/
 
Back
Top Bottom