Welfare

Cooperation between the feds and the states.

Said both fed & states. The nature of welfare is a bit like the nature of insurance. Spread risk. Unemployment for example. Some places are heavily invested in specific industry. For example, if the number one job in your state has ties to auto manufacturing something that hurt that industry would hurt your state a lot more than others. Leaving it strictly at the state level will be a high burden on that state while others may be doing just fine. Rather than driving that state into bankruptcy or ignoring those suffering spreading the risk to all states would help with the funding for that. You're using a more diverse pool of industries and a larger number of people when spreading risk which makes it more predictable and manageable what the total welfare needs are going to be.

States because the needs vary wildly depending on where you live. The proper welfare to get out of work auto workers back into productive jobs is probably different than the welfare needed to get software developers back into productive jobs. The cost of living is also going to be wildly different depending where you are. Federal programs like the Earned Income Credit are blind to local considerations. Have 3 kids, make $x dollars per year, you get $y dollars of welfare in the form of a tax credit. However the $x dollars and $y dollars can mean totally different things depending on where you live. Tax credits through the IRS are a terrible way to distribute welfare, and will always have high abuse and high fraud simply do to the nature of what you're getting vs. what you have to report. Very easy to make up a fake business or claim your neighbors kids as your own. Instead, allow the actual distribution system rely on states and even more local government agencies.

UtahBill said:

I saw something the other day about a raisin farm, turning perfectly good grapes into raisins. Surely there is more money to be made in wine?:2razz:

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. Raisin growers around here live in some pretty nice houses.

(even if the LDS would make wine)

Dittohead not! said:

I'm not so sure. Raisin growers around here live in some pretty nice houses.

(even if the LDS would make wine)

Click to expand...

Not the chruch owned farms, but LDS farmers in Idaho grow hops.....pretty sure that hops can only be used for beer...:2razz:

Dittohead not! said:

When we're discussing "welfare", just what does that entail? I think most of us would include TANF, and perhaps subsidized housing. Food stamps could be seen as both welfare and agricultural subsidy. Social Security? Is that welfare? Medicare? Medicaid? What is welfare, anyway?

Click to expand...

If you didn't pay directly into it, and it's a benefit that gives you money, services or food because you are poor......I think most everyone considers that welfare. It government charity using tax dollars.

Removable Mind said:

So I assume that since the supreme count made corporations "persons". Your point of view also applies to corporations?

Click to expand...

Actually, this is a perfect moment to point out what people have long said about "assuming."

Dittohead not! said:

That would include 31 of the 50 states, most of them red states. What states receive more federal tax dollars than they pay in

Click to expand...

I have always found this to be an enigma. They very states that benefit the most from welfare are the red states's who bitch the most about it.

In my own life's experiences, I have witnessed people who's every check has a treasury seal on it and they depend 100% on the government to feed their lazy asses, sit in their trailer house whining about liberals and welfare.

American said:

If you didn't pay directly into it, and it's a benefit that gives you money, services or food because you are poor......I think most everyone considers that welfare. It government charity using tax dollars.

Click to expand...

So, that would not include SS, workman's comp, or Medicare, but it would include K-12 education and agricultural subsidies. What about foreign aid? Can foreign nations be welfare recipients as well

American said:

If you didn't pay directly into it, and it's a benefit that gives you money, services or food because you are poor......I think most everyone considers that welfare. It government charity using tax dollars.

Click to expand...

I generally agree. Government retirements and disability, such as VA, are not welfare. Social Security and Social Security Disability (SSD) we pay into. There are some that get SSD that never paid into SS, true, so maybe they can be considered welfare. Providing for disability of workers is one of the reasons for SS to exist. Unemployment insurance is paid by your employer on your behalf, you don't pay directly, other than by your labor. So, I wouldn't consider Unemployment to be Welfare (except in those states that now everyone, regardless of job paying in to unemployment insurance, get it).

Helping out the working poor, while welfare, I don't really have a problem with. But then again, all the working poor that I know, cannot get many benefits because they earn too much, even at minimum wage or near it. WIC (Women Infants and Children) food supplement and Medicaid adjusted for pay is all I have ever seen them get. But then again, an enlisted member of the Armed Forces, E-5 and below, married with a child qualifies for WIC.

When I refer to welfare, it is the people who's only income, housing, etc all come from the government welfare programs, have no jobs (that the government knows about) and are not legitimately disabled.

Dittohead not! said:

So, that would not include SS, workman's comp, or Medicare, but it would include K-12 education and agricultural subsidies. What about foreign aid? Can foreign nations be welfare recipients as well

Click to expand...

Education, like law enforcement and fire protection, is a common need. So I would not consider it in anyway "welfare" but rather a legitimate function of government. I do however think we pay way too much for it for the results we get. It is most definitely a corrupted and broken system within our government.

Dittohead not! said:

So, that would not include SS, workman's comp, or Medicare, but it would include K-12 education and agricultural subsidies. What about foreign aid? Can foreign nations be welfare recipients as well

Click to expand...

I agree with your statement partially. I think some of SS is like charity for those who never paid in. For the most part it is not welfare per se. Nevertheless I do not really think it is a good retirement option.

DVSentinel said:

I generally agree. Government retirements and disability, such as VA, are not welfare. Social Security and Social Security Disability (SSD) we pay into. There are some that get SSD that never paid into SS, true, so maybe they can be considered welfare. Providing for disability of workers is one of the reasons for SS to exist. Unemployment insurance is paid by your employer on your behalf, you don't pay directly, other than by your labor. So, I wouldn't consider Unemployment to be Welfare (except in those states that now everyone, regardless of job paying in to unemployment insurance, get it).

Helping out the working poor, while welfare, I don't really have a problem with. But then again, all the working poor that I know, cannot get many benefits because they earn too much, even at minimum wage or near it. WIC (Women Infants and Children) food supplement and Medicaid adjusted for pay is all I have ever seen them get. But then again, an enlisted member of the Armed Forces, E-5 and below, married with a child qualifies for WIC.

When I refer to welfare, it is the people who's only income, housing, etc all come from the government welfare programs, have no jobs (that the government knows about) and are not legitimately disabled.

Click to expand...

This term "working poor" really concerns me. There is an insinuation there. Working class, working families, work poor.....I don't like these terms, because they insinuate that other people that have income aren't working.

American said:

I agree with your statement partially. I think some of SS is like charity for those who never paid in. For the most part it is not welfare per se. Nevertheless I do not really think it is a good retirement option.

Click to expand...

It is a very poor retirement option as it doesn't pay enough to live on in most cases.

DVSentinel said:

Education, like law enforcement and fire protection, is a common need. So I would not consider it in anyway "welfare" but rather a legitimate function of government. I do however think we pay way too much for it for the results we get. It is most definitely a corrupted and broken system within our government.

Click to expand...

Yes, education, law enforcement, and fire protection are legitimate functions of government, but they do fit American's definition above. The children haven't paid into education, and in most cases neither have their parents, not enough to cover the cost. Cops will come and protect you from the bad guys whether you've paid for the cost or not. Firefighters will come and put out the fire even if you've just bought your house and paid nothing so far in property taxes.

I think the definition of just what constitutes "welfare" needs some work.

Dittohead not! said:

It is a very poor retirement option as it doesn't pay enough to live on in most cases.

Click to expand...

If only there was some kind of reform measure out there that would alter it so that even low-income workers could, over the course of their lifetime, become financially independent.....

cpwill said:

If only there was some kind of reform measure out there that would alter it so that even low-income workers could, over the course of their lifetime, become financially independent.....

Click to expand...

Yes, if only.

If only it had been passed back when SS was a cash cow, and it would have been possible to pass such a measure while still paying current retirees. If only the Congress had not put the SS funds into the general fund and spent them.

If only we had a functional and forward looking Congress.

Dittohead not! said:

Yes, if only.

If only it had been passed back when SS was a cash cow, and it would have been possible to pass such a measure while still paying current retirees. If only the Congress had not put the SS funds into the general fund and spent them.

If only we had a functional and forward looking Congress.

Click to expand...

Yup, now SS is running a permanent deficit. Hooray! Now let's wait for Medicare to get past the point of no return! :thumbs:

cpwill said:

Yup, now SS is running a permanent deficit. Hooray! Now let's wait for Medicare to get past the point of no return! :thumbs:

Click to expand...

Given the ability of Congress to solve practical problems before they become crises, I'm sure it will.

I don't think you can draw SS unless you have 40 quarters paying in....that's 10 years of working. One of my brothers has only 9 years, but that 9 was in the military, so as soon as he hits 65 he can apply for a PENSION from the VA. He is already getting 50%disability compensation from the VA, hearing loss. But he won't get both....whichever is higher is what he gets, and it is means tested. But since he has nothing but a shack in the woods, and no income other than his disability, he should qualify for the pension. He isn't getting anything for his primary disability, terminal laziness....

Somewhere along the line, people started thinking that SS was a retirement program. It is not, it was meant to be supplemental to savings and investments, etc. Too many people didn't save enough, so the IRA program and its sibling programs were brought in.
STILL, a lot of people aren't doing their share of providing for their own future....

UtahBill said:

I don't think you can draw SS unless you have 40 quarters paying in....that's 10 years of working. One of my brothers has only 9 years, but that 9 was in the military, so as soon as he hits 65 he can apply for a PENSION from the VA. He is already getting 50%disability compensation from the VA, hearing loss. But he won't get both....whichever is higher is what he gets, and it is means tested. But since he has nothing but a shack in the woods, and no income other than his disability, he should qualify for the pension. He isn't getting anything for his primary disability, terminal laziness....

Somewhere along the line, people started thinking that SS was a retirement program. It is not, it was meant to be supplemental to savings and investments, etc. Too many people didn't save enough, so the IRA program and its sibling programs were brought in.
STILL, a lot of people aren't doing their share of providing for their own future....

Click to expand...

Lots of people have trouble providing for their own present, let alone their future.

You're right about SS: You have to have 40 quarters minimum. I don't qualify for SS as I didn't pay into it for that long. The money that they did deduct from my salary years ago is just lost. I did pay into state teacher's retirement for 38 years, however, which is a retirement fund and is light years ahead of SS in benefits.

Dittohead not! said:

Lots of people have trouble providing for their own present, let alone their future.

You're right about SS: You have to have 40 quarters minimum. I don't qualify for SS as I didn't pay into it for that long. The money that they did deduct from my salary years ago is just lost. I did pay into state teacher's retirement for 38 years, however, which is a retirement fund and is light years ahead of SS in benefits.

Click to expand...

my wife did both SS and teacher retirement from AZ.....her retirement is better than mine. All of her teacher retirement is from money she contributed, the school district put in nothing. And AZ did a decent job investing, it seems.

UtahBill said:

my wife did both SS and teacher retirement from AZ.....her retirement is better than mine. All of her teacher retirement is from money she contributed, the school district put in nothing. And AZ did a decent job investing, it seems.

Click to expand...

So it seems.

In California, the school district matches the teacher's contributions. It's 8% and 8%, just like SS, except that the money doesn't go into the general fund.

The state wanted to put it in the general fund a few years back, but that terrible, liberal, awful old socialistic union put a stop to it.

Too bad the SS payers didn't have a union, huh?

No welfare at all probably winds up costing more in the end in the form of crime and medical bills.

This is an article on Welfare and germain to this discussion.

The Real Welfare Problem: Government Giveaways to the Corporate 1% | Common Dreams

"But it’s not about welfare queens vs hard working whites; its not about race or ethnic divisions; it’s not about any of the standard Republican bait and switch, divide and conquer BS.

It’s about handouts to the uber-rich and the corporations."