- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 25,803
- Reaction score
- 20,579
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Lie, go to jail, loose licence. Hows that for a fix?
That's already the penalty.... How's that?
Lie, go to jail, loose licence. Hows that for a fix?
I reject the "ONLY NECESSITIES" part of the proposal.
First, it's just cruel to dictate that THOSE PEOPLE don't deserve a nice thing now and again. They can buy those things "with their own cash?" If they had an awful lot of cash to spare, they wouldn't need help in the first place. It also doesn't appropriately account for the fact that sometimes those niceties are cheaper than you think. Manager's specials on steaks sometimes get you meat that's cheaper than frozen chicken strips or ground beef. SNAP already has a lot of restrictions on it. We don't need to devolve it to "you get two bowls of gruel a day and be happy!"
I reject the "ONLY NECESSITIES" part of the proposal.
First, it's just cruel to dictate that THOSE PEOPLE don't deserve a nice thing now and again. They can buy those things "with their own cash?" If they had an awful lot of cash to spare, they wouldn't need help in the first place. It also doesn't appropriately account for the fact that sometimes those niceties are cheaper than you think. Manager's specials on steaks sometimes get you meat that's cheaper than frozen chicken strips or ground beef. SNAP already has a lot of restrictions on it. We don't need to devolve it to "you get two bowls of gruel a day and be happy!"
I believe the people who say that don't really believe it. They're just throwing a bone out there to minimize criticism of their stern beliefs. When pressed they feel that all these people's money is from a handout, hence it's their money to dictate.
We already take away "welfare" after a certain period of time, GED or not.
Yes, but quite honestly does our perceived social responsibility to provide food & shelter for our fellow Americans specify that one gets their own place? I don't believe it does (IMHO).
If you have $X in cash in your pocket it's your's to decide what you spend it on. Provided said cash was gained legally it's nobody else's business.If it's not a necessity and they cant afford it...what's the big deal? There are loads of things I want and cant 'buy it with my own cash.' Paying for it for someone else means it's even less likely that I can and I earned my $.
If you have $X in cash in your pocket it's your's to decide what you spend it on. Provided said cash was gained legally it's nobody else's business.
Actually, I did reference the wiki article last night (scanning & speed-reading).
Here's what I found:
+++
"In a negative income tax system, people earning a certain income level would owe no taxes; those earning more than that would pay a proportion of their income above that level; and those below that level would receive a payment of a proportion of their shortfall, which is the amount their income falls below that level."
+++
So a specific income level is picked, and unless that income level is exceeded the person has no incentive to work.
If we pick $7K/yr as the guaranteed level, there's absolutely no reason for my H.S. Senior (now turned 18) to work his usual $3,500/yr fast-food job (true example) - he can stay home & study harder or goof off and still receive the same $7K.
Individuals will forgo any traceable income or job, unless it pays reasonably well in excess of $7K. See the problem here? It *is* income tested in actuality. And has the same disincentives as other means-tested systems.
Unless, I'm misunderstanding something? (I may have).
Part of the problem is that underclass inner city women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work
In fact, among poor people who are neither kids, elderly, nor disabled, half (49%) worked in 2012, when the unemployment rate was 8.1%. If you take out those who didn’t work because they were going to school, 57% worked (i.e., among poor, non-disabled adults, 18-64, not in school, 57% worked).
Digging a bit deeper in these numbers, of the 46 million poor people in 2012, about 20 million (43%) were kids (35%) or elderlies (8%). The other 26 million poor were 18-64. Of those, about 11 million worked and 16 million did not work (rounding screws up the totals a bit).
However, of those non-working 16 million adults, 5 million did not work due to illness or disability. So, of the about 21 million, non-disabled poor adults, half worked (and another 3 million did not work because they were in school).
Let's make these people learn personal responsibility
Why just welfare that goes to people in the inner city? What about the rest of the welfare?
We have a cultural problem in America, particularly inner city, with people living on public money and not being productive members of society.
Part of the problem is that underclass inner city women begin having babies at age 15. They continue to have babies, with different men, until they have had five or six. These women do not go to school. They do not work. They are not ashamed to live on public money. They plan their entire lives around the expectation that they will always get free money and never have to work.
The inner city men who are part of the problem also do not work. They get social security disability payments for a mental defect or for a vague and invisible physical ailment. They do not pay for anything: not for housing (Grandma lives on welfare and he lives with her), not for food (Grandma and the baby-momma share with him), and not for child support.
I once asked a 19 year old with no job and no schooling from the inner city, "What do you do all day?”
“You know, just chill.” These men live in a culture with no expectations, no demands, and no shame.
Should we change that? Should we get rid of the handouts and end welfare?
Nothing wrong with the old soup kitchen. I don't believe in letting people starve, but let's get rid of food stamps, welfare payments, and other bs government giveaways.
Let's make these people learn personal responsibility
1. Soup kitchens ARE welfare.
2. Most states don't give money to people without children (any welfare $ is for children).
3. Most states confine welfare $ to people with children for a limited period of time, and usually require some form of job training or something along those lines.
Because some people abuse the system is no reason to deny others who are truly needy the assistance they need during hard times. That's the kind of country we are: a civilized one.
If you want to take away welfare from someone who doesn't need it, take away corporate welfare. Exxon sometimes pays no income taxes in America at all. Exxon doesn't need that welfare. And we the taxpayers spend a lot more on corporate welfare than helping the homeless.
I think all welfare should cease. Until each case is reviewed and authorized by a medical professional.
If you took away the tax on Exxon, how many more people could they afford to hire? Probably a lot... because the managers could run the company more efficiently without cash being siphoned off by the government.
If it takes fully staffed 50 people to run an oilrig why would they hire any more people even with tax cuts? It just doesn't make sense to hire more.
FYI legally corporations do have personhood.
Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How about ending unwinnable wars that drag on forever , Iraq , Afghanistan ring a bell? OR BETTER YET don't start stupid wars in the 1st place..
Im glad the War in Iraq was a HUGE FAILURE:applaud, oh yea throw Nam in there also, simply because i said it would and you Gopers wanted the ACA to fail, American Imperialism not so mighty anymore ay??:2wave:
I thought all of you Repugs, Tea Maggots were against BIG GOVERNMENT?? if so why do you want to stop gay marriage, Women from getting abortions, starting wars you can't win, throwing folks in prison for Weed??
How about ending Corporate welfare??? the reason so many are on welfare is because of **** companies like Wal Fart that pay beans, folks go to the safety net mostly from the working poor to subsidize income just to live..
Go ahead end welfare and see what happens?? most of the folks who receive welfare are white Women, of course many in the redneck states like Mississippi, that means more white babies, kids will die from sickness, starvation, mal nutrition, i don't have a problem with that, as long as you are all for it, your just killing more future Repug voters..
Funny how voters in the South have been voting for the Repukes for 40+ years now, and your STILL the poorest part of the country, with the shortest life span, and most lack insurance because your states didn't expand medicaid..
Glad to see you all are still voting for the same slime that is killing you off..
If you took away the tax on Exxon, how many more people could they afford to hire? Probably a lot... because the managers could run the company more efficiently without cash being siphoned off by the government.
I'm for ending welfare completely only because I think it would force America to actually deal with issues it hides via welfare.
That said, ending welfare would massively "Finish Off" Rural Poor White America just as it would Inner City Poor Black/Hispanic America.
The US would become a much more dangerous place and crime would essentially hit South American levels. What nobody really likes to talk about is Welfare is, much like abortion, "Basic Societal Crime Prevention 101". Without Welfare you remove a large, unemployable (for all sorts of reasons) segment of the population from even basic economic participation in society. Welfare is paying someone to not steal. Nobody likes to go into that truth because it's ugly. Yet you remove welfare and crime goes up. All welfare has ever been in any society is a plug to stop the unemployable from robbing the employed. Take that plug away and the inevitable will occur.
And you would like to see this happen why? Welfare is the hallmark of civilized, first world society.
I would rather see "welfare" more pro-actively combat poverty. Such as subsidies for higher education (or more subsidies, at least). Healthcare reform (Obamacare does too little, America's healthcare is one of the most expensive in the world and these issues haven't been addressed). Investment in communities, in the form of jobs to fix our crumbling infrastructure. Children should never have to worry about eating or having a roof over their heads, period. But they also shouldn't be used as anchors either.
These issues are far too complex to address, and will continue to be.
Thank you!
As for seniors, a single-payer health system would take care of their medical (as of now they already have single-payer, anyway - AKA Soc Sec), but the modest GBI I envision would likely be below the current individual max SS payment - that might be problematic, and I can't see having a GBI so high that some might see it as an opportunity to go through life on permanent vacation from day one.