Benefits/Welfare.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2012, 09:59 PM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2012 10:15 PM by BryanS.)
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(24-09-2012 05:07 AM)bemore Wrote:  What about your plan in times like this recession.... with high unemployment and dwindling growth.... even if everybody suddenly decided to get a job there wouldnt be enough to go around.

"there aren't enough jobs to go around" is not a good excuse. There is constant turnover in the workforce, and there is no reason for anyone to be permanently unemployed. Perhaps you would feel differently if you offered a $40k/yr job to someone who turned it down because unemployment paid more (idiot didn't realize he owed taxed on unemployment benefits.). Or you'd feel differently if you routinely find 100 applicants per opening in this job market, where half the people you choose to call in response to an application don't bother returning your call. See in the US, to be eligible for unemployment, you have to show proof you are looking for work. There are a lot of lazy people just going through the motions so they can stay on the dole for the year.

Quote:What would you do if you had a family and you got laid off from work.... you would simply accept this fact and watch your children starve.... I think your views on benefits may possibly change if you was in that situation.... then again probably not.


I think I would accept a job as soon as I could find one. Again, I'm not opposed to unemployment benefits that are temporary and designed to get people through onto their next job. As I stated, I'm even fine with support while people go back to school to train for a career that has employment available.

Quote:
(23-09-2012 11:33 PM)BryanS Wrote:  I also would agree with the drug testing earmuffs suggested. If you don't want to submit to the drug test, you don't have to accept the benefits.

I honestly do not get this.... You are an individual.... you have sovereign rights to do what you want in life and as long as it isnt harming anybody else.... whos business is it what you put in your own body???

You have been listening to the propaganda machine put out by the goverment that tax payers have paid for since the 60s.... that ALL drugs are bad, that they are demonised and you are led to believe that all people who take drugs are all bad people, guess what??? Not all people who take drugs are bad. Alcohol is perfectly legal even though it is more addictive than soft drugs and has more deaths compared to anything else.

You need to be carefull with views like this in my eyes my friend... giving away your freedoms and your choice.

You may not get this, but I am actually fairly libertarian when it comes to drug use. The difference comes when these public benefits are treated as privileges rather than rights. If you are spending your welfare check on booze, I would be perfectly fine withholding that payment for that reason as well.

If you can use drugs and hold down a job, more power to you. But if you need to spend your welfare check on your addictions because you cannot stay clean, you need help staying clean so you can be employed.

Or are you saying drugs and alcohol are are universal rights as well? Of course they are not, and I doubt you mean to say this--though that is the implication of your line of argument. I feel perfectly fine ensuring tax money is not spent on feeding addictions. One may have sovereign rights to do what they will with their bodies--I agree with that principle. I don't feel obligated to pay for those choices though.

Quote:
(23-09-2012 11:33 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Why should something like health care, food assistance, housing assistance, and any other welfare program ever be considered a right? By making these 'rights' you are essentially saying that poor people have the right to take property from people who are not poor without having to do anything in exchange for these benefits. These things should never be rights, but rather should be privileges one earns by working.

It should be made available because there is a dividing system of classes.... we have poor people and they are poor for a million and one different reason... it isnt somebodys fault that they may be born in an area where there are little or no opportunities... where education standards may be lacking..... where they are raised in unloving families and shown from birth that nobody gives a fuck about them.

Thats a horrible way of starting your life.... If you have had a good start like I have you should be gratefull.

You should look after the people who have no access to these things.

Gandhi said it right "Poverty is the worst form of violence"... if you cut off funding to poor people then they will freeze in winter, become malnurished through not having enough to eat, become depressed and feel let down because through no fault of their own that the system has turned there back on them and said "get a job" where like I said earlier there might not be enough jobs.... they will resent the system and you will have more desperate people doing whatever they can to survive which will probably mean stealing or commiting crime so through no fault of there own they will then go to prison and in there they will be fed and watered and have a higher standard of living than on the streets.... so more people wont care about the punishments.... at least in prison they get to eat.

Your entitled to your views.... I would never take that away from you.... but I do wonder about people some times Consider

EDIT: Im not aiming this at anybody but I think people can get very reactional when faced with such questions.... that people can see things in black and white and not even consider the shades of grey.... they sometimes dont consider the full implications of what their actions entail.

Some of my friends have the view that because they work.... so should everybody else. Problem with this is they are at work a huge majority of the time and they never really spend as much quality time with their kids as they could do because of work commitments or they are tired after work.... they try to supplement this by giving their childen money and buying them things when in reality time with your kids is priceless.

People who dont work can get to spend more time with their children.... Im not saying this is what happens with everybody.... but growing up I know what I wanted more.


This is a difference in philosophy, but the lefts tends to measure compassion in the number of people who receive benefits. The right tends to measure compassion in terms of the numbers of people who have been helped to get into the position where they no longer need those benefits. The welfare reforms in the US pushed by the GOP in the 90s in the US, vetoed three times by Clinton before he signed it, did more to reduce poverty than the payments made under the welfare programs.

I find that government subsidies tend to create more of what they are subsidizing--subsidize poverty, and you will be sure to create more of it.

According to this site, $679 billion was spent on welfare programs at federal, state, and local levels in the US in 2012 (not including social security, medicare, and medical assistance for the poor):
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/us_welfare...ng_40.html

There is another $367 billion spent on medical assistance to the poor (same source, does not include medicare for senior citizens)

According to the most recent data I could find, there are 46 million people living in poverty in the US:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/d...ights.html

So PER PERSON, we are spending $14,760 per person who lives in poverty on welfare programs, and $7978 on health care per person living in poverty. Total of $22738 of spending on the poor per person.

Yet the government levels of poverty define that a family of four is in poverty if they have an income on the order of $23k-$28k (most at the lower end for the lower 48 states). http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/too...ines.html. We spend $90,953 per family of four on welfare programs. It would seem that there is some overhead somewhere! We could cut checks for one fourth of what we spend on welfare programs in the form of direct aid to the poor and eliminate poverty.

More money for the poor!?
[Scrooge] Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? And if they would rather die than go there, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population! [/Scrooge]


Edit:corrected the $367 million figure to read $367 billion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 02:30 AM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(24-09-2012 09:59 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Are there no prisons?

Government used to spend 31k per year keeping me in prison. Now it just gives me 8k to find my own. Big Grin

Shoot 'em all in the head. Me first. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
25-09-2012, 04:03 AM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
Quote: I've even seen people turn down perfectly good jobs so they could KEEP their assistance going.

This is the other thing they are implementing here and I strongly agree with; If you reject two job offers (jobs that you can do, ie: a job that's like two towns over doesn't count) then they simply cut off your benefit. I believe the welfare ministers words were "if you are offered a job that you can do, you SHOULD take it" and I completely agree.
I think the primary point of this is people who are very well educated but can't find a job are rejecting shitty jobs like McDonalds because they feel 'above' those jobs.
Plus just lazy people.

@John, you were in prison?
Do I dare want to know what for...? (my money is on "stalking celebrities")

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 04:31 AM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
Muffs? In the neck. With KC's dick. Big Grin

As a known psychopath, I can kill you and get away with it. And about the only way I'm gonna kill someone is if they imply I could possibly hurt my Gwynnies. She was stalked before, and it made he scairt, and someone scaring my Gwyniies, ain't safe around me. Evil_monster

So fuck you. Aggravated assault, btw. Want some? Big Grin

Which ain't a threat, cause I know you're pulling my chain, just giving a yank back. But there was that time at work where this mofo thought it was funny to call me "stalker" until we met in the parking lot and exchanged some words... Angel

Now that the troll's dispensed with... Big Grin

I blow about 10% or less on weed. The rest gets pumped back into the economy, so I'm pretty much doing it like it should be done. I got no problem with drug testing as long as the government cannot condone usage (ridiculous, as we all know). For one, I got the gold standard of doles - SSD - which one can only lose by doing time - where it is merely suspended, not lost. For another, if it mattered, I would scrap the weed and just be more of an alcoholic. No big. Big Grin

And I don't think I'd work anyway. That dang Gwynnies; she's my sweet everything, and since I cannot work towards that goal, I'd either be a bridge troll, street artist, or suicide. Don't really care. Big Grin

Now, that could change if I stumbled upon another like-Gwynnies like that Julia creature. Only, you know, not seventeen. Big Grin

But love is it, peeps. I often feel suicidal just to get outta the way of peeps, who didn't learn the name of the game.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 07:35 AM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
Quote:As a known psychopath, I can kill you and get away with it.

[Image: 06c3de_1744381.jpg]

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 12:42 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(24-09-2012 04:26 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I don't mean actual jobs with employers. I mean tasks they can do in exchange for their unemployment money. Streets swept, graffiti removed, parks maintained, that sorta thing.

Then why not makes those employers actually employ them instead of keeping them on the dole?

(24-09-2012 04:26 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I'm not saying it will solve unemployment, it will certainly help though. You're essentially making going on to a million new jobs (just guessing with the figures).
Jobs from where though? There aren't enough jobs going as it is, especially for young people. Gaining a skill is useless if the employment isn't there.

(24-09-2012 04:26 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  What I've already suggested will ease real poverty. Anyone can earn 40 hours a week at minimum wage. There would be no reason that under such a system people can't afford maybe £10 a year for doctors appointments.

Won't work if there is no one that will employ them, And not everyone can work 40 hours a week, there are things like childcare, people in education, employers not giving hours etc to consider.

(24-09-2012 04:26 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  In this country you can make a career out of having a large family. That needs to be stopped.

Who has made a career out of something that drains them financially?

I come from a large family, it clearly wasn't something that was planned (the Vaticans stance of no contraception is to blame imo) But no one wants to have so many kids that they live below the poverty line like my family did.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like FSM_scot's post
25-09-2012, 03:17 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(25-09-2012 12:42 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Then why not makes those employers actually employ them instead of keeping them on the dole?

I think you're missing the point. They wouldn't be working for any company. They'd be working for me doing unskilled tasks for minimum wage.

FSM_scot Wrote:Jobs from where though? There aren't enough jobs going as it is, especially for young people. Gaining a skill is useless if the employment isn't there.

Paid national service. I would create a job for every person leaving education, for three years.

FSM_scot Wrote:Won't work if there is no one that will employ them, And not everyone can work 40 hours a week, there are things like childcare, people in education, employers not giving hours etc to consider.

My point is that there will be no jobseekers as it exists today. Instead, anyone without a job will be given the opportunity to work in the community for minimum wage. If they don't, they get nothing.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 03:58 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(25-09-2012 03:17 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I think you're missing the point. They wouldn't be working for any company. They'd be working for me doing unskilled tasks for minimum wage.
So you will be employing them. fair enough.

(25-09-2012 03:17 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Paid national service. I would create a job for every person leaving education, for three years.
I'm talking about when their national service is up, They will still need jobs, You haven't solved the problem only delayed it. Plus its forced labour for low pay.

(25-09-2012 03:17 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  My point is that there will be no jobseekers as it exists today. Instead, anyone without a job will be given the opportunity to work in the community for minimum wage. If they don't, they get nothing.

That is if there are jobs available. Its not a bad idea but 40 hours on minimum wage will cost more than just paying them 100 quid a fortnight.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 04:01 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
(25-09-2012 03:58 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  I'm talking about when their national service is up, They will still need jobs, You haven't solved the problem only delayed it.

Jobs will be easier to come by because none will be taken by people coming out of education.

FSM_scot Wrote:That is if there are jobs available. Its not a bad idea but 40 hours on minimum wage will cost more than just paying them 100 quid a fortnight.

It will work out better when you remove all the other benefits and tax breaks that accompany jobseekers. Plus, I think a lot of the people on jobseekers would go out and look for actual jobs if faced with the prospect of working a full week either way.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2012, 04:01 PM
RE: Benefits/Welfare.
Thank you for detailing your views to me BryanS.... I was quite reactionary to some of your short opinionated posts but now I feel that I understand your side of thinking a bit more.

Ive took on board some of the things you have said and im gonna let them roll round my head tommorow at work as I like to sometimes gives these things a little room.

Im particulary interested in what you said about the welfare reforms in the 90s and how it reduced poverty under Clinton.... its something I will have to look into myself to understand where you are coming from a bit more.

Ill get back to you tommorow with some quoted answers on what I think. Thumbsup

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: