hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 14:54:13 GMT -5
::If you are working a minimum wage job and actually contributing to society, then supplementing need is fine by me.
But defining need is the important part.::
It's not JUST defining need, it's also making sure you're spending your own money on the needs first. Otherwise what happens is we give you food stamps because you NEED food, but you spend your paycheck on cable and cigarettes. If you make enough to afford your needs, you get no assistance, and if you make less, we make up the difference. If you make enough to afford your needs and choose to spend it on cable and booze, you don't then get the government to supply your needs for you.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 14:55:16 GMT -5
Who's been arguing that benefits should be increased? I'm simply arguing that they shouldn't be ELIMINATED.
I'd be heavily in favor of a sliding scale that encouraged the earning of independent income. The current "if you make $1 over this arbitrary amount, your aid ends" system does encourage dependency. But scrapping it and throwing kids into orphanages isn't the answer.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 14:56:57 GMT -5
OK, 1) you're assuming that all working poor households receive aid. This is not true. 2) you're assuming these households/people all had children they couldn't afford. Also not true. Plenty of people fall into poverty AFTER their children are born.
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Oct 25, 2012 14:57:13 GMT -5
I try to be open minded and politically correct but I have to admit I become a little jaded when I wait in line behind someone at the grocery store who is chatting on her iPhone and her kids are fighting over who's turn it is on the iPad and she pays for her $200 worth of groceries with her food stamps. Especially when all she bought with her $200 was cereal (like 20 boxes), steak, ice cream, coffee and several cases of soda.
At times like that it's hard to remember that that one woman isn't representative of everyone on food stamps.
That's not an over-exaggeration- that was my experience at the grocery store this past weekend.
|
|
mrsdutt
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 12, 2012 7:39:38 GMT -5
Posts: 2,097
|
Post by mrsdutt on Oct 25, 2012 14:57:35 GMT -5
Sheila, I think I was asking for $40k. I was buying a used Peterbilt and enough to get ifta stickers and insurance. I have a driver already. And what were you planning to pay that driver with?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 25, 2012 14:59:08 GMT -5
Who's been arguing that benefits should be increased? I'm simply arguing that they shouldn't be ELIMINATED. I'd be heavily in favor of a sliding scale that encouraged the earning of independent income. The current "if you make $1 over this arbitrary amount, your aid ends" system does encourage dependency. But scrapping it and throwing kids into orphanages isn't the answer. I'm not advocating orphanages or the system that doesn't have a sliding scale, I was responding to your post that stated that we wouldn't like what criminal acts people might engage in if aid was eliminated. I'm actually not advocating eliminating aid, either, just pointing out that the criminal acts are still happening and that the level of aid compared to criminal acts isn't a 1 : 1 relationship.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,363
|
Post by movingforward on Oct 25, 2012 14:59:41 GMT -5
::If you are working a minimum wage job and actually contributing to society, then supplementing need is fine by me. But defining need is the important part.:: It's not JUST defining need, it's also making sure you're spending your own money on the needs first. Otherwise what happens is we give you food stamps because you NEED food, but you spend your paycheck on cable and cigarettes. If you make enough to afford your needs, you get no assistance, and if you make less, we make up the difference. If you make enough to afford your needs and choose to spend it on cable and booze, you don't then get the government to supply your needs for you. I agree but how do you monitor this? We would have to hire a whole lot more social workers in this country.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:00:34 GMT -5
::OK, 1) you're assuming that all working poor households receive aid. This is not true.::
I'm not assuming that, I'm just assuming that those are the people we're talking about since we're talking about people receiving aid. If you're not receiving aid, then I assumed we weren't talking about those people in a conversation about receiving aid.
::2) you're assuming these households/people all had children they couldn't afford. Also not true. Plenty of people fall into poverty AFTER their children are born. ::
I'm defining being able to afford your children as having some component that says more than "i can afford them this week" and involves planning for the future. I'll concede that there is a small portion of the population who goes through catastrophic unforeseeable circumstances whereby they did everything they reasonably could to plan to afford their kids and had something happen.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:04:03 GMT -5
::I agree but how do you monitor this? We would have to hire a whole lot more social workers in this country.::
I think it's fairly simple. You define "need", you define how much that need costs (for a given area obviously). If you make more you get nothing. Every dollar you make under that is your amount of government support.
So if you make $15K/year, and the cost of "needs" is $15,500...you don't get $300/mo in food stamps because you're "poor". You get $500/year in food stamps. We stop paying people for being poor, and we start paying them to supplement their needs. And like gdgyva said, we do a better job of defining what needs actually are.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:16:13 GMT -5
Some people are always going to be unable to support themselves. I think the fact we care for these people makes us a great nation. Sure we could do with welfare reform, but I think it is stupid to even suggest we get rid of all these programs & leave these people to the wolves. And as Mid pointed out - most welfare recipients are not lifers, they are people who need short-term help. I both agree & disagree. Our society has too low of a birthrate as it is. We are below the replacement birth rate which is a bad thing. Kids are future tax payers, future workers, future business owners. And yes, some may be future welfare cases. While I would prefer people who can afford the kids have the kids, if the middle & upper class are going to keep deciding they can't afford to have a lot of kids, well someone needs to. What? You would rather poor people have kids that CANT afford to raise them, because someone needs to populate our country?? Last time i looked, we have plenty of people. What we dont have is plenty of people contributing their fair share. Do you see any classrooms that arent bulging with students? Any homeless shelters that arent full daily? I wouldn't rather the poor do it. But if you listening to the talk on YM, they are apparently the only ones willing. And yes, we have plenty of people. But, we need a 2.1 replacement rate or else it is bad for the county's future. Who is going to pay for SS & medicare or are those going out the window for my generation? Who is going to replace the workforce? Immigration is another answer, although people don't seemed thrilled with that one either. If only the upper & middle classes procreate & head off to college, then we will have a nation full of engineers, accountants, & doctors. I guess if we automate everything else & ship all manufacturing overseas, then this isn't a problem though. No need for people to serve food, ring up groceries, stock stores, ship items, grow flowers, inventory stores, and all the other menial task that the lower class does. I see a nation full of robots & upper class in our future
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:19:39 GMT -5
:: Who is going to pay for SS & medicare or are those going out the window for my generation? Who is going to replace the workforce?::
Not the welfare lifers. Adding people for the sake of adding people isn't helping anyone. Adding people with no inclination to work definitely isn't helping. We're not going to dissolve as a country if some of the people collecting welfare stop having kids.
::If only the upper & middle classes procreate & head off to college, then we will have a nation full of engineers, accountants, & doctors.::
There are TONS of middle class who don't go to college and who certainly aren't engineers, accountants, or doctors.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:22:02 GMT -5
Most involved illegal activities - selling drugs, burglary, prostitution. Others borrowed from family/friends/significant others. Others panhandled. Another reason to at least make drugs & prostitution legal. Take some of the illegal activities away from them. I foresee an uptick in panhandaling & petty crime if we did away with welfare. I also would guess we would see a large group disappear underground & stop sending their kids to school if we threaten to take away the kids. I myself would hide my kid if the govt wanted to send them to an orphanage. I would also have no problem begging & stealing to feed my family if that is what it took. And for the most part I am a pretty moral & upstanding citizen that has never received welfare, so I can't imagine how low others would stoop. I don't see a better society resulting from removing welfare & taking children from poor parents.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 15:25:02 GMT -5
I had forgotten that no one who grew up on welfare... certainly no one who posts here... grew up to become a productive, taxpaying member of society.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:26:52 GMT -5
:: Who is going to pay for SS & medicare or are those going out the window for my generation? Who is going to replace the workforce?:: Not the welfare lifers. Adding people for the sake of adding people isn't helping anyone. Adding people with no inclination to work definitely isn't helping. We're not going to dissolve as a country if some of the people collecting welfare stop having kids. Are you implying that a kid born into welfare will never make anything of themselves & will forever be a drain on society. I think some on here would disagree. You kind of missed my point there. Unless we stop needing people that do the lower income jobs, then we still need enough people to replace all the existing jobs. Just replacing upper & middle class jobs will leave people without groceries to purchase, a waitress to serve them, someone to buy clothes from, a hairdresser, a maid, and so on. Society needs people to fill those roles unless they are no longer needed.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:27:35 GMT -5
::I myself would hide my kid if the govt wanted to send them to an orphanage.::
And what? Let them die because you can't take care of them? If you can still take care of your kid then you don't really need welfare just for having a kid. If you can't afford your kid, and you need the government to help do it, what's the issue with the government taking your child while you get back on your feet (since there has been such a surge of "most people only use it temporarily" argument)?
::I also would guess we would see a large group disappear underground & stop sending their kids to school if we threaten to take away the kids.::
I think this illustrates a point pretty clearly, people don't care what's best for their kids, they only care about what they want. At which point having the government take care of them might be a really good thing.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:29:22 GMT -5
I had forgotten that no one who grew up on welfare... certainly no one who posts here... grew up to become a productive, taxpaying member of society. Then doesn't the idea that "people on welfare should have kids because we will always need someone to be the working poor" also ring false? The previously written statement that if only the middle and upper class have kids there will be no one to work the low paying jobs?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:30:29 GMT -5
::I myself would hide my kid if the govt wanted to send them to an orphanage.:: And what? Let them die because you can't take care of them? Of course not. Did you read the rest of my statement. I would beg & steal if that is what it took. To an extent you are right. People don't always do what is best for their kids in the bigger picture. But, you ask me, sending my kids to an orphanage is not what is best for them & I would do anything & everything to keep that from happening. You also are discounting a mother's instinct. I will do whatever it takes to protect my cubs.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:30:44 GMT -5
::You kind of missed my point there. Unless we stop needing people that do the lower income jobs, then we still need enough people to replace all the existing jobs. Just replacing upper & middle class jobs will leave people without groceries to purchase, a waitress to serve them, someone to buy clothes from, a hairdresser, a maid, and so on. Society needs people to fill those roles unless they are no longer needed. ::
We have more people than jobs as it is. So we don't need to replace everyone, because replacing everyone means we still have more people than jobs. I agree that we need enough people to replace all existing jobs...that does not involve increasing the population, we already have more than we employ.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 25, 2012 15:31:36 GMT -5
WIC is a good example of what I"m talking about, according to the WIC website, 53% of babies born in the U.S use WIC. To me, that number is astronomically high. Are there really 53% of parents out there who can't provide adequate nutrition to their babies? I'm not saying get rid of WIC, I"m glad it's there for those who need it, but if 53% of parents can't support their kids, then there are serious societal problems.
|
|
doxieluvr
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 11:28:59 GMT -5
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by doxieluvr on Oct 25, 2012 15:31:45 GMT -5
Sheila, I think I was asking for $40k. I was buying a used Peterbilt and enough to get ifta stickers and insurance. I have a driver already. And what were you planning to pay that driver with? Said driver is already married to me. At the time I was already solely supporting him. Driving a truck we owned would have just been additional money to our household.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:33:27 GMT -5
I had forgotten that no one who grew up on welfare... certainly no one who posts here... grew up to become a productive, taxpaying member of society. Then doesn't the idea that "people on welfare should have kids because we will always need someone to be the working poor" also ring false? The previously written statement that if only the middle and upper class have kids there will be no one to work the low paying jobs? I was going off the ridiculous assumption that seems to be running through this thread that welfare families only have welfare kids. Which I got from someone stating earlier that these kids will never be productive members of society, which I find to be a ridiculous statement. That is obviously not the case. But, doesn't change the fact that this country does require a replacement rate to have enough people to replace existing workers. For every welfare kid that moves up, that means someone else might move down. Classes are not fixed.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 15:33:46 GMT -5
Countless child advocates and state/federal child services agencies agree that most often, what's best for the kids is to stay in their homes of origin (barring abuse/neglect).
I don't agree that mere receipt of government benefits is an offense that should require removal of children from an otherwise loving household.
My mom qualified for benefits (although did not accept them) for my entire childhood. She had three kids she could afford at the time she had them, but chose to divorce my father when he became abusive. All three of us graduated high school, college, and are now productive, taxpaying citizens.
But yeah, we should've been taken away. We would've turned out much better, I'm sure.
Anecdote /= data, and my story is not necessarily representative. But there are enough people in this world - enough people on this forum, even - who grew up in similar or worse circumstances and rose out of it that I really don't think it's justifiable to advocate removal in non-abusive situations.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:34:03 GMT -5
::But, you ask me, sending my kids to an orphanage is not what is best for them & I would do anything & everything to keep that from happening. ::
But you think giving them a role model of someone who steals is better? Or growing up without a mother at all because you get killed or locked up from your crimes?
::I will do whatever it takes to protect my cubs. ::
I don't want to address this toward you specifically, but for a lot of people "protect my cubs" really boils down to "get what I want while using my kids as a cheap excuse".
::But, you ask me, sending my kids to an orphanage is not what is best for them & I would do anything & everything to keep that from happening.::
I think that's the issue..."everything" also includes some things which are far worse for them.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:34:49 GMT -5
::You kind of missed my point there. Unless we stop needing people that do the lower income jobs, then we still need enough people to replace all the existing jobs. Just replacing upper & middle class jobs will leave people without groceries to purchase, a waitress to serve them, someone to buy clothes from, a hairdresser, a maid, and so on. Society needs people to fill those roles unless they are no longer needed. :: We have more people than jobs as it is. So we don't need to replace everyone, because replacing everyone means we still have more people than jobs. I agree that we need enough people to replace all existing jobs...that does not involve increasing the population, we already have more than we employ. Who said increase the population? I keep mentioning the replacement rate which has nothing to do with increasing the population.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 15:35:55 GMT -5
WIC is a good example of what I"m talking about, according to the WIC website, 53% of babies born in the U.S use WIC. To me, that number is astronomically high. Are there really 53% of parents out there who can't provide adequate nutrition to their babies? I'm not saying get rid of WIC, I"m glad it's there for those who need it, but if 53% of parents can't support their kids, then there are serious societal problems. Considering a lot of military qualify for WIC, then I guess you could say we have serious societal problems.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:36:06 GMT -5
::I was going off the ridiculous assumption that seems to be running through this thread that welfare families only have welfare kids. Which I got from someone stating earlier that these kids will never be productive members of society, which I find to be a ridiculous statement. That is obviously not the case. But, doesn't change the fact that this country does require a replacement rate to have enough people to replace existing workers. For every welfare kid that moves up, that means someone else might move down. Classes are not fixed. ::
Right, so then only having middle class or upper class (which together comprise a monstrous portion of society) having kids would not leave us without people to be waitresses or servers or whatever. Also ignoring that not everyone who's "working poor" even has kids now, or may have had kids previously but is past that stage now.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 15:36:41 GMT -5
This isn't India. Middle and upper-class kids sometimes end up in working-class jobs. Working-class kids sometimes end up in the middle or upper classes (or hell, President).
The point was not "if only the middle and upper class have kids, no one will work the low-paying jobs"... the point was that the middle and upper classes AREN'T having kids. At least not enough kids to replace the people who are dying. So SOMEONE needs to have those kids, unless we're going to loosen our immigration policies...
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:37:55 GMT -5
::Who said increase the population? I keep mentioning the replacement rate which has nothing to do with increasing the population. ::
You're right, I'll rephrase, we don't necessarily need to increase the population or keep it exactly the same. A slight dip in population isn't going to dissolve the country. We're not talking about eliminating child-rearing for 50% of the country or anything.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 25, 2012 15:38:46 GMT -5
I was going off the ridiculous assumption that seems to be running through this thread that welfare families only have welfare kids. Which I got from someone stating earlier that these kids will never be productive members of society, which I find to be a ridiculous statement. That is obviously not the case. But, doesn't change the fact that this country does require a replacement rate to have enough people to replace existing workers. For every welfare kid that moves up, that means someone else might move down. Classes are not fixed. It hurts me to say this - but the odds are that kids raised in lower socioeconomic households are much, much more likely to remain in the lower socioeconomic tiers than to move up. Of course it can happen, but it's the exception, not the rule. When you are making economic policy, you generally have to go with the odds of what will happen, not what we hope will happen. Odds are, welfare families create children who will remain in the lower socioeconomic tiers. The welfare families are not, on the whole, creating taxpayers that will be saving social security or medicare and to count on that is naive in the extreme.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 15:39:21 GMT -5
::Considering a lot of military qualify for WIC, then I guess you could say we have serious societal problems.::
The problem that we give WIC assistance to far more people than who actually need it? Or the problem that we've got military believing that joining the military should be able to support 2 adults and as many kids as they want to have?
I agree, it's a problem.
|
|