| Author |
Message |
    
Tonya
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 4641
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 06:18 pm: | 
|
On Welfare and the Alternatives
Posted by Mark Radulich on 03.01.2007
Welfare reform was a good idea in theory but hasn't quite worked out the way NEWT and Bill Clinton thought it would.
Poor people in society are a fact of life. So long as there is scarcity in resources, the ability for the powerful to command armies, and the human element of competitiveness, there will be poor people. But the definition of poverty ranges across the world. For example, poverty in the Bronx, NY is practically middle class compared to say poverty in any number of African nations.
In America, if you cannot find work or are laid off from your job, the government will send you a check. It won't be a lot, probably not a lot to live on but you won't starve either. And speaking of starving, the government will also send you money to buy food, will house you if you are homeless, provide health insurance if you haven't got any and will educate your children without asking you for a dollar.
None of the above are great solutions and anyone that has had experience with any of the above programs knows how woefully inadequate they are. The money the government sends you is not even close to enough to live on, the housing is usually substandard and in neighborhoods overwhelmed by crime, and the food/health programs are certified disasters, to say nothing of our public school systems in areas where there is also public housing.
Many conservatives will site some sort of moral failing as the reason why people are poor. These conservatives (many of whom are privileged) do not take into account systemic racism, misappropriations of government funds slated for development, industrial upheaval or just plain tragic bad luck. Many conservatives also seem to regard the welfare system as one in which people are paid to be slovenly or immoral and thus generations of this sort of behavior are encouraged thus expanding the welfare system.
They are not altogether wrong here but they are more wrong than right.
Welfare for a very long time was not means tested and in many cases it did encourage a breakdown of the family unit. If you worked at all but still couldn't pay your bills you were taken off the welfare roles so many people who could not find suitable work just stayed on welfare. In addition, women could receive more money per child they had and if there was no father present, thus creating a cycle of single-mother families, irresponsible parenting and general neglect of children in the poorest of areas.
During the NEWT years of the Clinton administration, Congress and the president sought to reform welfare so that it would be means-tested and time limited thus forcing the cycle of degeneration to come to an end. However, a new article on the AP is reporting that, "The welfare state is bigger than ever despite a decade of policies designed to wean poor people from public aid. The number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has plummeted since the government imposed time limits on the payments a decade ago. But other programs for the poor, including Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits, are bursting with new enrollees.
The result, according to an Associated Press analysis: Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago.
Critics of the welfare overhaul say the numbers offer fresh evidence that few former recipients have become self-sufficient, even though millions have moved from welfare to work. They say the vast majority have been forced into low-paying jobs without benefits and few opportunities to advance."
The implication by those who sought to reform welfare by placing an emphasis on work is that all work is good work. Whether you're a cashier at Wal-Mart or the CEO of SLM Corp., it is theoretically all-equal in the eyes of the lord. Those of us living on planet earth know that this is simply conservative elitist balderdash. Manual labor or retail work may be respectable in lieu of not working or being a drug dealer but the reality is that besides earning a crap paycheck you'll have also earned the title, "working poor."
Ask anyone living in the North East or California if they can buy property or big-ticket items, decided markers of not living in poverty, on a retailers or Wal-Mart salary and when they are done laughing you'll get a hearty "no" for your troubles. The standard of living today in America is prohibitively so expensive that most of my friends who had decent jobs in their 20's still could not afford to live outside of their parent's homes. Those that could simply didn't want to as they didn't have to want to choose between relative comfort with little privacy and say, a cave next to Osama Bin Laden.
Now that's just us middle class folks – what about those closer to the poverty line that the article addresses? Once again, forcing people to work menial jobs with little pay also causes unintended and expensive consequences. These people, usually single women of white, black and Hispanic race, have to pay for daycare for their children since they are no longer afforded the luxury of being able to stay home and raise them. Daycare, let me tell you, is not all it's cracked up to be with regard to both practical and safety matters or the child's psychological development.
The fact of the matter is that making people work doesn't always solve the problem of self-sustainability. Meeting ones own needs as well as your families is more complex than just receiving a paycheck. Inherent in the NEWT-Clintonian welfare reform bill is the belief that being a mom, with all of its subsequent duties is not worthy work. I dare any man reading this right now to tell their wife or their mother that what they do to keep the house running isn't worth spit. Go ahead, I'll wait.
…
Now don't you feel sheepish? Getting back to conservative thought on this, if you want to decrease the size of government while making people self-sufficient and in doing so leaving the family unit intact, there is a rather simple solution that has been batted around since the Nixon administration.
The Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) is a government ensured guarantee that no one's income will fall below the level necessary to meet their most basic needs for any reason. As Bertrand Russell put it in 1918, "A certain small income, sufficient for necessities, should be secured for all, whether they work or not, and that a larger income should be given to those who are willing to engage in some work which the community recognizes as useful. On this basis we may build further." Thus, with BIG no one is destitute but everyone has the positive incentive to work. BIG is an efficient, effective, and equitable solution to poverty that promotes individual freedom and leaves the beneficial aspects of a market economy in place.
The term BIG is more specific than terms like income maintenance or income support, which refer to any kind of program designed to aid those with lower incomes. The Basic Income Guarantee differs from existing income maintenance programs in the United States and Canada in that it is both universal and has no work requirement. It is therefore, very simple and easy to administer. It helps the working poor, single parents, and the homeless, without placing anyone under the supervision of a caseworker…The Basic Income gives every citizen a check for the full basic income every month, and taxes his or her earned income, so that nearly everyone both pays taxes and receives a basic income. Those with low incomes receive more in basic income than they pay in taxes and those with relatively high income pay more than they receive. The Negative Income Tax pays the full benefit only to those with no private income and phases out the benefit as people earn more private income, but private income is not taxed until the negative income tax is fully phased out. Thus, the Negative Income Tax avoids giving people checks and asking them to send checks back, but the Basic Income gives people the assurance that their check will be there every month if they have a sudden loss of income. Despite their differences both of these plans guarantee some basic minimum level of income and ensure that people who make more money privately will be financial better off than those who make less, and therefore both are forms of BIG.
I believe in dismantling the entire welfare system, Medicaid/care included and replacing it with the above BIG. This is the conservative solution without making judgments or convoluting it with man-managed bureaucracies as this would be the domain of the US Treasury department.
For more on the BIG check out this link.
We will be discussing this issue and more on Sunday at 12:30 PM EST on Progressive Conservatism LIVE!
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/51314/On-Welfare-and-the-Alternatives.h tm |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 10:23 pm: |
|
I remember reading something a while ago that said most people who work at Wal-Mart in California make a low enough wage that full-time workers still qualify for food stamps and other aid. And they wonder why a lot of people won't work. Why work to get food stamps, when you can not work and get food stamps?
In Atlanta, they were considering (if they haven't already passed) a living wage bill that would guarantee $10.00 per hour to all city employees. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 3711
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Soldiers in the military get food stamps. So according to your philosophy, Renata, I guess we shouldn't have a miltary, huh??? |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1839
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 10:40 pm: |
|
By my philosophy, they should be getting paid more than they do, so they won't have to get food stamps. Especially soldiers.....what a slap in the face to ask them to defend us, and not even pay them enough to take care of their families. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 3712
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 10:56 pm: |
|
They receive food stamps to help take care of their families. A soldier's salary is only so much and if he has six children (or whatever the case may be) then he's eligible to receive aid. The military doesn't pay you more money just because you have more children.
|
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 11:10 pm: |
|
Who said anything about children? Soldiers should be paid more for their job.
As for them having more children than they can afford, that's their own damn fault.
I would gladly support any bills that would guarantee soldiers a larger salary than they receive. If he decides to get a house full of brats, that's on him. But it's a shame that a soldier with 4 children working to defend his country MORE THAN FULL TIME, being away from his family for months or years at a time would be paid for it by not even getting paid enough to not rely on welfare to feed his children. I'll bet if that weren't the case, they could probably even get more people to join the military. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 3713
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 11:55 pm: |
|
Renata - You don't need to go off on a tangent. I simply brought up the fact that soldiers in the military receive food stamps (and WIC) because we'd all be in a world of hurt if all those soldiers decided they'd rather just be a couch potato 
|
Lil_ze
Veteran Poster
Username: Lil_ze
Post Number: 839
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 12:38 am: |
|
the solution to all of this is a WORLD WIDE COMMUNIST SYSTEM.
there has NEVER been a true communist system on earth.
when ALL citizens of a state (country), have EQUAL wealth, then inequality will cease to exist.
if you are smarter than someone else and have "more to contribute", do so for the betterment of the state.
but don't think you are gonna ride around in a benz, with your nose in the air, looking down at people.
ALL citizens of the state will have the means to exist, but no citizen will have more that any other citizen.
the inequaliity that exists in our present world is the cause of falsehood, deceit, envy, and all manner of evil.
when a true communist system is set-up, then will many of the social ills/inequality cease to exist. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1846
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 10:41 am: |
|
World wide? "Christians" like yourself should know that, according to the bible, a single government ruling the world is a sign of the coming apocalypse. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7569
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 11:12 am: |
|
This article sounds like a Socialist Manifesto. IMO, The State should provide for its old and disabled citizens and everybody should be entitled to free health care. Able-bodied folks, however, need to be reminded that it's irresposibilbe to have more children than you can take care of before guaranteeing them a living wage. Programs like the one suggested tend to morph into a glorified form of welfare. |
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 3814
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 11:44 am: |
|
It worked just the way they knew it would. Put all those women and children at the mercy of the capitalist job market.
This article sounds like a Socialist Manifesto. IMO, The State should provide for its old and disabled citizens and everybody should be entitled to free health care. Able-bodied folks, however, need to be reminded that it's irresposibilbe to have more children than you can take care of before guaranteeing them a living wage. Programs like the one suggested tend to morph into a glorified form of welfare.
(Sounds like you're in favor of killing all old folks. Then we can use their property, savings and pensions on people who still have a reason to live, eh?) |
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 3815
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 11:45 am: |
|
Soldiers in the military get food stamps. So according to your philosophy, Renata, I guess we shouldn't have a miltary, huh???
(You're too stupid to know that this is a damn shame that the people who risk their lives for us have to be on food stamps.
Why are you even alive?) |
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 3816
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 11:47 am: |
|
But there is no solution. Poor people don't vote, they ain't got no money to give to politicians and they mostly just sit back and take whatever the people up top give them.
Whoever gets in will wind up screwing the poor people. You know what I tell people? Try not to be one.
Of course if you live in a one horse town and your job moves, or you get real sick so you can't work, or you get old, bad, eh?) |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 7574
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Nothing you say has any great merit, chrishayden because anybody like you who is stupid enough to think he knows everything is trapped in an emotionally unstable world that isolates him from the danger of his own warped opinions. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 3721
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Chris - First of all, you're the one who's stupid since I doubt that you knew about any of this until I mentioned it. But if you really don't like it, then write to your Congressman. Before you do let me assure you that soldiers don't "have" to be on food stamps - they can eat at the dining facility. The food stamps are to help support their families since they are entitled to the same benefits as every other U.S. citizen. And BTW, soldiers receive housing supplements as well - I suppose you'd call that welfare too.
Dumb!!!
Ass!!!
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8620
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 08:23 pm: |
|
If we truly want poor, disadvantage AMERICANS to work, why the hell have we been allowing MILLIONS of mofos to ILLEGALLY enter the country to take jobs those AMERICANS could work and be paid to DO? |
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1950
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 09:43 pm: |
|
cuz it aint about work its about cheap labor...its cheaper to allow illegal immigrants to do the work; its cheaper to use nationalism as a ploy not to pay soldiers; it cheaper to close factories and build the same facilities in another country w/cheaper real estate, and non-unioned workers....capitalism and nationalism is just cheaper! |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 8622
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Yukio,
EXACTLY!
And THAT'S largely why I don't buy a lot of all this faux concern and consternation of current/former welfare recipients. Because if the nation were truly concerned about those foks it would do things that increase the chances of their succeeding after they're no longer on the public dole.
And that does NOT include cheap illegal immigrant labor, sending jobs abroad, etc. |
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1850
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 10:33 pm: |
|
SERIOUSLY...... Soldiers risk their lives for their country and their government repays them by giving them the same thing that they give people who sit at home and do nothing. How is that gratitude? |
Yukio
Veteran Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 1953
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 05:05 am: |
|
renata: i don't if there are really people who don't do anything...u shouldn't charaterize the entire population of welfare recipients as "do nothings." the majority, at least in the last, had worked and do work, and were not the career welfare recipients. ... |
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 1939
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 02:36 pm: |
|
"cuz it aint about work its about cheap labor...its cheaper to allow illegal immigrants to do the work; its cheaper to use nationalism as a ploy not to pay soldiers; it cheaper to close factories and build the same facilities in another country w/cheaper real estate, and non-unioned workers....capitalism and nationalism is just cheaper! "
Damn straight! It's all about cheap slave labor! It's a sad and tragic joke of immigration reform by Congress. Bush personifies hypocrisy with his bullshit Home Land Security three card Molly scam. THIS MAN HAS NO INTENTIONS WHATSOEVER OF DOING ANYTHING MEANINGFUL TO STEM THE HEMORAGING AT THE SOUTHERN BORDERS -NONE!!! And don't expect anything from a Democrat lead Congress. The Republicans are the party of big business, race and class. They are the vanguard of big business and corporate Americas major interest -cheap slave labor. They have been MIA since 1994 when they took control of Congress. Their record on serious immigration reform and border security? Doesn't exist!
The Republicans hysterically wave American flags while they yelp and bark about national security yet they hide under their desks, with big business lobbyist money bulging from their pockets, when the subject of securing the boarders and stopping the human flood is seriously discussed. The wimpy emasculated Democrats are paralyzed with political correctness and the disgusting slavish need not to offend Hispanics by doing the right thing. The Dems are too gutless and cowardly to take the immigration and border security issue head on. The result? A sorry ass two faced president and worthless bureaucratic politically bought and sold Congress (Republican or Democrat -it matters not when the subject of border reform and immigration comes up) who will do absolutely nothing about the chaos on the borders! The only hope, if any, lies with the individual states to do something. EXPECT NOTHING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT BUT STONEWALLING AND INTERFERENCE!
It's all about exploiting people for their cheap labor. Hell, why not? Ya don't have to worry about unions, medical, retirement plans, whistleblowers, reasonable wages or any benefits. Just pay them minimum wage (preferably cash under the table) and haul in the profits. Besides, who wants to deal with whiny money grubbing ungrateful American workers and laborers? Just outsource to India and China and open the southern borders and make money! Got it!?
|
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 1940
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 02:46 pm: |
|
"Poor people don't vote, they ain't got no money to give to politicians and they mostly just sit back and take whatever the people up top give them."
True....true.....But Who's fault is that?
|
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 1941
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 03:15 pm: |
|
"Before you do let me assure you that soldiers don't "have" to be on food stamps - they can eat at the dining facility."
Uhhhhh...that's not exactly true. In order to eat in a mess hall free (as you have suggested), you have to be stationed at a particular base (i.e. student in training or perhaps staff). In order to eat free, you have to have a meal pass and present it when entering the mess hall. If you do not have a meal pass, you have to pay for your meals. It doesnt cost much ($1.50 or so) since they do not charge for profit but to cover costs. If you are married or live off base and not in the command barracks, you receive something called BAQ (Bachelor Assisted Quarters) and VHA (Variable Housing Allowance). It is a supplemental pay that is added to your pay to help offset living expenses. And married people receive more BAQ and VHA than single people (for obvious reasons). But if you are receiving BAQ and VHA and not TAD (Temporary Assignment Duty), THEN YOU MUST PAY FOR YOUR MEALS -NOTHING IS FREE! This is a very common misconception civilians have about the military. For example, any active duty military personal can go to any military base, it doesnt matter what branch of service you are in or what the branch of military the base is and eat in their dining facility -but you have to pay!!
Every Thanksgiving, the base will throw a very nice and gracious meal (I've seen some that were horrendous and some that were absolutely outstanding!). You can bring your entire family to eat at the mess hall, but you must pay for every person! As I said, once again, it's not much, but you have to pay! No one eats for free unless they are part of the command with a meal pass. You just don't walk in, grab a tray and start eating.
|
Renata
Veteran Poster
Username: Renata
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 08-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 03:19 pm: |
|
Ntfs, I had a friend when I volunteered at the airport (an older lady) who had retired from the military. According to her, she can stay for free at any military base in the world if she's traveling and just wants free housing for a few days. Is that true? That's so cool. |
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 3738
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 03:38 pm: |
|
Thanks NT but I didn't say anything about free. While I was employed there, I used to eat lunch at one of the Fort Bliss dining facilities a couple of times a week and so I know all about it. As to the soldiers, they work for what they receive whether it's "free" or "discounted." Either way, the chain of command doesn't usually let their soldiers starve and I believe the soldiers receive financial management training so they should always have enough money to cover their daily meals.
|
Ntfs_encryption
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Ntfs_encryption
Post Number: 1944
Registered: 10-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 03:54 pm: |
|
"According to her, she can stay for free at any military base in the world if she's traveling and just wants free housing for a few days. Is that true?"
No. That's not true. She can fly anywhere in the world free on a MAC flight if she is active duty or retired or dependent. They will allow you to fly free to anywhere along as there is space available -that's the crux. If someone shows up with orders in hand for the flight, you will get bumped from that spot if you are flying MAC. But if they have room, you can go anywhere at anytime free -providing they have open space. I've done it before. I flew from Japan back to Southern Cal once. Won't do it again. When I got to SoCal, I called a Japanese friend of mine back in Japan and had her book me civilian flight (she had good connections -saved me some cash). I had time restraints and I could take the chance of getting bumped. If you are retired and have nothing but time on your hand, you can travel around the world free -but you have to have a lot of time on your hands and no time restraints. You could spend days waiting in a terminal for an open flight -depending on the traffic.
As far as being put up for free on a military base??? What was she? A retired Admiral or General? I never heard of anything like that. Now, she can get on any military base and shop at their commissary for food or shop at their exchange or buy liquor at their package store. But stay free??? Stay where? In the BEQ or BOQ??? Naw, I don't think so. I'd like to know more about this. Listen up: RETIRED MILITARY PEOPLE CANNOT STAY OR LIVE ON AN ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY BASE! Why should they? And once again, where exactly would they stay???
Even if you are active duty, you can't stay free! They will put you up (providing there is room) but you have to pay. I have no idea what that lady was talking about. Once again -NOTHING IS FREE!!!
|
Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri
Post Number: 3740
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 04:18 pm: |
|
Renata - She can stay on a military base for really cheap though. Last time I went to Phoenix I lodged at Luke Air Force Base Fighter Country Inn. It was a lovely clean three room suite (with kitchenette) and it cost around $25 per night. You can't beat those types of rates these days, especially in major cities.
|
Libralind2
Veteran Poster
Username: Libralind2
Post Number: 698
Registered: 09-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 04:33 pm: |
|
Im prior service and while you get reimbursed NOTHING is free..
LiLi |
|
Email This Page