Open Discussion: Who Hurts the Poor More

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by upside-down cake, Jul 29, 2013.

  1. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,398
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Generally, in politics, a lot of attention is given to the high and middle classes, but the poor get largely left out. In poitics, people seem to focus on the Middle Class, which is actually unfair to both the upper class and the lower class. But, for this thread, I just wanted to see what people thought on this question...

    Who hurts the poor most- Republican's, Democrats, both, or neither?

    note: I don't have any opinion either way, since I'm not sure if there even may be a distinction, but if you do post, please have some kind of information to follow through as it's more of a discussion designed to educate or inform rather than gossip.
     
  2. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,458
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Who hurts the lower classes more? The Democrats, though almost never by intent. The Democrats create more programs *designed* to help the poor, though.

    The Republicans don't really do much that actually hurts the poor, just policies that don't help them categorically (though Republicans are much more staunch defenders of VA benefits, 99% received by poor people, which have been slashed in the last 5years).

    Edit: I'll add more examples later, I'm just short on time.
     
  3. Pardy

    Pardy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,424
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Here is an electoral map that shows which states are mostly Republican-controlled:
    [​IMG]

    Here's a map that shows that most of the poorest states are Republican-controlled.
    [​IMG]

    Anyone notice a pattern?

    Republican states have the most poverty because republicans cater to the rich while using Christianity, fear-mongering and lies about trickle down economics to get the poor to vote for them.
     
  4. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While some will try to decieve you and post maps to bolster their side, here are numbers from the census bureau

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-01.pdf

    Neither side is innocent, however you will find that in the states that are republican controlled the rate of poverty is nowhere near the growth of poverty in democratic states. This does not make one better than the other and anyone reading this can read the article and decide for themselves.
     
  5. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,398
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'd agree that Democrats have their failed policies, but why each one failed is another question. I'd like to say it was an honest attempt at too big a problem for all, but it's likely to be many reasons, including political posturing, but I think some of their programs do actually help provide a form of relief, especially considering that especially in our market today, finding work for the educated is hard, let alone the undereducated.

    Republican's...it definitely seems to be ignoring the poor or discluding them in some sense, and, from a logical, realistic, and dispassionate point, I couldn't blame them. But, they do endorse policies and interests which might be contributing to or accelerating the poor, if not also leading to a general depression in the overall level of living in the US.

    Still, I'll have to read up on it. Only been reading up on Democrats bad record right now. Anything you can bring would be great.

    See the responce to djlunacce below.

    I didn't see a source for Pardy's chart so I couldn't speak for it, but for both, the numbers can be decieving enough, taken at face value. Then you have to wonder if they are actually correct. (if evrything with a government seal of approval was correct, we might not have so many problems right now) But assuming it is accurate, I played with the numbers.

    * these two charts where made from the US Census link you provided...
    chart - highest.png

    chart - lowest.png

    I suspected as much, but poverty doesn't seem to be really relevant toward Red or Blue, but population density. At least, you can say that you will find more poor people where you find more people, generally. However, when you look at the last column for each, it shows the actual percentage of poor people in each state, and it's quite different from the number of poor people. Again, the fact that some states have a higher percentage of poor than others might not be directly reflective of the state, but I'm just going by how the numbers are presented.

    As for Blue or Red, I didn't get into that tonight because it was a bit of research. Basically, the chart Pardy showed might have been a Presidential Electorate map. However, the State, itself, may be splintered between Democrat and Republican officials, and it will have changed from year to year, so you'd have to at least find the political history of each state for at least ten years I'd say to be sure if it was a primarily Democratic or Republican controlled state, and even then it is a leap to say that the political polarization would have had a direct effect on poverty or the economy in the area. New York is traditionally Democratic, but it's the home of Wall Street and a host of other high-powered financial and business groups.
     
  6. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,458
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well, like I said, the Democrats put a good deal of focus on policies that are specifically intended to help the poor. The Republicans do that too, but to a lesser degree. Consider, for example, rural development, rural aid, and faith-based charities (all things supported by Republicans but, to varying degrees, opposed by Democrats). The Democrats are generally in favor of more direct aid, like extending unemployment benefits, increasing snap benefits (which covers food stamps, childcare, baby food/diapers, etc.), and the like. In the short-term these help, but in the long-term they actually hurt people. Consider the following: strict policies on welfare benefits discourage marriage (now think about the high rates of poor children born out of wedlock) NYT article. Also, consider how the % of children born to married couples has dropped precipitously since "The Great Society." Heritage Foundation article, see graph in article. Children born out of wedlock have are more likely to commit crime, less likely to get an education, and more likely to end up poor themselves (compared to children of comparable income parents who were together). This is a huge problem, exacerbated and largley started by "The Great Society" program. Economists such as Milton Friedman predicted this outcome and pointed it out as it was happening for years, but no one is willing to change the laws in such a way that stops penalizing marriage (because it essentially would have to penalize not being married).

    Unemployment policies have also been bad. As an example, my brother was a plumber a few years ago and when he got laid off he just collected unemployment and didn't do anything. I asked him why he didn't get a part time job, and he said because he would make less with unemployment. If you lose your good job and work over 32hrs at minimum wage, you can't receive unemployment benefits, even though your maximum benefits would be hundreds of dollars more than if you worked part or full time. Such policies discourage working until benefits run out (it's no surprise that people on benefits for extended periods of time suddenly can find jobs when their benefits runs out). This not only means we have fewer workers (meaning less productivity and less taxes), it also means their draining government funds and they themselves are less marketable employees after being employed for an extended period of time.

    have no problem agreeing with you that Democrats have put more effort into programs that are intended to directly help the poor. That's just the simple facts, they do, but these programs actually hurt the poor in the big picture in life, and has fed into a dreadful cycle of poverty.

    Much along with what I said, economist like Friedman and Sowell have touched on poverty issues and how the government has created this crisis (if it's to be acknowledged as a crisis). Friedman, below, also argues (succinctly) how the minimum wage has made poverty worse.

    [video=youtube;rqHniAjgCxo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqHniAjgCxo[/video]

    [video=youtube;IwauhPzdnlc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwauhPzdnlc[/video]
     
  7. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,458
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    A lot of people, like pardy, will find a slight correlation and suggest that it proves a point, other more distinct correlations tossed aside. If you look at how states vote, there's a much stronger correlation between the city vs. rural population. If you want to look at poverty, Alaska is one of the MOST Republican states yet, while being one of the most rural (depending on how you consider 'rural'), it has the second highest income in the union.

    And yes, the poorest states are mostly Republican states, but the poorest states are also, with few exceptions, more rural states than your blue NY, NJ, CA, MA, CT, RI, etc.

    There are a myriad of factors involved. Considering only one for the sake of expediency would be dishonest.
     
  8. beenthere

    beenthere New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,547
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    O.K., I'm going to jump in with both feet. Let's start with Lyndon Baines Johnson and his "war on poverty" and "Great society" program. How many years has it been going now??? Are there less "poor" now than when it was put into action??? How much has been spent on it after 48 years???


    Then we have more of Johnson's spending programs;

    HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963 DEC. 16, 1963

    PREVENTION & ABATEMENT OF AIR POLLUTION
    (THE CLEAN AIR ACT) DEC. 17, 1963

    VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT OF 1963 DEC. 18, 1963

    INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT JAN. 22,1964

    CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 JULY 2, 1964

    URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964 JULY 9, 1964

    FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1964 AUG. 13, 1964

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT OF 1964 AUG. 20, 1964

    FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964 AUG. 31, 1964

    WILDERNESS ACT SEPT. 3, 1964

    NATIONAL ARTS CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1964 SEPT. 3, 1964

    MANPOWER ACT OF 1965 APRIL 26, 1965

    OLDER AMERICANS ACT OF 1965 JULY 14, 1965

    SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1965 JULY 30, 1965

    VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 AUG. 6, 1965

    HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 AUG. 10, 1965

    PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 AUG. 26, 1965

    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT SEPT. 9, 1965

    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS & THE HUMANITIES
    ACT OF 1965 SEPT. 29, 1965

    AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
    CONTROL ACT OCT. 2, 1965

    AMENDMENT TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OCT. 3, 1965

    HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 NOV. 8, 1965

    CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966 OCT. 11, 1966

    CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 1966 NOV. 3, 1966

    NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT MAY 8, 1968


    Carter's National Urban Policy really helped didn't it. And when Clinton jumped on the Band wagon things really boomed

    The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
    Howard Husock


    The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.


    Boy, now that really helped didn't it. It helped bring down the housing market and caused the 2008 crash. Yep, we can see how much Democrats do for the poor. At this time we have over 50 million people on food stamps, twice the rate of 2008. That's AFTER borrowing 7 trillion dollars. Now, let's take a look at this in the light of day, shall we?? For the last 5 years we have given Obama almost 11 trillion dollars in tax money to spend. He borrowed over 7 trillion on top of that. In other words he has spent 18 trillion dollars and if unemployment was figured as it was 2 decades ago we would have over 13% unemployment but Obama doesn't want to count those that have no unemployment left as being unemployed. Most of the jobs that have been created under Obama's administration HAVE been burger flipping jobs. Now, kick out the Government jobs that have been created (Government workers produce nothing and are paid with money taken from those that do produce something) and let's see where we are at.
     
  9. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    29,887
    Likes Received:
    4,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The chief problem is that you cannot effectively hel the poor while simultaneously castrating those who would offer them jobs.

    The only 'Help' the Democrats have offered the poor is the opportunity to sell their pride at ten cents on the dollar and they generally offer other people's money for the quite consequential 'bargain'.
     
  10. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,398
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I agree with the abuses of the welfare system. But, that is what it is. Abuses, by some, and even those who don't really want to abuse it probably can't avoid what seems like common sense to a poor person. If you get more money doing A, do not do B. The problem is that I have no way of knowing how many people do this. People game welfare, but people also game taxes as well. That's another form of abuse as well, and we might be losing much more money on that. But in either case, it might be a "better there than not" scenario.

    Economists look at things from an economists perspective. I certainly will listen to it but with the thought in mind that "a merchant sells his wares", whether there's a crack in it or not. I'm more inclined to believe that both the government and the economy play parts in creating the poor in some way. The problem with economists or many other professional observants is that they like to seperate parts of civilization into distinct groups (government here and economy there...military there...religion there...), but it's all connected. To me, the government is actually highly reactive to the economy and has, historically, always prioritized it over the common cause or any cause. I think it's made a few rules that seem anti-business/economy out of political necessity, but has obviously left many avenues through which it can be side-stepped or avoided.

    Ultimately, I think the economy is the greatest creator of the poor. The government, for whatever reason, puts in place certain policies to counter it. Whether it fails or succeeds is up for debate, but even there, it seems the government is only reactive to the conditions imposed by economy- perhaps even collaborative to some degree. An economy that is obviously attentive only to the producers.
     
  11. wist43

    wist43 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,407
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The premise of your thread is "social engineering" - whose social engineering is more harmful to those on the lower socieo-economic rungs.

    Perhaps your question should be, "who benefits most from producing and keeping poor people poor"?? The answer to that is obvious - "democrats" and government 'workers' (I use the term loosely). The apparatus of social engineering and all of the support systems and personnel that go into it.

    Social workers, therapists, 'nutritionists', counselors, the university system that 'teaches' (indoctrinates) and produces them, all of the profressors and leftist keyboard pounders that pontificate endlessly about 'helping the poor', on and on... all of these people are dependent upon other people being dependent - and of course the policies of the left ensure that there is an endless supply of poor to 'help'.

    All social engineering on a centralized, one size fits all basis - is harmful to whatever extent. On a local and state level assistance may be helpful, but if codifies a lifestyle of dependence, entitlement, and taking - then it is harmful as well.

    Since the dependence state is big business, and for many, the pathway to power and money - it only makes sense to them to promote the welfare state, and ensure that it survives. The rhetoric is exactly the opposite of course, "end poverty... end welfare, end dependence", blah, blah, blah... it is all part of the con-game dance.

    The short answer to your question then is - democrats. No contest.
     
  12. nom de plume

    nom de plume New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are no poor people in the United States. There are many homeless and downtrodden people, but they are in that situation by choice -- they spend all their generous welfare income on booze, drugs and Twinkes. It is sad however, tha any children they may have, do indeed suffer from the negligence and irresponsibility of their parents.

    People classified as "poor" in America would be classified as wealthy in other nations.

    Americans, including the so-called poor, are all obese, chubby and have obviously never missed a meal. Ask hungry people in other countries why they want to live in America, and they will say "I want to live in a nation where everyone is fat."

    America's on-the-dole poor actually are financially better off than the nation's lower middle-class citizens. Thus only if your income is $100k or more, are you a little bit better off than the "poor."
     
  13. johnmayo

    johnmayo New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    13,847
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Places run by democrats for the longest are poorest? Want to see which states are moving up an which are going down? Want to see it at the district level? Most of the poverty in the south is in the very democrat black belt of the south. Republican districts, now and always have had the most social mobility.
     
  14. wist43

    wist43 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,407
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thomas Sowell talks about how he was a Marxist - what cured him of this affliction was?? Getting a job in government.

    Sowell is one of those rarest of people - he's intellectually honest, and when he saw he was wrong about something, he didn't try to defend his wrongheaded view - he simply changed his view to the correct one.

    When he went to work at the Labor Department - he questioned if their policies were actually hurting people in poverty, i.e. if minimum wage laws actually hurt people in poverty. What he found was that no one at the Labor Dept. even wanted to discuss the issue b/c 1/3 of their budget came from minimum wage laws.

    That is to say, the people working within government were the ones who materially benefitted from 'helping the poor' - and had no interest in questioning whether what they were doing was either effective or actually harmful. For them, the system is a gravy train, and like all government workers, the first and foremost principle of working in government is to protect and promote your own job.

    [video=youtube;5KHdhrNhh88]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88[/video]

    They are, in effect, stealing money by exploiting the ignorant poor - and justifying it by guilting and pulling at the heart strings of those they're manipulating and stealing from.
     
  15. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,398
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Just got a chance to sit down and watch those two video's. I kind of think he's more preaching and promoting free enterprise and bashing government.

    For instance...the minimum wage law is bad because it keeps people from learning great skills that they could be learning if only they were cheaper to hire. That sounds good when you phrase it like that. What it's saying is that employers want a free (or as near to free) source of labor from people who can be managed soley by their career aspirations or ambitions. Interns, basically. Free labor. This free labor does nothing to gaurantee a person a job, really, because it does not say that Black people would necessarily be hired any more than White people as all people would be hired for less. The proportions would be about the same, it's just that now everybody is working for less because there's no minimum wage standard. And who knows for how long they'll be stuck working their penny-shifts wherever.

    Welfare may, indeed, provide the incentive not to advance yourself, but it also provides an option for those who can not advance themselves. I remember your example with your brother and I was wondering, after their welfare dries up, what kind of jobs do these guys find? Do they make more or less than they do on welfare? The abuse, however, is still bad and understandable.

    What's odd is that welfare sustains both the poor and the rich, and on equal terms, I remember hearing someone (I think it was Peter Schiff) saying that they should "let them die". In a sense, it sounds inhumane, but in a sense, it seems like the purest solution. The reason cmpanies and corporations take risks is because they obviously seem to expect help or aid whenever something wrong goes down. So do the poor. In both cases, the entire society is made to pay for the ill-fortunes of others. While some are certainly with meritable excuses, others are not and he suggested that by removing welfare (he was talking about business, though) you instill the caveat of real risk, which will limit such practices in the future. When fire burns your hand, you learn not to put your hand in fire, and should you get burned up, others know not to follow your example. It also has other interesting extensions into society. People who have children who receive no money for having children might not be inclined to hav children any more when they see the disasterous examples of others who made the same choice and were ill-prepared to handle it. I'm not sure if I'd go with so Spartan a method, but I can see his point. Welfare cushions calamity and nurtures stagnation and steals the impetus to remove yourself from it.

    But...I think the true question of welfare's application of society is a moral question? For the good of the whole, do we let people die?
     
  16. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,398
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Poor people are valuable to a wide range of applications, including general society. For instance, who takes out the trash, sweeps the floor, cleans the toilet? Poor people. Some has to do these jobs. We don't have robots yet. And people who do these jobs make next to nothing. And society is dependent on these jobs because they keep, in the very least, a sense of sanitation and order.

    Poor people are immensely valuable to industry. People with little experience but much desperation are cheap and the most controllable.

    I could go into other abstract areas, where I say the poor and underclasses are always convenient whipping horses in any society (like Jews, they are blamed for all the ills afflicting society), but it should be enough to say there is value in maintaining a poor society.

    Not to mention they are a good source of soldiers...
     
  17. wist43

    wist43 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,407
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nothing wrong with being poor... I've been homeless, started from nothing. I was a "throw away kid". On my own at 16. The only help I received was from Christian churches and homeless shelters run by Christian charities.

    Some people lack ambition, and are content to live near the poverty line. Whether they can languish there on the government dole, or by working minimalist jobs... they will take the path of least resistance. If that is the lifestyle they want, it is their choice - the government should not be assisting them though.

    Then there are those who are thrown into those circumstances against their will - I was one of those. Ultimately I joined the military as a way to boost myself up. I did not want to live in poverty, so I did something about it.

    Then there are those that truly cannot take care of, or provide for themselves. Be they disabled in some way, or mentally diminished, etc. I have no problem assisting these people - but always and only on the state and local level.

    As I said, poverty is big business to the left - the more poverty there is, the better it is for their business.
     
  18. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,398
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I do agree that there is gain to be had from poverty from the left, but also from the right. In fact, both poverty and anti-poverty factions have political gain for one side or the other.

    But...I'm also aware that poverty has a sort of gravity to it. Once there, it's very hard to really find your way out. I was poor as well, and also was lucky enough to find my way out through the military (for the low cost of risking my life should the worst happen), but many people don't have that option and probably have conditions preventing that option being open for them. I wasn't poor long enough to understand the extent of the factors which can cripple a persons advance from the bottom, but I do have a working understanding of why it's so hard.

    I mean, it is instinctively clear when looking at a homeless man on the street. First, there's the social and psycological pressures. People not only ignore, but avoid them. It's hard to do anything when you've been effectively excommunicated from humanity. Then, for most forms of employment, you need an address. How is a homeless person to do this, apply for a loan.

    But, you don't have to go that low. You have the working poor, who are constantly juggling bills and debts on a minimum wage income (that would have been even less had there been no minimum wage laws). To them, average things like changing a tire is a major financial decision. This is baring anything happen medical wise or the like. For most of us, we can whether these things pretty well, but for them, who likely can't even afford insurance, it's a disaster and another stone on their back. Because of this, those who do work are constantly worked and certainly have no money or time to spare for education, as expensive as it is. Especially when there's no garauntee they will get a job either way. The government does give grants, but they are most certainly not common, and many would have to take out loans that would be repaid with interest.

    And this deosn't even touch on those predatory entities- commercial or otherwise- that prey on the poor as well. It's a real pit, and I can see how things can sort of snowball for the poor. I don't consider myself as ambitious as I am lucky to have been smart enough to be were I am, naturally. The schools were absolute jokes. And that's another thing. It's as if at every level, society turned their backs on those communities. It certainly won't be easy to help them, and it will definitely cost money, but I don't enlist under the concept that ignoring them is helping them. At the heart of it, we claim to be a moral country who does things for moral reasons, and yet morality seems to be a considerable issue within our own borders. We can fight and expend vast sums of money for other people, but we can't do the same for our own people? Or was that just political rhetoric...?
     
  19. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,458
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well I don't like calling what I'm talking about an abuse of the system. If, in another situation, a veteran is entitled to about $170/mo for life because of tenitis, but he doesn't need the money, he isn't abusing the system by getting it. He is using the system exactly how it is designed to his own best benefit, which is also true for those on unemployment who could work. That's not an abuse, but a use.

    And the very problem is in the system. We have medical benefits for the poor that are tied to incomes, where it has become disadvantageous for some to advance themselves or earn more $, because they will lose even more in benefits than they'll gain in salary. That's just one more aspect of the system that is wrong. It seems only to help the disadvantaged *stay* disadvantaged. If we want to have such programs, like unemployment, we need to stop penalizing those who become productive again. Our whole welfare system disincentivizes work and encourages people to stay dependent on the government.
     
  20. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,398
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Kinda still sounds like an abuse, since the money is given to him for a specific reason, and he uses it for something else. Though I do know people who do exactly that. I think everybody learns to play the system in some way if they can to save or gain a few dollars. When I was in the military, I knew people who routinely gamed the BAH system. An abuse, certainly, but...profit driven incentives.

    This is true. There is waste. I don't think the system desensitiizes work, however. Not on a broad scale. I think the people actually content to remain poor is minute. If it's the type of poor I'm picturing, no one wishes to remain like that, and the money they recieve doesn't allow a comfortable existence, either. Some people get as little as $50.

    I'll have to look into the demographics. From what I remmeber reading the last time, the term welfare is often used in a myopic sense to classify a certain people in a certain situation when welfare's applicability is actually wide in breadth and so the abuses by those individuals we commonly conceive as the abusers would probably make a negligible percetage of overall welfare.

    I'll try and fish up some demographics for clarity on that, if that's the case.
     
  21. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,458
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well that's just the thing. If the money is only intended for a very specific reason, than why is it that Bob, Jill, Marley, Sean, Harold, Tina, Tasha, Isaac, and Max qualify for the benefits, when only Max fits the bill of the reason for the benefit?

    The military BAH was a whole different thing. I don't know how anyone could stand in front of a soldier and actually say to his face, "sorry son, but the guy working next to you who hasn't been on as many deployments and doesn't work as many hours as you deserves twice as much pay, not because of any special skill, but because he has a ring on his finger." That system was more f***ed up than a Thai whore.


    Well no, I'm not talking about people living on $50/wk, almost no one does that. Some people earn that little, but you can use this income percentile calculator to see just how rare that is (1/20). I figure that 5% is pretty much most teens and college students, right? Sure, there are some people in such situations, but they're the exception, not the norm. If you can find some demographics to clarify what you're talking about, that'd help.

    Now I'm not sure exactly how often people are put in a situation where they have to work less than they want to in order to get benefits, it's not rare. When I worked at Domino's for a short time, the assistant manager wouldn't work over a certain number of hours (I think it was 28) because he couldn't get aid if he did. From what I did talk to him of it I think his primary aid was food stamps, but I didn't pry too much for obvious reasons.

    My thing is that it shouldn't happen. Though I don't think it great, I would much prefer a Finnish-style system to ours, where every person from that homeless Vietnam Vet to the Walton family (<--Wal Mart) gets a check for subsistence living. Any type of welfare program should not penalize the disadvantaged for bettering themselves.
     
  22. Dethklok

    Dethklok New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Absolutely. That's an excellent feature of the "one person, one check" system: there's never any incentive to stop working. Maybe the wealthy don't need their check, but so what; they pay it back in taxes.

    Honestly I'm surprised to see you supporting such a thing; I always thought you were more to the right.
     
  23. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,398
    Likes Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Lol. Good point. I could never figure out why a person get's more money back on their taxes because they have kids. It's like an incentive to reproduce or something, though the actual expense of a child far outweighs the return.

    Oh, no I meant people who only recieve as little as $50 a month in additional welfare benefits. Not sure how many, but welfare is not just a flat rate parceling of funds, it's often conditional and varies from one type of "needy" to the next.

    The nature of welfare is about helping the "needy", though. The Walton's do not need welfare. That sounds like an outrage actually, lol. It would be a like doctors giving life support to everyone in the hospital.
     
  24. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    29,887
    Likes Received:
    4,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Government interference in the economy creates multigenerational poverty.
     
  25. TBryant

    TBryant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Both. Just my opinion really.

    Though I think it is currently changing, the democratic party for a long time painted a picture of the helpless victim poor who could only be helped through selfless charity. They left little or no room for the poor to help themselves and promoted a sense of entitlement unencumbered by responsibility. In essence they created a mythology which they could use to cast themselves as heros, champions of the poor. In the meantime their programs mostly failed and almost always did nothing to promote self reliance.

    To be fair the poor often did not support democrats in the polls, or anyone else really. Having little or no sense of responsibility does not make a voter. The middle and upper class voted democrat when things seemed the worse and the message of charity made the most sense.

    The current incarnation of the republican party is certainly the worst one when it comes to the poor. Very little or no consideration is given to them. Members (sometimes leaders) are completely unashamed to suggest that starvation and homelessness might be a good thing. Open hostility and self righteousness towards the poor has become the norm. Few republican leaders even suggest that their policies might help the poor out of fear of losing support from their party members. Blaming the poor for all social and economic ills is in vogue and gets cheers from republican crowds. A narrative of the poor, painting them brown, is used to hold on to republican party members surviving at or below the median wage. Creating a stigma of racism.

    The poor will certainly suffer more under republican policies. The republicans themselves almost guarantee it.

    Really the poor have done little to create the huge problems we face now. Leaders and the powerful have lost their moral compass and their own sense of responsibility. No one even tries to control the forces moving things along, they only look to find monetary benefit and new ways of passing the buck.

    So.....................

    The democrats have no vested interest in really helping the poor because if they did so effectively they would lose their helpless victim.

    The republicans have no interest in helping them because they would lose their evil villain.
     

Share This Page