It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Can't American Socialists Come up with a Plan to End Poverty

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: xuenchen

The problem is, even though it's paying the same we all are already, there will be complainers because the plan has the audacity to not keep people in poverty for being at the bottom or not working. Despite that the desire for stuff will keep most people working anyway.


I can certainly agree the politicians would see this as a threat to authority.

I bet that's we keep seeing sloppy proposals from politicians.

This plan, if kept simple, would eliminate many political "thumbs in your eyes" oppression.





posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Not sure that's true if you consider the bureaucratic glut from paying for the employees that manage those services throughout the states. I think we probably pay more to employ people to manage all these different services as well as all the paperwork than the services actually pay out.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Trickle down economics worked well.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ketsuko

Not sure that's true if you consider the bureaucratic glut from paying for the employees that manage those services throughout the states. I think we probably pay more to employ people to manage all these different services as well as all the paperwork than the services actually pay out.


That's why we transfer it all to a direct payout. Cut all the managers.

We all have to manage our money, so should the poor. If they can't and end up on the streets, then whose fault is it? It's not like they didn't have the money.

We overpay for the government employees and they receive overly generous benefits which are part of the national debt issue.
edit on 15-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

This plan seems to eliminate all of that micro-managed crap.

I don't know.

Those existing benefits may not add up to 25,000 per head.





posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: ChiefD

We need to compare numbers.

Do people already getting "benefits" have a $25,000 total?

Military retirement is what on average?

etc. etc.



Good question. The amount one gets for food stamps depends on a few factors. The more people in the household, the more a family can get. Gross income is also factored in. Most income is counted. Child support may be an exception to that. Food stamps can range from a bare minimum of $15.00/month to $1300.00/month for a large family (eight or more people in the household). If they are receiving Medicaid, premiums vary too. Some low/no income pay no premiums, and some pay upward of $1,000/month or more premiums.

Also, in Wisconsin at least, people with minor children in the home who are having a difficult time finding work can sign up for W2 (Wisconsin Works). People have to jump through a number of hoops, and get a maximum of $600/month. They have to document things like where they are applying, go through training jobs and internships and trial jobs. There is a limit of five years on this benefit. It is a work program. One is not just handed the $600/month. They really have to earn it. It's not an easy thing.

So I'm guessing that doing some number crunching, $25,000/year would still be more than that.

Regarding military pensions, that would depend on how many years one is in, and the paygrade they retire at. You have to be in a minimum of 20 years (some exceptions to that). My hubby did 20 years and retired an E6. I did 20 years active and reserve combined and retired as an E7. His pension is $1400/month. When I turn 60, my pension will be about $1900/month.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I meant the current system. You said you thought the current system paid out more for those benefiting from it than the 25,000. I'm saying I don't think it does even with less people benefiting.

I know what's being proposed is minimal, is why I like it. Is along the lines of what I've been asking for.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: ketsuko

This plan seems to eliminate all of that micro-managed crap.

I don't know.

Those existing benefits may not add up to 25,000 per head.






They do in Conecticut.

So yes, let's do this and save all the way around.
edit on 15-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Americans and social welfare.

Erm...

Are you joking, is this a rhetorical question?

You don't want a socially stable society, you want to be the best and the richest and the biggest and the fastest and the...hold on, ran out of breath...

Yeah lol indeed.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

a reply to: ketsuko

Don't forget, affected government employees get the $25,000 too.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
Trickle down economics worked well.


Maybe we call this new plan:

"trickle back over"




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Only if they can't get hired elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ChiefD

$25,000 a year paid every 2 weeks is around $960 every 2 weeks.

And I believe military pensions are paid from a budget, not actually from welfare or social Security.

So maybe this plan does not affect military pensions.

And don't forget, you would be getting the 25,000 too, and so would a spouse.

And military personnel would also get the 25,000 even while on active duty.

Not a bad safety net.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: xuenchen

Someone will quickly tell you that $25,000 isn't enough to live on, and claim you don't care about the elderly who would have to eat dog food and go without heat in order to survive.



It is when you aren't paying taxes on it and Healthcare is covered. Interesting.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: ketsuko

I meant the current system. You said you thought the current system paid out more for those benefiting from it than the 25,000. I'm saying I don't think it does even with less people benefiting.

I know what's being proposed is minimal, is why I like it. Is along the lines of what I've been asking for.


Yeah, after doing some number crunching, I don't think most people (in Wisconsin at least) could get anywhere near $25,000 a year from W2, food stamps, and Medicaid.

If someone wanted more money, they could just work and get more money. Might give incentive to go work. That would in turn stimulate the economy. It just sounds too awesome. There's gotta be major problems with this. I'll ponder it. This is bothering me a little since most liberals would say the plan is absolutely insane. What the hell's wrong with me?
Hmm, maybe I'll sleep on it, and tomorrow I'll wake up and go "aha! I have found a flaw and will get on here and rant about it until I wake from my trance and decide to go shopping".



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Good find.

Analysis required.




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: ChiefD

$25,000 a year paid every 2 weeks is around $960 every 2 weeks.

And I believe military pensions are paid from a budget, not actually from welfare or social Security.

So maybe this plan does not affect military pensions.

And don't forget, you would be getting the 25,000 too, and so would a spouse.

And military personnel would also get the 25,000 even while on active duty.

Not a bad safety net.



Woo, that sounds pretty awesome! Maybe start a petition on change.org?



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ChiefD

Of course, there are plenty of people who live on benefits now who want more money and you would think that same logic would apply though.

If they want more, they could just go work for it ... but it doesn't work out that way. Politicians tell then they are entitled to something like a cost of living increase and the pandering and vote buying will begin.


edit on 15-1-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChiefD

Woo, that sounds pretty awesome! Maybe start a petition on change.org?


If ATS can come up with a detailed plan, send it to all Congressmen and Senators.

Email works, so does Twitter and Facebook.

#25000forallcitizens

The money they spend now is about 25,000 per person already.

Where's Bernie now?




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: xuenchen

And that's the idea. They don't lose any of their earned money, and they can never make less than the national median unless they fail to work themselves. And they don't lose their earned income. They only lose the basic as they earn more of their own.



But at what incremental rate for they lose it?

Because keeping someone at $25,000 until they can make more than that on their own only incentives them not to work at all.

Because most jobs don't pay that much, and it is these low level jobs that keep the world running.

It isn't millionaires or bankers keeping the worldgoing, it is the lowest of the low that pick up the trash, wait tables and pump the gas.




top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join