Question to the left: How much is enough welfare?

originally posted by: crayzeed
DAMN, I knew those FEMA camps would come into use one day. What do you want? Keep those miserable scroungers out of sight from us normal working tax payers. Out of sight, out of mind.
Isolate them even more from the job market so it becomes even harder to get on. Why not go the extra step you are thinking of and not voicing, if they're not off benefit in a year ki** ooops I mean cull them.
Sanctimonious is not a strong enough word for all the negative commenters.
You want an answer, just ask Trump to stop spending the billions on defence and spend it on his people and infrastructure.

No one is being isolated in my idea.

They would have access to the support and resources needed to get back into work.

a reply to: ScepticScot

But the system is set up to keep them there once they're on it.

You get X for food, Y for rent, Z for health care, A and B to help with utilities ... The list goes on. Thing is that they are all income dependent, all all-or-nothing. Make a penny too much and loose all your assistance. How many entry-level jobs can do that for what many are getting out of the system?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Is the current welfare model across most developed countries flawed. Absolutely.

Is sending people to camps an improvement. Absolutely not.

You keep using the term "camp". A flawed analogy full of hyperbole.

Camp means a dirty isolated prison for internment which would not be my intent.


Rather I am talking about a clean and very safe hostel in most city's that's full of support for those wanting to get back into work. People would be free to come and go as they please.


Soldiers live in community housing, if it's good enough for them?

I much prefer the concept of providing the means to be self-sufficient, permanently, than the current system of fostering massive dependency.

This would include things like automation and "new" tech, since I'm not convinced it can be done another way. This would have added benefits beyond just as a welfare system, such as decentralizing our food supply.

Disability is a bit of a different ballgame, despite it being all thrown together in most conversations. Personally, I am on disability. I really am irked by some of the restrictions coupled with the low monthly payment.

My issue is that I absolutely can't work consistently. Sometimes I have to spend pretty extended periods in bed. When I'm feeling a bit better, I'd really rather use that time to work, but that is quite frowned upon. At the very least, I'd like to be able to invest the disability money I receive to, hopefully, get off disability in time. However, that is also frowned on.

Basically, doing anything that would work towards self-sufficiency and independence is "bad." Across the board, I feel it should not only be a "good" thing, but the system should be geared to actually assist in achieving something other than total dependence on the state.

On a side note, actually getting disability can be a total nightmare. On one of my applications, I was denied because in their words, I am "partially ambulatory." That's astoundingly absurd. So are the requirements to prove disabled status annually with conditions that will not improve. Hell, a family member with Downs syndrome has to prove she still has DS every single year.

a reply to: DieGloke

??? why should I work a minimum wage job to supplement my hubby's income if I can stay home and we end up with more through the handouts we'd lose if I was working??? or heck, why allow the hubby to remain in the household if I can get more in the gov't handouts with him gone than he can provide??

you add together the value of that medicaid card, the rental assistance, the food stamps, the child care subsidy and all the rest... and come back and tell me just how much a husband would have to earn to provide it all for his family. ...
a few decades ago, reader's digest put it around the equivalent of a $10/ hour job for a family of three or four, can't remember exactly that part.

what the op is suggesting would have a few negative side effects, not the least of which would be diverting quite a bit of money out of the main economy and shifting it over to a more institutionalized system, which may cost less money, maybe more, who knows, but little of the money flowing through it will end up in the pockets of local businesses, landlords, healthcare providers, ect. at least with what we have now, the poor still has to take on some responsibility, I mean, they still have to shop for their own groceries, prepare their own meals, clean their own homes, be responsible for their own kids, and decide which bills are worthy to be paid this month and which aren't really needed if they overspend. only if you keep a person too long in such conditions, you risk the same thing that happens to many convicts once they are released... they just can't cope with being on the outside, where there's no one telling them it's time to get up, it's time to eat, what to eat, when to exercise, ect... so, they find it more preferable to just go out and break a few laws so they can to back to the lifestyle that is a little less challenging to them..

all I am suggesting is that we try to balance our economy out some, gradually, by reducing the total value of the benefits that one can receive while increasing the income of the lowest wage earners while we eliminate the "we're too poor to live but too rich to get any help" bit that gives some people the incentive to become poorer, because by doing to they actually are better off.

a reply to: ketsuko

Don't disagree that the current system is flawed for the reasons you give and more.

However the idea described by the OP is a million times worse.

originally posted by: DieGloke

Which is why a society needs to address the problem of working welfare.

This is quite simple. Require companies to provide a living wage.

If a business can not pay it's employees a living wage and those employees then must recieve welfare from the state to maintain their wellbeing that company is not good for society. The only one that type of corporation is good for is the one's who owns it.

The only way to become wealthy is to be a part of society. If a corporation is not a benefit to society that corporation should cease to exist. We don't need business owners exploiting taxpayers we need corporations to be the vessel that generates tax revenue.

a reply to: DieGloke

Doesn't matter if you call it a camp or a hostel or a luxury spar resort. It's the principle that is flawed.

Soldiers still get paid by the way and many don't live in community housing.

The current system is hard to navigate and confusing. People stay on because it's so hard to get on and their situation is so bad before they get help they're scared of what will happen if they lose the assistance. There are more working poor on assistance than lazy people who lack personal responsibility and just enjoy living on scrapes. Welfare doesn't provide for some lavish lifestyle. They are often sleeping on a mattress thrown on the floor with no furniture in a community where they have to constantly worry about their children being killed. Most of you are talking from so far inside your ass it's a wonder we can hear you at all.


I speak from personal experience as working poor and dealing with homeless and poor people on a daily basis.

a reply to: DieGloke

considering my nefew just got out of lock up after 4 years and only has a hs education and is making over 100 thoughsand a year tells me we dont nneed a lot of welfare for the young

he tells me they hiring anyone that can pass a drug test for the ooil patch right now

so i say strip away welfare except for those of us in the tralor parks that like booz and bingo

a reply to: DieGloke

How do you feel about corporate welfare and taxpayers bailing out banks and Car companies?

www.heritage.org...

Helping the poor is a pittance compared to corporate welfare and subsidies for profitable corporations.

Yep, just a bait and troll thread....Ignoring the obvious.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: DieGloke

How do you feel about corporate welfare and taxpayers bailing out banks and Car companies?

www.heritage.org...

Helping the poor is a pittance compared to corporate welfare.

Despise it.

Businesses should be left to rise and fall of there own merits and be subject to equal tax and criminal law.

And not a bait and troll thread.

You don't see me jumping on posters.

Please share what your idea would be?

originally posted by: BillyJoeOzarks
a reply to: DieGloke

considering my nefew just got out of lock up after 4 years and only has a hs education and is making over 100 thoughsand a year tells me we dont nneed a lot of welfare for the young

he tells me they hiring anyone that can pass a drug test for the ooil patch right now

so i say strip away welfare except for those of us in the tralor parks that like booz and bingo

gotta keep up with the fracking

a hundred grand is enough to erase the morality of any decent hillbilly

i am sure that at some point the oil companies will figure out a way to clean up the underground water they are polluting and fix all the fracturing of the great tectonic plate upon which most of us live

a reply to: DieGloke

Please share what your idea would be?

I don't think putting them in camps is a solution.

How about stopping wars for profit and putting all that money into infrastructure rather than the likes of Halliburton shareholders pockets.

a reply to: DieGloke

People on both sides of the political spectrum cannot get enough free stuff.

It's more about human nature, not politics.

But that does not stop people from creating narratives, such as what we see in the OP.

originally posted by: DieGloke
Honest question. I don't want this to turn into a trolling thread.

Welfare never seems to be enough for the left. They always want more.

So what to you is a far system?


Me who does not claim to be on the left?

For joblessness I would provide no money instead:

A Bunk is a government run hostel/ Barracks with clean but communal living arrangements like showers and toilets.
3 basic meals a day that gives the needed nutrients and calories. Food designed for cost effectiveness not taste.
If your on hard drugs you don't get in unless in rehab.
If you steal or commit acts of violence/sexual assault you get kicked out and left to starve, provided the police don't get you first.
Must have contraceptives injections until you leave.

That way no one is homeless or starving. To help with finding work these hostels/Barracks would be given communal computers and phones.

If they want more they need to work.

That would cut the welfare bill as it will provide for those that really need it but wont be viable for a long term living due to the very basic nature.



Disability I would handle separately. If you have a true disability that is confirmed by 3 doctors and you really cant work, well I would give a comfortable payout which can be set by local authorities depended on cost of living in the area.


So what would you set welfare as? And how would you pay for it?

I don't understand the insane view that some people seem to have about welfare. Where I live, if you get welfare you get $540 a month to live on. What kinds of lives do people assume these 'freeloading' welfare recipients live? Like honestly. I make over $3000 a month and I find it hard enough to live and save money for for things.

People choosing to live on welfare aren't living very awesome lives. I've had to live on ei for a couple months here and there and that was bad enough....I honestly couldn't imagine living on 500 bucks a month.

I dunno what to say...I don't think it's a matter of too much or too little money. Your idea was fairly barbaric, but I do agree just giving people money doesn't seem to work. Job training and placement would help, but i've worked with lots of day labour guys before, typically welfare recipients or drug addicts, and their motivation can be....uh...lacking.

I dunno i've met people who've abused social programs and i've met people who only managed to turn their lives around and do something useful because they had access to welfare and foodbanks and such.

What I find so funny is so many people talk about low lv jobs and how these people should get more education to get a better job that pays more .
So lets pretend for a mint you get every one enough education so they can all work YOUR JOB .
Ok great so now every one is making the same wage as you . Minim wage that is .
Supply and demand when 300 million people acn all do the job and there are only a million jobs in the field the wage that gets payed goes down .

But hey that is not the biggest problem you get when you have no poor .
who takes out the garbage ? who cleans up your crap ? Not the guy with a collage education that is for sure .
Fact is you need the poor they DO not need you . Without them your trash piles up . without the all stores better be self service ( alest until the shelf is empty After all a doctor does not stock shelfs .

The whole idea taht any one really want to change it so there are no poor is a joke .
Thing is the poor have become aware of this so yea why should the person haul trash ?
Ps men in the US get very little of any type of welfare if any one acutely checked 70 % would be single moms 25 % would be old people and 5 % would be men .

Getting ride of welfare meens million of kids left without any parent what so ever .
But the good book says you reap what you sow and its a bitter harvest indeed .

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: DieGloke

Please share what your idea would be?

I don't think putting them in camps is a solution.

How about stopping wars for profit and putting all that money into infrastructure rather than the likes of Halliburton shareholders pockets.

Again with hyperbole.

Never said they should be put intended in isolated camps with substandard accommodation.

I was proposing cheap, basic but clean and safe accommodation where the poor can go for the necessities and help to get back into jobs. And certainly not a prison , but free for them to come and go as they please .


People seem obsessed with the idea of camps.


Now your idea, I wouldn't disagree with. I would rather see the money spent on infrastructure than blowing # up in the middle East.

originally posted by: midnightstar
What I find so funny is so many people talk about low lv jobs and how these people should get more education to get a better job that pays more .
So lets pretend for a mint you get every one enough education so they can all work YOUR JOB .
Ok great so now every one is making the same wage as you . Minim wage that is .
Supply and demand when 300 million people acn all do the job and there are only a million jobs in the field the wage that gets payed goes down .

But hey that is not the biggest problem you get when you have no poor .
who takes out the garbage ? who cleans up your crap ? Not the guy with a collage education that is for sure .
Fact is you need the poor they DO not need you . Without them your trash piles up . without the all stores better be self service ( alest until the shelf is empty After all a doctor does not stock shelfs .

The whole idea taht any one really want to change it so there are no poor is a joke .
Thing is the poor have become aware of this so yea why should the person haul trash ?
Ps men in the US get very little of any type of welfare if any one acutely checked 70 % would be single moms 25 % would be old people and 5 % would be men .

Getting ride of welfare meens million of kids left without any parent what so ever .
But the good book says you reap what you sow and its a bitter harvest indeed .

Actually that is the point of working up the ladder.

Yeah some people will leave school with few qualifications. But they should be given the opportunity to work up the ladder into better jobs. Those people will then be replaced by more school levers.


No one is owed a 6 figure job starting out from school or even university, you earn it.

Well, I'm not on the left but I hope I can chime in too.

I think there will be too much individual welfare if it ever surpasses corporate welfare.

If you research this, you'll find that, entering 2018, corporate welfare exceeds individual welfare in our country by almost 50%, not quite but close.

2018 or the next few years can change that, but I will move to the Moon if it does, that's how sure I am of status quo under every president. If we can take recent corporate tax cuts as an example of what's to come, I'd say corporate welfare is here to stay.

Until our corporations can turn a profit and stand on their own legs without needing taxpayer assistance or bailouts, or can start paying taxes like Amazon should, I guess welfare will be a thing. Maybe one day the corporations will become profitable enough that they can stop taking welfare, and on top of that start paying taxes and pay back the good people of the USA that helped them get where they are.

Until that changes I think we all have a larger target than individual welfare, don't you think?