Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand those who are complaining because they are paying taxes for SNAP recipients. Theyare failing to realize that they pay also taxes for many programs and services they don't personally use. I'm not complaining because I pay a [lot] of property taxes (among the highest rate in the country) to send TX children to public school when I don't have children, as do millions of other people. And what of citizens who pay taxes for road construction and improvements on roads they don't ever drive on? Or pay taxes for police when they don't utilize that service? You want to live in a First World, industrialized nation in which people are reasonably safe and secure? You have to pay taxes to finance these things, for you and everyone else. The money doesn't fall out of the sky.
This is also another amazing lens to view the debated issue.
I am fairly certain you too receive some type of aide, placing you my friend in the category of Welfare. I am willing to believe you are a good person howbeit a good Welfare recipient.
No actually we do put people in jail for being poor. If you think being made to be poor isn't punishment enough.
I'm pretty sure this is hyperbole. I've never heard of anyone in the United States being put in jail just because they were poor. I am rather sure that that could not really happen under our current law codes. Now I know that people are all the time put in jail for committing crimes that can be associated with being poor, such as theft. But they are put in jail for the crime they committed, not for being poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
We have a entire system of law dedicated to gating off wealth to certain people and denying it to other people, based more on who your parents were than anything else. You don't think that amounts to punishment? If you're okay with this society, you don't get to complain about crime, you don't get to complain about riots, you don't get to complain about protests. You're supporting the status quo that forces these things to happen, and if you want to sit around saying "well why don't the poor just stop complaining or become rich" then you don't get to complain when people make fun of you and your myopic self-interest.
We have an entire human history of strict class hierarchies, and wealth being restricted based on who your parents were. The law code, in the United States, as I observe it, actually tries very hard to reverse this typical societal trend, and tries to give people at least the opportunity for true class mobility. Now obviously not everyone is inclined to or able to take the opportunity to move up in classes, but the fact remains that it is MUCH MUCH easier to do so in 21st Century America than in almost all of human history all over the world.
It also remains true that true class mobility rests on people being able to take personal responsibility and work hard, and keep the fruits of their labor. Large scale welfare states (not little ones, but big ones) have shown to inhibit class mobility, not encourage it. I support a meritocracy that encourages the most class mobility, that helps the most poor people be able to rise and be great.
It also remains true that true class mobility rests on people being able to take personal responsibility and work hard, and keep the fruits of their labor. Large scale welfare states (not little ones, but big ones) have shown to inhibit class mobility, not encourage it. I support a meritocracy that encourages the most class mobility, that helps the most poor people be able to rise and be great.
I think most studies disagree with that...
"Most studies back up the idea that the U.S. has lost the upper hand for upward mobility to Europe and Canada over the last several decades. According to the Times story, 16% of Canadian men raised in the bottom tenth percentile of incomes were still there as adults. In the U.S., 22% remained in the bottom tenth.
Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic Mobility Project and other studies that found that 42% of American men with fathers who were in the bottom fifth of the earning curve stay there. Meanwhile, only a quarter of Danes and Swedes and 30% of Britons born into the lower-income bracket will die in that same bracket".
Again, for the umpty umpth time, most people on food stamps work. Therefore, they are ALSO paying taxes. I worked and I paid taxes and you're more generous than I am. I really don't like paying taxes for public schools so people can educate their children for free, especially since I don't have kids myself. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you have kids, then pay to educate them yourself. Don't take my tax dollars to do it. You're right, we are spending too much money on public handouts lately. So I propose we cut all money that goes to public education.
Well, as I said, let's cut public education. You have kids, you pay for their education. It's not free, you know, and there are many, many people on food stamps who are working and their taxes - money they could use in their pockets - are going to support your kids in public school. And actually, in private schools as well, since so many of those schools also get government money.
Sorry, you used this argument on the wrong person. My kids go to a private school that accepts no government money, and is 100% supported by tuition payments and parent and alumni donations. Mean while I also pay a fair amount of property taxes to support my local public school, of which I have never used a service. I also tutor my children afterschool myself, using materials that I bought with money I earned at my full time job or made with my own hands, at my kitchen table. I absolutely practice what I preach.
Now, I believe in public schools, because I DO believe that educating all children is a valuable service to a society. Children of today are the adults of tomorrow, and the better educated they are, the better our country will be. Also, an opportunity for a free and equitable education for all children is the best way to promote class mobility, the best way to give children the tools to be self-sufficient and personally responsible. If they are to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they at least need bootstraps, and that is what public school is. ALSO, children cannot support themselves. I am all for giving out of my hard earned money to help support those who truly cannot support themselves, such as children, or the severely disabled or the very elderly. Able-bodied adults, however, can support themselves.
I am aware that most people on foodstamps work. I am also aware that the reason they get paid so horribly by places like Walmart is because Walmart, and Walmart's employees, know that if Walmart only pays a tiny wage, then the government will step in and pay the rest, in the form of Government Assistance programs, such as "foodstamps" (aka the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program or SNAP for short). And that if Walmart raised it's pay too much, then their employees would no longer qualify for things like SNAP (foodstamps), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, aka "welfare"), housing assistance, daycare assistance, heat assistance, and whatever else they are using. They are able to get more money out of the government because Walmart pays so little, and they don't want their pay to go up or they will actually lose more money! The only way to get Walmart to increase their wages is to STOP supplementing their employees' income with all these handouts, let the Walmart employees participate in unions, and let them perform good old fashioned union strikes until wages are increased. No one will strike if they can just get food stamps and be all right. Not great, but all right. Surviving till the next paycheck.
For the non-initiated, the terminology de jure is that "welfare" = TANF (the specific program that deals in cash handouts for a limited time period).
Public aid (the generic term) = Government Assistance, or Social Safety Net, or Income Security.
The term "welfare" is no longer used in the generic sense in discussions about government assistance. You can use the acronym "GA" where you would have previously used "welfare", and it will now conform to modern usage.
I am aware that most people on foodstamps work. I am also aware that the reason they get paid so horribly by places like Walmart is because Walmart, and Walmart's employees, know that if Walmart only pays a tiny wage, then the government will step in and pay the rest, in the form of Government Assistance programs, such as "foodstamps" (aka the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program or SNAP for short). And that if Walmart raised it's pay too much, then their employees would no longer qualify for things like SNAP (foodstamps), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, aka "welfare"), housing assistance, daycare assistance, heat assistance, and whatever else they are using. They are able to get more money out of the government because Walmart pays so little, and they don't want their pay to go up or they will actually lose more money! The only way to get Walmart to increase their wages is to STOP supplementing their employees' income with all these handouts, let the Walmart employees participate in unions, and let them perform good old fashioned union strikes until wages are increased. No one will strike if they can just get food stamps and be all right. Not great, but all right. Surviving till the next paycheck.
I completely agree with this ^. I tried arguing that issue on another thread about the minimum wage and said that in order to raise wages we need to cut the social service benefits being paid to low income workers, especially EITC! The only fair way to do it so that it wouldn't devastate those workers would be a phased in elimination of those benefits. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that giving low wage workers TANF and EITC benefits no one except the employers who are able to hire people for less than market value because of taxpayer provided wage supplements.
"Most studies back up the idea that the U.S. has lost the upper hand for upward mobility to Europe and Canada over the last several decades. According to the Times story, 16% of Canadian men raised in the bottom tenth percentile of incomes were still there as adults. In the U.S., 22% remained in the bottom tenth. Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic Mobility Project and other studies that found that 42% of American men with fathers who were in the bottom fifth of the earning curve stay there. Meanwhile, only a quarter of Danes and Swedes and 30% of Britons born into the lower-income bracket will die in that same bracket".
I agree with this. I think this is due to the fact that the US public school system is declining in quality (or at least remaining stagnant). Mainly due to the fact that teachers in the US do not receive quality post-secondary training, or pay. In places like Europe and Canada, the trend is to have much higher standards for teachers, they get more training, and are paid for their efforts. Which is why teachers elsewhere are able to teach say, math, because they understand math. In the US an education degree is one of the easiest degrees to get, and you don't have to know much math to complete it. And if the teacher doesn't know math, then the student doesn't know math. And if the student doesn't know math, then the student can't get a good paying job that uses math, in order to move up into middle class.
So yes, recently we have been falling behind in this. We are still way better than most of human history. But we have room to improve. And I think it starts with higher standards and degree requirements, and pay, for elementary, middle, and high school teachers.
I completely agree with this ^. I tried arguing that issue on another thread about the minimum wage and said that in order to raise wages we need to cut the social service benefits being paid to low income workers, especially EITC! The only fair way to do it so that it wouldn't devastate those workers would be a phased in elimination of those benefits. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that giving low wage workers TANF and EITC benefits no one except the employers who are able to hire people for less than market value because of taxpayer provided wage supplements.
I absolutely and 100% agree with this. A phased elimination, or at least a scale back, of some of the GA programs, would help to return the low wages to their proper market value.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
