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.
THEN COMPARE TOTAL COMPENSATION TO TOTAL COMPENSATION. How much clearer do I need to make it?
I don't even understand how you're trying to explain your way into a discussion. You're taking the very things you're supposed to be comparing and through some weird logic, not comparing them.
I'm literally reading this and trying to make sense of it, but the only thing that I'm getting as that you don't understand how FICA, Medicare, or most welfare work.
Your original premise was:
"I'll say it: What's wrong w/ welfare that it needs to be fixed? We have no problem locking up millions of people @ $60k/yr per person, yet someone wants to live on $15k b/c they're lazy and we can't stand it."
My claim was that they get more then $15K.
You seem to think that because you can add in more for someone EARNING their money is somehow changes this. The ends results are that the person you claim is only getting $15,000/yr is, in fact, getting more. I don't care how you want to try and spin it, the facts remain: they get more. In fact when you add up just how much more in tangible benefits they receive you end up with a substantial number. Adding government taxes that are going to the mooches isn't exactly proving a point.
"I'll say it: What's wrong w/ welfare that it needs to be fixed? We have no problem locking up millions of people @ $60k/yr per person, yet someone wants to live on $15k b/c they're lazy and we can't stand it."
My claim was that they get more then $15K.
You seem to think that because you can add in more for someone EARNING their money is somehow changes this. The ends results are that the person you claim is only getting $15,000/yr is, in fact, getting more. I don't care how you want to try and spin it, the facts remain: they get more. In fact when you add up just how much more in tangible benefits they receive you end up with a substantial number. Adding government taxes that are going to the mooches isn't exactly proving a point.
If you're going to factor in the TOTAL VALUE of everything they receive through welfare, then you have to compare it to the TOTAL VALUE of what an employee gets from working.
You can't compare the total value of the welfare and say that it's the equivalent of someone's $60K salary b/c it's not. The TOTAL VALUE of a $60k employee is going to be ~$90k.
The TOTAL VALUE of someone who's on welfare and collecting every benefit under the sun (which rarely happens) is on par w/ someone making $37k or $17/hr.
But if you insist on using the take home pay of someone earning wages, then you have to compare the actual dollars that someone on welfare actually collects. $15k/year is a much closer estimate than whatever nonsense figures the Cato Institute is trying to push.
THEN COMPARE TOTAL COMPENSATION TO TOTAL COMPENSATION. How much clearer do I need to make it?
I don't even understand how you're trying to explain your way into a discussion. You're taking the very things you're supposed to be comparing and through some weird logic, not comparing them.
I'm literally reading this and trying to make sense of it, but the only thing that I'm getting as that you don't understand how FICA, Medicare, or most welfare work.
SilverBulletZ06 made perfect sense to me. It's just not the answer you wanted to hear. Po baby
The TOTAL VALUE of someone who's on welfare and collecting every benefit under the sun (which rarely happens) is on par w/ someone making $37k or $17/hr.
If they don't like it then tell them to get off their ass and work. Wow, Eddie, it sounds like you are begging for more of other people's money.
If you're going to factor in the TOTAL VALUE of everything they receive through welfare, then you have to compare it to the TOTAL VALUE of what an employee gets from working.
You can't compare the total value of the welfare and say that it's the equivalent of someone's $60K salary b/c it's not. The TOTAL VALUE of a $60k employee is going to be ~$90k.
The TOTAL VALUE of someone who's on welfare and collecting every benefit under the sun (which rarely happens) is on par w/ someone making $37k or $17/hr.
But if you insist on using the take home pay of someone earning wages, then you have to compare the actual dollars that someone on welfare actually collects. $15k/year is a much closer estimate than whatever nonsense figures the Cato Institute is trying to push.
No, it's not. That's like saying I need to subtract my mortgage, my food, and my child care to get the "actual number" I am paid. It doesn't make sense. When you get $15,000 in SS/DI, $5,000 in SNAP, $12,000 in housing assistance, $6,000 in EITC, and god knows what else then you are being given $38,000+ in welfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
SilverBulletZ06 made perfect sense to me. It's just not the answer you wanted to hear. Po baby
SilverBulletZ06 made perfect sense to me. It's just not the answer you wanted to hear. Po baby
If you want to sign off on intellectual dishonesty, have at it. Says more about you than him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
If they don't like it then tell them to get off their ass and work. Wow, Eddie, it sounds like you are begging for more of other people's money.
That's my same feeling about Conservatives who claim deductions for children. No one told them to have kids they couldn't afford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
He's off in another thread killing off seniors. That frees up SS and medicare money for more welfare benefits
I have a thing for pointing out Conservative hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06
No, it's not. That's like saying I need to subtract my mortgage, my food, and my child care to get the "actual number" I am paid. It doesn't make sense. When you get $15,000 in SS/DI, $5,000 in SNAP, $12,000 in housing assistance, $6,000 in EITC, and god knows what else then you are being given $38,000+ in welfare.
Thank you.
None of that makes any sense. If you can't understand comparing the total value of earnings to the total value of benefits, there's nothing I can do to make it clearer. But I really shouldn't expect much from someone that thinks that all welfare is for life.
But help me understand... Paint the scenario of the person that earns all $38,000 in those benefits
I'll make it brief since I don't have the time to write out a complete proposal.
As far as children are concerned, they will need to be grandfathered in. Cutting off children's benefits already born would be like punishing them for being born, which I think should not be the case. So, all children born before 2017, let's say, will be exempt from welfare benefit exclusions. I say 2017 as an example year, but ideally whatever year such a bill is written and voted on should have a time frame of 12 months before it goes into effect. This will also avoid a baby halfway in pregnancy from being excluded.
As far as families are concerned who fall into welfare after losing a good career like many rustbelt families had to ensure, I think a rule should be written in that in the future (let's say 2017), families who had at least one adult working full-time for at least 3 consecutive years should have their kids factored in. They won't be excluded. A case worker, with a supervisor's guidance, will also be granted the autonomy to decide, in cases like these, if these families are legitimately in need of help or are just sitting on their laurels. I think many times you need a human eye for these things that rigid rules can't compensate for. But, my proposal targets those chronically on welfare. As for immigrant children getting on welfare, they are permanently barred from it unless they are US citizens AND reach 18 years of age regardless of when they were born and only if the immigrants had a sponsor who is a US citizen (natural-born or naturalized)
Welfare applicants need to demonstrate that they have been trying to find a job, and should have written documentation proving that they were interviewed, and should be registered at their county workforce development office (my state called it CareerLink and now PA Workforce Development I believe). If they are getting training or education, then they don't need to provide proof of job hunting.
I believe my proposal would help those that actually need it the most, and penalize "welfare breeders". I live next to several such families, and boy are they a big handful to be around. It's those people that shouldn't be having kids, but are because welfare does not penalize them. My proposal would have some guidelines, but the case workers would have more freedom to decide if such people are just leeches or people that are in legitimate need of help. It's not the most perfect proposal, but it is a start
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to further explain your thoughts. I really like your suggestion that instead of just "looking" for work, they have to have documentation that they actually looked and got an interview, and were interviewed. Of course there's still going to be some fraud there, because apparently you can pay some people off to lie - a relative, or a friend of a friend's business...but, not everyone has those ties so it's a really good start. I like that idea.
So how would the welfare workers decide who was sitting on their laurels and who was legitimately needing the help? Would they make house calls? Would they send out investigators like they do for those who abuse disability or workman's comp or insurance fraud? With the money saved, could we use some of it to hire more people to become those investigators to find those who abuse the systems? What about Maine's idea of putting people's photos on the internet? I know a lot of people don't like that idea, but would it not be easier for us to know who has been on it for a long time, who lives in a nice place or who has grown up toys in their yard, (motorcycles, snowmobiles, three wheelers, boats, etc) so that the public can point them out? Should we only put them online if they've been on welfare after x amount of time so as not to "shame" (as the argument was), those who genuinely needed it until they got back on their feet? If so, what would be that time period before they appeared online?
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
Good luck with that
Yeah. I know. I don't know wth I was thinking when I thought, "Certainly we can have an intelligent debate about this topic". Clearly I was too optimistic that more would want to have one.
If you want to sign off on intellectual dishonesty, have at it. Says more about you than him.
That's my same feeling about Conservatives who claim deductions for children. No one told them to have kids they couldn't afford.
I have a thing for pointing out Conservative hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance.
None of that makes any sense. If you can't understand comparing the total value of earnings to the total value of benefits, there's nothing I can do to make it clearer. But I really shouldn't expect much from someone that thinks that all welfare is for life.
But help me understand... Paint the scenario of the person that earns all $38,000 in those benefits
I told you of a real life scenario where a person had benefits adding up to $93,000/yr.
A study using 1995 figures looked at total welfare packages (which have since expanded) (The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off: An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare Benefits by State) and converted to 2015 dollars puts us at $56,800 at the top to $18,000 at the bottom with a median value somewhere around $29,000. Start adding in family costs like the example I cited (single mom 3 kids) and the prices skyrocket.
It's pretty sad that my example makes more in benefits then 90% of the people going to work every day.
How so? They're both public assistance, paid for by taking money that others have worked hard to earn.
Read my previous post on the subject.
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.
