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.
The illegal manage to find jobs, housing and get food AND be able to send money back home every week. And all this without the help of welfare programs.
Sorry, but you are mistaken (only about the bolded part) :
Quote
"We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children."
But it does show that if welfare recipients also worked as hard as illegals they'd have enough extra money to
get ahead. The money illegals send back to Mexico is their country's second highest revenue after oil and gas.
It is hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Welfare recipients could be making that money instead if we cracked down on illegals and replaced and trained welfare recipients to in those jobs.
I'd like to point out that every candidate on either side is wanting to cut SS benefits.
[1] SS is something that was TAKEN from my weekly earnings without my consent and that money [2]was not "taxes" that the government should have the right to decide how to spend it. Yet they are wanting to cut that.
Whereas, welfare is money that was ALSO TAKEN from my check in the form of taxes, and given to other people, many of whom have NEVER worked a day in their life. The government wants to keep increasing the list of recipients.
IMO both cases are indefensible.
[1] FICA is 100% voluntary - voluntary socialism.
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration
[2] Now, if you thought FICA was "insurance" for you, and that you were "owed" benefits for your lifetime payment of FICA TAXES, you were sadly mistaken.
In Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits. And that benefits are entirely at the discretion of Congress.
In fact, benefits are "public charity," and make all participants into paupers at law.
FICA was a "tax and bribe" scam to impose a new tax in the midst of the depression. (Just like ACA!)
Welfare / Wealth redistribution / government sponsored theft is deemed acceptable due to money madness inherent in the U.S. Constitution, as well as socialism.
Under current money madness, the 3 ways to acquire necessary money are:
1) trade (labor and / or property)
2) charity (private and / or public)
3) predation (crime, etc)
Due to the scarcity of money, usury, and socialist overhead, it rewards companies to be more efficient, and reduce labor costs. This, in turn, eliminates jobs, forcing people to depend on charity. When private charity is exhausted, they are left with no other option except crime. . . which is unacceptable. Hence, the purported solution of PUBLIC CHARITY... socialism.
However, wealth redistribution is an abomination, which penalizes the productive for the benefit of the non-productive. It is ripe for corruption, fraud, and parasitism. Anyone with half a brain will seek to become a 'recipient' rather than suffer being a 'donor.'
What about a FOURTH way?
4) emit private promissory notes (denominated in goods or services, not "money")
An unemployed laborer can emit a note, and trade it for groceries, pay bills, etc. The eventual holder in due course tenders it to him at a future date for discharge, and when he fulfills it, the note is extinguished. Thus he does not require public charity taken from someone else. Likewise, an entrepreneur can “capitalize” his business by paying for labor, materials and overhead with notes, denominated in what his business will produce.
In essence, every hour of labor and product available can have a corresponding note to facilitate trade, regardless of the scarcity of 'legal tender.' No more fight for "market share" or a piece of the finite money pie.
Zero-eth Amendment : "The people's right to emit their own medium of exchange shall not be infringed."
Of course, a transition to a "Liberty Money" based economy will destroy the usury based money mad system. Who needs to borrow, when one can emit a private note ?
Buh Bye Banksters - - -
And since Federal Reserve Notes are IOUs, underwritten via FICA, as Americans leave "voluntary" FICA, that makes the notes under capitalized and unacceptable.
Billionaires become Zero-aires.
D'Oh!
This also cripples tax revenues, since no American government can tax rights - only privileges. And to emit one's own medium of exchange is not a government privilege, but an endowed right.
However, a return to real prosperity based on the production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services is superior to the madness of accumulating paper wealth that is worthless, in the long run. Doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.
Hmmm why not. Lets discuss the topic that the OP asked.
1) What is YOUR solution, in detail.
Welfare-lets define it first. In this case its a combination of healthcare, food stamps, section 8, energy assistance, social security, medicare, etc.
So first...Lets talk about what I propose. All adults age 18 and above receive $1.5K per month. Period. Children receive $100/month increasing by $50 per year until they are 18. You MUST have been born on American soil or to an American parent to be eligible, and until age 65 you must be within the continental us living here legally. Universal healthcare will be provided-this includes dental, and a base level of vision. Laser eye surgery to correct vision WILL be covered (long term its cheaper then glasses). The amount provided is indexed to inflation.
If you are incarcerated or cared for by the state you receive $100/month for spending money, and the other $900 goes for your upkeep provided by the state. Other then that this money is judgement proof.
Now. Lets be honest this is expensive. Its not free. This will be paid for by much higher taxes. Although the middle class won't notice, they will tend to break even with the pay vs what they receive.
2) Explain how and why YOUR solution will work.
The first $1K of any social security or retirement that is in lieue of social security is paid to the state. You no longer receive that-but if you would receive more then the 1K then you still do so.
Section 8 is ended
Unemployment is ended
Welfare and food stamps are ended.
Minimum wage is....ended.
Basically all welfare is ended.
Medicare and medicaid is replaced by universal healthcare.
Now lets do some math....The cost of the cash grant is 367 billion for adults, and call it another 100 billion for children. PER MONTH. Thats a ton of money! Current income is about 938 billion a month. So...a 50% tax rate basically.
So for those reading this, look around. look at your household, and think..50% taxations rate on my current take home income.....and 1.5K per adult back. For me, its a raise. In fact for the vast majority it is a raise. Thats...weird. For The ultra rich....its massive taxation. They're still doing pretty darn good though. And everyone is guaranteed a floor of income which they will not drop below. The administration is simplified. If someone wants to work they are better off-ALWAYS.
So...its a solution. I think however...its a solution that shouldn't be implemented until the cost is under 25% for the taxation for it, but it absolutely could be done today.
My personal suggestion? Implement it over a 15 year period. IE this year...everyone gets $100/month. Next year 200. Taxation raises with it to pay for it all. Start dropping programs as you go.
Not saying I agree with this, but at least you answered the OP's question.
A minimum income floor may have to be a possibility in the next 50 - 100 years. Depends on how mechanized jobs really become.
Welfare / Wealth redistribution / government sponsored theft is deemed acceptable due to money madness inherent in the U.S. Constitution, as well as socialism.
Under current money madness, the 3 ways to acquire necessary money are:
1) trade (labor and / or property)
2) charity (private and / or public)
3) predation (crime, etc)
Due to the scarcity of money, usury, and socialist overhead, it rewards companies to be more efficient, and reduce labor costs. This, in turn, eliminates jobs, forcing people to depend on charity. When private charity is exhausted, they are left with no other option except crime. . . which is unacceptable. Hence, the purported solution of PUBLIC CHARITY... socialism.
However, wealth redistribution is an abomination, which penalizes the productive for the benefit of the non-productive. It is ripe for corruption, fraud, and parasitism. Anyone with half a brain will seek to become a 'recipient' rather than suffer being a 'donor.'
What about a FOURTH way?
4) emit private promissory notes (denominated in goods or services, not "money")
An unemployed laborer can emit a note, and trade it for groceries, pay bills, etc. The eventual holder in due course tenders it to him at a future date for discharge, and when he fulfills it, the note is extinguished. Thus he does not require public charity taken from someone else. Likewise, an entrepreneur can “capitalize” his business by paying for labor, materials and overhead with notes, denominated in what his business will produce.
In essence, every hour of labor and product available can have a corresponding note to facilitate trade, regardless of the scarcity of 'legal tender.' No more fight for "market share" or a piece of the finite money pie.
Zero-eth Amendment : "The people's right to emit their own medium of exchange shall not be infringed."
Of course, a transition to a "Liberty Money" based economy will destroy the usury based money mad system. Who needs to borrow, when one can emit a private note ?
Buh Bye Banksters - - -
And since Federal Reserve Notes are IOUs, underwritten via FICA, as Americans leave "voluntary" FICA, that makes the notes under capitalized and unacceptable.
Billionaires become Zero-aires.
D'Oh!
This also cripples tax revenues, since no American government can tax rights - only privileges. And to emit one's own medium of exchange is not a government privilege, but an endowed right.
However, a return to real prosperity based on the production, trade and enjoyment of surplus usable goods and services is superior to the madness of accumulating paper wealth that is worthless, in the long run. Doing more with less so more can enjoy is superior to doing less with more so few can enjoy.
There's a guy who has created and successfully passed artwork resembling currency, his work is valuable as collectibles.
I did look at it and it's bad numbers. It's taking all possible welfare and using it as a baseline. That's not the reality of how welfare works. The odds of someone being enrolled in ALL those programs at any time are low, let alone at the same time. A $15k/year figure is closer to reality of what welfare recipients actually receive vs $50-60k salaries that are in that pdf.
In addition, I'm challenging the assertion that welfare is "broken" and needs to be fixed. The only "fix" that needs to happen is phasing out the benefits someone gets based on income.
Not saying I agree with this, but at least you answered the OP's question.
A minimum income floor may have to be a possibility in the next 50 - 100 years. Depends on how mechanized jobs really become.
Yes. One of the very few, and while I may not agree with it, I do appreciate that you actually answered the questions, greywar. The point of this thread was to see if anyone actually had any ideas over the usual one line answers that are usually brought every time welfare is discussed. Everyone wants to argue about it, but no one wants to come up with anything, at all, to try to resolve it. No, we are not politicians, but if we're going to argue about it, should we not have some idea of what we think would be a solution?
Saying to "cut it off" is only half of what I asked. How do you cut it off? What do you do with those who are on it, right now? What do you do with the ones who have multiple kids? Do you cut it off over a period of time, or do you cut it off tomorrow, no warning?
Saying that "people have to work", the fact is, people DO work while receiving welfare. So what, then, is the solution?
Talking about vouchers, and how much someone doesn't believe the study doesn't answer the questions.
To those few who did offer a solution, with detailed explanation of how and why it would work, thank you. To the rest, please, you clearly feel strongly about it, tell me your solution AND provide a detailed explanation of how (meaning how it would be done), and why (why you say it would work). Again, based on facts and figures, not by emotions and hearsay.
[/b]
Sorry, but you are mistaken (only about the bolded part) :
Quote
"We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children."
But it does show that if welfare recipients also worked as hard as illegals they'd have enough extra money to
get ahead. The money illegals send back to Mexico is their country's second highest revenue after oil and gas.
It is hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Welfare recipients could be making that money instead if we cracked down on illegals and replaced and trained welfare recipients to in those jobs.
No I'm not. I said illegals. Your post shows "legal immigrants".
There are plenty of illegals that come here with kids born in their home country or no kids at all.
They get no welfare benefits.
In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children...
...We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children...
...Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program...
...Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.
Welfare. Whether illegal aliens can obtain state benefits is not clear-cut. The short answer appears to be that they are not legally entitled to most benefits, but do in fact receive them...
...Typically, any proof an illegal alien provides as evidence of legal status, regardless of its fraudulent nature, will satisfy social services agencies that determine the person's benefit eligibility because an intake clerk simply cannot make the determination that someone is an illegal alien. Therefore, the law is usually overlooked and illegal aliens manage to qualify for state and local benefits.
Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 10-15-2015 at 07:10 PM..
Most have a 5th grade or lower education.
They survive.
How they do it though most Americans would shun.
Take that away and they will still survive because they didn't' have that where they came from.
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.
