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'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.
Nobody goes to jail explicitly for being poor. But they go to jail because they can't afford bail. They go to jail because they can't afford a decent lawyer. When they aren't going to jail (or in addition to), they're paying enormous late fees on tickets they couldn't afford to pay off (tickets assessed for crimes like not being able to afford car repairs, or public urination when they can't afford private toilets).
The justice system is essentially a conspiracy to take money from the poor and throw them in jail when it can't. True justice is a luxury service.
Nobody goes to jail explicitly for being poor. But they go to jail because they can't afford bail. They go to jail because they can't afford a decent lawyer. When they aren't going to jail (or in addition to), they're paying enormous late fees on tickets they couldn't afford to pay off (tickets assessed for crimes like not being able to afford car repairs, or public urination when they can't afford private toilets).
Are there really people in jail because of a car repair, or because of public urination (that wasn't complicated by things like public indecency, public intoxication, or urinating on a government building or something like that, but just plain old peeing behind a tree in the woods)?
I've never heard of someone actually getting tried and convicted of a crime with a sentence of jail time due to having a broken headlight and not being able to pay for a new one. A drunkard being tossed in the clink for a night to "sleep it off", with "public urination" being listed as the "official" reason for picking someone up, yes, but not an actual legit "you peed behind a tree, you're going to jail".
If that really happened, yes, I'd be appalled. And I'm sure the media would be interested too, because if that is really happening then yes it needs to be changed.
And there are bail bond companies, but they will only post your bail if they are convinced you won't run. There are also publicly appointed attorneys, and sure they may not be the best attorneys in the world, but that's a far cry from actually jailing people "for being poor". I'll grant that every once in a while there is probably a truly innocent person who did absolutely nothing wrong, but who had a really bad public defender and was put in jail. And that's horrible, and should be fixed on a case by case basis when it occurs. But the system isn't set up to purposefully make that happen, and I'll also wager that it happens much less often then, say, welfare fraud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
The justice system is essentially a conspiracy to take money from the poor and throw them in jail when it can't. True justice is a luxury service.
I could just as easily say that "the welfare system is essentially a conspiracy to take money from the rich and riot when they can't". But I don't usually find conspiracy theories regarding normal everyday people to be all that productive.
Recently there was a welfare fraud bust in a nearby rural small town. The entire investigation went on for over a year before the cops rolled up and arrested the store owners and employees who were selling welfare recipients illegal products, and paying 70-cents on the dollar for SNAP cards. I'd like to know what this Big Bust cause the taxpayers, but nobody is admitting anything. I'm sure the bill is much higher than the actual fraud.
The welfare system is too easily scammed. So, why do we continue to use it.
I'd like to hear some ideas on how people would change it. We all complain about it, but never offer solutions.
My idea would be to do away with our current welfare cards. Build a Welfare Store in every neighborhood that needs one. Similar to Sam's Club, only a welfare recipient can enter and shop there. Stock these Welfare Stores with only approved goods (no beer or tobacco products). All Welfare Stores must keep their computers up-to-date with local recipient names and how much welfare money they have in their account. Nobody but the recipient can access those accounts, and yes, proof of identity will be a must every time they shop. A photo ID only. Welfare recipients can only shop in their local Welfare Stores where their names are on file. Any recipient that doesn't like that can go to work and earn the privilege of shopping wherever they want to shop.
What do you all think? Good idea? Bad? Feel free to post your thoughts and solutions. America is not about to let people starve to death, so please let's save the "Cut 'em all off welfare" arguments for another thread.
We don't close the retail store system because there's shoplifting there. There is fraud everywhere. In the huge subsidies we give corporations and farmers, to Medicare, to Social Security Disability, to tax fraud by wealthy people (can you say Leona Helmsley?), to shoplifting, to real estate transactions, to business contracts.
The thing is to go after the fraud. That doesn't mean the program or system in which the fraud occurred is bad.
I'd rather see people have the freedom to use their stamps when and where they think is best and is most convenient for them. If there were stores, you would have the issue of some people not being able to get there. Poor people often have transportation issues. If a person can't get to a store to use the stamps, s/he would be forced to sell them....creating the very situation the store system was designed to prevent.
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.
I work 60+ hours a week and support myself fully. I provide welfare, I don't receive it.
I work 60+ hours a week and support myself fully. I provide welfare, I don't receive it.
I usually work 48 hours a week and we qualify for food stamps on just my salary. Child support puts us slightly over the income limits. And I make over minimum wage. I work these hours in addition to being a single parent.
Stop blaming the recipients because they qualify for the handout, especially when they are indeed working overtime consistently. Blame the economy that sets wages so low. I could leave my job, and 300 people would apply to replace me. Supply and demand dictates salaries.
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 was not paid more in the years that I was married and didn't qualify for EITC. What makes you think salaries would suddenly go up if it was discontinued?
Bottom line is you have people begging for the job I have and I am often competing with hundreds of applicants. They do not have to pay more. They get countless people at a salary that still qualifies for good stamps.
Regardless, if they fix the child support system, you would have a lot less single parents qualifying for assistance. But no one seems to get fired up about that topic...
No it's not. They are handouts. If the nation gets to the point where they have to cut in to social security and Medicare payouts to instead pay interest on the growing national debt, then the government can do that, and you won't get a payout, but you will still have to pay in. If you die and don't get a payout, your beneficiary does not get the money you paid in. It's just a tax-and-handout system. Income redistribution, taking income from the young and redistributing it to the old.
Anyone who tells you it is NOT a handout is trying to trick you. Is making you look like a gullible fool. "Oh, no, it's not a hand out, you get what you pay in!! Of course!! We just hold it for you for a bit!!" No. They are playing you for a fool. It is disingenuous for someone to tell you it ISNT a handout. It's like someone telling you the earth is flat, or dinosaurs are fake.
You don't understand SS & Medicare. SS is financially solvent, for one thing.
Those are social programs designed to help a specific need. There was a serious problem with our seniors years ago. After working a lifetime, many were living in abject poverty at a time of life when they couldn't do anything about it and when their bodies were vulnerable to poor nutrition.
SS has been one of the most successful programs ever in the U.S. It did precisely what it was designed to do. If only other govt programs were as successful. The costs are far less than the 401k program that is in existence because investment cos are not siphoning off money, and the SS program benefits from the economy of scale. It's a marvelous program that keeps many seniors from going hungry.
Those programs are not handouts. People worked and contributed to those specific programs. In some ways, it's no different than a deduction you get on your income tax return for your costs of running your business, if you're self employed. The deduction is not a handout. It's given to you because you contributed it in the first place, and the govt kicks in the tax benefit you'll get.
We will not be taking food and health care out of the mouths of our seniors to pay for a debt created by the uber wealthy. Taxes on the wealthy need to be raised. THE BIGGIEST SINGLE FACTOR IN THE NATIONAL DEBT IS THE HUGE TAX CUT GIVEN TO THE WEALTHY in the midst of two wars. You wanna fix the debt? Raise that tax back to its rightful level.
We also won't be taking food out of the mouths of poor people to pay for the deregulation that led to the Great Recession. Deregulation by the wealthiest in the country.
If you want a retirement program that keeps your money separate, you've got it. It's called a 401K. Or something else, if you are self-employed. Those two things serve a different purpose. The pooling of money in SS is the basis of the program and precisely WHY it works so well.
The one part of SS that doesn't work is SS disability. The SS program was not designed for that purpose, and it has a shortage. The govt recently took $ from regular SS to put into the Disability fund. That disability part needs to be revamped. It is NOT part of the regular SS program, and was never intended to be.
Are there really people in jail because of a car repair, or because of public urination (that wasn't complicated by things like public indecency, public intoxication, or urinating on a government building or something like that, but just plain old peeing behind a tree in the woods)?
I've never heard of someone actually getting tried and convicted of a crime with a sentence of jail time due to having a broken headlight and not being able to pay for a new one. A drunkard being tossed in the clink for a night to "sleep it off", with "public urination" being listed as the "official" reason for picking someone up, yes, but not an actual legit "you peed behind a tree, you're going to jail".
If that really happened, yes, I'd be appalled. And I'm sure the media would be interested too, because if that is really happening then yes it needs to be changed.
And there are bail bond companies, but they will only post your bail if they are convinced you won't run. There are also publicly appointed attorneys, and sure they may not be the best attorneys in the world, but that's a far cry from actually jailing people "for being poor". I'll grant that every once in a while there is probably a truly innocent person who did absolutely nothing wrong, but who had a really bad public defender and was put in jail. And that's horrible, and should be fixed on a case by case basis when it occurs. But the system isn't set up to purposefully make that happen, and I'll also wager that it happens much less often then, say, welfare fraud.
You know bail bond companies have usurious fees attached to the bonds, right?
As for the "how come I never read about this if it's really happening", well I suggest you broaden your journalistic horizons. These things aren't very sexy news articles, since of course they've been going on since time immemorial and only affect poor people, but the human rights abuses continually heaped upon the poor do get reported sometimes. Then FOX NEWS shouts it down with a bunch of wealth privilege Just World gibberish and people go on with their lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5
I could just as easily say that "the welfare system is essentially a conspiracy to take money from the rich and riot when they can't". But I don't usually find conspiracy theories regarding normal everyday people to be all that productive.
That's absolutely what the welfare system is, and that is why welfare is right and just. Take money from the undeserving rich and give it to the undeserving poor.
You don't understand SS & Medicare. SS is financially solvent, for one thing.
Those are social programs designed to help a specific need. There was a serious problem with our seniors years ago. After working a lifetime, many were living in abject poverty at a time of life when they couldn't do anything about it and when their bodies were vulnerable to poor nutrition.
SS has been one of the most successful programs ever in the U.S. It did precisely what it was designed to do. If only other govt programs were as successful. The costs are far less than the 401k program that is in existence because investment cos are not siphoning off money, and the SS program benefits from the economy of scale. It's a marvelous program that keeps many seniors from going hungry.
Those programs are not handouts. People worked and contributed to those specific programs. In some ways, it's no different than a deduction you get on your income tax return for your costs of running your business, if you're self employed. The deduction is not a handout. It's given to you because you contributed it in the first place, and the govt kicks in the tax benefit you'll get.
We will not be taking food and health care out of the mouths of our seniors to pay for a debt created by the uber wealthy. Taxes on the wealthy need to be raised. THE BIGGIEST SINGLE FACTOR IN THE NATIONAL DEBT IS THE HUGE TAX CUT GIVEN TO THE WEALTHY in the midst of two wars. You wanna fix the debt? Raise that tax back to its rightful level.
We also won't be taking food out of the mouths of poor people to pay for the deregulation that led to the Great Recession. Deregulation by the wealthiest in the country.
If you want a retirement program that keeps your money separate, you've got it. It's called a 401K. Or something else, if you are self-employed. Those two things serve a different purpose. The pooling of money in SS is the basis of the program and precisely WHY it works so well.
The one part of SS that doesn't work is SS disability. The SS program was not designed for that purpose, and it has a shortage. The govt recently took $ from regular SS to put into the Disability fund. That disability part needs to be revamped. It is NOT part of the regular SS program, and was never intended to be.
"Social Security is, and always has been, an inter-generational transfer of wealth. ...benefits received by today’s retirees are funded by the taxes paid by today’s workers; when those workers retire, their benefits will be paid for by the next generation of workers’ taxes. Your benefit amount is based on your earnings history and age at retirement, not on how much you and your employer paid in Social Security taxes."
It is, most definitely, a hand out. A hand out where most recipients have paid taxes, and there is a loose correlation between how much taxes you have paid, and how much hand out you get, but it's still a hand out.
also quoted from the above:
"Since 2010, Social Security’s cash expenses have exceeded its cash receipts. Negative cash flow last year was about $74 billion, according to the latest trustees’ report, and this year the gap is projected to be around $84 billion. "
This is okay at the moment because we built up a trust fund to take care of the difference for a while, as a "buffer". And the trust fund still has money in it (which is what I think you mean when you say Social Security is "solvent"). It's projected to run out by 2034, or 18 years from now (CBO says 2031, if you like them better than Pew). At that point, benefits would have to be reduced to match the amount of payroll taxes coming in. If we wait until then, it will be a sudden large reduction (about 25%), which may hurt people. But if we start now, we can phase it in gently, over 18 years, so that retirees aren't as impacted.
But no one wants to do that. They'd rather retirees 18 years from now suffer greatly instead of retirees of today having to take small, gradual, benefit cuts.
"In the Social Security system, the money you pay into the system gets immediately paid back out to the people who are currently getting Social Security checks. ... Each generation of retiring workers would get paid by the people currently working, and therefore the system would fund itself forever despite the fact that the system had no money to start with."
In other words, a handout.
"Currently a worker pays 7.65% of his or her gross income into the Social Security system (with a cap at a gross income of around $70,000), and the employer pays another 7.65% for the worker as well. If you could take that 15.30% of gross income and invest it in a 401(k) plan for the same period of time, it would generate an immense sum of money based on historical returns -- far more than a person with average income (or greater) would get from Social Security. "
You are not "getting what you paid in". You are getting what current workers are paying in.
"In future decades, when it comes time to start drawing on the collected surplus, the government will pay itself back through tax revenue ...it will shift the payment of Social Security benefits over to the government as a whole"
Which means, when we are "drawing out of the Social Security Trust Fund", what we are ACTUALLY doing is cashing in Treasury Bonds in the Trust Fund, which are paid for with regular old income tax revenue. Which means regular old income tax revenue is paying out Social Security benefits. The "pool" of money isn't actually a pool of money, it's a virtual construct that doesn't really mean anything. In the real world, workers just pay taxes, some of it with a SS label on it, some of it not, and then retirees get benefits, some of it from the virtual "pool" of money collected from payroll taxes labeled SS, and some of it not.
Here is the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) explanation if you prefer it, but it's a little more dry and cryptic than the other two, although it says largely the same things. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44590
Here is another really interesting explanation from Forbes, this one has the traditional fish example which for me at least makes it all really easy to understand. Forbes Welcome
"Set a tax ... on the salaries of existing workers and give it directly to the retirees–right now, today, immediately. Have the money come straight out of your paycheck and right into your grandmother’s bank account. ...it’s exactly what we do in real life. This is how Social Security actually operates. ...At the national level, maintaining a class of retirees (whether via Social Security or private pensions) means redistributing existing output, not putting money under your mattress."
You know bail bond companies have usurious fees attached to the bonds, right?
I've never known a loan to not have usurious fees attached to it
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
As for the "how come I never read about this if it's really happening", well I suggest you broaden your journalistic horizons. These things aren't very sexy news articles, since of course they've been going on since time immemorial and only affect poor people, but the human rights abuses continually heaped upon the poor do get reported sometimes.
I will look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
Then FOX NEWS shouts it down with a bunch of wealth privilege Just World gibberish and people go on with their lives.
I don't usually read Fox unless it comes up in my google searches, and I always try to read several different versions of the same news story. CNN is usually my favorite, but I also really like BBC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
That's absolutely what the welfare system is, and that is why welfare is right and just. Take money from the undeserving rich and give it to the undeserving poor.
Hahahhaha, that's pretty funny!
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.
