Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Jul 2014, 12:30 pm

Well, DF, RJ cited the CBO study to indicate some of the costs associated with raising the minimum wage.Doesn't it seem fair to look at the CBO study and examine the net result of raising the minimum wage?
As for 2 billion in net income added to the economy, that corresponds nicely to the notion that a less stratified economy is better for all of us.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 2:29 pm

bbausla
don't think it is a dodge. It is a hard way of life. Having lived it, I can say that. I think people should be pressed to achieve more than that. If they choose not to, then it is not the government's responsibility to better their lives.


ricky previously
What statistical evidence do you have that welfare is actually prefered by a significant portion of recipients over a job?


You may think its not a dodge.... but then what makes you think that by setting limits people will suddenly stop needing welfare? In your view they will reach a limit, willl now be cut off and have recourse to what? You may think these people are all malingering and simply avoiding taking a job, that is just sitting out their going begging for a current welfare recipient to take... If so, why do you think this way? What actual evidence do you have that this situation is common among welfare recipients?
Governments initiated welfare, and continue it because the vast majority of the populace don't want to see beggars in the streets, increases in crime due to desperation or people starving to death....
If you want to consider what would happen if you just stopped welfare ... go back in history and look at societies before governemnt welfare systems became the norm.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 2:42 pm

fate
I can't believe rickyp didn't call you out. After all, it's the progressive income tax and increased safety net that has driven economic growth
.
Yes. Its entriely true that they contributed to the growth of a healthy prosperous middle class.
But that doesn't mean they are the ONLY thing .
A higher minimum wage (pegged to inflation legally) would also contribute to the growth of a healthier middle class and working class.
And American prosperity, which is generally recognized as propsperity for a large section of soceity known as the middle class, is increased by polciies that help the middle class prosper

Middle-out economics argues that national prosperity does not trickle down from wealthy businesspeople or corporations; rather, it flows in a virtuous cycle that starts with a thriving middle class. Middle-out economics demands a systemic policy focus on the skills, capacities, and income of the middle class.
Economic policy choices may seem complex but they boil down to a simple question: whether what’s best for a capitalist economy is an ever-increasing concentration of wealth at the top or a thriving and growing middle class. That’s why arguments about the debt, sequestration, trade policy, tax reform, and fiscal stimulus must all be reframed relentlessly as arguments about whether and how best to grow from the middle out.


http://www.democracyjournal.org/29/the- ... p?page=all
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 23 Jul 2014, 7:58 pm

freeman3 wrote:Well, DF, RJ cited the CBO study to indicate some of the costs associated with raising the minimum wage.Doesn't it seem fair to look at the CBO study and examine the net result of raising the minimum wage?

No, we must only cite the parts of the CBO report that back the conservative view.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 Jul 2014, 6:53 am

RickyP,
You do not know what I think. I don't know what others think. I am stating a position that it is not the governments position to supply a person's care ad infinatum.

You seem to think it is the Gov't's responsibility, but yet have not answered where it states that.

Someone in their 50-60's who gets laid off could have that arbitrary time on assistance until the retirement kicks in. Oh, they didn't plan for retirement? Grasshopper and the Ant, my friend.

Not everyone has the same circumstances, but everyone should have the same gifts.

Give everyone the same assistance regardless of need as a basic subsistence if that is what you think needs to happen. It would be expensive, but equal.

You won't accept limits on assistance.
You won't accept equality on assistance.
You won't accept termination of those who violate the assistance rules.

I can't support a program w/o limits, equality or consequences. Apparently you can.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Jul 2014, 10:35 am

freeman3 wrote:Well, DF, RJ cited the CBO study to indicate some of the costs associated with raising the minimum wage.Doesn't it seem fair to look at the CBO study and examine the net result of raising the minimum wage?
As for 2 billion in net income added to the economy, that corresponds nicely to the notion that a less stratified economy is better for all of us.


This is a sledgehammer--an inelegant tool that will not achieve the desired effect.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Jul 2014, 10:39 am

When has "income equality" ever existed in the history of the world? What makes us think it's a "good thing?"

How is it that the government will bring about income equality in a way that does not harm the economy? Have we ever seen such a thing in American history?

Is poverty in the US as big a problem as you all make it out to be? How much time have you spent in the homes of poor Americans?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Jul 2014, 11:04 am

fate

How is it that the government will bring about income equality in a way that does not harm the economy? Have we ever seen such a thing in American history?


No one is talking about achieving "income equality" . No one here is an evowed communist.
There have been periods in American history where there was much less "income inequakity". Periods of growth for both the economy and in the size and well being of the middle class.
The thirty year period after WWII was such a period. (chart below)
The virtuous circle that created the middle class included progressive taxation, high wages and increased government investment in infrastructure and social [programs... Its a period conservatives often think of as a golden age. Yet they don't consdier what made the gold.

http://rdwolff.com/content/rising-incom ... -dangerous
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Jul 2014, 11:11 am

bbauska
RickyP,
You do not know what I think. I don't know what others think. I am stating a position that it is not the governments position to supply a person's care ad infinatum
.
well we're having an exchange of ideas so that we can know what each other thinks....
And I do know your postion. You've stated it several times.
But you haven't answered the question I posed. What happens to the destitute when the assistance runs out?

bbauska
You seem to think it is the Gov't's responsibility, but yet have not answered where it states that.

? You want to know where it is specifically proscribed?
There are a large number of programs each with a mandate. Each time a US governemnt createed a program like food assistance, or medicaid, or welfare the mandate to assist the less fortunate was proscribed...
In a representative democracy lik the US, the reason these programs exist is because they were a response to an express wish of ghe electorate. I would encourage you to study your history.
D you disagree with me when i say...
Governments initiated welfare, and continue it because the vast majority of the populace don't want to see beggars in the streets, increases in crime due to desperation or people starving to death...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 Jul 2014, 11:37 am

When their assistance runs out, then can look for other modes of NON-GOV'T ASSISTANCE.
(That is simple. I really don't care what organization helps them as long as it is not the government)

You have stated where and by what law the people are allowed to get assistance. Perhaps you do not understand my point. (not surprising, btw)

I know that some people wish to have others provide for the non-working destitute. That is why the laws were made. I get that.

Where is the written requirement showing it is the government's responsibility to provide assistance? (Try looking in the Declaration of the Independence and US Constitution, as these are the basis of our nation)

Do you agree with the points I made about your view of Government Assistance?

You won't accept limits on assistance.
You won't accept equality on assistance.
You won't accept termination of those who violate the assistance rules.


I am interested in your view on those three factors.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Jul 2014, 1:26 pm

bbauska
Where is the written requirement showing it is the government's responsibility to provide assistance?

BTW I think you misunderstand the purpose of the constituion if thats where you need specific laws can be found.

WELFARE LAW: AN OVERVIEW

In the United States, welfare benefits for individuals and families with no or low income had been almost non-existent prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s. With millions of people unemployed, the federal government saw income security as a national problem. In addition to establishing two major "social insurance" programs to respond to future income loss (Social Security and Unemployment compensation), the Social Security Act of 1935 launched federal grants to support state welfare programs for low-income elderly and families with children. The former evolved into Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a federally administered program for the elderly, blind, and disabled. The latter became Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Both were supplemented by two important "in kind" benefit programs also funded by the federal government -- Medicaid and Food Stamps. Needy individuals not meeting the eligibility criteria for these forms of federally assisted or supported welfare may qualify for purely state or state and local relief, often called general assistance.

In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform Act). The new law eliminated AFDC, placed permanent ceilings on the amount of federal funding for welfare, and gave each state a block grant of money to help run its welfare program. For example, under the 1996 law, federal funds may only be used to provide a total of five years of aid in a lifetime of a family. Another significant change was the complete exclusion of legal aliens from receiving any SSI benefits. The passage of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 further narrowed the number of people allowed to receive SSI disability benefits by requiring that drug addiction or alcoholism not be a material factor in their disability.

The law governing entitlement and benefit to any one of these welfare programs is complex. For individuals or families involved with more than one of them, the situation is even more so. Federal law applies to federal benefits like SSI and, in some respects, to federally funded benefits administered by the states, as AFDC used to be and Medicaid remains. Both federal and state programs must comply with Constitutional standards in setting eligibility rules and procedures for applying them.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/welfare
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Jul 2014, 1:35 pm

bbauska
Do you agree with the points I made about your view of Government Assistance?


No.

You won't accept limits on assistance.

If you mean "term limits" no. People who qualify for aid, shouldn't be cut off after an arbitrary time period without justification. From what you've said, the time limit is the only justification required.
A citizen of a country shouldn't have to go beg on the streets . The notion that the government will abandon them to the mercies of private charity and that will be enough should be dispelled from a cursory examination of the quality of life of the poor before governments initiated welfare programs ..
Or go visit a third world country ....

You won't accept equality on assistance.

I'm not even sure what this means. People of different circumstance require different forms and levels of assistance.

You won't accept termination of those who violate the assistance rules
.
I guss it would depend upon what rules you are talking about. when one of your rules is a wholly arbitrary time limit, I'd worry about what the other arbitrary rules would be like.
I'm all for prosecuting welfare fraud. i just think that evidence of welfare fraud is actually fairly uncommon.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 Jul 2014, 2:49 pm

RickyP,
Please try to understand... I know the laws exist.

I am asking where the US Government has the requirement to provide assistance.

In the Preamble of the US Constitution it says the Federal Government is responsible to:
Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare
Ensure the blessings of liberty

I can see that you could use the interpretation of "general welfare" to say that the Government is called to provide assistance. However, you didn't go that way. Perhaps now you understand what I am looking for.

As for the 3 points:
1.) We differ... Fine
2.) I thought I explained it above. If you want to have a basic level of subsistence for all Americans, I can agree to that. Just provide it to all. That is what I mean by equality.
3.) Rules are rules. If your violate them, it should be cause for termination.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Jul 2014, 4:42 pm

I am asking where the US Government has the requirement to provide assistance


You live in a representative democracy.
The laws I outlined for you were passed, and have been maintained by your levels of government at the behest of the people who voted the representatives into power.
Therefore, the people, as represented, have required the govenrment to provide assistance as proscribed in the laws passed.
They didn't interpret the Constituion to do this....they simply responded to the conditions in the country and passed laws that the Constituion allowed, and that were widely supported.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Jul 2014, 9:55 am

Some facts:

TANF (temporary assistance to needy families)

$327 1 child 66 out of 100 poor families received it in 1996, down to 27 out of 100 in 2011
$412 2. 5 year life-time limit though some states go past for child-only claims
$497 3 Of adults 85.2 women, 14.8 men; 1 million adults, 3 million children
More than 80 percent also get SNAP

SNAP (food stamps) 2010 average household getting SNAP received $289 a month, in august 2011
45 million recipients

SSI. May 2014 4.6 million disability, 900K over 65. Average disability payment=$1,132; SSI (old age)=$721 single, $1,027 couple. There are SSP ( state supplemental payments that vary by state).. 71 percent of disability recipients over 50, 31% over 60, average=53

Section 8. 2 million families covered. Had a hard-time finding data on benefits but a study in Wisconsin put recipients as getting aboug $4,200 in reduced rent/year. Only 25% eligible families receive because of limited budget.
Here are the links to the data:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/res ... 0-ys-final
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dp ... 138010.pdf
http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-eligibility-ussi.htm
http://foodstampguide.org/gross-and-net ... standards/
http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-28-13tanf.pdf
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/SSI.html
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfac ... 14-05.html
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/fi ... tanssp.pdf
http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-f ... questions/