Welfare vs. Working. Where's the incentive to work?

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500316
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that raising the minimum wage will solve poverty, or even significantly reduce the numbers of people on well-fare. But I also don't see anything to back up the claim that raising minimum wage causes prices to go up proportionally.
I agree with you there. It has an impact but someone a lot smarter than me would have to run the numbers to figure out what the relationship to inflation is. Food probably reflects it more than anything.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500320
So let me get this straight... Someone like George Soros used currency manipulation to make his fortune and he's a scumbag. Someone like Mitt Romney made (some) of his fortune by putting hard working Americans out on the street to line his own pockets, and those of the owners and shareholders of the companies he took over; and you want him as president of the United States. By your logic, they both did whatever they could within the law, and even though both were morally corrupt decisions, which they profited from handsomely. However one guy is bad, and the other is good?
Romney never bought one single business and just shut it down, never happened. That's your party's propaganda. The 20 percent of businesses he invested in that eventually went bankrupt didn't even all shut down AND that 20 percent number, thats businesses that went bankrupt within 6 years of Bain being involved.
Another point you seemed to have missed is Bain invested in troubled companies. Their business plan was to provide some capital and their management to turn around the company which increases it's value and makes them a profit when they bail. During Romneys time at Bain they invested in 77 companies. of those 77 only 5 filed for Bankruptcy while Bain was still running them. That's a pretty good record if you ask me and again, not all of them that filed for bankruptcy closed the doors.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
I am beginning to think you are a charter member of STUPID LOL! If someone is too stupid to earn it with their brain and too lazy to earn it with their back then we are supposed to pay them a
"living wage" for flippin burgers? As you've pointed out in other threads there are plenty of jobs in the oil patch. They pay good and most don't require more than basic math skills and a little common sense. Warehouse work pays pretty well too. If someone is willing to work hard they can make up for a lack of education. If not let em starve. No reason to pay a person of sound mind and body a higher wage than they are willing to earn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500321
Using your logic, let's just throw all the mentally challenged, the disabled, and anyone else that's living on the government teat out on the street to fend for themselves with the rest of the wild pack animals out there. Let me know where you want me to toss my old bones and trash. You can probably make a pretty good meal out of it.
Nice try. Try reading all of the bold sentence. In case your comprehension isn't what it should be sound mind and body doesn't include those with mental or physical handicaps.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500326
Romney never bought one single business and just shut it down, never happened. That's your party's propaganda. The 20 percent of businesses he invested in that eventually went bankrupt didn't even all shut down AND that 20 percent number, thats businesses that went bankrupt within 6 years of Bain being involved.
Another point you seemed to have missed is Bain invested in troubled companies. Their business plan was to provide some capital and their management to turn around the company which increases it's value and makes them a profit when they bail. During Romneys time at Bain they invested in 77 companies. of those 77 only 5 filed for Bankruptcy while Bain was still running them. That's a pretty good record if you ask me and again, not all of them that filed for bankruptcy closed the doors.
That was also Mr. Conservative Newt's propaganda
Please enjoy the following Newty propaganda. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500322
My only question is this: Let's say you throw minimum wage out the window, and allow businesses to pay whatever they damn well please. What makes you think these greedy SOB's who already make millions (or billions) of dollars off the hourly labor force, are going to want to pay their employees a living wage? With no regulations or minimum wages, the middle class disappears, we more or less become China, and the rich get reeeeeeeeeeeeally rich, and everyone else descends into poverty or worse based on the fact their old job that paid $22,000 a year now pays $4,000 a year. Not to mention that if it's now a level playing field, and everyone gets paid s**t wages, you thought you had an immigration problem before?!? Oh you just wait...
And who just exactly determines what a living wage exactly is? You? Me? governement?
How about this. An employer and employee agree to work sertain hours and receive pay. Market condition meant. Noone has a gun to the other head. both are free to terminate at anytime.
Both are living.
sound like a living wage to me.
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/20#post_3500315
That is rather cruel, I personally would rather pay a little more tax then watch people starve, or have even more people begging me for money on the street.
And is that your only option?
Pay more taxes or watch people starve?
Come on you're smarter then that.
Obviously you could give to charity.
You could buy them a meal.
Pay them for doing work you need done.
But what the government does is under penality of prison take your money away from you because they do not trust you to take care of others. Only the federal government can do that right in the liberal, communist, socialist, fascist eyes.
the consevatives/libertarians just trust you more than the government.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500333
And is that your only option?
Pay more taxes or watch people starve?
Come on you're smarter then that.
Obviously you could give to charity.
You could buy them a meal.
Pay them for doing work you need done.
But what the government does is under penality of prison take your money away from you because they do not trust you to take care of others. Only the federal government can do that right in the liberal, communist, socialist, fascist eyes.
the consevatives/libertarians just trust you more than the government.
No, there are infinite options of what could be done. However, looking at it BIG picture, people need help from somewhere. My personal opinion is that I would rather have have the government take a fixed amount out of my check and distribute it out, with a small amount of transparency, then to spend my time trying to evaluate every person who comes up to me asking for money to determine their need or if they are just trying to con me.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500335
No, there are infinite options of what could be done. However, looking at it BIG picture, people need help from somewhere. My personal opinion is that I would rather have have the government take a fixed amount out of my check and distribute it out, with a small amount of transparency, then to spend my time trying to evaluate every person who comes up to me asking for money to determine their need or if they are just trying to con me.
So do you think the government handling a huge caseload will be better at spotting cons than you would be?
 
J

jstdv8

Guest
I didn't read the whole thing here but here are a couple quotes from some smart fellas from back in the day.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not”; It is incumbent on every generation to pay off its own debts as it goes. A principle, which, if acted on would save us one-half of the wars of the world”; “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them”; and, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
? Alexis de Tocqueville
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500335
No, there are infinite options of what could be done. However, looking at it BIG picture, people need help from somewhere. My personal opinion is that I would rather have have the government take a fixed amount out of my check and distribute it out, with a small amount of transparency, then to spend my time trying to evaluate every person who comes up to me asking for money to determine their need or if they are just trying to con me.
Understand.
Sound to me like a local charity could that as well.
but then I understand. Obviously noone would con the government. (hint hint)
meanwhile what's unemployment at 7.9% or so? Looks like lots more people are going to need your tax dollars. and you really have no choice how much they take out.
You see it relly is all about freedom. with freedom creating more economic activity and therefore less people needing the government.
my .02
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Back in the days of the government commodity giveaways a friend of the family qualified for it. She said you'd see people pulling up in nice cars and very well dress coming for their free stuff. Who doesn't at least know someone who's seen people with food stamps separating out their booze and dog food to pay cash? Yeah, nobody would scam the government LOL!
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500337
So do you think the government handling a huge caseload will be better at spotting cons than you would be?
I wouldn't say better. I'd probably be better at first, but I imagine it would quickly get to the point where making a case by case decision would be extremely time consuming and I'd get bogged down (if you have ever donated money or given to a poor person you probably saw how quickly everyone else started to ask for money) So if I can have some say in the control, such as by voting for government, then rely on the government on how they distribute the help, I'm okay with that. It's not a perfect system but it is better then any alternative I have seen so far.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500357
Just pointing out it isn't all Democrat propaganda, some of it was republican propaganda.
Oh I know. Both sides pull that stuff. Remember the infamous Willy Horton Ad Bush beat up on Dukasis with? Al Gore created that in the primary. It's just so many on the left bought this Bain crap lock, stock and barrel. I mean when it was pointed out that Romney had left Bain before it was decided to shut down one business featured in a ad they wouldn't pull the ad. Instead they claimed it was Romneys decision because he was still an owner at Bain. Forget the fact he had taken a leave of absence and was running the Olympics.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500343
Understand.
Sound to me like a local charity could that as well.
but then I understand. Obviously noone would con the government. (hint hint)
meanwhile what's unemployment at 7.9% or so? Looks like lots more people are going to need your tax dollars. and you really have no choice how much they take out.
You see it relly is all about freedom. with freedom creating more economic activity and therefore less people needing the government.
my .02
I'm sure the government gets conned, local charities get conned, individuals get conned. While I enjoy having control over a lot of aspects of my life (I'd do my own surgery if possible) I have learned that I only have so much time, and that I often have to rely on others. Government's role in social welfare allows me to not be intimately involved in that, while still having a voice (through voting) in how it works.
As far as taxes going up, I don't like it, but right now I do not feel I am unfairly burdened since my taxes are as low as they have ever been for my entire working life. Could taxes ever get too high, sure, but they aren't there yet (in my opinion, although lower is always better for me). But what it comes down to for me isn't if welfare is right or wrong, its more of an issue of its level. Yeah, it bugs me when I hear of someone gaming the system, but when I look at the big picture, I do not feel those individuals are representative of the norm. So I cannot see the justification of doing away or even severely reducing current welfare programs. Minor changes, sure, mabe even some major implementation overhaul, but don't get rid of it completely.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500360
Oh I know. Both sides pull that stuff. Remember the infamous Willy Horton Ad Bush beat up on Dukasis with? Al Gore created that in the primary. It's just so many on the left bought this Bain crap lock, stock and barrel. I mean when it was pointed out that Romney had left Bain before it was decided to shut down one business featured in a ad they wouldn't pull the ad. Instead they claimed it was Romneys decision because he was still an owner at Bain. Forget the fact he had taken a leave of absence and was running the Olympics.
Well personally, I don't buy the idea that he wasn't involved. Maybe officially, but when you are part of a company like that, you're always involved. Of course, to me that isn't a bad thing, but it did hurt him in the election.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500358
I wouldn't say better. I'd probably be better at first, but I imagine it would quickly get to the point where making a case by case decision would be extremely time consuming and I'd get bogged down (if you have ever donated money or given to a poor person you probably saw how quickly everyone else started to ask for money) So if I can have some say in the control, such as by voting for government, then rely on the government on how they distribute the help, I'm okay with that. It's not a perfect system but it is better then any alternative I have seen so far.
How about people start taking care of their own again? I have a couple relatives I've had to help out and a couple friends. Haven't given much to charity the last few years because of it and probably wont in the near future. I also object to what the government gives away. Free Cell phones? Gimme a break. I've been without any phone at times in my life and know others that have too. We all got by. I'm happy to chip in for some stew meat and taters and maybe some rent money but not for air conditioning and cable TV.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500364
How about people start taking care of their own again? I have a couple relatives I've had to help out and a couple friends. Haven't given much to charity the last few years because of it and probably wont in the near future. I also object to what the government gives away. Free Cell phones? Gimme a break. I've been without any phone at times in my life and know others that have too. We all got by. I'm happy to chip in for some stew meat and taters and maybe some rent money but not for air conditioning and cable TV.
Yeah, the cell phones seem a bit excessive. But I was actually thinking about it today and the best reason I could come up with is that these days cell phones are often assumed. i.e. if you see a car in a snow bank along the road you might think, oh they are fine, they probably already called someone. whereas before, when everyone didn't have a cell phone, people would stop and drive you to a phone to call for help. That was the best idea I could think of, but I agree, it doesn't really seem like a necessary program (even so, I cannot say all welfare is bad just because I don't care for one, two, or even three parts)
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500365
Yeah, the cell phones seem a bit excessive. But I was actually thinking about it today and the best reason I could come up with is that these days cell phones are often assumed. i.e. if you see a car in a snow bank along the road you might think, oh they are fine, they probably already called someone. whereas before, when everyone didn't have a cell phone, people would stop and drive you to a phone to call for help. That was the best idea I could think of, but I agree, it doesn't really seem like a necessary program (even so, I cannot say all welfare is bad just because I don't care for one, two, or even three parts)
Welfare isn't the problem but it is. There are people without family or who's family can't help. But people who go on the dole should be expected to pay back somehow. I talked to a Democrat city councilman I knew in Montana about the idea of having people collecting welfare rake leaves and pick up doggy doodles in the parks or something. He said they had tried that and the unions went ballistic. Time to tell the unions to eat a booger and use the people where you can. If they have to work for their welfare maybe that will be a little extra incentive to find a job. If not at least they are offsetting the cost a little.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top