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

beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Most of the people receiving welfare, or any type of public assistance, are single mom's with kids. Many of dead beat dad's get away with not taking any kind of responsibility, and many times do so with the assistance of the moms receiving the welfare.
Not sure that moms sweeping the streets is the answer. The problem is really a societal problem and the real answer would probably look pretty ugly.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/60#post_3500396
Most of the people receiving welfare, or any type of public assistance, are single mom's with kids. Many of dead beat dad's get away with not taking any kind of responsibility, and many times do so with the assistance of the moms receiving the welfare.
Not sure that moms sweeping the streets is the answer. The problem is really a societal problem and the real answer would probably look pretty ugly.
Once the kiddies are all in school it aint gonna kill mom (or Dad) to go do something.
Deadbeat moms and dads get away with murder. Among certain people having 4 or 5 kids with different women is looked upon as an admirable accomplishment. What I don't understand is why the women don't get together and castrate the dirtbages.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500379
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.
In principle this idea isn't too bad, except it would probably end up costing alot more money to impliment, meaning higher taxes for everyone. In addition to determining if someone would be eligible for welfare (which is already done), you'd need to match tasks to each recipient, then have a way to supervise and evaluate the work. Plus you would be taking work away from other people who are already working, which means they would probably end up on welfare too.
Many people who get some form of welfare actually do work, so how would you handle that, would they be picking up dog messes in the middle of the night?
What about people who are on welfare because they are physically or mentally unable to work? I'm sure we could find something they could do, but they would probably need even more assistance or supervision to do the work, costing more money and therefore higher taxes.
But lets say the program works; that everyone on welfare that can work suddenly says, "I hate dog do-do, so I'm going to get a job!" Where are those jobs? Maybe they take some minimum wage job away from someone who has worked their whole life and suddenly that person is out of work and will go hungry unless they go on welfare. So they go on welfare and are handed a scooper and a trash bag... So of course this new guy hates being on welfare and goes and gets another job, displacing another person. Ultimately you would end up with a rapid turnover rate of individuals between work and welfare, until the people at the bottom finally just give up and stay there. How would this be better then what we have already?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/60#post_3500413
In principle this idea isn't too bad, except it would probably end up costing alot more money to impliment, meaning higher taxes for everyone. In addition to determining if someone would be eligible for welfare (which is already done), you'd need to match tasks to each recipient, then have a way to supervise and evaluate the work. Plus you would be taking work away from other people who are already working, which means they would probably end up on welfare too.
Many people who get some form of welfare actually do work, so how would you handle that, would they be picking up dog messes in the middle of the night?
What about people who are on welfare because they are physically or mentally unable to work? I'm sure we could find something they could do, but they would probably need even more assistance or supervision to do the work, costing more money and therefore higher taxes.
But lets say the program works; that everyone on welfare that can work suddenly says, "I hate dog do-do, so I'm going to get a job!" Where are those jobs? Maybe they take some minimum wage job away from someone who has worked their whole life and suddenly that person is out of work and will go hungry unless they go on welfare. So they go on welfare and are handed a scooper and a trash bag... So of course this new guy hates being on welfare and goes and gets another job, displacing another person. Ultimately you would end up with a rapid turnover rate of individuals between work and welfare, until the people at the bottom finally just give up and stay there. How would this be better then what we have already?
Got to do something that has been alien to the Federal government for about 50 years, use common sense. If someone is working full time already it's a pretty good bet they are already looking for a better job. And of course it would apply to able bodied folk of somewhat sound mind.
It isn't anything that will have an effect over night. Some day the jobs will come back. I personally think it's gonna get worse before it gets better but we'll see, Take away a minimum wage job from someone? You can't take a job away from someone unless they are doing it poorly.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/60#post_3500417
Got to do something that has been alien to the Federal government for about 50 years, use common sense. If someone is working full time already it's a pretty good bet they are already looking for a better job. And of course it would apply to able bodied folk of somewhat sound mind.
It isn't anything that will have an effect over night. Some day the jobs will come back. I personally think it's gonna get worse before it gets better but we'll see, Take away a minimum wage job from someone? You can't take a job away from someone unless they are doing it poorly.
Even at its lowest point since it has been recorded the unemployement rate has been 2.5%. So unless it goes down to 0% there won't be enough jobs for everyone to work.
As far as your last comment about not being able to take away a job from someone unless they are doing it poorly, that is total BS, business owners and managers aren't saints who only base their decisions on the quality of their employee's work. There would be turnover, there would be people fighting for jobs, and there would be people giving up because they lose the fight. Nothing would change, there would still be people who would be unemployed and living off the system. The only difference is with your system, we'd pay higher taxes to support the framework of your system (and we'd have less dog do-do left in the park)
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

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.
They didn't shut down? Of course not. Bain just sold off all their major assests and merged the remainder into one of their other ventures. You give these equity firms WAY too much credit. I've seen first hand what they do to struggling companies. There was a medium-sized manufacturing organization here in San Antonio that got sucked into a California equity firm. Their parent company GAVE them to the equity firm for $180 milliom. Within the first year they laid off 50% of the employees, and sold off more thatn 60% of their viable assets. Sure they're still in business, but essentially in name only. The equity firm is about to sell them off to some European organization that manfacturers the same products, but doesn't have a US market. So I guess you can say they saved 50% of the jobs of a company that could've potentially gone under without this equity firms assistance, or you could say they destroyed a company simply to make money for their investors. The equity company is in a win/win scenario. They buy these struggling companies for a nickel on the dollar, then they obtain loans on the businesses and tack it onto their bottom line, overvalueing them when they look for potential buyers. They sell them off for huge profits. If they can't find a buyer, they sell off all their assests, trim them down to nothing, then merge them in with another purchased company and try to sell the merged company at a cut-rate price. They may take a small hit on the sale, but they make up for it from the profits made from the assest sell-offs. Capitalism at its finest.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/40#post_3500327
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.
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.
I know plenty of people with a sound mind and body, yet they can't even figure out how to use a computer. Math and science is mind-boggling to them. Yet you think they can manage a job like oil rigging or fracking. Accident waiting to happen.
OK, so what do you do with the millions that are mentally and physically handicapped that can handle menial jobs like restaurant work, janitorial, etc.? They can be productive citizens, but they're incapable of handling jobs that pay more than a minimum wage.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/60#post_3500425
I know plenty of people with a sound mind and body, yet they can't even figure out how to use a computer. Math and science is mind-boggling to them. Yet you think they can manage a job like oil rigging or fracking. Accident waiting to happen.
OK, so what do you do with the millions that are mentally and physically handicapped that can handle menial jobs like restaurant work, janitorial, etc.? They can be productive citizens, but they're incapable of handling jobs that pay more than a minimum wage.
Social Security is set up to assist the handicapped.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
I have to say that playing fair with employees and only letting them go if they don't do the work is a big myth. Many times other factors come in to play---including you just don't like the employee or you want to give the job to someone you do like. This happens in public as well as private sector all the time. That is one reason that unions came about in this country to begin with.
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/60#post_3500396
Most of the people receiving welfare, or any type of public assistance, are single mom's with kids. Many of dead beat dad's get away with not taking any kind of responsibility, and many times do so with the assistance of the moms receiving the welfare.
Not sure that moms sweeping the streets is the answer. The problem is really a societal problem and the real answer would probably look pretty ugly.
Ge I thought welfare was the aid to dependent childrem (ADC) program. Sounds to me like that only would apply to poor single parents by definition.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/60#post_3500420
Even at its lowest point since it has been recorded the unemployement rate has been 2.5%. So unless it goes down to 0% there won't be enough jobs for everyone to work.
As far as your last comment about not being able to take away a job from someone unless they are doing it poorly, that is total BS, business owners and managers aren't saints who only base their decisions on the quality of their employee's work. There would be turnover, there would be people fighting for jobs, and there would be people giving up because they lose the fight. Nothing would change, there would still be people who would be unemployed and living off the system. The only difference is with your system, we'd pay higher taxes to support the framework of your system (and we'd have less dog do-do left in the park)
Painting with an awfully broad brush aren't we? Why would someone fire one employee who is already doing the job for Minimum wage? Maybe you are OK with supporting able bodied people who just sit on their ass, most of us aren't
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/60#post_3500424
They didn't shut down? Of course not. Bain just sold off all their major assests and merged the remainder into one of their other ventures. You give these equity firms WAY too much credit. I've seen first hand what they do to struggling companies. There was a medium-sized manufacturing organization here in San Antonio that got sucked into a California equity firm. Their parent company GAVE them to the equity firm for $180 milliom. Within the first year they laid off 50% of the employees, and sold off more thatn 60% of their viable assets. Sure they're still in business, but essentially in name only. The equity firm is about to sell them off to some European organization that manfacturers the same products, but doesn't have a US market. So I guess you can say they saved 50% of the jobs of a company that could've potentially gone under without this equity firms assistance, or you could say they destroyed a company simply to make money for their investors. The equity company is in a win/win scenario. They buy these struggling companies for a nickel on the dollar, then they obtain loans on the businesses and tack it onto their bottom line, overvalueing them when they look for potential buyers. They sell them off for huge profits. If they can't find a buyer, they sell off all their assests, trim them down to nothing, then merge them in with another purchased company and try to sell the merged company at a cut-rate price. They may take a small hit on the sale, but they make up for it from the profits made from the assest sell-offs. Capitalism at its finest.
Last I saw Bain was in Boston and that isn't California, So What? As I said, while Bain was in Control only 5 companies went through BK and of those 5 I don't know how many survived but even if none did that's a WHOLE lot better than 0bama's record on picking and choosing winners.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/60#post_3500425
I know plenty of people with a sound mind and body, yet they can't even figure out how to use a computer. Math and science is mind-boggling to them. Yet you think they can manage a job like oil rigging or fracking. Accident waiting to happen.
OK, so what do you do with the millions that are mentally and physically handicapped that can handle menial jobs like restaurant work, janitorial, etc.? They can be productive citizens, but they're incapable of handling jobs that pay more than a minimum wage.
Do you suppose there are more jobs in the oil field than fracking and drilling? The weeds don't hoe themselves. Tanks and equipment need painting. Thats the problem with you Libs, you are always looking for reasons why solutions wont work if it doesn't involve creating another constituency group you can bribe with government handouts.
How about we make it easy for those with handicaps who would like to work do so? Isn't it better to let them work for minimum wage and cover some of their expenses than to just treat them like a potted plant?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
You mean that other social government program that's even more bloated than Welfare?
except everyone pays in a receives the benefits of that program...welfare on the other hand...............
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Everyone pays for everything at some point. It's just we are all expected to collect on SS and MC, not welfare, section 8, 0bama phones, utility assistance etc.
 
jerthunter

jerthunter

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/60#post_3500450
Painting with an awfully broad brush aren't we? Why would someone fire one employee who is already doing the job for Minimum wage? Maybe you are OK with supporting able bodied people who just sit on their ass, most of us aren't
Thats an easy question. Why would someone fire one employee who is alreay doing the job for minimum wage? Easy:
1. Some bosses are jerks
2. Some managers are evil
3. Some business owners are incompetent
Pick any of the above.
As far as being okay with supporting others, I wouldn't say I enjoy it, but I am a realist and this current system works. Is there a better system out there? I'd be open to that, but I would have to actually see that it works, and that it won't end up costing more.
 
beaslbob

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerthunter http:///t/393443/welfare-vs-working-wheres-the-incentive-to-work/60#post_3500476
Thats an easy question. Why would someone fire one employee who is alreay doing the job for minimum wage? Easy:
1. Some bosses are jerks
2. Some managers are evil
3. Some business owners are incompetent
Pick any of the above.
As far as being okay with supporting others, I wouldn't say I enjoy it, but I am a realist and this current system works. Is there a better system out there? I'd be open to that, but I would have to actually see that it works, and that it won't end up costing more.
So to you the current federal government centrally controlled welfare/social system
1) actually works
2) is the best system?
Who about
private charities
churches
city and state programs?
Free enterpise, capitalist solutions.
to me this is a big part is where we have arrived at. there are not only alternatives but alternatives that work much better then our current system.
for instance one of the socialists systems with 5 years unemployments benefits found out that people did actually find jobs. Only 3 months after the 5 years unemployment ran out.
So they changed it to 3 years. And guess what? People still found jobs again. And again 3 months after the unemployment ran out.
So last I heard they were down to 2 years.
Obviously to me unemployment should be 3 months at most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top