From Laurie.
Here is a random comment from EJ Dionne that I felt inclined to post over here to combat your idea that govt spending does little to reduce poverty:
"The standard rap from the right is that government programs don’t ease poverty. Oh yeah? As Jason Furman and his colleagues at the President’s Council of Economic Advisers pointed out, redistributive measures such as the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit lifted 4.8 million children out of poverty. Those children also have a hell of a lot to lose if such benefits were trimmed — and more families could be helped if they were expanded."
My questions are:
- Is the government taking money from the Peters through taxes and giving it to the Pauls via credits, Medicare, subsidies, food stamps, etc really what winning the war on poverty looks like.
- If the government programs continue to promote twice as many people to earn too little... And the government takes twice as much from the Peters to give twice as much to the Pauls. Does this mean the government programs are succeeding or failing?
- And if it happens a few more times and there are fewer Peters to take from, and so many Pauls to subsidize... What then?
It is easy to understand that the government distributing fish eases poverty. (ie expanding medicare and the others gifts noted above) It is also easy to understand that people being fed free fish from the trough are very likely to become dependent on their keeper. The problem is that only teaching people to fish and making them do it eliminates poverty. The credits, subsidies, Medicare, etc just masks and propagates it.
111 comments:
From my view:
Medicare, Food Stamps, etc are the most like free fish because almost no effort or behavioral change is required on the part of the recipient. They just need to come to the trough and eat.
Minimum wage is likely the next worst because it is going to drive up the expenses for those that it was supposed to help, it harms fixed income people, it will promote automation/off shoring, etc.
The best tools and the ones that the Republicans support are the Earned Income tax credit type programs. They require the recipient to work and they are funded by the wealthy. No cost increases for the poor and fixed income folks.
I regret posting that comment. I don't know what I was thinking and should have anticipated your response.
I think kids who live above the poverty level more likely to succeed in school.
fyi-poverty could be eliminated in the next year or two through govt transfer programs if congress and the president supported that policy. I am quite sure the country is rich enough to completely eliminate poverty if that was our national goal.
(my comment is in response to this sentence: The problem is that only teaching people to fish and making them do it eliminates poverty - which is false.)
Laurie,
I am sorry that we disagree, but we do. Let's go back to the simple example.
Peter goes to school, listens, learns, conforms to societal norms, gets a job, works, saves, invests, gets married, has kids, stays married, etc. Peter has a good income and a growing net worth.
Paul goes to school, does not listen, learns only a part of what is offered, rebels against social norms, bounces from dead end job to dead end job, may have short term relationships and make some kids, etc.
Your belief is that we as a society should take money from Peter and give it to Paul. This means Peter is charged more because he made good responsible choices. And Peter receives a financial reward from our society for making poor choices.
How is this punishing good behaviors and rewarding poor behaviors good for America?
How is this helping Paul and his children to escape Paul's path?
If you do it enough, how will it impact the behaviors of Peter and his children?
If you had 2 children at home, did you take money from the hard working industrious saver to give to the less motivated child?
I mean it was unfair that the one child had little... And the other had more...
What would be the consequences? Would it encourage the child with less to change their behaviors to work harder?
As for this... "I think kids who live above the poverty level more likely to succeed in school."
I think it helps because of the possible increase in stability and reduction in stress... But the bigger factors are:
- Are their Parent(s) mature, capable, supportive, academically focused, responsible, etc?
- Are their peers / community supporting academic success or resisting it?
- Is their school hiring the right people, paying people in the most challenging positions the most money, firing the poor performers, etc?
Just curious, if you had twins and one did their homework well and on time. And the other chose to not do their homework...
Would you make the first one do the second one's homework? The rationale being that it is unfair that they are getting A's and the other is nearly failing? (ie give them the fish)
Or would you sit down with the second child and hold them accountable for learning study habits and teaching them the importance of academics? Maybe enlisting the help of the first child to tutor?(ie teaching them to fish)
Laurie, good to hear from you. I think the problem here is one of efficacy. Supposedly the idea of welfare is to lift people out of poverty, not make them comfortable in it. Indeed, conservative-style welfare reform has been highly effective. The 1996 welfare reform lifted almost 10 million black kids out of poverty, according to official figures, mostly by connecting people to jobs.
And again, if we spend $1T per year on means-tested programs, it should be enough to lift EVERY poor person out of poverty. And I note that the two "successful" programs cited are those that reward work and earned income. Nothing wrong with that, IMHO, depending on the particulars of the incentives in the benefit structure. Again, paying people to not work-- i.e. wealth transfer-- is doubly destructive of total societal wealth and we should be finding ways to stop it, not increase it.
my comments so far have had very little to do with if transfer payments are good policy but rather focus on do they (transfer payments) lift people out of poverty. The fact is they do reduce poverty. That was really my only point.
I didn't get into if they are a good idea or should be increased or decreased. If it was up to me I would further reduce poverty by increasing govt spending in some form towards this end (of decreasing the number of people living in poverty).
Laurie,
But as soon as you write these words
"by increasing government spending"
you are saying "by increasing the tax burden" of the successful people.
I think Jerry and I are fine with helping people out of poverty through forcing them to work, learn, improve, change, etc. They really need to earn that money or they will not appreciate it and really grow.
We just disagree with programs that "hide" poverty by paying the bills for people. When this happens the people are still impoverished, dependent and hopeless, they just have food, housing and healthcare.
Laurie,
What would do if you had 2 children who were very different like I described above?
Would you just keep writing the undereducated low motivation one checks year after year? Or demand that the successful child support the other sibling?
It is almost a story of the Prodigal Son. When the Prodigal Son returned after spending half the Father's wealth, should the Father have halved his wealth again because the one son was wealthy and the other was poor? When does it end?
I am very interested to hear what you would do. Please remember that we are not attacking you just because we disagree with your beliefs.
Sorry, Laurie, but either it was not clear or we got ahead of you in the conversation. Stepping back from the "good idea/bad idea" discussion for a bit, I think maybe you have to define "decreasing... people living in poverty." We'll all agree that people living in poverty is a bad thing. The question is do you make them "poor people with money" or do you lead them OUT of poverty and into self-sufficiency? Spending more taxpayer money isn't the answer. Some government programs encourage dependency with "no strings." Others, such as the earned income tax credit, tend to encourage work. To my knowledge, though, very few of the dozens of programs actually enable people to acquire the skills and means to escape poverty. Not even public education can make that claim, and spending on that is not included as one of the "means tested" programs.
I am confused about the idea of "hide" poverty. I believe the poverty line is determined by the cost of living (don't know that much about it.) If a person has insufficient resources to meet their needs in food, housing and healthcare (as defined by the govt) they are in poverty. it seems pretty clear and not hidden to me.
about my kids- if I had the resources to supplement my child's income to ensure that he had adequate food, housing and healthcare I would do this for a lifetime, if need be. I'd like to believe my children would also assist each other, rather than allow a brother to be homeless.
Laurie, maybe I can help. I don't like the term "hiding poverty," but I think I understand it. When you hand a poor person a check with no strings attached, they are still in poverty because nothing they can do will get them another check. They are entirely dependent and that has a corrosive effect on human dignity. Of course it's easy for government to do, since they simply take it from taxpayers and pretend they are doing "good." I don't think it is good at all, except as some stopgap measure while we get these folks "back on their feet."
I am pretty sure poverty is not defined by whether or not a person receives govt assistance. If govt assistance raises a person's living situation sufficiently they are no longer in poverty. Seems pretty simple to me.
I have no problem with people accepting govt assistance. I believe when I was in college taxpayers funded 2/3 of my education and I felt no loss of dignity. How did you feel about being on the dole for your education, John?
Laurie,
Please remember that society / government provides many incentives that are meant to promote certain behaviors that are deemed positive and good for the country.
To take advantage of the college/tech education 'benefit", the citizens need to contribute their own money, sacrifice their time, work hard, etc.
So it is a win/win investment for the citizen and the country. The citizen gets an education and the country gets a knowledgeable worker
Are you serious that the government pays 2/3rd of the bill? If so we really need to figure out why higher education is so expensive... (~$45K to $60K per year) That is up there with the Privates...
To take advantage of the EITC 'benefit", the citizens need to contribute their own effort, sacrifice their time, work hard, etc.
So it is a win/win investment for the citizen and the country. The citizen gets to provide a more stable life for her children and the country gets a dependable worker who can better provide for her children.
It would be nice if tax payers today were more willing to invest into current college students. My son recently told me he would rather pay lower tuition and a little bit higher taxes once he has a job.
By the way...
dole
a: a giving or distribution of food, money, or clothing to the needy (2) : a grant of government funds to the unemployed
b: something distributed at intervals to the needy; also : handout
c: something portioned out bit by bit
Please note from above...
"The best tools and the ones that the Republicans support are the Earned Income tax credit type programs. They require the recipient to work and they are funded by the wealthy. No cost increases for the poor and fixed income folks." G2A
It is welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc (ie free fish) that I disagree with.
By the way if he is happy to pay higher taxes after graduating, then he should be happy paying down his school loans after graduating. (ie similar concept)
And if he wants to break the generational cycle, tell him to start saving hard for his child's education the day they are born. I started when each child was ~6 months old. Interest compounding is our friend.
Thirty years ago in MN students paid only 1/3 of the cost of tuition at public universities, today they pay more than half. It is very hard for students today to put themselves through school without a lot of debt. By the way your math seems way off.
U of M tuition and fees $14,000 , full educational cost of year at U of M ~ $28,000
by funding schools at a rate similar to 30 years ago students could save about $5,000 per year.
Laurie,
Would you truly let your child mooch off you for the rest of their adult life just because they chose not to get a good education and a stable career? Or because they like to play video games instead of working?
You would suffer working to an older age and living in poverty during your golden years...
If so, remind me to nominate you for sainthood or push over of the year.
Now I am happy to help my girls financially if bad things happen that are beyond their control. But if they spend themselves into being broke or choose not to work, a lot of firm coaching, control and requirements will come with the money.
Remember my primary goal as their Father: raise them to be self confident capable independent adults. Just giving them money will not support that goal.
The $28,000 includes room, food, etc. Not necessarily a "college expense".
oh you are so virtuous with your ability to save money on an engineer / project manager's salary.
If all tax payers paid a slightly higher rate to fund higher ed at a higher level students wouldn't be spending hundreds of dollars a month on their student loan payments. Taxes would not go up hundreds of $ per month.
FYI. U of W Eau Claire is closer to $18,000 /year and books are included. I think Mankato and St Cloud are similar. U of MN Twin Cities is expensive. Must be all the nice buildings and tenured Profs.
The student's pay $14,000 in tuition and fee's which is not the full cost. This is about half the cost. You do understand that the state funds higher ed, right?
living expenses are totally distinct form this calculation, which when included bring the cost for some students up to something near $28,000.
Is the government taking money from the Peters through taxes and giving it to the Pauls via credits, Medicare, subsidies, food stamps, etc really what winning the war on poverty looks like.
No.
If the government programs continue to promote twice as many people to earn too little... And the government takes twice as much from the Peters to give twice as much to the Pauls. Does this mean the government programs are succeeding or failing?
It doesn't.
And if it happens a few more times and there are fewer Peters to take from, and so many Pauls to subsidize... What then?
Hard to say.
--Hiram
Laurie,
So higher ed costs ~$28,000/yr, $14,000/yr is an investment by the student to better their future and ~$14,000 is an investment by the tax payer's to better America's future. Sounds about right.
The other $14,000 is for living costs that the student would need to pay whether they go to school, work or go on welfare. It has nothing to do with the cost of Higher Education in America.
Hiram,
You can disagree all you want, but the graph is pretty shocking of what happened to households since the War on Poverty was launched and welfare became "respectable and owed".
" Taxes would not go up hundreds of $ per month."
Laurie,
The unfortunate reality with your view is that you are forgetting that good people in the government bureaucracies can always find more stuff and wages to spend free money on. If you give them more public money, they will spend it and ask for more. It is not because they are insidious monsters, it is because they are human.
Where as they have to really need the money before they are willing to ask for tuition hikes. Because higher tuitions may cost them students (ie revenues), they may need to justify it to an auditor, etc. It is the closest thing to competition that we have in that system, and we had best not screw with it.
"By the way if he is happy to pay higher taxes after graduating, then he should be happy paying down his school loans after graduating. (ie similar concept)"
The money spent to pay student loans benefits whom?
The money spent on taxes rather than student loans benefits whom?
In the difference between the two I think you'll find the difference between liberals and conservatives.
Joel
May I suggest a different way of looking at this? The question becomes: what are the incentives? If government is going to hand you a check with no strings, what is your incentive to get a job where you will make less money and have to work for it? How about if government will add money to your account IF you work and pay some taxes? If you are a bureaucrat wanting to "help the poor" and government will raise taxes to whatever is necessary, what is the incentive for you to help those folks out of poverty? What is anybody's incentive for giving up a feel-good sense of compassion for those "less fortunate" by letting them become independent of your "caring"? It takes a pretty hard conservative heart to go to the soup kitchens and serve meals, and then try to help these folks get their lives back on track, one at a time. The incentive is to let government just write the check; it is so much easier.
"In the difference between the two I think you'll find the difference between liberals and conservatives." -- Joel
Joel, I think the only difference here is that liberals see a difference in who benefits, while conservatives see a difference in who decides. If I take out a student loan for myself, it is because I see an "investment" in my education, in a degree that benefits me. If government just subsidizes my education, I do not see the value added and I may decide to take a degree in "women's studies" or something, squandering the investment somebody else made, unwillingly, in me.
Joel,
Those are interesting questions:
"The money spent to pay student loans benefits whom?"
- Since the majority of money paid on student loans is to pay back the principal, I would say the primary beneficiary.
- Banks get an interest payment since they are borrowing the money and maintain the account.
- Government gets a more valuable citizen, so they subsidize the cost.
- The college personnel get a paying customer and jobs.
"The money spent on taxes rather than student loans benefits whom?"
- To manage taxes, revenues, etc, the government and bureaucrats have hired, paid, etc. And there is a good chance some of the funds will never make it to higher ed, since K-12, entitlements, defense, etc have bigger lobbying groups.
- It is likely that some of the money will be diverted into low value projects and services that the student may or not benefit from, but the it will pay for college & related employees.
- The student will benefit in somewhat lower tuition.
Thoughts?
John, you missed that Obama has taken away the option for private student loans, the kind that people would take out as an "investment." It's the same question as welfare, in that people appreciate things they must work for, but spend their own money much more wisely. Government badly distorts all of the incentives and accountability.
What are all these government programs that hand out money with no strings? Heating assistance, I suppose, but that pays the utility directly, it doesn't hand out cash. Medicaid has no work requirement, but you can't exactly monetize an x-ray.
Jerry,
Source for your Obama comment?
Info on available loans
Sean,
2 randomly picked sources. Food for discussion.
Heritage
CBPP
The Heritage document is misleading, because the waivers expire in 22 states this year, leaving a single-digit number of states with no or reduced SNAP work requirement. (Ability to have a waiver is based on the state's unemployment rate.)
"If I take out a student loan for myself, it is because I see an "investment" in my education, in a degree that benefits me. If government just subsidizes my education, I do not see the value added and I may decide to take a degree in "women's studies" or something, squandering the investment somebody else made, unwillingly, in me."
jerry, this is rather illuminating, in that you (and in my experience, most conservatives) are focused entirely on the benefits to the individual, without regard for the greater community. I've also found that conservatives are quick to dismiss education that falls outside of the typical STEM disciplines, without regard for the importance of diversity in experience and education to a broad-based and resilient economy.
Joel
John,
Let me rephrase:
A citizen has $1. It will either be spent to pay taxes or student loans.
How far does that dollar's reach extend?
Another thought:
Over the working life of the average citizen, how much of that citizen's taxes will go to pay for college tuition (in the event that government would pay for college)? Is it better for the country for that student to be saddled with huge debt or to be saddled with a slight bump to their tax bill?
Joel
Sean,
You and Fox news seem to disagree.
Here is an interesting story on HP.
Joel,
It is much better for people to spend their money on things they really want than to send money to the government. Even if they have to take on debt to do it.
I am always fascinated when Liberals ask questions like that...
Don't you experience the following benefits when you accomplish something for yourself through your personal sacrifice and work:
- learning through researching and comparing options
- learning through balancing dreams vs practical reality
- learning about yourself as you work hard to attain
- learning self discipline when things get rough
- the self confidence boost of earning something
I have been working hard to teach my children this for years now.
Sean,
Do you have any sources that define work reqts against the dozens of programs that are out there? I am interested in learning more.
Shockingly enough, Fox News doesn't understand how the waivers work. They've been part of the law since 1996, so they're not some sort of devious Obama Kenyan Muslim conspiracy.
Refer to this instead:
USDA: Understanding ABAWDs, Time Limits, and Waivers
What about programs other than SNAP?
And what about SNAP for Adults with Dependents?
It's not my job to do your research for you, John. Even if I were to present you with the facts, you'd almost certainly ignore them and continue to spout your parables. Because that's how it goes every time with this discussion. Within a few hours, you'll be posting the Pelosi video again and talking about how much fraud there is in the welfare system and how welfare families have all these kids and how they're all on drugs (even though I've already posted debunkings of all of these things in the past).
I'll look into it when I get a chance. My guess is that they will be more lax.
I am not sure your debunking is very thorough, often you point at one thing like the "SNAP for healthy adults" rule as proof that the whole system is robust and demanding.
By the way, please remember that I believe the vast majority of people on government assistance need it. Maybe only 10% of the participants are taking advantage of it. But that still is ~$100 Billion /yr and worth some discussion.
And on top of that is the possible psychology of the system being there encourages people to make bad decisions that make them reliant on welfare.
- become a single parent
- become a single parent with multiple kids
- move out of Parents house early because being lectured and raised is hard, and welfare let's me
- I'll wait for the "right" job because I am getting a check
I know you want to see this as black and white. But I am thinking it is pretty complex.
"Don't you experience the following benefits when you accomplish something for yourself through your personal sacrifice and work:"
The government wouldn't be handing out degrees.
It's the same question as the Homestead Act question. People were given the opportunity to own the land that the government gave to them at almost no cost. In the same way, people would be given the opportunity to EARN a higher ed degree at reduced cost. (Remember, only tuition payment is being talked about, not other expenses.)
Joel
"proof that the whole system is robust and demanding"
Whether it's "robust and demanding" is a matter of opinion. But what is clear is that it is not a matter of there being "no strings".
Here's the Minnesota manual on SNAP benefits. It details the work requirements for everyone in the program.
MN DHS SNAP Manual
And here's a document put together by an attorney that gives a broad overview of some other programs. You can take the rest from here. It's not like this stuff is hard to find.
SMRLS on MN Cash Assistance Programs
"By the way, please remember that I believe the vast majority of people on government assistance need it." -- John
The facts say otherwise: When Wisconsin instituted a requirement that welfare recipients sign up to seek employment, 20% left the rolls. The 1996 welfare reform cut the rolls by 50%. My estimate has always been that only about 20% of current recipients are unemployable. Now, sustaining them while they get the training and attitude adjustment (altered incentives) needed to get and hold a job will certainly require an extension of a greatly modified form of government assistance.
To the fundamental question, poverty can not be eliminated by wealth transfer because to give a poor person some wealth it must be taken from someone with more wealth. The total wealth (assuming perfect efficiency in the transfer) does not increase (and possibly decreases).
I would say 80% is a vast majority.
And if 50% were kicked off in 1996. That would mean most of the other 50% were deserving. We are discussing today's welfare recipients, not 1995's...
We're speculating, somewhat, but those 50% did not disappear, they were replaced and we now have as many on welfare as we did then. The "rules" were overridden by Democrats in government and lost their "teeth," meaning that the old rules were, apparently, working too well. And do you really believe that HALF of those on welfare are "deserving" of a free lunch and a strings-free handout? And the other half are, what, deplorable?
I think we're talking about real human beings here, and I think we've got several sorts of situations that the current system deals with... well, doesn't really deal with in any helpful way. You have about 20% that are just freeloaders, as WI found out with their "workfare" reform. You may have another 20% or so that find themselves in temporary distress but get back on their own two feet fairly quickly. Then you have a group, I'm thinking 40% or so, that COULD get a job if they had some training, transportation, child care available, and temporary assistance until they did not need it. And finally, about 20% who have been on welfare so long that it will take some real "sticks" as well as carrots to repair their entitlement mentality and total lack of any employable skills. So, the sticks that would relieve 40% (top and bottom) have been taken away by those compassionate government dunderheads, while the "carrots" that would help that middle 40% either do not exist or are woefully ineffective in the current system.
I will say this: If we think about "wealth transfer" as giving people an education, job skills, a job and the human dignity that goes with that, I'm all in favor of it because, while it costs something, it's trivial compared to the benefit. If we're putting a few bucks in the panhandlers cup or the mugger's pocket, no way.
"We're speculating, somewhat, but those 50% did not disappear, they were replaced and we now have as many on welfare as we did then. "
No, not true. Nationwide TANF cases (what we think of as traditional "welfare") have declided about 60% since 1996, but the poverty rate has stayed the same (or worsened since the Great Recession).
"The "rules" were overridden by Democrats in government and lost their "teeth," meaning that the old rules were, apparently, working too well."
Again, no, not correct. The waivers given by the Obama Administration (many of them to Republican-governed states, incidentally) have merely changed the focus. Original TANF rules were based on tracking activities, but states have been requested to be judged based on outcomes.
Hi Sean,
From your perspective, what is the "poverty rate"? (ie before or after all the public assistance)
I mean to me the poverty rate should be measured without government assistance. Otherwise we are just hiding our problem when we increase government wealth transfers. Thoughts?
As I mentioned somewhere recently. Is increasing welfare really winning a war on poverty?
The poverty rate as I mentioned it above is in reference to before public assistance.
"As I mentioned somewhere recently. Is increasing welfare really winning a war on poverty?"
Are we really increasing welfare? Adjusted for inflation, the average TANF benefit is well less than it was in 1996. Only two states -- Maryland and Wymoing -- have a higher real TANF payout today than 20 years ago. (In 16 states, the actual dollar amount per month has gone unchanged since 1996, which means a 30%+ loss in purchasing power.) Every state has a maximum TANF benefit per month that is less than half of poverty level, and in every state, if you max out TANF and food stamps, you're still below the poverty level.
Then we are back to Jerry's usually question.
$800,000,000,000 welfare type costs
30,000,000 households
$26,667 / household
With that average cost, why is anyone short money after welfare?
Or is the bureaucracy overseeing it spending a lot of the funding?
And we're back to the question of what you're counting in the numerator and denominator. If you're counting things like Social Security, unemployment, and Medicare in the numerator your denominator is way too small. Why don't you give me a breakdown of how you get to your numbers and what's included in them?
Apparently the numbers exclude medicare and social security.
Here are Heritage's numbers. I used $800 Billion because I figured you would say Heritage's numbers were too high.
There are apparently 125 million households in the US. Since many of these are old and on social security / medicare which are excluded. I used 30 million which should be more than fair.
Sean, the only way, IMHO, to look at this is on the grand scale. Take the total spent to "alleviate" or "eliminate" poverty and divide it by the number of supposedly poor people. Then look at the percentage of poverty "eliminated" by that spending and see that spending go DOWN. If the number of people receiving "benefits" stays up and spending increases, the program is irredeemably flawed. Robbing Peter to pay Paul may sound good, but it is theft on the one end and waste on the other.
I think the denominator is too low (there's approx. 20 million households on Medicaid alone), but quibbling over the calculation is missing the larger point. Are we providing people the right types of assistance and enough of it to enable them to get out of poverty? We're certainly not providing the typical recipient more than in the past (the last major change here was an increase in SNAP benefits that went into place in the Bush Administration). And I think the complexity and overlapping of programs should be simplified -- yet, on the other hand there's valid reasons for each program being in place as it is. It's not a simple problem to solve.
"the right types of assistance and enough of it to enable them to get out of poverty?"
I think that is our point... I mean TANF, SNAP, Medicare, etc do little or nothing to help folks escape poverty and yet they are a huge chunk of the spend.
"valid reasons for each program being in place"
Remember our favorite saying... "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions."
"I think that is our point... I mean TANF, SNAP, Medicare, etc do little or nothing to help folks escape poverty and yet they are a huge chunk of the spend."
Medicaid is huge part of the spend -- over half of your $800B, in fact.
TANF, for instance, is only about $16B (less than $4,000 per recipient per year). In 30 states, the average TANF benefit for a family of 3 covers less than half of the HUD Fair Market Rent for an apartment. Less than a quarter of TANF families receive any form of housing assistance. Is it any wonder this program doesn't get people out of poverty? When you've barely got enough to get through the day, you can't plan for tomorrow.
"valid reasons for each program being in place as it is"
You left out the "as it is", which is the crucial point I was trying to make. My point was there's a reason we have this alphabet soup of programs that can be difficult to navigate as opposed to merely going to a guaranteed national income and cutting all of these programs off. We pay heating assistance directly to the utilities or limit where you can use your SNAP debit card to make sure we're spending on only those things that are "approved". Yet, one can also make a valid argument that poor families could use more cash to be able to decide to spend as they see fit -- to make it easier to finally fix the car or buy the suit that you need to get that better job, etc.
"spend as they see fit"
Please remember that most of these poor folks have shown very poor judgment in the past, that is why they are in the situation they are.
- HS drop out or barely passed
- Single parent with more kids than they can afford
- 2 Parents with more kids than they can afford
- Some form of addiction (ie alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, shopping, etc)
- etc
Not sure we want to give them anymore "flexible money" than we absolutely need to.
And before I chastised for picking on the unfortunate poor.
Please remember that a lot of my in laws and friends just made it through HS and are doing okay. The key is that they are married and limited their family size to 2 or fewer kids...
"Please remember that most of these poor folks have shown very poor judgment in the past, that is why they are in the situation they are.
- HS drop out or barely passed
- Single parent with more kids than they can afford
- 2 Parents with more kids than they can afford
- Some form of addiction (ie alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, shopping, etc)
- etc"
- Veterans whose government readily sends them to war but can't bother with them upon return
Joel
Joel,
So now did they join the military to escape poverty in the first place because they were a HS drop out or barely passed?
Or did something happen while they were in the military that made them less able to earn a wage?
OK, John, we're back in the same boat. You don't like today's programs. Give me your fix. How would you make these programs more effective? And how do you define "effective"?
"So now did they join the military to escape poverty in the first place because they were a HS drop out or barely passed?
Or did something happen while they were in the military that made them less able to earn a wage?"
Who cares about your stupid distinctions? No one who has served this country should be destitute. If any subsection of the population deserves Universal Basic Income, it is our veterans. Furthermore, care for our veterans should be part of the cost of the war. If our government is going to spend money on war, they can spend money on the broken warriors who make it back. Anything less is unconscionable.
Joel
Sean,
Unfortunately my recommendations for holding the key adults in a child's life accountable are unacceptable to Conservatives, Liberals and the Teacher's Unions. The Conservatives are scared of "society/government" judging and punishing Parents, and are to morally constipated to fund Long Acting Birth Control for all young women. Liberals think everyone should have the right to be a Parent, even if they are irresponsible, broke, etc. And Teachers think they should not be accountable to ensure their students are learning.
So unfortunately I think we will have unlucky kids and the generational poor around for a long time.
Joel,
So your view is that everyone who enlists for a 4 year tour should be guaranteed an income for life? Now that would be a good job...
"The Conservatives are scared..."
Sounds about right.
"So your view is that everyone who enlists for a 4 year tour should be guaranteed an income for life?"
Do you think that someone who puts their life on the line for your freedom deserves less than that?
Joel
Joel,
It is a volunteer military. They know the risks, costs, benefits, rewards, etc when they enlist. So no I don't think they deserve a life long income for 4 years service.
I fly around the world, travel in taxis on crazy roads in developing countries, etc. It is just part of what I signed up for when I accepted the position.
Sad
By the way, like our jobs I do support long term disability care and payments when appropriate. That is also part of the employment deal.
"So your view is that everyone who enlists for a 4 year tour should be guaranteed an income for life?"-- Joel
The problem is when we say that some people are /entitled/ to some portion of another person's hard-earned. In any just system, you are entitled to exactly what I am willing to give you in exchange for your goods or services or, if need be, because I feel charitable. The problem with our system of government welfare is that it ignores this fundamental and thus is theft on the one end and waste on the other.
"In any just system, you are entitled to exactly what I am willing to give you in exchange for your goods or services..."
And someone who was willing to put their life on the line for us citizens deserves a guaranteed living wage, not poverty.
It says a lot about Conservatives that they are willing to give veterans only very little in exchange.
Joel
Fine, if you think our soldiers deserve a lifetime "living wage" income for 4 years of service, regardless of duty, you can give it to them out of your salary. I am willing to give them all the medical care they need, free college, and a pension if they serve long enough. Beyond that, I want them to have a job like everybody else and think they should enjoy some preference in hiring simply because of their acquired skills. Now, tell me where I have said they deserve "very little."
And why are you talking only about veterans, since I assume you want EVERY American to have a guaranteed living wage?
If you don't want to pay to keep veterans from living in poverty, perhaps stop sending them to fight unnecessary wars.
But Republicans are war mongers, so good luck with that.
"And why are you talking only about veterans, since I assume you want EVERY American to have a guaranteed living wage?"
Why does a person ever discuss a single subject? But I see you're trying to build your straw man.
Joel
Personally I see Republicans as compassionate. They are ok sending our volunteer military to help people who are ruled by tyrants if there is a US security interest involved.
Whereas the Democrats would prefer to close their eyes and walk on by the beaten and oppressed who live in other countries...
And you think Liberals sound ridiculous.
Wow.
Hey. If you think destabilizing Iraq has helped Iraqis, it's no wonder you've been duped by Trump.
Joel
They were free to do as they chose... They chose poorly...
In the words of an Iraqi Citizen
"Salih doesn't seem to accept that logic, though. He acknowledges that the U.S. coalition made serious mistakes. But: "In my view -- and I say this without equivocation; I say this in Kurdish; I say this in Arabic when I'm in Baghdad -- this has been fundamentally a failure of leadership by the Iraqi elite that assumed power after the demise of Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013."
Joel,
I know you keep denying the reality, but if the USA was under the strict violent authoritarian control of a madman, and we had family members disappear occasionally. And sometimes whole villages were killed...
Most Americans would greatly appreciate a force that eliminated him and spent Billions helping us to rebuild and set up self rule
Why is this so hard for you to accept? Would you really prefer to remain living under a Dictatorship?
You are free to believe the lies that got us into a war that has worsened our reputation in the Middle East; you are free to think that Donald Trump is a respectable person; but believing and thinking those things does not make them true.
Joel
Joel, there were NO " lies that got us into a war..." Saddam said he had WMDs and the whole world believed him. He proved he had them by using them against the Kurds. People DID "disappear" under his regime on a fairly regular basis and he DID, quite obviously, invade and occupy Kuwait. He DID violate the treaty he himself signed. So, war is a messy business, and when Obama precipitously pulled out it left a vacuum on the ground, and THAT "destabilized" Iraq. You can try to blame Republicans for that but you cannot offer a valid "what if" alternative to what they are responsible for, whereas what OBAMA is responsible for is, clearly, whatever the current situation is.
One doesn't have to believe Trump is "respectable" (whatever that means) to believe he is the best of the two candidates for the job. We are "hiring" a chief executive-- a manager-- and not a grandmother who burns the cookies she bakes.
"So, war is a messy business..."
Agreed. Yet you don't want to help our own American veterans who return from war zones as utterly broken people. You place war on a pedestal, but the people who fight it you place with the beggars on street corners.
"We are "hiring" a chief executive-- a manager..."
That does not help your case. Trump can't manage his businesses without filing Bankruptcy or stiffing contractors. He couldn't manage his first two marriages without cheating on his wives. He can't manage to speak a sentence without lying. And he apparently can't manage his cocaine addiction.
Joel
Joel,
Where did you get this from?
"Yet you don't want to help our own American veterans who return from war zones as utterly broken people. You place war on a pedestal, but the people who fight it you place with the beggars on street corners."
Please remember that I support long term disability for people who were injured at work. See above if you doubt it...
However please remember that the vast majority people who participated in these wars have no disability that resulted from their employment in the US military.
Yes, Joel, when are you going to stop imputing motivations and burning up straw men, so we can get back to the issues? Trump DID manage his businesses successfully, though you have objections to how he did it. Hillary, on the other hand, did NOT handle her job with any success that is notable. But Trump was in private business and Hillary was in public service. Her resume' disqualifies her, Trump's indicates maybe we can take the chance on somebody better. As for marriages, I give Hillary credit. Where Trump supposedly cheated on two wives, Hillary's husband only cheated on one.
"... I give Hillary credit. Where Trump supposedly cheated on two wives, Hillary's husband only cheated on one."
Your sexism shines so brightly, it's blinding. And speaking of strawmen, why are you bringing up Bill Clinton rather than talking about Hillary. Oh...that's right...it doesn't fit your tortured analogy.
The rest of your comment is not grounded in anything resembling reality.
Joel
"However please remember that the vast majority people who participated in these wars have no disability that resulted from their employment in the US military."
You're the bean counter. How much is it worth to you to have these men and women fighting our wars and putting their lives on the line to protect you?
Joel
Joel,
I think Jerry's point is that Hillary is in a political marriage like the folks in "The House of Cards". Infidelity is fine. It is either that or Hillary is willing to be taken advantage of... Not a great attribute.
As for "how much is it worth"... It is a job just like any other... The military offers a wage and benefits (ie travel, training, healthcare, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, long term disability insurance, etc) and people choose to enlist or not enlist. If the compensation was not acceptable to the employees, they would not enlist.
Joel, whose reality is it that insists that I "don't want to help our own American veterans who return from war zones as utterly broken people. You place war on a pedestal, but the people who fight it you place with the beggars on street corners."? It is closer to libel than it is to reality.
And why is it sexist to believe that a woman who ignores a repeatedly (and apparently currently) cheating husband is any more worthy of high office than is a man who cheated before? Is it not more sexist to suggest that we should elect Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman, or that women should vote for her for that reason alone?
"It is either that or Hillary is willing to be taken advantage of..."
Or perhaps they're just better Christians than most and realize that a marriage requires hard work and sacrifice and forgiveness.
It's interesting that you're so willing to assume that their marriage is only political, but do not have anything bad to say about a man who has cheated on two previous wives. I always assumed from all of your pandering that marriage is important. Maybe you just meant quantity, not quality.
"As for "how much is it worth"... It is a job just like any other... The military offers a wage and benefits (ie travel, training, healthcare, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, long term disability insurance, etc) and people choose to enlist or not enlist. If the compensation was not acceptable to the employees, they would not enlist."
You've said nothing here to address my original point that veterans should never be living in poverty.
Joel
"And why is it sexist to believe that a woman who ignores a repeatedly (and apparently currently) cheating husband is any more worthy of high office than is a man who cheated before? Is it not more sexist to suggest that we should elect Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman, or that women should vote for her for that reason alone?"
It is sexist because we were talking about Hillary, a woman, but you brought up Bill, a man. Donald cheated; Hillary did not. Bill cheated; Hillary did not. It's entirely sexist to blame a woman for the actions of a man. Hillary is not Bill. Furthermore, you know nothing of whether she is ignoring it, or if they have an understanding, or if their marriage is simply that much stronger than a typical American marriage.
You're one that generally prefers the way things used to be, so I'm a little confused that it's suddenly a problem that a woman is standing by her man.
Joel
Joel,
I repeatedly question my Parent's obsessive support of Trump given their low view of divorce / infidelity. They argue on the other side that it seemed to work for the Trump families. Since the kids and spouses all seem okay with it and are pretty successful. And it is just one of many factors.
Please remember that I think both Trump and Clinton are self serving people of low character who I would not trust with my money. I will be voting for the "lesser of 2 evils".
As for your point "that veterans should never be living in poverty", I think I was pretty clear that I disagree. If after their normal service (ie not disabled) they make bad life choices they will be poor just like they would have been if they had not work for the government for 4+ years. If they make good life choices it is unlikely they will be poor.
"If after their normal service (ie not disabled) they make bad life choices they will be poor just like they would have been if they had not work for the government for 4+ years. If they make good life choices it is unlikely they will be poor."
The perpetual flaw in your argument: that one's good or bad outcome in life is always correlated with one's good or bad decisions. It is only in hindsight that you can know whether a decision was good or bad...based on the outcome.
And just how will you know if the poor decisions a veteran may make are because of changes in their mental state or not?
Joel
"It is only in hindsight that you can know whether a decision was good or bad...based on the outcome."
You are kidding... Correct?
- getting pregnant without a partner to share the work / costs. (typically a bad decision)
- getting divorced if you have children. (unless their is abuse or you are wealthy)(typically a bad decision)
- quitting a job, insulting your boss, harassing your co-worker before finding your next job. (typically bad decision)
- not paying attention in class and not learning the content (typically a bad decision)
- trying smoking, drugs, gambling, etc if you have an addictive personality or are short on income. (typically a bad decision)
- selling drugs, getting involved in a street gang or committing other crimes. (typically a bad decision)
As for how do we know if they have a long term disability. That's why the VA has Psychiatrists...
"changes in their mental state or not"
Joel, you're still trying to prop up that straw man. Tell me what, exactly, suggests that a guaranteed income would do anything to help a veteran who returns home in a disabled-- physically or mentally- condition? It's just like the welfare system of throwing money at the problem. What John and I have said we favor is all the medical care they need, plus additional "earned" benefits like free college and disability pay. What we do NOT favor is giving them a lifetime of /unearned/ cash, just for doing nothing but sitting behind a desk for four years. Can you understand that distinction?
"/unearned/"
You need say no more. You think awfully little of the lives and freedoms of Americans that a veteran has worked to protect at the risk of life and limb. If you don't think the veteran has /earned/ anything but the basics, I can't help you.
Joel
And you seem to think awfully little of the rights of every other American to control where the fruits of their labor go. Most of us (at least, the non-Democrats) are perfectly willing to fund the national defense and to pay our volunteer military for their service, including generous benefits that they earn and deserve. But once they leave the military, we expect them to CONTINUE to earn their own way, and we are happy to help them do that (preferential hiring, etc.). What we do NOT want to do is to treat them like worthless bits of humanity that can't do anything for themselves and needing a handout to stay alive. Now, who is it that thinks less of the veteran?
There are approximately 4 Million veterans under age 65 who are unemployed or out of the workforce. The poverty level is $11,770 for a family size of one. It would cost $48 Billion/yr to pay each of those veterans $12,000...or 7.5% of the 2015 Defense Budget or 1.2% of the total 2015 Budget.
Joel
And it would cost only $1 Trillion/year (what we now spend) to give everyone in poverty a $21,000/yr income for doing absolutely nothing. What is your point? A 40-hour week at minimum wage pays more that that $11K you want to give to our veterans.
I think we are all forgetting the sizable federal pension that these folks get if the make the military their career. Apparently it is very generous.
Federal Pensions
Of course the government can afford to be more generous... They can count on us tax payers...
"The average federal pension pays $32,824 annually. The average state and local government pension pays $24,373, Census data show. The average military pension is $22,492. ExxonMobil, which has one of the best remaining private pensions, pays an average of $18,250 per retiree, Labor Department filings show.
The federal government has two retirement systems: one for those hired before 1984 and another for those hired after. Under the older system, employees did not participate in Social Security. The older system covers 78% of current retirees and accounts for 96% of six-figure pensions. All federal retirees receive health benefits."
"And it would cost only $1 Trillion/year (what we now spend) to give everyone in poverty a $21,000/yr income for doing absolutely nothing."
Most people on welfare have jobs. What is YOUR point?
Joel
My point would be that you are proposing that veterans be given money WITHOUT having a job. My point would be that people with jobs don't need all the welfare they are getting, and those that do not (I question your assertion) have jobs are getting a free ride. Again, I have no problem helping somebody temporarily, so long as they are making an effort, and I have no problem subsidizing somebody (while leaving some incentive) while they climb the employment and income ladder. But offering anybody a guaranteed income for life is a guarantee that they will quit trying, and having that be anything other than an individually tailored assistance-- rather than a "one size fits all" government check-- may not get them the kinds of help they actually need. Have a little compassion!
"My point would be that you are proposing that veterans be given money WITHOUT having a job."
It's called a pension. Lots of people have them.
Joel
No, it's not. It's called "welfare." A pension is something that you agree with your employer on, a benefit that you earn while working that pays out after you stop working. Career military people have one, good for them. Most 4-year-and-out people do not, do not expect one, and can't get one now. That was the deal they signed up for, and which we the public agreed to fund. If you want that contract changed, feel free to pay for it out of your pocket. To the broader question of the public in general, we HAVE no contract with them other than this stupid "entitlement" that liberal politicians created and that has proven to be a great idea for destroying wealth rather than creating it. You cannot eliminate poverty by wealth redistribution. At best you simply spread poverty around.
"A pension is something that you agree with your employer on, a benefit that you earn while working that pays out after you stop working."
I fail to see how what I have described isn't a pension based on your definition. It can be set up under whatever terms the employer (the Government, or us) and the employee (the veteran) agree to. In other words, and this is not a difficult concept for most people, if we the people say that we are going to pay a pension to any person who is placed in combat (or whatever...it's up to us), then that is what will be. A pension is not dependent on a certain length of service unless we say it is, but we can also say it is dependent on whether or not a person is placed in combat operations.
"You cannot eliminate poverty by wealth redistribution."
Perhaps not, although I doubt we agree. But we sure can make the rich richer through wealth redistribution, which is always what idiotic Conservatives such as yourself want. We've been doing it for almost 40 years now, and the middle class continues its downward trajectory as their wealth gets gobbled up by the 1%.
Joel
Jerry,
Continuing the discussion is pointless. It seems Joel simply wants to raise the Military compensation far beyond what is needed to attract / retain capable and willing volunteer employees.
Kind of like most public employee union supporters.
To them it does not matter that every one around them has to pay more taxes or that half the Minneapolis kids are failing / poor as long as that teacher is paid more than market compensation, can choose their class and can not be fired unless they make a huge error...
John, I have to try. Ignorance can be cured by education, and even an idiot like me (according to Joel) can probably teach a lot of things.
For example, when government increases regulation and taxes and stifles economic growth, it is THEN that income inequality grows. [established fact] From John Kennedy on, we have known that "a rising tide lifts all boats" and that a strong economy, brought on by low taxes, low regulation, and free market capitalism that increases wealth rather than redistributing it, is the key to reducing income inequality and poverty.
Post a Comment