Republicans are too Liberal!!!

[Al B. Sure!]

Boris:

where did Sava say this? I might have missed it...

[Sava]

What about welfare abuse though? there's plenty of people who make a nice amount of change under the table at jobs or they do semi-illegal or down-right illegal things but still collect welfare? with an emphasis on food stamps over checks though, things aren't as bad as they could be but abuse def is a problem.

Albert... yet another Myth...

it is statistically rare

Correct.

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance
Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line
The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).

Recommendations
Federal and state agencies should provide newspapers and other media with accurate information about welfare recipients and programs, including information on welfare reform.
Jobs need to pay better than welfare. Rather than focusing on welfare time limits, policy action at the state and federal levels must address reforming the low-wage labor market by raising wages and increasing the ability of low-wage workers to join unions and bargain collectively.
Public and private agencies should collaborate more effectively to promote and increase employment opportunities for women, especially of hard-to-place women.
States should provide training for case managers and other appropriate personnel to advocate for, support, and follow up with clients in ways that are not adversarial or punitive during their job search process.
States and federal agencies should fund and conduct research on the impact of the transition of mothers to work on the mother and the family and on what strategies best promote most positive outcomes for the mothers and their families.
States should require and fund formative and summative evaluations of proposed programs.

from http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by monkspider
Well Albert, my philosophy on that is if someone needs money so bad that they have to cheat the system, then we should give them twice as much.

my philosphy is that there should not be money

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


my philosphy is that there should not be money

Jon Miller

Burn Jon Miller! Heretic!

[Al B. Sure!]

Sava:

no... thats not what i'm talking about... what about people who make 15 dollars an hour under the table so that to the US gov't they got no taxable income so they can collect welfare...

[Sava]

"Entitlement" programs eat up much more money than that.

I can't comment on what you consider to be "entitlement". In terms of Health Care, I thought the US government's role was to protect "Life, liberty, etc..." Life being the primary thing. You're "Pro-Life" aren't you?

[Sava]

no... thats not what i'm talking about... what about people who make 15 dollars an hour under the table so that to the US gov't they got no taxable income so they can collect welfare...

The total number of people that do such things is rare. And the amount of total dollars that these people evade in taxes pales in comparison to corporate tax havens. It's about priorities Speer. The worst offenders, i.e. corporations, need to be targeted... not just the ones that can defend themselves the least, i.e. welfare recipients who can't afford high-power lawyers. But then again, many corporate crooks also have high connections in the government. And that's another topic.

[Al B. Sure!]

Sava:

everywhere you go, no matter the topic, you somehow tie it in with corporate fatcats stealing money...

[MRT144]

Albert, its too easy

[DinoDoc]

Personally, I never cease to be suprised that people can be against corporate welfare and yet support welfare in general.

[MRT144]

Dinodoc, its a lot easier to support individuals who have nothing than support corporations who have everything.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Agathon:

and yet people do it regularily... trust me. i'm not making this up.

Since the kind of economy we have makes unemployment inevitable, how can you possibly blame people for collecting welfare.

Perhaps, as John D Rockefeller said, your country doesn't owe you a living, but it does owe you the opportunity to make one. If that's true and some unemployment is inevitable then the provision of welfare is a moral imperative. It's the price you pay for having an economic system you benefit from, but which necessarily punishes others.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


my philosphy is that there should not be money

Jon Miller

That's an even better solution.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Sava:

everywhere you go, no matter the topic, you somehow tie it in with corporate fatcats stealing money...

That's because everywhere anyone goes the corporate fatcats are stealing money.

[Sava]

Personally, I never cease to be suprised that people can be against corporate welfare and yet support welfare in general.

The former being an utter waste of money while also costing much more than the latter, which is at least a humane attempt to improve the quality of life. But coming from someone who approves of and supports such massive waste and corruption, your surprise doesn't surprise me.

[Sava]

and yet people do it regularily... trust me. i'm not making this up.

Don't take this personally, but there really is a lot going on outside of your little corner of the world. The few dozen cases of welfare abuse that you have no doubt witnessed, does not represent the entirety of the system.

[DinoDoc]

Would you care to post something other than a useless appeal to emotion if you'd care to respond to me? I realize that maybe more than your limited intellect can bear but at least give it a try.

[Sava]

Would you care to post something other than a useless appeal to emotion if you'd care to respond to me? I realize that maybe more than your limited intellect can bear but at least give it a try

Sure, go back a page. I posted tons of factual material compiled from persons more intelligent and rational than myself. I know you don't give a sh1t about anyone else outside of yourself. Emotional appeal doesn't work on those without conscience. That's why I posted the facts first. Don't hold me responsible if you are unable to read/comprehend them.

[monkspider]

Dino-D: I know you're just trolling, but wanting to help people does not translate to wanting to help buisness institutions. You could say "Well gee wiz monkspider, corporations are made up of people, and corporations provide the fine products you buy such as Mr. Bubble brand bubble bath." I would say that people who need help, should be helped regardless of any affiliation (or lack of affiliation) to these various institutions, that they should not even factor into the equation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
Sure, go back a page.

Would you care to post the section actually relevent to my question because I don't care to wade through your morass of cut and paste crap.

[Berzerker]

A 2 party system is mandatory.

Where's the second party then?

[Dis]

giving the poor money makes them poorer?

somehow I doubt that.

[Berzerker]

giving the poor money makes them poorer?

somehow I doubt that.

Counter-intuitive, but might be true. Once you provide the poor with a stable source of money from the government, many lose the desire to work and advance up the labor ladder. We see alot of inter-generational welfare. Reagan said, "the liberal approach to government is: if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidise it."

[Al B. Sure!]

Monkspider:

corporations provide the fine products you buy such as Mr. Bubble brand bubble bath."

that had me cracking up...


anyway, i think the status quo when it comes to welfare is probably the best. it is not especially costly (only a couple dollars a year from each tax-payer) and there are some more restrictions than a few years ago which cut down on the problems of welfare... the welfare to work program, while not perfect in that welfare recieptents' kids sometimes are left alone and they start acting up and doing ****, is still, basically, the best way to get people to learn how to fish.

i do think however that two main ideas will make welfare obsolete... more businesses in urban and especially rural areas (I wont front... rural alabama is far poorer than philly) would provide more jobs and really, i dont care what leftists say about wages or what not, give someone a full-time job and they'll do alright.

the other problem is such things as teenage pregnancy and drug use, which not only makes the individual poor but just about everyone around them. stop sex and drugs and there'll be some more economic stability among the poor and lower middle class


thanks

[Whaleboy]

Anyone who believes in Libertarianism as a political system is nuts

How exactly does that work?

Albert: While it may be a problem, fiscally it is not a huge issue for government, and certainly does not affect whether the republicans are liberal.

[Dis]

libertarianism is the way to go- ideally.

obviously 100 % libertarian goverment is not possible. But I do believe economically it is possible.