I think y'all's definition of royally abused, and what royally abused actually is, is fundamentally different. Lol.
The whole point of public assistance is to give people money who are financially disadvantaged. It's not to change people's discretionary spending habits. That's on the individual to change.
The system works, very well. No one will dispute that. You want to change people's spending habits, not the system. And that is a tough problem to legislate.
Then the system is flawed because it should only be there for people who have no other options.Originally Posted by .blank cd
If you want to spend $70.00 on crap, screw you, do it with your own money. I've been in rough times and didn't get food stamps, I bought peanut butter sandwiches.
If the system worked it would be for people who need it because they would literally starve without it.
So yeah...it's flawed. In your definition it may not be abused, but it is flawed.
Elbow, the #1 statistic that shows its failed is that since 1950 when we started the war on poverty, the numbers are about the same with little change. Despite trillions in spending, the numbers are around 15%
File:Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate 1959 to 2011. United States..PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Well there you have it.
I think people with different ideological views can make agreements on common sense ideas.
No one thinks that ALL social programs are wasted, and no one thinks all social programs are great. I see signs popping up for WE TAKE EBT cards at gas stations, and Im like WHY?? Are you kidding me? The place that sells every good at 20% over what a grocery store sells it for is accepting EBT cards? HMMMM I WONDER WHY?
the money that goes to social programs is a safety net, not a lifestyle. In instances where its a lifestyle choice, i absolutely advocate taking away that money. It would be easy to pass a law forbidding all EBT cards from being used for anything other than groceries. I dont care if you want to be a dumbass and spend $100 on lobster. But we should have limits and evaluate who is on these programs. 2 years of EBT, i would like to know why. 2 years of UE , i would like to know why.
Again, its a simple as if we focused on getting poor people JOBS, they wouldnt need public assistance.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
So I guess your "utopian" idea of a public assistance system would be strictly for people who need it, and only for essentials, correct?
And we always love data with no context here. Let me fix that for you...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty
not what i said. Try again
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
LOL figures. So the definition of the "war on poverty" is supposed to provide context? Elbow and I are way ahead of you, its getting old having to drag you along
Well, ripped from your Wikipedia article, which was demonstrated in my charts, and which doesnt need context. If you know how to read bar graphs and charts, youll get all the context you want.
I left the footnote so you can find it and read it and then tell me how its "out of context"In 2004, more than 35.9 million, or 12% of Americans including 12.1 million children, were considered to be living in poverty with an average growth of almost 1 million per year. According to the CATO institute, since the Johnson Administration almost $15 trillion has been spent on welfare, with poverty rates being about the same as during the Johnson Administration.[23]
Thank you for agreeing with my previous point.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
IN FOR "INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS STIMULATE THE ECONOMY DOE"
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
"What part of the program is ineffective?"
"PEOPLE BUY ALCOHOL AND CIGS HURRDURR"
"...."
I disagree. May not happen with the moron we have now in office, but...
I don't mean this in a rude way, but you're an idiot.
Dont be so harsh. Blank just believes that luxury items should be available to everyone, whether they can pay for them or not.
Blank is right on one thing though. More money is lost and wasted by corporate fraud on a yearly basis than welfare fraud. Then again, medicare/medicaid and social security fraud accounts for a lot more than both of those combined. I am quite willing to bet that fraud within SS, SSI, medicare and medicaid account for a quarter trillion a year in wasted govt spending.
Add in tax fraud and people that dont do their taxes incorrectly and you can probably add another quarter trillion in funds the govt isnt collecting.
There is a very simple fix to the tax problem, thats either a consumption tax or a flat tax.
Fraud is far more difficult to root out. I would propose 25k new fraud investigators within the problem programs. These new investigators would pay for themselves by rooting out less than 10% of fraud.
It's not that I believe in it, I honestly just don't care. It doesn't affect what I contribute to the system whether everyone buys cigarettes or not. And to believe that it's as simple as banning EBT cards from gas stations or controlling what they do with the money is incredibly naive.
Stupidest thing typed out by a keypad in the history of humanity.
You're right, it wouldn't change how much is to the system, but eventually the cost put into it may drop, people may not have it that don't NEED it, and the positives continue growing. Maybe you just like the country to waste money, who knows. Not caring though is just ignorant if you actually care about the countries future.
I don't think anyone thinks banning EBT cards from gas stations is a fix all solution, nobody said that.
Being on welfare should not be comfortable. You shouldnt be able to smoke, drink, eat steak dinners, rent movies and go shopping. You should be able to not starve to death until you find another job.
How can anyone say that what theyre allowed to buy has no effect on the cost?????? If they can afford to smoke and drink on welfare, then welfare is paying out too much and that's an area in which it can be reduced. Welfare should not allow you any luxury. Luxuries are.... a luxury.
Could someone please point me to the waste? I'm not seeing it. LOL all the data I see say the misuse of welfare money is minimal at best.
I am, however,seeing the fact that every dollar spent on welfare is bringing in $1.50. Because of this, it won't change, until there's a more economically beneficial model. No one with the purse strings actually cares what anyone thinks about people's personal discretionary spending habits. That's why it hasn't been changed in 70 years.
So for every dollar spent on welfare, americans are taxed $1.50. What's your point? is there a point to be made? can you explain a point?
You cant argue that welfare is not a cost.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................
how can you be this stupid??? seriously...... you are unfathomably stupid.
You make up a bunch of numbers, and then call me stupid? LOL
You are stupid. Very.... very...... very...... stupid.
You are sitting here...... talking to adults........ and trying to say that the welfare system is profitable and not a cost.
He doesn't understand the fact that the government isn't making a profit off handing out EBT cards.
Where is this database you have?
Every dollar spent brings in $1.50, is that $1.50 profit from their "investment" as you clearly see it?
Know what would be even better? Lowering how much they throw in there and use it for something with meaning. Cut costs. Just because Cletus puts $1.50 in Obama's hand after he buys a few 12 packs doesn't mean the system is winning.
Sure about that?
Breaking news from Blox cd news, welfare doesnt cost anything and actually makes $.50 on the dollar. Tune bACK in at the top of the hour for coverage on the bigfoot capture.
YOU CAN NOT ARGUE THAT WELFARE IS NOT A COST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
if welfare was a self sustained program that paid for itself in economic growth................... it wouldnt need my support.... it would be a self sustained program that paid for itself in economic growth and we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.
You don't read good do you?
they will rationalize anything to uphold their beliefs.
Stop getting caught in his strawmans and tangents.
FACT: Poverty rate in the US has not declined in 70 years. Despite 15+ trillion dollars. Its clearly not working. its INDISPUTABLE
This "For every dollar spent on welfare spending we gain $1.50" is the biggest bowl of turds ever served. I could sit here and spend hours showing him how wrong that is, but he wont listen. If he believes that, then everyone should quit their jobs and the govt should just send us checks every month. Problem solved.
I mean, if every dollar we get from Uncle Sam is worth $.50 more than it was to begin with, we have solved the economic crisis.
He doesnt understand or care where the $1 originates from
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Then , despite the trillions in public programs we have spent money on, is the labor participation rate at its lowest?
If John Q earns $100
Govt taxes $10
Govt gives Jimmy $10 in welfare
Jimmy spends $10 at John Qs store
John Q collects $10 and pays taxes on it again
How long until this model expires and ends?
Eventually you will run out of money to take from John to pay for Jimmy. Its that simple. But you dont understand simple concepts. The problem with your study is its talking about stimulus. Stimulus comes from tax revenues, when the social programs outgrow the tax payers, its game over.
See Greece, France, Britain, etc
You need private jobs and sector to generate funds to pay for the stimulus. Stimulus is artificial, its not sustainable or real. if it was, then nationalize EVERYTHING and have at it.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Broken window fallacy.
If everyone stopped paying taxes tomorrow would social programs exist?
NOPE
next.
In simplest terms this is what happens in the American Economy
People pay taxes that pay for things in the budget, eventually it becomes unsustainable. Taxes pay for programs, you cant claim taxed dollars spent, and then taxed again as "revenue". The money doesnt appear from thin air. you are depending on John Q to continue earning $100 , if his revenues fall, (because of higher taxes, competition, etc) then it hurts Jimmy. the solution is to have jimmy work for John Q.If John Q earns $100
Govt taxes $10
Govt gives Jimmy $10 in welfare
Jimmy spends $10 at John Qs store
John Q collects $10 and pays taxes on it again
How long until this model expires and ends?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
If it's just an opinion that it all works then tell us how it all works aside from the "we make $1.50" BS.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote