People receiving Gov't assistance are employees of the state....

Bums aren't the same things as employees. Employees show up for work, work for their money, and earn their way in life. People on welfare just take everything from taxpayers and don't give anything back. But there is one way that all employees are like welfare takers and that is that they all get to vote. The govt. never should have allowed that and so now we have the bums controlling how much welfare they get by voting for Democrats over and over. Real smart.

 

Get rid of Welfare. Every paycheck a day and a half of my hard earned money goes to taxes. Out of that day and half of money I have no idea what is actually going to the welfare of people who cannot work. Taking care of the poor should be handled by churches and other private humanitarian organizations.

 

Our constitution does not promise donuts.



​

 

In point of fact Article I Section 8 authorizes taxation to fund expenditures for the "general Welfare of the States" and poverty (i.e. the inability of the household to fund necessary and mandatory expenditures) negatively affects the "welfare" of all the States. Of course it could be argued that the States should be providing the necessary funding to provide for the welfare of it's residents but historically the States have refused to impose the taxation necessary which is why we have Federally funded welfare programs today.

We must also note that the vast majority of those collecting welfare from the government are either "unemployable" for numerous reasons or they're already working for a living but just not earning enough income to fund their basic necessary/mandatory expenditures because of under-compensation for employment.

Those collecting Social Security/Medicare benefits, a form of government welfare assistance, are typically assumed to be too old to work and they've already contributed significant funding to the government in the form of taxation throughout their working career. Social Security/Medicare are the largest government welfare programs in America accounting for almost $1.5 trillion of the federal budget.

Working households receive the majority of other welfare program funding often in the form of SNAP benefits, housing assistance, or other lesser welfare programs. They're already working and don't have the additional time to put in at a "second job" working for the government.

If the government is going to provide "jobs" for those not working then the government has to provide adequate compensation for the work which would include the additional costs associated with employment such as the transportation cost to and from the job. Workers spend perhaps 25% of their income just on expenditures mandated by the employment. For example a single woman with a child has no child care expenses if she's not working. If she's working then the median cost of child care for her is about $1,000/mo in the US so her benefits would have to be increased to cover this cost just so she "breaks even" due to the employment. Additionally the government would have to provide management and supervision for the work to be performed requiring a full time staff for this purpose. All of these costs would significantly increase the "costs" of the government welfare assistance and would probably double the government expenditures.

As for mandatory drug testing we know that this only really targets one drug, marijuana. Virtually all other "drugs" dissipate within hours of consumption or are undetectable or are "legal" drugs such as alcohol. Only marijuana stays in the system for a significant amount of time (up to about a month) where it's detectable. Of course marijuana consumed last night or last week doesn't impair a person's capability to work today and testing for it is really stupid. It's even legal in several states now for medical reasons or simply for recreational purposes. Of course drug testing isn't required for the vast majority of jobs and typically only relates to higher paying jobs. A person always voluntarily submits to employment where drug testing is required and the only reason they do is because it's a higher paying job. Double the financial assistance of welfare and they give the person the choice of taking the drug tests for higher benefits or not taking the tests for just the necessary welfare benefits.

 

Back in the good old days, family took care of their disabled loved ones. The bottom line is as a taxpayer, I can't afford you. It's as simple as that. Why I'm obligated to support people I don't even know is a mystery to me.

 

That is still more expensive than Labor, self selecting for employment for higher wages than the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that simply compensates labor for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.

 

Believing our constitution entitles people to free donuts... a good example of the ridiculous level of entitlement people have come to expect in this country.

​

 

It's not a question of hardening one's heart to human suffering and need, it's a question of sustainability.

For example, let's look at 2010

Federal Tax revenue = $2.2 Trillion
Federal expenses = $3.5 Trillion

The cumulative effect, year after year, is that debt sits at a staggering $18 trillion

Entitlements accounted for 58% of expenses in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment & other entitlements.

Reform is needed.

The long-term debt could reach the equivalent of 100% of the overall economy within 25 years.

Issues like global warming and the like are smoke screens for a looming economic crisis that is continually swept under the rug, administration after administration.

The math is simple.

Revenues need to go up and spending needs to go down.

Taxes need to be raised while simultaneiously tightening the belt of expenses.

On one side of the aisle, we've got Republicans refusing to acknowledge taxes have to be raised and on the other side of the aisle Democrats refusing to acknowledge entitlements need to be reformed and reduced...hence the debt continues to escalate regardless of the regime in charge of the budget.

A compromise of some sort is required in the interest of sustainability.

 

Consumption is a form of contribution.

 

welfare pays better than minimum wage, some but not most get free health care, some free food, and almost free housing.

this makes business owners have to pay higher wages to encourage people to get off the welfare dole for a high paying job. the reason it is not working properly is because Bill Clinton and conservative democrats ended welfare in the 90's in cahoots with Republicans.

minimum wage is a poverty trap whether by private industry or the government, no fry cook becomes the CEO, and fry cook skills aren't transferable to what few jobs are left in corporate America.

the government has living wage skilled and unskilled jobs, but making them minimum wage janitors for donald trump when he is president is the same as when they were enslaved janitors at his hotels, under sub contractor agreements as illegal immigrants.

free handouts is the only way to spur economic growth and create better jobs by private industry, it increases the supply of jobs and they have to pay better than welfare to attract employment.

 

Contribute means giving or providing. Consuming is using that something up. Consuming is not contributing.



​

 

welfare does not "pay" healthcare... being low income "pays" healthcare...

I can already see you don't differentiate between unemployment insurance and "welfare" as a general word... perhaps that is my own fault for not being hyper-specific in this discussion, its easy to see where people are likely to lump everything into one thing, despite them all being separate and different programs...

minimum wage, is basically what people get paid for unemployment, which is what we're discussing here, WORKING... a JOB... welfare in this instance being unemployment, pays minimum wage, and in many instances it pays LESS than minimum wage to people, based on how much income they had prior to...

minimum wage is not the poverty trap, the income limits on the other programs, and how it scales up, or plateau's to be more accurate is the issue... lets take the most prevalent example of a single mother working, as this is the most frequent user of these welfare programs... the average single woman in these programs receives daycare subsidies, which without she simply can't afford to work... currently across this country, you get them on a sliding scale, which sounds fair right, the more you make the less you get? sounds fair... problem is this sliding scale does not allow for growth of income, the more you make, the quicker you lose it...

for example... if a woman goes from making $7.25 an hour, to making $8.00 an hour you would expect what, 75 cents an hour cut from her benefits? is that what a logical person would assume is cut right? but thats not what happens, almost twice that amount gets cut, so the woman who went from making $7.25 an hour, and got raises to $8.00 an hour, suddenly is making $6.50 an hour because of the cuts in her daycare subsidy... THIS IS THE WELFARE TRAP... THIS IS NOT A MINIMUM WAGE ISSUE... this is an issue created by people who administer the programs not understanding basic math and how destructive this sharp drop in the subsidy keeps them down...

and once they reach the plateau I was discussing, they get cut off of the remaining portion... so if a woman makes $1 over this amount, they will lose the hundreds in remaining subsidy... so $1 in exchange for lets say a $300 loss with 3 kids a month, is simply unsustainable and encourages and almost demands they work less hours, or stop taking raises, so that they came remain below these dollar amounts that ultimately crush their ability to continue working and afford the same things they did prior... this is the welfare trap, because it doesn't work on a correct sliding scale that rewards progress, instead it punishes progress...

if this sliding scale were modified today from its current formulas... and cut $1 for every $2 in income, you would see a natural progression and exit from welfare, as people COULD progress and actually gain, rather than spin back into defeat... this ONE simple change could do more to get people up and off welfare than spending trillions more in all these other programs... it would literally end the welfare trap, because people would not erase all gains and turn negative while receiving welfare... this is the key simple thing that needs to be addressed, minimum wage is not the problem, its the formulations they use to reduce benefits as people progress that are...

hence why we should give people JOBS instead of "welfare" as a generic term... but like I clarified, this is unemployment insurance... the other welfare programs such as healthcare, or daycare, etc etc will always be dependent on income, but at least once we tackle the hurdle of how it scales up, people will finally be able to scale up...

P.S. if we legalize tens of millions of illegals in our country, you will see an epic rise in those making lower wages, as now those people are able to compete directly for those jobs they once had less competition for, so minimum wage still won't be the problem for poverty, it will be the increased competition among people who can take those jobs, supply and demand will take over and it will never pay more than it needs to... but like I said earlier if we gave people jobs instead of unemployment checks, we would remove them from the work force which would create an artificial shortage which would put direct pressure on wages and cause them to rise as there are few people now willing to take those low wages since they already have a low wage job paying that, and likely be a far easier and less demanding job than what the private employer is seeking fulfillment of... this is exactly what social security did, it wasn't to make the lives of older people better, it was designed to create an artificial labor shortage for younger people so they could get jobs and move forward... we seem to have all forgotten our history lessons today... and we're doing the exact opposite of what will solve the problem, all to placate our ideological desires which will only amplify and compound the problem expanding it to tens of millions more... I wish more people took simple economic courses...

 

social security for senior citizens paid a living wage many centuries ago, they did not need to go back to work and it did create an artificial labor shortage so that young people could replace them in the workforce.

today it is different because the payments have not kept up with inflation and only provide poverty level payments, which makes many poor retirees have to supplement their income with work if they aren't rich like donald trump.

nonetheless this is a welfare payment and it should go to the poor of all ages and not just senior citizens. this will create those artificial labor shortages which will make private industry raise wages across the board to encourage a return to work from the good life on the welfare dole.

people naturally choose high paying jobs over the good life on the welfare dole, because they can have a better life working for more than a minimum wage or sitting idle on welfare.

 

Please....

 

In point of fact Article 1 Section 8 does not say what you said at all. It says a lot about the powers of Congress but it doesn't say anything about giving anybody handouts. When the Constitution was written General Welfare meant a person's safety to go about his business and freedom to do what he liked without interference from the government as long as he didn't break the law. It didn't have anything to do with the government giving anybody anything. But you liberals like to take the definition of welfare from two hundred years after the Constitution was written and try to use that as justification for giving money to people who don't work so that they will vote for Democrats. That is the truth and we all know it.

 

Article I Section 8 does not state that the federal government is to tax and spend for the "welfare of the People" but it does state that the federal government is authorized to tax and spend for the "welfare of the States" and there is a slight difference between the two. Based upon a strict interpretation the federal government can fund "state" welfare programs but not provide direct assistance to individuals. For example Federal Aid to Education is a federal program to provide funding to the states and not to the people of the states. Medicaid is another example because it's (partially) federally funded but administered by the state. Social Security, on the other hand, is a direct payment to the person by the federal government and it's the largest welfare program in the United States. Of course the Supreme Court has taken a less strict interpretation of Article I Section 8 in supporting Social Security and other forms of direct welfare from the federal government to individuals by-passing the state administration.

Another fact about when the Constitution was ratified is that the "natural/inalienable right of property" still existed in the United States at that time but that's no longer true. In the late 18th and early 19th Century a family could go out into the wilderness and through their labor could provide for themselves. They could roam like the nomad taking what they required or settle on unclaimed land to farm and raise stock for their "support and comfort" taking no more than was necessary and leaving "enough, and as good" for all others. That's no longer the case and hasn't been since the end of the 19th Century. Today we rely exclusively upon commerce and there isn't a "natural/inalienable right of commerce" because it always depends upon someone other than the "self" that our natural/inalienable rights are limited to.

So yes, times have indeed changed since the Constitution was first ratified.

 

the right wing doesn't seem to have a problem with "free" wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

- - - Updated - - -

Circulating money in any given economy is a form of contribution. Capital must work under any form of Capitalism. Persons and Capital are not fungible as is money.

- - - Updated - - -

You need to read up on private laws and public laws.

 

agree, the right fails to get it, that is the other reason we need to address foreign outsourcing and foreign imports

less jobs means less people paying taxes equal a rising debt

the only one that gets it is Trump... we have to put America first and if that means the taxes on the rich go up a little, prices on goods go up a little, but the jobs come back..... that is what has to happen

...

 

Maybe not work just any job, but definitely follow state rules to an extent. However, we don't want the state taxing all our money away and then saying we must do what they say if we want any of it back.