Some Peple just need welfare

[Graham]

LOL! Excellent point. Actually, the indignities inflicted on welfare recipients go beyond those experienced at the eligibility interviews, however. But I agree with you that deliberately humiliating potential recipients is a dubious strategy--but since when did government policies have anything to do with effectiveness?

When I moved back to Ireland from Canada, I was on welfare for about four weeks while I looked for a job. I had always heard what a terrible, degrading thing it was - the interviews, the personal questions, linging up to get your cheque and so on.

Personally, I didn't find it so bad at all. They interviewed me and made me jump through some hoops. The interviewer was tired and overworked and not terribly friendly but it really was no worse than a trip to the DMV or the passport office.

Incidentally, it took me two years of working before my salary increased to the point where I was making even close to as much as I was getting on welfare (with four kids one of whom is handicapped, they practically throw money at you). there were a lot of times during those two years, I can tell you, where I was tempted to say f-you to my boss and wander back 'round to the dole office.

I didn't but I can see why people would.

Graham

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

Read all about it here:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html

I will--thanks again!

His "War on Poverty." Note in the graph that the free market was already doing a tremendous job of fixing that problem. Federal spending, as well as state and local spending, increased dramatically after Johnson's pronouncement. The result was the wild fluctuation you see in the graph.

I was wondering how his "War on Poverty" campaign actually worked... I'll have a google

Wow! Someone who's actually going to do this instead of stamping his feet and demanding that I repeat everything all over again? How refreshing!

Though I detect a note of irony in your comment, I must admit I've felt a certain frustration myself, from the occasions when linked evidence provided to support a position is ignored. Of course, the flipside is that simply providing evidence doesn't support a case, it depends on the validity of the evidence provided. Particularly when it's statistical in nature. But I'm getting a little (well hopelessly) off-topic here

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent:

I hope you're right. May Ireland come close to achieving full employment...

But don't forget to keep a hairy eyeball on those figures.[/QUOTE]

Cast a hairy eyeball on these figures.

Originally posted by ShaneK:
Is that because their situation drove them to drink or their problem with alcohol led to that situation? (Not making a point here, just asking.)

Good question, and I'll try and dig up some references later. Suffice to say for the moment that I'd wager there isn't a single teetotall homeless person in Ireland. That's not to say that alcoholism leads to homelessness in every case.

Originally posted by Graham:
I note, however, that you say "helped me pay my way through college". Could you have lived solely on those wages including rent/mortgage payments?

No, parental subsidies filled the gap. That being said, had I been eligible for the higher education grant, I would have had to go to my parents for a penny.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Cast a hairy eyeball on these figures.

Indeed. Though Mexico is one of thirty member countries of the Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development, it simply is not listed anywhere in the OECD's standardized unemployment rate archives at the link you provided.

I wonder why.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

As you say, the "war on Poverty" is followed almost immediately (< 5 years) by the levelling off of the downtrend in poverty.

Because, as I said, the increased taxation takes effect almost immediately. Increased taxation means increased poverty.

Also, 5 years is certainly more than enough time for the welfare program to be put in place and start paying people. Maybe not enough for the full ramifications to come into effect, but enough to have a significant effect nonetheless.

If I have time late ron, I think I'll look up the details of this "War on Poverty" but I suspect,given the usual progress of government programs, that in five years, the "War on Poverty" was only just beginning.

True, it has escalated since then, with no more success than it had initially.

If I may ask another question as well, if poverty was reducing so dramatically already, why did Johnson decide to start a war anyway?

I honestly don't understand what the one has to do with the other.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

Though I detect a note of irony in your comment,

Perhaps, but if so it was sincere irony. I've had so many people insist that I post the same thing over and over again, even in the same thread, I was taken a little aback by the ease at which you agreed to it.

 

[Tmy]

1) Who says they didn't, and 2) So you'd rather them be homeless?

How many homeless families are out there in the US? By homeless I mean people not having a roof over their heads. I woudl say there are relativly few homeless children. As for adults, well if you take away the chronic homeless (drunks and crazy people) I would say thats still a small number.

"Homeless" can be defined a number of ways depending on what kind of stats you want.

 

[Graham]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

Because, as I said, the increased taxation takes effect almost immediately. Increased taxation means increased poverty.

Did they put new/increased taxes into place at the same time as the new welfare program? Sorry I had not understood that.

On a related note, were the new taxes clearly labelled as "to pay for the war on poverty"?

I honestly don't understand what the one has to do with the other.

I just thought that there wouldn't be much of a mandate for a president to launch a new and expensive program to combat poverty when things were generally getting better anyway.

Graham

 

[kedo1981]

When you filter out the bad chose poor (drunks, druggys, the oh mom I really hate school’ers) I would like to see how many poor there are left.
No able-bodied (and mind) childless adult should EVER receive a dime of welfare. And then the focus should be on the child and breaking the kid out of the poverty trap.

 

[Tmy]

When you filter out the bad chose poor (drunks, druggys, the oh mom I really hate school’ers) I would like to see how many poor there are left.
No able-bodied (and mind) childless adult should EVER receive a dime of welfare. And then the focus should be on the child and breaking the kid out of the poverty trap.

I cound see some welfare. Yknow in case of a bad streak. Loss of employment or sumthin. Most people juts need help for a couple months juts to get on their feet.

 

[Lemastre]

If it is purely that you want "bums" to work for their money, it seems to me that the cost of administering such a program could only add to the welfare bill. If it's going to cost us more to employ these people than it is not to - why bother?

Besides, who do you think is doing all those "unskilled" jobs now? There's a company contracted to keep our office park clean. Are you going to take their jobs away from them and give them to "bums"?

Graham

Many cities are cutting back on maintenance of public areas owing to budget shortfalls. It might be possible to employ welfare recipients to help with this maintenance. I am envisioning a public service corps of folks who otherwise do no useful work. Included would be welfare recipients of various sorts, such as the homeless or apparently homeless who accost pedestrians and drivers asking for money or jobs. Of course, they would need instruction and supervision. A value of such a program might be in establishing the idea that no one is worthless and that a free ride is not so easy to obtain. Persons falling into the welfare system would have their work skills and condition assessed and would be expected to work for their money.

 

[shanek]

How many homeless families are out there in the US? By homeless I mean people not having a roof over their heads. I woudl say there are relativly few homeless children. As for adults, well if you take away the chronic homeless (drunks and crazy people) I would say thats still a small number.

"Homeless" can be defined a number of ways depending on what kind of stats you want.

Wonderful. Now answer the question.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

Did they put new/increased taxes into place at the same time as the new welfare program? Sorry I had not understood that.

I believe they did, yes.

On a related note, were the new taxes clearly labelled as "to pay for the war on poverty"?

That I'm not sure, but what would it matter? The War on Poverty required a lot of new funding, they increased taxes to get that funding, and the increased taxation had the above described effect on the economy.

I just thought that there wouldn't be much of a mandate for a president to launch a new and expensive program to combat poverty when things were generally getting better anyway.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to how the government works. Government intrusion into education was to fix problems that didn't exist. Government intrusion into health care was to fix problems that didn't exist. Why should the War on Poverty be any different?

 

[Tmy]

Wonderful. Now answer the question.

OK heres the answer "ID RATHER LIVE IN A SLUMLORD APARTMENT THAN BE HOMELESS". You got me. I also would rather take a bullet to the head than be burned to death.

AND I'd rather have the board of health enforceing housing standards than to have rodent filled, fire trap, barios all over the city.

 

[Tmy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welfare

You obviously haven't been paying attention to how the government works. Government intrusion into education was to fix problems that didn't exist. Government intrusion into health care was to fix problems that didn't exist. Why should the War on Poverty be any different?

I dont agree. The government is not some monolithic monster that just hops into things for the hell of it. They usually get involved because there IS a problem and regular market/politcal forces are not addressing it. So citizens will turn to the government for help and so on........ Much like that "I'm just a Bill" schoolhouse rock cartoon.

 

[shanek]

OK heres the answer "ID RATHER LIVE IN A SLUMLORD APARTMENT THAN BE HOMELESS".

And why do you feel that the government should force others into the converse?

You got me. I also would rather take a bullet to the head than be burned to death.

What was the point of saying that?

AND I'd rather have the board of health enforceing housing standards than to have rodent filled, fire trap, barios all over the city.

Even if it means pricing the very poor out of the market so they become homeless?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Indeed. Though Mexico is one of thirty member countries of the Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development, it simply is not listed anywhere in the OECD's standardized unemployment rate archives at the link you provided.

I wonder why.

I wonder why you think this has any relevance to the problem of the homeless outside of Mexico?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welf

I dont agree. The government is not some monolithic monster that just hops into things for the hell of it. They usually get involved because there IS a problem

There is an appearance of a problem. Although, to be fair, many times they do leap in when there is an actual problem, but those cases (like the War on Drugs) just seem to end up making things worse.

and regular market/politcal forces are not addressing it.

As I've shown, the free market was already taking care of the poverty situation before Johnson stepped in. Johnson's policies arrested the drastic downward trend in poverty rates the free market was engaged in.

So, where was the problem the free market wasn't addressing?

 

[Tmy]

And why do you feel that the government should force others into the converse?



What was the point of saying that?



Even if it means pricing the very poor out of the market so they become homeless?

Well ya trpped me into agreeing with you by limiting my choices. Thats where the bullet example came in.


As for pricing out the poor. Yes some will be priced out. I see that as a very small number. But society as a whole benefits more from the health code protections. Just like some people will be killed by airbags, but more will be saved.

 

[Tmy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Peple just need welf

As I've shown, the free market was already taking care of the poverty situation before Johnson stepped in. Johnson's policies arrested the drastic downward trend in poverty rates the free market was engaged in.

So, where was the problem the free market wasn't addressing?

Correct me if Im missing somthing but your graph shows that poverty declined after the War on Poverty and then remained lower than it ever was prior to Johnsons declaration. Since then it hasnt retuned to the heights of poverty when we just relied on the market forces. How is that proof that the War on Poverty failed?

Plus arent the rents based on supply and demand. For example in Boston the rents are outragous because of the demand. If you took away the health codes would the apartments suddenly be affordable?

I dont believe its the health codes that are keeping housing costs high.