Started By
Message
re: Welfare. Discussion starts here, let's see where it takes us.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 2:13 pm to Hardy_Har
Posted on 3/19/14 at 2:13 pm to Hardy_Har
quote:
I directly lost a great job because of this, and that is why I bitch..
That sucks. I believe in free trade and all that, but I'm not happy anyone lost a job over it.
It's created more opportunities however. Trade with Canada and Mexico has grown from 340billion to 1.2trillion since NAFTA was introduced until 2011. It's not like the jobs were going to stay here with or without NAFTA. The 90s was also the dawn of the internet. Technology made it much easier for business to take advantage of the cheap labor elsewhere. Yes some were directly lost to Mexico, but it was eventually going to happen anyway.
Free Trade agreements allow us to better take advantage of the growth of the rest of the world. People bemoan the decay of the middle class, yet don't seem to want it to reach the rest of the globe. The growing global middle class is the ticket to demand we need, IMHO. Trying to keep it all here is missing the boat. We can't do it alone anymore.
2
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:06 pm to Duke
quote:
Yes some were directly lost to Mexico, but it was eventually going to happen anyway.
I was young and have since recovered nicely, but as the company that once manufactured their own parts and assembled to production moved all part manufacturing to Mexico, it left a large amount of better vested workers along with "good old boys" that would never be fired. I was on the inspection / QC side of what started off an internship turned full time job, and wasn't directly laid off, but was kindly demoted.
NAFTA would've worked better if Corporations here wern't taxed into the ground though. Opening trade is fine, but making it damn near not worth it to produce here isn't.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:10 pm to extremelsu
quote:
what do you guys think of drug testing welfare recipients?
For me it's a cost issue. Will we catch enough people on drugs on welfare to make the cost of the testing justifiable? Especially when there's a ridiculous number of ways to cheat a drug test.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:13 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Especially when there's a ridiculous number of ways to cheat a drug test.
To have so many receipients you know it would be those cheap arse tests too.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:18 pm to DynastyDawg
IMO all welfare should be cut today.
Then we can redistribute it if someone loses a job they have but only for a period of 6 months. then you have to work for 6 months before being eligible again.
also instead of giving them cards that look like credit cards it should be a giant card of shame. This card should only be accepted at Gov warehouses where prison food is handed out.
Then we can redistribute it if someone loses a job they have but only for a period of 6 months. then you have to work for 6 months before being eligible again.
also instead of giving them cards that look like credit cards it should be a giant card of shame. This card should only be accepted at Gov warehouses where prison food is handed out.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:20 pm to BluegrassBelle
it would probably be fairly easy to get around it.
I would be down for it if say, getting caught got welfare revoked for good.
I would be down for it if say, getting caught got welfare revoked for good.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:21 pm to BluegrassBelle
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:25 pm to heartbreakTiger
IMO I wouldn't cut out welfare (despite the large case of fraud there's still some who need it) but we'd certainly go back to government foods for those on welfare. Cover the essentials. And at the very least actively enforce the rules regarding welfare.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:32 pm to DynastyDawg
Interdasting. No cross reference those states that have more welfare people with Obama voters. Suspect the intersection will be nearly 100 percent.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:34 pm to BluegrassBelle
big wheels of gov cheese and shitty meat until we figure out the best way to process poors into food for other poors.
I agree some truly need the help, so that is why I said 6 months at most at a time. They should also be bringing in proof they are looking for a job or at least getting some kind of technical training.
I have said it before while its not very libertarian to expand the gov i would be ok with paying these poors to do public work projects. We could build new dams, new roads, parks, infrastructure type deals for internet. Hell the gov can give companies that hire the non skilled poors to do non skilled labor a tax break. We would make the money back by sales tax type deals and the country would have improved infrastructure. We would also be able to elevate some poors from useless to productive.
It will never happen though because doing that frees the poors from the vote farms they are currently locked into.
I would also demolish all public housing because it is stupid. A good idea on paper that fails terribly in the real world.
Of course those that are disabled with a legit problem should be taken care of.
I agree some truly need the help, so that is why I said 6 months at most at a time. They should also be bringing in proof they are looking for a job or at least getting some kind of technical training.
I have said it before while its not very libertarian to expand the gov i would be ok with paying these poors to do public work projects. We could build new dams, new roads, parks, infrastructure type deals for internet. Hell the gov can give companies that hire the non skilled poors to do non skilled labor a tax break. We would make the money back by sales tax type deals and the country would have improved infrastructure. We would also be able to elevate some poors from useless to productive.
It will never happen though because doing that frees the poors from the vote farms they are currently locked into.
I would also demolish all public housing because it is stupid. A good idea on paper that fails terribly in the real world.
Of course those that are disabled with a legit problem should be taken care of.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:42 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
big wheels of gov cheese and shitty meat until we figure out the best way to process poors into food for other poors.
Why you hate poors so much HBT?
quote:
I have said it before while its not very libertarian to expand the gov i would be ok with paying these poors to do public work projects. We could build new dams, new roads, parks, infrastructure type deals for internet. Hell the gov can give companies that hire the non skilled poors to do non skilled labor a tax break. We would make the money back by sales tax type deals and the country would have improved infrastructure. We would also be able to elevate some poors from useless to productive.
I said this already in this thread you fricking unoriginal bastard. Get some ideas of your own, you piece of fricking repeating shite
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:43 pm to Hardy_Har
quote:
NAFTA would've worked better if Corporations here wern't taxed into the ground though. Opening trade is fine, but making it damn near not worth it to produce here isn't.
Exactly, money flows were it is taxed the least.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:49 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Exactly, money flows were it is taxed the least.
:texas:
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:53 pm to 3nOut
quote:
:texas:
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:54 pm to 3nOut
I do have a lot of Texas based investments
Posted on 3/19/14 at 3:59 pm to Vols&Shaft83
I have a whole list of reasons but mostly because they are eye sores
I laid out that plan in a political thread during the fall
I laid out that plan in a political thread during the fall
Posted on 3/19/14 at 4:03 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
I laid out that plan in a political thread during the fall
I would have laid that plan out in the fall too, but I was banned for some gay arse reason.
Posted on 3/19/14 at 4:04 pm to Vols&Shaft83
i would just blame tbird
Posted on 3/19/14 at 4:05 pm to heartbreakTiger
I always blame the black guy
Posted on 3/19/14 at 4:38 pm to DynastyDawg
quote:
Do you have a source for this image?
Also, the numbers you cite from statisticbrain.com are at best misleading and at worst completely wrong. It says its source is from The US Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, and (LOL) the CATO Institute; however, the official numbers from the Department of Health and Human services may be found here. This number of 3.7 million appears to mirror Wikipedia's numbers which have shown a dramatic decline in those receiving supplemental income since 1996 when welfare reform occurred. Welfare in the vernacular most commonly refers to the check that low income people receive each month. The site you reference decided to classify a welfare recipient as not only someone taking advantage of the TANF program, but anyone receiving
quote:
health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers (which by the way is extremely nebulous) and federal and state housing benefits (also extremely nebulous and could include anyone who was able to refinance their mortage through HARP after the housing crisis).
This definition is inconsistent with how most people conceptualize welfare (although some do use a broader definition), and it is likely done purposefully to inflate the numbers. The webpage doesn't even provide links to the documents they "cite;" we're just supposed to take their word for it.
If you're going to make a post like this, do some due diligence and check your statistics so that you don't mislead people.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News