Do you think people on welfare need to give a drug test?

Post Reply New Topic

we have plenty of people abusing the system here as well but here the impression is that the gains still outwheigh the cost of a few troublemakers.

systematic abuse is something different entirely and should be dealt with as such

The poor who do not smarten up and live better will perish.

Screw safety at MY expense.

Does that answer your question?

so none of your success is built upon your ancestors and their society?

But you also have to think about the "few troublemakers." Welfare in the US was a flawed system from the start and was unprepared for abuse. It should not have been set up in such a way as to break up families, for one. It shouldn't have perpetuated dependence on the system by unfairly targeting minorities (don't forget the US record on civil rights). It should have set up the welfare system as a strictly temporary measure. It should stop being utterly ridiculous and inconsistent on helping with effective abstinence/contraceptive educational programs.

From MY experience, it needs to defund and shut down every single tech-prep sight because all those schools do is keep students ignorant and stop them from going to college. They don't help students understand available opportunities or encourage them to further their education. What poor kids need is not just read about the outside world but actually get immersed in it, not attend dead-end public high schools that train them for jobs that don't exist.

True story, and I may have posted this in the past: I was teaching one day and the subject of college testing came up. I explained to a young lady (a high school senior) that she should take college exams as often as possible. She said the school counselor told her she only got one chance to take it. I couldn't believe it...I took the American College Test the first time in 7th grade and every twice a year from 10th grade forward. Heck, my 7th grade score was good enough to qualify for community college, and I'd brought my score up enough to actually win a scholarship to a 4-year university. So I couldn't understand why it was a school counselor, who should have known better, would tell kids they could only take it once. And that's when it finally hit me that the purpose of public education in poor regions is to keep the kids poor and ignorant.

Sure, I have right-wing leanings. But do understand that I'm not out-of-touch with the needs of those who suffer from a lack of opportunities. It's just that I've also been down in the trenches with these people and I see programs that have failed them AND betrayed the affluent people who form the tax base from which they get their welfare money. I'm not about looking down on people of lower socioeconomic status. I'm about fairness for everyone, regardless of which side they happen to be on.

yes but just because what you have now doesnt work doesnt mean you can dismiss the entire concept out of hand.

if a political party were to come with a better alternative then good but continuing to simply blame the inflexibility of the current system and stay put never solved anything nor did cutting and running.

So here's a thought.

Get rid of the entire administrative structure surrounding welfare, employment insurance, social security and all of the other entitlement programs.

Instead, give each and every legal resident a "guaranteed annual income." Everyone gets a cheque from the government every month that will meet the poverty line.

Then, you adjust your tax policy to ensure that those who are earning, have their GAI progressively clawed back through the tax structure. You do it progressively so that there is no disincentive to work.

In a stroke you have reduced the size of government and guaranteed that no legal resident need ever live in poverty.

Economists from all sides have advocted GAI in one form or another, and it is a concept that deserves another look--especially in view of the significant social security shortfall that the United States is facing.

Maybe. But then you have the problem of printing potentially worthless money due to the inherent inflation of such a system. You think gasoline is bad right now? Wait until you see how much eggs, milk, and orchard fruits get! Also, I'm not sure I see how a progression is going to help motivate people to keep working. Sure, the people out there who really love this stuff and are passionate about it will continue to work; but you also have to keep in mind that not all of us are doctors and lawyers out here.

It also doesn't solve the problem that we're discussing here. If people are paying INTO the system, they'll be confronted with the fact that they are supporting things that aren't necessarily in their interest. One HUGE sticking point with Obamacare, for instance, is the question of whether businesses can be compelled to offer insurance that covers things like birth control and abortion, the opposition citing religious objections.

People will still wonder things whether THEIR money is going to enable destructive behavior, and I'm not sure that the policy you're proposing adequately addresses this issue (if at all).

no single action or initiative can prevent something that has so many reasons for happening.

as for destructuve behavior, the argument still holds equally well for religions, hundreds if not thousands of actions people legally do every day and even the policy on these issues themselves, making it quite a bit of a logical mess to decode, that is before we factor in the underlying reasons for these actions and the external influences on the people doing them.

it will take a combined effort of equal oppertunity, probably implemented in a host of different ways to reach a society wide improvement,, no country to my knowledge have attained a goal that is ever shifting (variables change over time in an unpredictable manner)

any system no matter what ideology its built on will need to have an inherent flexibility to facilitate that change and that is where most western nations fail today.

in denmark this manifests in bloating due to delayed information and thus delayed decision making when mitigating local and nationwide issues and sometimes that means what would have been a small fire end up in a blaze before anyone can do anything.

Milton Friedman proposed that. The so-called negative income tax. He pointed out that this policy is the cheapest to administer and has the fewest perverse incentives.

ruveyn

Inflation? Milton Friedman of all people proposed such a plan! This idea that unless people are in abject poverty there's going to be destructive inflation is may I say a destructive idea.

Visa's idea basically raises a sort of floor on poverty. Artificially putting all people on equal ground whether they work for it or not, essentially. My understanding of a NIT is that it doesn't do that. Or am I just missing something?

Visagrunt's idea is well intentioned, but all you're really doing is just raising the poverty floor. You're risking the people most likely to have a disincentive to work to stop working, and more your lower middle class will be affected since they are closest to the floor. Meanwhile, the people who are in the position to earn massive amounts of money will keep working to push the monetary value of their businesses, products, and profits higher. With more money to spend, banks will likely raise their interest rates, which is only good for those people who actually HAVE money in the bank. And that means things like mortgages and student loans will be even more costly to the lowest consumers relative to income. People with the lowest incomes will benefit at first, but the markets would probably scramble to revalue goods and services to account for all the money people have to spend across the board, making them more expensive to maximize the providers' gains.

The other major problem I see with Friedman's system is it doesn't deal with the same issues we already have, and that is the gross potential for fraud in the system. You still have to impose rules on NIT and actually enforce those rules.

One big plus with Friedman, though--I'm highly attracted to the flat tax. It makes better sense to tax the rich MORE than the lower middle class since they have more money to play with, and that's money that's protected by any number of loopholes. Get rid of the loopholes, enact a FAIR tax that applies equally to all earners, and maybe, MAYBE get a government surplus for a change.

It is a relatively simply matter to ensure that GAI is not inflationary by the way that you manage the clawback from earners.

Make no mistake, GAI is a redistribution of wealth--the wealthy are contributing in order to ensure an income distribution to those who do not earn.

If you simply printed money to hand out, then, yes, it would be inflationary and distortive. But that's not how GAI would function in a well-designed system.

its not even what happens in many modern european countries today despite not using a GAI system as such.

That... that is simply un-Christian. YOU HATE AMERICA

There's this idea that goes like this; many jobs are essential and yet pay practically nothing. The only way to get people to do these essential jobs is to threaten them with starvation. Many of these jobs are very unpleasant to do. Of course if indeed these jobs are essential then surely those who do it should be paid in a manner reflecting that, and unpleasantness in a job should also be rewarded financially.