Mission Accomplished: The War on Poverty is Over

[Madmick]

Now we need to cut benefits

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/us/politics/white-house-war-on-poverty-work-requirements.html



Would Donald Trump just get his people to go out there and...lie?

Oh boy.

The crux of the government position can directly be shown to be tenuous (if not outright false) when you actually look at wages as they relate to SNAP enrollment.

But, we knew that

https://www.cbpp.org/research/pover...-requirements-dont-cut-poverty-evidence-shows



We say it fairly consistently, the people who use long term benefits consistently are students, children, and elderly people. Statistics show that as well.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html



War on Poverty is over? Make poverty great again.

LOL, so a progressive American think tank pushed out some numbers to attack the idea of work-for-benefits? Titanic.jpeg

Who gives a shit about income rates levels and how they correlate to SNAP enrollment? They were very specific and focused in their criticism of an observed reality:

The White House report, using census data from 2013, found that more than one-half of working-age, non-disabled beneficiaries of Medicaid, federal housing support and food stamps worked fewer than 20 hours per week in the month in which they received benefits from those programs.

What's the argument, here? Why can't these people put in 10-15 hours of community service in exchange for admission to these programs? They don't have an alternative job. This added workload wouldn't even bring them up to a full work week. They don't have capital, and they might not have skills, but they have working bodies.

Wouldn't this be better for everyone? It wouldn't cost a dime more to demand this in return, or promise a dime less given, we would create industry with their labor and projects (psst: hint to liberals-- here is another excuse to spend even more of other people's money), we wouldn't be overworking the population, we could potentially develop skillsets as well as an effective work history among our underemployed population, and we could direct this labor force towards offsetting the negative byproducts of our industry (ex. environmental waste cleanup).

Maybe if you read past the butthurt in your own socialist think tank report you'd realize why this is sage; even your commies had to admit their was a positive effect in EVERY community in stable employment as a result of work-required assistance policies. This was true in every single city studied except OKC with +1.0-+7.5% employment rates observed, but for some bizarre reason dismissed by those reporting as "small" and "insignificant" despite that mathematically they are calculating out decimals for significance (as a matter of certainty) to a tenth of a percent. Really? A shift of 2 percent in unemployment at the federal level is monumental. Apparently when it's un-socialist policies at the city level this goalpost shifts to double digits or something absurd like that to be more than a "small" gain written off.

It's asking too much to not just GIVE other people's money away when there is something to be freely (and fairly) gained in return.


--"A Communist is someone who tells you, 'I can solve all your problems if you just give me all your money'."

 

[MaxMMA]

Except for:

1.) I'm not on welfare or assistance of ANY kind, even food stamps

2.) I work two separate jobs one that is full time with benefits and the other that is part time no benefits BUT I get paid out in tips/portion of profit

3.) My main job (the 40 hour a week one) is in the public sector which means I don't get pay bumps based on how well I do as everything is based on "time in" which has fucked me

4.) I have applied to other places but everyone in my state low balls me on what they want to pay cause they know people are desperate

5.) You don't know shit about me so why don't you take your indignant sarcastic post, shine up real good, turn it sideways and stick it up your candy ass you ass clown frog face looking motherfucker.

We really didn't need to know all that personal information, but since you volunteered it... # 3 & 4 sound whiney as fuck, you should use my personal method of dealing with employers to get the raise you deserve but I'm assuming you won't because it sounds like you take to the lash quite well.

 

[Gregolian]

We really didn't need to know all that personal information, but since you volunteered it... # 3 & 4 sound whiney as fuck, you should use my personal method of dealing with employers to get the raise you deserve but I'm assuming you won't because it sounds like you take to the lash quite well.

Or because my union fucks me and it's not worth it to piss of management, HR, AND my union to get... a 10 cent raise.

Essentially, you're a dumb motherfucker with no life experience or you were born with a fucking silver spoon in your mouth. Either way, get fucking bent.

 

[BudKing8806]

Or because my union fucks me and it's not worth it to piss of management, HR, AND my union to get... a 10 cent raise.

Essentially, you're a dumb motherfucker with no life experience or you were born with a fucking silver spoon in your mouth. Either way, get fucking bent.

Ta ta ta ta taqqiya.

 

[Gregolian]

Ta ta ta ta taqqiya.

Nah dude, I applied for a Legal Assistant position at the King County prosecutor's office. Like, $23-$27 an hour was the range advertised once you broke it down.

They called after my interview and offered me a job to be a goddamn receptionist at like $20 an hour. I was like "um... I'm single, I can't live in Seattle on $20 an hour..... given housing prices I could probably qualify for fucking food stamps in Seattle on that". There response is what pissed me off:
"Well, this is the best way to get your foot in the door to become a Legal Assistant as most of our Legal Assistant's are hired from within the office"
"Oh, so you can get them whipped and used to being under a bootheel before they are asked to work with your attorneys... I'm good"

 

[BudKing8806]

Nah dude, I applied for a Legal Assistant position at the King County prosecutor's office. Like, $23-$27 an hour was the range advertised once you broke it down.

They called after my interview and offered me a job to be a goddamn receptionist at like $20 an hour. I was like "um... I'm single, I can't live in Seattle on $20 an hour..... given housing prices I could probably qualify for fucking food stamps in Seattle on that". There response is what pissed me off:
"Well, this is the best way to get your foot in the door to become a Legal Assistant as most of our Legal Assistant's are hired from within the office"
"Oh, so you can get them whipped and used to being under a bootheel before they are asked to work with your attorneys... I'm good"

Yea, I was just agreeing that dude you quoted sounded like a fool. But yea, you can't let them fuck you around like that. I interviewed for a management position at one place and they called and offered me an entry level job I didn't even interview for. Of course, it was like half the salary of what I applied for and what I was currently making. Fuck all that.

 

[Gregolian]

Yea, I was just agreeing that dude you quoted sounded like a fool. But yea, you can't let them fuck you around like that. I interviewed for a management position at one place and they called and offered me an entry level job I didn't even interview for. Of course, it was like half the salary of what I applied for and what I was currently making. Fuck all that.

Their response when I turned down the second interview for the receptionist position was lulzy:
"So, are you still interested in working for us maybe in the future?"
"Yeah, but as a legal assistant or paralegal not some person answering the phone"
"May we ask why?"
"Because I refuse to work a position a person that only has a high school diploma could work. I have a 4 year degree, a 1 year certificate and 4 years experience in the legal field and you guys want to offer me a job that was created so attorneys could have their mistresses in the office with them away from their wives at a pay scale that would force me to get a bartenders license and work 80 hours a week between the two jobs and probably make more at the bar. Sorry, but if I take a receptionist position I know what happens. Pretty soon I will be doing legal assistant work without being paid legal assistant money and you guys will be getting a discount. So nah, I'm good"

 

[BudKing8806]

Their response when I turned down the second interview for the receptionist position was lulzy:
"So, are you still interested in working for us maybe in the future?"
"Yeah, but as a legal assistant or paralegal not some person answering the phone"
"May we ask why?"
"Because I refuse to work a position a person that only has a high school diploma could work. I have a 4 year degree, a 1 year certificate and 4 years experience in the legal field and you guys want to offer me a job that was created so attorneys could have their mistresses in the office with them away from their wives at a pay scale that would force me to get a bartenders license and work 80 hours a week between the two jobs and probably make more at the bar. Sorry, but if I take a receptionist position I know what happens. Pretty soon I will be doing legal assistant work without being paid legal assistant money and you guys will be getting a discount. So nah, I'm good"

Exactly! 20 bucks an hour is nothing. Hell, even in rural South Ga where cost of living is cheap thats a bit low for many. However, receptionist jobs around here are usually like 10-12 bucks an hour.

 

[Gregolian]

Exactly! 20 bucks an hour is nothing. Hell, even in rural South Ga where cost of living is cheap thats a bit low for many. However, receptionist jobs around here are usually like 10-12 bucks an hour.

The best was when they asked if they had an open LA or Paralegal position what I'd want to start at:
"Max deal"
"So... $28 an hour?"
"Yeah, your advertisement asked for just a high school diploma and a paralegal or legal assistant degree. I have a 4 year degree and a paralegal certificate AND 4 years of experience... you start me at max or you get nothing"

Really wanted to say the "you get nothing" like McGregor but figured that wouldn't be a good look.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're parroting typical Reaganite talking points but I'd like to give a spin to it. I don't think it created a cycle of dependency and it didn't make anything worse, but it also didn't solve anything. I find that interesting. It's similar to rehabilitation in prisons. It was a big thing back in JFK days but even Clinton kind of abandoned it and went for mass incarceration instead.
What can we take away from that? That many people simply cannot be helped? That we have no idea how to help them in a permanent way?

There is a constant flow of children, elderly, and disabled people--who collectively make up the vast majority of people in pre-transfer poverty. The only permanent solution to have a certain portion of the population in poverty is to increase transfer income or cause people to stop being born and getting old.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It boils down to how you structure the gradual removal from the system. Done properly, you end up with people fewer people not working, fewer people just getting benefits and more people in a hybrid system where they're getting a basic standard of living that is partially self-funded. The advantage for them is that as their work situation fluctuates, their benefits fluctuate accordingly.

My opinion, as always, is largely driven by the premise that in a capitalist society you're always going to have very poor people and that the lowest level of the job market will never pay enough to sustain an individual. So, you have to accept that moving people straight into the job market is never going to solve your problem.

Even in a relatively strong economy, only around 60% of people over 15 are working, and presumably a very small percentage of people 15 and under are working. That's the real cause of poverty. Almost all people with jobs make enough to keep themselves out of poverty. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but transfers have to be a big part of the solution to poverty.

 

[panamaican]

There is a constant flow of children, elderly, and disabled people--who collectively make up the vast majority of people in pre-transfer poverty. The only permanent solution to have a certain portion of the population in poverty is to increase transfer income or cause people to stop being born and getting old.

You've said it before and it bears repeating. People seem to think that it's the same poor people simply not improving when it's people moving onto and off of the poverty rolls. They misunderstand that just because the sectors where we find poverty remain consistent it doesn't mean the people remain so as well.

 

[panamaican]

Even in a relatively strong economy, only around 60% of people over 15 are working, and presumably a very small percentage of people 15 and under are working. That's the real cause of poverty. Almost all people with jobs make enough to keep themselves out of poverty. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but transfers have to be a big part of the solution to poverty.

No disagreement. I was primarily thinking about and talking about the non-children and non-elderly, able bodied, working age adults. But for the elderly, children, and the disabled, transfers are the only viable solution.

 

[sub_thug]

you can't die as a result of receiving welfare.......

you also don't deploy, have no days off for that whole time, are subject to no labor laws (hence 24 hour duty), have to maintain weight standards and work out, etc....

Totally the same thing. Just stop, it's embarrassing

Also I never once 'complained' about welfare, I didn't say we should cut it. Not feeling sorry for people, is hardly congruent w/ complaining about it. Keep it up dude, killing it today

I think some people are being purposefully obtuse. Military benefits are just that: benefits, and they are contractually obligated to fulfill them. There is virtually no difference between stuff like Tricare, a GS employee's healthcare, and employer-funded healthcare. The military offers more benefits (access to gyms, cost of living allowances for select personnel, housing allowances for select personnel, etc), but those are merely benefits that factor in against the lower salaries of the employees. For the cost of living allowances and housing allowances, there is a direct correlation in the civilian world too. Most jobs in San Fransisco or NYC are going to pay their employees more than they would for the same job if it were in the middle of Nebraska (it's even lower when those jobs are in Pakistan!). Why? Because the cost of living is higher in those places, so people expect to make more. Instead of giving you a stipend in your paycheck, they just plug it into your paycheck as part of your salary. Many employers offer healthcare, life insurance, disability insurance, wellness plans for things like gyms and nutrition, and that sort of thing. To argue otherwise isn't really being honest about what these things are. Many people join the military because it's an employer with an excellent benefits package (although the salaries suck), and since these are all part of the servicemember's contract when they enter into employment, everyone would be rightly upset if the government decided to not honor its contracts.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I think some people are being purposefully obtuse. Military benefits are just that: benefits, and they are contractually obligated to fulfill them. There is virtually no difference between stuff like Tricare, a GS employee's healthcare, and employer-funded healthcare. The military offers more benefits (access to gyms, cost of living allowances for select personnel, housing allowances for select personnel, etc), but those are merely benefits that factor in against the lower salaries of the employees. For the cost of living allowances and housing allowances, there is a direct correlation in the civilian world too. Most jobs in San Fransisco or NYC are going to pay their employees more than they would for the same job if it were in the middle of Nebraska (it's even lower when those jobs are in Pakistan!). Why? Because the cost of living is higher in those places, so people expect to make more. Instead of giving you a stipend in your paycheck, they just plug it into your paycheck as part of your salary. Many employers offer healthcare, life insurance, disability insurance, wellness plans for things like gyms and nutrition, and that sort of thing. To argue otherwise isn't really being honest about what these things are. Many people join the military because it's an employer with an excellent benefits package (although the salaries suck), and since these are all part of the servicemember's contract when they enter into employment, everyone would be rightly upset if the government decided to not honor its contracts.

Totally agree

Its just hilarious to say 'the military is welfare' while also complaining that we don't have nearly enough SW safety net programs.....wait, what?

 

[sub_thug]

Totally agree

Its just hilarious to say 'the military is welfare' while also complaining that we don't have nearly enough SW safety net programs.....wait, what?

It's certainly a strange argument to make. I assume that the implied remainder of the statement is "We don't have enough SW programs for civilians." But to argue that the military is welfare is weird, as it's just a form of contractual service for the government.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

It's certainly a strange argument to make. I assume that the implied remainder of the statement is "We don't have enough SW programs for civilians." But to argue that the military is welfare is weird, as it's just a form of contractual service for the government.

they also seem to think that all DoD civilians are GS and thus paid for by the Federal Budget

I've had to explain what NF/NAF was at least 10 times on this site, and at least 4 of those people still informed me that 'no, I still pay your wages!' hahahahha

you can't even make this shit up

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Reducing the penalty for working would allow people to add employment without fear of losing their benefits. Thus as their income rises, they will gradually phase out of the programs.

Cue Ole Dirty Bastard pulling up in a limo to collect his welfare check after becoming a millionaire rapper..

 

[sub_thug]

they also seem to think that all DoD civilians are GS and thus paid for by the Federal Budget

I've had to explain what NF/NAF was at least 10 times on this site, and at least 4 of those people still informed me that 'no, I still pay your wages!' hahahahha

you can't even make this shit up

I don't know what to tell you. Most people in this country don't actually know how our government works on any sort of meaningful level, but everyone has an opinion on how it should be run. I definitely have knowledge gaps regarding different agencies, and I'm in it. It's a complicated, constantly morphing beast. Understanding the minutia is hard.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I don't know what to tell you. Most people in this country don't actually know how our government works on any sort of meaningful level, but everyone has an opinion on how it should be run. I definitely have knowledge gaps regarding different agencies, and I'm in it. It's a complicated, constantly morphing beast. Understanding the minutia is hard.

oh I feel you

Had I not been a Training NCO, and then placed out of my MOS into S-1 and then Outprocessing/IPAC/Housing I wouldn't know like 90% of the military regulations and stuff that I do.

Had my boy not went and passed Selection and the Q Course I wouldn't know half as much about that, same w/ RASP, Airbone, Sapper, Pathfinder, etc.....

My mos was 92F ffs haha