Forum Thread

Welfare, created to be a monster by compromise.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 18 1 2 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The right wing created welfare in the image of a monster so they could say: "look, there's a monster". Welfare should have been means tested and graduated so total income plus welfare would have created a living wage. The right wing wanted a no income qualifier because they knew the hate that would be created by giving people money for not working. The left compromised in order to get the program. Welfare should have been a jobs and training program for pay. The basis should have been child care and child care training. Qualificants would have gotten free child care while they worked at a welfare oriented job. Others would staff the child care facility and learn the job if needed . All welfare recipients would be required to work or get paid training then work. Welfare would then have addressed the problem and offered a solution . Compromise cost more in the long run.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The right wing created welfare in the image of a monster so they could say: "look, there's a monster". Welfare should have been means tested and graduated so total income plus welfare would have created a living wage. The right wing wanted a no income qualifier because they knew the hate that would be created by giving people money for not working. The left compromised in order to get the program. Welfare should have been a jobs and training program for pay. The basis should have been child care and child care training. Qualificants would have gotten free child care while they worked at a welfare oriented job. Others would staff the child care facility and learn the job if needed . All welfare recipients would be required to work or get paid training then work. Welfare would then have addressed the problem and offered a solution . Compromise cost more in the long run.

    This is just a bit off. Welfare programs have been around at the Federal level since the Great Depression and have been reformed many times since then.

    "Welfare" is a catchall phrase that is grossly manipulated to make citizens think that half of the country are takers and the other half are makers.

    In reality, the vast majority of people who receive government assistance of are full or part time workers who fall below a certain percentage of the federal poverty level. Another major percentage of recipients are senior citizens who only receive Social Security benefits and are eligible for the SNAP (food assistance) program.

    Welfare reform in the 1990's made it very difficult for anyone to receive benefits who isn't actively looking for a job (if they are of working age) and then again these benefits are paltry at best. The problem is the fact that income isn't rising with the cost of living throughout the country; not that too many people are on welfare.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Minsky noted as well that the federal government should not give cash payments for nothing but rather should be the employer of last resort. This would, iirc, include training for jobs in the private sector.

    of course this type of work while not at the wages which the private sector should pay would help keep demand up and should thereby increase hiring by the private sector. The problem as minsky notes is that we are in the middle of financial manager capitalism and the attendant short-termism.

  • Center-Right Democrat
    Democrat
    California
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I wish there was as much attention focused on corporate welfare as there is on social welfare. Example: Farm subsidies are given to farmers NOT to plant certain crops. Note these farmers are usually already well-to-do. But, they still receive subsidies from the govt. They aren't means tested then, are they? Hmmmm.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There is a long list of things that we would call "corporate welfare". If the so called "free market" people would engage in "full cost accounting", that is looking at the true cost of a product from the raw materials to the end consumer, we would find direct and indirect subsidies in just about everything, from the food we eat to the gasoline at the pump. The indirect costs include things like taxpayers having to pay for the environmental damage done by cattle grazing excessively on public lands and polluting watersheds. My pet peeve living in Colorado.

    Also the price of gasoline is maintained because we keep the 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf to make sure oil extraction in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other gulf states is not compromised by terrorists. Should not that barrel of oil exported from the Gulf have a "security surcharge" attached to it?

    Whether the product prices include the cost/benefits of taxpayer subsidies and/or regulatory concessions that are profitable to the company (e.g. pharmaceutical patent protection) depends on how much is skimmed off the market price to pad the salaries of the CEOs. When the subsidies become the biggest component of profitability, maybe the programs need to be reassessed. That is difficult with special interests and lobbyists having a direct pipeline into our elected officials.

    That's why there is not much attention paid to it.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Schmidt said:"free market" people would engage in "full cost accounting", that is looking at the true cost of a product from the raw materials to the end consumer, we would find direct and indirect subsidies in just about everything,"

    I think this should also be the job of Customs. They should be charged to verify that what we get is what we paid for. China in particular has sent us a lot of junk that looks exactly like proven USA products that perform well and last a lifetime.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Rockford Illinois, IL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hi Chet, I just want to point out a term that you used in your statement that I think is the real problem in politics, at first I thought it would be a good thing, but after reading your statement I see that this is the real problem between these two major parties and that is that these two parties are trying to compromise on deals, and both parties seem to be losing out on what they both want, this is what we American's had wanted a few years ago when Obama took office, I remember we were struggling to get these two parties to compromise, now that they have I feel like this is a mistake for them to compromise. Perhaps these parties need to stay on their own playground? After all, they didn't want compromise in the beginning.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: The right wing created welfare in the image of a monster so they could say: "look, there's a monster". Welfare should have been means tested and graduated so total income plus welfare would have created a living wage. The right wing wanted a no income qualifier because they knew the hate that would be created by giving people money for not working. The left compromised in order to get the program. Welfare should have been a jobs and training program for pay. The basis should have been child care and child care training. Qualificants would have gotten free child care while they worked at a welfare oriented job. Others would staff the child care facility and learn the job if needed . All welfare recipients would be required to work or get paid training then work. Welfare would then have addressed the problem and offered a solution . Compromise cost more in the long run.

    This is called "workfare" and it's not a part of the progressive agenda.

    We should have a job guarantee, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have social welfare programs. The old, young, sick, and homeless need to be protected. Furthermore, should the government fail to guarantee a reasonable job opportunity in the public sector to all those able and willing to work, there needs to be a safety net to support those people.

    Forcing poor people to work 'or else no social welfare' and disregarding issues, such as, labor immobility, family-household structures, and the failure of the government to provide reasonable job opportunities in the public sector, could be quite cruel to those on the margins, while making the macro economic problem worse.

    What Conservative Republicans were successful at doing was convincing everyone that their tax dollars paid for welfare, making it a socialistic robbing Peter to pay Paul scheme to redistribute wealth in the society from the haves to have nots. In reality, social welfare helps stabilize corporate profits given the large multipliers associated with it. That's basically what the government counter cyclical policies do, as opposed to stabilizing employment. Taxes regulate inflation; they don't give the government the funds to spend. Hardworking Joe is not paying higher taxes because of the food stamps used by his lazy next door neighbor Bum, but because of Deficit Terrorists in power who don't understand how the currency works.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I agree with the necessity of deficits but I also think there is another solution. The problem is (removed reference to Mosler) some people make too much money. One billionaire does not consume as much as a thousand millionaires. One billionaire is numerically equal to 20,000 50k people. There is your loss of demand. There is a simple solution if liberals and progressives would unite.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The income inequality means we need bigger deficits to get to full employment.

    If rich people want to save, that means the government can spend more and/or lower taxes.

    Raising taxes on rich people to combat income inequality is not a simple task, and it's fraught with peril, especially when Democrats say we need those tax dollars to pay for social welfare.

    To fight income inequality we should focus on the source of the income inequality: the government of, by, and for rich people.

    The largest social parasites and the biggest welfare queens on the face of the planet in all of human history are the American 1%. No nation has ever given so much, to so few, for so little in return.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos, You don't understand my tax plan. First it is zero sum in execution. A tax will be balanced by a credit. I would tax heavily non interested party speculative trading. Abolish the CFMA but retain protection for for sensitive commodities. To balance the taxes offer additional credits for job creating consumable products industries. The collected taxes would fund temporary jobs dependent on new industries created by incentive credits. A system of price controls would be the new job of the Fed to stabilize the economy through consumerism not money controls. The US Customs would be reverted to establishing foreign exchange by reconciling product to value. And on ......
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    You can screw around with the institutional structure all you want. Government deficit still equals the non-government surplus. The funds to pay taxes and/or buy government securities still comes from government spending or lending first. Taxes are still about regulating inflation.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    You can screw around with the institutional structure all you want. Government deficit still equals the non-government surplus. The funds to pay taxes and/or buy government securities still comes from government spending or lending first. Taxes are still about regulating inflation.

    What non-government surplus would that be?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    Carlitos Wrote:

    You can screw around with the institutional structure all you want. Government deficit still equals the non-government surplus. The funds to pay taxes and/or buy government securities still comes from government spending or lending first. Taxes are still about regulating inflation.

    What non-government surplus would that be?
    Whoever holds the paper on the deficit. I need to be hit hard with a sledge hammer some times to see the light so to get the hammer swinging I would say that Warren Mosler is playing a game. There is nothing new to deficit theory. It was the slogan and criticism of the Democrats "tax and spend". Mosler knows as well as many others that an economy is spending. He is attempting to put it in a less obvious way alluding to deficits. He has to battle all the conservatives that don't give a rat's behind that spending is life to an economy and not spending is death to an economy. The right only wants to defend and protect what they have. They can't see, don't care, hate the idea, would rather die than understand a thriving spending economy benefits everybody. The idea that a kid from across the tracks or from the ghetto could sit next to them on a cruise ship is blasphemy to them. And even if you do get some spending then the conservative right wants it law less so they can steal the best part back, they call it deregulation. So, nothing new, just trying to make it palpable. Close to the turn of 18 to 19 hundreds there were more doctors than you could shake a stick at. To establish, preserve and maintain the Doctor status an organisation was formed to limit and control the number of doctors. That is why there is no protection for college kids, students now owe more than 1.2 Trillion dollars, more than all but the top 7 or 8 economies in the world. Warren knows the solution is regulated spending. He is trying to finesse it in. Of course all I have stated is personal opinion.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:
    Carlitos Wrote:

    You can screw around with the institutional structure all you want. Government deficit still equals the non-government surplus. The funds to pay taxes and/or buy government securities still comes from government spending or lending first. Taxes are still about regulating inflation.

    What non-government surplus would that be?
    Whoever holds the paper on the deficit. I need to be hit hard with a sledge hammer some times to see the light so to get the hammer swinging I would say that Warren Mosler is playing a game. There is nothing new to deficit theory. It was the slogan and criticism of the Democrats "tax and spend". Mosler knows as well as many others that an economy is spending. He is attempting to put it in a less obvious way alluding to deficits. He has to battle all the conservatives that don't give a rat's behind that spending is life to an economy and not spending is death to an economy. The right only wants to defend and protect what they have. They can't see, don't care, hate the idea, would rather die than understand a thriving spending economy benefits everybody. The idea that a kid from across the tracks or from the ghetto could sit next to them on a cruise ship is blasphemy to them. And even if you do get some spending then the conservative right wants it law less so they can steal the best part back, they call it deregulation. So, nothing new, just trying to make it palpable. Close to the turn of 18 to 19 hundreds there were more doctors than you could shake a stick at. To establish, preserve and maintain the Doctor status an organisation was formed to limit and control the number of doctors. That is why there is no protection for college kids, students now owe more than 1.2 Trillion dollars, more than all but the top 7 or 8 economies in the world. Warren knows the solution is regulated spending. He is trying to finesse it in. Of course all I have stated is personal opinion.

    Not sure what your beef is with Mosler. Capitalism runs on Sales. If you want to increase sales, you increase spending. If you want to raise taxes on the savings of rich people and then increase government spending by that amount or transfer those funds to the non-rich to spend, you can do that but you don't have to. It would have the same effect on total spending as simply increasing government spending or transfer payments without seeking revenue from taxes on the savings of rich people.