Scrapping Welfare

[blackforest]

My comments about being a stay at home mom were specific to a two parent home, where one would be working full time. If a single mom intends to be both breadwinner and parent, then she needs to fill both roles to some extent. The Govt makes a poor substitute for the sole breadwinner.

A dual income is often necessary to lift families out of poverty.

As for the single mother, somebody needs to help fund the childcare. It already happens through TANF block grants, albeit not always adequately.

 

[Theo520]

As for the single mother, somebody needs to help fund the childcare. It already happens through TANF block grants, albeit not always adequately.

And I never suggest a working mother didn’t require help, please stop projecting and respond to what people actually say.

 

[MonteRCMS]

My guess is probably not. But those who argue that we should rely on private contributions for welfare backtrack very quickly when I suggest we start with social security and medicare. The attitude is welfare for me but not for thee.

You have said this “thousands of times”.

BUT FIRST … you privatizers MUST give up your money AND then you MAY NOT pick and choose your own mechanism.

That is what has happened.

Based on experience, we don’t trust lefty economics alternatives as presented … yeah, go ahead swim on your own with your arms and legs shackled and your head held two feet underwater.

We already had some useful alternatives … but they were taken away.

We already WERE allowed to have alternatives to Social Security … but the government took them away. [RESEARCH the Galveston County Plan that got in under the wire before competitive plans were stopped.]

We already WERE allowed to have alternative HSA, catastrophic, CHARITABLE, variable and other medical payment methods and they were taken away by the government.

So based on experience with you, we don’t trust you … PLUS you already took away our money for decades.

Yeah, go ahead and swim for yourself … just don’t expect to have use of your resources.

 

[blackforest]

I’m just reiterating what I said upthread, not claiming it as a rebuttal. This circular conversation began because you did not specify that you were referring only to married and not single parents.

You did make the ludicrous suggestion that a married parent in a one-income family just not worry about daycare costs and stay home. Nope. They need money, and subsidized childcare to make it.

 

[DarkLight]

Frankly, our experience is we don’t trust you either.

Conservatives have been telling people like me for years that we deserve to be mistreated if we can’t stand on our own because we need healthcare - that we can’t expected to be treated like more than overgrown children. That if it was “really that bad” we’d somehow overcome our health problems and figure out how to make everything work anyway, and if not we had no right to complain. Or telling my friend that he was entitled for wanting to actually spend some time with his daughter, rather than working 80+h a week because he had a disabled child who required extra care.

We’ve been told about the wonders of private options that rejected us for being too expensive and charity that never actually materialized. We’ve been preached at about the wonders of having choices when none of those choices were available to us, because we weren’t healthy middle class people.

We’ve been told to get jobs and pay our own way, but that we’re entitled for wanting anything that means we could actually get a job where we can do that - we should work our way up (no one really explains how we’re supposed to manage in the meantime). We’ve been told we should be grateful for emergency medicine to patch us up, even if it leaves us knowing we’ll be back in the ER later, but that the availability of the ER meant everything else was ok.

We’ve seen that many conservatives want to substitute magical thinking for real assistance. We don’t trust the charity of those who are always looking for a reason to declare someone not really in need, or who insist we follow opportunities that we can’t actually find.

 

[Theo520]

I’m just reiterating what I said upthread, not claiming it as a rebuttal. This circular conversation began because you did not specify that you were referring only to married and not single parents.

You did make the ludicrous suggestion that a married parent in a one-income family just not worry about daycare costs and stay home. Nope. They need money, and subsidized childcare to make it.

If you had read the post I was responding to, I think it was clear I was referring to married couples. I’ve since clarified it twice, now no excuse for you

If they are staying home, obviously they are worrying about daycare costs. Your inference is the only thing that’s ludicrous.

So what exactly are you suggesting, or trying to say?

Spit it out!

Stop trying to be coy, it doesn’t suit you.

 

[blackforest]

So what exactly are you suggesting, or trying to say?

That poor people, married or single, need subsidized childcare to go to work.

 

[Pup7]

You did make the ludicrous suggestion that a married parent in a one-income family just not worry about daycare costs and stay home. Nope. They need money, and subsidized childcare to make it.

I know working people who live well above the poverty line who can barely afford childcare.

Also, I had to actually do the math for a proposal I designed (though it was hypothetical) while in a professional military education course - and I did it to justify the proposal I made, which was charging service members a percentage of pay to lower the taxpayer out of pocket cost for our healthcare program. When I showed how much revenue it would make and how in the long run it would help, I got quite a reaction from my audience of senior officers, most of whom had never paid for healthcare out of pocket and had gone straight from mom and dad’s policy in college to TRICARE at around 22-23 years old, and had been on active duty 15 or more years - some as long as 25.

My point is this: have you ever looked at the cost logistics for anything you’re proposing, how it could even be funded, or even a remote ballpark of how much it would cost? And then how would you get buy-in from the taxpayer to justify lowering their take-home by that percentage? I actually do think these are valid questions, even in the hypothetical, because it can change how one approaches a variety of problems. I realized in that proposal as a very junior captain that I can’t think tactically - I have to think strategically: what are the actual effects of what I think should be done, and how can I make that fit the bigger picture?

You don’t need to be military to think that way, either. Because I think it’s the strategic roadblocks that stop a lot of this stuff from actually happening. It’s not that people think it shouldn’t happen. It’s that they have no way of actually implementing it effectively or even know where to start with it for the benefit of everyone.

 

[blackforest]

My point is this: have you ever looked at the cost logistics for anything you’re proposing, how it could even be funded, or even a remote ballpark of how much it would cost? A

I’m on my way out the door right now and can’t respond in-depth. But this is already funded. TANF block grants have an allotment for childcare subsidies that varies by state, (your DSHS website should have information). This isn’t a proposal; it’s something that’s already happening that hasn’t been adjusted at the federal level to meet the cost of inflation.

 

[Theo520]

That poor people, married or single, need subsidized childcare to go to work.

I think they need help, which may or may not be used for childcare.

I’d prefer an increased focus on reducing the cost of daycare, less regulation for small in-home providers. More like getting ‘granny’ certified in first aid rather than ensuring she’s degreed and the building complies with all fire and safety codes. It would be possible but tough, since the chain providers like having regulations they can meet, but small providers can’t navigate.

 

[Pup7]

Fair call - I wasn’t aware of that. I’ll read up on it.

 

[Crocus]

Money for basic living expenses has to come from somewhere.

People who can work but who do not, should not be supported by charity. They are under utilized resources in an economy. Welfare programs as they exist only perpetuate poverty and inactivity of many (not all). Money for their living expenses has to come from somewhere.

How about if the federal government raises money through a good sized consumption tax, uses the revenue to offer all kinds of jobs it creates and/or with participation of the private sector. People (who want more income than they’ve been getting from welfare programs) will make the switch to being employed and paying taxes themselves.

 

[Theo520]

How about if the federal government raises money through a good sized consumption tax, uses the revenue to offer all kinds of jobs it creates and/or with participation of the private sector. People (who want more income than they’ve been getting from welfare programs) will make the switch to being employed and paying taxes themselves.

The govt is horrible at creating real jobs that teach real skills, and deliver value to the community. Better if they simpleywork to ensure we have low unemployment, then the private sector employers are motivated to train and accommodate some of these less desirable workers. Low unemployment means someone with a record can find full employment, or there is more flexibility on hours, etc.

 

[Cyril]

People who can work but who do not, should not be supported by charity.

Children and students?

They are under utilized resources in an economy.

Slavery is good for the econmy but that’s bad so we don’t do that.

Welfare programs as they exist only perpetuate poverty and inactivity of many (not all).

Yes and no, you are touching on the balance of public power for those in power as a reflection of society. The two don’t correlate the way you think they do.

Money for their living expenses has to come from somewhere.

And once they have it its not like its wasted, it goes back to whence it came cause that’s what money does. There is more then enough evidence of every dollar put in the hands of the lower class is a positive sum game.

How about if the federal government raises money through a good sized consumption tax, uses the revenue to offer all kinds of jobs it creates and/or with participation of the private sector.

That would depend on the job, not everyone can do everything.

People (who want more income than they’ve been getting from welfare programs) will make the switch to being employed and paying taxes themselves.

Poor people already pay taxes.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Frankly, our experience is we don’t trust you either.

Conservatives have been telling people like me for years that we deserve to be mistreated if we can’t stand on our own because we need healthcare - that we can’t expected to be treated like more than overgrown children. That if it was “really that bad” we’d somehow overcome our health problems and figure out how to make everything work anyway, and if not we had no right to complain. Or telling my friend that he was entitled for wanting to actually spend some time with his daughter, rather than working 80+h a week because he had a disabled child who required extra care.

We’ve been told about the wonders of private options that rejected us for being too expensive and charity that never actually materialized. We’ve been preached at about the wonders of having choices when none of those choices were available to us, because we weren’t healthy middle class people.

We’ve been told to get jobs and pay our own way, but that we’re entitled for wanting anything that means we could actually get a job where we can do that - we should work our way up (no one really explains how we’re supposed to manage in the meantime). We’ve been told we should be grateful for emergency medicine to patch us up, even if it leaves us knowing we’ll be back in the ER later, but that the availability of the ER meant everything else was ok.

We’ve seen that many conservatives want to substitute magical thinking for real assistance. We don’t trust the charity of those who are always looking for a reason to declare someone not really in need, or who insist we follow opportunities that we can’t actually find.

Wow!

You don’t trust me!!

Well … I am not asking for your trust!

I found the best insurance when I saw their advert in the colored section of the Sunday supplement. Back with the vitamin adverts and the cheap checks.

You are allowed to shop around.

You DO NOT beg them to take you! They ADVERTISE for you … THEY BEG YOU to come to them.

Why are hospitals and other health care providers not permitted to advertise for clients and patients?

Why are there so few religious and charitable institutions NOT in the hospital and medical profession any longer??? Catholic and other churches USED to be the leaders in medical care … but they were run out.

Why are lawsuits major cost components of medical practice?

There are MANY innovative and hugely cost saving practices such as Medishare or Solidarity Healthshare … and there are constant improvements.

 

[DarkLight]

Here’s the thing when it comes to healthcare for someone like me:

I have had points in my life where the full, unsubsidized cost of the healthcare that would allow me to maintain employment was probably more than the amount of money I could expect to make as an entry level employee. It was certainly more than the amount I would have left after paying basic expenses at pretty much the minimum possible level.

If you are healthy, yes, those services will advertise for you and seek you out. But the reason these services could offer such money-saving alternatives to you was by screening people like me (that they would lose money on) out. They don’t beg for people like me to join; they check our history and turn us away at the door for being too expensive.

That’s the problem we’re saying. In so many of these cases, YOUR cost savings depend on OTHER people being shut out. Capitalism and shopping around isn’t going to materialize someone who’s suddenly willing to take on a customer who’s guaranteed to cost more money than they pay in.

That’s the fundamental problem I’m complaining about with conservatives. That I see too much of the attitude that X worked for me, therefore it should work for someone else who’s in a completely different situation and doesn’t have the advantages that allowed me to take advantage of X, so there’s no problem.

 

[Pup7]

I’m conservative (well, likely more moderate, actually) in most stuff except health care, even if I have no idea how to fix the current system and don’t think an American version of the NHS is the solution.

All I know is the current way is unsustainable.

 

[Crocus]

The govt is horrible at creating real jobs that teach real skills, and deliver value to the community.

Any job is a value to the community if it means a previously non working (collecting welfare) person can, perhaps for the first time, go out and actually have the dignity of being employed.

 

[Theo520]

I have a higher standard that you.
I want the person to gain skills and the job to serve a needed purpose.
Govt make work jobs tend to be horribly expensive to the taxpayer, and not teach transferable skills

 

[Cyril]

I’m conservative (well, likely more moderate, actually) in most stuff except health care, even if I have no idea how to fix the current system and don’t think an American version of the NHS is the solution.

All I know is the current way is unsustainable.

Good girl.

Any job is a value to the community if it means a previously non working (collecting welfare) person can, perhaps for the first time, go out and actually have the dignity of being employed.

Can work doesn’t mean should.