The rigged economy

[cm husker]

I think we should confirm the sources, but several here are listed as supporting findings that 70% of tax dollars for social welfare support government overhead related to administering the program. The ratio is only 30% among private charities.

 

For example, about 75% of the tax dollars that are targeted to welfare programs actually go to the middle-class administrators rather than the needy. In contrast, private programs give about 75% of donated dollars to the poor. Thus, the poor get more when charitable giving."

 

https://www.theadvocates.org/effective-government-welfare-compared-private-charity/

[zoogs]

First, private charity doesn't provide coverage everywhere it is needed. That's a big inefficiency, right?

 

And second, might that not be a result of the ham-fisted ways government currently distributes welfare? I know you and I both support a simple guaranteed income. And that seems easy to do. The government already has the overhead costs of processing taxes. And it can provide the blanket, comprehensive coverage that a hodgepodge of independent charity streams in various places around the country clearly does not.

 

There's a place for charity, certainly. But it's what I would consider addressing downstream problems (i.e: there are people drowning here. Let's save as many as we can) rather than upstream (there are people who are about to fall in the water. Let's keep them out of it.)

[AFhusker]

I had all kinds of ideas on how I wanted to respond to that but it just isn't worth the effort. I wouldn't know where to start with trying to convince someone who feels our government is the most efficient way to do anything. We are 180 degrees apart and headed opposite directions. I just don't have the energy for it. Sorry.

I am with you here. More government isn't the answer to anything. Which is historically been the answer by liberals, which sounds good, except more government is what leads people to be "stuck" because they have a better life by staying on welfare instead of working 2-3 part time jobs to get by. I try to believe in the best of everyone while realizing that that isn't always the case. If anyone was in that situation and honestly asked themselves what would you do? Get the same or in some cases more money to be on welfare or struggle working several jobs which leaves their kids alone pretty much to raise themselves? To me the answer is to get more and better jobs and not the BS that this administration is calling "job growth" when a very high percentage of those jobs are part time jobs that don't pay the bills. Education to be qualified for those jobs is the next issue that needs to be fixed. The answer isn't for it to be free, but it doesn't have to put people 70-100K in debt before they get a job in their chosen field either.

 

When it comes down to it, all Americans really want the same thing, a job that pays enough that they could take care of their families. I use the term Americans because that is what we all are no matter what race we may be. Segregating is for the liberals and it is sad that they have been as successful at it. And this is coming from someone who was a registered Democrat but this Democratic Party isn't the same as the one that I signed up for.

[zoogs]

 

because they have a better life by staying on welfare instead of working 2-3 part time jobs to get by

Oh, those lavish lifestyles of the welfare queens!

I don't believe people help out the economy by working 2-3 dead end jobs. And they don't have the time to help themselves.

Give them a cushion and they can use it to invest in themselves, take an entreprenurial risk or gain a new skill, and increase the amount of higher-skilled workers there are in the workforce. That's a good thing, right? That's what you would do, right? That's what most anyone would do, IMO -- try to obtain a much higher-paying job.

On the flip side, the prevalence of these stuck people, perpetuating down generations, has costs that everyone has to answer for.

[AFhusker]

 

 

because they have a better life by staying on welfare instead of working 2-3 part time jobs to get by

Oh, those lavish lifestyles of the welfare queens!

I don't believe people help out the economy by working 2-3 dead end jobs. And they don't have the time to help themselves.

Give them a cushion and they can use it to invest in themselves, take an entreprenurial risk or gain a new skill, and increase the amount of higher-skilled workers there are in the workforce. That's a good thing, right? That's what you would do, right? That's what most anyone would do, IMO -- try to obtain a much higher-paying job.

On the flip side, the prevalence of these stuck people, perpetuating down generations, has costs that everyone has to answer for.

 

We agree on pretty much everything here. You are right they don't help the economy by working fast food or entry level type jobs for their entire life. Enough of these households are already broken up and by having their mother work several jobs and kids being raised on the streets since their mother is out trying to get enough money to get by is a huge problem. That is why we need welfare reform so people don't get stuck on it for life. Get them trained and get better jobs in this country for everybody. That requires getting our manufacturing jobs back from other countries as part of the solution. Maybe then those people can become part of what's left of the middle class and we can actually have a real middle class again.

[cm husker]

Why don't fast food workers help the economy?

 

Do lawn mowers help the economy? Maids?

[84HuskerLaw]

The economy doesn't produce 'middle income' jobs to speak of anymore. It hasn't in 7 or 8 years now. The typical 'middle income' household has had its income decline about 13% after inflation since 2008. This is devastating and has changed the same households into net equity losers. But for the rise in home values (mostly artificial as the zero based mortgage lending / interest rate markets only serve to distort the housing markets. A 35% price correction down is coming when interest return to historical norms at some point. If they don't we will have the biggest wealth disintegration any generation has ever had. The stock market is similarly gross over priced as well, with Price to Earnings ratios getting way above anything close to rational considering the poor corporate earnings and most other macro economic indicators.

 

We need to repeal Obamacare ASAP. We need to redirect the funding from those programs and expenditures into big tax credits such as the investment tax credit and the employer tax credit and manufacturing tax credits for businesses that hire new workers with wages at 3X the poverty level rates or more, new plant and equipment in the U.S. and employer sponsored health insurance premium subsidies for employers who hire both full and part time workers. Give the employer a tax credit of 20% of payroll, 65% of health insurance premiums for new added and 50% for existing employees, etc.

 

The government needs to reduce overall non-military employees by 10% in all areas except homeland security and border security and the justice system.

[cm husker]

I can't say that I agree with any detail of your proposal, even if I think we may align on overall concerns.

 

All I read in your solution is just a Different take on how the government can fix things; something you seem to disbelieve when progressive push for intervention. And a big carve out for things you find good, like massive military spending.

[AFhusker]

Why don't fast food workers help the economy?

 

Do lawn mowers help the economy? Maids?

Because they don't make enough money to support a household or keep families off of welfare. Those are jobs for teenagers, not adults.

[cm husker]

 

 

Why don't fast food workers help the economy?

 

Do lawn mowers help the economy? Maids?

Maybe because they don't make enough money to support a household or keep families off of welfare. Those are jobs for teenagers, not adults.

Smart that you avoided the question I asked.

 

 

Landscaping Is for teenagers? Janitorial work?

 

We don't even have enough teenagers to do all of that work.

 

Doing work like that frees other people up to be more productive. The solution, therefore, is to better distribute that productivity. Not to push people out of jobs they do well into things they realistically can't do.

[AFhusker]

I can't say that I agree with any detail of your proposal, even if I think we may align on overall concerns.

 

All I read in your solution is just a Different take on how the government can fix things; something you seem to disbelieve when progressive push for intervention. And a big carve out for things you find good, like massive military spending.

The problem is that they cut the military in the wrong area's. It is always a cut in people or their benefits which shouldn't be touched at all. There are plenty of bases and programs that can be cut and it won't affect the mission of the military. As of now, we don't have enough people to do our mission after the mandated cuts two years ago. And now no big surprise, they are talking about recruiting the needed 30-40K that they forced out two years ago. Which is the second time they did this in my 20 years in the AF. The last was under Clinton in the mid-late 90's.

[cm husker]

Question: are you supportive of cutting teacher benefits? Benefits of local gov workers? If so, why should military be off limits?

 

I was in the military between 2001 and 2008. They there has never been a period that people weren't scrambling with personnel decisions.

[AFhusker]

Question: are you supportive of cutting teacher benefits? Benefits of local gov workers? If so, why should military be off limits?

 

I was in the military between 2001 and 2008. They there has never been a period that people weren't scrambling with personnel decisions.

Definitely not educators. They need more support. The local government workers depends on the position you are talking about. I am more for cutting the 200K for life that the politicians in Washington get. That can be reduced for screwing up the country.

[cm husker]

 

 

Question: are you supportive of cutting teacher benefits? Benefits of local gov workers? If so, why should military be off limits?

 

I was in the military between 2001 and 2008. They there has never been a period that people weren't scrambling with personnel decisions.

Definitely not educators. They need more support. The local government workers depends on the position you are talking about. I am more for cutting the 200K for life that the politicians in Washington get. That can be reduced for screwing up the country.

Do you have a link to the 200k claim?

 

We need to pay congress people a lot more, and encourage them to govern less.

[Making Chimichangas]

Government regulation of the economy is needed to a certain point. Where that point is, I have no idea.

 

What I do know: when left completely alone, pretty much all businesses will, in the pursuit of ever higher profits...

 

• Violate employees safety
• Pollute the environment by not properly disposing of waste
• Cut corners and use sub-standard products in the manufacturing process and produce bad/faulty products
• Endanger public safety

 

In other words, a truly free market simply cannot exist because of people's greed for more money/profits. And call me cynical, but there is absolutely no way in hell I would ever trust those who run a corporation to do the right thing on all fronts on their own.