Republicans are too Liberal!!!

[Al B. Sure!]

Boris:

where did Sava say this? I might have missed it...

[Sava]

What about welfare abuse though? there's plenty of people who make a nice amount of change under the table at jobs or they do semi-illegal or down-right illegal things but still collect welfare? with an emphasis on food stamps over checks though, things aren't as bad as they could be but abuse def is a problem.

Albert... yet another Myth...

it is statistically rare

Correct.

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance
Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line
The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).

Recommendations
Federal and state agencies should provide newspapers and other media with accurate information about welfare recipients and programs, including information on welfare reform.
Jobs need to pay better than welfare. Rather than focusing on welfare time limits, policy action at the state and federal levels must address reforming the low-wage labor market by raising wages and increasing the ability of low-wage workers to join unions and bargain collectively.
Public and private agencies should collaborate more effectively to promote and increase employment opportunities for women, especially of hard-to-place women.
States should provide training for case managers and other appropriate personnel to advocate for, support, and follow up with clients in ways that are not adversarial or punitive during their job search process.
States and federal agencies should fund and conduct research on the impact of the transition of mothers to work on the mother and the family and on what strategies best promote most positive outcomes for the mothers and their families.
States should require and fund formative and summative evaluations of proposed programs.

from http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by monkspider
Well Albert, my philosophy on that is if someone needs money so bad that they have to cheat the system, then we should give them twice as much.

my philosphy is that there should not be money

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


my philosphy is that there should not be money

Jon Miller

Burn Jon Miller! Heretic!

[Al B. Sure!]

Sava:

no... thats not what i'm talking about... what about people who make 15 dollars an hour under the table so that to the US gov't they got no taxable income so they can collect welfare...

[Sava]

"Entitlement" programs eat up much more money than that.

I can't comment on what you consider to be "entitlement". In terms of Health Care, I thought the US government's role was to protect "Life, liberty, etc..." Life being the primary thing. You're "Pro-Life" aren't you?

[Sava]

no... thats not what i'm talking about... what about people who make 15 dollars an hour under the table so that to the US gov't they got no taxable income so they can collect welfare...

The total number of people that do such things is rare. And the amount of total dollars that these people evade in taxes pales in comparison to corporate tax havens. It's about priorities Speer. The worst offenders, i.e. corporations, need to be targeted... not just the ones that can defend themselves the least, i.e. welfare recipients who can't afford high-power lawyers. But then again, many corporate crooks also have high connections in the government. And that's another topic.

[Al B. Sure!]

Sava:

everywhere you go, no matter the topic, you somehow tie it in with corporate fatcats stealing money...

[MRT144]

Albert, its too easy

[DinoDoc]

Personally, I never cease to be suprised that people can be against corporate welfare and yet support welfare in general.

[MRT144]

Dinodoc, its a lot easier to support individuals who have nothing than support corporations who have everything.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Agathon:

and yet people do it regularily... trust me. i'm not making this up.

Since the kind of economy we have makes unemployment inevitable, how can you possibly blame people for collecting welfare.

Perhaps, as John D Rockefeller said, your country doesn't owe you a living, but it does owe you the opportunity to make one. If that's true and some unemployment is inevitable then the provision of welfare is a moral imperative. It's the price you pay for having an economic system you benefit from, but which necessarily punishes others.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


my philosphy is that there should not be money

Jon Miller

That's an even better solution.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Sava:

everywhere you go, no matter the topic, you somehow tie it in with corporate fatcats stealing money...

That's because everywhere anyone goes the corporate fatcats are stealing money.

[Sava]

Personally, I never cease to be suprised that people can be against corporate welfare and yet support welfare in general.

The former being an utter waste of money while also costing much more than the latter, which is at least a humane attempt to improve the quality of life. But coming from someone who approves of and supports such massive waste and corruption, your surprise doesn't surprise me.