Conquer Club

john9blue wrote:hey

hey guys

you can be opposed to our current welfare SYSTEM without being opposed to the IDEA of welfare

stop towing the fucking party line

Also, asking for details or sources is pretty much nothing but slander, so just accept everything you're told, at face value.

john9blue wrote:hey

hey guys

you can be opposed to our current welfare SYSTEM without being opposed to the IDEA of welfare

stop towing the fucking party line

Lol, this is a graph posted by Nightstrike, with no description of where the numbers came from. Id say you're the one doing the towing johnny.

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:hey

hey guys

you can be opposed to our current welfare SYSTEM without being opposed to the IDEA of welfare

stop towing the fucking party line

Lol, this is a graph posted by Nightstrike, with no description of where the numbers came from. Id say you're the one doing the towing johnny.

It's right there at the bottom of the graph.

The Central government spent $1.03 trillion on 80 welfare programs in 2011. Divide that number by 46 million, the number of people in poverty levels (according to the census) and multiply by 365. That comes to $168 a day.

You can look up the numbers yourself.

Welfare is for people in poverty and near poverty levels. We spend $1.03 trillion to help roughly 46 million Americans.

I figure there are probably more than that receiving welfare of some sort, but the report only looks at 80 programs, the top 80 programs in accordance to costs. The programs looked at are all means tested programs, not a single entitlement program that requires people to contribute to (SS, medicare, etc).
Since the programs are means tested, one can only figure out how many fall into the income level to qualify for said programs. Said data available from the census. Thus, is how they came up with the 46 million people.

You can easily look it all up yourself.

Timminz wrote:
Also, asking for details or sources is pretty much nothing but slander, so just accept everything you're told, at face value.

AAFitz wrote:Lol, this is a graph posted by Nightstrike, with no description of where the numbers came from. Id say you're the one doing the towing johnny.

first, the source is listed on the graph. second, the topic isn't just about the graph. third, where are your sources? you criticize evidence that contradicts your beliefs but offer no alternative evidence. or is this like atheism, where the burden of proof is only on the people you disagree with?

although judging by timmy's signature, i may be wasting my time trying to get him to see reason.

AndyDufresne wrote:I see your graph, and raise you:




--Andy

patches70 wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:hey

hey guys

you can be opposed to our current welfare SYSTEM without being opposed to the IDEA of welfare

stop towing the fucking party line

Lol, this is a graph posted by Nightstrike, with no description of where the numbers came from. Id say you're the one doing the towing johnny.

It's right there at the bottom of the graph.

The Central government spent $1.03 trillion on 80 welfare programs in 2011. Divide that number by 46 million, the number of people in poverty levels (according to the census) and multiply by 365. That comes to $168 a day.

You can look up the numbers yourself.

Welfare is for people in poverty and near poverty levels. We spend $1.03 trillion to help roughly 46 million Americans.

I figure there are probably more than that receiving welfare of some sort, but the report only looks at 80 programs, the top 80 programs in accordance to costs. The programs looked at are all means tested programs, not a single entitlement program that requires people to contribute to (SS, medicare, etc).
Since the programs are means tested, one can only figure out how many fall into the income level to qualify for said programs. Said data available from the census. Thus, is how they came up with the 46 million people.

You can easily look it all up yourself.

If this is the case, then it takes out a lot of factors like...all of the employees working at DHS offices that are assumed to be paid from that same budget, along with upkeep and maintenance costs of the staff/infrastructure. Can anyone provide a distribution tree for how the budget is divided among all of who's owed?

BMO

patches70 wrote:The Central government spent $1.03 trillion on 80 welfare programs in 2011. Divide that number by 46 million, the number of people in poverty levels (according to the census) and multiply by 365. That comes to $168 a day.

1030000000000$/(46000000*365) = 61.35$ by my account. That's rounded up by about half a cent.


Then there's this claim that the money only goes people with an income below the poverty level. It's a pity that there's no information about what programs are included in the numbers. Take Medicare for example, according to Wikipedia some 16% of recipients count as "poor", the other 84% do not. That's a lot of welfare going to people who don't live below the poverty level and aren't included in the 46000000 that supposedly are the only ones getting any welfare.

MeDeFe wrote:

patches70 wrote:The Central government spent $1.03 trillion on 80 welfare programs in 2011. Divide that number by 46 million, the number of people in poverty levels (according to the census) and multiply by 365. That comes to $168 a day.

1030000000000$/(46000000*365) = 61.35$ by my account. That's rounded up by about half a cent.


Then there's this claim that the money only goes people with an income below the poverty level. It's a pity that there's no information about what programs are included in the numbers. Take Medicare for example, according to Wikipedia some 16% of recipients count as "poor", the other 84% do not. That's a lot of welfare going to people who don't live below the poverty level and aren't included in the 46000000 that supposedly are the only ones getting any welfare.

The dollar amount is actually households, not individuals, so patches was slightly incorrect in that calculation.

And the article specifically states Medicare wasn't included because people make contributions to Medicare, so why are you demanding that people above poverty who receive Medicare be included?

patches70 wrote:

Timminz wrote:I'd be interested to see the calculations involved here. Unfortunately, your source contains exactly what you've posted above, and not a single thing more. What does the supposed conversion to cash actually entail?

It shows that it's better for households to live on the government dole than to earn for themselves.

What is the incentive to get off welfare if you'll end up earning less than when you are collecting?

No it doesen't. That's the cost of administring the dole. Not how much the dole actualy is.

Baron Von PWN wrote:
No it doesen't. That's the cost of administring the dole. Not how much the dole actualy is.

You see the welfare cliffs here?-




Tell me, what incentive does a single mother making $28K a year have to go out and get a better job paying $69K year when she'd be losing money because she'd no longer be eligible for benefits?

It's called a poverty trap and is one of the biggest legitimate criticisms about the US welfare program.

You could just say tax the $69K a year earner less, but that just exacerbates the cost of welfare in a universe where the government is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it is spending. There is no easy fix. Poor people need help, but how is that help to be delivered? By stealing from the future earnings of future workers?

Because, that's effectively what we are doing.

metsfan wrote:It's a pity that there's no information about what programs are included in the numbers

Yes there is. The actual report is online. You just need to google it. These are the programs checked-
There is also available online the entire Congressional testimony done recently of all the welfare numbers, which is what spurred all this in the first place.

A list of all 83 federal welfare programs examined by CRS follows:
 Family Planning
 Consolidated Health Centers
 Transitional Cash and Medical Services
for Refugees
 State Children’s Health Insurance
Program (CHIP)
 Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug
Benefit—Low-Income Subsidy
 Medicaid
 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
 Breast/Cervical Cancer Early Detection
 Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
 Indian Health Service
 Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) (cash aid)
 Supplemental Security Income
 Additional Child Tax Credit
 Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable
component)
 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP)
 School Breakfast Program (free/reduced
price components)
 National School Lunch Program
(free/reduced price components)
 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
 Child and Adult Care Food Program
(lower income components)
 Summer Food Service Program
 Commodity Supplemental
 Food Program Nutrition Assistance for
Puerto Rico
 The Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP)
 Nutrition Program for the Elderly
 Indian Education
 Adult Basic Education Grants to States
 Federal Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grant
 Education for the Disadvantaged—
Grants to Local Educational Agencies
(Title I-A)
 Title I Migrant Education Program
 Higher Education—Institutional Aid and
Developing Institutions
 Federal Work-Study
 Federal TRIO Programs
 Federal Pell Grants
 Education for Homeless Children and
Youth
 21st Century Community Learning
Centers
 Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness
for Undergraduate Programs (GEARUP) Reading First and Early Reading First
 Rural Education Achievement Program
 Mathematics and Science Partnerships
 Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
 Academic Competitiveness and Smart
Grant Program
 Single-Family Rural Housing Loans
 Rural Rental Assistance Program
 Water and Waste Disposal for Rural
Communities
 Public Works and Economic
Development
 Supportive Housing for the Elderly
 Supportive Housing for Persons with
Disabilities
 Section 8 Project-Based Rental
Assistance
 Community Development Block Grants
 Homeless Assistance Grants
 Home Investment Partnerships Program
(HOME)
 Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS (HOPWA)
 Public Housing
 Indian Housing Block Grants
 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
 Neighborhood Stabilization Program-1
 Grants to States for Low-Income
Housing in Lieu of Low-Income
Housing Credit Allocations
 Tax Credit Assistance Program
 Indian Human Services
 Older Americans Act Grants for
Supportive Services and Senior Centers
 Older Americans Act Family Caregiver
Program
 Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) (social services)
 Child Support Enforcement
 Community Services Block Grant
 Child Care and Development Fund
 Head Start HHS
 Developmental Disabilities Support and
Advocacy Grants
 Foster Care
 Adoption Assistance
 Social Services Block Grant
 Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program
 Emergency Food and Shelter Program
 Legal Services Corporation
 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) (employment and
training component)
 Community Service Employment for
Older Americans
 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult
Activities
 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth
Activities
 Social Services and Targeted Assistance
for Refugees
 Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) (employment and
training)
 Foster Grandparents
 Job Corps
 Weatherization Assistance Program
 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

And the borrowing the 46 cents for every dollar spent wouldn't bad so bad if it were not The Federal Reserve now purchasing 90% of all new government debt. I.E. monetizing the debt. I.E. printing money out of thin air.
This just increases inflation thus exasperating the plight of lower income people who now need help to purchase the goods and services they need just to survive.

If the money the government was borrowing was money already in circulation, I.E. private citizens buying bonds with their own money, there would be no increase in the monetary supply and would not contribute to inflation. It would be borrowing the savings of Americans who have been working and saving, something not enough Americans are able to do.

Again, it comes down to the fiat money system where a central bank, at government bequest, pumps newly created money into the system. Money that has to be paid back by everyone, even those of us who are not yet born.

john9blue wrote:

Timminz wrote:Also, asking for details or sources is pretty much nothing but slander, so just accept everything you're told, at face value.

AAFitz wrote:Lol, this is a graph posted by Nightstrike, with no description of where the numbers came from. Id say you're the one doing the towing johnny.

first, the source is listed on the graph.

The source listed on the graph is, "some Republican who did some math", with no mention of the calculations used when they "converted to cash", and no mention of which specific statistics they used in those calculations.

All I'm asking for is details. I'd like to understand how these numbers were determined. Not even arguing against them. Just asking for details.

Why are you being so defensive?

patches70 wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:
No it doesen't. That's the cost of administring the dole. Not how much the dole actualy is.

You see the welfare cliffs here?-




Tell me, what incentive does a single mother making $28K a year have to go out and get a better job paying $69K year when she'd be losing money because she'd no longer be eligible for benefits?

It's called a poverty trap and is one of the biggest legitimate criticisms about the US welfare program.

You could just say tax the $69K a year earner less, but that just exacerbates the cost of welfare in a universe where the government is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it is spending. There is no easy fix. Poor people need help, but how is that help to be delivered? By stealing from the future earnings of future workers?

Because, that's effectively what we are doing.

And my comment on that graph is similar (but not as extreme) to J_B: I would identify the fundamental problem as being that the person earning 60k is not being paid enough, rather than welfare being too much.

However the cliffs are retarded and obvious design flaws.

Edit: Also have you got a glossary for the items on the chart?

Lootifer wrote:And my comment on that graph is similar (but not as extreme) to J_B: I would identify the fundamental problem as being that the person earning 60k is not being paid enough, rather than welfare being too much.

69K actually. Not 60K. But I see what you are saying. So the government could just pass a law, all working people must make minimum of, what? $75K?, $100K? The McDonalds hamburger flipper should be earning more money.

Except, what are the consequences of that?

Raise everyone's wages to a "livable wage" and all that happens is the cost of living rises. Then we'll have people making $100K on welfare.
Are we starting to see one of the many down sides to fiat money yet? A currency that is arbitrarily set at X value and that value changes on the whims of a banking cartel?

Most central banks (all actually) keep a portion of their reserves in Gold for a reason. Because it's stable, unlike fiat currencies which change frequently. (Note: I'm not advocating a Gold Standard, to do so would be even worse but that's a separate discussion).
That's why things like the poverty trap can't be fixed using the current debt based system. The more money dedicated to welfare is just more money added into the system which causes prices to rise, which forces more people into welfare, which causes prices to rise, etc etc etc.

Fix the debt currency problem. Then we'd have a chance of fixing a lot of our other problems. Until then, it's just a see saw. Each fix only makes more problems.
There is a reason we have a fiat currency, so that politicians can spend without having to make tough choices. That goes on until it can't go on any more and what happens is what has happened to every fiat currency in history. It collapses. But until that happens we've got plenty of money to do all kinds of things, all of which have unintended (but predictable) consequences.

We have to get out of the debt based currency system. It's a fucking scam and there are plenty of alternatives. Of course, the people who benefit from the current system won't let it go very easily, will they? And with people always distracted by left/right and other false paradigms, no one ever takes a moment to consider the actual currency we are using. Those bills in your wallet aren't money, they are debt. Until everyone figures this out ain't nothing ever going to change. Every possible "fix" one could come up with using this system only creates worse problems or requires going completely totalitarian. Neither of which are viable or sustainable.

patches70 wrote:

Lootifer wrote:And my comment on that graph is similar (but not as extreme) to J_B: I would identify the fundamental problem as being that the person earning 60k is not being paid enough, rather than welfare being too much.

69K actually. Not 60K. But I see what you are saying. So the government could just pass a law, all working people must make minimum of, what? $75K?, $100K? The McDonalds hamburger flipper should be earning more money.

Except, what are the consequences of that?

Raise everyone's wages to a "livable wage" and all that happens is the cost of living rises. Then we'll have people making $100K on welfare.
Are we starting to see one of the many down sides to fiat money yet? A currency that is arbitrarily set at X value and that value changes on the whims of a banking cartel?

Most central banks (all actually) keep a portion of their reserves in Gold for a reason. Because it's stable, unlike fiat currencies which change frequently. (Note: I'm not advocating a Gold Standard, to do so would be even worse but that's a separate discussion).
That's why things like the poverty trap can't be fixed using the current debt based system. The more money dedicated to welfare is just more money added into the system which causes prices to rise, which forces more people into welfare, which causes prices to rise, etc etc etc.

Fix the debt currency problem. Then we'd have a chance of fixing a lot of our other problems. Until then, it's just a see saw. Each fix only makes more problems.
There is a reason we have a fiat currency, so that politicians can spend without having to make tough choices. That goes on until it can't go on any more and what happens is what has happened to every fiat currency in history. It collapses. But until that happens we've got plenty of money to do all kinds of things, all of which have unintended (but predictable) consequences.

We have to get out of the debt based currency system. It's a fucking scam and there are plenty of alternatives. Of course, the people who benefit from the current system won't let it go very easily, will they? And with people always distracted by left/right and other false paradigms, no one ever takes a moment to consider the actual currency we are using. Those bills in your wallet aren't money, they are debt. Until everyone figures this out ain't nothing ever going to change. Every possible "fix" one could come up with using this system only creates worse problems or requires going completely totalitarian. Neither of which are viable or sustainable.

Firstly I wasnt supplying a solution; just identifying what I think the problem is. There are many many possible solutions to the problem ranging from deregulate the whole bloody system on the Libatarian side to regulated wages for everyone on the communism side.

And my premise is that to pay for the welfare programmes the government is not printing money to do so. This doesnt have anything to do with the pros and cons of central banking, which I recognise is a contentious topic. I completely agree with the notion that a governments books should be balanced.

Lootifer wrote:
Firstly I wasnt supplying a solution; just identifying what I think the problem is.

You think this is the problem?-

Lootifer wrote: I would identify the fundamental problem as being that the person earning 60k is not being paid enough

I don't think that's right at all. It's not that the person isn't earning enough, it's that the currency they are earning is not valuable enough.

There was a time when earning $60K a year would be more than enough.
We think it's only natural that prices rise. That's not true at all, it's anything but natural. When you look prices of things in another medium, a more stable medium, you see that prices of things has dropped dramatically.

Thirty years ago a dollar would have bought you eight loaves of bread. But look at it in another medium of exchange, gold. Thirty years ago an ounce of could would have bought you a hundred loaves of bread where the dollar would have bought you only eight.

Today, a dollar won't even buy you a loaf of bread, not even half a load. But how much bread could you buy with an ounce of gold today? Around 600 loaves.


When you look at prices in a stable medium of exchange, such as gold which is about the most stable medium of exchange there has ever been in the history of mankind, you can clearly see that the prices of things as gone down, a lot!
You can compare this with anything that can be bought or sold. And results are always the same.


But the dollar, what we use every day, what we are paid in, it's value only gets worse and worse.

Therefore you should be able to clearly see that this isn't that people aren't getting enough money, it's that what they are getting for their labors is worth less and less and less. It's the currency itself that is the problem. It is the central problem that has to be corrected first before there is ever going to be a chance to correct anything else.

Lootifer wrote:And my premise is that to pay for the welfare programmes the government is not printing money to do so.

Where did the bills that are in your wallet come from?

LOL

Absolutely the government is printing money, how else did it come into existence in the first place if it were not printed or created some way out of thin air?
Our currency isn't tied to gold or any other commodity. Ctrl P. That's where money comes from. And it all has to be paid back, every single penny. And when it's all paid back, every dime ever created, we'd still owe the interest, which we would not be able to pay because the currency to pay the interest is never printed. Only what is borrowed is printed. To pay the interest we must borrow more so that more can be printed.

Don't you see that?

And every newly printed dollar makes every other dollar already in existence worth less. And it is impossible to not keep printing because of the very nature of how currency comes into existence. It's borrowed (thus the term "debt based").

And this leads to problems, like the ever increasing need for more and more welfare funds, as an example. Which only contributes more to the problem. It is unsustainable and in reality is only "kicking the can" down the road. Until such time comes (and it always comes) that the "can" can't be kicked down the road any longer.
Then it gets interesting.
And by interesting, I mean for many people it will be quite horrible, namely poor bastards who are on welfare, for one.....

patches70 wrote:69K actually. Not 60K. But I see what you are saying. So the government could just pass a law, all working people must make minimum of, what? $75K?, $100K? The McDonalds hamburger flipper should be earning more money.

Except, what are the consequences of that?

Raise everyone's wages to a "livable wage" and all that happens is the cost of living rises. Then we'll have people making $100K on welfare.

patches70 wrote:Raise everyone's wages to a "livable wage" and all that happens is the cost of living rises. Then we'll have people making $100K on welfare.

That's exactly how the upper echelons of our society maintain their standard of living. They tell you that your time isn't very valuable, so they make insane profits from your time & labor, and then they have the US government give them tax credits for it too. It's Welfare for people who don't need it. parasites. They've got you blaming yourself and the poor for their actions. parasites.

You see, JB here is a true believer in the paradigm. Who needs critical thinking when you have a quasi-religious calling to promote class warfare instead of actually trying to look at the underlying foundation of what everything is built on. Namely, the currency system.

This is why nothing can ever get fixed, because the true believers worshiping in their church of social justice only believe what their preacher is preaching to them.

And this is also why when the current currency system finally collapses it will be replaced by an equally flawed system and the whole misery and strife will just start right back over again.

Well, I guess it keeps mankind consistent.
It's not so much that history keeps repeating itself, it's more that human beings keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.

Oh well, I tried.

Best of luck solving the world's problems!

The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

Funkyterrance wrote:The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

Symmetry wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

The minimum wage has done more to harm young workers and unskilled workers than any CEO's pay has harmed them.

--Andy

Juan_Bottom wrote:

From the Federal Election Comission:

Family Dollar Store: Did not appear to support any Political Action Committees

Howard Levine:
- November 3, 2000 - $5,000 to the Democratic National Committee
- June 1, 2012 - $2,000 to Jim Pendergraph (Republican)
- October 30, 2006 - $250 to Joe Liberman (at that point, Republican?)
- November 18, 2003 - $500 to Sue Myrick (Republican)
- October 7, 2002 - $250 to Sue Myrick (Republican)
- October 30, 2012 - $2,000 to Jennifer Roberts (Democrat)
- April 20, 2012 - $1,000 to Jim Pendergraph (Republican)
- September 25, 2002 - $500 to Chris Kouri (Democrat)

Boeing:

2012 PAC summary - $2,590,590 total receipts; $2,641,403 spent. Contributions totalled 43% to Democrats and 57% to Republicans

James McNerney:

- December 28, 2011 - $1,000 to George Allen (Republican)

Walmart:

2012 PAC Summary - $2,992,289 total receipts; $3,119,794 spent. Contributions totalled 50% to Democrats and 50% to Republicans.

Michael Duke:

- April 17, 2007 - $1,000 to Mike Huckabee (Republican)
- Various - $300 each for four periods to the Arvest Bank Group PAC (unaffiliated)
- Various - $500 to $1,000 each for four periods to John Boozman (Republican)
- September 15, 2000 - $500 to Republican Party of Kansas (Republican)
- May 1, 2001 - $500 to Tim Hutchinson (Republican)
- November 18, 2003 - $2,000 to Bush (Republican)
- July 28, 2005 - $500 to Donald Young (Republican)
- March 27, 2000 - $500 to Bush (Republican)

Also - shall I re-re-re-post the "who makes minimum wage" data again, lest we forget that pretty much everyone makes more than minimum wage and that the unstated purpose of the minimum wage is to get union employees' salaries higher?