|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 01 2013 08:26 Danglars wrote:
Considering how much political invective of equal or less merit goes the other way, I could hardly characterize this as anti-poor and anti-immigrant.
You know, that doesn't surprise me one bit that you would make that characterization. You're the one using the bombings to attack government benefits to the poor, after all.
That just sucks man. Give it a rest 
|
On May 01 2013 08:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +The only people at all stirred up by an association of Tsarnaev with welfare are the people who are already convinced that everyone on food stamps drives a Lexus while smoking cigarettes they purchased with said food stamps. It isn't new for the left to criticize any attempt at welfare reform at starving the elderly, single parents, and children until they have to go door to door checking for the bodies of victims. This is as recent as sequestration being used as a political tool (ineffectively in a grand sense) to cherry pick the cuts for maximum political effect, flight delays and White House tours etc. It may end up a minor contribution of the family's stability, and a shock story in every sense. A government funding it's own terrorists with minimal checks and poor administration (DTA) is adding insult to injury. Considering how much political invective of equal or less merit goes the other way, I could hardly characterize this as anti-poor and anti-immigrant.
Do you have any welfare reform in mind more specific than just generally letting the poor starve or die of exposure because they might be terrorists? How about some kind of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act? Perhaps we could even construct a time machine, go back in time to 1996 and pass it then, so that the last few years are free of mooching? Or perhaps it already passed in this timeline, and we don't have to build a time machine at all? Just some food for thought.
|
On May 01 2013 08:57 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 08:26 Danglars wrote:The only people at all stirred up by an association of Tsarnaev with welfare are the people who are already convinced that everyone on food stamps drives a Lexus while smoking cigarettes they purchased with said food stamps. It isn't new for the left to criticize any attempt at welfare reform at starving the elderly, single parents, and children until they have to go door to door checking for the bodies of victims. This is as recent as sequestration being used as a political tool (ineffectively in a grand sense) to cherry pick the cuts for maximum political effect, flight delays and White House tours etc. It may end up a minor contribution of the family's stability, and a shock story in every sense. A government funding it's own terrorists with minimal checks and poor administration (DTA) is adding insult to injury. Considering how much political invective of equal or less merit goes the other way, I could hardly characterize this as anti-poor and anti-immigrant. Do you have any welfare reform in mind more specific than just generally letting the poor starve or die of exposure because they might be terrorists? How about some kind of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act? Perhaps we could even construct a time machine, go back in time to 1996 and pass it then, so that the last few years are free of mooching? Or perhaps it already passed in this timeline, and we don't have to build a time machine at all? Just some food for thought.
Unfortunately, Danglars likely thinks that that food was bought with food stamps, and will not partake 
|
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program.
|
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Monday during a town hall event in Janesville, Wis., that he has changed his position on gay couples adopting children, WKOW reports.
An audience member at the event asked Ryan why he doesn't support same-sex marriage. Ryan said that while he continues to believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman, he now regrets voting in 1999 to ban same-sex couples in the District of Columbia from adopting children.
"Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000," Ryan said. "I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple, I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that. Period. I would vote that way."
Ryan, who served as 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's running mate, added that he had changed his position on same-sex adoptions years ago.
Source
|
On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program.
My mother works in a hospital, so she comes in to a lot of contact with medicaid. She says it is very commonly abused since they basically get free ambulance rides, so she sees people admitted for stubbed toes to the ER. I do think poor people should still have access to medical care, but there should be some "Boy who cried wolf" clause for these people who are obviously abusing the system.
|
On May 01 2013 03:44 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 03:32 farvacola wrote:On May 01 2013 03:24 Zandar wrote:
I'm not attacking the reasoning btw. It's fine to me. I was just wondering. Yeah I know  As someone with a pronounced interest in general politics, I'm merely doing my best to substantiate the claim that US politics are worth knowing about. I try my best to add to European political threads, but I can only say so much, and sadly, those threads don't seem to stay bumped for long. So, Europeans, step yo game up WASHINGTON—President Obama said Tuesday that his administration would re-engage Congress on closing the U.S. military-run detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
"It needs to be closed," Obama said at a White House news conference marking the first 100 days of his second term. "I'm going to go back at this."
Obama's comments come amid reports that as many as 100 prisoners at Guantanamo are engaged in a hunger strike. Obama had vowed in his 2008 presidential campaign to close Guantanamo but failed to get it done in his first term.
"It' is not a surprise to me that we are having problems at Guantanamo," Obama said. Obama called Guantanamo unsafe and expensive and said it lessens cooperation with U.S. allies.
He noted that Congress has legislatively blocked him from closing Guantanamo but offered no solution to getting around that hurdle. Obama: We need to close Guantanamo Bay What do you tell a combat veteran who disagrees with Guantanamo Bay needing to be closed? Or would you just let that one go. A few weeks ago I was on a bus and having a nice chat with an older gentleman who was in the Army and had been in a lot of combat. He saw my USMC jacket and just made some small talk about military stuff until these 2 young kids sat down near us with a bunch of signs such as "CLOSE GUANTANAMO" among other ones related to that. Him and these kids started arguing and I just kept my mouth shut. He basically told me that those kids have no idea the atrocities that those people commit and that they deserve what they get in Gitmo. I didn't even know what to say to the guy so I just politely nodded to whatever he was saying. What would you tell someone who thinks it should be open?
Guantanamo's detention center was contrived such that its prisoners would have no rights, legal recourse, or protection. The legal status of the prisoners was defined specifically to deny the ordinary protections that apply to prisoners of war. These protections are important because when nations agree that prisoners will be treated a certain way (not tortured, etc), combatants on both sides become safer. Guantanamo's inmates aren't charged with crimes and aren't given trials. Basically, it's punishment without the justice --- no charge, no trial, no sentence, no legal status, no outside contact, no protection from abuse. Even when people are suspected of terrible crimes, they deserve to know what they are accused of, they deserve a fair trial, and they deserve to be shielded from abuse while they are incarcerated. I don't know whether the "enhanced interrogation" (torture) situation is different with Obama in office, but regardless, Guantanamo is a black mark on the history and reputation of the US.
|
On May 01 2013 08:57 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 08:26 Danglars wrote:The only people at all stirred up by an association of Tsarnaev with welfare are the people who are already convinced that everyone on food stamps drives a Lexus while smoking cigarettes they purchased with said food stamps. It isn't new for the left to criticize any attempt at welfare reform at starving the elderly, single parents, and children until they have to go door to door checking for the bodies of victims. This is as recent as sequestration being used as a political tool (ineffectively in a grand sense) to cherry pick the cuts for maximum political effect, flight delays and White House tours etc. It may end up a minor contribution of the family's stability, and a shock story in every sense. A government funding it's own terrorists with minimal checks and poor administration (DTA) is adding insult to injury. Considering how much political invective of equal or less merit goes the other way, I could hardly characterize this as anti-poor and anti-immigrant. Do you have any welfare reform in mind more specific than just generally letting the poor starve or die of exposure because they might be terrorists? How about some kind of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act? Perhaps we could even construct a time machine, go back in time to 1996 and pass it then, so that the last few years are free of mooching? Or perhaps it already passed in this timeline, and we don't have to build a time machine at all? Just some food for thought.
Yep, I am for letting the poor starve and die of exposure because they might be terrorists.
That's the rhetoric. 100,000$ for the first ten years for every immigrant family in the United States or you're leaving them to die. Oh well, it's too littered with mines to draw a larger point on the one-sided balance of acceptable political hyperbole and the unacceptable. If this was a tea party member, oh man, you'd have to wear earplugs to not hear the story bandied about from every TV and radio. No, 100g's or you're elitist.
Newt Gingrich, the primary architect of the 1996 welfare reform bill was similarly demonized. It would kill the poor, immigrants, the elderly, struggling families. It wouldn't reduce costs much at all. He had a Contract on America. He shut down the government because Clinton made him sit at back of plane. Maybe a time machine wouldn't be such a bad idea. See the cost savings and the Democrats fall silent. See the government shutdown not cripple the entire country. See Clinton actually pass tax cuts. Get a lesson for some of the RINOs about how pathetic their positions looked back then.
Care for the destitute that can't afford food? Most absolutely.Suspend the work requirement for food stamps for able bodied adults, as Obama did, and continues to allow states to do? No (Unwriting sections of the mentioned Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act by executive power of his agencies). Cheer on increases in food stamp enrollment and total spending on poverty, ignore how many actually leave poverty? No.
Side-note: If the 100g's included much more than the cash, food stamps, Section 8 housing, healthcare, and welfare of related kinds and contained substantial amounts of education assistance, then the story's a sham and not the first to be so. I saw the Department of Transitional Assistance and the three quoted living expenses/cash payouts. Current spending on means-tested programs amounts to $9,040 for every American in the lower third, or a cash equivalent of ~$44,000/yr for family of four.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
welfare can be counterproductive by creating disincentive to work, lowering the marginal income from low level jobs people get.
however, it also has the effect of keeping people out of a more desperate and destructive rut. it's not easy to predict which effect manifest at any particular individual case and moment. some of the problems associated with permanent welfare recipients are more than welfare itself, but symptomatic of long term conditions. (drug arrests, nobody hiring you because of lack of education from not going to school, gang problems etc)
more reintegration and job skills training is certainly helpful.
|
On May 01 2013 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
welfare can be counterproductive by creating disincentive to work, lowering the marginal income from low level jobs people get.
however, it also has the effect of keeping people out of a more desperate and destructive rut. it's not easy to predict which effect manifest at any particular individual case and moment. some of the problems associated with permanent welfare recipients are more than welfare itself, but symptomatic of long term conditions. (drug arrests, nobody hiring you because of lack of education from not going to school, gang problems etc)
more reintegration and job skills training is certainly helpful.
Yeah, I think we mostly can all agree that welfare isn't always bad or always good, it's how it's implemented.
Unfortunately, that's not how the polarized political discourse plays out.
|
On May 01 2013 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
welfare can be counterproductive by creating disincentive to work, lowering the marginal income from low level jobs people get.
however, it also has the effect of keeping people out of a more desperate and destructive rut. it's not easy to predict which effect manifest at any particular individual case and moment. some of the problems associated with permanent welfare recipients are more than welfare itself, but symptomatic of long term conditions. (drug arrests, nobody hiring you because of lack of education from not going to school, gang problems etc)
more reintegration and job skills training is certainly helpful.
Add to the reasons facing the chronically unemployed being chronically unemployed. When there's a glut of workers looking for jobs, employers don't want to handle "tainted" workers that have been unemployed for 6+ months.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 01 2013 11:33 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 11:28 oneofthem wrote:
welfare can be counterproductive by creating disincentive to work, lowering the marginal income from low level jobs people get.
however, it also has the effect of keeping people out of a more desperate and destructive rut. it's not easy to predict which effect manifest at any particular individual case and moment. some of the problems associated with permanent welfare recipients are more than welfare itself, but symptomatic of long term conditions. (drug arrests, nobody hiring you because of lack of education from not going to school, gang problems etc)
more reintegration and job skills training is certainly helpful. Add to the reasons facing the chronically unemployed being chronically unemployed. When there's a glut of workers looking for jobs, employers don't want to handle "tainted" workers that have been unemployed for 6+ months.
true enough. that's one kind of problem that suggests more, and not less intervention, because private sector won't begin to absorb that worker until well into a yet realized theoretical boom, by which time permanent damage would already been done.
|
On May 01 2013 11:04 Danglars wrote:
That's the rhetoric. 100,000$ for the first ten years for every immigrant family in the United States or you're leaving them to die. Oh well, it's too littered with mines to draw a larger point on the one-sided balance of acceptable political hyperbole and the unacceptable. If this was a tea party member, oh man, you'd have to wear earplugs to not hear the story bandied about from every TV and radio. No, 100g's or you're elitist.
Actually, rewarding immigrating families with $10,000 over the first ten years sounds pretty cheap. Immigration isn't exactly a picnic, especially for people whose native language isn't English.
I'd probably support increasing the package substantially, or at the very least increasing it by some set amount for every child or working-age person they bring to America. We really do need more immigrants and more competition amongst immigrants, for both low and high-skilled occupations.
Incidentally, I've been googling for this and haven't found it. Is there a source?
|
On May 01 2013 10:43 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program. My mother works in a hospital, so she comes in to a lot of contact with medicaid. She says it is very commonly abused since they basically get free ambulance rides, so she sees people admitted for stubbed toes to the ER. I do think poor people should still have access to medical care, but there should be some "Boy who cried wolf" clause for these people who are obviously abusing the system.
This isn't a problem with Medicaid, it's a problem with shoddy EMT work. If they're getting an ambulance ride and a trip to the ER, it means that someone didn't even bother doing a quick assessment or even questioning of the person.
|
On May 01 2013 12:20 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 11:04 Danglars wrote:
That's the rhetoric. 100,000$ for the first ten years for every immigrant family in the United States or you're leaving them to die. Oh well, it's too littered with mines to draw a larger point on the one-sided balance of acceptable political hyperbole and the unacceptable. If this was a tea party member, oh man, you'd have to wear earplugs to not hear the story bandied about from every TV and radio. No, 100g's or you're elitist. Actually, rewarding immigrating families with $10,000 over the first ten years sounds pretty cheap. Immigration isn't exactly a picnic, especially for people whose native language isn't English. I'd probably support increasing the package substantially, or at the very least increasing it by some set amount for every child or working-age person they bring to America. We really do need more immigrants and more competition amongst immigrants, for both low and high-skilled occupations. Incidentally, I've been googling for this and haven't found it. Is there a source?
It's linked in the previous page, from the boston herald.
I don't know how exactly you're arriving at this as a reward for some accomplishment. I'm similarly confused at why there's a need present for increased immigration levels across all skill levels. It's not like there's a glut of unfilled jobs at the lowest and highest skill levels. Unemployment is at 7.6% and U6 unemployment at 13.8%. I'm unsure if any increases in the amount of welfare available for new immigrants would encourage prospective immigrants to apply to come over that don't already want to come and are waiting.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 01 2013 14:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 12:20 acker wrote:On May 01 2013 11:04 Danglars wrote:
That's the rhetoric. 100,000$ for the first ten years for every immigrant family in the United States or you're leaving them to die. Oh well, it's too littered with mines to draw a larger point on the one-sided balance of acceptable political hyperbole and the unacceptable. If this was a tea party member, oh man, you'd have to wear earplugs to not hear the story bandied about from every TV and radio. No, 100g's or you're elitist. Actually, rewarding immigrating families with $10,000 over the first ten years sounds pretty cheap. Immigration isn't exactly a picnic, especially for people whose native language isn't English. I'd probably support increasing the package substantially, or at the very least increasing it by some set amount for every child or working-age person they bring to America. We really do need more immigrants and more competition amongst immigrants, for both low and high-skilled occupations. Incidentally, I've been googling for this and haven't found it. Is there a source? It's linked in the previous page, from the boston herald. I don't know how exactly you're arriving at this as a reward for some accomplishment. I'm similarly confused at why there's a need present for increased immigration levels across all skill levels. It's not like there's a glut of unfilled jobs at the lowest and highest skill levels. Unemployment is at 7.6% and U6 unemployment at 13.8%. I'm unsure if any increases in the amount of welfare available for new immigrants would encourage prospective immigrants to apply to come over that don't already want to come and are waiting.
immigrants are typically driven and hard working. plus, if they are willing to take lower wages, that's additional output in the economy. in a recession this is procyclic
|
On May 01 2013 14:58 Danglars wrote:
It's linked in the previous page, from the boston herald.
I don't know how exactly you're arriving at this as a reward for some accomplishment. I'm similarly confused at why there's a need present for increased immigration levels across all skill levels. It's not like there's a glut of unfilled jobs at the lowest and highest skill levels. Unemployment is at 7.6% and U6 unemployment at 13.8%. I'm unsure if any increases in the amount of welfare available for new immigrants would encourage prospective immigrants to apply to come over that don't already want to come and are waiting.
That's a stupid statement. Take the extreme case: say that we quintuple the amount to 50,000 dollars every year for ten years. Are you honestly saying that the same number of people would want to immigrate to the United States regardless? There's obviously a limit that we want to offer, but given current immigration policy, there's little reason why we shouldn't increase competition amongst potential immigrants who want to live and work here. We want the best, brightest, most dedicated workers here, no matter what rung of the ladder they come here on. More importantly, we want their children to come with them, so they settle here and instill their values onto future generations.
To be honest, we don't "need" increased immigration, the same way we don't "need" an updated education system or police force. We could totter along without any of those things. But that doesn't mean that opening up the border a little more isn't a good idea. Even the question of unemployment is silly; if we let more workers immigrate here, unemployment would almost certainly fall through sheer arithmetic.
I find it mindboggling that conservatives like you know how free trade works, yet have this weird instinctive repulsion concerning free migration of labor. Workers want to move here to work harder for less money than people already here. Suppliers want to hire people who want to work more for less money. I can kind of understand if you're talking about grannies*, but how on earth is this a bad thing? Finding economists that oppose opening borders more is very difficult, I doubt there's a subject less-contested in the field with the exception of free trade.
Now, it's certainly true that increased immigration might hurt some citizens, even if the net effect is good...the same way increased trade might hurt citizens. If this is such a large problem that it needs remediation, it should be addressed the same way it's always been dealt with; taxes and benefits. We'd still win overall.
*Seriously, even if we were talking about the free migration of grannies, benefit policies would almost certainly shift to a new equilibrium in the long run to make this expansionary.
+ Show Spoiler +Good ******** god, America is the story of how the previous boat of immigrants hates the next boat of immigrants.
...ok, I actually read the story. So they receive 100k in total benefit via food stamps, housing etc...for four people. So 25k for each person, coming out to 2.5k per capita per year. Is this somehow an issue?
|
On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program.
Retirement and disability is pretty good shape when contrast with Medicare.
Approximately $7.7 trillion relates to Social Security, while $38.2 trillion relates to Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, health care programs will require nearly five times more funding than Social Security. Adding this to the national debt and other federal obligations would bring total obligations to nearly $62 trillion.[35] However, these unfunded obligations are not counted in the national debt.
Then again, it really depends on who's in office, and what happens to funding between now and then.
|
On May 01 2013 10:01 DeltaX wrote:
If someone has can make an argument that any of the social welfare programs have problems and can spell out what the problems are, then I think the vast majority of Americans are willing to look at solutions for said problems, esp if they save money. The issue I have with bringing up the welfare payments to that family as a "just saying" kind of thing is it feels like it is implying there is a problem, without actually specifying one.
Overall I think welfare seems to be in a good place after the 1996 reforms. The big program that need to be looked at one way or another is social security disability. It is going to run out of money in 2016 which will instantly cut benefits by ~20% for everyone on the program.
I sure hope so
You're right about disability. NPR ran a special on it not too long ago.
I made a previous post about a CBO report that touched upon the unintended welfare traps that we've created.
CNBC reported yesterday on a new St. Louis Fed report showing unemployment insurance fraud as a $3.3B issue.
|
On May 02 2013 02:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:I sure hope so You're right about disability. NPR ran a special on it not too long ago. I made a previous post about a CBO report that touched upon the unintended welfare traps that we've created. CNBC reported yesterday on a new St. Louis Fed report showing unemployment insurance fraud as a $3.3B issue.
The Social Security program as a whole isn't particularly worrisome, it's healthcare that's the issue (and that's going down due to the recession and a couple other factors). Not a difficult fix, assuming Congress starts doing something soon. Which means it's probably a difficult fix.
The weird tax/benefits cliffs are pretty well-known, they were covered earlier in this thread.
From the paper, I'm getting that fraud was roughly 3% of total costs to the unemployment insurance program...off the top of my head, that seems in line with suspected insurance fraud costs across the industry as a whole. The paper does suggest it's a tradeoff between cost and coverage as long as resources to detect UIF aren't increased.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
