Published: Monday, Aug. 26 2013 1:45 a.m. MDT
This is part of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Increase the number of welfare
recipients to such a degree as to collapse the system. This is a forerunner of
socialism. Obama is following it point by point.
It should be noted that CATO is a libertarian think tank that is opposed to
virtually all government programs of any kind.Right wing
billionaires have spent decades trying to convince the middle class that most of
their taxes go to lazy people, usually minorities, who simply refuse to work.
Only about 5% of the federal budget goes to the non-working poor.A
bigger problem is companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds who pay their employees
so little that they qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. In other words, our
taxes are subsidizing the profits of these gigantic corporations.
Everyone looks forward to the vision of retirement and being able to do what one
wants to do and not have a boss. A lot of the time those losing a job and going
on unemployment think they are in a retirement mode and start to enjoy not
having to get up early and answering to a boss at work. I have seen several
friends have initiative drained out of them with unemployment benefits. I can
see why businesses do not like to hire people out of work but instead like to
hire talent away from other companies.
"Does welfare rob Americans of their incentive to work?"No.
Look at the article closely, nearly 60% of "welfare" recipients do work
and they fall into the category Roland is talking about folks working for
billionaires who won't pay a living wage. The other 40% probably contains
some who'd rather receive than work, but, it also contains mothers with
small children, the disabled, and those who have temporarily lost decent paying
jobs who are actively looking. This is more of the same old Regan welfare queen
nonsense. The bigger problem is the situation described where the
60% as they get ahead go through a period where they lose their support benefits
but still don't make enough to get by. That's a disincentive not the
nonsense about paying people not to work.
The Cato Institute loves to imagine that there are simple solutions to complex
problems. For example, single mothers who want to work have to deal with finding
and affording child care, which can eat up much of what they make by working.
People without a car are often limited in where they can work due to lack of
public transportation. Those in small towns have a limited number of places to
apply and can't afford to move elsewhere. Other places have such massive
unemployment that there are few jobs for which they qualify, and there are
literally hundreds of applicants for the jobs where they do qualify. If
there's one job and a hundred applicants, simple math tells us that there
will still be ninety-nine unemployed people left when that job is filled. None of these problems are insoluble, but the solutions are more complex
and challenging than the simplistic ideas put forward by the extremest positions
that Cato holds.
Easy welfare destroys people, families, cities and nations. Detroit is an
excellent example. Black on black crime, while liberals refuse to talk about it,
is a direct result of destruction of the family. Don't need a father in the
home because welfare eliminates the necessity, i.e. welfare replaces the father
in the family as breadwinner and 70% of babies born have no father. Social
consequences of easy welfare are enormous.
My assumption is that Utah pays welfare benefits less than the minimum wage.
The problem I have with this information is that it is comparing an
hourly rate to what must be an annual amount. What are the particulars of
each?If the minimum hourly wage applies only to start up employees,
as businessmen tell us and start up employees seldom work full time, what is the
annual salary that should be used for the comparison. About the
annual salary used, does it apply to a single person, a family, or a child?
What is in the “benefits” and what is their estimated value? What
are the welfare benefits that might apply to the minimum wage worker?I think this article is well below the standard we should expect from the
Looks like a good solid case for raising the minimum wage.
Where do the "47%" fall?
Perhaps there is an easy solution to this: ALL Employers should pay a living
wage for a fair day's work. Don't expect government or charities to
come in and subsidize your labor costs. And shop around and find healthcare
plans for your employees. If you don't do both of these, don't whine
to me when government steps in and forces you to do it. Socialism is a last
resort when amoral capitalism runs amuck.
Does welfare rob Americans of their incentive to work?Absolutely!
This happens all the time. But they cannot be faulted. If you can make more on
welfare, this is a rational decision.
Salaries and wages must be governed by free market competition. If you
don't possess the job skills that demand more than minimum wages, whose
fault is that? Some of you want to blame the employer but ask yourself how an
employer can survive and compete in the real world by paying high wages for
minimal contributions? Its why brain surgeons and engineers make more money than
janitors or hamburger flippers! If you want to earn more money, improve your
So Max, why do 60% of welfare recipients work if they've been robbed of
their incentive to work? Welfare robs incentive to work is pure baloney. As
the article itself says few qualify for all welfare programs so they have to
work, conversely welfare is not set up to rob someone of their incentive to
work. Once again Republicans/conservatives just making up the world the way
they want to see it. It's why they haven't had a decent solution for
anything for over 60 years.
Ironic that many who berate Wal-Mart and McDonalds (and all other
"billionaires" cashing in on the blood of the working class), actually
own stock in those same corporations. Stocks are widely distributed and part of
many indexes commonly part of 401k, IRA, insurance, annuity or other investment
vehicles. And if you don't have an investment in them you have
almost certainly shopped at WMT or eaten at MCD (and are therefore still
complicit in exploiting the proletariat). Ironically, it is
Capitalism that has distributed ownership and voting rights to the masses
through stocks and open markets while socialism ends up concentrating power in
the hands of the political elite.
Mountanman your statement works both ways, how does an employer such as owner of
Papa Johns make the money he does and not pay decent wages or medical. If
employees are showing up for work everyday and you make a substantial profit
shouldn't the employer give some back to his employees. The only reason
employers don't pay better is because of GREED and the rich want to get
Welfare....slowly destroying personal dignity, work ethics, and the family since
the 1960's when the "safety net" of the 1930's turned into the
conformable hammock we see today. Raising the min wage to $15 an hour is pure
stupidity. It will be like putting a screen door on a submarine and will have
the same effect. Businesses are already cutting to the bone, both hours and
wages, to deal with O care,higher energy costs and transportation of product due
to higher gas prices.. Raise the min wage on them and you will get more jobs
lost and more out-sourcing, not less. Contrary to what this "I'm more
equal than you,everybody gets a trophy generation" thinks, flipping burgers
at McDonald's is not a "career skill" that is worth $15 an hour
want to make more than minimum wage? Make your labor worth more than minimum
wage.In too many cases the labor provided is not even worth minimum
wage.Labor is a commodity - differentiate the value of your labor;
make it worth moreblaming billionaires who already pay 80-95% of the
income taxes is just an excuse.
It's this whole black and white, either or, capitalism versus socialism, if
you don't like your wage go to college despite coming from generations of
poverty, I did it so everyone should be able to, lack of reality inside the
bubble attitude that turned many of us here who are personally very successful,
and fiscally pretty conservative away from the Republican party decades ago.
It's also the reason the Republicans are getting hammered nationally.
Republicans can only succeed where they can create and maintain the bubble. The
world doesn't look like or function like you want it to. Try as you may
you can't change that.
Mountainman and Terra Nova:Maybe you should learn a little more about
Capitalism. You might try "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. When a
few oligarchs control the means of production (today the top 20% own 93% of the
nations wealth and the masses less than 1%) there is no serious competition and
workers simply take the crumbs the giants of industry give them. Someone can
work for Walmart, or in City Creek for 30 years and still not receive sufficient
wage to live on. Maybe you should read a little about Rockefeller, Carnegie, of
JP Morgan. The oligarchs of today (Microsoft, HP, Toyota) are no different,
they just have better PR departments.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments