T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
243.2 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Wed Jan 11 1995 12:44 | 9 |
| re .1
does this esteemed senator think only women do daycare?
or is it that he realizes that this is a very undervalues(paid)
profession and most men don't go into it for this reason. I see no
reason why male role models aren't available in the child-care center
which will be needed by working parents (one or both or even three)
regardless.
|
243.3 | | DOCTP::BINNS | | Wed Jan 11 1995 12:48 | 16 |
| re: .1
Two problems come immediately to mind:
1. Money -- it costs a lot more to put kids in even the worst kinds of
institutional care than it does to pay welfare
2. Ideology -- in the continuing debate over the rights of children vs
the rights of parents, liberals have tended to take the side of the
children if there was a conflict, and conservatives the side of
parents. Some conservatives might still find it hard to swallow the
concept of the state deciding who is fit to be a parent, even if they
can successfully demonize poor parents as so "other" that the middle
class does not feel threatened by that kind of state power.
Kit
|
243.5 | | MPGS::MARKEY | I most definitely think I might | Wed Jan 11 1995 13:28 | 18 |
| > I see no
>reason why male role models aren't available in the child-care center
>which will be needed by working parents (one or both or even three
For a brief time, my wife ran a small day-care center out of our
home. There was never a time in my life when I was more paranoid.
I made sure that I was out of the house before the first child
arrived and did not return home until the last child left. Most
parents would feel uncomfortable with a male in a day care situation,
and I lived in constant fear of some meddling psychoanalyst
getting a kid to "recall" experiences of sexual or physical
abuse... perhaps you think I was being overly paranoid, but
the thought of losing everything we had over a few bucks a
week was not something I was willing to live with... this
caused great conflict in my home, conflict that has yet to
be successfully resolved. No thanks to men doing day care!!
-b
|
243.6 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Jan 11 1995 13:33 | 4 |
| > right to enjoy any welfare
PotP
|
243.7 | | WECARE::BOURGOINE | | Wed Jan 11 1995 13:36 | 16 |
| >> bring them up in a family atmosphere'. Even if the child in one of
>> these places has 3,4 or more 'parents' (Councilors who look out for the
>> child, teach behavior, love etc) they are much better off that being
>> left with the single parent who is on welfare.
So.....is this person saying that it's not what kind of parent
you are, but how much money a parent has that makes the difference????
As an "orphan" and having been adopted from an orphanage, the
thought that keeps running thorugh my mind is "DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE
ANY IDEA WHAT THEIR TALKING ABOUT!!!!?"
sigh...
Pat
|
243.8 | Whither the kids ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Wed Jan 11 1995 13:46 | 23 |
|
Yes, there is no money. But that isn't stopping either the GOP
Congress or the Dem Admin from proposing changes. Shalala even
said the Dept had gone to great lengths to make the Clinton proposal
revenue neutral.
I don't think the legal alien ban on benefits will go through. The
Speaker backed off on this the other day, although he WOULD ban the
benefits to illegals.
I agree with those in here who think the central question is the kids.
Ask this question : "What is the best way for children of the indigent
to be provided for ?" I bet you'd come to the conclusion that it depends
on the situation. Surely, there are SOME circumstances in which the
state has to step in. What if the parents go to jail ? etc.
Day care, foster homes, and yes, group care in some cases, just have
to be thought through. This isn't the old days of traditional families
in rural poverty. It is teenage mothers, raising more of same. The
current system is not working - it's perpetuating itself. Surely we
can do better.
bb
|
243.9 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Jan 11 1995 14:00 | 3 |
| re .6
I noticed that too.
|
243.10 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Jan 11 1995 14:06 | 2 |
| Well, you know what they say about great minds, Joe . . .
|
243.11 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jan 11 1995 14:09 | 3 |
| > Well, you know what they say about great minds, Joe . . .
They're not found in soapbox?
|
243.12 | | GMT1::TEEKEMA | Count down 5..4..3..... | Wed Jan 11 1995 14:10 | 2 |
|
I resemble that remark............%^(
|
243.13 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Nothing wrong $100 wouldn't fix! | Wed Jan 11 1995 14:10 | 5 |
|
They say that great minds think alike, and that fools seldom differ.
;^)
|
243.14 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Jan 11 1995 14:26 | 3 |
| I thought the saying was:
If we both agree on everything, one of us is redundant.
|
243.15 | | TOOK::GASKELL | | Thu Jan 12 1995 08:53 | 21 |
| If having no male role model at home makes male children into
criminals, I take it that Prager (note .1) will be making a constitutional
amendment to prohibit America from engaging in military activity in
future. We can't possibly allow all those men to leave the country and
risk getting killed, creating single parent families.
If there is one common factor between criminals then it is the instance
of childhood abuse, specifically sexual abuse. One thing that the raving
right seems to forget is that when a child is sexually abused it is more
often a man than a woman who is responsible. Institutions are more likely
to attract child molesters than the single parent home, especially as they
will probably offer the lowest paying jobs and do the worst job of
monitoring their own workers.
We DO need welfare reform, and we DO need to do a better job of
protecting our nations children. But I am concerned by people like
Newt the Nut who are trying to make it into a crusade against the
single parent (read that as women) and the poor (again, read that as
women). More money would be saved by revamping and cleaning up
the expensive abuses in the military than will ever be saved by cutting
welfare, medicare or social security.
|
243.16 | Patton stated this./././/. | CSC32::SCHIMPF | | Thu Jan 12 1995 17:29 | 9 |
| Re. "great minds think alike"
Well, one quote that I like is from Gen. Patton; He stated that
if everyone is thinking alike, then nobody is thinking...
No implications here.. just an observance...
Sin-te-da
|
243.17 | The issues are the debate. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Fri Jan 13 1995 09:27 | 29 |
| Well if the reponses here so far seem to indicate exactly what the
debate on welfare reform will be like. the usual liberal group say
that reducing the defense budget is the answer to welfare reform. That
makes a lot of sense.
The basic debate on welfare reform is exactly what is the role, if any,
of the government in providing assistance to individuals. I personally
support a program that recognizes that anyone can run into tough times,
etc and needs a bit of help. The current welfare system says that help
is provided forever, at an increasing rate, and as an individual you
have no responsibility to affect your situation.
I would like to see any program, and they should minimal, provide a
very temporary assistance. If you can not be responsible for yourself,
i doubt that it is the taxpayers burden to carry you. If you want to
marry, not marry, have kids, not have kids that's your choice. If your
choice ends up with negative consequences, then that is your
responsibility. society can, and maybe should, help for a brief time,
but then your on your own.
I beleive that the sooner people realize that they must take personal
responsibility for their choices maybe they will start making better
choices.
As far as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc are concerned, these
programs have become so overblown that they no longer represent their
original intent and should be drastically reduced if not eliminated
entirely.
|
243.18 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Jan 13 1995 13:41 | 20 |
| > Well if the reponses here so far seem to indicate exactly what the
> debate on welfare reform will be like. the usual liberal group say
> that reducing the defense budget is the answer to welfare reform.
Rocush, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I just went back and read the previous 16 responses in this topic and
ONE PERSON (not a 'usual liberal group') said ONE SENTENCE about
eliminating waste in the DoD (last sentence of .15).
On the contrary, people have mentioned the requirements of childcare,
the problems of childcare as a lowpaid profession and the problem that
it attracts sex offenders, other problems with orphanages and absent
fathers, etc, etc.
Seems like 'the usual Rocush' response to a 'usual soapbox debate':
totally non sequitur and frothing at the mouth anti-liberal. Get a
grip!
DougO
|
243.19 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Feb 10 1995 15:22 | 22 |
| I'm somewhat surprised to see no discussion here regarding the masterful
Welfare reform bill overwhelmingly passed by both houses of the PRM
legislature yesterday (and, hopefully, already signed by Gov. Weld today.)
Some of the provisions in the bill as I understand it -
o For parents of school age children, new cash benefits are for 60 days,
by which time you should have found work.
o If you can't find work, you'll be assigned community service if
you'd like to continue receiving cash benefits.
o Lifetime limit of 5 years worth of cash benefits.
o No cash benefits for teenaged mothers
o No Cash benefit extensions for additional offspring
Apparently a crowd of over 400 welfare queens and sympathizers marched on
the State House and Gov's office yesterday in protest. 8 arrested
including 1 for assault and battery on a police officer.
When will they learn?
Hopefully, very soon.
|
243.20 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Feb 10 1995 15:40 | 16 |
|
I haven't seen the "specifics" on the bill yet, but hopefully they will
be on the internet at some point. From what I can tell so far, it is a good
bill. If you can work, you will (or community service), or lose benifits. There
is a provision in there that teenage moms will have to either live at home or
in a group home, and will have to finish high school if they want benifits. The
part that will bother me about this is if daycare is not involved. Maybe that
will take place with some of the other mothers who are doing community service.
IF it isn't there, then I don't like THAT part of the bill.
Channel 7 took a quick phone poll and found 86% liked the bill, 14%
didn't.
Glen
|
243.21 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Feb 10 1995 15:52 | 7 |
| > Channel 7 took a quick phone poll and found 86% liked the bill, 14%
>didn't.
Thanks for that info, Glen. I actually took the trouble to spend the 65�
on the "SUPPORT" call, but then got busy and didn't have a chance to see
the result of the poll.
|
243.22 | LFOD weenies.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Fri Feb 10 1995 16:23 | 7 |
| | I actually took the trouble to spend the 65� on the "SUPPORT" call
Well then why don't you lobby your citizen legislators for welfare
reform. After all, you don't want them evil PRM welfare queens
storming your border, do you?
-mr. bill
|
243.23 | Foul mood today, or what, Bill? | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Feb 10 1995 21:15 | 8 |
| I'm sure it's not a problem we should worry about, Bill. Welfare bennies
in NH inhale so badly they don't stay long. Our citizen legislators have
been pretty good about that. I recall a discussion I had in NOTES one
time with a PRM res. complaining about how "our" welfare cases became
"their" burden, since the exodus was to the south. The answer was, what
the PRM has now just done. Shut em off.
|
243.24 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Feb 10 1995 21:19 | 5 |
| And if you were on about my calling Channel seven on their survey as
a LFOD "weenie" (Geeziz - I never know what the hell you're on about,
Bill), well then, I figgered it was a poll for their viewers, of which
I am one, and thus felt qualified.
|
243.25 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Feb 13 1995 09:49 | 4 |
|
Jack, he may just be upset that Channel 7 doesn't have a laugh track
installed. Their newscast does seem to call for one... :-)
|
243.26 | Next... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Thu Feb 16 1995 13:37 | 10 |
|
Well, the House subcommittee released the bill yesterday. Newt's
gang will slam it through after they get our national security all
fixed later this week.
In other welfare reform news, New Dumpster guv Merrill is playing
Weld wannabe by declaring he wants to "end welfare as we know it"
up in Live-free-or-die land.
bb
|
243.27 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Feb 16 1995 14:46 | 7 |
| > In other welfare reform news, New Dumpster guv Merrill is playing
> Weld wannabe by declaring he wants to "end welfare as we know it"
> up in Live-free-or-die land.
As lousy a program as we now proudly provide, hopefully this means
Steve's found a way to get them to pay _US_!
|
243.28 | | USOPS::CASEY | | Tue Feb 21 1995 10:32 | 5 |
|
Does the new welfare reform cut off benefits to drug addicts and
alcoholics? Or is this something seperate because it falls under
SSI ? Any comments ?
|
243.29 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Feb 21 1995 10:52 | 17 |
| Whiile putting people to work is a noble goal, I have one question.
What is going to be done about daycare for the children of those
working parents? The last time I checked the cheapest (unlicsensed)
childcare I could get was still over $50.00/week. Liscensed care for
my youngest is somewhere between 80-120/week, one of many reasons I am
glad Frank can stay home with her.
Even school-aged kids need some before or after school care, as most
school days in the US are less than 8 hours, and you also need to add
in commute time. With the munificent payment of 4.25/hour I wonder how
many kids will be latchkeyed, left in locked cars, or other less than
satisfactory arrangements made around the children.
Howmuch does a family on AFDC get? The average in Colorado is
considerably less than 8 hours of licensed daycare 52 weeks a year.
meg
|
243.30 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Tue Feb 21 1995 11:34 | 3 |
| As previously stated, daycare could be provided by other welfare
parents (i.e. that could be their job.) Providing daycare is a valid
job in my book.
|
243.31 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 21 1995 11:45 | 3 |
| Meg:
Also, let's really crack down on deadbeat dads!
|
243.32 | | HANNAH::MODICA | Journeyman Noter | Tue Feb 21 1995 11:47 | 4 |
|
I'd like to know more about deadbeat dads.
I've heard that welfare, as we know it, actually encourages
the men to leave their families. Is this true?
|
243.33 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Feb 21 1995 12:07 | 35 |
| AFDC generally requires that the father not be living in the home.
AFDC was a safety net for women and children abandoned by divorce,
seperation or widowhood and having the father in the house doesn't fit
this. Presumption again that the father should be working. There are
other programs which cover two parent households where niether parent
works, due to disability. My personal opinion of "men" who are
fathering children and not supporting them and what should be done with
them is niether pacifistic nor pro-choice, particularly those who have
multiple children by multiple women.
Deadbeat non custodial parents are IMNSHO child abusers. They are
denying their children material, and usually emotional and moral
support as well. If the custodial parent were found guilty of this the
child would be taken from the home, and the parent potentially could
wind up in jail.
Mark, I applaud parents supplying child care for other parents, but....
getting a license in some projects for child care will require
extensive renovation (money), training (money), and enough pay for
those supplying the care (more money). Unfortunately I haven't seen
any provisions in the current "welfare reform" bills that will give the
seed money to get this started. this is why I am asking.
People were horrified by the "facility" where some people were leaving
their kids in Chicago last year. Rmember the 19 kids in the two
bedroom apartment? My fear is that we will see this repeated and worse
when we boot people off the current system without a child care
provision. In colorado every year there is at least one case of
neglect publicized due to a parent who can't find child care leaving an
infant in the car on a sunny day. There have also been cases where the
oldest reponsible person at home has been a 6-year-old sho is chartered
to watch his or her younger siblings. You read about these when
tragedies happen.
meg
|
243.34 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Feb 21 1995 13:29 | 11 |
| > getting a license in some projects for child care will require
> extensive renovation (money), training (money), and enough pay for
> those supplying the care (more money). Unfortunately I haven't seen
> any provisions in the current "welfare reform" bills that will give the
> seed money to get this started. this is why I am asking.
One of the provisions of the MA Welfare Reform Bill is that those desiring
to remain on the dole perform community service if they fail to obtain
employment. One form of this community service could presumably be the
provision of daycare. That would at least take care of the "more money"
aspect.
|
243.35 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Tue Feb 21 1995 14:21 | 16 |
|
> One of the provisions of the MA Welfare Reform Bill is that those desiring
> to remain on the dole perform community service if they fail to obtain
> employment. One form of this community service could presumably be the
> provision of daycare. That would at least take care of the "more money"
> aspect.
In my other life I am on the board on a non-profit daycare center. The
state requirements for teacher training and the physical environment
(to name only two) make this a lot more expensive than just paying the
teachers. Running a center costs pretty big bucks. Even if the state
provided teachers for free it would costs lots of time and money to get an
operation up to state standards.
GReg
|
243.36 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Feb 21 1995 14:37 | 24 |
| Start with the infrastructure of the building and make it suitable for
childcare. this is serious MONEY, particularly in a downrev public
housing facility. Now, I suppose some of the community service could
include the renovation, but you still need minor thingies, like
building permits, contractors (and probably subcontractors) and
training for those doing the construction. Secondly, for those who
think daycare workers are only trained by watching their kids (and
others) daycare workers in LICENSED facilities do take regular
continuing ed courses to retain their credentials. So there will be at
least some early childhood education courses needed (more money)
It is my dream to see every public housing project have the ground
floor converted to a daycare facility, that is available 24 hour/day
for working parents. This will allow people to do shift work, and
often the odd shifts pay better. However, I realize this will take a
considerable investment and I somehow don't think anyone has considered
the amount needed, or the effects of adding a large number of children
to an already overburdened childcare system. Check other notesfiles to
find out about problems for people making a reasonable living in
finding decent and affordable daycare.
meg
meg
|
243.37 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 21 1995 15:12 | 2 |
| Twould be nice if more companies offered daycare as a benefit. I
wonder why more companies aren't doing this?
|
243.38 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member in good standing | Tue Feb 21 1995 15:18 | 9 |
|
Because they don't have to, yet. That meaning that the competition for
talent out there isn't enough to warrant this as a benefit to attract
employees.
Mike
|
243.39 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Feb 21 1995 15:45 | 19 |
| Re: .36
>It is my dream to see every public housing project have the ground
>floor converted to a daycare facility, that is available 24 hour/day
>for working parents.
I have this fantasy about public housing (my fantasy life seems to be
sadly lacking...) that's a combination of Jack Kemp and Habitat for
Humanity and community architecture. Housing projects are built around
a square that contains a park. The lower levels are given over to
stores and a daycare center. As with Habitat for Humanity, residents
invest "sweat equity," doing things like putting up drywall or painting
or unloading materials. Depending on the amount of sweat, the family
gets N% equity in the unit. At least some portion of their rent goes
toward purchasing their unit. The project is actually run as a condo
development. The residents get a couple of business advisors to help
them manage the shop rentals and maintenance aspects.
I have no idea if this would actually fly, of course.
|
243.40 | | ASABET::YANNEKIS | | Tue Feb 21 1995 15:55 | 20 |
|
hmm ....
I have a slightly different dream. I do not like public housing
projects even with the possiblity of ownership because IMO this
exasperates the seperation of the haves from the have-nots. I believe
some locals, like Minneapolis, have a better approach.
Minneapolis gives (or at least did give in the 80s) tax break to
developers that develop housing that is indented to be mixed income
housing and the tax breaks are contigent on the mix continuing. In
addition, Minneapolis subsidizes the rent of the very poor. The tax
break and subsidy cost money for sure but they do not have any public
owned housing. One more importantly, IMO, this approach guarentees a
mixing of the classes which I think is especially important to the
kids.
Greg
|
243.41 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Wed Feb 22 1995 07:02 | 4 |
| In N.Y.C. there is a way to buy the building from the city of oh say
$1.00 get grant money to fix it up. All of the prospective tenants then
work to get it back into condition. Once it meets all the city req it
is then split up between those that worked on almost for free.
|
243.42 | Homelessness | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Feb 28 1995 17:47 | 89 |
| I didn't know where to put this, figured this was good as any.
Last evening I went with my kids to a small shopping center where we
could play some games. As we walked in I notice a very small young
woman resembling a little girl standing by herself with an umbrella
stroller loaded with bags and different items. Everything looked
fairly new.
Clayton and I played one game of pool together and then we left. As I
walked out of the door, she was still there. Something inside of me
pulled me back to her [I had already passed her by]. I turned around
and I said, "I hope you aren't offended, but are you homeless?" She
began to weep and said, "Yes we are." I asked her who "we" was and she
pointed to a man and a small boy standing at a telephone booth.
She cried and said that they'd been kicked out of their apartment just
days ago and had vouchers from the welfare department to keep them in a
motel, but that they had been unable to get the vouchers that day in
hopes that his mother was going to pick them up. But his mother never
appeared. She ended with she was so ashamed and frightened.
I said,"Well you can't stay out here with a 3 year old boy. Get your
husband and your things and I'll take you home with me tonight."
She called her husband over and the boys and I helped them load their
things into my van and then we all piled in. we were driving we began
talking and my youngest son said, "Are you a Christian?" And the
husband asked me if we were. Of course I affirmed that we were.
I asked them if they had contacted Agnew's Shelter and they said no
they had not. But that they didn't know where it was. Guess what I
just live blocks from it. I told them that we would try there first
but that they were welcome in my home should this not be available.
Which btw, I doubted would be, Agnews fills up fast.
Meanwhile enroute I told them that God does love them and that today in
the U.S Christian charity is hard to find due to the enormous amounts
of violent crimes committed. That people like me, single woman with
children would be considered a tad touched to pick up strangers and
bring them into their homes. They agreed. But I told them for some
reason I couldn't just walk by when I saw his wife.
We arrived at Agnews and I had no clue which building was the shelter,
yet I drove straight to it. There were some people outside and they
were leaving.
He went inside. The wife told me that she'd been in this country for
only 5 years, 4 years married. He was a car salesman. She just kept
saying over and over and over again that she appreciated me. She said
that she'd never seen a family like mine in this country, since she'd
been here.
She then told me that she had asked Jesus to be her Savior [her mother
had become a Christian in the Philipines] about 6 years ago. But that
she'd not continued in her faith.
Her husband returned and said they have a room. That those people
who'd left just as we arrived allowed this vacancy for, Byron, Racquel
and Byron Jr. Talk about timing! :-)
Clayton asked Byron Sr., if he would ask Jesus to be his Savior. Byron
said that he was 2nd person in 3 days to ask him that and he was really
considering it.
I walked them inside the shelter with their belongings. As I was
beginning to leave, they both hugged me so tight I thought I'd break.
I gave them the money in my wallet and told them to please use that to
get a hold of his family and I gave them my telephone number.
As they thanked me again, I told them to thank God as well and that God
really does love them.
As I left the shelter with my boys, I began to cry I just sobbed.
Matthew and Clayton asked me what was wrong. I said I felt so ashamed.
Clayton very angry and confused said to me, "You make feel like you did
something wrong. Mom, you did right. I'm proud of you."
I told them I felt ashamed for I've taken for granted the wonderful
things God has given us. And I thanked Him for resetting my
perspectives. Clayton didn't understand. Matthew did and I could tell
this event was having a profound effect on him.
|
243.43 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Be ye decrankified | Tue Feb 28 1995 18:14 | 1 |
| Way to go nance!
|
243.44 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | TechnoCatalyst | Tue Feb 28 1995 19:55 | 2 |
| Kudos for living your beliefs, Nanceala...
|
243.45 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Tue Feb 28 1995 21:32 | 6 |
| Nancy,
Now that I've got the tears out of my eyes, all I can say is "Thank
you".
Bob
|
243.46 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | One if by LAN, two if by C | Wed Mar 01 1995 07:30 | 12 |
|
Nancy, that was very touching. You are truly a person of quality and
love....
jim
p.s. - never feel ashamed of being human. Live with your mistakes and
learn from them, but never be ashamed to make them.
|
243.48 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 01 1995 09:56 | 12 |
| Excellent Nancy...you have taken a step of faith and planted a seed of
righteousness to be cultivated in their lives.
Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make in the file since I
started here. The government has usurped the responsibility of the
local church and has failed miserably compared to the step of faith
Nancy took. If the local church would claim its responsibility back
from the government it would foster far better relations in this world
and would be a ministry to those who are in need...instead of an
entitlement which fosters nothing but dependency.
-Jack
|
243.49 | | USMVS::DAVIS | | Wed Mar 01 1995 12:43 | 26 |
| <<< Note 243.48 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make in the file since I
> started here. The government has usurped the responsibility of the
> local church and has failed miserably compared to the step of faith
> Nancy took. If the local church would claim its responsibility back
> from the government it would foster far better relations in this world
> and would be a ministry to those who are in need...instead of an
> entitlement which fosters nothing but dependency.
Jeez, Jack! Is there NOTHING that doesn't remind you of the evils of
goernment?!
Government hasn't usurped individual or private charity. Nancy won't get
arrested for her good deed. The church STILL has a very big responsibility
to follow its mission of charity, which Nancy recognized and, like few
others among us, followed through on.
IMHO you demean the divine work Nancy has done by turning it into a
political statement. Take a break.
And Nancy...it appears God has blessed you with a wealth of Spirit. You are
to be envied as much as admired.
Tom
|
243.50 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Wed Mar 01 1995 12:56 | 5 |
| >IMHO you demean the divine work Nancy has done by turning it into a
>political statement.
He didn't turn Nancy's act into a political statement. He used nancy's
act to segue into a political comment. Not the same thing.
|
243.51 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 01 1995 13:21 | 14 |
| Tom:
Your making it sound like I farted at a quiet moment during a wedding.
What I stated was that this is a clear example of the benefits of
privatization of charity...through the local church or private
organizations. This is the Welfare Reform string isn't it? Nancy
displayed the perfect example of how instead of recipients saying,
"Thank God for Bill Clinton", They're saying, "You're a Christian
aren't you." If you recall Nancy's note, the woman said she hadn't met
anybody like Nancy in the four years she's been in the US. That's
because the people of the US who are supposed to be taking care of the
orphan and the widow has referred to the big teat of Washington DC.
-Jack
|
243.52 | | USMVS::DAVIS | | Wed Mar 01 1995 13:53 | 12 |
| <<< Note 243.51 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> because the people of the US who are supposed to be taking care of the
> orphan and the widow has referred to the big teat of Washington DC.
Jack,
Blaming Dollyland DC's size 44s for your or anyone elses lack of charity is
about as lame as blaming the white middle class for black poverty. Isn't
that what you call "whining?"
Tom
|
243.53 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 01 1995 13:59 | 7 |
| Tom:
Please don't misunderstand. I do blame the church for its lack of
vision. The government would be the great Satan here but the church
fell for it!
-Jack
|
243.54 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Mar 01 1995 17:05 | 9 |
| re: .42
Thank you so much for your trust and generosity. This is
exactly how we can make our world better by passing our
good fortune along to those who need it.
:-)
Mary-Michael
|
243.55 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Mar 01 1995 18:04 | 10 |
| Thank you to all for the encouragement. This event really left a deep
impression on me, and on my children. Mary-Michael you also are one
that helps people in times of need! :-)
Someone wrote me offline and said that people may think that I posted
this as a "self pat on the back". This is the fartherest thing from my
mind, if anything I felt very humbled and put in my place by this
situation. I pray that no-one got this from the note.
Nancy
|
243.56 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Mar 01 1995 18:23 | 73 |
| Tough Love For Sale
AT BEST, Republican efforts to fold several federal nutrition programs,
including school lunches, and instead award block grants to the states
is a public-relations mistake. House Republicans have been right to
push for reforms and limits on welfare entitlements. It's not as if
these do-gooder behemoths can't be tightened or improved. But the GOP
leadership's decision to go after poverty programs before the party has
sicced its scissors on, say, agribusiness subsidies, makes you wonder
whether the GOP will ever go after deficit-busting corporate welfare.
Hold onto your wallet. A House Agriculture Committee vote last week
suggests that the same Republicans who rightly want to reform poverty
programs won't go after big-business boondoggles.
The Ag committee vote -- to fold all nutrition programs except food
stamps into one big block grant -- was a departure from the GOP's
Contract With America. The contract would have repealed the Food Stamp
Act of 1977 and consolidated all food programs, including food stamps,
in the block-grant package. Instead, the committee chose to let food
stamps remain an entitlement. As a result, benefits, which average $170
per month per household, would be available automatically to all who
meet federal eligibility criteria. States would not be able to alter
the benefit package.
As a matter of policy, the Ag committee vote was not without sense.
Chairman Pat Roberts noted that by keeping food stamps as is, while
ending the entitlement status of Aid to Families with Dependent
Children and other nutrition programs, voters could be assured that
``during the process of returning welfare programs to the states, the
legislation should provide a federal social safety net to backstop that
process.''
What's more, by not allowing governors to give aid recipients cash in
place of food stamps, it could be argued that the committee vote would
prevent a firestorm of fraud. Not that the present system isn't
fraud-ridden. As the New York Times reported, the Agriculture
Department's inspector general found 10 percent of food stamp money --
$27 billion this year -- already lost to fraud.
But there is no escaping that this defection from block grants was
instigated by farm-lobby Republicans -- principally Roberts of Kansas,
Bill Emerson of Missouri and Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin -- who
developed qualms about block grants and felt compelled to save the
safety net where agribusiness stood to lose. Speaker Newt Gingrich, to
his discredit, went along with cuts on families only to demur on the
hit to agribusiness.
Oddly, Roberts and other farmers' friends come across as statesmen in
this saga. They have thrilled Democrats who wrongly brand block grants
as budget cuts even though the package would be increased by 4.5
percent annually. As an entitlement, however, food stamps spending
could grow by a larger amount, despite a promised spending cap.
Roberts put the block-grant crowd to shame because he at least could
make a case for his program. The contract hacks, to the contrary, have
failed to articulate why block grants are more than a pass-the-buck
mandate. Contract With America, The Paperback, simply states that block
grants will allow states to distribute federal money ``more freely.''
The caseload for food stamps grew from 20 million in 1990 to 27.5
million in 1994, yet the best the GOP could say -- before Roberts --
was that block grants sound like a good idea? ``No one did the heavy
lifting to show why it is a good proposal,'' James Bovard, author of
``Lost Rights,'' noted yesterday.
And the Reps are so inconsistent -- they want to end federal mandates
here, then throw in a mandate there -- that it undermines the cause.
Lost in the cacophony is the deafening silence of taxpayers. If the
people really felt these programs were inviolate, the GOP would have
caved on block grants sooner and not for food stamps only.
editorial published 3/1/95 in SF Chronicle
|
243.57 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Mar 01 1995 19:36 | 14 |
| Teenage Moms Get Reprieve From GOP
Washington
In another shift away from their original ``tough love'' welfare
overhaul, House Republicans last night backed off plans to ban
unmarried teenage mothers from the public assistance rolls for life.
Under pressure from Republican moderates and some GOP governors, House
leaders agreed to drop the lifetime ban on cash welfare to anyone who
gives birth out- of-wedlock before their 18th birthday.
Published 2/28/95 in San Francisco Chronicle
|
243.58 | Tough nut to crack... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Thu Mar 02 1995 08:02 | 9 |
|
DougO is correct - the Republicans are backing off, and the Welfare
Reform proposal is going to be watered down considerably. The
electorate has little support for these programs, but it is very hard
to do anything meaningful. The welfare industry will change, but is
hardly going to go extinct. And it remains to be seen if money will
be saved at all.
bb
|
243.59 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Mar 02 1995 10:10 | 8 |
|
Nancy, while there are times where I have thought you mention certain
things for a Pat on the back (one phone conversation comes to mind), I do not
believe that you put that note in for that reason.
Glen
|
243.60 |
| SUBURB::COOKS | Half Man,Half Biscuit | Fri Mar 03 1995 08:05 | 4 |
| .42 An example of the good of Christianity. (There`s too much empahsis
on the negative side these days).
|
243.61 | welfare reform bill clears house | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Mar 09 1995 15:24 | 83 |
| House panel OKs welfare reform bill
Republican measure requires recipients to work or lose benefits
By Elizabeth Shogren
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON -- The House Ways and Means Committee completed action
Wednesday on the Republicans' welfare reform plan, a sweeping effort to
link benefits for the poor with social objectives such as work and
marriage. The measure would also transfer policy-making power to the
states.
The last piece of the GOP plan, which would require for the first time
that able-bodied Americans without dependent children work or lose
their food stamps, was passed by a 22-11 committee vote. One Democrat
joined the 21 Republicans voting for passage.
``This witnesses the demise of the welfare state,'' declared Ways and
Means Chairman Bill Archer, R-Texas, holding up the committee's
238-page bill.
The Ways and Means measure will be joined with companion bills passed
by two other House committees and debated on the House floor later this
month, according to the Republican timetable.
Although the omnibus bill is considered likely to clear the House, it
awaits a less certain fate in the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Thomas
Daschle, D-S.D., however, sounded a hopeful note Wednesday, telling
reporters he has seen ``a lot of opportunities for compromise'' with
Republicans on welfare reform.
The Ways and Means Committee bill, the most far-reaching of the House's
three committee-approved welfare measures, would limit families to five
years of cash welfare benefits and make them work after two years on
the dole. It would cut off assistance for legal immigrants and give
states more freedom to tailor welfare programs to their specifications.
The second measure in the House welfare package was approved in the
early morning hours Wednesday by the Agriculture Committee, which voted
to end poor people's entitlement to food stamps and require them to
work to qualify for benefits.
A third panel, the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee,
voted two weeks ago to replace the federal school meal program with
lump-sum grants to states. Its bill would also reduce spending on the
Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, program, which is used by 6
million people, and combine federal child-care programs into one grant
for states.
The total welfare reform package would save taxpayers at least $50
billion over five years, Archer said, while improving the lives of poor
children by forcing parents to get jobs and discouraging people from
having babies they could not afford to support.
The legislation passed by the Agriculture Committee earlier Wednesday
would require for the first time that able-bodied Americans aged 18 to
50 without dependent children work or lose food stamps after 90 days.
It would also repeal the current formula that ensures that food stamp
benefits increase at the same rate as grocery prices. Instead, it would
limit annual increases in benefits to 2 percent.
Under the Ways and Means legislation, young unwed mothers would be
eligible for cash benefits in the Aid to Families With Dependent
Children program only when they reached 18. States would be given
significant financial incentives for reducing their out-of-wedlock
birth rates.
Other provisions of the Ways and Means bill would transfer from the
federal government to the states authority over foster care and
adoption programs for abused and neglected children and sharply reduce
the Supplemental Security Income program. This would be achieved by
making most disabled children ineligible and by cutting off drug and
alcohol users.
Under the plan, cash welfare, foster and adoption services, child care
and school lunches would no longer guarantee benefits to everyone who
met standards set by the federal government. Instead, states would be
provided with block grants and broad flexibility to determine
eligibility levels and set restrictions and penalties.
Published 3/09/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.
|
243.62 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Mar 09 1995 15:25 | 49 |
| THE GOP WELFARE PLAN:
Here are key elements of the Republicans' five-year welfare reform
plan:
-- Child care: Consolidates nine federal child care programs in a block
grant to the states. Spending would be capped at the current level of
$1.94 billion per year.
-- School meals: Combines school lunch and breakfast programs into a
block grant to the states. Funding would rise from $6.68 billion in
1996 to $7.85 billion in 2000.
-- Family nutrition: Combines funding for several nutrition programs,
including the Women, Infants and Children supplemental feeding program,
into a block grant to the states. Funding would rise from $4.6 billion
in 1996 to $5.3 billion in 2000.
-- Aid to immigrants: Most legal immigrants would be barred from
public-assistance rolls, with exceptions for refugees, the very elderly
and those who served in the military.
-- Food stamps: Holds automatic increases in benefits to 2 percent a
year. Requires able-bodied people to work.
-- Cash welfare: Replaces Aid to Families With Dependent Children with
a block grant to the states. Ends the guarantee of cash aid to women
and children who qualify; benefits are cut off after five years; and
unmarried parents under age 18 would not be allowed to receive cash
assistance.
-- Foster care: Establishes a block grant to the states to prevent
child abuse and neglect and care for children who are removed from
their homes. Funding rises from $4.4 billion to $5.85 billion over five
years.
-- Supplemental Security Income: Bans disability payments to drug
addicts and alcoholics; cuts cash payments to some children with
behavioral or mental disabilities; replaces cash with medical benefits
for other disabled children; and allows only the most severely disabled
children to continue to receive cash.
-- Child support: Establishes state and national registries of
child-support orders and new hires to help track parents who refuse to
pay.
Source: Associated Press
Published 3/09/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.
|
243.63 | a missing item | HBAHBA::HAAS | Plan 9 from Outer Space | Thu Mar 09 1995 15:34 | 7 |
| > THE GOP WELFARE PLAN:
one more:
-- Give the rich more tax breaks
TTom
|
243.64 | OK by me. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Thu Mar 09 1995 15:46 | 8 |
|
Well, since all of us who work for Digital are "rich" by the
administration's definition, it's fine by me.
I am disappointed the GOP is only planning to cut off $50B from
these bums. Oh well, it's a start.
bb
|
243.65 | could do more | HBAHBA::HAAS | Plan 9 from Outer Space | Thu Mar 09 1995 15:51 | 6 |
| Yeah,
Just think how much they could cut off if'n the took up Corporate Welfare
Reform.
TTom
|
243.66 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Mar 09 1995 16:26 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 243.63 by HBAHBA::HAAS "Plan 9 from Outer Space" >>>
| -- Give the rich more tax breaks
TTom, you mean like the landowners thing? If the economy goes down,
they get a break on the land?
|
243.67 | homeowners | HBAHBA::HAAS | Plan 9 from Outer Space | Thu Mar 09 1995 16:33 | 6 |
| I like the landowner thang if'n it's linked to being a homeowner.
I don't think that a speculative investor should get the same break as
someone who actually owns a house and actually lives there.
TTom
|
243.68 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Mar 10 1995 12:53 | 92 |
| Richard Lugar: A Republican who would end the real welfare
By Richard Cohen
IN A Republican field of self-proclaimed radicals and revolutionaries
-- free marketers and lovers of lucre -- it turns out that the real
radical is the conventionally conservative senator from Indiana,
Richard Lugar. Alone among the presidential mentionables, he has
officially proposed the eventual elimination of crop and export
subsidies -- welfare for farmers.
To understand the political risks of such a position, consider this:
Iowa, site of the first presidential caucus, has received a bit more
than $10 billion in various farm payments in the last nine years. In
1993, the last full year for which figures are available, the state had
125,572 recipients of this government largess -- some of them hallowed
family farmers, of course, but many of them corporations and
partnerships which, at night, do not sit by the fire and make quilts.
They make political contributions instead.
New Hampshire, the state with the first primary, is hardly in Iowa's
league when it comes to farm payments -- rocky soil and all of that.
Even so, Uncle Sam has poured $20 million into the state in the last
nine years. Given that only 175,000 Republicans vote in the primary,
even a small number of farm program recipients can be critical. New
Hampshire, after all, is a state where a front parlor, coffee pot and
half a dozen people is considered a voting bloc.
With the exception of Lugar, the rest of the GOP hopefuls have plunged
into Iowa and New Hampshire saying not a word about farm support
programs. Instead, like the Republican Party in general, we have heard
lots about the evil ways of Washington (from whence floweth the cash)
and pernicious and downright immoral social welfare programs. The GOP
has taken after school lunch programs, welfare recipients and -- until
cooler heads prevailed -- the food stamp program. But, at least in
Iowa, farm payments, not the food stamps program, is where the real
money is -- $661 million for farms in 1992, only $142 million for food
stamps the same year.
For Republicans, taking on the poor is like a kids' fight with toy
guns: Everyone's a hero. Bashing welfare recipients is easy since, by
and large, the poor are not so stupid as to vote Republican -- or,
alas, to vote at all. Whatever the morality of this approach -- and I
concede that getting tough with welfare recipients may well be the
moral approach -- it is nevertheless easy. Nowadays, no one much loves
the poor -- especially if they are young, pregnant and unwed. Get a
job, is the cry, but get out of our sight is the sentiment.
But the GOP has yet to take on its own constituency. My favorite person
in that regard is Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., who has yelled and
screamed about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which received
a mere $285 million from the federal government in the current fiscal
year. Pressler has ideological as well as fiscal problems with the CPB,
but let's look at his own state and what it got in farm supports
between 1985 and 1994: $3.4 billion or an average of $340 million a
year.
In other words, a single state received more in farm supports than the
CPB gets for the entire country. The Environmental Working Group, the
wonderful people who slipped me these figures, estimates that Uncle Sam
could have bought 30 percent of South Dakota's farmland with the money
it's spent on farm programs in the last decade. It also calculated that
while South Dakota's average food stamp recipient got $694 annually,
the average farm payment per recipient was $7,132. But which program
did the GOP congressional leadership want to tackle first? Food stamps,
of course.
Leading Republicans have indeed talked about ending farm programs and
letting the vaunted free market work its magic. Among the presidential
candidates, though, only Lugar has made this an issue. On Feb. 15, he
announced a plan to phase out both price supports and export subsidies.
This was no theoretical grandstanding since Lugar is both a farm state
senator and chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Needless to
say, his plan was immediately denounced by farm groups, including some
of his Senate colleagues.
In the context of the federal budget, the farm program is no big deal
-- only about $8.9 billion annually. But its elimination by the
Republican-controlled Congress might show America that the GOP is
serious about saving money, no matter who gets hurt -- not just trying
to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
The 62-year-old Lugar is an interesting entry into the Republican
presidential race. The GOP's foremost foreign policy expert in the
Senate and a onetime mayor (Indianapolis), his credentials -- although
maybe not his political charisma -- demand respect. But beyond his
experience, is an apparent willingness to face an important Republican
constituency and say that even for them welfare has to end.
Richard Cohen is a Washington Post columnist.
Published 3/09/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.
|
243.69 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Mar 10 1995 12:55 | 91 |
| Right, Left Call For Cuts to Corporate `Aid'
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Washington
An unusual coalition of think tanks warned yesterday that cutting
welfare for the poor will backfire unless Republicans also slash annual
business and agricultural subsidies currently equal to half of the
federal deficit.
With school lunches and housing projects in line for GOP cuts,
Republicans have a political as well as a fiscal imperative to
terminate financing such as the $2.9 million in advertising subsidies
that went to Pillsbury Corp. and the $263,000 that Martin Marietta
Corp. charged taxpayers for a Smokey Robinson concert, these groups
said.
The Cato Institute on the libertarian right, the Progressive Policy
Institute in the Democratic center and the Center for Budget and Policy
Priorities on the left produced a long list of special government tax
breaks, subsidies and trade protections to U.S corporations that
covered everything from building the multibillion-dollar space station
to replacing damaged fishing gear.
Such ``corporate welfare'' has grown so extensive that nearly every
member of the Fortune 500 receives some sort of subsidy, said Stephen
Moore, the Cato Institute's director of fiscal studies.
Critics as disparate as Bay Area Democrat George Miller, consumer
advocate Ralph Nader and conservative presidential contender Phil Gramm
have all denounced corporate subsidies.
Labor Secretary Robert Reich yesterday again challenged the GOP to cut
what he derided as ``aid to dependent corporations,'' an allusion to
Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the main cash welfare program
for the poor. The Cato Institute called Reich's suggestion ``right on
target.''
Reich said that if Republicans ``want to get people off of welfare,
they should be equally eager to get companies off welfare . . . if they
want to avoid the charge of hypocrisy.''
Yet the Clinton administration, seeking to burnish its pro-business
credentials, has been a leading proponent of many business subsidies,
mainly high-technology aid and other Commerce Department programs.
Last year, the administration subsidized such industry giants as
General Electric, United Airlines, Hewlett Packard, Caterpillar
Equipment and General Motors, according to Moore. Reich countered that
the administration has cut honey and wool subsidies and closed tax
loopholes for business meals.
Republicans may find it difficult to cut subsidies to business, long a
core GOP constituency. Indeed, many small business owners and farmers
helped put the new Republican majority in power.
But neither are such cuts politically easy for Democrats, said Will
Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, the ``New
Democrat'' think tank that President Clinton helped found.
The current Democratic strategy is to sit quietly until later this
spring when Republicans have to propose a budget calling for enormous
cuts, estimated at $1.2 trillion over seven years, if they want to
fulfill their promise to balance the budget by 2002.
Democrats then will attack the cuts, especially in poverty programs,
as heartless and irresponsible. The strategy is already in play. The
Clinton administration demurred on further deficit reduction in this
year's budget, and congressional Democrats will offer no alternative to
the GOP cuts. Both, however, have strongly attacked early Republican
efforts.
Marshall argued that the Democrats' strategy will fail, saying such
charges have been made since the Reagan administration and now sound
like ``crying wolf.'' Said Marshall: ``If Democrats resort to the old
tactic of reflexively defending all government programs, they are
playing to a shrinking chorus of true believers. There's only one way
to reduce government programs, and that's to cut them.''
Republicans often argue that welfare harms those it is supposed to
help, and analysts agreed that subsidies have the same effect on
businesses, weakening their incentive to be competitive.
They pointed out that the most heavily subsidized industries, such as
steel and textiles, are often among the least efficient, while the
least subsidized, such as computers and film-making, are often the
most.
Published 3/7/95 in San Francisco Chronicle
|
243.70 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member in good standing | Fri Mar 10 1995 13:49 | 8 |
|
Well the last article is suspect, Doug. The lie about the cutting of
school lunches being cut by the GOP leaves the rest of the article to
be written off.
Mike
|
243.71 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Mar 17 1995 18:42 | 66 |
| More on Corporate Welfare that needs reform...
DougO
-----
Crop subsidies aid absentee farmers, study finds
City slickers receive thousands for land they own but don't till
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON -- When President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 73rd
Congress enacted legislation in the depths of the Great Depression to
save the American farmer, they did not have Arnold Travis and Eugene
Veenhuis in mind.
Yet Travis, who lives in a neighborhood of million-dollar homes in Los
Angeles, and Veenhuis, with a gated beachfront condominium in Malibu,
have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal crop
subsidies over the past several years, all for distant farmland they
own but others till.
They are doing nothing illegal. But their cases dramatize how the
Depression-era farm support programs have evolved over the decades from
a safety net for millions of starving farm families to a complicated
entitlement program that includes wealthy, urban Americans who happen
to own farmland.
Travis owns 3,300 acres near Blythe that are planted in cotton and
wheat, qualifying him for annual subsidy payments ranging from $30,000
to $250,000 over the past 10 years. The land has been in Travis' family
since 1939 but he has not lived in Blythe for more than 40 years.
Veenhuis, a tax attorney, bought into a 50,000-acre spread in eastern
Montana in 1989. He plants 4,000 acres in wheat and barley solely
because they are among the crops subsidized by the government. He said
he has received about $350,000 in federal grain subsidies, crop-failure
insurance payments and conservation incentives over the past five
years.
A new computer analysis of Department of Agriculture direct payments to
farmers under a variety of programs shows that the government now pays
hundreds of millions of dollars to landowners like Travis and Veenhuis
who reside in the nation's biggest cities and who are hundreds,
sometimes thousands, of miles away from the farms the government
supports.
The report, released today in Washington, is the first comprehensive
look at where the $10 billion a year in agricultural support payments
actually goes.
All told, about $1.3 billion in farm subsidies flowed into the heart of
the nation's 50 biggest cities over the 10-year period.
San Jose, with 562 recipients collecting $8.6 million in subsidies,
ranked 34th. Fresno, with 1,706 people collecting $103.4 million, was
No. 1; Sacramento, at 1,054 recipients and $102.8 million, was No. 2.
The study, focusing on payments in the largest cities, accounted for
only $1.8 billion of the $106 billion spent on farm support during the
10 years.
However, it determined that urban farmers are numerous. And in the
1990s, for the first time in U.S. history, more than half the land in
agricultural production is being tilled by those who do not own it.
Published 3/16/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.
|
243.72 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 17 1995 19:29 | 14 |
| Kind of underhanded to include this under the topic of Welfare
Reform.
While you make a valid statement (corporate welfare) you only
cloud both issues.
This should go with one of the the other balanced-budget
discussions.
All farm subsidies should go. (Tobacco subsidies should be at
the top of the list.) If it causes food prices to rise, so be
it. We're currently paying the equivalent of those price
increases in taxes to pay not only the subsidies, but the
bureaucracy to manage those programs.
|
243.73 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Mar 17 1995 19:41 | 32 |
| Underhanded? You're out of touch again. Look at many past notes in
this topic which used the phrase long before now....56, .65, .68, .69.
And while you may like to consider the issue clouded by confluence, I
consider them quite appropriately paired, as do the left, central, and
right-wing think tanks referenced in .69. And Lugar is the one who put
farm subsidies on the table, finally, see .68.
> All farm subsidies should go. (Tobacco subsidies should be at the top
> of the list.) If it causes food prices to rise, so be it.
Actually, crop subsidies are in the form of guaranteed floor prices,
and quota systems (enforced by payments for idled land) to keep them
from growing too much unneeded crops. Both of those strategies actually
boost prices throughout the supply chain by reducing supply and also by
the floor price setting a high minimum price that the government will
pay if the markets won't. Both strategies result in higher prices to
the end consumer. Eliminating them will actually LOWER prices to
consumers.
> We're currently paying the equivalent of those price increases in
> taxes to pay not only the subsidies, but the bureaucracy to manage
> those programs.
Well, there won't be price increases, for the above mentioned reasons.
Instead of balancing off taxpayer subsidies against higher consumer
prices, reducing crop supports will both save the subsidies and reduce
consumer prices; a double benefit for everyone but farmers, instead of
a tradeoff. Farmers only get the single benefit of lower taxes, traded
off against the lack of price supports and payments for idled land. If
Lugar's bill passes.
DougO
|
243.74 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Sat Mar 18 1995 10:30 | 30 |
| <<< Note 243.73 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> Underhanded? You're out of touch again.
I thought twice about using that term because I suspected
you might have taken it as an attack. Sorry. I didn't
mean it that way. Perhaps I should have thought three
times about it.
That the phrase has been used before (corporate welfare) doesn't
make it right or prudent. I still think it unnecessarily mixes
two very distinct issues that should remain separate.
> Actually, crop subsidies are in the form of guaranteed floor prices,
True.
> Both strategies result in higher prices to
> the end consumer. Eliminating them will actually LOWER prices to
> consumers.
Short-term perhaps. But they are in place to prevent insolvent
farms from going under or being absorbed, preventing cartel-like
or monopoly-like situations.
Regardless our personal viewpoints of the purposes and effects of
farm subsidies, and ensuing bickering over those differences, I'd
prefer to enjoy a rare case of clear agreement with you -- that
farm subsidies should go -- and not taint it with yet another
round of quibbling. Fair enough?
|
243.75 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 20 1995 10:34 | 27 |
| Joe,
The cartel farms are what soaks up most of the federal support already.
So while some of the federal money trickles down to the "American
Gothic" image farmers in this country, the majority goes to pay people
who have far more in common with management than working the land.
It is much like the grazing permit fiasco. While there are families
that graze their own leases on BLM land, many, if not most, of the
permits are held by people who sublet the permit to others at a much
higher fee, like close to what private land costs to lease. This is
costing you and me twice. Once for the underfunded fee, and again for
subsidizing a person who isn't using the land for their profits. Now,
if this isn't welfare for the wealthy, tell me what is.
And timber sales. Do you realize you and I fund logging jobs to the
tune of 28K/year/lumberjack? That is a lot of money, and I doubt most
of it goes to the actual workers. It lines someones pocket in
Corporate America.
It amazes me that we treat welfare reform as only going after the
poorest sector and most defenseless people in the country, while
ignoring the real welfare problem. Let's get corporations off the
federal tit, and give them the respect for standing on their own two
feet we say we want to give to people with limited resources.
meg
|
243.77 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:47 | 10 |
| So if the immigrant gets citizenship status beffore the grace period
runs out they will stay on welfare? What will we do with the legal
immigrant whose partner left her and a mess of kids to persue greener
pastures? The kids are citizens. Are we going to take them away, put
them all on a slow boat to xdestination, or starve the citizen children
to prove a point?
Just curious, as I know a couple of women in this position.
meg
|
243.78 | | CALDEC::RAH | pushing the envelope of sanity.. | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:54 | 2 |
|
incentive is a wonderful thing.
|
243.79 | It's on the floor... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Mar 21 1995 08:07 | 11 |
|
The bill comes out of committee today or tomorrow to the House floor.
It does indeed cut approximately $60B over 5 years, most importantly
by time-limiting the benefits to two years, limiting COLAs, and
ending AFDC cash payments to non-working teenage mothers. The other
aspect is that this bill makes most of welfare a block grant to the
states rather than an entitlement. House passage, perhaps after
amendment, is a foregone conclusion. It will be fillibustered, or
if necessary, vetoed by Clinton.
bb
|
243.80 | Republicans will cut businesses too | DECCXL::VOGEL | | Tue Mar 21 1995 21:46 | 17 |
|
RE .75 - Meg,
> Let's get corporations off the
> federal tit, and give them the respect for standing on their own two
> feet we say we want to give to people with limited resources.
Intersting story in today's Globe: Two Senators were debating
cuts in government programs that give money to big and small
business. These programs are the Advanced Technology Program
and the Manufactuing Extension Partnership as well as the Small
Business Administration.
The Senator in favor of the cuts was Judd Gregg. Guess who
was opposed to these cuts - None other than Ted Kennedy!!
|
243.81 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Wed Mar 22 1995 07:27 | 4 |
| Judd Gregg and Bob Kerrey are in charge of figuring out how to balance
the budget by 2002; after having watched them both on TV while in
Florida explaining their proposals, I have more respect for both of
them.
|
243.82 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Mar 22 1995 12:19 | 3 |
| I'll have respect when they deliver, not until.
DougO
|
243.83 | Effort should count | DECC::VOGEL | | Wed Mar 22 1995 12:27 | 11 |
|
RE .last
Doug, does this mean you will not respect anyone for trying?
The Republicans will have a hard time delivering on any cuts
with the Dems and Clinton fighting them the whole way.
Ed
|
243.84 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Mar 22 1995 12:42 | 14 |
| I mean, I've been watching Congress seriously for nearly twenty years
and things are even worse now than they were then. In that time, the
debt has quadrupled, and interest payments alone on that debt take a
huge portion of every year's budget. Each and every Congress has made
pious noises and delivered nothing of what they promised. I'm past
respecting the individuals who sound good as representatives of that
institution. I want results. Until then, they're all tainted, no
matter their individual merits.
>Doug, does this mean you will not respect anyone for trying?
Trying cuts no ice.
DougO
|
243.85 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:21 | 5 |
| <<< Note 243.84 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> Trying cuts no ice.
But payback sure does, eh Doug?
|
243.86 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Mar 22 1995 15:44 | 20 |
| you noticed, eh? popsicle for the bright boy over here. I haven't
mentioned payback in two weeks at least, yet Joe was bright enough to
recognize the symptoms playing out on the national scene.
eh, no, Joe, I don't respect them for playing payback games either.
But I do reserve the right to laugh at all of you in here who were so
euphoric a few months ago as Newt's Contract comes to an ignominious
crashing thud-and-blunder end. Democrats learned to play
obstructionist politics from the masters. Too bad now that the GOP has
put itself in the position of trying to lead solo.
When both sides start trying to reach bipartisan consensus again, the
country will follow. When both sides cut the deficit, the debt will
come down. When that happens, they'll have earned respect.
Not until.
And those of you who celebrate solo politics are doomed.
DougO
|
243.87 | One can only hope :-) | BRITE::FYFE | Never tell a dragon your real name. | Wed Mar 22 1995 16:25 | 22 |
| > eh, no, Joe, I don't respect them for playing payback games either.
> But I do reserve the right to laugh at all of you in here who were so
> euphoric a few months ago as Newt's Contract comes to an ignominious
> crashing thud-and-blunder end. Democrats learned to play
I'm still euphoric. We have a house making honest attempts to make significant
change and keep political promises. They may be aiming hi, but if they didn't,
there would be no pressure on the senate to produce, and in the end, you have to
aim high so the resulting compromise will be closer to your target.
The dem leadership has been exposed to the light of day. The focus today is the
same focus Reagan had, and got shoved down the republicans throat in the 80's.
All in all, a very refreshing first few months.
> And those of you who celebrate solo politics are doomed.
I don't know about celebrating, but with more dems moving over to repubs, and
many not seeking re-election, solo politics is a real posibility in
1996 :-)
Doug.
|
243.88 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Mar 22 1995 18:35 | 2 |
| I still share your euphoria, Doug. (Er, Doug Fyfe, that is, not
DougO...)
|
243.89 | | AXPBIZ::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Mar 22 1995 20:47 | 16 |
| ha! honest attempts they're making, are they? they obviously can fool
some of the people, some of the time, still. Answer me this, Fyfe: if
the Senate is saying right up front that they aren't playing Newt-ball,
then just how "honest" is it for the house to be continue the charade?
Just how "high" will they have to aim to get term limits of any sort
through the Senate, mired in early presidential politics with Lugar,
Dole and Gramm already?
Oh, enjoy your euphoria, boyz- but don't say you weren't warned.
Your hangover is coming.
If they REALLY get honest and start working on bills that BOTH houses
will pass, AND that reduce the deficit, then it'll be time for
euphoria. Not until.
DougO
|
243.90 | They have little choice | DECC::VOGEL | | Wed Mar 22 1995 20:57 | 17 |
|
Doug,
I agree with much of your saying. However, I think the House
Republicans have no choice but to pass (that is vote on)
their Contract even 'though they know that much of what they
are doing will have no chance to pass. The reason is that if
they don't vote on the contract the Dems will say "they Lied
to you" in '96.
Don't worry, it's only 100 days, and some real bills will come
from it. There will be plenty of time to get down to real
work for the rest of the term.
Ed
|
243.91 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Thu Mar 23 1995 07:26 | 9 |
| >if the Senate is saying right up front that they aren't playing
>Newt-ball, then just how "honest" is it for the house to be continue the
>charade?
The fact of the matter is they promised they'd do N things in the
house in the 1st 100 days. For them to renege simply because the senate
is unwilling to do the same would be to hand the democrats a free down
in the political football game. No, they promised and they should
fulfill. One certainly couldn't call that dishonest.
|
243.92 | Hopeful signs... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Thu Mar 23 1995 08:27 | 30 |
|
Actually, listening to the Senate on the L-I-V yesterday, I'm
starting to think the Democrats might cave on this. First, the new
Dole substitute incorporated half of the Democrats' objections. Then
yesterday, they started accepting Democratic amendments except for the
totally crippling ones. Yesterday afternoon, Daschle introduced "the
Daschle substitute", a gutted wonder from a confirmed LIV opponent.
Even Byrd, who has made a career out of sneaking pork into
appropriations bills, made compromising noises.
I think the Democrats (by one vote, you recall) made a SUPERB choice
in picking the Clark-Kentish Daschle over the feisty Chris Dodd to
support their drunken sailor fiscal policies. He SOUNDS so mild and
reasonable and low-blood-pressure while advocating spending trillions
we don't have. If the Democrats actually had an agenda, he would be
formidable. By contrast the Dodd defiant approach looks tired and old.
Anyways, there are two ways to read the "Daschle substitute", and you
can't tell which it is. Either it is a fig-leaf for waivering Dems,
particularly those up for re-election to CYA, or it is preparation
for a retreat because he hasn't got 41 votes against cloture. He is
very cagey, and of course Dole cannot take the "Daschle substitute"
as is. But Dole is no fool, and cannot afford another BBA debacle
and keep his lead in the 1996 sweepstakes.
I'm thinking there will be some sort of wishy-washy LIV. I hope so.
We shall see in the next few days. If the democrats go defiant, it
is a HUGE political error for 96, and they know it.
bb
|
243.93 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Mar 23 1995 08:57 | 6 |
| DougO:
For somebody who keeps complaining about Reagan and deficit spending,
you sure don't seem willing to anti up!
-Jack
|
243.94 | More info is coming out on this... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Thu Mar 23 1995 09:12 | 39 |
|
Well, I finally saw a summary of the CBO scoring of this, the first
Republican item that directly affects life in America, rather than
Inside-the-Beltway process stuff like BBA/LIV/term limits etc. I did
not take notes like I should, so I'm sure Mr. Bill will leap on any
inaccuraccies. Actually, I enjoy when he does that.
The "Personal Responsibility Act" (luv those Newtisms) costs $1185B
over 5 years, a CBO-scoring "savings" of $66B, but these numbers are
already changed because the House has accepted some Democratic
amendments. That's approximately correct, anyways, so it's a "5% cut",
to a first approximation. There is no year in the 5 in which the
increase in spending is less than inflation, and the last year is
42% higher than the first in total dollars. But it IS a real cut from
doing the same-old-same-old.
Some stuff is not cut at all, or even increased, but other stuff is
cut savagely : food stamp eligibility limited to 2 years, no AFDC
cash payments to unwed mothers under 18 (there is a figleaf voucher
allowance to states, for diapers etc).
The bill is not consistent in Block Grants - some things are, some
aren't. The Republican response (very imperfect) to the
anti-stabiliser effect is the so-called "rainy day fund" provision.
It is easy to see that in the event of VERY severe recessions, this
would not be adequate and supplementals might be needed. But it would
have worked in the last couple of recessions, which weren't that big.
The "unleashing the states" idea is very weakly represented here.
There are as many oversight and strings-attached provisions to the
grants, I'm surprised the governors/mayors are supporting it. But
they are.
The rhetoric on both sides of this issue on the floor has to be seen
to be believed ! All restraint has been thrown to the winds. Passage
(with amendments) in the House is inevitable. What the Senate will do,
nobody knows.
bb
|
243.95 | | HANNAH::MODICA | Journeyman Noter | Thu Mar 23 1995 09:16 | 4 |
|
Did I actually hear a democrat compare the repub welfare reform
to the holocaust?
|
243.96 | A new low in civility... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Thu Mar 23 1995 09:20 | 6 |
|
re, holocaust - Yep. Unbelievable !
And there was a reference to the Democrats as "stooges for thieves".
bb
|
243.97 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Mar 23 1995 09:21 | 3 |
| I just find the minds of people who say things like this incredulous.
-Jack
|
243.98 | | HANNAH::MODICA | Journeyman Noter | Thu Mar 23 1995 09:28 | 8 |
|
But (according to George) it's the repubs who engage in dirty
politics.
Anyhow, I found it incredibly offensive and can only wonder
how a Jewish person would feel.
|
243.99 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Thu Mar 23 1995 09:29 | 3 |
|
Joe Kennedy said the repubs are gonna starve 3.5 million kids
donchaknow...
|
243.100 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Thu Mar 23 1995 09:37 | 1 |
| SNARF reform..
|
243.101 | It's a whole lot better than we've had in recent memory ... | BRITE::FYFE | Never tell a dragon your real name. | Thu Mar 23 1995 10:31 | 25 |
| > ha! honest attempts they're making, are they? they obviously can fool
> some of the people, some of the time, still. Answer me this, Fyfe: if
> the Senate is saying right up front that they aren't playing Newt-ball,
> then just how "honest" is it for the house to be continue the charade?
Yes, an honest attempt. They committed to certain actions if elected and they
are following thru (in the house). The senate made no such promises.
And yes, they are playing Newt ball. Although Newt specifics may not be
the end result - the changes that will occur are the result of Newt direction.
It takes a lot of time and energy to change the course of such a large
ship. Newt has garnished a lot of energy to that end. He/They've got two
years. So far so good.
The dems are behaving badly in the house, and the country is watching.
But what I'm happiest to see is all the democratic hawks in the senate,
unencombered by an emasculated democratic leadership, participating more
in the last 2+ months than in the last 10 years. The fallout in the
democratic party has just begun, and if what I've seen lately is any indication,
the party that emerges from this shakeout will be a far better one.
The days of 'No cuts unless we can roll them into new/other federal programs'
are over.
Doug.
|
243.102 | The Democratic plan and kids | DECC::VOGEL | | Sat Mar 25 1995 21:34 | 19 |
|
During the welfare debate the Dems hit the Republicans hard
for being tough on children and welfare recipients.
It should be noted that while the Republican welfare bill
that passed the house is estimated to save (something like)
65 Billion over 5 years. The bill the Democrats offered
not only did not save money, but it was predicted to cost
more than the current projections.
By budget rules the Democrats had to specify how they were
going to pay for the increase. First they were going to
subject welfare payments to federal income tax. Second they
were going to phase out the child care tax credit for couples
earning more than 60K.
Of course that wouldn't hurt welfare recipients or children...
Ed
|
243.103 | With all deliberate speed ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Frustrated Incorporated | Fri Sep 15 1995 11:09 | 10 |
|
The Senate has apparently reached a compromise, and will pass a
Welfare Reform Bill, shortly (they may have as I type). It is not
the same as the House measure, but an amended version of the Dole
proposal. The Democrats offered many amendments, which somewhat
to their surprise, the majority accepted. It will now go to the
House-Senate conference. I haven't seen all the details, but I do
know the Republicans caved in and agreed to provide $3B for daycare.
bb
|
243.104 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | sunlight held together by water | Fri Sep 15 1995 11:44 | 2 |
| IMO expecting mothers to get jobs while not providing some means of
obtaining daycare is improvident.
|
243.105 | If I were one of them, I'd be upset | DECWIN::RALTO | Stay in bed, float upstream | Fri Sep 15 1995 12:32 | 7 |
| >> IMO expecting mothers to get jobs while not providing some means of
>> obtaining daycare is improvident.
Who has provided daycare for all of the other single mothers out
there in the workplace, though?
Chris
|
243.106 | | ABACUS::MINICHINO | | Fri Sep 15 1995 13:10 | 38 |
| I get a bit frazzled when I see this banter back in forth about welfare
being bad, welfare being good. I have to voice a vocal opinion not to
offend anyone, but to vent...figured this was the best place to get
CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISM(SP)...
My soon to be husband's ex wife, when she couldn't get enough attention
from her ex, up and quit, yes folks, just quit, a well paying job, with
good bennies to go to Back to MASS...guess why...higher unemployment
benifits..They have a 5 year old son...the love of my life, who can't
understand how come Daddy and Shell have nice things and mommy
doesn't. We try to explain to him, to have nice things one must work
and work hard. We both have good jobs, well paying and all that..yeah,
we hate our jobs some days, yeah it sucks to get up early every morning
and face the same old grind day after day..but there are days I can't
wait to get up and start another day....but to hear that there are
people who, for what ever reason, just decide with no thought to the
future to up and quit there job and go on welfare after there
unemployement runs out...his ex is Kathrine Gibbs educated...she wasn't
stupid before, I assume she's still not too stupid..but she has a dumpy
little apt that we are sure she isn't making rent on, in a seedy part
of town. (I won't mention the town). with those snot nosed little kids
that hang on the street corner, looking like they want to start
trouble. And she doesn't want to work...why should she..she gets her CS
every week, on the same day, check in hand for the weekend..She used to
have their son in daycare...it was a good day care and CS paid for most
of it if not all, and we'd toss alittle extra her way for food and
such. Now all she does is whine about how she has NO MONEY>>>>>>
GET A JOB.....Get a job....She finds every excuse not to work. I even
took her resume and sent it to different places...she either didn't
respond to the calls or was late or didn't show for interviews. What is
that....?
Sorry, needed to rant alittle
Personally, if they pass the new welfare bill and they provide daycare
for single moms so they can get trained and go back to work..that's
what welfare should be about...a temporary income until a permanant one
can be set up. Being a single mom isn't easy.
|
243.107 | Question on daycare | CXXC::VOGEL | | Fri Sep 15 1995 21:31 | 6 |
|
Concerning daycare. Why not require those welfare mothers who can
not find jobs to care for the children of those who can find jobs?
This would cost nothing.
Ed
|
243.108 | | SCAS01::GUINEO::MOORE | HEY! All you mimes be quiet! | Sat Sep 16 1995 01:10 | 2 |
| <--- What a way to have your children motivated whilst you are at
work..
|
243.109 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Petite Chambre des Maudites | Sat Sep 16 1995 22:05 | 2 |
|
<-- Providing daycare IS a job.
|
243.110 | Yes...daycare is work | CXXC::VOGEL | | Sun Sep 17 1995 22:35 | 19 |
|
Re .108
> <--- What a way to have your children motivated whilst you are at
> work..
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that most welfare mothers
currently provide their children with a lot of motivation and this
would be lost if another welfare mother watched them during the day?
Re .109
>
> <-- Providing daycare IS a job.
Exactly. This would be their job. If they were caring for the
children of others, that would be the same as if they were out
working. Ideally this could be done in a group setting with
a few professionals providing supervision.
Ed
|
243.111 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | We upped our standards, now up yours! | Mon Sep 18 1995 10:46 | 25 |
| I wouldn't want some of those people who are the biggest welfare
problems to get anywhere near my kids. Other than that, not a bad
idea.
Actually, considering how much of a problem day care is for everyone
these days, and considering how important it is for people to learn how
to care for children before they have any of their own, why not have
a day care center attached to every high school?
The center would be staffed by professionals, and would provide an
alternative to more expensive private day care. In essence it would be
a downward extension of the public school system.
Every high school kid -- both male and female -- would have to take a
course in parenting before they graduate.
A lot of local help would be needed to assist the professionals who run
the facility, so your idea about employing welfare mothers in that role
would fit right in, and they would have good supervision and be able to
learn more about good parenting all at the same time.
Cost money? You betcha. Cost more or less than not doing all that is
costing society now? That's the question.
|
243.112 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Holy rusted metal, Batman! | Mon Sep 18 1995 10:58 | 7 |
|
High school kids?
Might want to teach them about parenting at 12-13, so that 75%
of them will have taken the course before they have their 1st
kid.
|
243.113 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | We upped our standards, now up yours! | Mon Sep 18 1995 11:01 | 1 |
| Good point
|
243.114 | How welfare pays | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA fighting for our RIGHTS | Tue Sep 19 1995 08:33 | 37 |
|
Food
State AFDC Stamps Medicaid Housing Util WIC Comm Total
Ha. $8,544 $5,064 $3,689 $8,219 $310 $1,730 $180 $36,400
As 11,076 3,420 4,575 5,677 551 1,370 180 $32,200
Ct. 8,160 2,304 3,913 8,016 632 1,269 180 $29,600
Ma. 6,948 2,664 4,533 8,446 417 988 180 $30,500
DC 5,040 3,240 4,192 8,616 393 1,084 180 $22,745
NY 8,436 2,412 3,824 5,677 357 1,237 180 $22,124
NJ 5,088 3,312 3,824 7,960 583 1,021 180 $21,968
RI 6,648 3,216 3,130 6,682 514 1,171 180 $21,541
Ca. 7,284 2,568 2,784 6,413 368 1,090 180 $20,687
NH 6,600 2,772 3,473 5,520 460 959 180 $19,964
Md. 4,392 3,540 4,192 5,864 293 1,028 180 $19,489
Va. 4,248 3,480 4,168 5,608 584 1,117 180 $19,385
Here's what the matching pretax wages would need to be to equate to the
welfare that you would get in the above states.
Ha. $36,400
As. $32,200
Ct. $29,600
Ma. $30,500
DC $29,100
NY $27,300
NJ $26,500
RI $26,100
Ca. $24,100
NH $22,800
Md. $22,800
Va. $23,100
Source: Cato Institute Study-for year 1995
|
243.115 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Rogering and IPA | Tue Sep 19 1995 09:12 | 1 |
| So, is everyone moving to Hawaii or what?!?
|
243.116 | | TINCUP::AGUE | http://www.usa.net/~ague | Tue Sep 19 1995 11:09 | 5 |
| Re: -.1
Which state is "As", the second in the list? Is it near AK?
-- Jim
|
243.117 | | SMURF::BINDER | Night's candles are burnt out. | Tue Sep 19 1995 11:13 | 2 |
| What state is "Ha."? The only state I know of whose name begins with
an H is Hawaii, and its abberviation is HI.
|
243.118 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Rogering and IPA | Tue Sep 19 1995 11:13 | 1 |
| Alaska
|
243.119 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA fighting for our RIGHTS | Tue Sep 19 1995 11:28 | 5 |
|
RE: .117 Bored, eh Dick?
|
243.120 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Holy rusted metal, Batman! | Tue Sep 19 1995 11:33 | 3 |
|
Looks like Tuesday is "nit-pick day" in SOAPBOX.
|
243.121 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Rogering and IPA | Tue Sep 19 1995 14:45 | 2 |
| Every day is nit pick day, it's just that some days are grumpier than
usual.
|
243.122 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Holy rusted metal, Batman! | Tue Sep 19 1995 14:47 | 7 |
|
RE: Dick
abberviation, eh?
I can't find that word in my dictionary. 8^)
|
243.123 | | SMURF::BINDER | Night's candles are burnt out. | Tue Sep 19 1995 14:49 | 1 |
| No nit too small to pick, eh, Shawn?
|
243.124 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Sep 19 1995 14:49 | 9 |
| >> <<< Note 243.121 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Rogering and IPA" >>>
>> Every day is nit pick day, it's just that some days are grumpier than
>> usual.
that's "nitpick".
never has there been less of a need to thank me.
|
243.125 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Holy rusted metal, Batman! | Tue Sep 19 1995 14:53 | 5 |
|
Not when the motive is "payback", no.
8^)
|
243.126 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Wed Sep 20 1995 18:40 | 9 |
| What I find interesting, is that in the same day the "sweeping"
Welfare reform stuff went through the senate and the congressional
budget "hawks" said it ws too liberal, the same confress-critters voted
to keep millions of MY tax dollars going to KFC, BK, McD's, Gallo etc.
for "promotion of our goods overseas" Somehow I have a disconnect. If
poor women and children are not worthy of support, why are
multi-national companies?
meg
|
243.127 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA fighting for our RIGHTS | Thu Sep 21 1995 07:54 | 6 |
|
Cuz dey hire the poor women and children.
|
243.128 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA fighting for our RIGHTS | Thu Sep 21 1995 07:55 | 8 |
|
It is incredible to hear the dims squealing like stuck pigs over the
medicare reform. They are hiring Archie Bunker and the golden girls to
do adverts about the "evil repubs". Unbelievable. Meanwhile, another
dem comes over to the republican side.
|
243.129 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Sep 21 1995 10:12 | 1 |
| It is unbelievable....Archie in bed with the dims?????
|
243.130 | | BRITE::FYFE | | Thu Sep 21 1995 10:29 | 4 |
| > Meanwhile, another dem comes over to the republican side.
Who is it this time?
|
243.131 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | sunlight held together by water | Thu Sep 21 1995 10:44 | 7 |
| >What I find interesting, is that in the same day the "sweeping"
>Welfare reform stuff went through the senate and the congressional
>budget "hawks" said it ws too liberal, the same confress-critters voted
>to keep millions of MY tax dollars going to KFC, BK, McD's, Gallo etc.
>for "promotion of our goods overseas" Somehow I have a disconnect.
Note that the current trade deficit is the highest it has ever been.
|
243.132 | Archie was usually set up for a fall | DECWIN::RALTO | At the heart of the beast | Thu Sep 21 1995 11:09 | 10 |
| >> It is unbelievable....Archie in bed with the dims?????
Heh, actually Carroll O'Connor has been strongly liberal all
along. He played Archie as a *satire* of conservatives. Note
that in most episodes, Archie "got his comeuppance", although
Norman Lear treated the Archie character with far more sympathy
and understanding than modern-day television's brutal treatment
of conservatives (e.g., "Designing Women", "Murphy Brown").
Chris
|
243.133 | welfare welfare everywhere... | SUBPAC::SADIN | frankly scallop, I don't give a clam! | Sun Oct 08 1995 14:11 | 218 |
| Subj: C-NEWS: Welfare gone Haywire
********************************
Just a little something I found
in Reader's Digest - H. West
********************************
WELFARE GONE HAYWIRE
John B. O'Donnell and Jim Haner
Baltimore Sun
Every month, Rosie Watson goes to the Lake Providence, La. post office and picks
up nine federal welfare checks totaling $3,893 - tax free income that adds up to
$46,716 a year. Few working families in this bleak, impoverished Mississippi
River backwater earn more.
Except that Rosie, age 44, doesn't earn it. She gets $343.50 a month from the
government in disability payments because she was found by a Social Security law
judge to be too stressed out to work. Her common law husband, L. C. Lyons, age
56, gets the same amount for obesity (he weighed 386 pounds when he qualified
for payments).
Watson has seven children, ages 13 to 22. All of them have lagged behind in
school and at various times scored poorly on psychological tests. Under the
government's rules, this translated into a failure to demonstrate "age
appropriate behavior" and qualified them to get $458.00 each. Welfare payments
such as these are so widespread in Lake Providence and other communities around
the nation that they are popularly known as "crazy checks".
A visitor to Rosie Watson's small bungalow would be hard pressed to find any
sign of high living, however. The screen door hangs open. Soaps blare from the
television. Roaches crawl the walls in the living room; the kitchen is caked
with dirt. The house lacks a telephone, but Rosie does have two scanners to
monitor police calls. "That's so I know what's going on," she explains.
The welfare program that supports Rosie's family is run by the Social Security
Administration (SSA) and is called Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Established by Congress in 1974, SSI was originally aimed at providing life's
necessities for poor adults too old, ill or handicapped to work. Now its 6.3
million recipients include alcoholics and drug addicts who stoke their habits
with the cash; legal aliens; and nearly 900,000 children, 67 percent of whom get
checks for mental retardation or for other hard-to-disprove mental problems. It
has become the nations most generous welfare plan.
The cost of SSI, now over $25 billion annually, has more than doubled in the
past five years. It is expected to grow another 50 percent in the next four
years. Sen Robert Byrd (D., W.Va) calls it a "well intentioned entitlement
program run amok."
Right to Benefits.
Rosie Watson first tried to get aboard this check-writing behemoth at the age of
24. When SSI was set up, she was an eight-grade dropout with an infant and a
toddler, collecting $90 a month in Aid to families with Dependent Children
(AFDC). The new disability plan paid even better the traditional welfare based
only on need, and she filed her first application.
She was turned down, but she would persist over the years with 17 more
applications for herself and her family. The rules permit unlimited
applications and unlimited SSI checks to a household. She was merely exercising
her right to seek benefits from a government program.
First in the family to be accepted to the SSI rolls was her second child, Sam.
He was four in 1978 when Watson filed for him. he had just been declared mildly
"mentally retarded" by evaluators at Northeast Louisiana University. His mother
had told them that he was violent, and a threat to other children.
Relying on that report, Social Security decided that Sam should get benefits.
But then a pediatrician reviewing Sam's file said that his behavior was normal,
for a child. SSI tossed out his claim. Watson applied three more times
unsuccessfully for Sam, then gave up - temporarily.
For 27 months she mode no claims. During that period the SSA underwent a
profound change. The agency had admitted in 1980 that a fifth of disability
recipients shouldn't be getting checks, prompting Congress and the Reagan
Administration to order a purge of the undeserving.
Social Security kicked thousands of people off the rolls, generating a public
outcry that forced President Reagan to end the crackdown in 1984. Congress, the
courts and Social Security reacted by opening up the rules, producing a sharp
rise in new cases - including a tripling of the children's rolls between 1989
and 1995.
Bonus Time.
In February 1984, at the peak of the backlash, Rosie Watson filed Sam's fifth
application, again alleging the he was retarded and had behavior problems. "I
have to keep knives or weapons away from him - he has injured his brother," she
said. Sam, at age ten, began getting checks. Now 21 and unemployed, he is
still receiving them.
Not only was Sam the first Watson to win benefits, he was also the first to get
a retroactive "bonus." because SSI payments are backdated to the day of
application, no matter how long it takes Social Security to process the request,
each successful application gets a retroactive payout. In 1984 Sam's was almost
$900, covering the three months between application and approval.
Eight years later, Social Security sent Rosie Watson nearly $10,000 after
concluding the Sam really should have been put on the rolls in 1980. In all,
the Watson family has received over $36,000 in tax-free retroactive bonuses.
By November 1991, six of Rosie's seven children were on the rolls. Cary became
the last, finally making it in February 1993. Rosie filed Cary's first
application in 1989 when he was 16. A psychologist found him "easily
irritated...aggressive and explosive" and noted that he had stabbed a man in
self-defense. Caseworkers turned him down. Rosie applied again and got the
same answer. Then she appealed to a judge.
The appeal was put on hold when Cary went to prison for nearly two years on a
second-degree battery conviction, resulting from kicking his pregnant
girlfriend. When he was freed, Social Security sent him to Bobby L. Stephenson,
a psychologist in Monroe, La., who told the SSA that he had an I.Q. of 53,
"strong antisocial features in his personality and was volatile and explosive."
And, the psychologist added, "he said he doe not want to work."
A month latter, the judge awarded Cary monthly checks and gave him a $9,694
retroactive payment, excluding his jail time.
Today, mental disability, real or imagined, is the primary diagnosis of 58
percent of the 4.7 million disabled SSI recipients. In the case of children,
there is no requirement that the money be spent to overcome a disability.
Indeed, there is no requirement that a parent demonstrate that the disability
requires added expenses.
Government Wards.
Start to finish, Rosie Watson's quest for her children took 15 years. Her own
pursuit of benefits took 11 years, longest in the family. She applied five
times before finally persuading the right people that she is disabled.
Her persistence is reflected in the shifting array of physical complaints she
claimed. In 1974, it was high blood pressure, heart trouble and bad nerves that
prevented her from working. In 1975: anemia, dizziness, nerves and bad kidneys.
In 1976: low blood pressure and heart problems. In 1984, she blamed stomach
problems, epilepsy and sinus trouble. The following year it was epilepsy again,
along with "female problems." A physician who examined her in 1976 wrote, "
Patient is determined to become a ward of the government."
In 1985, after her fifth rejection, Rosie Watson appealed. Two days before
Christmas, an administrative law judge wrote that she couldn't cope with the
stress of work, blaming her problems on "her home life" and "lack of finances."
He awarded her benefits and recommended a re-examination of the case "within one
year." Social Security did review Watson's condition fours years later, in
1989, and concluded that she was still unable to work. It has not checked her
since. And as of March 1995, no one from the SSA had visited anyone else in the
family since they began getting payments.
Ten months after Watson was accepted by SSI, her common-law husband applied,
saying he had a "bad back, swollen feet and bad eyes." A former logger and
carpenter who still does odd jobs around Lake Providence, Lyons was turned down.
He, too, appealed. A judge in 1987 granted him benefits, saying Lyons's obesity
automatically qualified him.
"They Need Money."
Sitting in her living room, Rosie Watson offers a sharp contrast to the woman
who emerges from her SSI records. In the past ten years she has told case
workers and doctors that she " doesn't know what country we live in," that her
"ability to recall is almost void," That she can't handle money or count. In
conversation now, she is able to recall intricate details of the family's two
decade quest for SSI and is in charge of paying the family's bills.
She pulls a thick wad of bills and monthly payment books from her purse. After
she cashes the nine checks she receives, she gives Sam, 21, and Cary, 22, their
full $458 and makes sure they pay their bills. (Cary, a father now, has moved
out of the house.) George, 15, David, 17, Willie, 18, and Danny, 19, all get
allowances. "Being the age they is and being out there with their little
girlfriends, they need the money," she says.
>From the rest of the $3,893 a month the family gets, Rosie pays bills, including
car payments, utilities, cable TV and insurance policies, that total about
$1,300. Loans, including payments for furniture, a washing machine and
storm-damage repair, cost another $300. She spends $700 a month on food,
supplemented by a back-yard garden.
She need not budget for medical expenses. Each member of the Watson family on
SSI automatically gets Medicaid for health care. Potentially that could cost
taxpayers as much as the SSI payments do.
Coached to fail.
Critics claim that among the worst aspects of SSI is the encouragement its
recipients receive to lead unproductive lives. And Shirley S. Chater, The
Social Security commissioner, acknowledges concern about labeling children
disabled. That "could be a self-fulfilling prophecy," she has said.
Willie Lee Bell, principal of Southside Elementary School, across the street
from the Watson house, is a man who despises SSI. He knows poverty first hand
too. He grew up with ten brothers and sisters in a four-room sharecroppers's
house on Epps Plantation in West Carroll Parish, where his father worked 12
hours a day. Broad-shouldered and soft-spoken, Bell has failed kidneys that
would automatically qualify him for disability payments from Social security if
he chose not to work.
He has watched the Tidal wave of SSI applications up close. For each pupil who
applies, he gets a questionnaire from Social Security. Echoing complaints made
in other states, he and his staff say parents are encouraging, some say caching,
their children to perform poorly and misbehave in school to get SSI checks.
"The children don't want to fail," he says. "They are doing what Mamma wants."
Mike Baummann, who makes disability decisions in Shreveport, where the Watson
cases were decided, says, "The kids are being told that their worth is in
sucking off the government teat, that their worth is in not achieving,"
Social Security says that coaching is not widespread, and federal investigators,
thwarted by privacy laws, have been unable to document its dimensions. But, as
June Gibbs Brown, Chief investigator in the Department of Health and Human
services, wrote last October: "If Congress intended that the SSI program should
help children overcome their disabilities and grow into adults capable of
engaging in substantial gainful activity, then changes are needed."
Meanwhile, the history of SSI suggests that the Watson will remain permanently
on the program. "I've got nothing to hide," Rosie says. "SSI has done a lot
for my family. We're not able to work, and it's the best income."
-------
|
243.134 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Oct 11 1995 17:20 | 5 |
|
Hey Jack Martin!!!
Better not comment on this one, cause sure as shootin' somebody (hint..
hint.. wink.. wink...) will come stalking you!!!
|
243.135 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Oct 11 1995 17:41 | 3 |
| Of course...but not to worry...I'm used to it! :-)
wink...wink!
|
243.136 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Oct 11 1995 17:46 | 1 |
| <----hey you two.... take it to the gay topic!!!
|
243.137 | How nice... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Oct 12 1995 11:16 | 1 |
|
|
243.138 | It's time to throw out Republican! | LABC::RU | | Thu Oct 12 1995 18:09 | 9 |
|
Concensus will be find out at next year election time.
Republican strategy is to block out all the information until
the last minute. By the time we know the details, they alreay
pass it and trying to push down Clinton's throat.
In short, Republican's welfare reform is just to make poor people
poorer and rich people richer. Look out the tax cut bill coming
soon.
|
243.139 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Manly yes, but I like it too | Thu Oct 12 1995 19:29 | 5 |
|
Boy Jason, are you swallowing this hook-line-and-sinker! I
give you more credit than that!
-b
|
243.140 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Oct 13 1995 00:16 | 3 |
| I'd really love to see Jason provide us with a politico-economic
strategy for the country which he believes will work.
|
243.141 | Shortsighted. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Frustrated Incorporated | Fri Oct 13 1995 09:59 | 8 |
|
Jason, you may be right in your political predictions. I fear
that actually paying for things will not be popular.
But what you advocate is nuts. We owe 5 terrabucks. What do you
think we should do about that, leave the IOU's to the kids ?
bb
|
243.142 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | sunlight held together by water | Fri Oct 13 1995 10:07 | 7 |
| > But what you advocate is nuts. We owe 5 terrabucks. What do you
> think we should do about that, leave the IOU's to the kids ?
And grandkids, and great-grandkids, etc.
I think the standard response is, "who cares? Let someone else deal
with it after I die."
|
243.143 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Oct 13 1995 10:10 | 10 |
|
Weldd wants to take anyone who is unwed and under 18 off from welfare
benefits. I think this is a mistake. Cardinal Law believes so too. Weld thinks
this will make these children think twice about having sex. I don't think too
many of them are thinking about welfare at that age. This is a dumb law that is
going to hurt more than it could ever help. (imho)
Glen
|
243.144 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Oct 13 1995 10:18 | 3 |
| <--- if they are under 18, they should be living at home. We should
not be training them to fail at such a young age, IMO.
|
243.145 | Do you think they'll want kids when they don't make cash? | POWDML::BUCKLEY | as if?! | Fri Oct 13 1995 10:24 | 10 |
| Glen, I can't believe you're as blind as that idiot Cardinal Law.
What we have here is a bunch of minority youth churning out babies
for cash -- plain n simple -- and WE are paying for it!!
I support the Weld program 110%. Cardinal Law is blind to what's
*really* going on in society these days. Maybe he should spend less
time flirting with the altar boys and more time tuning into 90s
America.
|
243.146 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Oct 13 1995 10:34 | 9 |
|
Buck, if it were people over 18, I would agree with you. I believe more
kids are influenced into having sex then there are kids having babies for
money. But they are kids, not adults.
Glen
|
243.147 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Oct 13 1995 10:41 | 1 |
| <--- And they are their parents responsibility, not the government's.
|
243.148 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | sunlight held together by water | Fri Oct 13 1995 10:44 | 11 |
| One of the reasons that these kids are having children of their own is
because the gummint will set them up with an apt, provide food and
healthcare and generally let the kids play house- it allows kids with
nothing much to look forward to to feel important. They have a child to
feel good about themselves, especially since someone else is footing
the bills. Listen to these girls- "I wanted someone to love me, and my
baby loves me." This is the mentality that we are dealing with. What
kind of life do you think this baby has to look forward to? A mother
who dropped out of school in 8th, 9th, 10th grade who has no skills and
no ability to provide for her family and no father. Recipe for success?
Or a breeding ground for the underclass?
|
243.149 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Oct 13 1995 10:58 | 4 |
|
Steve, your way works 100% of the time.... when the kids have parents
who actually care......
|
243.150 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Fri Oct 13 1995 11:08 | 11 |
| ZZ In short, Republican's welfare reform is just to make poor people
ZZ poorer and rich people richer. Look out the tax cut bill coming
ZZ soon.
Once again...
Jason:
Tax hikes stunt economic growth, the growth of jobs, the growth of the
GNP. John F. Kennedy recognized this and manipulated the tax code
accordingly. Tax cuts bring in more receipts for the gubmit!
|
243.151 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Fri Oct 13 1995 11:53 | 11 |
| I will believe that Republican Welfare reform is meaningful when they
remove Tobacco subsidies, Cotton price supports, Sugar tariffs, Peanut
import restrictions, make mining companies pay for the public land they
despoil at a rate greater tha 2.59/acre..........
And a host of other welfare for large corporations
Until then I believe their reform is punitive and aimed at children who
can't vote.
meg
|
243.152 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | sunlight held together by water | Fri Oct 13 1995 12:08 | 5 |
| Well, they are hacking aggie welfare, so I guess you can change your
tune, then.
Not to mention that this "corporate welfare" provides an awful lot of
jobs for the little people, not just gold linings for bigwigs' pockets.
|
243.153 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Fri Oct 13 1995 12:26 | 31 |
| Mark,
They retained the cotton subsidy, just for starters. I haven't seem
them hack tobacco subsidies yet, but that is Jesse's sacred cow.
Subsidizing loggers jobs to the tune of 14K/year from taxes that you
and I pay is significant welfare, or is it because these people are
rough and ready and "working" for a living that you find no problem
there.
As for mining and employing little people, come try to fish the Alamosa
River coming out of Summitville in Colorado, and remember this water is
also irrigating crops people eat. BTW the corporation went "bankrupt"
after pulling severakl millions of dollars out of the mine, so you and
I are paying for the cleanup. The same players are now mining in
Brazil and are also responsible for the damage to a river in Guyana.
They also got the mining claim in CO for virtually nothing, as it was
on public land.
Check out the riparian areas on many BLM grazing leases, and also find
out who is really grazing the cattle there. Amazing how many of the
original "family ranchers" are subleasing at market rates, the same
land that they say they have to have at 1/2 market to survive in the
cattle business.
I expect some token cutbacks to say "See we are doing something" but I
am willing to bet the holy cows will be allowed to continue as before.
meg
meg
|
243.154 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Oct 13 1995 13:20 | 3 |
| Meg
Sources for $14,000 per logging job please...?
|
243.155 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Fri Oct 13 1995 13:25 | 10 |
| take what the Forestry service spends on setting up logging roads and
leases, subtract what the lumber comapnies pay and divide the remainder
by the number of loggers working for companies that lease National
Forest logging areas. It is no secret that the logging leases have
been a losing proposition for the NFS for sometime.
Sierra Club did the math several years ago. It is probably even higher
now.
meg
|
243.156 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Oct 13 1995 13:35 | 9 |
| I treat ALL numbers/stats as suspect until proven to my satisfaction.
You have proven nothing.
Remember "one in eight women...." Big-o lie
Do you know people who still use that number? Do you? Do you correct
them?
|
243.157 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 13 1995 14:09 | 4 |
| re .149
Great. Throw out what will generally work simply because there
are exceptions...
|
243.158 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Oct 13 1995 14:12 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 243.157 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| Great. Throw out what will generally work simply because there are exceptions
Joe, who said anything about throwing out anything? Not I. How did you
come to the above conclusion?
Would it be better to go with a plan that you feel will generally work,
or to improve the plan to include the others? Considering this is not a law
yet, one could actually fix the problems before it becomes a law. I mean,
wouldn't that be responsible politics? (I know, the 2 words are an oxymoron)
|
243.159 | | SPSEG::COVINGTON | and the situation is excellent. | Fri Oct 13 1995 14:20 | 6 |
| .156
You didn't ask her to prove it, you asked her for sources. She provided
you with sources. If you don't feel that it's been proven to you and
wish to remain blissfully unaware until someone provides you with a
notarized copy of the USFS yearly budget, feel free.
|
243.160 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 13 1995 15:45 | 10 |
| <<< Note 243.158 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
> Would it be better to go with a plan that you feel will generally work,
> or to improve the plan to include the others?
Improving the plan to include all exceptions is tantamount to
throwing it out.
Since you seem to support the addressing of all exceptions, you
are in essence calling to have it thrown out.
|
243.161 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Oct 13 1995 16:25 | 19 |
| | <<< Note 243.160 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| > Would it be better to go with a plan that you feel will generally work,
| > or to improve the plan to include the others?
| Improving the plan to include all exceptions is tantamount to throwing it out.
Bull..... it isn't put into action yet, so the obvious flaws can be
taken care of now.
Btw, why did you quote the above by me, and change it to all exceptions?
| Since you seem to support the addressing of all exceptions,
Your words..... not mine.
| you are in essence calling to have it thrown out.
As usual, your logic is flawed.....
|
243.162 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 13 1995 16:28 | 13 |
| <<< Note 243.161 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
>| > ... or to improve the plan to include the others?
>
>| Improving the plan to include all exceptions ...
>
> Btw, why did you quote the above by me, and change it to all exceptions?
What are "the others" other than all exceptions?
> As usual, your logic is flawed.....
Seems pretty straight to me.
|
243.163 | Ahhh, I feel better now ... | BRITE::FYFE | | Fri Oct 13 1995 16:33 | 39 |
| re: LABC::RU Title: It's time to throw out Republican!
> Concensus will be find out at next year election time.
> Republican strategy is to block out all the information until
> the last minute. By the time we know the details, they alreay
> pass it and trying to push down Clinton's throat.
Although the actual bill has not been provided early on, the discussions and
plans have been in committee for months. Yes, there are dems in those committees.
The Dems have had access to all of the information. That's why they are
in such an uproar! There is no secret about what the repubs want to accomplish.
> In short, Republican's welfare reform is just to make poor people
> poorer and rich people richer.
What part of a 5 trillion dollar debt, a $200b yearly deficits, medicare
being the largest and fastest growing part of federal expendetures don't you
understand? Where would you spend the $200b in interest payments alone if you
didn't have a debt?
What makes you think that $170b annually should not be enough to cover those
who need medical attention? What makes some of you fools believe that medicare
will be dismantled with such a large outlay?
Have a clue Ru, the only folks on capital hill that take this countries fiscal
problems seriously are the repubs. The dems are just, as always, positioning
for turf. You complain about an untimely republican bill when you should be
complaining about the lack of a viable democratic alternative.
In short Ru, you must love the taste of the bait the dems are putting on their
hooks these days.
Remember always, that penalizing wealth makes it harder for anyone to obtain
it, including the poor.
Doug.
|
243.164 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Oct 13 1995 16:52 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 243.162 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| What are "the others" other than all exceptions?
Reread the note you quoted from. It's there.
|
243.165 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 13 1995 18:00 | 7 |
| You gave a non-answer, Glen. Obviously I didn't understand
it the first time if it was there. What makes you think I
will understand it the second time.
Humor me. Answer the question.
What are "the others" other than all exceptions?
|
243.166 | | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Fri Oct 13 1995 18:59 | 4 |
| .148
How right you are!
|
243.167 | Oh no !!! Replying to my own note ??? | BRITE::FYFE | | Sat Oct 14 1995 19:09 | 13 |
| > You complain about an untimely republican bill when you should be
>complaining about the lack of a viable democratic alternative.
Saw a press conference last night where the dems have put a plan together
to balance the budget in 7 years with $100b more in savings that the repub
plan. No tax cuts, some up front cuts instead of one year delay, little/no
block grants to the states.
As I see it, the rebubs want to push money back to the states and the dems
do not wish to see this happens. I hope the repubs give this plan
a proper examination and borrow/conmpromise on its merits (if it has any).
Doug.
|
243.168 | | LABC::RU | | Mon Oct 16 1995 15:03 | 18 |
|
>> Oh no !!! Replying to my own note ???
Yes, You provide the answer. Dems has the plan to cut around $100B
each on Medicare and Medicaid. No tax cuts(great for the rich!) and
balance the budget in 7 years. Wonderful plan! But it won't pass
the Republican controlled congress. The only thing we can do is vote
Republican out of congress next year.
I saw the report that for each office visit in Medicare, the doctor
is getting around $13 now. If the Republican cutting it more, it
will be $10? Do you really think the doctors will cut their average
pay of more than $150,000? I don't think so. All they have to do
is raising the fee of you and I(those with company health plan)
paying now.
Jason
|
243.169 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA fighting for our RIGHTS | Mon Oct 16 1995 15:09 | 14 |
|
Jason,
Try reading up on what the legislation is instead of just listening to
the soundbite commercials that the left is propagating. Especially the
part about tax breaks for the rich and cuts on medicare. Also read
about jurisdictions which have privatized functions that used to be
government run, see how much money it has saved. $13 for a medicare
visit? Where'd you get that figure from?
Mike
|
243.170 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Oct 16 1995 15:09 | 5 |
| ZZ The only thing we can do is vote
ZZ Republican out of congress next year.
Oh...God help us! Yes, that's just what we need. More of the symbolic
nonsense we were given in 1992. No thanks!
|
243.171 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Oct 16 1995 15:12 | 4 |
| Jason:
Were you by chance hired into Digital by a well meaninged wonderful
woman who unfortunately has clinged to Great Society ideologies?? :-)
|
243.172 | No Bias here ... | BRITE::FYFE | | Mon Oct 16 1995 16:08 | 54 |
| > Yes, You provide the answer. Dems has the plan to cut around $100B
> each on Medicare and Medicaid. No tax cuts(great for the rich!) and
> balance the budget in 7 years.
No, I don't provide the answer. I provide the soundbits from a dem press
conference designed to put the best spin on their plan. Just as you have
complained about the repubs lack of specifics, the dems also had no
specifics, but you seem ready to jump on the dem band wagon
regardless. Why do you figure that is Jason?
> Wonderful plan! But it won't pass the Republican controlled congress.
A wonderful plan without specifics?
> The only thing we can do is vote Republican out of congress next year.
We are finally getting some real fiscal leadership for the first time in
20 years and you want to vote them out!!! How do you think we got in this
mess in the first place? Oh ya, you probably blame Reagan like every other
dem fool out there who doesn't understand which branch of the government
has control of the purse strings.
> I saw the report that for each office visit in Medicare, the doctor
> is getting around $13 now. If the Republican cutting it more, it
> will be $10? Do you really think the doctors will cut their average
> pay of more than $150,000? I don't think so.
What cuts? The repubs are increasing the budget and dismantling the
monopoly on elderly care which has been artificially inflating the
price of that care. The increase in costs should decline or reverse
itsel once a little competition for the business is in place.
And if you think that a doctors sole income is from a patient visit
you've got a lot to learn about the medical profession.
> All they have to do
> is raising the fee of you and I(those with company health plan)
> paying now.
Perhaps to some degree. Perhaps not. At any rate we are already
paying for it. The question is whether or not funding through a
government monopoly is most efficient. The answer is clearly NO.
There is rampant fraud and abuse that will never be elliminated by
the feds but that will not be tolerated by individual providers. The number
of second third and forth opinions will drop dramatically, and the abuse
on prescriptions will be curtailed at least to some degree.
Doctors that bus in the elderly for fraudulant claims will be far easier
to identify.
Wake up Jason.
Doug.
|
243.173 | And about those repub tax cuts ... | BRITE::FYFE | | Mon Oct 16 1995 16:15 | 20 |
|
2/3rds of tax cuts proposed by the repubs is in child deductions.
What! Only the rich have children??? The more children, the more money
you'll have to support them with (which is where the money belongs).
The other 1/3rd is in the form of reduced capital gains which allows
everyone, including the small minority of rich, to keep more of what
they earn. For the vast majority of average folks, this means less
debt and greater opportunity for savings, two things this country
greatly needs. For the truely rich, it means they have more capital
to invest which benefits all of us.
So RU, as you can see, this 'Tax cuts for the rich' bull<r.o.> doesn't
wash.
But keep those dem blinder on if it makes you feel better ...
The rest of us have seen where the dems have taken us.
Doug.
|
243.174 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Mon Oct 16 1995 17:16 | 7 |
| doug,
what are the plans the Republican congress has for the earned income
credit, (which for lower income families is sizably larger than the
500/child credit.)
meg
|
243.175 | Only a few Democrats support this plan | DECC::VOGEL | | Mon Oct 16 1995 20:55 | 16 |
|
Re .167 - Hi Doug,
>Saw a press conference last night where the dems have put a plan together
>to balance the budget in 7 years with $100b more in savings that the repub
>plan. No tax cuts, some up front cuts instead of one year delay, little/no
>block grants to the states.
This is not *the* Democratic plan, but rather a plan put out
by 20 or so conservative Democrats. The Democratic leadership has
come out against this plan.
Ed
|
243.176 | I'd like to know too | DECC::VOGEL | | Mon Oct 16 1995 20:58 | 16 |
|
Re .174 Meg,
If doug does not answer, could you provide one. I've heard a number
of complaints about this but I have not seen any figures myself.
I do know the Republicans are trying to get the earned income tax
credit "under control" as it is the fastest growing item (in %) in the
federal government. I also hear claims that it is becomming one of
the most abused federal programs.
Thanks,
Ed
|
243.177 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA fighting for our RIGHTS | Tue Oct 17 1995 07:48 | 9 |
|
The dems are imploding. Clinton is not a leader but a follower. The
repubs come out with a plan, then the dems come out with a plan doing
the same thing, only a little "kinder and gentler". It is a joke, the
dems should be ashamed and embarassed. Clinton is the best thing that
ever happened to the Republican party.
Mike
|
243.178 | Is RU really Dick Gephart(sp?) in incognito | BRITE::FYFE | | Tue Oct 17 1995 10:39 | 22 |
| > what are the plans the Republican congress has for the earned income
> credit, (which for lower income families is sizably larger than the
> 500/child credit.)
Meg, what does this have to do with the 'Tax cuts for the rich" lie that
I was addressing? Feel free to address any portion of the republican plan
which you find distasteful, but please don't blindly follow the dem lies
in the process.
I would hope the earned income credit would be reduced by at least an
amount equal to what the per-child deduction would provide.
> This is not *the* Democratic plan, but rather a plan put out
> by 20 or so conservative Democrats. The Democratic leadership has
> come out against this plan.
True, but the name of this group was something like "conservative committe
for the administration" and there were hints that the admin had requested
their participation. It doesn't surprise me that the dem leadership has
rejected it (which may push more dems to the repub side :-).
Doug.
|
243.179 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Tue Oct 17 1995 10:58 | 9 |
| Doug,
Simple, if the plan is to completely do away with the earned income
credit, then this is another tax increase on the poor, and a tax cut
for people of less modest means.
My understanding is that this is the case.
meg
|
243.180 | Simple, if that were the WHOLE plan - but its not ... | BRITE::FYFE | | Tue Oct 17 1995 11:30 | 28 |
| > Simple, if the plan is to completely do away with the earned income
> credit, then this is another tax increase on the poor, and a tax cut
> for people of less modest means.
If the plan is to " completely do away with the earned income credit" I would
ask what will be replacing it, if anything, and to what extent on average, and
how does that average compare with the current average for the current
credit. Only then could I make a reasoned determination as to the effect of
such a change.
> My understanding is that this is the case.
My understanding is that this is just a piece of the overall package.
to claim that this one change is a tax increase on the poor without
understanding the impact of the rest of the package is dishonest (just like
the 'tax cuts for the rich BS).
The dems may ride these little tidbits in their 10 second soundbites
for their own benefit, but that doesn't mean we have to swallow their bait.
Much like this millionaire running for president as a Republican, when
he says "Dole cancelled the vote on term limits, I think he's wrong",
implying that Dole does not support term limits, this is a form
of lying very prevelant in our politics today. If you haven't learned
to read between the lines to see the lies, then you'll continue
to believe you are supporting one thing when you are actually supporting
something very different.
Doug.
|
243.181 | Does anyone have the facts? | DECC::VOGEL | | Tue Oct 17 1995 13:16 | 24 |
|
re .179
Meg, the Republicans do not plan to do away with the EITC. They are
proposing some changes to try to restrain the growth of the program
and to reduce some loopholes that people have discovered that allow
them to abuse the system.
I do not know exactly what the plans are. In listening to the Democrats
one might actually believe they plan on eliminating the program. I
was hoping that you would actually know the facts.
The Dems are "crying wolf" at everything. This may cost them when
the Republicans actually do make a significant cut in a program.
For example the Clinton's plan "cuts" Medicare about 70% of what
the Republicans are proposing. Yet the Democrats are saying that
the Republicans are "decimating" Medicare.
Of course some people actually believe everything the Democrats say
without looking for the facts. This is unfortunate for our country.
Ed
|
243.182 | The sky isn't falling ... | BRITE::FYFE | | Thu Oct 19 1995 11:17 | 14 |
|
NPR reported this morning that the republican plan would cut an average of $321
per family filing from their earned_income tax credit calculations. This tax
credit is targeted at those folks who income is less than 28K. Repubs are
claiming, and Dems generally agree, many folks who are not poor are benefiting
from a program designed to help the poor. Lots of fraud which the dems say the
IRS had made good strides at curbing last year.
Sorry Meg, but this doesn't sound anything like the ellimination of EITC. And
if the average family has just one kid they'll be ahead of the game with the
per-child tax credit.
Doug.
|
243.183 | Just an incentive, tax the poor so the want to get rich.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Oct 19 1995 11:26 | 26 |
| Let's explain for a moment what's going on here.
The EITC was a *refundable* tax credit. If your exemptions etc
resulted in you owing $0.00 to the Federal government (*VERY* common
among the working poor) because the EITC is a *refundable* tax credit,
you got a check in the spring from the government. Conservatives
claim that this was a "welfare payment" and further entertained us
with annecdotes of poor families taking the EITC check and buying a
TV with it.
Given that these people *already* *WITH* *EXISTING* *CREDITS* owe no
federal income tax, increasing the *CREDIT* results in them owing no
federal income tax. A change of zippo.
Take away the EITC, and now you *INCREASE* the tax on the working poor.
(Oh, before you say but but but but but since they didn't owe any tax
they shouldn't get a check, you ignore that the working poor do pay
federal payroll taxes.)
Some brain dead liberals are against the EITC, claiming (incorrectly)
that it is a business subsidy. (You all can do the math, it's
entertaining at best.)
-mr. bill
|
243.184 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | shifting paradigms without a clutch | Thu Oct 19 1995 11:42 | 7 |
| >The EITC was a *refundable* tax credit. If your exemptions etc
>resulted in you owing $0.00 to the Federal government (*VERY* common
>among the working poor) because the EITC is a *refundable* tax credit,
>you got a check in the spring from the government. Conservatives
>claim that this was a "welfare payment"
Of course it is. It's a relatively cheap one, however.
|
243.185 | Beats flippin' burgers | DECWIN::RALTO | | Thu Oct 19 1995 11:48 | 7 |
| Sorry if this is a repeat (I don't follow this topic), but radio
news is quoting some study that calculated welfare-equivalent-incomes
or some such name... reportedly the average single mother with two
children on welfare in Massachusetts, taking advantage of all
available programs and benefits, "makes" $14.66 an hour.
Chris
|
243.186 | Reasonable program, but where's the votes ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Frustrated Incorporated | Thu Oct 19 1995 11:58 | 19 |
|
I have no fundamental philosophical objection to some sort
of EITC. For that matter, I have no fundamental objection
to lots of the government's expenditures which I think should
be cut now. It's a question of what you can afford. For example,
I loved the old IRA's. But the USA just didn't have the money
for it. I love the B2 bombers (which Congress should have cut).
It's a great weapon, but we should have cut it anyway.
If the Dems were actually taking something else out for
everything they want put back in, there could be a budget
compromise, I think. But they are sworn to defend the deficit,
so the only balanced game in town is a very GOP-oriented package.
And from a GOP point of view, the EITC isn't going to voters they
can win. Given the pressures on them from groups they CAN win,
bought-and-sold Democratic constituencies are getting little voice.
bb
|
243.187 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | shifting paradigms without a clutch | Thu Oct 19 1995 12:13 | 5 |
| I noted that the "evisceration" of the EITC program amount to an
average reduction of $281 (SF paper's numbers) per recipient. And they
expect us to believe that the world is going to stop turning over that.
They are screaming about the 20% being cut, and ignoring the 80% that's
being left. Typical.
|
243.188 | | LABC::RU | | Thu Oct 19 1995 15:33 | 14 |
|
Republican has proposed to repeal the nursing home regulation.
This will cause deterioration of nursing home condition. If
you have parents in there, beware of that Republican also cut
1/3 of various nursing home support. It is very possible that
you and I can't or won't let the parents stay in nursing home
anymore because of poor/abuse condition there. The only option
is keep them at your home.
I am not against budget/deficit cut. But I am against cutting
to support tax cut for those who don't need them.
J.
|
243.189 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Thu Oct 19 1995 15:44 | 24 |
| > Republican has proposed to repeal the nursing home regulation.
> This will cause deterioration of nursing home condition. If
oh yes - if it wasn't for big mother government telling those nursing
homes how to run their business by giving them a bunch of red tape to
deal with (thus increasing their business expenses) then those same
nursing homes are just gonna turn back into the poor/abusive buisiness
they were before...
> It is very possible that
> you and I can't or won't let the parents stay in nursing home
> anymore because of poor/abuse condition there. The only option
> is keep them at your home.
Um... why on earth would a nursing home want to be poor/abusive??? They
are a business, and that's certaintly not good business... As you say,
people won't take their business their and that nursing home will go under.
But most will be freed from expensive red tape and be allowed to run their
business how they see fit in order to satisfy their customers...
Do you really think that without mother government that all businesses
would be bad and evil and poor and abusive??? Come on... give me a break...
/scott
|
243.190 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Oct 19 1995 15:44 | 13 |
| ZZ It is very possible that
ZZ you and I can't or won't let the parents stay in nursing home
ZZ anymore because of poor/abuse condition there. The only option
Imagine that. And all these years I thought the staff at the Sunshine
Nursing Home were sweet, friendly, wonderfully staffed caring
individuals of their own free volition.
Thank God for the federal government. Without them, these wonderful
staff people and Nursing Home owners become maniacal wretched
psychopaths!
-Jack
|
243.191 | I think he just want s to stir things up a bit ... | BRITE::FYFE | | Thu Oct 19 1995 16:14 | 8 |
| Re: RU's last ...
Another example of how you swallow the dem bait and are incapable of balancing
any argument that isn't spoon fed to you.
Keep up the good work.
Doug.
|
243.192 | | LEXSS1::DAVIS | | Thu Oct 19 1995 17:16 | 51 |
| <<< Note 243.189 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>
>oh yes - if it wasn't for big mother government telling those nursing
>homes how to run their business by giving them a bunch of red tape to
>deal with (thus increasing their business expenses) then those same
>nursing homes are just gonna turn back into the poor/abusive buisiness
>they were before...
Yep. You can bet on it. Not all of 'em. Not even most of 'em. But a lot of
'em. But hey, what's a few thousand casualties in the war for "less
government?"
>Um... why on earth would a nursing home want to be poor/abusive??? They
>are a business, and that's certaintly not good business... As you say,
>people won't take their business their and that nursing home will go under.
>But most will be freed from expensive red tape and be allowed to run their
>business how they see fit in order to satisfy their customers...
This turns out to be a classic example of why free market worshipers are
dreamers, not rationalists.
I used to work in a hospital, and I'd hate to tell you how many elderly
patients we got from nursing homes who arrived with bed sores so large and
deep you could see their vertabre. These people were *abused* by neglect.
Why?
Because it made the home more profitable - at least in the short term. And
for some, that's all the term they're interested in. These victims also
tended to be without family, or any family that visited or showed any
concern for their care. So who's to know? Who's to tell the next poor slob
that this particular place is a bad buy? And if the good homes cost too
much for SS + Medicare, what choice do the poorer elderly have?
Sure, you can say exposing and prosecuting these criminal establishments
will get rid of them and the market would take care of the rest. But it
wouldn't. That was the way it was *before* regulation. It didn't work. As
long as there's a quick buck to be made, there'll be someone willing to
throw their principles aside to make it. In the meantime, a lot of people
are going to suffer - and suffer horribly. All to convince ourselves that
an unfettered market is the way to go?
I don't think so.
>Do you really think that without mother government that all businesses
>would be bad and evil and poor and abusive??? Come on... give me a break...
And you folks accuse the left of distortion?
Tom
|
243.193 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Thu Oct 19 1995 17:46 | 34 |
| >Yep. You can bet on it. Not all of 'em. Not even most of 'em. But a lot of
>'em. But hey, what's a few thousand casualties in the war for "less
>government?"
>This turns out to be a classic example of why free market worshipers are
>dreamers, not rationalists.
Hey - of course in reality people will still get hurt, killed, abusied,
ripped off, etc., etc.... But are you claiming that when government gets
involved it solves the problem? Are you saying that when you worked in
the hospital their was no government regulation or nursing homes? And
that when that regulation started, all those hospital cases stopped?
Give me a break! No matter what we do, there will ALWAYS be someone getting
abused or hurt by whatever system we live by... but I would venture to say
more troubles are caused when the government gets involved in places where
it can't and shouldn't be in... when it regulates in such a way that might
be fine for some places, but others it just makes things more costly...
I've seen it too many times...
Just look at something that should be very simple... goverment reg of cable
TV... they got involved, said things would be cheaper... what happened?
My bill increased, like most others!
>>Do you really think that without mother government that all businesses
>>would be bad and evil and poor and abusive??? Come on... give me a break...
>
>And you folks accuse the left of distortion?
That was the impression given in the previous note, that if the government
regulation was stopped, all hell would break loose and we'd have no place
to put our elderly except in our homes...
/scott
|
243.194 | What's your point ? | BRITE::FYFE | | Thu Oct 19 1995 18:00 | 21 |
|
Re: Davis
>I used to work in a hospital, and I'd hate to tell you how many elderly
>patients we got from nursing homes who arrived with bed sores so large and
>deep you could see their vertabre. These people were *abused* by neglect.
What !!! Given the protections of the almightly US federal government
Welfare and Medicare? How can this be??? What will RU ever do about this???
Yes Mr Davis, these are surely tragedies and travisties and should be
addressed in the legal system. This behaviour has nothing to do with who's
footing the bill, it has to do with how the business is operated. Those that
cannot operate properly should be out of business regardless of who is
footing the bill.
Laws protecting the helpless I can support. The idea that money solves all
evils is not something I subscribe to.
Doug.
|
243.195 | | LEXSS1::DAVIS | | Thu Oct 19 1995 18:29 | 46 |
| <<< Note 243.193 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>
>ripped off, etc., etc.... But are you claiming that when government gets
>involved it solves the problem?
Solves? No. Ameliorates sometimes, though. And that's better than nuttin'.
>Are you saying that when you worked in
>the hospital their was no government regulation or nursing homes? And
>that when that regulation started, all those hospital cases stopped?
No. I'm saying that when I worked in the hospital (1968), there were
virtually no regulations applied to nursing homes, and since then there are
more regulations and fewer abuses. Sorry, I don't have stats to back me up,
so don't ask. Look them up, if you're interested.
>Give me a break! No matter what we do, there will ALWAYS be someone getting
>abused or hurt by whatever system we live by... but I would venture to say
>more troubles are caused when the government gets involved in places where
>it can't and shouldn't be in... when it regulates in such a way that might
>be fine for some places, but others it just makes things more costly...
>I've seen it too many times...
That's the gospel of the right, but I've yet to see a definitive study
showing more abuse and waste in government than in the private sector.
Funny, how you can so easily say "throw out the bad apples but don't touch
the economics that helps them flourish" and yet, when it comes to
government programs say with equal vigor "Don't fix the abuses, just
dump the program."
TV... they got involved, said things would be cheaper... what happened?
My bill increased, like most others!
>>>Do you really think that without mother government that all businesses
>>>would be bad and evil and poor and abusive??? Come on... give me a break...
>>
>>And you folks accuse the left of distortion?
>
>That was the impression given in the previous note, that if the government
>regulation was stopped, all hell would break loose and we'd have no place
>to put our elderly except in our homes...
I stand corrected.
Tom
|
243.196 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Uneasy Rider | Thu Oct 19 1995 19:14 | 14 |
|
> No. I'm saying that when I worked in the hospital (1968), there were
> virtually no regulations applied to nursing homes, and since then there are
> more regulations and fewer abuses.
Also there is a lot more litigation now than there was in '68. IF the
nursing homes started doing that again, they'd get sued soooo quick,
it'd make your head spin. (IMNHO, YMMV)
> Funny, how you can so easily say "throw out the bad apples but don't touch
> the economics that helps them flourish" and yet, when it comes to
see above...
|
243.197 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | shifting paradigms without a clutch | Fri Oct 20 1995 09:49 | 10 |
| >>ripped off, etc., etc.... But are you claiming that when government gets
>>involved it solves the problem?
>Solves? No. Ameliorates sometimes, though. And that's better than nuttin'.
How much do we have to pay to assuage your guilt? It comes down to a
matter of money versus benefits, and for the majority of the american
people, we are past the point of diminishing returns. We're just trying
to get back down to the knee of the curve, so our money can do more
good elsewhere.
|
243.198 | 231-201 - 4 dems for, 6 repubs against | BRITE::FYFE | | Fri Oct 20 1995 10:56 | 33 |
|
The final debate on the medicare bill was on C-span last night.
Interesting, if not predictable behaviour by both sides.
The highlights included:
A Dr. who is now a republican representative describing
how medicare has worked in the past, what was wrong with it, and how
this bill addresses most of the problems (although it isn't perfect).
One democrat actually had a reasonable case of well thought out
skepticism (mildly entertaining).
Not one democrat would acknowlege that the richer seniors will be paying
significantly higher premiums nor that many seniors now paying dearly
for medication would be able to join programs where meds are covered and
thereby saving them money plus many other points they choose to ignore.
Gephart looked the fool (again). All he wanted to do was scare seniors
and nothing more.
The republicans did a good job of detailing the budget, budget
comparisons with previous democratic plans, and that the medicare
budget problems would exist whether there was a tax cut or not.
But the best was a democrat turned republican who was embarased for and
chastised what once was a great party for the people that he used to
belong to.
RU, Do you receive C-span???
Doug.
|
243.199 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Oct 20 1995 11:09 | 4 |
|
If Clinton vetos the bill, what are the chances of an over-ride??
|
243.200 | | CONSLT::MOYNIHAN | | Fri Oct 20 1995 11:14 | 102 |
| MIKE BARNICLE: Maximum Bill is on a roll
(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 The Boston Globe
BOSTON (Oct 20, 1995 - 02:36 EDT) -- Let's hear it for Maximum Weld,
who is finally getting tough on all these slob welfare recipients who
break the state and are a total embarrassment. The Massachusetts
governor's marvelous idea is to fingerprint the lazy heifers in order
to prevent them from grabbing checks with fists so fat you can't see
their knuckles.
Food and sex! That's what welfare is all about. These morons go on the
dole and immediately pack on more pounds than a Hereford, stuffing
tuna, lobster and shrimp down their throats like some harbor shark in
Key West, Florida.
And if they're not stuffing their faces with free food, they are
between the sheets, procreating an entire new spring line of social
sponges, born to take from us.
Thank goodness for Maximum. His fingerprinting thing is great. It will
prevent the no-good layabouts from getting hard-working white people
angrier and angrier.
And, by the way, it is also terrific politics. I mean, do you care now
that Maximum spent more time this summer at his fishing camp in the
Adirondack woods than a pine cone?
Of course not. He is back and taking no prisoners. Can't you see him on
the Channel 7 Lightning-Bolt News, holding the teeny hand of a
2-day-old born to an unmarried welfare mother who can't wait to get
pregnant again because that's where true riches lie, in giving birth.
It will be incredible theater: Maximum will be on TV, holding the
infant's little limb in his big Episcopalian paw, urging the child to
gently roll its thumb over a glistening ink pad.
"There," a triumphant Maximum Weld will announce. "This is one little
bastard who won't grow up to steal from us."
It will be huge. In addition to sound economic policy, it is also
shrewd electoral strategy. What, you think Maximum is some ignorant
stooge who would suggest fingerprinting simply to reduce fraud? If that
were the case, he'd have the entire Legislature printed, too.
You wait. Maximum will quickly realize he didn't go far enough to
appease taxpayers, sick of waiting in line at the Deli Counter behind
some moose getting filet with food stamps.
He'll figure, "Why not make them wear dog collars? Have inmates turn
out mood rings that could be attached to the skulls of welfare children
so the good kids at school would know not to make friends with thieves
of the public purse?"
And Maximum isn't just going after these miserable cheats who prevent
the rest of us from owning second homes and three cars or sending our
kids to private schools like Andover or Groton where they can play tag
in cold-water showers with their teachers.
Maximum even had the stones to fight Cardinal Bernard Law. Last week,
the cardinal suggested that taking money from pregnant teen-agers might
not be the wisest social policy in the long run. What does the cardinal
know? The man thinks of "the long run" as heaven or maybe second
collection at Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. But "the long run" for
Maximum is next fall's contest for a seat in the United States Senate.
You think Maximum is going to be pushed around by a cardinal? Not him.
He jumped right on TV to rebut the leader of a few million Catholics
without even mentioning him by name; called him "a religious
conservative" instead.
Of course, there are still some who think Maximum's fingerprinting is
as low as a man can go. Yet they simply don't know how the poor have
become so despised and such a drain that the only thing left to do is
either herd them into a pen where they can be accounted for or kill
them.
Apparently, either option is swell with Maximum because he does not
know anyone on welfare, has never met poor people unless they were
lined up at a campaign stop, like servants. He is so isolated and aloof
he doesn't realize that most on welfare want only to get off, not get
more.
However, Thursday night, at the McKeon Post in Dorchester, people from
the Pine Street Inn are having a time for one of their counselors,
Jimmy Campo. He is 31, married, with four small children and this
morning he is in Brigham & Women's Hospital battling leukemia.
Jimmy Campo's annual salary does not equal one of Maximum Weld's
annuity checks. And Campo and his wife, Donna, have worked hard to
hurdle several obstacles; welfare and Section 8 housing are only two of
the items they conquered.
The evening would be a terrific opportunity for Maximum to actually
interact with the working poor. It could even be kind of a twofer: If
he bumped into any welfare clients, he could fingerprint them on the
spot.
Hey, Maximum, watch out for the middle finger. That's the one anybody
with brains, heart or common sense would hold up to you today.
|
243.201 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA fighting for our RIGHTS | Fri Oct 20 1995 11:22 | 3 |
|
Nice little diatribe. wordy, the mule and mr bill must be very proud.
|
243.202 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | shifting paradigms without a clutch | Fri Oct 20 1995 12:12 | 6 |
| note that Barnicle never offers any solutions to the problems; he only
complains about the solutions other people come up with. Such is the
easy life of being a critic- you don't have to actually produce, you
only have to be able to criticize. Tough job. I mean, he actually has
to go into some of the bad sections of town to find people whose
heartbreaking stories fill his pockets...
|
243.203 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Reformatted to fit your screen | Fri Oct 20 1995 12:16 | 1 |
| Sounds like a liberal Rush.
|
243.205 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | shifting paradigms without a clutch | Fri Oct 20 1995 13:44 | 4 |
| >The thieves in welfare are not the receipients -
Well, I'd agree that not all the thieves in welfare are the
recipients, but some of them certainly are...
|
243.207 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Uneasy Rider | Fri Oct 20 1995 14:54 | 48 |
|
> Thank goodness for Maximum. His fingerprinting thing is great. It will
> prevent the no-good layabouts from getting hard-working white people
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why'd he use this phrase? Is he implying that whites are the only
people who work?
> It will be incredible theater: Maximum will be on TV, holding the
> infant's little limb in his big Episcopalian paw, urging the child to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this an ethnic slur? What if Bill Weld were a Jew? Would he say
"big Jewish paw"? Some how I think not.
> If that were the case, he'd have the entire Legislature printed, too.
Now there's an idea....
> these miserable cheats who prevent
> the rest of us from owning second homes and three cars ....
Or first home, or a car that will actually start on the second or third
time.
> Maximum even had the stones to fight Cardinal Bernard Law.
As if that were a bad thing. I'll bet that the author would have a
hissy fit if the government went along with what the church wanted on a
regular basis.
> What does the cardinal know?
An interesting question, does the cardinal pay income tax to the state?
Has the cardinal ever tried to buy a house for his family? Has he ever
had to worry about where the money to pay the bills was coming from this
week?
> He jumped right on TV to rebut the leader of a few million Catholics
"alleged" leader if you please!
> Hey, Maximum, watch out for the middle finger. That's the one anybody
> with brains, heart or common sense would hold up to you today.
Now THERE is an educated statement. Now I remember why I don't buy the
Globe.
:-P
|
243.208 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | shifting paradigms without a clutch | Fri Oct 20 1995 15:11 | 8 |
| >> Thank goodness for Maximum. His fingerprinting thing is great. It will
>> prevent the no-good layabouts from getting hard-working white people
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Why'd he use this phrase?
Because he makes his living by driving a wedge between rich and poor,
white and black, etc. What a little fomenting of bigotry and
intolerance if it keeps the coffers full?
|
243.209 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Sun Oct 22 1995 09:44 | 10 |
|
I must say, that Glob article took the cake. It's been a long time
since I've since a piece of garbage that extensive and convoluted
(except for the last HCI mailing I received).
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "Don't buy the lies,
don't buy the Globe". Wonder where I can get one?
jim
|
243.210 | | LEXSS1::DAVIS | | Mon Oct 23 1995 10:01 | 14 |
| <<< Note 243.209 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>
> I must say, that Glob article took the cake. It's been a long time
> since I've since a piece of garbage that extensive and convoluted
> (except for the last HCI mailing I received).
>
> I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "Don't buy the lies,
> don't buy the Globe". Wonder where I can get one?
That was a *column*, Jim, not The Globe per se. You *can* see the
difference, no? HTH
Tom
|
243.211 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Oct 23 1995 10:04 | 6 |
|
piss off Davis. I'm not in the mood..
|
243.212 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | shifting paradigms without a clutch | Mon Oct 23 1995 10:13 | 6 |
| >That was a *column*, Jim, not The Globe per se. You *can* see the
>difference, no? HTH
One presumes you are unable to conclude anything at all by the
prevelance of columns of that nature vs columns carrying a less left
leaning slant.
|
243.213 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Form feed = <ctrl>v <ctrl>l | Mon Oct 23 1995 10:22 | 6 |
|
Coincidentally, they must have all been too long to be included,
and were left on the editing room floor.
Strange how these things happen.
|
243.214 | | LABC::RU | | Mon Oct 23 1995 15:03 | 9 |
|
I don't watch C-span. I hope I have the time to do it when I retire.
Who knows when I can afford to retire.
I agree to criticize is easy. I have a lot of ideas to solve the
problem also. The difficult thing is to convince other on what I
believe. So the only thing I can do is making 'comment'.
J.
|
243.215 | Seriously! | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Oct 23 1995 15:10 | 3 |
| Jason:
Why don't you run for congress?
|
243.216 | | LEXSS1::DAVIS | | Mon Oct 23 1995 15:32 | 14 |
| <<< Note 243.212 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "shifting paradigms without a clutch" >>>
> One presumes you are unable to conclude anything at all by the
> prevelance of columns of that nature vs columns carrying a less left
> leaning slant.
One would be wrong. If one were really smart, one wouldn't have to stack
right vs left columns on a balancing scale to figure out where the
publishers of the Globe stand; just read the newspaper's editorials.
Of course that has nothing to do with the truth of its news, which Sadin's
beloved bumper sticker seems to criticize. Which, coincidentally, was my
point.
|
243.217 | | BRITE::FYFE | | Mon Oct 23 1995 15:39 | 10 |
| > I agree to criticize is easy. I have a lot of ideas to solve the
> problem also. The difficult thing is to convince other on what I
> believe. So the only thing I can do is making 'comment'.
Jason, repeating the democratic spin is not making comment.
|
243.218 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | bon marcher, as far as she can tell | Tue Oct 24 1995 07:34 | 8 |
| >Of course that has nothing to do with the truth of its news,
One can learn a lot about a paper's leanings without reading a single
editorial by looking at what news makes it into copy, what news is on
the front page and what news gets buried on p43. And by reading the
headlines. And by careful attention to bylines and sources. The Boston
Globe is not without bias in its reporting of the news, and that's
what's at issue.
|
243.219 | | LEXSS1::DAVIS | | Tue Oct 24 1995 11:57 | 6 |
| <<< Note 243.218 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "bon marcher, as far as she can tell" >>>
> Globe is not without bias in its reporting of the news, and that's
> what's at issue.
But are they guilty of lies? Or 'misplaced' emphasis?
|
243.220 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Tue Oct 24 1995 12:05 | 8 |
|
>But are they guilty of lies? Or 'misplaced' emphasis?
severe bias would be a better term. selective news reporting maybe?
|
243.221 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | bon marcher, as far as she can tell | Tue Oct 24 1995 13:29 | 4 |
| >But are they guilty of lies? Or 'misplaced' emphasis?
Some would claim there is such a thing as a lie of ommission. Some
would claim that selective editing could be construed as a lie.
|
243.222 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | Revive us, Oh Lord | Tue Oct 24 1995 14:00 | 6 |
|
I know that they reported my father's birthplace incorrectly
at least once, and I know of one other lie. Whether the lie
was intentional or not, I do not know, but it certainly wasn't
a truth.
|
243.223 | Update on a previous note | DECC::VOGEL | | Mon Oct 30 1995 12:19 | 24 |
|
Re .167
>Saw a press conference last night where the dems have put a plan together
>to balance the budget in 7 years with $100b more in savings that the repub
>plan. No tax cuts, some up front cuts instead of one year delay, little/no
>block grants to the states.
There was a vote on this Democratic budget last week. It did balance
the budget in 7 years with no tax cuts and much lower "cuts" in
other spending.
The bill was soundly defeated. I believe most Democrats, including
the entire leadership voted against it. In Massachusetts,
Marty Meahan(sp) was the only Democrat who voted in favor.
The bill did receive some Republican support.
Sooo..there should be little doubt that the Democratic leadership
as well as most liberal Democrats, have no intent to support a
balanced budget.
Ed
|
243.224 | | BRITE::FYFE | | Mon Oct 30 1995 12:34 | 7 |
|
Yes, my understanding at the time of it's submission was that the leadership
would not support it because "it wasn't their plan".
No wonder the repubs are ignoring them .....
Doug.
|
243.225 | Fantasy. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Frustrated Incorporated | Mon Oct 30 1995 12:53 | 9 |
|
It was such a total sham, nobody took it seriously.
It didn't balance anything, according to CBO.
The Prex just had his economic advisors draw up a rosy scenario,
which made the deficit go away by itself.
bb
|
243.226 | So many plans, so little time ... | BRITE::FYFE | | Mon Oct 30 1995 13:48 | 9 |
| re: .-1
We were not talking about the presidents budget (which is/was a sham) but
a budget put together by a small group of conservative democrats against the
wishes of the democratic leadership. This budget did use CBO numbers,
did balance the budget in 7 years with very different priorities than
either the repub or dem plans.
Doug.
|
243.227 | My mistake. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Frustrated Incorporated | Mon Oct 30 1995 14:10 | 9 |
|
Oh, yes, Thaaaaaat one. Sorry, confusion. You are correct, they
did have a balanced one. If think Marty Meehan was one of 'em ?
Actually, theirs did make quite a bit of sense, as I recall.
But politically, it's a tough situation for them.
bb
|
243.228 | so much for "ending welfare as we know it" | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Dec 22 1995 10:06 | 8 |
|
Well, the conference committee Welfare Reform bill passed the
House and is probably going to pass the Senate today. Clinton
has reportedly changed his mind again, and will veto it.
Unless he changes his mind again today.
bb
|
243.229 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 22:21 | 5 |
| Yo, Dave Flatman...
If you have something else to say about Welfare, why not place
it here. (The Welfare rathole has gone on in the Abortion topic
way too long already.)
|
243.230 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 11:36 | 91 |
| RE: .229
Well, the tie in to the abortion topic was rather obvious, but I agree
that we should move the discussion.
After more research last night on the subject, I've decided to change
my stance ... to abolishing AFDC as we now know it.
From "Fifteen Minutes with Eloise Anderson" subtitled "Abolishing Welfare",
_National Review_, January 29, 1996 page 4; reprinted without
permission.
Eloise Anderson has become the most controversial figure in
America's welfare-reform debate. Why? Because Anderson, who runs
California's welfare system, went on 60 Minutes a few weeks back and
called for the "complete abolition of welfare." And Americans
listened.
According to 60 Minutes, Anderson's 15-minute segment "generated
more mail than any story in the history of the show." In the first
week alone, CBS received a record 330 letters, only three of which were
negative. Anderson's critics, who call her heartless, are baffled by
this response. But there is no secret to it: she makes good sense.
"You are perfectly capable of taking care of yourself ... We don't
think you're helpless... incompetent ... stupid. We think you're just
like us," Anderson told a group of welfare recipients who for years
have been treated like mindless children instead of capable adults, it
is as unfamiliar as the dignity the welfare state has taken from them.
Anderson's most controversial proposal is to end welfare cash
payments known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children. "AFDC traps
people in poverty and breaks their self-reliant spirit." Consider how
the program works for a 15-year-old girl: as long as she doesn't get
married, doesn't work, and doesn't take responsibility for herself or
her children, the government will provide her with free money, free
food, and a free apartment.
"Welfare is better than a husband," according to Anderson, "because
it pays better than being married to a man with a low income. Welfare
pushes men away from women and their children." A new study by the
Cato Institute shows that a welfare mother with two children living in
California receives the equivalent income of $11.50 an hour -- 270
percent more than she can earn with a minimum-wage job. Why should she
work or get married?
The most insidious effect of AFDC has been illegitimacy. By
automatically increasing cash payments to women who bear additional
children out of wedlock, AFDC has funded -- at taxpayers' expense -- a
social catastrophe. About 40 per cent of children in California go to
sleep in homes in which their fathers do not live. And according to
the U.S. Department of Health, these children are "five times as likely
to live in poverty, compared to children living with both parents."
Anderson understands that she cannot address child poverty in
California without addressing its most powerful determinant:
fatherlessness.
Anderson's plan which she intends to push through California's
legislature with Governor Wilson's support, is to eventually cut off
all cash payments to able-bodied adults, except in "crisis" situations
such as domestic violence and medical emergencies. She would retain
food-stamp and child-care programs. But she expects welfare recipients
to get jobs -- even those who have never worked before. "What about
people who find it too hard to work?" CBS's Lesley Stahl asked her
during the 60 Minutes interview. "I don't understand 'finding it too
hard to work,'" Anderson replied.
Anderson understands poverty and hard work. Born to a poor family
in a poor neighborhood, she once had to rely on food stamps to feed her
own children after her husband abandoned them. But she refused to take
cash assistance. Instead she got a job pumping gas. That is why she
is particularly troubled by recipients who refuse to take low-paying
jobs -- the type of jobs where so many Americans have learned basic
skills of showing up on time, being pleasant to customers and
respectful to the boss, and persevering to get the job done.
"Will you not concede," Stahl asked her, "that you have a large
number of unemployable people who are on welfare?"
"No," Anderson replied. She told Stahl that plenty of low-paying
jobs exist, but most recipients refuse to take them.
"But we're talking about sweeping floors?" Stahl asked.
"That's employable."
During the interview, Stahl insinuated that Anderson, a middle-aged
black woman, was being manipulated or used by conservatives because of
her race. Stahl told Anderson that she "had heard" that "if you were
not African American, that you could not get away with what you're
saying." Anderson rejected the notion: "I don't believe that."
"If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets
as well as Michelangelo painted ... He should sweep streets so well
that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a
great street sweeper who did his job well." The man who spoke these
eloquent words -- Martin Luther King, Jr. -- would surely subscribe to
Eloise Anderson's traditional American morality and take offense at
Stahl's liberal elitism.
by Tom Lowe, director of communications at the Claremont Institute.
|
243.231 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Thu Mar 07 1996 11:52 | 5 |
| I wonder if those are Stahl's personal beliefs or the
questions/assertions she was told to ask/make. I sincerely hope it's
the latter, but sadly suspect it's both.
Bob
|
243.232 | Ever wonder about the cost? | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:18 | 14 |
| "Between 1965 and 1994, welfare spending has cost the taxpayers $5.4
trillion in constant 1993 dollars. The cost of the War on Poverty has
thus been some 70 percent greater than the price tag for defeating
Germany and Japan in World War II, after adjusting for inflation ...
nearly equals the entire cost of the private sector industrial and
business infrastructure of the U.S. For $5.4 trillion one could
purchase every factory, all the manufacturing equipment, and every
office building in the U.S. With the leftover funds, one could go on
to purchase every airline, every railroad, every trucking firm, the
entire commercial maritime fleet, every telephone, television, and
radio company, every power company, every hotel, and every retail and
wholesale store in the entire nation."
-- Robert Rector and Will Lauber, "America's Failed $5.4 Trillion
War on Poverty," The Heritage Foundation
|
243.233 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:30 | 13 |
|
re: .232
Garbage.
In 30 years there was spent an estimated
and adjusted 5.4 trillion on welfare and
it was enough to buy the USA.
The quantity barely exceeds the loans on the nation. The insurance industry
alone was what $800B in revinue last year. It would probably cost more than
that. Between healcare, oil, cars, computers and ... the cost of this nation
dwarf the 5.4trillion.
|
243.234 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:31 | 7 |
| "During the 1950s, AFDC rolls rose by 110,000 families, or 17 percent
-- but during the 1960s the increase was 107 percent, or 800,000
families. About three-fourths of that increase occurred from 1965 to
1968 alone, during a time of general prosperity and diminishing
unemployment. Slicing the numbers a different way, the overall AFDC
population increased from 4.3 million in 1965 to 10.8 million in 1974."
-- Marvin Olasky, _The Tragedy of American Compassion_
|
243.235 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:34 | 9 |
| You guys are just heartless, depriving children of their place at the
public trough like that...
re: Stahl's questions
Actually, it's good to work the opposing angle during an interview, to
hit some of the points that critics would ask. It has to be balanced
with "friendly" questioning, too, however. Both sides of issues must be
thoroughly examined lest we risk propaganda...
|
243.236 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:36 | 9 |
| RE: .233
> The insurance industry alone was what $800B in revinue last year.
Since I'm providing my sources, it's only fair that you provide yours.
By the way, the insurance industry was listed in the what could be
purchased.
-- Dave
|
243.237 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:37 | 5 |
|
re: .234
How many of those 800,000 families added from 1965 to 1968 to AFDC were
added because daddy got shot in Vietnam?
|
243.238 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:38 | 4 |
| "the world's wealthiest nation seems caught in a paradoxical trap:
the more the U.S. spends on the poor, the greater the need seems to be
to spend still more."
-- Time magazine, 1971
|
243.239 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:39 | 5 |
|
Absoulte max would be 50K, or 6%.
And that's if every family of a Viet Nam casualty went on welfare.
|
243.240 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Thu Mar 07 1996 13:47 | 10 |
|
re: .236
I think the source of the approximate $800B was from CNBC and they
quoted the Annual Insurance Industry Report.
The point is that the $5.4T is a large number but is not anywhere as
large as the author of "The Tragedy of American Compassion" would lead us to
believe. From numbers in today's "USA TODAY", the annual GDP is running about
$7.1Trillion this year.
|
243.241 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:03 | 13 |
| RE: .240
> The point is that the $5.4T is a large number but is not anywhere as
>large as the author of "The Tragedy of American Compassion" would lead us to
>believe. From numbers in today's "USA TODAY", the annual GDP is running about
>$7.1Trillion this year.
The GDP contains more than the manufacturing and other sectors of the
economy listed. The GDP also doesn't reflect the sale price. Using
GDP figures versus what can be purchased is comparing apples and
oranges.
-- Dave
|
243.242 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:06 | 59 |
| In this election year, one of the big stories is the angst of the
middle class. "Most families can't afford to live on one salary."
"We want one of us to stay home with the kids, but having a fulltime
homemaker in the family has become a luxury and a status symbol for
the middle class." "We live in danger of lay-offs and jobs going
overseas." "The middle class is overburdened and almost at the
breaking point."
Most/many families in the middle class can't live on one salary
even though they have these advantages if the dad works and the
mom stays home (or if the mom has a very good job and the dad
stays home):
1. A man's wages (Higher than women's wages, usually)
2. FREE daycare (Mom stays home)
3. Credit (Unless they've blown it)
Most families still can't manage on one salary.
Welfare mothers are EXPECTED to be able to do the very thing that most
of the middle class CAN NOT DO: raise a family on one salary.
Welfare mothers have these disadvantages:
1. NO man's wages (With less education/experience, they're
likely to be paid low even among women.)
2. NO free daycare (No parents left at home to care for kids.)
3. NO credit (Or at least they are unlikely to have credit
when they start out. Living hand to mouth
after being employed won't help much.)
Some in the middle class must think Welfare mothers are a lot smarter
and more self-sufficient than the middle class will ever be. While
the middle class continues to claim they can't live on one salary, some
are utterly convinced that Welfare mothers with little or no education
or job experience can (and WILL) do this.
Further, they think that Welfare mothers will be inspired to do this
by being thrown out into the streets.
I wonder... If you take a family which can't survive on one salary,
would they suddenly be ABLE to survive on one salary just fine if
we pitched them out into the street (after taking away both their
jobs and every penny they have?) While we're at it, let's make them
toss out their resumes (so that it looks as if they have no experience
and little education, too.)
Perhaps this is the solution that the middle class has been seeking
to solve the problem of not being able to exist on one salary. Let's
throw all such whiners out into the streets for their own good (so
that they will have the successful and rewarding family lives they've
always wanted.)
Let's start right away (so these middle class families will be helped
as soon as possible!) I'll rent the first moving van.
|
243.243 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:18 | 11 |
|
re: .241
I misunderstood the sentence in the first note. I thought it said that
you could buy all the factories, stores ... and the entire nation. The
statement made in the book from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative
political organization) is still Elephant Dung. I am assuming that the net
values of the buisnesses are based on the value of their assets, their revinue
and their profits. At first I thought it was just an error in calculation, but
now I think it is being misused for political reasons by the "Heratics
Foundation".
|
243.244 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:34 | 21 |
| RE: .242
Your entire premise for .242 boils down to:
> Most/many families in the middle class can't live on one salary
> even though they have these advantages if the dad works and the
> mom stays home (or if the mom has a very good job and the dad
> stays home):
Where's the note from EDP regarding what is necessary to live and not?
How many times a month does a person need to eat out? How many TV's
does a person need? VCR's? CD players? CD's? Microwave ovens?
Nikes? Reaboks? Dishwashers? Clothes washers and dryers? Cars?
Sofas? Love seats? Coffee tables? Dinning room tables? Give you a
free hint: it's less than 1.
Eliminate a lot of these unnecessary "necessities" and most of your
middle class families that claim to need two incomes only need one.
-- Dave
|
243.245 | single parents are making it fine | SCMT::MELANSON | | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:36 | 6 |
| re.242
I know may single parents that are making it fine and I also know many
couples that exist on one salary... They just don't go on as many
vacations ect.
Dom
|
243.246 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:40 | 13 |
| RE: .244 Dave Flatman
> Eliminate a lot of these unnecessary "necessities" and most of your
> middle class families that claim to need two incomes only need one.
So, this middle class complaint is mostly a pile of crap, right?
Then why should we listen to those who keep insisting that Welfare
families would be helped by being thrown out into the streets?
The same error in judgment which makes them think they CANNOT survive
on one income is telling them that people with fewer advantages than
they have WILL survive being thrown out into the streets.
|
243.247 | Let's see some research about out-in-the-streethood. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:45 | 9 |
| By the way, we already have a substantial population of people who
do live in the streets. We've had a fairly large homeless population
for the past 15 years or so.
Has anyone done studies to show that homeless people end up being
successful *as a direct result* of the experience of being homeless?
Is it something to recommend for anyone who needs a lift in his/her
career?
|
243.248 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:51 | 17 |
| RE: .246
> So, this middle class complaint is mostly a pile of crap, right?
If you're referring to the complaint regarding requiring two incomes,
then it boils down to a lifestyle choice. In order to maintain a
middle class lifestyle (the CD's, cloth washers, etc.) then they may
very well indeed require two incomes; but maintaining the middle class
lifestyle is not equal to making it ... which you claim that single
mothers can't do.
> The same error in judgment which makes them think they CANNOT survive
> on one income ...
See above.
-- Dave
|
243.249 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:53 | 4 |
| We're heading for a survival of the fittest society once again. There's
nothing we can do to stop it. It will be tragic, but unless we can
invent replicators and viable space travel and terraforming, there's no
way to avoid it.
|
243.250 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:00 | 3 |
|
Not so much survival of the fittest as getting the fit off the public
dole ...
|
243.251 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:00 | 21 |
| RE: .247
Well, you're certainly being retentive about this homeless bit aren't
you? The only person who's advocated tossing anyone onto the street
was me (and my older sister, but she's not here so I'll take full
responsibility for the comment) and that only applied to my younger
sister. Given my younger sister's world view, being tossed on the
street for six months or so would indeed give her a greater
appreciation of responsibility and would do her a world of good in the
long term.
Now, let's see what your current welfare system (yours because you're
defending it) is doing to people on welfare:
-- encouraging men to leave their wives/girlfriends and children
-- taking away dignity (they're too lazy, stupid, or incompetent
to make it on their own; they need our government enforced
charity)
-- destroying the work ethic (why work? you can make more on
welfare)
-- Dave
|
243.252 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:07 | 3 |
| Well, if our society was geared towards digging ditches then yes,
getting the physically fit of the dole would work really well. Survival
of the fittest is never fair.
|
243.253 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:12 | 13 |
|
re: .244 and .245
I just did the calculation for Mass. Yep, The median income in Mass.
could sustain a family and allow them to save maybe $25 a week. That means that
about 1/2 of the middle class families can live on 1 income if they cut out
your "unnecessary necessities". That also means that most of women head of
household families are NOT sustaining. There is a broad level of data to
support the argument in .242 (poverty statistics, homeless statistics, savings
account statistics, income statistics...).
Is the osterity and downward spiraling of wealth the American Dream that all
good conservatives want?
|
243.254 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:15 | 22 |
| 40% of the homeless that inhabit local shelters are women and their
kids already.
There is a two year waiting list for subsidized housing and 1 minimum
wage job will not pay the rent for a deficiency apt, let alone
something that a family can live in without fear of someone deciding
that the kids are being abused or endangered.
Employers here may be complaining about not getting "qualified
entry-level people" but they are not willing to pay a wage that will
feed, clothe and shelter anyone with more responsibilities than your
average MC teenager living at home with an adult housing and feeding
them. Unless you are willing to cover the expenses of Daycare, helalth
care, home and hearth that are not covered by salary, all you will do
is effectively throw children out on the streets. While this will be
advantageous for states that have cold winters, those who have warmer
ones will probably suffer an influx of p[eople with kids, begging in
the streets. I like to think we are better able to care for our own
than, say, Mexico where begging, theiving street urchins are the norm
in many cities.
meg
|
243.255 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:21 | 23 |
| RE: .253
> I just did the calculation for Mass. Yep, The median income in Mass.
>could sustain a family and allow them to save maybe $25 a week.
Well that settles it. I guess we'll just have to take it on blind
faith that whatever calculations you just did are accurate and
meaningful. (please note the heavy sarcasm)
>Is the osterity and downward spiraling of wealth the American Dream that all
>good conservatives want?
Is a permanent welfare underclass of people trapped in a vicious cycle
of social welfare dependency what the liberals want? Do the liberals
want to shove as many people out of the middle class via taxation that
severly eats into their disposable income? Do the liberals want to
encourage men to leave their wives and children via making it
fiancially attractive?
Yeah, I thought so.
-- Dave
|
243.256 | violins ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:25 | 9 |
|
It's a shame all you welfare-state types don't have multi-media
in the 'Box. You could accompany your tales of misery with the
music of tragic pathos. Tchaikovsky's ninth, perhaps.
Alas, the paying customers don't buy it, so your liberal dreams
of spoonfeeding the downtrodden register no sale. Put 'em to work.
bb
|
243.257 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:26 | 47 |
| RE: .251 Dave Flatman
> Given my younger sister's world view, being tossed on the
> street for six months or so would indeed give her a greater
> appreciation of responsibility and would do her a world of good in the
> long term.
...if she managed to avoid being raped and murdered (along with her
children), of course.
It isn't all that safe in American HOMES anymore (which is why so many
people want to preserve their rights to defend themselves with firearms),
but the streets are downright horribly, horribly DANGEROUS.
So you think it'll be a cool experience to throw your sister and her
children into this kind of danger. You're such a prince.
> Now, let's see what your current welfare system (yours because you're
> defending it) is doing to people on welfare:
Aside from feeding and housing children and their mothers, you mean?
(You forgot to mention this.)
> -- encouraging men to leave their wives/girlfriends and children
The men aren't being paid to leave. They're simply taking the
opportunities to be 'let off the hook'. If the mothers and children
were thrown out into the streets, would they suddenly become
responsible people?? Want to risk the children's lives to find out?
I don't.
> -- taking away dignity (they're too lazy, stupid, or incompetent
> to make it on their own; they need our government enforced
> charity)
This is the kind of crap that JERKS say about them (as a way to justify
throwing them out into the streets.) "Hey, we have more respect for
you than those other people do. We are going to KICK YOU OUT with
the confidence that you'll survive. Isn't that nice of us???"
> -- destroying the work ethic (why work? you can make more on
> welfare)
Welfare is still WAY below the poverty line, though. Big thrill.
Being destitute is so MUCH more fun than being able to live well,
right? It's a thrill a minute (especially when you have so little
to look forward to in the future.)
|
243.258 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:30 | 20 |
| > Now, let's see what your current welfare system (yours because you're
> defending it) is doing to people on welfare:
> -- encouraging men to leave their wives/girlfriends and children
> -- taking away dignity (they're too lazy, stupid, or incompetent
> to make it on their own; they need our government enforced
> charity)
> -- destroying the work ethic (why work? you can make more on
> welfare)
This is what CONSERVATIVES are DOING WITH the welfare system. The
welfare office isn't making people feel stupid, lazy or incompetent, the
conservative political mantra is. The "your on welfare so your lazy and
stealing my money to live better than me" dung.
Yes there are problems with the system. Yes, they need to be fixed.
But that is not a justification for dumping the system or any of the mantra
from above.
|
243.259 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:41 | 17 |
| > It's a shame all you welfare-state types don't have multi-media
> in the 'Box. You could accompany your tales of misery with the
> music of tragic pathos. Tchaikovsky's ninth, perhaps.
>
> Alas, the paying customers don't buy it, so your liberal dreams
> of spoonfeeding the downtrodden register no sale. Put 'em to work.
>
What "welfare-state"? That slogan has been used by conservatives to
describe something that does not exist! You may want it to so you would
really be fighting an "evil empire" but it does not.
So conservative would just toss people out on the streets!! The crazy
thing about this idea is that it would save money. The reality is that it
would cost more than just leaving em on welfare. You can be cold and
heartless if you want, but for once think of the consequences. America has a
debt that is already large enough due to half baked conservative ideas.
|
243.260 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:44 | 17 |
| RE: .255 Dave Flatman
> Do the liberals want to shove as many people out of the middle class
> via taxation that severly eats into their disposable income?
This is the most revealing thing you've said so far. This is what
the anti-Welfare rhetoric is all about. (Money for the middle class.)
Shove the people on Welfare into the streets ('for their own good,'
of course!) so that people in the middle class can pay less in taxes.
AFDC payments are less than 1% of the Federal Budget, but somehow the
anti-Welfare arguments have people on Welfare getting enough money to
buy the whole doggone country (or whatever.)
Isn't it shocking! Surely we must throw these people out in the
streets ("FOR THEIR OWN GOOD", of course.)
|
243.261 | speaking of fertilizer... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:45 | 12 |
|
You lie, Stacy, why do you lie ?
There is indeed a welfare state. It taxes those who work, to
pay those who don't. It isn't secret. It's all public.
But then, if I had as poor arguments for the government transferring
resources away from the productive to the unproductive as you do,
I guess I'd decide shotgunning big lies would be my most promising
tactic also.
bb
|
243.262 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:53 | 23 |
| RE: .261 bb
> There is indeed a welfare state. It taxes those who work, to
> pay those who don't. It isn't secret. It's all public.
'Welfare State' is a coined phrase (WORDS), that's all.
Most of the civilized countries in the world do something to provide
a safety net for their poor.
Other countries have millions of people living in garbage dumps (where
they often die of diseases like cholera), or else they have people
dying all over their streets.
A little over 100 years ago, we had babies, toddlers and young children
living in the streets of big cities (without grownups) by the thousands.
They prostituted themselves, begged and died together. (Children were
often raped and murdered, and they also froze to death and starved to
death.)
If this is the society you want, then let's declare ourselves a third
world nation and get it over with. Perhaps we'll be lucky enough for
a civilized country to bring us troops and supplies to help our poor.
|
243.263 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:53 | 50 |
| RE: .257
> ...if she managed to avoid being raped and murdered (along with her
> children), of course.
Nice distortion. Is this true of all of your other stated "facts"? As
was pointed out under the abortion topic, her kids never would hit the
street, but without the kids hitting the street it just doesn't tug at
the old heart strings as well I guess.
> So you think it'll be a cool experience to throw your sister and her
> children into this kind of danger.
We've already pointed out the fallacy of your statement regarding the
children. As far as being "cool", no. I've never said that. I've
also never said that it would be cool to have open heart surgery, but
sometimes it is necessary.
> You're such a prince.
Thank you, I try.
> > -- encouraging men to leave their wives/girlfriends and children
>
> The men aren't being paid to leave. They're simply taking the
> opportunities to be 'let off the hook'.
You're right. The men aren't being paid to leave, the women are being
paid to have the men leave. Your system (again, you're defending it)
pays the woman over $11 per hour to have her husband/boyfriend take
off. Even if he's making $10/hour she's better off financially with
him gone (and that doesn't even account for the resources that he
consumes).
> > -- destroying the work ethic (why work? you can make more on
> > welfare)
>
> Welfare is still WAY below the poverty line, though. Big thrill.
It's also above what two kids without or with only a high school
education can expect to earn. Take any two 20 year old people with 2
kids and guess what ... they'll be below the poverty level.
> Being destitute is so MUCH more fun than being able to live well,
> right?
Living well is basically not an economic option for two 20 year-olds
with two kids.
-- Dave
|
243.264 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:56 | 26 |
| I don't think you see any of us liberals saying the current Welfare
system doesn't need reform, however, we look at things from a different
point of view. i don't consider most of the women and children on AFDC
as shiftless and lazy, they have landed in a situation that is
foreign to many who should thank their lucky stars that it hasn'\t
happened to them.
I agree that able-bodied people should work for a living, but I have
one question. What are you going to do with the kids? You have 9
million children, most of whom are not school age that have got to be
supervised while the parental unit goes to work. Priced daycare
lately? It isn't cheap, in fact at 100-135/week/kid you can see where
a big chunk of that money will go pretty darn quick. 4.25 * 40 = 170
before taxes, ss, etc. With one kid in full-time day care you have $70
at most to pay rent, utilities, buy formula (remember some of these
working mothers will have infants) buy groceries and pay for some
laundy and clothing needs.
Anyone know where you can rent a deficiency for 280/month? You can't
get a residential hotel room with kitchenette in the off-season for
that price here.
so if we are going to expect people to work for this, we will wind up
subsidizing employers by allowing them to pay less than a living wage.
meg
|
243.265 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:58 | 12 |
| RE: .260
> This is the most revealing thing you've said so far. This is what
> the anti-Welfare rhetoric is all about. (Money for the middle class.)
Ah yes, let's take one point and claim that that's what the whole thing
is about. Applying your logic the other way I suppose we could make
statement like "the whole point of welfare is to support poor people's
crack habit." Of course this statement wouldn't be true, but then
neither is yours.
-- Dave
|
243.266 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:58 | 36 |
|
Ah, so now we're blaming the failings of the great society on conservatives.
How convenient.
Be real, It took both sides to build this house of cards ....
And how convenient it is that know one is talking about the scores of people
who have made living under the welfare umbrella their lifestyle choice.
Many folks live quite well, and well ABOVE the poverty line, after collecting
all that is allowed.
When people begin to understand that there are scores of people who
need not be collecting, that these people are taking money and resource
away from those who really need the help, then perhaps this notestring of
dribble will turn to something more constructive.
In the meantime, just keep throwing mud at each other :-(
Start looking at what your welfare dollar is being spent on and ask yourself
if the money is being used wisely. While anyone can find specific cases where
it is indeed necessary, the general picture is one of gigantic waste.
Meanwhile, people are being taxed into lower lifestyles and they are
rightfully angry at the gross abuse/fraud/waste that sucks their pockets
dry. None of these people want to see mothers and children on the streets,
but they demand that they get a reasonable bang for the buck.
Why block grant the money to states? Becuase it becomes much harder to
hide the waste/fraud/abuse in the system when the money is being
spent closer to home.
Doug.
|
243.267 | "Those who work, eat." | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:00 | 12 |
|
People should work. That is the ticket. Homeless or not.
Poor or not. Single or Married. Male, Female.
They should contribute work if they expect benefits.
Work is good. Provision for the working poor of various kinds of
assistance seems reasonable to me. As for the nonworking poor,
they should be found jobs first. There are plenty of floors to mop
and burgers to flip.
bb
|
243.268 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:04 | 16 |
| RE: .264
> Anyone know where you can rent a deficiency for 280/month? You can't
> get a residential hotel room with kitchenette in the off-season for
> that price here.
Not that I'm advocating you start sending your poor to my town, but
there are apartments for rent here that go for $280 a month or less.
One of the guys I worked with last year paid about $260 a month.
The town itself is relatively safe, only three murders in the last five
years (with all victims being known by the assailant). It's a bit hot
in the summer time (annual fry-an-egg on the sidewalk contests), but
it's a "dry heat".
-- Dave
|
243.269 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:08 | 16 |
| doug,
I live in a neighborhood where I do see where my tax dollars are going
every day. frank and I both bvolunteer time at our local elementary,
we know where our tax money is going and know many of the kids and
parents. they are not the faceless fraud perpetrators so many people
paint them as being. There are a few people who are not working at
getting away from being subsidized, a few who are and a few with
small children they are nursing or sick children that require lots of
care.
Can you tell me what you plan to do with the small kids while their
mothers are working at less than 5 dollars/hour? I really am
interested in your answers.
meg
|
243.270 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:13 | 52 |
| RE: .263 Dave Flatman
>> ...if she managed to avoid being raped and murdered (along with her
>> children), of course.
> Nice distortion. Is this true of all of your other stated "facts"? As
> was pointed out under the abortion topic, her kids never would hit the
> street, but without the kids hitting the street it just doesn't tug at
> the old heart strings as well I guess.
Fine - so she'd have to avoid being raped and murdered HERSELF. Your
concern for her life is underwhelming.
> As far as being "cool", no. I've never said that. I've
> also never said that it would be cool to have open heart surgery, but
> sometimes it is necessary.
It would be necessary to put your sister's life in danger? Why?
To teach her a lesson? (Why don't you throw her off Niagara Falls
instead. It would be a lot faster.)
> Your system (again, you're defending it) pays the woman over $11 per
> hour to have her husband/boyfriend take off.
The typical Welfare mother has two children and receives $380 per
month from AFDC. This is significantly less than $11 per hour.
> Even if he's making $10/hour she's better off financially with
> him gone (and that doesn't even account for the resources that he
> consumes).
Yeah, $380 per month goes a long way.
>> Welfare is still WAY below the poverty line, though. Big thrill.
> It's also above what two kids without or with only a high school
> education can expect to earn. Take any two 20 year old people with 2
> kids and guess what ... they'll be below the poverty level.
So ONE parent with two kids is even farther below the poverty level.
(You do realize that it gets more and more difficult to live when
people move farther and farther below the poverty level. At some
point, they can't maintain the family at all.)
>> Being destitute is so MUCH more fun than being able to live well,
>> right?
> Living well is basically not an economic option for two 20 year-olds
> with two kids.
So, Welfare would only be attractive to the very, very, very poorest
people in this country and not Americans in general. (Exactly my point.)
|
243.271 | | EVMS::MORONEY | In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded... | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:13 | 5 |
| > Can you tell me what you plan to do with the small kids while their
> mothers are working at less than 5 dollars/hour? I really am
> interested in your answers.
Simple. Some work as daycare workers for the children of the rest.
|
243.272 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:19 | 16 |
| RE: .269
I wonder if any of the enterprising young mothers could take care of a
few of their friends kids while the friend goes off to work?
Let's see, you consider the woman to be worth $4.75/hour in the job
market, that works out to $190 a week (before taxes of course). She
would just need to charge about $32/kid/week and watch 6 kids or
$47.50/kid/week and watch 4 kids to make the same while staying home
with her own kids.
Her friends of course also benefit by not having to pay your
100-135/kid/week.
-- Dave
|
243.273 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:19 | 26 |
| RE: .265 Dave Flatman
>> This is the most revealing thing you've said so far. This is what
>> the anti-Welfare rhetoric is all about. (Money for the middle class.)
> Ah yes, let's take one point and claim that that's what the whole thing
> is about.
Remember, though, it was YOUR POINT (not mine.)
> Applying your logic the other way I suppose we could make statement
> like "the whole point of welfare is to support poor people's crack
> habit."
This would be YOUR OWN STATEMENT, though. How on Earth would you
expect to use this to summarize MY argument? (I used *YOUR* own
statement to summarize yours.)
> Of course this statement wouldn't be true, but then neither is yours.
If you're going to allow ME to sum up your argument with a single
statement (that I've written myself), it would be far worse than
anything you have actually said, too.
I summed up your argument with your own statement. Hopefully, you
are intelligent enough to see the difference.
|
243.274 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:25 | 28 |
| RE: .270
> (Why don't you throw her off Niagara Falls instead. It would be a lot
> faster.)
You really must enjoy exagerations and distortions as much as you
practice them. Surviving 6 months on the street has a higher survival
rate than going off Niagra Falls, also going over the falls would not
give her a grasp of reality that she desperately needs.
By the way, I'm convinced that she wouldn't spend more than maybe one
night on the street (the first). The second night she might bum out at
a friends house before getting a job (ooohhh, novel concept) and
getting her own apartment.
> The typical Welfare mother has two children and receives $380 per
> month from AFDC. This is significantly less than $11 per hour.
Very good. You're only looking at AFDC and not the entire welfare
package that is available.
> So, Welfare would only be attractive to the very, very, very poorest
> people in this country and not Americans in general. (Exactly my point.)
Bzzzt. Wrong again. With the various caveats, welfare pays better
than working, therefore it is more attractive than working.
-- Dave
|
243.275 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:28 | 16 |
| RE: .273
> Remember, though, it was YOUR POINT (not mine.)
And remember it was only ONE point of mine. You're the one who changed
it to "what the anti-Welfare rhetoric is all about."
> If you're going to allow ME to sum up your argument with a single
> statement (that I've written myself), it would be far worse than
> anything you have actually said, too.
But I reject the idea that you can pick ONE of my statements and then
claim that it summarizes ALL of my statements. However such
distortions on your part seem to be common.
-- Dave
|
243.276 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:31 | 52 |
| >Note 243.261 Welfare Reform. 261 of 266
>GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" 12 lines 7-MAR-1996 15:45
> -< speaking of fertilizer... >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You lie, Stacy, why do you lie ?
>
> There is indeed a welfare state. It taxes those who work, to
> pay those who don't. It isn't secret. It's all public.
>
> But then, if I had as poor arguments for the government transferring
> resources away from the productive to the unproductive as you do,
> I guess I'd decide shotgunning big lies would be my most promising
> tactic also.
>
Bill, have you been using the phrase "welfare state" so long that you
think it is on the map somewhere? I did refer to it as a slogan. Look up the
word slogan, it fits. I did not lie.
Now for the rest of it.
>Transfering from productive to unproductive
I don't suppose you mean the large transfer of wealth from the low and
middle income families to the wealthy that has been fostered by conservatives
over the last 20 years. No, I didn't think that is what you meant.
Let us assume that ALL people on WELFARE have been there forever and
will be there forever. They are all you say they are. They are lazy,
uneducated, unmotiviated, unmarried, have children ... whatever you say.
Throwing them off welfare is not going to change anything overnight. So now
their on the street. They are desperate too. Now they are commiting
crime, you have to pay for more prison space (you are tough on crime aren't
you?), you have to hire police, the insurance premiums go up because of the
crime, you buy a home security system and put bars on the windows.... It
would have been cheaper to leave them on welfare. Ok, let's
assume they get a job. There they are, in your group. The lazy, uneducated
people you threw off welfare to save money are now preventing your group from
meeting it's goals. You need to train them and that impacts the division and
corporation. ... You don't get the raise you would have gotten if they had
not been working for the company.
Now for reality. Most people on welfare don't fall into the lazy,
thieving category. Some are quite educated. Most don't stay on it forever.
It helps and has helped a lot of people. It needs some work and needs to
be fixed.
>shotgunning bug lies
Yep, I shoots em when I sees em.
|
243.277 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:34 | 39 |
| > Can you tell me what you plan to do with the small kids while their
> mothers are working at less than 5 dollars/hour? I really am
> interested in your answers.
The problem is that the system is so far removed from the target. An efficient
system will require local community support and organization. This will NEVER
happen as long as the checks come from federal level.
Family is as important as community. I would hope to stop some of the
existing practices of cutting off benifits when the target takes on a
part/full time low wage job, cutting off benifits when the father is
living in the home, and a whole host of other braindead rules.
You cannot provide affordable daycare without community envolvement.
I think state sponsored daycare supervised by one or two professionals
with the help of several targets is a great way to start. The cost is
low and the targets are investing in the system that supports them.
And in the end, I would set a reasonable limit on the length of time
a target can collect. This gives them a clear goal of making choices in
their lives that will get their situation in gear. After that, they're
done barring special circumstances.
If they are unable to properly care for their children after that, the
state gets involved just as it does today.
> I live in a neighborhood where I do see where my tax dollars are going
> every day. frank and I both bvolunteer time at our local elementary,
> we know where our tax money is going and know many of the kids and
> parents.
Good for you. Ask yourself what it is that you don't see. The fact that
there are examples of money being well spent does not mean that even
a small minority of the money is being spent well.
Doug.
|
243.278 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:44 | 56 |
| RE: .274 Dave Flatman
> Surviving 6 months on the street has a higher survival
> rate than going off Niagra Falls, also going over the falls would not
> give her a grasp of reality that she desperately needs.
If you're looking to put her life in serious danger, the toss over
Niagara Falls and the toss into the streets fall into the same
general category: A SERIOUS RISK TO HER LIFE.
> By the way, I'm convinced that she wouldn't spend more than maybe one
> night on the street (the first). The second night she might bum out at
> a friends house before getting a job (ooohhh, novel concept) and
> getting her own apartment.
Check on the statistics involving the homeless. Do they usually leap
into a job and an apartment after one night on the streets?
When I first started working for Digital (a few years after receiving
my first Bachelors degree), my son and I lived in a garage because we
could not afford the 'first and last month's rent PLUS deposit' that
was required for actual apartments in the area where I was working.
Later, I rented a room in a house (where my room had a lock and I shared
the kitchen and bathroom with two other women I did not know) as a single
woman with NO kid. My son and I had to pretend that his father had
custody and that he was 'visiting' every time the landlord dropped by
to do the yard work. The room was small - we both slept on the floor
and we kept our cats' litter box in the closet. (They were always
'visiting', too.)
I was a college graduate working as an engineer at Digital at the time.
(This was 14 years ago.)
After 18 months of this, I transferred with Digital to an area where
we could afford to live (and I got a promotion in the process.)
What if your sister doesn't just 'pop' into a job and an apartment?
What if she never makes it back from the streets alive?
>> The typical Welfare mother has two children and receives $380 per
>> month from AFDC. This is significantly less than $11 per hour.
> Very good. You're only looking at AFDC and not the entire welfare
> package that is available.
AFDC is the only part that comes as CASH. Everything else might as
well be seen as 'infrastructure'.
>> So, Welfare would only be attractive to the very, very, very poorest
>> people in this country and not Americans in general. (Exactly my point.)
> Bzzzt. Wrong again. With the various caveats, welfare pays better
> than working, therefore it is more attractive than working.
Only if you're extremely poor already.
|
243.279 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:59 | 30 |
| RE: .278
> If you're looking to put her life in serious danger,
Ok, you may enjoy them, but I am getting tired of your complete
distortions, but I'm sure that won't slow you down any.
> When I first started working for Digital (a few years after receiving
> my first Bachelors degree), my son and I lived in a garage because we
> could not afford the 'first and last month's rent PLUS deposit' that
> was required for actual apartments in the area where I was working.
And you're claiming that you should have received AFDC during this
time? If not, what's your point? Is it that life's hard? That you
have to work and forego some of life comforts to make it in this world?
That sacrificing early on can provide benefits later in life? WELL, NO
KIDDING.
And by the way, I suppose that if you and your son could rent out a
garage to live in because you couldn't afford first/last/deposit, then
my sister should be perfectly capable of the same. No reason that she
needs to rent out a townhouse nor have a live in maid.
> AFDC is the only part that comes as CASH. Everything else might as
> well be seen as 'infrastructure'.
And the infrastructure is of no value? The "infrastructure" doesn't
cost anything? I guess we should eliminate it completely then.
-- Dave
|
243.280 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:22 | 39 |
| RE: .279 Dave Flatman
> And you're claiming that you should have received AFDC during this
> time? If not, what's your point? Is it that life's hard? That you
> have to work and forego some of life comforts to make it in this world?
> That sacrificing early on can provide benefits later in life? WELL, NO
> KIDDING.
The point is that it's NOT THAT SIMPLE to suddenly have a job and an
apartment (especially when you have kids, and MORE especially if she
tries to do it directly after living in the streets.)
It only sounds simple if you're not the one who has to do it.
> And by the way, I suppose that if you and your son could rent out a
> garage to live in because you couldn't afford first/last/deposit, then
> my sister should be perfectly capable of the same. No reason that she
> needs to rent out a townhouse nor have a live in maid.
Sure - she's got AT LEAST the personal resources of an award-winning
college graduate who has just started working as an engineer at Digital,
right? :)
Finding the garage (and the room later) was very, very tough.
>> AFDC is the only part that comes as CASH. Everything else might as
>> well be seen as 'infrastructure'.
> And the infrastructure is of no value? The "infrastructure" doesn't
> cost anything? I guess we should eliminate it completely then.
Think of it like a nice, new freeway. It makes your life better, but
you can't hold the freeway funds in your hands (nor use the money to
buy food.)
The cash part of AFDC is pittance - along the lines of $380 per month
for a family of three. The mother only gets $11 per hour if you want
to count her use of the 'freeway' as if it were money in her hands.
(It's not.)
|
243.281 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:32 | 29 |
| RE: .280
> Sure - she's got AT LEAST the personal resources of an award-winning
> college graduate who has just started working as an engineer at Digital,
> right? :)
From the sounds of one of your recent note, that shouldn't be too hard
(implying that you started with no financial resources; and if we're
specifically referring to my sister, she's no dummy. She did skip two
grades but that's another story). You're also assuming that she's in a
high rent district similar to where you were living.
By the way, the type of apartment that you described with shared
kitchen facilities et al goes for around $160 to $200 a month in the
city where she lives. Not everyone needs to live in L.A., N.Y., or
Boston.
> The cash part of AFDC is pittance - along the lines of $380 per month
> for a family of three. The mother only gets $11 per hour if you want
> to count her use of the 'freeway' as if it were money in her hands.
> (It's not.)
But she still gets to use the "freeway" (did you mean to pick such an
appropriate sounding analogy), and the "freeway" includes things like
rent-subside and medicxx. So yes, the recipient doesn't get to choose
to spend the money on crack or cigarettes, but that doesn't reduce the
value.
-- Dave
|
243.282 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:57 | 39 |
| RE: .281 Dave Flatman
>> Sure - she's got AT LEAST the personal resources of an award-winning
>> college graduate who has just started working as an engineer at Digital,
>> right? :)
> From the sounds of one of your recent note, that shouldn't be too hard
> (implying that you started with no financial resources; and if we're
> specifically referring to my sister, she's no dummy. She did skip two
> grades but that's another story).
Sure - presume that your sister has the same chances to live on her
own (coming directly from the streets) as an award-winning college
graduate who had already acquired a job as an engineer with Digital.
Assume that ALL people on Welfare are college graduates who already
have jobs waiting. (This would certainly make it seem a lot less
dangerous to dump such people out into the streets, wouldn't it.)
> You're also assuming that she's in a high rent district similar
> to where you were living.
No, I'm just saying that it's not that simple to leap into a job and
an apartment (especially when you have kids, and especially if she
tries to do it directly after living in the streets.)
> But she still gets to use the "freeway" (did you mean to pick such an
> appropriate sounding analogy), and the "freeway" includes things like
> rent-subside and medicxx. So yes, the recipient doesn't get to choose
> to spend the money on [FOOD OR NECESSITIES], but that doesn't reduce the
> value. [Correction made in your statement. SEC]
The recipient is still receiving pittance (which is nowhere even
close to $11 per hour.)
It's pittance which doesn't last long enough to keep someone going
until the next check comes (according to the people I've known who
were on Welfare briefly.) It's a very tough way to live, but not
as life-threatening as being dumped into the streets.
|
243.283 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 18:28 | 11 |
| RE: .282
> > rent-subside and medicxx. So yes, the recipient doesn't get to choose
> > to spend the money on [FOOD OR NECESSITIES], but that doesn't reduce the
> > value. [Correction made in your statement. SEC]
Does this mean that I'm allowed to start changing words while quoting
you? Sorry, I'm sufficiently tired of your distortions and
misquotations that I think I'll stop playing for now.
-- Dave
|
243.284 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 20:57 | 25 |
| RE: .283 David Flatman
>> rent-subside and medicxx. So yes, the recipient doesn't get to choose
>> to spend the money on [FOOD OR NECESSITIES], but that doesn't reduce the
>> value. [Correction made in your statement. SEC]
> Does this mean that I'm allowed to start changing words while quoting
> you?
My change was a more neutral characterization (of a group of people who
are not here to defend themselves) than your original statement was.
> Sorry, I'm sufficiently tired of your distortions and
> misquotations that I think I'll stop playing for now.
Yeah, I feel the same way.
You have definitely confirmed my darkest suspicions about what the
attacks on Welfare are about (and the deep contempt held for the poor
by those who say, "We want to help them by freeing them from the
trap of Welfare" out of one side of their mouths, while referring to
Welfare recipients as immoral crack-buyers out of the other sides of
their mouths.)
It's been interesting.
|
243.285 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:22 | 53 |
| RE: S_COLON - several
You're way out of line .... It's clear enough that you do not at
all understand the situation Dave is portraying.
>Fine - so she'd have to avoid being raped and murdered HERSELF. Your
>concern for her life is underwhelming.
It is precisely the concern for her life that his family is willing to
take on the child while she figures out how to stand on her own two
feet. There is only one person who can do that, and that person has
shown a great reluctance to be self sufficient. She needs to be
pushed (HARD) out of the nest into the real world. Your insistance
that she will be in imminent danger as a result is rather pathetic.
>It would be necessary to put your sister's life in danger? Why?
>To teach her a lesson? (Why don't you throw her off Niagara Falls
>instead. It would be a lot faster.)
Don't you think you're making some very large assumptions here?
This sure does sound like the "let us take care of you" kind of
dribble that encourages people to avoid self-sufficiency.
>The typical Welfare mother has two children and receives $380 per
>month from AFDC. This is significantly less than $11 per hour.
The typical welfare mother can make well over the poverty line
in many parts of the country through all the public assistance
programs. I know of several folks doing quite well, raising their
children at taxpayers expense, living far better than hard working
members of my own family.
>No, I'm just saying that it's not that simple to leap into a job and
>an apartment
Especially when you're not even trying and that is the whole point.
Help those that help themselves.
>(especially when you have kids, and especially if she
>tries to do it directly after living in the streets.)
But his sister would not have to worry about the kid! She would
only have to worry abouyt herself. I'm sure Dave's family is well
aware that it will take her a long time to become self confident,
self reliant, and a contributor to her childs well being.
Nothing Dave has entered gave any indication that his family
is intent on putting his sisters life in danger.
This journey to self reliance has to start with a first step.
Doug.
|
243.286 | You must be the person behind that curtain ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:29 | 19 |
| re: Note 243.284 BSS::S_CONLON
> You have definitely confirmed my darkest suspicions about what the
> attacks on Welfare are about (and the deep contempt held for the poor
> by those who say, "We want to help them by freeing them from the
> trap of Welfare" out of one side of their mouths, while referring to
> Welfare recipients as immoral crack-buyers out of the other sides of
> their mouths.)
Me thinks you had this firmly implanted long before you entered
this dicsussion. The bias combined with the wild assumpsions in
your notes is a clear indicator of this.
> It's been interesting.
Not really.
Doug.
|
243.287 | The bad news (IMNSHO)... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 23:04 | 47 |
| If there's one single issue that can rip this country apart, this
is it.
The divisive elements of this issue include:
1. racism (The 'stereotype' of the Welfare mother
is a lazy black woman who pops out
babies like cash cows, even though the
majority of Welfare mothers are white.)
2. classism (The poor have little money and even less
power in this country. The only political
entities who try to protect Welfare families
at all are those who have a better chance
promoting their other important issues.)
3. misogyny (Is it any accident that the big guns are
aimed straight between the eyes of the
program which helps 5,000,000 mostly
unmarried women & their children? It's
called 'family values' to want to make
sure that women get married when they
have children, but entire FAMILIES with
unmarried mothers are clearly the targets
of the effort to abolish AFDC.)
4. religion (Religious fanaticism, to be more specific.)
5. crime (While many or most Americans arm themselves
inside their homes to defend their families
and their property, 14 million women and
children would be subjected to the dangers
they'd face outside during the dismantling
of the American safety net.)
6. MONEY (Any money perceived to be saved by ending
AFDC is supposedly going directly to the
disposable income levels of people in
the middle class. Nothing like raising
the stakes if you want popular support
for your message and your party.)
We'll be lucky (as a country) to make it to the next century if this
issue actually comes to a head in the next few years, IMO.
At some point, those who can afford it may begin to wonder how long
they should wait before leaving.
|
243.288 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 23:21 | 48 |
| RE: .285 Doug Fyfe
> You're way out of line .... It's clear enough that you do not at
> all understand the situation Dave is portraying.
Um, I think you missed the part where he said that his sister is
married with two children.
> It is precisely the concern for her life that his family is willing to
> take on the child while she figures out how to stand on her own two
> feet.
Why is she supposed to stand on her own two feet while she's married
with two children? Isn't marriage a partnership?
> There is only one person who can do that, and that person has
> shown a great reluctance to be self sufficient. She needs to be
> pushed (HARD) out of the nest into the real world.
Pushed out of her marriage? Does she get a choice in any of this?
> Your insistance that she will be in imminent danger as a result is
> rather pathetic.
Would you send your wife or daughter out to sleep in the streets in
the 1990s? (I wouldn't send my 6'3" SON out to sleep in the streets
in this day and age.) It is dangerous out there.
> This sure does sound like the "let us take care of you" kind of
> dribble that encourages people to avoid self-sufficiency.
No, it's a "If there's a problem, let's find a solution OTHER THAN
throwing a young wife and mother out into the streets on her own."
> But his sister would not have to worry about the kid! She would
> only have to worry abouyt herself. I'm sure Dave's family is well
> aware that it will take her a long time to become self confident,
> self reliant, and a contributor to her childs well being.
Again, does she get a choice in being taken from her husband and
children? (Does the husband get a choice about taking custody
of the children in her absence?)
> This journey to self reliance has to start with a first step.
Taking her away from her husband and children (in order to throw
her into the streets alone) is definitely a new twist on the
'family values' theme.
|
243.289 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 08 1996 08:26 | 3 |
| re: .258
Now there's a twist.
|
243.290 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 08 1996 08:28 | 10 |
| re: .259
That's a nice bit of revisionism in your first paragraph. In the
second, you seem to be arguing a against a bogeyman of your own making.
Let's stop with the "toss them out into the streets" mantra, and
discuss welfare reform.
-steve
|
243.291 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 08 1996 08:29 | 8 |
| re: .260
More "toss them out into the street" red herrings. Oh my, am I ever
surprised [not].
-steve
|
243.292 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 08 1996 08:30 | 9 |
| re: .262
Safety net = charity.
What we have today is indeed a "welfare state".
-steve
|
243.293 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Fri Mar 08 1996 09:00 | 51 |
| The private charities many people blather on about being able to take
care of the underclass in this country have already said they CAN'T do
this.
I agree with Suzanne, how can you say you are pro-family (and in many
cases how women should be married and have husbands to take care of them
and stay home,) and yet want to break up families, put poor women and
children at risk, and not make any provisions for training, education,
rehabilitation (one article last year pointed out that 30%+ of women on
AFDC also have one or more disabilities that would prevent them from
earning a living wage, I think it may have been in the NYT) and
especially child care and medical care?
There is a valid reason why many state "independance" programs for AFDC
families don't start until the children are in school full-time. Take
that 380/month for a woman and two children. Now figure what the
full-time day-care costs are for two kids in a licensed facility.
150-300 dollars a week is the closest estimate I can come up with.
This means at minimum you are going to need to subsidize another
700-1200/month while covering daycare expenses for someone in training.
Then add in tuition, books, apprenticeship fees, transportation.....
Oh, and you will still be paying for subsidized housing (if available)
nutrition assistance, and medicaid during the training period.
Suddenly, that 380/month looks pretty darn cheap to me.
The pilot program in our state covers two years of assistance as seen
above. While it is moderately successful, the pilot program is also
EXPENSIVE, and the focus has still been on traditional women's jobs
which historically are paid poorly as they have been historically
considered to be the second income to a family or the jobs that women
take when single with no dependents. Since those jobs also are less
likely than non-traditional jobs to have benefits, you still have a
family that is one catastrophic illness or injury from winding up back
on AFDC. Seen it with two families that I know. On while getting the
surgery and treatments needed to fix a problem, and then back off again
once the rehab period was off, until another disk blew out, or a the
other retina detached and then back on for another year or two.
Neither of these women are lazy, shiftless, or making babies like
bunnies, but neither can get private insurance to cover their
conditions and neither makes enough to afford the states "high risk"
insurance pool which charges 125% of the high-end premiums for
catastrophic coverage. They both prefer to work to support themselves
and their kids.
I really think some of you should get to know the bulk o AFDC people,
instead of the media hyped people on television. All in All, I think
you might be surprised to see how hard many are working to get out of
the trap, but they need jobs with real incomes, and real benefits,
something we all take for granted.
meg
|
243.294 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 08 1996 09:14 | 26 |
| re: .293
> The private charities many people blather on about being able to take
> care of the underclass in this country have already said they CAN'T do
> this.
Bull. Just the churches of this nation alone are capable of taking
care of everyone on welfare. Maybe they can't do this indefinitely (as
the welfare state seems to encourage), but if each church supported 3
families, welfare would not be needed. The state can help to support
the special cases, such as those who need special medical attention for
extended periods of time.
> I agree with Suzanne, how can you say you are pro-family (and in many
> cases how women should be married and have husbands to take care of them
> and stay home,) and yet want to break up families, put poor women and
> children at risk, and not make any provisions for training, education,
> rehabilitation (one article last year pointed out that 30%+ of women on
> AFDC also have one or more disabilities that would prevent them from
> earning a living wage, I think it may have been in the NYT) and
> especially child care and medical care?
Like Suzanne, you seem to be arguing against a bogeyman.
-steve
|
243.295 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Fri Mar 08 1996 09:44 | 21 |
| Steve,
If the churches are capable of this, why are so many of them saying
they can't? The US largest religious charity (the Catholic church) has
come out against this sort of reform. Given that one "pro-family"
group here in the Springs can't be bothered to pay its workers enough
to support their families, and yet encourages large families (no this
isn't the RCC) and these families are dependent on MY TAX DOLLARS for
nutrition aid and school lunches, not to mention soaking other churches
food and clothing pantries, I fail to see how this is going to work.
No I don't see a bogey man. I do see women and children (you know
those wonderful things inside a womb, but parasites outside) being
potentially hurt and children being worse off than they are now. If
this is family values, I think I will remain Immoral and "anti-family"
At least I do believe in supporting BORN people, as well as improving
the nutrition for women who are pregnant with those you consider
"pre-born"
meg
|
243.296 | well, what do YOU call it ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Mar 08 1996 10:09 | 19 |
|
Work.
Think work.
Start with it, end with it. Do not think about saving money. In
fact, initially, it can cost money. Put people to work. Reward
those who do, punish those who don't. Nag people - call them each
morning - are you going to work ? Never ever give anybody a check
without asking about work.
It's been tried, under federal waivers. It works - the welfare
load declines. Yes, it works even better with daycare. Sometimes
training helps, but this is less important. The best training is
a job. If they want training ALSO, that can be subsidized.
But then, with Clinton's veto, it won't happen. Business as usual.
bb
|
243.297 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Fri Mar 08 1996 10:14 | 12 |
| bb
Clinton did propse something like this, but it never made it out of
committee. Now the 104th has something that is punitive, as well as
encouraging people to work. They want to cut the education and
training and daycare subsidies at the same time wanting women to work,
while also wanting to completely end AA. A waitress job is not going
to pay all of these things or care for a sick child. I know from
personal experience. it took 18 months of concentrated training and a
luck into a job at digital to handle it all.
meg
|
243.298 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Get back in the bag! | Fri Mar 08 1996 10:47 | 2 |
| Ugh. I wonder how many different ways I can say the same thing, over
and over and over and over and over again???
|
243.299 | English has so many synonyms... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Mar 08 1996 10:53 | 11 |
|
The possibilities are unlimited, haircut.
I predict DougO will now step in and explain Clinton's veto as
against his campaign promise to end welfare as we know it.
Man, is Sliq an embarassment. Compare his effectiveness with
other Democratic prexies, like FDR, LBJ, etc. Clinton leads
the league in fumbles and interceptions.
bb
|
243.300 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Fri Mar 08 1996 11:10 | 1 |
| welfare reform on a snarf! Just work, people...
|
243.301 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Fri Mar 08 1996 11:13 | 1 |
| Is that like Limburger on a Ritz?
|
243.302 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 08 1996 11:48 | 33 |
| >.296 Welfare Reform. 296 of 301
> Work.
>
> Think work.
>
> Start with it, end with it. Do not think about saving money. In
> fact, initially, it can cost money. Put people to work. Reward
> those who do, punish those who don't. Nag people - call them each
> morning - are you going to work ? Never ever give anybody a check
> without asking about work.
>
> It's been tried, under federal waivers. It works - the welfare
> load declines. Yes, it works even better with daycare. Sometimes
> training helps, but this is less important. The best training is
> a job. If they want training ALSO, that can be subsidized.
>
> But then, with Clinton's veto, it won't happen. Business as usual.
>
Are you talking about the rich again? No? :)
Yes, the way to correct welfare is to put in the mechanisms that help
people get gainfull employment. That is NOT what the REPUBLICANS gave
Clinton. They need the tools and support to get the jobs. If they don't have
the tools or they can't use them, then they can not get a job. A large number
of the people on welfare are children. A 3 year old can not get a job.!.!
There are no tools they can use. Yes, it could cost more in the begining, and
that is what most of your leaders and comrades are upset about. I believe
the conservatism you show here is brightly showing common ground and goals
to find a solution. Unfortunately, the other conservatives don't share them
with you.
Are you turning liberal? :)
|
243.303 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Fri Mar 08 1996 11:59 | 8 |
| >Yes, the way to correct welfare is to put in the mechanisms that help
>people get gainfull employment.
Note that this includes an environment that is not hostile to business.
The more expensive you make it for a business to operate, the less
money it has to spend on employees. No employers = no jobs. Funny how
this side of the equation is mysteriously ignored by those who crow
about mechanisms and tools...
|
243.304 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 08 1996 12:13 | 56 |
| re .266
BRITE::FYFE
>Ah, so now we're blaming the failings of the great society on conservatives.
Conservatives have been running full speed away from any level of
responsibility for any program they have ever done. If it's a snail, then
call it a snail, and if it is caused by conservatives then they should take
the blame.
>Be real, It took both sides to build this house of cards ....
I have been real but am rarely dealt with in the same way. All I ever
hear from conservatives is "LIBERAL ..." and it's the "____ fault" not the
conservatives. REALITY IS THAT WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER! WE ARE ALL
AMERICANS!
>When people begin to understand that there are scores of people who
>need not be collecting, that these people are taking money and resource
>away from those who really need the help, then perhaps this notestring of
>dribble will turn to something more constructive.
Scores (20's) of people? There are probably a few more than that. :)
AGREED that there are cheets. I will go a step further than you and
suggest that we should give those people room and board for a set period of
months (prison).
>if the money is being used wisely. While anyone can find specific cases where
>it is indeed necessary, the general picture is one of gigantic waste.
I believe this is where we keep arguing. I don't see it as a waste
and you do.
>dry. None of these people want to see mothers and children on the streets,
>but they demand that they get a reasonable bang for the buck.
This in NOT what most of the statements from the right have been. I
believe you even suggested this course of action. NOT A REASONABLE BANG for
the BUCK. (did you know that term originally related to sex with a
prostitute?)
>Why block grant the money to states? Becuase it becomes much harder to
>hide the waste/fraud/abuse in the system when the money is being
>spent closer to home.
Again this is at the heart of the debate. I contend that you are
absolutely wrong!! Do you know of any place where this has been done and
really worked? I've been down this before. Since this is YOUR IDEA and
you believe that it is so wonderfull, you get to make your case first.
|
243.305 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 08 1996 12:17 | 7 |
|
re: .303
I not not ever contended that buisness should be burdened heavier than
the general public. This has never been missing from any substantive discussion
I have ever heard. In general, the discussion has always been, what mechanisms
and tools do we need so that these people do the work that buisness needs done.
|
243.306 | too busy, and not inclined | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Mar 08 1996 12:23 | 5 |
| > I predict DougO will now step in and explain Clinton's veto
You're doing about as well as Binder this week.
DougO
|
243.307 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 08 1996 12:25 | 10 |
|
BRAUCHER,
You have not replied to .276. Sorry I forgot the smiley face after the
shotgunning statement. Do you really believe that "Welfare State" is anything
more than a slogan placed on the welfare program. Would it be fair for me to
say that the conservatives want the USA to be a "Military State" because that is
where they want the majority of the spending? You called me a liar for this. I
don't think it was fair. But I am really curious about what you guys think
"Welfare State" is?
|
243.308 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Fri Mar 08 1996 12:27 | 30 |
| RE: .287
> 1. racism (The 'stereotype' of the Welfare mother
> is a lazy black woman who pops out
> babies like cash cows, even though the
> majority of Welfare mothers are white.)
Gee, I've never once thought that my sister was anything but white.
Thank you for telling me that I think she's a "lazy black woman."
(Please note the strong sarcasm.)
RE: .288
> Why is she supposed to stand on her own two feet while she's married
> with two children? Isn't marriage a partnership?
Maybe she AND HER HUSBAND are supposed to stand on their own two feet
(well, four if you do the math). Maybe its being advocated that BOTH
of them get tossed out into life to learn how to deal with reality.
Somehow I doubt that my parents would ever consider kicking my sister
out of their house while letting her leech of a husband stay behind.
> Pushed out of her marriage? Does she get a choice in any of this?
Nice twisting. Where was this ever stated? Oh, you made up another
fact. How interesting. Wrong, but interesting. With a talent for
distroting your oppositions' point of view and creating "facts" to suit
your needs, you really ought to be in politics.
-- Dave
|
243.309 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Fri Mar 08 1996 12:30 | 7 |
|
Shades of the "penultimate" tete-a-tete, I think.
In a week or 2 she'll start to twist her own words around and
claim that she meant exactly what you have been saying all
along.
|
243.310 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Fri Mar 08 1996 12:33 | 1 |
| <chortle>
|
243.311 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 12:34 | 23 |
| RE: .308 Dave Flatman
>> 1. racism (The 'stereotype' of the Welfare mother
>> is a lazy black woman who pops out
>> babies like cash cows, even though the
>> majority of Welfare mothers are white.)
> Gee, I've never once thought that my sister was anything but white.
> Thank you for telling me that I think she's a "lazy black woman."
> (Please note the strong sarcasm.)
You said your sister was NOT on Welfare. Even if she is, do you
think that YOU in particular are being described whens someone makes
a general comment about our society?
> Maybe she AND HER HUSBAND are supposed to stand on their own two feet
> (well, four if you do the math). Maybe its being advocated that BOTH
> of them get tossed out into life to learn how to deal with reality.
> Somehow I doubt that my parents would ever consider kicking my sister
> out of their house while letting her leech of a husband stay behind.
Why have you picked on your sister so much if both she and her husband
are having problems making it on their own?
|
243.312 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Fri Mar 08 1996 12:34 | 3 |
|
ayyyyyyyyyyyiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......
|
243.313 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Fri Mar 08 1996 12:50 | 16 |
|
Suzanne, this is part of Dave's 20.4283, which you will notice
is directly related to the welfare/AFDC problem. In danger of
having a financial problem? Have a kid, or another kid, and
you're all set.
>It's also interesting to note that she dropped the first one because
>she knew that if she got pregnant that she would have free room and
>board.
And this was only the 1st kid ... she had another after this
1, yes? What sense is there in that if she can't even afford
the 1st?
Geez, NOW we're back to the birth control discussion!!
|
243.314 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Fri Mar 08 1996 13:05 | 30 |
| RE: .311
> Why have you picked on your sister so much if both she and her husband
> are having problems making it on their own?
I don't know. Maybe because she was given the same opportunities in
this life that I was. Maybe because our common genetic heritage
doesn't predisposition either of us to attention deficit disorder or
any other disorder that would prevent us from being productive members
of society. Maybe because she would be intelligent if she didn't act
so stupid. Maybe because she had encouragement in academics and was
given the opportunity to continue on with her education after high
school but decided not to. She's where she's at because of her
choices.
With all I know about my sister's background, I know comparatively
little about my brother-in-law's. I do know that his parents didn't
value education. He's a high school dropout that requires three more
years to get a diploma. I don't know if that is his fault or his
parents. He does have ADD. I know he has no concept for the value of
a dollar. His creed is a dollar earned is a dollar spent. Other than
that I don't know anything about him. In the four or five years
they've been married I've met him only two or three times and usually I
spend the time trying to figure out a reasonable excuse to leave.
My mother has a habit of trying to thrash all of her children-in-law.
Because of that I try not to blast my siblings-in-law ... not that I
always succeed mind you.
-- Dave
|
243.315 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Fri Mar 08 1996 13:09 | 13 |
| RE: .313
> Geez, NOW we're back to the birth control discussion!!
Luckily in my sister's case they finally got her husband fixed ... of
course they did it two kids too late.
By the way, as a taxpayer I would be willing for my taxes to pay for
a free vasectomy for any man that has even one child on AFDC.
(Assuming of course that it isn't the ultra-new laser surgery one that
costs 10X what a normal vasectomy costs.)
-- Dave
|
243.316 | There are constructive ways to approach their problems... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 13:28 | 60 |
| RE: .314 Dave Flatman
>> Why have you picked on your sister so much if both she and her husband
>> are having problems making it on their own?
> I don't know. Maybe because she was given the same opportunities in
> this life that I was. Maybe because our common genetic heritage
> doesn't predisposition either of us to attention deficit disorder or
> any other disorder that would prevent us from being productive members
> of society.
She's not your identical twin. Siblings don't always grow up to have
the same (or very similar) lives.
> Maybe because she would be intelligent if she didn't act so stupid.
If she's treated as 'stupid' in your family, maybe she no longer
believes she can be intelligent.
> Maybe because she had encouragement in academics and was given the
> opportunity to continue on with her education after high school but
> decided not to.
Give her the opportunity again. It's never too late to go to college.
> She's where she's at because of her choices.
Help her make new choices (better ones). It's better than throwing
her out into the street.
> He's a high school dropout that requires three more years to get a
> diploma.
He can study and take a GED test within a matter of months. (GED does
not require 'n' years in a classroom.)
> I don't know if that is his fault or his parents. He does have ADD.
> I know he has no concept for the value of a dollar.
What does he do for a living (or doesn't he work?) What about job
counseling? What about helping them set up a budget?
Have any of these things been tried?
> My mother has a habit of trying to thrash all of her children-in-law.
> Because of that I try not to blast my siblings-in-law ... not that I
> always succeed mind you.
If your sister and her husband get THRASHED in your parents' house,
they may be truly miserable. This isn't the best way to get them
on their feet (even if they feel they can't do a thing without
your parents' roof over their heads.)
Find a counselor (non-judgmental) who can advise them on a step by
step basis about how they can proceed. Taking a GED in a few months
would be a good step in this process. Going for job training for
the husband (and a second opportunity for college for your sister)
might still be possible.
There are constructive ways to go about this.
|
243.317 | pants on fire ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Mar 08 1996 13:37 | 34 |
|
Stacy, ya said there's no welfare state. It's a lie - there is.
The USA takes money from poor and middle class people who work,
and gives it to people who don't. That's what a welfare state is :
from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,
to quote Karl Marx. History has demonstrated better than I can
that this concept is fatal. Eventually, as in the last days of
the USSR, the economy falls apart and nobody works.
We all know of cases (the blind, for example), in which society
has to chip in to help those struck by some bad luck. I can even
stomach a brief period of help for the able-bodied, in a pinch, so
long as it is ALWAYS geared towards work as soon as possible.
It is an obscenity that welfare recipients get the equivalent of
over $10/hour, open-ended as to timeframe, with no work commitment
and no sign of disability. That's what a bookkeeper gets. It's
almost twice what a dishwasher gets.
As to the liberal Democrats ever reforming the system, hah ! For
forty years they built it, because they hate workers, hate families,
and seek control. Since the welfare-reform issues became prominent,
coming from Governors first, they have done nothing but obstruct
and falsify with scare tactics. Nothing will ever change with the
liberal Democrats running the welfare state, except maybe their
rhetoric around election time. They made all these things
entitlements for a reason - to thwart any attempt to undo their
social engineering. Thus today we see a powerless majority, who
are prevented from ever undoing this very harmful approach, because
any change to entitlements requires the president's signature or
2/3 to override his veto. They haven't yet got either.
bb
|
243.318 | We will become UNcivilized if we dump our poor into the streets... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 14:39 | 13 |
| Most civilized nations provide for their poor.
The countries who don't provide for the poor have far worse problems
than we have (including diseases like cholera, which spread in highly
unsanitary conditions.)
If you want to live in a country where the poor have been abandoned,
I can name a few. Be prepared to spend a lot of money on a fortress
around your house (and place of employment) in these countries.
You don't want to be unprepared when a million destitute people notice
how well you're living (when they have nothing to lose by trying to
take some of it away.)
|
243.319 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 08 1996 14:57 | 37 |
| >================================================================================
>Note 243.317 Welfare Reform. 317 of 317
>GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" 34 lines 8-MAR-1996 13:37
> -< pants on fire ? >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Stacy, ya said there's no welfare state. It's a lie - there is.
>
> The USA takes money from poor and middle class people who work,
> and gives it to people who don't. That's what a welfare state is :
> from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,
Whoa! Hold yer elephants back bucko!! Under that misleading
definition we are also in a military state, corporate state and a banking
state. Read the note again. Get a grip and get yer dictionairy. You KNOW
FULL WELL THAT YOU USE THE SLOGAN WELFARE STATE TO ATTACK THE CONCEPT OF
WELFARE. I am NOT the liar. Either to myself or to you. You on the other
hand are either fooling yourself or a liar. As far as that Marxist sh*t goes,
it appears you know it pretty well. How does that saying go "it seems you
complain too much". Should we read something into that.
> As to the liberal Democrats ever reforming the system, hah ! For
> forty years they built it, because they hate workers, hate families,
> and seek control.
GET A REALITY CHECK! I AM NOT SPREADING THE HATE AND MOST THE
LIBERALS ARE NOT SPREADING THE HATE. YOU LIE !!!
Now isn't getting somewhere with both of us calling the other is a liar.
Thanks for playing.
Get a reality check.
|
243.320 | Whose argument are you supposed to be addressing? | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 08 1996 16:28 | 4 |
| re: .318
THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!
|
243.321 | bracketed comment for Suzanne... 8^) | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 08 1996 16:34 | 14 |
| re: .319
Their (the liberals) actions betray them. Hate may be a bit strong,
but I have to wonder after trillions of dollars and years of failure,
why they keep pushing for more of the same.
At some point you have to admit that said programs have failed, and
then intelligently reform them out of existence.
[Please note that the above does not mean "toss welfare recipients out
into the street", as that would NOT be 'intelligent reform'.]
-steve
|
243.322 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Fri Mar 08 1996 16:53 | 59 |
| RE: .316
> She's not your identical twin. Siblings don't always grow up to have
> the same (or very similar) lives.
Well, no kidding. And why don't they have the same or similar lives?
Once you eliminate genetic defects and opportunity differences, the
main explanation is because of choices that each person makes.
> Give her the opportunity again. It's never too late to go to college.
Unless the person WANTS to go back to college all you will be doing is
throwing money away. That's EXACTLY the reason that she needs a dose
of reality and needs to realize what life is like without someone
coddling her.
> Help her make new choices (better ones). It's better than throwing
> her out into the street.
She's sitting fat, dumb, and happy. "Helping" her make better choices
is meaningless until she wants to do something. That's why kicking her
onto the street is a worthwhile venture. It will force her to realize
that she needs to make different choices.
> He can study and take a GED test within a matter of months. (GED does
> not require 'n' years in a classroom.)
He did take the test ... and failed. He refuses to study for it and
gets belligerent about it if anyone brings up the concept of studying.
See comments regarding 'want' above.
> What does he do for a living (or doesn't he work?) What about job
> counseling?
He's held various jobs ... usually for about a month. You also can't
get him to counseling unless he wants to (and the first step to get him
to want to? Stop coddling him and kick him out of the house.)
> What about helping them set up a budget?
Why should he care about a budget? It's not like he can blow the rent
money on junk food and wind up on the street. There's absolutely no
down side for him to not follow a budget. Which ties in to why he
should be kicked out onto the street ... so that he would be forced to
worry about the rent check.
> Have any of these things been tried?
Yup. All of them with the possible exception of job counseling.
The bottom line is that before you can get someone to change they have
to see a need or a reason to change. They have to want to change.
These two don't have one. They're being housed, kept warm, and fed.
They see no reason to change. And this is the fundamental problem with
the current welfare system. There is insufficient incentives for
people to change.
-- Dave
|
243.323 | Abolishing Welfare will put people into the streets... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 17:13 | 32 |
| A great many middle class people in this country live paycheck to
paycheck, such that if they suddenly lost their jobs and their homes,
they would be in very deep trouble.
The poor live more precariously than the middle class, obviously.
If we simply abolish Welfare, Welfare people who can not pay their
rent will be evicted. Many of them will have no place to go,
especially if millions of other people are evicted at the same
time.
Evicting people and withstanding the sudden flow of millions of people
into a 'homeless' condition would cost our society a great deal of money
and it would be a worse problem than what is happening now. By far.
It isn't something that would happen without society suffering for
it (as well as paying for it.)
It's easy to say 'We don't like Welfare, so let's dump it' or 'We still
have the poor, so obviously Welfare hasn't worked' - but the reality is
that Welfare has kept millions of women and children from being more
destitute (and homeless) than they would have been without it.
We had the poor before Welfare. Other countries with safety nets also
had the poor before they had the safety nets. Countries with no
safety nets have the poor, too, only their poor people live in virtual
or literal garbage dumps where diseases like cholera run rampant.
If we abolish the safety net, we will notice it. It will cost our
society more than we're now paying for Welfare.
The poor won't simply disappear if Welfare goes away. They will be
in our streets where we won't be able to ignore them.
|
243.324 | she said, just to cause trouble... | GAVEL::JANDROW | i think, therefore i have a headache | Fri Mar 08 1996 17:15 | 13 |
|
>>A great many middle class people in this country live paycheck to
>>paycheck, such that if they suddenly lost their jobs and their
>>homes, they would be in very deep trouble.
last i heard, living this was is a choice...so why should it be my
problem...
|
243.325 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 17:31 | 46 |
| RE: .322 Dave Flatman
>> Give her the opportunity again. It's never too late to go to college.
> Unless the person WANTS to go back to college all you will be doing is
> throwing money away. That's EXACTLY the reason that she needs a dose
> of reality and needs to realize what life is like without someone
> coddling her.
You want to force her to do what you think she should do, so you think
that making her life far more desperate and dangerous will do the trick.
I disagree. It's like saying that a person will learn to swim if you
drop them into the ocean without a life preserver and sail away. In
theory, it sounds good because they'll have to 'sink or swim' - but
what if they just sink? People do drown at times.
> "Helping" her make better choices is meaningless until she wants to do
> something. That's why kicking her onto the street is a worthwhile
> venture. It will force her to realize that she needs to make different
> choices.
Worthwhile for who? You? Would it really make you happy to think of
her sleeping under a bridge somewhere (apart from her children)?
> The bottom line is that before you can get someone to change they have
> to see a need or a reason to change. They have to want to change.
Putting someone's life in danger is not the best way to inspire
someone to change.
> These two don't have one. They're being housed, kept warm, and fed.
> They see no reason to change. And this is the fundamental problem with
> the current welfare system. There is insufficient incentives for
> people to change.
You want to put them in the situation where it would be harder than
ever to learn to swim. I don't.
Over half of the people who go on Welfare stay on it for less than
two years. The average stay on Welfare is 2.5 years. Obviously,
a great many people are finding reasons to make their lives better.
I'm not interested in risking the drownings of everyone on Welfare
because of those who may never be able to swim at all (including your
sister and her husband.)
|
243.326 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 17:34 | 16 |
| RE: .324
>> A great many middle class people in this country live paycheck to
>> paycheck, such that if they suddenly lost their jobs and their
>> homes, they would be in very deep trouble.
> last i heard, living this was is a choice...so why should it be my
> problem...
It simply means that if many in the middle class would be in deep
trouble if they found themselves out of their homes and their jobs,
imagine how much more precariously the poor live.
Pulling the rugs out from under 14 million poor people (most of whom
are children) would be a disaster. They wouldn't simply bounce back
out of it without a ripple in our society.
|
243.327 | | GAVEL::JANDROW | i think, therefore i have a headache | Fri Mar 08 1996 17:36 | 13 |
|
sue, i am not knocking what you said. i agree with you on that.
there are just some people out there who think that no one has to live
paycheck to paycheck...they do so because it is a choice that they
made.
it was an obscure reference to something that went on (and on and on)
in here a bit back...
-raq
|
243.328 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Fri Mar 08 1996 17:42 | 6 |
|
I remember the discussion, but not the numbers.
What would be considered "bare minimum" for a family of 4 to
get by on?
|
243.329 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Fri Mar 08 1996 17:44 | 9 |
|
And Suzanne, why do you have a problem with the $11/hour ref-
erence, which includes subsidies? How can you NOT count the
subsidies, even though they're just as good as money when used
for their intended purposes?
If someone gives me $100/month cash, or a $100 rent voucher,
that still amounts to a $100 discount on rent. Etc., etc.
|
243.330 | It's not money in their pockets. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 18:08 | 26 |
| RE: .329 Shawn
> And Suzanne, why do you have a problem with the $11/hour ref-
> erence, which includes subsidies? How can you NOT count the
> subsidies, even though they're just as good as money when used
> for their intended purposes?
Much of this figure involves health care.
When someone in my family is covered by our health insurance for
an expensive medical procedure, I don't consider it to mean that
I made $10,000 or so extra that year. It was never money in my
pocket.
> If someone gives me $100/month cash, or a $100 rent voucher,
> that still amounts to a $100 discount on rent. Etc., etc.
The actual money they receive is pittance. It doesn't last until
the next check, for many people.
Getting a rent voucher is not much more than 'funny money' (where
you can figure that the cost of rent is probably a rip-off anyway.)
The bottom line is that only $380 goes into your pocket and it's
gone before the next $380 comes. (And no way in hell does $380 per
month represent $11 per hour.)
|
243.331 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 18:09 | 6 |
| RE: .327 -raq
Oh, thanks. I didn't recognize the reference - I guess I missed that
discussion.
Suzanne
|
243.332 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Fri Mar 08 1996 18:39 | 43 |
| RE: .325
> I disagree. It's like saying that a person will learn to swim if you
> drop them into the ocean without a life preserver and sail away.
Close, but no cigar. To use your analogy, you're on a ship and you
know it's going to sink. Everyone has only one choice: learn to
swim. Most people realize that they need to learn to swim. Some
people for some reason believe that they don't need to learn.
Now you have a choice. Do you simply do the easy thing, shrug your
shoulders, and let them continue on or do you push them into the pool
and let them thrash about a bit. After they've thrashed about a bit
you ask them if they think it would be a good idea to learn to swim.
Motivation is everything.
> Worthwhile for who? You? Would it really make you happy to think of
> her sleeping under a bridge somewhere (apart from her children)?
Worthwhile for her. Otherwise when her current gravy train runs out
via death then she'll be stuck with no way to support herself. On the
other hand if she's made to realize what situation she will eventually
end up in, she might just decide to do something about it ... and wind
up with a higher standard of living to boot. (Not to add too many
metaphors, but kind of like the ghost of Christmas future illustrating
that it's time for her to change her ways.)
> Putting someone's life in danger is not the best way to inspire
> someone to change.
Saying "pretty please" hasn't worked so far. Pointing out the
consequences of her actions hasn't helped so far. Ignoring the problem
and trying to wish it away hasn't helped so far. Eventually you have
to get the person's attention.
> You want to put them in the situation where it would be harder than
> ever to learn to swim. I don't.
No. I want to put them into a situation where they realize that they
have to learn to swim. Sitting on the side of the pool isn't doing it.
-- Dave
|
243.333 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 18:44 | 52 |
| Dave, as for your sister and her husband...
Your parents could begin the process of getting them out of their
house without actually tossing them into the street.
"Well, you know, you two have lived here with us for five
years now and it isn't really convenient for us, so it's
time for us to start planning on your leaving...
"You might want to sign up with an 'Apartment Finders' agency
or look for people who are renting out a basement or a garage.
We'll help you look in the paper...
"We're going to use your room for an office, so we'll need to
get your things out as soon as possible. We'll move them into
a self-storage unit if you need one. I'm sure you'll be
comfortable on the basement floor until you find your own place.
The kids can stay in the living room...
"How will you afford your own place? Well, we can look in the
paper for jobs, too..."
They edge them out little by little (making it clear that they won't
be in the comfortable space they occupy now, but not actually throwing
them out bodily.)
Your parents could say they want to sell their house and buy a one-
bedroom place, too. :) (This is a tactic some parents have used
for their offspring who keep springing back home.)
Your parents don't have to be judgmental about it.
"Hey, we're getting on in years and it's not convenient for
us to keep you all here anymore. You knew it wouldn't be
permanent. We won't live forever...
"Just think of how great it will be for you to not have to
deal with us anymore..."
They could keep mentioning it casually in conversation...
"Late next month - you'll be in your own place by then - we're
going to have the whole place painted on the inside. It will
take weeks, so we'll probably go out of town. We'll let you
know how it turns out when we get back..."
It just becomes accepted and understood that the husband and wife
will be on their own with the kids. Not bodily thrown out, but
edged out (and encouraged out.) And explained out. And understood
to be out.
With best wishes, of course.
|
243.334 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Fri Mar 08 1996 18:48 | 6 |
| RE: .333
And once the they call the bluff? Or are you admitting that eventually
they wouldn't be provided with a place to stay?
-- Dave
|
243.335 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 18:52 | 42 |
| RE: .332 Dave Flatman
>> I disagree. It's like saying that a person will learn to swim if you
>> drop them into the ocean without a life preserver and sail away.
> Close, but no cigar. To use your analogy, you're on a ship and you
> know it's going to sink. Everyone has only one choice: learn to
> swim. Most people realize that they need to learn to swim. Some
> people for some reason believe that they don't need to learn.
The U.S.S. America isn't sinking, though. We aren't in another
Great Depression (and even if we were, we could still care for
our poorest people.)
> Now you have a choice. Do you simply do the easy thing, shrug your
> shoulders, and let them continue on or do you push them into the pool
> and let them thrash about a bit. After they've thrashed about a bit
> you ask them if they think it would be a good idea to learn to swim.
If they're in the deep end of the pool, do you let them drown if they
can't seem to figure out how not to drown?
> Motivation is everything.
Some people panic when they're drowning. Even though they are motivated
to save their lives, they aren't in a situation where it's possible
anymore.
> No. I want to put them into a situation where they realize that they
> have to learn to swim. Sitting on the side of the pool isn't doing it.
Consider what I wrote in my last note to you.
Move them out of their comfortable room, but not out into the streets.
Let them know (over a period of time) that they will be moving out
(no ifs, ands or buts about it.)
Let them dip their toes into the pool and figure out that they have
time to learn to swim, but it's not an option for them to FAIL to
learn.
Just don't push their heads under. Ok? :)
|
243.336 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 18:54 | 11 |
| RE: .334 Dave Flatman
> And once the they call the bluff? Or are you admitting that eventually
> they wouldn't be provided with a place to stay?
If your sister and her husband call your parents' bluff, then they
will be sleeping on an uncomfortable basement floor (with their
stuff in storage.)
Remove the 'comfortable' part, and it has a similar affect as being
out on the street (but it isn't as dangerous.)
|
243.337 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 18:58 | 8 |
| Something else they could do...
If your sister and her husband eat meals at your parents' house,
your parents could stop cooking for them (and stop buying their
food, or else buy them food they don't like much.)
Make it inconvenient and uncomfortable for your sister and her
husband, and they won't be that anxious to stay anymore.
|
243.338 | Make it inconvenient and uncomfortable for them to stay... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 19:02 | 7 |
| At the very least, your parents should make them pack up their
stuff (so your parents can have the room painted or whatever.)
Then don't let them unpack. Rent a self-storage for them so they
don't have their stuff at the house anymore.
They'll be half-way out the door at that point.
|
243.339 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Fri Mar 08 1996 19:05 | 10 |
| RE: .337
> If your sister and her husband eat meals at your parents' house,
> your parents could stop cooking for them
How cruel!! How inhumane!! You want them to starve?!? You want them
digging thru the garbage for a bite to eat?!? Horrors! Think of the
cholera epidemic that will start. :^)
-- Dave
|
243.340 | I'm serious about my suggestions for your parents... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 19:11 | 15 |
| Dave, the point is not to starve them or throw them out, but to make
it less comfortable for them to be there.
(But I think you knew this.) :-)
So - does any of this sound feasible? Would your parents be willing
to make them less comfortable?
As for Welfare, perhaps something similar could be done. Once per
month, recipients have to provide an updated plan of how they intend
to get off Welfare (with certain milestones expected.)
They're never actually thrown off, but they're expected to be working
on getting off. Perhaps some provisions could be made (other than
denying benefits altogether) if they fail to meet their milestones.
|
243.341 | It would become like an ongoing job counseling service. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 19:27 | 16 |
| Actually, if Welfare recipients provided an ongoing 'plan' of how
they intended to get off Welfare, the case workers could provide
listings of various other education and training programs as part
of this effort.
The education and training programs would have to exist, of course.
If it were conducted like a 'Career Development Plan' (where the
person states the steps they intend to take), it would be similar
to what some companies expect employees to do.
Again, the education, training and jobs would have to exist (not
to mention access to daycare.)
The key would be that people would not be thrown off, but would
be given assistance as they move themselves off.
|
243.342 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Fri Mar 08 1996 23:39 | 11 |
|
> Make it inconvenient and uncomfortable for your sister and her
> husband, and they won't be that anxious to stay anymore.
Precisely what should be done with welfare...make it uncomfortable, make
it inconvenient, and establish a time table for them to get off.
Jim
|
243.343 | Welfare offices can't use the same exact approach as parents.... | SPECXN::CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 08 1996 23:49 | 24 |
| RE: .342 Jim
>> Make it inconvenient and uncomfortable for your sister and her
>> husband, and they won't be that anxious to stay anymore.
> Precisely what should be done with welfare...make it uncomfortable,
> make it inconvenient, and establish a time table for them to get off.
Welfare families certainly don't need to be treated any worse in this
society than they already are. Those who can't get enough of trashing
such people are doing far more harm than good.
Dave's parents are in a position to offer a constructive approach
to their family members, while encouraging these two people to
accept the fact that they would be going out on their own (even
though they would not actually be thrown out.)
If Welfare offices became more like job counseling services (with
information about education and training), they could offer a
constructive approach to finding opportunities for many people
on Welfare.
I don't agree that anyone on Welfare should be simply *cut off*
from benefits at some specific date.
|
243.344 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Fri Mar 08 1996 23:54 | 13 |
|
Well, I'd start in on my son and how we tried to handle his situation and
what finally happened with him when he and his girlfriend were faced with
being tossed out on the streets (with her baby), but I don't care to get
into a 500 reply back and forth, twist and turn battle. Suffice to say,
when faced with the reality of that situation, they got off their a**
and got with the program, as should many welfare recipients.
Jim
|
243.345 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Alrighty, bye bye then. | Fri Mar 08 1996 23:58 | 1 |
| So, this was a good thing eh?
|
243.346 | Also, let's reward people for becoming self-sufficient. | SPECXN::CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Sat Mar 09 1996 00:17 | 15 |
| Jim, I know you've had numerous problems with one of your sons
- if this is the same son, I'm glad his situation has improved.
Threats of being put in far worse situations out in the streets
don't always work well, and following through with such threats
can put people in real danger.
If the real goal here is to make people's lives better (and
self-sufficient), then let's prove it by making the road
to self-sufficiency smoother with education, training, job
and daycare opportunities.
Let's knock off the judgmental diatribes against Welfare
parents and turn the AFDC program into one which provides
real opportunities for these families.
|
243.347 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Mar 11 1996 08:30 | 7 |
| re: .326
I ask again. Who is suggesting that we "pull the rug from under" 14
million people?
-steve
|
243.348 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Mon Mar 11 1996 08:32 | 3 |
| Well, if you aren't in favor of rewarding welfare mothers for
increasing the number of mouths they can't feed, then you are in favor
of pulling the rug, etc.
|
243.349 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Mar 11 1996 08:45 | 25 |
| re: 335
>The U.S.S. America is no sinking, though.
I beg to differ. If we continue down our current path, I give the US
another 20 years, max, before the ultimate corrective comes into play.
If we were any other nation but the US, we'd have gone bankrupt long
ago.
How can you rationalize 11% growth, per year, in entitlement (speaking
of medica**, and maybe a few other programs) spending, when we run
deficits every year? If we can't pay for our current spending, why on
earth are we increasing it yearly at such a high %?
Sooner or later we gotta pay the piper. We can make some hard choices
and start paying today, or we can do nothing and wait until the bill
comes due, with interest. When it comes due, the non-working poor you so
adamantly defend will not be the only ones out on the street. They will be
joined by the working poor and probably a good chunk of the middle
class. Then the rich you seem to hate so much will inherit what's left
of the country.
-steve
|
243.350 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Mar 11 1996 08:49 | 3 |
| re: .348
Oh, of course. How silly of me not to see that. 8^)
|
243.351 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Mar 11 1996 08:50 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 243.347 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>
| I ask again. Who is suggesting that we "pull the rug from under" 14
| million people?
Steve, I believe it was the Sandord Townsend Band, with, "Smoke from a
Distant Fire"! :-)
|
243.352 | hot topic ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Mar 11 1996 09:29 | 21 |
|
See this past Sunday's Boston Globe on welfare - big spread.
This is a complicated subject. The key moves are at the state level.
I think the Sunday Globe is doing a whole series on the subject,
which needs it. The most innovative programs are probably those
in Michigan, Ohio, California, and Massachusetts. However 27 states,
including some with liberal Democratic governments, are now operating
under federal waivers, attempting to reduce welfare populations by
all sorts of means.
There's too much material here to summarize - for example, they
interviewed 5 different former welfare families, who disagreed on
the Massachusetts program. There were pie charts. It is interesting
to note that whites outnumber any minority on welfare, but as a
percentage of total, Hispanic leads. Over 90% of recipients are
female, and 95% are under age 50. I can't list all the data - read
the article.
bb
|
243.353 | It's clear the daughter is in control of this situation ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Mar 11 1996 12:19 | 23 |
| > Dave, the point is not to starve them or throw them out, but to make
> it less comfortable for them to be there.
So, instead of the adult daughter manipulating her parents, you advocate
the adult parents to manipulate the daughter.
If the parents are riding these adult children already, I suspect they
are already uncomfortable. I also suspect that even living on the
basement floor for a while will result in the inevitable "out on the street"
choice.
If they have been offered assistance at bettering themselves for 5 years
what evidence is there that they would start taking advantage of these
opportunities now?
At the very least, the adult children know these options exist, and may
actually decide to take advantage of them, once there is no other choice.
About education ...
Instead of GED - perhaps a trade school in an area that sparks his interest ...
Doug.
|
243.354 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Mar 11 1996 12:23 | 4 |
|
Sounds like she's about ready to have another baby, and then she'll
be all set for another couple of years.
|
243.355 | They were willing to stop having babies, at least. | SPECXN::CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 11 1996 12:24 | 1 |
| Her husband has already been 'snipped'. No more babies.
|
243.356 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Mar 11 1996 12:29 | 3 |
|
But she hasn't been sewn up yet, so anything's possible.
|
243.357 | No more jokes about this tragic procedure, ok? | SPECXN::CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 11 1996 13:28 | 2 |
| Shawn, I know you mean that as a joke, but again, it's no joke that
millions of children are mutilated this way each year in Africa.
|
243.358 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Mar 11 1996 13:31 | 6 |
|
That wasn't the point and you know it.
What's to stop her from having another kid? She's already had
2 kids to avoid the inevitable move.
|
243.359 | A new kid would cost her the marriage, probably. | SPECXN::CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 11 1996 13:37 | 10 |
| Shawn, if she has another kid, it would be with some other man.
Obviously, this could eliminate her current deadbeat husband
(so her parents may even welcome such an event.) The new kid
would probably eat less and be a lot less annoying than the
husband, and perhaps the new father would have better prospects.
The point is that the couple has taken a step to stop making babies
*together*, so they have taken at least this one step to keep their
situation from getting worse.
|
243.360 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Mar 11 1996 13:42 | 5 |
|
So you're saying that the responsibility for birth control
in this case lies with the male, and the female doesn't need
to do anything?
|
243.361 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of French Heaters | Mon Mar 11 1996 13:45 | 3 |
|
Ooh yeah, let them ova fly with impunity.
|
243.362 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Alrighty, bye bye then. | Mon Mar 11 1996 13:51 | 1 |
| Didn't I just see some flying ova?
|
243.363 | | SPECXN::CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 11 1996 14:01 | 16 |
| RE: .360 Shawn
> So you're saying that the responsibility for birth control
> in this case lies with the male, and the female doesn't need
> to do anything?
If one partner is now sterile, the risk for pregnancy no longer
exists. Married couples sometimes choose to have one or the
other partner take this route. Once they are certain that
conception is no longer possible, they probably won't use other
birth control methods anymore. (So what?)
If the wife has sex with some other man who is not sterile, they
both have the responsibility to prevent conception (since it would
still be possible for these two people to become involved in an
unplanned pregnancy.)
|
243.364 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 11 1996 14:11 | 8 |
| > Once they are certain that
> conception is no longer possible, they probably won't use other
> birth control methods anymore. (So what?)
So, only /john can tell us.
Oh, sorry - wrong string.
|
243.365 | | EST::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Tue Mar 12 1996 10:48 | 35 |
| FWIW, here's a letter from my wife's pen-pal of many years. She's about 23,
married, two kids, one from a previous affair (he ran at the news that she
was knocked up - caught and now pays child support). Her hubby is a full-time
student. She delivers newspapers on 3 different routes, gets about
$650/month.
Dear Rebecca,
Hello there. Sorry I took so long to write back.
[blah blah blah]
You know, we don't own our own home, either. We get financial help with
daycare from Welfare. Right now, we don't have to pay anything, but I know
we will when we tell the Welfare about my extra paper route. But still,
we're doing pretty well. Really though, if you don't think you can afford
it, then of course wait! Ha, ha. Kids are pretty expensive.
[blah blah blah]
Did you ever consider Welfare to help you with expenses? If you make under
a certain amount, you'll get a check from them each month.
Are you getting any money back on your tax returns? Eric did ours, and
we'll get back about $3100 - that's because we're married, have two kids,
and make under a certain amount of money. We're going to pay off some
credit cards that we don't use anymore, then we're going to buy a
dishwasher (finally!!!) and an entertainment system.
[blah blah blah]
Love,
Amy
Jeez, we had to scrimp a bit just to buy my wife a new $100 winter coat.
|
243.366 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 10:51 | 6 |
|
See, Tom? If you quit your job and your wife goes on welfare,
then you'll be able to easily afford a new winter coat, and a
dishwasher, and an entertainment center and stereo system and
then a couple kids.
|
243.367 | | CHEFS::COOKS | Half Man,Half Biscuit | Tue Mar 12 1996 11:53 | 3 |
| "Why do only fools and horses work"??
|
243.368 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 11:55 | 3 |
|
Because they can, and know they should.
|
243.369 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:11 | 12 |
| RE: .365 Tom R.
> Her hubby is a full-time student. She delivers newspapers on
> 3 different routes, gets about $650/month.
So, he's in school full-time and she works 3 part-time jobs
doing newspaper deliveries.
It sounds like they are on their way to making a better life for
themselves.
Would you rather they simply gave up?
|
243.370 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:13 | 5 |
| > Would you rather they simply gave up?
I'd rather that they simply gave up the Welfare. You apparenly missed the
point.
|
243.371 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | scratching just makes it worse | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:17 | 6 |
| >Would you rather they simply gave up?
How about they stop defrauding the welfare department and stop trying
to get others on the system. That would be a start. I suppose that
would be ripping food out of the mouths of their children though, so we
can't have that...
|
243.372 | "They got off their butts? Those BASTARDS!!" | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:24 | 13 |
| Interesting.
Those who get Welfare without working at all are lazy deadbeats who
don't deserve the help ("Let's only help those who are willing to
help themselves!")
Those who get some amount of assistance from Welfare while one partner
goes to school full-time and the other partner works 3 part-time jobs
are CHEATS ("If they are able to help themselves, then they shouldn't
be getting any help from Welfare!")
So people are damned if they do and damned if they don't try to work
when they are poor enough to qualify for assistance?
|
243.373 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of French Heaters | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:26 | 8 |
|
Their tax return might be better spent on the necessities that welfare
is paying for now, imho.
Rent, daycare, and food come before dishwashers and entertainment
centers.
|
243.374 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:27 | 10 |
| "You know, we don't own our own home, either. We get financial help with
daycare from Welfare. Right now, we don't have to pay anything, but I know
we will when we tell the Welfare about my extra paper route."
***************************************************
They do plan to tell the Welfare office about the 'extra' (new?) paper
route.
What actual help are they getting from Welfare besides daycare? She
doesn't really say.
|
243.375 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | scratching just makes it worse | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:29 | 13 |
| >Those who get some amount of assistance from Welfare while one partner
>goes to school full-time and the other partner works 3 part-time jobs
>are CHEATS
No, those who withhold disclosure of all income in order to retain
higher welfare benefits are cheats.
>("If they are able to help themselves, then they shouldn't
>be getting any help from Welfare!")
Those are your words, not mine. I have no problem with assistance
when reasonable, _especially_ when those receiving assistance are using
it for support while they seek to better themselves.
|
243.376 | | CHEFS::COOKS | Half Man,Half Biscuit | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:30 | 3 |
| Ms Conlon,you should be a Saint.
|
243.378 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:32 | 15 |
| RE: .373
> Their tax return might be better spent on the necessities that welfare
> is paying for now, imho.
If they are actually living on Welfare payments, this tax refund will
be deducted from their payments.
If they're receiving $3100 back from taxes, they are earning more
money than they would be able to get from monthly Welfare checks.
She doesn't say precisely how every penny of this tax refund will be
spent. She mentions paying off old credit cards (we don't know what
was purchased on these cards), and buying a dishwasher (on credit
perhaps?) She didn't say.
|
243.379 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | scratching just makes it worse | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:34 | 11 |
| >If they're receiving $3100 back from taxes, they are earning more
>money than they would be able to get from monthly Welfare checks.
Not necessarily. Undoubtedly they are taking advantage of the earned
income tax credit, otherwise they wouldn't qualify for welfare in the
first place.
>She mentions paying off old credit cards (we don't know what
>was purchased on these cards), and buying a dishwasher
And an entertainment center. Those are what, ten or twenty bucks?
|
243.380 | Welfare offices usually have notification guidelines. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:35 | 14 |
| How long has she had the 'extra' paper route? What is the time
requirement for notifying the Welfare office that she has yet another
job? Is she within the required guidelines for letting them know
about this extra job?
She didn't say. She did say that she WILL tell the Welfare office
about the new job (because it will have an impact on her DAYCARE
expenses.) She said she gets daycare free now, but will have to
pay for it when she reports her extra job.
She didn't say anything about getting less money from Welfare - she
only mentioned that she would have to start paying for daycare because
of the new job. (Is she getting a monthly check at all from Welfare?
She didn't say.)
|
243.381 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:38 | 21 |
| RE: .379 Mark
>> If they're receiving $3100 back from taxes, they are earning more
>> money than they would be able to get from monthly Welfare checks.
> Not necessarily. Undoubtedly they are taking advantage of the earned
> income tax credit, otherwise they wouldn't qualify for welfare in the
> first place.
They don't necessarily qualify for Welfare payments at all, though.
(She mentioned daycare.) They may not qualify for actual payments.
Things like food stamps and daycare are provided by Welfare, but they
don't necessarily come with Welfare payments.
>> She mentions paying off old credit cards (we don't know what
>> was purchased on these cards), and buying a dishwasher
> And an entertainment center. Those are what, ten or twenty bucks?
Would they put this on credit? She didn't say.
|
243.382 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | scratching just makes it worse | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:46 | 19 |
| >They don't necessarily qualify for Welfare payments at all, though.
>(She mentioned daycare.)
Are there states that give one without the other?
>Things like food stamps and daycare are provided by Welfare, but they
>don't necessarily come with Welfare payments.
Why do you lump food stamps and daycare together? Why not daycare and
section 8 housing (aka welfare payments)? Do you have knowledge that
daycare benefits are available to those who do not qualify for housing
assistance, or are you using a Johnny Cochranesque FUD tactic to claim
that we can't really know anything from the data we have?
>Would they put this on credit? She didn't say.
Oh, so they're going to take $3100 to pay off credit cards and then
turn around and put several large purchases on credit cards? Yeah, sure
they are.
|
243.383 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:47 | 4 |
|
Yeah, food stamps and daycare subsidies aren't actually REAL
money so they don't count.
|
243.384 | Maybe they're buying this entertainment center | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:47 | 22 |
|
================================================================================
Note 590.0 Entertainment Center No replies
SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Lord of the Turnip Truck" 15 lines 12-MAR-1996 10:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Krawiecki
SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI
264-0258 (call anytime)
MKO1-1/A10
Home (603) 673-3163 (call anytime)
Entertainment Center - 49" wide 56 1/2" high 16" deep
Oak finish press-board
Will accomodate 28" wide TV.
Slots for speakers
Glassed in area for stereo equipment.
Storage for tapes..etc.
Good condition. Perfect for family/rec room
$35.00
|
243.385 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 12:58 | 23 |
| Mark, when a family is working (one or both parents) and they still
qualify for some sort of Welfare assistance, they don't get the
same assistance that is given to families with no working parents
at all.
Their takehome pay is deducted from the Welfare payments (if they
qualify for any payments at all.)
It isn't a binary situation. There are varying degrees of assistance.
From what I've heard, if they are getting payments at all, then the
tax refund will be deducted from those payments. Apparently, they
are allowed to keep the tax refund, so they probably aren't getting
anything (or else very little) in the way of payments. Again, she
didn't say they were getting payments. She said she was getting
daycare help from Welfare.
> Oh, so they're going to take $3100 to pay off credit cards and then
> turn around and put several large purchases on credit cards? Yeah, sure
> they are.
She said they were paying off credit cards that they don't really use
anymore. (Perhaps they still have credit cards that they DO use.)
|
243.386 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:00 | 3 |
|
anybody wanna guess how many replies this discussion will generate?
|
243.387 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:05 | 3 |
|
No. But thanks for asking.
|
243.388 | | EST::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:06 | 12 |
| I don't really know much more than you all read in the letter... like I said,
she gets around $650/month from the paper routes, plus child support from the
ex. As far as I know, that's it for real income.
I don't really begrudge them the money. At least her current man is a couple
of steps up from the previous, and seems to be going somewhere. It just sort
of rubs the wrong way, realizing they're going to college, buying dishwashers
and entertainment centers, all thanks to Ulysses S. Taxpayer, while we had to
replace a rotted out car, buy a winter coat, put a tailpipe and ball joints
and rear brakes on my car (it's old), yadda, yadda, yadda, all on our own
money. Ask me if I could afford to go to college or buy an entertainment
center...
|
243.389 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:18 | 4 |
| Well, Tom, as Amy suggested in her letter, and, as I'm sure, Suzanne is
about to tell you, it's your god-given right to apply for that assistance
so that you, too, can have the things which dreams are made of.
|
243.390 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:40 | 41 |
| RE: .388 Tom R.
> I don't really know much more than you all read in the letter... like
> I said, she gets around $650/month from the paper routes, plus child
> support from the ex. As far as I know, that's it for real income.
So, they do not get Welfare payments. They do get free daycare,
though.
> I don't really begrudge them the money.
The free daycare, you mean. (Actually, it won't be free to them
much longer.)
You do realize that without the inexpensive daycare, they wouldn't be
able to live on her earnings.
Wouldn't you rather see them living off their own earnings even if
they do get a break on daycare while they earn so very little?
> It just sort of rubs the wrong way, realizing they're going to college,
> buying dishwashers and entertainment centers, all thanks to Ulysses S.
> Taxpayer,
They're earning their own money. They're only getting some help with
daycare (so that they can keep supporting themselves with their own
earnings.)
How does this amount to the taxpayers buying things for them?
> while we had to replace a rotted out car, buy a winter coat, put a
> tailpipe and ball joints and rear brakes on my car (it's old), yadda,
> yadda, yadda, all on our own money.
Do you make so little money that you qualify for help with daycare?
> Ask me if I could afford to go to college or buy an entertainment
> center...
Digital still pays college tuition for employees. Are you a Digital
employee?
|
243.391 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:44 | 8 |
|
Suzanne, a subsidy IS similar to money if whatever it sub-
sidizes is perceived to be a necessary expense.
If welfare offered me "car payment subsidizing" of $100/
month that should be considered $100 of "real money" that
I now have.
|
243.392 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:45 | 5 |
| > How does this amount to the taxpayers buying things for them?
They have disposable income to expend on non-essentials while receiving
assistance for some of the more basic needs. If this doesn't work out
the same as the taxpayers buying things for them, then what does?
|
243.393 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:47 | 7 |
| > You do realize that without the inexpensive daycare, they wouldn't be
> able to live on her earnings.
What? She can't fathom the concept of <gasp> bringing the children along
on the paper route (it's been done before) or <gasp> getting the student
hubby to do some childcare while she's on her rounds? [Last time I checked
there weren't any clocks to punch on paper routes.]
|
243.394 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of French Heaters | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:49 | 3 |
|
Yeah, the kids could help fold the papers while she drove!
|
243.395 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:50 | 3 |
|
Maybe she could get welfare to buy her a paper folding machine.
|
243.396 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 12 1996 13:54 | 6 |
| I have a simple solution to her need for childcare. Morning papers must
be delivered quite early (I think mine is guaranteed to be there by 7).
Presumably her hubby/boyfriend the full-time student doesn't have classes
that early in the morning (nor is daycare readily available). So she must
be delivering an evening paper. She should switch to a morning paper
and let her man look after the kids.
|
243.397 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Alrighty, bye bye then. | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:03 | 2 |
| It seems like the news papers are being given a lot of responsibilty
here. How about pizza home delivery? What about them?
|
243.398 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:12 | 18 |
| I'm getting a sense that we have here an advocacy of the concept that
public assistance should not simply be a means of providing subsistance
level living standards to the truly needy, but additionally it should
be a source of "equalizing" for those who have some source of income
but who fail to meet some "standard" defined within the liberal socialist
(yes, Jim Stacy, I used that damn labeler AGAIN) agenda as being "enough".
If welfare weren't bad enough already due to its demoralizing effect and
its ability to keep a class of non-working folks complacent in their
state of affairs, we now want to extend it so that those who are willing
to work for some minimal amounts (every job needs doing) will be able
to better their lot by getting on the dole at some level, and demonstrate
some hesitancy to push themselves a bit further up the ladder for fear of
the "losses" they'll incur.
That's where the role of private charities does a far better job of social
engineering than the government, since it removes that "I'm entitled to
it" attitude and ends up producing a more marketable product.
|
243.399 | Written to the participants here in general... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:15 | 18 |
| If you want to INSIST that people work if they want to get any
Welfare benefits at all (such as inexpensive daycare), then they
are likely to get tax refunds from their earnings since they
are still poor.
Without big government stepping in to tell them how to spend their
tax returns, they may choose to spend this 'windfall' money on
something they *want* instead of what they *need* their small incomes
to provide for them all year.
A tax refund happens once per year. If they've worked all year,
having a tax refund is encouragement to keep working. (Welfare
payment recipients don't get tax refunds.)
Don't you want to encourage such families to keep working (even if they
do spend their tax refunds in ways you don't like)? Isn't it better
if they keep trying to work (and to make their lives better in some
way?)
|
243.400 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:16 | 1 |
| welfare snarf
|
243.401 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:18 | 4 |
| Jack, in most places $650/month isn't more than subsistence for a family of
four (OK, she gets some child support, but it's probably not a lot). I'm
not justifying their spending priorities (unless it's Andy's entertainment
center).
|
243.402 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:22 | 14 |
| > Digital still pays for college tuition...
Yeah, that's why I am funding my own college, right?
Digital will not pay for college classes any more, unless:
a) your job requires it (or it is related to your job)
b) you are a VP [ 8^) x 1/2 ]
DEC was good about helping out with tuition, Digital is not nearly as
tuition-friendly.
-steve
|
243.403 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:25 | 38 |
| RE: .398
> If welfare weren't bad enough already due to its demoralizing effect and
> its ability to keep a class of non-working folks complacent in their
> state of affairs, we now want to extend it so that those who are willing
> to work for some minimal amounts (every job needs doing) will be able
> to better their lot by getting on the dole at some level, and demonstrate
> some hesitancy to push themselves a bit further up the ladder for fear of
> the "losses" they'll incur.
So, now it's bad for people on Welfare to try to work?? I thought
people wanted Welfare mothers to be expected to work if they wanted
to receive benefits at all?
Spending your tax refund any way you want is not demoralizing. In fact,
it's one of the most encouraging things about working for a living.
(People who don't work do not fill out tax returns.)
The woman in the letter took the 'extra' paper route even though she
knew she would have to pay for her daycare in the future because of it.
Do you see how elated she seems to be to be planning how to spend the
money they will get because she WORKED all year??
This is encouragement for WORKING. People on Welfare do not get tax
refunds that they can use for 'splurges'.
This woman is working, and just got yet another (additional) job while
her husband makes himself more employable at college. Isn't this what
we want poor people to do?
(Actually, our society does NOT want people to improve themselves
at all if it means that someone who gets any sort of assistance from
Welfare at all can be anything less than totally demoralized in the
process. This is the paradox: "We want you to work hard and improve
your situation, but only if you're miserable in the process." Miserable
people don't improve their situations as well as optimistic people do,
though.)
|
243.404 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:30 | 3 |
|
Who is paying for this guys tuition while his family is collecting
benefits?
|
243.405 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:33 | 2 |
| Maybe he's getting a student loan.
|
243.406 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:35 | 8 |
| Ronald Reagan supported the 'Earned Income Credit' as encouragement
for poor families.
They only get it if they actually work.
Do people here really want to discourage people who qualify for
Welfare from trying to work as much as they can (if it means they
can choose how to spend their tax refunds themselves?)
|
243.407 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:36 | 1 |
| And why isn't he working? Lots of full-time students work part time.
|
243.408 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | scratching just makes it worse | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:37 | 3 |
| I wonder how far that $3100 would go towards paying for daycare for a
year... Sounds like we are getting perilously close to the
philosophical debate about the difference between wants and needs.
|
243.409 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:41 | 5 |
| Maybe he's trying to finish sooner.
At the school where I received my second Bachelor's degree, we had
some students taking DOUBLE the credit hours so they could finish
as soon as possible. <shudder>
|
243.410 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:43 | 14 |
| > Do people here really want to discourage people who qualify for
> Welfare from trying to work as much as they can (if it means they
> can choose how to spend their tax refunds themselves?)
No - I don't think anyone's arguing that. I think what's being said is
that if they have disposable income for non-essentials yet they continue
to receive assistance, then there's something radically wrong. Don't
you see this? Do you actually think that it's equitable for the government
to be forcibly taking YOUR income, to _give_ to someone else while they
have money to spend on things that perhaps you (or others who work, pay
taxes, and don't get assistance) cannot afford? It's not the income tax
refund that's the problem. It's not their decisions how to spend it that
are the problem. It's the fact that they CONTINUE to receive assistance
while having that level of discretion in their financial management.
|
243.411 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:43 | 13 |
| > Do people here really want to discourage people who qualify for
> Welfare from trying to work as much as they can (if it means they
> can choose how to spend their tax refunds themselves?)
I'm sure everyone is pleased that this couple is working and trying to
help themselves.
I think the problem is the "gee, you can get your piece of the pie too"
attitude which was displayed in the letter.
Plus other factors ....
|
243.412 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:44 | 7 |
|
I'd appreciate it if one of you would send this person over to my house
to buy the damned thing....
hth... nnttm...wgafra...
|
243.413 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159 | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:47 | 6 |
|
We shouldn't be surprised if some, or even many welfare recipients
become skillful, knowledgeable and competent at wringing every last
dollar out of the system.
|
243.414 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:47 | 16 |
| RE: .408 Mark
> I wonder how far that $3100 would go towards paying for daycare for a
> year... Sounds like we are getting perilously close to the
> philosophical debate about the difference between wants and needs.
If spending the tax refund is encouragement for this family to keep
working towards a better life, then it's a worthwhile investment for
society. The daycare subsidy will be temporary. The poor family
will become more and more productive members of this society.
If you fix it so that all their work gives them ZERO advantages over
a family that does nothing but receive a monthly check, then how do
you develop a sense of optimism in this family about how their lives
could be if they *kept moving* up the ladder (as they've already
started to do)?
|
243.415 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | scratching just makes it worse | Tue Mar 12 1996 14:51 | 6 |
| >If you fix it so that all their work gives them ZERO advantages over
>a family that does nothing but receive a monthly check,
On the other hand, if you fix it so that nobody who is able-bodied
can "do nothing but receive a monthly check", then there is plenty of
incentive.
|
243.416 | | EST::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:21 | 16 |
| > <<< Note 243.390 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
> So, they do not get Welfare payments. They do get free daycare,
> though.
> They're earning their own money. They're only getting some help with
> daycare (so that they can keep supporting themselves with their own
> earnings.)
Seems to me you assume way too much. I don't know any of these things you're
asserting as fact here, therefore neither do you.
If you want my OPINION, I think they MUST get subsidized housing and food
stamps and whatever else "the Welfare" will give them. By "real income", I
meant money they didn't get by holding their hands out to mommy gov't. Think
about it - they're probably in the zero tax bracket - if they payed $3100 in
taxes, I don't imagine they take in more than ~15k/year. Anyone with tax
tables handy can give us a much more accurate number.
|
243.417 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:25 | 3 |
| I don't see where you get the idea they paid $3100 in taxes. They're getting
$3100 back. This includes the Earned Income Credit, which is sort of a negative
income tax.
|
243.418 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:26 | 32 |
| RE: .410
> I think what's being said is that if they have disposable income for
> non-essentials yet they continue to receive assistance, then there's
> something radically wrong.
The tax refund is a 'windfall' which they are placing back into
society as consumers.
> Don't you see this? Do you actually think that it's equitable for the
> government to be forcibly taking YOUR income, to _give_ to someone else
> while they have money to spend on things that perhaps you (or others
> who work, pay taxes, and don't get assistance) cannot afford?
They could not work without affordable daycare. So they get the
daycare and they work. Now they have a tax refund (once per year,
at most.) The refund is a reward for working. If they are anxious
to be consumers more often (and it sounds like they are), then they
will move up the ladder to be self-sufficient. (The self-sufficient
can buy far more in consumer goods than people who are very poor.)
> It's not the income tax refund that's the problem. It's not their
> decisions how to spend it that are the problem. It's the fact that
> they CONTINUE to receive assistance while having that level of
> discretion in their financial management.
It's temporary. They are budding consumers with a plan (already
in motion) to become self-sufficient.
We want to encourage people to take this route, even if it means that
they will get a 'windfall' in the form of a tax return for a couple
of years in the process.
|
243.419 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | scratching just makes it worse | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:28 | 1 |
| Where's my windfall?
|
243.420 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:32 | 6 |
| RE: .419 Mark
> Where's my windfall?
Ask Ronald Reagan. He was a big supporter of the Earned Income tax
credit to encourage the working poor.
|
243.421 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:33 | 15 |
| > They could not work without affordable daycare.
Horse foofey. There have been half a dozen good suggestions in here this
afternoon as to how they could accomplish child care affordably without
any sort of public assistance.
> We want to encourage people to take this route, even if it means that
> they will get a 'windfall' in the form of a tax return for a couple
> of years in the process.
No - what "you" want, is to pick my pocket in order to provide what "you" think
they should be entitled to. And, again, I'm not talking about the tax refund,
to which I agree they're entitled as long as we abide by the silly tax code
we have. I'm talking about the fact that they are receiving assistance while
having discretionary funds available to them.
|
243.422 | | EST::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:39 | 8 |
| > <<< Note 243.417 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>I don't see where you get the idea they paid $3100 in taxes. They're getting
Based on the over-simplified notion that in the zero bracket, you get back
all the taxes you paid in all year. Which is in turn based on the fact that
this is what happened to me the first year I had a real job.
If you're such a tax whiz, you give us an approximation of what they earned.
|
243.423 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | scratching just makes it worse | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:42 | 3 |
| You are missing the earned income credit, which actually provides a
check _in excess of the amount that was deducted for FIT_ to the
working poor.
|
243.424 | The tax refund is their encouragement to keep moving forward... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:46 | 28 |
| RE: .421
> Horse foofey. There have been half a dozen good suggestions in here this
> afternoon as to how they could accomplish child care affordably without
> any sort of public assistance.
Suggestions from total strangers who don't know if any of the suggestions
would be feasible....
>> We want to encourage people to take this route, even if it means that
>> they will get a 'windfall' in the form of a tax return for a couple
>> of years in the process.
> No - what "you" want, is to pick my pocket in order to provide what
> "you" think they should be entitled to.
We want to encourage those who are willing to work. It makes no
sense to beat the crap out of the poor people who DO work hard and
manage to get a tax refund out of it as a reward for their efforts.
> And, again, I'm not talking about the tax refund, to which I agree
> they're entitled as long as we abide by the silly tax code we have.
> I'm talking about the fact that they are receiving assistance while
> having discretionary funds available to them.
The tax refund is temporary. The assistance is temporary. If they
are encouraged (with this tax refund) to continue working, they can
become permanent taxpayers/consumers. They are already on their way.
|
243.425 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:50 | 8 |
| > It makes no sense to beat the crap out of the poor people who DO work
> hard and manage to get a tax refund out of it as a reward for their efforts.
If taking away their assistance, since they can apparently "make it" without
it, is "beating the crap out of them", then lay on, McDuff.
You'll not find any sympathy from this quarter for providing entitlements
to those who happen to fall below your socialistic idea of "enough".
|
243.426 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 15:59 | 23 |
| RE: .425
>> It makes no sense to beat the crap out of the poor people who DO work
>> hard and manage to get a tax refund out of it as a reward for their
>> efforts.
> If taking away their assistance, since they can apparently "make it"
> without it, is "beating the crap out of them", then lay on, McDuff.
$3100 isn't enough for a family of four to 'make it' without any more
daycare assistance.
It's just a one-time tax refund. It's encouragement to keep on working
(and keep on moving up the ladder.) I'll bet they make it, too.
> You'll not find any sympathy from this quarter for providing entitlements
> to those who happen to fall below your socialistic idea of "enough".
So, people shouldn't get any assistance at all unless they are willing
to work, but if they do work, then they don't need any assitance at all.
(Right?)
So it's not at all about helping those who help themselves.
|
243.427 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:04 | 10 |
| > $3100 isn't enough for a family of four to 'make it' without any more
> daycare assistance.
So howcome half a dozen suggestions regarding child care alternatives by total
strangers can be tossed away offhand since we don't know anything about it,
but you've got the inside track on this matter as to what dollar figures
suffice?
Spare me, will ya?
|
243.428 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:09 | 4 |
| re .422:
Presumably the first year you had a real job was either before the EIC or
you had no dependents or both.
|
243.429 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:14 | 12 |
| If you want more of the poor to become self-sufficient, don't
discourage them by punishing them for receiving a reward for
their work.
If they're working towards a better life, a temporary 'windfall'
(in the form of a tax refund) will provide encouragement for
them to become self-sufficient.
It can provide a taste of what it would be like to have the kind
of spending power they would never be able to achieve without
moving up the ladder. (This money is also being invested back
into the American economy, which is good, too.)
|
243.430 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:17 | 3 |
| Well, for the nth time, I don't think anyone said anything about denying
them their tax refund, but if you like talking to yourself, well, have
a great time!
|
243.431 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:23 | 24 |
| If they can afford a dishwasher, they don't need assistance. Nobody
needs a dishwasher; I don't have one.
Giving them a "windfall" as "encouragement" is no excuse. To give them
that "windfall" money, the government took money away from some
taxpayers who cannot afford a dishwasher or education, or who can just
barely afford it. Somewhere in this country, there's another person
who didn't have kids they couldn't afford and does hold a full-time job
and does not qualify for earned-income credit or welfare but did have
to pay taxes they might have spent on a dishwasher or education.
It is not fair to take that person's money to "encourage" others. It
discourages them -- and it does so twice, once when you take their
money and again when you give it to less deserving people.
For "encouragement", let the welfare family look to people who are
working and who are not feeding at the public trough.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
243.432 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:26 | 8 |
|
I'm trying to achieve a better life, and would also appreciate
a temporary "windfall" to provide a taste of what it would be
like to have the kind of spending power I would never be able
to achieve without moving up the ladder.
So I'd like the government to buy me a Porsche 911.
|
243.433 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:27 | 10 |
| People seem to want to deny these people their daycare assistance
on the basis that they are receiving a tax refund.
They are working towards becoming self-sufficient. They are doing
what people keep saying that ALL Welfare recipients should do, yet
they're being damned anyway (because of their tax refund.)
If they weren't receiving any tax refund at all, would they simply
be regarded as a family on the move toward a better life (while
getting daycare assistance temporarily?)
|
243.434 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:28 | 7 |
|
Oh, and I LOVE it when you say "they are consumers and are
funneling money back into the system".
Drug users are also funneling money back into the system,
but that's not necessarily a good thing, is it?
|
243.435 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:29 | 7 |
|
Suzanne, they're receiving a tax refund and are planning on
spending it on a non-necessity while they're receiving some
sort of financial assistance for pseudo-necessities.
THAT'S the problem.
|
243.436 | What else was Ronald Reagan wrong about? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:29 | 2 |
| Ok, so Ronald Reagan was a dope when he supported the Earned Income
Credit, eh?
|
243.437 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:36 | 1 |
| his present wife?
|
243.438 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:36 | 19 |
| RE: .435 Shawn
> Suzanne, they're receiving a tax refund and are planning on
> spending it on a non-necessity while they're receiving some
> sort of financial assistance for pseudo-necessities.
The tax refund *is* the problem, then.
> THAT'S the problem.
They could avoid this by changing their W4 so that they only
receive the EIC after filing their income taxes at the end
of the year.
If their takehome pay is still low enough to qualify for the
daycare assistance, then they would avoid having a windfall
at the end of the year. (The actual EIC payment isn't much.)
Or, they could quit writing to Tom's wife with this information. :)
|
243.439 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:45 | 5 |
|
How much are they getting for a daycare subsidy?
Why can't they receive ($x - $3100) next year?
|
243.440 | (Some encouragement.) | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 16:47 | 1 |
| So you want to increase the tax burden of the working poor?
|
243.441 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Mar 12 1996 17:06 | 6 |
| > So you want to increase the tax burden of the working poor?
No, we want a clear justification for the support and relative
assurance that there isn't any fraud involved.
|
243.442 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 17:08 | 9 |
| Do you want to pay for the people it will take to make sure that
those who request daycare (because they work) really need to have
daycare?
Obviously, if a person applies for daycare assistance, they are
there because they say they need it.
Investigating these people to make sure they do need it would take
extra Welfare caseworkers.
|
243.443 | Honestly Ms. Conlon, you crack me up ! | SCASS1::EDITEX::MOORE | GetOuttaMyChair | Tue Mar 12 1996 17:33 | 7 |
|
.429
> don't discourage them by punishing them for receiving a reward for
> their work.
A reward ? A REWARD ? BWAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
243.444 | BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I love it!! | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 12 1996 18:07 | 5 |
| Gee, what on Earth was Ronald Reagan thinking when he supported the
Earned Income Credit all those years?
Was he a Liberal?? =:0
|
243.445 | | DECLNE::REESE | My REALITY check bounced | Tue Mar 12 1996 19:35 | 8 |
| .408
Mark,
You were right, this IS a case of needs vs. wants and apparently
Suzanne has missed that point.
|
243.446 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Tue Mar 12 1996 21:03 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 243.445 by DECLNE::REESE "My REALITY check bounced" >>>
| You were right, this IS a case of needs vs. wants and apparently
| Suzanne has missed that point.
Needs defined by who? Let me ask you something. If it was someone who
was not a repub that was in office that did the same thing, would it have been
seen as a need or as a want? I think that is what suz is making a point of.
Glen
|
243.447 | | SCASS1::EDITEX::MOORE | GetOuttaMyChair | Wed Mar 13 1996 00:58 | 5 |
| .444
> ...Ronald Reagan thinking...
There's a novel concept.
|
243.448 | Food for thought... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Mar 13 1996 03:14 | 21 |
| RE: .445 Karen Reese
> You were right, this IS a case of needs vs. wants and apparently
> Suzanne has missed that point.
It's not that simple, of course.
The working poor are taxpayers, too. If someone can justify putting
a larger tax burden on the working poor for a moral principle, then
keeping a large tax burden on the middle class can be justified the
same way.
I'm looking at this more from a practical viewpoint. I think it's
better for our society if the working poor make their way up the
ladder because they want to do it for themselves (and not because
they've been severely and harshly scolded into doing it.)
If we thump the guts out of their enthusiasm for becoming hardy and
self-sufficient, we also hurt ourselves (as the ones who would benefit
from their productive participation in our society almost as much
as they would.)
|
243.449 | Encourage them to stand on their own two feet when able ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Wed Mar 13 1996 08:31 | 19 |
| > I'm looking at this more from a practical viewpoint. I think it's
> better for our society if the working poor make their way up the
> ladder because they want to do it for themselves (and not because
> they've been severely and harshly scolded into doing it.)
I think we all have the same goal, just different approaches for obtaining that
goal.
Should I be able to quit my job so that I can qualify for welfare while I
attend college full time, when I am perfectly capable of working and attending
classes nights/weekends?
While I applaud this mans desire to better himself, I question the choices
that have been made so that he may pursue that goal.
I guess it all depends on how you define "needs".
Doug.
|
243.450 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 13 1996 08:38 | 5 |
| > (The actual EIC payment isn't much.)
I happen to have an old IRS publication at my desk. It's from 1993, and no
doubt the EIC has risen since then (since it's indexed to inflation). Two
years ago the maximum EIC payment was $2,364.
|
243.451 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 13 1996 08:48 | 13 |
| Re .436:
> Ok, so Ronald Reagan was a dope when he supported the Earned Income
> Credit, eh?
Ronald Reagan was a dope long before that.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
243.452 | The EIC is the problem here ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Wed Mar 13 1996 08:52 | 0 |
243.453 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 13 1996 08:53 | 14 |
| Re .450:
> Two years ago the maximum EIC payment was $2,364.
This year, for 1995 returns, it is $3,110. That's on a gross income of
around $8600 to $9000 or so. That's a tax rate of negative 36 percent!
And an annual percentage increase of 15 percent.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
243.454 | EITC | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Mar 13 1996 09:29 | 34 |
|
Well, I happen to like the concept of the EITC. The object is
to get people to work. Even in the liberal "Kindergarten School
of Economics" they know people don't work if they get LESS for
working than not. If you have a poor person with no skills who
cannot support themselves and so DOESN'T work, and another poor
person with no skills who cannot support themselves and washes
dishes for $5/hour, any rational welfare system must see to it
that the second is less poor than the first. Assuming you aren't
going to outright starve people, and nobody has advocated that
even though Suzanne lies and said they did, you want a system of
poor relief that does not disincent low wage work. Ronald Reagan,
whose intelligence was not great as Presidents go, was, as usual,
correct - just as Jimmy Carter, one of our smartest presidents
yet, was almost always wrong. Intelligence being about seventh
on a list of most important qualities in a president.
The Weld program is working very well so far - people are getting off
welfare by going to work. They are subsidized in various ways as long
as they work, but it costs somewhat less than pure welfare. This is
admittedly easier to do when there is near full employment, but we
don't know that it won't work out even in a recession. Can't tell,
hasn't happened yet. And many other states are doing similar, under
waivers Clinton has signed, while vetoing the welfare bill at the
national level that would do exactly the same thing. This is not
logical from a policy perspective, but Clinton doesn't care about
policy - he cares about opinion polls. He will approve waivers in
high electoral vote states he thinks he might carry.
These local welfare reforms are overwhelmingly popular, and not all
the states involved are governed by Republicans - see Vermont, for
example.
bb
|
243.455 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | scratching just makes it worse | Wed Mar 13 1996 09:33 | 3 |
| I don't have a problem with the concept of the EITC either. But it has
to be part of the whole solution, and changes should be made to it when
the rest of the solution is in place.
|
243.456 | fresh meat | EST::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Mar 13 1996 09:44 | 16 |
| Ok gang, here you go... I got more info from my wife. This is based on
nothing but her recollection of previous letters, so don't go milking details
out of this that aren't there. A little too much of that was done with the
last letter.
Amy & family live in a 2 bedroom duplex. My wife saw a photo of it and said
it looked like a typical yuppie condo.
They are receiving food stamps. She's not sure about monthly checks, but that
was implied in the letter I put in here.
They go out to eat at least twice a week.
Amy plays golf with her mother once a week.
Amy's parents live about 1 mile away and adore Amy's kids.
|
243.457 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 13 1996 09:54 | 24 |
| Re .454:
> Well, I happen to like the concept of the EITC. The object is
> to get people to work.
Allow me to introduce to you an astounding concept in rewarding and
encouraging people to work. It is called "wages".
> . . . any rational welfare system must see to it that the second is
> less poor than the first.
All that is necessary for this to occur is for the slope of net income
(after taxes and welfare are subtracted/added) as a function of earned
income to be positive at every point. That can be accomplished by
reducing welfare by some fraction of earned income. As long as the
fraction is between 0 and 1, you will not get any reversals that
reward people more for not working than for working.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
243.458 | Sure, that also does it | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Mar 13 1996 10:30 | 24 |
|
Well, that works, too, of course, EDP. The only real reason
to do it through taxes is that taxes already have a reporting
system, so you can use your sliding scale there. The welfare
people might have a harder time getting the data, is all.
It's very hard to get work incentives passed and signed, at either
the state or local levels. The liberal Democrats have 40 years
invested in a system of spies whose main job is to prevent work
and break up families, by stopping the checks of only those
people who do anything productive, or try to keep families intact.
More than one welfare father sneaks down the fire escape when the
social worker comes calling. And under-the-table work is notorious
in this situation. The chief argument AGAINST the EITC is that it
has the highest rate of fraud of any tax program by far. But then,
the fraud rate of ANY welfare/poor law program is doomed to be high.
Two years back, a prison warden was caught right here in Mass,
trying to cash 200 welfare checks from the PRM to his wards. Under
investigation, it was revealed he had quite a racket coercing them
into his scheme. Any income redistribution or tax program has to
have some sort of enforcement arm.
bb
|
243.459 | workfare | DEVLPR::ANDRADE | | Wed Mar 13 1996 11:59 | 24 |
| Replace WELFARE by WORKFARE ...
I have nothing against helping people out in their luck, but
I should get something out of it ... ex: cleaner streets and
buildings, less pot-holes in roads, etc.
CHILDCARE is a big issue in welfare, and I don't see why
childcare cannot be provided as part of workfare as well.
(As a matter fact childcare could be sold to non-workfare
families as well, thus becoming a real job.)
Something like:
If you are in workfare, you expected to study 8 hours a week,
and work 24. Mothers will children can either provide childcare
work or leave then with some other workfare-childcare mother
while they work/study/look-for-work.
For example:
Workfare person goes to classes monday, works tuesday tru
thursday, and looks for non-workfare work friday.
Gil
|
243.460 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 13 1996 12:00 | 5 |
|
Woah, someone call security!!
This person is brandishing some SERIOUS logic here!!
|
243.461 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Wed Mar 13 1996 12:44 | 5 |
|
Why do I get the impression that a great plan like the one that got
mentioned would turn into a 2000 page bomb if capital hill, or the state house
got a hold of it?
|
243.462 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Wed Mar 13 1996 12:52 | 4 |
|
re: .459
Wasn't that what the CCC and the works projects of the 1930's were?
|
243.463 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Wed Mar 13 1996 13:40 | 24 |
| >243.458
>GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" 24 lines 13-MAR-1996 10:30
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's very hard to get work incentives passed and signed, at either
> the state or local levels. The liberal Democrats have 40 years
> invested in a system of spies whose main job is to prevent work
> and break up families, by stopping the checks of only those
> people who do anything productive, or try to keep families intact.
> More than one welfare father sneaks down the fire escape when the
> social worker comes calling. And under-the-table work is notorious
> in this situation. The chief argument AGAINST the EITC is that it
> has the highest rate of fraud of any tax program by far. But then,
> the fraud rate of ANY welfare/poor law program is doomed to be high.
SPIES?? Break up families?? Highest rate of fraud?? Where does all
this come from? Wasn't it a DEMOCRATIC legislature that passed the EITC for
your hero President Reagan? Isn't it the democrats in government that are
attempting to streamline the process for the states to get waivers? The
conservatives won't allow that because they want the block grants with NO
REQUIREMENTS on the money at all.
|
243.464 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Thu Mar 14 1996 14:20 | 57 |
| I am in agreementwith suzzanne here. The EITC encourages people to
work and even RR could see the logic in that. How someone spends that
money is their business, it might be to repair or upgrade the family
clunker, or it might be to buy a stereo, SWTFC? Being able to buy
something nice can kick in the good-ole greed factor and encourage
people to get out and make more to buy more.
BTW some people might consider a dishwasher to be a luxury. I bought
mine used 10 years ago for $35.00 and consider it a near-necessity for
a working household, particularly from a health standpoint. The only
way to really clean dishes by hand uses far more hot water and fuel
(which costs somebody money somewhere along the line) than my old and
non-efficient potscrubber does. ( Source "Consumer's Union magazine"
from several years ago) I will be happier when I have finished
upgrading the house and can put in a built in but until then the
clunker keeps running.
As for the workfare someone mentioned on pothole filling. Your own
municipal employees have successfully fought this in many communities.
i have been one person asking for training some mother to do child care
so others can get out into the workforce, but work on training all so
they can hopefully get jobs that pay enough to get completely off the
dole. The training has been done successfully in many places, but was
discontinued or gutted to the point of ridiculousness during the 80's
and some people want to pull even more money out of training and
education. Along the way you may need to do some rehab as many
families on AFDC are headed by a disabled person.
while I know some won't agree with me, I think nursing women should be
exempt from full-time work or training for the first year, unless
provisions are made for expressing and refrigerating breastmilk. This
gives the littles an unbeatable health boost in the first year, as well
as potentially reducing the costs to all of us from breast cancer and
endometrial cancer and reduces the chances of a second baby within a
short time of the first baby.
Cracking down on predatory men who impregnate young teenage girls may
not be a bad idea either. Many studies have shown that the "men" who
sired children on the youngest of teen mothers are at least 5 and
usually 10 years older than the teen. Enforce the statutory rape laws,
but rather than prison make these "men" go through counseling,
job-training and work to support their offspring and their mothers
while they finish school. If the are multiple offenders they should
probably be counseled towards doing something about their fertility.
Honest peer education for kids to take the perceived glamor out of
childbearing and raising, as well as reenforcing the idea that both
sexes are responsible for avoiding pregnancy should drop the teen
pregnancy and birth rate, and teen mothers are those most at risk of
being on AFDC long-term, as well as having multiple children while on
AFDC. Probably wouldn't hurt for them to have actual videos of births
including c-sections. (both sexes starting at about age 12)
meg
|
243.465 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Mar 14 1996 15:49 | 17 |
| Re .464:
> How someone spends that money is their business, it might be to
> repair or upgrade the family clunker, or it might be to buy a stereo,
> SWTFC?
No, it is not their business; it is the business of the people from
whom the money was taken. I care, and the person whose tax burden
preventing them from buying a stereo or taking that college class
should be pissed off that somebody else is getting a handout.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
243.466 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Mar 14 1996 15:59 | 28 |
| An interesting discussion, well done all around, at least recently.
If I may quibble?
> The Weld program is working very well so far - people are getting off
> welfare by going to work. They are subsidized in various ways as long
> as they work, but it costs somewhat less than pure welfare. This is
> admittedly easier to do when there is near full employment, but we
> don't know that it won't work out even in a recession. Can't tell,
> hasn't happened yet.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I want to emphasize that data point.
> vetoing the welfare bill at the national level that would do exactly
> the same thing. This is not logical from a policy perspective, but
> Clinton doesn't care about policy - he cares about opinion polls.
It is my opinion that letting the states act as laboratories for
experiments in welfare reform is valuable precisely because we can see
how different approaches work in a variety of economic conditions.
When you admit yourself that such schemes are not fully tested (as
in, we haven't had a recession yet) I don't think it so bad for Clinton
not to experiment at a national level yet. We need to see what works.
So his actions *are* logical from the policy perspective that
encourages experiments and is waiting for fuller results.
DougO
|
243.467 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Mar 14 1996 16:05 | 30 |
| RE: .458 bb
> It's very hard to get work incentives passed and signed, at either
> the state or local levels. The liberal Democrats have 40 years
> invested in a system of spies whose main job is to prevent work
> and break up families, by stopping the checks of only those
> people who do anything productive, or try to keep families intact.
Welfare rules which seem to work against people who try to improve
their situations (by working, etc.) are unfortunate compromises
to appease those who harbor deep resentment against those who get
helped in the first place. Believe it or not, some people resent
the idea that Welfare families start having more money to spend as
they move closer and closer to being self-sufficient.
The idea is to assure people against Welfare that the system will
dump anyone who seems to show signs of being able to make it on their
own (so that only the most desperate people will be helped.)
As people start to make it on their own (by working, etc.), the system
makes a point of trying to dump them (which tends to discourage people
from trying to make it on their own.)
IMO, it would be more constructive if we allowed a greater transition
between Welfare and self-sufficiency, even if it means that some people
might spend their EIC tax refund on things they want instead of things
they need.
The point is to encourage people to be self-sufficient. Optimistic
people have a better chance of 'making it' than demoralized people.
|
243.468 | | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 20 1996 12:53 | 15 |
| <<< Note 243.466 by SX4GTO::OLSON "DBTC Palo Alto" >>>
> Can't tell,
> hasn't happened yet.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I want to emphasize that data point.
Unsurprisingly, the MA welfare rolls started to decline
immediately after Weld announced his Workfare project. They
continue to decline to this day.
Just coincidence? Don't be silly.
daryll
|
243.469 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | contents under pressure | Wed Mar 20 1996 13:24 | 2 |
| The "Can't tell, asn't happened yet." refers to how things will be
during the next recession.
|
243.470 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Wed Mar 20 1996 14:17 | 13 |
| <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 243.470 Welfare Reform. 470 of 470
NICOLA::STACY 6 lines 20-MAR-1996 14:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .468
Does Gov Carrot also tell you how many people that were on welfare left
the state? Does "Gov never worked a day since the election" also tell you that
he has had his welfare reform stopped in court? The numbers don't tell you how
they got there and politicians are not going to tell you where to look. The
Politicians will only take credit when they can.
|
243.471 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Mar 20 1996 14:24 | 13 |
| re: <<< Note 243.470 by NICOLA::STACY >>>
> Does Gov Carrot also tell you how many people that were on welfare left
>the state?
What possible difference does that make? He has a responsibility to the
taxpayers of the PRM to reduce the Welfare rolls/payouts. Whether he does
it by getting people to work or to leave is totally immaterial. The reason
we have such low welfare rolls in New Hampshire is because we don't provide
much and therefore make it an unattractive place for trough-feeders to
congregate. By your line of reasoning, that's something to be ashamed of.
Typical, Jim.
|
243.472 | amen | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 20 1996 14:38 | 0 |
243.473 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:19 | 6 |
| re: .471
Yes is something to be ashamed of! Very ashamed of! You've shed new
light on the conservative agenda. We liberals thought you just wanted to throw
people out on the street. Now you tell us that you want to throw them out of
the USA. SHAME, SHAME!
|
243.474 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | contents under pressure | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:37 | 3 |
| <guffaw!>
Another liberal's liberal.
|
243.475 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:38 | 3 |
| -1
Another irresponsible conservative!
|
243.476 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:43 | 12 |
| Ah, Jim, yer a treasure, fer sure.
You remind me of a conversation I had in here with another PRM liberal
socialist several years ago who was trying to tell me that the State
of New Hampshire was in the wrong for providing such stingy welfare
bennies, because the end result was that all the trough-feeders migrated
south to the PRM. He just couldn't get it into his head that the voters
in the PRM had every right to do exactly what Weld finally did to force
the trough-feeders someplace else.
I'll wear my shame in honor, thanks.
|
243.477 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:55 | 5 |
|
re: .476
I'm glad you will wear your shame with honor. That would be the first
responsible thing I've ever seen from a conservative comunist republican.
|
243.478 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:56 | 10 |
|
re: .473
>SHAME, SHAME!
get a clue... You're just pissed off because you have to pay more to
keep the trough-feeders YOU expect us to take care of!!
Tough noogies!! You got em.. you keep em!!!
|
243.479 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Wed Mar 20 1996 15:58 | 12 |
|
re: .477
>conservative comunist republican.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Count me in with Lucky Jack!! We'll wear the badges, while you get
your pockets picked!! Deal???
|
243.480 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:00 | 6 |
|
re: .478
I am not the least bit upset to do what is needed for a better USA. I
just wish the greedy, self centered, irresponsible, cowardly, comunist
conservative republicans would get out of the way.
|
243.481 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:03 | 1 |
| Hey! Can we send our welfare cases packing to the PRM, too? 8^)
|
243.482 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:04 | 9 |
|
re: .480
>I am not the least bit upset to do what is needed for a better USA
No matter how much it costs *me*... right???
|
243.483 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:15 | 5 |
| I'll never forget the signs at the Panama Airport...
"Go to Massachusetts....Free Money!"
You sap....you gullible sap you....
|
243.484 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:41 | 30 |
| re: a few back
Yeah, the conservatives should just get out the way, so government can
control the tidbits that aren't currently in its grasp. I don't think
so.
Sorry some welfare payments do not meet your approval, though. Maybe
if we raise taxes another 5%, we can insure that these poor welfare
victims can have new cars, complete with cellular phone (for safety, of
course). That would be very kind and charitable, wouldn't it? Of
course, the rest of us fools who still work, will struggle to put food
on the table, but that is a small price to pay for insuring our poor
are adequately taken care of, right?
The problem with the liberal brand of compassion is that it knows not
where to draw the line. It is always more compassionate to toss more
money at a problem, even when experience tells us that this is not
fixing anything.
On another note, I do wish you'd quit misusing the term "communist" in
your name calling. The republican platform may seem greedy to you (amoung
the other adjectives you like to use), but it cannot possibly be construed
as "communist". Your own mantra is much closer to communism than anything
the Republicans have put to paper.
Do us all a favor and look this term up in the dictionary. Thanks.
-steve
|
243.485 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:51 | 14 |
|
re: .484
The conservative republican way:
If lost without a clue{
Insert big government or
Insert Socialist Liberal false label
Then tell everybody what the liberal think
Then LIE about what conservatives think
Typical, Typical conservative BS.
It is that same thinking that put the USA in the 5 Trillion debt.
|
243.486 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Mar 20 1996 16:56 | 10 |
| Dear Nicola:
Just so you'll have a better understanding...
Reagan makes deal with Tip O'Neil...
Tip O'Neil fails to come through....
Congress does not cut spending as previously promised....
The rest is history.
Hope this helps.
|
243.487 | which leads to more questions | HBAHBA::HAAS | floor,chair,couch,bed | Wed Mar 20 1996 17:02 | 6 |
| So this Reagan guy, was he stupid or something?
Right wingers have been saying all along what a crook O'Neil was so which
nincompoop figgered this plan out?
And what was Dole's part in all this?
|
243.488 | A lobster in every pot !!! | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Mar 21 1996 08:30 | 6 |
| > I am not the least bit upset to do what is needed for a better USA. I
>just wish the greedy, self centered, irresponsible, cowardly, comunist
>conservative republicans would get out of the way.
And your answers for solving this countries woes are?
|
243.489 | | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Thu Mar 21 1996 09:10 | 7 |
| Woman in Bradford MA has been collecting welfare for the past 3
years totalling over 31K. She did this by claiming her husband
was not living with her and their 3 kids when in reality not only
was he there, but he was working and they had 100K in the bank.
Both are non-US citizens.
daryll
|
243.490 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | contents under pressure | Thu Mar 21 1996 09:15 | 2 |
| You must be a CCR (conservative communist republican) to deny the woman
the benefits she so richly deserves.
|
243.491 | rright | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Thu Mar 21 1996 09:30 | 9 |
|
I'm sure that's an isolated case and nothing to get too excited about.
|
243.492 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 21 1996 09:32 | 3 |
| re .489:
Bradford MA? Does such a place exist?
|
243.493 | | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Thu Mar 21 1996 09:34 | 1 |
| Bradford is located just south of Haverhill.
|
243.494 | | HANNAH::MODICA | Journeyman Noter | Thu Mar 21 1996 09:41 | 5 |
|
Re: .489
Cut it out Daryll. You're being insensitive.
Stop her benefits and in no time at all we'll be like Bosnia.
|
243.495 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Thu Mar 21 1996 09:51 | 3 |
|
I wonder if they bought an entertainment center and a dishwasher?
|
243.496 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Thu Mar 21 1996 09:53 | 4 |
|
Will someone please have this woman call me????
|
243.497 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Thu Mar 21 1996 09:56 | 2 |
| Bradford is a nice community. Houses are fairly expensive. This is
where Bradford College is.
|
243.498 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 21 1996 10:05 | 2 |
| Bradford isn't on my list of Mass towns. Is it a neighborhood of another
town? The -ford that's south of Haverhill is Boxford.
|
243.499 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Thu Mar 21 1996 10:09 | 11 |
|
I don't think anyone is saying fraud doesn't happen with welfare. Hell,
it happens in governments (well, once in a great while...hee hee), companies,
banks, colleges, etc. Now the trick is to get it to always be an isolated case,
and not more of the norm.
I think welfare has a way to go before it loses it's reputation.
Glen
|
243.500 | It may be considered part of Haverhill... | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Thu Mar 21 1996 10:41 | 5 |
| Thanks, but Bradford is indeed just south of Haverhill. Boxford
is a little further beyond that. Ward Hill Industrial park off RT
495 is in Bradford.
daryll
|
243.501 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Mar 21 1996 11:38 | 9 |
| Almost every aspect of life in this country can serve as a target
for fraud and crime, especially if it has anything to do with money.
Would it be a practical remedy for fraud/crime if we eliminated all
aspects of life in this country that involve the exchange of money
in any way?
Or do we simply deal with the fraud and the crime in our society
as separate issues?
|
243.502 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Thu Mar 21 1996 13:25 | 3 |
|
Suz.... the latter one is what should happen
|
243.503 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:28 | 35 |
|
>Note 243.484
>ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha."
>
> On another note, I do wish you'd quit misusing the term "communist" in
>
> Do us all a favor and look this term up in the dictionary. Thanks.
I did look it up in the dictionary. I am using it in the proper place
and method. Don't you like the LABEL? I believe I am using the label more
accurately than those who throw it at me.
Relevant excerpts:
COMMUNIST PARTY: The official state party of the USSR.
communism: Socialism as exemplified in countries ruled by Communist parties.
The communist party of the USSR had the communist party as their first
priority. Not the state or the people, but the party. It was ruled by a rigid
hierarchy that gave benefits to "GOOD" party members that followed the "party
line". Isn't that why the repubs just picked DOLE? Wasn't it Mr Knewt that
told Kemp that supporting Forbes would be treason? Didn't Mr Dole go out
stumping for Mr. North saying that the elected President of the United States
was not the commander because he didn't follow the "CONSERVATIVE LINE"? The
republicans in the house are supposed to get passes from the party leaders to
be able to vote against legislation. Dole wants to bring this behavior to the
Senate. In this notes conference, anything liberal is labeled and dismissed
because it doesn't follow your party line. In fact the single outstanding
goal of the conservatives here seems to be to get rePublicans in ALL elected
positions. I don't believe I am misusing the term.
Communist Coward Conservative rePublicans ( CCCP ) actually fits.
- - - -
|
243.504 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:45 | 18 |
| Communism, from what I understand involves a centralist power base
where the outer fray of society, the people in this case, are dependant
upon the foundation of that power.
Loyalty to a party is very much a part of both parties; therefore, you
may as well call both parties communist. Your argument is a non
sequitor.
I think the basic argument between the two philosophies is reaching
desired result but through two different channels. We know for example
that the status quo as far as welfare will NEVER offer prosperity. So
it would seem we need to come to dialog on how to reform it. A drug
addict needs to admit his problem and put down the needle before the
next step can be taken. In our case, the spending needs to come to a
halt...not a slowing down but a halt. Otherwise, we are only kidding
ourselves.
-Jack
|
243.505 | | EVMS::MORONEY | while (!asleep) sheep++; | Thu Mar 21 1996 17:46 | 8 |
| re .503:
The old "The sky is blue, and blueberries are blue, therefore the sky is a
blueberry" type of logic.
Now look up "socialism" and explain how it applies to the Republican party.
Also explain the phrase "From each according to one's abilities, to each
according to one's needs" and how this is a Republican idea.
|
243.506 | oh yeah, real non sequiter... | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Thu Mar 21 1996 18:16 | 11 |
| re: .504, .505
So, does this mean the things .503 speaks of are not true? Or does it
mean it's ok because they're Republicans? Or does it mean it's ok
because they're better than those darned commie socialist lib'ral
democrats?
Or does it mean that since it's about Republicans you'll just ignore it?
I know where the smart money is.
\john
|
243.507 | | EVMS::MORONEY | while (!asleep) sheep++; | Thu Mar 21 1996 18:22 | 11 |
| re .506:
No never said that.
To make it obvious, I'm pointing out the flaw in the logic of .503 which seems
to say "The Communists are a party that cares only about itself, and the
Republicans are a party that cares only about itself, therefore the Republicans
are Communists."
I know perfectly well the Republican are just as slimy as the Democrats,
if not worse.
|
243.508 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Thu Mar 21 1996 19:55 | 2 |
| <---then would it be correct to say that democrats and republicans are
Communists? Or in Pat Buchanan's case....a columnist. :-)
|
243.509 | | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Thu Mar 21 1996 20:26 | 22 |
| re: .507
I know what you were saying.
I don't think .503 was trying to dazzle you with a brilliant
display of logic; he was pointing out how STOOPID it is to
be labeling the democrats "commies" by showing how easy it
is to apply the same label to the republicans.
You know darned well the democrats want NOTHING like Communist
Russia/Soviet Union. DARNED well. Sure their policies may
be misguided sometimes. So are the policies of the republicans.
But to constantly smear them as "commies" and "socialists" is
just that, STOOPID.
If you have arguments, USE THEM. Labels like commie, socialist,
even "liberal," don't add anything. In fact, they detract from
what might otherwise be a reasonable discussion of the issues
involved. Such labels only remind us how shallow the thought
processes of the labeler are.
\john
|
243.510 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Mar 21 1996 20:28 | 6 |
| >I know perfectly well the Republican are just as slimy as the Democrats,
>if not worse.
Of course we're just as slimy. But we ain't communists, whereas the Democrats
_are_ socialists.
|
243.511 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Alrighty, bye bye then. | Thu Mar 21 1996 20:50 | 2 |
| If it makes anyone feel any better, the U.S. Democrats are to the right
of Canada's Conservatives.
|
243.512 | No Salvation to the North | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Mar 21 1996 23:15 | 7 |
| > If it makes anyone feel any better, the U.S. Democrats are to the right
> of Canada's Conservatives.
???
You're doomed for sure, then.
|
243.513 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 22 1996 08:36 | 11 |
| re: .503
Your own brand of terminology, as explained in .503, can also be
used to apply your pet term to the Democratic party. There is little
difference in the way the two parties are run.
I've got to hand it to you, though. You really do go to great lengths
to rationalize an untenable statement.
-steve
|
243.514 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 22 1996 08:46 | 7 |
| re: .509
Not quite. No one but the author of .503 is using the term
"communist".
-steve
|
243.515 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Mar 22 1996 09:32 | 10 |
| Let's settle this the easier way...
Dems pick the pockets of the people for tactical reasons. It has not
solved any poverty problems and never will.
Pubs pick the pockets of the people for strategic reasons. Subsidies
to large businesses. Strengthens GNP and creates jobs.
So we have blue collar welfare vs. white collar welfare. Which one is
more noble?
|
243.516 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Fri Mar 22 1996 09:37 | 5 |
|
Jack, these jobs that are created....what is the salary? I know there
are a ton of jobs out there right now. But the salaries aren't going to take
too many people off of welfare.
|
243.517 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Mar 22 1996 09:43 | 5 |
| "Communists", "Socialists" etc, are just terms used by one elitist
political organization to discredit the other, while turning the
populas away from the real problems. We lash out at the political
party's ideologies and at each other, while never identifying their
underlying hoax of sacrificing us to them.
|
243.518 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 22 1996 09:52 | 7 |
| > But the salaries aren't going to take too many people off of welfare.
I wouldn't be too sure about that, Glen. The fact of the matter is that
there is money to be earned and advancement to be had by holding down
a job - any job. And that's what gets folks off welfare.
|
243.519 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:06 | 15 |
|
You have a point there, Jack. I know when I got out of school I did a
crap job. But I got by. It helped me want to find something better.
But if a family has to survive on minimum wage, it might not work out
so well.
On a related story, my sister's divorce becomes final today. She gets
the trailor and the kids. She gets about $200/week take home. Her husband will
be giving her $600/month. Glad the cost of living isn't as high down there. If
she didn't have day care to pay for, it would be easier.
Glen
|
243.520 | | EST::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:17 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 243.491 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "We shall behold Him!" >>>
> I'm sure that's an isolated case and nothing to get too excited about.
Wanna bet?
Amongst the inlaws... he inherited some land, sold it for some 6 or 7 digit
figure, she (his 3rd wife) gambled it all away. He's been making ~$40k/year
for a long time. Oh yah, she and her kids have been on welfare throughout
all of this. Her kids brag about it.
|
243.521 | | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:17 | 11 |
| re: .514 (Steve)
Do you live in a vacuum or something? Do you have any idea what
.503 is talking about? Listen carefully: It's NOT about the
Republicans being communists.
If .503 is the only time you've seen the word "communist" in this
conference, you ought to get your connection checked; it's dropping
bits all over the floor.
\john
|
243.522 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:30 | 49 |
| >Note 243.514
>ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha."
>
> Not quite. No one but the author of .503 is using the term
> "communist".
You are technically accurate for the welfare reform string but quite
wrong in you intent. I have NEVER gone into the Coward Communist Conservative
Party ( CCCP) string until AFTER being called a socialist liberal as part of a
conservative argument. ::DELBASO has used that as an argument over and over.
You know it!!
>Note 243.504
>MKOTS3::JMARTIN
> Communism, from what I understand involves a centralist power base
> where the outer fray of society, the people in this case, are dependant
> upon the foundation of that power.
Are you trying to support the definition of the
Coward Communist Conservative republican Party ( CCCP )?
>Note 243.513
>ACISS2::LEECH
>
> Your own brand of terminology, as explained in .503, can also be
> used to apply your pet term to the Democratic party. There is little
> difference in the way the two parties are run.
I hope you aren't really trying to say that the Dems are united,
organized and following a central plan. How many of them have switched to
the GOP since the last election? Weren't you and the other Repubs bragging
about how centralized and organized that party is? Are you saying the GOP
is LIBERAL? No! You know your not as does everybody else.
There are MAJOR differences between the Dems and rePubs. One of those
differences is where the ideas and decisions come from. Today, Knewt and the
house leadership are taking the assault gun ban to the floor for a quick vote.
They want to avoid discussion. They want to avoid modification. They want
to pass this legislation as part of the payback to the NRA PAC. That is NOT
DEMOCRACY!! When Mayor Julianni (sp?) won the election, the RNC decided to
hold the convention this year in NYC. However, when Julianni broke the 11th
commandment of the rePublican party, the convention was moved to a more loyal
district in Calif. The specific examples of the central power of the GOP can
go on and on and on. This does NOT exist in the DEMOCRATIC party.
It may not be true that the GOP is communist, but the label fits
better to the GOP than the DEM. As for being Conservative and Cowards, it is
true.
|
243.523 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:31 | 14 |
| re: .521 (John)
Is your reading comprehension low today or something? I said that
"the author of .503" was the one bringing up the term communist in this
string. I doin't care if anyone has used it in the past, I am not
responding to those notes, nor am I going down the path of a discussion
on "labels".
His use of "communist" was incorrect, and that is the only point I was
attempting to make. The broader issue is irrelevant to my point of
contention.
-steve
|
243.524 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:46 | 3 |
| re: .522
I see you have bought into Schumer's lies. Sigh.
|
243.525 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:46 | 19 |
| Z Jack, these jobs that are created....what is the salary? I know there
Z are a ton of jobs out there right now. But the salaries aren't going to
Z take too many people off of welfare.
Glen, I deal with government contracts on a daily basis. Much of the
equipment I sell goes to Lockheed Martin, Loral,
Northrup, and other government primes. These companies in turn resell
or use equipment for government projects and the people I deal with ARE
NOT minimum wage workers by any means. I would conjecture that some of
these projects are a waste of taxpayers money...but it is pork that is
brought to the region by the likes of Phil Gram and actually even
democrat Senators like Feinstein in California.
These White collar jobs are means for a local economy to survive. If I
had to choose between the two (white collar vs. blue collar welfare), I
would much rather see more bang for the buck just as I'm sure anybody
with common sense would.
-Jack
|
243.526 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:50 | 3 |
| re: .522
Who is Schumer?
|
243.527 | | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:50 | 14 |
| re: .523 (Steve)
> His use of "communist" was incorrect, and that is the only point I was
> attempting to make.
Steve, it's as incorrect as it is when used as a synonym for "democrat."
Communist can be the policies, the party, the philosophy, the people,
the leaders. "Comprehension" indeed.
>The broader issue is irrelevant to my point of contention.
Interesting way to phrase it. I would have swapped halves:
"My point of contention is irrelevant to the broader issue."
\john
|
243.528 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | contents under pressure | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:55 | 4 |
| > Who is Schumer?
retiring slime-ball congressman from NY, HCI poster boy, liar
extraordinaire, and King of Smarm.
|
243.529 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 22 1996 10:59 | 22 |
| Note 243.515
MKOTS3::JMARTIN
Let's settle this the easier way...
> Dems pick the pockets of the people for tactical reasons. It has not
>
> Pubs pick the pockets of the people for strategic reasons. Subsidies
> to large businesses.
>
> So we have blue collar welfare vs. white collar welfare. Which one is
> more noble?
Ok! Here seems to be a fundamental truth. The Republicans are the
party of the RICH, and the DEMOCRATS are the party of the common man. I don't
believe that the Republican party elite would like to agree, but I think you
are correct. Now we could discuss how cutting the tax rates for corporations
to move operations out of the USA is supposed to create jobs and how wasting
money on the local level for buying trivial stuff like food actually creates
jobs.
|
243.530 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | contents under pressure | Fri Mar 22 1996 11:02 | 5 |
| Republicans are the party of those who are willing to work to improve
themselves.
Democrats are the party of those who want the government to take from
someone else to improve themselves.
|
243.531 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Mar 22 1996 11:16 | 26 |
| Mr Stacy:
What I am pointing out is that the democrat party, while they may not
be purely socialist, do have more socialist tendencies than the
Republican party. When I refer to the democrats as Socialist, YOU take
it as a perjorative remark. I am simply stating an observation. Just
so I can spell it out more clearly...
Republican Democrat
Proposes: More power to the states. More power to the Federals
Educating locally Educating nationally
Less regulation overall More regulation overall
Self Empowerment Fosters Dependence
Tendency to cut taxes Tendency to Raise taxes
Market driven economy Economy driven through
government intervention
(IRS Policies to penalize
and other democrat knowhow)
Any others anybody can think of, feel free. I know there are alot
more.
By the way, why are the pubs cowards?
|
243.532 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Mar 22 1996 11:59 | 15 |
| ZZ Ok! Here seems to be a fundamental truth. The Republicans are the
ZZ party of the RICH, and the DEMOCRATS are the party of the common man.
Actually...fundamentally false.
The democrats are equally rich as far as congress goes. The entire
cabinet is comprised of millionaires. What would you rather have, an
advocate who says he relates to you but doesn't, or an advocate who is
rich and has the gumption to admit it? I choose the former.
Secondly, tax cuts are beneficial to the party of the common man. Too
many handouts stifle self empowerment. Fostering dependency is heinous
at best.
-Jack
|
243.533 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 22 1996 12:02 | 2 |
| I think you meant "the latter", Jack.
|
243.534 | | HANNAH::MODICA | Journeyman Noter | Fri Mar 22 1996 12:06 | 11 |
|
> Ok! Here seems to be a fundamental truth. The Republicans are the
> party of the RICH, and the DEMOCRATS are the party of the common man.
A fine example of a lie repeated often enough....
As for democrats and the "common man"...no such thing in their
eyes as they prefer to classify all of us into neat little
sub-groups to be played against one another, all in the name
of inclusion of course.
|
243.535 | A clear example that you have no idea of that which you speak ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Mar 22 1996 12:18 | 3 |
|
>The specific examples of the central power of the GOP can
>go on and on and on. This does NOT exist in the DEMOCRATIC party.
|
243.536 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Fri Mar 22 1996 12:32 | 8 |
|
Jack, what are the chances of you dealing with someone who was on
welfare without skills? If they would not be on the jobs you're talking about,
then you can't use them as an example. At least if you want to prove a point.
Glen
|
243.537 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Mar 22 1996 12:37 | 5 |
| Yes, this is true...but what I'm saying is in the overall picture,
White collar welfare offers more benefits to the economy than does
blue collar welfare.
-Jack
|
243.538 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Fri Mar 22 1996 12:43 | 3 |
|
Of those on welfare, what % could be white collar?
|
243.539 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | She never told me she was a mime | Fri Mar 22 1996 12:49 | 3 |
|
All of them, after generous amounts of Clorox in the machine.
|
243.540 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:02 | 8 |
| Probably a small percentage. Blue collar welfare is distributed to
people and although it takes care of them for a day, it produces no
revenue or drives a person toward self reliance. White collar welfare
is actually given to corporate entities and is used to create unneeded
jobs. But at least it employs people and a good or service is being
produced.
-Jack
|
243.541 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:18 | 170 |
| re: Note 243.515
You said it I didn't. Here seems to be a fundamental truth. The
Republicans are the party to support the wishes of the RICH, and the DEMOCRATS
are the party to support the wishes of the common man. I didn't believe that
the Republican party elite would like to agree, and I was right. I still think
you are correct this time :}
re: notes .476 (DELBALSO), .479 (KRAWIECKI) ,
.481 (LEECH) and .483 (JMARTIN)
Now, before we can figure out what to do to fix the system, we need to
understand the goals. It is now clear that there is a fundamental position
that we do not all share. Per notes .476 (DELBALSO), .479 (KRAWIECKI) , .481
(LEECH) and .483 (JMARTIN) it is clear that these conservatives would not only
like to throw the poor out in the street but also out of the country. Also,
based on the comments that lead up to these notes, it is also clear that the
BLOCK GRANTS is the method that they believe will accomplish their goals. I
don't know if they would be willing to spend any of the savings to change the
inscription on the Statue Of Liberty. My guess from those same notes is NO.
For reference the notes mentined above are appended below.
re: .454 GAAS::BRAUCHER
It seems that you do not have much conservative support for your
position. It also seems that Suzanne tells the TRUTH!
It is also clear from note .454 and the statements from the other
conservatives that Braucher is either out of the main stream of
conservativism or is a Liberal. Braucher a liberal??
>Note 243.515
>MKOTS3::JMARTIN
>
> Let's settle this the easier way...
>
>> Dems pick the pockets of the people for tactical reasons. It has not
>>
>> Pubs pick the pockets of the people for strategic reasons. Subsidies
>> to large businesses.
>>
>> So we have blue collar welfare vs. white collar welfare. Which one is
>> more noble?
>.454 GAAS::BRAUCHER
>
>> working than not. If you have a poor person with no skills who
>> cannot support themselves and so DOESN'T work, and another poor
>> person with no skills who cannot support themselves and washes
>> dishes for $5/hour, any rational welfare system must see to it
>> that the second is less poor than the first. Assuming you aren't
>> going to outright starve people, and nobody has advocated that
>> even though Suzanne lies and said they did, you want a system of
>> poor relief that does not disincent low wage work.
>>
>> These local welfare reforms are overwhelmingly popular, and not all
>> the states involved are governed by Republicans - see Vermont, for
>> example.
>
>
>
> <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
> -< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 243.471 Welfare Reform. 471 of 487
>MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" 13 lines 20-MAR-1996 14:24
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>re: <<< Note 243.470 by NICOLA::STACY >>>
>
>> Does Gov Carrot also tell you how many people that were on welfare left
>>the state?
>
>What possible difference does that make? He has a responsibility to the
>taxpayers of the PRM to reduce the Welfare rolls/payouts. Whether he does
>it by getting people to work or to leave is totally immaterial. The reason
>we have such low welfare rolls in New Hampshire is because we don't provide
>much and therefore make it an unattractive place for trough-feeders to
>congregate. By your line of reasoning, that's something to be ashamed of.
>Typical, Jim.
>
> <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
> -< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 243.476 Welfare Reform. 476 of 487
>MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" 12 lines 20-MAR-1996 15:43
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ah, Jim, yer a treasure, fer sure.
>
>You remind me of a conversation I had in here with another PRM liberal
>socialist several years ago who was trying to tell me that the State
>of New Hampshire was in the wrong for providing such stingy welfare
>bennies, because the end result was that all the trough-feeders migrated
>south to the PRM. He just couldn't get it into his head that the voters
>in the PRM had every right to do exactly what Weld finally did to force
>the trough-feeders someplace else.
>
>I'll wear my shame in honor, thanks.
>
> <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
> -< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 243.479 Welfare Reform. 479 of 487
>SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Lord of the Turnip Truck" 12 lines 20-MAR-1996 15:58
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> re: .477
>
> >conservative comunist republican.
>
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!
>
>
> Count me in with Lucky Jack!! We'll wear the badges, while you get
> your pockets picked!! Deal???
>
> <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
> -< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 243.481 Welfare Reform. 481 of 487
>ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." 1 line 20-MAR-1996 16:03
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hey! Can we send our welfare cases packing to the PRM, too? 8^)
> <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
> -< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 243.483 Welfare Reform. 483 of 487
>MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." 5 lines 20-MAR-1996 16:15
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'll never forget the signs at the Panama Airport...
>
> "Go to Massachusetts....Free Money!"
>
> You sap....you gullible sap you....
> <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
> -< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
>================================================================================
>Note 243.484 Welfare Reform. 484 of 487
>ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." 30 lines 20-MAR-1996 16:41
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> re: a few back
>
>
> Yeah, the conservatives should just get out the way, so government can
> control the tidbits that aren't currently in its grasp. I don't think
> so.
>
> Sorry some welfare payments do not meet your approval, though. Maybe
> if we raise taxes another 5%, we can insure that these poor welfare
> victims can have new cars, complete with cellular phone (for safety, of
> course). That would be very kind and charitable, wouldn't it? Of
> course, the rest of us fools who still work, will struggle to put food
> on the table, but that is a small price to pay for insuring our poor
> are adequately taken care of, right?
>
> The problem with the liberal brand of compassion is that it knows not
> where to draw the line. It is always more compassionate to toss more
> money at a problem, even when experience tells us that this is not
> fixing anything.
>
> On another note, I do wish you'd quit misusing the term "communist" in
> your name calling. The republican platform may seem greedy to you (amoung
> the other adjectives you like to use), but it cannot possibly be construed
> as "communist". Your own mantra is much closer to communism than anything
> the Republicans have put to paper.
>
> Do us all a favor and look this term up in the dictionary. Thanks.
>
>
|
243.542 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:34 | 5 |
|
re: .509
John, you were correct in your note and I just wanted to let you know
that.
|
243.543 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:40 | 14 |
| re: .541
What is "clear" is that you have no understanding of conservativism.
What is "clear" is that you do not understand the notes you reposted.
So tell me, how is it clear that I (or any of the conservatives in the
box) am wanting to throw welfare families into the street, or out of
the country. All the conservative notes in this string seem to be
saying basically the same thing..."quit throwing MORE AND MORE of our
tax $$ into failed programs". No one has yet suggested, or inferred,
that we should toss welfare folk into the street.
-steve
|
243.544 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:43 | 8 |
| > <<< Note 243.543 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>
> No one has yet suggested, or inferred,
> that we should toss welfare folk into the street.
bzzzt. at least one person has inferred it.
|
243.545 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:43 | 14 |
| Am I confusing you? I'm sorry...we're on different planes here.
To clarify, I said the pubs espouse to white collar welfare...or,
corporate America...THE VERY BACKBONE OF QUALITY LIVING for the common
person. No job...no money...no money...little prospects of a quality
life if that is what one is after. Therefore, I submit to you that the
republicans are helping to provide YOU a means to create and make your
destiny.
So you are wrong, the pubs are FOR the commoner...via the private
sector. The dems are offering a hollow shell because it produces
zilch.
-Jack
|
243.546 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:46 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 243.540 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| Probably a small percentage.
Exactly. So it does not deal with the majority of the welfare issues.
Glen
|
243.547 | um | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:47 | 64 |
|
um, Stacy, if I could make a suggestion ? I know you think I'm
saying this because of your views, but I don't think I am, because
I've done this with people I agree with as well. It can be true of
notes by anybody, of any views.
Your notes give the appearance that you are not interested in
exchanging thoughts. Perhaps you ARE actually interested in others,
but the appearance is that you are not, for several quite specific
reasons. And because of that, you aren't very convincing, and will
not change anybody's views here. This is NOT because of what you say,
it's HOW you say it. Specifically :
(1) You put far too many things, spattered machine-gun like, into
one reply for anybody to respond. Shorter, more focused replies
work better.
(2) You engage in far too much handwaving, and don't present any
real data, quotations, or sources for what you say. It amounts
to calling people names. I never saw anybody of any views convinced
of anything by being called a name.
(3) You bait people, and they fall for it at first (as I did here),
by firing off angry replies they don't actually mean, and wouldn't
have said if they weren't so angry at your insults. Then when they've
made a mistake, you leap on it and hound them for it till they leave
the topic.
(4) Never once, when challenged on any statement, have I ever heard
you admit you were wrong, even though you were called on it and
given sources. One gets the impression you don't actually know
how Welfare is (and has been) administered here in the US, don't
know what the various state and federal proposals actually contain,
don't know, or care, about the RESULTS, but only about which political
party wins elections. But elections are ephemeral - in the long run,
both parties get their turns. What matters is the details of how
our country is run, and that will always be a mixture of proposals
from various quarters.
(5) You never respond to a point. Repeatedly, people have asked
for what you think should be done, and you always duck. You did
this over in the HMO note, as well. Here, the point was raised
by lots of people, that a sifn of "goodness" in poor laws was the
presence of some form of "work". This is an important point even
if you disagree with it. But you never actually respond to points
raised, but race on to some gross analysis of the orientations of
the parties, which isn't even relevant to the topic.
For the above reasons, your notes become so tedious, fewer and
fewer people are willing to make the effort to respond, so as the
interest flags, you step up your level of hyperbole, till it just
gets childish-looking. A better approach, if you really want to
criticize (for example) the Weld plan, would be to first, find out
what it does and know the facts both pro and con, and then make a
careful reasoned arguement about a specific provision. You would
then know that the Weld plan has, for example, a specific defined
and limited childcare benefit for recipients who work, that the
work requirement starts when the youngest child reaches a certain
age, that eligibility runs out after a specific period. If I felt
that you actually knew the benefit, the age, and the period, it
would make a meaningful discussion appear to be possible. As it is,
I get the impression the discussion is pointless.
bb
|
243.548 | | SALEM::DODA | Workin' on mysteries without any clues | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:47 | 5 |
| Jack,
The fact that he's ignored .531 is no coincidence....
daryll
|
243.549 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:50 | 14 |
| Glen:
Well, you're right...it doesn't solve the tactical problems of feeding
children who need food today.
Somehow there has to be a concensus that welfare in its current state
is not good as a whole and needs to be gutted and rebuilt into a
workable program. It also needs to be understood that welfare IS NOT
an entitlement, it is NOT required under the constitution in its
current form and that anybody on welfare should be trying above all
things to get off of it. Unfortunately, many on welfare feel this way
but are getting a bad rap because of the abusers.
|
243.551 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Fri Mar 22 1996 13:52 | 9 |
|
Jack, they would be right, too.
Welfare does need to be reformed. If it is done in a reasonable manner,
then fine. Workfare would be good due to training. How can you go wrong?
Glen
|
243.552 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 22 1996 14:03 | 3 |
| re: .544
In this recent string? Where?
|
243.553 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Mar 22 1996 14:09 | 6 |
| Glen:
One stipulation....the Federal government should have a very minimal
role in it!
|
243.554 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Mar 22 1996 14:09 | 5 |
|
> In this recent string? Where?
stevie, baby, don't mind me - i was just being pedantic.
"speaker implies/listener infers" thing. you know.
|
243.555 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Mar 22 1996 14:20 | 1 |
| Oh, nevermind then.
|
243.556 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Fri Mar 22 1996 15:04 | 9 |
|
Jack, I know you got this thing about the government..... but who is
asking the big dig $$$$ flow to be stopped? Massachusetts? Nope. The gov.....
Fed money left in the hands of the state do not mean that waste won't happen.
And remember, Weld is a repub.....
Glen
|
243.557 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Mar 22 1996 15:29 | 2 |
|
Glenn, I'm sure you have a point, but what is it?
|
243.558 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Fri Mar 22 1996 15:44 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 243.557 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>
| Glenn, I'm sure you have a point, but what is it?
Richardson is being dragged into EVERYTHING! :-)
The point is simple. State run does not mean that it will be good. If
Federal money comes into play, then they should have a say in what is done. The
harbor tunnel is a good example at a state running something that has gone over
budget 11 fold. (1 billion to 11 billion...so far) And that is with a repub
governer.
Glen
|
243.559 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Mar 22 1996 15:53 | 2 |
|
Oh, I was unaware that the Big_Dig == harbor_tunnel ...
|
243.560 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Fri Mar 22 1996 15:54 | 3 |
|
Maybe I should have said big waste.... :-)
|
243.561 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 22 1996 16:00 | 23 |
| >Note 243.547
>GAAS::BRAUCHER
Mr. Braucher. When I read this topic I hope to learn something and
sometimes I do. I helped with some of the poor in Indiana and learned about
how a state can really abuse a system. There are a lot of things about
Welfare that I do not know. There are also a few things I do know.
In this note topic, I have responded when the numbers were something I
did know. I've attempted to stop the labeling and get to the subject. I even
take the caustic edges off my notes. In response I get called a socialist,
told of democrat spies, told what I "really think" ...
With respect to the rest of your note, I'll try to keep it short by
not responding to each issue. I do try to think about a response before I
make it so they are not really fast. I agree with getting people off welfare
and into gainfull employment. With reguard to the HMO note, I spent several
hours going through notes and articles last night to try to find the information
I SAID I WOULD LOOK for. I will continue the hunt this weekend. I didn't start
even reading this conference until about 4 weeks ago and didn't expect that I
would need them.
|
243.562 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 22 1996 16:05 | 7 |
| > I didn't start
>even reading this conference until about 4 weeks ago and didn't expect that I
>would need them.
SURPRISE!!!!
|
243.563 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Fri Mar 22 1996 16:15 | 5 |
|
re: .562
Truely a surprise!! I've articals that have been around for more than
10 years. I recently started tossing em out since I never used em.
|
243.564 | So tell us about Indiana... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Mar 22 1996 16:31 | 32 |
|
Well, actually, I know NOTHING about poor laws in Indiana. When
was this ? Who was governor and ran the legislature ? I was very
surprised when I drove through it to discover that it seemed to be
largely farms. I also discovered that the Time Line is messed up
there. One town was an hour behind the other.
I DO know something about welfare in Massachusetts, but not
everything. The new plan, although closely associated with Weld,
would not have happened, in fact, without considerable support
among Democrats here. It is hardly punitive as reform plans go.
For example, Weld just a few days ago extended the childcare benefit
to the 200 women who did NOT go to work, but got accepted to 4-year
colleges instead. Basically, the administration decided that was
good enough.
Welfare is, in the worst cases, intractable. You have people who
are marginally disabled, or special situations of various types.
As long as the emphasis is on work wherever possible, and the
government constantly moves in that direction, it will be better
for everybody, and maybe eventually we'll save money. The one pattern
that we just have to break for good is the single teenage mother
living alone with no means of support, so the state subsidizes her
in a project, and gives her food stamps and a check. This is a
disaster - what happens isn't pretty, and is well documented.
By the way, you get only partial payment for childcare, you are
exempt from the work requirement with kids below 6, and the time
limit to find work is 18 months.
bb
|
243.565 | Self inflicted perhaps ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Mar 22 1996 16:42 | 13 |
| >In response I get called a socialist,
>told of democrat spies, told what I "really think" ...
If you look back I think you'll notice that this was in response to the broad
brush and (apparant to some) erroneous information that you post without
giving any consideration to other information that had been presented in
contrast to your views.
It's difficult to give any such responses with any amount serious contemplation.
Welcome to Soapbox.
Doug.
|
243.550 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 22 1996 21:21 | 29 |
| > It is now clear that there is a fundamental position
>that we do not all share. Per notes .476 (DELBALSO), .479 (KRAWIECKI) , .481
>(LEECH) and .483 (JMARTIN) it is clear that these conservatives would not only
>like to throw the poor out in the street but also out of the country. Also,
>based on the comments that lead up to these notes, it is also clear that the
>BLOCK GRANTS is the method that they believe will accomplish their goals.
No. You've got it wrong again, Jim. Or is it, "still"? I didn't say anything
about throwing them out of the country (although I'm not opposed to that
philosophy, necessarily, if you'd like to propose it :^). What I said was
that it's reasonable and desireable for a State to limit what they provide
in terms of welfare bennies. If, as a result of that, the trough-feeders
choose to move on to better pastures, of their own volition, mind you, no
one is "throwing them" anywhere, then so be it. That's their choice, to go
where they can most easily suck the public teat. You were the one who twisted
that into a conservative plan to remove them from the country.
And as far as block grants go, you haven't been reading very closely. I'm
adamantly opposed both to the concept of block grants, and the concept of
giving the money to the Feds by which to provide block grants. The money
should be kept in the states to begin with to be used as the people of
the state see fit. Likewise the town, and county. I've said at least a sagan
of times in here that this entire notion of paying federal taxes so that
Washington can give them back is utter madness.
It is you, and the rest of your liberal socialist cohorts who desire to
pick the pockets of the producers and then decide how to spend their money
on your own pet programs.
|
243.566 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Mon Mar 25 1996 11:40 | 48 |
| >Note 243.564 Welfare Reform.
>GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise"
>
> Well, actually, I know NOTHING about poor laws in Indiana. When
> was this ? Who was governor and ran the legislature ? I was very
My experience with the welfare system of Indiana was in the early
80's. I hope it has changed since then but know nothing of how it is run
today. The system was an old one and I do not know who or when it was
initiated. The money for welfare was collected at the state and federal
levels. The funds were distributed by locally elected officials called
"Trustees". The money to the poor was augmented by local charities and
church groups. The local charities and church groups is where I was involved.
The "Trustiees" were elected officials. The checks on these people
were the elections. They decided who, when, how and how much was needed to
help the poor and how it was to be distributed. There was a great deal of
corruption that existed in this particular system because of the lack of
accountability except by voting. One trustee required that people show up at
his house at a specific time, not early, not late. And then they were met
by mean dog guarding the yard. Again, if they were late, they got no
assistance. Other "Trustees" were found to be giving assistance to friends
and neighbors who didn't need the money but did vote. Since the standards
were so loose, it meant that how assistance was done in Gary was considerably
different than in Mill Creek or Peru.
The local charities and churches augmented the trustee system.
However, the local organizations found that there were some people who would
go from charity to charity and get far more than their fair share. The
result was that they banned together into a single reliefe outlet that all
the charities contributed to. There were still problems, but not as many.
The outlet also began acting as advocates for those in need and supporting
their attempts to get aid from the limited funds the "Trustees" had.
I did get one very important lesson from this time. There are 4
things that everybody needs to get off public assistance. One is an address
and another is a phone. These don't have to be where they are staying, but
it does need to be a place they can be reached at. Then they need a shower or
bath. Can you imagine going for an interview or your first week of work
without cleaning up. And they need a clean change of clothes. Anybody that
recomends any changes to aid that cut the availability of these 4 things will
only make things worse in the long term.
|
243.567 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Mon Mar 25 1996 11:53 | 7 |
|
re: .565
If you look back, I believe you'll find I wasn't involved in the
exchange until after the "spies" and all comments. I think you had better look
back on the notes that I have put in. I only respond harshly AFTER being
attacked.
|
243.568 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Mar 25 1996 12:29 | 22 |
| > If you look back, I believe you'll find I wasn't involved in the
>exchange until after the "spies" and all comments. I think you had better look
>back on the notes that I have put in. I only respond harshly AFTER being
>attacked.
Well, I looked back - all the way to Mar 7 (the first Stacy entry in
this string).
What I found were statements containing "heritic foundation" and accusations
of the conservatives being the root cause of all that is bad with the welfare
system (as you view it).
You're generic response to any information provided that contradicts your
position/belief has been to trash the conservatives and mis-represent
their positions/beliefs.
You've been disagreeing, not discussing. The results are predictable (especially
in the 'box)
Yup, I'd say you were throwing your fair share of fuel on the fire ...
Doug.
|
243.569 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Mar 25 1996 12:57 | 40 |
| from alt.support.foster-parents:
Subject: Frustrated with the system
Hi. I am new to foster parenting and to this board, but I am so glad that
I found it and you all. I am struggling right now, and could use some
insight. We are fostering a 20mo who was removed from her home for
sub-stand. housing, (I can only imagine!), med. neglect, (the child has a
lot of special needs that mom couldn't meet for financial reasons), and
suspected abuse (SCF was called in by a physician whom boyfriend took the
baby to after he "discovered" mysterious bruises on her face, head and
thighs). It took three months for this case to finally be heard in court
and their verdict was (as the boyfriend bolted after he took the baby to
the MD), was that there was no evidence that mom, who was at work when the
shelter order took place, had ever injured her baby, and in fact a lot of
people spoke up for her mothering ability. The court ordered fast track
reunification. It's been 3 weeks now, and baby is spending 1/2 the week
w/us, 1/2 with mom. I see that it is difficult on the baby, and wish that
the process would complete. It is also emotionally difficult for us, too,
as we attach/detach, never knowing if today is the day she will really go
home. (I have 2 kids under 7yo myself, and this is impacting all of us in
this enlarged extended family. My concern now is that the caseworkers
seem to be creating a catch 22 for mom. They won't release the baby to
her until she has stable - not transitory - housing. She is a teenager
who was court ordered back to school, so there is really no way she can
support herself without AFDC. However, she can't get AFDC until she gets
the baby back, which she can't do until she gets a home. We asked the
case worker if she could stay with us until she gets the AFDC, and he
said, No, that would be transitory, and they need to see how she's living
before they return the baby. . .
I'm not saying that mom is the ultimate great mother, but I see the love
she and her baby have for each other, and I see her trying to jump through
all the hoops. Family of origin is not a good source of support, and live
out of state; she's really trying to do this on her own (and the
caseworker supports her decision after meeting the bio. family).
However, something has to happen here. . .this stalemate is having
negative impacts all the way around.
Besides improving my boundaries, does anyone have any suggestions on how
to cope with this?
Thanks. God Bless.
|
243.570 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Mon Mar 25 1996 14:21 | 68 |
| >Note 243.531 Welfare Reform. 531 of 569
>MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." 26 lines 22-MAR-1996 11:16
>
> What I am pointing out is that the democrat party, while they may not
> be purely socialist, do have more socialist tendencies than the
> Republican party. When I refer to the democrats as Socialist, YOU take
> it as a perjorative remark. I am simply stating an observation. Just
> so I can spell it out more clearly...
>
> Republican Democrat
>
> Proposes: More power to the states. More power to the Federals
I'll agree in general. However, they have increased the federal roles in our
personal lives. Per recent legislation giving the branches of government,
other than the ATF, the OK to do illegal searches. Also, the RICO (sp?) and
the obscenity laws. There are some things that are better done at a federal
level.
> Educating locally Educating nationally
I'll disagree but plead ignorance on the specifics of this stance. I
don't know of any democrat recomending more than certain federal guidlines
mostly along testing, and of funding aid for specific programs. The
republicans want us to start praying in school.
> Less regulation overall More regulation overall
No agreement here. The democrats do tend to regulate industries more than
people. They tend to do this because there is a broad impact on the lives
of more people from what the industry does. As an example: Humans can not
live if the air is polluted, so regulate the companies that pollute the air.
The republicans tend to regulate people more than buisness. I haven't got
a clue why or what the benifit is.
> Self Empowerment Fosters Dependence
No agreement again. Unless you mean something else, fend for youself with
no support is not self empowerment. Giving aid for periods of time does
not foster dependence any more than we are all dependent on each other for
the continuation of our society. Yes, I know some of the programs need
repair work, but some of them do pretty good. I went through school on
loans, paid them back directly, and paid many times more in taxes.
> Tendency to cut taxes Tendency to Raise taxes
YEP, I'll agree. However, the republicans have a history of running up the
charge card at the same time or of shortchanging the infrastructure needed
for growth. Also, the tax cuts go mainly to the few or the corporate.
> Market driven economy Economy driven through
> government intervention
> (IRS Policies to penalize
> and other democrat knowhow)
NOPE! Corporate welfare defeats that assertion. I'll agree that the Dems do
get involved. That is why GM, Intel and Fed Ex, among other companies, exist
today.
Here is a few I'll list:
Tendancy to accumulate debt Tendancy to pay for programs
Personal Conformity Personal Choice
Market driven economy with Market driven economy with
uncontrolled aid to corps. aid in infrastructure and
startups.
|
243.571 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 25 1996 14:29 | 16 |
| > There are some things that are better done at a federal level.
Hardly. Aside from protecting us from foreign agression and setting foreign
policy (most aspects of dealing with other countries), there is almost nothing
that can be done better at the federal level, and very little that should
be done there.
>Here is a few I'll list:
>
> Tendancy to accumulate debt Tendancy to pay for programs
Liberals don't have _ANY_ history of paying for programs other than through
increased taxation or debt growth. Don't delude yourself. To hear you tell
it, the democrats have held bakesales to pay for the non-Great Society.
|
243.572 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Mon Mar 25 1996 14:40 | 6 |
|
re: .571
Geez! I agree with you on the tax issue and you make it sound like I didn't.
I am a little hungry though. I could use a cookie with a liberal amount
of chocolate chips.
|
243.573 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Mon Mar 25 1996 14:44 | 4 |
|
LJ, I don't think the states do any better with the money. I think we
should just keep the tax money for ourselves. :-)
|
243.574 | Mirror mirror on the wall ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Mar 26 1996 09:26 | 34 |
| >I'll disagree but plead ignorance on the specifics of this stance. I
>don't know of any democrat recomending more than certain federal guidlines
>mostly along testing, and of funding aid for specific programs. The
>republicans want us to start praying in school.
The federal government manipulates the local school systems by
providing money for programs, then threatening to take that money
away if the programs aren't expanded, then threaten again if certain
guidelines aren't followed, and on and on ... Certainly sounds
like the dependancy cycle mentioned earlier.
As for prayer in school, all they are saying is that it is not
unconstitutional to allow it, and it should be an option.
It's an attempt to correct the mis-interpretation of separation
of church and state. Let me know when you see a federal bill
mandating prayer in school.
> Tendency to cut taxes Tendency to Raise taxes
>YEP, I'll agree. However, the republicans have a history of running up the
>charge card at the same time or of shortchanging the infrastructure needed
>for growth. Also, the tax cuts go mainly to the few or the corporate.
If you check your history books you'll find that the dems are quite
capable of running up the debt and the repubs are quite capable
of investing in infrastructure. If you're talking about the eighties
in particular, please note that the dems reneged on their commitment
to cut spending (with the speaker of the house stating publicly that
no spending cuts would occur unless that money was put to new/other
government programs) which is why the debt grew so quickly. Both
sides are to blame.
Doug.
|
243.575 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Apr 18 1996 11:29 | 19 |
| Welfare must be eliminated because it creates an underprivileged
class. The underprivileged class today exists for two reasons: 1) The
economy offers us a fraction of the wealth we could all enjoy,
and 2) big government and its messenger, the liberal media,
survive via an underprivileged class. You see, only through an
underprivileged class can big government build a big welfare
state. Big government needs a big welfare state to regulate the
economy. Indeed, a big underprivileged class is big business for
big government. With its messenger, the liberal media, big
government convinces young black minds, for instance, of a life
doomed to victimization. That belief in victimization hardens as
the innocent child grows into a young adult, and that belief
eventually convinces him he is a victim of racism. The
underprivileged today not only have limited access to advantages,
but limiting beliefs. Indeed, they are captors of their
neighborhoods as well as their own brainwashed minds, as Malcolm
X tried to tell them. Racism, real or perceived, will go away
when big government goes away. Until then, the underprivileged
class is really a slave class to big government.
|
243.576 | | BSS::SMITH_S | | Fri Apr 19 1996 03:18 | 3 |
| -1
ditto
-ss
|
243.577 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Jul 17 1996 14:52 | 48 |
| Taken from http://www.pacificnet.net/~jzychik
The Zychik Chronicle
(New York Times July 6th, pg. A 16) A disease can be simply
defined as a process that attacks you. You do not choose a
disease, it chooses you. To cure it, some outside agent must act
on the disease. You aren't the cure the disease, the outside
force is. The welfare state is based on the premise that poor
people are attacked by poverty and that it's up to everyone but
the poor person to end the disease. So let's talk about some
really diseased people: the Bangladeshi.
In 1962 Noori Hoq emigrated to New York City. "Back then a South
Asian face was rare. 'New York was black and white,' he said."
He worked two years for a "West Indian contractor," then went out
on his own. He was the first of the Bangladeshi to break into New
York City's construction industry. As the Times says, "There are
no brownstones in Bangladesh." Yet the Bangladeshi have gained a
major foothold in "home renovations and brownstone work."
They have no affirmative action laws to help them. They don't use
welfare as an excuse to not get a job. Instead like any other
people who must start at the bottom they go into a field that
"requires little capital or credit."
Oops, they are not suffering from the disease of poverty. So
let's hurry up and infect them with something. They certainly
have bad habits that need curing: "'They work cheaper, harder,
longer'" says a competitor of theirs. So, let's hurry up and
infect them with the welfare virus.
"Some white homeowners choose white contractors even if their
[the whites'] rates are higher." The Bangladeshi reaction? It
goes like this: "'We get a lot of work from black people and
Hispanics.'" Whoops, haul out the victim virus. We can't have
people overcoming racism without a govt. program can we?
But we can keep them down, oh yeah, we're good at that.
"Bangladeshis have not been able to break into larger public
projects because they lack political connections." So, let's
increase govt. spending. By gosh, by gollee Hortense, we can't
let dem dark skinned forinerrs take too much work for us pure
Americans. Long live the welfare state.
Life is a disease. The welfare state is the cure.
|
243.578 | | LABC::RU | | Thu Jul 18 1996 13:46 | 8 |
|
Currently the so call welfare reform bill in congress is
not a real reform. It is a legal immigrant benefit cutting bill.
They say it will save 60 B in 6 years. They know that it is
not real and it is an election year voter cheating bill. What
the immigrant have to do is simply becoming citizen. The only
people get hurt are those very old who can't pass the exam to
become citizen.
|
243.579 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 18 1996 13:50 | 11 |
| > Currently the so call welfare reform bill in congress is
> not a real reform. It is a legal immigrant benefit cutting bill.
Huh?
I thought you were claiming it was the immigration reform bill that was
doing this, Jason. Which is it?
BTW, what are immigrants doing on welfare? Do you see a problem with this?
Aren't legal immigrants supposed to be here because they have gainful
employment?
|
243.580 | yep | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jul 18 1996 14:37 | 6 |
|
I agree that the current bill is pap. Clinton vetoed the real
one, and still would. There are not two-thirds in the Senate to
override him.
bb
|
243.581 | | LABC::RU | | Tue Jul 23 1996 17:47 | 18 |
| >Huh?
>I thought you were claiming it was the immigration reform bill that was
>doing this, Jason. Which is it?
Apparently you are not aware of current welfare reform bill
just passed in senate todoy, The bill cut off completely legal
immigrant benifit.
>BTW, what are immigrants doing on welfare? Do you see a problem with this?
>Aren't legal immigrants supposed to be here because they have gainful
>employment?
Immigrant's benefit should be treated as citizen's. Bad things happen to
citizen can also happen to immigrant. They are also human being. Not
to mention many of them paying tax all their life and then find out that
they are too old and unable to pass the citizen exam and not qualify for
benefit.
|
243.582 | immigrants != other citizens | DECC::VOGEL | | Wed Jul 24 1996 21:29 | 15 |
|
re .last:
>Immigrant's benefit should be treated as citizen's. Bad things happen to
>citizen can also happen to immigrant.
It is my understanding that most legal immigrants must have sponsors.
The sponsors sign a pledge saying (among other things) that they
will take care of the immigrant if "bad things" happen.
The problem is that this does not happen. The sponsors renege on
their agreements, and the government pays. This is why some
people are in favor of eliminating benefits to legal aliens.
Ed
|
243.583 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Jul 25 1996 14:19 | 22 |
| There are a lot of ways sponsors do get out of this. What do you
do when the legal immigrant is the custodial parent of a US citizen,
and the "sponsor" is a Deadbeat parent on the run? This happens quite
frequently in this town where we have one army post and three air bases
in the metro area, and people leave the military and decide the other
half and kid aren't worth sticking around for.
Starve the kid?
Put the kid in fostercare while deporting the parental unit? (real
family values there)
Deport both Parent and minor US citizen?
Ban overseas marriages by US citizens?
just a bit curious,
meg
|
243.584 | | DECC::VOGEL | | Thu Jul 25 1996 17:38 | 29 |
|
re .last - Meg,
If the sponsor was a deadbeat before becoming a sponsor, the
process should be changed such that if you owe child support than
you can not sponsor an immigrant. With that said:
> Starve the kid?
No one is talking about starving the kid (except you). The kid is
a citizen and entitled to the rights of one.
> Put the kid in fostercare while deporting the parental unit? (real
> family values there)
If the parent can not find work to support him/herself, yes, deport
the parent. Family values....maybe not, but if the parent is unable
to find work, then one might question their ability to be a parent
also. Perhaps the child would be better off in foster care.
Let me also say that this welfare for immigrants is a bit silly. There's
really very little money spent on it. There is some real money in
Medicaid for immigrants, and no one's talking about stopping that.
(I think Medicaid sounds too much like Medicare, and everyone's afraid
to touch that now!!).
Ed
|
243.585 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Jul 25 1996 17:50 | 6 |
| And if the parental unit has bought the line that only selfish parents
work outside the home when the tyke is under x years? After all there
are many people who spout that stuff whenever a woman returns to work
after a birth.
meg
|
243.586 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Thu Jul 25 1996 17:57 | 12 |
| Hey, this puratinsim is getting good.
1) Birth control is bad -- don't do it.
2) Abortion is bad -- have the kid
3) Being a working mother is bad -- stay home with the kid
4) Staying home and collecting welfare is bad -- go to work
5) Go to (3)
There are so many catch-22s here, my head's starting to spin.
Once again, our war on children has crawled right back up the womb and
become the war on women.
|
243.587 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | | Thu Jul 25 1996 18:08 | 4 |
| What's wrong with a woman who has a kid or two to perhaps do something
like babysit or the such. It's a job, and it is more productive than
watching Oprah.
-ss
|
243.588 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jul 25 1996 18:48 | 33 |
|
ZZ 1) Birth control is bad -- don't do it.
There is absolutely no reference in scripture to the condemnation of
birth control. In this instance, Meg is very much correct. I believe
it would be very beneficial if the Roman Catholic Church would use a
scriptural basis in this matter instead of dogma.
ZZ 2) Abortion is bad -- have the kid
Abortion must be bad...since even the prochoice folks here admit it is
a sad and tragic occurance (in their disingenuous meely mouthed voice).
How about...Abortion is bad, stop acting like a damned barn animal and
use your brain. Don't screw...period!
ZZ 3) Being a working mother is bad -- stay home with the kid
You will find many working mothers would prefer to stay home with the
children instead of doing the daycare thing. I believe it is natural
for a parent to be with their children. Unfortunately, we are
relinquishing the nurturing and care of our children to a surrogate.
This is not the most expedient thing.
ZZ 4) Staying home and collecting welfare is bad -- go to work
Well, I would say this is more a "develop a vision for your life!"
ZZ 5) Go to (3)
Pick the lesser of two evils!
-Jack
|
243.589 | The gravy train is US!!! | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Jul 26 1996 00:06 | 19 |
|
I've got it! Any non-citizen who has offspring which is a citizen
is automatically made a citizen, and is entitled to all the
benefits that come with it! Ya that's it!
We can end up supporting all the poor people in the world and
everyone would be happy!
NOT!
Deport the parents, send the kid with them if they desire. There
is no law that says a US citizen has to live in the states.
Or they can opt to leave the kid to the US government adgencies, but
they still go home.
This is NOT an attack on children or families.
Doug.
|
243.590 | | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Strangers on the plain, Croaker | Fri Jul 26 1996 09:23 | 8 |
| re: .589 by BRITE::FYFE
� This is NOT an attack on children or families.
Of course not! We just deport the parent and put those cute little tykes
into an orphanage. Or better yet, put them up for adoption.
feh! kb
|
243.591 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 26 1996 09:30 | 2 |
| We can't render down their body fat and use it as a source of energy?
|
243.592 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Jul 26 1996 09:41 | 1 |
| Soylent Green -- its time has come
|
243.593 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 26 1996 09:50 | 2 |
| "I Can't believe It's Snot Butter"
|
243.594 | What about US? | ASDG::HORTERT | | Fri Jul 26 1996 10:23 | 18 |
| I can't believe that a lot of people are complaining about immigrants
getting welfare when there are a lot of CITIZENS who can't get it
and really need it. They are the "middle zone" people who make just
barely over the welfare limit, but are taxed like crazy, have too many
debts cause they don't make enough to get by and WORK their buns off
just to go nowhere. I have a good friend of my who is in this
situation right now and all these agencies that MY tax dollars are going
to are sending her away cause she makes $25 a month too much. I just
don't get it?
Same situation when I was a single parent seven years ago who didn't
get child support ( cause of a deadbeat dad on the run) yet I was
working AND putting myself through college so that I wouldn't need
welfare forever. I was making $6/hour part-time and was told I made
TOO much money. I just don't get it!
Rose
and putting herself through college
|
243.595 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Perpetual Glenn | Fri Jul 26 1996 10:39 | 3 |
| I think the goverment should provide low/no interest loans to people like
that. Help consolidate thier debt and pay their bills. This would help
people dig out that otherwise can't.
|
243.596 | not everyone will take welfare... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Jul 26 1996 10:43 | 10 |
|
I've known several people who were probably eligible, but were
much too proud to apply for public assistance. They'd rather die.
I doubt this attitude persists among the younger generations.
Even those of us old enough to know are sometimes shocked with
the persistance of some past generations. You cannot get the
feel of it in the USA any more. You have to go to the "third world".
bb
|
243.597 | How about this generalization? | DECC::VOGEL | | Fri Jul 26 1996 13:40 | 21 |
|
> I've known several people who were probably eligible, but were
> much too proud to apply for public assistance. They'd rather die.
> I doubt this attitude persists among the younger generations.
Yea...I like the attitude of the older generations. For example let's
fight *any* change to Social Security and Medicare (the federal
government's largest and third largest programs) that might cut
their benefits. Who cares if the the average retired couple gets
back about $350,000 more from the systems than the put into them.
Who cares if both systems will be bankrupt by the time many younger
folks will be eligible for them.
Yea....gotta love the attitude of the older generation too.
(Of course what I've just said is a unfair sweeping generalization, but
so are many comments about other generations)
Ed
|
243.598 | | LABC::RU | | Tue Jul 30 1996 15:54 | 36 |
|
RE: 243.582 by DECC::VOGEL
> It is my understanding that most legal immigrants must have
> sponsors.
Yes, there is sponsor for immigrant. You don't understand it
unless you are a sponsor. How you are going to support a
unfortunate immigrant who has no income, no welfare, no health
insurance. Unless you are fortunate to be a millionaire.
I think it is not fair to blame this country's financial problem
on legal immigrant. It is this country's law allowing immigrant
to come. You can do away with those law if you don't want more
immigrants. But you have to treat immigrant here with same dignity
as citizen. It will be a social problem if we don't treat them
correct.
Anyway, anyone has figure on how much we spend on legal immigrant benefit?
I believe it is a small fraction of this country's deficit. Why don't
congress fix the real problem? Because they can't touch anything else.
By cutting legal immigrant benefit and saying saving 30B in 6 years is
cheating of american voter. Yes, right, just blame it on immigrant!
And those talking about deporting immigrants, why don't you get deport
yourself? You are grand/son/daugher of immigrant too. How do you
know your ancestor didn't use any welfare benefit?
I am not against cutting the legal immigrant welfare. But you have
to give some kind of help. Also it is not right to cut off 100%
right away. At least there should be a phrase out period.
Today's LA time says, the lawful immigrant account for 5% of federal
social spending, but it account for more than 40% of the welfare saving
in the reform. What congress did in the reform is just dump the
care of legal immigrants to local government. So the Republican
can tell the voter that they did the cut and it is gone.
|
243.599 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Tue Jul 30 1996 16:12 | 5 |
| "Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."
It seems our national focus has shifted from lifting up our lamp beside
the Golden Door. Now all we're doing is showing people to the door.
|
243.600 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jul 30 1996 16:14 | 1 |
| Freeloading Snarf!
|
243.601 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Tue Jul 30 1996 18:29 | 5 |
|
If we stop providing handouts we won't have an immigration problem.
|
243.602 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Jul 30 1996 22:35 | 15 |
|
"Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."
Yearning to breath free is one thing,
Yearning to collect a free check is another ....
BTW: Persons currently covered are grandfathered
by the current bill.
recent rush to apply for citizenship blamed on
recent congressional efforts ...
Looks like it's working ....
Doug.
|
243.603 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Jul 31 1996 09:22 | 2 |
| Shoot. I thought it was "muddled asses". I must be in the wrong
country.
|
243.604 | | PSDV::SURRETTE | TheCluePhoneIsRinging,AndIt'sForYOU. | Wed Jul 31 1996 09:35 | 9 |
|
Perhaps the wrong country, but probably the right
notesfile!
:^)
W.
|
243.605 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jul 31 1996 11:27 | 11 |
| > recent rush to apply for citizenship blamed on
> recent congressional efforts ...
>
> Looks like it's working ....
What's in it for us if legal immigrants become citizens in order to collect
benefits?
FWIW, my mother, who emigrated from England in 1947, is still a British subject.
I've applied for U.S. citizenship for my daughters, who emigrated from Moldova
last year. Currently, Dina is stateless and Shoshana is a Moldovan citizen.
|
243.606 | | DECC::VOGEL | | Wed Jul 31 1996 13:45 | 17 |
| RE .598:
> How you are going to support a unfortunate immigrant who has no income,
> no welfare, no health insurance. Unless you are fortunate to be a
> millionaire.
As you asked:
If I take the responsiblity to sponsor someone, I will make sure
that either they can take care of themselves, or I have the means
to take care of them. Providing such support would require far
less money than you state.
If you read my .584 you'll find I agree with most of your note.
Ed
|
243.607 | what's an immigrant | VAXUUM::KEEFE | | Wed Jul 31 1996 15:47 | 15 |
| Er, perhaps somebody could clarify this...
"legal immigrant" here meaning a non-citizen with permanent
residency status?
And, once this person becomes a citizen, they are no longer
considered an immigrant?
I think immigrant vs citizen is a false distinction. If granny came to
the US from the olde country, she was still an "immigrant" after she
got her citizenship, no?
Also these days some people with green cards do not necessarily have
the intent to remain here and become citizens. Are these people
immigrants?
|
243.608 | they must mean "aliens"... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jul 31 1996 16:03 | 18 |
|
Right, I was thinking the same thing. I THINK they all mean
"legal alien", like for example with a green card, whether they
seek citizenship or not.
There is a simple solution, prior to citizenship. A time period
for demonstrating a livelihood, and if not, revoke the legal
status. But you would have to tell them this up front, or it
would seem an injustice.
We should not be importing more welfare cases, we generate enough
of those right at home, without help. On the other hand, those
who work, up to the legal limits, ought to be entitled to the
same benefits from society as other workers.
Of course, illegals are an entirely different matter.
bb
|
243.609 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Jul 31 1996 16:08 | 3 |
| It says "Resident Alien" on my pink green card. It also has an expiry
date so I imagine that it would be easy to check up on folx at renewal
time.
|
243.610 | Yup | DECC::VOGEL | | Wed Jul 31 1996 21:46 | 8 |
|
Re .last few:
Yes, I do mean legal alien. Thanks for the clarification.
Ed
|
243.611 | an even simpler solution... | GEOFFK::KELLER | Harry & Jo, the way to go in '96 | Thu Aug 01 1996 08:17 | 28 |
| RE: .608
>here is a simple solution, prior to citizenship. A time period
>for demonstrating a livelihood, and if not, revoke the legal
There is an even simpler solution: as proposed by Harry Browne...
On the day he is inaugurated Harry will tell all the people on welfare,
"The new budget is due in 9 months, we've planned on paying you until
then, so you you have from now until then to get a job. If you get a job
beforehand, great, you'll get two checks for awhile. There will be no
federal welfare in the 1998 budget. You have been forewarned."
Now I know you are saying to yourself, how can he promise to do this
with a republican/democratic congress, they'll threaten to close down
the government if Harry doesn't bow to their wishes. Old Harry Browne
will be so scared of this that he'll buckle and only close the
non-essential parts of government starting with the IRS, then the BATF,
then the ... well you get the idea.
This will solve two problems. It will solve immigrants coming into our
country who are just looking for a free handout and it will force
people in this country collecting welfare now to get off the public
dole, get a job and stop raising the next generation of couch potatos
sponging off the system. And it will save the country BILLIONS of
dollars.
--Geoff
|
243.612 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 08:57 | 15 |
| It finally filtered through my skull that this new welfare law is not
afterall getting government out of our lives, but is simply changing
its involvement in our lives.
The feds could have said, "We won't be in the welfare business any
more, we will leave it up to the states".
But instead they said, "We will still be in the business of dictating
how welfare will be done".
Grrrrr. Why can't they get it -- they should just butt out and let
states and local jurisdictions deal with it their own ways. That way
some different experiments could be tried out and we might actually end
up with some system that works, instead of just some other wacky
brainchild of the braindead in Washington.
|
243.613 | savings negligible compared to health care | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Aug 01 1996 09:28 | 26 |
|
Um, this is the Congress' third try. Two much more substantial
welfare bills were vetoed last year, and still would be. They
had to take almost all the teeth out of the bill, and even now,
it is no sure thing Clinton won't veto it, although he says he'll
sign, I don't believe him.
If you don't put child care and work training in the bill, no
Congress or Prex will succeed in enacting it. This is because
there exists no concensus in the USA to simply abolish welfare
cold turkey. You don't save ANY real money through welfare reform,
until these people are working, since most of the money is Medicaid,
and the USA is not about to refuse the indigent health care, no
matter who wins the election. Just this modest proposal, to abolish
the 60-year entitlement to public assistance, but spend ALL the
savings on more directed expenditures at education and day care, was
hotly opposed on the liberal side.
Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey made this point last year. If you
expect big savings from welfare reform, you are going to be very
disappointed. What did you expect ? To pick an expense at random,
what about the blind ? They are covered under welfare. Nobody in
the USA is going to throw the blind on the streets, not conservatives,
not liberals, not Harry Browne. Even if they wanted to.
bb
|
243.614 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 09:47 | 25 |
| 1. I have met several people in Maine whose major decision each year is
whether it is better to work in the winter so they can go on welfare
for the summer, or work in the summer so they can go on welfare for the
winter. These people are perfectly capable of working year round, but
know how to play the system to get a 6-month paid vacation each year.
2. I am quite sure there exist, although I have not met any personally,
people who would make a different decision about whether to work and
about whether/when to get pregnant, if they KNEW they could not live
indefinitely on welfare.
3. I am quite sure there is a lot of inefficiency, mismanagment, and
fraud in the current welfare system.
There are 3 ways I can think of immediately that we can save money on
welfare if we can solve the problems. I'm sure there are MANY other
ways.
This current law is an attempt to at least do SOMETHING about the
problem, as opposed to continuing to do nothing. It is only a start,
and it is far from perfect.
My personal preference would have been for the feds to simply butt out
of welfare altogether and let states launch 50 different experiments to
see what is the best way to provide welfare, but ...
|
243.615 | cautiosly optimistic | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Aug 01 1996 09:53 | 27 |
|
Nevertheless, the bill is a good idea. The basic problem with
welfare IS NOT that it is bankrupting the country - it isn't. As
Kerrey (D-Neb) and Simpson (R-Wy) showed in their hearings, it is
Medicare and Social Security that are the budget busters, and you
can throw the rest away - all of Defense, all the social programs,
it's all just noise. What matters is demographics, the tremendous
growth in the US elderly, retired population. The old dominate US
politics, in their tens of millions, virtually all of them sure to
vote. If you cannot figure out how to finesse that one, in a way
that the elderly will not veto by their votes, your budget is dead
meat, just like Clinton's.
No, the problem with welfare isn't what it costs. It's that it
doesn't work. It doesn't reduce poverty in the country. Giving
teenage mothers a check and an apartment of their own is not just
expensive. It's an expensive FAILURE. You are thereby making the
problem worse. To my knowledge, this bill, which abolishes the
entitlement to cash payments, is a landmark. If it becomes law,
it will be the very first time an entitlement was abolished. It
saves no money immediately, but the hope is that it WILL save money
by 5 or 10 years down the road. I hope Clinton signs. There is some
evidence that he might, in order to claim credit in an election
year, for other people's accomplishments. Even if it helps reelect
the bum, I hope he does.
bb
|
243.616 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 01 1996 09:59 | 1 |
| Anybody know how this legislation changes SSI for disabled children?
|
243.617 | the reporting average is about .500 | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | inhale to the chief | Thu Aug 01 1996 10:04 | 3 |
| News report this am said Clinton signed the bill. Whether that means he
actually signed it or that he promised to sign it is an exercise left
to the reader.
|
243.618 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 10:26 | 15 |
| I love it when young people complain about older people, as if they
won't be there themselves in a very few years. :-)
Heard on the radio this morning that the Cassebaum-Kennedy bill that is
supposed to make health insurance more available to people regardless
of changing jobs or preexisting conditions, only got past those who
were against it by also removing limits on how much an insurance
company can charge an individual.
Might as well not bother with health insurance if we're all gonna end
up paying rates based on our usage of it -- why not just pay for health
services directly instead of also paying a nice profit to insurance
companies on top of that?
Hope I don't understand it correctly (a likely thing) :-)
|
243.619 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Aug 01 1996 11:13 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 243.618 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>
> I love it when young people complain about older people, as if they
> won't be there themselves in a very few years. :-)
True enough, but a lot of us aren't making the same mistakes they did.
I don't plan to be at the mercy of the state when I retire.
|
243.620 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 KTS is TOO slow | Thu Aug 01 1996 12:19 | 8 |
| I saw a new copy of an old bumper sticker on the back of an MX-6 on the
way in to work today...
Vote Democratic
It's easier than working
Bob
|
243.621 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 12:24 | 8 |
| >True enough, but a lot of us aren't making the same mistakes they did.
What kind of mistakes are we talking about here?
>I don't plan to be at the mercy of the state when I retire.
Couldn't agree more on that! Besides, there may not be much of that
good old state mercy left by then anyway... :-)
|
243.622 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Aug 01 1996 12:57 | 8 |
| > <<< Note 243.618 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>
> I love it when young people complain about older people, as if they
> won't be there themselves in a very few years. :-)
I hate it when older people cry about not receiveing enough from the working
class when they themselves contributed peanuts compared to the outlays of today.
Doug.
|
243.623 | | DECC::VOGEL | | Thu Aug 01 1996 13:10 | 23 |
|
> I love it when young people complain about older people, as if they
> won't be there themselves in a very few years. :-)
If you are refering to my .597: I will complain about any group
that supports a system as unfair as the Social Security and Medicare
systems. Do you think one should simply be quiet about such programs.
Also note I stated in my reply that .597 was an unfair generalization.
If you are refering to .615, I suggest you read my .597 and learn
something about these program.
> why not just pay for health services directly instead of also paying
> a nice profit to insurance companies on top of that?
What percentage of U.S. health care spending is represented by
the profits insurance companys make on their health care insurance?
Ed
|
243.624 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Aug 01 1996 13:13 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 243.621 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>
> What kind of mistakes are we talking about here?
Putting one's self at the mercy of the state.
"We absolutely, positively promise, cross our hearts and hope to die, that
when you're 65 and we're all long dead, the government will take care of you.
We really, honestly promise that they will collect the money to pay you
then."
Sounds like a real winner, sign me right up!
|
243.625 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 14:24 | 40 |
| >from the working class when they themselves contributed peanuts
>the average retired couple gets back about $350,000 more from the
systems
You have to look beneath the surface to understand why this is.
Retired people today don't want anything different from what their
parents or grandparents wanted. All they want is to be cared for
until they die. It is NOT their fault that their grandparents
could accomplish this far more cheaply because their kids and
grandkids and greatgrandkids all lived in their house for free
and could take care of them, and because medicine was so far
behind where it is today that not only was it dirt cheap by
comparison, but the old folks wouldn't live all that long anyway.
It is NOT the fault of retired people that nobody lives in
multi-generational homes any more, and that advances in medicine
have driven those particular costs sky high while also enabling
them to live many years longer.
It is NOT their fault either that a baby boom is complicating
the whole picture greatly.
And it is NOT their fault that inflation over the years makes
their contributions look small by comparison.
Whose fault IS it? The blame, if that is the right word even,
must be shared by everyone of all ages, because everyone of all
ages shares in wanting to live apart, have someone else take
care of gram and gramps, and in wanting the most advanced
medical care science can provide. And we get inflation whether
we want it or not.
Anything young people say about old people today, their own
kids will be saying about them in a few more years.
So solve the problem already, in a way that will solve it for
YOU too. I'm sure any such solution will be quite acceptable
to everyone.
|
243.626 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 14:35 | 34 |
| >What percentage of U.S. health care spending is represented by
>the profits insurance companys make on their health care insurance?
I have no idea. But I see the kinds of real estate and skyscrapers
owned by insurance companies all over the US; I have seen insurance
companies make a mistake and invest in some high yield foreign
bond that defaults, and simply raise their rates to cover their
losses; a physician I used to go to (single doctor office, wife is
receptionist, 2 part time nurses) paid $90,000 a year for his
malpractice insurance premiums, which of course became part of my
medical bills from him; the book "Lawyers are Screwing America",
or some such title, claims that 2 out of 3 dollars we spend for
medicine ends up in the hands of lawyers, mostly through insurance
companies.
So OK, lawsuits are a biggee, but they would not be as outrageous
as they are if there were no insurance companies to provide the
deep pockets that attract so many lawsuits.
And other insurance scams, for auto insurance as well as medical
insurance and other kinds, cost even more than lawsuits, according
to my auto insurance rep. I paid $400 instead of $120 for a new
windshield for my car after the garage found out I had insurance
to cover the job after all. He didn't tell me that, of course,
I found out from my insurance agent later, who said that this
kind of loss is even bigger nationwide than lawsuits.
I think a single payer health insurance system, set up and
managed properly, would solve a whole lot of this problem. I'm
all for letting the insurance companies go right out of business
if that's what it takes. I think they are the most destructive
industry we have.
|
243.627 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 14:40 | 18 |
| >Putting one's self at the mercy of the state.
You figure people do this on purpose, do you? Guess where you'll
be if you work at a 9-5 job for 30 years, depending on your company's
retirement, plus a little social security (since that's all social
security amounts to), and then:
A. You are laid off a couple of years before retirement,
so you only get a fraction of that retirement you
were planning on. You are now 60, so your chances of
starting over are 0.
B. Your company succumbs to a hostile takeover, and is
then raided for all its assets and left bankrupt,
which leaves you with no retirement at all.
Why, then, did you put yourself at the mercy of the state?
|
243.628 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Aug 01 1996 14:41 | 12 |
| <<< Note 243.625 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>
> So solve the problem already, in a way that will solve it for
> YOU too. I'm sure any such solution will be quite acceptable
> to everyone.
Ok, how's this? Mandatory IRAs or equivalent for everyone. Gov't does nothing
but confirm that you have one. SS phased out gradually until it's gone.
Everyone pays their own way at retirement, and billions of dollars become
available for investment. Everybody wins.
Anyone with any brains at all is already doing this, except for the money
they can't put in because it goes to (waste on) SS.
|
243.629 | we don't know the half of it... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Aug 01 1996 14:43 | 13 |
|
Single payer would have some advantages. But saving money wouldn't
be one of them.
The best intermediate step we could take is an honest Medicare
line on our pay stubs, like we have for FICA. It's downright
deception to put a quantity there which is then tripled from the
income tax. The least we could do is honestly report what we're
paying !! But even that brings a scream from the old folks. If
we knew what it cost, says AARP, political support would be
threatened...
bb
|
243.630 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 15:16 | 11 |
| I like the idea of mandatory IRAs, as long as they are invested
c a r e f u l l y ..., not like Orange County, e.g.
At least that way you are safer from inflation. Then there is the
question of how much you get back, in addition to the interest it is
earning each year. But I'm sure that's solvable.
I like the idea of IRAs, and MSAs too, because it gets OUR money out of
the hands of the government, so they can't play games with it.
Good idea.
|
243.631 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Thu Aug 01 1996 15:21 | 1 |
| i can do without MBAs.
|
243.632 | | EVMS::MORONEY | JFK committed suicide! | Thu Aug 01 1996 15:23 | 15 |
| re .627:
> >Putting one's self at the mercy of the state.
> You figure people do this on purpose, do you?
Some do. (of course this doesn't mean that your scenarios don't happen,
at least not A:)
> B. Your company succumbs to a hostile takeover, and is
> then raided for all its assets and left bankrupt,
> which leaves you with no retirement at all.
Aren't corporate retirement funds deliberately kept separate from corporate
assets to prevent this very event from happening?
|
243.633 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 15:25 | 28 |
| For health insurance, the reason I like single payer is that then it is
truly broad based health insurance. But I think it should be a safety
net, not a total freebie, in other words it should cover most people
for most catastrophic health costs, but only with a high deductible
based on your ability to pay, and only up to a maximum.
That way we don't end up paying for heroic efforts to keep a
90-year-old alive for another 3 weeks, and we don't pay for every
hangnail, and we don't even pay all that much for some lifestyle
repercussions.
And EVERY medical bill and payment should go TO THE PATIENT. No
exceptions! I'm tired of having to ask every medical service how much
things cost, and then having them deal with insurance companies behind
my back. I want to be able to haggle about medical costs as much as I
would about a new car, which sometimes costs less.
If we all had mandatory MSAs, just like mandatory IRAs, then we would
be a lot more careful with our money. There would be a few people who
still fall through cracks, like those who are unable to work at all,
but there should be too few of these to cost us very much if we
maintained IRAs and MSAs for them out of tax dollars.
And if you want to buy yourself more health insurance on top of the
mandatory government MSA, then go for it. It's still a free country,
and your MSA makes you even freer than before -- free, even, of
insurance companies if you so choose.
|
243.634 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 15:26 | 3 |
| > i can do without MBAs.
Words to live by... :-)
|
243.635 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Aug 01 1996 15:26 | 3 |
| But, of course, like any common-sense idea, it'll never happen. Too many
people making too much money (votes, insert whatever here) off the idiotic
system we have now.
|
243.636 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 15:29 | 15 |
| .632
Yeah, I believe corporate retirement funds are better protected now,
but only after a lot of people lost theirs due to chicanery.
Of course the big trick today is to hire people part time so you don't
have to provide any benefits. My neighbor is "retired", but has to
work since Raytheon laid him off a few years before he was due to
retire with full benefits, and the company that now employs him would
only agree to hire him part time. They demand that he work 40-50 hours
a week, however, every week, because they are so busy.
Whatever rules the government makes up, those MBAs can figure a way
around.
|
243.637 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 15:30 | 7 |
| >Too many people making too much money (votes, insert whatever here)
>off the idiotic system we have now.
Amen to that!
That's true of so many things -- the insurance industry and the War on
Drugs to name two.
|
243.638 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Thu Aug 01 1996 15:43 | 11 |
| I do not believe that retirement benefits are safe when your company is
sold or taken over.
My stepfather works for NYNEX, who just merged with some other Bell
company. They were still waiting to hear whether or not the new entity
had decided to honor the retirement benefits of the old entity.
It's especially important to him because he is being heavily pushed
toward "early retirement" at age 48.
Lisa
|
243.639 | No one said anything about fault .... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Aug 01 1996 16:15 | 13 |
|
> It is NOT the fault of retired people
No, it's not, but it IS their responsibilty to help in addressing the
problem, which may require a sacrifice from what they were initially
expecting, in order to prevent the financial strangulation of their
offspring, or the country as a whole.
Instead, what we get is the likes of AARP looking to get MORE from
government, not less, and fighting to push the debt/deficit every higher.
Doug.
|
243.640 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 01 1996 16:37 | 15 |
| I agree that *everyone* needs to help solve the problem.
And I remember something about when Bull sold off pieces to Wang, ZDS,
et al, some people lost a sizeable chunk of their retirements and some
other benefits.
I agree that the only way to be safe is to have your own retirement,
but for some people that isn't quite possible. You try living on a
one-earner blue-collar income for a lifetime, put several kids through
college, etc., and also try to save up enough to live on for 30 years
after you quit work. On the other hand, young DINKs today could
probably save up enough to retire by the time they're 40. Times have
changed a lot -- for *some* people. And in the other direction for
other people.
|
243.641 | If they're in my yard-shoot 'em! | THEMAX::SMITH_S | | Thu Aug 01 1996 18:28 | 3 |
| Oh my. Millions of starving children will be roaming the streets. What
shall we do?
-ss
|
243.642 | Kill the Poor | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Future Chevy Blazer Car Bomber | Thu Aug 01 1996 18:29 | 2 |
| Let 'em starve! Better yet, take the Brazilian approach and
appoint death squads to take care of them.
|
243.643 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 01 1996 18:35 | 18 |
| Guys, I don't think this is appropriate to discuss in such a
manner...especially since you very well may become poor someday.
The results of this bill may become an indictment on private
organizations, as this is what we've been pushing for. Now it is time
for private organizations to take the bull by the horns and offer
assistance while at the same time offering incentive to become
independent.
Two things that come to mind...put extra emphasis on deadbeat
dads...making the notion unbearable. Secondly, changing the paradigm
in this country that having babies before marriage is absolutely
revolting to the thought process. Scorning uppity elitist women who
propogate such a notion and coming down hard on young men who pollenate
at will without consideration. Abortion is a bandage attempting to
cure a cold. Change the thought process instead.
-Jack
|
243.644 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | | Thu Aug 01 1996 18:39 | 4 |
| >> .....especially since you very well may become poor someday.
Been there, Done that.
|
243.645 | | MFGFIN::EPPERSON | I saw a chicken with two heads | Thu Aug 01 1996 18:41 | 4 |
| Let those sorry people work like I do. You people can sympathize all
you want to, but I have no sympathy for people who won`t support
themselves. Any able body can support themselves. There is no excuse
to be begging for handouts.
|
243.646 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | | Thu Aug 01 1996 18:55 | 3 |
| I agree. If everybody that could supported themselves, there would be
much less of a tax burden on us working dogs.
-ss
|
243.647 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 01 1996 19:05 | 18 |
| Z Let those sorry people work like I do. You people can sympathize all
Z you want to, but I have no sympathy for people who won`t support
Z themselves. Any able body can support themselves. There is no
Z excuse to be begging for handouts.
Excuse me...did I say anything about free handouts? Could somebody
please advise?
What I read in previous replies was something to the effect of having
death squads to shoot poor people. May I remind you that poverty is
non discriminatory. While it certainly does hit people of specific
habits or lifestyles more than others, it also hits average Joes during
recessions, depressions, and in instances like men trying to cope with
their war trials, i.e. Vietnam. I find your suggestions equally
reprehensible to the bleeding hearts that insist on holding a gun to
the private sector.
-Jack
|
243.648 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 01 1996 19:07 | 8 |
| Z I agree. If everybody that could supported themselves, there would be
Z much less of a tax burden on us working dogs.
Consider this fact. If every church in America each adopted one
poverty stricken individual, poverty would be wiped out in America.
The illogic...of Waste!
-Jack
|
243.649 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | | Thu Aug 01 1996 19:12 | 6 |
| Or, if every poverty stricken individual in America each adopted a
church, poverty would be wiped out. What's that saying about leading a
horse to water? I think these unfortunate people are looking for it in
the desert.
-ss
|
243.650 | | MFGFIN::EPPERSON | I saw a chicken with two heads | Thu Aug 01 1996 19:15 | 4 |
| The world needs kind, caring individuals to show them the way.
(NO, that is not a Frampton reference)
|
243.651 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 01 1996 19:18 | 5 |
| Oh, I agree with that assessment. I do believe people are seeking
refuge in the worst places. I also believe the church needs a severe
wakeup call.
-Jack
|
243.652 | More facts | DECCXL::VOGEL | | Thu Aug 01 1996 21:22 | 58 |
|
From .625
> Retired people today don't want anything different from what their
> parents or grandparents wanted. All they want is to be cared for
> until they die.
BUT...
.30 years ago the elderly were the poorest segment of the population.
Today they are the richest.
.30 years ago the percentage of the elderly living below the poverty
line was greater than the population as a whole. Today it is
(I believe) less than half the population as a whole.
.The elderly today live better than any group of people has ever
lived in this country. When was the last place you were at
<pick any expensive resort or vacation area>. What percentage
of the people were over 65?
> And it is NOT their fault that inflation over the years makes
> their contributions look small by comparison.
Even taking inflation into account, the elderly receive *far* more
from these systems than they put into them.
> Anything young people say about old people today, their own
> kids will be saying about them in a few more years.
No...because for the SS and Medicare systems to provide us the same
benefits as it provides the elderly today will require a tax rate of 80%
on the young people of tomorrow. This will not happen.
I have no problem giving SS and Medicare benefits to those who need
them, but 600,000 millionaires receive these benefits. We give
over 70 Billion dollars in benefits each year to households with incomes
over 50K/year. This is more money spent in one year than are projected
to be saved by the changes in Welfare over 7 years.
From .626:
>I have no idea.
Then maybe you should get an idea before you claim that it's insurance
company profits that are keeping medical costs so high. I'll bet they
account for less than 1% of the money spent on health care.
Yea...doctors pay a lot in insurance premiums, but as you admit
most of this goes to lawyers, not insurance companies.
Further, the medical systems with the fastest growing costs are
Medicare and Medicaid....the two systems without any insurance
company profits at all!!
|
243.653 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 02 1996 10:12 | 100 |
| >.30 years ago the elderly were the poorest segment of the population.
>Today they are the richest.
>.30 years ago the percentage of the elderly living below the poverty
>line was greater than the population as a whole. Today it is
>(I believe) less than half the population as a whole.
>.The elderly today live better than any group of people has ever
>lived in this country. When was the last place you were at
><pick any expensive resort or vacation area>. What percentage
>of the people were over 65?
Wow! What kind of propaganda have you been swallowing?
30 years ago was 1966, and the elderly of that day had spent the
bulk of their working life in years of war and depression, and had
nothing to show for it. They would have been my grandparents, who
died in the 60s.
Then came my parents, who today are the elderly you are complaining
about.
With the deprivations of two world wars and the Great Depression,
and with visions of how their own parents had to live in old age
imprinted indelibly on their memories, many people my parents' age
worked their butts off, lived a frugal life, and saved every penny.
If they live comfortably today, that is why.
If they had to live on social security they would starve.
What you are complaining about is that people who work hard and
save their money all their lives are then able to live well in their
old age -- ON THEIR OWN MONEY, what the government doesn't try to
take away from them, that is.
I have no sympathy or agreement with that view at all.
>Even taking inflation into account, the elderly receive *far* more
>from these systems than they put into them.
You keep repeating that like a mantra. So what is your point? The
elderly today did exactly what the government told them to do when
they were YOUR AGE, and they still do. You have no valid complaint
here, except possibly with the political idiots that designed the
whole system in the first place. So take it to them. It's still
not the fault of the elderly.
>No...because for the SS and Medicare systems to provide us the same
>benefits as it provides the elderly today will require a tax rate of
80%
>on the young people of tomorrow. This will not happen.
And it will not happen that we will simply throw our parents out of
the house either. There has to be a solution. Quite crying and
help find one.
>I have no problem giving SS and Medicare benefits to those who need
>them, but 600,000 millionaires receive these benefits. We give
>over 70 Billion dollars in benefits each year to households with
incomes
>over 50K/year. This is more money spent in one year than are projected
>to be saved by the changes in Welfare over 7 years.
There are problems with the current system -- so like I said, quit
complaining and fix them. I agree with you -- people who have enough
money don't need the government's help. But many others do.
>Then maybe you should get an idea before you claim that it's insurance
>company profits that are keeping medical costs so high. I'll bet they
>account for less than 1% of the money spent on health care.
Since you don't have a clue either, I'll stick by my original idea.
I think a LOT of the money we pay for "medical" bills ends up in
the coffers of insurance companies.
>Yea...doctors pay a lot in insurance premiums, but as you admit
>most of this goes to lawyers, not insurance companies.
Most of those lawyers work for insurance companies.
>Further, the medical systems with the fastest growing costs are
>Medicare and Medicaid....the two systems without any insurance
>company profits at all!!
Well, at least that's one good thing. But Medicare and Medicaid
are still paying health care providers' bills, which include their
costs of dealing with insurance companies, lawyers, and the rest,
so they still aren't free of the effects.
All we need to know to settle this question is:
A. How much does America spend in health insurance
premiums each year?
B. How much do health insurance companies pay out on
health care each year?
C. A - B is what I'd like to know. I'll bet it is a
lot more than 1% of A.
|
243.654 | you don't want to know all of this... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Aug 02 1996 10:19 | 12 |
|
The sources of insurance company profis are a very complex
subject. The biggest is the interest on the float, which is
gigantic. Governments, or any other single-payer system do the
same throughout the world. You take in billions in premiums, invest
it, then pay it out in claims. The business can be immensely
profitable even in some cases where claims exceed premiums.
Whole books have been written about the economics of this. Much
of the "insurance" you buy is resold to a pool of reinsurers, who
actually pay the primaty who then pay the claims. Tricky stuff.
bb
|
243.655 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 02 1996 10:51 | 19 |
| That's interesting -- I forgot about the float. And it seems to take
them "forever" (several doctors' words) to pay off the bills.
American Express and the other credit cards make a lot of money the
same way.
I would like a system where the doctor hands me the bill directly. No
more turning things in behind your back. And they should all have to
give you estimates ahead of time too. I usually ask now how much
things are going to cost, and doctors are always surprised. Same
especially for hospitals. You'd see bills go down just because people
wouldn't accept some of the services or would shop around for them.
Then I would apply to the single payer (government or whoever) for the
money. When I get it I would pay the doc. Or I would pay him the
co-pay right off. The main idea would be to have all the money go
through me so I would know how much was involved. Would eliminate
double and triple billing that some sneaky docs like to do, too.
|
243.656 | ball park figures | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Aug 02 1996 10:55 | 18 |
| There are dozens of studies reported on the WWW by various institutions
ranging from the Gov't to the CPUSA via the insurance industry and the
AMA. A few give estimates of Insurance industry profits ranging from
$50billion to $100billion.
Just about all of them say that focusing on insurance industries does
not give a clear representation of profit in the health insurance
industry. Drug companies, drug distributors, profit making hospitals
and other entities are all in the game.
According to Michael Crichton, a proponent of a single payer system, if
you want to cut through the complexity to a fair guesstimate, look at
the relative costs of a day's hospitalization in the pre-insurance days
compared to today and subtract typical inflation. The figure is way
above typical inflation for other goods and services during the same
time.
|
243.657 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Fri Aug 02 1996 11:17 | 8 |
| $50-100 billion is an impressive number, but it doesn't say what the
investment was. What was the ROI?
Reporting numbers this way can be misleading... kinda like the reports of
oil company profits back in the 70s. While ABC/CBS/NBC were all reporting
the bajillions of bux in profits made by the oil companies, they neglected
to mention that they represented about a 2% profit margin, whereas the
networks were operating in the 12-20% range at the same time.
|
243.658 | to whom the dole fell | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Fri Aug 02 1996 11:19 | 6 |
| >What was the ROI?
For whom? With welfare, be it for the rich or for the poor, some gets the
money and some gets to pay for it.
TTom
|
243.659 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Aug 02 1996 11:29 | 12 |
|
Not really germane to the question, which was simply to ask what
percentage of the figures represented profit. I acknowledged that it
was difficult to do so, and that the Insurers were not the only
garners of profits in the industry. I think it's fair to
assume that any company in that business would be bankrupt, divesting,
or being taken over if they were not turning a reasonable profit on
their investment and providing a reasonable service.
The best indicator of ROI excpectations is to look at the going rate
for acquisitions in the health insurance industry. It's not what it
was, but it's still very healthy.
|
243.660 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 02 1996 11:33 | 20 |
| Whatever the insurance companies' profits are, I don't like having to
pay them on top of the already high medical costs, unless I'm really
getting something for my money.
It used to be (or I used to think) that you got fair insurance coverage
for you premium buck, but these days, with all the policy fine print
excluding everything they can exclude, with all the inequity in rates
based on your past usage, with waiting periods, with exclusion of
preexisting conditions, and with all the other ways they find not to
make payments even though they still take your premiums, I no longer
feel they are worth my "investment".
I would rather see a national system with no exclusions. Everyone pays
the same regardless of anything.
Either that or MSAs, and it's every man, woman, and child for
themselves. But in that case, I would still want to see some safety
net based on ability to pay. Maybe this last way is the best after
all, because that way we would all get the benefits of the float
instead of the insurance companies.
|
243.661 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Fri Aug 02 1996 11:35 | 3 |
| I guess on the other side of it, $50 billion would represent about $200
profit from each person in the US, which ain't no cheap snuff. Q: Is that
medical insurance or all insurance?
|
243.662 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Aug 02 1996 16:36 | 12 |
| > Whatever the insurance companies' profits are, I don't like having
> to pay them
But you're not paying 'them', if by 'them' you mean the profits.
As was just said, they're profiting from their skilled handling of
the cash flow- interest on the float between the time you pay a premium
and the time they pay a claim on that policy- if I read that right.
Do you get a fair value for your premium? Fine. You're getting what
you pay for.
DougO
|
243.663 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 02 1996 16:41 | 12 |
| I see what you mean, but if the insurance company is making money by
taking my premiums way ahead of time (years in most cases), investing
them, and then taking as long as they can get away with to pay off
claims, then I would prefer to do the same thing. I can use the money
from those investments as much as they can.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that their investment returns are NOT
counted as part of their profits. I'll bet profits are counted in each
calendar year as income from premiums minus claims paid, and I'll bet
the returns on their investments are counted as something else for tax
and profit reporting purposes. Don't know, though. Maybe totally off
base.
|
243.664 | | DECC::VOGEL | | Fri Aug 02 1996 22:18 | 64 |
|
From .653:
> Wow! What kind of propaganda have you been swallowing?
My information is from the U.S. Census, The Concord Coalition,
and statements made by presidential candidate Lamm. Do you
doubt any of the statements I made?
> If they had to live on social security they would starve.
About 40% of the elderly get over 90% of their income from SS.
They do not starve.
> What you are complaining about is that people who work hard and
> save their money all their lives are then able to live well in their
> old age -- ON THEIR OWN MONEY, what the government doesn't try to
No. I am complaining about a group of people who are living of the
money of the younger generation.
> So what is your point?
My point is that the Social Security system and Medicare are a
boon to today's retirees an unfair to today's younger workers.
Do you disagree?
> except possibly with the political idiots that designed the
> whole system in the first place. So take it to them. It's still
> not the fault of the elderly.
You are correct: it is the political idiots who got us into this
mess. It is also a group of politial idiots who deserve the blame
for trying to make the elderly afraid of any changes in these programs.
However the elderly (at least many of them) are fighting
any changes to this mess. This is their fault.
> Quite crying and help find one.
There is no need for me to find one. There are many that have been
found. The problem is interest groups for the elderly (and others) have
made it politically impossible to implement a solution.
> All we need to know to settle this question is:
>
> A. How much does America spend in health insurance
> premiums each year?
>
> B. How much do health insurance companies pay out on
> health care each year?
>
> C. A - B is what I'd like to know. I'll bet it is a
> lot more than 1% of A.
A - B is not the profit of the insurance companies. It is their
overhead + profits. I will grant that this is more than 1% of A,
but it is profits that are at issue here, not overhead. As for profits
I do have a clue....see next reply.
Ed
|
243.665 | Some research... | DECC::VOGEL | | Fri Aug 02 1996 22:18 | 68 |
|
RE .656
> There are dozens of studies reported on the WWW by various institutions
> ranging from the Gov't to the CPUSA via the insurance industry and the
> AMA. A few give estimates of Insurance industry profits ranging from
> $50billion to $100billion.
Could you give me a pointer to one of these? I suspect the 100B figure
might be insurance company revenues, but this seems a little low. The
50B figure might be insurance company overhead, but this seems high.
In doing a little surfing here's what I found:
First, I only looked in places that claim to be "liberal". I did find
a bunch of stuff...most of it short on facts, but I was able to
locate the following:
(http://pathfinder.com/@@P7GM5AcAKgGfAsrM/time/magazine/domestic/1996/960415/healthcare.html)
This is a piece from the April 15th Time Magazine. Jill Smolowoe wrote
to criticize the Aetna/U.S. Heathcare Merger. Here are the relevant
quotes:
"If the deal is approved....Aetna Inc., will provide health
care for 1 in 12 Americans"
"Last year Aetna earned $474 Million....U.S. Healthcare
...racked up $380 million in earnings"
If we assume that *all* of Aetna's earnings came from health care,
the two companies earned $854 Million from heath care last year.
If we then assume that the earnings/covered worker for these
two firms is average (which it is not - The article says that
earnings for U.S. Healthcare are extremely high, but I'm being
very conservative) this means that if everyone were covered by
a for-profit health care company, the profits for all those
companies would be about 10 Billion dollars (854 * 12)
Of course no more than 70% of Americans are covered by a for profit
health insurance company (This figure is also high given that there are
about 40 Million with no insurance, 30 Million on Medicare, and 30 Million
on Medicaid, plus some some number in not-for-profit companies).
This means that the profits are about 7 Billion.
Health care spending in the U.S. is about 1 Trillion. So....
the percentage of this spending represented by insurance company
profits is about .7%.
> Drug companies, drug distributors, profit making hospitals
> and other entities are all in the game.
So is there a problem with these companies making a profit?
> According to Michael Crichton, a proponent of a single payer system, if
> you want to cut through the complexity to a fair guesstimate, look at
> the relative costs of a day's hospitalization in the pre-insurance days
> compared to today and subtract typical inflation. The figure is way
> above typical inflation for other goods and services during the same
> time.
You're just kidding here right? As I read this paragraph it states
that *ALL* the cost in medical care in the last few decades can be
blamed on insurance companies. Do you really believe this?
Ed
|
243.666 | I'll bet you drive a Volvo Or Saab. | FABSIX::J_RILEY | The older I get,the better I was. | Sat Aug 03 1996 04:45 | 18 |
| RE: .664
>About 40% of the elderly get over 90% of their income from SS.
>They do not starve.
My own mother gets about $450 a month from SS and your right she
doesn't starve but she has had to learn how to live without many things
you and I take for granted.
> My point is that the Social Security system and Medicare are a
>boon to today's retirees an unfair to today's younger workers.
>Do you disagree?
These people have paid into the system, are you saying they shouldn't
get any benefit after paying all these years?
Joe
|
243.667 | | DECCXX::VOGEL | | Sat Aug 03 1996 15:15 | 44 |
|
Re .last - Joe,
> These people have paid into the system, are you saying they shouldn't
> get any benefit after paying all these years?
No, I do not mean that at all. In fact I would be very much against
changing the benefits for the 40% of SS recipients who really
need the money (such as your mother).
I also believe that *everyone* should get back what they paid into
the system adjusted for inflation.
My point is the most every senior gets back far more from the system
than they paid in. For example, those who retired in the 80's, got
back, on average, everything they paid into the system in the first
2.5 years of retirement. The case for Medicare is even worse.
I (and others) suggest that benefits be reduced to those seniors
who can afford it.
The system is going broke. Everyone who understand the facts of
the system know this. Many won't admit to it. The longer we wait
to make adjustments, the more difficult it will be.
I should also say that I really don't mean to be hard on seniors.
The real fault is in politicians - Mostly Democrats, but a number
of Republicans, as well as certain special interest groups, that
benefit from keeping the systems they way they are. They tell
seniors lies in order to make then (rightfully) afraid of change.
Really all I can blame most seniors (and others) for is refusing to
take the time to learn the facts about these systems.
Tying this all back to the base note....one thing I like about the
welfare reform bill is that it will help remove the (false) idea
that many people have that it is welfare that is causing the deficit.
Welfare spending is a drop in the bucket compared to programs like
SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. If we can remove enough excuses, pretty
soon we'll have to deal with these programs.
Ed
|
243.668 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Aug 05 1996 09:52 | 41 |
| Ed,
First up, I didn't say that I "believed" anything, I did report a few
things that I had read. If you search alta vista, on an advanced
search using related strings you will not have a problem finding
thousands of articles. The figures range widely, but (and for the
third time) they all mention that it is NOT solely the insurance
companies that are taking a bite from the cherry.
And NO, I have no problem with an honest profit, but I do have a
problem with instances where insurance companies, drug companies and
hospitals all work together to keep prices artificially high - as any
consumer should.
As to Crichton's claim, I think he has a valid point. He acknowledges
that there have been vast technological changes in medicine and that an
increasing number of tests are now performed. However, he points out
that when he was working in Mass General in the '60s, a room was $70
a day - it now averages at $700 per day. Something has to account for
this increase, and it ain't "the hidden cost of insuring the
uninsured".
If you want to know what I believe can work, I think it would be a
hybrid system of part compulsory and part voluntary contributions. I've
had a lot of personal experience of the single-payer system in the UK
and have seen its strengths and weaknesses. What a lot of Americans do
not know is that for the las 10 years in the UK the single payer system
has evolved into a hybrid system of single payment and private
insurance top-up that works very well. Via Digital in the UK, you can
buy cheap insurance to supplement gaps in the single-payer system.
Basic and catastrophic care is covered in the single-payer system,
while personal preferences can be catered for out of a range of
insurance options. My Father, who is in his sixties, has top up
insurances that cost around $100 per month and have not increased
substantially for fifteeen years. On the other hand, my mother-in-law
in the US cannot afford private health care.
Regards,
Colin
|
243.669 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 05 1996 10:18 | 59 |
| >My information is from the U.S. Census, The Concord Coalition,
>and statements made by presidential candidate Lamm. Do you
>doubt any of the statements I made?
Yes, the statements you made were not facts, they were interpretations
of statistics. I doubt them very much. Saying that you see some
old people in vacation spots says a whole lot more about your personal
prejudices against old people than it does about how old people live.
>About 40% of the elderly get over 90% of their income from SS.
>They do not starve.
When my mother in law died a very few years ago, she was getting
about $400 a month from SS. Show me how you would live and eat on
$400 a month, please.
>I am complaining about a group of people who are living of the
>money of the younger generation.
You are ignoring two very big things here: All those elderly people
who are living off their own money (do you deny that?), and all the
other uses to which social security is put, e.g., don't AIDC and WIC
come out of social security, as well as many other programs? (do
you deny this too?)
>My point is that the Social Security system and Medicare are a
>boon to today's retirees an unfair to today's younger workers.
>Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree completely and emphatically with you. I agree that
there are ways social security could be cut back:
o Programs that are really welfare, not help for the elderly,
should be moved out of SS.
o Any "medical" expenditures that end up in the hands of
people outside the medical profession (like lawyers)
should be eliminated.
o Elderly who are wealthy and do not need SS should not
get it.
But I insist that we as a society have a responsibility to take care
of our parents if they need our care.
>However the elderly (at least many of them) are fighting
>any changes to this mess. This is their fault.
They are frightened, and rightfully so, given the tone of your
statements, that they will be left helpless, homeless, and hungry.
Try being unemployed for a while and see if you don't get a little
antsy.
>but it is profits that are at issue here, not overhead.
Yeah, we've all seen their "overhead": insurance companies must
own the greatest number of most valuable properties in America
except for the Catholic Church.
|
243.670 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 05 1996 10:41 | 19 |
| >I also believe that *everyone* should get back what they paid into
>the system adjusted for inflation.
Why? The SS system operates like the insurance that you seem to
like so much, except that it has no "overhead", no prime real estate,
no profits, no army of lawyers, etc.
SS was meant to be a form of social insurance, to fill in for people
whose kids can't be bothered to help take care of Mom and Pop in
their old age.
I agree with you that the system needs a lot of fixing. There are,
if I remember right, 60-70 separate welfare-type programs that take
money out of the SS system, elderly support, medicare, and medicaid
being only 3 of them.
But it seems so petty and childishly spiteful to blame the elderly
for having grown old and for wanting the same health care you do.
|
243.671 | | SALEM::DODA | Sometimes all you get is the truth | Mon Aug 05 1996 10:46 | 19 |
| <<< Note 243.670 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>
> SS was meant to be a form of social insurance, to fill in for people
> whose kids can't be bothered to help take care of Mom and Pop in
> their old age.
No. It was meant to be a supplement to teh retiree's own
savings.
What? You mean you never planned for your returement and
haven't saved a cent in 45 years of employment? Have no worry,
we'll take care of you.
I agree that all these other SS payments should be stopped and
the program should be used as it was originally intended,
however, it was never meant to be the sole source of income for a
retiree.
daryll
|
243.672 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 05 1996 10:59 | 18 |
| <-- Agreed -- SS was never meant to be a sole source of income.
But it is just not possible, no matter how conscientious you are, to be
guaranteed that you will be able to save enough to take care of
yourself throughout your old age.
Some people can. But many people cannot. Entire towns have been wiped
out financially, including most of the people in those towns, by the
changing face of economics in America.
What, you didn't think when you went to work in the shoe factory in
Upper Duckworth 40 years ago that it would close down after it moved
its operations to Mexico, leaving you jobless, retirementless, and with
a house that is not worthless because the town died when the company
left? Well shame on you -- no SS for you, old buddy...
Let's really punish those old goofs who can't plan any better than that
-- we'll give 'em nothing! That'll teach 'em!
|
243.673 | no overhead ? make up a fact Monday ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Aug 05 1996 11:05 | 16 |
|
That Social Security has "no overhead" when compared to the
insurance companies is a gross untruth. The "overhead" of
social security includes some 100,000 civil servants, buildings,
mailings, literature, etc. Has cost many billions.
While there are benefits to single payer (fairness, uniformity,
universality), cost reduction is NOT one of them. On the contrary,
during the 1993-4 debates, both the CBO and GAO estimated that
single payer (and just about any other health reform plan), would
increase costs. This is not surprising. According to just about
everybody's economics text books today, the additional cost of
monopoly, whether private or public, plus its causes, are a very
well known phenomenon. Monopolies are much less efficient.
bb
|
243.674 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 05 1996 11:37 | 31 |
| .673 You're right of course. By "overhead", I was thinking of only
that part of insurance companies' overhead that could be termed "cost
of sales": advertising, market research, sales commissions, agency
commissions, etc., etc., etc. that a single payer *government* system
would not need.
The Post Office is a monopoly in a sense, but it is not a monopoly in
the usual "bad" sense that it is therefore able to operate with gross
inefficiencies and raise prices to whatever level it pleases.
A single payer government health insurance program, if it operated as
well as the Post Office, ought to provide better all around coverage
than the insurance industry. Especially if we could also get lawyers
out of the picture.
By "better" coverage, I mean not only that it could provide lower
overall costs, but that it could provide fairer coverage to all
residents of the US.
It would still remain to be decided just exactly much the American
People want to have "covered" by such a system. We are very far from
agreeing on that one central issue, I believe, and that is one of the
reasons why we don't have a single payer system today.
If you count every group of people that somebody doesn't want *their*
money to cover: old people, young people, smokers, drinkers, drug
users, gays, poor people, rich people, anybody with a lifestyle
different from theirs, ...
You would end up with very few people covered by health insurance.
|
243.675 | Thanks | DECC::VOGEL | | Mon Aug 05 1996 13:51 | 29 |
|
Re .668 - Colin,
Thanks for the clarification. I did not mean to put words in your
mouth. I agree with much of your position.
The increased cost today are due to a number of things, but the
biggest is that we simply have too many medical facilities. We
have too many doctors (especially specialists), too many hospitals,
too much expensive equipment (I've heard there are more MRI machines
in Boston than there are in Canada).
As for "the hidden cost of insuring the uninsured", this is rising
greatly because in the old days there were fewer uninsured. Also
there were more people with "open" insurance who could cover parts
of the cost of the uninsured. Most of use are now in managed care
where a hospital can not shift costs onto us or the provider picks
another hospital. Also Medicare/Medicaid have cut payments to
hospitals/doctors so that someone has to make up for this. The result
is that those with open insurance get huge bills.
I very think the hybrid system you describe is a very good one.
I also think it will be very politically difficult to get such
a system here.
Take care,
Ed
|
243.676 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Aug 05 1996 15:28 | 16 |
| Thanks Ed. In think that the crisis in health care and the very long
term that the Conservatives have been in power has forced change in the
UK. It is also (arguably) much easier to make a step from a socialized
system to the hybrid system - much more so than going the other way.
There was much public support for privitization.
Incidentally, the Tories also began to reform social security during
this same period and the latest figures indicate that personal savings
for retirement in the UK now exceed 600 billion pounds. (More than the
total for the rest of Europe.)
Even at the start of their current term in office, the UK social
security trust fund was not underfunded and in no danger of going
bankrupt. By the year 2030, the vast majority of retirement funding
will be private, with only a residual reliance on state pensions.
|
243.677 | strange, if you think about it... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Aug 05 1996 15:45 | 33 |
|
The US system has two very odd features, if you think about it
from as detached a perspective as you can manage. The first, of
course, is that many people's health care is associated with their
employment. Now, this was not so till WWII, and it is really a
quite bizarre arrangement. Your education, your housing, your food,
your transport, are NOT provided by your employer. It is a quite
illogical artifact of a historical accident. During WWII, there
was a wage freeze and strikes were illegal, yet there was a labor
shortage with so many workers drafted. US companies came up with
providing health care coverage as an illicit pay raise to circumvent
government policy. It proved popular with workers, such that it
was retained instead of wage increases after the war, and the US
government declined to tax such perks as income. In many other
countries, there is no such tradition, and companies would think it
bizarre to be involved in employee healthcare.
The other thing is that people should imagine it sensible for
"insurance" to cover routine minor expenses, of $50 or even less.
But "insurance" is merely a way of buying risk protection. It is
always more expensive in the long run to insure than simply to pay.
The rationale for the added cost is risk avoidance in the event of
catastrophe. Suppose 1000 people each run a risk of 1/1000th of getting
a disease that will cost $10,000 to treat ? If each chipped in
$10 + overhead, say $11, the loser in terms of the disease would
not suffer a financial catastrophe. It is only risks you can't
afford that can sensibly be insured against. Yet in the US, most
people view insurance as a medium for paying SMALL bills, yet these
policies quite often have a maximum coverage ! Exactly backwards.
bb
|
243.678 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 05 1996 16:28 | 15 |
| It does seem backwards for an insurance, but I've also heard it said
that it is not really insurance as we usually think of insurance.
Now more than ever what we call health insurance is really health
planning, where one of the breat benefits to society as a whole as well
as to individuals is that people are encouraged to get preventive
health checkups and medical advice and immunizations, etc., so that
they will have fewer health problems later on.
One of the problems with traditional health insurance was that it would
cover your medical expenses only after you got sick. It makes more
sense to get preventive medicine to people so they won't get sick or
won't get AS sick, and it saves a lot of money too.
|
243.679 | | LABC::RU | | Mon Aug 05 1996 20:08 | 6 |
|
Someone has the valid point. The welfare bill push all
the people on welfare to work. Are there so many jobs
for them? I doubt it. If they can find job, can they live
on minimum wages? If one can find job, does it push another
one off job? then on welfare again.
|
243.680 | | DECCXL::VOGEL | | Mon Aug 05 1996 21:18 | 133 |
|
> Yes, the statements you made were not facts, they were interpretations
> of statistics. I doubt them very much.
One of the statements I made was an observation, the others were
facts. I might suggest you check out
http://www.census.gov/hhes/wealth/wlth93g.html
to verify some of what I've said.
> Show me how you would live and eat on $400 a month, please.
No. You said that the elderly would starve. You show me the starving.
> >I am complaining about a group of people who are living of the
> >money of the younger generation.
>
> You are ignoring two very big things here: All those elderly people
> who are living off their own money (do you deny that?),
As I said, I have no problem with elderly people living off their own
money.
> and all the
> other uses to which social security is put, e.g., don't AIDC and WIC
> come out of social security, as well as many other programs? (do
> you deny this too?)
Of course I deny this. None of the program you stated come out of SS.
(Oh...I assume you mean AFDC and not AIDC??)
> o Programs that are really welfare, not help for the elderly,
> should be moved out of SS.
There are (I believe) two such programs. This first is SSDI - Social Security
Disability Insurance. This provides minimal benefits for the disabled.
The second is survivor benefits. This provides minimal benefits
for children when a provider dies. So you would like to cut
benefits for children and the disabled, right. (oh...both these
programs are peanuts compared to the amount of money paid to retirees)
> o Any "medical" expenditures that end up in the hands of
> people outside the medical profession (like lawyers)
> should be eliminated.
So when Digital sells a computer system to a hospital we can
no make a profit on it. Right?
> o Elderly who are wealthy and do not need SS should not
> get it.
This is close to what I've been saying.
> But I insist that we as a society have a responsibility to take care
> of our parents if they need our care.
I agree. When did I say otherwise?
> >but it is profits that are at issue here, not overhead.
>
> Yeah, we've all seen their "overhead": insurance companies must
> own the greatest number of most valuable properties in America
> except for the Catholic Church.
But the whole point was "profit". You were the one who said the
problem was insurance company profits. I have demonstrated this
not to be the case. Now, if you want to change the
argument to "overhead" fine. I then assume you don't mind putting
all those who work for insurance companies out of work.
> But it seems so petty and childishly spiteful to blame the elderly
> for having grown old and for wanting the same health care you do.
No. Interest groups for the elderly want better health care than I have.
Most of us do not have the ability to choose our own doctors unless
we pay a lot of extra money.
As for blaming the elderly. A have already admitted that this was
not my intent. Please read the end of my .667
> >My point is that the Social Security system and Medicare are a
> >boon to today's retirees an unfair to today's younger workers.
> >Do you disagree?
>
> Yes, I disagree completely and emphatically with you.
I guess this is the whole gist of our disagreement. I urge you
to learn more about the programs and the demographics of our
society. A number of the statements you have made show that you
(like many others) do not have a very good knowledge of these issues.
I have pointed you at several resources. I will list some more
at the end of this reply. I would be glad to listen to any facts
you may be able to provide to prove that the systems are fair to
today's workers, or that any of my sources are in error.
Thank you,
Ed
These facts from from a bi-partisan group called Lead-or-Leave.
There are a Generation X group. The full document can be found at :
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~adam/LEAD/harsh.html
Today's average, married senior citizen paid $83,852 in Social Security
and Medicare taxes in his/her lifetime. The average senior will get
back $308,328. (Ways and Means Committee)
In the last twenty years, income for parents under the age of 30 dropped
28.6 percent, while it rose 28.4 percent for seniors. (1992 census survey)
A 30-year-old man in the early 1970s earned 15 percent more than his father
did at that age. Today's 30-year-old can expect to bring in 25 percent less
than his dad did. (Forbes)
In 1948, a family of four earning the median income would have paid no
income tax and a mere 1 percent to Social Security. By 1955, income tax and
Social Security would require 9 percent, and by 1990 the combined tax burden
was 25 to 28 percent. And that does not even consider sales tax. (Boiling
Point)
In 1990, a couple in their twenties with one worker, a baby, and $30,000 in
income had to pay five times as much tax to the government ($5,055) as the
typical retired couple in their late sixties with the same incomes from public
and private pensions ($1,073). (Congressional Ways and Means Committee)
The average 30-year-old home-owner in the 1950s could make the monthly
mortgage payment using 14 percent of his income. Today it would take 40
percent. (Frank Levy)
|
243.681 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Perpetual Glenn | Mon Aug 05 1996 21:51 | 2 |
| Without an endless supply of free stuff, there will always be poor
people. It's always been that way.
|
243.682 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Tue Aug 06 1996 01:15 | 52 |
| RE: .667
> I (and others) suggest that benefits be reduced to those seniors
> who can afford it.
Which again brings up the issue of rewarding someone for squandering
their earnings while young and punishing those that have actually saved
for retirement.
> They tell
> seniors lies in order to make then (rightfully) afraid of change.
And the younger generation should rightfully be afraid of the system
not changing.
RE: .669
> When my mother in law died a very few years ago, she was getting
> about $400 a month from SS. Show me how you would live and eat on
> $400 a month, please.
If she's already paid for her house, then there's no rent. And are you
also implying that she made the SS her only source of retirement income
instead of a supplement?
> You are ignoring two very big things here: All those elderly people
> who are living off their own money (do you deny that?)
If you are talking about the elderly people receiving SS, then it is
NOT there own money. They are pulling more out of the system then
they've put in ... not to mention the first SS recipients received the
current recipients money. As structured, the pyramid scheme will
collapse and it will be the younger generation that pays for it.
> o Elderly who are wealthy and do not need SS should not
> get it.
Which is a clear indication that the edp's of this world should change
their ways and start squandering their money long before they get to
the SS retirement age.
> Yeah, we've all seen their "overhead": insurance companies must
> own the greatest number of most valuable properties in America
> except for the Catholic Church.
If the insurance companies did not have a large amount of assets, then
they would be unable to pay off should a major catastrophe strike (in
which case you'd rightfully complain that they weren't doing their
job).
-- Dave
|
243.683 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Tue Aug 06 1996 12:51 | 34 |
| RE: .674
> The Post Office is a monopoly in a sense, but it is not a monopoly in
> the usual "bad" sense that it is therefore able to operate with gross
> inefficiencies and raise prices to whatever level it pleases.
>
> A single payer government health insurance program, if it operated as
> well as the Post Office, ought to provide better all around coverage
> than the insurance industry. Especially if we could also get lawyers
> out of the picture.
When Al Gore sent out his Christmas cards on November 12th, they didn't
arrive until February. At one point there was a train load of Priority
Mail (tm) that went undelivered for months because of labor problems in
Chicago. This is the efficient system that you want to turn our health
care into?
A few years back I was calling on the US Post Office. After indicating
that he wanted to place an order, the second level manager stated that
the Post Office had a policy that all shipments to the Post Office had
to be sent by US Post. He then stated that we had to ship via UPS: if
it went by US Post then (a) it would probably get lost, and (b) they
would have no way of tracking it. These were his concerns. This is
the level of confidence you want us to place into our health care
system?
In returning a disk drive to Seagate, they said ship it "anyway but by
the US Postal Service."
I'm sure that if you tried hard enough you could come up with something
other than the US Postal Service you'd rather have your health care
system emulate.
-- Dave
|
243.684 | In Georgia Sat. Sunday was Easter, in Mass. Monday | EVMS::MORONEY | YOU! Out of the gene pool! | Tue Aug 06 1996 12:59 | 4 |
| So far I've found the USPS _very_ efficient when I have packages of live bees
shipped to me...
-Madman
|
243.685 | | DECC::VOGEL | | Tue Aug 06 1996 13:30 | 34 |
|
Re .682 - Dave,
>> I (and others) suggest that benefits be reduced to those seniors
>> who can afford it.
>
> Which again brings up the issue of rewarding someone for squandering
> their earnings while young and punishing those that have actually saved
> for retirement.
Yea...this is a problem. However it is not really possible to reduce
benefits to those at the bottom of the earnings scale who really need
this money. This is also why I suggest that everyone gets back
from the system all the money they put back into the system.
So...the resulting system is one which is a forced pension system
plus a welfare system for the needy. (as opposed to todays system
which is simply a welfare system for most all retirees).
> And the younger generation should rightfully be afraid of the system
> not changing.
Right you are. However it is very difficult to for young people to
learn the facts of the system. There are simply too many people
that are afraid to rock the SS boat. Late Friday evening I was watching
CSPAN. Senator Simpson was grilling one of the SS administrators. It seems
they have prepared a "teaching kit" for high school students. It
talks all about the past and present of the SS system. It says
how wonderful it is. It also says *nothing* about the future of
the system.
Ed
|
243.686 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 06 1996 15:41 | 260 |
| >I might suggest you check out
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/wealth/wlth93g.html
>to verify some of what I've said.
OK, I did. It shows for 1993 that the median (median means there
are as many below that number as there are above that number, yes?)
net worth (net worth = all assets - all debts, yes?),
difference between people under age 35 and those over age 65 is:
Single Women: $9,000, not including home equity
Single Men: $10,000, not including home equity
Married Couples: $38,000, not including home equity
So what your reference says is that in a lifetime of working, a single
man or woman manages to amass an astounding 10K of wealth, not counting
his/her house if s/he owns one, and that a married couple manage to
amass wealth nearly 4 times that much. Woweezowee!
Now, with all that wealth, it is obvious that they can live in grand
style from retirement age until they die, and don't need any SS at
all, right? I mean, that $10,000 they saved up, parcelled out over
30 years, means they can enjoy the fruits of their lifetime of labors
to the tune of $6.41 a week! They sure are wealthy, all right,
especially married couples, who can blow almost twice that much
apiece each week! No wonder they show up in all the posh resorts
around the world!
What about their home equity, you say? Why don't they just sell their
homes and use the money for food? Well probably because they would
like to leave their homes to you, along with anything else they have
saved up, when they die, not to mention living in them meanwhile
because it's a real pain to live outside New England in the winter.
If these are your "facts", then I take back what I said about
misinterpreting statistics. The statistics show that your
allegations are just plain wrong.
>>Show me how you would live and eat on $400 a month, please.
>No. You said that the elderly would starve. You show me the starving.
Ah, I see. You figure as long as people don't actually die from lack
of sufficient food, then they are not starving. A homeless elderly
graduate of a mental institution is not starving as long as she can
find enough food in garbage cans, right? OK, you win this point --
they probably won't starve; they'll probably find something to eat.
Like all those old people who can't afford to eat and pay their
rent and also pay for heat in winter. Do they starve? No, but
some of them die of hypothermia. They are "starved" for heat,
for the minimum conditions necessary to live at all, let alone
with some comfort. That is what I mean by "starve". Can you
understand that?
>As I said, I have no problem with elderly people living off their own
>money.
That's big of you. And do you see any problem with you living off
their money for the 1st quarter or more of your life?
And do you see any problem with them leaving whatever is left of their
money to you after they die?
I didn't think so.
>for children when a provider dies. So you would like to cut
>benefits for children and the disabled, right. (oh...both these
Here is what SS goes for: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10010.html
Where Your Social Security Taxes Go:
Out of every dollar that most workers and their employers pay in
Social Security taxes:
69 cents goes to a trust fund that will pay for their retirement
benefits and their families' survivors benefits;
19 cents goes to a trust fund that will pay for their Medicare
benefits when they reach 65 or if they become disabled;
12 cents goes to a trust fund that will pay disability benefits
to them and their families if they have to stop working because
of a serious illness or injury.
Your Social Security taxes also pay for administering Social
Security. The administrative costs are paid from the trust funds
described above and are only about one cent of every Social
Security tax dollar collected.
That 31% is a mighty BIG "drop in the bucket"
I have heard that there are other programs funded by SS, but I
don't see them here. I'll try to find a reference. If not, then
the above will have to do.
>So when Digital sells a computer system to a hospital we can
>no make a profit on it. Right?
You're quibbling again. You know what I mean.
>This is close to what I've been saying.
If you had said this, I would have had no argument with you. You are
trying to portray the elderly of America, through AARP, as being
some grasping scheming monster out to enslave the poor little
helpless young people. You are wrong. We're ALL struggling to
survive, only young people mostly had a good deal of help for the
first 20 years of their lives, and old people need help for the
last 20 years or so of their lives. Yeah, I know, that 20 years
varies a lot in BOTH cases (just trying to save a quibble).
>But the whole point was "profit". You were the one who said the
>problem was insurance company profits. I have demonstrated this
>not to be the case.
No you haven't -- not even close. The "profits" the IRS would talk
about are one thing. The "profits" I am talking about are any
money accruing to the insurance companies that is not the minimum
amount necessary to handle the work of the company, and that is
a whole different number. I don't know what it is any more than
you do, but I know (and I am sure you also know) that insurance
companies are not 100% efficient beyond whatever "profit" they
show on their IRS forms.
There are some health care administrators that simply manage an
employer's own funds to pay health care claims. The last company
I worked for operated this way, as do more and more companies now.
They saved a fortune, according to one of their VPs I talked to.
He wouldn't tell me how much, but he indicated that it was WAY
cheaper for the company to self-insure the health of its workers,
and simply employ this administrator company to provide admin
services for a fee, than to pay premiums to an insurance company.
What does that tell you?
That is what the government or any other single source payer
would do -- provide administrative services only. No profits,
no risky overseas investments, no stockholder dividends, etc.
>Interest groups for the elderly want better health care than I have.
>Most of us do not have the ability to choose our own doctors unless
>we pay a lot of extra money.
I like to choose my own doctor too, and I will continue to do so no
matter what "plan" my company tries to foist off on me. If you are
willing to settle for less health care than you want, that is your
choice, and your problem. Don't expect everyone else to do the
same thing. It is reasonable, though, to expect the elderly to
have the same choice you do of various differently priced plans.
>I have pointed you at several resources. I will list some more
>at the end of this reply. I would be glad to listen to any facts
>you may be able to provide to prove that the systems are fair to
>today's workers, or that any of my sources are in error.
So far I like your resources, since they do not seem to support
your contentions.
As far as your use of the word "fair" goes, all I can do is point
out the obvious: I can declare SS to be "fair" just as well as
you can declare it to be "unfair", and since the words fair and
unfair are personal judgement calls, such statements cannot be
proved one way or the other.
>These facts from from a bi-partisan group called Lead-or-Leave.
>There are a Generation X group. The full document can be found at :
> http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~adam/LEAD/harsh.html
I love it: "bipartisan ... Generation X group". A group of genX
people, almost by definition, has very little in common with their
parents, let along their grandparents. One of the main characteristics
I have noticed about GenX people is their disinclination to work,
so I am not surprised that they might assemble all the "facts"
they can find to help convince themselves that they don't owe
anything to previous generations. Doing this, of course, while
they are going to Cal Tech on Pop's money, living at home, driving
Mom's and Pop's car, eating Pop's and Mom's food, etc., etc. Yes,
I am really swayed by any arguments they put together.
All the assertions and predictions on that web page can be
invalidated any time congress wants to pass a law to change things.
While it is interesting to note what would happen if the current
situation were allowed to continue forever, it is absurd to assume
that it will do so. If all you are trying to point out is that the
current situation will get worse if it is not fixed, then I think
we are all in agreement on that. Everything changes, and everything
needs fixing every so often. Not the world's most startling
revelation.
>Today's average, married senior citizen paid $83,852 in Social
Security
>and Medicare taxes in his/her lifetime. The average senior will get
>back $308,328. (Ways and Means Committee)
So what? You are comparing apples and oranges.
Your total dollars paid in over a lifetime will be worth far more
than the inflated dollars you are paid back after you retire.
You cannot compare them directly like that.
>In the last twenty years, income for parents under the age of
>30 dropped 28.6 percent, while it rose 28.4 percent for seniors.
>(1992 census survey)
Why? We all know we have gone through bad times in this country.
That explains the drop. But the rise of 28.4% for seniors merely
reflects the fact that they used to be miserably poor up to 20 years
ago. Again, you are comparing apples and oranges, and your
comparison is meaningless.
>A 30-year-old man in the early 1970s earned 15 percent more than his
father
>did at that age. Today's 30-year-old can expect to bring in 25 percent
less
>than his dad did. (Forbes)
This accurately reflects the changes in America's economy. So what?
Everyone is affected, not just Junior. What these figures don't show
is how many seniors have taken their kids and their kids' families in
when their kids lost their jobs, homes, etc. It doesn't show how much
of seniors' money went to help their kids out when they ran short.
Figures like the above tell nothing useful by themselves, except to
provide ammo for someone who wants to take pot shots at some group.
>In 1948, a family of four earning the median income would have paid no
>income tax and a mere 1 percent to Social Security. By 1955, income
tax and
>Social Security would require 9 percent, and by 1990 the combined tax
burden
>was 25 to 28 percent. And that does not even consider sales tax.
(Boiling
>Point)
In 1948 a lot more seniors lived with their kids than they do today.
Your numbers do not reflect that. In 1948 you could get a house for
$10,000 or less, with a 5% mortgage. Lots of things were different
in 1948, including the fact that the government wasn't stealing as
much from us as it does now.
>In 1990, a couple in their twenties with one worker, a baby, and
$30,000 in
>income had to pay five times as much tax to the government ($5,055) as
the
>typical retired couple in their late sixties with the same incomes
from public
>and private pensions ($1,073). (Congressional Ways and Means
Committee)
So where does the difference come from? We all use the same tax form.
Anybody have a tax form handy so we can see if seniors get any breaks
over young people with kids?
>The average 30-year-old home-owner in the 1950s could make the monthly
>mortgage payment using 14 percent of his income. Today it would take
40
>percent. (Frank Levy)
Takes my parents 40% of their income too. And me. I don't like it
either, but what's your point?
|
243.687 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 06 1996 15:51 | 54 |
| >Which again brings up the issue of rewarding someone for squandering
>their earnings while young and punishing those that have actually
saved
>for retirement.
"squandering" is only one way to end up penniless, as I'm sure you
are aware. In this economic climate there are plenty of other
ways young and old can end up without jobs, homes, or retirement
savings accounts. We as a society ought to help out those who
need help, but not so much that they live better than we do.
>>When my mother in law died a very few years ago, she was getting
>>about $400 a month from SS. Show me how you would live and eat on
>>$400 a month, please.
>If she's already paid for her house, then there's no rent. And are
you
>also implying that she made the SS her only source of retirement
income
>instead of a supplement?
She had no house, she rented. She had two husbands, both of whom had
died many years earlier. She worked for a living for as long as she
could get up and go there -- right up until a few days before she
died. But the best work she could get at age 75 or so was not very
good work and didn't pay much. That, plus a little SS, was not
enough for her to live on without our help.
>If you are talking about the elderly people receiving SS
I'm not.
>Which is a clear indication that the edp's of this world should change
>their ways and start squandering their money long before they get to
>the SS retirement age.
You people who think you can live in grand style on $450 a month
ought to give it a try sometime. Based on your comment, you're
right, then EVERYONE should go into retirement with nothing. So
are you going to do that? Why not?
>If the insurance companies did not have a large amount of assets, then
>they would be unable to pay off should a major catastrophe strike (in
>which case you'd rightfully complain that they weren't doing their
>job).
True, but I'm not talking about those assets.
At this point nobody here seems to have any real data on how much
money insurance companies make over and above that required to
pay medical expenses and operate their business. I can't really
argue that they are ripping us off, because I can't prove it. But
I'll damn well bet they are.
|
243.688 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 06 1996 15:59 | 17 |
| >When Al Gore sent out his Christmas cards on November 12th, they
>didn't arrive until February.
Mine all got there OK. What's Al Gore's problem?
>I'm sure that if you tried hard enough you could come up with
something
>other than the US Postal Service you'd rather have your health care
>system emulate.
Actually, I think the USPS operates very well, compared to most
private industry, including its direct competition, anecdotes aside.
I can dig up lots of anecdotes about the competition, too.
If you think private industry is so great, I guess you didn't have
your life savings in certain Savings and Loans a few years back...
|
243.689 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 06 1996 16:03 | 12 |
| >This is also why I suggest that everyone gets back
>from the system all the money they put back into the system.
So you would have everyone "save" their money in the SS during
their working lifetime, and then get it all back at the end.
Are you telling me you would like to put your money into
something that is going to pay you back 0% interest after 40
years?
Even GenX wouldn't fall for that one... :-)
|
243.690 | | DECCXL::VOGEL | | Tue Aug 06 1996 22:42 | 120 |
|
Re .686
My point stands. The SS system provides benifits to the richest
members of society. You said you doubted my facts, now you
admit they are correct. Thank you.
> That's big of you. And do you see any problem with you living off
> their money for the 1st quarter or more of your life?
I do not have problem providing for education funding for today's
children.
I would also not have problem with providing benefits to today's
retirees if I thought those benefits would be there for me when
I retire. But they will not be.
> And do you see any problem with them leaving whatever is left of their
> money to you after they die?
>
> I didn't think so.
You would be wrong. I would rather see a change in the SS system
that would mean less money is left to me.
> That 31% is a mighty BIG "drop in the bucket"
19 points of that 31 is Medicare spending. Spending entirely
on the elderly, funded by taxes on (almost) entirely the young.
Medicare is actually a separate pool of money (and comes out of our
paycheck as a separate line item). I guess they decided to combine
them in the table.
So, then are you suggesting eliminating Medicare spending for
the elderly then? or just eliminating help for the disabled?
> I have heard that there are other programs funded by SS, but I
> don't see them here. I'll try to find a reference. If not, then
> the above will have to do.
Please let me know when you find one.
> >So when Digital sells a computer system to a hospital we can
> >no make a profit on it. Right?
>
> You're quibbling again. You know what I mean.
No I don't. Many people make money providing healthcare. I'm trying
to figure out what you think is O.K. and what is not. You've said
insurance companies should not make a profit, but Digital can.
> We're ALL struggling to survive
No, many of us, both young and old, are not struggling. I'm simply
suggesting that the system be changes so that benifits are reduced
to the elderly who are not struggling.
> I like to choose my own doctor too, and I will continue to do so no
> matter what "plan" my company tries to foist off on me.
And what do you pay for this right? An elderly millionaire pays
about $40/month for about the same coverage (less prescription drugs).
> It is reasonable, though, to expect the elderly to
> have the same choice you do of various differently priced plans.
We agree. In fact, this would be a great first step. The Republicans
proposed such a change. Guess what....the same politicians and interest
who fight changes in SS killed it.
> So far I like your resources, since they do not seem to support
> your contentions.
Please demonstrate how any of my resources do not support my
contentions.
> As far as your use of the word "fair" goes, all I can do is point
> out the obvious: I can declare SS to be "fair" just as well as
> you can declare it to be "unfair", and since the words fair and
> unfair are personal judgement calls, such statements cannot be
> proved one way or the other.
fair enough :-)
I would be interested in any documentation you can provide
showing that the system is in any way fair (however you want
to define it) to today's workers. The one piece of documentation
you provided only backed-up my point.
> All the assertions and predictions on that web page can be
> invalidated any time congress wants to pass a law to change things.
But change is difficult.
> While it is interesting to note what would happen if the current
> situation were allowed to continue forever, it is absurd to assume
> that it will do so. If all you are trying to point out is that the
> current situation will get worse if it is not fixed, then I think
> we are all in agreement on that.
Very good. What is your solution to correcting the problem?
From your .689
> >This is also why I suggest that everyone gets back
> >from the system all the money they put back into the system.
>
> So you would have everyone "save" their money in the SS during
> their working lifetime, and then get it all back at the end.
>
> Are you telling me you would like to put your money into
> something that is going to pay you back 0% interest after 40
> years?
I should have said get all the money back with interest equal
to <pick some fair rate>. Sorry for the confusion.
Ed
|
243.691 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 07 1996 10:48 | 47 |
| >My point stands. The SS system provides benifits to the richest
>members of society. You said you doubted my facts, now you
>admit they are correct. Thank you.
Absolutely false. Who is richer, someone who has $12,000 but is too old to
work for any more money, or someone who has $2,000 and the ability to work
for more money?
You are saying the old person with $12,000 is richer. I disagree.
$1,200,000 may be rich, but $12,000 is not.
That is what is wrong with the GenX web page in general. It shows lots
of numbers without context or references (a statement by a
congresscritter is hardly a reference), and you are following right
along while they leap to unwarranted conclusions from irrelevant data.
I will agree with you that I see no reason why working people should
have to support non-working people of any age in a style better than
the one they have been living.
How would I fix the system? If I were an economist and had the time
and the resources at hand to study this particular situation, I could
probably come up with a plan, but things being what they are all I can
do is talk in very general terms, so I'll just say this:
The current system needs to be changed so that it can accomodate baby
booms, changing living and health care costs, changing life expectancy,
and all the other surprises that come along. Those things were more
stable for a while, but now they are changing fast, and we aren't
keeping up.
Baby booms could be accomodated the same way any unexpected expense is,
by temporary debt or more taxes or better yet, good long term planning.
There is no reason we can't do those things. We just haven't bothered.
I don't see why elderly health care has to be any better than anyone
else's, but on the other hand I don't see why anybody else's health
care has to be worse then the elderly's. Make 'em the same.
I'd fix health care too. I'd like my health care dollar to end up in
the pockets of practicioners and suppliers. If I am going to buy
insurance, or use an HMO, then I would like to know exactly how much
their management is taking out of my dollar, and I want the choice of
not paying for their services if I think they cost too much. Today we
have little such choice in any real terms. A single payer non-profit
safety-net system would give us more of those choices.
|
243.692 | | DECC::VOGEL | | Wed Aug 07 1996 13:33 | 36 |
|
Re .last
> Absolutely false. Who is richer, someone who has $12,000 but is too old to
> work for any more money, or someone who has $2,000 and the ability to work
> for more money?
Who says someone over 65 is too old to work?
> That is what is wrong with the GenX web page in general. It shows lots
> of numbers without context or references (a statement by a
> congresscritter is hardly a reference), and you are following right
> along while they leap to unwarranted conclusions from irrelevant data.
As I said, find me *any* data that supports today's retirees getting
what they actuarially deserve out of today's system. Actually I can
think of one. Senator Moinihan (sp), someone considered an expert in
the field, claimed that beginning in 1995, a single male, who contributed
the max to SS his whole life is getting back what he deserves. Everyone
else gets more.
> I don't see why elderly health care has to be any better than anyone
> else's, but on the other hand I don't see why anybody else's health
> care has to be worse then the elderly's. Make 'em the same.
I agree. And what groups are fighting this change?
> I'd fix health care too.
I also agree that it needs to be fixed. I'm not sure what he best
fix is, but I am sure that just getting the insurance companies
out will not solve the problem.
|
243.693 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 07 1996 13:59 | 44 |
| >Who says someone over 65 is too old to work?
Depends on a lot of things, doesn't it? If laws allow or require
that people retire at age 65, then the gov't had better provide
them with the means to live in retirement.
And when a person has to retire because of declining abilities
due to age, then we should help them out too.
Unfortunately not everyone will have retirement sufficient to get
them through the rest of their lives afterward, especially in
these days of part time jobs, reduced wages, no benefits, and
other cost-cutting measures.
If you are going to require that people work up to a later age,
then you had better make sure there are no laws requiring or
allowing forced retirement at any particular age.
>I agree. And what groups are fighting this change?
I don't think any elderly person would mind getting the same health
care a working person does, at a cost equal to the same percentage
of their income as working people.
And I can tell you for sure that this working person doesn't want
to take a cutback in health care just because everyone wants to
cut costs. Cutting the amount and quality of health care is not
an acceptable solution to rising health care costs, and the elderly
seem to have sense enough to know that, but most of the rest of us
do not. We are being screwed by a combination of factors, and
those who are trying to point the finger of blame at the elderly
are trying to hide the real culprits. Maybe we ought to join
forces with our parents instead of fighting them like a bunch of
teenagers who know everything.
>but I am sure that just getting the insurance companies
>out will not solve the problem.
Never said *just* getting insurance companies out. Not even
getting ins cos out at all, necessarily. I just suspect there's
some excessive profit and/or expense gold in them thar insurance
hills that by rights belongs to us, not them. Maybe I should be
looking at lawyers instead of ins cos.
|
243.695 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Wed Aug 07 1996 23:07 | 25 |
| RE: .693
> I don't think any elderly person would mind getting the same health
> care a working person does, at a cost equal to the same percentage
> of their income as working people.
Let's carry this bit of illogic out a little further. Let's make
housing costs (which is every bit as necessary as health care) the same
percentage cost of income for everyone. Let's make food (also
necessary) the same percentage cost of income. Let's make gasoline,
cars, airline tickets, etc. all cost the same percentage of income.
While we're at it, let's just go communistic and run up a red flag.
Sorry, the implications of your proposal aren't very palatable.
By the way, some of the other things that you left out of your equation
include the fact that elderly consume more health care resources, and
therefore should be charged more. You also ignored the fact that at
retirement a person's income to wealth ratio will be significantly
skewed compared to a person just beginning their career.
You might want to consider that it's time to make hamburger out of you
SSacred cow.
-- Dave
|
243.696 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Wed Aug 07 1996 23:14 | 13 |
| RE: .691
> A single payer non-profit
> safety-net system would give us more of those choices.
When was the last time that any monopoly, including the USPS, gave you
more choices than open competition? Do you like Priority Mail (tm)?
Thank UPS & FedEx. All the innovations on your phone (call waiting,
caller id, etc.), thank the break up of Ma Bell.
Creating a monopoly on the health care system isn't the way to go.
-- Dave
|
243.697 | Who are you trying to kid??? | FABSIX::D_HORTERT | | Thu Aug 08 1996 01:01 | 30 |
| > Where Your Social Security Taxes Go:
> Out of every dollar that most workers and their employers pay in
> Social Security taxes:
> 69 cents goes to a trust fund that will pay for their retirement
> benefits and their families' survivors benefits;
> 19 cents goes to a trust fund that will pay for their Medicare
> benefits when they reach 65 or if they become disabled;
> 12 cents goes to a trust fund that will pay disability benefits
> to them and their families if they have to stop working because
> of a serious illness or injury.
I am 30 years old and have been contributing to SS, medicare, etc., for
14 years. Please don't blow smoke up my you know what, and tell me
that this is what my "contributions" are going towards. Those tax
dollars I have spent are paying for someone else's retirement, medical
expenses, etc. I will never see 1 penny of the tax dollars I have paid
into (and will continue to pay into) SS, medicare, etc., because
according to the experts, Social Security benefits will not exist by
the time I retire. Please say it like it is...we are taxed by our
beloved government to support those who are unable or unwilling to
to support themselves, and under that form of taxation and spending,
this country will either end up in bankruptcy or revolution.
D.J.
|
243.698 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | | Thu Aug 08 1996 01:15 | 2 |
| SS sucks!
-ss
|
243.699 | USPS is underpricing UPS and FEDEX... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Aug 08 1996 09:21 | 15 |
|
After 4 straight years of losses, this year the United States
Postal Service will report a profit in the naighborhood of $1 billion,
a record. There are several factors - the price increase turned
out not to depress volumes. There were layoffs and efficiencies.
The management has proven adept, The 104th Congress held hearings
and told them to get their act together or face a cut in subsidies.
Clinton offered them no sanctuary either. They took it seriously.
And the ad campaign has been brilliant. If the current USPS were
allowed to go unregulated, it might well be a whopping commercial
success. Compare with the disaster at Amtrak. This is a success
story, for now.
bb
|
243.700 | Is there a cost associated with this?? | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Strangers on the plain, Croaker | Thu Aug 08 1996 09:49 | 7 |
| � SS sucks!
� -ss
Are you bragging?? Is this an advertisement??
Enquiring minds want to know!!!
kb
;-)
|
243.701 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 08 1996 10:37 | 28 |
| >>I don't think any elderly person would mind getting the same health
>>care a working person does, at a cost equal to the same percentage
>>of their income as working people.
>By the way, some of the other things that you left out of your
equation
>include the fact that elderly consume more health care resources, and
>therefore should be charged more.
People have been complaining that the elderly get more health care
than anyone else and don't pay for it. Read my statement again. I
am suggesting that they wouldn't mind getting the same health care
as everyone else (which would be less than they are used to, right?)
for a similiar percentage of their income (which is more than they
pay now, right?).
I'm suggesting an improvement in the situation.
> Let's carry this bit of illogic out a little further.
Why?
>You also ignored the fact that at retirement a person's income
>to wealth ratio will be significantly skewed compared to a person
>just beginning their career.
What does this have to do with anything?
|
243.702 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 08 1996 10:37 | 36 |
| >according to the experts, Social Security benefits will not exist by
>the time I retire. Please say it like it is...we are taxed by our
>beloved government to support those who are unable or unwilling to
>to support themselves, and under that form of taxation and spending,
>this country will either end up in bankruptcy or revolution.
What the experts are pointing out is true only if you accept one
very important assumption: That nothing will change. That is,
of course, a nonsensical assumption. It is obvious to everyone
with a brain that things *have* to change. All the experts are
doing is pointing out *why* they have to change.
Don't get you bowels in an uproar about the sky falling. If we
as a country have the will to stop the sky from falling, then it
won't fall, and you'll be cared for in your old age just as
everyone else will.
Of course we could all put LIbertarians into power, and then the
whole problem would be solved another way. I'll probably vote
for them myself, (see their party platform in the libertarian
note) based on their platform. I don't really care which way
things go as long as they get fixed. If my own parents have
to move in with me, that's OK. If they get state aid, that's
OK, or if they get federal aid, that's OK too.
No matter what happens with SS, whether it exists or not,
the elderly will be taken care of one way or the other, because
they are our parents and we love them and want to take care
of them.
And working men and women will be the ones who will provide
that care to supplement what they have saved up for themselves.
The only question left is how your support dollar gets from
your hands to theirs -- SS, state aid, charity, or multi-
generational family living, or some better idea.
|
243.703 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Aug 08 1996 11:16 | 5 |
| > <<< Note 243.699 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
> a record. There are several factors - the price increase turned
> out not to depress volumes.
Like we have a choice.
|
243.704 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 08 1996 11:45 | 2 |
| IF the feds are going to start making a profit on us in addition to
taxing us, then it really is time for Harry Browne.
|
243.705 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | | Thu Aug 08 1996 18:15 | 5 |
| re .700
kb,
I meant social security sucks!
|
243.706 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 10:54 | 45 |
| The way I look at it is this: If there were no SS system, as was the
case a few decades ago, then when people got old they would live with
their kids, or their kids would live with them, and take care of them
until they die. That's the way it used to be. That's not a bad way
for things to be, in my opinion.
But there are problems with the "you're on your own" system.
o Some kids don't want to take care of their parents, for
a variety of reasons. Some are even unable to do so.
o Some parents don't want their kids to take care of them.
o Some old people have no kids to take care of them.
o Some old people, through no fault of their own, have no
means whatsoever of taking care of themsleves.
o Some old people just frittered away all their money so they
reach old age in a penniless state.
There are a variety of reasons why old people may have no means of
support in their old age. Some of these reasons are their own damn
fault, but others are not.
The "you're on your own" system leaves a certain number of old people
to fend for themselves.
Theoretically (I'll repeat: THEORETICALLY), a SS system should operate
very much like a good efficient healt insurance system: It should
smooth out the hills and valleys of old age expense for everyone, while
at the same time providing coverage for those who would otherwise fall
through the cracks.
Our current SS system is no doubt untenable, and needs some major
fixing, even dismantling in favor of a much better system. I have no
argument there.
But I still think that some sort of "system" for old age care would be
good for everyone, just like some sort of health care system would be
good for everyone.
If we can't come up with something that works well, though, then my
vote would be to go Libertarian and just get government totally out of
the picture.
|
243.707 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:16 | 44 |
| If the government were totally out of the picture - no SS, Medicare, or
other handouts - then it would take less time and effort to save for
retirement. It would be easier for those uninsured to get insurance at
a more affordable level. It would be easier for us to support our
families and charities.
If Browne by some chance got elected and followed through with
eliminating all non-Constitutional fed involvement, I think we would
all be amazed at just how much money we would have left over at the end
of the week. What you do with that money is your responsibility, and
you will have to live with your choices.
If you don't plan well enough for retirement, then that's your tough
luck when you are 65...maybe you'll have to work much longer than you'd
like.
I am not responsible for another's lack of vision or planning. This does
not mean that I won't help, but it does mean that I should not be
*obligatged BY LAW* to pay for the misfortunes, lack of planning, or
plain idiocy of others.
There is a price to pay for freedom, and this price has nothing to do
with money - but responsibility. Once you toss personal responsibility
and accountability in favor of some socialistic model of "group
responsibility", you can expect to lose freedom over your money and your
life in general.
As the government becomes more and more a teat to be sucked by the populace,
it will grow larger and larger - eventually being too big for it to fit
into a free nation. At this point, either freedoms go or government
goes (as in MAJOR cuts to its size and power).
This is the delemna we face today. We have reached the point where our
government is too large to fit inside a FREE society. Unfortunately,
most of the populace seems convinced that we will be better off without
the freedom we were once blessed with, because personal responsibility
and accountability are too difficult for us to deal with on our own.
Take your pick - run your own life, or let the government run it for
you. The choice is as simple as that. Either choice has its
drawbacks, but only one choice has a desirable outcome.
-steve
|
243.708 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:42 | 23 |
| >If you don't plan well enough for retirement, then that's your
>tough luck when you are 65...maybe you'll have to work much
>longer than you'd like.
That's very Christian of you. So if you follow all your own
rules and save up enough for your retirement, and then some
unforseen circumstance leaves you without a home or your money,
then you will not be looking for help from anyone else in our
free society.
While we're at it, how about if we eliminate the national flood
insurance program, the federal emergency management agency, and
all the other "teats" we've developed over the years to help
people out in emergencies. Let's get rid of the fire departments
in all our towns too. They are the 2nd biggest expense after
schools in a lot of towns. If you can't live carefully enough
to avoid catching you house on fire, then tough luck to you.
Might as well get rid of all police too. IF you can't be
careful enough not to get mugged or robbed, then tough luck.
By the way, what are you planning on doing with *your* parents
if they should find themselves without funds?
|
243.709 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:48 | 17 |
| .708
Stuff it.
Americans are the most generous people in the world; our charitable
giving exceeds all other nations' on a per-capita basis. If I choose
to give Christian charity to others, I will do so. I resent having
someone tell me that I must do so or be thrown in jail.
Flood insurance can and should be handled by private enterprise. If
you want to live on a flood plain and choose not to pay for insurance,
you are the one who should suffer, not I.
Police serve me. I am paying them to do so. I choose to live where
property taxes are very high, partially so that I will receive more and
better service from my city's police. This is a choice, not something
I am forced to do.
|
243.710 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Ranch send no girl | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:49 | 1 |
| Americans are indeed the most generous people I have met.
|
243.711 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Aug 09 1996 16:00 | 7 |
|
> Americans are indeed the most generous people I have met.
really? that's funny, because when i think of the most
generous people i know, they're from different countries.
weird, hunh?
|
243.712 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 16:31 | 10 |
| It seems like nobody remembers -- not enough people here who studied
history, I guess -- but the reason we have all these programs is that
people are NOT all that generous. Move one generation away from a
disaster like the recession in the 30s, and it's like it never existed.
OK, so let's call it all insurance, and let SS, Medicare, and Medicaid
be handled by private insurance companies. You pay premiums into them
all your life, or you don't get a cent. But it's YOUR CHOICE, so no
complaints. You can save you money elsewhere if you want. Nobody is
coercing you.
|
243.713 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Fri Aug 09 1996 16:38 | 21 |
| .712
We're not living in disastrous times like the '30s. FDR himself was
well aware of what these programs could and would do; in a 1935 speech
to Congress, he said,
"Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral
disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To
dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle
destroyer of the human spirit."
This is what our current welfare program has done, and it shows.
People prefer to suck on the public teat than to work as are the people
whose money is being handed out. I don't like it, frankly.
> You pay premiums into them
> all your life, or you don't get a cent. But it's YOUR CHOICE...
No, it's not my choice. It is money that is being extracted from my
paycheck under threat of penal servitude should I refuse to allow that
extraction to be done.
|
243.714 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 17:32 | 12 |
| >> You pay premiums into them
>> all your life, or you don't get a cent. But it's YOUR CHOICE...
>No, it's not my choice. It is money that is being extracted from my
>paycheck under threat of penal servitude should I refuse to allow that
>extraction to be done.
You missed the preceding sentence. I said, how about if we GET RID
of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and replace them with insurance.
The insurance would be voluntary like any insurance is today.
Then if you didn't want to pay the premiums, you wouldn't have to.
|
243.715 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 17:38 | 9 |
| One reason the recession that started in 1989 did not turn into the
disaster that the one in the 30s was, is that we now have social
programs to help fill in the low spots. If you are lucky enough not to
have experienced unemployment or loss of income or loss of retirement
equity or loss of your home or other such losses over the past decade
or so, don't be too quick to congratulate yourself and look down your
nose at people who have had problems. You may be largely responsible
for your continued success, but there is a generous amount of good luck
involved in it too. Your turn in the barrel may come yet.
|
243.716 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Fri Aug 09 1996 17:56 | 4 |
| .715
So set up programs that can be activated when/if needed. The rest of
the time, we should do without.
|
243.717 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 21:34 | 5 |
| >So set up programs that can be activated when/if needed.
>The rest of the time, we should do without.
The big gotcha here is, of course, in the definition of "when/if
needed".
|
243.718 | let's not get carried away ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Sun Aug 11 1996 20:49 | 9 |
| re: .715
> One reason the recession that started in 1989 did not turn into the
> disaster that the one in the 30s was, is that we now have social
> programs to help fill in the low spots.
The recession of 1989 never had near the potential to become a replay
of 1929, and the reasons have nothing to do with social programs.
|
243.719 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 12 1996 10:00 | 44 |
| > The recession of 1989 never had near the potential to become a replay
There were a lot of reasons why it the recent recession was not worse
than it was, but it still had plenty of potential, thwarted in good
part by a number of government actions.
The fed had a lot to do with preventing it from being worse, in overall
economic terms, but so did things like social security, which allowed
the elderly to be less dependent on their own children and/or community
services. So did unemployment insurance, which had to be extended by law
because the recession and the number of unemployed exceeded the
resources available initially. Some banks and other institutions also
helped out by being flexible with people who were having trouble paying
their bills for a while.
If there had been NO SS, and NO unemployment insurance, and NO welfare,
then a lot more working people would have lost their homes and
possessions, and so would a lot more of the elderly who would have
depended on their children for a living.
Back when we all lived in multi-generational family units and were
mostly self sufficient because we grew and/or made most of what we
needed in life, things like SS, unemployment, and welfare were not
nearly as necessary as they are today, because they were built into the
family unit. Nobody thought of Uncle Alf who couldn't work because he
lost a leg and an arm in the war as being on welfare just because he
lived with us. Nobody thought of Grampa Grump as being on social
security just because we gave him a place to live and food to eat and
the same medical care we had until he died.
But in an economy where the self-sufficient family unit no longer
exists, for all practical purposes, we need some way to replace its
traditional functions.
Have we gone too far? Yes. Does the system need fixing? Yes.
Should we simply get rid of all our economic support systems and let
everyone fend for themselves? No. Even if we phase changes in
gradually, we need to make sure the end result will really allow people
to take care of themselves, and allow people deserving of help to get
some.
It concerns me when I hear people talking like they want to simply
dismantle every system we have for helping those in need, and replace
them with nothing.
|
243.720 | Signing today. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Aug 22 1996 10:09 | 10 |
243.721 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Aug 22 1996 10:47 | 6 |
243.722 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Aug 22 1996 13:28 | 4 |
243.723 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Aug 22 1996 13:28 | 24 |
243.724 | Show me a politician who embraces the "middle class" | DECWIN::RALTO | Jail to the Chief | Thu Aug 22 1996 13:51 | 14 |
243.725 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Thu Aug 22 1996 13:57 | 16 |
243.726 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 22 1996 14:03 | 1 |
243.727 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 23 1996 11:27 | 21 |
243.728 | | LABC::RU | | Fri Aug 23 1996 17:39 | 6 |
243.729 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Aug 23 1996 18:36 | 1 |
243.730 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Sun Aug 25 1996 16:25 | 7 |
243.731 | | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Aug 26 1996 10:26 | 7 |
243.732 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Aug 26 1996 10:40 | 20 |
243.733 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 10:51 | 12 |
243.734 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Mon Aug 26 1996 12:55 | 11 |
243.735 | About the trade deficit? | DECC::VOGEL | | Mon Aug 26 1996 13:22 | 17 |
243.736 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Mon Aug 26 1996 13:43 | 16 |
243.737 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:19 | 3 |
243.738 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:38 | 1 |
243.739 | I guess I don't get it | DECC::VOGEL | | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:26 | 23 |
243.740 | I always wanted to do that! | SHRCTR::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:33 | 5 |
243.741 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:48 | 29 |
243.742 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:43 | 40 |
243.743 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:51 | 20 |
243.744 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:54 | 15 |
243.745 | Reference .740 should be .741 | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:23 | 49 |
243.746 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | [email protected] | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:50 | 35 |
243.747 | I think we agree | DECCXX::VOGEL | | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:23 | 29 |
243.748 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | a crimson flare from a raging sun | Tue Aug 27 1996 08:27 | 41 |
243.749 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Aug 27 1996 09:35 | 27 |
243.750 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | a crimson flare from a raging sun | Tue Aug 27 1996 10:40 | 41 |
243.751 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Aug 27 1996 10:54 | 22 |
243.752 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | a crimson flare from a raging sun | Tue Aug 27 1996 11:17 | 10 |
243.753 | Talk about screwed up... | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 KTS is TOO slow | Tue Aug 27 1996 12:57 | 11 |
243.754 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Tue Aug 27 1996 13:22 | 24 |
243.755 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 27 1996 13:23 | 4 |
243.756 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Tue Aug 27 1996 13:29 | 23 |
243.757 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Tue Aug 27 1996 13:32 | 13 |
243.758 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Aug 27 1996 13:46 | 24 |
243.759 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:05 | 11 |
243.760 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | a crimson flare from a raging sun | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:28 | 15 |
243.761 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Aug 27 1996 19:45 | 40 |
243.762 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Aug 27 1996 22:20 | 20 |
243.763 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Sep 17 1996 11:43 | 54 |
243.764 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Sep 17 1996 12:30 | 87 |
243.765 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Tue Sep 17 1996 12:49 | 4 |
243.766 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Tue Sep 17 1996 16:39 | 9 |
243.767 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Sep 17 1996 16:43 | 87 |
243.768 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Sep 17 1996 16:45 | 4 |
243.769 | Well.,.. | STAR::JESSOP | Tam quid? | Tue Sep 17 1996 17:19 | 4 |
243.770 | Another Homeless Old Man Story... | SCASS1::WISNIEWSKI | ADEPT of the Virtual Space. | Wed Sep 18 1996 13:55 | 74 |
243.771 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 18 1996 14:18 | 1 |
243.772 | If someone needs help... | SCASS1::WISNIEWSKI | ADEPT of the Virtual Space. | Wed Sep 18 1996 14:52 | 4 |
243.773 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 18 1996 15:12 | 2 |
243.774 | He was dying of exposure... Slowly... | SCASS1::WISNIEWSKI | ADEPT of the Virtual Space. | Wed Sep 18 1996 16:05 | 40 |
243.775 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, sage sayings 2p a bag | Thu Sep 19 1996 04:01 | 7 |
243.776 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Sep 19 1996 09:37 | 6 |
243.777 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, sage sayings 2p a bag | Thu Sep 19 1996 09:59 | 1 |
243.778 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | energy spent on passion is never wasted | Thu Sep 19 1996 10:32 | 2 |
243.779 | Going to jail is compassionate for some people... | SCASS1::WISNIEWSKI | ADEPT of the Virtual Space. | Thu Sep 19 1996 17:15 | 43 |
243.780 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Sep 19 1996 17:30 | 17 |
243.781 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Sep 19 1996 17:46 | 4 |
243.782 | We don't kill our nonconvicted prisoners in Texas... | SCASS1::WISNIEWSKI | ADEPT of the Virtual Space. | Thu Sep 19 1996 18:06 | 49 |
243.783 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Atheism, Religion of the Gods | Tue Oct 08 1996 20:24 | 251 |
243.784 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Oct 09 1996 09:43 | 1 |
243.785 | oops... that would be naiL, not nair | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Oct 09 1996 10:34 | 3 |
243.786 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Wed Oct 09 1996 10:37 | 5 |
243.787 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Oct 09 1996 10:47 | 2 |
243.788 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Oct 09 1996 10:53 | 3 |
243.789 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Atheism, Religion of the Gods | Wed Oct 09 1996 12:29 | 5 |
243.790 | I did not write that. | N2DEEP::VISITOR | Be One in The Spirit | Wed Oct 09 1996 12:36 | 4 |
243.791 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Oct 09 1996 12:40 | 6 |
243.792 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Atheism, Religion of the Gods | Wed Oct 09 1996 12:54 | 5 |
243.793 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Oct 09 1996 13:19 | 57 |
243.794 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Oct 09 1996 15:48 | 48 |
243.795 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Oct 09 1996 16:37 | 61 |
243.796 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Oct 09 1996 16:51 | 11 |
243.797 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Atheism, Religion of the Gods | Wed Oct 09 1996 19:24 | 13 |
243.798 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Oct 10 1996 08:29 | 20 |
243.799 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Oct 10 1996 12:14 | 33 |
243.800 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Oct 10 1996 12:21 | 12 |
243.801 | Clue's sold here real cheap | WMOIS::MELANSON_DOM | | Thu Oct 10 1996 16:45 | 26 |
243.802 | Measure and report | EDWIN::PINETTE | | Fri Oct 11 1996 12:24 | 8 |
243.803 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Think locally, act locally | Fri Oct 11 1996 12:26 | 4 |
243.804 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Oct 11 1996 14:32 | 40 |
243.805 | | BSS::DSMITH | RATDOGS DON'T BITE | Fri Oct 11 1996 15:05 | 13 |
243.806 | live free or die | WMOIS::MELANSON_DOM | | Fri Oct 11 1996 16:12 | 17 |
243.807 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Think locally, act locally | Fri Oct 11 1996 16:15 | 3 |
243.808 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Oct 11 1996 16:27 | 9 |
243.809 | the micro-part is very hard, but not the macro-part | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Oct 11 1996 16:46 | 17 |
243.810 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Oct 11 1996 17:33 | 34 |
243.811 | can you pay my taxes if yours don't seem to be to high;) | WMOIS::MELANSON_DOM | | Mon Oct 14 1996 16:54 | 9 |
243.812 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Oct 14 1996 18:02 | 11 |
243.813 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Jan 13 1997 17:29 | 35 |
243.814 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Jan 14 1997 09:43 | 1 |
243.815 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Jan 14 1997 11:56 | 3 |
243.816 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Tue Jan 14 1997 11:57 | 4 |
243.817 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Jan 14 1997 12:03 | 1 |
243.818 | | NICOLA::STACY | | Wed Jan 15 1997 17:22 | 91 |
243.819 | | BIGHOG::PERCIVAL | I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO | Wed Jan 15 1997 19:25 | 8 |
243.820 | | POMPY::LESLIE | andy ��� leslie, DTN 847 6586 | Thu Jan 16 1997 04:31 | 3 |
243.821 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Jan 16 1997 06:49 | 15 |
243.822 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Thu Jan 16 1997 09:48 | 4 |
243.823 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Thu Jan 16 1997 11:09 | 37 |
243.824 | we ought to do this | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Jan 16 1997 11:32 | 15 |
243.825 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Thu Jan 16 1997 13:34 | 13 |
243.826 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 17 1997 10:35 | 17 |
243.827 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 17 1997 10:37 | 7 |
243.828 | Its the kids | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 17 1997 11:26 | 36 |
243.829 | Seems like the man/woman power is there .... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Jan 17 1997 11:32 | 7 |
243.830 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 17 1997 11:49 | 29 |
243.831 | Untapped resource to fill a need and a goal ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Jan 17 1997 12:47 | 30 |
243.832 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 17 1997 13:04 | 24 |
243.833 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 17 1997 17:03 | 37 |
243.834 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jan 17 1997 17:10 | 5 |
243.835 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Fri Jan 17 1997 17:17 | 10 |
243.836 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 17 1997 17:29 | 2 |
243.837 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 17 1997 17:30 | 8 |
243.838 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Jan 20 1997 09:13 | 11 |
243.839 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Jan 20 1997 09:19 | 11 |
243.840 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Jan 20 1997 09:27 | 37 |
243.841 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Jan 20 1997 12:56 | 18 |
243.842 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Jan 20 1997 14:09 | 7 |
243.843 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Jan 20 1997 15:28 | 7 |
243.844 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Jan 20 1997 15:54 | 32 |
243.845 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Jan 20 1997 16:03 | 31 |
243.846 | | AXPBIZ::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Jan 20 1997 16:16 | 23 |
243.847 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Jan 20 1997 16:54 | 49 |
243.848 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Jan 20 1997 17:11 | 7 |
243.849 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Jan 20 1997 17:12 | 6 |
243.850 | | AXPBIZ::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Jan 20 1997 18:32 | 71 |
243.851 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Jan 21 1997 10:12 | 15 |
243.852 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Jan 21 1997 12:11 | 173
|