FAUX snooze. You need to point out to her that her life might be significantly different if it hadn't been for welfare.

I support Medicare for all and removing the cap for the SS tax. However, I also believe ALL other benefits should depend on a person taking responsibility for themselves, such as - working in a volunteer program, going to school, going to rehab. No sitting around and collecting for years. FDR had the CCC in which the government is the "employer" of last resort, but not big daddy who gives gifts. I do not support a socialist economic system, but I do support a capitalist system with a good strong safety net where everyone pays their their share and meets their responsibilities. Paying their fair share once again is a person taking responsibility for themselves, and for the community as a whole.

are you going to pay for child care while you force them to work in a volunteer program for example? Are you going to pay for their transportation to get there?

Here is a good article about why your assumptions about welfare are wrong: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081791/welfare-recipient-spending/

BTW, this is not Discussionist, just in case you're lost.

I did not say it would be cheaper, just better. We all have the moral responsibility to better ourselves and the community. People need the support of the community during hard times, but in order to receive it they mst give back in some way. You must admit that there would be some people who would be happy just to sit back and collect. I know one personally who laughs because he is able to game the system. I do not report him because he is my friend, so I am also wrong.

the associated costs then I would be less critical of your statements. People who make those statements, however, are usually the first ones to vote down programs such as Head Start, etc.

I tend to look for the good in people rather than assume they are out to game the system. Further, if they think sitting back and collecting that minimal amount is a great lifestyle than all the power to them. You do know it's not millions of $$ right? I find it hard to believe that many folks would look at it that way, and if they do then capitalism isn't so great after all is it? If folks find sitting home and collecting minimal amounts preferable to participating in this economic system we refer to as "capitalism" then maybe it's time to think about WHY they don't want to participate. Is it because $7.50/hr for full-time work isn't really that exciting when you realize that 99% of the new wealth being created is going to the top 1%? Maybe people are tired of being treated nearly as bad as slaves.

I have no problem in raising payments for welfare, but people should in some way earn it.

BTW, I consider myself a progressive and I am not lost.

i think he or she is lost.

and mean.


people die without food and shelter. USA is not a 3rd world country.

I am not saying people should die without food and shelter, just that they should give back to society to receive benefits. It also prevents people from cheating the system, like my friend. Besides we have all heard of the dignity that comes from work. And what the hell is wrong to require someone to go to school in order to earn benefits. Maybe they learn a skill that will get them a well-paying job in the future. This is not a program that makes the USA a 3rd world country, in fact, it prevents it

99% of all new wealth created is going to the 1%. Think that over for a second. How does anyone beyond those few elite rich families have a fighting chance?

If we all started in a pod, and were given the exact same enhancements, maybe your method would make some sort of "survival of the fittest" sense. Maybe. Even then I don't really buy it because you are going to push down those who are not as perfect by birth (intelligence, abilities, etc) in order for others to succeed.

And that, comrade, is why capitalism is an inherently unfair and inhumane system. It rests on the notion that in order to be cream of the crop you push others down. That should be your first clue - that there are different levels to the system and we encourage some to exceed at the expense of others (some MUST fail for the system to work).

I don't think I can make this any clearer. If you still think this is a good system, then my question becomes why do you hate your fellow humans so much that you are ok with pushing some up while others must (by design) fail?

What a fucking nightmare of a system.

which means they should pay higher taxes without all the loopholes. Years ago when I was younger, I got audited by the IRS. The results of the audit was not that I had to pay more taxes, but rather I received a refund check from the US government for $12,000. If I wanted to, I could have also filed to receive refunds on my state and local taxes, but why bother, as my father always said "A little for me and a little for my uncle Sam."

But this has nothing to do with requiring people to to work in order to receive welfare benefits. Remember Karl Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" which means you have to give back to society, not sit around doing nothing of value for it, if you want to benefit from it.

Working in some form to improve society or yourself is not an evil thing, it is a necessary thing.

for instance staying home w/children while they are young is one of the most important things many can do (if they have the chance). I've never interpreted Marx to mean that folks should labor for free (as you suggested with your "volunteer" schema) in order to benefit the wealthy of society. Perhaps you are more of an expert than I am and you can find the relevant passage for me. I'll be waiting.

I had run away from home in fear of being sexually molested...at 15 yrs old...lost my education....married an alcoholic (raised by any alcoholic you have a tendancy to do that) Went on welfare and went to a bookkeeping class in order to get work...no car no money for a car no friendly relative willing to loan or buy said item. I took the bus to school and work and my girls did not have their mother half the time because I was doing "the right thing". Years later and I tell you do to the DAMAGE my girls experienced because I was attending school or full time work.(that takes more than 8 hrs a day)..I tell them now "I would sit on my welfare ass and TAKE care of my girls until I could care for them properly and work" As it was I attended bookkeeping classes offered by the State of California for $8 a class. $8 is a hellva lot when you are on welfare. I attended classes WHEN my girls were in school. Until you conservatives start listening to the problems and think with something beside the hatred you have for low income people the hell and misery will continue along with the social problems this system creates.

And under what I propose, you would not have to pay $8 per class for your schooling or pay for your transportation to school or work. And the wages you would receive as a worker would be living wage which would be high enough, so that you would not have to be on welfare. I am a progressive, not a conservative, and my welfare system wold cost more then it does at the present time. But sitting on your welfare ass to TAKE care of your girls, would not happen if you received benefits because that would be the wrong thing. However your girls would have a good free daycare program to take care o them while you were at school or work.

It's a barbaric system. And folks like our lost correspondent are making it worse by the day. It was bad enough from 1950-80 when we had some sort of equity here - there were people who still fell through the cracks. Now it is a zillion times worse. I have read quotes from folks like Bernie Sanders that 99% of all new wealth created currently is going to the top 1% of families in this country.

The baby boomers (I am just after that generation) have whatever meager savings they've managed to put away, and they will likely use that up as they age. With my generation (X) those of us fortunate enough to have a leading profession or early dot.com shares will be ok. After that we are getting into "3rd world" territory. The younger generations are not even getting a chance unless they happen to be born in the right family. Sliding downhill fast in the US. I don't know how anyone can honestly argue that this is an equitable system in any way, shape, or form at this point.

If you really give a damn read what this person posts...and THINK!

WHO WILL BE PAYING FOR ALL THE DEAD CHILDREN WHO DIE OF STARVATION.


Get real.

as I said above, I have no problem with increasing benefits, as long as a person earns them. If a person with children refuses to earn their benefits, that is on them. If it reaches the point were a child is dieing of starvation, that is child abuse and should be treated as such.

Cheap labor....destroys a nation

The level this has reached esp. since the 2008 economic crash is frightening.

Do these folks realize WHY this propaganda has been amped up? Less government benefits Big Business, it always has. Corporations and companies want less TAXES (which they hardly pay!) and they want less regulations, inspection and oversight of their business operations, a free hand to do what they want, to gain more profit, the same with labor, as cheap as they can get it.

With no government programs, and weakened, unfunded govt. services and safety nets, people and workers are DEFENSELESS- LEFT TO THE WOLVES. Besides, We the People ARE the Government; we elect Officials to represent US in state and local governments and in the national government. It's basic Civics 101.

Republican politicians are sponsoring getting rid of minimum wage laws and other worker protections and benefits to lower costs and increase profit for management.
It's called the RACE TO THE BOTTOM to get people desperate enough to work for $1, $2, $3 an hour, believe it ! The lowest labor costs possible is the goal like exploitive child labor we had in the US before hard won changes and now exists in other places in the world. Goal: Third World USA.

The way the Right Wing can achieve their aims for the wealthy is through their almost total control of almost all US Media- 90% of all TV, Radio, Newspapers, Publications in order to lie, call Democrats communists, Obama a dictator and demonize welfare for the poor, other groups, pit people against each other over race, ethnicity, religion, even against women, the poor and disabled.

It's the old divide and conquer technique to maintain the wealthy status quo; keep the people and workers fighting among each other so they won't notice what management is doing to them. The RW Hate Media talkers/hustlers are very well paid, in the $Millions by the wealthy like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly.

~"I CAN HIRE ONE HALF OF THE WORKERS TO KILL THE OTHER HALF"~
said by JAY GOULD, notorious, ruthless & manipulative 19th century US Robber Baron Financier & Railroad Tycoon, about the possibility of his railroad workers threatening to strike (stop working) for better conditions.

(When he died in 1892 Gould was very wealthy, but friendless.)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/239993/Jay-Gould

that contrary to expectations, increased inequality is driving down support for redistribution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/opinion/has-obamacare-turned-voters-against-sharing-the-wealth.html?_r=0

there is strong support for higher taxes on high income people. much less support for redistribution.

on high income but do not support redistribution. WTH do they think you do with tax money? You distribute it. You re-build infra-structure, create programs to help those falling through the cracks, and invest in things that benefit all like public education, healthcare for all, etc. What do you do with all that increased tax money if you don't distribute it? Even spending it on the military is a distribution. Just the wrong one in my view. Seriously, have people lost their cognitive functions?