• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Trump Takes A Swing At Welfare Reform

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
158,290
Likes
41,276
#1
Trump to swing at reforming welfare system brought in by Bill Clinton saying change is 'desperately needed' to stop 'people taking advantage'
  • President is set to tackle welfare reform after tax reform is dealt with and offer more details early next year
  • He has said people are 'taking advantage of the system' which was brought in by Bill Clinton in 1996
  • Hillary took fire from the left for the system when she ran amid claims it punished the poor
  • Trump has said change is 'desperately needed' to system which has been in effect for more than two decades


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5113459/Trump-signals-welfare-reform-details-come.html#ixzz4zS27iRds
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

southfork

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,711
Likes
13,047
#2
Welfare has become a way of life and not a short term protection gap as intended, it's become generational where families feel it's an entitlement and they dont have to work, free housing, food, medical, cell phones, internet service, many reap over 30k a year in benefits and live better than the working poor and many middle class people. They hide their kids fathers so they bleed the system more.
 

gliddenralston

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,270
Likes
1,118
#3
I'm all for welfare reform...starting with him and his family.
 

gliddenralston

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,270
Likes
1,118
#5
I hear ya....but welfare isn't just at the bottom!!
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
#8
Thats how the demon got elected, 99% of the blacks voted for him because he was black, but thats not racist its black pride, but when we vote for a white guy because hes white were racist. Go figure
All true, but it wouldn't have happened if team red had run a real candidate at some point...McCain and Romney? LOL Talk about giving libertarians and conservatives nowhere to run.

Hussein got in because white people(plus diebold) put him there, largely because it allowed some to signal their virtue, check their supposed "white privilege", or to "feel" good about reducing their "white guilt".

While I'm not particularly interested in seeing welfare...reform, I would love to see it eliminated, both at the top and bottom of the income scales. It's all just theft. Either .gov steals from working people to give the funds to "the poor" and crony corporate pets, or they use their inflation scam to steal from savers to give to "the poor" and their crony corporate pets. Illegal immigration would fall off a freaking cliff without these scams.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
158,290
Likes
41,276
#9
Hussein got in because white people(plus diebold) put him there, largely because it allowed some to signal their virtue, check their supposed "white privilege", or to "feel" good about reducing their "white guilt".
Probably very true for some but I think a lot of peeps had enough of crazy George, psycho Dick and the repubs and were to the point where they would have voted for anyone promising change. And they did.

Funny thing happened after the election. Obama followed crazy George's game plan in the middle east. Even stepped it up a bit. And now trump seems to be doing the same. WTF???

How is it we have money for the middle east but not for our own here at home?

Don't listen to what someone says.........watch what they do. Especially politicians.
 

nickndfl

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
12,485
Likes
10,674
Location
Florida
#10
I am sick of all of the freeloaders I am paying for. There are multiple generations of the same family on welfare. They get greatly reduced cost or free healthcare while it is so expensive for me I must self-insure.

Too much fraud and waste. The way to fix it is to cancel all current entitlement programs and set higher standards for qualification. Then make everybody reapply.

If a grandmother, mother and children in the same house are on welfare, then it isn't working. It makes not working more desirable than working in those cases and we cannot afford to carry those people into the future. It just doesn't make sense.

Yes, also eliminate corporate welfare and they can begin with Tesla.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
#11
Too much fraud and waste. The way to fix it is to cancel all current entitlement programs and set higher standards for qualification. Then make everybody reapply.
Why should welfare exist at all though? It's quite literally theft. If people want to give to another then they're free to donate, but robbing one individual to give to another isn't moral.
 

dacrunch

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
4,161
Likes
2,884
#12

oldgaranddad

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
3,814
Likes
5,772
Location
On the top shelf.
#13
The only way to truly reform welfare is to totally remove it from the Federal level and let the states decide and fund it. That means no more federal food stamps, subsidized housing, medicare/medicaid, etc. If crazy Cali wants to be the utopian hand out state then let them pay for it all -- you will see how fast the tune changes when these states are on the hook for it. For years VT had no welfare problem because they didn't have welfare... until the libtards took over the state and instituted "reforms" that included a welfare program. Unfortunately NH looks like it is going the same way but I digress. Let the costs reside where the
 

dacrunch

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
4,161
Likes
2,884
#14
quote I like = The "Welfare State" is the "Farewell State".
 

hammerhead

Not just a screen name
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,096
Likes
3,864
Location
On a speck of dust
#15
Buy your vote here. There is no way the great society will just disappear. It's too ingrained in the population. And corps won't stand for Uncle sugar stopping their allowance. So many people make money on one EBT transaction.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
#16
One way or another the welfare state mentality will disappear. The only question is will it disappear due to collapse or due to the fact that some people woke up and forced a course correction.
 

Buck

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
3,400
Likes
2,922
#17
One way or another the welfare state mentality will disappear. The only question is will it disappear due to collapse or due to the fact that some people woke up and forced a course correction.
but the need for welfare will always be with us, almost like it's a natural result of having a society because the opposite is death and we've no need to step on bodies, do we?

I'd suggest, as a First World Country, or the such we all live in, we should view welfare as tending to the permanent losers, keeping society "healthy", being our brothers keepers

As a system, generally it woldn't be a requirement and you can opt out at any time, but, getting in has to have some base, some foundation with which it has to operate under and if a loser doesn't want help, help sometimes has to be given, for the health and well-being of the society

But, there's another issue, where does this line get drawn, where does the line for help begin and where does it end?
where does the snatchandgrab of individuals, stop?

Welfare has been so twisted as to what it is, it's difficult to keep it straight just what it is:
A temporary support system to help you get back on your feet again (my words)

There are plenty of other programs; for the destitute, the jobless, the unhealthy, etc

Which makes me wonder, why are there so many programs that need to be administered?
Combine them all and take the administrations savings and put half of that back into the pot and put the other half into phone operators and let's streamline communications for ourselves!

I digress

I kinda hope welfare doesn't just disappear, societies will always require some form of it for some of it's members but this is where it has gone terribly wrong, some would even say Off The Rails:
When a State advertises on TV & Radio and Magazines & Newspapers and in Foreign Countries & in Foreign Languages, for people to come and get on it's welfare programs, because they're available to help, what is really happening is society getting the shaft while watching smiling faces of people they don't even know nor will they ever meet, professionals who may not even have a stake in any of it as they may even live in another State - the citizens are being duped, confidence played, ripped off, raped, etc, while being smiled at, being told they're stars, they're worth something

hmmmmm
Anyone know where the donuts are?
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
#18
for the health and well-being of the society
But, there's another issue, where does this line get drawn, where does the line for help begin and where does it end?
The line is real simple. You don't get to steal from others. I can't do it and I lack the authority to grant that power to my "representatives".

Anyway, handouts don't help people in the long run, they only feed dependence. A welfare system only discourages the natural generosity of people by making them bitter about being robbed and resent the poor.
 

oldgaranddad

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
3,814
Likes
5,772
Location
On the top shelf.
#20
Do not confuse medicare with welfare.
I didn't. Medicare is corporate welfare for the drug/medical device/long term care/health system industries and influence peddling for the various politicians. Medicare provides nothing that a 401K style health savings plan couldn't except create bureaucratic red tape, waste/duplication and fraud.

In an ideal world, a 401K style health savings plan would allow the owner to choose his/her insurance, drugs and care providers and ultimately the amount of risk they wish to take. When the recipients have some skin in the game then the amount of fraud goes way down. Any financial shortfalls could be made up by voluntary transfers from friends, family and charitable organizations into the accounts. Unspent monies could be invested and rolled over from year to year so when the person is older and premiums are higher that is already taken care of.

I resent the fact that dollars are being forcibly taken from me by the government and then will be doled back to me if I follow their byzantine rules or vote in a specific political party to protect what was mine in the first place. That is the main dark function of Medicare. Why do you think the welfare party fights tooth and nail to reform medicare in any form shape or manner?
 

Po'boy

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,582
Likes
2,276
#21
For some reason corporate welfare and foreign aid come to mind here.
The banks got bailed out plus got to keep the homes then foreclosed via fraud.

This has never been truly sorted out.

New boss same as the old.
 

Po'boy

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,582
Likes
2,276
#22
I didn't. Medicare is corporate welfare for the drug/medical device/long term care/health system industries and influence peddling for the various politicians. Medicare provides nothing that a 401K style health savings plan couldn't except create bureaucratic red tape, waste/duplication and fraud.

In an ideal world, a 401K style health savings plan would allow the owner to choose his/her insurance, drugs and care providers and ultimately the amount of risk they wish to take. When the recipients have some skin in the game then the amount of fraud goes way down. Any financial shortfalls could be made up by voluntary transfers from friends, family and charitable organizations into the accounts. Unspent monies could be invested and rolled over from year to year so when the person is older and premiums are higher that is already taken care of.

I resent the fact that dollars are being forcibly taken from me by the government and then will be doled back to me if I follow their byzantine rules or vote in a specific political party to protect what was mine in the first place. That is the main dark function of Medicare. Why do you think the welfare party fights tooth and nail to reform medicare in any form shape or manner?
So give your money to let banks hold with looming financial destruction and ww3 on the table.

Yeah fuck no.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
158,290
Likes
41,276
#23
The only question is will it disappear due to collapse or due to the fact that some people woke up and forced a course correction.
But, there's another issue, where does this line get drawn
Really haven't an answer but I wonder if a UBI could be coming at some point in the future?
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
158,290
Likes
41,276
#24
The banks got bailed out plus got to keep the homes then foreclosed via fraud.
This and the fact that no one was held to account for their criminal actions suck big time.

Bail out (actually reward) lying, thieving scum and then deny help to your own citizens in need while spending untold billions on never ending war in the middle east is madness.
 

Po'boy

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,582
Likes
2,276
#25
This and the fact that no one was held to account for their criminal actions suck big time.

Bail out (actually reward) lying, thieving scum and then deny help to your own citizens in need while spending untold billions on never ending war in the middle east is madness.
Not even a repeal of glass-steagle.

Banks and large corporate interests are American priority.
 

edsl48

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,696
Likes
2,731
#26
Why should welfare exist at all though? It's quite literally theft. If people want to give to another then they're free to donate, but robbing one individual to give to another isn't moral.
It was thatway at one time till the progressives decided that the Government should replace churches and other religious based charitable entities
 

nickndfl

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
12,485
Likes
10,674
Location
Florida
#27
but the need for welfare will always be with us, almost like it's a natural result of having a society because the opposite is death and we've no need to step on bodies, do we?

I'd suggest, as a First World Country, or the such we all live in, we should view welfare as tending to the permanent losers, keeping society "healthy", being our brothers keepers

As a system, generally it woldn't be a requirement and you can opt out at any time, but, getting in has to have some base, some foundation with which it has to operate under and if a loser doesn't want help, help sometimes has to be given, for the health and well-being of the society

But, there's another issue, where does this line get drawn, where does the line for help begin and where does it end?
where does the snatchandgrab of individuals, stop?

Welfare has been so twisted as to what it is, it's difficult to keep it straight just what it is:
A temporary support system to help you get back on your feet again (my words)

There are plenty of other programs; for the destitute, the jobless, the unhealthy, etc

Which makes me wonder, why are there so many programs that need to be administered?
Combine them all and take the administrations savings and put half of that back into the pot and put the other half into phone operators and let's streamline communications for ourselves!

I digress

I kinda hope welfare doesn't just disappear, societies will always require some form of it for some of it's members but this is where it has gone terribly wrong, some would even say Off The Rails:
When a State advertises on TV & Radio and Magazines & Newspapers and in Foreign Countries & in Foreign Languages, for people to come and get on it's welfare programs, because they're available to help, what is really happening is society getting the shaft while watching smiling faces of people they don't even know nor will they ever meet, professionals who may not even have a stake in any of it as they may even live in another State - the citizens are being duped, confidence played, ripped off, raped, etc, while being smiled at, being told they're stars, they're worth something

hmmmmm
Anyone know where the donuts are?

Permanent losers can go to FEMA camps or loser jails. That should discourage anybody from gaming the system across generations.
 

hammerhead

Not just a screen name
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,096
Likes
3,864
Location
On a speck of dust
#28
I posted this before elsewhere but I think it fits good here.

KIMG0395.JPG


It would also fit better if you were to rotate your monitor.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
158,290
Likes
41,276
#29
Just a little food for thought.

Republicans Plan to Cut Food Stamps as Homelessness Rises in the US

Posted on December 7, 2017 by Yves Smith

Even though poverty is a difficult, many-faceted problem, the US stands out in how openly it hates the poor, even as its economic system looks increasingly designed to produce more of them.

The Republican party, doing the bidding of members of the 0.1% and ideologues who treat poverty as the result of the lack of a work ethic, have made cutting the food stamp program a top priority. An overview from Huffington Post:

Democrats have warned that after passing a tax bill that adds to the national debt, Republicans will say it’s all the more urgent to cut Social Security and Medicare.

While overhauling those popular programs is a long-term Republican goal, in the near-term conservative lawmakers are more eager to cut food stamps.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), founder of the House Freedom Caucus, told HuffPost on Tuesday that the influential bloc of conservative Republicans will push for “welfare reform” legislation next year that would add new restrictions on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits…

He said the basic idea would be new restrictions on able-bodied adults ― even if they have children ― along the lines of a bill he introduced earlier this year. Robert Rector, a welfare expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Jordan’s bill would cut SNAP spending by 20 percent over 10 years, which would amount to more than $100 billion….

Roughly 42 million low-income Americans, of whom 44 percent are children, receive monthly SNAP benefits that can be used to buy food in grocery stores ― making it one of the U.S. government’s biggest and most expensive economic safety net programs.

Jordan and Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) talked about the idea with Trump earlier this year, and Jordan said the president is enthusiastic about it…

Republicans have used resentment toward the food stamp program ― established in 1964 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” ― as a political weapon since at least the 1970s. Ronald Reagan, during his 1976 presidential run, would tell audiences of a “strapping young buck” outrageously using food stamps to buy steak.

Before we turn to this Republican implementation of one of Lambert’s rules of neoliberalism, “Go die,” note that Democrats are all with the bogus premise that Federal deficit spending is a problem, and therefore budget cuts are necessary and desirable. Since neither party will cut military spending or corporate pork, the only thing left to cut is social safety nets. So don’t kid yourself about the Democrats. They’ll make cuts, but slowly and with feigned regret, while as we can see from the quotes in the HuffPo article, the Republicans make them with glee.

It only took a few minutes on YouTube to find this priceless clip in which a Fox reporter, with a straight face, tells viewers repeatedly that the rich suffered more in the aftermath of the crisis than the poor. Since when is a decline in paper wealth as big a deal as going from poor to desperate?


The Republican canard is the claim that the food stamp program is full of modern welfare queens, slough-offs who need to get off their couches and find work. First, as readers know all too well, there is plenty of un and underemployment in the US. People would not be accepting debilitating warehouse jobs at Amazon if there was adequate demand for workers. Nearly 95% of the jobs created when Obama was in office were part time or contract work. Those willing to work can’t necessarily cobble together the equivalent of a full time paycheck.

Second, many jobs pay only the minimum wage, which is below a living wage for a family even with two earners, and below a living wage even for single people in virtually all cities in the US. And what are people in the boonies told to do? Move to cities to get work, even though they seldom have the personal connections to help them land a job there, and often don’t have enough scratch to fund a relocation (as in have enough money to put down a deposit on a rental).

Third, in keeping with the fact that many jobs don’t pay a living wage, people who are employed are also on food stamps. This article by Peter Van Buren, a former State Department employee who fell into low-wage work after he became a whistleblower and was fired, is important reading. Key section:

20 mega-companies dominate the minimum-wage world. Walmart alone employs 1.4 million minimum-wage workers; Yum Brands (Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC) is in second place; and McDonald’s takes third. Overall, 60 percent of minimum-wage workers are employed by businesses not officially considered “small” by government standards, and of course carve-outs for really small businesses are possible, as was done with Obamacare.

Keep in mind that not raising wages costs you money.

Those minimum wage workers who can’t make enough and need to go on food assistance? Well, Walmart isn’t paying for those food stamps (now called SNAP), you are. The annual bill that states and the federal government foot for working families making poverty-level wages is $153 billion. A single Walmart Supercenter costs taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year in public assistance money. According to Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, in many states Walmart employees are the largest group of Medicaid recipients. They are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients. In other words, those everyday low prices at the chain are, in part, subsidized by your tax money. Meanwhile, an estimated 18 percent of food stamps (SNAP) are spent at Walmart.

Yves here. Do you think the Walmarts of the world will raise wages to compensate for the loss of the food stamp subsidy? No way.

And let’s look at another population that disproves the “If you are broke, you must be lazy” myth. From a must-read Guardian tory on farm suicides:

We were growing food, but couldn’t afford to buy it. We worked 80 hours a week, but we couldn’t afford to see a dentist, let alone a therapist….

Since 2013, net farm income for US farmers has declined 50%. Median farm income for 2017 is projected to be negative $1,325.

Another sign of rising stress: homelessness is up for the first time since 2010. From the Wall Street Journal:

In an annual report to Congress released Wednesday, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data shows the homeless population was 553,742 in 2017, a 0.7% increase from 2016…

HUD Secretary Ben Carson said rents are rising faster than incomes in major cities, “forcing too many of our neighbors into our shelters and onto our streets.”..

One in four of the nation’s homeless population could be found in New York City or Los Angeles County, according to the report. New York City had the largest homeless population with 76,501 people, a 4.1% increase from the prior year. Los Angeles County counted 55,188 people living in shelters and on streets, a 26% increase over the prior year.

A key difference between the two major metropolitan areas: in New York, 95% were found to be living in shelters, while in Los Angeles County only 25% were in shelters.

Yves here. I question that 95% claim. The homeless often avoid shelters save when the weather is very cold because shelters are perceived to be unsafe. During the brief life of Occupy Wall Street, many homeless people came and camped out in Zucotti Park because Occupy Wall Street provided free food and staying there at night was perceived to be better than going to a shelter. When the encampment was cleared out, some churched opened up to allow the former Zucotti Park denizens sleep there overnight. Our Outis did night duty regularly at one of those churches because they needed people to act as de facto guards, particularly to keep men from trying to force themselves on women. And this was a real issue; I recall Outis describing various safety-related incidents in which he’d had to intervene.

Back to the Journal:

Sizable year-over-year increases in the homeless population were registered in several California jurisdictions, including the Sacramento area, 47%, the Oakland area, 36%, and Orange County, 11%. Among major California cities, San Francisco was an outlier, with a 2% decline.

The Seattle area, another West Coast region that has struggled with high housing costs, saw an 8.5% increase in its homeless population.

So if more of the working and unemployed poor have food stamps cut, one of the results will be more homelessness, of the visible sort that the Feds were able to count, and the under the radar type of people living in cars.

And as I said, don’t expect the Democrats to do much, save for a few bona fide progressives who run on the Democratic party ticket. They also think the well-off deserve their high incomes, and while they express more concern about the poor, they are loath to spend any chips.

This entry was posted in Banana republic, Free markets and their discontents, Income disparity, Macroeconomic policy, Politics, Social policy, Social values, The destruction of the middle class on December 7, 2017 by Yves Smith.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/12/republicans-plan-cut-food-stamps-homelessness-rises-us.html
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
#30
Just a little food for thought.
So fukking sick of this class warfare dog vomit. Everybody and their grandma has a complaint about how the .gov re-distributes some portion of what it steals. The real issue is that .gov steals at all and people are okay with it.

Muh roads! Muh food stamps! Muh medicare!