Something which will BLOW YOUR MIND about welfare in the USA...

[slo0tPatrol]

I am able to have a job, buy things I don't need, make a lot of money because of the USA. My family who immigrated from Italy got to come to this country, go to school, work for the government, become executives, business owners, etc, live the American dream because the foundation wasn't in Italy like it is here. I've gotten so many opportunities in this country and I, like many other miscers, will become rich because of what the US offers... If the government wants to take 30% of my income and spend it on welfare or who knows the fukk what, they can because if it wasn't for the country my family and I would not be as successful in our careers as we are. Give back to the country that allows you to be successful.

[dhawkeye1980]

They're also still a majority in America. Let's see the percentages

You likely pulled that out of your ass so I'm not expecting anything

They will ignore it, same as they ignore the black population makes up about 15% of the population yet is responsible for the majority of crime

[jtaylor2010]

They're also still a majority in America. Let's see the percentages

You likely pulled that out of your ass so I'm not expecting anything

The better question is why do they always say that as if the race of the person receiving welfare changes our views on it. Not like we're going to say "well sh!t, if the majority of people on welfare are white that changes everything." It's still an unsustainable, immoral system and that would be true even if 100% of people on welfare were white.

[slo0tPatrol]

They will ignore it, same as they ignore the black population makes up about 15% of the population yet is responsible for the majority of crime

White, black, hispanic, Barney, the system has failed them and their only option is to commit crimes to put food on the table because McDonald's doesn't pay them enough to essentially do anything. So how do you fix this?

[arn710]

The better question is why do they always say that as if the race of the person receiving welfare changes our views on it. Not like we're going to say "well sh!t, if the majority of people on welfare are white that changes everything." It's still an unsustainable, immoral system and that would be true even if 100% of people on welfare were white.

I don't have any opinion on the race issue. I'm just calling for BS statements to be backed up.

I accept that we must have welfare of some sort. I just think there should be strong motivation to get off of it.

A tiered system would be best I think.

- Start with providing basic assistance in the form of vouchers in exchange for attending classes on basic skills and money management.
- The next level would be diminishing assistance in exchange for community service
- The last step would be prison like housing where basic needs of food and shelter are met but money is never exchanged. Children would also be placed into foster or family care at this point.

[faxanadu]

I am able to have a job, buy things I don't need, make a lot of money because of the USA. My family who immigrated from Italy got to come to this country, go to school, work for the government, become executives, business owners, etc, live the American dream because the foundation wasn't in Italy like it is here. I've gotten so many opportunities in this country and I, like many other miscers, will become rich because of what the US offers... If the government wants to take 30% of my income and spend it on welfare or who knows the fukk what, they can because if it wasn't for the country my family and I would not be as successful in our careers as we are. Give back to the country that allows you to be successful.

Did you ever consider that too much government was the indirect reason why your family left Italy? You do realize Italy is hugely at risk of defaulting because of too much government... the debt level is 133% of GDP.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-will-be-worse

[MustardTiger17]

Lmao at not being on welfare in 2017

[HayZues Christi]

So many stupid people itt.

[slo0tPatrol]

Did you ever consider that too much government was the indirect reason why your family left Italy? You do realize Italy is hugely at risk of defaulting because of too much government... the debt level is 133% of GDP.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-will-be-worse

This was in the 60's my dude.

[gbullock32]

Just saying, I get deducted $2000 every pay check.... it's nice to see part of where it goes....

[muscle beast]

I make under 20k and can't get on welfare, I'm Caucasian though and was born in this country could that be the reason?

This has got to be the most uneducated post in this thread. And if you don't know why, then you really shouldn't post in this thread again.

I'm not saying your data is wrong, OP. And not for nothing, but the people who talk chit about welfare and all of that stuff have like 1% knowledge of the topic after Googling it for 5 minutes.

The same goes with any complicated topic of a national scale. Most people barely know enough to make a valid argument. Leave that chit to economists and people who know what they're talking about.

This

[faxanadu]

This was in the 60's my dude.

From 1965-1975 the GDP to debt ratio more than doubled as the country became more socialist. To quell the uproar the government enacted ridiculous social benefits (huge pensions) like Greece. It's almost as if the government elites said, "Our people are going to kill us all ... toss them a bunch of money while we plan our getaway."

[zeBake]

I am able to have a job, buy things I don't need, make a lot of money because of the USA. My family who immigrated from Italy got to come to this country, go to school, work for the government, become executives, business owners, etc, live the American dream because the foundation wasn't in Italy like it is here. I've gotten so many opportunities in this country and I, like many other miscers, will become rich because of what the US offers... If the government wants to take 30% of my income and spend it on welfare or who knows the fukk what, they can because if it wasn't for the country my family and I would not be as successful in our careers as we are. Give back to the country that allows you to be successful.

Bar none the dumbest post of all time.

Every country that has tried taking money from the people cause they figure they knew how to spend it better has turned to **** ****

[zeBake]

White, black, hispanic, Barney, the system has failed them and their only option is to commit crimes to put food on the table because McDonald's doesn't pay them enough to essentially do anything. So how do you fix this?

They failed themselves for being immoral dcum

[BangBrahs]

Wtf how much is unemployment benefit in USA, I always thought benefits didn't exist in USA hence poverty

I believe that it is 2/3 of the wages from your last job (Michigan).

[tinfoilpotato]

You guys need to learn about money velocity and the money multiplier effect on GDP growth, and really just basic facts about welfare in general. Aside from the ethical problem of letting around 20% of US citizens starve to death, there are real economic benefits to welfare. Some programs, like food stamps, actually generate a return. A Moody's study estimates we get $1.63 back for every $1 spent on stamps. Again, money multiplier effect and money velocity. It's hard to see it that way because we calculate spending and GDP as separate figures so the net balance isn't so clear. If you axe welfare our GDP takes a big fat dump. Welfare queens probably exist, but there aren't enough of them to make welfare a bad investment, because that's really what it is.

By the way this whole idea has been debunked already. Can't post links but it's very easy to find. Basically some of the things included in that chart as "welfare" aren't really welfare. Also LOL at the zerohedge graphs. That place is an entertainment site, not serious analysis.

End welfare. See what happens. Crime will go up, overcrowded prisons will get even more overcrowded, and we'll still be paying for them but we won't be getting any spending in return. Look up how much our penal system is costing us.

The problem is that our labor market is all kinds of ****ed up and all this trickle down bull**** isn't going to help.

Just posting this to vent. Not about to try to have a discussion about economics on a bodybuilding forum lol.

[slo0tPatrol]

They failed themselves for being immoral dcum

No one grows up wanting to be a criminal. But when their mom or dad leave, or they're also criminals it's the only life they know. And when everyone around you is in gangs, and the school system isn't funded it makes it hard for anyone to get out of that kind of life. The system failed these kinds of people, it isn't so black and white. Most of us are fortunate to have positive role models with a good set of values, not everyone can be as lucky as us.

[Lawlstud]

you have the right to receive healthcare. you dont have the right to "free" healthcare.

just like you have the right to have guns, but good luck getting the government to buy you an m16.

Right, but who can afford the million dollar treatments that get dolled out daily?

[Redundanteater]

Complex issues here. I would favor some kind of "guaranteed minimum income" IF it replaced the vast array of existing wasteful gov't bureaucracy (which could be done in theory at a net savings). Obviously will never happen irl.

[faxanadu]

You guys need to learn about money velocity and the money multiplier effect on GDP growth, and really just basic facts about welfare in general. Aside from the ethical problem of letting around 20% of US citizens starve to death, there are real economic benefits to welfare. Some programs, like food stamps, actually generate a return. A Moody's study estimates we get $1.63 back for every $1 spent on stamps. Again, money multiplier effect and money velocity. It's hard to see it that way because we calculate spending and GDP as separate figures so the net balance isn't so clear. If you axe welfare our GDP takes a big fat dump. Welfare queens probably exist, but there aren't enough of them to make welfare a bad investment, because that's really what it is.

By the way this whole idea has been debunked already. Can't post links but it's very easy to find. Basically some of the things included in that chart as "welfare" aren't really welfare. Also LOL at the zerohedge graphs. That place is an entertainment site, not serious analysis.

End welfare. See what happens. Crime will go up, overcrowded prisons will get even more overcrowded, and we'll still be paying for them but we won't be getting any spending in return. Look up how much our penal system is costing us.

The problem is that our labor market is all kinds of ****ed up and all this trickle down bull**** isn't going to help.

Just posting this to vent. Not about to try to have a discussion about economics on a bodybuilding forum lol.

The topic isn't about ending welfare. It's about how the numbers clearly don't add up.

[faxanadu]

No one grows up wanting to be a criminal. But when their mom or dad leave, or they're also criminals it's the only life they know. And when everyone around you is in gangs, and the school system isn't funded it makes it hard for anyone to get out of that kind of life. The system failed these kinds of people, it isn't so black and white. Most of us are fortunate to have positive role models with a good set of values, not everyone can be as lucky as us.

As the welfare state has increased so has the divorce rate and single family homes which i believe are the biggest contributors to criminality last i checked.

[faxanadu]

Right, but who can afford the million dollar treatments that get dolled out daily?

Doesn't morally justify taking someone else's labor by force.

[lolwhatthefuk]

Most of the money is spent on the government employees and the program itself.

[Baylorballs]

Strong bias.

A majority of people on welfare are people who actually need it. A small, SMALL percentage are actually abusing the system or are "welfare queens". We actually save money with the current system we have. If we get rid of it, the burden that the poor create on us will be far more costly.

and to add to this, if you give almost nothing to the poor, where are they going to go to start looking for more $ ?? you would very likely have an increase in crime/ robberies and the strain on police would be even worse.


No perfect system, and hopefully our country never skyrockets in population so much that we can barely sustain ourselves

[jtaylor2010]

and to add to this, if you give almost nothing to the poor, where are they going to go to start looking for more $ ?? you would very likely have an increase in crime/ robberies and the strain on police would be even worse.


No perfect system, and hopefully our country never skyrockets in population so much that we can barely sustain ourselves

You say that as if our current path is sustainable.

[DolphinPilot]

My brother and his gf were on government assistance after they had their first kid. They were on assistance because they didn't have enough money. They didn't have enough money because my brother got pissed off and quit his job (not eligible for unemployment checks) Instead of finding an identical job, he took a job at fukking Target, restocking shelves, because "I don't want to go back to that chit ever again!" referring to his old line of work.

Even people that voluntarily put themselves in a destitute situation can get on assistance! I doubt my brother is really much of an exception here. He did finally clean up his act and takes care of his business now so a real-life neg wouldn't really make sense unless he does it again.

If the system is too easily fooled, you can bet your ass and your balls there will be a lot of people taking advantage of it.

[faxanadu]

and to add to this, if you give almost nothing to the poor, where are they going to go to start looking for more $ ?? you would very likely have an increase in crime/ robberies and the strain on police would be even worse.


No perfect system, and hopefully our country never skyrockets in population so much that we can barely sustain ourselves

Your underlying assumption is that without government these people are screwed. The following are cheritable contributions for 2015...

Individual = 268 billion
Corporate = 18 billion
Foundations = 57 billion

Total = 373 billion

Divide that by the number of people in poverty ... ( 373,000,000,000 / 36,800,000 ) = $10,136/person or $31,421/household

That doesn't include time contributions (only 25% of adult population) which equate to $184 billion which alters the numbers to ... $15,136/person or $46,922/household (Median Household Income is $51,939)

Conclusion: We don't need the government.


https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropi...ng-statistics/

[katya422]

Complex issues here. I would favor some kind of "guaranteed minimum income" IF it replaced the vast array of existing wasteful gov't bureaucracy (which could be done in theory at a net savings). Obviously will never happen irl.

TIA.

IMO that is why the idea of having people work to receive government benefits doesn't really pan out. You would be adding cost because you would have to have management/supervision over all these people and most of the types of work people come up with are short term/irregular tasks.

I sincerely don't know why so many people have the idea that a large portion of people receiving assistance are deadbeats just soaking up free goodies. Yeah, there are some in any system, but it isn't "most" or even close. Most are old, disabled, or children. Very little goes to the able bodied and usually that is a single parent. The BS hoops you have to jump through make it not worthwhile if you have any better option.

Personally have spent a lot of time with no medical insurance, either because I couldn't afford it or I was working part time or unemployed and there wasn't any on offer. Back in the late 80s when I was working for Target they would schedule you just so you could not qualify for full time so that they would not have to offer you benefits. The rule was that if you worked 6 weeks @ full time IIRC then they were supposed to make you full time. So you would be scheduled 40 hours for about 5 weeks and then your hours would be cut to 20ish for a week or too before being kicked back up to 40...even got overtime once in a while.

I broke 3 toes on one foot while uninsured and barely employed (working temp jobs). Paid OOP to go to my GP who did the x-ray and was told that because of the severity I should have a metal pin in a couple of them.

Doctors there already were requiring payment up front with no insurance, so I was told my only option was to go through the county emergency room. I couldn't call and make an appointment, or send my x-rays from my doctor. I had to go sit in the emergency room and go through there. Which I did. Then had to jump through hoops to get qualified for care; basically prove you are poor. Then see someone in the actual department that does the repair.

By the time they got back to me it had been months and would be weeks still before an appointment and the toes would have had to be re-broken so I said no thanks and just have crooked toes. But you know those 3-4 visits cost me time and gas and also cost the county hospital.

TL/DR: The system sucks. Thank god it wasn't anything potentially fatal. BRB; 3 months later they are finally going to see you about your cancer that your GP found.

Also I get people that don't want "government run healthcare", just don't see that as being the same as single payer, or at least non-profit only health insurance co-ops.

[katya422]

double post

[tinfoilpotato]

The topic isn't about ending welfare. It's about how the numbers clearly don't add up.

What doesn't add up, the amount spend per person being more than median income? I'm too lazy to look up whether those numbers include operational costs but I highly doubt it. And if you look up the original study that that graph is based on there are plenty of rebuttals pointing out that their numbers don't add up.