Anatomy of the Collapse of a Failed City

[WakeandBake]

I'm pretty sure that my record against deficit spending is solid. I think we should have a federal balanced budget Amendment, which can be suspended only under a Congressional declaration of War. There is no excuse for going $16T in the hole during a time when 99% of the country is at peace.

I'm an across the board tax increases, across the board spending cuts guy. Our infantile persistence that others (read the unborn) should pay our bills is unsustainable and un-American in the most original sense.

yeah...across the board means cutting the very services that the non-union working class rely on, and raising their taxes. We've read your posts about the working poor.

Perhaps the 'dumb and dumber' scenario in Detroit was just that, but at least the working man got a piece of the action. In your deal he gets the shaft, his services are cut his taxes raised and he has no union to bargain for more salary. Shit man, that's worse.

 

[jhmd2000]

yeah...across the board means cutting the very services that the non-union working class rely on, and raising their taxes. We've read your posts about the working poor.

Perhaps the 'dumb and dumber' scenario in Detroit was just that, but at least the working man got a piece of the action. In your deal he gets the shaft, his services are cut his taxes raised and he has no union to bargain for more salary. Shit man, that's worse.

Not very carefully, apparently. The working poor deserve all of the help we can give them. It's the able-bodied people who have migrated to the dole that are being kept down by the ceiling of your low expectations we need to reach.

 

[WakeandBake]

Not very carefully, apparently. The working poor deserve all of the help we can give them. It's the able-bodied people who have migrated to the dole that are being kept down by the ceiling of your low expectations we need to reach.

Oh, ok.

Still, even if that bullshit were true, your proposal to raise their taxes and cut their services runs counter to 'all of the help we can give them.' You are talking out of both sides of your mouth again my friend.

 

[WFFaithful]

Not very carefully, apparently. The working poor deserve all of the help we can give them. It's the able-bodied people who have migrated to the dole that are being kept down by the ceiling of your low expectations we need to reach.

Apparently only disabled people are legitimatly poor.

 

[bigdoublezero]

roof and food = not poor

That's the standard discussed previously, IIRC.

 

[Deacon923]

Since we're going to have this debate again, here's an interesting article showing that, in fact, a very small portion of social welfare spending goes to non-disabled people who aren't working, and the largest program by leaps and bounds is the Earned Income Tax Credit which by definition goes only to those who work.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/05/us-spending-on-social-welfare-programs-is-way-up-but-far-less-of-it-goes-to-the-poorest/371124/

Notice the steep decline in TANF (AKA "welfare") and the sharp increase in EITC and SSI (disability). The Child Tax Credit is refundable only to the extent of 15% of earned income over $3,000, or possibly a credit against social security tax paid (which you only pay if you are working) so there is a work requirement there too. About all that's left for the able-bodied non-working poor is food stamps, and those have work requirements in most states too.

 

[jhmd2000]

Apparently only disabled people are legitimatly poor.

Let's all just ignore the epidemic of able-bodied, subsistence dependency. They apparently don't deserve any better.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Let's all just ignore the epidemic of able-bodied, subsistence dependency. They apparently don't deserve any better.

link?

 

[jhmd2000]

Since we're going to have this debate again, here's an interesting article showing that, in fact, a very small portion of social welfare spending goes to non-disabled people who aren't working, and the largest program by leaps and bounds is the Earned Income Tax Credit which by definition goes only to those who work.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/05/us-spending-on-social-welfare-programs-is-way-up-but-far-less-of-it-goes-to-the-poorest/371124/

Notice the steep decline in TANF (AKA "welfare") and the sharp increase in EITC and SSI (disability). The Child Tax Credit is refundable only to the extent of 15% of earned income over $3,000, or possibly a credit against social security tax paid (which you only pay if you are working) so there is a work requirement there too. About all that's left for the able-bodied non-working poor is food stamps and those have work requirements in most states too, .

So there isn't any disability fraud at all. It doesn't happen. Must be like voter fraud.

Also, everyone who is on long-term disability is actively seeking employment.

Everyone who got pregnant in high school----just like their mother----and who goes on public assistance---just like their mother----would have gotten pregnant with or without the existence of the pattern of benefit programs that make that option even an viable choice----just like their mother. There is absolutely, positively no enabling going on by these programs. None.

I think I'm beginning to see the light...

P.S. They HAD work requirements in ALL states. Until, well, you know...

P.S.S. If TANF has a "steep decline", how would you describe the much more pronounced rise in food stamps (to their all-time high)?

 

[BeachBumDeac]

haha.

It would be decent trolling if you didn't actually believe this crap and let it inform your world view

 

[jhmd2000]

The number of Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) receiving food stamps zoomed from 1.7 million to 3.9 million between Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2010. In that same period, food stamp recipients in total grew from 26 million to nearly 40 million.

One reason for the catastrophic growth in the number of ABAWDs is Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill, which opened the door for states to waive the work provision required of ABAWDs. That work provision mandated that to continue receiving food stamps, after three months of being unemployed ABAWDs must work or perform some type of work activity 20 hours per week.

Spending on food stamps now totals somewhere around $80 billion, twice what the number was in Fiscal Year 2008. Congress is debating a new farm bill, but it is uncertain whether it will reinstate the work provision required of ABAWDs. Presently, the work waivers foisted on the states by Obama allow ABAWDs to receive food stamps indefinitely--without working or preparing for work. Sans work requirement, there is no guarantee that food stamps are being given to those who truly cannot work.

The proposal offered by the GOP-led House wants a 5% reduction in the cost of food stamps. The Democrat Senate is only willing to cut that cost by 1%.

link?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106346145/CRS-Memo-ABAWD

 

[Deacon923]

Oh, I think there's some degree of disability fraud. But I also think that has something to do with very high structural unemployment, the offshoring of millions of unskilled jobs, and the success of the private sector in removing any vestige of private retirement/disability security for unskilled laborers, combined with the removal of any other available mode of public assistance. Is defrauding the disability system a good, right, or moral thing to do? No. Is it an understandable response for a 50-year old laid-off textile worker with no hope of obtaining gainful employment in Podunk, NC? Sure.

As for the enabling issue; sure, I think that exists as well. But jhmd, looking at the numbers I posted, is it or is it not true that the amount of aid going to these allegedly enabling programs has declined drastically since 1980 in favor of work-requirement programs?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Since we're going to have this debate again, here's an interesting article showing that, in fact, a very small portion of social welfare spending goes to non-disabled people who aren't working, and the largest program by leaps and bounds is the Earned Income Tax Credit which by definition goes only to those who work.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/05/us-spending-on-social-welfare-programs-is-way-up-but-far-less-of-it-goes-to-the-poorest/371124/

Notice the steep decline in TANF (AKA "welfare") and the sharp increase in EITC and SSI (disability). The Child Tax Credit is refundable only to the extent of 15% of earned income over $3,000, or possibly a credit against social security tax paid (which you only pay if you are working) so there is a work requirement there too. About all that's left for the able-bodied non-working poor is food stamps, and those have work requirements in most states too.

Those graphs and the associated article are more than a little disengenuous by leaving out Unemployment benefits, which by definition cover able-bodied folks who are not working, as well as Medicaid, which dwarfs spending on all of those other programs combined. Not saying those programs do not provide valid expenditures, but to simply leave them out of a discussion on spending for the non-working poor is pretty stupid.

 

[WFFaithful]

Let's all just ignore the epidemic of able-bodied, subsistence dependency. They apparently don't deserve any better.

The "lowered expectations" and "dont deserve any better" rhetoric is insulting and lacks a basic understanding of poverty.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

One reason for the catastrophic growth in the number of ABAWDs is Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill, which opened the door for states to waive the work provision required of ABAWDs.

How many states actually waived the work provision? How many of those ABAWDs are not working or participating in job training?

Found an answer to one question

The percent of ABAWDs who report individual earnings has drastically fallen from 20.4% in 2007 to 20.3% in 2010
The percent of ABAWDs who report household earnings had GONE UP from 25.2% in 2007 to 26.0% in 2010

So... more working poor households need additional assistance in order to feed their family.

 

[PhDeac]

It seems strange for someone too look at statistics that show working people have an increasingly tougher time making ends meet therefore taxpayers are shouldering the burden, yet not favor changing the system to shift the burden to the employer.

 

[jhmd2000]

Oh, I think there's some degree of disability fraud. But I also think that has something to do with very high structural unemployment, the offshoring of millions of unskilled jobs, and the success of the private sector in removing any vestige of private retirement/disability security for unskilled laborers, combined with the removal of any other available mode of public assistance. Is defrauding the disability system a good, right, or moral thing to do? No. Is it an understandable response for a 50-year old laid-off textile worker with no hope of obtaining gainful employment in Podunk, NC? Sure.

As for the enabling issue; sure, I think that exists as well. But jhmd, looking at the numbers I posted, is it or is it not true that the amount of aid going to these allegedly enabling programs has declined drastically since 1980 in favor of work-requirement programs?

Well, how does one distinguish a migration between benefits from a true reduction? Our system----NOT the poor----is to blame. You've got former personal injury attorneys on every commercial break on daytime t.v. actively soliciting applications for all species of social security and worker's comp claims ("Are you sure someone can't prove that you're not hurt?"). I see how the benefits the attorneys, but I think it comes at the long-term best interests of the would-be applicant.

As to your first paragraph, I don't argue that is seems like the right thing to do in the very short term, but I don't believe it is sustainable when were $16T in the hole. I see the existence of the myriad of ways to feed your family off of government benefits as tempting, but harmful, to the people they are marketed towards. How did people feed their families before big government? Do you not see it as creating an alternative way of life, which is not a positive change for people, net-net?

 

[jhmd2000]

The "lowered expectations" and "dont deserve any better" rhetoric is insulting and lacks a basic understanding of poverty.

I agree it is an insulting attitude, and that's why I would prefer policies that enable and empower people, rather than those that entrap them.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Well, how does one distinguish a migration between benefits from a true reduction? Our system----NOT the poor----is to blame. You've got former personal injury attorneys on every commercial break on daytime t.v. actively soliciting applications for all species of social security and worker's comp claims ("Are you sure someone can't prove that you're not hurt?"). I see how the benefits the attorneys, but I think it comes at the long-term best interests of the would-be applicant.

As to your first paragraph, I don't argue that is seems like the right thing to do in the very short term, but I don't believe it is sustainable when were $16T in the hole. I see the existence of the myriad of ways to feed your family off of government benefits as tempting, but harmful, to the people they are marketed towards. How did people feed their families before big government? Do you not see it as creating an alternative way of life, which is not a positive change for people, net-net?

A lot of them didn't. They starved to death

http://life.time.com/history/dust-bowl-photos-oklahoma-by-alfred-eisenstaedt/#1

 

[jhmd2000]

A lot of them didn't. They starved to death

http://life.time.com/history/dust-bowl-photos-oklahoma-by-alfred-eisenstaedt/#1

On behalf of your unborn grandchildren who are about to inherit $25T in debt they had nothing to do with and will not benefit from in any way, I want to congratulate you and the 34.8% of the United States that is currently obese on your victory against hunger.