• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Specific problems with specific welfare programs and how to fix them

Deacon923 said:
I am not sure of the relationship between my post and this post, actually. I just think that giving a person an actual JOB is much more uplifting, and will have a better long-term impact on their attitudes and contribution to society, than telling a person "you're entitled to help from the government but we're going to make you do work to get it (unless you can come up with an excuse)".

I bet a lot of people on these boards had one or more grandparents that were employed by the government during the Depression. DODO aside, does anyone really question that these programs had an overall positive impact on the country? Does anyone really think that in a time of over 10% real unemployment and record low interest rates, it would be a bad idea for the government to hire some people to fix up some of our crumbling infrastructure? Even if it (*gasp*) increases the deficit?
Click to expand...

Good post.

I was agreeing with you that labeling/compartmentalizing programs is an important part of garnering support. Unemployment insurance has typically been better received by conservatives because it's been societally set up as a temporary means of getting back on your feet, and getting you from one job to another. The SCOTUS intentionally framed UI to be distinct from welfare programs (where people are on it more long-term) to make sure it didn't get stigmatized like welfare in general does. In actuality UI is government aid and people don't necessarily like to consider it such. I think that giving someone a "job" rather than "work to receive aid" it would be better received.
 
Was listening to NPR at lunch and Larry Summers was on. He was pointing out that while a lot of people swoon over all this debt we're leaving our grandchildren, people forget about the massive backlog of deferred maintenance we're also leaving them. When their water pipes and highway bridges fail in a 10% interest rate environment they are not going to thank us for deferring that maintenance in a 0% interest rate environment.
 
Deacon923 said:
Was listening to NPR at lunch and Larry Summers was on. He was pointing out that while a lot of people swoon over all this debt we're leaving our grandchildren, people forget about the massive backlog of deferred maintenance we're also leaving them. When their water pipes and highway bridges fail in a 10% interest rate environment they are not going to thank us for deferring that maintenance in a 0% interest rate environment.
Click to expand...

Caught the end of that , too. Great point.

Also his point about minimum wage with regard to Nixon and Reagan era economy was salient.
 
Deacon923 said:
Was listening to NPR at lunch and Larry Summers was on. He was pointing out that while a lot of people swoon over all this debt we're leaving our grandchildren, people forget about the massive backlog of deferred maintenance we're also leaving them. When their water pipes and highway bridges fail in a 10% interest rate environment they are not going to thank us for deferring that maintenance in a 0% interest rate environment.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. We should most definitely be doing infrastructure projects right now.
 
Deacon923 said:
I think you could accomplish the same work, for the same money, and get a much better result for the participants, if you just called it a "job" instead "work to receive aid". I just think there is a vast difference psychologically in the impact on the recipient between getting a job and being required to do work to get aid.
Click to expand...

I agree. But here is the real question. What happened if the recipients of the welfare a.k.a. the job recipients do not show up for work?

Do we let them starve? Or do we offer them additional welfare? I would say that you get a nine month free moratorium on applying for the government job where you receive welfare benefits for being on hard times. After that you will have a guaranteed job to work for the government but if you do not show up you do not receive payment.

And you would have to pay them less than minimum wage or it would be ripe for abuse.
 
Wrangor said:
I agree. But here is the real question. What happened if the recipients of the welfare a.k.a. the job recipients do not show up for work?

Do we let them starve? Or do we offer them additional welfare? I would say that you get a nine month free moratorium on applying for the government job where you receive welfare benefits for being on hard times. After that you will have a guaranteed job to work for the government but if you do not show up you do not receive payment.

And you would have to pay them less than minimum wage or it would be ripe for abuse.
Click to expand...

The government getting labor for less than the wage it requires of private employers isn't abusive?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
The government getting labor for less than the wage it requires of private employers isn't abusive?
Click to expand...

How would you prevent people working minimum wage jobs just quitting to work for a job that they can't be fired from?

I see what you are saying but the opposite abuse would be a reality as well.
 
Wrangor said:
How would you prevent people working minimum wage jobs just quitting to work for a job that they can't be fired from?

I see what you are saying but the opposite abuse would be a reality as well.
Click to expand...

I would err on the side of not exploiting labor when looking for potential abuse. As far as the answer for your first question, I don't know. I would assume compensation is tied to actually showing up and performing a job function. In that case, the paycheck is the carrot.
 
I'm still conflicted on tying food stamp benefits to things like this. I don't want a child to go hungry because his parent didn't go complete enough volunteer hours that week or whatever. The best chance a child has to break the cycle of poverty is to get a good education, and research has shown pretty consistently that hungry kids (with all else equal) don't do as well in school.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
I'm still conflicted on tying food stamp benefits to things like this. I don't want a child to go hungry because his parent didn't go complete enough volunteer hours that week or whatever. The best chance a child has to break the cycle of poverty is to get a good education, and research has shown pretty consistently that hungry kids (with all else equal) don't do as well in school.
Click to expand...

Obligatory:

think-of-the-children.jpg
 
BeachBumDeac said:
I'm still conflicted on tying food stamp benefits to things like this. I don't want a child to go hungry because his parent didn't go complete enough volunteer hours that week or whatever. The best chance a child has to break the cycle of poverty is to get a good education, and research has shown pretty consistently that hungry kids (with all else equal) don't do as well in school.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I am not interested in looting food stamps to fund jobs programs. But if we could use other revenues or savings (defense contractors, I'm looking at you) to provide government infrastructure jobs in poor areas, it's a win win. Poor people get jobs and aren't on the dole. The only losers in that scenario are the people who believe the government should be 18th century sized, and the Halliburtons who believe in big government as long as all the dollars flow through their executive suites.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
WakeandBake said:
the invisible hand would have dammed the river and powered Vegas if the .gov apparatchiks hadn't gone and done it to hold down the blacks
Click to expand...

You want the government to take people's earnings away from them to damn a river and to power Las Vegas? If you want to live in a flood plain or gamble by ridiculous neon light do it at your own expense. Don't force me to pay for it.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
You want the government to take people's earnings away from them to damn a river and to power Las Vegas? If you want to live in a flood plain or gamble by ridiculous neon light do it at your own expense. Don't force me to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Hey man the free market spoke and Vegas was built. I thought you got your rocks off on shit like that.
 
How?
 
I would posit that the free market couldn't ever manage a feat like the Hoover Dam. They've relied on government R&D for most modern innovations, have they not? The free market is good at mass producing and streamlining production and profiteering but require the helping hand of government to innovate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top