Dropouts shouldn't be eligible to recieve public assistance.

[Walter Powers]

I think that if you don't graduate high school, you should be ineligible for food stamps, Medicaid, social security, and welfare. If you don't graduate high school and take advantage of this almost entirely free school system taxpayers have funded, you don't deserve these programs.

So I propose that anybody who was born after, say 2002 (I'd "grandfather" this in to be fair to those who don't graduate thinking they can freeload) , should be ineligible for public assistance programs if they don't graduate high school unless they:

A) Have a mental disability that would significantly impair their ability to do well in school.
B) Earn a GED.
C) Are a recently immigrating REFUGEE of another country because of political instability / human rights violations.

It's just extremely irritating to me that I see all of these lazy kids around me in school who get Ds and Fs and whom I know I'll I'll have a gun held to my head to pay their bills when they get older. High school isn't all that hard! I've never met a person who is actually trying their hardest and getting these kind of grades. I think this policy would encourage people to graduate, which ultimately is best for themselves and society. Either that, or they won't be living on the backs of hardworking people. It'd also leave more public assistance money for people who really need and deserve it. What do you think?

[Manga]

For people in the ghetto, bad grades is the least of their problems. Not a good idea imo. I am against public assistance, but it is never too late to turn your life around. As long as we have it, and the person is trying to makes ends meet as best they can while being responsible, the past should not be an issue.

[Walter Powers]

For people in the ghetto, bad grades is the least of their problems. Not a good idea imo. I am against public assistance, but it is never too late to turn your life around. As long as we have it, and the person is trying to makes ends meet as best they can while being responsible, the past should not be an issue.

That's why I'd gradually implement it. It'd only apply to people who aren't yet in high school. As for people wanting to turn their life around, if they get a GED they'd be eligible for public assistance.

Glad to here you are against public assistance though :)

[Southside]

I think that if you don't graduate high school, you should be ineligible for food stamps, Medicaid, social security, and welfare. If you don't graduate high school and take advantage of this almost entirely free school system taxpayers have funded, you don't deserve these programs.

So I propose that anybody who was born after, say 2002 (I'd "grandfather" this in to be fair to those who don't graduate thinking they can freeload) , should be ineligible for public assistance programs if they don't graduate high school unless they:

A) Have a mental disability that would significantly impair their ability to do well in school.
B) Earn a GED.
C) Are a recently immigrating REFUGEE of another country because of political instability / human rights violations.

It's just extremely irritating to me that I see all of these lazy kids around me in school who get Ds and Fs and whom I know I'll I'll have a gun held to my head to pay their bills when they get older. High school isn't all that hard! I've never met a person who is actually trying their hardest and getting these kind of grades. I think this policy would encourage people to graduate, which ultimately is best for themselves and society. Either that, or they won't be living on the backs of hardworking people. It'd also leave more public assistance money for people who really need and deserve it. What do you think?

So what about that teenage mom who dropped out to take care of her child, shes ineligible in your opinion correct? I cant speak for the suburbs on this one but many people drop out here in the inner city due to lack of opprotunity after high school.

Even with a GED I bet half of those folks will still be relying on government assistance to make ends meet. Why does welfare pay more then minimum wage in some states? I say up the minimum wage...You arent going to be able to make it further than a loading dock or your local grocery store with a GED. Im pretty sure you'd agree you cant support a family on a GED education..

Why are you against public assistance?Your always touting how we are the most prosperous nation in the world and all that BS, why cant we afford to take care of our needing citizens?

Why are we giving billions to the well developed country of Israel when people are starving in our own country. What if that billion dollars was invested into America? Why have went spent billions on useless wars such as Iraq? These are the things that SHOULD irritate you more than anything.

"They got money for war but cant feed the poor"-Tupac Shakur

[TheBigUnit]

All youre asking for is more crime, kids who generally drop out today dont care about their future and most dropouts generally are on welfare, thus will displace a lot of people forcing them to the streets

[Origami]

I wouldn't say this is the solution.

But government assistance does need tighter restraints on who can receive it.

[CharlieHorse]

I'm almost failing highschool because of depression and being suicidal.
If I drop out because of that, and I can't receive support, than I will kill myself.

[Its Pretty]

Oh my god reading the first post made me smile and then I read the rest and I sort of vomit a little.
First things first, we need to address the root of the problem, and that is, a rapid decline of intelligence and other general human qualities in the population. This can be addressed with completely ethical measures such as realistic punishments including the return of the fabled death sentence and sterilizing criminals, taxing people of lesser value who engage in reproduction, and encouraging those of higher intelligence and value to reproduce. 'lesser value' being attributed to the individuals who cannot pass the increasingly simpler education system due to laziness, or much more frequently, stupidity. The former can be prevented with schooling programs specifically developed for children who are inclined not to preform to their natural ability. Another alarming problem is the growing rate of bad parents who neglect and abuse their children due to their own genetic shortcomings. Again, such problems can be prevented by not allowing those with such 'shortcomings' to achieve reproduction and spread their genes. Such is only damaging to the society. Something else can be said about criminality; it is caused by genes, and not by poverty.

[Harry Smith]

This isn't the solution at all, it will make problems about 20x worse. Your going to be literally pushing people to crime because they failed at school, your going to punish someone their whole life because they didn't get a certain number on a test.

It's amazing how you could consider taking away foodstamps from someone yet you would then complain about high crime rates?

Going to school isn't as simple as if your smart you'll do well is it? Everyone knows that

[Its Pretty]

Harry Smith, were you commenting on my post or the OPs? Be sure to clarify next time you post.

[Korashk]

This isn't the solution at all, it will make problems about 20x worse. Your going to be literally pushing people to crime because they failed at school, your going to punish someone their whole life because they didn't get a certain number on a test.

It's amazing how you could consider taking away foodstamps from someone yet you would then complain about high crime rates?

Going to school isn't as simple as if your smart you'll do well is it? Everyone knows that
Oh please. High school is almost literally one of the easiest things to do in America. You only fail to pass if you're lazy/unmotivated to do the work for some reason, or have an undiagnosed mental handicap. Showing up and trying is good enough to earn a passing grade 99% of the time.

Honestly, if you can't handle high school how is society at large supposed to expect you to do things that actually require effort?

[DerBear]

I think this would only lead to an increase in crime. What happens when people get desperate? They'll do whatever it takes to get what they need which means they will commit crime.

I think this is probably one of the most stupid ideas since Britain decided to implement the bedroom tax.

[RebelHeart]

I think you should look at why they drop out, if you really want them to have no more public assistance.

[TheBigUnit]

Heck they really need to reform high school education in all honesty

[Capto]

Oh what an absolutely fantastic non-radical idea! It's a fantastic idea to group a diverse educational demographic without taking into account individual circumstances!

[Adam17]

Oh my god reading the first post made me smile and then I read the rest and I sort of vomit a little.
First things first, we need to address the root of the problem, and that is, a rapid decline of intelligence and other general human qualities in the population. This can be addressed with completely ethical measures such as realistic punishments including the return of the fabled death sentence and sterilizing criminals, taxing people of lesser value who engage in reproduction, and encouraging those of higher intelligence and value to reproduce. 'lesser value' being attributed to the individuals who cannot pass the increasingly simpler education system due to laziness, or much more frequently, stupidity. The former can be prevented with schooling programs specifically developed for children who are inclined not to preform to their natural ability. Another alarming problem is the growing rate of bad parents who neglect and abuse their children due to their own genetic shortcomings. Again, such problems can be prevented by not allowing those with such 'shortcomings' to achieve reproduction and spread their genes. Such is only damaging to the society. Something else can be said about criminality; it is caused by genes, and not by poverty.
You got sick because you read a post talking about people who have have lives have more to worry about than school but you think this idea is fine. You think the idea that not letting people who you declare to be "lesser" have kids and taxing them if they do is ok.Being a criminal or your IQ has nothing to do with genes. Just because someones parents are criminals or are lazy dosent mean their kids will be. I am kind of worried about the kind of mind that would think up this plan.

[Its Pretty]

You got sick because you read a post talking about people who have have lives have more to worry about than school but you think this idea is fine. You think the idea that not letting people who you declare to be "lesser" have kids and taxing them if they do is ok.Being a criminal or your IQ has nothing to do with genes. Just because someones parents are criminals or are lazy dosent mean their kids will be. I am kind of worried about the kind of mind that would think up this plan.
Yes, people do have many other important things to worry about then school, but then, the education system is so broken and vain in our countries it would do it and our students much justice to simply abandon the current model and create a new system for education. Criminality and possessing a less than desirable I.Q. relies almost completely on genes, I.Q. being very, very stubborn. The idea of letting those of low quality die without reproduction is a wonderful idea and it burdens me why you believe otherwise. Two parents who's I.Q. is very low will have a very high chance of producing offspring with much less then desirable intelligence. Such a person is simply creating burdens for those around him and should not be. One could argue that taxing low quality parents for producing offspring is a terrible idea and shouldn't be because the taxes put extra strain on the parents. This is quite a silly idea. The parents should have realized that having a child would cause them such strain and shoul not have considered the idea, that being said, children who are being neglected, abused and sometimes even raped and tortured by their parents should be removed from the 'family' and shown the utmost care and love by others. The parents shown the utmost in justice afterwards.

[Capto]

to simply abandon the current model and create a new system for education.

Pointed that out for shits and giggles.

[Harry Smith]

Oh please. High school is almost literally one of the easiest things to do in America. You only fail to pass if you're lazy/unmotivated to do the work for some reason, or have an undiagnosed mental handicap. Showing up and trying is good enough to earn a passing grade 99% of the time.

Honestly, if you can't handle high school how is society at large supposed to expect you to do things that actually require effort?

So what if someone is say lazy when they're 16 you should punish them forthe next 50 years by pulling away their welfare? It's foolish.

One of my sisters roommates at her university 'failed' secondary school at the age of 16, she got kicked out for fighting, lived in a council house, however she was placed with foster parents when she was 17 and re-did her exams and now studies law at a Russel group uni, if she hadn't got that foster family she probably would of had a downwards spiral.

The OP's plan has more holes than a sieve

[Jean Poutine]

Oh my god reading the first post made me smile and then I read the rest and I sort of vomit a little.
First things first, we need to address the root of the problem, and that is, a rapid decline of intelligence and other general human qualities in the population. This can be addressed with completely ethical measures such as realistic punishments including the return of the fabled death sentence and sterilizing criminals, taxing people of lesser value who engage in reproduction, and encouraging those of higher intelligence and value to reproduce. 'lesser value' being attributed to the individuals who cannot pass the increasingly simpler education system due to laziness, or much more frequently, stupidity. The former can be prevented with schooling programs specifically developed for children who are inclined not to preform to their natural ability. Another alarming problem is the growing rate of bad parents who neglect and abuse their children due to their own genetic shortcomings. Again, such problems can be prevented by not allowing those with such 'shortcomings' to achieve reproduction and spread their genes. Such is only damaging to the society. Something else can be said about criminality; it is caused by genes, and not by poverty.

Yes, people do have many other important things to worry about then school, but then, the education system is so broken and vain in our countries it would do it and our students much justice to simply abandon the current model and create a new system for education. Criminality and possessing a less than desirable I.Q. relies almost completely on genes, I.Q. being very, very stubborn. The idea of letting those of low quality die without reproduction is a wonderful idea and it burdens me why you believe otherwise. Two parents who's I.Q. is very low will have a very high chance of producing offspring with much less then desirable intelligence. Such a person is simply creating burdens for those around him and should not be. One could argue that taxing low quality parents for producing offspring is a terrible idea and shouldn't be because the taxes put extra strain on the parents. This is quite a silly idea. The parents should have realized that having a child would cause them such strain and shoul not have considered the idea, that being said, children who are being neglected, abused and sometimes even raped and tortured by their parents should be removed from the 'family' and shown the utmost care and love by others. The parents shown the utmost in justice afterwards.

I'm just going to say that its "than", not "then", "whose", not "who's", don't split infinitives and use paragraphs because the self-righteous indignation and the irony it contains is just too much for my poor brain.

[Stronk Serb]

A bad idea.

[ids_happening]

Wait, so let me get this straight. People are offered public schools at the cost of taxpayers, and they choose not to go to these publicly provided schools, fail in life, and still want more from taxpayers?

[Taryn98]

I would do things a little different. I think if you receive government aid of any kind, you lose your right to vote in any election.

I understand that aid is beneficial to a lot of people, but too many people take advantage of the system and then continue to vote in politicians that continue to give handouts to those people. It's a rigged system. Most types of aid are designed to be temporary to help people get by in times of need. They are not meant to provide a continued way of life until death but a lot of people treat them as such.

As soon as the person gets back on their feet and can fully support themselves and their dependants, they again receive the right to vote again.

[Southside]

I would do things a little different. I think if you receive government aid of any kind, you lose your right to vote in any election.

I understand that aid is beneficial to a lot of people, but too many people take advantage of the system and then continue to vote in politicians that continue to give handouts to those people. It's a rigged system. Most types of aid are designed to be temporary to help people get by in times of need. They are not meant to provide a continued way of life until death but a lot of people treat them as such.

As soon as the person gets back on their feet and can fully support themselves and their dependants, they again receive the right to vote again.

So someones right to vote should be stripped because they fell on hard times? Please clarify..
I dont think you understand that WE pay into these different aid programs so its avaliable for OUR use when we become unemployed or we cant put food on the table.

I just find it hilarious how you Republicans are always complaining about taxpayer money going towards welfare and other aid programs, but you guys never bitch about all the money going to Israel or to war.

Some people never get back on their feet such as those in inner city areas or areas were employment is limited, maybe even due to a lack of education. They should be punished right?

Im usually not the one criticize others ideas, but this is truly one of the most fucked up ones I've seen in awhile.

[Harry Smith]

I would do things a little different. I think if you receive government aid of any kind, you lose your right to vote in any election.

I understand that aid is beneficial to a lot of people, but too many people take advantage of the system and then continue to vote in politicians that continue to give handouts to those people. It's a rigged system. Most types of aid are designed to be temporary to help people get by in times of need. They are not meant to provide a continued way of life until death but a lot of people treat them as such.

As soon as the person gets back on their feet and can fully support themselves and their dependants, they again receive the right to vote again.

That's just a republican wanting to win in 2016, it's like a democrat saying if you earn more than 50k you can't vote.

You can't take away someone's voting rights because they receive welfare. That's illegal, immoral and plain crazy

[Capto]

I think this policy would encourage people to graduate, which ultimately is best for themselves and society.

Yes, because an irreversible negative punishment posteriori for a relatively easily reversible life decision is definitely going to act as an impetus and catalyst for the advancement and improvement of the graduation rates for high school, which, as we all know so very well, has a massive and tremendous effect on the future career and life path for people.

I would do things a little different. I think if you receive government aid of any kind, you lose your right to vote in any election.


That's a foolish and unreasonable plan targeting a specific demographic and a specific problem that can be solved by less general methods.

[Taryn98]

Some people never get back on their feet such as those in inner city areas or areas were employment is limited, maybe even due to a lack of education. They should be punished right?

Im usually not the one criticize others ideas, but this is truly one of the most fucked up ones I've seen in awhile.

yes they should be punished, it's creating an incentive for them to get off aid

your idea that people should be given whatever they need for their entire life if necessary is the most fucked up idea I've heard

nobody owes anyone else ANYTHING!

[Taryn98]

That's just a republican wanting to win in 2016, it's like a democrat saying if you earn more than 50k you can't vote.

You can't take away someone's voting rights because they receive welfare. That's illegal, immoral and plain crazy

I like your idea so I'll add it to what I originally said but in a reasonable way,
if you didn't pay any federal income taxes (47% or Americans pay nothing), you also don't have the right to vote.

The idea that some people get welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and social security sometimes all at the same time, in many cases for years or life is crazy to me.

If you are getting something, you have to give something, and if you're not giving tax money, then no voting for you.

[Harry Smith]

I like your idea so I'll add it to what I originally said but in a reasonable way,
if you didn't pay any federal income taxes (47% or Americans pay nothing), you also don't have the right to vote.

The idea that some people get welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and social security sometimes all at the same time, in many cases for years or life is crazy to me.

If you are getting something, you have to give something, and if you're not giving tax money, then no voting for you.

So the the Amish don't have a right to vote? People pay tax every day when they buy products, I can vote at 18 in Britain, I don't need to a have a job in order to vote so I won't be paying direct taxes.

Firstly, some of those people who did not pay income tax still paid payroll taxes, for social security and Medicare, so that it was only 18.1% of households that did not pay any income or payroll taxes. Given that there are sales taxes, state property taxes and state income taxes these people are still paying some tax – at what point you are deemed to be taking personal responsibility is subjective.

[Southside]

yes they should be punished, it's creating an incentive for them to get off aid

your idea that people should be given whatever they need for their entire life if necessary is the most fucked up idea I've heard

nobody owes anyone else ANYTHING!

Are you aware of the fact that welfare pays more than a 8 dollar per hour job in FORTY US states? In 9 states, welfare pays more than a teacher salary! The fact that I can make more money sitting at home watching TV than working at a grocery store or a warehouse is disgusting..Then people like yourself wonder why a lot people are "getting off on the system", thats exactly why!

So you disagree that people should have a bit of a safety net after they lose their job or get injured? Dont give me the "they should have saved up" or "they should have prepared" BS either..

What if they are no jobs in the area they live in such as those who live in inner city areas? They shouldnt get any welfare in your opinion right?

Raise the minimum wage so people can actually feed their family! You cant even feed a family on minimum wage, thats why it's so many people on welfare right now!

Everyone pays some type of taxes in America, every time I buy a 99 cent bag of Lays Potato Chips and the total comes out to $1.01 Im paying taxes.

My source: http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Read this too sweetie.. http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/the_truth_about_taxes_just_about_everyone_pays_them/

[Walter Powers]

Oh my I never expected a response this big...I'll have a big response coming tonight.

[Taryn98]

Are you aware of the fact that welfare pays more than a 8 dollar per hour job in FORTY US states? In 9 states, welfare pays more than a teacher salary! The fact that I can make more money sitting at home watching TV than working at a grocery store or a warehouse is disgusting..Then people like yourself wonder why a lot people are "getting off on the system", thats exactly why!

So you disagree that people should have a bit of a safety net after they lose their job or get injured? Dont give me the "they should have saved up" or "they should have prepared" BS either..

What if they are no jobs in the area they live in such as those who live in inner city areas? They shouldnt get any welfare in your opinion right?

Raise the minimum wage so people can actually feed their family! You cant even feed a family on minimum wage, thats why it's so many people on welfare right now!

Everyone pays some type of taxes in America, every time I buy a 99 cent bag of Lays Potato Chips and the total comes out to $1.01 Im paying taxes.

My source: http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Read this too sweetie.. http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/the_truth_about_taxes_just_about_everyone_pays_them/

I don't have a problem with a safety net, I'm saying you have to sacrifice something for it (voting). And if you get off the safety net, you get that right back. Why is that so unfair?

There's a difference in types of taxes. Just because someone pays sales tax or payroll tax doesn't mean they are contributing to federal taxes which is where the food stamps, welfare, and other safety nets are paid for.

Even those who pay payroll tax (Social security/medicare), the average person born in the last 50 years will receive more dollars in benefits from it than what they pay into the system over their life.

Also, raising the minimum wage has a negative effect on everyone. When Mcdonald's has to pay their employees more money, what happens? They raise their prices to cover those added costs. All businesses do that, whether it's Walmart, Target, fast food or whereever. So the people in the lowest income bracket get more in wage, but turn around and pay higher prices for the daily products and services they need. Overall, there is no net benefit.

Minimum wage isn't really meant to give people a reasonable wage to raise a family on. At best it might be enough for an individual (no kids) to be just above poverty. That's why education and training is so important. People need to have more skills to work more demanding jobs that will in turn pay higher wages.

[teen.jpg]

So if someone doesn't or can't graduate high school, they can kiss their lives away. Nobody drops out because they're "lazy", so doing that would ruin people's lives.

[Capto]

yes they should be punished, it's creating an incentive for them to get off aid


Bwahahahaha!

Good one.

Negative or punitive incentives are a bad idea when it comes to legal matters like this.

But nice try! Really!

So if someone doesn't or can't graduate high school, they can kiss their lives away. Nobody drops out because they're "lazy", so doing that would ruin people's lives.

Precisely! It's an irreversible or hardly fought to reverse measure that is a solution to a 'problem' so to speak that is easily and quickly rectified.

[Adam17]

Yes, people do have many other important things to worry about then school, but then, the education system is so broken and vain in our countries it would do it and our students much justice to simply abandon the current model and create a new system for education. Criminality and possessing a less than desirable I.Q. relies almost completely on genes, I.Q. being very, very stubborn. The idea of letting those of low quality die without reproduction is a wonderful idea and it burdens me why you believe otherwise. Two parents who's I.Q. is very low will have a very high chance of producing offspring with much less then desirable intelligence. Such a person is simply creating burdens for those around him and should not be. One could argue that taxing low quality parents for producing offspring is a terrible idea and shouldn't be because the taxes put extra strain on the parents. This is quite a silly idea. The parents should have realized that having a child would cause them such strain and shoul not have considered the idea, that being said, children who are being neglected, abused and sometimes even raped and tortured by their parents should be removed from the 'family' and shown the utmost care and love by others. The parents shown the utmost in justice afterwards.
First as I said before not everyone grows up to be their parents. Secondly what you suggest is wrong in so many different levels. First you label people as below caring about simply because they arent as smart as some people which is profiling and above all else ignorant.the fact that you think a IQ number determines a persons worth is beyond insulting because many people who wold be considered average or below on a IQ test can and have accomplished form then these so called "geniuses".Look at a mason and a scientist, the mason works all day in the sun digging and laying block etc while the scientist can sit inside all day any create some theory about lord knows what l(btw not hating on scientists) but in all reality who benefited the most people, the average mason or the smart scientist.

[Southside]

I don't have a problem with a safety net, I'm saying you have to sacrifice something for it (voting). And if you get off the safety net, you get that right back. Why is that so unfair?

There's a difference in types of taxes. Just because someone pays sales tax or payroll tax doesn't mean they are contributing to federal taxes which is where the food stamps, welfare, and other safety nets are paid for.

Even those who pay payroll tax (Social security/medicare), the average person born in the last 50 years will receive more dollars in benefits from it than what they pay into the system over their life.

Also, raising the minimum wage has a negative effect on everyone. When Mcdonald's has to pay their employees more money, what happens? They raise their prices to cover those added costs. All businesses do that, whether it's Walmart, Target, fast food or whereever. So the people in the lowest income bracket get more in wage, but turn around and pay higher prices for the daily products and services they need. Overall, there is no net benefit.

Minimum wage isn't really meant to give people a reasonable wage to raise a family on. At best it might be enough for an individual (no kids) to be just above poverty. That's why education and training is so important. People need to have more skills to work more demanding jobs that will in turn pay higher wages.

It's so unfair because I have a right to vote as a US citizen and no one should be able to strip that from me. Do you know that 46 million people would lose the right to vote under your little plan? That's like everyone in Spain(47 million people) losing the right to vote for their leaders. We wouldnt even be a democracy at that point. Considering 38% of the Black population are on welfare, I doubt they'd be too happy about your plan after all they faught for and sacrificed to earn the right to vote. I think your just biased towards a certain demographic of people...

Your punishing people for something they have no control over. I agree with you that it's alot of abuse in the welfare system but I bet for every person who abused the system its 10 or 15 who are truly on hard times. A person who got laid off from their factory job or a person who got injured on the job should be punished in your opinion correct?

Not everyone is sitting in a cubicle in a 80 floor office building. You probably dont see it, but minimum wage jobs are a massive part of our workforce. It's those guys picking lettuce out in the California sun and the guy packing boxes at a warehouse who really make this country run.

Not everyone is going to be a engineer or accoutant, we still need guys out in the field and doing physical labor to make America run. Raising minimum wage by 2 or 3 dollars wouldnt do much harm, wouldnt that mean more tax revenue? That's more money for people to spend, thus helping the economy.

Take a look at some of the stats will you? http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm

[Walter Powers]

Okay this got a much bigger response then I was expecting, so I'm not gonna quote everybody.

Many of you raised the point that we really would need to assess whether a person is researching of public assistance on an individual basis, and we all know the government would totally fail to do that well. I was intending for this to be a compromise between keeping these programs and ridding them entirely, but thinking about it, you are right. That's way to complicated.

Instead of creating a giant government to determine who tried to graduate and who didn't, we just need to phase out most government programs entirely for everybody, dropouts and college grads alike. Food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, Unemployment Benefits, scrap it all. Instead, we should turn to privately funded charities run by people who actually care about helping people in need, not collecting a salary. And they won't be spending money that doesn't exist, unlike the federal government. For things like unemployment insurance, that can be privately purchased. As always, the free market will work it's magic.

[Southside]

Okay this got a much bigger response then I was expecting, so I'm not gonna quote everybody.

Many of you raised the point that we really would need to assess whether a person is researching of public assistance on an individual basis, and we all know the government would totally fail to do that well. I was intending for this to be a compromise between keeping these programs and ridding them entirely, but thinking about it, you are right. That's way to complicated.

Instead of creating a giant government to determine who tried to graduate and who didn't, we just need to phase out most government programs entirely for everybody, dropouts and college grads alike. Food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, Unemployment Benefits, scrap it all. Instead, we should turn to privately funded charities run by people who actually care about helping people in need, not collecting a salary. And they won't be spending money that doesn't exist, unlike the federal government. For things like unemployment insurance, that can be privately purchased. As always, the free market will work it's magic.


America has to many fucking people to have a "charity" funded healthcare system. I could see if we only had a few million people, then it actually wouldnt be a bad idea. We have 46 million on food stamps, 5 Million on unemployment benefits, not even if all the charities in America combined formed one big privately funded organization would they be able to manage that.Even the federal government has a hard time managing welfare and other government assistance programs.

I know a idea! We should have a privately funded charity to give 30 billion dollars annually to Israel! Your probably sick of me bringing that up, but please tell me, do you think its OK to give billions to a well developed country when people are struggling right in our own nation?

You keep saying lower taxes, the average American isnt going to run out to the nearest Salvation Army center or go to the Red Cross site to donate a shit ton of money needed to keep your privately funded charity running. Yes, America has good people but the average American isnt going to be doing that, its common sense. People would be spending money on home appliances, paying down debts, saving for their childrens college tuition, buying new cars, probably even going on vacations. Lower taxes means people are going to keep more money in their pockets..

Like I've say in the first paragraph, America has too many people for a privately funded healthcare system to work. Universal Healthcare is working in countless other countries, you've saw testimonies right here on VT how the system over in the UK saved someones life. Healthcare is a Human right that shouldnt be gambled on in some "charity" funded system.

Your whole idea has too many holes in it, and under it many of people would starve, you'd probably even have riots on your hands. Most Americans wouldnt give because they'd be looking for the millionaires to support these charities..

Whats wrong with a system that EVERYBODY pays into? Most of everyone pays taxes: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/the_truth_about_taxes_just_about_everyone_pays_them/

[Capto]

Okay this got a much bigger response then I was expecting, so I'm not gonna quote everybody.

Many of you raised the point that we really would need to assess whether a person is researching of public assistance on an individual basis, and we all know the government would totally fail to do that well. I was intending for this to be a compromise between keeping these programs and ridding them entirely, but thinking about it, you are right. That's way to complicated.

Instead of creating a giant government to determine who tried to graduate and who didn't, we just need to phase out most government programs entirely for everybody, dropouts and college grads alike. Food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, Unemployment Benefits, scrap it all. Instead, we should turn to privately funded charities run by people who actually care about helping people in need, not collecting a salary. And they won't be spending money that doesn't exist, unlike the federal government. For things like unemployment insurance, that can be privately purchased. As always, the free market will work it's magic.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Good one.

That'll definitely work. For suuuuuuuuuuure.

Your charity bullshit is a fantasy, and only that. It won't work at all. Private providing of insurance and other remaining welfare and benefit values are also a bad idea, as is common knowledge. Government funding is flawed, but it's the best way to go. Your naïveté prevents you from seeing the fatal and downright obvious flaw with charities.

[Jean Poutine]

I would do things a little different. I think if you receive government aid of any kind, you lose your right to vote in any election.

I understand that aid is beneficial to a lot of people, but too many people take advantage of the system and then continue to vote in politicians that continue to give handouts to those people. It's a rigged system. Most types of aid are designed to be temporary to help people get by in times of need. They are not meant to provide a continued way of life until death but a lot of people treat them as such.

As soon as the person gets back on their feet and can fully support themselves and their dependants, they again receive the right to vote again.

You gotta be high. It's a well known fact that a lot of poor people actually vote Republican.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us&_r=0

Look at this. Most of the biggest recipients of welfare and federal transfers are in staunchly Republican states, even counties.

Your idea would about throw us back to Greek and Roman times where only wealthy landowners had the right to vote. This isn't a democracy, it's an oligarchy. So much for "freedom".

Are you aware of the fact that welfare pays more than a 8 dollar per hour job in FORTY US states? In 9 states, welfare pays more than a teacher salary! The fact that I can make more money sitting at home watching TV than working at a grocery store or a warehouse is disgusting..Then people like yourself wonder why a lot people are "getting off on the system", thats exactly why!

Then your system is fucked up.

Over here in Quebec, the biggest and most well-developed welfare state in North America, welfare checks are a little less than 600$/month. That gets cut by a quarter if you don't find a job in the next 6 months. My fucking bachelor appartment is 525$/month rent. How does one live on welfare exactly?

People can't live on welfare in either America or here. People can't live on 8$/hour anymore either now that the prices of everything have risen so significantly. People "living on welfare" often live on something else too, be it black market dealings like drugs or under the table jobs.

Also, raising the minimum wage has a negative effect on everyone. When Mcdonald's has to pay their employees more money, what happens? They raise their prices to cover those added costs. All businesses do that, whether it's Walmart, Target, fast food or whereever. So the people in the lowest income bracket get more in wage, but turn around and pay higher prices for the daily products and services they need. Overall, there is no net benefit.

Minimum wage isn't really meant to give people a reasonable wage to raise a family on. At best it might be enough for an individual (no kids) to be just above poverty. That's why education and training is so important. People need to have more skills to work more demanding jobs that will in turn pay higher wages.

That's why the price of necessities should be fixed by the government. Milk, for example, has a fixed minimum and maximum price here.

Also if corporations had any sort of public duty (which they should damn well have), they'll suck up the hit to their huge profit margins and move the fuck on. Minimum wage in Quebec is close to 11$/hour (up from 9$) and the prices haven't risen substantially, nor has any company closed because they couldn't afford the new wages.

Consider that if everyone had bachelor's degrees, nobody would want to mop the floor at McDo for a paltry living. They'll get fed up and go elsewhere. An overeducated population is almost as bad as an undereducated one.

Instead of creating a giant government to determine who tried to graduate and who didn't, we just need to phase out most government programs entirely for everybody, dropouts and college grads alike. Food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, Unemployment Benefits, scrap it all. Instead, we should turn to privately funded charities run by people who actually care about helping people in need, not collecting a salary. And they won't be spending money that doesn't exist, unlike the federal government. For things like unemployment insurance, that can be privately purchased. As always, the free market will work it's magic.

You are incredibly daft.

Charities already have enough problems feeding all the hobos in town and now you're going to ship them health, welfare and unemployment? Can I get your dealer's number? I want what you're smoking, it gotta be incredibly good.

Plus, do you know what the people running the charities do with the money? They pay themselves huge salaries.

http://www.lesaffaires.com/secteurs-d-activite/general/philanthropie--grandes-causes-gros-salaires/496648 (in French)

Centraide (a big, big philanthropy) pays its director close to 220k/year. People will stay people. If you lower taxes, they're going to keep it in their pocket. Where I work, the government wants to abolish the Rand formula (where the employer directly takes an union's cotisation off your paycheck) making cotisations to the union optional, yet being afforded the same level of protection. A lot of people at the meeting said "nice! I'm going to have more money in my pocket now." If the union runs out of money, who the fuck is going to defend the selfish employee not paying his dues? The Holy Spirit? Same thing with charities. People won't give more if you give them more money. A tiny minority will, but most are going to turn around and buy 3 plasma TVs or something.

Fucking Tea Party man.

[Walter Powers]

America has to many fucking people to have a "charity" funded healthcare system. I could see if we only had a few million people, then it actually wouldnt be a bad idea. We have 46 million on food stamps, 5 Million on unemployment benefits, not even if all the charities in America combined formed one big privately funded organization would they be able to manage that.Even the federal government has a hard time managing welfare and other government assistance programs.

I know a idea! We should have a privately funded charity to give 30 billion dollars annually to Israel! Your probably sick of me bringing that up, but please tell me, do you think its OK to give billions to a well developed country when people are struggling right in our own nation?

You keep saying lower taxes, the average American isnt going to run out to the nearest Salvation Army center or go to the Red Cross site to donate a shit ton of money needed to keep your privately funded charity running. Yes, America has good people but the average American isnt going to be doing that, its common sense. People would be spending money on home appliances, paying down debts, saving for their childrens college tuition, buying new cars, probably even going on vacations. Lower taxes means people are going to keep more money in their pockets..

Like I've say in the first paragraph, America has too many people for a privately funded healthcare system to work. Universal Healthcare is working in countless other countries, you've saw testimonies right here on VT how the system over in the UK saved someones life. Healthcare is a Human right that shouldnt be gambled on in some "charity" funded system.

Your whole idea has too many holes in it, and under it many of people would starve, you'd probably even have riots on your hands. Most Americans wouldnt give because they'd be looking for the millionaires to support these charities..

Whats wrong with a system that EVERYBODY pays into? Most of everyone pays taxes: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/the_truth_about_taxes_just_about_everyone_pays_them/

America has to many fucking people to have a "charity" funded healthcare system

America may have a lot of people, but that also means we have a lot of people who will potentially donate. We have by far the most billionaires and multimillionaires in the world.

We have 46 million on food stamps, 5 Million on unemployment benefits, not even if all the charities in America combined formed one big privately funded organization would they be able to manage that

True, and a large amount of those people on food stamps and unemployment benefits don't really deserve it. By privatizing the system, more money will go to people who really need and deserve it and less to thugs and frauds. This is because a charity can use discretion, whereas the government really can't.

I know a idea! We should have a privately funded charity to give 30 billion dollars annually to Israel! Your probably sick of me bringing that up, but please tell me, do you think its OK to give billions to a well developed country when people are struggling right in our own nation?

First, I'll just point out that your average American is better off then your average Israeli. I have to correct that fact. HOWEVER, I am now opposed to all foreign aid, whether it be to Egypt or to Israel. But that's a subject for another thread.

You keep saying lower taxes, the average American isnt going to run out to the nearest Salvation Army center or go to the Red Cross site to donate a shit ton of money needed to keep your privately funded charity running. Yes, America has good people but the average American isnt going to be doing that, its common sense. People would be spending money on home appliances, paying down debts, saving for their childrens college tuition, buying new cars, probably even going on vacations. Lower taxes means people are going to keep more money in their pockets..

Well, the Democrats in Hollywood probably won't be doing much of the giving, you have a point there. I believe enough in other people, however, that they'd donate. If you really think they wouldn't, then they wouldn't donate. And if they don't, what do you know, they've just given some poor fellow in Detroit a job because they've bought a new car with the money. Or they're now able to send they're kid to college and we have another engineer in America. Regardless, the effects of lowering taxes would be good.

Like I've say in the first paragraph, America has too many people for a privately funded healthcare system to work. Universal Healthcare is working in countless other countries, you've saw testimonies right here on VT how the system over in the UK saved someones life. Healthcare is a Human right that shouldnt be gambled on in some "charity" funded system.

Are you referring to Harry? I'm still not clear on how socialized medicine saved his life, maybe saved his families finances but it's not like here in the US we won't do life saving surgery unless you can pay for it. From what he's said, he'd certainly still be alive if he was American.

My system wouldn't be just charity, remember. Most of all people would get private insurance, and it'd work out so that they're be charities to help people pay for insurance that can't afford it.

The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours? It's not like we can just tax the rich and pay for these things; even if we took ever penny everybody earned over $250k it wouldn't cover the deficit for one year.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Good one.

That'll definitely work. For suuuuuuuuuuure.

Your charity bullshit is a fantasy, and only that. It won't work at all. Private providing of insurance and other remaining welfare and benefit values are also a bad idea, as is common knowledge. Government funding is flawed, but it's the best way to go. Your naïveté prevents you from seeing the fatal and downright obvious flaw with charities.

All you've done here is say my ideas won't work. WHY? And I'll tell you the same thing I said to southside:

The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours?

You gotta be high. It's a well known fact that a lot of poor people actually vote Republican.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us&_r=0

Look at this. Most of the biggest recipients of welfare and federal transfers are in staunchly Republican states, even counties.

Your idea would about throw us back to Greek and Roman times where only wealthy landowners had the right to vote. This isn't a democracy, it's an oligarchy. So much for "freedom".



Then your system is fucked up.

Over here in Quebec, the biggest and most well-developed welfare state in North America, welfare checks are a little less than 600$/month. That gets cut by a quarter if you don't find a job in the next 6 months. My fucking bachelor appartment is 525$/month rent. How does one live on welfare exactly?

People can't live on welfare in either America or here. People can't live on 8$/hour anymore either now that the prices of everything have risen so significantly. People "living on welfare" often live on something else too, be it black market dealings like drugs or under the table jobs.



That's why the price of necessities should be fixed by the government. Milk, for example, has a fixed minimum and maximum price here.

Also if corporations had any sort of public duty (which they should damn well have), they'll suck up the hit to their huge profit margins and move the fuck on. Minimum wage in Quebec is close to 11$/hour (up from 9$) and the prices haven't risen substantially, nor has any company closed because they couldn't afford the new wages.

Consider that if everyone had bachelor's degrees, nobody would want to mop the floor at McDo for a paltry living. They'll get fed up and go elsewhere. An overeducated population is almost as bad as an undereducated one.



You are incredibly daft.

Charities already have enough problems feeding all the hobos in town and now you're going to ship them health, welfare and unemployment? Can I get your dealer's number? I want what you're smoking, it gotta be incredibly good.

Plus, do you know what the people running the charities do with the money? They pay themselves huge salaries.

http://www.lesaffaires.com/secteurs-d-activite/general/philanthropie--grandes-causes-gros-salaires/496648 (in French)

Centraide (a big, big philanthropy) pays its director close to 220k/year. People will stay people. If you lower taxes, they're going to keep it in their pocket. Where I work, the government wants to abolish the Rand formula (where the employer directly takes an union's cotisation off your paycheck) making cotisations to the union optional, yet being afforded the same level of protection. A lot of people at the meeting said "nice! I'm going to have more money in my pocket now." If the union runs out of money, who the fuck is going to defend the selfish employee not paying his dues? The Holy Spirit? Same thing with charities. People won't give more if you give them more money. A tiny minority will, but most are going to turn around and buy 3 plasma TVs or something.

Fucking Tea Party man.

Centraide (a big, big philanthropy) pays its director close to 220k/year.

I'm sure the director of food stamps makes at least six figures, too. If your in charge of a lot of people you deserve a bigger paycheck.

The great thing about charity though is that you have a choice on who gets your money. If you feel that the director of Centraid is being abusive with paying themselves that much, you can donate to the Salvation Army instead! Whereas if you feel that the food stamp director is abusing your tax money, tough luck, they're going to keep abusing your tax money and there's nothing you can do about it. I know choice and freedom is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but ultimately it leads to more transparency and efficiency.

Where I work, the government wants to abolish the Rand formula (where the employer directly takes an union's cotisation off your paycheck) making cotisations to the union optional, yet being afforded the same level of protection. A lot of people at the meeting said "nice! I'm going to have more money in my pocket now." If the union runs out of money, who the fuck is going to defend the selfish employee not paying his dues? The Holy Spirit.

I'd be happy if I was your coworkers, too. I prefer not to be paid by the number wrinkles on my face but by the quality of my work. And a union usually advocates the wrinkles on face policy. And you shouldn't have to pay into an organization you don't support. And if the union does go broke, so what? If your employer doesn't pay you fairly, get a new job. That's the beauty of the free market.

And I'll say again: The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours?

[britishboy]

they shouldnt be, they dropped out and fucked up their life, why should we pay for it?

[Rayquaza]

Yes, people do have many other important things to worry about then school, but then, the education system is so broken and vain in our countries it would do it and our students much justice to simply abandon the current model and create a new system for education. Criminality and possessing a less than desirable I.Q. relies almost completely on genes, I.Q. being very, very stubborn. The idea of letting those of low quality die without reproduction is a wonderful idea and it burdens me why you believe otherwise. Two parents who's I.Q. is very low will have a very high chance of producing offspring with much less then desirable intelligence. Such a person is simply creating burdens for those around him and should not be. One could argue that taxing low quality parents for producing offspring is a terrible idea and shouldn't be because the taxes put extra strain on the parents. This is quite a silly idea. The parents should have realized that having a child would cause them such strain and shoul not have considered the idea, that being said, children who are being neglected, abused and sometimes even raped and tortured by their parents should be removed from the 'family' and shown the utmost care and love by others. The parents shown the utmost in justice afterwards.

I hate the way people use I.Q. as a means for justifying intelligence. I.Q. says absolutely nothing. I've never liked I.Q. because my I.Q. is supposedly in the top 2% but I'm not at all that intelligent as it makes out. Someone with a low I.Q. may still be very talented in something. It's ridiculous that you use I.Q. as some sort of barrier when it really isn't. Everyone is different, I.Q. says absolutely nothing about a person whatsoever.

[comical]

they shouldnt be, they dropped out and fucked up their life, why should we pay for it?

When I first read the thread title that's what first came to my mind.. then I read how crazy it sounded. We don't know the circumstances that that student dropped out on, so like someone on page 1 said, why should we punish them for the rest of their lives? It has been proven that poverty = violence. If opportunities are already at a minimum for that person, blocking their welfare would just be making them angry.

I do understand the OP's point in why he thinks this would be good or logical, but we should try to put ourselves in the shoes of who this would be affecting.

[Southside]

they shouldnt be, they dropped out and fucked up their life, why should we pay for it?

Dont be to quick tooverlook personal circumstances, not everyone who drops out is a lazy bum.

America may have a lot of people, but that also means we have a lot of people who will potentially donate. We have by far the most billionaires and multimillionaires in the world.



True, and a large amount of those people on food stamps and unemployment benefits don't really deserve it. By privatizing the system, more money will go to people who really need and deserve it and less to thugs and frauds. This is because a charity can use discretion, whereas the government really can't.



First, I'll just point out that your average American is better off then your average Israeli. I have to correct that fact. HOWEVER, I am now opposed to all foreign aid, whether it be to Egypt or to Israel. But that's a subject for another thread.

Treu

Well, the Democrats in Hollywood probably won't be doing much of the giving, you have a point there. I believe enough in other people, however, that they'd donate. If you really think they wouldn't, then they wouldn't donate. And if they don't, what do you know, they've just given some poor fellow in Detroit a job because they've bought a new car with the money. Or they're now able to send they're kid to college and we have another engineer in America. Regardless, the effects of lowering taxes would be good.



Are you referring to Harry? I'm still not clear on how socialized medicine saved his life, maybe saved his families finances but it's not like here in the US we won't do life saving surgery unless you can pay for it. From what he's said, he'd certainly still be alive if he was American.

My system wouldn't be just charity, remember. Most of all people would get private insurance, and it'd work out so that they're be charities to help people pay for insurance that can't afford it.

The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours? It's not like we can just tax the rich and pay for these things; even if we took ever penny everybody earned over $250k it wouldn't cover the deficit for one year.



All you've done here is say my ideas won't work. WHY? And I'll tell you the same thing I said to southside:

The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours?





I'm sure the director of food stamps makes at least six figures, too. If your in charge of a lot of people you deserve a bigger paycheck.

The great thing about charity though is that you have a choice on who gets your money. If you feel that the director of Centraid is being abusive with paying themselves that much, you can donate to the Salvation Army instead! Whereas if you feel that the food stamp director is abusing your tax money, tough luck, they're going to keep abusing your tax money and there's nothing you can do about it. I know choice and freedom is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but ultimately it leads to more transparency and efficiency.



I'd be happy if I was your coworkers, too. I prefer not to be paid by the number wrinkles on my face but by the quality of my work. And a union usually advocates the wrinkles on face policy. And you shouldn't have to pay into an organization you don't support. And if the union does go broke, so what? If your employer doesn't pay you fairly, get a new job. That's the beauty of the free market.

And I'll say again: The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours?

You live in a fantasy world my friend, only if it was that simple to quit a job and instantly find another one...

I'm not saying no one would give, I'm saying not enough would give and you'd have to rely on a small minority of people to support MILLIONS of people. You'd truly have riots and people starving, charities right now have problems feeding the homeless man on the corner. What makes you think they can feed a household of 4 or 5 people?The average American household making below 60k isnt going be giving most of the time, thats the truth. Cities would be burning under your plan...

I just dont know why you hate on something that MOST people pay into, because most people who work pay some type of federal taxes. Maybe if we cut defense spending we'd have sustainable spending, but I know you Republicans always want America to be some type of world police. Universal Healthcare is working in other countries, what makes you think a tax payer funded healtcare system that anybody could use would fail right here in America?

I do agree with you that we need to cut down on who we give welfare checks to, more background checks and better income checks. You shouldnt be driving a Escalade or texting on a Iphone when your on welfare..

[Stronk Serb]

America may have a lot of people, but that also means we have a lot of people who will potentially donate. We have by far the most billionaires and multimillionaires in the world.

How do you know people in need will get the money donated? And AT LEAST half of the people wouldn't donate.

True, and a large amount of those people on food stamps and unemployment benefits don't really deserve it. By privatizing the system, more money will go to people who really need and deserve it and less to thugs and frauds. This is because a charity can use discretion, whereas the government really can't.

People wouldn't care about charities. A small part would, but a lot wouldn't

First, I'll just point out that your average American is better off then your average Israeli. I have to correct that fact. HOWEVER, I am now opposed to all foreign aid, whether it be to Egypt or to Israel. But that's a subject for another thread.

How do we know people would get the money? And yeah, cut the foreign aid to Israel and Egypt

Well, the Democrats in Hollywood probably won't be doing much of the giving, you have a point there. I believe enough in other people, however, that they'd donate. If you really think they wouldn't, then they wouldn't donate. And if they don't, what do you know, they've just given some poor fellow in Detroit a job because they've bought a new car with the money. Or they're now able to send they're kid to college and we have another engineer in America. Regardless, the effects of lowering taxes would be good.

It would. But charities would not prosper on that. Even all merged would have problems feeding the poor, let alone paying the health bills.

Are you referring to Harry? I'm still not clear on how socialized medicine saved his life, maybe saved his families finances but it's not like here in the US we won't do life saving surgery unless you can pay for it. From what he's said, he'd certainly still be alive if he was American.

Universal healthcare saved me, no matter how flawed it is in Serbia. I was once burning up with fever (41-42 degrees Celsius, very dangerous), I went to the clinic and they helped me, a lot. If I would have to pay for it, my family would go bankrupt and I would live on the street and maybe die out of starvation/cold/disease or dangers of living on the street.

My system wouldn't be just charity, remember. Most of all people would get private insurance, and it'd work out so that they're be charities to help people pay for insurance that can't afford it.

Universal healthcare. The only answer. You expect people would donate, which is not likely. What is wrong with universal healthcare? Just because socialist countries used it? So? It benefited the whole population, and still is, for example the UK, France. I can say that it benefits the people in Serbia also.

The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours? It's not like we can just tax the rich and pay for these things; even if we took ever penny everybody earned over $250k it wouldn't cover the deficit for one year.

Cut defense. Nobody asked you to be the world's police.

All you've done here is say my ideas won't work. WHY? And I'll tell you the same thing I said to southside:

The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours?


Cut defense. You don't need to wage wars in places where even the people you 'freed' hate you.


I'm sure the director of food stamps makes at least six figures, too. If your in charge of a lot of people you deserve a bigger paycheck.

The great thing about charity though is that you have a choice on who gets your money. If you feel that the director of Centraid is being abusive with paying themselves that much, you can donate to the Salvation Army instead! Whereas if you feel that the food stamp director is abusing your tax money, tough luck, they're going to keep abusing your tax money and there's nothing you can do about it. I know choice and freedom is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but ultimately it leads to more transparency and efficiency.

Who knows where the charity money is going. It might not even go to the poor people. The government should do more background checks, and use welfare programs to help people who work, but are struggling, not feed people and let them do nothing. If someone lost a job, he should have a time limit to get a job if any new places open.

I'd be happy if I was your coworkers, too. I prefer not to be paid by the number wrinkles on my face but by the quality of my work. And a union usually advocates the wrinkles on face policy. And you shouldn't have to pay into an organization you don't support. And if the union does go broke, so what? If your employer doesn't pay you fairly, get a new job. That's the beauty of the free market.

And the beauty is that many small business owners went bankrupt because of it.

And I'll say again: The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours?

For the billionth time, cut defense. Focus on a defensive army, not an offensive one.

they shouldnt be, they dropped out and fucked up their life, why should we pay for it?

If they are trying to make a living, help them.

[Harry Smith]

they shouldnt be, they dropped out and fucked up their life, why should we pay for it?

Wow. Fucked up their life? That's pretty silly considering many rich and famous people have left school without any A-levels or GSCE's, you can't remove someones benefits based on intelligence, it's a system to help everyone in the country not one group.

What would happen if you got hit by a car tomorrow and paralyzed from the neck down, that happens to teen's every year- they don't have a chance to finish school

[Jean Poutine]

I'm sure the director of food stamps makes at least six figures, too. If your in charge of a lot of people you deserve a bigger paycheck.

Aha, but that's the norm in the government. It isn't a charity, so that's not an excuse.

You say that charity directors actually care and are not in it for the paycheck, I showed you the errors of your ways. Maybe both of them care only about themselves and their lined pockets, so what? All it means is that charity is not a better option, and given its logistical constraints, is actually much worse.

The great thing about charity though is that you have a choice on who gets your money. If you feel that the director of Centraid is being abusive with paying themselves that much, you can donate to the Salvation Army instead! Whereas if you feel that the food stamp director is abusing your tax money, tough luck, they're going to keep abusing your tax money and there's nothing you can do about it. I know choice and freedom is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but ultimately it leads to more transparency and efficiency.

The article I linked you analyses pretty much every major charity. They're all paying themselves huge salaries. It's even worse in America.

I don't remember the name, but I do know the administrator of a philanthropy in New York pockets 1,6 million a year.

I'd be happy if I was your coworkers, too. I prefer not to be paid by the number wrinkles on my face but by the quality of my work. And a union usually advocates the wrinkles on face policy. And you shouldn't have to pay into an organization you don't support. And if the union does go broke, so what? If your employer doesn't pay you fairly, get a new job. That's the beauty of the free market.

You have a heavily skewed view of unions. We all have quotas and performance evaluations to go through, and if you're not up to snuff, you're fired, and our union would be 100% behind that decision (as it has been). An union's goal is to protect the workers. If you have a lazy worker shipping off his work to the other workers, making their job harder, wouldn't you say it is in the interest of the majority of the workers there to fire the person?

Okay, you shouldn't have to pay in an organisation you don't support, and you don't. You can replace an union with another and even dissolve it, you know? As for choosing to not pay, that is stupid. It's merely a tactic to strangle unions into submission by restricting their funding, manipulating self-serving idiots into not paying, especially if you are still protected. Let's say that if you don't pay, you don't get protection. Then what is the point of an union? The employer will simply hire people who don't want to support the union, blast through the contract negotiated with said union and offer the new workers much reduced pay and benefits. In time, the same thing will happen : union's gone.

As much as people hate them, they are necessary, or do you want to go back to the Industrial Age where employers paid everybody peanuts for 100 hours weeks?

And I'll say again: The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours?

Stop playing America World Police, stop shipping off weapons and money to Israel by the boatload, stop running huge budget deficits every year, stop bailing out huge conglomerates (if the hand of magic Adam Smith believes in wants it gone, then shouldn't it be gone in the interest of the free market?), cut the Wall Street shenanigans creating bubbles that burst into recessions not too long after, cut defense to reasonable levels, need I go on?

[Edawg]

Usually I tend to stay away from theses topics, because I know my view will not be popular, but in honor of Helen Thomas, I am going to give it all I got, no regrets and I am not gonna care about anybody's opinion.
If you drop out of high school, that is your own fault. Don't expect to be the next Bill Gates either! High Schools give students countless opportunities to try to turn their grades around, so not being able to pass is in my opinion, unacceptable. Pretty much impossible if you actually try. I had a cousin who was failing and was told he couldn't graduate, however his teachers said that if he did some extra things and stayed after and did good on this & that, he could pass. HE DIDN"T WANT TO TRY SO HE DROPPED OUT! Thats his own fault. America shouldn't have to pay for people who are too lazy to try!!! You shouldn't recieve public assistance because you decided that you weren't going to finish high school. Now if you are unable to finish high school, because of an injury or something, then you should get help. BUT WE AREN"T TALKING ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE! We are talking about the lazy ones who won't (READ IT "WON'T") get off their butts and make a paycheck, and expect to get government support! The only type of welfare that I can actually approve is for theses people to do services like build a park or clean roads, and get paid for like 8 months while they are looking for a job. The government turns these people into slaves of welfare by giving them food stamps and making their lives perfect and they just sit around, while the rest of this nation works their butts off to support them

[Harry Smith]

Usually I tend to stay away from theses topics, because I know my view will not be popular, but in honor of Helen Thomas, I am going to give it all I got, no regrets and I am not gonna care about anybody's opinion.
If you drop out of high school, that is your own fault. Don't expect to be the next Bill Gates either! High Schools give students countless opportunities to try to turn their grades around, so not being able to pass is in my opinion, unacceptable. Pretty much impossible if you actually try. I had a cousin who was failing and was told he couldn't graduate, however his teachers said that if he did some extra things and stayed after and did good on this & that, he could pass. HE DIDN"T WANT TO TRY SO HE DROPPED OUT! Thats his own fault. America shouldn't have to pay for people who are too lazy to try!!! You shouldn't recieve public assistance because you decided that you weren't going to finish high school. Now if you are unable to finish high school, because of an injury or something, then you should get help. BUT WE AREN"T TALKING ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE! We are talking about the lazy ones who won't (READ IT "WON'T") get off their butts and make a paycheck, and expect to get government support! The only type of welfare that I can actually approve is for theses people to do services like build a park or clean roads, and get paid for like 8 months while they are looking for a job. The government turns these people into slaves of welfare by giving them food stamps and making their lives perfect and they just sit around, while the rest of this nation works their butts off to support them

It's not the job of Welfare or government to be objective. Republicans always argue against bureaucracy and large government however enforcing this would simply need millions of dollar.

Welfare is designed to protect people who simply can't afford to live within their needs, it provides housing, food and many other human rights.

I also disagree that it should be based on education, that means you'll be punishing someone for say 50 years of their life based on actions when they were 16

[Southside]

The only type of welfare that I can actually approve is for theses people to do services like build a park or clean roads, and get paid for like 8 months while they are looking for a job. The government turns these people into slaves of welfare by giving them food stamps and making their lives perfect and they just sit around, while the rest of this nation works their butts off to support them

Are you implying that everyone on welfare is lazy and sits around?

[britishboy]

It's not the job of Welfare or government to be objective. Republicans always argue against bureaucracy and large government however enforcing this would simply need millions of dollar.

Welfare is designed to protect people who simply can't afford to live within their needs, it provides housing, food and many other human rights.

I also disagree that it should be based on education, that means you'll be punishing someone for say 50 years of their life based on actions when they were 16

why should I pay for a lazy schoolboy dropping out? at least try for god sake to have a career even if hes poor

[Capto]

All you've done here is say my ideas won't work. WHY? And I'll tell you the same thing I said to southside:

The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours?

I'm sure the director of food stamps makes at least six figures, too. If your in charge of a lot of people you deserve a bigger paycheck.

The great thing about charity though is that you have a choice on who gets your money. If you feel that the director of Centraid is being abusive with paying themselves that much, you can donate to the Salvation Army instead! Whereas if you feel that the food stamp director is abusing your tax money, tough luck, they're going to keep abusing your tax money and there's nothing you can do about it. I know choice and freedom is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but ultimately it leads to more transparency and efficiency.

I'd be happy if I was your coworkers, too. I prefer not to be paid by the number wrinkles on my face but by the quality of my work. And a union usually advocates the wrinkles on face policy. And you shouldn't have to pay into an organization you don't support. And if the union does go broke, so what? If your employer doesn't pay you fairly, get a new job. That's the beauty of the free market.

And I'll say again: The bottom line is that our governments spending is totally unsustainable, and the services it provides (with the exception of defense) are mediocre at best. My solution is to privatize these programs. What's yours?

You're funny. I'll tell you why I keep saying that.

Because they won't work. Period.

For Christ's sake, these ideas are farther left than I am. Any clearminded person can see why a charity-based privatized welfare system won't work. It's just stupid. You think that our government's spendins is unstable? Let's use your idea, if any rightminded person would ever support it, and then we'll see what's stable. The fact of the matter, via any modus of common sense, is that such a system would be absolutely stupid, unstable, and overall detrimental. I don't get why you can't see that. I don't even understand how you came up with such a ridiculous idea and how you drilled into your own mind that it would work. If I need to hold your hand and babysit you through the entirely elementary and basic process on why a charity-based welfare system that is entirely built upon whim, chance, personal prosperity, and the mindset of individuals, then it's not even worth trying.

But let's still try.

First of all, in no way, shape, or form is a charity-based system for anything going to be stable. They have a quota to meet, and via the idea of homo economicus combined with rational thinking on most people's parts, [no, don't argue with Tversky or Kahneman, it won't work] any charity has extreme difficulty fulfilling any sort of singular projected quota. They operate with layered prioritized quotas for a reason, you know.

Second, people aren't that nice, buddy, in the first place. Stop dreaming. The homo economicus idea is centered all around the fact that people operate to their own personal benefit within a medium-term time span. Efficiency and transparency because of a charity? Bullshit. Give me a break. We're not all in your little fantasy world here. You say that "a union usually advocates the wrinkles on face policy"? Get real, do some research, go out and talk to some people. Then come back with a logical and well-formed response that is related to the topic. "I know choice and freedom is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but ultimately it leads to more transparency and efficiency." Nice cheap shot towards Jean, mate, despite the fact that this is completely irrelevant, though I do personally believe that you yourself have a little bit of difficulty grasping the concept of the other two listed terms: transparency and efficiency. On the other hand, as a red-blooded, true-and-blue American, I had the ideals of choice and freedom drilled into my head the same, and possible more, than you have. Oh yeah, and willingly sending money to a private institution where they can do whatever with it with virtually no consequences because that's what they are able and free to do makes them apparently more transparent? Yeah, and I'm a fucking duck right now.

Also, remember Smith, Quesnay, Simon, and others. Human individuals are self-interested. This, however, does not quite mean selfish. On the contrary, it means that they act in whatever semi-rational fashion in which they see personal and only personal gain. Unfortunately, donating to a charity in which there is no short or long term benefit for a person does not count as personal gain. Rather, it's detrimental to them, seeing as, you know, they lost money.

Choice and freedom lead to transparency and efficiency? That's akin to those vegetarians and vegans saying that eating one strip of bacon will give you cancer and kill you by the age of 35. It doesn't work that way. The two criteria may be correlated through a variety of other modi, but the fact of the matter is that you can't directly link them. There's too many variables and other factors in between. Sometimes it may, sometimes it won't. Also note that you're not the only one who can link multiple irrelevant clauses and qualities and call it an argument. Though for some reason, I'm rather averse to that. Can't imagine why.

My solution? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You should stop whining about the fact that we have a welfare program that works for a polity with the magnitude and diversity of that of the United States of America. There's a reason that any sort of charity-based welfare program or system hasn't been supported by any reasonable political figure, no matter how leftist or rightist he or she may be. Can you figure out why?

All in all, your initial idea was very poorly thought out, as was the response that I, well, just responded to. As a homework question, mate, I want you to list in what way, if any, a charity-based welfare system is better than the one we have right now. After you try to complete that, we can discuss how each of those proposed 'benefits' of a charity-based welfare system is completely and utterly flawed, incorrect, or illogical.

Have a nice day.

Usually I tend to stay away from theses topics, because I know my view will not be popular, but in honor of Helen Thomas, I am going to give it all I got, no regrets and I am not gonna care about anybody's opinion.
If you drop out of high school, that is your own fault. Don't expect to be the next Bill Gates either! High Schools give students countless opportunities to try to turn their grades around, so not being able to pass is in my opinion, unacceptable. Pretty much impossible if you actually try. I had a cousin who was failing and was told he couldn't graduate, however his teachers said that if he did some extra things and stayed after and did good on this & that, he could pass. HE DIDN"T WANT TO TRY SO HE DROPPED OUT! Thats his own fault. America shouldn't have to pay for people who are too lazy to try!!! You shouldn't recieve public assistance because you decided that you weren't going to finish high school. Now if you are unable to finish high school, because of an injury or something, then you should get help. BUT WE AREN"T TALKING ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE! We are talking about the lazy ones who won't (READ IT "WON'T") get off their butts and make a paycheck, and expect to get government support! The only type of welfare that I can actually approve is for theses people to do services like build a park or clean roads, and get paid for like 8 months while they are looking for a job. The government turns these people into slaves of welfare by giving them food stamps and making their lives perfect and they just sit around, while the rest of this nation works their butts off to support them

Wow. You just generalized an incredibly diverse educational demographic in only a few words. Kudos. Now try to actually think for a second why this is a very, very bad idea.

[Harry Smith]

why should I pay for a lazy schoolboy dropping out? at least try for god sake to have a career even if hes poor

You don't pay a tax a lazy school boys do you? That's just your right wing crap. Also no-one drops out of school in Britain, British boy isn't very british is he?

You pay tax for welfare, welfare protects people. It provides people with security, housing, food etc. If you cut it off then your denying them their life.

Also stop pretending like you pay tax, come on the VAT on your sweets doesn't cover much

[Capto]

why should I pay for a lazy schoolboy dropping out? at least try for god sake to have a career even if hes poor

Your second sentence is precisely our argument. Congratulations, you fell into Harry's oratorial trap.

Your first sentence is completely irrelevant to the situation as hand. One does not simply generalize like that.

[britishboy]

Your second sentence is precisely our argument. Congratulations, you fell into Harry's oratorial trap.

Your first sentence is completely irrelevant to the situation as hand. One does not simply generalize like that.

1) you dropped out of school and damaged your future
2) this is commun sence, a good education gives you wealth, simple
3) if he didn't have this safety net he might not be another idiot dropping out

[britishboy]

You don't pay a tax a lazy school boys do you? That's just your right wing crap. Also no-one drops out of school in Britain, British boy isn't very british is he?

You pay tax for welfare, welfare protects people. It provides people with security, housing, food etc. If you cut it off then your denying them their life.

Also stop pretending like you pay tax, come on the VAT on your sweets doesn't cover much

1) I pay VAT:P but I ment when I was younger
2) britishboy is british:P this is a debate in america, school is compulsory in britian
3) its not hard, finish school, leave school, earn money, simple!

[Harry Smith]

1) I pay VAT:P but I ment when I was younger
2) britishboy is british:P this is a debate in america, school is compulsory in britian
3) its not hard, finish school, leave school, earn money, simple!

You make it sound black and white, what about if your ill during school? Someone in my dads class in currently having counselling after being sexually abused by their own father, I doubt they will ever finish school after having to go to court every week. You can't simply place a blanket over everyone who failed high school and claim their lazy

[Capto]

1) you dropped out of school and damaged your future
2) this is commun sence, a good education gives you wealth, simple
3) if he didn't have this safety net he might not be another idiot dropping out

1. I think this might've been an incorrect or incomplete sentence. Regardless, I'm going to respond. How does one know that a student 'dropped out of school'? How would one quantify 'dropping out'? Takes too much time and effort to change anything, and it'd take too much time and effort to even try to quantify each and every case.

2. lol . George Akerlof, Michael Spence, and Joseph Stiglitz, kiddie. Do some reading on it. Education is a signal of ability. It's not "commun sence", like you say. It's a simplified, glorified, and incorrect idea that obsoleted with the turn of the 20th century.

3. Not really, if you will kindly take the time to think about it.

[Southside]

1) you dropped out of school and damaged your future
2) this is commun sence, a good education gives you wealth, simple
3) if he didn't have this safety net he might not be another idiot dropping out

On number 2, not really, most of these guys who are owning these big businesses or who are making money off stocks and investments just play their cards right in the market. You dont have to be "smart" to know which companies are making the most money and which companies who are failing. Atleast here in America, a lot of people drop out due to the lack of opprotunity and jobs after they get out of high school.

Do you know how expensive college is here in America? Not everyone is a straight A student who gets some type of government grant or scholarship, what about the average joe whos going to be paying off student loans until hes 50 years old?

[Walter Powers]

Dont be to quick tooverlook personal circumstances, not everyone who drops out is a lazy bum.



You live in a fantasy world my friend, only if it was that simple to quit a job and instantly find another one...

I'm not saying no one would give, I'm saying not enough would give and you'd have to rely on a small minority of people to support MILLIONS of people. You'd truly have riots and people starving, charities right now have problems feeding the homeless man on the corner. What makes you think they can feed a household of 4 or 5 people?The average American household making below 60k isnt going be giving most of the time, thats the truth. Cities would be burning under your plan...

I just dont know why you hate on something that MOST people pay into, because most people who work pay some type of federal taxes. Maybe if we cut defense spending we'd have sustainable spending, but I know you Republicans always want America to be some type of world police. Universal Healthcare is working in other countries, what makes you think a tax payer funded healtcare system that anybody could use would fail right here in America?

I do agree with you that we need to cut down on who we give welfare checks to, more background checks and better income checks. You shouldnt be driving a Escalade or texting on a Iphone when your on welfare..

Let's start off with this:

I'm saying not enough would give and you'd have to rely on a small minority of people to support MILLIONS of people. You'd truly have riots and people starving, charities right now have problems feeding the homeless man on the corner. What makes you think they can feed a household of 4 or 5 people?The average American household making below 60k isnt going be giving most of the time, thats the truth. Cities would be burning under your plan...

Wow, even I have higher confidence that the people on welfare are smarter then that...

Firstly, so you know the income demographic that donates the highest percentage of it's income to charity is the working poor. They may have the same income as people living off of welfare and food stamps, who donate the least, yet for some reason they give much more. This fact is proof that living off of government programs greatly hurts your character, by contrast working for a living makes you into a better, mod charitable person.

This fact also debunks the myth that not enough people will donate. Once you have the more selective process in handing out money that happens in the nonprofit sector, less people will be receiving this money, and more will be paying in.

I just dont know why you hate on something that MOST people pay into, because most people who work pay some type of federal taxes. Maybe if we cut defense spending we'd have sustainable spending, but I know you Republicans always want America to be some type of world police. Universal Healthcare is working in other countries, what makes you think a tax payer funded healtcare system that anybody could use would fail right here in America?

How's universal healthcare working for Greece? Spain? Italy? Those countries are crumbling right now, a quarter of their people are unemployed!

I "hate on" universal healthcare because government does almost everything it does worse then the private sector. It's the same affect you'd have with a monopoly. They have no competition. Simple economics.

As for defense spending, how about we have a look at the US federal budget?

http://home.roadrunner.com/~thejjudges/Econ/2008%20budget.jpg

Entitlements comprise a much much larger portion of the budget then defense. And there's only so much defense spending that can be cut, as we can't privatize the military, however we can dump most government welfare programs be a use the private sector will pick it up for the people who really need it. Like I said, we need to cut something. As you can see from the graph, already 9% of our budget is spent paying down the interest on our debt. That's only going to get bigger, and any reasonable cuts to defense would be nowhere near enough. We need to dig into entitlements.

How do you know people in need will get the money donated? And AT LEAST half of the people wouldn't donate.



How do we know people would get the money? And yeah, cut the foreign aid to Israel and Egypt



It would. But charities would not prosper on that. Even all merged would have problems feeding the poor, let alone paying the health bills.



Universal healthcare saved me, no matter how flawed it is in Serbia. I was once burning up with fever (41-42 degrees Celsius, very dangerous), I went to the clinic and they helped me, a lot. If I would have to pay for it, my family would go bankrupt and I would live on the street and maybe die out of starvation/cold/disease or dangers of living on the street.



Universal healthcare. The only answer. You expect people would donate, which is not likely. What is wrong with universal healthcare? Just because socialist countries used it? So? It benefited the whole population, and still is, for example the UK, France. I can say that it benefits the people in Serbia also.



Cut defense. Nobody asked you to be the world's police.




Cut defense. You don't need to wage wars in places where even the people you 'freed' hate you.




Who knows where the charity money is going. It might not even go to the poor people. The government should do more background checks, and use welfare programs to help people who work, but are struggling, not feed people and let them do nothing. If someone lost a job, he should have a time limit to get a job if any new places open.



And the beauty is that many small business owners went bankrupt because of it.



For the billionth time, cut defense. Focus on a defensive army, not an offensive one.



If they are trying to make a living, help them.

How do you know people in need will get the money donated? And AT LEAST half of the people wouldn't donate.

If half of America really won't help people in need, the there's no saving this country. I'd be planning to move to like New Zealand if that's really the case.

It would. But charities would not prosper on that. Even all merged would have problems feeding the poor, let alone paying the health bills.

The idea is that people who don't really need the help aren't using other people's money to support themselves, and there's more money there for the people who actually do need it.

Universal healthcare saved me, no matter how flawed it is in Serbia. I was once burning up with fever (41-42 degrees Celsius, very dangerous), I went to the clinic and they helped me, a lot. If I would have to pay for it, my family would go bankrupt and I would live on the street and maybe die out of starvation/cold/disease or dangers of living on the street.

Your doctor is totally ripping off your country's taxpayers if he charges so much one visit would put somebody on the street if they had to pay for it themselves. This is exactly why government healthcare is bad! It creates a monopoly where doctors have no incentive to do quality work for an affordable price.

You are living in a fantasy world; your government has seriously convinced you that without their entitlements you'd be dead? Give me a break.

Cut defense. Nobody asked you to be the world's police.
Cut defense. You don't need to wage wars in places where even the people you 'freed' hate you.
For the billionth time, cut defense. Focus on a defensive army, not an offensive one.

That may be part of the solution. However, it certainly won't be enough. Let me repeat the same thing I said to southsidepro:

As for defense spending, how about we have a look at the US federal budget?

http://home.roadrunner.com/~thejjudges/Econ/2008%20budget.jpg

Entitlements comprise a much much larger portion of the budget then defense. And there's only so much defense spending that can be cut, as we can't privatize the military, however we can dump most government welfare programs be a use the private sector will pick it up for the people who really need it. Like I said, we need to cut something. As you can see from the graph, already 9% of our budget is spent paying down the interest on our debt. That's only going to get bigger, and any reasonable cuths to defense would be nowhere near enough. We need to dig into entitlements.

Who knows where the charity money is going. It might not even go to the poor people. The government should do more background checks, and use welfare programs to help people who work, but are struggling, not feed people and let them do nothing. If someone lost a job, he should have a time limit to get a job if any new places open.

Well, I at least half agree here. Problem is President Obama keeps extending unemployment.

Aha, but that's the norm in the government. It isn't a charity, so that's not an excuse.

You say that charity directors actually care and are not in it for the paycheck, I showed you the errors of your ways. Maybe both of them care only about themselves and their lined pockets, so what? All it means is that charity is not a better option, and given its logistical constraints, is actually much worse.



The article I linked you analyses pretty much every major charity. They're all paying themselves huge salaries. It's even worse in America.

I don't remember the name, but I do know the administrator of a philanthropy in New York pockets 1,6 million a year.



You have a heavily skewed view of unions. We all have quotas and performance evaluations to go through, and if you're not up to snuff, you're fired, and our union would be 100% behind that decision (as it has been). An union's goal is to protect the workers. If you have a lazy worker shipping off his work to the other workers, making their job harder, wouldn't you say it is in the interest of the majority of the workers there to fire the person?

Okay, you shouldn't have to pay in an organisation you don't support, and you don't. You can replace an union with another and even dissolve it, you know? As for choosing to not pay, that is stupid. It's merely a tactic to strangle unions into submission by restricting their funding, manipulating self-serving idiots into not paying, especially if you are still protected. Let's say that if you don't pay, you don't get protection. Then what is the point of an union? The employer will simply hire people who don't want to support the union, blast through the contract negotiated with said union and offer the new workers much reduced pay and benefits. In time, the same thing will happen : union's gone.

As much as people hate them, they are necessary, or do you want to go back to the Industrial Age where employers paid everybody peanuts for 100 hours weeks?



Stop playing America World Police, stop shipping off weapons and money to Israel by the boatload, stop running huge budget deficits every year, stop bailing out huge conglomerates (if the hand of magic Adam Smith believes in wants it gone, then shouldn't it be gone in the interest of the free market?), cut the Wall Street shenanigans creating bubbles that burst into recessions not too long after, cut defense to reasonable levels, need I go on?

You say that charity directors actually care and are not in it for the paycheck, I showed you the errors of your ways. Maybe both of them care only about themselves and their lined pockets, so what? All it means is that charity is not a better option, and given its logistical constraints, is actually much worse.

For the sake of argument, let's say half of the charity directors in the country pay themselves half of all the donations they collect. Because you get to choose which charities you donate to, nobody would give anything to the charity that pays an absurd amount to it's president. They would give to non abusive organizations. Whereas you're forced to give to the government that pays it's managers absurd salaries whether you like it or not through taxes. THE PRIVATE CHARITIES HAVE TO DO A GOOD JOB, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ALMOST ZERO MOTIVATION TO. I don't understand why you think it's okay for the food stamp director to make tons of money but not the president of the food bank.

You have a heavily skewed view of unions. We all have quotas and performance evaluations to go through, and if you're not up to snuff, you're fired, and our union would be 100% behind that decision (as it has been). An union's goal is to protect the workers. If you have a lazy worker shipping off his work to the other workers, making their job harder, wouldn't you say it is in the interest of the majority of the workers there to fire the person?

Okay, you shouldn't have to pay in an organisation you don't support, and you don't. You can replace an union with another and even dissolve it, you know? As for choosing to not pay, that is stupid. It's merely a tactic to strangle unions into submission by restricting their funding, manipulating self-serving idiots into not paying, especially if you are still protected. Let's say that if you don't pay, you don't get protection. Then what is the point of an union? The employer will simply hire people who don't want to support the union, blast through the contract negotiated with said union and offer the new workers much reduced pay and benefits. In time, the same thing will happen : union's gone.

As much as people hate them, they are necessary, or do you want to go back to the Industrial Age where employers paid everybody peanuts for 100 hours weeks?

Actually my point is that we are out of the Industrial Age and so we don't really need powerful unions anymore. In the Industrial Age, just a couple of big companies controlled many industries. They were almost monopolies. Unions were needed to prevent these almost-monopolies from abusing there workers. This is now a thing of the past, as you have so many employers to choose from, it's not needed.

My main problem with unions, especially public sector unions, is many put the vast majority of weight in your years of experience in deciding who to give raises and who to lay off when times get tough.

You say you shouldn't have to pay into an organization you don't support, so why are you calling your coworkers selfish for doing just that?

Stop playing America World Police, stop shipping off weapons and money to Israel by the boatload, stop running huge budget deficits every year, stop bailing out huge conglomerates (if the hand of magic Adam Smith believes in wants it gone, then shouldn't it be gone in the interest of the free market?), cut the Wall Street shenanigans creating bubbles that burst into recessions not too long after, cut defense to reasonable levels, need I go on?

Yes we should certainly stop with the bailout, however I'd refer you to what I said above to Southsidepro and Harry about defense.

You're funny. I'll tell you why I keep saying that.

Because they won't work. Period.

For Christ's sake, these ideas are farther left than I am. Any clearminded person can see why a charity-based privatized welfare system won't work. It's just stupid. You think that our government's spendins is unstable? Let's use your idea, if any rightminded person would ever support it, and then we'll see what's stable. The fact of the matter, via any modus of common sense, is that such a system would be absolutely stupid, unstable, and overall detrimental. I don't get why you can't see that. I don't even understand how you came up with such a ridiculous idea and how you drilled into your own mind that it would work. If I need to hold your hand and babysit you through the entirely elementary and basic process on why a charity-based welfare system that is entirely built upon whim, chance, personal prosperity, and the mindset of individuals, then it's not even worth trying.

But let's still try.

First of all, in no way, shape, or form is a charity-based system for anything going to be stable. They have a quota to meet, and via the idea of homo economicus combined with rational thinking on most people's parts, [no, don't argue with Tversky or Kahneman, it won't work] any charity has extreme difficulty fulfilling any sort of singular projected quota. They operate with layered prioritized quotas for a reason, you know.

Second, people aren't that nice, buddy, in the first place. Stop dreaming. The homo economicus idea is centered all around the fact that people operate to their own personal benefit within a medium-term time span. Efficiency and transparency because of a charity? Bullshit. Give me a break. We're not all in your little fantasy world here. You say that "a union usually advocates the wrinkles on face policy"? Get real, do some research, go out and talk to some people. Then come back with a logical and well-formed response that is related to the topic. "I know choice and freedom is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but ultimately it leads to more transparency and efficiency." Nice cheap shot towards Jean, mate, despite the fact that this is completely irrelevant, though I do personally believe that you yourself have a little bit of difficulty grasping the concept of the other two listed terms: transparency and efficiency. On the other hand, as a red-blooded, true-and-blue American, I had the ideals of choice and freedom drilled into my head the same, and possible more, than you have. Oh yeah, and willingly sending money to a private institution where they can do whatever with it with virtually no consequences because that's what they are able and free to do makes them apparently more transparent? Yeah, and I'm a fucking duck right now.

Also, remember Smith, Quesnay, Simon, and others. Human individuals are self-interested. This, however, does not quite mean selfish. On the contrary, it means that they act in whatever semi-rational fashion in which they see personal and only personal gain. Unfortunately, donating to a charity in which there is no short or long term benefit for a person does not count as personal gain. Rather, it's detrimental to them, seeing as, you know, they lost money.

Choice and freedom lead to transparency and efficiency? That's akin to those vegetarians and vegans saying that eating one strip of bacon will give you cancer and kill you by the age of 35. It doesn't work that way. The two criteria may be correlated through a variety of other modi, but the fact of the matter is that you can't directly link them. There's too many variables and other factors in between. Sometimes it may, sometimes it won't. Also note that you're not the only one who can link multiple irrelevant clauses and qualities and call it an argument. Though for some reason, I'm rather averse to that. Can't imagine why.

My solution? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You should stop whining about the fact that we have a welfare program that works for a polity with the magnitude and diversity of that of the United States of America. There's a reason that any sort of charity-based welfare program or system hasn't been supported by any reasonable political figure, no matter how leftist or rightist he or she may be. Can you figure out why?

All in all, your initial idea was very poorly thought out, as was the response that I, well, just responded to. As a homework question, mate, I want you to list in what way, if any, a charity-based welfare system is better than the one we have right now. After you try to complete that, we can discuss how each of those proposed 'benefits' of a charity-based welfare system is completely and utterly flawed, incorrect, or illogical.

Have a nice day.



Wow. You just generalized an incredibly diverse educational demographic in only a few words. Kudos. Now try to actually think for a second why this is a very, very bad idea.

Sorting through your rant, I found some things that are at least half worth talking about.

Second, people aren't that nice, buddy, in the first place. Stop dreaming. The homo economicus idea is centered all around the fact that people operate to their own personal benefit within a medium-term time span. Efficiency and transparency because of a charity?

I'll ask you this: What incentive does the government have to be responsible in who it gives money to and how much? Public officials getting reelected, maybe, but that's a much smaller incentive then what the private sector has to do. Especially considering the media doesn't do their job, which is crucial to government transparency.

Oh yeah, and willingly sending money to a private institution where they can do whatever with it with virtually no consequences because that's what they are able and free to do makes them apparently more transparent? Yeah, and I'm a fucking duck right now.

Virtually no consequences? For the billionith time, people won't donate if they aren't being responsible! However people will still pay their taxes if the government isn't being responsible, because they a) might not even know it isn't, and b) there's a gun held to their head if they don't pay them!

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

Our national debt is higher then our GDP, and something's not very very wrong? Are you kidding me! We have to spend 9% of our budget on paying interest on our debt, and nothing's wrong?

You are the one living in the fantasy world, my friend, if you think that we don't have major economic problems right now. Now could you give me a real suggestion on how we can save ourselves financial ruin?

You should stop whining about the fact that we have a welfare program that works for a polity with the magnitude and diversity of that of the United States of America.

I didn't think that there was anybody on this planet, from the most conservative Republican to the most liberal Democrat, who actually thinks the welfare system works as it is. You learn something new everyday I guess.

There's a reason that any sort of charity-based welfare program or system hasn't been supported by any reasonable political figure, no matter how leftist or rightist he or she may be. Can you figure out why?

Yep you're in a fantasy world. Ask any real Republican. Some examples would be Rand Paul, Alan West, or Sarah Palin. They're all in favor of vastly reducing entitlements and leaving most wealth redistribution to the private sector.

As a homework question, mate, I want you to list in what way, if any, a charity-based welfare system is better than the one we have right now. After you try to complete that, we can discuss how each of those proposed 'benefits' of a charity-based welfare system is completely and utterly flawed, incorrect, or illogical.

Okay, here you go:

-The welfare queens and unemployment kings who abuse the system wouldn't be able to convince any sane charity to give them money. The charity instead would give money to the family who's kid was dying of cancer and they have lots of debt.
-Private charity is much more transparent then government, and people will investigate it if something seems fishy, because, unlike government, you don't have to give money to the charity if they're abusing it.
-People have the choice about who they feel is most deserving, and the people making the decision where the money goes are the same people whose money it is.
-A nonprofit is much more efficient then government. They generally aren't unionized, have to compete for donations, and can exercise discretion when deciding who to help.

Now I'd like you to do the same thing. Give me a list of why government is better then nonprofit charities.

Usually I tend to stay away from theses topics, because I know my view will not be popular, but in honor of Helen Thomas, I am going to give it all I got, no regrets and I am not gonna care about anybody's opinion.
If you drop out of high school, that is your own fault. Don't expect to be the next Bill Gates either! High Schools give students countless opportunities to try to turn their grades around, so not being able to pass is in my opinion, unacceptable. Pretty much impossible if you actually try. I had a cousin who was failing and was told he couldn't graduate, however his teachers said that if he did some extra things and stayed after and did good on this & that, he could pass. HE DIDN"T WANT TO TRY SO HE DROPPED OUT! Thats his own fault. America shouldn't have to pay for people who are too lazy to try!!! You shouldn't recieve public assistance because you decided that you weren't going to finish high school. Now if you are unable to finish high school, because of an injury or something, then you should get help. BUT WE AREN"T TALKING ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE! We are talking about the lazy ones who won't (READ IT "WON'T") get off their butts and make a paycheck, and expect to get government support! The only type of welfare that I can actually approve is for theses people to do services like build a park or clean roads, and get paid for like 8 months while they are looking for a job. The government turns these people into slaves of welfare by giving them food stamps and making their lives perfect and they just sit around, while the rest of this nation works their butts off to support them

Spot on, my friend.

[Walter Powers]

I'm aware in my last post I double quoted some people and have quotes in weird places, my apoligies. I'm working to fix it.

UPDATE: Okay, you can reply to it now.

[Edawg]

Are you implying that everyone on welfare is lazy and sits around?

No. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying that there are quite a few who are that way, not all, but quite a few. Every welfare recipent I have ever come into contact with, save maybe one (she lost eyesight, so she is an exception) was lazy. They stole from the government in my mind. I prefer charity, because I know how it is being used. Too many times we see welfare checks being used for drugs, sex, beer and stuff of tht nature, and not for its intended use.
High School dropouts were given an opportunity in life, and they passed on that opportunity. WHY???? It can't be because it is too hard, there are people willing to tutor you or help you. Most dropouts (Not all, some leave to work on the farm, have injury, etc) drop out because they don't want to try. Do we, as citizens, deserve to work our butts off, to pay for their laziness?? I think not!

[Stronk Serb]

I'm aware in my last post I double quoted some people and have quotes in weird places, my apoligies. I'm working to fix it.

UPDATE: Okay, you can reply to it now.

My mother's friend lives in the US. He dislikes the healthcare system. Why? For one small procedure, he got charged 90,000 dollars. The insurance covered it, but even if he sold his kidney, he wouldn't be able to pay that off without insurance. Here, you would get charged a small amount of your pay. Why are you mentioning monopoly? There are private healthcare companies who do it better, for a price, and they aren't goimg bankrupt. If it's inefficient, why does France have one of the most widesoread and best healthcare services in the world? Just to mention, it's universal, just like the UK and dozens of other countries. They don't spend the last penny on waging wars. I got a new phone because my parents weren't busy paying insurance. Get over it, universal healthcare, despite it's flaws is better then a charity/insurance policy system, when looking at the whole population. That should suit you because a healthy society makes more money. That suits me because nobody is denied something others can have, according to my political affiliation. It's a win-win situation.

[Southside]

Let's start off with this:



Wow, even I have higher confidence that the people on welfare are smarter then that...

Firstly, so you know the income demographic that donates the highest percentage of it's income to charity is the working poor. They may have the same income as people living off of welfare and food stamps, who donate the least, yet for some reason they give much more. This fact is proof that living off of government programs greatly hurts your character, by contrast working for a living makes you into a better, mod charitable person.

This fact also debunks the myth that not enough people will donate. Once you have the more selective process in handing out money that happens in the nonprofit sector, less people will be receiving this money, and more will be paying in.



How's universal healthcare working for Greece? Spain? Italy? Those countries are crumbling right now, a quarter of their people are unemployed!


I "hate on" universal healthcare because government does almost everything it does worse then the private sector. It's the same affect you'd have with a monopoly. They have no competition. Simple economics.

As for defense spending, how about we have a look at the US federal budget?

image (http://home.roadrunner.com/~thejjudges/Econ/2008%20budget.jpg)

Entitlements comprise a much much larger portion of the budget then defense. And there's only so much defense spending that can be cut, as we can't privatize the military, however we can dump most government welfare programs be a use the private sector will pick it up for the people who really need it. Like I said, we need to cut something. As you can see from the graph, already 9% of our budget is spent paying down the interest on our debt. That's only going to get bigger, and any reasonable cuts to defense would be nowhere near enough. We need to dig into entitlements.





If half of America really won't help people in need, the there's no saving this country. I'd be planning to move to like New Zealand if that's really the case.



The idea is that people who don't really need the help aren't using other people's money to support themselves, and there's more money there for the people who actually do need it.



Your doctor is totally ripping off your country's taxpayers if he charges so much one visit would put somebody on the street if they had to pay for it themselves. This is exactly why government healthcare is bad! It creates a monopoly where doctors have no incentive to do quality work for an affordable price.

You are living in a fantasy world; your government has seriously convinced you that without their entitlements you'd be dead? Give me a break.





That may be part of the solution. However, it certainly won't be enough. Let me repeat the same thing I said to southsidepro:

As for defense spending, how about we have a look at the US federal budget?

image (http://home.roadrunner.com/~thejjudges/Econ/2008%20budget.jpg)

Entitlements comprise a much much larger portion of the budget then defense. And there's only so much defense spending that can be cut, as we can't privatize the military, however we can dump most government welfare programs be a use the private sector will pick it up for the people who really need it. Like I said, we need to cut something. As you can see from the graph, already 9% of our budget is spent paying down the interest on our debt. That's only going to get bigger, and any reasonable cuths to defense would be nowhere near enough. We need to dig into entitlements.



Well, I at least half agree here. Problem is President Obama keeps extending unemployment.





For the sake of argument, let's say half of the charity directors in the country pay themselves half of all the donations they collect. Because you get to choose which charities you donate to, nobody would give anything to the charity that pays an absurd amount to it's president. They would give to non abusive organizations. Whereas you're forced to give to the government that pays it's managers absurd salaries whether you like it or not through taxes. THE PRIVATE CHARITIES HAVE TO DO A GOOD JOB, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ALMOST ZERO MOTIVATION TO. I don't understand why you think it's okay for the food stamp director to make tons of money but not the president of the food bank.



Actually my point is that we are out of the Industrial Age and so we don't really need powerful unions anymore. In the Industrial Age, just a couple of big companies controlled many industries. They were almost monopolies. Unions were needed to prevent these almost-monopolies from abusing there workers. This is now a thing of the past, as you have so many employers to choose from, it's not needed.

My main problem with unions, especially public sector unions, is many put the vast majority of weight in your years of experience in deciding who to give raises and who to lay off when times get tough.

You say you shouldn't have to pay into an organization you don't support, so why are you calling your coworkers selfish for doing just that?



Yes we should certainly stop with the bailout, however I'd refer you to what I said above to Southsidepro and Harry about defense.



Sorting through your rant, I found some things that are at least half worth talking about.



I'll ask you this: What incentive does the government have to be responsible in who it gives money to and how much? Public officials getting reelected, maybe, but that's a much smaller incentive then what the private sector has to do. Especially considering the media doesn't do their job, which is crucial to government transparency.



Virtually no consequences? For the billionith time, people won't donate if they aren't being responsible! However people will still pay their taxes if the government isn't being responsible, because they a) might not even know it isn't, and b) there's a gun held to their head if they don't pay them!



Our national debt is higher then our GDP, and something's not very very wrong? Are you kidding me! We have to spend 9% of our budget on paying interest on our debt, and nothing's wrong?

You are the one living in the fantasy world, my friend, if you think that we don't have major economic problems right now. Now could you give me a real suggestion on how we can save ourselves financial ruin?



I didn't think that there was anybody on this planet, from the most conservative Republican to the most liberal Democrat, who actually thinks the welfare system works as it is. You learn something new everyday I guess.



Yep you're in a fantasy world. Ask any real Republican. Some examples would be Rand Paul, Alan West, or Sarah Palin. They're all in favor of vastly reducing entitlements and leaving most wealth redistribution to the private sector.



Okay, here you go:

-The welfare queens and unemployment kings who abuse the system wouldn't be able to convince any sane charity to give them money. The charity instead would give money to the family who's kid was dying of cancer and they have lots of debt.
-Private charity is much more transparent then government, and people will investigate it if something seems fishy, because, unlike government, you don't have to give money to the charity if they're abusing it.
-People have the choice about who they feel is most deserving, and the people making the decision where the money goes are the same people whose money it is.
-A nonprofit is much more efficient then government. They generally aren't unionized, have to compete for donations, and can exercise discretion when deciding who to help.

Now I'd like you to do the same thing. Give me a list of why government is better then nonprofit charities.



Spot on, my friend.


Are you saying universal healthcare is the reason these countries are failing? Please clarify...Let's look at Qatar,Canada, Australia, South Korea, universal healthcare seems to be working in those countries.

I wonder is all the money to Israel,Pakistan, Egypt counted as "defense".Which do you think is "hurting" our country more, wasted money to the countries listed or welfare programs?

Unemployment money goes right back into the economy, so whats so bad about extending benefits?

Also, please provide a source for "the income demographic that donates the highest percentage of it's income to charity is the working poor".

[Harry Smith]

No. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying that there are quite a few who are that way, not all, but quite a few. Every welfare recipent I have ever come into contact with, save maybe one (she lost eyesight, so she is an exception) was lazy. They stole from the government in my mind. I prefer charity, because I know how it is being used. Too many times we see welfare checks being used for drugs, sex, beer and stuff of tht nature, and not for its intended use.
High School dropouts were given an opportunity in life, and they passed on that opportunity. WHY???? It can't be because it is too hard, there are people willing to tutor you or help you. Most dropouts (Not all, some leave to work on the farm, have injury, etc) drop out because they don't want to try. Do we, as citizens, deserve to work our butts off, to pay for their laziness?? I think not!

You can't tell people how to spend their welfare, even I think that's an example of big government.

Do we as citizens want a 88 year old woman to lose her welfare because she failed school when FDR was still in office?

[Edawg]

So you want them wasting the money that the taxpayers work their butts off for, to buy drugs? That, my friend, is ridiculous. Welfare has to be controlled like that if it is too exist, it needs to be used for its intended use, to sustain ones life and drugs are not sustaining of life.
Obviously you did not entirely read Walter's early posts, in it (and I agree wholeheartedly) he says those people, like your 88 year old woman example, would be grandfathered in. And anyways, I highly doubt that woman is only surviving off welfare. I would expect her to have a retirement fund, pension, social security, etc. She most likely had a career during her lifetime, or if she was a homemaker, she has her husbands pensions, and sense she is 88, most likely if she was married, her husband would be a vet, meaning she would receive his benefits. Therefore that whole argument that you attempted to make is invalid, and most certainly a failure. Thank you sir.

[Harry Smith]

So you want them wasting the money that the taxpayers work their butts off for, to buy drugs? That, my friend, is ridiculous. Welfare has to be controlled like that if it is too exist, it needs to be used for its intended use, to sustain ones life and drugs are not sustaining of life.
Obviously you did not entirely read Walter's early posts, in it (and I agree wholeheartedly) he says those people, like your 88 year old woman example, would be grandfathered in. And anyways, I highly doubt that woman is only surviving off welfare. I would expect her to have a retirement fund, pension, social security, etc. She most likely had a career during her lifetime, or if she was a homemaker, she has her husbands pensions, and sense she is 88, most likely if she was married, her husband would be a vet, meaning she would receive his benefits. Therefore that whole argument that you attempted to make is invalid, and most certainly a failure. Thank you sir.

If you read the OP post no requirement was meet, it was simply a blanket ban.

My nan is in fact 89, her husband was to a veteran, he died in 1981 about 5 years before getting a pension. My gran only ever did light work in her life, she requires aide from our government to surive everyday. Your damn republicans think everyone has a bank account in the Cayman islands, we can't all afford off short banking.

Republicans criticize 'big government' yet want more regulation on welfare.

It's designed for people who don't have enough money to survive, high school doesn't matter one bit. It's like a hospital saying let's stop treating ill people.

Welfare protects people, all you want to do is send them into poverty because they didn't pass school x amount of years ago.

[Southside]

No. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I am saying that there are quite a few who are that way, not all, but quite a few. Every welfare recipent I have ever come into contact with, save maybe one (she lost eyesight, so she is an exception) was lazy. They stole from the government in my mind. I prefer charity, because I know how it is being used. Too many times we see welfare checks being used for drugs, sex, beer and stuff of tht nature, and not for its intended use.
High School dropouts were given an opportunity in life, and they passed on that opportunity. WHY???? It can't be because it is too hard, there are people willing to tutor you or help you. Most dropouts (Not all, some leave to work on the farm, have injury, etc) drop out because they don't want to try. Do we, as citizens, deserve to work our butts off, to pay for their laziness?? I think not!

Im not putting words in your mouth, I'm asking if thats what your saying because you didnt make it clear.

It's more people who truly fell on hard times than people who are just living off the system, thats a true fact.According to the Associate Press,
"About 6.1 million people with at least three years on the job were laid off in the three years ending in 2011", they must be lazy bums if they file for unemployment,food stamps or welfare payments right?


Well, maybe you dont know a lot of recipents because I know quite a few in my own family who are hardworking people that fell on hard times.

Why is college so damn expensive? Why cant the average American afford a good quality college education? Why does welfare pay more than a teachers salary in 9 US states? Why does welfare pay more than a minimum wage job in 40 US states? Why are we giving billions to countries like Israel,Pakistan, and Egypt? Why have we spent billions of useless wars such as the one in Iraq? Why are we spending so much on defense when people are dying due to lack of healthcare access? Why can terrorist in Gitmo get free healthcare and hardworking American families cant? Why are we spending millions on drones that are killing innocent, unarmed civilians in Yemen and Pakistan? Why are we funding Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria when people are starving in our own streets?

Can you please answer these questions for me instead of raging about poor people or elderly people receiving money to support themselves or their families...

I bet its tons of people on welfare right now saying "Why work when I can make more money sitting on my ass watching TV". Raise the minimum wage to 10 or 11 bucks and I bet the amount of people on welfare would fall.

[Edawg]

You sir, just made a lovely argument. That will fail. My lovely grandma, who is 73 years old, her husband was a vet, he cheated on her, she divorced him, he never payed alimony, and she worked a lot in her life. But she is awful at saving money, so now she also survives off welfare. BUT SHE WORKED, (she did finish high school though), and she is elderly. So yes, I believe in supporting the elderly, and to do that, we need to restrict welfare, so there is more money for the elderly.
High School does matter, obviously you have never seen the stats, a high school degree increases your pay, atleast here in the US. AND the Op did say that there would be people grandfathered in, so people who currently are high school drop uts don't have to worry. Its designed for those who have not yet dropped out, but will. To be a warning, they will know that they won't receive welfare if they drop out and don't pursue other educational goals. Its to deter high school drop outs from dropping out. Those who already dropped out, need not to fear.
And btw, I don't have an off shore account, nor does anybody in my family, except my grandma O, but she is foreign, and she has a swiss account, because she is European, she put money in there before she came to the US. But thats off topic

[Harry Smith]

You sir, just made a lovely argument. That will fail. My lovely grandma, who is 73 years old, her husband was a vet, he cheated on her, she divorced him, he never payed alimony, and she worked a lot in her life. But she is awful at saving money, so now she also survives off welfare. BUT SHE WORKED, (she did finish high school though), and she is elderly. So yes, I believe in supporting the elderly, and to do that, we need to restrict welfare, so there is more money for the elderly.
High School does matter, obviously you have never seen the stats, a high school degree increases your pay, atleast here in the US. AND the Op did say that there would be people grandfathered in, so people who currently are high school drop uts don't have to worry. Its designed for those who have not yet dropped out, but will. To be a warning, they will know that they won't receive welfare if they drop out and don't pursue other educational goals. Its to deter high school drop outs from dropping out. Those who already dropped out, need not to fear.
And btw, I don't have an off shore account, nor does anybody in my family, except my grandma O, but she is foreign, and she has a swiss account, because she is European, she put money in there before she came to the US. But thats off topic

You do know that all it would do is increase crime, taking away benefits from the people who need it. You need to address the core social problems such as terrible inner city schools with 20 year old textbooks, but oh no Republicans can't give money to education- that's evil

[Edawg]

Raising the minimum wage, is a way of forcing more companies out of the nation, therefore increasing unemployment, you can't force a company to raise its minimum wage.
I will address your other questions tonight, because I have to go eat.

[Edawg]

You do know that all it would do is increase crime, taking away benefits from the people who need it. You need to address the core social problems such as terrible inner city schools with 20 year old textbooks, but oh no Republicans can't give money to education- that's evil

Harry, doll, it would deter crime, because people would be able to sustain themselves more efficiently with a high school degree, it is designed to deter people from dropping out. People who already dropped out, don't have to worry, their benefits will still be there.
BTW, I support educational funding, I feel that doing this to welfare would allow for more money to be put towards education and the elderly. I have served on government councils for education, and am actually a member of the State Board of Educations student board and the State Superintendents high school board. I am all for education funding :)

[Harry Smith]

Harry, doll, it would deter crime, because people would be able to sustain themselves more efficiently with a high school degree, it is designed to deter people from dropping out. People who already dropped out, don't have to worry, their benefits will still be there.
BTW, I support educational funding, I feel that doing this to welfare would allow for more money to be put towards education and the elderly. I have served on government councils for education, and am actually a member of the State Board of Educations student board and the State Superintendents high school board. I am all for education funding :)

Doll? I didn't realize we were in the 19th Century. It would skip a generation, kids have so much shit going on in High school- it's not as simple as go in, work, go home. There is social pressure, recreational drug use, friends, sports and so much more.

I can't see many people who would normally drop out then be kicked on by this, for some people high school doesn't work. So they leave at 16, no qualifications and now the government abandon them

[Southside]

Harry, doll, it would deter crime, because people would be able to sustain themselves more efficiently with a high school degree, it is designed to deter people from dropping out. People who already dropped out, don't have to worry, their benefits will still be there.
BTW, I support educational funding, I feel that doing this to welfare would allow for more money to be put towards education and the elderly. I have served on government councils for education, and am actually a member of the State Board of Educations student board and the State Superintendents high school board. I am all for education funding :)

It would deter crime? Have you seen the riots happening over in Europe the last couple years due to cuts to social progams and welfare? People have gone on shooting rampages after being denied welfare.

You can sustain yourself or a family on a high school diploma? Thats the biggest joke I've heard in years. If thats the case, whats the need for a college education in your opinion?

Raising the minimum wage would have no effect on employment according to decades long researching and studies. Why do a lot of companies and trade associations support raising the minimum wage?

http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/signatories


My sources: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf


http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf

[Ajmichael]

I'm not familiar with the American welfare system but what would be the point of discriminating against people because of their level of education? Just because you've never met people that achieve those results doesn't mean they don't exist, there are plenty of people who find further education a lot more difficult, they might have special educational needs or pressures at home that cause them to concentrate more on that than education.

[britishboy]

as far as im concerned unless under special circumstances, dropouts shouldnt get anything

[Harry Smith]

as far as im concerned unless under special circumstances, dropouts shouldnt get anything

That defeats the whole point of welfare, how can you punish someone for the rest of their life based on how they did at school!

Welfare is designed to protect people, all this will do is push people into poverty and crime. You can't complain about crime rates and then cut people's benefits. You'd be doing something that goes against the very fabric of British Society. #

What counts as failing secondary school? In Britain as you hopefully know there is no universal end of school mark

[britishboy]

That defeats the whole point of welfare, how can you punish someone for the rest of their life based on how they did at school!

Welfare is designed to protect people, all this will do is push people into poverty and crime. You can't complain about crime rates and then cut people's benefits. You'd be doing something that goes against the very fabric of British Society. #

What counts as failing secondary school? In Britain as you hopefully know there is no universal end of school mark

this thread about America, Britain is different

[Harry Smith]

this thread about America, Britain is different

It's the same concept, do you think it should apply for Britain.

In America it would cause even more problems, it would put people in poverty, it would mean that in 50 year times you would have old ladies who can't pay for their medicine. You would be killing people by taking away all their welfare.

Do you really want the US to return to the 18th Century?

I don't understand why it should be measured by your school performance, many of the adults I know did terribly at school, that may be because I live in a 'filthy area' but they still managed to do well in life.

You're stupid if you think that School is as simple as 'your smart, you'll pass'

[britishboy]

It's the same concept, do you think it should apply for Britain.

In America it would cause even more problems, it would put people in poverty, it would mean that in 50 year times you would have old ladies who can't pay for their medicine. You would be killing people by taking away all their welfare.

Do you really want the US to return to the 18th Century?

I don't understand why it should be measured by your school performance, many of the adults I know did terribly at school, that may be because I live in a 'filthy area' but they still managed to do well in life.

You're stupid if you think that School is as simple as 'your smart, you'll pass'

people who voluntary leave school such as gypsies at the age of 11, they should be protected, as for performance that would be more hard as there is many reasons for underperforming.

[Harry Smith]

people who voluntary leave school such as gypsies at the age of 11, they should be protected, as for performance that would be more hard as there is many reasons for underperforming.

A high school dropout isn't someone who leaves school at a certain age, it's someone who leave without a diploma or any qualifications. This means not only would they have a harder chance of getting a job, they would then have their welfare, they're medicine and their house taken away from them. Where does that leave them? In Crime and in poverty