bbauska wrote:You see what is happening here? Jealousy to the people who earned and denigration of position. [/quoteTthat is not what I saw. Many of the richest have not "earned" everything. And they have relied upon the work of others to do so in the large part.

There has not been an answer about what any responsibility people have. Let me ask this question which will probably be ignored as well.

What is the minimum that the people who cannot afford should be provided with?

Food. Water. Housing. Education. Health services. Assistance to obtain work (and you know what, that's where a phone comes in - cells are no more expensive than a landline nowadays, and a lot more convenient, and have you every tried getting a job without a phone number for them to call you on?

What quality and how long should these be provided?

Is everyone allowed to have education up through a Doctorate? Just High School? Kindergarten?
Is everyone allowed a mansion?
Is everyone allowed an Eclair (from France?) for lunch?
Should all health services be paid for every person?

BTW, Thank you.

In theory, people are going to mostly agree on the minimum level of assistance: food, shelter, adequate clothing, transportation expenses, child care expenses and health care seem primary ones to me. But I am not going to micromanage what they eat or drink to make sure it is acceptable (other than ensuring it not be used for illegal drugs or excessive alcohol)Or get bothered if they manage to scrounge up enough money for cable tv. Living on assistance ain't heaven. Probably some/a lot of people on assistance do little side jobs so they could afford a few goodies. I don't care--let's not be scrooge. We have economic policies that are starving the economy of jobs--making sure there is a decent social net is making sure the social fabric doesn't fray that much.


Some people want to make being poor about character. They are lazy or irresponsible. I am sure there are some people like that, enough to fuel stereotypes. Take a look at this following chart showing labor participation rates for the past 50 years. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

You'll note that labor participation rates hit maximum levels around 2000. But in the last 15 years with China and other Asian countries dumping good into our markets we are only to support a labor participation rate in the high 50s. That's a loss of about 7.5 million jobs. So am I going to blame the poor for this or I am going to say that those who make a lot more due to the fact of globalization (not because they got so much better at their jobs or investing in stocks) should pay higher taxes? I guess we should blame Obama for this? As if Republicans would have had different trade policies.

This does not even count the lingering effects of racism and discrimination in segregated minority communities that makes it more difficult for minority poor.

And a lot of poor have very little education, employable skills, and many have significant health problems.

It is not only compassionate but in our best interests to assist those who cannot work.

Freeman3

Trump and Sanders are having success for a reason. Our country's economic policies are helping an economic elite while essentially mortgaging our economic future.

Its always interesting that conservatives, and most liberals, don't look at what actually changed in the US and UK that has caused the economic divide .
Fana Foroohar's book "Makers and Takers"
http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books ... 553447231/
illustrates pretty dramatically that the financialization of America (and the UK) is in large part responsible for a shift in economic power and then politcal power.
Where the financial sector, between 1930 and about 1980, (with significant changes starting in the late 50s) was largely the lubricant for industry and the main street economy .... it became a major sector unto itself and is a now a centre for lots of largely unproductive economic activity. And has turned many corporations away from long term planning, research and activity into quarterly profits machines that eventually wear out as long term thinking opposition steals market share. (Think office machines or automobiles from the 60s to the 90s)
The financial sector in the US is 7% of the GDP, 4% of its employment but enjoys 25% of corporate profits. Why operate a factory or do R&D when speculating on CDs can make one fabulously wealthy...

In the meantime, the poor, working poor, and middle class have had all their meagre benefits eroded as financialization changed attitudes towards efficiency.
When even the few benefits are delivered without any dignity, and with seeming purposfully demeaning methods like lengthy means tests or drug tests.... its clear that the understanding of who is really ripping off the system is not understood.

bbauska

What quality and how long should these be provided?

The better then quality the greater the effect.
My example of the Frenc school lunch or of one payer medical in other countries shows that better quality benefits can be delviered for less than is often spent in the US on sub par products. (Say prisons...)
And as for how long?
If someone has a time limit to their need, can you explain why? Put it another way; if you put a limit to their benefits what happens to them at the end of the limit if their circumstances haven't changed? Do they magically stop being poor?
bbauska

Is everyone allowed to have education up through a Doctorate? Just High School? Kindergarten?

If higher education is a meritocracy, where only those who qualify get the advanced positions, why wouldn't we? Don't we want the best and brightest to get the education despite thier family income, rather than some person who is dull but has money to pay tuition?
bbauska

Is everyone allowed a mansion?

No. Is anyone asking for this?
bbauska

Is everyone allowed an Eclair (from France?) for lunch

?
Since much of the information you showed was that US school lunches are being tossed as unappetizing, isn't the French example worth exploring? Less waste. Greater effect.
bbauska

Should all health services be paid for every person?

It works pretty well in every other western democracy... with restrictions on things like cosmetic surgery or experimental treatments. Delvering both better efficiency and effectiveness...
So why not?

Curious, RickyP, What should a government pay for as a minimum right to it's citizens and legal immigrants? I didn't see your answer, but saw more blah, blah, blah.

Here is what I read
'the greater the benefits, the greater the effect"
followed by him saying these wonderful benefits should last forever ("do they suddenly stop being poor").

Maybe if the benefits are not so wonderful they do stop being poor?
If you give them all they can want then why oh why would they look for a job? Let others pay for their cell phones and housing and food and heat and so on. It's not supposed to be comfortable nor is it supposed to be forever, it used to be shameful to be on assistance of any kind. You took the help only if needed and you worked at getting back on your feet. Now we have a culture based on how to get more from the government. I know several people that have kids simply so they get more govt assistance, I know people who work only as long as it takes to get fired in the way they can collect unemployment, I know people who think working a menial job is below them and they would rather have the govt pay them for doing nothing, it's an entire culture of doing nothing but wanting more, they are entitled to it!

Heck, take a simple thing like food stamps
If you used them in the past, they were actual "Money" that everyone saw when paying for your food. I would roll my eyes seeing people use the food stamps for bread and milk while they paid cash for their beer and cigarettes. Now it's a simple debit card and nobody is the wiser, no shame at all! They "deserve" to have their needs hidden.

Ricky makes a great point that the financial sector has essentially become a parasite in our country--skimming off a ridiculous amount of our country's wealth for little productive value added--and you guys want to obsess about people getting by on $1,000 a month. As I showed above our economy is not creating enough jobs. So you can either pay people who can no longer get jobs enough to support them...or you can spent a far higher amount on police and jails to house them. Spending money to educate and train people so perhaps they can have higher productivity and compete with low-wage workers in China is not a bad investment, either.

If we as a country say it is necessary to have 500 billion trade deficits to maximize our country's wealth--a highly questionable point but for the moment we'll assume it's true--and as a result we're going to create a lot of wealth for a certain few in the financial sector, investors, and upper-management of multi-national companies but we're also going to lose millions upon millions of jobs and those with jobs will have their wages and benefits not go up or even reduced, shouldn't we as a society make adjustments for that? Meaning tax those who are making more money not because they are any better at their jobs than before but because they can make higher profits with low-wage labor and spend money on those who have suffered due to globalization for education, retraining, and a decent, non-demeaning safety net? Because if not why would workers not say the hell with globalization and free trade? Oh, I guess they are starting to say that...

who is arguing the financial guys are making too much?
Milton Drysedale makes too much money so give Homer Simpson a free cell phone!?

The thread is about Government benefits

No I don't think so. Government benefits cannot be looked at in isolation. The availability of jobs, income stratification, tax policy, trade policy, policies towards unions--it all goes into the analysis. I would much prefer that workers had the bargaining power to get a fair share of the wealth they produce as they did a much better job of doing when unions were powerful. But what benefits, who should get them, how long they should last, how they should be paid for that cannot be looked at in isolation. Sorry, that's what you want to do, but I don't agree with it.

fair enough workers need more rights
fair enough the banks take too much
but whatever the reason does not mean more needs to be given to those who chose to not work. Those who can not work can be taken care of but right now even that is abused. Go to WalMart and watch those who use handicap parking. Yes, you can not always tell at first look but damn, some of these people are practically skipping into the store from their precious space!

so what if the bank makes too much, your answer should be about fixing that problem, not about "getting even" by giving poor people cell phones! That most certainly is your aim here, read what you said and like it or not, it certainly is!

it's all about scamming the system and getting what you can. I have heard younger people talking all about how they can get more by doing this or that. In "my day" you were ashamed to take a handout and if you were forced to do so, you couldn't wait to get off!

Not now, it's all about what the government OWES these people, there is no shame in taking taking taking and in fact it's a big deal to score more than you should. We have a generation or two of lazy ass people who simply don't want to work. What's so wrong with making it harder and more shameful to accept government charity?

I am willing to look at both sides, and objectively say that there is excess on both sides. There are cases where people should have benefits and business should be supported. I think we can also agree that there are MANY cases of waste, fraud and plenty of reasons to cut the programs and benefits done to a workable amount.

As I recall, I was all for not bailing out the banks, but there were many on this board supporting the banking industry.

Perhaps we should look back and see who was supporting the business that day...

Funny story...

My dad parked in the handicapped spot a month after his heart transplant. He looked fine, but moved a bit slow (understandably!). A lady in her 40s started busting his chops for parking when he doesn't need it. My dad ripped open his shirt showing a huge Y incision across his torso. Funniest look of shock on the woman's face.

I still remember her apologizing the whole way into the store...

agreed! You can't tell.
But you know damned well a LARGE number of those people have no need for this.
Other things like that that drive me nuts
The people who use the scooters in the store that do so simply because they are fat, maybe WALKING can help that problem?
oh, and it rained here the other day. I drop my wife off, drive to the every end of the lot and wait to see her, I then drive up and pick her up, but those people who simply sit for a half hour or more at a time right in front of the freaking door!? C'mon!!!

BBauska,

I've worked with those who are poor or homeless for the last 20 years in New York, St. Louis and East St. Louis. In that time I've struggled with questions like the ones you have posed here.

The fact is, some of the most selfish people I've dealt with have been both those who are homeless and those who donate very large sums of money to provide services for them. In the case of the latter, I have found that many wealthy people will only give if they know they will receive tax credits in return (legal in Missouri, not as much in New York).

Let me also say that some of the most generous people I have ever met have been homeless or very, very poor. I have also met some insanely generous donors who gave large sums of money to our non profit in exchange for nothing in return, not even the slightest recognition.

So there are very selfish people out there who are poor and take advantage of "the system." That is a fact from my experience. However, if anyone thinks that the kinds of lives these folks lead resembles some kind of life of Riley, think again. Not even close. Conversely, there are extremely selfish wealthy people out there who also take advantage of "the system." This is also a fact.

And then there are those who are either poor or wealthy and absolutely self-less.

Conclusion? We are all a bag of mixed nuts.

By the way, cell phones have become absolutely essential for those trying to improve their quality of life. It's simple, you apply for a job. The employer likes what he sees and wants to hire you. With a cell phone, she can now call you to offer you the job. Without the phone, there is no call back, no job, no source of income, no stability and more poverty. At the very least, trust me on this one.

gmtom

The thread is about Government benefits

Yes.
And the financial sector and corporations enjoy the greatest benefits.
Lets start with a taxation system that treats debt more generously. That treats investment income very differently from money earned through hard labor. (Taxed much less)
Grants and subsidies go to corproations and industry without direct compensation to the government. (Taxpayer) Even profitable businesses like big agra, the pharmeuceutical industry and mature oil companies get big subsidies... (ethanol anyone)
Google was started with a grant from the US government. In Israel, if a company gets a start from a govenrment program, Israel continues to reap the rewards of any profits from that industry. Imagine if the US governemnt were receiving 5% of Google profits and/or stock compensation?

Meanwhile you fret about whether some poor person is provided a cell phone in order to be able to have potential employers reach them, or fret about whether poor kids get too appetizing a meal at school.

It isn't the meagre spending on the poor or governmentt programs for the poor that is stalling the economy. Its the vast amounts of money that have been taken out of the normal economy and which float around in financial "products" without generating employment or a product or service that a consumer actually uses... Corporations have taken trillions of dollars out of the operation of their companies in order to invest them in CDs and stuff like that because 1) tax law incentivizes this 2)wall street pushes for profits that can't be made through the normal cost of operating a business but which can sometimes be realized speculating... 3) the management gets paid on short term profits and they pump up a year in order to get paid. Hang the long term health of the corporation.


freeman

Ricky makes a great point that the financial sector has essentially become a parasite in our country

Not just the financial sector but the ways the financial sector analyzes things...
By the way, the book I quoted is a great read.
Example of "financialization" also includes how labor is valued and how labor is set up. The relationship between labor and management was created largely by attitudes created by modern management efficiency which treated labor as if they were machines. And seperated management from labor.
In places where there is a collborative relationship between labor and management (say Germany) industries are healthier long term (though not always on a quarter to quarter basis).
Its the emphasis on short term thinking like this quarters performance or this years stock value, that often really harms an industry. Where American companies once lead the world in R&D spending its now trailing badly. All because companies can increase their stock value more by buying back shares or creating a dividend.
Apple is sitting on over 640 billion in cash, but borrowed money recently because of the tax advantage. If the spent a few of their billions on R&D .... or better compensation for employees ... or maybe paying American wages to manufacture products in the US....imagine how much the economy would benefit.
But instead they are encouraged to not investment spend, hoard their cash and manufacture in the lowest labor cost enviroment they can find.
Its killing the economy.
And thats what the US electorate feels. They just think its Mexicans that are hurting them, not the real source.