This is part of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Increase the number of welfare
recipients to such a degree as to collapse the system. This is a forerunner of
socialism. Obama is following it point by point.
It should be noted that CATO is a libertarian think tank that is opposed to
virtually all government programs of any kind.Right wing
billionaires have spent decades trying to convince the middle class that most of
their taxes go to lazy people, usually minorities, who simply refuse to work.
Only about 5% of the federal budget goes to the non-working poor.A
bigger problem is companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds who pay their employees
so little that they qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. In other words, our
taxes are subsidizing the profits of these gigantic corporations.
Everyone looks forward to the vision of retirement and being able to do what one
wants to do and not have a boss. A lot of the time those losing a job and going
on unemployment think they are in a retirement mode and start to enjoy not
having to get up early and answering to a boss at work. I have seen several
friends have initiative drained out of them with unemployment benefits. I can
see why businesses do not like to hire people out of work but instead like to
hire talent away from other companies.
"Does welfare rob Americans of their incentive to work?"No.
Look at the article closely, nearly 60% of "welfare" recipients do work
and they fall into the category Roland is talking about folks working for
billionaires who won't pay a living wage. The other 40% probably contains
some who'd rather receive than work, but, it also contains mothers with
small children, the disabled, and those who have temporarily lost decent paying
jobs who are actively looking. This is more of the same old Regan welfare queen
nonsense. The bigger problem is the situation described where the
60% as they get ahead go through a period where they lose their support benefits
but still don't make enough to get by. That's a disincentive not the
nonsense about paying people not to work.
The Cato Institute loves to imagine that there are simple solutions to complex
problems. For example, single mothers who want to work have to deal with finding
and affording child care, which can eat up much of what they make by working.
People without a car are often limited in where they can work due to lack of
public transportation. Those in small towns have a limited number of places to
apply and can't afford to move elsewhere. Other places have such massive
unemployment that there are few jobs for which they qualify, and there are
literally hundreds of applicants for the jobs where they do qualify. If
there's one job and a hundred applicants, simple math tells us that there
will still be ninety-nine unemployed people left when that job is filled. None of these problems are insoluble, but the solutions are more complex
and challenging than the simplistic ideas put forward by the extremest positions
that Cato holds.
Easy welfare destroys people, families, cities and nations. Detroit is an
excellent example. Black on black crime, while liberals refuse to talk about it,
is a direct result of destruction of the family. Don't need a father in the
home because welfare eliminates the necessity, i.e. welfare replaces the father
in the family as breadwinner and 70% of babies born have no father. Social
consequences of easy welfare are enormous.
My assumption is that Utah pays welfare benefits less than the minimum wage.
The problem I have with this information is that it is comparing an
hourly rate to what must be an annual amount. What are the particulars of
each?If the minimum hourly wage applies only to start up employees,
as businessmen tell us and start up employees seldom work full time, what is the
annual salary that should be used for the comparison. About the
annual salary used, does it apply to a single person, a family, or a child?
What is in the “benefits” and what is their estimated value? What
are the welfare benefits that might apply to the minimum wage worker?I think this article is well below the standard we should expect from the
Looks like a good solid case for raising the minimum wage.
Where do the "47%" fall?
Perhaps there is an easy solution to this: ALL Employers should pay a living
wage for a fair day's work. Don't expect government or charities to
come in and subsidize your labor costs. And shop around and find healthcare
plans for your employees. If you don't do both of these, don't whine
to me when government steps in and forces you to do it. Socialism is a last
resort when amoral capitalism runs amuck.
Does welfare rob Americans of their incentive to work?Absolutely!
This happens all the time. But they cannot be faulted. If you can make more on
welfare, this is a rational decision.
Salaries and wages must be governed by free market competition. If you
don't possess the job skills that demand more than minimum wages, whose
fault is that? Some of you want to blame the employer but ask yourself how an
employer can survive and compete in the real world by paying high wages for
minimal contributions? Its why brain surgeons and engineers make more money than
janitors or hamburger flippers! If you want to earn more money, improve your
So Max, why do 60% of welfare recipients work if they've been robbed of
their incentive to work? Welfare robs incentive to work is pure baloney. As
the article itself says few qualify for all welfare programs so they have to
work, conversely welfare is not set up to rob someone of their incentive to
work. Once again Republicans/conservatives just making up the world the way
they want to see it. It's why they haven't had a decent solution for
anything for over 60 years.
Ironic that many who berate Wal-Mart and McDonalds (and all other
"billionaires" cashing in on the blood of the working class), actually
own stock in those same corporations. Stocks are widely distributed and part of
many indexes commonly part of 401k, IRA, insurance, annuity or other investment
vehicles. And if you don't have an investment in them you have
almost certainly shopped at WMT or eaten at MCD (and are therefore still
complicit in exploiting the proletariat). Ironically, it is
Capitalism that has distributed ownership and voting rights to the masses
through stocks and open markets while socialism ends up concentrating power in
the hands of the political elite.
Mountanman your statement works both ways, how does an employer such as owner of
Papa Johns make the money he does and not pay decent wages or medical. If
employees are showing up for work everyday and you make a substantial profit
shouldn't the employer give some back to his employees. The only reason
employers don't pay better is because of GREED and the rich want to get
Welfare....slowly destroying personal dignity, work ethics, and the family since
the 1960's when the "safety net" of the 1930's turned into the
conformable hammock we see today. Raising the min wage to $15 an hour is pure
stupidity. It will be like putting a screen door on a submarine and will have
the same effect. Businesses are already cutting to the bone, both hours and
wages, to deal with O care,higher energy costs and transportation of product due
to higher gas prices.. Raise the min wage on them and you will get more jobs
lost and more out-sourcing, not less. Contrary to what this "I'm more
equal than you,everybody gets a trophy generation" thinks, flipping burgers
at McDonald's is not a "career skill" that is worth $15 an hour
want to make more than minimum wage? Make your labor worth more than minimum
wage.In too many cases the labor provided is not even worth minimum
wage.Labor is a commodity - differentiate the value of your labor;
make it worth moreblaming billionaires who already pay 80-95% of the
income taxes is just an excuse.
It's this whole black and white, either or, capitalism versus socialism, if
you don't like your wage go to college despite coming from generations of
poverty, I did it so everyone should be able to, lack of reality inside the
bubble attitude that turned many of us here who are personally very successful,
and fiscally pretty conservative away from the Republican party decades ago.
It's also the reason the Republicans are getting hammered nationally.
Republicans can only succeed where they can create and maintain the bubble. The
world doesn't look like or function like you want it to. Try as you may
you can't change that.
Mountainman and Terra Nova:Maybe you should learn a little more about
Capitalism. You might try "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. When a
few oligarchs control the means of production (today the top 20% own 93% of the
nations wealth and the masses less than 1%) there is no serious competition and
workers simply take the crumbs the giants of industry give them. Someone can
work for Walmart, or in City Creek for 30 years and still not receive sufficient
wage to live on. Maybe you should read a little about Rockefeller, Carnegie, of
JP Morgan. The oligarchs of today (Microsoft, HP, Toyota) are no different,
they just have better PR departments.
Mainly Me, how do you explain why Obama wants to increase the minimum wage? Just
admit it you dont like Obama get over it the election is over find another dead
horse to beat... also In some places unemployment pays $10.00 an hour or more,
so why get off it to work for minimum wage. When it comes right down to it the
rich one percent and big business have been working at getting things this
screwed up for a long time... With the help of the Bush administration the
pretty much have it all their way now.... So your either part of the one percent
or you have your head in the sand and your butt in the air waiting for someone
to come along and kick it....
@ pelon. Why does Papa John's pay less than other business' employers?
Because not that much talent or skill is needed to produce pizzas compared to
producing computer programs or Boeing airplanes. Let's say Papa
John's doubles the salaries of their employees and therefore is forced to
double the price of their pizzas. How many pizzas do you think they would sell
against their competition with half the price and just as good quality products?
They would be out of the pizza business very quickly. The only way Papa
John's or any other company can command higher market share and therefore
pay higher salaries is by either better products or by producing them cheaper
than their competitors. Very few customer will buy your product otherwise!
That's why nearly everything is made in China today! American companies can
not compete and when consumers go into Wal-Mart the price of goods made in China
are less expensive than those made in America. Consumers always vote with their
wallets and there goes the jobs!
Interesting to see that those eager to "punish the rich" or "make
them pair their fair share" are silent about the basic finding of this
story-- that welfare pays more than work.So, they basically see
nothing wrong with people not working getting paid more than those who do, and
even worse, the non-workers being paid by the people who actually work.As long as socialists do not run out of other people's money to spend,
they are eager to push their rhetoric of envy and greed, projecting those vices
on to the working class who subsidize all their welfare schemes.With
a near majority now collecting freebies instead of paying for them, we will
eventually end up with class warfare when the "free stuff" inevitably
must be reduced or eliminated, or when the "makers" get fed up with
being robbed by the "takers."There should be no minimum
wage. Employers should pay what the free market determines is a fair wage for
the hours and skills provided. And, a radical as it may sound, no able bodied
person should ever have an automatic right to welfare. Starvation is a powerful
motivator to get a job. Any job.
@Mountanman"Black on black crime, while liberals refuse to talk about
it"If liberals talk about it, but conservatives never watch
their news shows where it's covered, does it actually get talked about
according to you all? (hint: urban crime comes up a lot for liberals, if you
don't believe me, maybe you will when I note it's often connected to
@lost in DC"blaming billionaires who already pay 80-95% of the income
taxes is just an excuse."They deserve it. Wealth inequality has
skyrocketed in this nation ever since Reagan was elected. Besides, the top 1%
has 84% of the wealth so if they pay 84% of income taxes, that's just
consistency. Now... what percentage of payroll taxes do billionaires pay? Oh
right, very little. It's inconvenient to your argument. Guess that's
why you used income taxes instead of total taxes.
DN headline..."...35 states that offer more in welfare than
minimum wage earnings...".DN intro to the actual list..."...Find out which states POSSIBLY offer more in welfare than
minimum wage earnings...".No qualifier on the headline but
"...possibly..." on the intro...Why?
Welfare is calculated to establish a minimum level of support to make sure that
a recipient can keep a minimal roof over their head, a minimal level of food on
the table and little else.The fact that this minimal level of public
assistance for people who need it is more than what can be earned working full
time at the official Minimum Wage is a strong argument in favor of raising the
minimum wage. The other day this newspaper ran a story about the new
F-35 fighter jet that congressional representatives and Lockheed are essentially
forcing on the Air Force even though the Air Force doesn't really want it.
It's too expensive to operate, and they don't have a use for it.
It's $400 billion in corporate welfare - pure and simple. Why is Lockheed
Corporation worthy of public assistance, but the single, low-income mom with a
special needs kid is not?
@Mountanman - well and succinctly said. Your post at 10:45 a.m. is not even
Economics 101 - it's more like Pre-Economics 101. It's common sense
to anyone with the slightest economic acuity. Despite a long history of
economics that supports the truth of these most fundamental principles, many of
our fellow posters are still incapable of seeing beyond "poor people need
help, and government should require rich people to help them," as the
overriding principle on which to establish markets and economies on a macro
scale. Money grows on printing presses, $16 Trillion in debt doesn't hurt
anything, rich people can forever afford whatever wages and benefits their
employees desire, all without raising prices at Wal-Mart or Burger King.Although not everyone on welfare, or those who are overpaid for the
skills they perform, are lazy and entitled, our system is increasingly
incentivizing such an attitude, and de-incentivizing a work-your-way-up ethic.
A good safety net should be a temporary help that provides motivation to return
to work. Our system has gone far beyond that.
Republican/Conservative minset:Corporate Welfare = Good.General Welfare = Bad.Liberal Mindset:Corporate
Welfare = Un-ConstitutionalGeneral Welfare = Constitutional
If you want to better understand why living on welfare is easier than working or
even working to get promoted read "Over $60,000 in Welfare Spent Per
Household in Poverty" in the Weekly Standard. Think about it, if you can
work Walmart making minimum wage and live like the guy down the street that went
to college and got a degree, why put in the effort to get the degree?The Senate Budget Committee found that the government on average spends enough
on the poor that they live a similar lifestyle that a family making $60,000/yr
has. Why work harder or improve yourself when you can live just as good as the
average american without as much work?To "LDS Liberal" I
don't think you know what liberals believe. They believe fully in welfare
to corporations and to anybody willing to pledge their support. You also have
no idea wt the "General Welfare" clase was originally intended to mean.
I will give you a hint, it had nothing to do with giving money to the poor, and
had more to do with funding the federal government.
Who owns business?Who creates the opportunity for a business
operation?Who creates the need for a business operation?Who provides the customers for a business operation?Who provides
the workers for a business operation?Who specifies the quantity,
quality and the manner of creation of the product?Who provides the
infrastructure needed for the business operation?Who provides the
protection from other businesses for the business operation?Who
provides the rules and regulations for the business operation?Who
pays for all the costs, wages, taxes and profits?The answer to all
of the above is the people of the society and its agent called government.---Who provides the money to build, run and create the
product?Who gets all the profit? The answer to these
questions is the Investor, who loans the business operation some of his surplus
money.Should all the people who invest in a business operation
receive part of the profit? As a part owner of the business operation and as
full owner of the concept of business people should demand and receive a proper
share of the profits of the business operation.
I find it interesting that the end of the article notes that single adult
benefits aren't as much as those for single mothers. Might it not be
better to motivate less creation by single mothers of more
"dependents"?LDS Liberal - your summary is absolutely
incorrect. I don't believe that conservatives believe corporate welfare to
be good. Neither do I believe that liberals thing generally in line with
"constitutional v. unconstitutional." The question is, what works, and
what is the best way for things to work. Conservatives and libertarians lean
towards not including government in the decisions regarding general welfare or
in business - just get out of the way, government, is the mantra. While compassion for those is essential to the survival of any civilization,
the question is who is best to take care of the issues that compassion, charity
or welfare can answer. My "neighbor" or some employee of a large
organization in some remote area that is unfamiliar with the particulars of the
need? I vote for the neighbor solution - not the bureaucratic one (governmental
or corporate. It just seems more efficient in solving people's needs.
Republican/Conservative mindset:Incentivizing Business Growth =
GoodIncentivizing Handout Mentality = BadLiberal Mindset:Incentivizing Business Growth = Un-ConstitutionalIncentivizing
Handout Mentality = Constitutional
@Ultra Bob - so, if I have my very own unique idea and formulate it into a
business, the owners are now other members of society and the government? Maybe
in North Korea.Who places myriad obstacles to creating a business,
getting customers, and hiring employees? The government.And, you
think society and government pays for all the "costs, wages, taxes, and
profits?" That could be the most absurd comment in the history of comments.
How does the government pay for it's own taxes, let alone come up with the
many trillions of dollars in operating costs and payroll for every business? Do
you really think the government pays for those things? What does it even mean to
pay for profits?Do you think a business does not pay fees for access
and easement, and for land development that includes infrastructure?
Doesn't the business have to pay for infrastructure through taxes when they
purchase fuel, and don't you think fuel taxes are built into prices charged
by any shipping service they hire?Of course the business keeps all
the profits. By the time it's a profit, they've already paid wages,
operating costs, and taxes, taxes, taxes.
How can Costco even compete with SAMs club if costco's employees earn on
average forty percent more and have better insurance? By redshirt, mountainmans
and others logic costco prices should be at least forty percent higher but there
not. Every time I go to costco it is packed but the SAMs club parking lot
always seems empty.Now what kind of skills does a Costco employee
have over a SAMs club employee? I really don't know but every Costco
employee I know owns a house. They can afford to go out and buy things. I assume
they pay more taxes than a SAMs club employee. So what is the true difference.
Costco values their employees work and sees the value in paying them a living
wage. SAMs club and its parent company Walmart only care about shareholder
value, which is mostly the Walton family. SAMs club and Walmart could easily
afford to pay their employees more, which would provide a more vibrant economy
but their sole focus is the shareholders.
Ultra Bob says:"As a part owner of the business operation and as
full owner of the concept of business people should demand and receive a proper
share of the profits of the business operation."Sorry to break
the news to you Bob, but if you buy a hula bobble doll for your dashboard at
Checker Auto Parts, the one and only piece of ownership you have is the hula
bobble doll for your dashboard. Seems kind of crazy to think such a purchase
would entitle the buyer to a share of Checker's profits of the business
operation. Maybe if you resell it at a garage sale, the new buyer should demand
and receive a proper share of your estate, or a portion of your will. Somehow I
think you're keeping "all the profit" on that transaction.
To "Shaun" you make no sense. Please explain how what I stated earlier
has anything to do with private businesses.Costco being packed has
nothing to do with welfare, but has to do with quality either perceived or
actual. As you pointed out Costco is always packed, and Sams is not. Costco
can afford to pay its employees more, and encourages employee development so
that they can grow and do more than just stock shelves their entire life.
Sams/Walmart does not encourage employees to become more than they are. Maybe
that is the difference.But again, if you can live comfortably with
putting in little to no effort, why would you want to gain skills that could
lead to better employment or a promotion? All you get for improving yourself is
having to pay for more of what you consume out of your own pocket.The US government has deincentivized working and building skills that lead to
better paying jobs.
Walmart pays so poorly that a good percentage of their employees have jobs and
still qualify for welfare.
RedShirt, the error in assuming you can "live comfortably" on welfare is
assuming that you can qualify for all available welfare programs. Then as he
article says you may make as much or possibly slightly more than minimum wage.
However the article points out that very few can qualify for all of the
programs, that's why 60% work. It's just not true that there are vast
numbers of people "living comfortably" off of welfare. I
happen to be well acquainted with someone who has three kids by different
fathers and doesn't work when she absolutely could and the welfare system
is not providing her a living much less a comfortable one. She gets by,
mooching off of parents ex-boyfriends and some government food and medical
support for the children who are not at fault her. The point is she is
Regan's welfare queen and the system is not designed to nor does it enable
her to "get by" with out working. That's accomplished by enabling
parents and ex's. That's why most welfare recipients work.
the best thing about this article... knowing that there are 7 too many
bureaucracies when it comes to welfare...
Can you imagine offering the following prayer?"Father, the
Scriptures say, 'Do not judge,' and 'How can you say to your
brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye," while there is a beam
in your own?'"But, Father, Thou knowest that I have no beam
in my eye, so I'm sure Thou wilt agree that I am justified in judging my
brothers, who, in my opinion, aren't trying hard enough."Father, for their own sakes, I think they should starve awhile. I starved
once, for a few hours, and it did me a world of good, and thankfully, instead of
making me weak with compassion, this experience made me strong in my own sense
of righteousness."The Scriptures also say, 'Treat others as
you would want them to treat you.' If I were a lazy good-for-nothing, as
I'm pretty sure my brothers are, I would want my betters to let me go
hungry, instead of inflaming their envy by spending my food stamps on cupcakes
and potato chips."Father, in short, my brothers and sisters
living in poverty aren't suffering enough, so please let them suffer
When a business operation comes to town the first thing is to get permission to
operate a business operation from the local government in the form of a business
license. The issuance of the license assumes that your business is legal and
that you will abide by all the laws and regulations applicable to your business
operation. The sponsors and investors of the business operation
expect that the business operation not only will return their investment but
also a profit. The do not create a business operation to give away money.
Every penny of the money paid out from the business, every tax, wage, fee,
salary and profit comes from the sale of products to mainly the people of the
town. The increased tax revenue for the town, that the business
paid, actually was a tax increase on the people of the town. Which is OK if the
people feel that the product received is equal to the purchase price.The important fact is that the businessmen leave the town with more than they
Mainly Me: Your absolutely correct. The number of welfare recipients wil
continue to increase, eventually collasping the system. Welfare without work
programs does rob incentives from individuals. It is relatively easy to get on
welfare today. Why not do it? Someone else will pay. Was it Margaret Thatcher
who said, "Socialism is great, until you run out of other people's
money" or something to that affect.
@RedshirtMIT. Do yourself a favor and go to the Utah government website and do
the prescreen tool for snap(food stamps). Fill it out like you are making
minimum wage and the rent you would be paying for a one person apartment. I am not on welfare and hope I never have to but your assumption that
someone who is making minimum wage can live like someone making $60000 a year is
way off.I filled out the prescreen tool as a single person making
minimum wage and my rent was 425. I stated i had $500 in my savings account and
I had no other related income like stock dividends. The program said I may be
eligible for $43 to $53 worth of food stamps per month.So a person
making minimum wage would make $14400 a year plus $600 a year in food stamps.
That is $15000. Where does the other $45000 in lifestyle living come from?
@Lightbearer - I can't imagine anyone saying that prayer. I can't
imagine anyone believing the contents of that prayer. I can't imagine
anyone self righteous enough to create a prayer like that, believing it actually
represents anyone else.
@ken12sThis type of wage control is typical of the socialist agenda.
I agree that some realistic minimum wage is necessary, but with the increase in
minimum wage, you get a corresponding increase in the cost of living. Just look
at where I live, Australia. Every time they increase the minimum wage, the cost
of living goes up and eats up the so-called wage increase. Everything goes up,
housing, transportation, food, everything except medical (the medical is a
joke).Setting a high minimum wage is only the beginning. Once that
is done, then the Obama goobermint will try the same thing done here. A massive
bureaucracy will be set up to regulate every tiny aspect of employment. It
kills initiative and chokes the free market. You only see the wondrous ideas
spouted by the Dear Leader. Try living in a socialist country and watch your
I really don't understand how New Hampshire made #9. If you are single with
no children and are not disabled or a senior you do not qualify for food stamps
unless you are working at least 20 hours per week. You don't qualify for
any type of medical help unless you have children/disability. They only give
financial aid to those with children. You don't qualify to get your name on
the list for public or section 8 unless of you have a kid or are a senior or
disabled.One the foodstamps if you lose your job you can get
foodstamps for 3 months that's it whether or not you have found a job at
the end of 3 months.
"The program said I may be eligible for $43 to $53 worth of food stamps per
month."Outrageous! Outrageous! 53 dollars a month. Over 13
dollars a week! A week! Outrageous! No wonder these deadbeats
don't want to improve their lot in life! Who would, getting over 13 dollars
a week in FREE food? 13 dollars that the the working people (the real people)
have to pay. It's an outrage! Burr! I can hardly see straight!This is the end of this once great nation! It's all over! All of it I
say! In fact, I'm going to quit my job so I can wallow around
in the luxery that the welfare people enjoy in this country. Ah, now for the
good life of the poor in America! I can hardly wait.
It's simple. Raise the minimum wage.
atl134the wealth disparity has INCREASED under BO. The
underlying cause is we no longer require anything of our students and youth.
Just so long as they have good self-esteem, get “participation”
awards rather than 1st and second place trophies, etc, our society thinks they
are OK. We idolize smart-mouthed slackers (Bart Simpson) and similar
ne’re-do-wells. And liberals think the slackers deserve the same outcomes
as those who work hard and overcome their personal obstaclesWe no
longer require life skills and marketable skills of them. Those with a modicum
of ambition improve themselves and get ahead, and they are vilified by the
“tolerant” left, which drives the ambition from some, allowing those
who still care to get even further ahead.I have no problem with a
progressive tax rate – please do not think I am complaining that those who
make the most pay the most. Just stop blaming them for the disparity between
their ambition, skills, and abilities and the lack thereof of those content
qualifying themselves for nothing better than minimum wage jobs.
I didn't even read the article, yet, I would HIGHLY AGREE! And, I'll
bet that California is on the list! But, this is what the Democrats
want...people to be dependant upon the government. I've often asked myself
why I work and why I remain married, if I could get more disposable income just
by staying home and being single. It's so wrong!
To "pragmatistferlife" yes, they are living comfortably. You may not
consider it comfortable, but you have higher expectations. By global standards
they are living comfortably. They have a roof over their head, at least a 3
bedroom apartment, and have flat screen TVs (maybe not giant ones, but they
still have them). You should read my original post. I recognize that many of
the poor work, but how many of them are making efforts to improve their job
skills and qualifications?To "Shaun" the $60,000/yr figure
comes from the senate. While some people may not qualify for much, many do
qualify for a lot and they like it that way. Read "Julia’s mother:
Why a single mom is better off with a $29,000 job and welfare than taking a
$69,000 job" at the American Enterprise Institute. They have a graph that
explains everything about how a working mother making #29,000/yr is better off
than if she was earning $69,000/yr
The federal government got it's wish of 40 years ago when they enticed the
States to join the public federal funding game. States have lost their control
due to the money that bought their freedoms for the gain at the election box
office for more and more handouts from a federal government that has lost
control of itself.