re: The argument for social assistance programs as a net benefit for a productive society

quote:

---

quote:
It's Social Security and Medicare at the federal level and pensions and retirement healthcare at the state level that need a goddamn cleaver run through them. Principled conservatives would do themselves good if they zeroed on those at the expense of almost everything else because those are what will eventually bankrupt the country if not fixed.


So the programs people paid into with a promised future benefit need cutting with a cleaver, but not those that go to purely free riders?

---

On balance, most people are getting out more than what they paid in, and that will be the case for at least another generation.

The actuarials just flat out don't line up. Most people receiving it today paid in at a time when there were ten to twelve people paying into the system for every person receiving benefits. Today it's more like three to one. That math doesn't lie, and it absolutely has to be fixed in some form.

Social Security and Medicare, by themselves, are damn near half the federal budget.

Raise the age at which you can receive benefits or fricking something. It has to happen or the country will go bankrupt. The problem is even more acute at the state level with pensions.

quote:

---

I would be interested to look at who all qualifies for multiple programs, what those cut lines are, and then possibly lower those cut rates for people who qualify for more than one when appropriate

---

You'd get like 3 Democrat votes from legislators........ANYWHERE

quote:

---

Instead of giving housing, food, transportation, utilities, EITC, etc... put people in a program where they get cash benefits run through one agency and given a 3-4 year window, all tied to education/job training and not losing benefits if they work during that period?

---

consolidation is something i would have no problem with

quote:

---

okay. I'm not a Democrat legislator

---

Well they're not going to listen to me. You're the one voting for them

quote:

---

Doesnt exist

---

You have to work 20 hours a week to get food stamps in La.

quote:

---

Are you saying environmental factors in childhood play no role at all?

---

Obviously, they do. If a person grows up poor, in a bad neighborhood with high crime rates, with a single parent, and with uneducated parents, they will almost certainly grow up poor. These factors have a stronger correlation than race does. Their odds of improving their economic outlook increase for each of those four factors that you change.

What are we doing about reducing these factors? Not much, that I can see. In fact, our welfare system provides housing in housing projects for many, and these neighborhoods have high crime rates. It also discourages marriage. For many, public assistance becomes permanent, so it ensures that a child spends their entire childhood in poverty.

We need incentives to work, incentives to get married, and incentives to get an education.

To an extent, I don't disagree.

These payments are a form of insurance.
If we don't make them, a mob of society's dregs will burn down the neighborhoods of the productive people.

quote:

---

if these programs are so effective, why is usage increasing?

---

wage stagnation which is a result of corporatist policies

quote:

---

If we don't make them, a mob of society's dregs will burn down the neighborhoods of the productive people.

---

Kinda sad, in many countries welfare is considered a safety net. The USA has such a large percentage of dysfunctional s that it's basically protection money, and it's still not working.