Study: Welfare pays more than minimum wage in most states

[tod evans]

One of the first areas of government I'd like to see totally de-funded, immediately after all the alphabet agencies..:mad:


Study: Welfare pays more than minimum wage in most states

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/21/study-in-most-states-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-job/?test=latestnews


Welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, creating little incentive for Americans to take entry-level work and likely increasing their long-term dependency on government help, according to a new study by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute.
The finds come 17 years after the Clinton administration, with bipartisan support from Congress, passed landmark welfare reform legislation that was supposed to move Americans away from entitlements and into the workforce.
However, “welfare benefits continue to outpace the income that most recipients can expect to earn from an entry-level job,” the study authors said. “And the balance between welfare and work may actually have grown worse in recent years.”
Among the other findings is that welfare in 13 states pays more than $15 an hour, compared with the federal hourly minimum wage of $7.25.
The disparity was even higher in nine states in which welfare pays more than the average first-year teacher’s salary and in the six most-generous states, which pay more than the entry-level salary for a computer programmer.
The 52-page study, titled “The Work Versus Welfare Trade Off,” points out a full package of welfare benefits often exceeds take-home pay in part because benefits are tax-free.
The study’s author argues that if Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening welfare-to-work requirements, removing exemptions and narrowing the definition of work. This could include reducing benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements.
Cato senior fellow Michael Tanner, who did a similar study in 1995, told FoxNews.com on Wednesday that the problem goes beyond legislative changes and that the country needs to reform its education system to better prepare Americans for the workforce.
He also repeated the argument that entry-level workers don’t stay at that level, arguing just 2.6 percent of full-time worker are poor and only 42 percent of Americans are engaged in work activities, which includes job training and looking for employment.
“We need to get people to think long term,” Tanner said
The Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues the study has several flaws, including that it "lumps together" a set of safety-net programs, including Medicaid, housing assistance and food stamps, and that "all poor families in which the parents aren’t working receive all of these benefits."
The study was also released amid a renewed standoff in Washington and elsewhere over whether to increase the minimum wage.
Fast-food workers in at least seven states have recently gone on strike to demand higher wages.
And President Obama last month again called to increase the minimum wage to $9 an hour for those who don’t get tips, saying “No one who works full-time in America should have to live in poverty.”
However, Congress appears to be in no hurry to fully address the issue.

[phill4paul]

Wait till the minimum wage is increased. Then the welfare payments will have to increase.

[Anti Federalist]

“We need to get people to think long term,” Tanner said

That's racist.



Planning ahead is considered racist?

By ANDREW J. COULSON, GUEST COLUMNIST

Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, May 31, 2006

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Planning-ahead-is-considered-racist-1204942.php

Are you salting away a little money for your retirement? Trying to plan for your kids' education? If so, Seattle Public Schools seems to think you're a racist.

According to the district's official Web site, "having a future time orientation" (academese for having long-term goals) is among the "aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype and label people of color."

Huh?

Not all the district's definitions of racism (and there are lots of them) are so cryptic. The site goes on immediately to say, "Emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" is another form of "cultural racism."

[TonySutton]

I do believe this is a problem but I am uncertain they are comparing apples to apples because of some of the wording I have seen in these articles. It seems via the wording in some articles they might be including items that would be listed as benefits by an employer when figuring the wage and then comparing it against a bare minimum wage, not minimum wage + benefits.

Has anyone seen an article which actually shows the raw data used for the calculations?

I am all for exposing waste but when we argue with half truths we destroy our own arguments and lose credibility.

[Origanalist]

That's racist.



Planning ahead is considered racist?



By ANDREW J. COULSON, GUEST COLUMNIST

Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, May 31, 2006

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Planning-ahead-is-considered-racist-1204942.php

Are you salting away a little money for your retirement? Trying to plan for your kids' education? If so, Seattle Public Schools seems to think you're a racist.

According to the district's official Web site, "having a future time orientation" (academese for having long-term goals) is among the "aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype and label people of color."

Huh?

Not all the district's definitions of racism (and there are lots of them) are so cryptic. The site goes on immediately to say, "Emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" is another form of "cultural racism."

Seattle is a lost cause. I know we have a couple of people from there, but I avoid it like the plague.

[Origanalist]

Welfare should pay more than minimum wage. How else are they supposed to live? Doesn't the Constitution guaranty food, shelter and health care?

[tod evans]

Welfare should pay more than minimum wage. How else are they supposed to live? Doesn't the Constitution guaranty food, shelter and health care?

They deserve it!

Think of the children...

[jkr]

so how should this influence my future negotiations?

should i require proportionately more $ compensation?

if not, is this a stealth devaluation of my education, experience, and talents?
is this a devaluation of my labor value or an opportunity to raise my ship as well?

[angelatc]

This will highlight the difference between us and them. We would solve the problem by reducing or eliminating public welfare. They will start yammering that this is why we need to raise the minimum wage.

[AuH20]

If we ended the welfare state, we might actually see some REAL CHANGE. No more slow crawl into the darkness.

[helmuth_hubener]

Give 'em the ax! ... totally de-funded, immediately... Mr, Evans, would you also support immediate defunding of the SS (Socialist Security)?

If not, why not? Keep in mind that people receiving welfare are, at least, legitimately "poor," in that they have a below-average income, below-average wealth-level, just overall below-average standard of living. Whereas the oldsters sucking down the SS are the richest demographic in America.

[tod evans]

Mr, Evans, would you also support immediate defunding of the SS (Socialist Security)?

If not, why not? Keep in mind that people receiving welfare are, at least, legitimately "poor," in that they have a below-average income, below-average wealth-level, just overall below-average standard of living. Whereas the oldsters sucking down the SS are the richest demographic in America.

You and I have done this dance before...

My answer is exactly the same as last time;

I'm all for de-funding SSI after the freeloaders are kicked off the tit.

[presence]

Daily Caller News Foundation
http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/52f3722c927140b5840fc5679f5bd243-e1377030310708.jpg
Study: Welfare pays more than work in most states 4:17 PM 08/20/2013




inShare38

9 (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2013%2F08%2F20 %2Fstudy-welfare-pays-more-than-work-in-most-states%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn01.dailycaller.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2F52f3722c927140b584 0fc5679f5bd243-e1377030310708-300x129.jpg&guid=mYbJAG077Yem&description=Study:%20Welfare%20pays%20more%20than% 20work%20in%20most%20states)

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/themes/default/images/email2.gif (http://dailycaller.com/email-this/?postid=3827367)
http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/themes/default/images/print2.gif (http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/study-welfare-pays-more-than-work-in-most-states/?print=1)


Michael Bastasch



See All Articles (http://dailycaller.com/author/michaelb/)
Email Michael Bastasch (michael.dailycallerfoundation@gmail.com)
Subscribe to RSS (http://dailycaller.com/author/michaelb/feed/)












38
inShare

9 (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2013%2F08%2F20 %2Fstudy-welfare-pays-more-than-work-in-most-states%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn01.dailycaller.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2F52f3722c927140b584 0fc5679f5bd243-e1377030310708-300x129.jpg&guid=mYbJAG077Yem&description=Study:%20Welfare%20pays%20more%20than% 20work%20in%20most%20states)

Looking for a good paying job? Well, look no further.
No, really, stop looking. In 35 states, welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job, according to a new study (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/theworkversus.pdf) by the libertarian Cato Institute, and in 13 states welfare pays more than $15 per hour.
“One of the single best ways to climb out of poverty is taking a job, but as long as welfare provides a better standard of living than an entry-level job, recipients will continue to choose it over work,” said Michael Tanner, senior policy analyst and co-author of the study.
The study is an updated version of one Tanner put out in 1995 that estimated the full value of welfare benefits packages across the states. The 1995 study found that such tax-free welfare benefits greatly exceeded the poverty level and “their dollar value was greater than the amount of take-home income a worker would receive from an entry-level job.”
Despite efforts to curb welfare spending, many welfare programs and benefits have continued to outpace the income that many workers can receive for working an entry-level job, which disincentivizes work, according to the study.
“The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” reads the study. “Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.”
According to the study, the federal government funds 126 separate programs designed to support low-income earners. Seventy-two of these programs provide cash or in-kind benefits to recipients. This is on top of additional welfare programs operated by state and local governments.
Welfare recipients in Hawaii get the most benefits, according to Tanner, at $29.13 per hour — or $60,590 pre-tax income annually. However, the state’s minimum wage is only $7.25 per hour, according (http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm) to the Labor Department. Hawaiians on welfare also earn 167 percent of the median salary in the state, which is only $36,275.
The District of Columbia, Massachusetts and Connecticut have the next more generous welfare benefits.
D.C. welfare recipients can earn $24.43 per hour. In Massachusetts they can get $24.30 per hour. In Connecticut welfare recipients can receive $21.33 per hour.
“If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening welfare work requirements, removing exemptions, and narrowing the definition of work,” says the study.




Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/study-welfare-pays-more-than-work-in-most-states/#ixzz2ciL4aeQ7

[Seraphim]

"Welfare recipients in Hawaii get the most benefits, according to Tanner, at $29.13 per hour — or $60,590 pre-tax income annually."

Holy shit.

[tod evans]

Give 'em the ax!

[TonySutton]

The question is how much are they rolling into that AND are they already adding the tax savings as part of the total.

[torchbearer]

"Welfare recipients in Hawaii get the most benefits, according to Tanner, at $29.13 per hour — or $60,590 pre-tax income annually."

Holy shit.

i think i'm doing everything wrong.
i work my ass off in a very technical field with few people who can do what i do... and i don't make anything close to that.
I'd like to find a guide on how to get hooked up to the Hawaiian trough.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm all for de-funding SSI after the freeloaders are kicked off the tit. I appreciate that, but I do not know why you are gung-ho and ready to kick off one group of free-loaders at a moment's notice, immediately, just kick them off, that's it, swing that ax; whereas for another group of free-loaders you feel totally differently! For old free-loaders, you are not only unenthusiastic about kicking them to the curb, but positively opposed to it, unless other cuts are made first.

Why the "unless"? Why the "only after"? Why the hesitancy? I love your clarion cry for ending welfare in this thread! It is bracing! It is real! And it is so, so true!!! Kick these bums OFF!

And it is just as true for the grasping, mewling, wrinkled hags who think I own them a living. I don't. You entitlement-minded freaks! I owe you nothing! It's time to take an axe and slash and slash and BURN YOUR STUPID STINKING BELOVED STEALING PROGRAM! IT'S EVIL! Why am I paying for this woman's meals and lifestyle and surgeries:

http://i.imgur.com/A3hB8.jpg

Kick her to the curb! Kick her to the gutter! I don't care! AT ALL! Get all these self-righteous, overinflated, Greatest Generation of Creeps OFF MY BACK!

Is that clear enough, Tod? That make it through the hearing aids? Stop stealing my stuff!

[Seraphim]

I know right?

I work my ass off too and will make about exactly that! And then I get a lot of it raped away by taxes!!!


i think i'm doing everything wrong.
i work my ass off in a very technical field with few people who can do what i do... and i don't make anything close to that.
I'd like to find a guide on how to get hooked up to the Hawaiian trough.

[tod evans]

Blow it out your ass helmuth!

I take nothing from SSI or any other government freebie program.

Some day I hope to meet your young opinionated self in person.

[helmuth_hubener]

I take nothing from SSI or any other government freebie program.

Then slight modification: Stop advocating that these bums and free-loaders steal my stuff! Capisce?

[tod evans]

Then slight modification: Stop advocating that these bums and free-loaders steal my stuff! Capisce?

Once again punk, blow it out you ass!

I haven't advocated that anyone take anything from you.

I know you're not really this dense, WTF is up?

[Eagles' Wings]

The two Elders in my family are on a merry-go-round of appointments because Medicare pays for it. The docs scare them into thinking that the "cycle of care" will be broken if they do not come in regularly.

[Cleaner44]

I have taken the opposite stance now. I want as many people as possible to take all that they can and stress the system until it breaks. Let the people line up for all they can get, it still will pale compared to the military industrial complex milking the taxpayers. The more extreme and ridiculous the system becomes, the better for pissing people off and waking them up.

This is our Great Society! Thank you LBJ, you won the war on poverty. :rolleyes:

[CaptLouAlbano]

Hey helmuth_hubener, want to get even more pissed? From our rental properties and a some businesses we have a piece of, we have a net income that approaches seven figures. And each month, both my wife and I get a SS Check.

[AuH20]

Hey helmuth_hubener, want to get even more pissed? From our rental properties and a some businesses we have a piece of, we have a net income that approaches seven figures. And each month, both my wife and I get a SS Check.

But the SS check is probably readjusted to a pittance, based on your stated income.

[donnay]

This is all done by design to blow out our economy. Lure the people to want government assistance and they can easily be controlled.

[CaptLouAlbano]

But the SS check is probably adjusted to a pittance based on your income.

No means testing if you wait to take it until full retirement age. I think it was 65 when we started taking it.

[Keith and stuff]

The numbers are VERY far off for at least 16 states. The possible housing welfare money isn't included in the total for those 16 states. Since that is so obvious, I suspect the rest of the report might have errors, like where the numbers came from. Good job on trying to but this info CATO. It's better to have very flawed info than no issue. It gets people talking. For example, this thread :toady:

[Christian Liberty]

Mr, Evans, would you also support immediate defunding of the SS (Socialist Security)?

If not, why not? Keep in mind that people receiving welfare are, at least, legitimately "poor," in that they have a below-average income, below-average wealth-level, just overall below-average standard of living. Whereas the oldsters sucking down the SS are the richest demographic in America.

I certainly support immediate elimination. I understand it won't happen, but what nerve do they have telling my generation "Well, sorry you've been stolen from this long, but these people really need help, so you'll have to keep paying for it for the next X number of years."

The one area Ron Paul seriously missed the ball, and Rand Paul even more so.

[Christian Liberty]

Hey helmuth_hubener, want to get even more pissed? From our rental properties and a some businesses we have a piece of, we have a net income that approaches seven figures. And each month, both my wife and I get a SS Check.

I don't care that you take from the thieves. I have a problem that the thieves are taking in the first place.

[Eagles' Wings]

This is all done by design to blow out our economy. Lure the people to want government assistance and they can easily be controlled.Yes, agree.

The majority of my immediate family is on assistance in some form, ie. farm subsidy, medicare, pca's for kids, HUD money, medical assistance. It's no wonder my hubbie is tied in knots at family gatherings.

[Todd]

This is all done by design to blow out our economy. Lure the people to want government assistance and they can easily be controlled.

Yes and the socialists will all point to this and say "See, our wage system is corrupt because the private sector isn't even paying the minimum of what our poor are receiving".

[tod evans]

The breeding class......

[oyarde]

Social Security pfft , I just want my money back, since I am a Great Patriot I ask for no interest, and will call it even.

[helmuth_hubener]

I haven't advocated that anyone take anything from you.

To the contrary, your position is very clear:

I'm all for de-funding SSI after the freeloaders are kicked off the tit.

There's far more wrong than "just" social security.

Focusing on that one issue is very myopic.

Insinuating that "old folks" can actually choose to eliminate SSI ad-hock, and should do so without addressing ALL government waste is foolish at best.

This "one" does wish to end SS (As do most of my generation) BUT end it after ending the plethora of unconstitutional federal expenditures that were conceived along with or after SS, including, but not limited to; foreign aid, student loans, welfare(corporate and personal), every "job" and program not specifically authorized by the constitution that is paid for with federal tax dollars.


And I have no problem with that, What I have problems with is failure to cut the other unconstitutional expenses first.
In other words, you are ONLY in favor of ending the SS AFTER cutting other programs which you dislike more. The problem I have with that is this: it means that until these other programs are cut, the SS continues stealing money from productive folks and doling it out to elderly welfare bums. I do not like that.

The situation, in reality, today, is that all the other programs you want cut are not cut. Thus, the course you advocate is that the SS not be axed, not at the present time. To not ax the SS is to keep stealing.


Thinking that the money taken under the guise of SSI would somehow better anyones life really is just mental masturbation I presonally want my money back. That you don't think it would make my life better is quite arrogant, but ultimately irrelevant. It's my money, whether you in your infinite wisdom think it will make my life better or not.

[helmuth_hubener]

Hey helmuth_hubener, want to get even more pissed? From our rental properties and a some businesses we have a piece of, we have a net income that approaches seven figures. And each month, both my wife and I get a SS Check. What I am more interested in is: Do you advocate an end to the SS?

Or would you, like Tod, only want it to end after a list of XYZ qualifications, exceptions, and prerequisites occurs?

[tod evans]

Is there somewhere in all that cut-n-pastin' where I advocated taking money, or did I advocate gutting other programs first before SSI?

Once again, I'm all for cutting SSI just cut welfare and the other freebies first.

You don't like my priorities........Tough shit, I don't like your attitude.

Now what?

[jbauer]

I do believe this is a problem but I am uncertain they are comparing apples to apples because of some of the wording I have seen in these articles. It seems via the wording in some articles they might be including items that would be listed as benefits by an employer when figuring the wage and then comparing it against a bare minimum wage, not minimum wage + benefits.

Has anyone seen an article which actually shows the raw data used for the calculations?

I am all for exposing waste but when we argue with half truths we destroy our own arguments and lose credibility.

Who the hell pays minimum wage PLUS benefits? Heck most minimum wage jobs are already at 38 hours or less just so they don't have to do benefits. With Obamacare they're cutting 38 to 20 hours.

[jbauer]

Welfare should pay more than minimum wage. How else are they supposed to live? Doesn't the Constitution guaranty food, shelter and health care?

Well that and phones, education/higher education, utilities, transportation and many many more "free stuff".

[CaptLouAlbano]

What I am more interested in is: Do you advocate an end to the SS?

Or would you, like Tod, only want it to end after a list of XYZ qualifications, exceptions, and prerequisites occurs?

My utopian view would eliminate it immediately. But I am a realist and I find little value in pondering over the ideal, when it has no chance of happening. Realistically, what will occur is phase out, restructuring, privatization, etc.

[Melissa]

Yes and the socialists will all point to this and say "See, our wage system is corrupt because the private sector isn't even paying the minimum of what our poor are receiving".
Omg this is so true..they posted this on my local news stations and everyone that was not against it just kept repeating...hey this should show why minimum wage laws should be higher...ugg ugg ugg..

[helmuth_hubener]

It just totally undermines your position. In this thread you're saying rah rah rah! slash! slash! slash! burn! burn! burn! let's kick all the families on welfare out on the street yesterday! If not sooner!

And that's fantastic! I'm all for that!

But compared with the "mainstream" view certainly it looks like a pretty reckless position to take. What about those depending on it? Etc. And so for a normal person hearing you call for an "immediate" end to welfare, an obvious question to ask would be:

So, what about Social Security? Do you want to eliminate that immediately as well? Won't eliminating it immediately cause problems?

And if you then answer "Oh, no, no, no, don't worry. I don't want to eliminate that so immediately. That would be crazy! In fact, I don't want to eliminate Social Security at all until we've gotten rid of most of the other waste, gov't employees, etc.", then you've just undermined your position. There's no consistency left in your message. Any practical argument for not immediately eliminating the SS (people will starve in the streets, etc.) applies ten times over for welfare. So then you no longer have a leg to stand on.

[Eagles' Wings]

How do answer the Elders who say they have paid in for decades? Are they to just be cut off?

[juleswin]

Think of the multiplier you get for that welfare payment. We know 100% of that money will be used in the community and will be taxed to generate even more tax revenue for the city. From my calculation, one gets 110% return for every dollar spend on welfare unlike 40% from military spending. So more welfare spending and this sluggish economic condition would be firing on all cylinders in months

Oh yea, its the sort of idiotic economic nonsense I learnt from reading liberal websites (I am looking at you DU)

[helmuth_hubener]

My utopian view would eliminate it immediately. Cool!


But I am a realist and I find little value in pondering over the ideal, when it has no chance of happening. Realistically, what will occur is phase out, restructuring, privatization, etc. I think we're probably on the same page on this. But I personally happen to like political theory and working out how things should be. It's fun for me.

And I also think there is value in communicating correct and true ideas to people. The more people are exposed to, and come to believe in, the ideas of liberty, the more likely we are to get it.

[helmuth_hubener]

How do answer the Elders who say they have paid in for decades? Are they to just be cut off? Yes! Obviously! I answer them: you were stolen from! Don't steal from me!

[helmuth_hubener]

Give 'em the ax! All of 'em.


The breeding class...... And the Surgery class. Kick them all off. No favorites.

Right?

[tod evans]

All of 'em.

And the Surgery class. Kick them all off. No favorites.

Right?

Absolutely!

If ya' can do it at the same time I'm good with that.

[Eagles' Wings]

Social Security pfft , I just want my money back, since I am a Great Patriot I ask for no interest, and will call it even.love it - plus rep

[helmuth_hubener]

Absolutely!

If ya' can do it at the same time I'm good with that. Really? I am surprised. I never read you say that before. I thought you were dead-set against killing the SS until and unless other welfare were eliminated first. Of course simultaneous elimination of everything would be fine and dandy by me, too!

Well, bygones be bygones and a hearty:

AMEN!

[lib3rtarian]

Cloward–Piven.

[tod evans]

Really? I am surprised. I never read you say that before. I thought you were dead-set against killing the SS until and unless other welfare were eliminated first. Of course simultaneous elimination of everything would be fine and dandy by me, too!

Well, bygones be bygones and a hearty:

AMEN!


My issue has always been one of priorities, the fact that these government programs and jobs need to end has never been in dispute.

[Sola_Fide]

"Welfare recipients in Hawaii get the most benefits, according to Tanner, at $29.13 per hour — or $60,590 pre-tax income annually."



That's a solid paycheck right there.

[Seraphim]

It's above the median income! Damn right it's solid!

I stated in the WHEN WILL YOU FIGHT thread that the only thing that will change ANYTHING is refusal to pay the Federal Income Tax.

Nothing short of a tax revolt will due.


That's a solid paycheck right there.

[austrian_theorist]

What about these recipients' morals? I understand that some would feel as if they're suckers if they don't take advantage of these benefits, but what about self-respect, dignity and theft? I know I would never want to accept such benefits, especially considering that I want to have a strong character and constitution.

Is anyone else with me on this one?

[helmuth_hubener]

How do answer the Elders who say they have paid in for decades? Are they to just be cut off?
And how do you answer the Mothers with young children who are dependent on welfare, who ask you: "How am I to feed my children? And where are we to live? Are we just to be cut off?"

Tod's answer and mine: Yeah, you bet you're going to be cut off!

It's the only decent answer.

[Tod]

That's racist.



Planning ahead is considered racist?

By ANDREW J. COULSON, GUEST COLUMNIST

Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, May 31, 2006

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Planning-ahead-is-considered-racist-1204942.php

Are you salting away a little money for your retirement? Trying to plan for your kids' education? If so, Seattle Public Schools seems to think you're a racist.

According to the district's official Web site, "having a future time orientation" (academese for having long-term goals) is among the "aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype and label people of color."

Huh?

Not all the district's definitions of racism (and there are lots of them) are so cryptic. The site goes on immediately to say, "Emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" is another form of "cultural racism."

Have you ever read "Out of Africa"? In that book, the author wrote that she found that Africans had a very different notion of justice than Europeans. Under the African system, if someone was injured, another party had to pay compensation for the injury whether they were at fault or not so that the injured person was not without.

[Carlybee]

Yes but they are owned. If a natural disaster hits their city or town, they have to wait for the government to do anything...no welfare check..no money...they have to wait for the FEMA truck before they can eat. And @austrian_theorist...I've known people who will max out their unemployment benefits even if they are perfectly capable of working. The work ethic is dying in this country.

[Deborah K]

If we ended the welfare state, we might actually see some REAL CHANGE. No more slow crawl into the darkness.

They will never end the welfare state. They're using it to help collapse this system into the new one they are setting up for us.

[Seraphim]

What about these recipients' morals? I understand that some would feel as if they're suckers if they don't take advantage of these benefits, but what about self-respect, dignity and theft? I know I would never want to accept such benefits, especially considering that I want to have a strong character and constitution.

Is anyone else with me on this one?

**DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE**

[Deborah K]

Yes! Obviously! I answer them: you were stolen from! Don't steal from me!

Make sure you tell that to your grandparents, and then get ready to move them in and take care of them.

[helmuth_hubener]

Make sure you tell that to your grandparents, and then get ready to move them in and take care of them. And make sure you tell all the families on welfare that you want to take away their welfare, and then get ready to move them in and take care of them.

OK?

[Deborah K]

I appreciate that, but I do not know why you are gung-ho and ready to kick off one group of free-loaders at a moment's notice, immediately, just kick them off, that's it, swing that ax; whereas for another group of free-loaders you feel totally differently!

Here's the difference genius - the elderly were forced to pay into the system. So the real freeloaders are the younger generations that live off the dole and never put into it.

[ClydeCoulter]

To the contrary, your position is very clear:





In other words, you are ONLY in favor of ending the SS AFTER cutting other programs which you dislike more. The problem I have with that is this: it means that until these other programs are cut, the SS continues stealing money from productive folks and doling it out to elderly welfare bums. I do not like that.

The situation, in reality, today, is that all the other programs you want cut are not cut. Thus, the course you advocate is that the SS not be axed, not at the present time. To not ax the SS is to keep stealing.

I presonally want my money back. That you don't think it would make my life better is quite arrogant, but ultimately irrelevant. It's my money, whether you in your infinite wisdom think it will make my life better or not.

Me too, and a lot of us old people would settle for that, give me back what you stole. But, I'm starting to think I want it adjusted for inflation :)

[Deborah K]

One of the first areas of government I'd like to see totally de-funded, immediately after all the alphabet agencies..:mad:


Ever heard of the Cloward-Piven strategy? The article you post is proof that it is working.


The Cloward-Piven Strategy

The Cloward-Piven Strategy was published in The Nation in 1966. The strategy was developed by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, professors at Columbia University in NYC. Piven was married to Cloward. They wrote an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," advocating increased enrollment in social welfare programs in order to collapse that system and force reforms, leading to a guaranteed annual income. This political strategy has been referred to as the "Cloward-Piven strategy."

The Cloward-Piven Strategy was inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving). In their 1966 article, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty," Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands. The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book, "Rules for Radicals." When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

From Kurt Nimmo at Infowars.com, we learn: It is a mistake to believe the Cloward-Piven Strategy is scheme cooked up by academic Marxists of "New Left." In fact, "the destruction of capitalism in America is a meticulous plan on the part of the global elite to consolidate power and destroy all opposition." It has nothing to do with liberating the proletariat, but rather subjecting them to "world-socialism, scientifically planned and directed" and devised to transform the planet into a high-tech prison gulag."

[Carlybee]

Yes and the socialists will all point to this and say "See, our wage system is corrupt because the private sector isn't even paying the minimum of what our poor are receiving".

And they don't want to move to where there are jobs. The part of the state where I'm from is booming and they are paying fast food workers $15 an hour and can't keep them. They are paying school bus drivers $14 an hour and can't find enough. Granted its not getting rich but consider it against 7.25 min wage.

[Sola_Fide]

What about these recipients' morals? I understand that some would feel as if they're suckers if they don't take advantage of these benefits, but what about self-respect, dignity and theft? I know I would never want to accept such benefits, especially considering that I want to have a strong character and constitution.

Is anyone else with me on this one?

Ayn Rand said it was morally acceptable to receive welfare payments if you at least had an objection to the system.

[Sola_Fide]

What about these recipients' morals? I understand that some would feel as if they're suckers if they don't take advantage of these benefits, but what about self-respect, dignity and theft? I know I would never want to accept such benefits, especially considering that I want to have a strong character and constitution.

Is anyone else with me on this one?

Ayn Rand said it was morally acceptable to receive welfare payments if you at least had an objection to the system.

[Deborah K]

Look up the Cloward-Piven strategy, this is all part of the plan to collapse the system. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html


First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the Cloward-Piven Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

[Seraphim]

Hahahahhahah. Ironically enough when capital structures fall the economic viability of University Professors PLUMMETS.

Retarded Commies being retarded.


Look up the Cloward-Piven strategy, this is all part of the plan to collapse the system. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html

[Deborah K]

http://i43.tinypic.com/opsits.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/288cd8w.jpg

[Deborah K]

Cloward–Piven.


Didn't realize you already pointed this out. +rep

[Melissa]

http://i43.tinypic.com/opsits.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/288cd8w.jpg Awesome pic so stealing for facebook thanks for the image

[DamianTV]

http://i43.tinypic.com/opsits.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/288cd8w.jpg

Im stealing it too. Bestest Picture Thread EVARR for safe keeping.

(well, the 2nd one until the site admins figure out how to fix the isses that particular thread is causing on the server)

Oh, and +Rep because it illustrates Welfare perfectly.

[Carlybee]

That's a solid paycheck right there.


Cost of living there is pretty high too so it may be the equivalent of less somewhere else...still.

[DamianTV]

Wait till the minimum wage is increased. Then the welfare payments will have to increase.

I dont agree with you on this one.

In order to cover the costs of a minimum wage increase, either more taxes need to be collected, or prices of goods and services will need to go up. Well, one more, for the Govt increases, they'll just print the money which steals the value from currently existing money. Inflation is also a tax, albeit an invisible one.

To fix the problem isnt a simple issue. I cant even say that giving money more value helps because the quantity of fiat money from welfare payments will still remain higher. I think that in order to solve this problem, we need to understand how we got here to begin with. Welfare payments come from Govt, and since they borrow money into existence, this action causes the value of each persons dollar to go down. It has gotten to the point where those not on welfare are getting double whammied. Pay taxes via quantity to offset the cost, but to cover the unfunded liabilities, Govt just borrows, which taxes the value of the money that the person not on welfare is able to bring in. Well provided they actually have a job. To reverse this, it would seem logical to me to reverse the course of action. This is no easy task either.

At some point we need to quit allowing Fiat Money to be borrowed into existence.

[Working Poor]

Ron Paul said he would not end SS for elderly but that he would let the younger generation opt out. He also said he would not be kickingg people off of welfare until conditions were created to help people dependent on welfare and other benefits get to work. He would have done this by losening regulations for small businesses and self employement.

[Deborah K]

Ron Paul said he would not end SS for elderly but that he would let the younger generation opt out. He also said he would not be kickingg people off of welfare until conditions were created to help people dependent on welfare and other benefits get to work. He would have done this by losening regulations for small businesses and self employement.

Succinctly put.

[Eagles' Wings]

Here's the difference genius - the elderly were forced to pay into the system. So the real freeloaders are the younger generations that live off the dole and never put into it.Well said, Deb.

[Eagles' Wings]

Ron Paul said he would not end SS for elderly but that he would let the younger generation opt out. He also said he would not be kickingg people off of welfare until conditions were created to help people dependent on welfare and other benefits get to work. He would have done this by losening regulations for small businesses and self employement.Exactly.

[heavenlyboy34]

Here's the difference genius - the elderly were forced to pay into the system. So the real freeloaders are the younger generations that live off the dole and never put into it.
The problem with that argument (at least that phrasing of it) is that most young people want jobs but can't find them because the last few generations, in cahoots with the regime, undermined and destroyed the economy. It's a very complicated issue that I can't give total justice to, but that's the gist of it.

[Christian Liberty]

Ron Paul said he would not end SS for elderly but that he would let the younger generation opt out. He also said he would not be kickingg people off of welfare until conditions were created to help people dependent on welfare and other benefits get to work. He would have done this by losening regulations for small businesses and self employement.

You can't have both, unless you raise taxes even higher. I seriously hope Ron Paul knows this, despite what he says.

The problem with that argument (at least that phrasing of it) is that most young people want jobs but can't find them because the last few generations, in cahoots with the regime, undermined and destroyed the economy. It's a very complicated issue that I can't give total justice to, but that's the gist of it.


Yeah, there's that too. And besides, those 65+ voters are the ones voting for RINOs that make my generation have to pay for this crap and the endless warmongering. Obviously that's a collectivist statement, and there are individuals who are 65+ that I respect a lot (Ron Paul comes to mind) but there you go.

Opposing welfare without opposing entitlements is more socially conservative than fiscally, IMO.

[tod evans]

You can't have both, unless you raise taxes even higher. I seriously hope Ron Paul knows this, despite what he says.



Have you by chance read and tried to comprehend the detailed plan that the good Dr. took the time to publish addressing this very issue?

[willwash]

This is a little misleading because most people who make minimum wage are also on welfare. You couldn't really live on just m.w. without it. One way welfare subsidizes poverty.

[LibForestPaul]

What about these recipients' morals? I understand that some would feel as if they're suckers if they don't take advantage of these benefits, but what about self-respect, dignity and theft? I know I would never want to accept such benefits, especially considering that I want to have a strong character and constitution.

Is anyone else with me on this one?

They paid into the system for when bad times come. The economy is in the shitter. Fat cat CEOs don't pay enough minimum wage.
Very easy to rationaalize.

[I<3Liberty]

One of the first areas of government I'd like to see totally de-funded, immediately after all the alphabet agencies..:mad:


Study: Welfare pays more than minimum wage in most states

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/21/study-in-most-states-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-job/?test=latestnews


Welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, creating little incentive for Americans to take entry-level work and likely increasing their long-term dependency on government help, according to a new study by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute.
The finds come 17 years after the Clinton administration, with bipartisan support from Congress, passed landmark welfare reform legislation that was supposed to move Americans away from entitlements and into the workforce.
However, “welfare benefits continue to outpace the income that most recipients can expect to earn from an entry-level job,” the study authors said. “And the balance between welfare and work may actually have grown worse in recent years.”
Among the other findings is that welfare in 13 states pays more than $15 an hour, compared with the federal hourly minimum wage of $7.25.
The disparity was even higher in nine states in which welfare pays more than the average first-year teacher’s salary and in the six most-generous states, which pay more than the entry-level salary for a computer programmer.
The 52-page study, titled “The Work Versus Welfare Trade Off,” points out a full package of welfare benefits often exceeds take-home pay in part because benefits are tax-free.
The study’s author argues that if Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening welfare-to-work requirements, removing exemptions and narrowing the definition of work. This could include reducing benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements.
Cato senior fellow Michael Tanner, who did a similar study in 1995, told FoxNews.com on Wednesday that the problem goes beyond legislative changes and that the country needs to reform its education system to better prepare Americans for the workforce.
He also repeated the argument that entry-level workers don’t stay at that level, arguing just 2.6 percent of full-time worker are poor and only 42 percent of Americans are engaged in work activities, which includes job training and looking for employment.
“We need to get people to think long term,” Tanner said
The Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues the study has several flaws, including that it "lumps together" a set of safety-net programs, including Medicaid, housing assistance and food stamps, and that "all poor families in which the parents aren’t working receive all of these benefits."
The study was also released amid a renewed standoff in Washington and elsewhere over whether to increase the minimum wage.
Fast-food workers in at least seven states have recently gone on strike to demand higher wages.
And President Obama last month again called to increase the minimum wage to $9 an hour for those who don’t get tips, saying “No one who works full-time in America should have to live in poverty.”
However, Congress appears to be in no hurry to fully address the issue.

I agree that I'd like to see it de-funded. Sure, it helps a lot of people that have a genuine need for it and I agree we have a moral duty to help people in need, but I'd rather see charity pick this up. The fact that welfare offers money rather than pre-approved coverage of bills or food (like a food bank would) makes it easily easy for "parasites" to abuse the system or simply discourage disabled and financially-disadvantaged people from working what they're able to.


Mr, Evans, would you also support immediate defunding of the SS (Socialist Security)?

If not, why not? Keep in mind that people receiving welfare are, at least, legitimately "poor," in that they have a below-average income, below-average wealth-level, just overall below-average standard of living. Whereas the oldsters sucking down the SS are the richest demographic in America.

I can totally understand the people that paid into it, benefiting from SS.

While they are the richest, you have to remember that that a disproportionate number are in the top rung compared to people in the middle, lower middle, and lower to poverty range on the economic ladder. I even heard of once rich elderly adults now facing poverty because they were taken advantage of (particularly though Alzheimer's care.)

In PA, the lottery goes to help the elderly afford prescriptions, assisted living, and provides them with free transit and senior centers, so we already look out for them to an extent. I'd like to see more charities and lotteries reach out and benefit this kind of causes.

[DamianTV]

Make sure you tell that to your grandparents, and then get ready to move them in and take care of them.

In days of old, our parents would still live with their parents, and leaving home would happen a lot less, but for completely different reasons than people stay with their parents today.

[majinkoola]

Here's the difference genius - the elderly were forced to pay into the system. So the real freeloaders are the younger generations that live off the dole and never put into it.

Some people on here are not taking into account the fact that payroll taxes have gone way up over the years. Meaning many of the older folks, specifically the ones who are much older, didn't have to pay the same rates some of us have had to pay our whole working lives.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=45

Take my grandpa. Started working around '50 and stopped around '90. So he didn't pay a dime into Medicare until he was in his 30's. And on average, he paid about half in payroll taxes of what we're paying now.

The only moral solution is to liquidate most of the gov't and pay those back as much as possible with the windfall.

Other than that, how would the gov't continue paying old people while young people opted out? There would have to be taxes somewhere, which at the very least would hit young people somewhat. So young people would still be paying for old people while getting nothing back. That isn't right.

[majinkoola]

And people who say they just want their money back are talking as if there's a pot of money there. If you're getting money, and I'm a net taxpayer, at all, you are stealing my money.

I'm betting the only reason Ron Paul took the stance he did, is that he'd get destroyed if he talked about cutting the elderly currently on the programs. Almost no elderly paid into Medicare what they're getting back. It's theft.

[Zippyjuan]

"Welfare recipients in Hawaii get the most benefits, according to Tanner, at $29.13 per hour — or $60,590 pre-tax income annually."

Holy shit.

This source says $17.50 an hour- still tops in the country- as of 2012.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/




Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.

State Hourly Wage Equivalent

Hawaii $17.50

Alaska $15.48

Massachusetts $14.66

Connecticut $14.23

Washington, D.C. $13.99

New York $13.13

New Jersey $12.55

Rhode Island $12.55

California $11.59

Virginia $11.11

[Keith and stuff]

This source says $17.50 an hour- still tops in the country- as of 2012.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Keep in mind the the paper is obviously VERY wrong on 16 states, which makes me suspect that it is wrong on all of the states. I won't quote the paper in anyway and expect to be accurate.

[Deborah K]

The problem with that argument (at least that phrasing of it) is that most young people want jobs but can't find them because the last few generations, in cahoots with the regime, undermined and destroyed the economy. It's a very complicated issue that I can't give total justice to, but that's the gist of it.

Most young people can't find jobs mainly because of what the last two administrations have done via their ridiculous policies. You can't entirely blame the elderly for that. The banking industry screwed all of us, including the elderly.

[Deborah K]

Some people on here are not taking into account the fact that payroll taxes have gone way up over the years. Meaning many of the older folks, specifically the ones who are much older, didn't have to pay the same rates some of us have had to pay our whole working lives.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=45

Take my grandpa. Started working around '50 and stopped around '90. So he didn't pay a dime into Medicare until he was in his 30's. And on average, he paid about half in payroll taxes of what we're paying now.

The only moral solution is to liquidate most of the gov't and pay those back as much as possible with the windfall.

Other than that, how would the gov't continue paying old people while young people opted out? There would have to be taxes somewhere, which at the very least would hit young people somewhat. So young people would still be paying for old people while getting nothing back. That isn't right.

How about we just hold the people accountable that robbed social security in the first place? The real problem is that this POS gov't STOLE the money allotted for the retirement of the elderly. Since they've done that, the responsibility is now placed on every working American, who will never see that retirement money for themselves. And people nowadays just accept that as reality instead of holding the gov't accountable for its thievery.

[Deborah K]

And people who say they just want their money back are talking as if there's a pot of money there. If you're getting money, and I'm a net taxpayer, at all, you are stealing my money.

I'm betting the only reason Ron Paul took the stance he did, is that he'd get destroyed if he talked about cutting the elderly currently on the programs. Almost no elderly paid into Medicare what they're getting back. It's theft.

You can't blame the elderly for this - put the blame where it belongs - straight onto this corrupt, incompetent government.

[helmuth_hubener]

Here's the difference genius - the elderly were forced to pay into the system. So the real freeloaders are the younger generations that live off the dole and never put into it. Thank you, you're very kind, but genius is actually a myth. Is that really "the difference," Ms. K? If so, is being a victim of the state at some point in the past sufficient to change the nature of getting money for nothing? Perhaps we should add up people's level of victimhood and determine whether to kick them off based on that. I'm pretty sure that having your father thrown in prison for victimless acts of non-crime and being forcibly indoctrinated at a state youth daytime prison -- as most welfare kids are -- both have a more severe and horrible impact on your life and thus are both bigger actionable torts than having to pay a percentage of your paycheck. Thus, those on welfare are, in general and statistically, much bigger victims than the entitled me-me-me oldsters. They have "been forced to pay into the system" far more than the oldsters. It's the difference between, say, me, paying some taxes to pay for the Iraq War, and a soldier who lost his legs in that war.

So if we are basing our unwillingness to end programs of thievery on how much the payees have been harmed and raped by the gov't, clearly the welfare families in the ghetto have been harmed far more than the typical, very, very wealthy oldster. Thus, we must kick off the old guy, who has not done his part of suffering to pay into the system, and keep doling to the welfare mom, who in contrast has "lost her leg in the war."

[helmuth_hubener]

In any case, there is no relationship between paying the SS tax and getting a ride on the SS gravy train. You're not "paying in" and then "withdrawing out". There's nothing to withdraw! There's no account! Wake up, Ms. K! It was all spent by politicians on monuments to themselves, etc.

[helmuth_hubener]

You can't blame the elderly for this - put the blame where it belongs - straight onto this corrupt, incompetent government. Why blame anyone, Ms. K? Why not just stop stealing?

I am all for not blaming you. It's water under the bridge! No hard feelings! But there's only one way to make things right, and that's to stop the transfer payments. Stop mailing the checks. Ultimately, there is no other just solution. Peter is getting robbed, Paul is getting paid, Paul needs to stop getting paid, and Peter to cease getting robbed.

[helmuth_hubener]

The only moral solution is to liquidate most of the gov't and pay those back as much as possible with the windfall.
It is moral to liquidate the gov't. And it is moral to give the proceeds from any asset sales to those who have paid taxes, true. But not just the SS taxes, specifically. There's nothing special about them. You have the IRS make a list of how much everyone has paid in over their lifetime, in net (subtract benefits), and compensate proportionally based on that. On gross, the old would get back more than the young, but on net perhaps not. Most oldsters have already milked the SS system for far more than they ever paid to the SS. In any case, this would in no way continue the SS system. It would just be a lump sum payment to every tax victim in the country. A going away present from the State.

[helmuth_hubener]

we have a moral duty to help people in need

...benefiting from SS.

...so we already look out for them to an extent. Here is the thing to realize: these programs are not "helping" people in need. They are not "benefiting" the aged. And they are not "looking out for" your venerable elders. They are a dole. Doles don't help! Doles are evil! Doles just destroy character and create dependency. Just look at the character of our old people. Totally destroyed. They are a witless, moral-less embarrassment. Just look at the character of the people in gov't housing projects. A sea of criminality and worthlessness. Welfare destroys people. The SS destroys people. They do not help.

[RickyJ]

The only thing that is possibly good about this is that if someone wants to work and is able, there should be openings at minimum wage jobs.

[tod evans]

I'm pretty sure that having your father thrown in prison for victimless acts of non-crime and being forcibly indoctrinated at a state youth daytime prison -- as most welfare kids are -- both have a more severe and horrible impact on your life and thus are both bigger actionable torts than having to pay a percentage of your paycheck. Thus, those on welfare are, in general and statistically, much bigger victims than the entitled me-me-me oldsters. They have "been forced to pay into the system" far more than the oldsters.

I'll take issue with this load of horse-shit helmuth..

The welfare children may in some twisted sense have action against their parents, but certainly not against the largess of other peoples money.

You're certainly free to sympathize with whomever you choose, and I can empathize with the children but for Gods sake it is not the taxpayer's duty to feed/clothe and house them or their parents. There has never been any contract written or implied stating tax-dollars subsidize breeders, ever!

There is however a written contract between the old folks and the SSI system and that contract is very specific.

As a boomer I'm willing to forego any recompence to settle the contract with me so long as my son isn't held liable.

I'm also willing to let you opt out of SSI or into subsidized breeding if that's what you so choose.

All this constant railing about how rough you've got doesn't cut it for me, my income has been "stolen" for over 35 years and I don't expect I'll see a dime of it back. So instead of bad-mouthing my elders like a spoiled child I choose to take my losses and try to alleviate the burden placed on my son.

What have you done?

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll take issue with this load of horse-shit helmuth..

The welfare children may in some twisted sense have action against their parents, but certainly not against the largess of other peoples money.

You're certainly free to sympathize with whomever you choose, and I can empathize with the children but for Gods sake it is not the taxpayer's duty to feed/clothe and house them or their parents. There has never been any contract written or implied stating tax-dollars subsidize breeders, ever!

There is however a written contract between the old folks and the SSI system and that contract is very specific.

As a boomer I'm willing to forego any recompence to settle the contract with me so long as my son isn't held liable.

I'm also willing to let you opt out of SSI or into subsidized breeding if that's what you so choose.

All this constant railing about how rough you've got doesn't cut it for me, my income has been "stolen" for over 35 years and I don't expect I'll see a dime of it back. So instead of bad-mouthing my elders like a spoiled child I choose to take my losses and try to alleviate the burden placed on my son.

What have you done?
But there's a Social Contract! ;) (or so the Constitutionalists tell me)

[helmuth_hubener]

The welfare children may in some twisted sense have action against their parents, but certainly not against the largess of other peoples money. The State locked up the father. The State locked up the child. Who is responsible if not the State? Obviously people whose families are captive and neighborhoods are wrecked are victims of the State. They have "paid in" an awful lot of suffering to the system, which I just point out since it's apparently so important to some.


You're certainly free to sympathize with whomever you choose, and I can empathize with the children but it is not the taxpayer's duty to feed/clothe and house them or their parents. There has never been any contract written or implied stating tax-dollars subsidize breeders, ever! You're certainly free to sympathize with whomever you choose, and I can empathize with the oldsters, but it is not the taxpayer's duty to feed, clothe, house and medicate them. There has never been any contract written or implied stating tax-dollars shall subsidize pill-poppers' endless medication and surgeries, ever!


There is however a written contract between the old folks and the SSI system and that contract is very specific.

1) Please post that contract. I wish to see the terms.
2) The "contract" is between who and whom? Who are the parties? You say "the SSI system", but I do not think you've thought that through. You sure you want to stick with that?

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll take issue with this load of horse-shit helmuth..

The welfare children may in some twisted sense have action against their parents, but certainly not against the largess of other peoples money.

You're certainly free to sympathize with whomever you choose, and I can empathize with the children but for Gods sake it is not the taxpayer's duty to feed/clothe and house them or their parents. There has never been any contract written or implied stating tax-dollars subsidize breeders, ever!

There is however a written contract between the old folks and the SSI system and that contract is very specific.

As a boomer I'm willing to forego any recompence to settle the contract with me so long as my son isn't held liable.

I'm also willing to let you opt out of SSI or into subsidized breeding if that's what you so choose.

All this constant railing about how rough you've got doesn't cut it for me, my income has been "stolen" for over 35 years and I don't expect I'll see a dime of it back. So instead of bad-mouthing my elders like a spoiled child I choose to take my losses and try to alleviate the burden placed on my son.

What have you done?
He has served as collateral so that the government can continue borrowing/stealing from the future to subsidize you.

[Deborah K]

Why blame anyone, Ms. K?
I am all for not blaming you. It's water under the bridge! No hard feelings! But there's only one way to make things right, and that's to stop the transfer payments. Stop mailing the checks. Ultimately, there is no other just solution. Peter is getting robbed, Paul is getting paid, Paul needs to stop getting paid, and Peter to cease getting robbed.

The only way that is going to happen is with a bona fide tax revolt - of which I am, and always have been, in favor.


Why not just stop stealing?

If you're trying to imply that I collect SS, I'm happy to inform you that I am 53 and not old enough. However, I have contributed handsomely to the fund, as has my husband, who still does. So, you may think I am stealing from you, but the fact is, I am one of the ones being stolen from. And I intend to get my money back one way or another.

[Deborah K]

Thank you, you're very kind, but genius is actually a myth. Is that really "the difference," Ms. K? If so, is being a victim of the state at some point in the past sufficient to change the nature of getting money for nothing? Perhaps we should add up people's level of victimhood and determine whether to kick them off based on that. I'm pretty sure that having your father thrown in prison for victimless acts of non-crime and being forcibly indoctrinated at a state youth daytime prison -- as most welfare kids are -- both have a more severe and horrible impact on your life and thus are both bigger actionable torts than having to pay a percentage of your paycheck. Thus, those on welfare are, in general and statistically, much bigger victims than the entitled me-me-me oldsters. They have "been forced to pay into the system" far more than the oldsters. It's the difference between, say, me, paying some taxes to pay for the Iraq War, and a soldier who lost his legs in that war.

So if we are basing our unwillingness to end programs of thievery on how much the payees have been harmed and raped by the gov't, clearly the welfare families in the ghetto have been harmed far more than the typical, very, very wealthy oldster. Thus, we must kick off the old guy, who has not done his part of suffering to pay into the system, and keep doling to the welfare mom, who in contrast has "lost her leg in the war."

If ever there were an apologist for the welfare recipient, you my dear, are it!

[bolil]

How about we just hold the people accountable that robbed social security in the first place? The real problem is that this POS gov't STOLE the money allotted for the retirement of the elderly. Since they've done that, the responsibility is now placed on every working American, who will never see that retirement money for themselves. And people nowadays just accept that as reality instead of holding the gov't accountable for its thievery.

Just like any other thefts the theives should be held accountable by paying full restitution, plus interest. If they can't do that before they pass on, their organs are forfeit at death. There is no reason that people who have paid into SS shouldn't get their stolen money back.

Anyone that spent any money out of SS, on anything besides SS shall be responsible for giving that money back. This also means anyone who voted for anything that robbed the SS fund.

[helmuth_hubener]

The only way that is going to happen is with a bona fide tax revolt - of which I am, and always have been, in favor. Woohoo! Yet it seemed you were/are very upset at me for advocating the immediate end of the SS and all their goonery. Why? If you support a tax revolt, wouldn't you:

1) Support the immediate end of the SS?
2) Support the immediate end of AFDC?

[bolil]

Woohoo! Yet it seemed you were/are very upset at me for advocating the immediate end of the SS and all their goonery. Why? If you support a tax revolt, wouldn't you:

1) Support the immediate end of the SS?
2) Support the immediate end of AFDC?

People have had their money taken, via coercion, and placed into SS. They are entitled to their stolen property, wouldn't you agree?

[I<3Liberty]

Here is the thing to realize: these programs are not "helping" people in need. They are not "benefiting" the aged. And they are not "looking out for" your venerable elders. They are a dole. Doles don't help! Doles are evil! Doles just destroy character and create dependency. Just look at the character of our old people. Totally destroyed. They are a witless, moral-less embarrassment. Just look at the character of the people in gov't housing projects. A sea of criminality and worthlessness. Welfare destroys people. The SS destroys people. They do not help.

I wouldn't make that conclusion in regard to the elderly's character. Many of them are completely self-dependent and not in need of help. They aren't all the frail and needy people some make them out to be. In fact, they are among some of the most financially well-off.

The very young and very old, generally use healthcare resources much more often than older children, teens, younger and middle-aged adults. The fact that both of these groups are also much more likely to have sudden catastrophic illness that requires expensive treatment (like cancer), there are more charities willing to help them with these costs. I do think it's helpful to offer low-cost prescriptions (what the PA lottery helps benefit) and other forms of healthcare because it can get really expensive and is almost always an unexpected cost.

I don't think welfare is inherently wrong and the problem -- rather, it's the fact that it involves forced participation among tax payers and the way it is set up makes it easy for people to take advantage of welfare. It does offer more than lower-paying jobs therefore, encouraging "parasites", and it's in the form of money rather than physical items (like healthy groceries) or submitting a medical bill for coverage like most charities do it. I'm all for charities and help several. In order for welfare to go, people have to be willing to agree to the more libertarian an efficient alternative, charity.

[Deborah K]

Woohoo! Yet it seemed you were/are very upset at me for advocating the immediate end of the SS and all their goonery. Why? If you support a tax revolt, wouldn't you:

1) Support the immediate end of the SS?
2) Support the immediate end of AFDC?

I edited that quote you posted above. Have a look at it. It answers your questions.

[Seraphim]

Sorry. It's gone. You'll never get it back without perpetuating the cycle.

That's the truth, ma'am.

You are being robbed blind. The US Gov't's solvency depends on FURTHER debt - your money is gone. GONE.

Getting it back will mean robbing the next generation of Collaterallized Ponzi Youth.

So ask yourself;

Who will be the ones to righteously burden themselves with the task of being the heroes?

Who will be the ones to make the easy excuses and perpetuate this horrid affair?

It's that simple.


The only way that is going to happen is with a bona fide tax revolt - of which I am, and always have been, in favor.



If you're trying to imply that I collect SS, I'm happy to inform you that I am 53 and not old enough. However, I have contributed handsomely to the fund, as has my husband, who still does. So, you may think I am stealing from you, but the fact is, I am one of the ones being stolen from. And I intend to get my money back one way or another.

[tod evans]

1) Please post that contract. I wish to see the terms.
2) The "contract" is between who and whom? Who are the parties? You say "the SSI system", but I do not think you've thought that through. You sure you want to stick with that?


30 seconds of google;

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

[jkob]

I have taken the opposite stance now. I want as many people as possible to take all that they can and stress the system until it breaks. Let the people line up for all they can get, it still will pale compared to the military industrial complex milking the taxpayers. The more extreme and ridiculous the system becomes, the better for pissing people off and waking them up.

This is our Great Society! Thank you LBJ, you won the war on poverty. :rolleyes:

This is pretty much how I feel. You can decry the "parasites" all you want but they're victims of a messed up system just as much as you or me are and doing that is never going to change anything. If the welfare state is truly unworkable in the long term then making a principled stand and depriving yourself does nothing but prolong it. I feel things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get better unfortunately.

[tod evans]

Sorry. It's gone. You'll never get it back without perpetuating the cycle.

That's the truth, ma'am.

You are being robbed blind. The US Gov't's solvency depends on FURTHER debt - your money is gone. GONE.

Getting it back will mean robbing the next generation of Collaterized Ponzi Youth.

So ask yourself;

Who will be the ones to righteously burden themselves with the task of being the heroes?

Who will be the ones to make the easy excuses and perpetuate this horrid affair?

It's that simple.

I will gladly forego both the monies I had taken from me and the benefits promised me just so long as my child isn't subject to the same taxation..

[Seraphim]

+ rep



I will gladly forego both the monies I had taken from me and the benefits promised me just so long as my child isn't subject to the same taxation..

[Seraphim]

If you're under 55, SS transfer payments will be worth toilet paper in under 10 years.

If you expect to get your money back worth anything close to par, bless your soul. You're in for a rude awakening.

[Brian4Liberty]

The only thing that is possibly good about this is that if someone wants to work and is able, there should be openings at minimum wage jobs.

That's what all of the immigration is for. To take those jobs. Then after enough time passes, they and their children can get on the dole too. They become Democrat voters who unwittingly or ignorantly support the corporatist agenda.

[Deborah K]

Sorry. It's gone. You'll never get it back without perpetuating the cycle.

That's the truth, ma'am.

You are being robbed blind. The US Gov't's solvency depends on FURTHER debt - your money is gone. GONE.

Getting it back will mean robbing the next generation of Collaterallized Ponzi Youth.

So ask yourself;

Who will be the ones to righteously burden themselves with the task of being the heroes?

Who will be the ones to make the easy excuses and perpetuate this horrid affair?

It's that simple.

Notice I wrote: "..one way or another..". Sonnyboy, (she says as she gums her corn pipe), SS was in trouble way back when I was a youngster getting my first job in '76. I've known of the gov't thievery of its coffers since then. In fact, as the budding activist that I was, I determined at the tender age of 16 to keep all my check stubs because I was planning to use them to sue the gov't when I was retirement age. Hey! I was sixteen!

I have no illusions about receiving any retirement from the govt. What I was implying when I wrote: "...one way or another.." was through tax evasion or some other way, hell, maybe even taking it out of their f'kn hides at some point.

[Seraphim]

Well tax evasion should be called "keeping MY damn money", it won't get you back what was already stolen - but stops the theft in it's tracks (in theory...arrests/litigation aside). Suing the government is basically suing yourself - you're funding the government, as are the other tax payers (ALSO being stolen from)...so that doesn't effect any sort of change (like taking SS transfer payments).

I included these behaviors in what you said.

I vote tax evasion :-)

The taxes you pay today are leveraged upon to keep the whole damn thing going.



Notice I wrote: "..one way or another..". Sonnyboy, (she says as she gums her corn pipe), SS was in trouble way back when I was a youngster getting my first job in '76. I've known of the gov't thievery of its coffers since then. In fact, as the budding activist that I was, I determined at the tender age of 16 to keep all my check stubs because I was planning to use them to sue the gov't when I was retirement age. Hey! I was sixteen!

I have no illusions about receiving any retirement from the govt. What I was implying when I wrote: "...one way or another.." was through tax evasion or some other way, hell, maybe even taking it out of their f'kn hides at some point.

[Deborah K]

I have taken the opposite stance now. I want as many people as possible to take all that they can and stress the system until it breaks. Let the people line up for all they can get, it still will pale compared to the military industrial complex milking the taxpayers. The more extreme and ridiculous the system becomes, the better for pissing people off and waking them up.

This is our Great Society! Thank you LBJ, you won the war on poverty. :rolleyes:


This is pretty much how I feel. You can decry the "parasites" all you want but they're victims of a messed up system just as much as you or me are and doing that is never going to change anything. If the welfare state is truly unworkable in the long term then making a principled stand and depriving yourself does nothing but prolong it. I feel things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get better unfortunately.



Are either of you aware of the Cloward-Piven strategy? It's designed to do just that with the intent of using capitalism as the culprit and collapsing the system into full-fledged communism.


First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the Cloward-Piven Strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.


The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html

As we all know - socialism is the final step to communism - where we all work for the government.

Be careful what you wish for. I really don't think we're ready for what comes next.

[Seraphim]

**Everybody wave to the NSA as we speak of tax evasion**

:-) f@ggots

[Deborah K]

**Everybody wave to the NSA as we speak of tax evasion**

:-) f@ggots

I'd rather give them the finger. :mad:

[helmuth_hubener]

I edited that quote you posted above. Have a look at it. It answers your questions. Thanks! That doesn't answer either of my questions, whatsoever, unfortunately! (By the way, no, I did not think nor mean to imply at all that you were stealing. I meant in a generic sense: the system is stealing, the stealing should stop.) You want to get your money back; fine! But do you support the immediate end of the SS? The two don't really have anything to do with each other. Walter Block, for instance, thinks all we libertarians should all try to get as much as possible from the state -- it's like re-privatizing wealth, removing it from the public sector and putting it back into the private sector. But at the same time he of course clearly and enthusiastically supports the immediate repeal of the SS.

And the original theme of this thread, of course, is welfare. And I wonder if you support the immediate repeal of welfare, as tod evans does.

[Deborah K]

I vote tax evasion :-)

The taxes you pay today are leveraged upon to keep the whole damn thing going.

Why are we paying them to do this to us? Why?

I vote tax revolt. :)

[helmuth_hubener]

30 seconds of google;

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
Umm, did you read it?

"There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense." But, the article explains, they are wrong.

This is a shocking revelation!!! I thought you were going to post the contract. Here the SS goons themselves seem to be casting aspersions on the very idea that there is any even vague "contractual sense," much less an actual contract.

But they must just be wrong. Please, Mr. Evans, I want to know the terms of the contract you want to enforce. So just post that contract, would you? Thanks!

[Deborah K]

Thanks! That doesn't answer either of my questions, whatsoever, unfortunately! (By the way, no, I did not think nor mean to imply at all that you were stealing. I meant in a generic sense: the system is stealing, the stealing should stop.) You want to get your money back; fine! But do you support the immediate end of the SS? The two don't really have anything to do with each other. Walter Block, for instance, thinks all we libertarians should all try to get as much as possible from the state -- it's like re-privatizing wealth, removing it from the public sector and putting it back into the private sector. But at the same time he of course clearly and enthusiastically supports the immediate repeal of the SS.

And the original theme of this thread, of course, is welfare. And I wonder if you support the immediate repeal of welfare, as tod evans does.

The immediate repeal of either would be a terrible mistake. It would have to be done incrementally so as not to cause massive devastation. If Block means to privatize programs like welfare and SS, I would have to see the plan. Private entities can be just as corrupt as public ones.

[Seraphim]

Because people are scared of the SWAT teams that will show up at their doors for not paying the ransom.

I'm in Canada...I tried to get my company to pay me in full so that I could withold the income tax until the very last moment possible (at the very least no interest free loan to the gov't) and the HR team sent me a reply that the law states they MUST withold my pay...

:mad:

The next best option is no money into Gov't bonds, as little cash in the TBTF banks and save your money in precious metals. That's at least viable without the threat of SWAT teams.

FOR NOW.


Why are we paying them to do this to us? Why?

I vote tax revolt. :)

[helmuth_hubener]

If Block means to privatize programs like welfare and SS No. Block says that when a libertarian accepts payments and benefits and whatever from the gov't, he is not making any moral compromise nor error. He is performing a service. He is taking X dollars out of the coffers of the state, and placing them back into the arena of the free market. He is "privatizing" those dollars, or that war surplus, or that library book, or whatever it is. Make sense?

[Deborah K]

No. Block says that when a libertarian accepts payments and benefits and whatever from the gov't, he is not making any moral compromise nor error. He is performing a service. He is taking X dollars out of the coffers of the state, and placing them back into the arena of the free market. He is "privatizing" those dollars, or that war surplus, or that library book, or whatever it is. Make sense?

Not yet. Does he then agree that the more people who do that the likelier it becomes that the system will collapse? Because if that's what he's getting at, then I wonder if he's aware of the Cloward-Piven strategy. People who want this are playing right into the govt's hands.

[tod evans]

Umm, did you read it?

"There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense." But, the article explains, they are wrong.

This is a shocking revelation!!! I thought you were going to post the contract. Here the SS goons themselves seem to be casting aspersions on the very idea that there is any even vague "contractual sense," much less an actual contract.

But they must just be wrong. Please, Mr. Evans, I want to know the terms of the contract you want to enforce. So just post that contract, would you? Thanks!

Same link and honestly I'm too damn lazy to research any further..

Here ya' go anyway;

THE PROGRAM IS FINANCED THROUGH A PAYROLL TAX LEVIED ON EMPLOYEES IN
COVERED EMPLOYMENT, AND ON THEIR EMPLOYERS. THE TAX RATE, WHICH IS A
FIXED PERCENTAGE OF THE FIRST $4,800 OF EMPLOYEE ANNUAL INCOME, IS SET
AT A SCALE WHICH WILL INCREASE FROM YEAR TO YEAR, PRESUMABLY TO KEEP
PACE WITH RISING BENEFIT COSTS. I.R.C. OF 1954, SECS. 3101, 3111,
3121(A). THE TAX PROCEEDS ARE PAID INTO THE TREASURY "AS INTERNAL
REVENUE COLLECTIONS," I.R.C., SEC. 3501, AND EACH YEAR AN AMOUNT EQUAL
TO THE PROCEEDS IS APPROPRIATED TO A TRUST FUND, FROM WHICH BENEFITS
AND THE EXPENSES OF THE PROGRAM ARE PAID. SEC. 201, 42 U.S.C. SEC.
401. IT WAS EVIDENTLY CONTEMPLATED THAT RECEIPTS WOULD GREATLY EXCEED
DISBURSEMENTS IN THE EARLY YEARS OF OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM, AND
SURPLUS FUNDS ARE INVESTED IN GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS, AND THE INCOME
RETURNED TO THE TRUST FUND. THUS, PROVISION IS MADE FOR EXPECTED
INCREASING COSTS OF THE PROGRAM.
THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM MAY BE ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS A FORM OF
SOCIAL INSURANCE, ENACTED PURSUANT TO CONGRESS' POWER TO "SPEND MONEY
IN AID OF THE 'GENERAL WELFARE,'" HELVERING V. DAVIS, SUPRA, AT 640,
WHEREBY PERSONS GAINFULLY EMPLOYED, AND THOSE WHO EMPLOY THEM, ARE
TAXED TO PERMIT THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO THE RETIRED AND DISABLED,
AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. PLAINLY THE EXPECTATION IS THAT MANY MEMBERS OF
THE PRESENT PRODUCTIVE WORK FORCE WILL IN TURN BECOME BENEFICIARIES
RATHER THAN SUPPORTERS OF THE PROGRAM. BUT EACH WORKER'S BENEFITS,
THOUGH FLOWING FROM THE CONTRIBUTIONS HE MADE TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
WHILE ACTIVELY EMPLOYED, ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE DEGREE TO WHICH HE
WAS CALLED UPON TO SUPPORT THE SYSTEM BY TAXATION. IT IS APPARENT THAT
THE NONCONTRACTUAL INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT CANNOT BE
SOUNDLY ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY, WHOSE RIGHT TO
BENEFITS IS BOTTOMED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS.

IT IS HARDLY PROFITABLE TO ENGAGE IN CONCEPTUALIZATIONS REGARDING
"EARNED RIGHTS" AND GRATUITIES." CF. LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S.
571, 576-577. THE "RIGHT" TO SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS IS IN ONE SENSE
"EARNED," FOR THE ENTIRE SCHEME RESTS ON THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT
THOSE WHO IN THEIR PRODUCTIVE YEARS WERE FUNCTIONING MEMBERS OF THE
ECONOMY MAY JUSTLY CALL UPON THAT ECONOMY, IN THEIR LATER YEARS, FOR
PROTECTION FROM "THE RIGORS OF THE POOR HOUSE AS WELL AS FROM THE
HAUNTING FEAR THAT SUCH A LOT AWAITS THEM WHEN JOURNEY'S END IS NEAR."
HELVERING V. DAVIS, SUPRA, AT 641. BUT THE PRACTICAL EFFECTUATION OF
THAT JUDGMENT HAS OF NECESSITY CALLED FORTH A HIGHLY COMPLEX AND
INTERRELATED STATUTORY STRUCTURE. INTEGRATED TREATMENT OF THE MANIFOLD
SPECIFIC PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM DEMANDS MORE
THAN A GENERALIZATION. THAT PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED TO FUNCTION INTO THE
INDEFINITE FUTURE, AND ITS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS REST ON PREDICTIONS AS
TO EXPECTED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH MUST INEVITABLY PROVE LESS THAN
WHOLLY ACCURATE, AND ON JUDGMENTS AND PREFERENCES AS TO THE PROPER
ALLOCATION OF THE NATION'S RESOURCES WHICH EVOLVING ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
CONDITIONS WILL OF NECESSITY IN SOME DEGREE MODIFY.

TO ENGRAFT UPON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM A CONCEPT OF "ACCRUED
PROPERTY RIGHTS" WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE FLEXIBILITY AND BOLDNESS IN
ADJUSTMENT TO EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEMANDS. SEE
WOLLENBERG, VESTED RIGHTS IN SOCIAL-SECURITY BENEFITS, 37 ORE. L. REV.
299, 359. IT WAS DOUBTLESS OUT OF AN AWARENESS OF THE NEED FOR SUCH
FLEXIBILITY THAT CONGRESS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ACT, AND HAS SINCE
RETAINED, A CLAUSE EXPRESSLY RESERVING TO IT "THE RIGHT TO ALTER,
AMEND, OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION" OF THE ACT. SEC. 1104, 49 STAT. 648,
42 U.S.C. SEC. 1304. THAT PROVISION MAKES EXPRESS WHAT IS IMPLICIT IN
THE INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS OF THE PROGRAM. SEE ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 83D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 920
921. IT WAS PURSUANT TO THAT PROVISION THAT SEC. 202(N) WAS ENACTED.

WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT A PERSON COVERED BY THE ACT HAS NOT SUCH A
RIGHT IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED"
INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.

[helmuth_hubener]

Not yet. Does he then agree that the more people who do that the likelier it becomes that the system will collapse? Because if that's what he's getting at, then I wonder if he's aware of the Cloward-Piven strategy. People who want this are playing right into the govt's hands.No, that is not what he's getting at. Such rationales, as well as the rationale so commonly expressed in this thread that it makes any difference whatsoever whether you've paid taxes, how much taxes, etc., etc., are morally faulty. This is what Block says:

I have in my time been "guilty" of accepting subsidies from the state. I shop for food in supermarkets, and eat even more of it in restaurants. I therefore indirectly avail myself of agricultural subsidies (I full well realize that farm goods would be cheaper in the fully free society, but, still, given our lack of economic freedom, there may well be a subsidy in it for me from dining.) I have U.S. fiat fractional reserve bank currency in my wallet and use it too, even though as a libertarian I favor free market (e.g., gold or silver) money. I use streets, sidewalks, roads and highways, brought to me courtesy of our least favorite institution. I went to public schools as a student, and taught at a few of them as a faculty member. I had a New York State Regents' Scholarship, and I'm not giving back a penny of it to the government. I use public libraries, art galleries and museums, shamelessly. I avail myself of the services of statist parks: Central Park in New York City, Stanley Park in Vancouver, Canada, and Audubon Park when in New Orleans, and others besides. And when I do so, I give off with a little smirk of satisfaction for a job well done. I have written about these transgressions of mine and other aspects of this challenge here (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block86.html), here (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block108.html), here (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block172.html), here (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block100.html), here (http://mises.org/daily/4054;), here (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block150.html), here (http://www2.units.it/~etica/), here (http://www2.units.it/~etica/2008_1/BLOCKBARNETT.pdf), here (http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/damico.pdf), here (http://mises.org/books/hulsmann-kinsella_property-freedom-society-2009.pdf), here (http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/17-libertarian-punishment-theory-working-for-and-donating-to-the-state/), here (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf), here (http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf), here (http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf), here (http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2002/02/section_13.html), here (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block143.html) and here (http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1972/1972_06-07.pdf;). Please, as the Jewish Mother of the libertarian movement, I absolve all you kinder regarding the guilt you may have accepting these and other such subsidies. Go out there, and proudly get everything you can from the government. Hold your head high; you are doing a mitzvah!

-- http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/03/walter-block/may-a-libertarian-take-money-from-the-government/

[DamianTV]

http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/08/22/game-over-america-has-accepted-her-enslavement/

... Yes, America you have almost arrived to third world status. If one takes away the top 1% in our country, we are a third world country. When more of us are on welfare (101 million people) than are working (97 million people), we have become a welfare state. A welfare state is representative of absolute poverty. At this rate, our poverty will soon rival the poverty rates of any third world nation.

...

I found this to be quite relevant to this thread...

[Seraphim]

Insanity....



http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/08/22/game-over-america-has-accepted-her-enslavement/


I found this to be quite relevant to this thread...

[helmuth_hubener]

Same link and honestly I'm too damn lazy to research any further..
tod, tod, tod. Is that block of text you posted the contract? Is that what you think?

You did not understand anything you read. Anyone here can back me up on this. That block of text means exactly the opposite of what you claimed. It does not prove you right. It does the opposite.

Can we now agree, along with the Official SS site, that:

There is no contract
There are no terms
There are no parties
No one owes anyone anything because of the SSI act(s)

Hmm?

[heavenlyboy34]

Are either of you aware of the Cloward-Piven strategy? It's designed to do just that with the intent of using capitalism as the culprit and collapsing the system into full-fledged communism.





http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html

As we all know - socialism is the final step to communism - where we all work for the government.

Be careful what you wish for. I really don't think we're ready for what comes next.
This has been a popular meme among conservatives for a long time. But it isn't really the case. Socialism is an economic system and communism is political and, by necessity, economic.

People can easily be socialist and never even desire to be communist. The US has been socialist (fascist, more specifically) for 150 years or so.

[tod evans]

tod, tod, tod. Is that block of text you posted the contract? Is that what you think?

You did not understand anything you read. Anyone here can back me up on this. That block of text means exactly the opposite of what you claimed. It does not prove you right. It does the opposite.

Can we now agree, along with the Official SS site, that:

There is no contract
There are no terms
There are no parties
No one owes anyone anything because of the SSI act(s)

Hmm?

Well carry that right on up to the SC and argue it.

Did you miss the reference to "contract"?

"WHOSE RIGHT TO
BENEFITS IS BOTTOMED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS. "

I'll leave it to you to determine which contractual payments the court spoke of, as I said I'm too lazy to research this any further.

There are much wiser folks than me who have tried getting out of said "contract", of that I'm certain.

[jkob]

Are either of you aware of the Cloward-Piven strategy? It's designed to do just that with the intent of using capitalism as the culprit and collapsing the system into full-fledged communism.





http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/theclowardpivenstrategypoe.html

As we all know - socialism is the final step to communism - where we all work for the government.

Be careful what you wish for. I really don't think we're ready for what comes next.

I'm aware of it and my view is that collapse is inevitable regardless. The system cannot sustain itself and people aren't going to vote to reform these social welfare programs without some major crisis let alone get rid of them. I don't see how depriving yourself hurts the system at all.

[DamianTV]

Here we go again with debating the very foundation of what a Right is and what a Right is not.

I believe we have Unlimited Rights onto ourselves and ourselves alone.

The end of our Rights comes where another persons Rights begin. There can be no Right to take away anything from another individual so that what is taken away is redistributed to someone else. Thus, the Govt has no Right to Tax. Hell, Govt has NO RIGHTS what so ever. It has only Permissions granted to it by the People as to what it can and can not do. I have the Right to keep what I own. I have the Right to do with my property as I will. I have No Right to make YOUR property MY property. I have No Right to force you to produce goods or provide services to me.

People do NOT have the Right of Welfare because it is a forcible separation of something someone else owns. It may be considered to be Legal, it may be considered to be contractually obligated, but it is NOT a Right. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what a Right actually is.

Claiming to have a Right to something belonging to another is what Ron Paul would call an Entitlement. And Entitlements are NOT a Right.

[Qdog]

I dont think there really are a such thing as "rights". A mouse can say to a cat: "I have the right to not be eaten". The cat will say, "ok sure, whatever", and then eat the mouse. A porcupine can say, "I have the right to not be eaten" and whatever predator that tries to eat it will get a mouthfull of quills. I think that predator would say "Yep, you sure do have the right to not be eaten... my bad"

All of the "rights" that we think we have, even from the Constitution, aren't really "Rights", they are privileges granted to us by society or the State. The only true rights we have, are the ones that we can enforce. Therefore, in my opinion the 2nd amendment is paramount to individual liberty. Because, Just like the Porcupine, we only have the right to not be eaten if we have the means to back it up.

[Dogsoldier]

Ending it would be good.

Restoring land and property rights should be the main focus though.

Everything else would take care of itself. I was thinking about "retirement plans" and how "saving for retirement" is the new "security".

In the old days if you saved money and bought some land and built a home on it THAT WAS RETIREMENT SECURITY!

Now not only must you pay rent or taxes to keep a roof over your head you have to save up a lot more money on top of that or you will be kicked out in the street. This is not security at all. At least before once you had a patch of land and a home you didn't have to worry about where you would live when you got old because it was bought and payed for already. Now if you don't pay the rent=taxes you lose your home. This is why we have an ever growing homeless population.

Property=rights.

[helmuth_hubener]

Did you miss the reference to "contract"?

"WHOSE RIGHT TO
BENEFITS IS BOTTOMED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS. " Wow.

Wow!!!!!!

Even after being told clearly that you are wrong, you still do not have the reading comprehension to re-examine your interpretation.

That sentence is contrasting the person who does have a contractual basis for his claims, the holder of an annuity, with the person who absolutely does not, the participant in the SS. You really just saw the word "contract" and went "uhh, derp, derp, contract, Social Security,... this is exactly what I was saying to Helmuth! This proves it! Contract and Social Security go together. Here's both the words, and they're kind of close together... I have no idea what any of this is saying, but let me just highlight this sentence here that contains variants of the word "contract" a couple times... that should do it! Case proven!"

Sigh. Redeem yourself by realizing and expressing embarrassment at your error. Or else I will have to conclude that your reading comprehension/IQ is simply far too low to have any further communications with you.

[thoughtomator]

Anyone else remember the days of "the end of welfare as we know it"?


Just once, I'd like one of these kind-of-key promises to actually be fulfilled with no funny business.

[Origanalist]

Please, as the Jewish Mother of the libertarian movement, I absolve all you kinder regarding the guilt you may have accepting these and other such subsidies. Go out there, and proudly get everything you can from the government. Hold your head high; you are doing a mitzvah!

-- http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/03/walter-block/may-a-libertarian-take-money-from-the-government/

Ya well, screw that. One can justify dependence on the state and the rest of society anyway they want.

[tod evans]

Shove it helmuth! (For your condescending, sanctimonious attitude)

I did the research I didn't want to do, and you're right.

Here's the caselaw/ site;

Supreme Court Rules: Social Security is NOT a Binding Contract

http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/23/supreme-court-rules-social-security-is-not-a-binding-contract/

This post was prompted by all-too-common opinions expressed in Randall Holcombe’s recent “Federal Government Debt Undermines the Programs It Finances” (http://blog.independent.org/2013/01/21/federal-government-debt-undermines-the-programs-it-finances/) blog. The respondents passionately insist that Social Security is a contract, whatever you do to the budget, do not touch Social Security. “I paid in and it is a contract. They owe me.”

The Supreme Court settled this issue in 1960! Even more to the point, the Social Security Administration mocks those who think it is a binding contract. On the SSA’s own web site, it states:

“There has been a temptation throughout the program’s history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense.”

The SSA cites the Flemming v. Nestor (1960) (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html) decision and even posts it in its entirety. The Social Security Administration defends the inevitable default on payments (for some Americans, not all) by summing up that case:

“In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.”

I don’t agree with R. Holcombe that the program is “doomed.” The program will be means-tested (prediction) for “those who do not need it,” including those who saved, had long work histories, and generally did all the old-school things that our destroy-the-wealth State frowns upon. In fact, if Social Security were a binding contract, what is the stated rate of return? There is none! But anyone who has studied the history of Social Security knows that past and present formulas give a much higher payout to those with lower incomes and spotty work records. If you pay in the maximum amount your entire career, then you will get the lowest rate of return. This is all done behind the curtain of Oz.

One last Reality Check: You aren’t entitled to Social Security at age 65. Starting October 1, 2027 (the day before I turn 65), the retirement age rises to 67. It will go even higher for “those who do not need (much) of it.”

Mark my words. The slicing of Social Security will retain the benefits for the less productive wage earners and simply skew the formula ever more against those who work and pay the maximum amount.

Postscript: The person who appealed to the Supreme Court for his right to benefits was a Communist. Further proof that if those you dislike lose their rights, we all lose. There is a certain irony, though, with a Communist claiming a contractual property right to Social Security. History is funny that way.

And remember: we aren’t talking about the Super Rich or even the 1%. If you are working upper middle class, you pay on wages (not investment income) up to $110,000. But don’t expect much if anything in return. You are not entitled. The Court has spoken.

[Anti Federalist]

That's racist.



Planning ahead is considered racist?

By ANDREW J. COULSON, GUEST COLUMNIST

Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, May 31, 2006

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Planning-ahead-is-considered-racist-1204942.php

Are you salting away a little money for your retirement? Trying to plan for your kids' education? If so, Seattle Public Schools seems to think you're a racist.

According to the district's official Web site, "having a future time orientation" (academese for having long-term goals) is among the "aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype and label people of color."

Huh?

Not all the district's definitions of racism (and there are lots of them) are so cryptic. The site goes on immediately to say, "Emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" is another form of "cultural racism."

bump...LOL

[BlackTerrel]

One of the first areas of government I'd like to see totally de-funded, immediately after all the alphabet agencies..:mad:


Is your contention that welfare pays too much or that salaries pay too little?

I'd argue it's the latter.

It used to be my mom could work a couple unskilled jobs and support 5 kids by busting her ass.

That doesn't exist anymore. With outsourcing and automation my mom now depends on me and my high skilled (and relatively well paying job) for support. In addition to government aid.

Without that my mom starves. When aid goes away where will that money suddenly appear from?

It's easy to say find a high skilled job. I did. But not everyone can. The truth is automation and outsourcing are taking jobs away. And there simply aren't enough for 300 million people.

[tod evans]

Is your contention that welfare pays too much or that salaries pay too little?

I'd argue it's the latter.

It used to be my mom could work a couple unskilled jobs and support 5 kids by busting her ass.

That doesn't exist anymore. With outsourcing and automation my mom now depends on me and my high skilled (and relatively well paying job) for support. In addition to government aid.

Without that my mom starves. When aid goes away where will that money suddenly appear from?

It's easy to say find a high skilled job. I did. But not everyone can. The truth is automation and outsourcing are taking jobs away. And there simply aren't enough for 300 million people.



I didn't assert either...

Honestly I don't care who starves, this free shit's gotta end sooner or later and government jobs is just more free shit!

There's not one employee of the CIA,NSA,FBI,DEA etc. who makes anything, so their jobs,to a man, are glorified welfare.

The few who actually produce "things" in this country carry the rest, always have always will.

You're going to have to do just like my brothers-n-sisters and I, take care of your mom.

The country's been broke for decades and it's snowballing......

I for one would like to leave a better legacy than debt..

[BlackTerrel]

I didn't assert either...

Honestly I don't care who starves, this free shit's gotta end sooner or later and government jobs is just more free shit!

There's not one employee of the CIA,NSA,FBI,DEA etc. who makes anything, so their jobs,to a man, are glorified welfare.

The few who actually produce "things" in this country carry the rest, always have always will.

You're going to have to do just like my brothers-n-sisters and I, take care of your mom.

The country's been broke for decades and it's snowballing......

I for one would like to leave a better legacy than debt..

"I don't care who starves" isn't a solution either. As more and more jobs are eliminated the gap between rich and poor keeps growing. And that isn't good for anyone. Including the people at the top.

[Paulbot99]

What do you suggest? I really don't take much pleasure in saying this, but the dollar is going to collapse. We won't have money when it does.

[torchbearer]

What do you suggest? I really don't take much pleasure in saying this, but the dollar is going to collapse. We won't have money when it does.

move out of city centers. if you can't, you will most likely not survive the cannibalism.

[Paulbot99]

Don't forget to stock up on guns and ammo! Unless you expect the police to do their job for free...

[torchbearer]

Don't forget to stock up on guns and ammo! Unless you expect the police to do their job for free...

technically, all you need is a liberator. a one shot hand gun.
with it, you can arm yourself with a tyrants arsenal.

[tod evans]

"I don't care who starves" isn't a solution either. As more and more jobs are eliminated the gap between rich and poor keeps growing. And that isn't good for anyone. Including the people at the top.

I'm far from "the top" but I am self sufficient...

Are you?

[amy31416]

"I don't care who starves" isn't a solution either. As more and more jobs are eliminated the gap between rich and poor keeps growing. And that isn't good for anyone. Including the people at the top.

You think Tod should pay your mom's bills?

[kcchiefs6465]

Money retaining its value would go a long way towards helping everyone.

If you think minimum wages rise anywhere near where inflation is rising you are misinformed.

People ought to be able to ask what they wish for their labor. But the money they are paid for it ought not be debased.

People seem to have a scapegoat. The modern defined liberal blames the rich for their unlivable wages. Modern defined conservatives blame the poor for taking advantage of the system they've been equally involved in creating.

In my opinion, respectfully, people need to take a step back and realize what everyone is noticing but instead scapegoating or misdiagnosing. That is, debasement of currency, corporatism, fraud, and an unsustainable economic system.

I think we all have gotten too fat. Live beyond your means and you're destined to live beneath them. Of course some will be hit harder than others depending their preparedness.

[Seraphim]

Why are we paying them to do this to us? Why?

I vote tax revolt. :)

Will you marry me? :)

[DamianTV]

If we were to ALL go on Welfare instead of being slaves to our enslaved people farmers, it would collapse the system probably much more quickly than violence ever could. Non Aggressive Resistance.

[helmuth_hubener]

Are either of you aware of the Cloward-Piven strategy? This idea of the "Cloward-Piven strategy" and its importance which you and some others have is far too narrow. In fact, the entire logic of democracy eventually arrives at one world state, providing myriad social insurance programs to everyone. Democracy is just mob rule. Mob rule will result in the mob voting for more and more loot to be given to itself. This is not complicated.

[helmuth_hubener]

That is, mass democracy itself is a horrible, horrible idea.

[BlackTerrel]

You think Tod should pay your mom's bills?

I think we need a plan to have more jobs available for Americans.

This country has more food than it needs. The solution is not to let people starve.

[DamianTV]

I think we need a plan to have more jobs available for Americans.

This country has more food than it needs. The solution is not to let people starve.

Welcome to the "Just In Time" Economy, supported by the "Educated Poor". When the economy finally does collapse, there will be wide spread starvation. Food is another means by which to enslave a country.

[AuH20]

Welcome to the "Just In Time" Economy, supported by the "Educated Poor". When the economy finally does collapse, there will be wide spread starvation. Food is another means by which to enslave a country.

There was a recent poll taken and 75% stated they would be dead at the 2 month mark of an extended power outage. We're dealing with fragile, unresourceful "sheep."

[DamianTV]

What do you suggest? I really don't take much pleasure in saying this, but the dollar is going to collapse. We won't have money when it does.

After America Collapses - Parts 1 and 2 (audio fix, the originals have messed up audio)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_446373857&feature=iv&src_vid=dck9dXjt2HI&v=vh7f46X_tsM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dck9dXjt2HI

[tod evans]

I think we need a plan to have more jobs available for Americans.

This country has more food than it needs. The solution is not to let people starve.

So now farmers should feed folks who offer them nothing in return?

[DamianTV]

So now farmers should feed folks who offer them nothing in return?

I dont think this would end well either way. Placing the entire weight of survival on only a few individuals contributing will eventually lead to total collapse. Even if the Farmer were paid, he may not be able to keep up with the demands without the community contributing into growing new crops.

Real survivability would require that groups of people worked together. A Mechanic and a Farmer will work well together. Other skills or services, even manual labor, something that keeps the community going.

And this is exactly where the Welfare State has lead us to. No one wants to work when they can bring home more money on Welfare than by working at McDonalds. The Welfare State has the power to just print money, and there is no possible way a Free Market Solution can be enacted as long as the State maintains that power. The People just can not compete. Worse yet, they have incentive to NOT work, to NOT contribute, to be as Parasitic as their phoney elected officials are. No society can survive if no one contributes a thing.

http://i43.tinypic.com/opsits.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/288cd8w.jpg

[helmuth_hubener]

And this is exactly where the Welfare State has lead us to. Which in turn is exactly where mass democracy has led us to. And where it has led to everywhere it has been tried. It's inherent in the logic of the system.

Mass democracy is the problem, and ending it is the solution.

[donnay]

This welfare program does two things:

1. Lures people on it to control them.
2. Divides the country into class envy groups.

It is done by design. Divide and conquer.