Suppose democrats get their tax...

[jhakken]

If everyone did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Everyone pays, just not federal income tax.

[quietmike]

Everyone pays, just not federal income tax.

If a person pays for the items in their shopping cart does that mean they aren't really stealing the items stuffed in their jacket?

[jhakken]

If a person pays for the items in their shopping cart does that mean they aren't really stealing the items stuffed in their jacket?

No one has stolen anything. Youi know it and I know it. The SCOTUS knows it too.

[Codger_64]

...Regardless of the "confiscation" issue, I agree that the system is been abused. Wealth redistribution is a part of living in society, but yes, there are those who want to milk the system. I just don't think that all who receive welfare benefits are trying to milk or play the system. How do we help those to earn their own keep, so to speak and move beyond welfare? That is the issue.

A part of the problem is skewed public perceptions regarding both the programs and the recipiants themselves. When stereotypes (caracatures) of the recipients of the programs are used to represent the class as a whole, the worst possible picture is painted. The honest truth is far from that, but the stereotype perceptions persist. I don't know that there is a cure for that because the proponents of those perceptions will not be convinced that it is possible they might be wrong.

[quietmike]

No one has stolen anything. Youi know it and I know it. The SCOTUS knows it too.

Taking an item without paying for it is stealing in every culture I'm aware of.

[Preacher Man]

Taxation is necessary for the operation of the government. The constitution is a legal contract between the government and the citizens as to the operation of government and its boundaries. Any taxation and use of funds outlined in the constitution is allowed. Any use outside the constitution has no protection under the law, as unconstitutional laws are null and void. So any taxation to pay for unconstitutional programs is theft.

I disagree with your use of terms, but can't disagree with the basic argument. I would say that the revenue product of taxation that is used to pay for unconstitutional programs is misused, but that doesn't make the taxation process theft or unconstitutional. The reason it is not theft (in ethical terms) is that the revenue came to the State's coffers legally. Latter improper use of revenue doesn't change the legality of how it was acquired.

Now, is welfare unconstitutional? Some say it is, others say it is not. The General Welfare Clause as interpreted by Alexander Hamilton seems to see it as constitutional. This was the doctrine used during the first years of the application of the GWC. Jefferson's view is contrary on this issue. His view was dominant for a while. The courts have brought us back to the Hamiltonian way to interpret the GWC, so, in my view, it is constitutional. I do understand why you see it differently.

Wealth redistribution was only a voluntary part of living in our society for the majority of our history.

The welfare part of it, yes.

As for how to help? Operant conditioning works every time.

That is one of the tools that needs to be used, but not the only one. Just like not everyone can stop smoking the same way, not everyone can move away from being dependent on welfare the same way. One size fits all is not always the case.

[quietmike]

That is one of the tools that needs to be used, but not the only one. Just like not everyone can stop smoking the same way, not everyone can move away from being dependent on welfare the same way. One size fits all is not always the case.

If cigarettes were suddenly no longer available, everyone could quit the same way. Quitting welfare would be no different.

[Preacher Man]

If cigarettes were suddenly no longer available, everyone could quit the same way. Quitting welfare would be no different.

I understand the argument. The difference is that the non-availability of cigarettes make no difference whatsoever in the possibility of going hungry or facing eviction if there are not enough jobs available. If there was no unemployment or underemployment problem, I would agree with you that is the only tool needed. Right now, I can't.

[quietmike]

I understand the argument. The difference is that the non-availability of cigarettes make no difference whatsoever in the possibility of going hungry or facing eviction if there are not enough jobs available. If there was no unemployment or underemployment problem, I would agree with you that is the only tool needed. Right now, I can't.

In the last few decades we have had several periods of unemployment rates below 5%, which is considered full employment, yet we have never gotten rid of these programs.
There will always be a reason (excuse?) why now just isn't the right time.

[Codger_64]

In the last few decades we have had several periods of unemployment rates below 5%, which is considered full employment, yet we have never gotten rid of these programs.
There will always be a reason (excuse?) why now just isn't the right time.

Surprise. As I and others have been saying, the majority of poor families work when work is available. Your employment figures are skewed too. Look at the U-6 rate.

NEW YORK — The number of U.S. jobs paying a poverty-level wage increased by 4.7 million between 2002 and 2006, according to a new analysis of census data released Tuesday.

A report by The Working Poor Families Project, based on an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, found conditions worsened for the working poor in the four years ending in 2006, as the number of low-income working families increased by 350,000. The project is funded by the Annie E. Casey, Ford, Joyce and C.S. Mott Foundations.

The report defines a low-income working family as those earning less than twice the Census definition of poverty. In 2006, the most recent year for available data, a family of four earning $41,228 or less qualified as a low-income family.

The number of jobs with pay below the poverty threshold increased to 29.4 million, or 22 percent of all jobs, in 2006 from 24.7 million, or 19 percent of all jobs, in 2002.

"The real surprising news, the alarming news, is that both the number and percentage of low-income families increased during this period," said Brandon Roberts, co-author of the report. "This was a time when we had solid and robust economic growth."

An increase in poverty "is not just a new phenomena over the last six months," he said.

Poverty-wage jobs increased in part because 2.5 million new jobs paid poverty wages; additionally 2.2 million jobs that paid greater than poverty wages in 2002 became poverty-wage jobs by 2006, as pay failed to keep up with the cost of living, Roberts said.

In two states, Mississippi and New Mexico, 40 percent of working families were low income in 2006, according to the report.

In 11 other states, at least 33 percent of working families were low income: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.

The number of low-income families rose to nearly 9.6 million, or 28 percent of the total population, in 2006 from 9.2 million, or roughly 27 percent, in 2002, according to the report. The number of children in low-income families rose by roughly 800,000 during the same period, climbing to 21 million from 20.2 million.

During the period, the number of working families spending more than one-third of their income on housing grew to 59 percent from 52 percent.

The report sought to address what it called myths about low-income families. For instance, it found 72 percent of low-income families work, with adults in low-income working families working, on average, 2,552 hours per year in 2006, the equivalent of one and one-quarter full-time jobs.

It also found that 52 percent of low-income families are headed by married couples; 69 percent have only American-born parents; 43 percent are white and non-Hispanic and only one-quarter of low-income families receive food stamp assistance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27181041...getting-worse/

[Preacher Man]

In the last few decades we have had several periods of unemployment rates below 5%, which is considered full employment, yet we have never gotten rid of these programs.
There will always be a reason (excuse?) why now just isn't the right time.

That is a very good point. Times of low unemployment are times where we should try to lower the number of people on welfare. It is a great time to rein on abuse and legislate punishment for abusing the system, since those are moments of lesser demand and easier to single out abusers. As for eliminating the program entirely, I believe we'll never be able to do so, nor do I think we have to. I don't believe the program to be unconstitutional, so I don't think we have to close it. I do think it is extremely mismanaged, too prone to abuse, not punishing abuse severely enough, and used by some for political advantage.

[Codger_64]

More on the true jobless rate:

The truth is that even the broader measure of unemployment doesn't fully capture how difficult the job market is for U.S. workers. It doesn't include self-employed workers whose incomes have shriveled. It doesn't look at former full-time employees who have accepted short-term contracts, without benefits, and at a fraction of their former salaries. And it doesn't count the many would-be workers who are going back to school, taking on more debt, in hopes that advanced degrees will improve their chances of landing jobs.

That broader unemployment rate, or U-6, is up from 16.4% a year ago and from 9.7% in May 2008. It was 7.1% in May 2000.

"It has gone up a lot because a lot of people have been put on short hours," said economist Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization. "And there are a lot of discouraged workers."

Shortened work hours are, in fact, one of the ways this recession is different from the ones in the early 1980s and early 1990s, Burtless said. Another difference is the huge number of people who have been permanently laid off.

"Some people have lost their income altogether, and others have seen a drop in hours even if they remain employed," Burtless said. "It was a double whammy for labor income."

The two trends are especially apparent in California, where the official unemployment rate is 12.6%. Severe layoffs in early 2009 wiped out 100,000 jobs a month, according to Michael S. Bernick, a research fellow at the Milken Institute and a former head of California's labor department. And the number of people working less than 35 hours a week has exploded. The recession has left 1.5 million Californians involuntarily working part time, though they are classified as employed.

Factor in these involuntarily underemployed workers plus the burgeoning number of discouraged job seekers, and California's real unemployment rate is 20%.

Another difference in this recession -- and a likely reason for the high number of discouraged job seekers -- is the number of people who have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks. The Wall Street Journal reports that 7 million Americans have been looking for work for 27 weeks or more, and the majority of them -- 4.7 million -- have been out of work for a year or more. In California, the number out of work more than 27 weeks is almost 900,000, more than the population of San Francisco.

"That largely reflects how more severe this recession has been than of 1982 and of the 1990s," said Bernick, who has worked in the job-training field since the late 1970s.

Now, although severe layoffs are no longer occurring, hiring has not picked up significantly.

"The labor market is still very, very slow," Bernick said. "Each job (opening) brings tens, usually hundreds, of applicants."

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...ment-rate.aspx

[Preacher Man]

Surprise. As I and others have been saying, the majority of poor families work when work is available. Your employment figures are skewed too. Look at the U-6 rate.

That has been my experience as well. We got people every soften coming to the church looking for work. When we are able to help families, we require them to look for work. Must do whatever jobs become available. The problem is not just unemployment, but underemployment as well. The head of house may have found some temporary work, and that counts as employed, but doing repair work or yard work part-time is not enough to pay the bills and put food on the table. To the unemployment rate we must add the underemployment rate. This is usually left out, but in reality is part of the problem.

[Noctis3880]

That is a very good point. Times of low unemployment are times where we should try to lower the number of people on welfare. It is a great time to rein on abuse and legislate punishment for abusing the system, since those are moments of lesser demand and easier to single out abusers. As for eliminating the program entirely, I believe we'll never be able to do so, nor do I think we have to. I don't believe the program to be unconstitutional, so I don't think we have to close it. I do think it is extremely mismanaged, too prone to abuse, not punishing abuse severely enough, and used by some for political advantage.

My mother works in the state, and while not a caseworker, handles foodstamp related documentation. She mentioned a case where a couple had abused the foodstamp program and had a total of $200,000 of owed money. I believe they were ordered to pay to the tune of $25 a month. I wonder if they'll realistically be able to pay off that debt before they die from old age.

The way I see it, the very moment that a program strays from its intended purpose it should be abolished and, if absolutely necessary, a new or alternative one be built from the ground up, preferably with different people in charge of it.

While the thought process of letting 1000 guilty men go free before an innocent is imprisoned is a wonderful ideology, it is a complete and utter nightmare once the consequences are fully considered. Especially if one of the guilty men ends up murdering the innocent man anyway. That would be quite the irony yes? This is true in the sense that those who truly need and use the program the way it was intended are getting a bad rap because of those who abuse the system.

[quietmike]

A report by The Working Poor Families Project, based on an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, found conditions worsened for the working poor in the four years ending in 2006, as the number of low-income working families increased by 350,000. The project is funded by the Annie E. Casey, Ford, Joyce and C.S. Mott Foundations.
"The real surprising news, the alarming news, is that both the number and percentage of low-income families increased during this period," said Brandon Roberts, co-author of the report. "This was a time when we had solid and robust economic growth."
In two states, Mississippi and New Mexico, 40 percent of working families were low income in 2006, according to the report.

In 11 other states, at least 33 percent of working families were low income: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.

The number of low-income families rose to nearly 9.6 million, or 28 percent of the total population, in 2006 from 9.2 million, or roughly 27 percent, in 2002, according to the report. The number of children in low-income families rose by roughly 800,000 during the same period, climbing to 21 million from 20.2 million.
The report sought to address what it called myths about low-income families. For instance, it found 72 percent of low-income families work, with adults in low-income working families working, on average, 2,552 hours per year in 2006, the equivalent of one and one-quarter full-time jobs.

It also found that 52 percent of low-income families are headed by married couples; 69 percent have only American-born parents; 43 percent are white and non-Hispanic and only one-quarter of low-income families receive food stamp assistance.

The report defines a low-income working family as those earning less than twice the Census definition of poverty. In 2006, the most recent year for available data, a family of four earning $41,228 or less qualified as a low-income family.

So we are making up definitions as we go to garner pity?
The "low income families" as defined by this study would not qualify for welfare, so stats on whether they work or not are meaningless.

Poverty-wage jobs increased in part because 2.5 million new jobs paid poverty wages; additionally 2.2 million jobs that paid greater than poverty wages in 2002 became poverty-wage jobs by 2006, as pay failed to keep up with the cost of living, Roberts said.

So unemployment increased as we added 2.5 million new jobs? If those other 2.2 million job's pay failed to keep up with inflation, we must look at what is causing inflation. Sixty percent of the federal budget goes toward entitlement programs.

During the period, the number of working families spending more than one-third of their income on housing grew to 59 percent from 52 percent.

By itself, this is meaningless as well. A multimillionaire can buy a house they cannot afford, and too many people buying too much house is what caused the "housing bubble" to begin with.

[quietmike]

More on the true jobless rate:


http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...ment-rate.aspx

So, the unemployment/underemployment figures are especially apparent in California??? The state where liberal ideals are Holy Canon?

Thank you for the back up!!

[Codger_64]

So, the unemployment/underemployment figures are especially apparent in California??? The state where liberal ideals are Holy Canon?

Thank you for the back up!!

Are all Californians Liberal? Are all Californians U.S. Citizens? Which State has the highest population of illegal Residents?

You know, the need to feel superior to someone is a very human trait. It always has been. And as far as I can tell, always will be. This trait has led to all sorts of instances of what we refer to as "evil" in our history.

In each and every instance, the perpetrators of the "evil" acts were absolutely convinced that their victims were "lesser beings". When facing evidence that this was not the case, they would resort to all sorts of semantics to justify their actions.

Their feelings of superiority were so deeply rooted that no amount of proof to the contrary would suffice. Mostly because they had based so much of their opinion of their own self-worth on the "unworthiness" of the others. To admit the their errors would be tantamount to admitting a lesser self worth for themselves by their standards.

Justifications for their deeds, arising from their claims to superiority, have almost without exception been the products of misrepresentations and half-truths. Thankfully, slavery instituted by the English and Portugese ended, mass killings in Russia are over, the exterminations in Europe of the 1930's-1940's were eventually stopped. The genocides in Cambodia are no more. The machette killings in Africa have been quelled for the time being. And Lybia is in stasis, at least for a while.

But man's nature remains. Caracatures and stereotypes will continue to be used to demonize "them" so that "we" can feel superior. And being superior, more worthy of everything from ownership of property to shelter and food, eventually to the right to live. So it has always been and so it will be. The best we can hope for is that a significant number of people will be able to overcome their most base nature.

[Codger_64]

So we are making up definitions as we go to garner pity?
The "low income families" as defined by this study would not qualify for welfare, so stats on whether they work or not are meaningless.

I'm not sure where you come up with "Pity". I do consider the ability to examine facts and the ability to relate to those in different circumstances crucial to forming an informed opinion on social issues. Most of the poor do not want pity from anyone. This is well illustrated by the number of poor who do not apply for or recieve any sort of assistance ever, or until their situation becomes so dire that it is hard if not impossible to reverse.

"Low Income Families" is not a made up definition. It is a broader classification of income than the Federal definition of "poverty income families" that includes those both in and slightly above the poverty standards. The focus of the study was not people who receive assistance, but rather on the effects of unemployment and underemployment.

...So unemployment increased as we added 2.5 million new jobs? If those other 2.2 million job's pay failed to keep up with inflation, we must look at what is causing inflation. Sixty percent of the federal budget goes toward entitlement programs.

The report refers to both lower income jobs created to replace higher income jobs and to full time jobs which became part-time jobs. Again, The study was not examining entitlement programs, but employment figures. By the way, what do you include under the title "entitlement programs"?

By itself, this is meaningless as well. A multimillionaire can buy a house they cannot afford, and too many people buying too much house is what caused the "housing bubble" to begin with.

True, this does happen, but all too often a person buys a house well within their means and as the ecomomy changes, so does their ability to maintain the home, taxes on the home and mortgage payments. Finding oneself suddenly unemployed makes one's prior financial abilities moot. The fraud of lending institutions greatly exacerbated the "housing bubble". It never would have been so severe had the banking laws not been repealed.

[timcsaw]

"Poor, poor, poor..."
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

At this point, I think that a study of the word "poor", and how the vast majority of "the poor" in America live today could be illuminating.

"The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there are children, especially boys, the family has a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation."

Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty

[Codger_64]

I understand that many only define "poor" as people who live in mud huts in other countries, not people who live day to day wondering if they will be able to feed and house themselves and their children. I wonder if those stats take into account the 1.5 million homeless? It is hard to lug those luxury items around in a shopping cart. I wonder also if it takes into account the people who acquired those items when they had jobs which they no longer have? Latest figures suggest 1/4 of the citizens are nemployed or underemployed now. The class of people defined as "poor" is not as stagnant as some would have us to believe. People can and do move in and out of that class all the time.