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.
The welfare part of it, yes.Wealth redistribution was only a voluntary part of living in our society for the majority of our history.
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.As for how to help? Operant conditioning works every time.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27181041...getting-worse/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.
More on the true jobless rate:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...ment-rate.aspxThe 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."
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.
The "low income families" as defined by this study would not qualify for welfare, so stats on whether they work or not are meaningless.
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.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.
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.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.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
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.
"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.
Last edited by Codger_64; 12-09-2011 at 10:07 AM.
"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.
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
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.
Last edited by Codger_64; 12-09-2011 at 12:35 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)