pacino wrote:do you even know what you want to reform in regards to welfare

More of what Newt and Bill gave us in the 90s -- incentives to get people to move from being entitlement receivers to taxpayers.

It's good for the economy of course, it's good for the individuals involved, and it's good for society as a whole.

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:do you even know what you want to reform in regards to welfare

More of what Newt and Bill gave us in the 90s -- incentives to get people to move from being entitlement receivers to taxpayers.

It's good for the economy of course, it's good for the individuals involved, and it's good for society as a whole.

Please do tell us what such incentives might look like, and how the current system falls short of your vision. Really, I can't wait to hear this.

Bakestar wrote:Hillary doing photo-ops with big barrels of Maker's Mark Bourbon... combined with that famous shot-n-beer campaign stop in Indiana, she seems to be hanging the fate of her campaign almost exclusively on the Whiskey Vote. I have to admit I'm starting to find her arguments more persuasive, smooth, mellow, easy-drinking and sippable.

Is there any doubt why I've become her biggest fan on this board?

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:do you even know what you want to reform in regards to welfare

More of what Newt and Bill gave us in the 90s -- incentives to get people to move from being entitlement receivers to taxpayers.

It's good for the economy of course, it's good for the individuals involved, and it's good for society as a whole.

Please do tell us what such incentives might look like, and how the current system falls short of your vision. Really, I can't wait to hear this.

I haven't done an analysis. I followed the reform that took place with Bill and Newt, and they made great strides. As did the people who were returned to being useful citizens, all the teeth-gnashing of the left notwithstanding.

I can't imagine, though, that we've reached Nirvana in terms of how the government helps those in need. I don't have specific policy provisions to suggest, but what happened in the last reform reflected an intelligence that typically eludes well meaning goverment officials -- when you subsidize a behavior, you get more of that behavior. So to the extent that the government is providing subsidies, let's subsidize work. Tax credits, school vouchers, housing credits -- continue to make working the more attractive option over not working.

TomatoPie wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:do you even know what you want to reform in regards to welfare

More of what Newt and Bill gave us in the 90s -- incentives to get people to move from being entitlement receivers to taxpayers.

It's good for the economy of course, it's good for the individuals involved, and it's good for society as a whole.

Please do tell us what such incentives might look like, and how the current system falls short of your vision. Really, I can't wait to hear this.

I haven't done an analysis. I followed the reform that took place with Bill and Newt, and they made great strides. As did the people who were returned to being useful citizens, all the teeth-gnashing of the left notwithstanding.

I can't imagine, though, that we've reached Nirvana in terms of how the government helps those in need. I don't have specific policy provisions to suggest, but what happened in the last reform reflected an intelligence that typically eludes well meaning goverment officials -- when you subsidize a behavior, you get more of that behavior. So to the extent that the government is providing subsidies, let's subsidize work. Tax credits, school vouchers, housing credits -- continue to make working the more attractive option over not working.

so you got nothing

In other words, TP, you don't know what's wrong with the policy, but you assume something is.

As someone who follows this stuff professionally (as does pacino, who works in these programs), I can tell you you're actually on the right track. To further the accomplishments of welfare reform--which are legitimate and impressive--we require a wider range of work supports, particularly childcare. There's also a big need to ensure that people with health-related barriers to employment don't ever have to make the choice between working and health coverage through publicly provided benefits. Housing is a big issue too.

Of course, this all costs money, and the TANF block grant hasn't even been adjusted for inflation since the original law went into effect more than a decade ago. It's nice to hear that you're in favor of larger government for this social-engineering purpose.

medicaid limits for a single adult are extremely low, unfairly so, and these are the people that society leaves behind, in my view. someone gets into a bad stretch in life, they lose their job, and thus their coverage...they still have their health conditions. so what do they do? they go without going to a doctor to get preventive medicines and care, and then when something finally goes wrong they go to the hospital and the emergency room, incur a lot of bills they can't pay, the hospital applies for them for medicaid and we all pay bills that wouldn't have even been incurred had they had preventive care which would be SOOOOO much cheaper.

this process is repeated hundreds of times a day all over the country. this, along with long-term care costs, are the biggest costs to the medicaid system. i could be wrong as i haven't looked at the stats recently as i have changed jobs and am merely into looking at making sure people's incomes are adjusted correctly. basically, i close a lot of medicaid cases and take away food stamps from working and lower-income people. fun.

welfare reform was legit in what it dealt with...cash grants. i see little improvement in the medicaid system, which is BY FAR the biggest cost and also the most inefficient. food stamps is a legit program which is dealt with fairly well. our society cares so much about a single mother's 316 dollars a month while she is likely going to school or is caring for a 2yr old and yet don't care at all with what medicaid costs and why all these people legitimately NEED this program so much.

i think you're well-meaning TP, but many of your brethren aren't, and that's why gets me frustrated. it's all about 'tax dollars', not helping people get the skills to be able to get jobs. it's just get A job. not a good one, not a permanent one, not one with health insurance, it's just get A job. and when you do, we'll take away all your benefits and you'll see a net increase in dollar amount of 600 a month. sure, that's a lot better...but it's not good enough for many to work full-time, raise children properly and also go to school full-time. that creates a frustrated population. there are success stories, of course.

finally, i would add that our government, by the will of the people, purposely overburden the workers in this bureaucracy. many places have so many cases that many go unattended and unsupervised until years (literally) after their renewal due dates. the numbers games is in full effect with these cases in order to make them look good, but the fact remains that we are trying to cut the amount of workers (look at florida's 'reform') when MORE may actually be needed to remedy a ton of problems. more oversight and more accurate benefit allocation can only come from more workers. modernization can only take us so far. before other states go to a florida system (call centers and self-service), let's step back and realize how much could be saved in the long run by actually hiring more people to oversee these programs.

dajafi wrote:In other words, TP, you don't know what's wrong with the policy, but you assume something is.

As someone who follows this stuff professionally (as does pacino, who works in these programs), I can tell you you're actually on the right track. To further the accomplishments of welfare reform--which are legitimate and impressive--we require a wider range of work supports, particularly childcare. There's also a big need to ensure that people with health-related barriers to employment don't ever have to make the choice between working and health coverage through publicly provided benefits. Housing is a big issue too.

Of course, this all costs money, and the TANF block grant hasn't even been adjusted for inflation since the original law went into effect more than a decade ago. It's nice to hear that you're in favor of larger government for this social-engineering purpose.

If properly crafted, this "larger government" initiative will lead to a smaller number of people who are multi-generational wards of the state.

pacino wrote:I think you're well-meaning TP, but many of your brethren aren't, and that's why gets me frustrated. it's all about 'tax dollars', not helping people get the skills to be able to get jobs.

You're right. Probably more than half the people who object to entitlement programs see it simply as a funds transfer from working people to collecting people. Simplistic, naive, or mean, no matter how they come to that view, they are useful. Without their anger, without politicians responding, there would be insufficient push for reform.

My view is that to succeed in life, you have to get a foot on the ladder. So many well-intentioned programs take away the bottom rung -- entitlements and the minimum wage. You are right about a job -- ANY job -- is a major step. Comb your hair, put on a clean shirt, show up on time. Learn some fundamentals of the working world and start the journey upward.

TomatoPie wrote:If properly crafted, this "larger government" initiative will lead to a smaller number of people who are multi-generational wards of the state.

Yeah, that's pretty much the idea. It's an investment, not a giveaway--and a validation of the social contract writ small, in that those who "work hard and play by the rules" aren't left at the curb.

Maybe there's hope for you yet, mon frere.

i would add that there are many disabled people on these programs, along with children. children, elderly and disabled make up the bulk of these programs. some people just need help to make ends meet, you know? it may indeed be permanent for some.

I've never understood TP's argument, though I've heard it many times from other people. Bottom line, there are X number of people in our society that will be doing crappy jobs. Putting aside how hard it is to move up from one of those jobs, it doesn't matter if they show up on time, comb their hair, and eventually move to a better job. It doesn't matter because there will be another person there to take their place. These people are always going to exist. What we need to decide is how we're goiing to treat those people. Are we going to force them to squeak by with no medical care, poor nutrition, and no means to watch their children? Or are we going to treat them as human beings? The answer will determine what kind of society we have. I think it should be a humane one.

Will there be a few % that will abuse the system? Yup. But aren't there also corporations feeding at the trough of our tax dollars? I think the latter is more of a problem.



I would add that I'd really like to see more support for working families in terms of childcare. The costs are just ridiculous. I work with people who literally work 3 days a week just to cover their childcare costs. The other two days is their take home pay. If not for their spouses also working, they wouldn't be able to live. And they wrestle with whether or not it's worth working 5 days a week for a net pay of only two days. That's crazy. It reminds me of high school days when many of my friends purchased cars and ended up working every day just to pay for them. Why bother?

TomatoPie wrote:My view is that to succeed in life, you have to get a foot on the ladder. So many well-intentioned programs take away the bottom rung -- entitlements and the minimum wage. You are right about a job -- ANY job -- is a major step. Comb your hair, put on a clean shirt, show up on time. Learn some fundamentals of the working world and start the journey upward.

This just seems incredibly naive. Do you really think someone working for no minimum wage is going to be able to live and move up this mythical ladder you speak of? They're going to spend all their free time working just to pay the bills. And then when their kids are screwed up, your type will complain that they should spend more time with their kids to keep them from growing up bad. There are only so many hours in the week.

For most of these people, there is no ladder, or it's a very short one. Take away the help their given and they won't even have time to look for the ladder. Life isn't a TV movie; success stories are there, but they are not the norm, and that's not because people are lazy or disinterested or don't comb their hair.

Monkeyboy wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:My view is that to succeed in life, you have to get a foot on the ladder. So many well-intentioned programs take away the bottom rung -- entitlements and the minimum wage. You are right about a job -- ANY job -- is a major step. Comb your hair, put on a clean shirt, show up on time. Learn some fundamentals of the working world and start the journey upward.

This just seems incredibly naive. Do you really think someone working for no minimum wage is going to be able to live and move up this mythical ladder you speak of? They're going to spend all their free time working just to pay the bills. And then when their kids are screwed up, your type will complain that they should spend more time with their kids to keep them from growing up bad. There are only so many hours in the week.

For most of these people, there is no ladder, or it's a very short one. Take away the help their given and they won't even have time to look for the ladder. Life isn't a TV movie; success stories are there, but they are not the norm, and that's not because people are lazy or disinterested or don't comb their hair.

No one who is 30 years old with a family can get by on minimum wage, let alone less than the current minimum. But by making that premise your focus, you miss the bigger picture.

For people who will not be going to college, they are (or should be) entering the workforce full time by the age of 18. Now, even a single person at 18 is going to find it difficult, if not impossible, to live on $5 an hour. But that person has had room and board for those first 18 years in one fashion or another. He is positioned to get on that bottom rung and learn job skills while living with parents. He has no bills to pay. But if his job competencies (skills, knowledge, attitude) are marginal, he's not worth even minimum wage. And hence his opportunities to join the productive members of society are diminished. He cannot begin to develop the skills that might permit him a degree of self-sufficiency by the time he is 30 with a family. And the cycle of poverty and dependence is perpetuated.

Meanwhile, TP Jr, privileged suburban kid, is gonna live large on the minimum wage. She and her friends are the chief beneficiaries of minimum wage laws. Watch for her to be lifeguarding at your pool this summer.

Does she tell all the poor drowning people to pull themselves up by their drawstrings?

"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

Imagine how badly he'd be doing there if Kentucky didn't border the state he represented in the Senate?

TomatoPie wrote: But that person has had room and board for those first 18 years in one fashion or another. He is positioned to get on that bottom rung and learn job skills while living with parents. He has no bills to pay.

I like that you assume not only that everyone gets to live with both parents until one turns 18, but THEN aren't kicked out at 18.

Oregon tightening a bit

Obama had been leading by double digits in Oregon, where he expects to win on Tuesday, enabling him to declare victory in the pledged delegate race and perhaps sew up the nomination.

But the latest polls in Oregon show Clinton within striking distance. Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent with 8 percent undecided and 6 percent refusing a response, according to a Suffolk University survey released this morning. An American Research Group survey puts Obama's lead at 50 percent to 45 percent.

Kinda funny that there are almost as many that said "none of your @#$! business" as there are "undecided".

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Oregon tightening a bit

Obama had been leading by double digits in Oregon, where he expects to win on Tuesday, enabling him to declare victory in the pledged delegate race and perhaps sew up the nomination.

But the latest polls in Oregon show Clinton within striking distance. Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent with 8 percent undecided and 6 percent refusing a response, according to a Suffolk University survey released this morning. An American Research Group survey puts Obama's lead at 50 percent to 45 percent.

Kinda funny that there are almost as many that said "none of your @#$! business" as there are "undecided".

Well, it's hardly a surprise, since Arkansas is further west than Illinois is.

Actually, since I think Oregon is all vote by mail, a ton of people have already voted for Obama. He'll probably win the state by a good bit, but the tightening is weird. It was definitely in the double digits range before last week.

Edit: It's also worth noting that the RCP polling average is still Obama +12 in Oregon. A few other recent polls have shown big leads for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/or/oregon_democratic_primary-298.html

jerseyhoya wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Oregon tightening a bit

Obama had been leading by double digits in Oregon, where he expects to win on Tuesday, enabling him to declare victory in the pledged delegate race and perhaps sew up the nomination.

But the latest polls in Oregon show Clinton within striking distance. Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent with 8 percent undecided and 6 percent refusing a response, according to a Suffolk University survey released this morning. An American Research Group survey puts Obama's lead at 50 percent to 45 percent.

Kinda funny that there are almost as many that said "none of your @#$! business" as there are "undecided".

Well, it's hardly a surprise, since Arkansas is further west than Illinois is.

Hey you! Yea, you what posted the big-ass map of the US previdiciously!

Hope you're kicking in contributions to the Voxes, hogging up all that bandwidth attempting a funny that was not all that so much! Sheesh!