US Protests spread to 1000 cities

[Bob Hubbard]

Well....

We can insist that all those on public assistance show up for work assignments. Count out 1 able bodied chaps. Hand them shovels.

1st one to sit on his ***, put to rounds in it.

Watch the other 9 dig a ditch the size of the Suez Canal by tea.

 

[Empty Hands]

There is a downside of Social Security being enough for people to 'coast' along, bumping in the mud at the bottom but not drowning.

Social Security isn't like that here. You can get it indefinitely if you are disabled, which is difficult and time-intensive to prove. You can get it after you turn 65, but it is based on how much you've paid in your whole life. You can get unemployment support, but only if you were recently laid off, not fired for cause, you must prove the attempt to get a new job, and there is a time limit. You can get food and housing assistance, mostly if children are involved, but there are again time limits and availability criteria. Medicare is only for seniors, and the criteria for Medicaid eligibility is extremely strict, and limited only to health care.

Lifelong public assistance doesn't really exist in the US except for a small number of disabled people. It's a political talking point and myth.

 

[Sukerkin]

Bob, stop appealing to my Inner Fascist :lol:. You know I'm a grumpy old man quite ready to implement extreme and simple solutions to complicated societal problems if I ever got my hands on the reins of power . Tempting as it is to take the sword to the Gordian Knot it is never as successful as a solution as would be wished for by it's proposers.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Lifelong public assistance doesn't really exist in the US except for a small number of disabled people. It's a political talking point and myth.

[h=3]New Evidence on Intergenerational Correlations in Welfare ...[/h]

 

[Makalakumu]

The biggest problem with social security is that their never was and never will be a way to control politicians when they are handling other peoples money. I know it won't be there for me. All of the money that is taken out of my check is gone. Gone by gun point! If only we could turn social security into a Ponzi scheme. The believers could keep throwing their money away and the realists could back out and attempt to do something different. Right now there is no choice, it doesn't matter if you know this bus is heading over the cliff, you cannot get off. That's wrong, folks, its armed robbery.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Not going to deny SS needs to be fixed. (ok, tossed IMO)

 

[Buka]

In the movie The Jerk, Navin Johnson's father tells him what he needs to know when he's about to go out into the world on his own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bfe6CgYbH8

That, a job and a CLUE, is all most of these protesting kids need to learn, know and have.

 

[Big Don]

In the movie The Jerk, Navin Johnson's father tells him what he needs to know when he's about to go out into the world on his own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bfe6CgYbH8

That, a job and a CLUE, is all most of these protesting kids need to learn, know and have.

You gotta love the classics

 

[WC_lun]

I don't see the link between people not taking the jobs you think they should with welfare. Are they taking public assistance?

The truth is, we as a country are bleeding out money. The whole piece of pie needs to be looked at, including military and public assistance. Looked at with eyes serious at really saving money, not forwarding a political idealogy. That means understanding a decent military is neccesary to keep external threats lower. It also means understanding that a WORKING safety net is cheaper than the cost of letting that many people not have legal access to what they need to live. Remember, there was a time in the US when social safety nets where not in place. It was not pleasant.

 

[Empty Hands]

[h=3]New Evidence on Intergenerational Correlations in Welfare ...[/h]

Did you actually read the paper? Nothing in it negates my assertion. The data set also ends in 1993 - the year 1996 was very significant in terms of US welfare programs and also factors heavily into my assertion.

 

[Steve]

Did you actually read the paper? Nothing in it negates my assertion. The data set also ends in 1993 - the year 1996 was very significant in terms of US welfare programs and also factors heavily into my assertion.

Changing AFDC (Assistance to Families with Dependant Children) from a quasi-permanent needs based program to TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Emphasis on Temporary. MAJOR change in welfare programs funded by States. While some States opted not to change the name, the funds from the Fed require that program be time limited.

Another major change in '96 was the definition of disability for Social Security and SSI benefits. In the 80's, under Reagan as an aside, the definition of disability was opened up to include drug and alcohol addiction. In 96, this was reversed. So, all of the people who were disabled (ie, unable to work) only because they were addicts were off the Federal roles. There were also sweeping reforms in the way disability is determined for children, and eligibility for federal welfare dollars for non-citizens.

1996 was indeed a big year for welfare reform.

Not sure how protests led to a discussion of social security led to a discussion of welfare, but there ya go. Also, for the record, I think more can be done. But we have to fund the programs. If they aren't adequately funded, they become rife with fraud. It's self fulfilling.