Republicans tell us that social programs like Medicaid (which Governor Daugaard has cleverly delayed expanding for another Session) and food stamps only discourage people from working. Via Mark Thoma, I learn that our social safety net does not give people such a cushy life that they would swear off work. Far from it—you’ll almost never find an example of welfare benefits putting a low-income worker ahead of where she’d be working more hours:
The safety net as a whole has little effect on work effort by low-income workers. A comprehensive review of the research on the effects of different aspects of the safety net on work found that the behavioral response is small enough, in aggregate, that it has almost no impact on the substantial degree to which the safety net lifts people out of poverty.[3] A number of factors, beyond the fact that most poor workers face low marginal tax rates, may account for the small behavioral response. Many low-wage workers have limited flexibility to adjust their work schedules without threatening their job status. And workers likely conclude that working more hours or accepting a promotion will benefit their careers over the long term [Isaac Shapiro, Robert Greenstein, Danilo Trisi, And Bryann Dasilva, “It Pays to Work: Work Incentives and the Safety Net,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2016.03.03].
Boy, the idea that welfare discourages work appears to be as silly as the idea that welfare recipients are untrustworthy drug users.
How do you plan to fix this? to get people off food stamps and welfare and back to work?
There will always be the need to help and support parts of our population,whether it be the elderly or disabled,disenfranchised,the working poor. Wingnuts want to stop welfare,they should immediately stop screaming for more wars so no more vets get mangled. They should spend money on sex-education programs that work and they should be in favor of birth control. They need to sign on to some form of government issued insurance for everyone. They need to stop paying korporate amerika to move jobs offshore. They need to get behind livable wages and lose the idea that profit is the only factor to consider. They also need to get the hell out of the way and rally behind Democrats who have workable ideas to most of these problems.
I’m still glad Pres Clinton signed Welfare Reform in ’96. I do agree that LBJ welfare was not working.
Cory or anyone out there, have the effects of the ’96 legislation had any positive effects?
I meant to ask have more people gotten off welfare since the ’96 Welfare Reform bill was passed? Is it harder to work the system from the LBJ welfare times?
Well said, Mike. But both parties also need to find places to cut the federal budget to fund those things that are truly federal issues. I would say that helping the poor nationwide is a federal issue.
On the other hand, the federal government should get out of other things entirely and leave them to states. For instance, the federal government should only provide funding for federal roads and bridges – leaving the rest to state and local governments. The federal government should not be throwing money at state parks – like the new one down by Canton. The federal government should not subsidize poor decisions by rich people – like that of Mike Rounds and the Dakota Dunes folks and coastal residents who built mansions and vacation homes on sandbars and swamps along bodies of water. And the federal government should not fund things like $500 million for the Flint, Michigan water system – particularly since it’s not a natural disaster and the state of Michigan has the money (and can raise more if needed) to cover it.
If Democrats would cut these extraneous things there would be more federal money available for necessary federal expenses, and red welfare states would have to tax their own citizens at a level necessary to cover all of their own wants.
Let’s look at the problem the way wingnuts and their korporate overlords view the world. Korporate amerika can keep wages low because they can depend on Uncle Sam to provide foodstamps and healthcare for the poor slobs who are unfortunate to work enslaved to kapitalist pigs. Shareholders make out like bandits while working stiffs jump through all kinds of hoops that would be unnecessary if k a paid a living wage.
Rohr-handing huge sums of money to red rin states is just like giving even more tax breaks to the koch bros. Those funds would end up offshore and the problems the money was meant to alleviate would be exacerbated to the extreme.
Latest estimates from Flint run over billion dollars to fix.
Maybe you didn’t understand my comment, Mike. I’m not for the federal government handing more money to states. We saw how South Dakota mismanaged the money the federal government handed to it for Gear Up. I’m for the federal government handing less money to state and local governments and instead telling those state and local governments to “pay for your own expenses, or don’t incur those expenses – your choice.” Michigan can pay for the Flint water system itself without federal help. That $500 million of federal money can go toward deficit reduction, and Michigan can fund its own deferred routine maintenance.
The Flint problem at its core is about deferred maintenance. If the federal government is to pay to replace Flint’s water system, is that the precedent for Sioux Falls to send the feds a bill when it replaces water pipes? Should every city in the country send the federal government the bill for upgrades to its water system? If so, should every city also send the federal government the bill for maintenance to their sewer system and roads?
That’s the problem as I see it. Over time the federal government has engaged in mission creep and has gotten into the business of paying a portion of state and local expenses for just about everything. Flint doesn’t fit into the FEMA disaster relief program because it’s not a natural disaster. So congress is looking to the federal government to creep its mission into paying $500 million for deferred routine maintenance. Where does it stop?
Not to keep getting off topic,but when there are as many people,especially kids in danger,that is or should be a federal emergency demanding compassion and aid from all parties. If the fed doesn’t step in to help,and since the majority of Flint residents are off color,it will be easier to deny federal aid the next time,especially to minority-majority cities.This nation is totally divided by race and it isn’t because Obama is stirring up whitey wingnuts.
Remember,under dumbass dubya,Ollie North was going to take over FEMA and use it to round up Central American immigrants and send them back. That certainly wasn’t a job that fell under natural disaster,although dumbass dubya’s reign of terror certainly qualified.
Michigan has a $575 million budget surplus. If Michigan doesn’t want to spend it on Flint, why should taxpayers in Iowa or Minnesota pick up the bill?
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/14/michigan-state-revenue/78782002/
Mr. Rorschach is correct. The citizens of Flint along with the rest of Michigan have been brutalized by their governor into all kinds of tax breaks for the wealthy and now they have this surplus of a half billion. The federal government usins, should require Michigan to spend down that surplus in order to qualify for federal money.
The same goes for South Dakota and the need for my federal tax dollars to subsidize the state which collects my property tax money, sales tax and whatever other tax their is to balance the budget to show a surplus for some rainy day that never rains on the needs of our citizens.
The republican gift that keeps giving will happen again on April Fools day. More and more of our poorest of poor will come off of SNAP in yet another grinding under their jackboots and the approval of their biggest cheerleader, Bill and Hillary Clinton
http://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/more-than-500000-adults-will-lose-snap-benefits-in-2016-as-waivers-expire
Will we be able then to activate this for them, Thanks to Bearcreekbat for this nugget of information.
28-13-1. County duty to relieve poor persons–Taxation–Determination of eligibility. Every county shall relieve and support all poor and indigent persons who have established residency therein, as that term is defined in §§ 28-13-2 to 28-13-16.2, inclusive, and who have made application to the county, whenever they shall stand in need. Each board of county commissioners may raise money by taxation for the support and employment of the poor. If a person is receiving benefits from the Department of Social Services, the board of county commissioners may determine if he is eligible for county relief.
Source: SDC 1939, § 50.0101; SL 1939, ch 200, § 1; SL 1941, ch 211, § 1; SL 1976, ch 173, § 1; SL 1980, ch 202, § 1.
Inter Lakes Community Action Partnership and the Saint Francis House in Sioux Falls have excellent programs to help families become self-sufficient through their transitional programs. Some smaller towns have their programs, with varying degrees of success.
Work with the tech schools to provide training that is relevant.
The Federal Government needs to honor its commitments. Like the Lewis and Clark project .
Within days of Blizzard Atlas Noem was in the House Chamber that CSPAn covered begging for help for South Dakota farmers and ranchers. Incidentally this the government that Noem had voted to shutdown just days before.
Noem knows full well that farmers and ranchers are dependent on food stamps as are the poor, but she doesn’t talk about that.
I haven’t researched it, but I’m willing to wager that Noem has not voted for any disaster relief any where in this country that doesn’t affect her supporters.
This continued attack on food stamp and welfare recipients astound me, there is no quick fix or cure. What the attackers refuse to consider is giving all those millions of dollars and tax breaks to people that don’t need them or shouldn’t have them Who are real abusers in America, the welfare users or the haves that keep taking and asking for more?
Even poor and middle income republicans on food stamp and welfare protect the Trump’s and Noem’s. Why is this such a misplaced ideology?
What this all comes down with disaster relief and the daily needs of the poor is that if I “got mine, the hell with you”.
I was raised on the Pine Ridge Reservation and have known poor people on and off the reservation and have never met any that were happy in their situation. Instead the elderly, the infirmed, single mothers, mentally challenged, etc. quietly and sadly accept their fate and hope that they will have enough money to pay for own their funerals.
Then why don’t they get jobs. For every job created under the Obama administration around 75 people have been added to the food stamp program. There is work all over, if public assistance is not a lucrative, then why are they not working????
@Stuart
Your old meme is incorrect. Stop getting your data from facebook.
http://www.snaptohealth.org/debunking-myths-about-food-stamps/
That is some information debunking the common myths.
Madman, using numbers from the fox in the hen house I see!
Obama has created around 8 million jobs. R U saying 600 million Americans are on food stamps,Windy?
Stumpy,using dumbass dubya job creation numbers you’d still have 97.5 million on foodstamps. dumbass got credit for 1.3 million jobs created, 1.7 million in the public sector and he lost a half million in the private sector.
Methinks you and your sources need detox or sumpin.
And there are those who just do not want to work and we enable them. I’m not talking about the legitimate people that need assistance, but those who just don’t want to take responsibility for themselves. In their mind at least they don’t have to work. When I was in college I volunteered at a homeless shelter thinking these people are in a bad situation, they need some help but they want to be independent again. Yes some, but there was also a good sized portion that had no such desire. Liars, drug addicts, an element of people that some of you probably don’t know. It didn’t fit my liberal outlook of the time which I was so certain, but it also wasn’t based on any experience just textbooks and ideas. It’s easy to have lofty thoughts but you need to spend some time in the trenches.
Nice post Cory. I am bothered by the folks who claim the war on poverty failed as they seem to have had misdirected expectations. As I see it we must measure success or failure by evaluating the resources we have made available to fight poverty and the benefits conferred on the recipients of these resources.
If the goal is to increase incomes of all families above the poverty level, then we should allocate sufficient resources to meet this goal. As your post makes clear we have never done that. Welfare benefits have never been sufficient to lift anyone above the poverty level. Given that reality our goal has never been to lift anyone out of poverty.
If the goal was to improve the lives of families and individuals with little or no income, we have succeeded. Every single individual, family, and child that received any form of welfare has benefited from the increase in income. While they remain poor, they are not as poor as they would be without our welfare programs.
If more people are on food stamps today, that is not a fault of any welfare program, rather it is the fault of a system that allows employers to pay less than a living wage. It is a success in the sense that it has helped working families obtain a better diet, which helps keep men, women and children healthy (thereby saving in medical expenses).
“Every single individual, family, and child that received any form of welfare has benefited from the increase in income.”
That really must be the funniest thing I’ve read today.
One of my friends who I think of when I write some of these posts had her first child out of wedlock when she was 16. She lied to the father and said she was 17 when she was 15, got pregnant when he was also with another woman. He went on to have 10 other children (that we know of) almost all from different mothers that he never married. He hadn’t seen his child who is now 28 since she was 10. Never any child support payments. By huge coincidence she moved in to the same building he now lives with his current girlfriend, so after all these years her daughter met her father again and also some of her siblings. None of this would be possible without welfare assistance and the breakdown of the family that it created. Blacks were making big strides before welfare.
That’s why abortion needs to stay legal and I don’t mind my taxpayer money going to it. People just aren’t responsible enough to take their birth control and slip on their condoms.
MC and happy seem a bit confused about the working requirements to qualify for welfare. I am not aware of any welfare program that does not require able bodied recipients to work or seek work. Food stamps under the SNAP program have this requirement.
“Most SNAP participants who can work, do work. SNAP rules require all recipients meet work requirements unless they are exempt because of age or disability or another specific reason. Children, seniors, and those with disabilities comprise almost two-thirds of all SNAP participants.”
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/able-bodied-adults-without-dependents-abawds
I realize that folks like Stu disagree with these rules and would require young children, aged grandmas and disabled folks to “get a job.” Rational people, however, recognize that there are many people who are unable to work, but should still be able to eat a decent meal or two.
There are no welfare programs that I am aware that enable able-bodied individuals who do not want to work. And like Happy I spent over 20 years in the trenches. Happy helped at homeless shelters and I thank Happy for that effort. I did homeless shelters too, but spent more of my professional life helping people who sought welfare benefits. My experience with the welfare bureaucracy, where I had to learn the eligibility requirements, helped me understand the reality of the welfare system – it is not easy to get benefits and, as Cory’s post shows, the benefits available are so paltry that they enable nobody.
I will agree that some folks commit crimes, like bank robbery, theft, casino robbery, fraud etc. Some really uneducated folks commit welfare fraud by filing false statements, not realizing the seriousness of the crime relative to the payoff. Illegally obtaining a few dollars in food stamps by filing a false application can result in lengthy federal prison terms and state prison terms. Smart crooks don’t commit welfare fraud, they go after bigger money by committing state crimes with less draconian punishments.
You know happy camper, Stump and all the other anti-poor people, if you have seen these abuses of Welfare – why don’t you report it?
I’ve called police before if I see anything suspicious going on in my town. You would probably call the County Social Services for welfare fraud.
Mr. H, I can’t find a blogging about the closing of the Custer Star kid prison. I am curious what you think about it and if it was a good thing. Would you have voted to close it? You can move this blogging to the right place if I couldn’t find it.
Just not true. Prior to welfare women did not have children out of wedlock except in very small numbers. It enabled them to get a level of independence from the income that otherwise would not have allowed them to care for these children.
You’re way off track Jenny you don’t know me.
I agree that too many babies are being born out of wedlock but are you pro-life, happy?
Prior to welfare women had very few rights-period.
Stumpy must have gone ice fishing again.
Pro-choice but hate to see it used as birth control. Having a baby became an escape route. My friend had two more children from a non-existent father. She and I just recently had this conversation and she did not disagree, but this is bigger city stuff to some degree.
A major role in the increase in out-of-wedlock births has been
played by the declining practice of “shotgun marriage.” Until the
early 1970s it was the norm in premarital sexual relations that
the partners would marry in the event of pregnancy. The disappearance
of this custom has been a major contributor to the increase
in the out-of-wedlock birth ratio for both whites and
blacks. In fact, about three-fourths of the increase in the white
out-of-wedlock first-birth ratio, and about three-fifths of the black
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/10/outofwedlock.pdf
increase, between 1965-1969 and 1985-1989 are explicable by
the decrease in the fraction of premaritally conceived first births
that are resolved in marriage. By that we mean that if the fraction
of premaritally conceived births resolved by marriage had
been the same from 1985 to 1989 as it had been over the comparable
period twenty years earlier, the increase in the white out-ofwedlock
birth ratio would have been only a quarter as high, and
the black increase would have been only two-fifths as high.3
If your kid is born and you are not married, the mom and kid get Medicaid, even here dummy land. Can’t beat that, that is smart family planning, take that Daugaard. Why start your future with such tremendous costs. As it is damned near impossible to make it on 8.50 to 10.00 an hour with a kid. To help out, we can put them into day care. You cannot do that if you are married, so who what kind of dummy would want to do that. The birthrate has fallen a bunch. Wedlock is a reversal of fact. If you are wed, you are locked into a pretty crappy future unless you have the means to support your family. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/27/baby-bust-millenials-birth-rate-drop-may-signal-historic-shift.html
Exactly Mike. Shotgun marriage declined because it was no longer necessary for the father to support his offspring. The taxpayer took on that role.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slTF_XXoKAQ
There’s this video that I recommend everyone to watch as it breaks down just how much wealth the one percent has.
It goes like this: 80% of Americans only have 7% of the nation’s wealth. Yes, I typed that correctly- only 7%.
The top 1% has 40% of the nation’s wealth.
The top 1% own HALF of the nation’s stocks, bonds and mutual funds.
The bottom 50% own only .5% of the nation’s stocks, bonds and mutual funds.
Hard to fathom isn’t it?
http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Stumpy-5.jpg
The moral of the welfare story as told by one who survived it.in Stumpy’s own words no less.
HC,I thought your argument was out of wedlock births exploded because of welfare.
Yes Mike and you made my point for me. When people “had to get married” there wasn’t welfare. But welfare allowed people “independence” even though welfare is not a right.
One thing Jenny the statistics look a bit more alarming than they are. Young people are naturally in debt with school loans, etc and even middle aged may still be in debt with that even bigger house they decide to buy.
That is such an ignorant blanket statement that women quit marrying b/c of welfare. Most single moms I know would have liked to have been able to marry the father of their child.
Mothers want a stable relationship, it seems absent fathers don’t get the scrutiny that is deserving of them.
Many years ago I read that single inner city black women were having the babies for independence so call me ignorant. My friend lied and said she was 17 going on 18 so she could get that security in her childhood mind. So blame the men. No. It’s the economics caused by welfare. This didn’t happen before welfare. I’m not saying all the marriages were happy that’s a different discussion.
No, Happy Camper, that is not a different discussion. You are saying that when pregnancies resulted in forced marriage it was preferable to society helping the mother to raise her child alone and that is absurd. In the vast majority of those cases the young woman had to some varying degree been forced or coerced to have sex with the father who then did not wish to face his responsibilities. She then was forced by her male relatives to tie herself to him for life and more often than not ended up working to support both him and their child(ren). If ending that system of slavery resulted in our current welfare situation, we all are the better for it.
Ignorant, nope, truthful. When you live in poverty or near it, you have to do what you can to make it. If you happen to get pregnant, even though you are doing your best to prevent it, then you have to make considerations. One of those is the high cost of having a child. A normal delivery is between $7,500 and $8,000.00 buckeroos. That is a substantial amount of money. If there are complications, the sky’s the limit. So then, why in the hell would you want to be married if you can work and take care of your child without the terrible expense of day care and medical care for your child and for yourself while you are pregnant. When you deliver your child, you can then continue to work when you are able to and then apply for the ACA when you come off Medicaid.
No, I’m not saying preferable, just the way it was because of economics and how welfare changed the dynamics. Jerry is also saying decisions get made based on economics which may not reflect traditional parenthood.
I guess I still believe in Marriage and love. That’s why it makes so much sense to support gay marriage. Gay marriage is so healthy since it promotes families and you need that two income household anyway.
I don’t know what you’re on tonight jerry, but not all welfare moms want to stay on welfare. Some dream of a better life and go back to school to try and achieve that. Some want to find a decent man that will love them and work hard. If were at poverty level, I would make sure I never got pregnant again. If I did, I would get the baby aborted. I would get out of the ghetto and find a way to pay for school.
Missing from Stu’s and Happy’s marriage argument is we are in a different time that was not caused because of the availability of welfare, the 1960’s not only produced a sexual revolution, but that women were able to start recognizing their own power and control of their bodies, a fight for that power and control exist to day. They didn’t have to marry the idiots that impregnated them and started making their own choices.
I agree with Bear, anyone that has truly been in the trenches with poor people know that you can’t just walk into a DSS office and get food stamps. There is a ton of paperwork and monthly reporting requirements where monthly food stamps amounts vary depending on income.
It is hard to imagine a woman that would get intentionally pregnant for a few bucks a month when the financial obligation for a child is 18 years.
The assertion that women get pregnant for food stamps and welfare seems more like a stereotype than anything else.
I think that economics do come into play happy. As much as it seems otherwise, there is a reason for staying single. I think smart parents think of this as well for their daughters and sons. You would not be staying at home to draw welfare as you would not qualify for it, so you must continue to work and pay taxes.
Good point Roger. I am not saying that anyone would want to be on welfare Jenny. What I am saying is that if you are a young woman and you are doing everything you can to keep from getting pregnant and if you do happen to, then you should think about how you are gonna pay for the child for one thing. If you consider that, then why would you get married? You would be putting yourself and your hapless horny boyfriend into a financial nightmare. Keep the child and find a way so you are all out of debt. Pre natal is covered completely, delivery and post natal are covered completely, well baby check ups and immunizations for the child. The mother is covered for a period of time and then comes of Medicaid. At that point, she becomes eligible for health coverage. She can continue to work and to have assistance in caring for her (their) child. I am speaking of South Dakota here, but could just as easily be speaking of other places as well. It is a win win for all, including taxpayers.
“I have been right there, in the trenches, working with those people.” Unless you have been one of “those people” you have no right to claim to know anything about them.
Anyone consider the reason there are more births is because religious wingnuts have done everything they can to prevent any education or healthcare for women and have shut down planned parenthood. Get your check books out because the state becomes the parent and takes the responsibility to make sure those anti aborted kids are paid for. OH wait……Repubs are responsible for shutting down services to assist families but feel no responsibility beyond birth. Can’t have it both ways……………. Time to pay up.
Good point Donal there are multiple forces at play but forcing people to have children is a mistake. The anti abortionists have been very effective at closing down clinics. Besides the unwanted children keeps people in poverty. The far right extremists need to get voted out.
Since this thread came up I’ve been thinking about how “common law” marriages fit into all this. Can the government make retroactive claims against a couple?
I know it doesnt seem to important, its just been weighing on my double digit IQs mind.
The Blindman
Are you trying to justify those 1% statistics, happy camper? I’m sure there are some of that percentage that worked hard for it, but do they work any harder than a nurse or teacher?
And I know not all of those one percenters did it ethically. Paying employees low wages, taking away the traditional pension, moving businesses overseas, getting millions in govt subsidies.
It is ruthless, corporate greed and that’s why I get perturbed when people start slamming a ghetto mom and her kids just because she’s on welfare. She’s taken very little welfare compared to the corporate giants that need it less than her.
Blindman, the SD legislature eliminated common law marriages in this state many years ago. The only way it can be recognized today in SD is if the couple had a common law marriage in another state that still permitted it, and then moved into SD. The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires SD to honor marriages that were legally entered into an another state.
BCB I didnt know that.
The Blindman
Recignition of common law from another state. That must be confusing.
The Blindman
I’m not trying to justify them just look at them accurately. There has been way too much money move up, but numbers can be used to shock. I’m totally in agreement welfare for the rich is no different. Worse really. They don’t even see it. Corruption gets legitimized like South Dakota changing TIFs (tax increment financing) from blighted areas to simply economic development. But this post was about welfare and I said there are those who don’t want to work, it wasn’t a blanket statement no one should get welfare. You brought up the change in law during the Clinton years and I fully expected some people to be on the streets starving because we had created a class of people that didn’t know how to work, but that didn’t happen. People are more resilient than we give them credit. We all however look around, take stock of our situation and decide a strategy. My friend told me yes, she did what she did because welfare was there for her. What I told you is true. That guy had 11 children and didn’t lift a finger. Some of them actually kind of look after him now. He can’t read and write and hardly support himself. The system encouraged this to happen.
happy’s discussion about how people behaved “prior to welfare” is based on either a failure to understand the history of welfare or an unfortunate attitude formed from incorrect stereotypes about what motivates a welfare applicant’s behavior.
When considering how people behaved “prior to welfare” we have to look a long ways back. For example, in South Dakota our counties have been legally obligated to provide welfare to indigents through County Poor Relief since statehood in the 19th century. In the USA, public welfare programs have existed since before the Declaration of Independence.
“In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.”
http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/
Various forms of publicly funded welfare have existed in our country throughout its existence. So to assert that the behavior of people was different “prior to welfare” is pretty meaningless unless happy tells us which particular form of welfare he is referencing. I doubt that he is talking about the behavior of the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, but it is impossible to tell when happy simply parrots false stereotypes.
Walter Williams explains in 7 minutes why minimum wage and welfare works against the poor. Not till the end does he get to his take on the break up of the black family, but if you have an open mind to a different perspective on poverty it’s worth watching: https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A2KLqIRpGONWqlgA0dT7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsZzdtMWhvBHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEdnRpZANCMDk0Nw–;_ylc=X1MDOTY3ODEzMDcEX3IDMgRiY2sDMmU0cjBsMWJjOWZoYyUyNmIlM0Q0JTI2ZCUzRGVzWmlQRWxwWUVLb2ZXOV9sdGs1MGFabFFjMGtSSVRERGEzcUJ3LS0lMjZzJTNEMnUlMjZpJTNEQ3pZTzFuYzRsa2gyRTkuelY5aWoEZnIDdm1uBGdwcmlkA2cyc1JEWFp3UmRhZGlQc0N6akZtc0EEbXRlc3RpZANVSTAxJTNEQjA5NDcEbl9yc2x0AzYwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgN2aWRlby5zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzIzBHF1ZXJ5A3dhbHRlciB3aWxsaWFtcyB3ZWxmYXJlBHRfc3RtcAMxNDU3NzIzNTkwBHZ0ZXN0aWQDQjA5NDc-?gprid=g2sRDXZwRdadiPsCzjFmsA&pvid=myZsOjk4LjEnE2CoVsS.LAgeNjQuMQAAAACzPmZa&p=walter+williams+welfare&ei=UTF-8&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&fr=vmn#id=1&vid=66ae206d0331c2c76a333320750dbfb5&action=view
I’ll bet the largest jump of people on foodstamps happened way back in the 2000s when dumbass dubya trashed the economy and the country.
Ronald Reagan trashed the country when he gave it to the Evangelicals. Jenny watch this other video it’s even better if you’re willing to look at another perspective. You don’t have to agree with everything he says but he might make you think. Sorry for the horrible long links.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A2KLqIRpGONWqlgA0dT7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsZzdtMWhvBHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEdnRpZANCMDk0Nw–;_ylc=X1MDOTY3ODEzMDcEX3IDMgRiY2sDMmU0cjBsMWJjOWZoYyUyNmIlM0Q0JTI2ZCUzRGVzWmlQRWxwWUVLb2ZXOV9sdGs1MGFabFFjMGtSSVRERGEzcUJ3LS0lMjZzJTNEMnUlMjZpJTNEQ3pZTzFuYzRsa2gyRTkuelY5aWoEZnIDdm1uBGdwcmlkA2cyc1JEWFp3UmRhZGlQc0N6akZtc0EEbXRlc3RpZANVSTAxJTNEQjA5NDcEbl9yc2x0AzYwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgN2aWRlby5zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzIzBHF1ZXJ5A3dhbHRlciB3aWxsaWFtcyB3ZWxmYXJlBHRfc3RtcAMxNDU3NzIzNTkwBHZ0ZXN0aWQDQjA5NDc-?gprid=g2sRDXZwRdadiPsCzjFmsA&pvid=myZsOjk4LjEnE2CoVsS.LAgeNjQuMQAAAACzPmZa&p=walter+williams+welfare&ei=UTF-8&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&fr=vmn#id=68&vid=5b9b7afb57fe7eeca81a7174e40954d6&action=view
Happy, I checked out your Williams links but found them equally uninformed. Apparently Williams did not know that we have had a welfare system since colonial times. He strikes me as a Thomas Sowell type seeking to cash in on the idea of refusing to use public policy to help needy families.
And the idea that by paying blacks 10 cents an hour or 25 cents an hour will help them survive in a society that has a cost of living that can only be met by wages of $15+ an hour seems a bit extreme, don’t you think? I mean you might be able to hire a whole lot of folks at 10 cents and hour, but at the end of the day you really are advocating a return to a system that pays even less than slavery wages – no money but food and shelter. Without a minimum wage law 10 or 25 cents an hour simply wouldn’t be able to buy food and shelter.
Either it resonates or it doesn’t. What I get out of it is we earn what the market will give us. If society wants us to have more, either because the goal is to lift us from the bottom or they see us as “job creators” who deserve more for doing so, it’s welfare. Taking from one to give to another with a higher goal in mind, but self interest blurs the lines very quickly.
The market is tainted. It doesn’t give-it dictates poor wages for the masses to ensure maximum profit at the top.
Thomas Sowell reminds me of Spock. He looks at the facts and even William Buckley comes across as just plain curious: https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=A0LEVxVhtuRWohAAQ5dXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0YnNydGZwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjE3MjJfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw–?p=thomas+sowell&fr=vmn&fr2=piv-web#id=23&vid=574bca2ae17c870870a8cacafd3a60ba&action=view