2016 Presidential Horse Race

[ACamp1900]

Maybe the entire 1% of fraud across the country was concentrated in that one grocery store?

Ha, it wouldn't surprise me, it was BAD... still is from what I hear. Anyway this isn't even playing into other aspects like I touched upon earlier. Those with the multiple carts would just load up on stuff that no reasonable person could make a case for those on gov aid receiving,... high end meats, huge things of ice cream, all kinds of unhealthy and expensive snacks and sodas... hands in the cookie jar everywhere man.

 

[RDU Irish]

Ha, it wouldn't surprise me, it was BAD... still is from what I hear. Anyway this isn't even playing into other aspects like I touched upon earlier. Those with the multiple carts would just load up on stuff that no reasonable person could make a case for someone on gov aid receiving, high end meats, huge things of ice cream, all kinds of unhealthy and expensive snacks and sodas... hands in the cookie jar everywhere man.

If someone is starving in this country they either aren't trying hard or making incredibly poor decisions, probably both. I was raised around plenty of it and it has only gotten easier in the last 40 years.

 

[dales5050]

I don't call it hating on the poor. I think that conservatives are searching for a solution to a question (how can we cut down on the massive fraud and abuse in government assistance) that doesn't exist. The error rate (includes over payment, underpayment, abuse, fraud, etc) for programs like SNAP are about 3%. That is pretty damn good. Do you know who causes most of the errors, hint it isn't the recipients. Most of the errors are the caseworkers making mistakes.

I think Liberals like to place a very specific definition on what is considered abuse so that it fits their argument. Much like you just did.

For example, if someone is given $500 a month in SNAP benefits and proceeds to purchase unhealthy processed food that does not actually solve the issue of feeding their family during that time frame...that's abuse.

If someone is getting assistance for heating and housing yet 'finds a way' to drive a nice car, have an iPhone and get that 'Netflix and Chill' time...that is abusing the situation.

Just because these abuses are not codified as being against the rules they are still abuses to the system. So you can cite your 3% stats that don't even try and consider the actual abuse all you want.

Your take is exactly the response I presented above.

Of course there is some high profile cases of people gaming the system (more often than not middle class or rich people taking advantage of it) such as the person caught in Arizona recently driving a Mercedes while on Medicaid, so lets punish those people instead of creating even more rules.

There are plenty of Mercedes, SUVs and other luxury cars in the poor section of town. Wrong is wrong. Fixing the wrong does not punish people. IF you're playing by the rules you won't have an issue.

What it does do is make people who just want to throw money at problem so they can feel better about themselves have to start looking harder at the issues.

Something like 99% of poor people are using the programs as they are meant to be, lets not try to create a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist (in any magnitude worth fixing).

Again, your stats don't mean crap as it relates to this conversation. 'Programs as they are meant to be' is the problem. It's that language that is used by people like you to justify not taking a bigger look.


I'll give you one example so you can go do some research. Lookup the term 'Frequent Flyers' as it relates to Medicaid. These are people who abuse the ability to take an ambulance under the coverage of their plan. Here are two links to get you started.

'Frequent flyers' abuse ambulance rules for a free ride to Syracuse hospitals | syracuse.com
Ambulance backups make state eye changes - City & Region - The Buffalo News


This use is 100% permitted but it's a horrible thing to do. As stated in one of the above links a volunteer ambulance corps in DeWitt transported one man to Syracuse hospitals 140 times in 2009.

How does that happen? Well it's allowed and companies can get in deep shit if they don't respond. 140 times in a single year! Are you seriously going to tell me that's just an example of poor people using the program as it's meant to be?

Honestly, I think the only thing that will change the minds of people like you is to be effected by this. I hope the day never comes that you need an ambulance and they are tied up because of frequent flyers.


This is just one of the 100s of ways I know people abuse the system but do so inside of the rules. Rules written so parrots can spin off numbers about how little waste there is.

 

[GATTACA!]

Ha, it wouldn't surprise me, it was BAD... still is from what I hear. Anyway this isn't even playing into other aspects like I touched upon earlier. Those with the multiple carts would just load up on stuff that no reasonable person could make a case for those on gov aid receiving,... high end meats, huge things of ice cream, all kinds of unhealthy and expensive snacks and sodas... hands in the cookie jar everywhere man.

That 3% state is absurd I know people first hand that abuse the system. Another thing no one has brought up is people selling their food stamps. It's pretty common around here to hear about people selling their food stamps for 75 cents on the dollar so they can get cash.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I worked my way through college in a low income Kroger grocery store... fraud is a major issue...a large portion of our clients were welfare recipients gaming the system. Multiple carts in one trip, each cart paid for with some form of EBT card from a different state... often enough the recipient in question was driving some form of luxury or high end car. I would get so angry and eventually my store manager heard I was talking about turning some of them in,.. he pulled me into his office and basically told me if I reported any customer I'd be fired and the union wouldn't give a damn, bc it was money in all of our pockets. I saw the exact same dynamic in our schools districts while teaching...

One of the most fascinating (and depressing) aspects of Kevin Williamson's reporting on Appalachia is how EBT cards are changed into other forms of currency:

It works like this: Once a month, the debit-card accounts of those receiving what we still call food stamps are credited with a few hundred dollars — about $500 for a family of four, on average — which are immediately converted into a unit of exchange, in this case cases of soda. On the day when accounts are credited, local establishments accepting EBT cards — and all across the Big White Ghetto, “We Accept Food Stamps” is the new E pluribus unum – are swamped with locals using their public benefits to buy cases and cases — reports put the number at 30 to 40 cases for some buyers — of soda. Those cases of soda then either go on to another retailer, who buys them at 50 cents on the dollar, in effect laundering those $500 in monthly benefits into $250 in cash — a considerably worse rate than your typical organized-crime money launderer offers — or else they go into the local black-market economy, where they can be used as currency in such ventures as the dealing of unauthorized prescription painkillers — by “pillbillies,” as they are known at the sympathetic establishments in Florida that do so much business with Kentucky and West Virginia that the relevant interstate bus service is nicknamed the “OxyContin Express.” A woman who is intimately familiar with the local drug economy suggests that the exchange rate between sexual favors and cases of pop — some dealers will accept either — is about 1:1, meaning that the value of a woman in the local prescription-drug economy is about $12.99 at Walmart prices.

 

[GoIrish41]

No doubt there are some people who game the welfare system -- just as people game any system. What about the people and companies who game the tax system by hiding their money in tax refuges through investing in shell companies? The difference is that these folks have the political power and/or clout influence policy to make their actions appear above the law. A certain percentage of folks are always going to try to get over on everyone else. We should not make the mistake of lumping groups of people together based on the actions of a relative few scammers at the low end of the economic continuum Or the high end. And we shouldn't demonize all poor people who receive assistance while turning a blind eye to those who are just hoarding huge sums of money at the expense of everyone else. Some people suck. We shouldn't punish everyone based on the worst among us or all our systems will fall apart. Punish those who break the rules, but make the rules fair in every instance.

 

[kmoose]

No doubt there are some people who game the welfare system -- just as people game any system. What about the people and companies who game the tax system by hiding their money in tax refuges through investing in shell companies? The difference is that these folks have the political power and/or clout influence policy to make their actions appear above the law. A certain percentage of folks are always going to try to get over on everyone else. We should not make the mistake of lumping groups of people together based on the actions of a relative few scammers at the low end of the economic continuum Or the high end. And we shouldn't demonize all poor people who receive assistance while turning a blind eye to those who are just hoarding huge sums of money at the expense of everyone else. Some people suck. We shouldn't punish everyone based on the worst among us or all our systems will fall apart. Punish those who break the rules, but make the rules fair in every instance.

I'm not advocating for tax evasion. I think we should hammer them when they get caught. But, an argument could be made that the tax people are gaming the system to protect something that they have earned.......... income. While welfare abuse games the system to generate more entitlement, not to protect something earned.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm not advocating for tax evasion. I think we should hammer them when they get caught. But, an argument could be made that the tax people are gaming the system to protect something that they have earned.......... income. While welfare abuse games the system to generate more entitlement, not to protect something earned.

When you earn you are taxed. They are "protecting" something that isn't theirs as if it was. That is entitlement on steroids. And maybe if they actually were the "job creators" they claimed to be instead of the cash hoarders they are, fewer people would actually be on government assistance. 2 birds, 1 stone.

 

[kmoose]

When you earn you are taxed. They are "protecting" something that isn't theirs as if it was. That is entitlement on steroids. And maybe if they actually were the "job creators" they claimed to be instead of the cash hoarders they are, fewer people would actually be on government assistance. 2 birds, 1 stone.

Like I said; I am for hammering tax evaders.

 

[dales5050]

No doubt there are some people who game the welfare system -- just as people game any system. What about the people and companies who game the tax system by hiding their money in tax refuges through investing in shell companies? The difference is that these folks have the political power and/or clout influence policy to make their actions appear above the law. A certain percentage of folks are always going to try to get over on everyone else. We should not make the mistake of lumping groups of people together based on the actions of a relative few scammers at the low end of the economic continuum Or the high end. And we shouldn't demonize all poor people who receive assistance while turning a blind eye to those who are just hoarding huge sums of money at the expense of everyone else. Some people suck. We shouldn't punish everyone based on the worst among us or all our systems will fall apart. Punish those who break the rules, but make the rules fair in every instance.

Go after the people and companies who game the tax system. I don't think anyone is in favor of doing anything else.

The challenge is, like the Sanders campaign, is the above is almost always followed with...and we should give all of that money away to these people in this way. That's where you lose people.

Go after the money. Stop.


Also nobody is suggesting poor people be punished. You're just trying to fabricate something. People who cheat the system should be punished. Hell, by going after those who abuse the system you can free up resources for those who are trying to do the right thing. Win/Win.

 

[GoIrish41]

Like I said; I am for hammering tax evaders.

Right, I see that. Just rebutting the "argument that could be made..." I am for rooting out welfare scammers too, just so long as a lot of innocent people are left in the I humane wake of that effort. There is a better, more surgical way to remove that tumor than chemo.

 

[Irish YJ]

When you earn you are taxed. They are "protecting" something that isn't theirs as if it was. That is entitlement on steroids. And maybe if they actually were the "job creators" they claimed to be instead of the cash hoarders they are, fewer people would actually be on government assistance. 2 birds, 1 stone.

So you think the same people that game the welfare system want jobs in the first place?

PS, I've hired 20+ in the last 60 days. I've had 5+ unemployed people reject job offers for beginner positions (ops support/admin) because the pay wasn't high enough ($15 and hour plus benefits). One person we were trying to hire simply to make site prep pre calls said that the pay wasn't enough and wasn't worth it compared to the aid she was receiving.

On the other hand, we picked up some great new folks who we've already transitioned a few into better jobs. In short, both good and bad out there but you'd be surprised at the bad we see on a regular basis.

 

[GoIrish41]

So you think the same people that game the welfare system want jobs in the first place?

PS, I've hired 20+ in the last 60 days. I've had 5+ unemployed people reject job offers for beginner positions (ops support/admin) because the pay wasn't high enough ($15 and hour plus benefits). One person we were trying to hire simply to make site prep pre calls said that the pay wasn't enough and wasn't worth it compared to the aid she was receiving.

On the other hand, we picked up some great new folks who we've already transitioned a few into better jobs. In short, both good and bad out there but you'd be surprised at the bad we see on a regular basis.

No, but I think the majority of people in the welfare system would rather be working. That said, I fully agree there are folks who game the system.

I'd have to know more about your example before I comment on it. Were the people who refused employment layed off from higher paying jobs, and that's why they are unemployed? Or were they chronically unemployed and we're just doing their mandatory job seeking to retain benefits?

I think there are plenty of folks like those in your last paragraph. Gutting welfare would ravage people like them to weed out those who scam. I think we need to find welfare cheats and do something about them. I just think it should not be at the expense of those who want a shot at a better life. And by the way, good on you for giving them that shot!

 

[Legacy]

The Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities (LEO) is a research center in the Department of Economics at the University of Notre Dame.

Through rigorous impact evaluations, LEO aims to identify the innovative, effective and scalable programs that help people move out of poverty. LEO’s research is conducted by faculty from the University of Notre Dame as well as scholars from across the country with expertise in designing and evaluating the impact of domestic anti-poverty programs. Our research initiatives span a wide range of poverty focus areas.

A Research Network
LEO works to reduce poverty by:

Evaluating Program Effectiveness: To promote rigorous evaluations of domestic anti-poverty programs, LEO connects on-the-ground social service providers with a national network of academic researchers. Our Faculty Affiliates and practitioners work together to evaluate the impact of innovative programs through randomized controlled trials and natural experiments.

Improving Service Provision: LEO works closely with local Catholic Charities agencies and other service providers to design anti-poverty programs that are informed by the most rigorous research.

Improving Policy Design: To encourage evidence-based policy decisions, LEO disseminates its key research findings to policymakers interested in designing effective programs to reduce poverty in the United States.

Research Initiatives
Links to their current research initiatives including:

Improving the Nutrition of Women and Children: The impact of Chicago WIC Food and Nutrition Centers on participation and health
Homelessness Prevention: Evaluating the impact of emergency assistance on homelessness
Improving Persistance and Completion for Low-Income Community College Students: Increasing community college graduation rates in Fort Worth
Promoting Job Readiness: Social Services (with Catholic Charities, Fort Worth)
Combating Youth Recidivism: Measuring the impact of an innovative diversion program, Reading for Life
Padua Pilot: Intensive Case Management to Fight Poverty: Measuring the impact of an intensive, wrap-around case management program designed to lift families out of poverty

Nutritional assistance programs would benefit from analysis, economist testifies
before subcommittee (U.S. House of Representatives Committee of Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Nutrition)

“Recently I co-founded the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities, which is a research center at the University of Notre Dame that identifies innovative, effective and scalable programs that help those in need move to self-sufficiency,” Sullivan told the subcommitee. “The Wilson Sheehan Lab has partnered with some of the largest private providers of services to the poor in the country, including the Catholic Charities network, as well as state and local governmental agencies, to examine evidence of program effectiveness. These projects include programs to promote community college completion, comprehensive case-management programs, homeless prevention services and diversion programs for first-time, nonviolent offenders. This evidence allows resources to be channeled to the programs that will have the greatest impact on the lives of the most vulnerable.

Sullivan told the subcommittee that there is a clear need for rigorous, experimental evidence of the impact of SNAP in its current form.

“Is SNAP the best way to improve nutritional outcomes for the disadvantaged?” he said. “The honest answer is that we don’t know. Bringing evidence to bear on this question would allow us to better help those struggling to put food on the table.”
Sullivan concluded his testimony by noting that advances in technology and data collection have greatly expanded opportunities to implement high-quality evaluations of social programs.
“Evidence from these evaluations can help in the design of programs that yield better results and guide policy on how best to allocate scarce resources,” he said. “By encouraging innovation and evaluation and by targeting support at interventions shown to be successful, policymakers will ensure that our social programs are more effective at helping vulnerable populations get ahead. We at the Wilson Sheehan Lab welcome this transformation in the way we fight poverty in America.”

 

[GATTACA!]

Hillary’s latest email lie didn’t even last a week

Romanian hacker who claims he breached Clinton server says he spoke with FBI at length

Please please please indict this bitch.

 

[EddytoNow]

No, but I think the majority of people in the welfare system would rather be working. That said, I fully agree there are folks who game the system.

I'd have to know more about your example before I comment on it. Were the people who refused employment layed off from higher paying jobs, and that's why they are unemployed? Or were they chronically unemployed and we're just doing their mandatory job seeking to retain benefits?

I think there are plenty of folks like those in your last paragraph. Gutting welfare would ravage people like them to weed out those who scam. I think we need to find welfare cheats and do something about them. I just think it should not be at the expense of those who want a shot at a better life. And by the way, good on you for giving them that shot!

You find all types of people and generalizations usually aren't justified. There are unemployed people gaming the system, but not most. There are also employed people gaming the system. These people are collecting a paycheck, but not putting in the work to earn their paycheck We see them all the time, and I'm sure you do too.

As an example, my son works as a cook for a restaurant in a national hotel chain. To cover all shifts, there are six employees that have been hired to do what he does. Last week the restaurant manager asked the cooks to complete a list of 10 total assignments during their slow time (clean the oven, etc.). My son did seven of the items on the list himself. One of the other employees completed one of the remaining three items on the list. The final two items were not completed. Four of the employees did not help complete any items on the list. All six employees received their paycheck. So here we have six employed workers, four of whom managed to do as little work as possible. Laziness is not a characteristic confined to the unemployed, and laziness and unemployment are not synonymous. Employment status does not define one's willingness to work for a living.

 

[EddytoNow]

So you think the same people that game the welfare system want jobs in the first place?

PS, I've hired 20+ in the last 60 days. I've had 5+ unemployed people reject job offers for beginner positions (ops support/admin) because the pay wasn't high enough ($15 and hour plus benefits). One person we were trying to hire simply to make site prep pre calls said that the pay wasn't enough and wasn't worth it compared to the aid she was receiving.

On the other hand, we picked up some great new folks who we've already transitioned a few into better jobs. In short, both good and bad out there but you'd be surprised at the bad we see on a regular basis.

Those who game the welfare system should be rooted out and dropped from the system. But relying on welfare for survival and gaming the system are not the same.

And if you are having unemployed people rejecting your $15.00 per hour + benefits jobs, then there may be something else undesirable about the job that you aren't seeing. As an example, I just retired from the teaching profession. There is a chronic shortage of substitute teachers in my school district and other districts in our county. People just don't want the job. I would suggest several reasons:

1. Low Pay - $65.00-$75.00 per day for a substitute, Wal-Mart's pay is comparable.
2. Demand for 3 years of college education to qualify as a substitute teacher.
3. Irregular work schedule. Never knowing when you will have work. Aide jobs are available at $8.50-$12.00 per hour. These have a regular five day per week schedule and pay as much or more as the substitutes get paid.
4. Lack of Support - "Here's the classroom. Good luck."
5. Disrespect from Both Students and Teachers
6. No Promotion - No opportunity to use substitute teaching as a stepping stone to a full-time teaching job. Certified teachers get locked into being a sub because subs are hard to find, and as a result they are never offered a full-time teaching job.

Your $15.00 per hour job would pay approximately $30,000 per year minus taxes. Someone starting out can't afford car payments, rent, insurance, food, clothing, etc. on $30,000 per year. To accept that job one would have to continue to live at home with parents or share living quarters with one or more roommates. I'm not knocking your jobs and the pay you offer. It's a far better situation than a minimum wage job without benefits. But if people don't want the job at $15.00 per hour and you want to know why perhaps you should ask them to point out the negatives that caused them to reject your job offer.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Hillary’s latest email lie didn’t even last a week

Romanian hacker who claims he breached Clinton server says he spoke with FBI at length

Please please please indict this bitch.

She isn't out of the woods, and I've commented here before that I don't think Obama wants her in the White House.

In 2008 Obama made the DNC his party after the Clintons having it for two decades. Remember how ugly that campaign was? Does he really want to give the party back to the Clintons?

Imagine the shitshow if she gets indicted this summer.

 

[Bubbles]

Ha, it wouldn't surprise me, it was BAD... still is from what I hear. Anyway this isn't even playing into other aspects like I touched upon earlier. Those with the multiple carts would just load up on stuff that no reasonable person could make a case for those on gov aid receiving,... high end meats, huge things of ice cream, all kinds of unhealthy and expensive snacks and sodas... hands in the cookie jar everywhere man.

This, unfortunately is almost exactly my experience.....not with fraud necessarily, but I used to (thank God) live in an area that had a large population that 'qualified' for benefits. I would very frequently be stuck in the grocery store line behind someone buying chips, soda and snack foods with stamps. About 70% of the time, I would see that person getting into a brand new Escalade or Lincoln. It gave me a real sour taste in my mouth for the welfare system in this country.

That said, the other 30% of the time, it was clearly someone who needed help, and I had no issues in those cases. My biggest problem is, in the same year, the IRS spent a huge amount of man hours and resources attempting to regain some ~$2,500 in tax underpayment from me, in what turned out to be a clerical error on their part. I have a hard time believing that some of that effort wouldn't have been better spent on 'cookie jar' oversight, as you very astutely put it.

/IME/IMO/my $.02 and all that

 

[kmoose]

Your $15.00 per hour job would pay approximately $30,000 per year minus taxes. Someone starting out can't afford car payments, rent, insurance, food, clothing, etc. on $30,000 per year. To accept that job one would have to continue to live at home with parents or share living quarters with one or more roommates. I'm not knocking your jobs and the pay you offer. It's a far better situation than a minimum wage job without benefits. But if people don't want the job at $15.00 per hour and you want to know why perhaps you should ask them to point out the negatives that caused them to reject your job offer.

I can't speak for YJ, but I think his beef was that these people should not be receiving so much in benefits that a $15/hr job is not enough to get them off of public support.

 

[Irish YJ]

Hillary’s latest email lie didn’t even last a week

Romanian hacker who claims he breached Clinton server says he spoke with FBI at length

Please please please indict this bitch.

Loved the part where the Clinton camp says the claims are baseless, and the guy is a convicted hacker. Well doesn't the convicted hacker part actually give him a "resume"...

No, but I think the majority of people in the welfare system would rather be working. That said, I fully agree there are folks who game the system.

I'd have to know more about your example before I comment on it. Were the people who refused employment layed off from higher paying jobs, and that's why they are unemployed? Or were they chronically unemployed and we're just doing their mandatory job seeking to retain benefits?

I think there are plenty of folks like those in your last paragraph. Gutting welfare would ravage people like them to weed out those who scam. I think we need to find welfare cheats and do something about them. I just think it should not be at the expense of those who want a shot at a better life. And by the way, good on you for giving them that shot!

The individual that made the comment had nothing on her resume for over a year. If memory serves, she had worked at quick serve restaurant a few years ago.

Those who game the welfare system should be rooted out and dropped from the system. But relying on welfare for survival and gaming the system are not the same.

And if you are having unemployed people rejecting your $15.00 per hour + benefits jobs, then there may be something else undesirable about the job that you aren't seeing. As an example, I just retired from the teaching profession. There is a chronic shortage of substitute teachers in my school district and other districts in our county. People just don't want the job. I would suggest several reasons:

1. Low Pay - $65.00-$75.00 per day for a substitute, Wal-Mart's pay is comparable.
2. Demand for 3 years of college education to qualify as a substitute teacher.
3. Irregular work schedule. Never knowing when you will have work. Aide jobs are available at $8.50-$12.00 per hour. These have a regular five day per week schedule and pay as much or more as the substitutes get paid.
4. Lack of Support - "Here's the classroom. Good luck."
5. Disrespect from Both Students and Teachers
6. No Promotion - No opportunity to use substitute teaching as a stepping stone to a full-time teaching job. Certified teachers get locked into being a sub because subs are hard to find, and as a result they are never offered a full-time teaching job.

Your $15.00 per hour job would pay approximately $30,000 per year minus taxes. Someone starting out can't afford car payments, rent, insurance, food, clothing, etc. on $30,000 per year. To accept that job one would have to continue to live at home with parents or share living quarters with one or more roommates. I'm not knocking your jobs and the pay you offer. It's a far better situation than a minimum wage job without benefits. But if people don't want the job at $15.00 per hour and you want to know why perhaps you should ask them to point out the negatives that caused them to reject your job offer.

Honestly I'm not very concerned why folks turn these jobs down. Not because I don't care about people, but because we fill them easily, and primarily because our employee retention rate leads easily in our space (average employee retention is 10 years). Our employee sat numbers are pretty impressive as well, and job progression (people moving into better jobs) is rapid relevant to similar companies with our profile.

And we're also very supportive when people find what they perceive as better opportunities elsewhere. A good percentage of them return to us. I have several rehires who are now my most loyal employees.

What I will say is that if I were unemployed, any job is better than no job. I'd take just about anything until I could find something better.

She isn't out of the woods, and I've commented here before that I don't think Obama wants her in the White House.

In 2008 Obama made the DNC his party after the Clintons having it for two decades. Remember how ugly that campaign was? Does he really want to give the party back to the Clintons?

Imagine the shitshow if she gets indicted this summer.

It would be marvelous. If she weren't a Clinton, she'd already have been indicted. IMO it will take the press and leaks to keep the investigation above board and on track.

 

[Irish YJ]

I can't speak for YJ, but I think his beef was that these people should not be receiving so much in benefits that a $15/hr job is not enough to get them off of public support.

Yup, nailed it. There are other reasons, but if the gov is making it more attractive to sit on your ass than work, there is a serious problem. Had this individual come on and been productive with no performance issues, she would likely be moved to position in about 6-12 months that pays 20-25 an hour (this is something we openly communicate). After 12 months they are automatically enrolled in the companies profit sharing as well.

Those who want to work hard and like to progress do very well with us. Just OK'd one of my Directors to move one of the new hires to billing with an increase in pay, and another one of my Directors to move another new hire into an inside field management position. Both have been with us around 3 months and they've already went from 30ish to 45ish. The guy that is going to the inside field management position is young (22ish), African American, and I think lives with his parents. Hard worker, bright but with no college education, and has about the best attitude I've seen in years. He's been already training the folks coming into the beginner positions and is absolutely loved by everyone at the office and is quickly moving up the employee stack rank. So humble, gracious, and down to earth. Kid has a very bright future with or without us.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yup, nailed it. There are other reasons, but if the gov is making it more attractive to sit on your ass than work, there is a serious problem. Had this individual come on and been productive with no performance issues, she would likely be moved to position in about 6-12 months that pays 20-25 an hour (this is something we openly communicate). After 12 months they are automatically enrolled in the companies profit sharing as well.

Those who want to work hard and like to progress do very well with us. Just OK'd one of my Directors to move one of the new hires to billing with an increase in pay, and another one of my Directors to move another new hire into an inside field management position. Both have been with us around 3 months and they've already went from 30ish to 45ish. The guy that is going to the inside field management position is young (22ish), African American, and I think lives with his parents. Hard worker, bright but with no college education, and has about the best attitude I've seen in years. He's been already training the folks coming into the beginner positions and is absolutely loved by everyone at the office and is quickly moving up the employee stack rank. So humble, gracious, and down to earth. Kid has a very bright future with or without us.

Maybe the government programs are the entities that are being reasonable, demonstrating an understanding of what it really takes to survive in this country. And maybe companies that pay low wages, because they can, are the ones who are really being unrealistic and have a serious problem. That does not appear to be the case with your company, but many, many businesses make it clear how little they care about their employees when they pay them poorly and offer no benefits.

 

[Irish YJ]

Maybe the government programs are the entities that are being reasonable, demonstrating an understanding of what it really takes to survive in this country. And maybe companies that pay low wages, because they can, are the ones who are really being unrealistic and have a serious problem. That does not appear to be the case with your company, but many, many businesses make it clear how little they care about their employees when they pay them poorly and offer no benefits.

I think that's a lazy answer. Do you ever eat at McDonalds, shop at Walmart or Sam's Club, eat fruit, etc.. if you do, you are supporting those low paying jobs. The truth is, nobody wants to pay $5 for a cheeseburger, and they don't want to double their weekly bill at the grocery. And if you raise all those prices, you increase the need of the lower wage earners you just gave raises to. There will always be occupations that pay less and ones that pay more. The individual I talked about with the good attitude, he will succeed just because of his attitude and willingness to work hard. He has a personal plan of progress and is not afraid to work for it. He is not content to let circumstance, color, or anything else stand in his way.

 

[EddytoNow]

I think that's a lazy answer. Do you ever eat at McDonalds, shop at Walmart or Sam's Club, eat fruit, etc.. if you do, you are supporting those low paying jobs. The truth is, nobody wants to pay $5 for a cheeseburger, and they don't want to double their weekly bill at the grocery. And if you raise all those prices, you increase the need of the lower wage earners you just gave raises to. There will always be occupations that pay less and ones that pay more. The individual I talked about with the good attitude, he will succeed just because of his attitude and willingness to work hard. He has a personal plan of progress and is not afraid to work for it. He is not content to let circumstance, color, or anything else stand in his way.

One question: Are you going to the unemployment office to get job applicants that are collecting welfare? If so, I commend you and your company for the effort you are making to put people to work and the opportunity for advancement that you offer them.

If you are not seeking out those on the dole in an effort to offer them a leg up, then your criticism of the unemployed seems misplaced. You seem to be saying that a large percentage of the unemployed don't want to work at any wage. I am agreeing that some of the unemployed are content to live on welfare or other government handouts, but the vast majority would love to have a job that they can support their family on. I am focused on the larger number looking for an opportunity similar to what your company is offering. The criticism seems to be focused on the smaller percentage who want a free ride.

The numbers on the dole will decrease when a viable alternative is offered. Maybe it's time for a Roosevelt-like "New Deal" that improves our declining infrastructure while putting the physically-able among the unemployed back to work.

There is a compromise position between one extreme of paying physically-able workers to sit home and watch TV and the other extreme of cutting off all financial support to children of the poor, the less fortunate, the handicapped, and the elderly.

 

[Legacy]

The Reaganite strawman is alive and well with some validity. The difficulty is quantifying the abuse, singling out the abusers and developing programs that do not hurt America's most vulnerable populations who are most in need.

I assume that we are not including children (under 18), the elderly, disabled enough that they cannot work, in extreme poverty, with uncontrolled mental illness, single parents who may be working and possibly going to school, where there are pockets of unemployment without any job creation, with medical treatments nessary to keep them out of hospitals ex, hemodialysis), the mentally challenged, homeless, some veterans, those needing only temporary assistance, etc.

How many are left? Percentage wise? We can probably agree that the above - and maybe more groups that don't come to my mind now - need and deserve assistance and do not comprise "the welfare state"?

Nutritionist agree on healthy diets and foods, but think of the lawsuit broght against Bloomberg and NYC when they tried to make restrictions on nutrient worthless sugar drinks. Congress needs to mandate.

Once you've calculated the potential waste and abuse in welfare programs and targeted those potential abusers, you may also want to think about the waste and fraud in military and defense spending. How much is that? If even more excessive, how do you control that? Congress needs to restrain that, too. Are Presidential candidates also willing to address waste there?

The elephant in the room when you discuss waste in federal expenditures is military/defense.

 

[Irish YJ]

One question: Are you going to the unemployment office to get job applicants that are collecting welfare? If so, I commend you and your company for the effort you are making to put people to work and the opportunity for advancement that you offer them.

It is not my responsibility nor is it my company's responsibility to seek out anyone.

If you are not seeking out those on the dole in an effort to offer them a leg up, then your criticism of the unemployed seems misplaced. You seem to be saying that a large percentage of the unemployed don't want to work at any wage.

I did not say anything like that. My opinion is simply that there are people that are not afraid of hard work, and there are people that will do a little as possible.

I am agreeing that some of the unemployed are content to live on welfare or other government handouts, but the vast majority would love to have a job that they can support their family on. I am focused on the larger number looking for an opportunity similar to what your company is offering. The criticism seems to be focused on the smaller percentage who want a free ride.

The numbers on the dole will decrease when a viable alternative is offered. Maybe it's time for a Roosevelt-like "New Deal" that improves our declining infrastructure while putting the physically-able among the unemployed back to work.

There is a compromise position between one extreme of paying physically-able workers to sit home and watch TV and the other extreme of cutting off all financial support to children of the poor, the less fortunate, the handicapped, and the elderly.

I am not saying to simply cut off things, but there must be changes made. I have no problem with subsidizing the handicapped and elderly. I am also passionate about ensuring children are fed. My mother volunteered for many years ensuring kids were fed at a local high school (ensuring they were fed while not in school). While the majority were sad stories, there were many stories that would anger you (aimed at their parents).

I would love a "better deal". If you are physically able, come work to get your aid. provide child care so no one has an excuse. No work, no dollar. No physically able adult should be able to sit and collect something for nothing.

 

[Irish YJ]

The Reaganite strawman is alive and well with some validity. The difficulty is quantifying the abuse, singling out the abusers and developing programs that do not hurt America's most vulnerable populations who are most in need.

I assume that we are not including children (under 18), the elderly, disabled enough that they cannot work, in extreme poverty, with uncontrolled mental illness, single parents who may be working and possibly going to school, where there are pockets of unemployment without any job creation, with medical treatments nessary to keep them out of hospitals ex, hemodialysis), the mentally challenged, homeless, some veterans, those needing only temporary assistance, etc.

How many are left? Percentage wise? We can probably agree that the above - and maybe more groups that don't come to my mind now - need and deserve assistance and do not comprise "the welfare state"?

Nutritionist agree on healthy diets and foods, but think of the lawsuit broght against Bloomberg and NYC when they tried to make restrictions on nutrient worthless sugar drinks. Congress needs to mandate.

Once you've calculated the potential waste and abuse in welfare programs and targeted those potential abusers, you may also want to think about the waste and fraud in military and defense spending. How much is that? If even more excessive, how do you control that? Congress needs to restrain that, too. Are Presidential candidates also willing to address waste there?

The elephant in the room when you discuss waste in federal expenditures is military/defense.

I'm all for looking at defense expenditure. Has nothing to do with fixing the welfare system, but yes, please put the defense budget and contractors under a microscope.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think that's a lazy answer. Do you ever eat at McDonalds, shop at Walmart or Sam's Club, eat fruit, etc.. if you do, you are supporting those low paying jobs. The truth is, nobody wants to pay $5 for a cheeseburger, and they don't want to double their weekly bill at the grocery. And if you raise all those prices, you increase the need of the lower wage earners you just gave raises to. There will always be occupations that pay less and ones that pay more. The individual I talked about with the good attitude, he will succeed just because of his attitude and willingness to work hard. He has a personal plan of progress and is not afraid to work for it. He is not content to let circumstance, color, or anything else stand in his way.

Sure there will. But the question is how much more, and more importantly, how much less. There are people who work at WalMart and get government assistance. The government is subsidizing the workforce of one of the country's wealthiest companies. What sense does that make? I think if you pay people more, they spend more and that stimulates the economy, creating more jobs. It also may well reduce the need for welfare programs. And nobody wants to pay for welfare programs. Question is, how do we fix the problem? Paying people a living wage is a giant step in the right direction.

 

[Irish YJ]

Sure there will. But the question is how much more, and more importantly, how much less. There are people who work at WalMart and get government assistance. The government is subsidizing the workforce of one of the country's wealthiest companies. What sense does that make? I think if you pay people more, they spend more and that stimulates the economy, creating more jobs. It also may well reduce the need for welfare programs. And nobody wants to pay for welfare programs. Question is, how do we fix the problem? Paying people a living wage is a giant step in the right direction.

Paying people more at Walmart will drive costs up. Yes they will spend more, but on less. A living wage will also drive up wages across the board which will create a circular impact to all good and services.

IMO, a free education system which gives all the same opportunity is the answer.