WELFARE VS. MINIMUM WAGE.

RELH · Apr 27, 2017

Dude this may be the reason you can not get citizens working on your farm. You would have to pay more then 16 dollars per hour to beat out their welfare benefits and laying around on the couch. I will leave it up to you to search what political party is in power in those 13 states paying more then 15 dollars per hour for going on welfare.
Oregon was right next to CA. on paying out over 15 dollars per hour for all welfare benefits.

RELH
__________________________________________________________

Welfare Payout Numbers, State By State, That You Might Find STUNNING!

November 15, 2014 By Steve Straub ?72 Comments

No wonder so many people have dropped out of the work force! Still I think many would rather have jobs than live on welfare.

?
Tired of busting your rump forty hours or more each week, just to make ends meet? And many of us who do work full time, still cannot make ends meet. Perhaps it's time for all of us to go on welfare?

According to a study from the Cato Institute, welfare benefits payout more than a full time minimum wage job in at least 35 states! In at least thirteen states, the payout is more than $15 an hour! And even more shocking, is that if someone were to draw all of the welfare benefits available to them, their pay would be more than that of a newly college educated teacher in eleven states, and it would add up to more than the salary of a computer programmer in three states!

If you found it hard to believe that thirteen states pay more than $15 an hour in welfare benefits, then you would find it even harder to believe that the highest welfare payout states pay more than $20 an hour!

all-states-welfare

Of course this includes all benefits available to families. What do you think about this?

264mag · Apr 27, 2017

>Dude this may be the reason
>you can not get citizens
>working on your farm. You
>would have to pay more
>then 16 dollars per hour
>to beat out their welfare
>benefits and laying around on
>the couch. I will leave
>it up to you to
>search what political party is
>in power in those 13
>states paying more then 15
>dollars per hour for going
>on welfare.
> Oregon
>was right next to CA.
>on paying out over 15
>dollars per hour for all
>welfare benefits.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RELH
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>Welfare Payout Numbers, State By State,
>That You Might Find STUNNING!
>
>
>November 15, 2014 By Steve Straub
>?72 Comments
>
>
>No wonder so many people have
>dropped out of the work
>force! Still I think many
>would rather have jobs than
>live on welfare.
>
>
>?
>Tired of busting your rump forty
>hours or more each week,
>just to make ends meet?
>And many of us who
>do work full time, still
>cannot make ends meet. Perhaps
>it's time for all of
>us to go on welfare?
>
>
>According to a study from the
>Cato Institute, welfare benefits payout
>more than a full time
>minimum wage job in at
>least 35 states! In at
>least thirteen states, the payout
>is more than $15 an
>hour! And even more shocking,
>is that if someone were
>to draw all of the
>welfare benefits available to them,
>their pay would be more
>than that of a newly
>college educated teacher in eleven
>states, and it would add
>up to more than the
>salary of a computer programmer
>in three states!
>
>
> If you found it hard
>to believe that thirteen states
>pay more than $15 an
>hour in welfare benefits, then
>you would find it even
>harder to believe that the
>highest welfare payout states pay
>more than $20 an hour!
>
>
>all-states-welfare
>
>Of course this includes all benefits
>available to families. What do
>you think about this?
They will blame this on Trump also,how many more welfare babies were born on Trumps first 100 days.

NeMont · Apr 28, 2017

LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-17 AT 07:41AM (MST)[p]Would you trade raising minimum wage to $16 an hour for massive welfare reform? So far the Republican congress has stifled such talk and we all keep paying more. I hate the minimum wage but I would rather pay more out for a service and have a person working then to pay taxes for them to eat doughnuts and pump out babies.

The democrats want both, why not tie the two together and give them half a loaf? You could phase in the wage increase and phase out welfare. The majority of working people would support a massive welfare cut.

Nemont

DW · Apr 28, 2017

But the new party of no would not.

264mag · Apr 28, 2017

I have no answer,its f#cked up out there a neighbor told me the other day a young girl who is 26 has 6 kids left them with the ex and she is back at home,how do you fix this?

Togwotee · Apr 28, 2017

We're paying $14-$16 an hour right now and still can't get help. I know of trucks that are parked because $20 and insurance can't buy a driver.

The reason people stay on welfare is because they're lazy. higher wages won't change that.

The welfare situation is much like the illegal immigration situation. it's gone on so long it's become part of the culture and there isn't a good way to correct it.

Stay Thirsty My Friends

264mag · Apr 28, 2017

>
>We're paying $14-$16 an hour right
>now and still can't get
>help. I know of trucks
>that are parked because $20
>and insurance can't buy a
>driver.
>
> The reason people stay on
>welfare is because they're lazy.
> higher wages won't change
>that.
>
>
>The welfare situation is much like
>the illegal immigration situation.
>it's gone on so long
>it's become part of the
>culture and there isn't a
>good way to correct it.
>
>
>
>
>
>Stay Thirsty My Friends
+1

NeMont · Apr 28, 2017

I agree with all of that but one way to start to correct it is to make work more attractive. That would be the supply and demand argument. Reduce welfare levels to less than what work pays and many of the lazy bums may become less lazy. If you learn to sit on you azz and still get everything that needs to be unlearned.

I also agree that the Democrats would fight that tooth and nail. That is the art of politics, beating your opposition with their own agenda.

We either pay taxes and/or borrow more to give people stuff or we pay more for goods and services and put them to work doing something. It wouldn't happen over night by any stretch but it should start sooner rather than later.

Nemont

DW · Apr 28, 2017

>I agree with all of that
>but one way to start
>to correct it is to
>make work more attractive.
>That would be the supply
>and demand argument. Reduce
>welfare levels to less than
>what work pays and many
>of the lazy bums may
>become less lazy.
>If you learn to sit
>on you azz and still
>get everything that needs to
>be unlearned.
>
>I also agree that the Democrats
>would fight that tooth and
>nail. That is
>the art of politics, beating
>your opposition with their own
>agenda.
>
>We either pay taxes and/or borrow
>more to give people stuff
>or we pay more for
>goods and services and put
>them to work doing something.
> It wouldn't happen
>over night by any stretch
>but it should start sooner
>rather than later.
>
>
>Nemont

Well said.

Togwotee · Apr 28, 2017

The problem is if a person has no money or pride what can you do to them? you can't take anything away and you can't shame them.

So if you force them to work they'll just have a back injury and go on disability. or worse yet they'll steal for a living. I don't think you can apply traditional tactics to the base of this life form.

But I'm not opposed to trying.

Stay Thirsty My Friends

Forthewall · Apr 28, 2017

It must be human nature to want to point over to the other tribe and blame them for all your woes. Yet there is zero outrage over corporate welfare and the numbers are staggering.

I tried to find more recent numbers, but they probably have not changed much.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxana...-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#76856a5427dd

https://infogr.am/social_vs_corporate_welfare

There is no, change this one thing and we can fix it. It has to be a multi-faceted approach. One the differentiates the differences between a small sole-proprietor and that of a large corporation employing many people.

Again, this is why taking employers out of the health insurance equation is necessary. Changing legislation that was created to help individuals, like loss carry over or deferred exchanges must be addressed. Corporations are not people, never have been, never should be, yet they are.

A progressive multi-pronged approach is the only way to accomplish lowering welfare costs while empowering companies to raise hourly wages.

264mag · Apr 28, 2017

CONDOMS

Forthewall · Apr 28, 2017

Education & Opportunity. What are condoms?

Togwotee · Apr 28, 2017

The GOP is dead set on making us like south America, until the top 1% own everything they won't rest, and then they'll go after each other. the working class will get the shaft and the only consolation is quite a few of them willingly bent over last November and spread their cheeks.

But welfare bums are another sort. I'm not sure anyone can help someone who won't help themselves.

Stay Thirsty My Friends

Forthewall · Apr 28, 2017

LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-17 AT 04:01PM (MST)[p]We're getting closer to that day considering 10 corporations own just about everything we purchase and 6 corporations own everything we watch.

http://www.safehaven.com/article/31...s-control-nearly-everything-you-read-or-watch

Or...elect more Democrats.

eelgrass · Apr 28, 2017

One way employers used to attract workers was to offer benefits like paid vacation, paid holidays, and group health insurance. Insurance is considered evil now and unfair.

NeMont · Apr 28, 2017

Eel,

Why should employers be in the health insurance business, where they pick and choose what coverage employees and their families get? Wouldn't it be far better to let individuals find the coverage that works for their budget, family need and health concerns? You know like personal Responsibility?

Why just stop at health insurance? What not group Auto, Homeowners, Motorcycle, Boat, RV, Umbrella coverage as well? Why is it only Health Insurance gets into the equation of being an employer responsibility?

I don't get it?

Nemont

264mag · Apr 28, 2017

>Education & Opportunity. What are condoms?
>

Thought just for a moment it could prevent unwanted children without aborting them .

RELH · Apr 28, 2017

FW says elect more Democrats. Concerning states that pay more then 16 dollars per hour on welfare benefits. There are 13 states and the District of Columbia that pay out more then 16 dollars per hour on welfare. Using FW"s red and blue state map he posted, 11 of the 14 states are controlled by a Democrat political party.
Great advice FW, just elect more Democrats and we all can go on welfare as the working man/woman will fade away.
Is that your intention for Idaho?

RELH

Servehim · Apr 28, 2017

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-17 AT 01:12AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-17 AT 01:03?AM (MST)

Welfare should Only be for those physically / mentally that are unable to provide for themselves ( I am 100% in favor of helping those folks) Support the pro- growth/ pro - business model Trump is trying to implementing that will move our nation back towards the foundation of the American values ( jobs to every able- bodied American) ... An environment in which all able bodied American can work to provide for themselves and their family. The nanny state mentality has done great damage to the family and our nation.... 16 bucks on hour off the taxpayers back of our nation ( for just being lazy) ....thats crazy

Any rational person can see what damage the hand out ( Nanny State ) freebies has done to our society.

Servehim · Apr 28, 2017

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-17 AT 01:22AM (MST)[p]>Eel,
>
>Why should employers be in the
>health insurance business, where they
>pick and choose what coverage
>employees and their families get?
> Wouldn't it be
>far better to let individuals
>find the coverage that works
>for their budget, family need
>and health concerns?
>You know like personal Responsibility?
>
>
>Why just stop at health insurance?
> What not group Auto,
>Homeowners, Motorcycle, Boat, RV, Umbrella
>coverage as well?
>Why is it only Health
>Insurance gets into the equation
>of being an employer responsibility?
>
> *****+ 1. Not often I agree with you N. Knock off employer coverage and give employees the extra coin to make their own choices ****

>I don't get it?
>
>Nemont

eelgrass · Apr 29, 2017

LAST EDITED ON Apr-29-17 AT 08:45AM (MST)[p]I suppose it was the unions back in the day who pushed for more benefits for their members that started health benefits.

Back in the 1940's, 1950's and 60's there was probably 50 sawmills around here and competition for workers was pretty fierce. You got to pick out a place to work that offered the best deal. The non union mills had to keep up. I know the mill owners didn't care if you got sick or died, they just wanted experienced workers who would stick around. Training new people is expensive for a mill or any company. And I suppose the wives pushed their husbands to go to work at a place that offered health insurance too. Extra security for the family.

Was it the right thing to do? For the times probably yes. Especially for the mill owners. They could get their hooks into you.

264mag · Apr 29, 2017

>I suppose it was the unions
>back in the day who
>pushed for more benefits for
>their members that started health
>benefits.
>
>Back in the 1940's, 1950's and
>60's there was probably 50
>sawmills around here and competition
>for workers was pretty fierce.
>You got to pick out
>a place to work that
>offered the best deal. The
>non union mills had to
>keep up. I know the
>mill owners didn't care if
>you got sick or died,
>they just wanted experienced workers
>who would stick around. Training
>new people is expensive for
>a mill or any company.
>And I suppose the wives
>pushed their husbands to go
>to work at a place
>that offered health insurance too.
>Extra security for the family.
>
>
>Was it the right thing to
>do? For the times probably
>yes.
+1 Very True