Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
seanbrock

You're president, what do you do?

Recommended Posts

MOST PEOPLE ON WELFARE HAVE JOBS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WELFARE THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD SUPPORT A LIVING WAGE SO COMPANIES AREN'T ALLOWED TO DUCK TAXES AND STEAL FROM THE TAX PAYER BY NOT PAYING PEOPLE ENOUGH TO LIVE.

 

 

This I can agree with. I think a living wage is important, but we will never see it again I'm afraid.

Well that would fall under workman's comp, which I agree should absolutely be covered by employers. I'm talking about medical costs for illnesses and shit that has nothing to do with work.

 

So then how do you propose we reconcile that with single payer, and insurance as a birth right? I am not saying you are saying that, or even trying to argue. I am just trying to get an idea of what kind of model you are after.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can something that has not happened or been tested be a fact? Come one. I dont see the people who dont want to work now suddenly developing a work ethic if they know they will be taken care of forever with no effort.

 

Because basic economics. Eliminating an incentive to not work will decrease the number of people who don't work. Increasing incentives to work will increase the number of people who work. Because they are better off working than not working. Of course there will be some people who won't work because they are content with low living standards, but overall more people will be willing to enter the work force if it's more profitable than reaping welfare benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because basic economics. Eliminating an incentive to not work will decrease the number of people who don't work. Increasing incentives to work will increase the number of people who work. Because they are better off working than not working. Of course there will be some people who won't work because they are content with low living standards, but overall more people will be willing to enter the work force if it's more profitable than reaping welfare benefits.

 

You are sure it is an incentive. The same people who are raping the system now are told you dont have to work, they won't. What they will do is have more kids to get more money, the same thing they are doing now. It is the same thing. 6 in one, half dozen in the other. The simple fact is some people are satisfied living off the bare minimum. Lets not over-complicate this. It is the same thing as welfare just a set dollar amount and less bureaucracy. Which is a good thing, dont get me wrong, I just dont think this will make lazy people have a work ethic. People who are hell bent on not working, wont. The only way your way works is if it is just enough for the necessities.Food, water, shelter. That is it. If you give people enough money for free TV and cell phones its a wrap.

 

Which it will be hard to prevent unless you do a voucher system where it is just enough to cover the shittiest apartment in town. Like the shittiest, not top 3, or top 5, the absolute dumpiest places in the city that is the cheapest. Then you have to make sure people dont fix them up or now there is again incentive to do nothing. Why work if you have a place that is just as nice across town. All your doing is relocating ghettos at that point. I think UBI or Negative income tax is a great idea in theory, but you wont correct the way people choose to live. Those who are ok living in filth now, will be once you implement that.

 

There is also the unintended consequence that Oochy brought up. Now you saturate the market with part time workers, DECREASING the incentive for companies to hire full time workers, which is less tax revenue, retirement contributions, and so on. So now you end up with a generation of people who in 40 years are back on the government teat to take care of the basics again, but this time they are more expensive because of medical care, and special needs that arise with the elderly.

 

The TL;DR version is there is no magic bullet fix here.

Edited by Omerta
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish there was a way to actually eliminate welfare leeches. Maybe one day government programs will only assist people who actually need it, which would drastically reduce recipients of aid from many programs.

 

It's the definition of inhumane to want to get rid of the programs, but it is financial suicide to not actively vet beneficiaries for the sake of saving countless dollars in the long. Yes, it would cost a lot of money in employee wages to start vetting people, but with the crazy amount of folks thrown off the goverment's dime, years from now we'd see results that would make it more than worth it.

 

As a preface I generally like to get negged for the shit I say, and not what others do, but here goes.

 

 

What is wrong with this statement? Seriously, did you guys read it, or do you just have it in your mind you will neg him regardless of what he says because he is "lolBware" ?

 

He said get rid of the welfare LEECHES. Yes Sean most welfare recipients are working, he did not say those people. No Blots, you still aren't the victim. He said nothing about the people who work hard or at least work. He said the leeches, which there are some. So why would we not get rid of them? Why would that be a bad thing?

 

Now I dont agree making the process more litigious is the way to go, but the statement get the leeches out is not bad. At least not to me. He didnt name any group specifically other than leeches. :shrug:

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So then how do you propose we reconcile that with single payer, and insurance as a birth right? I am not saying you are saying that, or even trying to argue. I am just trying to get an idea of what kind of model you are after.

It's an interesting question, and honestly not one I've spent much time considering, that question being if you go to a single-payer system how do you avoid pulling in workman's comp? As you said, I don't think there's a simple answer, I don't think it would work to separate out workplace injuries because there'd be incredible pressure on people to not claim an injury as workman's comp if their healthcare is gonna be covered either way.

 

One idea I kinda like would be to put a special tax on companies doing particularly hazardous work and putting that into the healthcare fund and assume it comes out in the wash. But I have no idea how you would determine which employers need to contribute in what amounts to that pool, because theoretically you'd want to mimic what companies currently pay out in workman's comp under the current system which varies by industry.

 

Of course with that system you could end up with a race to the bottom. For example, let's look at construction workers, that feels like a common and hazardous job. If every construction company pays the same percentage in taxes to healthcare based on the industry average in job related injuries, you reduce the incentives for any individual construction company to reduce their job related injuries because their reduction in job related injuries isn't going to have much of an impact on the overall numbers. Maybe you could make individualized adjustments based on each companies safety history? But then you further complicate the calculations for contributions to the workman's comp fund.

 

That's a lot of words to say I'm really not sure, but this is a complicated issue so I don't think we should expect an easy answer.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting question, and honestly not one I've spent much time considering, that question being if you go to a single-payer system how do you avoid pulling in workman's comp? As you said, I don't think there's a simple answer, I don't think it would work to separate out workplace injuries because there'd be incredible pressure on people to not claim an injury as workman's comp if their healthcare is gonna be covered either way.

 

One idea I kinda like would be to put a special tax on companies doing particularly hazardous work and putting that into the healthcare fund and assume it comes out in the wash. But I have no idea how you would determine which employers need to contribute in what amounts to that pool, because theoretically you'd want to mimic what companies currently pay out in workman's comp under the current system which varies by industry.

 

Of course with that system you could end up with a race to the bottom. For example, let's look at construction workers, that feels like a common and hazardous job. If every construction company pays the same percentage in taxes to healthcare based on the industry average in job related injuries, you reduce the incentives for any individual construction company to reduce their job related injuries because their reduction in job related injuries isn't going to have much of an impact on the overall numbers. Maybe you could make individualized adjustments based on each companies safety history? But then you further complicate the calculations for contributions to the workman's comp fund.

 

That's a lot of words to say I'm really not sure, but this is a complicated issue so I don't think we should expect an easy answer.

 

I used to work in the construction trade as an electrician, and now I own a contracting company and they do kind of have the system you are talking about. OSHA has a list of safety violations for every company, and can be searched online publicly.

 

https://www.osha.gov/pls/odi/establishment_search.html?p_message=Your%20Establishment%20search%20returned%200%20results.&establishment=Pride%20Electric%20Inc&city=&state=All&zip=&startyear=&endyear=&sic=&naics=&begindawfii=&enddawfii=&begintcr=&endtcr=&begindart=&enddart=

 

If you have a lot of safety violations you have to pay more to washington L&I. If you have to many Osha will pull your bonds and you cannot bid work. My company has 0 violations to this point, so I have to pay the standard amount to L&I. There is a company called Turner Construction and they have several so L&I is knee deep in their ass so they have to pay their workers enough to make up the difference. So lets say my company a journeyman has to pay $12 to L&I which is covered as the standard that a person has to pay. Lets say a journeyman from another company has to pay $20, well Turner has to make up up the $8 dollar difference per hour, which can get expensive.

 

Now as a consequence of having to do that, they are safety Nazi's. So the system works. The problem as you said would be if you went single payer, you would gut L&I which again I am all for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my biggest thing would be tax reform, most likely. I also have several issues with campaign contributions that I would like to resolve.

 

"My" idea goes like this:

 

Federal taxes are collected in whichever method the state deems best. It could be a flat tax, a graduated tax, a consumption tax, a VAT etc. All states are on the hook for an amount determined by their representation in Congress and the method of collection is completely up to the individual state's government.

 

This promotes competition between states, which I think is good. It gets people interested in their state governments, because we suck at that as a nation. It also allows the states to cater to their own constituents in a more pleasing manner.

Edited by GA_Eagle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for a living wage increase for the time being, but the biggest problem we have is insurance costs. We need to get control of insurance costs now or it's going to roll off the cliff completely. I'm absolutely up for a temporary move of minimum wage to $15 with a dropback to say, $12, as soon as we get some of the costs of living under control. It stays at $15 until we accomplish certain goals (completely gutting and rebuilding the insurance system, regaining control of the housing market in urban areas--seriously, I shouldn't have to spend over 150K for a shithole just because it's in a city). These two issues et al. Houses cost way, way, way too much right now, which is why nobody bites the bullet to get away from their absurdly high rent prices.

 

There's a lot wrong with living costs in this country that a major wage hike would only temporarily fix. To hike wages without attacking other problems at the same time only enables these markets to continue to smother American citizens.

And nobody wants to hear this, but there also needs to be a genuine refocusing on the difference between want and need among the American people. I don't want to hear about your money problems if you have the newest everything and 10 maxed out credit cards. Sounds like you created it yourself there, champ. Just because a vast majority of lower middle class citizens think they are entitled to new cars, cell phones, going out to eat multiple times a week, etc. doesn't mean that they aren't paid enough. I don't think they're inferior to those who make more money than they do--I think they have bad money habits. Because they do. It's observable.

 

You have a want, earn it. You have a need, hopefully our government finds ways to help, but perhaps don't get a 500th credit card and maybe don't run through the Starbucks drive-thru every morning.

 

There are so many costs we actively partake in every day that are astronomical relative to the money we make. You go to the bar every night and have 3-5 beers, that's like committing to roughly $500 a month on something you could spend $50-100 on and drink at home. That's just one example.

Edited by BwareDWare94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up poor as dirt as did many of my friends and these issues you talk about are not really very common. To be honest I think this line of thinking for a lot of people (maybe not you) is racially motivated. Some poor people live like that, it's true but at what point do we hold creditors and banks accountable for giving people credit and mortgages and shit that they know they can't afford? I say banks and credit card companies that do that too much just are SOL and they get nothing. That might solve some of what you're talking about. Fuck predatory loaning.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole concept of the "welfare queen" was an incredibly thinly veiled attempt to dogwhistle black women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually welfare queen refers to a woman who pops out more kids for more money from welfare

I grew up poor as dirt as did many of my friends and these issues you talk about are not really very common. To be honest I think this line of thinking for a lot of people (maybe not you) is racially motivated. Some poor people live like that, it's true but at what point do we hold creditors and banks accountable for giving people credit and mortgages and shit that they know they can't afford? I say banks and credit card companies that do that too much just are SOL and they get nothing. That might solve some of what you're talking about. Fuck predatory loaning.

You say fuck predatory loaning. I say fuck stupid people

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually welfare queen refers to a woman who pops out more kids for more money from welfare

 

You say fuck predatory loaning. I say fuck stupid people

The lack of accountability in that statement is horrendously shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bware, you really have 0 empathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole concept of the "welfare queen" was an incredibly thinly veiled attempt to dogwhistle black women.

I was going to mention this dumb bitch angel adams, but this woman nailed it.

 

https://youtu.be/v921CaZYsow">https://youtu.be/v921CaZYsow" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bware, you really have 0 empathy.

I empathize with actual victims, not people who dig their own holes

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously there are some people that abuse the system, but they aren't nearly as common as you think. The idea of the welfare queen was created in order to justify making cuts to the program in order to, you guessed it, pass tax cuts for the rich.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/welfare-queen-myth/501470/

 

 

And bware, if you literally have no money for food other than taking out a payday loan, what should you do? Lots of people take out those loans because they literally have nothing else to turn to. People like to say its just so the poors can buy a new iphone every week, but thats generally not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ever had to live on welfare you would understand how moronic of an idea it is to think that people have more kids to get more welfare money to better their financial situation. I've seen a lot more people abuse disability than I have families on food stamps or some shit like that. Even disability though, most people I know that have that really are fucked up.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'd end up with a lot of people working part time. I should probably add that for this to work we'll need to separate health care from employment.

 

 

Yeahhhh, then fuck that idea. Benefits exist because wages and salaries are so low. Unless the work we do aside from that stipend is going to pay a significant amount so healthcare costs don't take a significant portion the money I earn working, I'm not interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I empathize with actual victims, not people who dig their own holes

What about children of people who dig their own holes. Fuck 'em I guess right? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expand the food stamp program for those cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expand the food stamp program for those cases

But the kids were only born so the mothers could mooch off of welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh the children...it is the sole reason I can't abandon social programs. The parents could die in a fire and I would give no fucks, but kids are the greatest gift we have. So the parents can be Asshats and mooches and sometimes are, but I can't punish the kids.

 

For me it boils down to these kids already have it tough enough, and I don't think the sins of the parent should come back to haunt them. Even with cash assistance, I am okay with it, even knowing the parents May abused it. If it gets some kid a new pair of jeans or a new pair of shoes and they feel better about themselves I'm all for it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expand the food stamp program for those cases

You know that children have more needs than just food right? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The parents could die in a fire and I would give no fucks,

 

What the fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×