A new type of Economy

[PolySciGuy]

I honestly don't know which party umbrella this fits under.... if any, but I was thinking about poverty when I came up with an idea for a Rewards-based economy. All I ask here is that you read through the whole thing before you get angry at me because the first step is pretty drastic, what it boils down to is removing almost all kinds of welfare. No child benefit, no unemployment benefit, there would probably still be a disabled benefit and *cough* social security *cough* but for the most part, people in poverty would have their welfare taken away.

Now, step 2: Reinstate a CONDITIONAL welfare based on the improvement of the recipient. For instance, in place of a child benefit, we implement a Good Grades benefit. Whereupon, the recipient would only get money for kids that are in school, and would get more money for kids with higher G.P.A.'s I don't know if this can honestly work with our education system the way it is, but I think that in theory it is quite nice. Furthermore, the unemployment benefit would be changed to an "in transition work benefit" where at the unemployment offices you would only get the benefit if the officer believed you were actively seeking work i.e. show him/her your scheduled interviews and the like.

Honestly I don't know all of the welfare benefits out there, but I think that most could be changed in this way. I believe this needs to be changed because the goal of welfare should be to get people off of it. (plus it would possibly result in a tax surplus and subsequent cut)

 

[Iriemon]

I honestly don't know which party umbrella this fits under.... if any, but I was thinking about poverty when I came up with an idea for a Rewards-based economy. All I ask here is that you read through the whole thing before you get angry at me because the first step is pretty drastic, what it boils down to is removing almost all kinds of welfare. No child benefit, no unemployment benefit, there would probably still be a disabled benefit and *cough* social security *cough* but for the most part, people in poverty would have their welfare taken away.

Now, step 2: Reinstate a CONDITIONAL welfare based on the improvement of the recipient. For instance, in place of a child benefit, we implement a Good Grades benefit. Whereupon, the recipient would only get money for kids that are in school, and would get more money for kids with higher G.P.A.'s I don't know if this can honestly work with our education system the way it is, but I think that in theory it is quite nice. Furthermore, the unemployment benefit would be changed to an "in transition work benefit" where at the unemployment offices you would only get the benefit if the officer believed you were actively seeking work i.e. show him/her your scheduled interviews and the like.

Honestly I don't know all of the welfare benefits out there, but I think that most could be changed in this way. I believe this needs to be changed because the goal of welfare should be to get people off of it. (plus it would possibly result in a tax surplus and subsequent cut)

So when some guy loses his job, and the kid doesn't get good GPA, you're willing to look at those pictures of the family living under the freeway while the kids beg for food?

A lot of us don't find that picture of America very appealing.

I do believe that to receive unemployment comp you do have to demostrate that you are actively seeking unemployment, and the benefits are limited to a max duration as the welfare laws were amended in 1997, I believe.

 

[PolySciGuy]

well if that is the case then there is no need for that, and honestly, if the father of these kids were NOT seeking active employment then I would definitly not mind that at all. It may seem heartless, but there is a time for government to step in and a time for the individual to step up.

The only reason why I would suggest this is because of the welfare horror stories I hear, whereupon the father/mother parents several children and just lives off of our tax dollars! In my opinion, one of the greatest faults of America is the lack of personal responsibility.

 

[Kandahar]

For instance, in place of a child benefit, we implement a Good Grades benefit. Whereupon, the recipient would only get money for kids that are in school, and would get more money for kids with higher G.P.A.'s I don't know if this can honestly work with our education system the way it is, but I think that in theory it is quite nice.

That will increase the demand for schools that inflate GPA rather than schools that actually teach kids. Besides, some kids are just smarter than others, and GPA has little relationship to how hard the kids/parents are working.

Furthermore, the unemployment benefit would be changed to an "in transition work benefit" where at the unemployment offices you would only get the benefit if the officer believed you were actively seeking work i.e. show him/her your scheduled interviews and the like.

We already have that.

well if that is the case then there is no need for that, and honestly, if the father of these kids were NOT seeking active employment then I would definitly not mind that at all. It may seem heartless, but there is a time for government to step in and a time for the individual to step up.

The kids don't choose who their parents are. They shouldn't have to live in those conditions because of their parents' mistakes.

 

[PolySciGuy]

The kids don't choose who their parents are. They shouldn't have to live in those conditions because of their parents' mistakes.

You are ABSOLUTELY right, if there is a case where a father/mother would rather starve his/her kids because they simply do not want to look for a job, that is when Child Protective Services should come in.

I have also been educated on the welfare system we do have, so i see that its not really too new, but I was wondering if there is any kind of welfare that could be organized to make the basic premise to better its recipients?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I honestly don't know which party umbrella this fits under.... if any, but I was thinking about poverty when I came up with an idea for a Rewards-based economy. All I ask here is that you read through the whole thing before you get angry at me because the first step is pretty drastic, what it boils down to is removing almost all kinds of welfare. No child benefit, no unemployment benefit, there would probably still be a disabled benefit and *cough* social security *cough* but for the most part, people in poverty would have their welfare taken away.

I thought of a similar idea about 1-1/2 years ago, I'll expand a little.

Now, step 2: Reinstate a CONDITIONAL welfare based on the improvement of the recipient. For instance, in place of a child benefit, we implement a Good Grades benefit. Whereupon, the recipient would only get money for kids that are in school, and would get more money for kids with higher G.P.A.'s I don't know if this can honestly work with our education system the way it is, but I think that in theory it is quite nice. Furthermore, the unemployment benefit would be changed to an "in transition work benefit" where at the unemployment offices you would only get the benefit if the officer believed you were actively seeking work i.e. show him/her your scheduled interviews and the like.

Instead of the good grades benefit, put the emphasis on the recipients needs, for instance, x number of "free" months, let's say, two-three, after that the recipient must show that they are meeting one of three requirements to continue benefits:
1) actively seek employment, every month a minimum requirement of voided applications must be provided to the local benefits office to show a good faith effort as far as job seeking.(I believe we agree on this)
2) an educational rider to the welfare benefits package. in other words, instead of the work requirement, if someone were to enroll in college benefits can continue as scheduled with a minimum GPA requirement from the recipient.
3) Complete disability, the requirements for this benefit are certainly up for debate and can be determined by the appropriate commitees.

Honestly I don't know all of the welfare benefits out there, but I think that most could be changed in this way. I believe this needs to be changed because the goal of welfare should be to get people off of it. (plus it would possibly result in a tax surplus and subsequent cut)

I absolutely agree with that. I think that we should see social programs more of an investment than a social safety net. If I can see my tax dollars used in a manner that would create more employment, which would expand the tax base and hopefully lead to a relief of pressure on all taxpayers then I would consider it money well spent. My biggest problem with the social program network as is has nothing to do with the people who need it, rather the people who abuse it and thus create a drain on our countries monetary resources.

 

[GoodDriver]

Hi..

To improve american economy, or atleast a good start would be focusing on creating more jobs.

Instead of importing goods from such countries as China and Taiwan we should open our own factories and produce our own goods. This in turn would create alot of jobs. Another way to create more jobs includes social work such as cleaning up streets, parks, etc. But it's up to the government to create such jobs.

As far as education goes, I believe it is very important to encourage kids to even want to stay in school and study. Many kids become discouraged because the educational system is borring. Perhaps giving the kids a choice of what they want to learn starting from Kindergarden, would create an atmosphere for the kids to want to learn. With good psychologists-teachers, it would be easy to determine what the kids' interests are, therefore shaping their education towards what they are most interested in becoming at an early age.

It's really interesting to observe that kids at 4 or 5 years of age always know what they want to do when they grow up.

Cheers, peace.

 

[PolySciGuy]

Hi..

To improve american economy, or atleast a good start would be focusing on creating more jobs.

Instead of importing goods from such countries as China and Taiwan we should open our own factories and produce our own goods. This in turn would create alot of jobs. Another way to create more jobs includes social work such as cleaning up streets, parks, etc. But it's up to the government to create such jobs.

As far as education goes, I believe it is very important to encourage kids to even want to stay in school and study. Many kids become discouraged because the educational system is borring. Perhaps giving the kids a choice of what they want to learn starting from Kindergarden, would create an atmosphere for the kids to want to learn. With good psychologists-teachers, it would be easy to determine what the kids' interests are, therefore shaping their education towards what they are most interested in becoming at an early age.

It's really interesting to observe that kids at 4 or 5 years of age always know what they want to do when they grow up.

Cheers, peace.

Psychologist Teachers eh? that is a great idea! Teachers with some psychology classes under their belt is one of the best ideas I've ever heard! Creating more jobs, however, that is a difficult task indeed! I'm all for it, but i just don't see how! I think that the Fair Tax Idea is a step in the right direction, however. Wondering if you have any ideas on how to create more jobs

 

[Kandahar]

Psychologist Teachers eh? that is a great idea! Teachers with some psychology classes under their belt is one of the best ideas I've ever heard! Creating more jobs, however, that is a difficult task indeed! I'm all for it, but i just don't see how! I think that the Fair Tax Idea is a step in the right direction, however. Wondering if you have any ideas on how to create more jobs

We can create more jobs by deregulating a lot of industries, by encouraging immigration, and by abolishing the minimum wage.

 

[LaMidRighter]

We can create more jobs by deregulating a lot of industries, by encouraging immigration, and by abolishing the minimum wage.

No argument here. Lowering taxation and more fiscal responsibility would be another way to maximize the growth started by the above mentions. I just think encouraging immigration should be done in a manageable way, we are completely losing control of the situation right now.

 

[Iriemon]

No argument here. Lowering taxation and more fiscal responsibility would be another way to maximize the growth started by the above mentions. I just think encouraging immigration should be done in a manageable way, we are completely losing control of the situation right now.

Lowering taxation does not equat to more fiscal responsibility at a time the Govt is borrowing $1/2 trillion a year.

 

[ARealConservative]

So when some guy loses his job, and the kid doesn't get good GPA, you're willing to look at those pictures of the family living under the freeway while the kids beg for food?

A lot of us don't find that picture of America very appealing.

I do believe that to receive unemployment comp you do have to demostrate that you are actively seeking unemployment, and the benefits are limited to a max duration as the welfare laws were amended in 1997, I believe.

Religious institutions and private charity would bridge the gap.

The real fear you likely have is that if people are given their freedom back, the amount of charity won't be enough.

I can't squash your fears, I can only point out that you are allowing fear to undermine individual liberty.

 

[Iriemon]

Religious institutions and private charity would bridge the gap.

No it wouldn't.

The real fear you likely have is that if people are given their freedom back, the amount of charity won't be enough.

Kind of true. I don't want to live in an America where hordes of old and sick and poor families are living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

I can't squash your fears, I can only point out that you are allowing fear to undermine individual liberty.

I disagree with your contention.

 

[ARealConservative]

No it wouldn't.

True poverty will never be gone. Private charity and the improvements gained from stressing personal responsibility will reduce poverty in the long term.

Kind of true. I don't want to live in an America where hordes of old and sick and poor families are living under freeways and begging at stoplights.

Either would I. As long as they are trying I would have no problem with minimum levels of aid. The original author of this thread is discussing the type of system where people can get aid by taking some minimum steps to remove themselves from poverty. Looking for work and staying clean of drugs and alcohol is all I would require of people to qualify for this type of coerced charity.

Some people won't be willing to do those things. I still hate to think of them living in streets, but that is the best thing we can do for them - Practice tough love. If they aren't willing to do basic things, they will have to find some other way to get by.

 

[Iriemon]

True poverty will never be gone. Private charity and the improvements gained from stressing personal responsibility will reduce poverty in the long term.

That wasn't working before which is why things like SS and unemployment were enacted. Private charitable funding helps but is woefully insufficient.

Either would I. As long as they are trying I would have no problem with minimum levels of aid.

Which is why I support a minimum wage kind of thing, as imperfect as it is.

The original author of this thread is discussing the type of system where people can get aid by taking some minimum steps to remove themselves from poverty. Looking for work and staying clean of drugs and alcohol is all I would require of people to qualify for this type of coerced charity.

I generally agree that able-bodied people who can work should not be entitled to indefinite welfare. There are situations however where people are willing and able to work but can't find a job.

Some people won't be willing to do those things. I still hate to think of them living in streets, but that is the best thing we can do for them - Practice tough love. If they aren't willing to do basic things, they will have to find some other way to get by.

That doesn't provide an answer to those to old or sick to work, or those who are temporarily out of work because they were laid off and are looking for a new job.

 

[ARealConservative]

That wasn't working before which is why things like SS and unemployment were enacted. Private charitable funding helps but is woefully insufficient.

I disagree with your opinion. Today's system that doesn't reward personal responsibility is woefully insufficient. Nothing indicates things are better under today's system. Drug abuse and homelessness is higher then it ever has been. The completely blind application of social programs is the cause.

There are situations however where people are willing and able to work but can't find a job.

We are only discussing people that can work but don't.

That doesn't provide an answer to those to old or sick to work, or those who are temporarily out of work because they were laid off and are looking for a new job.

We are only discussing people that can work but don't.

 

[Iriemon]

I disagree with your opinion. Today's system that doesn't reward personal responsibility is woefully insufficient. Nothing indicates things are better under today's system. Drug abuse and homelessness is higher then it ever has been. The completely blind application of social programs is the cause.

Do you have a source to the assertion that homelessness is higher than it has ever been? Drug use is a different question.

There is no doubt that the rate of poverty amount seniors is far lower than it was before SS. In fact, it is too rich, IMO. The elderly are the richest group of Americans, asset wise. There is no reason our Govt should be paying the dole of about $22k a year to the likes of Warren Buffet. He doesn't need it and the Govt can't afford it.

We are only discussing people that can work but don't.

I thought the thread was discussing the nature of Govt assistance in general.

If you agree Govt assistence is warranted for the elderly or sick who need it, there is a lot less to discuss.

We are only discussing people that can work but don't.

I agree that Govt should not be supporting people in that category, as you have so narrowly defined it.

There is a big difference as to people that can work but don't versus people that can't work.

 

[ARealConservative]

Do you have a source to the assertion that homelessness is higher than it has ever been? Drug use is a different question.

It's a well know trend, but I can provide a source as soon as you source the claim that this system works better then the old one.

 

[Iriemon]

It's a well know trend, but I can provide a source as soon as you source the claim that this system works better then the old one.

I disagree that your assertion that the homelessness is higher than it has ever been is a well known trend.

As to my assertion that SS has reduced poverty levels among seniors, here's an article discussin that issue.

American Prospect Online - ViewWeb

Another article noting that the poverty rates among seniors when SS was enacted was about 50%, compared to about 10% today.

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[ARealConservative]

I disagree that your assertion that the homelessness is higher than it has ever been is a well known trend.

As to my assertion that SS has reduced poverty levels among seniors, here's an article discussin that issue.

this isn't about SS. Why don't you take a break and reread the article in question. Then get back to us when you can show a little less ignorance about what is being discussed

there would probably still be a disabled benefit and *cough* social security *cough*

 

[Iriemon]

this isn't about SS. Why don't you take a break and reread the article in question. Then get back to us when you can show a little less ignorance about what is being discussed

there would probably still be a disabled benefit and *cough* social security *cough*

OK.

Find a source to back up your highest ever rate of homelessness claim?

 

[ARealConservative]

OK.

Find a source to back up your highest ever rate of homelessness claim?

It's a well know trend, but I can provide a source as soon as you source the claim that this system works better then the old one.

 

[Iriemon]

It's a well know trend, but I can provide a source as soon as you source the claim that this system works better then the old one.

I'm sorry, where did I claim that?

And why are you conditioning your response to my challenge upon me proving something to you first? I had asked you first, and I posted a source to my statement about SS and old age poverty.

 

[Iriemon]

I found data on poverty levels published by the US census Bureau. The data only goes back to 1959, however that was before the "great society" legislation passed in the early 60s.

Poverty levels for individuals are found here:

Historical Poverty Tables

Poverty levels for families are here:

Historical Poverty Tables

Both tables show a significant decline in poverty rates falling from the 20% range in 1959 to about the 10% range by the late 60s, where it stayed ever since. Poverty rates for individuals are a couple points higher.

The rates rose a few points in the 80s, fell back down in starting in 93, and are rising since 2001.

It certainly suggests IMO that the social net programs passed in the early 60s had a significant impact on the poverty rates in this country.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Lowering taxation does not equat to more fiscal responsibility at a time the Govt is borrowing $1/2 trillion a year.

I agree, they both have to be done together, lowering taxation and implementation of a more tolerable budget are two seperate ideas.