• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Work or Welfare: What Pays More?

RDS

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
1,323
Location
Singapore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Think this is already up around here somewhere on the forum - slightly different tiele and not under academia.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Think this is already up around here somewhere on the forum - slightly different tiele and not under academia.
I haven't see it and it sure needed a bump. What a travesty. There's no incentive to work if you would rather stay home and play video games.
 

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
3,694
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The official term for welfare is Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The keyword in that title is temporary.

"There is a 60-month limit on the receipt of Family Assistance benefits funded under the federal TANF program (the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC) program), some Safety Net Assistance (SNA) or the Child Assistance Program (CAP). Additionally, a payment for regular maintenance needs under the Emergency Assistance to Families with Children (EAF) for the month of December 1996, or any month thereafter, are included in the 60-month count. Participants in CAP are also restricted to the 60-month lifetime limit."

Temporary Assistance | OTDA

So no, welfare does not last forever as some would like to think.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
You are assuming people care about the expiration of welfare? Seriously? You think these people give a rats back side about when it ends and are doing what they need to get quality jobs and move ahead? What is the time restraint on food stamps? Section 8 support, oh and he didn't even mention the 11 million people on disability we pay for permanently tax free.


The official term for welfare is Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The keyword in that title is temporary.

"There is a 60-month limit on the receipt of Family Assistance benefits funded under the federal TANF program (the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC) program), some Safety Net Assistance (SNA) or the Child Assistance Program (CAP). Additionally, a payment for regular maintenance needs under the Emergency Assistance to Families with Children (EAF) for the month of December 1996, or any month thereafter, are included in the 60-month count. Participants in CAP are also restricted to the 60-month lifetime limit."

Temporary Assistance | OTDA

So no, welfare does not last forever as some would like to think.
 

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
3,694
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You are assuming people care about the expiration of welfare? Seriously? You think these people give a rats back side about when it ends and are doing what they need to get quality jobs and move ahead? What is the time restraint on food stamps? Section 8 support, oh and he didn't even mention the 11 million people on disability we pay for permanently tax free.
Do you have any evidence that welfare is indefinite?

Also, disability is not welfare.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I disagree that disability is not welfare. Its certainly not in every or even the majority of cases, but I have seen cases where I call it just that. In fact I've seen one close enough in my family to make me puke. Also I asked how long do food stamps last? I've never gotten a food stamp so I don't know? Is it not permanent or indefinite? I know there are welfare services that have time limits, but there are some that don't - or at least I've never heard that they do. How long does the govt obamaphone last? How long will obamacare give away health insurance to people that can't afford it? It looks to me like more welfare distributions are indefinite than not?


Do you have any evidence that welfare is indefinite?

Also, disability is not welfare.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,728
Reaction score
33,060
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The official term for welfare is Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The keyword in that title is temporary.

"There is a 60-month limit on the receipt of Family Assistance benefits funded under the federal TANF program (the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC) program), some Safety Net Assistance (SNA) or the Child Assistance Program (CAP). Additionally, a payment for regular maintenance needs under the Emergency Assistance to Families with Children (EAF) for the month of December 1996, or any month thereafter, are included in the 60-month count. Participants in CAP are also restricted to the 60-month lifetime limit."

Temporary Assistance | OTDA

So no, welfare does not last forever as some would like to think.
And as is well known, populaces who make the decisions that tend to leave them in poverty are also likely to plan their behavior in line with five-year plans for personal improvement.


But, if you are a recently laid off low-skill worker, why would you go back to a crappy position and try to work your way up in this economy, when you can reasonably say to yourself that you're just going to wait until the economy (and employment) improves enough for you to make more working than on welfare? Especially if you have five years - why would you reduce your living circumstances?
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
And as is well known, populaces who make the decisions that tend to leave them in poverty are also likely to plan their behavior in line with five-year plans for personal improvement.


But, if you are a recently laid off low-skill worker, why would you go back to a crappy position and try to work your way up in this economy, when you can reasonably say to yourself that you're just going to wait until the economy (and employment) improves enough for you to make more working than on welfare? Especially if you have five years - why would you reduce your living circumstances?
Because (a) you can't get TANF unless you have kids, and (b) the OPs figures are pure rubbish, debunked on another thread, and by economists. The Cato institute hacks put out one of these welfare pays more than work every few years. It's lights up the rghtwing blogosphere, but its pure Reaganesque agitprop.

Jesus.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
3,694
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And as is well known, populaces who make the decisions that tend to leave them in poverty are also likely to plan their behavior in line with five-year plans for personal improvement.


But, if you are a recently laid off low-skill worker, why would you go back to a crappy position and try to work your way up in this economy, when you can reasonably say to yourself that you're just going to wait until the economy (and employment) improves enough for you to make more working than on welfare? Especially if you have five years - why would you reduce your living circumstances?
So, do you have any evidence that welfare is indefinite?


I disagree that disability is not welfare. Its certainly not in every or even the majority of cases, but I have seen cases where I call it just that. In fact I've seen one close enough in my family to make me puke. Also I asked how long do food stamps last? I've never gotten a food stamp so I don't know? Is it not permanent or indefinite? I know there are welfare services that have time limits, but there are some that don't - or at least I've never heard that they do. How long does the govt obamaphone last? How long will obamacare give away health insurance to people that can't afford it? It looks to me like more welfare distributions are indefinite than not?
Food stamps do have a time limit.

"SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program." (SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities)
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I've seen people get food stamps a LOT longer than 3 months. Try $700 a month for 4 years and I was trying to turn him in. When they started scamming unemployment they finally lost it. They'd claim family members were unemployed and just stop paying them to gather 99 weeks of free income. They owned 3 I've cream franchises and just moved them store to store while under reporting their income today o taxes.


So, do you have any evidence that welfare is indefinite?




Food stamps do have a time limit.

"SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program." (SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities)
 

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
3,694
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I've seen people get food stamps a LOT longer than 3 months. Try $700 a month for 4 years and I was trying to turn him in. When they started scamming unemployment they finally lost it. They'd claim family members were unemployed and just stop paying them to gather 99 weeks of free income. They owned 3 I've cream franchises and just moved them store to store while under reporting their income today o taxes.
1) That's anecdotal evidence so it really doesn't count and 2) No system is perfect, there are always going to be those that abuse the system and get away with it.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,728
Reaction score
33,060
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, do you have any evidence that welfare is indefinite?
That depends on your state and what your benefit is, but you are creating a strawman, as I explicitly was pointing out that long-term planning (ie: past 5 years) is not a hallmark of our poorer populaces, and that for those workers who can convince themselves that better economic conditions will result in better employment within the 5-year window, choosing welfare over lower-paying employment is still a rational choice. When you are able to respond to that, please let me know.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,728
Reaction score
33,060
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
1) That's anecdotal evidence so it really doesn't count and 2) No system is perfect, there are always going to be those that abuse the system and get away with it.
In this age of heightened economic challenges, more people are seeking food stamps due to unemployment. This requires paperwork and an interview, but is not as difficult to accomplish as it might initially sound.


It turns out, you just have to claim to be looking for work. In fact, we have a problem with people illegally pushing people to take food stamps whenever they sign up for any other government aid program.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
That simple, anecdotal evidence FLEW IN THE FACE of what you presented as fact - which was therefor wrong. I really have to wonder why you'd come on and post lies to defend welfare?


1) That's anecdotal evidence so it really doesn't count and 2) No system is perfect, there are always going to be those that abuse the system and get away with it.
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That simple, anecdotal evidence FLEW IN THE FACE of what you presented as fact - which was therefor wrong. I really have to wonder why you'd come on and post lies to defend welfare?
You do know what "anecdotal evidence" is right? Your strenuous assertion doesn't change what Mr. Invs said which, incidentally was right. Someones personal experience doesn't, in the overall scheme of things mean squat, and even if it's true, in a system that large, there will always be some cheaters, but that's not enough justification to suspend the entire system.

Now, for the record, I'm not defending welfare, per se. In theory I support the concept, but in practice i recognize it needs work.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It was said that food stamps are a 3 month program. That was proven false.

I support welfare as well. It is unfortunately just like our tax code and easily abused. I would like there to be a reasonable safety net for people that need it - not a family of franchise owners who can make up phony Profit and Loss statements and enjoy thousands in food stamps and unemployment insurance. What is worse is that the system enables these people and their only crime is under reporting the income and working under the table - neither which our govt cares to prove.


You do know what "anecdotal evidence" is right? Your strenuous assertion doesn't change what Mr. Invs said which, incidentally was right. Someones personal experience doesn't, in the overall scheme of things mean squat, and even if it's true, in a system that large, there will always be some cheaters, but that's not enough justification to suspend the entire system.

Now, for the record, I'm not defending welfare, per se. In theory I support the concept, but in practice i recognize it needs work.
 

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
3,694
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That depends on your state and what your benefit is, but you are creating a strawman, as I explicitly was pointing out that long-term planning (ie: past 5 years) is not a hallmark of our poorer populaces, and that for those workers who can convince themselves that better economic conditions will result in better employment within the 5-year window, choosing welfare over lower-paying employment is still a rational choice. When you are able to respond to that, please let me know.
I am not creating a strawman. The original argument was over whether or not welfare was indefinite.


That simple, anecdotal evidence FLEW IN THE FACE of what you presented as fact - which was therefor wrong. I really have to wonder why you'd come on and post lies to defend welfare?
The facts that I posted were correct. You have no actual evidence to back up what you are saying, thus you go to anecdotal evidence. Call me when you have actual evidence that welfare is indefinite.

In this age of heightened economic challenges, more people are seeking food stamps due to unemployment. This requires paperwork and an interview, but is not as difficult to accomplish as it might initially sound.


It turns out, you just have to claim to be looking for work. In fact, we have a problem with people illegally pushing people to take food stamps whenever they sign up for any other government aid program.
On a state level, the work requirements are different.

On a national level, there are work requirements.

"The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits." (US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens)
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Don't you love it when leftist result to "call me" and "can't prove" when they can't do it either. FACT is people are living off social services of this country; I've given 2 distinct and personal examples. You can claim some rules in one place but they don't apply to the reality.

We have people who were once addicted to pain meds (not ongoing) living off disability, we have small business owners living off food stamps and unemployment insurance - I've seen both first hand and even tried to get both stopped to no avail. These events are not temporary. So your claim to society that welfare is temporary is absurd, false and lying in the worst political order.


I am not creating a strawman. The original argument was over whether or not welfare was indefinite.




The facts that I posted were correct. You have no actual evidence to back up what you are saying, thus you go to anecdotal evidence. Call me when you have actual evidence that welfare is indefinite.



On a state level, the work requirements are different.

On a national level, there are work requirements.

"The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits." (US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens)
 

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
5,390
Reaction score
3,694
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Don't you love it when leftist result to "call me" and "can't prove" when they can't do it either. FACT is people are living off social services of this country; I've given 2 distinct and personal examples. You can claim some rules in one place but they don't apply to the reality.

We have people who were once addicted to pain meds (not ongoing) living off disability, we have small business owners living off food stamps and unemployment insurance - I've seen both first hand and even tried to get both stopped to no avail. These events are not temporary. So your claim to society that welfare is temporary is absurd, false and lying in the worst political order.
You have yet to provide non-anecdotal evidence that welfare is not temporary.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
20,388
Reaction score
11,954
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
From one of the Cato sources (updated look at welfare packages)

"There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy or do not wish to work. At the same time, however, the evidence suggests that many are reluctant to accept available employment opportunities."

"Many welfare recipients, even those receiving the highest level of benefits, are doing everything they can to find employment and leave the welfare system. Still, it is undeniable that for many recipients— especially long-term dependents—welfare pays more than the type of entry level job that a typical welfare recipient can expect to find. As long as this is true, many recipients are likely to choose welfare over work."

That's the point of the article. The nuance of these "long-term dependents" is either accurately conveyed by Cato or not, but I think overall it's a minor point either way.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
20,388
Reaction score
11,954
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
On a state level, the work requirements are different.
On a national level, there are work requirements.
"The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits." (US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens)
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/theworkversus.pdf
Moreover, as noted above, the "work activity" requirement is often satisfied by activities other than actual work. Less than 42 percent of welfare recipients are engaged in some form of work activity (though some of those recipients are engaged in more than one such activity). As Figure 3 shows, job training, continuing education, and even job search all meet the law’s requirement for "work."

However, actual work participation under this requirement varies widely by state. Some jurisdictions, such as California and the District of Columbia, use their own funds to continue benefits for recipients who do not meet federal work requirements. States are also able to exempt up to 20 percent of their recipients under "hardship" exemptions.



 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
From one of the Cato sources (updated look at welfare packages)

"There is no evidence that people on welfare are lazy or do not wish to work. At the same time, however, the evidence suggests that many are reluctant to accept available employment opportunities."

"Many welfare recipients, even those receiving the highest level of benefits, are doing everything they can to find employment and leave the welfare system. Still, it is undeniable that for many recipients— especially long-term dependents—welfare pays more than the type of entry level job that a typical welfare recipient can expect to find. As long as this is true, many recipients are likely to choose welfare over work."

That's the point of the article. The nuance of these "long-term dependents" is either accurately conveyed by Cato or not, but I think overall it's a minor point either way.
This makes a strong argument for higher minimum wage. Exactly what CATO's against.

But CATO's figures are a mélange of mixed up definitions swept into the rubric of "welfare". You can't get TANF unless you have children and the number of TANF recipients is small, and most of them are 8 years old.

So CATO's "study" plugs in all kinds of government benefits to count as "welfare" in order to reach the result it wanted. But if you are going to do that, let's plug in benefits that corporations receive, or veterans, or hedgefund managers? But if CATO did that, the whole argument would fall apart.

CATO even brings up the EIC -- a policy that was invented by conservatives and implemented by Reagan.

A typical CATO hit piece with no scientific value.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom