Angery people.

Robbie said:

In reply to EastCoastMojo :

What's REALLY ironic about third parties is that they are usually more extreme than the party they break from. And then they usually destroy their "own" party in the next election by cutting it's own votes down just enough to let the other "unified" party win.

I'd love to see a moderate party (they woukd run the world as they would become the "swing" vote on every issue), and i think some current parties are sorta close, but I don't know how they get from "exists" to "legit".

Good point. Interesting how some countries make coalition parties to rule the country through compromise and agreement.  

Tax burden per GDP dollar by stateIn reply to frenchyd :

Don’t you find it extremely annoying that the states with the highest tax rates also have the strongest economies and  highest wages?  

States with the low tax rates ( or no state taxes) have the lowest wages and weakest economies?  

Hmmm I’m pretty sure it works that way in Most industrial nations as well.  

Plus it’s got to be down right frustrating about the happiness factor of all those European countries with high tax rates!  

What’s worse, is they with their high taxes are taller than Americans are.  

I don't think that is accurate. I also Think there is quite a bit of correlation rather than causation. There are some high tax states with strong economies, but there are also plenty of low tax states with strong economies. Sure, California and New York have strong economies, and are currently high tax states. But so do Texas and South Dakota. Let's look at California for example. Strong economy, high tax rate. Which came first? California's tax rate was relatively moderate until the early 90's, when it started it's climb. California's strong economy was well established before then. They raised taxes, because they could. There is a lot of data to compare, but after a quick look, I'd say taxes are a large factor in the economy, but there are lots of other factors. California is a pretty nice place to live, and people are willing to pay a bit extra to live there- to a point. I would like to mention that people are starting to take their money and run to more tax friendly states, as they have done for years in New York. 

Highest wages is also an inaccurate indicator. High cost of living offsets high wages. At least until you cash out and leave the state.

I think it is more of a state to state issue, and it's difficult to make direct comparisons. Each state has a different tolerance level of cost of operation and living. We really should compare differences within the same states over time to get a clearer picture. But to compare states, this is the only data I could find that appears to touch the question. Again, this doesn't take a lot of other factors into consideration...

Tax burden per GDP dollar by state

In reply to frenchyd :

Boost_Crazy said:

The Christian Right sure seems intent on keeping their wealth and not doing what Jesus tells them to do . Something  about eye of a needle,  a camel, and a rich man getting into heaven?  

But don’t worry the poor don’t get much.  My late wife worked for welfare for 40 years.  She was always at the bottom of the pay scale.  

Most welfare people were mothers who’s husbands had run off and left them and the kids. Average stay on welfare was 17 months.  Miserable life. 

Some poor schmucks were on it all their lives.  Usually serious medical condition.  Cancer, spinal bifida, mental retardation, MS,  Well you can find it out if you want to.  They break all that stuff down 

My late wife was part of enforcement. She kept records etc  to make sure nobody cheated the system.  10 cents out of every welfare dollar was spent that way.  

Labels don't help, and inaccurate broad generalities don't either. Leads to the whole division thing. 

I'm fine with a person being as generous or stingy as they want with their money. I'm fine with society judging them as they see fit by their actions. Not okay with dictating how generous a person must be. Even less okay with taking their money to do what I think is right with it. I've seen both sides from pretty much every group and type of person, generosity is definitely not exclusive to any group. 

I don't hate welfare. I think it should be a valuable tool to lift up those without help and get them on the right path to becoming contributing members of society. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be set up that way. It appears to be configured in such a way to promote reliance and not encourage growth. I've known people who have used it as intended, who have gone on to lead successful lives. But more often, I've found that it allowed people who were less than ambitious a level of comfort that prevented them from seeking greater achievement. Worse, the ones the genuinely wanted to do better, but were not very good at it, were dissuaded from trying. A starter job was not enough to replace the welfare. So instead of taking that stepping stone to better employment, they did nothing or worked under the table, both of which have limited career advancement paths. I've rarely seen welfare change someone's life. But on many occasions, I've seen a generous employer or business owner take a chance on a person who could use a hand up. 

Now, people who are not physically or mentally able to care for themselves is another matter. I do feel that it is the duty of society to care for those who cannot help themselves. 

Well said. I know that nothing is perfect. It’s all to easy to point to any  flaws  and demonize everything. That goes for both sides and every group.   

In fact that’s what I find so disheartening. I’m not down the line with any points my side has.  Hopefully you recognize it by my suggestions on how to revise the tax system.  

My friends who are on the other side are much the same way. They agree with this but not that. This is really important to them but they don’t think that part is even correct.  

I suspect the vast majority muddle on somewhere in the middle perhaps a little more this way than that. 

Yes there are extremists in any group!  But at least everyone here is nuts about cars.  

I think the country overall is much more moderate than those on both sides would admit, and that the loudest voices report. Our country operates in a pretty narrow band of the political spectrum, even as each side portrays the other as extreme. I think it's part of the divisionary tactic to try to keep people on their side. And it works. Which is too bad, because I think open and honest discussions are more productive than just siding with a camp. 

Boost_Crazy said:

Tax burden per GDP dollar by stateIn reply to frenchyd :

Don’t you find it extremely annoying that the states with the highest tax rates also have the strongest economies and  highest wages?  

States with the low tax rates ( or no state taxes) have the lowest wages and weakest economies?  

Hmmm I’m pretty sure it works that way in Most industrial nations as well.  

Plus it’s got to be down right frustrating about the happiness factor of all those European countries with high tax rates!  

What’s worse, is they with their high taxes are taller than Americans are.  

I don't think that is accurate. I also Think there is quite a bit of correlation rather than causation. There are some high tax states with strong economies, but there are also plenty of low tax states with strong economies. Sure, California and New York have strong economies, and are currently high tax states. But so do Texas and South Dakota. Let's look at California for example. Strong economy, high tax rate. Which came first? California's tax rate was relatively moderate until the early 90's, when it started it's climb. California's strong economy was well established before then. They raised taxes, because they could. There is a lot of data to compare, but after a quick look, I'd say taxes are a large factor in the economy, but there are lots of other factors. California is a pretty nice place to live, and people are willing to pay a bit extra to live there- to a point. I would like to mention that people are starting to take their money and run to more tax friendly states, as they have done for years in New York. 

Highest wages is also an inaccurate indicator. High cost of living offsets high wages. At least until you cash out and leave the state.

I think it is more of a state to state issue, and it's difficult to make direct comparisons. Each state has a different tolerance level of cost of operation and living. We really should compare differences within the same states over time to get a clearer picture. But to compare states, this is the only data I could find that appears to touch the question. Again, this doesn't take a lot of other factors into consideration...

Tax burden per GDP dollar by state

Valid point, which came first? Prosperity or high taxes?  

Likely prosperity brought wealth and with wealth came the ability to do more.  Solve harder problems or at least mitigate the worst damage.  

In the end that is the goal of any social issue

Let’s look at the classic social failure, Booze.   We tried to outlaw booze and as a result made things worse. Luckily the nation wasn’t so divided that we couldn’t cancel our attempt and return.  

I think we should do that about drugs too.  A certain number of people will always abuse drugs. No matter how much money we throw at it to try to keep it from happening. Let’s admit failure and try a different approach.  

Society is slowly coming to the realization on marijuana.  Poor demon weed.  Vilified by being put in with really hard drugs.  slowly reasonable people are learning to ignore  the extremists and have begun to legalize it.  

I’ve often wondered if we tried a modified version of that on every drug issue.  Would society be better or worse?  Instead of a war with Columbia and Afghanistan try just buying it and selling it in controlled fashion here in the states.   Keep laws regarding selling controlled substances on the books and enforced but sell it legally in certain locations or by prescription with proceeds going to treatment. In other words make the problem pay for itself.  

What are we spending on the war on drugs?  $800 billion a year?  Sounds to me like a practical solution to a problem. 

I'm of the opinion to legalize drugs, tax 'em, use those funds to establish treatment clinics, and educate people about drug risks. It could reduce violent crime, eliminate deaths due to drugs cut with poison and raise revenue. Not to mention ease the burden on our prison system.

EastCoastMojo said:

I'm of the opinion to legalize drugs, tax 'em, use those funds to establish treatment clinics, and educate people about drug risks. It could reduce violent crime, eliminate deaths due to drugs cut with poison and raise revenue. Not to mention ease the burden on our prison system.

As long as the US prison system is a "for profit" enterprise - good luck with that... 

Ian F said:

EastCoastMojo said:

I'm of the opinion to legalize drugs, tax 'em, use those funds to establish treatment clinics, and educate people about drug risks. It could reduce violent crime, eliminate deaths due to drugs cut with poison and raise revenue. Not to mention ease the burden on our prison system.

As long as the US prison system is a "for profit" enterprise - good luck with that... 

I don’t think the for profit prison industry would benefit with a legalized drug system.  Most doing long terms for selling drugs would be tossed to the street once legal  ( assuming no violence in connection with their arrest) and considering what a large percentage of the prison population that makes there would be a lot of vacant beds.  

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

What you said about welfare becoming a way of life for some is true.  Now my late wife would show you that most on welfare were single white women with kids  who’s husbands/ boyfriends ran off on them. 

She’d also point out that on average they remained on welfare 17 months.  

In the 1990’s that was going down. At one point to 9.6 months.  The reason is 2 fold, the economy was stronger and they passed a 5 year law. 

Able bodied persons were given tests to see what limits and abilities they had. Then if they needed schooling or OJT the system provided day care while they got what was needed.  

In any case if able bodied a 5 year limit was in place as a motivator. Part of a social workers job was to overcome obstructions   to  self independence. Transportation? Housing? Training?  Just finding a job?  

It worked wonderfully!  But it cost more.  Bottom line income tax from newly hired offset the added costs. 

However shortly after the next election that program ended and the newly hired social workers added to the unemployment.  The last numbers my late wife showed me  were back to 17 months  with 7.3% on long  term  basis. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Nah....war on drugs expenditures around $31 billion...not 800 billion.

In reply to Ovid_and_Flem :

What are you counting? Just the military expenditures?  Anything for added border security?  How much of the CIA’s budget is used?  What about prison costs for drug offenders? 

How about local costs?  

In reply to frenchyd :

 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

What you said about welfare becoming a way of life for some is true.  Now my late wife would show you that most on welfare were single white women with kids  who’s husbands/ boyfriends ran off on them. 

She’d also point out that on average they remained on welfare 17 months.  

In the 1990’s that was going down. At one point to 9.6 months.  The reason is 2 fold, the economy was stronger and they passed a 5 year law. 

Able bodied persons were given tests to see what limits and abilities they had. Then if they needed schooling or OJT the system provided day care while they got what was needed.  

In any case if able bodied a 5 year limit was in place as a motivator. Part of a social workers job was to overcome obstructions   to  self independence. Transportation? Housing? Training?  Just finding a job?  

It worked wonderfully!  But it cost more.  Bottom line income tax from newly hired offset the added costs. 

However shortly after the next election that program ended and the newly hired social workers added to the unemployment.  The last numbers my late wife showed me  were back to 17 months  with 7.3% on long  term  basis. 

Good points. I certainly didn't see as much as your wife, but my personal experiences have shaped my opinions. 

In an earlier career, I employed low wage workers. My biggest competitor for labor was welfare. Why come work for me for 8 hours a day when they could sit at home and wait for a check? Better yet, work a few hours here and there under the table, and wait for the check? Lots of interviewees never showed up. Many that did point blank told me they don't want the job, they just need to show that they are looking. The sad thing was that for those who chose not to work, it was a rude awakening when the well ran dry. Not many employers said "so I see that you spent the last 5 years on welfare, and now you are too good for an entry level job. I've got a management position for you."

I also saw the flip side of the coin. The people who were willing to stick it out and work hard, and either move up or move on to higher paying jobs. They worked multiple jobs, pooled their resources and helped each other out, and lifted themselves up together. 

On a personal note, I grew up in the deadbeat dad situation that you described. My mom worked her rear off to support my brother and I. She was a waitress when she kicked him to the curb. She was left with two kids and a mountain of debt that he racked up. She chose the path of hard work. It was really tough for a bit, but she moved up to better jobs. We lived modestly, but were very happy. She did better and better, but she stuck to the principals that she learned during the tough times. She was able to save up and buy a house, something unimaginable a few years prior. Most importantly, she passed those traits on to my brother and I. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Read what I wrote and what I quoted again... 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Good for you!  We both understand hard work. I had my father as an example.  My mother is the one that left.  So I understand it has little to do with gender.  

Figuring out people is a whole lot harder. No one will ever convince me there aren’t lazy people out there. So should we force everyone to starve because there is some abuse of the system? 

The young mother with the baby and no  way to support her and the kid?   Often day care costs more than you can earn at an entry level job when you add the cost of housing food and transportation.

We agree that able bodied people without obligations should just go find a job. But they can’t get welfare.  Now there are perfectly healthy looking people on welfare but they’ve managed to convince   Serious doubting professionals of their handicaps.  Those are cross checked by case workers, enforcement professionals, and various people fully aware of the particulars of the case. 

The public just sees them as healthy looking people.  

The other part of welfare is that you can’t have any resources.  My sister got left with her son and no way to care for him.  She applied but had too much to qualify.  To this day she rages against welfare.  On the other hand she got up off the coach.  Found an entry job started from nowhere, went to college and she made a success of her life.  

Ian F said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Read what I wrote and what I quoted again... 

If you are saying the for profit industry will bribe politicians to keep drugs illegal, sad to say you might be right. For profit prisons need prisoners to turn a profit. But at some point the cost of bribing the politicians will exceed the potential profit. 

Politicians are getting a lot more expensive. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Really?   

Ok... let's start again...

ECM says: drugs should be legal.

Ian says: As long as the US prison system is a "for profit" enterprise - good luck with that...

In other words - NO. Entirely opposite of what you think I'm saying. There are multiple industries that have it in their best interests to keep as many drugs as illegal as possible in order to incarcerate the most people and generate the most profits.

Legalize pot in some states, but not others?  Even better. More profits.

If you see something in US society that doesn't seem to make sense, follow the money.  It doesn't matter what subject we're talking: drugs, guns, housing, retirement -whatever. Follow the money.

frenchyed wrote:

“My late wife was part of enforcement. She kept records etc to make sure nobody cheated the system”

Well, I know three people that are on welfare and two are absolute, in your face, blatant scammers and the third claims to be manic depressive which I’m unable to definitively confirm or disprove. However, that person has sued three corporations over the years for classic scam stuff like slipping in their stores and settled for petty amounts suggesting there wasn’t much of a case.

Anyway, even if I’m wildly generous and give that third person the full benefit of the doubt, my first-hand experience is still that two of the three people I know on welfare are committing fraud.

As you may know, I’m a practicing statistician…if we hypothesize that 10% of welfare recipients are scammers, the probability that two of the three welfare recipients I personally know are scammers is only 2.8%...if we hypothesize that 20% are scammers, the odds improve to 11.4%...and if we hypothesize that 30% are scammers, the odds improve further to 21.6%.

Alright, so your claim that “nobody” is cheating is just ridiculous…the truth is that cheating is absolutely rampant.

You’re a good person so I don’t suspect you’re lying - perhaps your state of Minnesota does a better job of combating fraud than my state of California but since 34% of welfare recipients live in California which is about three times the national per capita average (12% of the US population lives in California), how good Minnesota is doesn’t matter very much.

In reply to RX Reven' :

I would not be surprised in the least to find that the California's welfare system has much more fraud than Minnesota. My observations are similar to yours, with much larger sample sizes. The state also heavily promotes it's welfare programs, to the point that it seems to be recruiting. Radio, TV ads, billboards,  you name it. Lots of trying to convince people that they need welfare, and it's easy to get. Someone recently reported on seeing what it was like to sign up for the food assistance program (food stamps.) I'm not sure what it's called now, they change the name every so often. Just looked it up, it's Cal Fresh now. The person went to sign up, and they guided him what to claim to qualify. When he asked how to cancel it when he didn't need it anymore, they couldn't tell him. 

I keep checking back here occasionally, and I'm amazed at the activity. Truly amazing that this keeps going on and on and on. Frenchy, great work!

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to RX Reven' :

I would not be surprised in the least to find that the California's welfare system has much more fraud than Minnesota. My observations are similar to yours, with much larger sample sizes. The state also heavily promotes it's welfare programs, to the point that it seems to be recruiting. Radio, TV ads, billboards,  you name it. Lots of trying to convince people that they need welfare, and it's easy to get. Someone recently reported on seeing what it was like to sign up for the food assistance program (food stamps.) I'm not sure what it's called now, they change the name every so often. Just looked it up, it's Cal Fresh now. The person went to sign up, and they guided him what to claim to qualify. When he asked how to cancel it when he didn't need it anymore, they couldn't tell him. 

Food stamps aren’t welfare.  It’s.a Program that was designed to sell surplus food commodities to the government to hand out to the poor and has been morphed into a marketing aide program. 

Its underutilized because of the humiliation associated with using it. So yes I can imagine they are marketing it. 

To get off it chances are you just stop using it.  Few people will willingly go through the embarrassment of using it if they don’t have to.

Same with food shelf’s.  Go in there with your hat in your hand embarrassed you can’t feed your family.  They do everything they can to make you  feel welcome.  Sure the bread is day old and some stuff is dented cans or mislabeled food.   Often close to expiration or even past expiration.  

No paperwork  usually.  The volunteers who run most of them may know your story before you get there. 

Ian F said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Really?   

Ok... let's start again...

ECM says: drugs should be legal.

Ian says: As long as the US prison system is a "for profit" enterprise - good luck with that...

In other words - NO. Entirely opposite of what you think I'm saying. There are multiple industries that have it in their best interests to keep as many drugs as illegal as possible in order to incarcerate the most people and generate the most profits.

Legalize pot in some states, but not others?  Even better. More profits.

If you see something in US society that doesn't seem to make sense, follow the money.  It doesn't matter what subject we're talking: drugs, guns, housing, retirement -whatever. Follow the money.

You could be right, in fact I suspect you are pretty close to the truth.  I do know that up until very recently the trend has been to close for profit prisons  .  In the last year that trend has been reversing.  

In reply to RX Reven' :

I do know a lot about welfare in Minnesota from my late wife. But I reread what I wrote and it was wrong for me to say there could be no cheating.  Heck as long as there are humans involved there will be cheating. 

But Minnesota spends  10 cents of every dollar  to find fraud. However it might take a while I suppose to detect it and the most common punishment is to  throw them off and stop payment.  Since it costs about $45,000 a year to keep someone in a medium security prison  $ 65,000 in a maximum it doesn’t make sense unless it’s repeated 

In reply to RX Reven' :

The solution to welfare is well proven and simple 

but I suspect you’d hate it!  

If you want to reduce welfare cheats spend a lot of money to catch them.  But what does it cost to punish them?  It’s a lot more expensive to deal with the legal system and then you have the cost of jails. Those costs make welfare look like chump change

If you want people to work minimum wages need to go up. Seriously a lot higher.   As it is now it costs more than a person can make at above minimum wages  to take care of children while they are working, food clothing and shelter., 

not to mention a mother trusting her children to another person while she works. 

If you hate welfare pay a living wage 

I know that means you need to raise prices and all those issues.  

frenchyd said: ...

If you hate welfare pay a living wage 

I know that means you need to raise prices and all those issues.  

Minimum wage should not be a long term aspiration. It's the bottom level starting point. My kids all worked jobs where they were paid minimum wage, then learned skills and had ambition to advance beyond that. There ARE grants, programs, Free skills training, and other opportunities. Nobody is LOCKED into minimum wage and nobody should expect to raise a family on it.

I understand that some people are broken and can not move in a good direction without a hand pulling them ahead or a boot pushing them from behind. Paying them a few dollars more, as the prices increase, is not going to fix them.

In reply to AAZCD :  Please  start thinking like a chess player. To win you must think several moves ahead.  

As for people being broken. Need a push or swift kick in the pants.Some can’t be fixed  Don’t worry about them. . 

You get the pay raise you deserve. The pay raise you and your parents have sacrificed for. 

 The minimum  wage  needs to be raised so those above minimum wage get the long overdue pay raise we haven’t gotten since the 1970’s.  Owners and top managers ( the 1%) have all gotten massive raises through that whole period.

To the point where the top 3%  own 50% of the wealth in this country.  That is bad economy!!!!! Ubber wealthy don’t need 50% of the refrigerators, furniture,  cars and houses.  So 50% less are being sold.   That means 50% of the factories are shut down. Putting  a lot of people out of work. That puts more pressure on wages  

Yeh,   unemployment is low but how many of the workers are at low wage dead end jobs?  

What the wealthy do with their money is pay insane prices for “art”  simply because they can and we can’t.  OK, if not art, Yachts, private jets, or outlandish homes. 

It’s not about taking money from one group at this point, it’s about putting enough money in every-bodies hands so that if a emergency they can get $1000 which right now 47% of Americans couldn’t do.   If the number goes up to $10,000 like you’d need in a medical emergency. 62% can’t do it without borrowing. 

Remember the 1% have been getting pay raises (adjusted for inflation)  all along while the workers and small businessmen haven’t had a real pay raise since the 1970’s    

Aren't  things a lot more expensive now than back in 1976?  

The rich got rich here, what are they going to do move to Africa where things are better?  The rich can live anyplace. They choose to live here. However their money is invested anyplace in the world where they will get a better rate of return. 

Why do you think most airbags are made in Finland or Japan?  It’s not because of low taxes or cheap labor. 

In reply to frenchyd :

I blame the complete lack of financial education and terrible spending habits of most Americans for the fact that they can't get $1000 in an emergency.

Those same uneducated people with poor spending habits will still struggle to get that money in an emergency if the minimum wage increases. Only after the wage increase, the stuff they'll need to buy will be more expensive, so they'll need more than $1000 now. It will be $1100-$1200 or more. You're not helping their buying power at all because the cost of goods just climbs as wages climb. If they're struggling to make ends meet now, a minimum wage increase isn't likely to fix their problem.

That brings us back to the start of this thread. The problem is not so much the circumstance, it's the behavior of those affected by it. Raising minimum wage ends up being more of a handout than a hand up.