And this is why I don’t take people who think Republicans hate poor people seriously. Most of this crap was put in place by Democrats who just either don’t understand math, or knew what they were doing and it suited their purposes.
Could you imagine the paperwork? And the back payments and estimated payments and all that crap. Whew. I agree, but the government would have to be fixed first.
I don’t think it should be that terribly hard to do. Really, just make it a much more graduated curve, rather than a cliff. You could create a formula such that the total income (of pay and benefits and “welfare”) would be a slight incline up to the point where you are off assistance (and your personal incline becomes steeper).
It won’t happen, of course, since that would actually be a net decrease for a lot of people (“GOP Shifts Benefits from Poor to Rich”), unless we’re planning to give people “needs-based assistance” until they hit 70k. Which is ridiculous, since my family is doing just fine with a mortgage payment and everything on just my income which is less than 70k even including the untaxed housing allowances and whatnot.
The mathematically possible solutions and the politically possible solutions do not have a whole lot of overlap.
I did actually read a reasonable article in Salon the other day about a $15 minimum wage, and how in 90% of the country it’s pretty stupid. Not everyone lives in NYC, LA, Seattle or DC. $15 an hour in small town Indiana is cash money income. Hell, I know some farmers would be sending their kids to work McDonalds to make it through the summer instead of helping on the farm.
I get stuck on the $15 number anyway, since at it’s highest it was $10.19 or so in 2012 dollars in 1968. The average is $7.09 or so since it was started.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Seriously, no matter what we do, 20% of the country will be at the bottom 20% in earnings. The “poverty level” has been creeping up and up, until it includes people which home mortgages and car payments. Would you rather be poor in India, Africa, China, Indonesia, or the US? People that are poor in other countries don’t fucking eat. In the US you have to either almost try to be that poor, or be caught between income brackets like the graph shows.
If you live in the United States, you are probably part of the 1%. Or at least the 3%. Lots of people need to check their privilege if we’re going to be real about things.
You said it.
And the GOP would be pissed that the benefit programs weren’t completely eradicated completely, and would scream about welfare queens and fraud.
No they wouldn’t. No more than the Democrats want everyone pulling a government check. There is a ton of fraud, I don’t know why that’s a GOP issue only, the more you save from fraud the more there is to give out. I think everyone agrees that there should be a safety net.
Quite a few people contend that it’s become a safety hammock. Public assistance should not be comfortable that anyone would actually want to stay on it. No getting your hair done, or nails, or your new iPhone bedazzled. It should be annoying to be on public aid, and it should be difficult to be classified disabled (And once you are it should be easy to get aid, but difficult to stay disabled.)
No, there isn’t. The amount of actual fraud is actually very very low. But politicians love to come up with anecdotal evidence, as if it were the norm and it was widespread because they say so.
It’s worse than that. It’s humiliating, time-consuming, and extremely frustrating.
You mean like waiting two years, with no income, and through four or five denials for ridiculous reasons?
You’re on medication, so it can’t be that bad.
The process is cruel and denigrating. My entire life was under a microscope, as Social Security searched for any petty reason to deny my case. I had bureaucrats questioning my sex life, for heaven’s sake. The judge attempted to dismiss every facet of my case with “well, you’re just not on the right medication” and “it can’t be that bad, if you were able to make it to the hearing today.”
Like having to go through another hearing every 1-2 years, which is just as humiliating and stressful as the original process? It is impossible these days to get through the process without a lawyer. And the lawyers tell their clients “You will be denied the first time, and most likely the next time as well.”
The entire process is not based on whether an applicant is disabled. It’s a race to see who will give up first. It’s meant to force the applicant to take on any work possible to afford to live, which then disqualifies them, whether or not the applicant is able to keep the job. And if it’s self-employed work, like cleaning houses or walking dogs, the applicant is assumed to be falsely reporting the amount of income.
The doctors that applicants are sent to by SSA are paid to recommend against approval. They are paid to make those exams as short as possible, so that the facts of the case can not be adequately determined.
The process is not easy, and people on disability face an insane amount of scrutiny on a monthly basis.
@Woodman, this is something you don’t know anything about.
Never mind.
Whoops.
Hillary calls out Walker on College costs and how he is making it harder to afford like the rest of the GOP.
Walker replies that He’s frozen in-state tuition rates for four years, while Hillary charges colleges $225k just to show up.
I’ve been reading through the judgment on the Oregon bakers case. Maybe I’m a geek, but I find it fascinating.
I also find it hilarious that all the hoopla has deliberately left out some vital facts. One of them is that the bakers, following their rejection of the lesbian couple, then published on Facebook the first page of the complaint form, which plainly listed the women’s names and address. The judge had awarded damages based on the pain and suffering the women experienced because of the publicity the bakers forced on them, as well as the constant denigrating statements the bakers made about the couple on radio, television, and social media, all the way up to the hearing date (which the bakers kept stalling on, while demanding a shit-ton of personal information from the couple).
The other tidbit is… eye-opening. The claims of unconstitutionally forcing the bakers to violate their religion are dismissed under a long-standing precedent straight from the Supreme Court itself. And it’s a very telling argument.
People keep claiming that these non-discrimination laws violate “Christians’” freedom of religion. But it’s pointed out in this judgment that it doesn’t, because it is applied equally to Christians and non-Christians.
This is a hilarious point. These same people have been insisting that the “one man one woman” laws and amendments were not discriminating, because gays are still free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Except it has been proven (by common sense, among other things) that this is discriminatory, because it disallows gays from participating equally in vital public and private endeavors.
So these so-called Christians insist that they are being discriminated against, on a law that is equally applied to all. Nobody gets to discriminate. Nobody. And then they say that gays are getting discriminated against, because they can still get married, which is patently untrue.
These bakers need to bake two cakes. One to have and one to eat.
Stupid fucker is stupid, news at 11.
I remember it was a right wing plot to increase governmental control of the people too.
Parents of children who died at Sandy Hook can find Jones in Franklin, Kentucky, but should be forewarned that he is an open carry advocate.
I can’t quite parse who is being threatened here. I wouldn’t have put it in my article, but I would have added a bit more mockery of an obvious idiot.
The only questions I had about Sandy Hook were why didn’t the Fire Department respond. Kids were running to the Fire Department before or around when the 911 call was being made. Seems like people still haven’t internalized that these things are all hands on deck get going and get the bad guy events.
Well, the “you can find him” is about where to go to show your proof and get your money, I believe. The “open carry advocate” might be a “but if you knock on his door, he might shoot you instead”.
It would be hilarious if every parent or relative of a victim was to show up, because he’s not asking for the first person to offer proof, it’s “anyone”. Which means all-comers. And he would not fare well in court.
I read that whole article thinking he was asking for proof it was a liberal plot.
Derp.
I’m not happy with the comments. Too many ad hominem attacks and blatant denigrating generalizations (trailer parks, mom’s basement, pickup trucks, etc.).
Welcome to the internet.
Yeah, I know. And after I commented about the attacks, I got accused of being a conservative and a Tea Partier. And then that old saw “you’re being too sensitive”.
And this is what creates more polarization, and more “undecided” voters.
I’ll confess, I have thought about doing things like this in the past.
Amazing the things you find when doing research on a different subject altogether. I’m not surprised we haven’t heard more about this.
http://www.international.gc.ca/media/comm/news-communiques/2015/06/04c.aspx?lang=eng
The Huckster exposes himself for what he really is.