Welfare

[Rage Against the McKee]

Motivation to get off welfare, or to better yourself in general, can come from shame. Shame is a lost tool.

But how many people on welfare feel shame over it? How many of them would even know what it means to feel shame about anything anymore?

If you've ever worked in a grocery store or in retail, how true does the story of the 'man or woman falling on bad times, through no bad decisions of their own, forced to take government assistance' ring to you? Most of the people coming through buying junk with their EBT card or milk and cereal with WIC are people that gave up giving a cac about much of anything quite some time ago. They don't make good decisions. And they don't need to.

When my son was born, we were given assistance from the government.  His mother was in Grad. School and I was working two kitchen jobs to try and pay our bills.  Did we feel a bit ashamed when making people wait in line for our WIC items to be ran though?  Sure, but we were definitely thankful.  But you are right the people who take advantage of the system far outnumber the people who don't.

And like I said in a previous post I am still al for getting rid of government welfare, the aid that we recieved could have just as easily came from a church, or some other means as the government.   

You were working, hard apparently with 2 jobs, and your wife was working her way through her education.  Theoretically, this should allow you to increase your income in the future, which would in the long run be a net gain for the govt through your increased tax rate.  In these cases, it would be considered a worthwhile investment.  Habitual users who do nothing to improve their situation are a completely different story.  It truly is throwing good money after bad.

Completely agree.  This situation is what welfare was intended for.  He needed "temporary" assistance so he could take care of himself and his family while they bettered themselves for the future.  Main problem is, so many people have no intention of bettering themselves and just want the check to continue.  The instance I described above was told to me by a guy that works with land surveyors in Montana.  He had a guy that ran a company tell him that they can't find anyone to take a surveying job.  He said they interview people every week and people tell him all of the time that it isn't worth giving up the benefits  to work for him since the job may not be around forever. (they survey land in counties then move on, when finished.  The current job was for 2 years work, I think)

Can they not get the benefits back after the job goes away? Seems Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to me, though that's probably why they're on welfare in the first place.

[Stupid Fitz]

Motivation to get off welfare, or to better yourself in general, can come from shame. Shame is a lost tool.

But how many people on welfare feel shame over it? How many of them would even know what it means to feel shame about anything anymore?

If you've ever worked in a grocery store or in retail, how true does the story of the 'man or woman falling on bad times, through no bad decisions of their own, forced to take government assistance' ring to you? Most of the people coming through buying junk with their EBT card or milk and cereal with WIC are people that gave up giving a cac about much of anything quite some time ago. They don't make good decisions. And they don't need to.

When my son was born, we were given assistance from the government.  His mother was in Grad. School and I was working two kitchen jobs to try and pay our bills.  Did we feel a bit ashamed when making people wait in line for our WIC items to be ran though?  Sure, but we were definitely thankful.  But you are right the people who take advantage of the system far outnumber the people who don't.

And like I said in a previous post I am still al for getting rid of government welfare, the aid that we recieved could have just as easily came from a church, or some other means as the government.   

You were working, hard apparently with 2 jobs, and your wife was working her way through her education.  Theoretically, this should allow you to increase your income in the future, which would in the long run be a net gain for the govt through your increased tax rate.  In these cases, it would be considered a worthwhile investment.  Habitual users who do nothing to improve their situation are a completely different story.  It truly is throwing good money after bad.

Completely agree.  This situation is what welfare was intended for.  He needed "temporary" assistance so he could take care of himself and his family while they bettered themselves for the future.  Main problem is, so many people have no intention of bettering themselves and just want the check to continue.  The instance I described above was told to me by a guy that works with land surveyors in Montana.  He had a guy that ran a company tell him that they can't find anyone to take a surveying job.  He said they interview people every week and people tell him all of the time that it isn't worth giving up the benefits  to work for him since the job may not be around forever. (they survey land in counties then move on, when finished.  The current job was for 2 years work, I think)

Can they not get the benefits back after the job goes away? Seems Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to me, though that's probably why they're on welfare in the first place.

Not sure how it works really, but I would hope that it isn't really easy to get on welfare?   

[Rage Against the McKee]

Motivation to get off welfare, or to better yourself in general, can come from shame. Shame is a lost tool.

But how many people on welfare feel shame over it? How many of them would even know what it means to feel shame about anything anymore?

If you've ever worked in a grocery store or in retail, how true does the story of the 'man or woman falling on bad times, through no bad decisions of their own, forced to take government assistance' ring to you? Most of the people coming through buying junk with their EBT card or milk and cereal with WIC are people that gave up giving a cac about much of anything quite some time ago. They don't make good decisions. And they don't need to.

When my son was born, we were given assistance from the government.  His mother was in Grad. School and I was working two kitchen jobs to try and pay our bills.  Did we feel a bit ashamed when making people wait in line for our WIC items to be ran though?  Sure, but we were definitely thankful.  But you are right the people who take advantage of the system far outnumber the people who don't.

And like I said in a previous post I am still al for getting rid of government welfare, the aid that we recieved could have just as easily came from a church, or some other means as the government.   

You were working, hard apparently with 2 jobs, and your wife was working her way through her education.  Theoretically, this should allow you to increase your income in the future, which would in the long run be a net gain for the govt through your increased tax rate.  In these cases, it would be considered a worthwhile investment.  Habitual users who do nothing to improve their situation are a completely different story.  It truly is throwing good money after bad.

Completely agree.  This situation is what welfare was intended for.  He needed "temporary" assistance so he could take care of himself and his family while they bettered themselves for the future.  Main problem is, so many people have no intention of bettering themselves and just want the check to continue.  The instance I described above was told to me by a guy that works with land surveyors in Montana.  He had a guy that ran a company tell him that they can't find anyone to take a surveying job.  He said they interview people every week and people tell him all of the time that it isn't worth giving up the benefits  to work for him since the job may not be around forever. (they survey land in counties then move on, when finished.  The current job was for 2 years work, I think)

Can they not get the benefits back after the job goes away? Seems Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to me, though that's probably why they're on welfare in the first place.

Not sure how it works really, but I would hope that it isn't really easy to get on welfare?   

I'm not sure how it works either, but I hear that having a baby or 10 usually works.

[CNS]

Welfare(in MO anyway) used to have a little bit of a schedule to it.  Could only be on so long, and once off, couldn't be back on for a certain amt of time.  I used to work with a guy who was pretty involved at the state level about 10 yrs ago.  Don't know if this is still the case or not.

[Bookcat]

on a separate note...its pretty obvious that the middle class are going to be eliminated in about 10 years.  Making $35k plus benefits is going to be chump change with the cost of food, mortgage/rent rates, and energy growing exponentially. I'd say its safe to predict $5.50 a gallon by 2013.

You're either going to be completely dependent on Government programs to make ends meet, or, you'll hang out at the Country Club.

[Bookcat]

Individuals can receive Food Stamps (SNAP) for two years in any five year period. There is no time limit to how long a family can receive Food Stamps. You will have to reapply, or re-certify, every three to six months.

well that's good. As long as you stay poor, you qualify, and the food remains free. Awesome idea.

[Stupid Fitz]

Welfare(in MO anyway) used to have a little bit of a schedule to it.  Could only be on so long, and once off, couldn't be back on for a certain amt of time.  I used to work with a guy who was pretty involved at the state level about 10 yrs ago.  Don't know if this is still the case or not.

I have heard of families jacking with their addresses to keep a constant flow of goodies coming.

[swish1]

I can only speak for KS but the EBT benefits are only able to be used on food.  Not like the WIC program, which dictates which types of food you can buy.  Still, you can only buy food products; no booze, diapers, tobacco, etc.  And I'm totally torn about the welfare/SRS system.  If you cut them off, children die and crime sky rockets.  If we keep it alive, we enable generations of totally dependant people.  If someone can come up with a perfect program to ween those people off, I'm all for it.

nothing in this statement is true, except for the fact that WIC dictates what types of food you can buy.  you can absolutely  buy booze, diapers, and tobacco on EBT if you have the cash option.  if you only have the food option then all you can buy is lobster, steak, and shrimp...

[LickNeckey]

then you have this

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01hedge.html?_r=1&ref=business

no wonder state pension plans are struggling

[Stupid Fitz]

then you have this

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01hedge.html?_r=1&ref=business

no wonder state pension plans are struggling

Those son of a bitches. How dare they make money off people that don't have to invest money with them. Don't they know they shouldn't be able to do that while there are non rich people out there?

[Bookcat]

then you have this

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01hedge.html?_r=1&ref=business

no wonder state pension plans are struggling

Those son of a bitches. How dare they make money off people that don't have to invest money with them. Don't they know they shouldn't be able to do that while there are non rich people out there?

but what about big payouts to hedge fund managers who's returns were poor to very poor? That effects mainstreet depending on if you invest in these funds.

[Stupid Fitz]

then you have this

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01hedge.html?_r=1&ref=business

no wonder state pension plans are struggling

Those son of a bitches. How dare they make money off people that don't have to invest money with them. Don't they know they shouldn't be able to do that while there are non rich people out there?

but what about big payouts to hedge fund managers who's returns were poor to very poor? That effects mainstreet depending on if you invest in these funds.

Wgaf how much hedge fund managers make? Don't like the fees, move your money.  Should we all demand positive returns on our investments?  Don't get this.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

then you have this

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01hedge.html?_r=1&ref=business

no wonder state pension plans are struggling

Maybe they should stick to investing in corporate and government bonds.

The people responsible for the hedge fund managers earning these fees are the people who enable it.  In a state pension or college endowment these would be the bureaucrats responsible for setting acceptable investment risk parameters for the pension or endowment investment manager.  The Hedge fund manager's fees and charges all disclosed, up front, per securities law.  It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

The fact that some dipshit at the NY Times is writing an article in this context shows you one of two things:  1) the writer at the times is totally clueless about institutional investing, 2) he's baiting idiots like you into getting all upset with "wall street" over something that's totally legal and fully disclosed IN ADVANCE

[Rage Against the McKee]

on a separate note...its pretty obvious that the middle class are going to be eliminated in about 10 years.  Making $35k plus benefits is going to be chump change with the cost of food, mortgage/rent rates, and energy growing exponentially. I'd say its safe to predict $5.50 a gallon by 2013.

You're either going to be completely dependent on Government programs to make ends meet, or, you'll hang out at the Country Club.

And the people at the Country Club will constantly bitch about all of the government programs that everyone else needs to get by.

[LickNeckey]

"he's baiting idiots like you into getting all upset with "wall street" over something that's totally legal and fully disclosed IN ADVANCE"

my point was that many state pension funds now are pushing money into hedge funds and riskier investmenst in hopes of higher returns*.  many of these institutions depend on public pension funds to bankroll their investments.  these decisions are frequently made by small boards or directors in most states with very little transparency as to where the money is being invested and why.

so many of the management fees and 30% return obligations are being taken from public sector retirees who have received little disclosure as to the allocation of their investments

as to your point specifically Fake Dick i would be fine with more states or the fed to set up transparent independent equity funds like south carolina or canada has done recently

*p.s. this move is in most cases necessary as local governments have diverted investments made by public sector employees (as diverted portions of their compensation packages) to other tasks to excuse tax cuts.  

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

then you have this

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01hedge.html?_r=1&ref=business

no wonder state pension plans are struggling

John Paulson, who rose to fame in 2007 with a prescient bet against subprime mortgages, earned a record $4.9 billion in 2010 as a result of a big wager that his fund, Paulson & Company, made on gold.

And there have been some here that make fun of people that invest in gold.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

"he's baiting idiots like you into getting all upset with "wall street" over something that's totally legal and fully disclosed IN ADVANCE"

my point was that many state pension funds now are pushing money into hedge funds and riskier investmenst in hopes of higher returns*.  many of these institutions depend on public pension funds to bankroll their investments.  these decisions are frequently made by small boards or directors in most states with very little transparency as to where the money is being invested and why.

so many of the management fees and 30% return obligations are being taken from public sector retirees who have received little disclosure as to the allocation of their investments

as to your point specifically Fake Dick i would be fine with more states or the fed to set up transparent independent equity funds like south carolina or canada has done recently

*p.s. this move is in most cases necessary as local governments have diverted investments made by public sector employees (as diverted portions of their compensation packages) to other tasks to excuse tax cuts.  

Good, I'm glad you agree the problem is the bureaucrats chasing yield like a 10 cent hooker, and not the hedge fund managers who fully disclose their fee arrangements. 

If those poor, foolish public sector employees don't want their money invested in "secret" by a "small" state board, they should stop giving them their money.  Do you really think the solution to the states mismanagement of money is a private equity fund run by the state?  In all honestly, I think you're seriously misrepresenting this point, but I had to ask.

[LickNeckey]

I think a system such as some Canadian provinces and the state of South Carolina are pursuing could be positive alternatives to pension investment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/business/28carolina.html?_r=1

however i also find it odd that many have huge issues with how the poorest of our country spend meager welfare allowances* but have no problem with hedge fund managers skimming billions off the till from public investments reguardless of fund performance.  during the wisconsin stike situation i was informed by many pundits that those entitlements and pensions were nothing but taxpayer money, so why are we okay with 25 people taking billions of taxpayer dollars or (At $50,000 a year, it would take the salaries of 441,400 Americans to match that sum.)

you say that this should be cool because the fees are known in advance & i understand that a select few were privy to the fees and percentages but i guarantee the vast majority of public sector employees had no knowledge or say in those decisions...


 *(please note that i do not support reckless non-essential spending of welfare dollars)

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Nobody forces anyone to invest money in a hedge fund.  The reason they're fees are so high is that they are historically really rough ridin' good at their job so the fees are worth it.  The first year they suck at it, all the money is withrawn and taken elsewhere.  Did you notice the article didn't mention how those same fund managers did last year or the year before???  Probably because they returned something like 45% when the t-bills yielded 4.5% (not actual numbers).

The article you've cited is a completely different animal than the crap you're complaining about.  If you think that a State can retain someone talented enough to do what these monsters on Wall Street are doing then you're rough ridin' high.  Those guys make as much money in one month as the state could afford to pay a guy in 2 years.

I think it's a bad idea for the state for several reasons:  1) who are they going to blame when their investments crater and the pension is underfunded again, 2) if they bitch about the "egregious" wages of the private sector, how can the attract a decent brain to run the deal without paying an "egregious" was, 3) as a public sector employee, what are you going to think when your boss fucks up your retirement, bosses shouldn't act in a fiduciary capacity with their employee (I realize in practice this isn't how it will work, but in reality it's how it will seem)

[Institutional Control]

https://x.com/ryanmaue/status/1766852771729244472?s=46&t=hU61MNRKQXFa4a831KNtLg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk