Sheriff Joe
DA
IDK and No.
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Sheriff Joe
DA
What does that have to do with the dumbing down of Ca?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Do/did your kids go to private school?
Nearly 40% of the California budget goes to welfare. What that has to do with the Hampton's, Goldman Sachs or Trump escapes me...
When you hear the term “welfare state,” most people think of Europe and countries like Denmark or France. No doubt those countries offer a wide range of benefits targeted to the middle class, retirees and so forth.
But according to a study recently released by the Cato Institute, someone who is poor might just be better off in California.
The federal government currently funds more than 100 anti-poverty programs. While no one participates in all of them, many can and do collect assistance from multiple programs.
In California a mother with two children under the age of 5 who participates in these major welfare programs – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), housing assistance, home energy assistance, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children – would receive a benefits package worth $30,828 per year......
....In fact, California’s welfare system can be more generous than every country included, except Denmark. Moreover, this benefit package doesn’t include Medicaid, which would be worth roughly $4,459 for this household.
One of the problems with these welfare systems is that they can create situations where participants have little incentive to increase work effort because they would lose most of their earnings through lower benefits or higher taxes, while also having to bear the costs, like transportation, associated with going to work. These people would see little tangible improvement in their standard of living by taking up a job, working more hours or moving up the job ladder.
People in these programs are not lazy, but they also are not stupid. Like everyone else, they respond to incentives. If welfare pays better than work, people on welfare will be less likely to work.
http://www.ocregister.com/2015/08/2...-welfare-state-than-most-countries-in-europe/
But according to a study recently released by the Cato Institute, someone who is poor might just be better off in California.
The federal government currently funds more than 100 anti-poverty programs. While no one participates in all of them, many can and do collect assistance from multiple programs.
In California a mother with two children under the age of 5 who participates in these major welfare programs – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), housing assistance, home energy assistance, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children – would receive a benefits package worth $30,828 per year......
....In fact, California’s welfare system can be more generous than every country included, except Denmark. Moreover, this benefit package doesn’t include Medicaid, which would be worth roughly $4,459 for this household.
One of the problems with these welfare systems is that they can create situations where participants have little incentive to increase work effort because they would lose most of their earnings through lower benefits or higher taxes, while also having to bear the costs, like transportation, associated with going to work. These people would see little tangible improvement in their standard of living by taking up a job, working more hours or moving up the job ladder.
People in these programs are not lazy, but they also are not stupid. Like everyone else, they respond to incentives. If welfare pays better than work, people on welfare will be less likely to work.
http://www.ocregister.com/2015/08/2...-welfare-state-than-most-countries-in-europe/
Hey wizbag, I never posted what you have edited below you low-life lying sack of shit.
Lion Eyes said: ↑
The nutter population cries and complains constantly but offers zero solutions for anything. They demonize welfare for the poor but facilitate Corp. welfare all day long. They are convinced the working poor are better represented by large business interests and lash out at regulations meant to protect them from the very people they idolize. They are misguided in every way.
Lion Eyes said: ↑
The nutter population cries and complains constantly but offers zero solutions for anything. They demonize welfare for the poor but facilitate Corp. welfare all day long. They are convinced the working poor are better represented by large business interests and lash out at regulations meant to protect them from the very people they idolize. They are misguided in every way.
You don't understand the system. The reason we have so many immigrants and such favorable welfare benefits is because the wealthy, who control things, like it that way. Why else? We have the most billionaires. It continues to work well when you blame the poor. This state is the best state in the union.
Wez
DA
Source?
Wez
DA
Lol, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually meant to post that, so we could agree on something. I was making you smarter than you are, keeping the peace around here.
Wez
DA
The OC Reg article didn't cite a single source.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Put the crack pipe down.
Wez
DA
Yea, the article written by him didn't cite any sources.
It's more credible without that.
The Cato Institute and the OC Register are not reputable sources?
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/california-more-welfare-state-most-countries-europe
What would you know about credible?
Did you ever site a source for your outrageous claim regarding Robert E. Lee ordering Union officers shot on sight?
Now's your chance Magoo...______________________________
Wez
DA
Let's go slowly because you seem to be having comprehension problems. Nothing you have cited so far on this topic, OC Reg., the author Tanner or your Cato link, has cited a single source for their claims.
You claim CA spends 40% of it's Rev. on welfare, can you show me where you came up with that?
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/
I did say that California spends 40% on welfare...I'll see if I can come up with the article for you.
This article was not an attempt to justify that number, but it is a conclusion from a study conducted by the folks at Cato.
THE SOURCE IS THE CATO INSTITUTE.
The second sentence in the article says as much.
Here according to Cato is how they reach their conclusions:
Cato’s Resources & Outreach
In an era of sound bites and partisanship, Cato remains dedicated to providing clear, thoughtful, and independent analysis on vital public policy issues.
Using all means possible — from blogs, Web features, informative direct mail, op-eds and TV appearances, to conferences, research reports, speaking engagements, and books —
Cato works vigorously to present citizens with incisive and understandable analysis.
Wez
DA
Claiming CA spends 40% of it's Rev. on "welfare" is a shocking statistic, one worthy of verifiation, surely Cato or you can give us something to back it up?
Sheriff Joe
DA
There is only three things wrong with your one sentence, Good, Man and Us, they really don't apply.