Why are we giving money from earners, to sitters?

Is it even constitutional?

This came up during a conversation about minimum wage. I'm all for letting the market set the "minimum wage" rather than having the gov't impose it. An argument was made that we had to make sure that minimum wage was above what someone on welfare would receive...

Why do they receive taxpayer funds at all? Let the local churches and charities handle it.

Dunno. I'm not a constitutional scholar like our President. Is welfare even legit?

Thanks, Guy

It buys votes, that's the main reason it exists.

+1

doesn't matter to them if its constitutional or not. their mantra is "constitution? we don't need no stinking constitution"

Why is the govt responsible when a natural disaster occurs? You either have insurance and provide for yourself or you dont.

I don't see where it's within the scope of the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The 10th Amendment would suggest it's a power delegated to the states.

You're a man after my own heart. No, of course it's not Constitutional, and neither is most of what the government has been doing since FDR.

Hello sherp

We started out with corporate welfare/crony capitalism and then added in foreign welfare entitlements. Those were, and still are, very good things since we need to prop up the most at risk elite in our society and around the world.

The post 1930 welfare we could do with out.

I would support unlimited welfare for all - no time limits either..... but what I call welfare would be a little different than what is offered today.

In my view welfare camps are the answer. Housing and meals provided. No drugs or alcohol and required work or education. Lights out at 10 and trumpets sound at 7 am.

Don't like it? Prefer to be a hood rat? Fine - no soup for you.

silver78, I could live with that at the state level. Constitution doesn't allow welfare at the federal government level, but doesn't, of course, prohibit welfare at the state level. Welfare is supposed to be a state/local/charity type of thing.

Of course, if the federal government wants most people to rely on them for their existence. .....

Of course the limitation should only apply to post 1930 type welfare recipients, not the longer running corporate/welfare variety.

A complete over haul of all of the "takers" is long over due. But of course be prepared for the closeted blue lever pullers and the fake conservatives here to come along and try to convince you their part of the graft is good...it's the "other" takers that are bad....

This is an example of "good" taking...what's a trillion here or there....


http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/issues/detail/pensions

It's always nice to be able to retire early, especially when you can stick the taxpayers with more good "taking" in basically free health care.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/robert-...b-in-public-employee-benefits-1421367030

If you think the time hasn't come to have a real discussion about the trillions of dollars politicians and public employees have been "taking" from the taxpayers then you ain't been paying real good attention.

Don't you think that the fact that those states are Democrat might have something to do with it? If you are suggesting that they are bringing down the entire country, I have to agree with you.

The taxpayers are being abused in every state, I'm not interested in different levels of abuse.

You either condone taking or you don't.

We don't get retiree health care. What business is it of mine if the guys YOU elect want to give to YOUR public employees?

http://www.texastribune.org/tribpedia/employee-retirement-system/

You have to factor that it lessens the sting of the Government, through taxation and crazy other crazy laws, have driven the manufacturing jobs from the United States. Unions helped too, but I think it was mostly the federal government. Without the free stuff, the people would have paid more attention to this when it was happening. miles

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-employee-health-benefits-ncsl.aspx

I'm not in that system and apparently (according to your article) it's being addressed. What about yours?

ALL police officers in Texas receive health care subsidies if they retire before the age of 65.

No. I could retire now, if we did.

The 1st century Christian church also had it's share of freeloaders. Here's what the Bible has to say about it:
2Thes 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

I am retired from the Arkansas Highway Department, where I paid 6% of my gross wages, for 37 years, into the retirement fund. The Highway Department retirement fund is separate from the other State retirement systems and ours is in very good shape, due to good management and higher retirement ages, and we contribute more. Every Legislative session that I can remember, the State Troopers have tried, without success, to merge their retirement system with that of the Highway Department. They pay very little into the system and start retiring at 20 years service, where the Highway system is 28 and has been lowered from 35 in recent years. The police system is in shambles. Just shows that operated correctly, systems will work. miles

Harry knows more about you, your state and your situation by the mere fact that he lives in Massa2shits, you dumbphuck...

I've paid 5% into out retirement for 33 years, and could technically retire (quit and do something else) with a pension of approximately 30% of what I make now. No health care. That's okay through...it's growing exponentially now.

I know right? I only respond in case some kid reads it and thinks it's real.

It's what you take out that matters, not what you pay in. 5% ain't much considering the stock market just recovered from the 2000/1 downturn.

However, regardless of that you have a defined benefit pension and not a 401K system that pays a defined benefit regardless of what was paid in and regardless of what it's earned, or hasn't.

It's not defined. It is invested in stocks and bonds and dependent on return. If you need a reason to be miserable, look out your window instead of your computer screen.

Well, if you are gonna be untruthful then what's the point.

ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSIONS ARE DEFINED BENEFIT PENSIONS

Without EXCEPTION

What do you think...this is my first rodeo..

Geezz, maybe you should retire in San Antonio...

http://www.expressnews.com/news/loc...-fire-medical-plans-targeted-5238686.php

See, Harry knows all via GoogleFu


Mighty powerful

OK, so it's 86% are DB, so tell us what town/city you work in and then we can all see what is what....no harm in that eh?

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...es-used-to-defend-public-sector-pensions

Nope. Ours is invested in 80% bonds, which is defined, making our return, somewhat defined.

..and I wish I did work for SA, but I don't, hind site being 20/20. Thank you for making my point though, not every place is the same. Have a great day...I'm out.

......or they can just get off their freeloading ass and get a job!!!

Churches and charities are "welfare" due to tax subsidies/deductions.

And, our defined retirement system changed a lot over the 37 years that I worked there. miles

That's been essentially my take on it for many years.

You guys with pensions do realize that the only reason you have one is because the government bailed out wall street and the banking system. Otherwise you would have squat. Same for anyone who had money in the bank or has made money investing in this "recovery". In other words, pretty much everyone.

Point being, most people who think they love the "free market" are actually beholding to the govt in some form or fashion. If there would have been a free market in 2008-2009, 90% of us would have been broke and the 10% smart enough to bet against the system would have made a fortune....that the 90% of the other "free marketers" would likely have demanded be taxed away as ill gotten gains.

I am far from a liberal but as a financial type, I can tell you that pension holders, 401 K holders, mutual fund holders, stock investors, home owners, bank account holders....pretty much everyone with any form of savings, me included, has gotten their fair share of welfare in the last decade. The illusion of the "market" only allows us to look down our noses at the "hood rats".

I think you guys who are calling for a return to free markets best be careful what you wish for.

Good post!

Anytime you give something to somebody who didn't work for it (welfare), that means you've taken it away from someone who did work for it.

Giving welfare to able bodied people in this country is one of the most egregious 'wrongs' that exist in our country today.

You have to realize that "bail outs" are not free. There is a cost involved that the market must price into their product. The long QE process infused about $3 trillion into the market which began as electronic "monopoly money". This is what the market now enjoys on either side to 18,000. There will never be a true "free market" - only some with lesser government involvement and control.
The incestuous relationship between bankers, Wall Street and politicians will never end. Its the lesser of two evils because what do you want to do, join "occupy wall street" and collapse the entire world economy?

Standby and watch the fallout over the Greek economy this week. Could be a bumpy ride. No, it won't be limited to just the EU either.

I mostly agree. I'm OK with government food banks, as long as they carry the basics needed to sustain life. say, rice and beans and powdered milk. everything else SHOULD come from charity.

I agree with this as well. I would CERTAINLY like to see it at the very least changed to a "once per lifelime / location" deal.

if your house in Kansas was torn up by a tornado and the govt paid you to rebuild, you should be smart enough not to rebuild in Kansas.
if your second house gets ripped apart by a tornado, tough.

in general, we need to stop rewarding poor decisions in this country.

what took you so long to get here ? :-/