mahoney@bartok.DEC (03/17/86)
I don't feel Welfare should be done away but it needs to be totally
overhauled. In its present state I do feel it captures many (most) people
and keeps them their for good. I have a few suggestions on how welfare could
work. I do not know how reasonable they are but they sound good to me. I
am interested in other people's ideas on this. I do not really want to
hear oh Welfare is good welfare is bad. Let us go on the assumptoin that
welfare is here to stay. The second premise is that the current system
must and will change as it is no good.
1) Place the whole of welfare under one organization.
Right now different programs are handeled by seperate organizations
and departments. This causes redundency and an easy way to work
around the system to abuse.
2) When someone enters Welfare they immediately get put into job training.
The person will have a number of choices. If they do not have a high
school eduction the first course of action will be to get them one.
When they are trained for the job then there will be job placement.
Now people obviously won't be able to get great jobs when they start
so the government will help to compensate. They gradually lose the
compensation as they move up the salary level. Say they lose one dollar
for every three dollars they make over a certain level or something
like that.
3) Now if a woman/or man lives alone and has children the standards will
be a little different. If she has children under 6 then she/he can stay
home with them. Once all the kids are of school age then she also goes
into job training. Appropriate day care can be setup for when the
children get out of school to be paid by the state.
4) Instead of the huge subsidized housing that we know have. I agree with
Reagan setup a voucher program. The government could give tax breaks
and so forth to landlords who rent at a cheaper rate also. The reason
for this is that I feel people get locked into these low-income housing
where that is the only place they can go. Once they have a job with the
voucher they can tell the landlord to either fix up the place or they
will go somewhere else. This will give incentive for the landlords to
start taking care of the apartment buildings. Only one voucher can be
used per apartment. If people live together they will be treated as
though they are married. You will get more money in a voucher though
for two people but one of them has to join job trianing.
5) The government should also give tax breaks and so forth for companies
that they go into depressed areas. Maybe the government can pay the
burden of also tearing down the buildings for companies and help the
start up costs. For these breaks they must use some precentage
(a large one at that) of the people who live in the area. Again this
would work hand in hand with the job training program.
6) To check up on abuses there would be people who would make random
checks. They would make surprise visits to see that everything is going
alright on both ends. Such as maybe the people need something more or
maybe a boy friend has moved in. This is sort of like a parole officer.
I think there might be a better way of doing this but I can't think of
it. This seems a little dictatorial but I don't know a better way.
7) Some side notes I would bring back the school lunch subsides to the
level prior to Reagan's cut.
Possible keep Food Stamps but make it a little harder to abuse them.
Such as have stamps for vegetables meat milk and so forth. How much
of each can be determined by the person and maybe a nutritionalist
working together.
You also will need to make sure that adequate public transportation
exists.
These is my idea for Welfare. What do people see wrong with it? (outside
of maybe being a little idealistic.) What would people add to/take away from
it?
Brian Mahoneymc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/19/86)
In article <1724@decwrl.DEC.COM>, mahoney@dec-bartok.UUCP writes: > 1) Place the whole of welfare under one organization. > Right now different programs are handeled by seperate organizations > and departments. This causes redundency and an easy way to work > around the system to abuse. In theory, not a bad idea. I question the effectiveness of such a solution in terms of efficiency. Large bureaucracies tend not to be very effective. > > 2) When someone enters Welfare they immediately get put into job training. > The person will have a number of choices. If they do not have a high > school eduction the first course of action will be to get them one. > When they are trained for the job then there will be job placement. > Now people obviously won't be able to get great jobs when they start > so the government will help to compensate. They gradually lose the > compensation as they move up the salary level. Say they lose one dollar > for every three dollars they make over a certain level or something > like that. What about persons who are not mentally competent enough to acquire such skills? What about those who are severely distuebed emotionally, and cannot cope with other people sufficiently well to deal with the training and work environments? What about those who are physically disabled to the point that such training is not helpful? Nice ideas, but not very thouroughly thought out. > > 4) Instead of the huge subsidized housing that we know have. I agree with > Reagan setup a voucher program. The government could give tax breaks > and so forth to landlords who rent at a cheaper rate also. The reason > for this is that I feel people get locked into these low-income housing > where that is the only place they can go. Once they have a job with the > voucher they can tell the landlord to either fix up the place or they > will go somewhere else. This will give incentive for the landlords to > start taking care of the apartment buildings. Only one voucher can be > used per apartment. If people live together they will be treated as > though they are married. You will get more money in a voucher though > for two people but one of them has to join job trianing. In areas where housing is in short supply (almost any urban area, or any are with colleges and/or universities, or areas where many new businesses and industries are moving in), landlords get such exhorbitantly high rents that the pittance they might be offered through tax incentives is hardly likely to interest them. Also, many poor persons share housing in order to better make ends meet. It does not follow that because two persons of the opposite gender share a house or apartment, that they are co-habitating. To assume that they are, and treat them as such, violates many rights, privacy among them. > > 5) The government should also give tax breaks and so forth for companies > that they go into depressed areas. Maybe the government can pay the > burden of also tearing down the buildings for companies and help the > start up costs. For these breaks they must use some precentage > (a large one at that) of the people who live in the area. Again this > would work hand in hand with the job training program. You mean like the tax incentives that the government gave the steel industry, in order to encourage them to improve their plants? The money from which they used to diversify, while allowing their steel mills to fall apart, and close? Offering incentives to American business is something like a thief loose in a bank vault...their track record in such circumstances stinks. > > 6) To check up on abuses there would be people who would make random > checks. They would make surprise visits to see that everything is going > alright on both ends. Such as maybe the people need something more or > maybe a boy friend has moved in. This is sort of like a parole officer. > I think there might be a better way of doing this but I can't think of > it. This seems a little dictatorial but I don't know a better way. > In other words, let's punish people for being poor. After all, they're only poor people, they don't deserve privacy, or to be considered innocent until proven guilty, or protection against search without warrants and probable cause, do they? > 7) Some side notes I would bring back the school lunch subsides to the > level prior to Reagan's cut. > Possible keep Food Stamps but make it a little harder to abuse them. > Such as have stamps for vegetables meat milk and so forth. How much > of each can be determined by the person and maybe a nutritionalist > working together. Yeah. Just like George Bush and his wife "shopping for a weeks groceries" on food stamps, right? After all, the govenrment knows what foods I need to eat better than I do, that's for sure. > You also will need to make sure that adequate public transportation > exists. > > These is my idea for Welfare. What do people see wrong with it? (outside > of maybe being a little idealistic.) What would people add to/take away from > it? > > Brian Mahoney Brian, your ideas deserve merit, in that you obviously took a little time to think about the problem. There are problems with them, but that's alright, they are as good a place as any to start out. One of the problems we have in this country is that the conservative, anti-humanist factions have managed to convince much of the public that the poor, the elderly and the disabled are, to borrow Reagan's infamous phrase "...a faceless mass, waiting for a handout". The facts are that this simply isn't true. It is very easy for the highly intelligent, well educated individuals who tend to inhabit this network to assume that if *THEY* could survive and make it in the system everyone else should be able to as well. Elitism be damned. The fact is that a very large percentage of the population simply does not have the intellectual capability necessary to achieve this sort of success. IQ doesn't mean one whole hell of a lot, but it does have some value as a metric. Check out the average IQ for the U.S. People who are born of poverty and despair, raised in poverty and despair (and malnutrition, which among other things directly affects the adult intellectual capacities of these people), are likely to live in poverty and despair. It is what they have been taught to expect, and what many of them believe they deserve. Those of us who are privileged to have the intelligence, the drive, and the opportunity (and yes, I recognize that the occasional individual rises above all the liabilities, to succeed in spite of the system...that still does not imply that all, or most, or even many, could), seem to be either incapable, or unwilling to recognize these facts. They are, unfortunately, painful, embarassing, unpleasant and discouraging. Until we *STOP* thinking of the poor as a political and economic problem, and start thinking of them as human beings in need of assistance, we will *NEVER* solve the problems! Think on it. (oh, for the record: the current social welfare system stinks. It needs overhauling desparately. We will not develop a successful system until we have dealt with the problem I discuss in the above paragraph) -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (03/20/86)
> I don't feel Welfare should be done away but it needs to be totally > overhauled. .......... > > 1) Place the whole of welfare under one organization. > Right now different programs are handeled by seperate organizations > and departments. This causes redundency and an easy way to work > around the system to abuse. This would imply a single federal agency. The standards should perhaps depend on the level of prices of different areas (for the same money you are very poor in New York and quite comfortable in Albuquerque, as I was told). > > 2) When someone enters Welfare they immediately get put into job training. > .............. > > 3) Now if a woman/or man lives alone and has children the standards will > be a little different. If she has children under 6 then she/he can stay > home with them. Once all the kids are of school age then she also goes > into job training. Appropriate day care can be setup for when the > children get out of school to be paid by the state. > > 4) Instead of the huge subsidized housing that we know have. I agree with > Reagan setup a voucher program. The government could give tax breaks > and so forth to landlords who rent at a cheaper rate also. The reason > for this is that I feel people get locked into these low-income housing > where that is the only place they can go. Once they have a job with the > voucher they can tell the landlord to either fix up the place or they > will go somewhere else. This will give incentive for the landlords to > start taking care of the apartment buildings. Only one voucher can be > used per apartment. If people live together they will be treated as > though they are married. You will get more money in a voucher though > for two people but one of them has to join job trianing. > > 5) The government should also give tax breaks and so forth for companies > that they go into depressed areas. Maybe the government can pay the > burden of also tearing down the buildings for companies and help the > start up costs. For these breaks they must use some precentage > (a large one at that) of the people who live in the area. Again this > would work hand in hand with the job training program. > What happenned to Reagan's initiative of this kind? Seems that he is lobbying harder for 'humanitarian help' for some questionably behaving persons in Honduras... > 6) To check up on abuses there would be people who would make random > checks. They would make surprise visits to see that everything is going > alright on both ends. Such as maybe the people need something more or > maybe a boy friend has moved in. This is sort of like a parole officer. > I think there might be a better way of doing this but I can't think of > it. This seems a little dictatorial but I don't know a better way. > > 7) Some side notes I would bring back the school lunch subsides to the > level prior to Reagan's cut. > Possible keep Food Stamps but make it a little harder to abuse them. > Such as have stamps for vegetables meat milk and so forth. How much > of each can be determined by the person and maybe a nutritionalist > working together. > You also will need to make sure that adequate public transportation > exists. > > These is my idea for Welfare. What do people see wrong with it? (outside > of maybe being a little idealistic.) What would people add to/take away from > it? > > Brian Mahoney I would add that the wellfare should always be constructed in such a way that the 'tax' on earned income (the ratio of income from a job to the benefits lost) should not exceed 50%. Piotr Berman
slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Ling Ku) (03/20/86)
In article <98@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: >In article <1724@decwrl.DEC.COM>, mahoney@dec-bartok.UUCP writes: >> 2) When someone enters Welfare they immediately get put into job >> training. > > What about persons who are not mentally competent enough to acquire such >skills? What about those who are severely distuebed emotionally, and cannot >cope with other people sufficiently well to deal with the training and work >environments? What about those who are physically disabled to the point that >such training is not helpful? Nice ideas, but not very thouroughly thought >out. Those who are mentally or physically handicapped to a point where they cannot function normally in society should be distinguished from the "general" population who are on welfare due to inability to find jobs. The only way to get those who are out of jobs back into the job market is to give them skill. About mental competence, not all jobs require a lot of brian. Most "blue collar" jobs requires more hand eye coordination than IQ and a lot of "white collar" jobs don't need a lot of brians either (computer programmers for one :-). > One of the problems we have in this country is that the conservative, >anti-humanist factions have managed to convince much of the public that >the poor, the elderly and the disabled are, to borrow Reagan's infamous >phrase "...a faceless mass, waiting for a handout". The facts are that this >simply isn't true. I believe a sizable minority of those in welfare ARE looking for a handout. (Send flames to /dev/null). > Elitism be damned. The fact is that a very large percentage of the >population simply does not have the intellectual capability necessary to >achieve this sort of success. Come on, an educated person doesn't imply high intelligence, and vice versa. Whether a person has a marketable skill has NOTHING to do with intelligence. As long as one believe that one doesn't have the intellectual capability to succeed, one won't. (I am not saying if one believe one can succeed, one would.) > People who are born of poverty and despair, raised in poverty and >despair (... ...), are likely to live in >poverty and despair. It is what they have been taught to expect, and what >many of them believe they deserve. Absolutely agreed. What one expect is often what one gets. So the point is to offer them something realistic and attractive so that they have the motivation of achieving it and the confidence that they could achieve it. Job training is the only way to break the cycle. Living in welfare must be made unpleasant (hold on to your flames) but not to the point of inhumane, this provide the motivation to get out of welfare. A not so good analogy is like driving into city during rush hour, you can get by like that but there is got be a better way. Municipal officials try to force people into using public transportation by making private transportation a headache. Then one needs an alternative, without which the first point would gradually becomes inhumane (eg., driving in Boston). Holding down a factory job may not be the most interesting way to make a living, but I am sure a lot of welfare recipients (those who are not looking for a handout) would like to have a chance in getting a steady, skilled or semi skilled, job. So the carrot is to provide job training so they could compete for such jobs. -- Siu-Ling Ku {decvax, harvard}!mitvax!slk slk%vax@mit-mc.ARPA
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (03/21/86)
From Brian Mahoney (dec-bartok!mahoney): > I don't feel Welfare should be done away but it needs to be totally >overhauled. In its present state I do feel it captures many (most) people >and keeps them their for good. I'd like to thank Mr. Mahoney for a sincere effort to make constructive suggestions for solving the welfare mess. I agree with the above paragraph. I have some disagreements with his specific suggestions, however. > 1) Place the whole of welfare under one organization. > Right now different programs are handeled by seperate organizations > and departments. This causes redundency and an easy way to work > around the system to abuse. Yes. In fact, I would go farther. Turn welfare into a negative income tax, and let the IRS administer it all. One program, one law, and one agency for welfare and taxes. If your net adjusted income is below some figure, the government pays you. I realize I'm oversimplifying somewhat (e.g., few poor people could wait to receive their entire year's income in one lump sum payment the following year :-)), but I think the basic idea is sound, and it has been proposed before. > 2) When someone enters Welfare they immediately get put into job training. > The person will have a number of choices. If they do not have a high > school eduction the first course of action will be to get them one. > When they are trained for the job then there will be job placement. > Now people obviously won't be able to get great jobs when they start > so the government will help to compensate. They gradually lose the > compensation as they move up the salary level. Say they lose one dollar > for every three dollars they make over a certain level or something > like that. The problem is cost. Many states (e.g., Massachusetts) already have programs similar to this, but the programs are expensive, and therefore unpopular with many taxpayers. Also, there have to be jobs available when the training's done. If the economy's bad, you'll mostly end up with skilled unemployed rather than unskilled unemployed - not a big improvement when you consider the high costs of these programs. > 4) Instead of the huge subsidized housing that we know have. I agree with > Reagan setup a voucher program. The government could give tax breaks > and so forth to landlords who rent at a cheaper rate also. The reason > for this is that I feel people get locked into these low-income housing > where that is the only place they can go. Once they have a job with the > voucher they can tell the landlord to either fix up the place or they > will go somewhere else. This will give incentive for the landlords to > start taking care of the apartment buildings. Only one voucher can be > used per apartment. If people live together they will be treated as > though they are married. You will get more money in a voucher though > for two people but one of them has to join job trianing. I'm not familiar with the details of Reagan's voucher proposal, but in my experience vouchers are a bad idea, for a number of reasons. Most landlords won't take vouchers, because the government pays them *after* the month is over (at best :-(), not in advance, as rent is normally paid. The net effect is to further limit the recipient's options. When I worked for LA County welfare, there were only 2 motels in the entire district that would accept the county's vouchers (vouchers were used for temporary, emergency housing only), and they were so scuzzy that I worried about catching horrible diseases when I had to make visits. Far from giving the tenant leverage with the landlord, vouchers take leverage away, and force people to live in pestholes. If the government created a more sensible voucher system than the one I've mentioned it might be tolerable, but there's a second flaw. Part of the process of weaning a lifelong recipient away from welfare is to make them responsible for their own financial affairs. The whole point of a voucher system is to insure that money meant for rent, is used for rent. This kind of Big-Brotherism will never teach anyone personal responsibility. Anyone who won't pay the rent first, and save the luxuries for later, won't stay off welfare for long. > 6) To check up on abuses there would be people who would make random > checks. They would make surprise visits to see that everything is going > alright on both ends. Such as maybe the people need something more or > maybe a boy friend has moved in. This is sort of like a parole officer. > I think there might be a better way of doing this but I can't think of > it. This seems a little dictatorial but I don't know a better way. This ain't new, either. In fact, it was SOP in most states 'til about 1970. Frankly, I consider it more than a "little" dictatorial. Welfare recipients have committed no crime, and I can see no justification for treating them like they're criminals. As with vouchers, you're attempting to force people to behave responsibly with these tactics, and unless you want to assign a permanent guard to them, this will not help them to be responsible citizens. And it does no good. Suppose your surprise visit turns up a live-in boyfriend? First off, that's not against the rules (well, it *may* be, in some backward jurisdiction, but it *shouldn't* be), but let's further assume that the boy friend is making financial contributions to the woman, and she hadn't reported it. What do you think happens? She's discontinued from aid; she reapplies at the end of the month, reporting that the boyfriend's gone. A home call is made, and, sure enough, there's no sign of his presence; and she's back on aid, having missed not a day. This is called a waste of time. And if you make the laws more punitive, you are hurting her children as much as you're hurting her. > 7) Some side notes I would bring back the school lunch subsides to the > level prior to Reagan's cut. Good idea; it's one of the best aid programs around. > Possible keep Food Stamps but make it a little harder to abuse them. > Such as have stamps for vegetables meat milk and so forth. How much > of each can be determined by the person and maybe a nutritionalist > working together. Again, you're trying to run their life for them, and that's the wrong approach. Besides, recipient abuse of Food Stamps normally takes the form of selling the stamps for cash (yes, this is illegal; it's also easy to do). Greater restrictions on what foods may be purchased with these stamps will not have any effect on this. > These is my idea for Welfare. What do people see wrong with it? (outside > of maybe being a little idealistic.) What would people add to/take away from > it? I could sum up my objections to your proposals in one word: paternalistic. This does far more harm than good. You may catch, or at least inconvenience, a few cheaters, but you will also make the "lifers" even less likely to get free of the welfare trap. If I may be forgiven a stereotype which is admittedly a vast generalization, the signal traits of the lifelong welfare recipient are apathy and dependence. They have already been conditioned to go to some government agency whenever they have a problem, and to mute acceptance of whatever the government dictates. What they need most is to realize that they can take control of their own lives, and to be given such control. Taking what little independence they have left away from them can only hurt. I'm pleased to see someone taking an interest in the question. I hope others will contribute their ideas. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King) (03/21/86)
From: mahoney@bartok.DEC
Newsgroups: net.politics
Date: 17 Mar 86 19:56:27 GMT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
2) When someone enters Welfare they immediately get put into
job training. The person will have a number of choices.
If they do not have a high school eduction the first course
of action will be to get them one. When they are trained
for the job then there will be job placement. Now people
obviously won't be able to get great jobs when they start
so the government will help to compensate. They gradually
lose the compensation as they move up the salary level.
Say they lose one dollar for every three dollars they make
over a certain level or something like that.
No! The subsidy decreases at a statutory speed. There should not be
a motivation to remain in a low-paying job!
3) Now if a woman/or man lives alone and has children the
standards will be a little different. If she has children
under 6 then she/he can stay home with them. Once all the
kids are of school age then she also goes into job training.
Appropriate day care can be setup for when the children get
out of school to be paid by the state.
With one exception: no child conceived while on welfare or within six
months either way shall be counted, either for total benefits or for
determining things like whether there is a work requirement.
6) To check up on abuses there would be people who would make
random checks. They would make surprise visits to see that
everything is going alright on both ends. Such as maybe the
people need something more or maybe a boy friend has moved
in. This is sort of like a parole officer. I think there
might be a better way of doing this but I can't think of it.
This seems a little dictatorial but I don't know a better
way.
This was rejected by the courts. Seemed like a good idea to me...
These is my idea for Welfare. What do people see wrong with it?
(outside of maybe being a little idealistic.) What would people
add to/take away from it?
Brian Mahoney
-dickdlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (03/21/86)
[] > You > conveniently fail to note that by far the *VAST* majority of the wealth in > this nation is owned and controlled by a very few people. Tom, this is just not true. Indeed, there are only a few "rich" people. However, although I can't give you a source right now, a couple of weeks ago it was reported on the radio that something like 70% of the wealth in the US is held by about 65% of the people, i.e. the middle class. That sounds reasonable. As J. Peter Grace discovered, if you confiscated *all* of the wealth from people who made over $75K per year, you could finance the federal govt for about 7.2 days. > tom keller David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (03/25/86)
> > [Tom Keller] > > You > > conveniently fail to note that by far the *VAST* majority of the wealth in > > this nation is owned and controlled by a very few people. -------------------- > [Dave Olson] > Tom, this is just not true. Indeed, there are only a few "rich" people. > However, although I can't give you a source right now, a couple of weeks > ago it was reported on the radio that something like 70% of the wealth > in the US is held by about 65% of the people, i.e. the middle class. -------------------- Dave Olson's statistic is certainly true, but totally meaningless. In every country in the world, 70% of the wealth is held by 65% of the people. Proof: 1)The wealthiest 65% of the population certainly owns MORE than 70% of the wealth. (Unless the wealth is distributed almost precisely evenly) 2)The poorest 65% of the population MUST own LESS than 70% of the wealth. 3)Therefore, some 65% in between must own 70% of the wealth. The proof assumes that no one individual owns more than 1% of the wealth. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/25/86)
In article <6052@kestrel.ARPA>, king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King) writes: > > From: mahoney@bartok.DEC > Newsgroups: net.politics > Date: 17 Mar 86 19:56:27 GMT > Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM > > 2) When someone enters Welfare they immediately get put into > job training. The person will have a number of choices. > If they do not have a high school eduction the first course > of action will be to get them one. When they are trained > for the job then there will be job placement. Now people > obviously won't be able to get great jobs when they start > so the government will help to compensate. They gradually > lose the compensation as they move up the salary level. > Say they lose one dollar for every three dollars they make > over a certain level or something like that. > > No! The subsidy decreases at a statutory speed. There should not be > a motivation to remain in a low-paying job! > Right. Because everyone knows that there are just *LOADS* of jobs for semi-skilled workers in today's economy, and upward mobility is easy, all you have to do is *WANT* it! After all, everyone is "created equal", right??? > 3) Now if a woman/or man lives alone and has children the > standards will be a little different. If she has children > under 6 then she/he can stay home with them. Once all the > kids are of school age then she also goes into job training. > Appropriate day care can be setup for when the children get > out of school to be paid by the state. > > With one exception: no child conceived while on welfare or within six > months either way shall be counted, either for total benefits or for > determining things like whether there is a work requirement. > Of course! The infant is the guilty party here, quite obviously. So we won't feed it, or provide it with shelter, or health care, or a mother to raise it. That'll teach those shitty little poverty-stricken babies to get born into *THIS* world, yessirreee! > > 6) To check up on abuses there would be people who would make > random checks. They would make surprise visits to see that > everything is going alright on both ends. Such as maybe the > people need something more or maybe a boy friend has moved > in. This is sort of like a parole officer. I think there > might be a better way of doing this but I can't think of it. > This seems a little dictatorial but I don't know a better > way. > > This was rejected by the courts. Seemed like a good idea to me... > Not surprised. You probably think cops should have free reign in investigations, the Miranda decision only protects the guilty, and obviously being poor is a crime, so those bastards have no right to basic human decency, dignity or privacy. Oh, and Dick, while we're at it, let's reduce the Social Security checks to the old folks every year too...after all, they're not being productive, and they really need less and less as the years go by, don't they? -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/27/86)
> > I don't feel Welfare should be done away but it needs to be totally > > overhauled. .......... > > > > 1) Place the whole of welfare under one organization. >> Right now different programs are handeled by seperate organizations > > and departments. This causes redundency and an easy way to work > > around the system to abuse. > > This would imply a single federal agency. The standards should > perhaps depend on the level of prices of different areas (for the > same money you are very poor in New York and quite comfortable in > Albuquerque, as I was told). This would eliminate any incentive for people to move to areas with lower prices. No real problem if you have unlimited funds for welfare, I guess. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (03/28/86)
[] >> > [Tom Keller] >> > You >> > conveniently fail to note that by far the *VAST* majority of the wealth in >> > this nation is owned and controlled by a very few people. >-------------------- >> [Dave Olson] >> Tom, this is just not true. Indeed, there are only a few "rich" people. >> However, although I can't give you a source right now, a couple of weeks >> ago it was reported on the radio that something like 70% of the wealth >> in the US is held by about 65% of the people, i.e. the middle class. >-------------------- >Dave Olson's statistic is certainly true, but totally meaningless. >In every country in the world, 70% of the wealth is held by 65% of the people. > [elegant proof] Agreed. However, read Tom's contention again. Even though there are people who have even millions of times more wealth than, say, some arbitrary poor person, there just is not enough of them. And, the *total* amount of wealth they hold does not even come close to the *total* amount held by the *total* number of everyone else. >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/30/86)
> As J. Peter Grace discovered, if you >confiscated *all* of the wealth from people who made over $75K per >year, you could finance the federal govt for about 7.2 days. The "Harper's Index" column in the Dec. 1984 Harper's states that the combined net worth of the 400 richest Americans is $125 billion. (Unfortunately Harper's doesn't list their source.) This sum would finance the entire military budget for 5 or 6 months, or all federal anti-poverty spending for several years, or service the federal debt for a year or so. It is a safe bet that the combined net worth of everyone who makes more than $75K is far greater than that. So I wonder whether David Olson has misunderstood Grace, or whether Grace has deluded himself. It is also a safe bet that the Great Prevaricator will cite this non-fact at some point in a speech or press conference. It is interesting to note that the richest 1.2 million Americans, comprising about 3-400,000 families, own individually, on average, around 160 times as much wealth as the 190 million Americans who are least well off (if we divide wealth equally among family members). -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes