Out-of-state welfare money being used around Orlando attractions

Back to the Q-tips. The article doesn't say that the manufacturer is getting paid by the taxpayer. The money is going to the non-profit organization (Windfall) who is in charge of re-training and teaching the welfare-to-work people new work skills. I'm assuming it was the Windfall people who solicited companies to provide tasks for these people to do, not the other way around.

What type of work do you think would be appropriate to give welfare-to-work people to do?

When I first met my wife, her dad was building his own house. He needed some help clearing the lot and digging the footers for the foundation. Basic no-skilled, grunt labor. He had seen a guy off one of the highway exits with a sign that said "Have wife and kids. Will work for food." He offered the guy $10/hr plus said he would feed him while he was working. Guy turned him down because he had a bad back. Guess he was looking for a management position or office job.

Saw this and immediately thought of this thread:

CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

Or, he really had a bad back. Any idea how painful it is when you aren't able to sit upright, lay flat or walk because it feels like someone has managed to puncture through your spine with a blunt object?

Yeah, having been through it (had 600 lbs of lumber framing fall over on me a few years back and it folded me in half backwards - have been wrecked since) I know I'd do what I could to avoid that again. Don't tell me he was just in it for cushy work.

He very well could have been, but you don't know that, and it's a dick move to assume.

And so what if he did want an office job? That story had no real base to build an opinion on because it happened to someone else a long time ago in a galaxy far far away without any real details.

over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy

This is what so many economists on my side of the isle have warned to no avail. The bigger question for me is who/what to believe.

Honest question(s) here. Do any of you believe that the world economy was hours away from complete collapse? If you do believe this is true...why?

I simply don't trust what the politicians and bankers were telling us. My evidence is the fact they lied the whole way. Obama told us we would make money on the auto bailout. Here is a good description of the TARP lies.

Why would we think they were being honest with us? Was honesty the virtue that lead us to the supposed collapse?

I honestly believe TARP and the bailouts were nothing more than a complete transfer of wealth from the 99% (or at least the 50% who pay taxes) to the politicians and their banker friends to temporarily prop their house of cards.

Raven -- You are right. Neither of knows if the guy was lying about his back. And there definitely are some folks who have back problems (or other medical issues) that prevent them from doing certain types of work. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that someone standing on the side of the road with a "Will work for food" sign will be offered manual labor jobs in the vast majority of circumstances where a job is offered (what type of non-manual labor work would they be offered?). Maybe I am wrong about that. But if that is the case, and you truly will be unable to do the majority of the jobs that you may be offered, why waste your time unless you are there for a different purpose?

And my father in law did observe the guy over a several day period standing by the side of the road for hours at a time (unless he was there when my FiL drove to the lot, left and then came back several hours later when my FiL passed by again). So he clearly wasn't unable to stand or walk without feeling like someone was puncturing his spine with a blunt object. Based on seeing how he ran up to cars who rolled down their windows and interacted with the drivers, and based on talking to the guy himself about the work that he had to offer, my father in law came away with the view that the guy was lying about his back. Could my FiL been wrong? Sure. Though he was in a better position to judge than either you or me. And my FiL didn't think he was looking for a management position/office job (that was my editorial comment). He concluded that they guy didn't want any kind of job or work at all and was looking for handouts believing that his sign was more sympathetic than one begging for money straight up. Again, FiL could have been wrong.

And my father in law wasn't a dick about it at all. He asked the guy if he was sure he didn't want the work. The guy said he was. So my FiL wished him well, got in his car and did the work himself.

Tek -- So what if he wanted an office job? Ever hear the expression beggars can't be choosers? Put feeding my wife and kids on one side and I am hard pressed to think of anything I wouldn't do on the other. Wouldn't matter if it wasn't what I wanted. I would worry about that later once the primary need was met in any way possible.

amil -- 2016 is too far off the radar of politicians to be considered at all. And although I believe that republicans AND democrats are our problem (all the us versus them BS is just a foil to keep them both in power), the ultimate problem is us. The majority of the people in this country either don't think we have any deficit/debt problem or want to fix them on the back of someone else. In that sense, we get what we deserve.

Aamilj said:

I honestly believe TARP and the bailouts were nothing more than a complete transfer of wealth from the 99% (or at least the 50% who pay taxes) to the politicians and their banker friends to temporarily prop their house of cards.

Finally something we agree upon. Except for the little snub about the 50% who pay taxes. Everyone pays some sort of taxes, and lots of rich people and corporations (remember, they're people too) don't pay federal taxes either because they can cheat the system and hide their money.

I think the worst thing that happened was giving the banks the money with no strings attached. Remember how they screamed that they had to have the money right away and didn't have time to place any restrictions on how they could use it? If that money had gone into the credit market instead of being used for banks to buy each other out and continue fat bonus programs, I think the outcome could have been remarkably better. The auto bailouts at least had structure and stipulations built into them.

RatherGoodBear said:
What type of work do you think would be appropriate to give welfare-to-work people to do?

I think the time and effort would be better spent teaching them things that will actually prepare them to get back into the workplace. Whether that be working alongside a tradesman, learning basic computer skills, etc. Working with them on how to make a resume, interview skills and things like that would be extremely beneficial too. It sounds like the latter part is already supposed to be covered in this program, although the story that was posted makes it sound like that's not happening.

Aamilj said:
This is what so many economists on my side of the isle have warned to no avail.

Real economists have no aisle. They're scientists.

Unfortunately, economics is more of an art than a hard science which allows opportunities to place a thumb on one side of the scale or the other.

My point is that it's not inherently partisan. One who makes it partisan ceases to be an economist.

Jeff is correct. It is supposed to be a science. A social science. But the reality of economics applied to global phenomenon such as recessions is political. Science with so many issues is political (global warming).

While I agree it shouldn't be partisan...etc... The reality is that the economist with political agendas are the economists with the biggest mouthpieces. Our media does not seek strictly objective economists to tell a story. They use the economists who are readily available. It is much easier to utilize the economists who bolster a political ideology. It goes without saying that our politicians are not seeking objectivity. Economics like all science is infiltrated with agendas. There is no money in strict objectivity.

"My side of the aisle" was a poor choice of words on my behalf. I should have said that I believe that objective economics seems to support what "my side of the aisle" said all along. Gonch's link supports the claim that the stimulus was a net drag on the economic recovery. I personally believe that. Many economists said the same at the time.

For whatever reason(s), the science/economists who held the position that government spending was not the right course of action were ignored. Politics is the likely culprit.

"Except for the little snub about the 50% who pay taxes. Everyone pays some sort of taxes, and lots of rich people and corporations (remember, they're people too) don't pay federal taxes either because they can cheat the system and hide their money."

I'm against most welfare...whether individual or corporate. I support massive tax reform (flat/sales/etc) to do away with corporate cheats as well as welfare cheats who take trips to Sea World. I believe the spending of the people's money should be strictly scrutinized at every level. I've got 15 Trillion that says this is not happening.

If the Super Committee can't come to an agreement on reasonable spending cuts...doubt us bloggers will either.

Jeff said:
My point is that it's not inherently partisan. One who makes it partisan ceases to be an economist.

And my point is that because economics isn't a hard science, its often hard to know if someone has make it partisan and thus ceased to be an economist.

"And my point is that because economics isn't a hard science, its often hard to know if someone has make it partisan and thus ceased to be an economist."

If we as a society were truly interested in treating economics as a hard science, there is no way ANY person, entity, politician, scientist, blogger, etc could preach Keynesian principles as if they have any merit. They have NEVER worked.

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Has-Keynesianism-Ever-Worked-Anywhere

Yet, at this very moment our government is practicing the very Keynesian policies that have failed time and time again. Among serious economists who desire that their work incorporate the scientific principle, Keynesian policies have parallel merit to the "world is flat" scientific result.

So while Jeff is correct that economics SHOULD be a science...and many want it to be... The facts are that politicians have bastardized certain economists (pseudo-scientists) and used propaganda to implement policies that are of political benefit, but certainly of no economic benefit.

The problem there is while part of economics is based on numbers and statistics, the other part of it is based on human behavior, which we know isn't always predictable or rational. The same people who were saying in 2005 that real estate has nowhere to go but up and further up are now saying that things will never, ever, ever return to normal.

What has really changed but perception? Most sane people know that the best and maybe only way to improve the economy is by stimulating demand. That's hard to do when everyone is besieged by negative messages-- grow your own food, but be prepared to fight off the armed mobs who are going to show up to steal your cucumbers. Even our so called leadership in both parties has nothing positive to say. So if there's no incentive to spend, save, or invest, people are going to keep their money under their mattresses.

A Seattle woman who is receiving welfare assistance from Washington state also happens to live in a waterfront house on Lake Washington worth more than a million dollars.

Saw this today and thought of this thread.

Well duh, real estate is expensive in the Seattle area.

The problem with economics as a hard science is you never have a control. You can never say "This policy created this effect because we tried it with everything else exactly the same except the policy and got these two different results."

Economics has a lot more in common with data interpretation (which is obviously subjective) than with experimental science.

Which is why "serious economists" look at the link supplied by Aamilj and say "this is politics" based solely on the URL without even clicking.

To think of Keynesian economics as having no merit is like saying to a cancer patient on their death-bed that they have the heart and lungs of a 20-year-old. Our bodies are systems, the economy is a system. To try and isolate one particular aspect and completely disregard all others is to ignore the whole patient.