Out-of-state welfare money being used around Orlando attractions
Posted
Missouri welfare dollars are being withdrawn at places like Sea World and the Magical Midway Amusement Park in Orlando, Florida. News 4 requested ATM data from the Missouri Department of Social Services covering a one year period beginning on September 1, 2010.
Read more and see video from KMOV/St. Louis.
Jeff said:
To Brandon's point, it's the phraseology of things, the toxic and divisive language, that really gets to me. To suggest that money is being "funneled" to anyone suggests that something immoral is occurring here.
Well, tax cuts for wealthy people, under the guise of creating jobs, has essentially done exactly that - funneled money from the market "engine" to the wealthy. And that transfer has done nothing to generate jobs. It's no so much immoral as it is illogical, in terms of economic sustainability.
The general ethos of the whole occupy movement is that anyone who makes over $250k got there by being "greedy" or otherwise immoral, with complete disregard to how those people invest, conduct themselves or contribute time and money to charitable causes. That kind of annoys me.
I think (or perhaps hope) that the occupy movement is, at its core, about the policies that allow or promote the disparity in wealth between classes, rather than a general hatred for the wealthy folks who are in a position to benefit from said policies. But due to the complete lack of focus and the general haphazardness of the movement, it all comes across as a bunch of whining, and is only marginally more tolerable than the tea party BS.
Brandon | Facebook
I agree with you about the tax cuts, and I might be naive, but I don't believe that this was ever done as a means to keep the little man down or the rich at the top. I think it's just the result of really bad politics and economic theory.
You're also right about the lack of focus. It really is just the politically opposite loud anger from the Tea Bag movement. It's just as non-constructive. There's also a part of me that understands the broken tax code as obvious, so why don't we elect like-minded politicians? If this is truly a populist movement, it should be a slam-dunk to elect leaders that agree with it. Since that's not happening, I can only assume that it's either not a populist movement or the entire body of like-minded people is completely without anyone willing to lead.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Good discussion... As we talk about perspective...keep in mind that this is a thread started because "out-of-state welfare money" is being used at Sea World.
It seems that every time these types of abuses are brought up, the argument morphs into legitimate needs and those that truly could not survive without assistance. We are not talking about that segment of the population. We are talking about the segment that takes government assistance and then uses the taxpayer money to subsidize a vacation/trip.
Earlier is was suggested that now or soon a full 50% of American children will recieve federal assistance. The legitimate question that should be asked is DO 50% of American children NEED federal assistance? Is there a possibility that we have inflated the definition of "poor" so much as to provide disincentive to work?
Jeff said:
I agree with you about the tax cuts, and I might be naive, but I don't believe that this was ever done as a means to keep the little man down or the rich at the top. I think it's just the result of really bad politics and economic theory.
Not to be an ass....but I think you are being a little naive. MY take is that legislators were sold a bill of goods (so to speak) under the guise of reasonable economic theory. The academics did point out that trickle-down was a farce when it was first introduced...
My understanding (and I might be a little naive on this point as well) is that it wasn't intended to "keep the little guy down". I do believe it was intended to send money up the SES ladder to the wealthiest....whatever happened to the little guys, and our economy as a whole, was porbably not even an afterthought.
[fixed italic weirdness -J]
But if that really is true, that means the majority of Americans were OK with it by way of (re)electing proponents of trickle-down. The house is today a majority that uses the term "job creators" in great numbers.
I still strongly believe we get the government we deserve, and if that means the public is apathetic or unwilling to dig in, then that's that.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Who are we supposed to elect into these offices? At their core all politicians are basically the same. They care about the higher classes for 3 yrs. and then care about everyone else for the last year before elections. And I do mean both political parties.
Carrie, in regard to your story about Williston, one could argue that it represents an opportunity for home builders and related industries, and all the other businesses that spring up to serve a growing population- retail, restuarants, entertainment, etc. When the first settlers moved out west, they lived in their wagons until they built their own houses. Immigrants in the last century here in PA lived in boarding houses, and very often guys who worked different shifts slept in the same bed at different times. But now people can't move to certain areas because they don't have housing that looked like it was on HGTV, complete with landscaping. or heaven forbid, there's nothing to do there!
About the issue of the growing income gap, yes I have problems with executives who were awarded bonuses for businesses that failed or lost money. Compensation should be tied into the value one brings to the company. Killing the share price or the profits doesn't add value to the company. But in general, it comes down to math. If you have two people, one making $200,000 and the other $20,000 (just to keep it simple), and both get an increase of 10%, now they're making $220,000 and $22,000 respectively. The gap went from $180K to 198K. Is that fair? Would it be more fair and feasible to give them both $20,000 increases, or $2,000 increases? ( I also wouldn't consider it fair to give employee #1 $22K and employee #2 no increase.) Couldn't you argue that employee #2 agreed to the salary at which he was hired, and realistically shouldn't expect to match those making more than he dollar for dollar in pay increases?
Well, certainly, yes. In fact the couple that they profiled moved out for a teaching position because the area schools are expanding. There is an entire community infrastructure building where there once was none.
But seriously? You're suggesting that not wanting to live in your car or in a sleeping bag on the street is the same as expecting a house from HGTV, complete with landscaping? That's a ridiculous jump. Let's at least try to be reasonable about the expectations of living standards for those trying to make a move for the better, especially in an area that had a record snow fall last year of 107 inches.
"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin
Dammit, Gator, learn how to close your tags! :) Let's see if this works...
I think what gets lost in all of these arguments is a plain truth...
The goal of *any* assistance program should be to put itself out of business. To render itself obsolete.
Instead, we have ever increasing numbers of people seeking assistance. That tells me that something is wrong. And yet if we look at how people are doing, it seems that the tide is still rising. What does that "T" in TANF stand for again? And why do so many people seem to forget that?
Incidentally, I'm with Jeff on the income inequality/wealth gap question. These systems have a way of balancing themselves, which is why the system is more sustainable than it appears. At the bottom end of the scale, wages are rising, albeit more slowly than certain select (but very important) costs are rising. The market still works for most consumer goods, with the result that in fact, overall buying power is actually growing faster than wages. The exception is in select products whose costs are directly related to exchange traded commodities: most obviously food and energy, and to a lesser degree, housing.
What is missing from the equation, and what makes the system look unsustainable when it , in fact, is not, is the *creation* of new wealth. The truly wild thing about the American economy is that the total amount of wealth *is not fixed*. There is not a fixed amount of money to be distributed between all Americans. Instead, wealth is created and destroyed on a daily basis. Wealth is derived from the *movement* of money through the entire economy. This becomes more true every day, as more and more of the assets of those top 1% are represented not by actual tangible objects, but by buying power. We all participate in this system, but the only way it works is if the money keeps moving. As long as the money keeps moving, wealth is created. The faster the money moves, the more wealth is created. For a concise (though incomplete) explanation, watch the last eight minutes of "Wakko's Wish." :)
It's a bit like the argument over tax rates. The system is complex, and frequently...in fact, almost always...an increase in tax rates results in a *decline* in tax *revenues*. The surest way to increase tax revenue is to get the money moving faster. I think our smartest politicians know this. Unfortunately, what they also know (but won't admit in public) is that there is very little that government can do in a market economy to make the money move. Gumming up the works is easy; getting things moving is a lot tougher.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
/X\ _ *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ /XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX
Carrie J. said:
You're suggesting that not wanting to live in your car or in a sleeping bag on the street is the same as expecting a house from HGTV, complete with landscaping? That's a ridiculous jump. Let's at least try to be reasonable about the expectations of living standards for those trying to make a move for the better, especially in an area that had a record snow fall last year of 107 inches.
Oooh. This brings up a neat question. What is a reasonable expectation?
We know that temporarily living in your car now to make things better later is too much for you. That's not a reasonable expectation. In this case expecting assistance while looking for a better alternative is the way to go?
But where is the line? What about living in less than ideal conditions (a too small, too run down apartment) or in the next town over or two towns away (with a long commute)?
At what point do we say the one step back isn't worth the two steps forward that will follow?
I don't know exactly where I put that line, but I feel like it's not until one has exhausted every option that they turn to assistance.
My mother had a neighbor once that existed solely on disability benefits, but he washed his car, mowed his grass was building stuff in his garage all the time. My logic was always that if you are well enough to do those things, you are well enough to make your own money doing those things.
It's that kind of mentality that I subscribe to. As long as there's another option, you take it. Letting the government pay for your existence is the absolute final path to follow...and it's a temporary one at that.
Lord Gonchar said:
I don't know exactly where I put that line, but I feel like it's not until one has exhausted every option that they turn to assistance.
{...}
if you are well enough to do those things, you are well enough to make your own money doing those things.
It's that kind of mentality that I subscribe to. As long as there's another oprion, you take it. Letting the government pay for your existence is the absolute final path to follow...and it's a temporary one at that.
Yes.
RideMan said:
Dammit, Gator, learn how to close your tags! :)
I close them the same way everone else does, one bracket at a time with i and /i Or do you all do it differently? Apparently so... :)
Unfortunately, what they also know (but won't admit in public) is that there is very little that government can do in a market economy to make the money move. Gumming up the works is easy; getting things moving is a lot tougher.
It's easy to make money move....but obviously, not every tax rebate is going to function as efficiently as giving the same 300 bucks to everyone. A remarkably effective stimulus if ever there was one, because while $300 just goes unnoticed into the watr chest of someone like David Koch, Ma and pa with four kids in the holler spend it right away - at a local business that's also turning the money over quickly. The multiplier effect is WAY highest among those at lower SES levels.
Jeff said:
But if that really is true, that means the majority of Americans were OK with it by way of (re)electing proponents of trickle-down. The house is today a majority that uses the term "job creators" in great numbers.
Takes longer to realize the negative effects of poor economic policy just like it does the beneficial effects of good policy. I know the debt is horrible and al, and has been for a while, but right now we'd be way better off just taxing the so-called job creators to raise enough revenue to create even (TEMPORARY) government jobs. People don't create jobs, DEMAND for goods and services creates jobs.
Re: the "temporary" nature of assistance - what about people that are permanently disabled....say a Veteran, since we're still in mid-November?
Oh, and PS....I have no idea what's going on with the italics....and it' hasn't always been me....but this time, I think it was....although the tags look/looked fine...LOL!
The offending tag was the [i/] you used hat started all this slanty crap. Because it was wrong it displayed, that's how I knew it was you.
Funny you mention rebates...the "failed stimulus" worked ou to about $800 per taxpayer. It probably would have been more effective to send everybody a check. And it would have been more efficient to simply adjust the tax tables and tell payroll managers to not collect the first $n of Federal tax. But that isn't "targeted" so it's "no good".
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
/X\ _ *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ /XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX
"Takes longer to realize the negative effects of poor economic policy just like it does the beneficial effects of good policy. I know the debt is horrible and al, and has been for a while, but right now we'd be way better off just taxing the so-called job creators to raise enough revenue to create even (TEMPORARY) government jobs. People don't create jobs, DEMAND for goods and services creates jobs."
First, we are not in debt because of marginal tax rate inefficiencies. We are in debt because we do not have disciplined spending habits. Second, the current recession is also not a result of marginal tax rates. The current recession was brought on by an unsustainable housing bubble that was mostly propagated by politicians who forced businesses/banks to provide mortgages to people who otherwise would not qualify AND who never had the intention of paying the loans back.
Moment to note that the housing bubble just sped up the demise as our unfunded liabilities would have eventually led to the same outcome…but that is another day and another argument.
The main point…taxes and tax rates have NOTHING to do with the current state of our economy. There is no change in tax policy that will get us out of this mess. Only a drastic change in spending habits will suffice.
Had capitalism been allowed to flourish, the housing bubble, derivatives, etc would have never happened. It was politicians, mostly on the left (all?), who pushed their “fairness” agenda (i.e. everybody deserves the American Dream) right up the throat of a free market. The fact is that not everybody can afford a home. Anybody with a 5th grade education could do the math on the loans these banks handed out and realize it was unsustainable. Yet the politicians (Dodd, Frank et al) kept pushing for more “fairness” despite the fact THEY KNEW it was unsustainable. Obama himself was involved in at least one bank shake-down well before he became famous. Ask yourself why a politician would push such a disastrous fiscal housing policy for the greater country? What might these politicians have had to gain by their activism?
Now to the discussion of marginal tax rates…which are separate and unrelated to the above.
Those who equate poor economic policy with a failure to raise taxes on the rich are not following ANY reasoned theory of economics. They might be following political talking points, but certainly not economics.
The following is fact. Not opinion from the right or left...we have plenty of data to see how marginal tax rates affect economic growth.
In the last two decades of the twentieth century more than fifty nations significantly reduced their highest marginal tax rates on individual income. Tax rates on corporate income were also reduced in most cases. There were a handful of countries did comparatively little to reduce the highest tax rates—notably, most of Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, and Japan. None of these countries experienced the economic growth of those who chose to cut marginal rates.
Why did so many other countries so dramatically reduce marginal tax rates? Political authorities saw that other national governments fared better by having tax collectors claim a medium share of a rapidly growing economy (a low marginal tax) rather than trying to extract a large share of a stagnant economy (a high average tax). East Asia, Ireland, Russia, and India are a few of the economies that began expanding impressively after their governments sharply reduced marginal tax rates.
Among the world’s twenty fastest-growing economies as late as 2004 were Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Botswana, Thailand, Ireland, Malayasia, Portugal, Mauritius, and Indonesia. All these countries either had low marginal tax rates to begin with (Hong Kong) or cut their highest marginal tax rates in half between 1979 and 2002 (Botswana, Mauritius, Singapore, Portugal, etc.).
And yet given the observable outcome of what cutting taxes accomplished in the past 25 years as directly compared to Western Europe et al, we have an entire political party that subscribes to the Western Europe tax solution. They do this as Europe is falling before our very eyes. Greece is already bankrupt; Italy is next, the dominos start falling after that.
Why would an entire political party and many fooled followers subscribe to “solutions” that have shown to be inferior at best, and completely self destructive at worst? What would certain politicians have to gain by advocating the failed policies of Western Europe? Are we to believe that the most educated advisors in the current administration are not aware that the rest of the world grew their economies exponentially faster by CUTTING marginal tax rates?
As somebody who studies economics religiously, I am dumfounded at how little the average American understands simple supply and demand. There is not ONE example I can find of a country taxing its way to prosperity. It doesn’t work.
To the poster who implied that federal aid is supposed to be temporary… I give my opinion that for MANY who subscribe to such loose definitions as to who/what constitutes poverty…so much that federal aid is now subsidizing amusement park trips…THEY have no intention of EVER ending the cycle. Federal Aid buys votes. Synonymously, most of the very same advocates support confiscatory tax policy toward the upper class, not because it works…it clearly does not…BUT because it buys votes. The palpable anger and vitriol drummed up by class warfare is a powerful voter turnout mechanism.
Disagree with my opinions as you will. But you cannot change the FACT that countries with lower marginal tax rates outperform those with more confiscatory tax policy.
Aamilj said:
The current recession was brought on by an unsustainable housing bubble that was mostly propagated by politicians who forced businesses/banks to provide mortgages to people who otherwise would not qualify AND who never had the intention of paying the loans back.
I see somebody has been getting their daily dose of Fox News talking points. So the massive amounts of mortgage fraud and predatory lending committed by the banks had no effect on any of it?
As somebody who studies economics religiously, I am dumfounded at how little the average American understands simple supply and demand. There is not ONE example I can find of a country taxing its way to prosperity. It doesn’t work.
Honest question here: how is supply and demand going to fix the problem when the people with most of the wealth aren't spending anything, and the people who would normally drive the demand have no money to spend? I think everybody agrees that spending drives the economy and creates jobs, but right now we're stuck in a vicious loop because there's no jobs because there's no spending, and there's no spending because there's no jobs.
As for electing the same politicians who keep doing the same crap, I chalk it up to apathy. Too many people don't even vote (unless they're voting on Dancing With the Stars), and too many of the people who do vote don't make themselves informed. They cast their vote based off of whatever popular soundbite jived with their personal beliefs.
And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun
"So the massive amounts of mortgage fraud and predatory lending committed by the banks had no effect on any of it?"
The point is that the housing bubble caused the mess. Marginal tax rates is a separate issue. Mortgage fraud and predatory lending versus political opportunists is a chicken and egg scenario. I lean toward the side that says any person who signs loan documents should be responsible for their actions. But if you lean the other way and want to put the blame on the private banks...ok. We had smart people in the public and private sector who knew this was a house of cards. When will they occupy Barney Frank's lawn?
"Honest question here: how is supply and demand going to fix the problem when the people with most of the wealth aren't spending anything, and the people who would normally drive the demand have no money to spend?"
It will not start with increasing taxes on ANYBODY as history shows. Only the countries who get left behind use this tactic in good times, and especially bad times. It is exactly the wrong move.
The only way to turn the economy around is to alleviate the fear and uncertainty in the future. Companies are simply scared to hire in this situation.
We have the threat of increased taxes, the possible installation of Obamacare, talks of a second stimulus, Europe hanging by a thread (who do you think they will turn to?), and a Super Committee charged with reducing the deficit who agree less than we do on this thread.
I can't hire in this climate. I don't know what my taxes and health care are going to cost come January...let alone 5 years from now.
I don't have the answers. I'm not certain there is a possible solution given the political divide.
I do see the problem though. All the major uncertainties are caused by massive GOVERNMENT interventions. That needs to stop before we ever get a chance to thrive.
I wonder how many people see the huge posts from Aamilj, and decide that they are done with reading this topic?
-Travis
www.youtube.com/TSVisits
Aamilj said:
I can't hire in this climate. I don't know what my taxes and health care are going to cost come January...let alone 5 years from now.
I don't know any small business owners (not that I know that many anyway) who base their hiring on taxes and health care more than they base it on demand for their products.
Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."
Closed topic.
