What the Right Finds Wrong With Welfare to Work

What the Right Finds Wrong With Welfare to Work


fasten your article the a appeared in in the in the washington times very
conservative newspaper got picked up over Newsmax and variations on those have appeared over
the years in fact the big variation on this was the the story that we did a few weeks
ago that that made it big in the in the liberal side of the above the
internet which is that the average Walmart costs us about a
million dollars a year cost the community local community or
taxpayers the country inn but a million dollars your because we subsidize wal-mart’s workers
by giving them food stamps and housing assistance and the the other other forms of assistance that the whole mcdonald’s business model
we subsidize biz McDonald that that you know and and the argument that was made was that you know we really should change our at
least are minimum-wage laws so that if you can’t pay somebody a
decent wage a low-wage that on which they can live I mean Walmart
workers literally cannot live if they buy everything a Walmart can’t live and on a
wall art sorry on a full-time Walmart starting shower so you know that that there should be some sort a basic
minimum and and it turns out that you know we’re
pain on average thirty six dollars per for this for the 50,000 dollar household
this is the median household United States that household pays fit it
pays thirty six dollars a year for food stamps and pays over six
thousand dollars a year in various forms a corporate welfare
corporate subsidies about 1200 out a dollars a year that is subsidizing Walmart and he’s big fast
food companies up biatch subsidizing their employees but how did this come about patrice hill
rhoda this past name peas she’s chief economic
correspondent for The Washington Times over the washington times we may den factor I’m I would guess that we all
certainly disagree on what we should do with this information but i I found the genesis of it fascinating
patrice welcome to the program thanks very much are thanks for having
me off thanks for joining me up for small do
you disagree with any any part of the been a what I’ve
characterize so far no I think you know there’s it be
interesting thing about the topic is there’s a any number of ways you can look at you
can look at it first taxpayer subsidies the corporation
are republicans as you know are choosing a look at it as taxpayer subsidies %uh individuals who they think are not you
know pulling their weight in and and sort of depending on
government shit to get by min so there’s just a lot of different
ways angles you can look at this and it’s a very it’s rather complex topic and what I thought was interesting
is that as you said the Liberals have taken the view actually very close to the conservative
you that this is taxpayer subsidies to corporations but with not intended by the welfare law
welfare reform law so win in 1996 I but there are some
Democrats and I quote Jason Furman chairman of the council regional
economic advisors saying that this is actually what was
intended by the welfare law that you know the government would essentially be
supplementing people’s income for people at the bottom
and a very have the income scale the government
would be supplementing with food stamps earned income tax credit you know
medicaid all times are very out quite very lucrative and costly
benefits right and that was a actually
contemplated with when the welfare law well an end and at
a certain level and and you write about this I he may be
right inasmuch as at that time prior to 96 in this was a collaborative effort
between bill clinton and new gingrich if Beiber if my memory serves me right
correct me if I’m wrong yes on those were two to have the principal
yeah here’s yeah the that that the goal was to look at multi
generational poverty multi-generational welfare and say we’re
gonna and that we’re gonna break that cycle people can only be on welfare for
basically four years or maybe it’s five years and after that you’ve got to get a job
now we realize is not and now keep in mind
this was during the dot-com bubble they %uh there’s a roaring boom
unemployment was a three-and-a-half four percent of the time I really low whatever was and so there
were jobs out there so there’s that you’ve got to get a job in a if the job doesn’t pay all that well arm
will give you a little transition on the assumption that eventually you’re
gonna get promoted or over time you’re going to get a little seniority that these are starting job zeal surtout
with and you know year two years three years down the road you will be making in two three four dollars an hour more
that’s obviously now how it worked out and but do you know that in a way this
is this this proves the old saw that the road to hell is paved with good
intentions you think yeah its I think you stated
that it’s actually correctly that it was supposed to be just a wake up you know
to help people get started in the work world and then
eventually day with you know as you say promote to get promoted and
move on and and me as a person minimum wage level
but it you know to it hasn’t worked out that
way first because corporations are choosing to pay workers even people with some skill at this low
wage but also I think keep all some other people it this
income level are not really doing what they could to develop their skills and get the
education they need to move to better-paying jobs no yes it’s it some you know whether you want to blame the
company or blame the individual you can’t we can we can agree that the
situation is not a good and healthy situation art but
arguably for the people or for the corporations
but perhaps most importantly it’s not a good healthy situation for that we the
taxpayers that this this the server you know
several thousand dollar-a-year per family tax subsidy basically the working people
are pain to subsidize poverty level wages um the people
working at those wages are the corporation’s depending on a you know which way you want to look at
this glass half full or empty that that that’s not a healthy thing for
our democracy at that money could be better used for anything from building roads to cutting taxes right home okay ice I think the this list you know that that was certainly not
what people who got into this as although as I said at their is camp
within the democratic party that steel that is saying that this post yeah
why we test corporatist can also those those those
%uh those are the corporatist corporatist democrats the democrats who
who want to be in bed with the big corporations and and take money from those big
corporations and be subsidized by them and has you know if you recall for men
even argues that if you force wal-mart to pay worker so
that they wouldn’t get those benefits in other words which is basically pay them enough to make up for the benefits right
they would have no profits and it would wipe out Walmart right
which is now teaches that which is arguably a but it’s not
true well you know they have to if the only
way it will be true said they would have to raise prices and 10 Costco competes with wal-mart may
pay they start out a forty thousand dollars a year me so I can I think that you go with the
differences and we had one these guys on the that
the guys who on Costco on the to the two guys who started house
go on the the principal owners a Costco are worth a couple hundred million
dollars and they make a few million dollars a year the Walton the the six Walton airs was own more wealth than the bottom 30
percent of all over america you know in aggregate their the richest
person in the world and they’re earning hundreds of millions
of dollars a year so justice stockholders in there not
even you know they don’t even on all the stock here even a majority of it anymore so you know Costco ought you know
compete with wal-mart but they do it by taking less money for the owners it is
real simple but in any case as thats you know I a
whole other issue I suppose but so we we have just a few seconds left
but received a really good job identifying the sorrow recommend this to
people welfare to work law encourages low wages raise dependency and federal
benefits as the article patrice hill rotor over at the at the ultram I’m in the newspaper the
washington times thank you just Washington Times acecomm and you people can look it up solutions does
anybody talk about solutions patrice well I think people are just starting to
talk about and I’m not sure that they get a lot out in the whole the whole listing the way we’re talking
about it and I think the bottom Republic answered
if you hit that like problem with over standing on welfare and many Democrats
commuting and problem with just raising the minimum
wage and realtor actually cue go for the kill and
you have to look at you now in her all the time correct the problem right I agree tho
I’ll probably it patrice rear areas rethink their they
might actually be able to at all it ever hang on and and assesses
the Thom Hartmann program the trees I totally agree with you and
the tree sell the kimchi for economic correspond with the washington
is washington’s I come thanks for being with us thanks for having me enjoyed it thank
you

Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 thoughts on “What the Right Finds Wrong With Welfare to Work”

  • Hey conservatives GO TO HELL and rot there, I am sick of paying taxes for fucking rich to get richer and corporate welfare, it is time to stop that b/s once for all, nationalize all industries.

  • This is hillarious. I'm from the UK, in the 70s there was a titanic battle with the elite. The peopke wanted to create a social democracy, and the right were losing their minds at the thought of giving up their class benefits over peopke. The right won by claiming that govenment could no longer support the buisnesses that could not stand on their iwn two feet (growth the world over was much better in this post ww2 period). So they played to the bigoted right at the encouragement of the Washington Consensus. They fucked the unions over goid and fucking proper. Demoralised the working class and allowed the rich to make out like bandits. The self same strategy was used in the US and after 30 years of class war? The corporations are STILL being kept alive by the state but now the rich are STUNNINGLY wealthy and the middle class shrinking and being utterly gutted. It had NOTHING (yet again) to do with the government handouts it was and continues to be a class war by the most pathologicalky greedy agaibst everyone else…