Log in

View Full Version : hmmm I thought that high taxes and generous gov't benefits were supposed to ....



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Melonie
03-25-2007, 06:49 AM
^^^ actually if you had read the original article thoroughly you would see that Romanian poverty statistics were NOT included in the figure cited !

(snip)"n 2004, 16 percent of EU citizens lived under the poverty threshold defined as 60 percent of their country's median income, "a situation likely to hamper their capacity to fully participate in society."

The rate ranged from 9-10 percent in Sweden and the Czech Republic to 21 percent in Lithuania and Poland.

The figures, most from 2004, do not include Romania and Bulgaria which joined the EU last month. "(snip)


You're also sidestepping the true point - which is that a country like Sweden which has spent hundreds of billions of Kroner over past decades to provide extremely generous social welfare benefits STILL has a 9% poverty rate !

This has occurred despite the fact that Sweden has implemented very tough restrictions re barring the immigration of new people who aren't of Swedish descent and/or who don't have sufficient 'means' to support themselves through their own efforts who, if allowed to immigrate, would otherwise add to the poverty rate.

The primary logical conclusion must therefore be taken that 9% of Swedes are 'happy' living in 'poverty' and receiving those extremely generous social welfare benefits which comprise a huge non-cash subsidy to their standard of living ! The flaw in this analysis of course is that the non-cash value of gov't funded social welfare benefits is not included in the 'poverty' level calculation, only actual cash income. Thus if a true analysis of cash plus non-cash receipts were performed re 'poor' Swedes, one would most likely find that there aren't any Swedes who are truly 'poor' !

This logical conclusion is supported by the opposite position, that 'poor' Romanians who do not receive similar huge non-cash subsidies to their standard of living, i.e. people whose cash plus non-cash receipts are actually low enough to make them truly 'poor', are moving out of Romania ! I again ask the question as to where those 'poor' Romanians are moving to (they obviously can't move to Sweden due to that country's immigration laws) ?

~

flickad
03-25-2007, 07:10 AM
^^^ actually if you had read the original article thoroughly you would see that Romanian poverty statistics were NOT included in the figure cited !

(snip)"n 2004, 16 percent of EU citizens lived under the poverty threshold defined as 60 percent of their country's median income, "a situation likely to hamper their capacity to fully participate in society."

The rate ranged from 9-10 percent in Sweden and the Czech Republic to 21 percent in Lithuania and Poland.

The figures, most from 2004, do not include Romania and Bulgaria which joined the EU last month. "(snip)


You're also sidestepping the true point - which is that a country like Sweden which has spent hundreds of billions of Kroner over past decades to provide extremely generous social welfare benefits STILL has a 9% poverty rate !

This has occurred despite the fact that Sweden has implemented very tough restrictions re barring the immigration of new people who aren't of Swedish descent and/or who don't have sufficient 'means' to support themselves through their own efforts who, if allowed to immigrate, would otherwise add to the poverty rate.

The primary logical conclusion must therefore be taken that 9% of Swedes are 'happy' living in 'poverty' and receiving those extremely generous social welfare benefits which comprise a huge non-cash subsidy to their standard of living ! The flaw in this analysis of course is that the non-cash value of gov't funded social welfare benefits is not included in the 'poverty' level calculation, only actual cash income.

This logical conclusion is supported by the opposite position, that 'poor' Romanians who do not receive similar huge non-cash subsidies to their standard of living, i.e. people whose cash plus non-cash receipts are actually low enough to make them truly 'poor', are moving out of Romania ! I again ask the question as to where those 'poor' Romanians are moving to (they obviously can't move to Sweden due to that country's immigration laws) ?

~


Perhaps so, but it's interesting that poverty levels are higher in countries like Poland and Lithuania which aren't exactly known for generosity. Also, 9% in Sweden is not the one-in-six statistic bandied about on this thread.

Just for comparison, what's the US statistic?

EDIT- I'm not sure exactly what percentage of Romanians can afford to move (and if they can I'd question how poor they truly are), but I'd imagine that the ones who do immigrate go to a variety of countries, some outside Europe, some within.

Melonie
03-25-2007, 09:35 AM
^^^ again there is no precise definition of 'poor' in America. The generally accepted number that roughly compares to the European % of median income criteria is in the 12% ballpark. Again the non-cash value of social welfare subsidies is not calculated. Also, American taxpayers have spent something near 6 TRILLION dollars in the past 40 years to combat poverty, but the percentage doesn't improve.

Eric Stoner
03-26-2007, 07:31 AM
flickad- Negative population growth in Europe is very BAD for two very important reasons : Number one, a declining number of workers paying taxes cannot support the growing population of retirees and TWO- not enough "native born" European babies coupled with too many MUSLIM babies = a very troubling demographic trend that WILL ( if not arrested or corrected ) result in Muslim Majorities in France, Britain and possibly Spain by 2050 ; if not before. Would you like to see that ? Would you like fundamentalist Muslim governments taking over in Britain and France ( afer being duly elected btw ) ? Say "Goodbye" to the French and Spanish wine industries and no more chorizo or Serrano ham.Same for good times on the Cote D'Azur ; Costa Del Sol or Majorca ? Really want nightmares ? Both Britain and France have NUCLEAR arsenals and nuclear industries.

It is a serious problem and most "prophets" in Britain and France have been marginalized by the gov'ts of both as "racists" ; "fascists" and "jingoists".

flickad
03-26-2007, 08:49 AM
flickad- Negative population growth in Europe is very BAD for two very important reasons : Number one, a declining number of workers paying taxes cannot support the growing population of retirees and TWO- not enough "native born" European babies coupled with too many MUSLIM babies = a very troubling demographic trend that WILL ( if not arrested or corrected ) result in Muslim Majorities in France, Britain and possibly Spain by 2050 ; if not before. Would you like to see that ? Would you like fundamentalist Muslim governments taking over in Britain and France ( afer being duly elected btw ) ? Say "Goodbye" to theFrench and Spanish wine industries and no more chorizo or Serrano ham.Same for good times on the Cote D'Azur ; Costa Del Sol or Majorca ? Really want nightmares ? Both Britain and France have NUCLEAR arsenals and nuclear industries.

It is a serious problem and most "prophets" in Britain and France have been marginalized by the gov'ts of both as "racists" ; "fascists" and "jingoists".

Firstly, I don't believe all Muslims are extremists who wish to force their own brand of theocracy upon the entire West. Secondly, it is possible to encourage skilled immigration from a variety of countries, including Eastern Europe and Asia. Thirdly, I find some of your statements rather xenophobic and alarmist, to say the least.

Eric Stoner
03-26-2007, 10:07 AM
flickad- Thank you for proving my point. Those who are pointing out these demographic realities are being called "xenophobes", "alarmists" and worse.
Are you aware of HISTORY ? Do you know how Muslims ran things when they were in the MINORITY in Spain but were nonetheless "in charge"? Or Greece ? Sicily ?
Fundamentalism is VERY STRONG in European Muslim communities. The British bombers were native born Pakhistanis. Britain was a hot-bed of Al Queda recruitment for decades as part of an unspoken "deal' between radical Muslims and the British Gov't whereby they could recruit
and preach anti-Western hate as much as they wanted so long as they did NOT launch any attacks inside Britain. This was confirmed by a former radical Muslim agent and recruiter on "60 Minutes" last night.

When Muslims are in the majority they have tended to vote for RADICALS -witness Hamas defeating the PLO ; the elections in Algeria ; the strong support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt etc. etc. Look who won Iran's most recent election.

How do propose assuring that a Muslim government in let's say France will be secular ? Would you like to see them in control of France's nuclear arsenal ? If current trends continue it is NOT a question of IF but rather WHEN it will happen.

You can call me xenophobic or alarmist but the fact remains that there is a WAR between radical, fascist Islam and the West going on right now. Some say it goes back to 632. Others, that it started with the Barbary Pirates. Still others that it commenced in 1979 with the Iranian takeover of our Embassy or with the Beirut bombings in 1983. With naivite such as yours, Western Civilization will cling to "tolerance" and "diversity" and wake up one day to mandatory burkhas and a tax on Christians and Jews just like back in the good old days of the Caliphate.

Eric Stoner
03-26-2007, 11:42 AM
PanDah- One has nothing to do with the other. It's true that "Christian" regimes had very bloody hands themselves throughout history but I am talking about the PRESENT and FUTURE for Western Europe. You know, the secular Liberal Democracies currently existing vs. the very real threat of fundamentalist Muslim THEOCRACIES !

Eric Stoner
03-26-2007, 01:31 PM
^^^^
Let me see if I understand this.

Inflammatory comments about Muslim rule during the Middle Ages is relevant to the discussion of present and future conditions.

Pointing out that countries under Christian rule during the same time period had equally bad track records is not relevant to that discussion. :shrug:

OK. Got it. ::)

NO ! In point of fact, the Arabs who ruled Spain were scientifically advanced AND were religiously tolerant. They were FAR more tolerant of Jews than their Christian contemporaries. But, both Jews and Christians had to pay a special tax from which Muslims were exempt. The Muslim rulers of parts of Medieval Europe were NOT Wahabbists which is the current strain of Islamic fundamentalism dominating so
many Muslim communities in Europe today. Even though they might be in the "minority" their influence is greater than their actual numbers BECAUSE of their propensity to violence and thus their ability to intimidate the Muslim community at large not to mention the appeal of fundamentalist Islam to thousands of young unemployed Muslim men living in squalid ghettos in urban Europe.

For purposes of the present discussion, all of this irrelevant. I am talking about the CURRENT Muslim population of Europe which tends to be fundamentalist and radical. Even doctors, business owners and other outwardly secular Muslims are supporting radical Islamic groups financially either voluntarily or as the result of extortion. READ what the imans are saying in the mosques of Western Europe ; READ about what the Al Queda recruiters are doing and THEN tell me we have nothing to worry about.

flickad
03-27-2007, 12:24 AM
flickad- Thank you for proving my point. Those who are pointing out these demographic realities are being called "xenophobes", "alarmists" and worse.
Are you aware of HISTORY ? Do you know how Muslims ran things when they were in the MINORITY in Spain but were nonetheless "in charge"? Or Greece ? Sicily ?
Fundamentalism is VERY STRONG in European Muslim communities. The British bombers were native born Pakhistanis. Britain was a hot-bed of Al Queda recruitment for decades as part of an unspoken "deal' between radical Muslims and the British Gov't whereby they could recruit
and preach anti-Western hate as much as they wanted so long as they did NOT launch any attacks inside Britain. This was confirmed by a former radical Muslim agent and recruiter on "60 Minutes" last night.

When Muslims are in the majority they have tended to vote for RADICALS -witness Hamas defeating the PLO ; the elections in Algeria ; the strong support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt etc. etc. Look who won Iran's most recent election.

How do propose assuring that a Muslim government in let's say France will be secular ? Would you like to see them in control of France's nuclear arsenal ? If current trends continue it is NOT a question of IF but rather WHEN it will happen.

You can call me xenophobic or alarmist but the fact remains that there is a WAR between radical, fascist Islam and the West going on right now. Some say it goes back to 632. Others, that it started with the Barbary Pirates. Still others that it commenced in 1979 with the Iranian takeover of our Embassy or with the Beirut bombings in 1983. With naivite such as yours, Western Civilization will cling to "tolerance" and "diversity" and wake up one day to mandatory burkhas and a tax on Christians and Jews just like back in the good old days of the Caliphate.

I just don't believe that Muslims are about to take over the Western world, especially if diverse immigration is encouraged. Also, there's a history of Catholics doing the exact same sorts of things as Muslims have done in the past (the inquisition, bloody Mary, etc), but there's very little alarmism about Catholic immigration. Having said that, I will reiterate that skilled immigration from a variety of countries should be encouraged. Asian immigrants, for example, are often hard-working people who quickly find jobs and contribute to the economy (which is the experience in Australia, at any rate).

This thread is also not about immigration or the Muslim world, so I'm wondering how you ended up on those topics.

Eric Stoner
03-27-2007, 06:58 AM
This thread is also not about immigration or the Muslim world, so I'm wondering how you ended up on those topics.[/QUOTE]

Well we started on European poverty then went to declining birth-rates and went on to growing FUNDAMENTALIST Muslim populations in Europe. I think it's called "segue".

The U.S. has 10 million Muslims. Most are honest, hardworking, PEACEFUL folk respectful of our form of government and secular institutions. None of the 9/11 hi-jackers were native born Americans BUT in Britain virtually ALL of the bomb-plotters were native born Britons of Pakhistani ancestry and the recent riots in France were by long time residents both legal and illegal.

I think it's breathtakingly naive not to take note of the growing Muslim populations in European countries,especially those with nuclear arsenals, when that community has proven to be receptive to violent, radical Muslim terror.

flickad
03-27-2007, 08:15 AM
This thread is also not about immigration or the Muslim world, so I'm wondering how you ended up on those topics.


Well we started on European poverty then went to declining birth-rates and went on to growing FUNDAMENTALIST Muslim populations in Europe. I think it's called "segue".

The U.S. has 10 million Muslims. Most are honest, hardworking, PEACEFUL folk respectful of our form of government and secular institutions. None of the 9/11 hi-jackers were native born Americans BUT in Britain virtually ALL of the bomb-plotters were native born Britons of Pakhistani ancestry and the recent riots in France were by long time residents both legal and illegal.

I think it's breathtakingly naive not to take note of the growing Muslim populations in European countries,especially those with nuclear arsenals, when that community has proven to be receptive to violent, radical Muslim terror.

You were the one who started the discussion about birth rates and Muslims. Before that, poverty and welfare were the issues being discussed in this thread. I'm wondering what either of those have to do with any potential Muslim takeover, real or imagined.

Melonie
03-30-2007, 12:34 PM
^^^ well, high birth rates within poor families generally leads to big social welfare program costs. High birth rates within poor families also generally leads to the children not being able to attend college, translating into low skill levels when they reach sufficient age to attempt to join the labor force. In 'Old Europe', the birthrate of the 'native' population has now fallen well below the 'replacement' level of 2.1 children per family. However, in 'Old Europe' the birthrate + immigration rate of non-'native's far exceeds the 2.1 replacement level. And in the case of those 'Old Europe' countries that have actually permitted immigration, the non-'native' immigrants have primarily been poor and Muslim.

The key point that has drawn publicity in a few sectors, and which directly correlates to a potential Muslim 'takeover', is the democratic demographics. When immigrants are legal, they are entitled to vote. When poor immigrants and their voting age children begin to approach 50% of the electorate, they quickly discover that they can vote themselves 'free' benefits from the gov't. Of course those benefits are only 'free' to the recipients, not the taxpayers. Thus the expected reaction is for some portion of 'native' workers/taxpayers to jump ship before they are taxed to death - which only accelerates the 'takeover'. Perhaps Stuart could elaborate on the Jean LePen factor and relocation trends among high earning "Old Europe' citizens.

Eric Stoner
03-30-2007, 02:36 PM
MELONIE- A "Q" I don't know the answer to- How do European countries treat the children of "illegals" born in that country ? Do they, like us, consider them "citizens" if they were born in let's say France ?

In France, most of their Muslims are "legal" immigrants from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and other former French colonies. They also have a lot of Middle Eastern Arabs granted asylum.

In Britain, most of their Muslims are Pakhistani or Africans from former colonies like Nigeria.

At some point it will no longer matter whether they are "legal" or not or permitted to vote. They are already creating and threatening enough mischief and when ( not if, WHEN ! ) they are numerous enough and organized enough ( happening already in their mosques and madrassahs ) they will agitate and demonstrate DEMANDING their rights .

flickad
03-30-2007, 06:38 PM
^^^ well, high birth rates within poor families generally leads to big social welfare program costs. High birth rates within poor families also generally leads to the children not being able to attend college, translating into low skill levels when they reach sufficient age to attempt to join the labor force. In 'Old Europe', the birthrate of the 'native' population has now fallen well below the 'replacement' level of 2.1 children per family. However, in 'Old Europe' the birthrate + immigration rate of non-'native's far exceeds the 2.1 replacement level. And in the case of those 'Old Europe' countries that have actually permitted immigration, the non-'native' immigrants have primarily been poor and Muslim.

The key point that has drawn publicity in a few sectors, and which directly correlates to a potential Muslim 'takeover', is the democratic demographics. When immigrants are legal, they are entitled to vote. When poor immigrants and their voting age children begin to approach 50% of the electorate, they quickly discover that they can vote themselves 'free' benefits from the gov't. Of course those benefits are only 'free' to the recipients, not the taxpayers. Thus the expected reaction is for some portion of 'native' workers/taxpayers to jump ship before they are taxed to death - which only accelerates the 'takeover'. Perhaps Stuart could elaborate on the Jean LePen factor and relocation trends among high earning "Old Europe' citizens.

The fact remains that we weren't talking about how welfare programs come to exist (though I can guarantee you that they aren't there because Muslim immigrants voted them in). Nor was that what Eric was talking about- he was talking about his fear that Muslims were set to take over the world, or some such. Neither is the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is the effects of welfare on poverty rates. When someone suddenly jumps in with what are essentially racist remarks (Hitler said very similar things about the Jews), it looks like they have a giant axe to grind.

Melonie
03-30-2007, 09:35 PM
^^^ indeed you are historically and factually correct about the origin of social welfare programs ... which in general were instituted as a form of 'temporary' assistance at a time when the work ethic was alive and well and a time when collecting gov't benefits was something most people were ashamed to do.

Whatever the origin, the fact remains that here we all are several generations later, the work ethic has evaporated, the 'temporary' assistance has essentially become permanent, and collecting gov't benefits while working under the table is considered to be a legitimate career in some circles. Arguably, the generous levels of social welfare benefits that certain countries choose to provide has created a standard of living which now attracts 'career' benefit recipients. The arguable reaction is that both the number of social welfare benefit recipients increases, as does the cost of providing those benefits.

If you have any doubt of this change in paradigm, read today's Times !



(snip)"Seeking new solutions to New York’s vexingly high poverty rates, the city is moving ahead with an ambitious experiment that will pay poor families up to $5,000 a year to meet goals like attending parent-teacher conferences, going for a medical checkup or holding down a full-time job, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday."(snip)

Of course, San Franciscans appear to be taking a lesson from the Swedes ...



(snip)"In recent years, amid a long-vaunted tradition of generosity to the down and out, San Francisco found itself saddled with an outsize reputation of being overly friendly to the homeless.

"There's an impression we've created of free money,'' Rhorer says. "We get a lot of people who come here and say, 'It's not working, but now I have no job and no money and no way to get home.' ''

Two years ago, with the launch of Homeward Bound, the city started handing out one-way bus tickets, paying for transportation and food.

To date, the program has funded rides for nearly 2,000 people at a cost of $294,000. Transportation has been provided to every state except Alaska and Hawaii.

"I'm astounded at the numbers from other states,'' Rhorer says. "That tells you that people are coming from elsewhere.''

To Juan Prada, executive director of the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness, a nonprofit advocacy organization, the program simply shifted a problem elsewhere.

"It's just a ticket out of town. It does not guarantee that the person will be any better off,'' he says. "(snip)

flickad
03-30-2007, 09:53 PM
^^^ indeed you are historically and factually correct about the origin of social welfare programs ... which in general were instituted as a form of 'temporary' assistance at a time when the work ethic was alive and well and a time when collecting gov't benefits was something most people were ashamed to do.

Whatever the origin, the fact remains that here we all are several generations later, the work ethic has evaporated, the 'temporary' assistance has essentially become permanent, and collecting gov't benefits while working under the table is considered to be a legitimate career in some circles. Arguably, the generous levels of social welfare benefits that certain countries choose to provide has created a standard of living which now attracts 'career' benefit recipients. The arguable reaction is that both the number of social welfare benefit recipients increases, as does the cost of providing those benefits.

If you have any doubt of this change in paradigm, read today's Times !

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/30/nyregion/30poverty.html?_r=2&bl=&ei=5087%0A&en=d3012547396da712&ex=1175400000&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

(snip)"Seeking new solutions to New York’s vexingly high poverty rates, the city is moving ahead with an ambitious experiment that will pay poor families up to $5,000 a year to meet goals like attending parent-teacher conferences, going for a medical checkup or holding down a full-time job, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday."(snip)

Of course, San Franciscans appear to be taking a lesson from the Swedes ...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/30/BAGKDOUM4H1.DTL&type=printable

(snip)"In recent years, amid a long-vaunted tradition of generosity to the down and out, San Francisco found itself saddled with an outsize reputation of being overly friendly to the homeless.

"There's an impression we've created of free money,'' Rhorer says. "We get a lot of people who come here and say, 'It's not working, but now I have no job and no money and no way to get home.' ''

Two years ago, with the launch of Homeward Bound, the city started handing out one-way bus tickets, paying for transportation and food.

To date, the program has funded rides for nearly 2,000 people at a cost of $294,000. Transportation has been provided to every state except Alaska and Hawaii.

"I'm astounded at the numbers from other states,'' Rhorer says. "That tells you that people are coming from elsewhere.''

To Juan Prada, executive director of the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness, a nonprofit advocacy organization, the program simply shifted a problem elsewhere.

"It's just a ticket out of town. It does not guarantee that the person will be any better off,'' he says. "(snip)

I don't have any doubt about this change in paradigm- I already knew that social welfare programs date back to the Depression era and, at that time, manifested in a very different form (ie recipients worked in exchange for the government payment). I also concur that the work ethic now is not as strong as it was then, and that there are now career welfare recipients. However, I do believe that the existence of social welfare is an important safety net. Perhaps if we switched back to a Depression-style system that required volunteer work in exchange for its receipt, there would be fewer people who remained on welfare out of laziness rather than need.

Melonie
03-31-2007, 07:13 AM
Perhaps if we switched back to a Depression-style system that required volunteer work in exchange for its receipt, there would be fewer people who remained on welfare out of laziness rather than need.

I agree with the concept, but US judges do not. They have ruled that the state requiring that recipients perform a specific service in exchange for receiving gov't benefit checks (a.k.a. workfare) is unconstitutional.

flickad
03-31-2007, 09:40 AM
I agree with the concept, but US judges do not. They have ruled that the state requiring that recipients perform a specific service in exchange for receiving gov't benefit checks (a.k.a. workfare) is unconstitutional.

Just out of interest, on what grounds has it been ruled unconstitutional?

Melonie
03-31-2007, 10:37 AM
^^^ actually, a mind boggling array of things - contains a brief summary.

The primary area of litigation has been 'equitable treatment' ... where public sector employee unions have brought lawsuits making the case that 'workfare' recipients are in fact employees of the gov't, in direct competition with union workers. Thus in order to insure 'equitable treatment' they argued that workfare workers must be provided the same levels of 'pay' and benefits as union workers.

Branches of this claim have resulted in the requirement that the state perform an in depth individual physical and educational analysis be required before assigning particular workfare individuals to particular workfare jobs. Another branch involving a workfare recipient who had a heart attack on the job effectively makes the state 100% liable for injuries / damages sustained by workfare workers who have been 'forced' to leave the safety of their homes for the risks of a job site.

Bottom line is that the union litigation basically made it so expensive and cumbersome for the city / state of NY to actually implement workfare that it was cheaper to simply drop the issue and send out welfare checks as before (while paying union civil service employees to do the work slated for the workfare program).

(snip)"Brukhman was and is part of a broader twofold strategy to establish that workfare is work deserving of respect and to empower the organizing movement. In these respects, the case has been an unqualified success. First, it has served as a platform for further involving organized labor in the workfare struggle. The case highlighted that the erosion of wages for any worker is an erosion of wages for all workers. Organized labor responded to the threat and was able to use the information acquired in the court proceeding to support its campaign to have workfare workers treated as regular workers in other respects. In addition, city and statewide public labor unions and labor coalitions have submitted friend of the court briefs.

Second, welfare organizers have seized upon the inequities in treatment of workfare workers, many of whom perform work identical to that of regular city workers, to help focus the debate. To succeed, organizers and advocates must get public officials, the media, and workfare workers themselves to understand that they are not doing "make work" or merely learning basic life skills, but are engaged in serious work that provides a valuable benefit to the community. The Brukhman litigation brought out stories of workfare workers performing work including electrical repairs in public buildings, painting and plastering, building fences in public parks, and replacing clerical workers at City agencies. The extensive factual record submitted to the trial court and the court’s detailed decision make clear for advocates, organizers, and their supporters that workfare workers are not only welfare recipients, but also are workers exchanging a valuable commodity - their labor - for the cash assistance and food stamp grants.

Another victory occurred recently in Ohio after a public assistance recipient struggling to build an effective welfare rights organization in Northwestern Ohio contacted the Welfare Law Center through the Internet. She reported that her county was violating federal wage laws and requiring recipients to work at workfare jobs for less than the minimum wage. The Welfare Law Center joined together with the Ohio-based Equal Justice Foundation and threatened to sue the county and the state. The county and state quickly backed down and rescinded the policy."(snip)

thus the kiss of death was indeed economic ... from

(snip)"As a result, states will be required to pay minimum wage to workfare recipients, which will raise program costs enormously. States might also be required to pay unemployment, workers’ compensation and FICA taxes on behalf of workfare recipients. Potentially, the Davis-Bacon wage law could also apply, which means that some workfare recipients would have to be paid, not just the minimum wage, but the prevailing union wage. Workfare recipients would be entitled to overtime pay, would have the right to join unions and would even be able to take family and medical leave.

But workfare was never intended to be a job in any traditional sense. It is designed to be a transitional program to assist individuals until they are able to get real jobs. Almost as important as the benefits people on workfare receive are the skills they learn that will allow them to enter the real world of work. Critics of workfare warn that, if poorly implemented, welfare-to-work programs could simply become a source of government-guaranteed jobs. The Labor Department’s ruling makes that far more likely.

Moreover, welfare recipients already receive benefits far in excess of the minimum wage. Although the Labor Department’s ruling counts only food stamps and cash grants under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families against the minimum wage, most people on welfare receive benefits from a wide variety of other government sources, such as public housing, Medicaid and various nutritional programs. A 1995 Cato Institute study found that the value of the full package of welfare benefits -- which exceeded the minimum wage in all 50 states and the District of Columbia -- ranged from a high equivalent to $17.62 an hour in Hawaii to a low equivalent to $5.53 per hour in Mississippi.

Those benefits are discounted under the Labor Department’s ruling. An individual could live in public housing; have health insurance provided through Medicaid; receive food through the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children; and receive special grants for clothing, transportation and child care, yet still be entitled to the minimum wage on his or her workfare job. What a slap in the face to hard-working Americans who have played by the rules and taken low-paying jobs rather than go on the dole.

Since the new rules will drive up the cost of workfare, we can expect states to require fewer welfare recipients to work. Unfortunately, the budget agreement makes it easier for states to relax their requirements. Last year’s welfare reform defined work as -- not surprisingly -- work. However, the budget agreement redefines work to include a number of non-work activities, including job training, job search and even attending a community college. In addition, the budget agreement allows states to exempt up to 15 percent of food stamp recipients from that program’s work requirement.

Finally, the budget bill restores welfare benefits to legal immigrants, thus eliminating the commonsense idea that we should welcome new immigrants but should expect them to work.

Even under welfare reform, welfare spending was scheduled to rise by nearly $400 billion by 2002, despite declining caseloads. By some estimates, the new budget agreement will add an additional $100 billion to that amount. That does not count two new welfare programs created by the budget agreement: a new $24 billion entitlement for children’s health care and a $500 per child refundable income tax credit for people who pay no income taxes.

Slowly but surely, welfare as we knew it is being recreated. Instead of the promised changes from welfare and waste to opportunity and work, the budget deal apparently offers little more than a larger, more expensive and more problematic version of the failed welfare and job-training programs of the last three decades."(snip)

~

flickad
03-31-2007, 10:57 PM
^^^

Hmmm. Having read the articles, I can see why the courts would have been inclined to rule against the program in the form it was in. Asking welfare recipients to work hours disproportionate to the benefit received while simultaneously denying them access to water and toilet facilities veers perilously close to slave labour, in my view. Forcing those with disabilities to perform unsuitable labour is also, for obvious reasons, hugely problematic. Also note that workfare as a concept has not been disallowed by the courts. Governments have only been asked to institute the program under decent conditions, not to scrap it altogether.

Melonie
04-01-2007, 06:27 AM
^^^ this of course has yet to be tested. The state of NY was reluctant to do this because the next logical step was a class action lawsuit by minimum wage / low pay rate workers who were denied eligibility for public housing, Medicaid, welfare etc. because their earnings levels were too high. Providing such benefits to workfare workers while not providing the same benefits to non-workfare workers earning the same or less pay would have left the state vulnerable to the possibility of a court ruling requiring that millions of low income NY residents would have to be added to the social welfare program rolls on the basis of 'equal treatment' - at an additional cost of tens of billions of dollars per year to NY taxpayers.


sking welfare recipients to work hours disproportionate to the benefit received

This is a huge 'red herring' based on the DOL criteria which does not count the equivalent cash value of subsidized housing, Medicaid, subsidized utilities and a cornucopia of other non-cash social welfare benefits that workfare workers are actually provided with. The DOL criteria of only counting cash payments would also have been the basis of the follow-up class action lawsuit by non-workfare non social welfare benefit eligible low income workers - who would claim that they are also entitled to $300 a month in housing subsidies, $150 a month in utility bill subsidies, Medicare coverage etc. since their cash incomes are the same or lower than workfare workers ! This could have developed into an even deeper morass if the court wound up also ruling that Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws for public employees must be applied to workfare workers.


Forcing those with disabilities to perform unsuitable labour is also, for obvious reasons, hugely problematic

Again this is a huge 'red herring' since none of the workfare workers involved had OFFICIAL disabilities (for which they would have been entitled to collect disability benefits from SSI). The ""disability"" involved with the workfare lady who suffered a heart attack was about 150 pounds of excess weight !


Without dwelling on this aspect too much longer, the general concensus by attorneys for states that had originally considered workfare programs is that, under the DOL ruling, with the mandated bureaucracy to individually examine and evaluate every workfare worker and their proposed working conditions, the indirect costs of having to treat workfare workers as gov't employees in all aspects, and at risk of future 'equal treatment' litigation by private sector minimum / low wage workers with potentially massive economic consequences for state social welfare benefit programs etc., that the states were far better off financially by simply dropping workfare programs.

IMHO the whole sorry result of the workfare program only provides additional proof that there are now a large number of 'career' social welfare benefit recipients who have little or no work ethic - but who DO have years of experience in how to take maximum advantage of 'the system' - and who also have a support base of lawyers and unions who are ready and willing to help them do so as it also serves the lawyers' and unions' own self-interests. Arguably, those 'career' social welfare benefit recipients were created by the past generosity of state social welfare program benefits that provided an 'acceptable minimum standard of living' for social welfare program recipients without requiring that they ever actually work or ever actually leave the social welfare programs !

~

bellyflower
04-01-2007, 09:44 AM
Here's what I wonder, and pardon me If I missed it in an earlier post...

But is it really poverty if housing, education, and healthcare are all available?

As I understand it, social welfare doesn't eliminate poverty level income. it ameliorates the devastating effects.

I mean, beyond whatever numbers define poverty, or what a "living wage" is (does that mean you make enough to rent a room, eat, and wear clothes?)....

A living wage becomes a death wage when you can't afford to get your wisdom teeth out and get an infection with spreads to the bone, soft tissue, and brain.

A living wage becomes a death wage when one is infected with HIV...and cannot possibly afford any sort of treatment until our government's "safety net" catches them: when said individual develops full blown AIDS *and not a moment sooner*.

.....poor people.....owning homes!?!? What next!? That means nothing to me. the capacity (and tenacity) to provide a home for oneself and one's children does not mean a person isn't poor. own..rent..Does this factoid about home ownership mean to indicate that one is only poor if one is homeless? Must you be bankrupt to be poor?

Ever been poor? You think I'm going to pawn my color TV, a source of news, entertainment, knowledge, and comfort; my one luxury, my oasis of bliss and abandon, my one respite from worry and toil when I'm working my knuckles to the bone for pennies, backaches, and disrepespect from the boss man...to pay one bill for one month???? Hell no.

Do you think the total value of car+stereo+tv+dvd player+microwave is such that if all were liquidated, ma and pa could

keep their growing kids in clothes,

pay for preventative and maintenance medical care,

buy nutritious food (to be cooked in an oven, of course, at some point in time between those two jobs ma works to keep the family in that big fancy house they own)

buy nutritious food,

provide oppurtunities such as sports and music education to the little ones,

repair the mansion,

replace the bookcase (or is it only poverty if the books are on the floor?),

have a freaking hobby,

dress and groom oneself with dignity

have a bad habit (two bad habits, I presume, is a luxury reserved for only the most priviledged classes)

own books

heat the house

if they sold all this, does that mean the kids could go to summer camp?

does it mean ma and pa could afford a night out with friends? ....a movie, a burger and a soda, a beer, fries and a couple tunes on the jukebox....

could they screw in privacy? (or is screwing a game for rich people?)

Because, we know that without these things, one would still need to....

perform the manual labor essential in caring for oneself and others...maybe at the stove...in 100+ degree heat between jobs and kids (^^^the poor people sold their air conditioner to pay the heating bill^^^) in between the episodes of heat stroke and dehydration (so common before air conditioning, you know) despite one's weakened and damaged body (due to heat stroke...oh, and malnutrition since the strain taxes one's physical reserves to such an extent that kind of like crack addicts, the body becomes depleted of necessary vitamins, minerals, and the building blocks of life, yes, life, quality of life. life and the living wage)

What is luxury?

How do the poor live?

The poor live without a safety net. Many have at least one car, as we see. In a family, there is a lot of carpooling and a bit of bus taking. Mom and dad are at work a lot and can't afford daycare, so they try to work around leaving the kids at home alone, but nonetheless, little Johnny and Susie are latchkey kids. they know public transportation well, and often travel alone.

Johnny plays soccer but he can't join league, or even his school's team. A ride home for him after the buslines are closed is just another thing mom would have to beg for, so he plays soccer in the street.

Susie had a casio keyboard, but 8 of the keys quit working and then it finally got fried due to a power surge from the 30 year old outlet in her bedroom. Pa is not an electritian. Ma still leafs through Susie's old workbooks and sheet music, though she is not a music teacher. Lessons are expensive and there is no music education offered at the school.

Susie wears Johnny's hand-me-downs too, and she doesn't mind it so much, she loves him and looks up to him and treasures his old sweaters and bluejeans, but she feels strange when she ventures off the block.

Johnny's shoes have holes in them...always happens with payless shoes...but he doesn't say anything and Ma doesn't try to look too closely. He knows she doesn't have another twenty bucks to get him a new pair this month, so he wears three pairs of socks and toughs it out in the snow.

Naturally his toes froze together and now he's got frostbite. He hasn't told Ma this yet but he knows a little bit about frostbite and he sat in his room trying to decide how much black is too much black on a frostbitten foot and if his parents will still get to go out on their monthly date if he has to see a doctor(his family makes too much dough for any help on this front). When Pa see's him limping, Johnny says it's nothing and tromps to school the next day in the same shoes and five pairs of socks the next day.

It's excrutiating. He tromps back home after going a third of the way and misses a day of school.

Ma meanwhile has got bad migraines that keep sending her home from work.

Insurance for the whole family would be $300 a month with Pa's benefits, worse with hers, so she's not on the plan and doesn't wanna stretch it by seeing a doctor to get a renewal on that perscription she can't quite afford anyways.

She's already out of sick days and she's got 1 personal day left this year. Her coworkers think she's bullshitting and her boss is suspicious. Anyways, policy is policy, and she's not so special that she can keep her job if this continues. Disoriented, nauseated and in excrutiating pain, she ignores Johnny sitting there on the couch and stumbles off to bed.

Ma closes the curtains. She pulls the covers over her head. She is still. She is in pain. She worries. She worries about her son. Why is he home? Why can't she control that boy? God, her job. She needs this job. She needs the hours. She needs to pull some extra shifts this week, get the shopping done, figure out a way to fix the f**king toilet...and the pain explodes and fades cyclically with the waves of heat and cold fear and stress and frustration and hope and tears and sadness and determination and exhaustion running through her viscera.

Susie has trouble in reading class. She doesn't want her parents to know, so she steals the letters out of the mailbox and forges the signatures on notes from the teacher. This is easy to get away with because the phone is cut off this month. She will have to take remedial reading in summer school, but her grades in other classes will suffer as well because of her poor reading skills. This masks her innate intelligence, and teachers overlook her. There is nothing for her in school. Susie's friends are like her. They feel the same way, too.

On the flip side, Pa has finally shaved, and he started eating again. The newest kid on the cubicle block, he was the first one cut when corporate restructured. Pa is an old guy, though. Nobody wanted to hire him on in these positions they can fill with fresh college grads on the cheap. Now he's got two degrading low paying jobs where nobody gives a damn about his college degree. He's still looking around.

Pa, as a man, is too proud for unemployment benefits. Too late now, anyway. You pull your own weight in this world, and there is no sense in leeching off the system if you don't have to. If you can make it, make it.

It's been a little rough, you could say, but they managed to remortgage the house. If they can hold on to it, they will always have a place to live, and will never fear eviction or the streets. This house belongs to Ma and Pa and Susie and Johnnie. It is their shelter and their pride. It is their safety and security. It is a barrier against the burning summer sun and a center of warmth in winter. Even if they all wear coats inside and keep the thermostat at 60 degrees.

Why pawn the tv? Not going to happen. Sure, pay the phone bill this month and get it shut off the next. Go see a doctor once, find yourself in the same bind six months later with no tv to pawn.

Float debt on credit cards, buy and sell. Restructure, refinance, remit remit remit.

The zen of check clearance prediction.

The zen of the cheapest frozen food you can find.

The zen of nutritional anemia and ten year old girls.

Customer service with a smile on top of your migraine.

So glad dad finally took a shave. Sneak burritos into the dollar movies. Run to the library and never come back.

So many opportunities. That don't exist. You can't do model UN on Saturday when Mom needs you for her latrine sciences experiment in strategic coat hanger manipulation with adjunct plunger and sundry sharp and dangerous objects.

Burn a trashbag, hang it from the light. Drink a soda from the six pack, no one's counting this month. Happy New Year!

Wrap the baby in the clean sweater, wear the dirty one, ignore it when they notice.

And he sat on the couch for days and didn't eat a goddamned thing and . And the dent his ass left is still there. And yes I am thankful for my home and goddamnit if I don't thank god every day that Ma put something in my mouth to eat.

Susie will join the Airforce thinking hard about learning a skill or maybe college. It doesn't matter. She'll come home in a box.

Johnny will get on strait to university, but he's going to drop out after 5 semesters living in a studio apartment and working 40 hours a week at minimum wage. With no car and no cash, a simple trip to the store in that sprawling midwestern town is vastly time consuming considering the time constraints of work and transit schedules (which runs on the hour and shuts down at 7 pm every night) He'll stockpile toilet paper and canned tuna. He'll find himself with no time or energy for friends. He'll find himself broke and alone. Constantly. Better to get on with life and get a head start on paying back those student loans. Maybe go back part time. Maybe.
.................................................. .......................................



so the economy somewhere is tanking. so people are still poor. but is it the same? is poor over there the same thing as poor over here?

with better healthcare, education, transportation options, and nutrition, this family would be better off. Anybody working 40 hourse a week deserves these things.

johnny would have all of his toes, ma wouldn't have to endure so much physical and emotional agony, and pa might only have to work one degrading job instead of two.

i mean, jesus....okay, so there is poverty in europe. they aren't counting social benefits such as free medical care and educational oppurtunities/programs as income are they? probably not. and that's kind of important.

social welfare doesn't eliminate poverty level income. it ameliorates the devastating effects.

social welfare doesn't eliminate poverty level income. it ameliorates the devastating effects.

social welfare doesn't eliminate poverty level income. it ameliorates the devastating effects.

of course there is poverty in europe. that is why they created (and maintain) social welfare programs. we in the states should do the same, and improve upon the model.

fijense que there is enough food produced in the world to end starvation TODAY.

somehow, it doesn't get into all those hungry mouths.

in light of this fact, you can't tell me there isn't enough to go around, there is enough for all of us. we need to find a way to make it work.

PhaedrusZ
04-01-2007, 09:45 AM
...Without dwelling on this aspect too much longer, the general concensus by attorneys for states that had originally considered workfare programs is that, under the DOL ruling, with the mandated bureaucracy to individually examine and evaluate every workfare worker and their proposed working conditions, the indirect costs of having to treat workfare workers as gov't employees in all aspects, and at risk of future 'equal treatment' litigation by private sector minimum / low wage workers with potentially massive economic consequences for state social welfare benefit programs etc., that the states were far better off financially by simply dropping workfare programs.
Which is only one of many reasons why the availability of tax funds to politicians and/or bureaucrats needs to be significantly curtailed.

And a bit OT, but I think finally know what kind of proposition I'd like to attempt to have placed on the California ballot. One which will permanently outlaw the personal income tax within the borders of the state and replace it with a VAT. Even if it doesn't pass, it would be interesting to see who puts up the most money in opposition.

Since I don't have unlimited funds for research, would you know of any "thinktank" which has either already done such econometric models or might be interested in doing one or more such models of their own volition? (i.e., what percentage rate VAT you'd need in California to completely replace the income from the personal income tax). My viewpoint being you recover some, although not all, of the welfare expenses via the VAT. And due to the propensity of state politicians to ignore concerns of the middle class here anymore, I really don't give a rat's bleep about such a change being considered a regressive tax.

As to outlawing a state personal income tax, I believe that's already been accomplished by a ballot initiative in one state - courtesy of the good voters of Nevada.

Melonie
04-01-2007, 03:23 PM
^^ I would take a wild guess that, given the current sales tax rates, abolishing a state income tax in favor of a 100% vat / sales tax would result in a necessary sales tax rate in the 15%-20% ballpark. This of course would prompt a financial 'realignment', as well as an immediate call for social welfare benefit increases for the poor to cancel out the 10-15% de-facto price increases on everything they buy besides food. If social welfare benefits are not 'realigned' then the stealth 10-15% reduction in local purchasing power would indeed result in a savings. However, in point of fact, this is really no different than leaving tax rates alone and cutting social welfare benefits by 10-15% (other than the lack of stealth thus expected media outcry !!!)

Also, unlike their tax exempt muni bonds and tax favored wind farm investments, the 'rich' have no good way to avoid paying vat / sales taxes on anything they consume. Thus the enacting of a vat / sales tax in favor of an income tax would badly sting 'rich' californians ! This could risk mass relocation of 'rich' californians to other states, with commeasurate effects on california retail businesses.

PhaedrusZ
04-01-2007, 04:18 PM
^^Then this might be worth pursuing, just to "rattle the cages" of the California politicians, if nothing more. Plus, if it did somehow manage to pass, it would be a nice "parting shot" to the politicians from those middle-class individuals and families who then choose to move outside of the state themselves.

After reading your comments, I'm also wondering if this might be one method of lowering not only illegal immigration into California, but legal immigration as well - both from other states and foreign countries.

And if the "rich" did indeed leave California in droves, then you'd also need an "Exodus Project" website, in order to help as many middle-class Californias as possible to relocate to other states and foreign countries.

Melonie
04-01-2007, 06:35 PM
^^^ yeah, but ...

a state economy comprised only of public service employees, social welfare program benefit recipients and illegal aliens would have no economic 'engine' to propel it ... which in theory would soon cause the California economy to degenerate into one resembling that of Mexico - with a few very rich people, a huge number of poor people, no middle class people, and the vast majority of cash being generated by illegal business ventures rather than legal ones.

Eric Stoner
04-02-2007, 07:46 AM
FLICKAD- Are you comparing ME to Hitler ? How dare you !

If you wish to remain sanguine about growing Muslim populations in Western Europe effectively accomplishing via immigration what the Moors failed to do in 714 and what the Turks failed to do in 1688 when each invaded France and Austria respectively; that's your business. Many folks like y-self prefer to ignore the threat or pretend it does not exist. " Let's all join hands with our Muslim
brothers and sisters and sing Kumbaya ! ."

Let me ask you a question- Would YOU like to live in a country run by fundamentalist Muslims like Saudi Arabia or Iran ? Why not ? Couldn't you live without driving a car ? Not going to the beach ? Wouldn't you like to wear a burkha ? It's no big deal if you can't vote ; right ? Or if your hubby beats you ?Looking forward to that arranged marriage and bearing 7 or 8 children ? Hmmmm ?

I'm not being alarmist in the least. I don't make up the numbers and if population trends continue that is what you'll eventually see in at least one major European country. What will you, and people like you who preferred to keep their heads in the sand, say then ?

flickad
04-02-2007, 08:31 PM
FLICKAD- Are you comparing ME to Hitler ? How dare you !

If you wish to remain sanguine about growing Muslim populations in Western Europe effectively accomplishing via immigration what the Moors failed to do in 714 and what the Turks failed to do in 1688 when each invaded France and Austria respectively; that's your business. Many folks like y-self prefer to ignore the threat or pretend it does not exist. " Let's all join hands with our Muslim
brothers and sisters and sing Kumbaya ! ."

Let me ask you a question- Would YOU like to live in a country run by fundamentalist Muslims like Saudi Arabia or Iran ? Why not ? Couldn't you live without driving a car ? Not going to the beach ? Wouldn't you like to wear a burkha ? It's no big deal if you can't vote ; right ? Or if your hubby beats you ?Looking forward to that arranged marriage and bearing 7 or 8 children ? Hmmmm ?

I'm not being alarmist in the least. I don't make up the numbers and if population trends continue that is what you'll eventually see in at least one major European country. What will you, and people like you who preferred to keep their heads in the sand, say then ?


No, I'm not comparing you to Hitler. As far as I know you're not guilty of genocide. I was showing you the prejudice of your statements by pointing out that Hitler said similar things about the Jews. But no, I don't think you and Hitler are anywhere near the same league, if that's what you're asking.

No, I would not like to live in a country run by fundamentalist Muslims, just as I would not want to live in a country run by fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Jews or fundamentalist nationalists. But Muslims are not the only immigrants to Western European countries and a lack of white babies does not equal an impending Muslim takeover.

Also, I fail to see what any of this has to do with the issues of poverty and social welfare we were supposed to be discussing.

Eric Stoner
04-03-2007, 08:12 AM
No, I'm not comparing you to Hitler. As far as I know you're not guilty of genocide. I was showing you the prejudice of your statements by pointing out that Hitler said similar things about the Jews. But no, I don't think you and Hitler are anywhere near the same league, if that's what you're asking.

No, I would not like to live in a country run by fundamentalist Muslims, just as I would not want to live in a country run by fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Jews or fundamentalist nationalists. But Muslims are not the only immigrants to Western European countries and a lack of white babies does not equal an impending Muslim takeover.

Also, I fail to see what any of this has to do with the issues of poverty and social welfare we were supposed to be discussing.

Gee thanks. I think.

Rather than have me prattle on, why don't YOU tell us why we have nothing to worry about WHEN Muslims achieve majority status in France and Britain ? What assurance is there that Sharia will not become the law of the land in at least one European country ? Why don't YOU tell us that it will be a GOOD thing for a Muslim government to have control of the French and/or British nuclear arsenal ?

flickad
04-03-2007, 07:56 PM
Gee thanks. I think.

Rather than have me prattle on, why don't YOU tell us why we have nothing to worry about WHEN Muslims achieve majority status in France and Britain ? What assurance is there that Sharia will not become the law of the land in at least one European country ? Why don't YOU tell us that it will be a GOOD thing for a Muslim government to have control of the French and/or British nuclear arsenal ?

I don't think it would be a good thing if Sharia law was instituted anywhere. I find theocracy distasteful. However, I am yet to see any evidence that it will be beyond your assertions, which you never seem to be able to back up with actual proof. There is no evidence that Muslims will achieve majority status in Europe. Immigration patterns are diverse and subject to change. Immigration policy also changes regularly at the national level, my own country being a case in point.

T-10
04-03-2007, 08:26 PM
Flickad,

I am REALLY enjoying watching you school the handful of wingnuts around here. Keep up the good work :great:

Melonie
04-03-2007, 10:01 PM
It would appear that Godwin's Law has again been proven true.

flickad
04-04-2007, 03:21 AM
Flickad,

I am REALLY enjoying watching you school the handful of wingnuts around here. Keep up the good work :great:

It's nice to be appreciated ;).

Eric Stoner
04-04-2007, 07:25 AM
I don't think it would be a good thing if Sharia law was instituted anywhere. I find theocracy distasteful. However, I am yet to see any evidence that it will be beyond your assertions, which you never seem to be able to back up with actual proof. There is no evidence that Muslims will achieve majority status in Europe. Immigration patterns are diverse and subject to change. Immigration policy also changes regularly at the national level, my own country being a case in point.

I will go as slowly as possible for your benefit. If you actually bothered reading what I previously posted and even ( Saints Be Praised ! ) checked out the DEMOGRAPHIC data for yourself, you would see that this is a LOOMING problem.Just as the polar ice-caps will not all completely melt by next year or even in ten years; so too will it take time for Muslim influence to grow in Western Europe. At CURRENT rates of immigration and the BIRTHRATE for those immigrants; assuming they continue ( and barring birth-control and Immigration controls they will ) Muslims will be in the MAJORITY in France, Spain and possibly Britain within approximately THIRTY (30) years i.e. by 2040.
It is NOT am immediate "here and now" problem but it is a legitimate concern for both Western Europe and the U.S. Granted, the future can never be known with certainty. All we can be sure of is the past and present.There could be shifts in immigration patterns but that is VERY UNLIKELY BECAUSE of the SEVERE DECLINE in native EUROPEAN birthrates and the aging of the European workforce. Since most European countries have flat to negative population growth they have to IMPORT labor. Since European wages; conditions and social benefits are FAR beyond those available in the Third World there is a strong incentive for un and under-employed workers to go to Europe which they are doing in ever increasing numbers. On the one hand, workers and professionals from Eastern Europe have been moving West but in the tens of thousands e.g. about 100,000 Poles now live and work in Ireland BUT Muslims have been going to France, Spain and Britain
by the HUNDREDS of thousands per year. If, IF they were assimilating and becoming SECULAR there would be little if anything to worry about but unfortunately that is NOT the case.
First, most are ILLEGAL and try to stay utr. Secondly, they have been "ghetto -ized" and worst of all, many have been "RADICALIZED ". Remember the Paris riots ? Those weren't Koreans . The London & Madrid bombings were done by native Muslims who'd lived in Britain and Spain for years.

So rather than rely on just hope and wishful thinking how do YOU propose that Europe stop the Muslims from doing what the Moors tried to do in 714 and the Turks tried to do in 1688 ?

Eric Stoner
04-04-2007, 07:38 AM
Flickad,

I am REALLY enjoying watching you school the handful of wingnuts around here. Keep up the good work :great:

I can't wait for her to try and pry open that closed mind of yours. Now there's a challenge !

PhaedrusZ
04-04-2007, 01:54 PM
I...At CURRENT rates of immigration and the BIRTHRATE for those immigrants; assuming they continue ( and barring birth-control and Immigration controls they will ) Muslims will be in the MAJORITY in France, Spain and possibly Britain within approximately THIRTY (30) years i.e. by 2040...

Good article which I believe is related to this discussion

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI13Ak01.html

Interesting problem, but it seems to be a problem for Iran.

T-10
04-04-2007, 02:14 PM
I can't wait for her to try and pry open that closed mind of yours. Now there's a challenge !

There is a big diffeence between having an opposing point of view and having a closed mind. I consider all sides of any debate or arguement before I form an opinion. I just don't have a typical neoconservative or wingnut opinion on a variety of subjects but that doesn't mean I have a closed mind.

Please return to the civil tone and manner of debate which you were using awhile back, thanks!

flickad
04-04-2007, 05:43 PM
I will go as slowly as possible for your benefit. If you actually bothered reading what I previously posted and even ( Saints Be Praised ! ) checked out the DEMOGRAPHIC data for yourself, you would see that this is a LOOMING problem.Just as the polar ice-caps will not all completely melt by next year or even in ten years; so too will it take time for Muslim influence to grow in Western Europe. At CURRENT rates of immigration and the BIRTHRATE for those immigrants; assuming they continue ( and barring birth-control and Immigration controls they will ) Muslims will be in the MAJORITY in France, Spain and possibly Britain within approximately THIRTY (30) years i.e. by 2040.
It is NOT am immediate "here and now" problem but it is a legitimate concern for both Western Europe and the U.S. Granted, the future can never be known with certainty. All we can be sure of is the past and present.There could be shifts in immigration patterns but that is VERY UNLIKELY BECAUSE of the SEVERE DECLINE in native EUROPEAN birthrates and the aging of the European workforce. Since most European countries have flat to negative population growth they have to IMPORT labor. Since European wages; conditions and social benefits are FAR beyond those available in the Third World there is a strong incentive for un and under-employed workers to go to Europe which they are doing in ever increasing numbers. On the one hand, workers and professionals from Eastern Europe have been moving West but in the tens of thousands e.g. about 100,000 Poles now live and work in Ireland BUT Muslims have been going to France, Spain and Britain
by the HUNDREDS of thousands per year. If, IF they were assimilating and becoming SECULAR there would be little if anything to worry about but unfortunately that is NOT the case.
First, most are ILLEGAL and try to stay utr. Secondly, they have been "ghetto -ized" and worst of all, many have been "RADICALIZED ". Remember the Paris riots ? Those weren't Koreans . The London & Madrid bombings were done by native Muslims who'd lived in Britain and Spain for years.

So rather than rely on just hope and wishful thinking how do YOU propose that Europe stop the Muslims from doing what the Moors tried to do in 714 and the Turks tried to do in 1688 ?

Um. Shifts in immigration patterns (in terms of where the immigrants are coming from) have nothing to do with the ages or birthrates of the natives. They have to do with need, social policy, various policies at the national level, world events and a ton of other factors.

Also, where's your evidence that most are illegal? Oh, that's right, you don't like actually supporting your facts. As far as the demographic data goes, if you're the one making the point, it's your job to provide it, not mine to scurry after your pronouncements.

I'm not going to make any propositions towards solving a problem that hasn't actually been proved to exist. I could probably build a similar argument that America or the Christian Right is trying to take over the world, and I imagine it would look less preposterous than yours.

Melonie
04-04-2007, 06:59 PM
'm not going to make any propositions towards solving a problem that hasn't actually been proved to exist.

not meaning to be facetious, but does that apply to CO2 based global warming issues as well ?

T-10
04-04-2007, 10:38 PM
not meaning to be facetious, but does that apply to CO2 based global warming issues as well ?

What the fuck does global warming have to do with anything in this thread topic? Oh yeah that's right, NOTHING.

Nice bait job though ::)

Melonie
04-05-2007, 03:40 AM
^^^ well, it arguably points out a hypocritical position that extrapolation of certain data into projected future effects should be totally discounted in some cases (i.e. muslim birth rates), but should be totally credible in other cases (i.e. CO2 emissions) ...

flickad
04-05-2007, 06:41 AM
not meaning to be facetious, but does that apply to CO2 based global warming issues as well ?

Well, while that hasn't been proved conclusively, it seems highly likely given the evidence. I was also referring to a statement made by a forum member with no qualifications that I know of other than some fairly strong opinions, who's also been previously unable to show evidence for his assertions as opposed to a significant chuck of the scientific community. There's a fairly fundamental difference, I think.

Melonie
04-05-2007, 07:23 AM
^^^ as a matter of opinion at least, I don't see where the 'highly likely' prospects of CO2 based future global warming are any less 'highly likely' than the demographic based eventual majority of muslims in most western european countries voting for pro-muslim public policies.

Eric Stoner
04-05-2007, 10:29 AM
Um. Shifts in immigration patterns (in terms of where the immigrants are coming from) have nothing to do with the ages or birthrates of the natives. They have to do with need, social policy, various policies at the national level, world events and a ton of other factors.

Also, where's your evidence that most are illegal? Oh, that's right, you don't like actually supporting your facts. As far as the demographic data goes, if you're the one making the point, it's your job to provide it, not mine to scurry after your pronouncements.

I'm not going to make any propositions towards solving a problem that hasn't actually been proved to exist. I could probably build a similar argument that America or the Christian Right is trying to take over the world, and I imagine it would look less preposterous than yours.

Rather than just be petulant and insist that YOU do your own homework I'll try and get you started and point you in the right direction.

According to the E.U.'s own figures ( and remember E.U. member nations are REQUIRED to permit free travel among all members ) there are currently some 25 Million LEGAL Muslim residents in Western Europe. That does NOT include native born converts to Islam nor does it include LEGAL family reunification i.e. one comes in legally and then sends for the rest of the family. France has a 7-10 % Muslim
population; Belgium 5 %; the Netherlands 10%. According to the LEADING Scholar in Muslim Immigration to Europe- Robert S. Leiken ( member of the Council on Foreign Relations and frequent contributor to FOREIGN AFFAIRS ) there are currently about 20 million Muslims concentrated in the 3 Benelux Countries, Germany, France and the U.K. These numbers do NOT include ILLEGAL Muslim
immigrants which have been conservatively estimated to number another 25 Million Muslims in Western Europe as a whole. France's Muslim population is expected to double by 2025 ( that's just 18 years from now ).

All of the foregoing has been reported by such notorious "right wing" publications as TIME magazine and THE NEW YORK TIMES. I deliberately excluded sources such as FAIR ( Fairness and Immigration Reform ); Michele Malkin and the like so that no one could claim that the numbers are "no good" if the ideological bent of the author relying on those numbers could be called into question.

Using U.N. figures for Muslim birthrates in general and E.U. figures for Muslim birthrates in Europe (which are somewhat lower than for Muslims living in majority muslim countries by approximately 1 child per family) the Muslim birthrate is MORE than DOUBLE that of native born Europeans and non-Muslims.

Just using their own news accounts ; ALL European countries with significant Muslim populations are experiencing increased crime ( esspecially crimes AGAINST WOMEN like RAPE and gang-rape) and increasing violence between Muslims and non-Muslims. Just Google
THE LONDON TIMES; INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE : THE ECONOMIST and you'll see dozens of articles documenting the growth in Muslim populations ; in crime committed by Muslims ; the radicalization of Europe's Muslims ; the increasing frictions with non- Muslims; the growth in anti- Muslim groups and parties ( witness the strong support for Le Pen in France ) and most disturbing of all the explosion in Muslim immigration to Europe using asylum laws; tourist visas;student visas not to mention the widespread smuggling of illegal immigrants.

I didn't make up a single word or number. It's all available from reputable sources commonly accepted. Again, I deliberately OMITTED facts & figures from such sites as militantislammonitor.org even though their figures are in accord with those officially published by various E.U. departments. Likewise, I omitted U.S. gov't figures from publicly available CIA and State Dept. reports to avoid questions
about authenticity and reliability even though their figures and projections matched up with those of the E.U. and it's member nations. Instead I refer you to non-partisan and bi-partisan organizations like The COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ; The NIXON CENTER For PUBLIC POLICY ( don't let the name fool you; it's VERY mainstream ) while omitting otherwise reputable stuff from the HOOVER Institute and other supposed '"right wing" think tanks. Just so we could all come to a rough agreement on the numbers. It is important to note that NOBODY has a definitive number or commonly accepted CURRENT accurate estimate for ILLEGAL immigration in Europe. This is partly because of reluctance among SOME European governments to even take a good hard look at how many Muslims are actually entering and working in their countries for their own domestic political reasons. It is widely believed among scholars such as Mr. Leiken that they are seriously UNDERCOUNTING and that the actual numbers are actually 10 to 20 % higher.This is likely so because European governments have already been accused (with a lot of hard evidence) by EUROPEAN economists of drastically under-reporting their REAL unemployment rates and REAL homeless populations so it's hardly a stretch to make the reasonable assumption that they are also undercounting illegal immigrants. The numbers that they DO report are bad enough. Just in case you think I'm making any of this up all you have to do is Google the E.U.'s own reports on immigration (both legal & illegal).

Admittedly, there are two basic, albeit REASONABLE assumptions built into the future PROJECTIONS for Muslim population growth in Europe- 1. That the Muslim birthrate will remain at its current level as will the non- Muslim rate and 2. that current immigration rates both
legal and illegal will continue for some time. Obviously, if Muslim women start using the "Pill"; if Muslim men start wearing condoms ( both PROHIBITED under Sharia ) or if Europe starts cracking down HARD on BOTH legal and illegal immigration then it will take much longer for Muslims to hit 50% of the European population.

As for the problems associated with large Muslim populations in Europe- THEY EXIST NOW ! European mosques are dominated by fundamentalist imams. Al Queda and other radical Islamic terrorist groups have been recruiting in Europe for over a decade. Crime and violence by Muslims is increasing according to European police figures and press accounts.

Now, after you've had a chance to peruse the available information would you please tell us WHY Europe and the U.S. have nothing to worry about ? What do YOU claim is going to secularize, liberalize and assimilate some 50 million Muslims into European society over the next 10 years so that we will NOT see Civil War or increased Muslim vs.non-Muslim violence in Europe.Besides your own wishful thinking and desire to be "tolerant" and "multi-cultural" that is. Thank you in advance.

Eric Stoner
04-05-2007, 10:44 AM
There is a big diffeence between having an opposing point of view and having a closed mind. I consider all sides of any debate or arguement before I form an opinion. I just don't have a typical neoconservative or wingnut opinion on a variety of subjects but that doesn't mean I have a closed mind.

Please return to the civil tone and manner of debate which you were using awhile back, thanks!

Rather than wait for YOU to stop name-calling and for YOU to respect other points of view and for YOU to support YOUR opinions with FACTS; I will try to resume my normal and usual civility.

Eric Stoner
04-05-2007, 11:10 AM
[QUOTE=flickad;1027027]Um. Shifts in immigration patterns (in terms of where the immigrants are coming from) have nothing to do with the ages or birthrates of the natives. They have to do with need, social policy, various policies at the national level, world events and a ton of other factors.

You are 100 % INCORRECT ! Europe's aging native-born population and declining birthrate since World War II created the demand for immigrant labor.This is simply a commonly accepted HISTORICAL fact.If you don't like it take it up with the publishers of the History books. Millions of German men were killed in WW II and somebody had to do the lower paid menial work and that DEMAND was filled by the SUPPLY of immigrants mostly from Turkey and later from Africa and the Middle East. Same for France; the U.K. and other European countries.
I ALREADY POSTED the current EUROPEAN birthrates most of which are far below what is needed to replace the dead. How do you think a country's population sustains itself ? Women have babies and if they don't then they have to allow IMMIGRATION.

The aged do NOT work in Europe. They collect pensions which have to be paid for by taxes collected from those young enough to work and own businesses. Are YOU REALLY that ignorant of how the REAL WORLD works ? Where do you think the money comes from to fund pensions ; social welfare ; health care etc. ? Since Europe's native born are AGING, and declining in number, whether you like it or not, immigrants are being relied on to make up the difference - to perform the labor and pay the taxes needed to take care of the elderly and pay the other bills of the E.U. gov'ts. This has been so widely reported; published and commented on both inside and outside Europe that I can't believe that ANYONE would seriously question it. Based on WHAT ? Have YOU bothered to look up European birth-rates ? I doubt it. Do YOU have any idea what the median age of the average European is today ? Do you even KNOW what a "median age " is and its demographic significance ? Apparently not.

So before you dare to question the FACTS posted by me- get off your ass (ARSE ! ) and look them up yourself ! You can start with GOOGLE or YAHOO or any search engine you prefer- type in "Europe ,population, birthrate,immigration,Muslim "etc.etc. or whatever variant you like and then actually READ for yourself and THEN I'll sit still for your questioning of my facts and figures. If you want to question them that's fine.
You go right ahead and SHOW me the "what,why and wherefore" of how their authenticity and accuracy can be called into question. Unless you're prepared to do that ( and to date you haven't been bothered ) then I'll thank you to stop questioning them based on nothing more than your disagreement with my thoughts and ideas.

flickad
04-05-2007, 11:16 AM
Rather than just be petulant and insist that YOU do your own homework I'll try and get you started and point you in the right direction.

According to the E.U.'s own figures ( and remember E.U. member nations are REQUIRED to permit free travel among all members ) there are currently some 25 Million LEGAL Muslim residents in Western Europe. That does NOT include native born converts to Islam nor does it include LEGAL family reunification i.e. one comes in legally and then sends for the rest of the family. France has a 7-10 % Muslim
population; Belgium 5 %; the Netherlands 10%. According to the LEADING Scholar in Muslim Immigration to Europe- Robert S. Leiken ( member of the Council on Foreign Relations and frequent contributor to FOREIGN AFFAIRS ) there are currently about 20 million Muslims concentrated in the 3 Benelux Countries, Germany, France and the U.K. These numbers do NOT include ILLEGAL Muslim
immigrants which have been conservatively estimated to number another 25 Million Muslims in Western Europe as a whole. France's Muslim population is expected to double by 2025 ( that's just 18 years from now ).

All of the foregoing has been reported by such notorious "right wing" publications as TIME magazine and THE NEW YORK TIMES. I deliberately excluded sources such as FAIR ( Fairness and Immigration Reform ); Michele Malkin and the like so that no one could claim that the numbers are "no good" if the ideological bent of the author relying on those numbers could be called into question.

Using U.N. figures for Muslim birthrates in general and E.U. figures for Muslim birthrates in Europe (which are somewhat lower than for Muslims living in majority muslim countries by approximately 1 child per family) the Muslim birthrate is MORE than DOUBLE that of native born Europeans and non-Muslims.

Just using their own news accounts ; ALL European countries with significant Muslim populations are experiencing increased crime ( esspecially crimes AGAINST WOMEN like RAPE and gang-rape) and increasing violence between Muslims and non-Muslims. Just Google
THE LONDON TIMES; INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE : THE ECONOMIST and you'll see dozens of articles documenting the growth in Muslim populations ; in crime committed by Muslims ; the radicalization of Europe's Muslims ; the increasing frictions with non- Muslims; the growth in anti- Muslim groups and parties ( witness the strong support for Le Pen in France ) and most disturbing of all the explosion in Muslim immigration to Europe using asylum laws; tourist visas;student visas not to mention the widespread smuggling of illegal immigrants.

I didn't make up a single word or number. It's all available from reputable sources commonly accepted. Again, I deliberately OMITTED facts & figures from such sites as militantislammonitor.org even though their figures are in accord with those officially published by various E.U. departments. Likewise, I omitted U.S. gov't figures from publicly available CIA and State Dept. reports to avoid questions
about authenticity and reliability even though their figures and projections matched up with those of the E.U. and it's member nations. Instead I refer you to non-partisan and bi-partisan organizations like The COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ; The NIXON CENTER For PUBLIC POLICY ( don't let the name fool you; it's VERY mainstream ) while omitting otherwise reputable stuff from the HOOVER Institute and other supposed '"right wing" think tanks. Just so we could all come to a rough agreement on the numbers. It is important to note that NOBODY has a definitive number or commonly accepted CURRENT accurate estimate for ILLEGAL immigration in Europe. This is partly because of reluctance among SOME European governments to even take a good hard look at how many Muslims are actually entering and working in their countries for their own domestic political reasons. It is widely believed among scholars such as Mr. Leiken that they are seriously UNDERCOUNTING and that the actual numbers are actually 10 to 20 % higher.This is likely so because European governments have already been accused (with a lot of hard evidence) by EUROPEAN economists of drastically under-reporting their REAL unemployment rates and REAL homeless populations so it's hardly a stretch to make the reasonable assumption that they are also undercounting illegal immigrants. The numbers that they DO report are bad enough. Just in case you think I'm making any of this up all you have to do is Google the E.U.'s own reports on immigration (both legal & illegal).

Admittedly, there are two basic, albeit REASONABLE assumptions built into the future PROJECTIONS for Muslim population growth in Europe- 1. That the Muslim birthrate will remain at its current level as will the non- Muslim rate and 2. that current immigration rates both
legal and illegal will continue for some time. Obviously, if Muslim women start using the "Pill"; if Muslim men start wearing condoms ( both PROHIBITED under Sharia ) or if Europe starts cracking down HARD on BOTH legal and illegal immigration then it will take much longer for Muslims to hit 50% of the European population.

As for the problems associated with large Muslim populations in Europe- THEY EXIST NOW ! European mosques are dominated by fundamentalist imams. Al Queda and other radical Islamic terrorist groups have been recruiting in Europe for over a decade. Crime and violence by Muslims is increasing according to European police figures and press accounts.

Now, after you've had a chance to peruse the available information would you please tell us WHY Europe and the U.S. have nothing to worry about ? What do YOU claim is going to secularize, liberalize and assimilate some 50 million Muslims into European society over the next 10 years so that we will NOT see Civil War or increased Muslim vs.non-Muslim violence in Europe.Besides your own wishful thinking and desire to be "tolerant" and "multi-cultural" that is. Thank you in advance.

It's not my homework since it's not my point. I have no obligation to back up anyone's claims other than my own. You also have not provided links.

I already explained that immigration patterns tend to change over time for a number of reasons and thus it is impossible to predict what the European demographic will look like in fifty years. It is also impossible to predict future birthrates, since birthrates in general tend to rise and fall. I also explained that it's possible to encourage skilled immigration from a variety of countries. You haven't even begun to address these points.

flickad
04-05-2007, 11:18 AM
^^^ as a matter of opinion at least, I don't see where the 'highly likely' prospects of CO2 based future global warming are any less 'highly likely' than the demographic based eventual majority of muslims in most western european countries voting for pro-muslim public policies.

As you said, that's a matter of opinion.

Eric Stoner
04-05-2007, 11:31 AM
Im not going to make any propositions towards solving a problem that hasn't actually been proved to exist. I could probably build a similar argument that America or the Christian Right is trying to take over the world, and I imagine it would look less preposterous than yours.[/QUOTE]

Do you expose yourself at all to the NEWS ?
Do you have any awareness ; any at all; of current conditions in Europe ?
Have you bothered to read any of the Al Queda manuals where they talk about how to enter European countries ; where they talk about re-conquering Spain ?
You are aware that Muslims ruled the entire Iberian Peninsula ( except for a small slice of Galicia ) for Hundreds of years ;aren't you ? You know that the Spanish language is a mixture of Latin and Arabic ; don't you ? How do you think that happened ?
Are you aware of the Muslim Brotherhood and their PUBLISHED plan to "conquer"large parts of Europe DEMOGRAPHICALLY as opposed to militarily ? A plan shared by Al Queda and othe radical Muslim groups ?

Btw, WHERE were YOU during the Bali bombings ? WHO do you think was responsible ? The CIA ? The Tri-lateral Commission ?

Eric Stoner
04-05-2007, 11:46 AM
It's not my homework since it's not my point. I have no obligation to back up anyone's claims other than my own. You also have not provided links.

I already explained that immigration patterns tend to change over time for a number of reasons and thus it is impossible to predict what the European demographic will look like in fifty years. It is also impossible to predict future birthrates, since birthrates in general tend to rise and fall. I also explained that it's possible to encourage skilled immigration from a variety of countries. You haven't even begun to address these points.

I've done my best. It's obvious that no matter what source I cite or whose numbers I use, it doesn't matter to, and has no meaning to you. Sadly, too many Europeans share your head in the sand approach and those that do not tend to be radically xenophobic and even fascistic like Monsieur Le Pen in France and that former Austrian P.M. whose name eludes me.(Not Waldheim but he had some nice things to say about Hitler, if memory serves.)
Assuming you have anything resembling an OPEN MIND and/or intellectual curiosity go to danielpipes.org or Google- Robert S. Leiken and you'll find a treasure trove of scholarly work on what I've been talking about.

Not that facts seem to matter to you, but Europe IS importing skilled labor and in fact has been doing so since World War II. The problem, worry ,concern ( call it whatever you like ) are the UNSKILLED, UNEDUCATED and UNEMPLOYED flocking to EUROPE from Asia and Africa.