Jump to content

Menu

s/o what u.s. gov't programs would YOU cut?


Recommended Posts

to a flat tax with no deductions, and re-vamp our entitlement programs (medicare/medicaid, social security) via Congressman Ryan's plan.

 

Here's a cool video that explains how a 3% budget cut could balance our budget. http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/14/reasontv-budget-chef-presents

 

 

Let's keep this friendly, ok?

 

So, congratulations. You're now in charge of the US. :) How would YOU fix the mess the US is in? I'm just curious. How would you balance the budget? What would you cut?

 

Anyone want to play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. I agree with you. Very frustrating and NOT why I started this thread :(

 

I'd limit disability SSI to people who are truly unable to work because of a physical or mental disability. And no, being a drug addict doesn't count (are drug addicts on SSI just an urban legend??).

 

From 1996

 

A new law prohibits Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits and Medicare and Medicaid coverage based on those benefits to people who are disabled because of drug addiction and/or alcoholism. This law applies to people who are applying for benefits or who are already getting benefits because drug addiction and/or alcoholism is a contributing factor material to their disability.

 

http://library.findlaw.com/1996/May/1/128577.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My parents were the children of sharecroppers. My mother remembered winters without shoes. My dad remembers feeling terrible because he thought everyone at the table could have two boiled eggs for breakfast and it wasn't until after his younger brother came to the table that he realized he ate his bothers egg. His dad went without any breakfast so his younger bother could have an egg. My dad is over 70 and not anywhere near a softy and that memory still makes him feel shame.

 

 

That reminds me of the story my dad told about stealing eggs out of a neighbour's henhouse. They'd lost their chickens to a fox and my dad remembers being so hungry. He ate them but was so ashamed. He told me this story when he was 65 years old and the memory of it made him cry. He swore then and all the rest of his life that his kids would never have to do that. I'll tell you what though... the first 2 years after Dad retired from the military, we came pretty close to "egg-stealing poor." You'd think 20 years would have meant something. Oh well... we survived anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:

Also - contractors. We have great friends who are working for a contractor now. They are making hundreds of thousands a year doing *the exact same thing* a private in the Army does. What? Where is that a cost effiecient use of our defense budget????

 

I have only contracted to private industry not government and I have worked as a direct employee for a major defense company.

 

Contractors are paid an hourly rate and sometimes per diem if they don't reside where they are working. They typically do not get health care, pensions, retirement or any of the other benefits of working for the government. It is also really easy to let contractors go. I seriously doubt that contractors cost the government more than direct hires do.

 

In reality I am not sure why more people don't use contractors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as abuse for entitlement programs, it does exist. My husband and I were both unemployed when I became pregnant. We had a nice little nest egg built up and no debt. The first day I walked into the Dr's office we were told to go apply for Medicaid, Food Stamp, WIC, free telephone service and a few other programs.

 

We could easily pay for a healthy baby and a natural or C-section delivery. We did opt to get Medicaid incase something went really wrong especially since we didn't have insurance. My dh could not justify taking a job because it was unlike that the insurance would have kicked in on time for the baby and that they would probably treat it as a pre existing condition. He didn't turn down any jobs, but he didn't go after anything he seriously thought he could get until after the little one was born.

Had Medicaid not been an option dh would have looked into getting the type of jobs he is qualified for.

 

I would venture a guess that when most people are faced with a bunch of free stuff they go after it whether they need it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, for that link. I'm delighted to be wrong :)

 

I'm not so sure how that works....my brother is a life long drug addict who is now in end-stage liver disease. He is about to start receiving benefits. I guess maybe because it's his liver and not the actual addiction??? But the addiction is what destroyed the liver. ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, just what this board needed - another thread for people to rant about how awful and undeserving Those Other People are.

 

Many of the posters to this thread seem to be unaware of how tiny a proportion of the federal budget is devoted to poverty relief. And almost everyone seems to be unaware of the welfare reform enacted during the Clinton Administration.

 

There are strict limits on welfare, including work requirements, no extra benefits for babies born on welfare, and total lifetime limits. There have been for more than 15 years. And still we get post after post about welfare as a lifestyle, generation upon generation on welfare, people having babies to get more welfare, etc. It's like no one ever saw the need to update the rhetoric from the 1980s.

 

First-I thought this thread was supposed to be "friendly" We were supposed to post where we would cut spending-these are my ideas y'all don't have to agree-just like I don't have to agree with cutting military spending by closing up camp overseas. Come on people let's disagree without being disagree able. Is disagreeing and saying why automatically a rant? All of our life experiences color what we believe-so maybe my experience with people on assistance is a bit different than that of others-that not doubt colors what I think about the system.

 

Second, I don't recall mentioning generations of welfare, having babies to get more welfare... Believe it or not, I can not agree with the ease of getting it and still know there have been changes since the 80's. BTW some of "those other people" are relatives of mine. I never said getting it implied the people were bad in some way-only that maybe some maybe many could do something to work for the benefits they get and that I am not too happy about enabling the addictions of some on it.

 

In the 80's I was in high school. I have known people on assistance that could have worked and chose not to. I think of a relative who had a BSN degree (nursing degree) and chose to stay home with the kids while hubby was in college. They got WIC. She could have worked evenings/nights and rarely if ever had the kids in daycare but chose not to-her words. I have step family that are drug users and that get assistance. I don't think the one I am thinking of in particular claims disability-don't know how she works it since don't have any personal contact with her any more and I haven't asked my Mom about the particulars. I also knew someone in college in the early 90's that "moved out" of home to a "rented" room with his grandmother's so he coudl be independent and get assistance while in college-he bragged about it. That was not unusual in his neighborhood according to him. These have all been past the 80's.

 

I fully understand there are people that need assistance, but I am sure not everyone on it needs it. I'm also sure at least some of the folks that receive it could do something to earn it. I'm sure all of the ones above that I listed would be physically able.

 

Here is a question-and not at all intended in a snarky way...;)

 

Why is there such a negative feeling about having to work (if able) for the assistance you get? I personally think it would make people feel better to work for what they get rather than just getting a check/card...you know more useful...like a hand up rather than a hand out... I can't think of the word I'm wanting It'll probably come at 1:00 AM...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a question-and not at all intended in a snarky way...;)

 

Why is there such a negative feeling about having to work (if able) for the assistance you get?

 

Personally, I don't have a negative feeling about it at all. It would be great if it could work. It's more that the logistics seem too complicated to manage, and then there is too much room for interpretation (i.e. who makes the decisions about who is able to work, and what if you don't agree with those decisions.)

 

It's just that it's so easy to toss that out as a solution, when the reality is so much more complicated than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a boat load. That's another aspect to cutting things left and right. Where do all of these employees go? There have to be jobs for people. Even if to some extent we can live without some of them.

 

did you know that UN Diplomats owe NYC 18 million in unpaid tickets?

 

http://weiner.house.gov/news_display.aspx?id=1390

 

The employees are the least of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already work/training requirements for welfare. No one is laying around getting free money for years. That isn't how it works and if someone is telling you that then they are ill informed.

 

Government service jobs pay about 8.00 an hour. Are you suggesting that people who are poor be paid even less than that?

 

You are essentially suggesting slavery for food and shelter.

 

The coal companies did that. That is where labor unions really took off in this country.

 

I realized now that I tend to lump all assistance under the word welfare-even though I know there are several types of assistance welfare being only one.

 

I asked in another post...

 

What is wrong with showing up to work in order to get your assistance check if you are capable of doing so? Why is thinking this way wrong? Shouldn't people want to work for what they receive?

 

Where did the slavery thing come from? They would be free to find another job(s) and stop getting assistance. Gee they could maybe even use their work while on it as a reference.

 

I had a great-grandfather who was a coal miner...and he used his pay to buy a farm. BTW I'm not a big labor union fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't have a negative feeling about it at all. It would be great if it could work. It's more that the logistics seem too complicated to manage, and then there is too much room for interpretation (i.e. who makes the decisions about who is able to work, and what if you don't agree with those decisions.)

 

It's just that it's so easy to toss that out as a solution, when the reality is so much more complicated than that.

 

too, but I like the idea in general. Though I don't think the current system is managed that great either... and not many government things are...sigh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only contracted to private industry not government and I have worked as a direct employee for a major defense company.

 

Contractors are paid an hourly rate and sometimes per diem if they don't reside where they are working. They typically do not get health care, pensions, retirement or any of the other benefits of working for the government. It is also really easy to let contractors go. I seriously doubt that contractors cost the government more than direct hires do.

 

In reality I am not sure why more people don't use contractors.

 

Exactly so. And the trend of hiring contractors in many fields is growing big time. For just the reasons you stated.

 

Why is there such a negative feeling about having to work (if able) for the assistance you get?

 

One - As already stated, MOST are working already. Most people on some form of assistance do have jobs. So implying those on assistance of some sort are lazy moochers is insulting.

 

Two - MOST who go on some form of assistance have worked and paid into the system via their taxes. These taxes were taken with the promise of our govt that these service would be available to those who need it. But then if at some point they find themselves in need of those services - again they are insulted as lazy lying moochers.

 

Three - If they could abtain and hold a job, that still does not mean they won't need assistance. In fact, they very likely might need MORE assistance. Special transportation and or work accomodations, daycare, more money for travel, clothing, and other work related expenses. That is not even going into daycare or having to choose between dr appts and job/assistance. This also often means paying assistance to company so that they will hire these people who they normally would not want to hire for legitimate reasons.

 

If we want to discuss cracking down on fraud - I'm all for it.

If we want to discuss stricter rules for what qualifies as disabled - I'm okay with that.

 

But it is contrary to the facts to insinuate that most people on assistance are committing fraud or unemployed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - and how will you pay ME to hover and make sure my now adult son with autism actually stays on task for those 40 hours???? Or another adult person trained to deal with his disability??? Bearing in mind that he can not be left by himself for an extended period of time, so I can not work since I am primary caregiver....

 

Sigh. I LIKE your idea - it is just not that feasible w/o huge amounts of funding to SUPPORT the disabled so they can work. Which Illinois certainly does not have :-(

 

Ack

 

On the other hand-there are private agencies out there that do help folks like your son find work. DH has a cousin that was adopted with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. She has never been happier since she has had her job. I think she wrapps silverware for some local restaurants at a warehouse type place that employs folks with a wide range of special needs. She finally has a bunch of friends that are like her and feels like she is contributing something-as she is. When we lived in KS there was a similar agency that got folks jobs working at local businesses. One grocery store had a lot of super special folks that would push your cart out to the car for you and some that stocked shelves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me...this thread has been completely derailed. Not only did the Op ask that it remain friendly ie. don't attack other people's opinions, but she asked for "if you were in charge, what would you cut?"

 

We need to get back to the subject at hand. Not derail it into another haves and have nots discussion, who should get and who should not. Those that would not cut public assistance programs, then what would you cut?

 

The budget, afterall, does have to be balanced, and we can't steal 100% of every single tax payer's dollars to pay the interest and principle on the deficit and continue run-away spending. So, spending has to end, budgets have to be cut, define what you think needs to be cut in order to preserve what you believe is important at or near current spending levels.

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an extreme libertarian-ish, small and local government advocate, I think this consideration is paramount. I believe that local support activities (faith based or not) have decreased in proportion to the amount of government "help".

 

I believe that, eventually and after some time in adjusting, communities would develop the needed services. It would take some serious time, however, because that role has been handled by the government for so long.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already work/training requirements for welfare. No one is laying around getting free money for years. That isn't how it works and if someone is telling you that then they are ill informed.

 

Government service jobs pay about 8.00 an hour. Are you suggesting that people who are poor be paid even less than that?

 

You are essentially suggesting slavery for food and shelter.

 

The coal companies did that. That is where labor unions really took off in this country.

 

Since DH lost his job I've checked into this. In my state, we BOTH have to work (or whatever else they decide) for 32 hours a week. So 2 people X 32 hours/week X 4.3 weeks/month = 275.2 hours/month. For $800 some odd dollars. Let's say $900 / 275.2 hours = $3.27 per hour. (And would be required to put kids in daycare. I told them no.) Just in case anyone was wondering - I know the system is broken, and it is abused, but it's not lucrative.

 

ANNNNNNNNNNNNYWAY ....

 

I'd cut the Dept of Education - give that to the states. Cut the earmarks and anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Give more control to state and local govt. Implement the fair tax, get rid of the IRS. Give every person the option to funnel their SS into a private investment so it would actually grow. Oh - and people in Congress would need to have real jobs. Our state legislature meets 3 mos every other year. The other 21 months (one assumes) they have real lives in the real world.

 

I'd also set spending at inflation plus population growth (I think that's the formula - Colorado does that I think). So the EPA, FBI, etc can have a budget like every other family in America.

 

Hmmm, this is a fun thread.

 

Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One - As already stated, MOST are working already. Most people on some form of assistance do have jobs. So implying those on assistance of some sort are lazy moochers is insulting.

 

 

Well that could count as/toward the work requirement then. They could provide documentation-which I am sure is required already. Who said anything about lazy moochers? Not me....

 

 

Two - MOST who go on some form of assistance have worked and paid into the system via their taxes. These taxes were taken with the promise of our govt that these service would be available to those who need it. But then if at some point they find themselves in need of those services - again they are insulted as lazy lying moochers.

 

 

I thought the OP was about streamling government and cutting costs. If people had to pay for their services with work that would save from having to hire someone to do-that would save costs. I'm for smaller government so paying taxes for things other than infrastructure and defense aren't what I think the government was originally intended for. I pay my taxes expecting a good road and national defense. Who is insulting who here?

 

I do think there is a difference in personality in play here. I an a can-do person. To me there is a big difference between need and want and between can't do and don't want to do. A personal example: a relative was complaining about not having enough $$$. I said " why not get a job" and she said "I can't. I have 2 small kids and paying for daycare would make it worthless to have a job." I said "can't you work nights while your husband is off?" Her response was "I would be too tired and I would never see him....," Now...my thought is not she couldn't-she just didn't want to do what it takes to make it work. I bet if she had no food she suddenly "could" do just what I suggested. The personality difference I mentioned is the one illustrated by my can-do and that relative and her can't do attitudes. I don't think she is a lazy, lying moocher, but I do think that if it were easy for her to get assistance she would have no motivation to work out a solution not involving assistance. Does that make my position more clear?

 

 

Three - If they could abtain and hold a job, that still does not mean they won't need assistance. In fact, they very likely might need MORE assistance. Special transportation and or work accomodations, daycare, more money for travel, clothing, and other work related expenses. That is not even going into daycare or having to choose between dr appts and job/assistance. This also often means paying assistance to company so that they will hire these people who they normally would not want to hire for legitimate reasons.

 

 

How creative do you want to be? I already said-holding a job could count as the requirement/part of it if it is part time. How special are you talking? I was thinking more on the lines of not terribly special needs for the sake of this discussion-though I mentioned in another post of some private organizations that help find employment for special needs folks too. they are great organizations that I supported when living close. I am all for those. I think I mentioned provided daycaycare upthread somewhere. Subsidized daycare is already all over now-or at least was when I still worked and DD was in daycare. I think half the kids were subsidized at her center. I sure don't mind giving someone that is working hard a hand up. If you dislike the daycare idea, you could always find some others in your own dilema, work different shifts and watch each other's kids. If you are that ill you couldn't work at all for all the doctor appointments then I'm guessing you would get a pass on the having to work. Now if your appointments are for a s*x change or a b**b job or some such thing-you can do those on your own time ;).

 

 

If we want to discuss cracking down on fraud - I'm all for it.

If we want to discuss stricter rules for what qualifies as disabled - I'm okay with that.

 

 

Cool-I am too

 

But it is contrary to the facts to insinuate that most people on assistance are committing fraud or unemployed

 

Any that are are too many

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Any that are are too many

 

True. But once you figure out how many are legitimately receiving aid and meeting all requirements, how much money is saved by rooting the cheaters out? Any at all or does it end up costing *more* in beauracracy to go through investigations and get them off the system? (Especially in light of a fact mentioned earlier in the thread that even if we eliminated *all* social services for the needy - not the elderly - it would be a mere drop in the bucket of the budget problem.) So how much are we willing to spend to save a few dollars? It becomes about a cost/benefit ratio that in the end, isn't going to balance the budget it but may strap it even tighter.

 

(Ask any landlord who has had to evict. Someone doesn't pay their rent. The owner has to get them out of the unit. It takes months and MONEY. That is why so many landlords are loathe to go that route. It ends up costing them money to get rid of a loser. And the loser doesn't go away. He goes on to put another landlord through the same thing or decides to live in his car when no one will rent to him. He gets benefits from the system for being homeless... What seems to be a simple solution rarely works out to be such.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how bout a flat tax across the boards and cuts like Faith proposed? Because at this point almost half of the US population pays no taxes. How bout we all get some skin in the game?

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

 

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

 

Edited by justamouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realized now that I tend to lump all assistance under the word welfare-even though I know there are several types of assistance welfare being only one.

 

I asked in another post...

 

What is wrong with showing up to work in order to get your assistance check if you are capable of doing so? Why is thinking this way wrong? Shouldn't people want to work for what they receive?

 

Where did the slavery thing come from? They would be free to find another job(s) and stop getting assistance. Gee they could maybe even use their work while on it as a reference.

 

I had a great-grandfather who was a coal miner...and he used his pay to buy a farm. BTW I'm not a big labor union fan.

 

What makes you think people *don't* work for assistance?

 

I have never taken a dime of government assistance and I have worked half my life. I pay taxes and my husband also pays taxes. I don't have to be taking any assistance to believe in that it should exist.

 

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "

 

I said slavery because you are actually suggesting making people on welfare pick up trash for 40 hours a week and pay them even less than what that job currently pays. The point of welfare is to get off welfare. If they are spending all their time picking up trash how are they ever to improve their situation? We want a more educated work force. Having all these people pick up trash rather than improve themselves isn't helpful to our economy. How is a single mother with children going to survive that? She would have to get a second or third job just to get Food Stamps??

 

Who is being paid to raise her children? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to let her try and do that in the small amount of time she isn't already working?

 

The problem with that is that it is creating a workforce of people who will NEVER be able to afford a home or truly contribute to our economic growth. Sure in the short term it seems like it saves money but it actually does not.

 

I am a fan of labor unions. My dad raised four kids on a union salary. The equivilant of his job now wouldn't raise a dog much less a family.

 

Scrips were commonly used by coal companies, that is what I was referring to.

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to say what I would do, but I'm also going to touch on a few other things.

 

First, I agree with changes in NAFTA. A lot of the pain in our economy as it stands is because we are changing to a service-driven economy. We can't let that happen. Manufacturing is how the US built its wealth. The manufacturing power of the North is a LARGE part of the reason the South lost the Civil War. Manufacturing is a large part of the reason that we won WWII. It is *dangerous* to rely on poor-paying service jobs. It's bad from a security standpoint, from a GNP standpoint, from the standpoint of every possible economic marker.

 

Secondly, I don't agree with a flat tax.

 

The statistic that 50% of Americans do not pay federal taxes is inaccurate. Around 38% of "tax units" (which can be singles, couples or families, not individuals) do not pay INCOME taxes (or receive more back than they pay). Sixty percent of those make under $20k per year for the household. But, they still pay Social Security, payroll taxes, medicare and certain excise taxes (such as the federal tax on gas). According to the CBO the lowest quintile winds up with a bigger "effective tax rate" than the highest quintile.

 

Looking at the NYT table:

I think bringing back estate taxes is a good idea. I think Obama's plan of exempting the first $3.5 million is a good middle of the road plan.

 

I think eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250k is a good idea. I think creating new millionaire income tax brackets is a good idea. New payroll taxes for higher wages to fund Social Security is a good idea.

 

I would end a lot of earmarks designated by Congress. There are cases in which the military is required to by from a particular supplier to help subsidize companies in one state or another. Government airline tickets cost quite a bit more than if you buy them off of the internet because the government subsidizes the airlines that way. There are a LOT of government subsidies tied up in "military spending" to make them sacred cows of sorts. It's a serious problem. I also agree with Sis that Congress uses some of these sacred cows as money makers for their states for planes or weapons systems that the military doesn't even want.

 

I don't agree with getting rid of our bases in Europe or Asia. That would make future military operations EXTREMELY expensive. If people knew how it worked they would only be in favor of this if they are the types who believed we never should have entered WWII.

 

I agree with the other poster that government contractors are cheaper than soldiers. They are already trained (the military already loses LOTS of money on people who join for training and certificates and then leave), they don't get medical or housing for themselves or their families, they don't get a pension if they get injured, etc.

 

Reduce the nuclear arsenal, that's fine.

 

I have to head to bed, but those are just a few of my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But once you figure out how many are legitimately receiving aid and meeting all requirements, how much money is saved by rooting the cheaters out? Any at all or does it end up costing *more* in beauracracy to go through investigations and get them off the system? (Especially in light of a fact mentioned earlier in the thread that even if we eliminated *all* social services for the needy - not the elderly - it would be a mere drop in the bucket of the budget problem.) So how much are we willing to spend to save a few dollars? It becomes about a cost/benefit ratio that in the end, isn't going to balance the budget it but may strap it even tighter.

 

(Ask any landlord who has had to evict. Someone doesn't pay their rent. The owner has to get them out of the unit. It takes months and MONEY. That is why so many landlords are loathe to go that route. It ends up costing them money to get rid of a loser. And the loser doesn't go away. He goes on to put another landlord through the same thing or decides to live in his car when no one will rent to him. He gets benefits from the system for being homeless... What seems to be a simple solution rarely works out to be such.)

 

if fraud was found and harshly dealt with more often-people wouldn't be so inclined to do it. As for landlords-it should be easier to kick someone out. My in-laws had some no pay losers that they had a hard time getting out before we could buy the farm. there is no way I would want to be a landlord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This website:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

 

actually lets you tinker with the numbers until you balance the budget.

 

I actually found it way easier to balance than I thought!

 

Fun! I totally fixed our deficit! :)

 

This argument about lazy welfare recipients is really bothering me. My husband works with some folks on these programs and as another poster pointed out, it is not lucrative. The worst part about telling these welfare recipients to get a job is that they usually have to have two jobs. Why? Because McDonald's, Burger King, whatever-- will not give them 40 hours per week. It is heartbreaking how many companies follow the Walmart model of 39 hours a week just so these folks won't qualify for insurance or pensions, etc. And most of these folks are women, mothers. Let's say you are a girl who finds herself pregnant at 17. You drop out of school. You have no skills. You must work in a service industry. You absolutely cannot make it work math-wise without some government help. So, all you folks that are simultaneously against a minimum wage and angry that so many people are on government assistance, please tell me what the answer is. Churches? Our church has a food kitchen, but a very limited budget for outreach. Over 60% of the kids in our local school qualify for free or reduced lunches. Unless our church members were to start tithing 40% of their incomes, I don't see that we could lift these folks out of poverty. Maybe the government is inefficient, but at least people aren't starving and children aren't working as they were before it stepped in. Anyway, doesn't welfare account for 6% of our budget? Pretty small.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

 

In my opinion, we have to cut defense and Medicare. And raise taxes. :(

 

Margaret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think people *don't* work for assistance?

 

 

Did you read my other posts about family members on WIC and such that don't? Maybe one does and the other doesn't....

 

 

I have never taken a dime of government assistance and I have worked half my life. I pay taxes and my husband also pays taxes. I don't have to be taking any assistance to believe in that it should exist.

 

 

Who said it shouldn't exist? Not me.....I do think it should be harder to get. I do think both adults should have to work to get it.... My opinion-you don't have to agree.

 

 

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "

 

 

Did I ever say the sick, elderly, handicapped should not get assistance? I don't think so....

 

 

I said slavery because you are actually suggesting making people on welfare pick up trash for 40 hours a week and pay them even less than what that job currently pays. The point of welfare is to get off welfare. If they are spending all their time picking up trash how are they ever to improve their situation? We want a more educated work force. Having all these people pick up trash rather than improve themselves isn't helpful to our economy. How is a single mother with children going to survive that? She would have to get a second or third job just to get Food Stamps??

 

 

My Mom was a single mother with 2 small kids when my Dad died-she did work 2 sometimes 3 jobs. I am very proud of her for working hard to provide for us. I also know people that work full time and go to school-my sister is now. She is a single mom of 2 and she graduates in May. Oh and she is not on welfare-though I'm sure she would qualify for things that she doesn't take advantage of. She just had a job interview for an externship for school-(she has been on the dean's list every semester) and got it as well as an offer for full-time work once it is over. I am so proud of her.

 

Who is being paid to raise her children? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to let her try and do that in the small amount of time she isn't already working?

 

 

Didn't I mention that a lot of child care is subsidized for such moms already-or at least was a couple of years ago when my kiddo was in child care. I thought I also said any work she does would get used for the "requirement" so more than 1 job would not necessarily by needed with pay from job and from welfare/other assistance. Swapping childcare with someone else in the same situation would enable some ladies to work additional hours if they wanted to-or attend school.

 

The problem with that is that it is creating a workforce of people who will NEVER be able to afford a home or truly contribute to our economic growth. Sure in the short term it seems like it saves money but it actually does not

 

What does home ownership have to do with anything? A home to own is not a right-it is something to be had by people that can afford it. DH and I rented before we could afford to buy and would do so again if we could not afford our farm. Life would go on.

 

I am a fan of labor unions. My dad raised four kids on a union salary. The equivilant of his job now wouldn't raise a dog much less a family.

 

 

Mom worked in a factory when I was little. there was a union there and she did not want to join. she wanted to be paid for what she did and not contribute to them. She was bullied by some union members. She had no problem with people being in the union, but said they tended to not be the most motivated workers at the factory. I think she got paid by the bundle and they got an hourly wage-guess who sewed more bundles? I also worked in a town with a large grocery chain main office. The truck drivers went on strike. There were truckers that came in to work for them and they were harassed, damage was done to their vehicles....BTW the store disbanded the trucking part of the business and hired a trucking company. The store ones made way more for local run driving than the average long-haul trucker made and they had been on strike for even more pay. Why would a company pay like that? Once the trucking company took over-the groceries were delivered on time and well. What benefit was there to have very highly paid drivers-vs-average pay drivers to the company, customer at the grocery store...? The union more, more more'd them out of a job. I'm all for fair pay, but better than the average pay not really. Example 2-most teachers around here have the health insurance paid for their whole family-why would we pay any more than for just them with the ability for them to buy family through their insurance? That is not the norm for the workplace and seems way out of line to me. So that is what colors my view of unions-good reason to start them years ago-not as necessary now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, people.....THE THREAD HAS BEEN HIJACKED! You were not asked to defend social assistance programs. Actually, the OP did not ask for anyone's justification for whatever cuts they would choose to make.

 

LET IT GO! Get back to the original intent of this thread which was not about whether or not it is good to have social assistance programs but government spending and balancing the budget. And on a personal note, anyone who thinks that social programs should not be cut, are in for a rude awakening. No one wants to cut them...that's for certain. It's a bad thing. But guess what, bad things happen and when social programs make up the largest portion of the budget, and the government is bankrupt, and the budget must be slashed, every single department, no matter how noble is going to have to be cut and that is going to hurt someone you know and possibly you yourself. Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP, social security, and safety net Social Welfare programs comprised 54% of the 2010 budget. The budget cannot be balanced on only the other 46% of spending.

 

On top of that, every single person, rich, poor, and in between is going to have to pay more taxes in order to start digging out of that mess. So, flame me if you want, but the numbers don't lie!!!!!

 

Now, can we return to the intent of the original post?

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often the children of people here illegally are legal US citizens and eligible for certain benefits.

 

My flame-proof suit is on and ready, but we are the only country with the 'anchor-baby' law still on the books. Ireland did have the same law and couldn't afford the burden of illegal immigrants coming there to have their children receive benefits that ultimately extend to the entire family. England, France, Germany, Sweden, etc., etc., do not allow citizenship in their country just because a person is born there.

 

Just something to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My in-laws had some no pay losers that they had a hard time getting out before we could buy the farm. there is no way I would want to be a landlord.

 

:iagree: Especially after I just watched an episode of Hoarders (or Hoarding, Buried Alive-I can't keep them straight). Renters had destroyed the house they lived in.I think they had an animal hoard, too. The landlords were going to give them a second chance. It must be easier to repair than to evict.

Edited by cdrumm4448
Link to comment
Share on other sites

for fun I would cut all of the congress'/senate healthcare. I want to see Boehner pull $ out of his pocket in the amount of 50 dollar copays and have his ____denied. And I want to see him have to get on the phone with lawyers trying to collect medical debt...

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just skimmed what's been stated already, but I haven't seen anything about the space program. I really think waaay to much unnecessary spending goes on there. I really think all research and other activities designed to figure out how we can live and travel in space commercially should be stopped. I'm a realist. It ain't going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would look at the military spending and audit the spending of military contractors more closely.

 

.

 

I read recently that U.S. tax dollars paid for at least one pedophilia party that a contractor hosted in Afghanistan, and others in Bosnia. Disgusting. And I wonder how many Americans know about this? I don't know anyone who would approve of this if they knew about it. Why isn't this in the mainstream media?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. I agree with you. Very frustrating and NOT why I started this thread :(

 

I'd limit disability SSI to people who are truly unable to work because of a physical or mental disability. And no, being a drug addict doesn't count (are drug addicts on SSI just an urban legend??).

 

I personally know an alcholic who is on SSI because alcohol has physically disabled him. He uses his checks to go on binges.

 

The law may say one thing, but in practice...

Edited by Onceuponatime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This argument about lazy welfare recipients is really bothering me. .... You absolutely cannot make it work math-wise without some government help. So, all you folks that are simultaneously against a minimum wage and angry that so many people are on government assistance, please tell me what the answer is.

What I find disturbing is companies who get a huge tax credit to build their business in a community, and then pay the workers very little. $8/hr, full time, is just not enough for a family to survive on. So the workers, because they don't earn a living wage, are eligible for food stamps, housing subsidies, and other government assistance, not to mention various tax credits. All this "cutting costs" on the business end just means that businesses are foisting responsibility for people's financial survival on the government, and getting paid for it. It also penalizes those who try to work for a living, because they might end up with fewer benefits (such as health care!) than they would if they remained on welfare.

 

I read recently that U.S. tax dollars paid for at least one pedophilia party that a contractor hosted in Afghanistan, and others in Bosnia. Disgusting. And I wonder how many Americans know about this? I don't know anyone who would approve of this if they knew about it. Why isn't this in the mainstream media?

There was a disturbing documentary I saw on PBS about these boys, Dancing Boys of Afghanistan. This is one of the most heartbreaking things I've ever watched. Reported on by Najibullah Quraishi, whom I think is totally fantastic and brave. He discusses how some of the local officials (some of whom are supposed to be cracking down on such crimes) are seen at these parties! I hope he targets foreign officials next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This website:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

 

actually lets you tinker with the numbers until you balance the budget.

 

I actually found it way easier to balance than I thought!

 

While this was interesting to play around with, it has too few choices. There are too many items not listed. I'd love it if there were a program that allowed you to do this with a full range of cuts that were adjustable.

 

The government has more than enough of our money to do the job it is supposed to do - as defined in the constitution. It would take scaling back on a massive scale to get back to that point. I seriously doubt if this nation has the guts to cut spending on the scale that is necessary.

 

I won't put the link on here because of the no politics rule but if you search for "you cut" -- a project introduced by Eric Cantor -- it has many more ideas for spending cuts which are not mentioned at all by the NY Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this was implied in the cutting of Congressional benefits, but I would specifically wipe out the full salaries for life plan they are now on. And I think someone else said this, too, but I will reiterate that the Congressional sessions need to be limited to a very short time span, so they must focus on the necessary and have no time for the frivolous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Auntie M, there are more updates and answers to questions in the other thread you've been following and thanks for all of the words of encouragement!

 

Three months session of congress and a $25,000.00 pay check plus traveling expenses on regular public transport - hey, our senators and reps can fly Spirit Air for cheap like everyone else and eat sack lunches too, that's still a lot of money for three months work. No pension, health benefits for the term but with deductibles, co-pays, and limits on dental and eye coverage....and no! YOU CAN'T BILL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FOR YOUR INTERNS IMPLANTS AND LIPO_SUCTION!!!! Sorry, NO CAN DO!

 

Oh and while we are at it, let's re-write their employment contract so that phrases such as, "hiding an intern under your desk will result in immediate dismissal", "sending explicit emails to the high schoolers working as pages on the house floor will get you fired immediately, escorted from the building by armed marines, and your personal items tossed to the curb or thrown out the office windows for good measure", and "failure to pay your income taxes will result in penalties, fines, and jail time at the state penitentury not Danbury Minimum Security I'm a Country Club Prison". Hmmm, huh, huh....could we add some phrases like that?? Cause really, I'm sick of them acting like wayward adolescents.

 

I'd be willing to spend some tax dollars on prosecuting their behinds and throwing them in the pen here at Jackson...that's a cause worthy of a tax hike! It's time they had a little fear of breaking the laws they write.

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a relative who is a mid-level bigwig in a garment company. Quite a while back they were fined by Target for using child labor. His argument? The kids were glad to have those jobs, they were helping support their families. He could not make the connection that if you paid the adults a living wage, then kids would not need to work, they could go to school.

 

And yes, it means that socks or t-shirts from Target cost more than those from Wal-Mart, but they aren't $100.

 

That's what you get when you let big business police itself. You don't have to look at history, that's what is happening *now* and it's what would happen in this country if you repealed minimum wage jobs. If all of the companies are paying $2/hour, where do you "choose" to work?

 

*Right now* you see companies that have thousands of "part-time" employees, receiving minimum wage and no benefits while working 40 hours (or more, often off the books) per week. At the same time these companies are paying their CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

Our economy thrives when the workers thrive. When unions were prevalent people bought cars, moved out to the suburbs, put their kids through college. Yes, it meant that the upper crust could no longer behave as robber barons and they had to accept somewhat lower profits and wages for themselves.

 

The meatpacking industry is great example. The union put in place safety measures and made sure people were paid a living age. They could support their families. It was a decent job. With all of the right-to-work laws and union busting? Most of the people working in meatpacking plants are illegal immigrants working for below minimum wage under dangerous conditions.

 

When pay gets too low our entire economy suffers. That's what is happening *now*.

 

To pretend that companies are now all good and benevolent and that horrors of the past wouldn't happen again? It's naive, at best, because it is happening *now*.

 

The reason jobs are being shipped overseas is because of NAFTA and the repeal of tariffs on imported goods. If companies had to pay high import fees to import their goods to the US, then companies who kept their labor within the US would be competitive.

 

Right now, the federal government is enabling companies not to pay a living wage through the Earned Income Credit. The federal government is (in essence) subsidizing low income workers. It is a sort of compromise between robber barons and those who want to see a living wage policy.

 

And, yes, the federal government does have a right to police wages under the commerce clause.

 

What I find disturbing is companies who get a huge tax credit to build their business in a community, and then pay the workers very little. $8/hr, full time, is just not enough for a family to survive on. So the workers, because they don't earn a living wage, are eligible for food stamps, housing subsidies, and other government assistance, not to mention various tax credits. All this "cutting costs" on the business end just means that businesses are foisting responsibility for people's financial survival on the government, and getting paid for it. It also penalizes those who try to work for a living, because they might end up with fewer benefits (such as health care!) than they would if they remained on welfare.

 

:iagree: and this includes the EIC that I referenced above. It's a form of *corporate* welfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Mrs. Mungo, I REALLY like your use of "Robber Baron"!!

 

Thank you for looking up the commerce section. That is why I said I would have to check constitutionality because I don't think the government should extend itself into state's rights. I still think that the states need to have more control over this. A one size fits all minimum wage doesn't really account for the cost of living differences across the nation.

 

Robber Baron, Robber Baron, Robber Baron....let's all go to town hall meetings and refer to the "Robber Barons".

 

Faith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this was implied in the cutting of Congressional benefits, but I would specifically wipe out the full salaries for life plan they are now on. And I think someone else said this, too, but I will reiterate that the Congressional sessions need to be limited to a very short time span, so they must focus on the necessary and have no time for the frivolous.

 

Honestly, I don't like "professional" politicians. Come, serve, go home and go back to work. That was how it started and I wish we could get back to it. It's very hard for someone to keep American life in perspective when they live the DC life. Many politicians have lost sight of the reality that is an American's life and have no concept of how the rest of us live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this was implied in the cutting of Congressional benefits, but I would specifically wipe out the full salaries for life plan they are now on. And I think someone else said this, too, but I will reiterate that the Congressional sessions need to be limited to a very short time span, so they must focus on the necessary and have no time for the frivolous.

 

Members of Congress do not receive a set salaries for life (especially after one term), this is a bit of misinformation that has been floating around for a long time. http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/retirement_for_members.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't on the federal level, but I have a great illustration of government waste on the state level. My son is severely disabled, and we get some state benefits. We really need them, and I really appreciate getting them. That said, it's a perfect example of why things are so screwed up. We have to work through 5 different agencies to receive his benefits, Medi-Cal, California Children's Services, our local Regional Center, In Home Support Services and our local school district. Each agency has its own offices. At each agency we have a different case worker. Each agency has at least one staff RN. Benefits that in Florida went through 1 agency (if you got them at all), are broken up into little chunks and served out through all of these different ones. It's crazy. I never know who to call about what. I greatly appreciate and need the support, but there must be a better way. When I think about the hole that our state is in, and the cuts that translate straight to loss of benefits for us, it's frustrating. The state could provide what people need AND save a load of money if they just found a better way to do it. Think of all of the different categories that this is likely duplicated in. I could go on, but I won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for looking up the commerce section. That is why I said I would have to check constitutionality because I don't think the government should extend itself into state's rights. I still think that the states need to have more control over this. A one size fits all minimum wage doesn't really account for the cost of living differences across the nation.

 

 

A note here: the SCOTUS is the final decision maker on whether a law is constitutional. This law has already been heard and decided by the Supreme Court. That means it IS constitutional for all intents and purposes of our government AND constitution. Here's the decision: http://supreme.justia.com/us/312/100/case.html.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Secondly, I don't agree with a flat tax.

 

The statistic that 50% of Americans do not pay federal taxes is inaccurate. Around 38% of "tax units" (which can be singles, couples or families, not individuals) do not pay INCOME taxes (or receive more back than they pay). Sixty percent of those make under $20k per year for the household. But, they still pay Social Security, payroll taxes, medicare and certain excise taxes (such as the federal tax on gas). According to the CBO the lowest quintile winds up with a bigger "effective tax rate" than the highest quintile.

 

I think eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250k is a good idea. I think creating new millionaire income tax brackets is a good idea. New payroll taxes for higher wages to fund Social Security is a good idea.

 

I would end a lot of earmarks designated by Congress. There are cases in which the military is required to by from a particular supplier to help subsidize companies in one state or another. Government airline tickets cost quite a bit more than if you buy them off of the internet because the government subsidizes the airlines that way. There are a LOT of government subsidies tied up in "military spending" to make them sacred cows of sorts. It's a serious problem. I also agree with Sis that Congress uses some of these sacred cows as money makers for their states for planes or weapons systems that the military doesn't even want.

 

 

If you want to do that to the 'millionaire' tax brackets, you'd have to adjust for cost of living and state taxes. Because being a millionaire in Mississippi and being a millionaire in NY/NJ/CT are different things.

 

I think they ARE looking into cost of living to adjust taxes already, though.

 

While I DO understand that it's ludicrous for a family making 20k to pay taxes, and in a way I was being flippant (because I know the flat tax sounds fair but it isn't) I do think that the amount of people paying taxes to people not is not right, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to do that to the 'millionaire' tax brackets, you'd have to adjust for cost of living and state taxes. Because being a millionaire in Mississippi and being a millionaire in NY/NJ/CT are different things.

 

I think they ARE looking into cost of living to adjust taxes already, though.

 

While I DO understand that it's ludicrous for a family making 20k to pay taxes, and in a way I was being flippant (because I know the flat tax sounds fair but it isn't) I do think that the amount of people paying taxes to people not is not right, either.

 

I make no pretensions of having a good economic understanding of taxes at all, but my experience makes me wonder a LOT about our tax system.

 

Two years ago dh was deployed, so we don't pay income tax on that amount. He was NG, so he did receive some pay from his civilian employer. Our total taxable income was well under $20 thousand. The income tax we paid was minimal. Our refund however, was over $8000. What??? We received a refund more than 8 times what we paid in taxes? I don't understand it at all. I know my sister does this every year. They don't pay even $500/year in income tax and bring home thousands in refunds. Doesn't make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statistic that 50% of Americans do not pay federal taxes is inaccurate. Around 38% of "tax units" (which can be singles, couples or families, not individuals) do not pay INCOME taxes (or receive more back than they pay). Sixty percent of those make under $20k per year for the household. But, they still pay Social Security, payroll taxes, medicare and certain excise taxes (such as the federal tax on gas). According to the CBO the lowest quintile winds up with a bigger "effective tax rate" than the highest quintile.

 

Looking at the NYT table:

I think bringing back estate taxes is a good idea. I think Obama's plan of exempting the first $3.5 million is a good middle of the road plan.

 

I think eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250k is a good idea. I think creating new millionaire income tax brackets is a good idea. New payroll taxes for higher wages to fund Social Security is a good idea.

 

MrsMungo, I'm just going to follow you around all day with my :iagree:sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make no pretensions of having a good economic understanding of taxes at all, but my experience makes me wonder a LOT about our tax system.

 

Two years ago dh was deployed, so we don't pay income tax on that amount. He was NG, so he did receive some pay from his civilian employer. Our total taxable income was well under $20 thousand. The income tax we paid was minimal. Our refund however, was over $8000. What??? We received a refund more than 8 times what we paid in taxes? I don't understand it at all. I know my sister does this every year. They don't pay even $500/year in income tax and bring home thousands in refunds. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

It's because of the Earned Income Credit. The government subsidizes low-paying employers by giving tax credit (which is a pay-out, it's different than a deduction) to low wage earners. It's a form of corporate welfare. Military people can and do receive it when their taxable income falls below that level. Whether they *should* is another question (personally, I don't think they should).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...