If money has yet to solve the problem, why would putting more money into it solve the problem?
kinda like pumping money into the military.. all the money in the world isnt gonna give us peace. so when do we stop filling the abyss and rethink HOW to bring about a peaceful future for everyone, cause clearly a continual influx of dollars isnt working.??? but i suspect, and im sure im not the only one that does, that military spending, and policy for that matter, isnt about peace but more a rattling of sabres.
as a society we have to rethink the way we do things cause the way were travelling only perpetuates what people perceive to be the problems. we piss and moan about the amount of money spent on programmes and yet dont come up with a viable alternative.
Post edited by catefrances on
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You forgot to address the sencond part of my post...
Ok... do I need to post stats of the people who've been screwed by the system and the existing billionaires who use every loop hole and lack of regulation to get their own?
Or how about the extremely widening gap between the rich and the poor?
But yeah.. go ahead and tell me about the self-made millionaires. Then correlate that with the number of people who've gone bankrupt, lost their houses and lost their pension and health care when they get "down-sized" by companies who turn around and give $30-million bonuses to their CEOs.
Wanna keep going?
so your blaming the companies because people can't save for a rainy day???
Its not the companies job to make sure you save your money and live within your means. Just because someone got laid off and wen't bankrupt, lost house, etc is not the companies fault. I was once laid off so was my wife, we managed to keep our house, feed our two kids, and get other jobs, all without losing our house, going bankrupt, etc.
So yeah, selft made millionaires SHOWS that if people take some responsibily, work hard, they can achieve monitary success.
Again YOUR not entitled to a job or money.
So again, how are you SCREWED by the system.
Is it the systems fault that you chose gay porn as your line of work? Maybe people shouldn't go to school for liberal arts degrees and start geting into medical/engineering fields where there is actual work/needs.
SELF MADE millionaires is a misnomer if ever i heard one. these people dont make their millions by themselves... theyre reliant on hundreds, possibly thousands, of other people to carry out their vision.. and then the rest of us to then jump on board and actualise their idea whereby turning it into a viable commodity and generating its worth. dont tell me the capitalist system is here for anything more than maximising profit for the extreme minority at the expense of the greater social good cause i will call bullshit every single time..
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Quoting such diverse sources as The Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation... Both of which are owned and operated by the same small group of right-wing billionaires who pay for "research" that tells them what they want to hear.
They then present "viewpoints from two sources" to back up whatever anti-American drivel they want to spew.
Nobody has ever suggested that Welfare is a perfect system and that it doesn't need constant checks and balances. If the unregulated banking cluster fuck of the 2000s taught us anything, it's that without constant watching, pretty much anyone will take whatever they can get and screw everyone else.
The difference is, to many of us, that the core idea of Welfare is to keep the people of our country from absolute poverty and starving to death in the streets. Not such a bad goal, if you ask me.
The point of the death penalty is to violate the first commandment, kill for revenge and it's not even applied in any "fair" way. You're much more likely to get it if (a) you're black (b) poor and (c) kill a white person.
A rich person never gets the death penalty. Poor black men often do and many of those men were later proven to be innocent.
Hypocrisy is using the bible to prove a point when you do not even believe in God or the Bible.
you know better than this aerial... if someone is going to use the word of the lord to justify their position then im sure as hell going to use those words to argue their point if i disagree with it. that is not hypocrisy.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the points of discussion in this thread are side notes to the what is ultimately the issue with welfare (and most other issues) - the administration of the program itself ...
people can and should debate the pros and cons of welfare in general but in the context of the united states - the debate often focuses on the people who abuse the system or the mismanagement of funds ... the reality is that most gov't run and funded programs are indeed highly inefficient and poorly run ... some of it is attributable to bureaucracy and red tape and possibly lack of funds - but the vast majority of the problems related to these programs are indeed intentional ...
although, these programs are deemed social in nature ... they are yet another avenue by which tax dollars are funneled to private companies ... lockheed martin, our favourite manufacturer of death, runs welfare offices ... they don't really care about who gets what and how effective the program is ... it's all about profiting from the program ... much like every other program the gov't funds ... so, when the US goes to war to fight freedom and democracy - it's the same thing ... it's not about how efficient that money gets spent (no money for body armor but money for haliburton to charge $50 a day per labourer they hire dsepite paying them $5) - it's about profiteering ...
sure, there is a debate on the pros and cons in welfare ... but the bigger and more larger debate should be on the corporatization of the gov't because right now ... those who oppose welfare do in fact have a significant gripe in that it is extremely poorly managed ... however, the reasons for that are not because of the program itself but rather in its administration ...
the points of discussion in this thread are side notes to the what is ultimately the issue with welfare (and most other issues) - the administration of the program itself ...
people can and should debate the pros and cons of welfare in general but in the context of the united states - the debate often focuses on the people who abuse the system or the mismanagement of funds ... the reality is that most gov't run and funded programs are indeed highly inefficient and poorly run ... some of it is attributable to bureaucracy and red tape and possibly lack of funds - but the vast majority of the problems related to these programs are indeed intentional ...
although, these programs are deemed social in nature ... they are yet another avenue by which tax dollars are funneled to private companies ... lockheed martin, our favourite manufacturer of death, runs welfare offices ... they don't really care about who gets what and how effective the program is ... it's all about profiting from the program ... much like every other program the gov't funds ... so, when the US goes to war to fight freedom and democracy - it's the same thing ... it's not about how efficient that money gets spent (no money for body armor but money for haliburton to charge $50 a day per labourer they hire dsepite paying them $5) - it's about profiteering ...
sure, there is a debate on the pros and cons in welfare ... but the bigger and more larger debate should be on the corporatization of the gov't because right now ... those who oppose welfare do in fact have a significant gripe in that it is extremely poorly managed ... however, the reasons for that are not because of the program itself but rather in its administration ...
Great post right here.
I'm not so sure it's great. Lockheed Martin running welfare offices? Where is this happening? Or is it more of an analogy?
This is a common assumption: "most gov't run and funded programs are indeed highly inefficient and poorly run", but is it a fair assumption? Many things in the private sector are also inefficient, so maybe it's an issue of human made systems can be inefficient because humans are flawed.
Not that he assumes that I'm poor but that someone posting on a forum dedicated to a band is saying that nobody needs artists and suggests that everyone should become a doctor or an engineer.
art. Man, if that ain't a topic deserving its own thread, I don't know what is.
I'm not so sure it's great. Lockheed Martin running welfare offices? Where is this happening? Or is it more of an analogy?
This is a common assumption: "most gov't run and funded programs are indeed highly inefficient and poorly run", but is it a fair assumption? Many things in the private sector are also inefficient, so maybe it's an issue of human made systems can be inefficient because humans are flawed.
they may have since gotten out or transitioned it to another subsidiary ...
the points of discussion in this thread are side notes to the what is ultimately the issue with welfare (and most other issues) - the administration of the program itself ...
people can and should debate the pros and cons of welfare in general but in the context of the united states - the debate often focuses on the people who abuse the system or the mismanagement of funds ... the reality is that most gov't run and funded programs are indeed highly inefficient and poorly run ... some of it is attributable to bureaucracy and red tape and possibly lack of funds - but the vast majority of the problems related to these programs are indeed intentional ...
although, these programs are deemed social in nature ... they are yet another avenue by which tax dollars are funneled to private companies ... lockheed martin, our favourite manufacturer of death, runs welfare offices ... they don't really care about who gets what and how effective the program is ... it's all about profiting from the program ... much like every other program the gov't funds ... so, when the US goes to war to fight freedom and democracy - it's the same thing ... it's not about how efficient that money gets spent (no money for body armor but money for haliburton to charge $50 a day per labourer they hire dsepite paying them $5) - it's about profiteering ...
sure, there is a debate on the pros and cons in welfare ... but the bigger and more larger debate should be on the corporatization of the gov't because right now ... those who oppose welfare do in fact have a significant gripe in that it is extremely poorly managed ... however, the reasons for that are not because of the program itself but rather in its administration ...
Great post right here.
I'm not so sure it's great. Lockheed Martin running welfare offices? Where is this happening? Or is it more of an analogy?
This is a common assumption: "most gov't run and funded programs are indeed highly inefficient and poorly run", but is it a fair assumption? Many things in the private sector are also inefficient, so maybe it's an issue of human made systems can be inefficient because humans are flawed.
I didn't do a tremendous amount of searching on this, but here is one of the first articles that a google search produced:
Of course there is inefficiency in the private sector-- and those that are least efficient fail, barring some connection to be bailed out. This is the beef that a lot of us have with government that inefficiency tends to be rewarded. Some notorious examples: The War on Drugs and The War on Terror. Rest assured though, it's not just GOVERNMENT that is to blame for all of the inefficiency and waste-- the public / private mergers of governments and huge corporations are what bleed us the worst.
Some food for thought and this is not my blog or post. And this money should be considered constant stimulus as its put back into the economy as its spent by the receipients. Not a bad deal for less than $500 of my tax dollars:
Based on information I received from the Office of Management and Budget I have revised this post. The numbers changed by enough that I though it worth revising.
I have been involved in some discussion of late regarding fairness of our tax system, income distribution, and income redistribution. It seemed to me that there was a lot missing in these discussions. In particular, the facts! So I set out to plow through some government reports to get a handle on were the money comes from and where it goes. This has turned out to be quite a challenge, especially since I am not an accountant (although I think even some accountants would be baffled by some of this stuff).
As I progressed it became obvious to me that this is a project that will need to be broken down into pieces. I decided the first piece would be welfare related expenditures because that has been a popular topic in my conversations and political debates. With that introduction, here are some of the welfare figures. I hope to have more analysis soon, depending upon when one very nice young intern named Karl at the Office of Management and Budget gets back to me with some information. (Karl has since gotten back to me which is why this has been revised. Thank you Karl!)
According to The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Historical Tables, total outlays for Means Tested Entitlements in 2006 were $354.3 billion. This was 2.7% of GDP and
Includes Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children's health insurance and veterans pensions.
(from Table 8.1, page 133)
The cost of these programs has increased from 0.8% of GDP in 1962 (before Medicaid) to 2.7% of GDP in 2006, or by 1.9% of GDP. If we exclude Medicaid, health care for children and veterans pensions it is 0.89 % of GDP, or $117 billion. (The numbers for the excluded items are found in Table 8.5, page 142). This represents approximately 7.5% of total non-Social Security receipts to the Federal Government. So, for every one of your tax dollars to the Federal Government, about 7.5 cents goes to these programs. I hate to use averages, but the average taxpayer had a tax rate of 12.45% in 2005 (the latest data available here), so if we multiply things out we see that about 0.93% of the average taxpayer's income went to non-medical "welfare". So, if you made $50,000 and paid $6,225.00 in Federal income tax, approximately $465.00 went to all of these programs x-healthcare and veterans pensions.
Next up I hope to isolate some of the health care numbers. I believe this is truly where our fiscal crisis lies and I hope to see whether I am correct. It will require working through historical budget numbers together with Social Security numbers - my head hurts already!
OK, for Social Security go here.
For helth care go here.
For the rest of the budget go here.
so your blaming the companies because people can't save for a rainy day???
Its not the companies job to make sure you save your money and live within your means. Just because someone got laid off and wen't bankrupt, lost house, etc is not the companies fault. I was once laid off so was my wife, we managed to keep our house, feed our two kids, and get other jobs, all without losing our house, going bankrupt, etc.
So yeah, selft made millionaires SHOWS that if people take some responsibily, work hard, they can achieve monitary success.
Again YOUR not entitled to a job or money.
So again, how are you SCREWED by the system.
Is it the systems fault that you chose gay porn as your line of work? Maybe people shouldn't go to school for liberal arts degrees and start geting into medical/engineering fields where there is actual work/needs.[/quote]
i find it funny that people still believe that everyone can be rich. that is not the case. i am not saying that because the people are not smart i am saying this because you can't have a country of just high paying jobs. the way capitalist countries work now, you will always need low income people. its called inflation. if everyone was a millionaire, the person with only one million would be poor.
now does welfare have to be fixed? yes but please don't give me the bullshit answer that everyone can be rich cause that's not right.
SELF MADE millionaires is a misnomer if ever i heard one.
I mean... not exactly. I have a staff of zero. It's just me and my business partner. We do everything, even answer the phone and take out the trash.
are you selling a service or a commodity? if so then you will require others to pay for those, therefore you are reliant on a whole lot more people than just yourself and business partner to generate and grow your wealth, no?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs".
Cars... are basic necessities for many/most people in order to work, look for work, obtain food, access medical care, etc. And just because people have cars doesn't mean (1) they run, or (2) they paid money for them. I have owned 5 cars in my life & never paid for any of them. (I paid $1500 for one of them, but part of the money came from an insurance settlement & the rest was a gift.)
Air conditioning... is a basic requirement for people to live in much/most of this country. People actually die from lack of air conditioning. And, as whoprincess said in her well-educated post which you have failed to address, (1) air conditioning comes free with housing, and (2) just because a person has an air conditioner doesn't mean s/he can afford to turn it on.
Refrigerators... another basic necessity, that usually comes with housing & which people can't always afford to operate even if they have one.
Stoves... same basic situation as the refrigerator, only somewhat less necessary.
Clothes washer & dryer... I don't actually believe that most impoverished Americans have washers & dryers of their own but, for those who do, they probably weren't purchased, but came with the housing like the other appliances. We should want welfare recipients to have these anyway, since it saves money on laundromat expenses.
Microwave... I've had the same microwave for the past 17 years, for which I paid $2.50 at a garage sale, so that's certainly no indicator of wealth. And, again, this is an appliance that comes standard in apartments these days, but it doesn't mean the people can afford the electricity to operate it.
Color TVs... I have two color TVs & didn't pay a dime for either of them. I've never purchased a TV in my life, actually.
VCR/DVD player... I have both, plus a Roku box. Again, they were gifts & cost me nothing.
Stereo... I don't currently own one (except in my car, which was a gift), but I didn't pay for any of the ones I have owned - both were gifts.
Now that I think about it, over the course of my entire life, I have paid a grand total of TWO DOLLARS & FIFTY CENTS for everything on this entire list. That's 15 CENTS per year of my adulthood. So your list is totally pointless - pretty damn comical, actually - especially as some kind of indication of excess wealth.
And then you're going to include food, health care, & housing - as if the fact that people on welfare HAVE these essentials is some kind of argument that we should END welfare?? Sounds like a pretty good argument that welfare is working, if you ask me.
"_"
Reading your post, you just defined me as poor, since I am barely able to afford those items and maintain them.
Why am I required to pay for those things to support my family if you deem them as necessities that all people should have to live?
Just because something applies to you and your situation does not mean its the same everywhere else. Just because you got everything in your house for $2.50 does not mean everyone can. Please understand that other people situations do not reflect yours.
As much as the welfare system is broken and needs some serious changing, I'd personally would rather focus on the federal reserve, banking system, corporatism, and military empire. These are much larger drains on our economy than the welfare system.
At least the people getting welfare are poor and not millionaires and billionaires getting rich from their friends in government. I don't understand why so many middle class people get upset at those that have so little who get help from the gov't. As a Christian, I'd rather have the help go to the poor than these rich a*holes.
As much as the welfare system is broken and needs some serious changing, I'd personally would rather focus on the federal reserve, banking system, corporatism, and military empire. These are much larger drains on our economy than the welfare system.
At least the people getting welfare are poor and not millionaires and billionaires getting rich from their friends in government. I don't understand why so many middle class people get upset at those that have so little who get help from the gov't. As a Christian, I'd rather have the help go to the poor than these rich a*holes.
Maybe you should take a look at the federal budget...
And once again, if someone have no education/planning/savings plans, etc, handing them monthly checks is not HELPING them... We should help educate them in how to save money.
Taking (forcing) someone elses money that they work for and giving it to someone who is not working to support their way of live is THEFT.
People seem to foget that there are charities...
Maybe you should take a look at the federal budget...
And once again, if someone have no education/planning/savings plans, etc, handing them monthly checks is not HELPING them... We should help educate them in how to save money.
Taking (forcing) someone elses money that they work for and giving it to someone who is not working to support their way of live is THEFT.
People seem to foget that there are charities...
then what do you call taking someone's money and forcing them to pay for bombs that kill innocent people?
"_"
Reading your post, you just defined me as poor, since I am barely able to afford those items and maintain them.
Why am I required to pay for those things to support my family if you deem them as necessities that all people should have to live?
Just because something applies to you and your situation does not mean its the same everywhere else. Just because you got everything in your house for $2.50 does not mean everyone can. Please understand that other people situations do not reflect yours.
btw, how do you like your ROKU?
I in no way just defined you as poor. I merely pointed out that your repeated assertion that people who have these things must have paid for them - and are therefore wealthy enough to support themselves & must just be abusing the system because they have bad priorities - is flawed to the point of being absurd.
The fact that you pay more for these things - and maintain them, which we already told you many people are not able to do - only reflects you inability and/or unwillingness to find & accept old, cheap things for your family. You are able to have this attitude precisely because you are NOT poor.
As I have said all along, poor people are usually able to have things because they have to resort to alternative methods of acquiring them (and often because they're willing to accept lower-quality things). My first three cars were ugly piles of junk that were older than I was & broke down all the time (one was actually totaled), but were given to me by relatives when they would otherwise have just taken them to a junk yard because they knew I needed a car. (Somehow I don't picture a responsible man such as yourself sending your wife & children off into bad neighborhoods at night in such unsafe vehicles - but you at least have that choice.)
Not everyone who is poor is able to acquire all these things so cheaply, so we should be careful to not assume that it's necessarily easy for poor people to get a car, for instance. This is why social capital is so important. But my extensive experience with poor people tells me that most of those who do have such things acquired them by similar alternative means. (Why do you think poor people are so much more likely to have broken-down cars in their yards? It's not because it's just their white trash lack of values.)
Maybe you should take a look at the federal budget...
And once again, if someone have no education/planning/savings plans, etc, handing them monthly checks is not HELPING them... We should help educate them in how to save money.
Taking (forcing) someone elses money that they work for and giving it to someone who is not working to support their way of live is THEFT.
People seem to foget that there are charities...
then what do you call taking someone's money and forcing them to pay for bombs that kill innocent people?
Maybe you should take a look at the federal budget...
And once again, if someone have no education/planning/savings plans, etc, handing them monthly checks is not HELPING them... We should help educate them in how to save money.
Taking (forcing) someone elses money that they work for and giving it to someone who is not working to support their way of live is THEFT.
People seem to foget that there are charities...
then what do you call taking someone's money and forcing them to pay for bombs that kill innocent people?
Defense...
but similar to you not wanting to pay for someone to eat ... i don't want to pay to have people killed ...
Maybe you should take a look at the federal budget...
And once again, if someone have no education/planning/savings plans, etc, handing them monthly checks is not HELPING them... We should help educate them in how to save money.
Taking (forcing) someone elses money that they work for and giving it to someone who is not working to support their way of live is THEFT.
People seem to foget that there are charities...
You are incorrect if you believe that people on public assistance don't work. Most of the people I've known have been employed. They work at minimum wage jobs and struggle to support their families. Food stamps or subsidized housing help them. The fact that someone qualifies for one type of assistance doesn't mean they automatically qualify for another. It depends very much on the state and locality where they live.
I haven't forgotten that there are charities. I already said that I've spent most of my adult life working at nonprofits, including what you would call charities. Because of the tremendous demands on them, particularly in this economy, they are limited in what kinds of services they can provide. They can fill in some gaps in public assistance but not all.
So then you don't support paying for roads, infrastructure?
Because those have all killed people.
death by accident is much different than waging war ...
and really - i'm just following your example ... just because you don't believe in welfare programs ... many people do because it relates to national security and considered important to the overall well being of society ... calling it THEFT is absurd in so much calling any funding for gov't programs including roads, defense, etc THEFT ...
Maybe you should take a look at the federal budget...
And once again, if someone have no education/planning/savings plans, etc, handing them monthly checks is not HELPING them... We should help educate them in how to save money.
Taking (forcing) someone elses money that they work for and giving it to someone who is not working to support their way of live is THEFT.
People seem to foget that there are charities...
You are incorrect if you believe that people on public assistance don't work. Most of the people I've known have been employed. They work at minimum wage jobs and struggle to support their families. Food stamps or subsidized housing help them. The fact that someone qualifies for one type of assistance doesn't mean they automatically qualify for another. It depends very much on the state and locality where they live.
I haven't forgotten that there are charities. I already said that I've spent most of my adult life working at nonprofits, including what you would call charities. Because of the tremendous demands on them, particularly in this economy, they are limited in what kinds of services they can provide. They can fill in some gaps in public assistance but not all.
blockhead has demonstrated time again in thread after thread the inability to understand that there is a group of people called "the working poor".
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
So then you don't support paying for roads, infrastructure?
Because those have all killed people.
death by accident is much different than waging war ...
and really - i'm just following your example ... just because you don't believe in welfare programs ... many people do because it relates to national security and considered important to the overall well being of society ... calling it THEFT is absurd in so much calling any funding for gov't programs including roads, defense, etc THEFT ...
THEFT is TAKING something someone earned and giving it to someone who didn't earn it.
Again, please point out where I said I don't believe in welfare programs...
Welfare programs are now entitlement programs, and hand outs. There needs to be severe regulations and some actual help.
Comments
kinda like pumping money into the military.. all the money in the world isnt gonna give us peace. so when do we stop filling the abyss and rethink HOW to bring about a peaceful future for everyone, cause clearly a continual influx of dollars isnt working.??? but i suspect, and im sure im not the only one that does, that military spending, and policy for that matter, isnt about peace but more a rattling of sabres.
as a society we have to rethink the way we do things cause the way were travelling only perpetuates what people perceive to be the problems. we piss and moan about the amount of money spent on programmes and yet dont come up with a viable alternative.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
SELF MADE millionaires is a misnomer if ever i heard one. these people dont make their millions by themselves... theyre reliant on hundreds, possibly thousands, of other people to carry out their vision.. and then the rest of us to then jump on board and actualise their idea whereby turning it into a viable commodity and generating its worth. dont tell me the capitalist system is here for anything more than maximising profit for the extreme minority at the expense of the greater social good cause i will call bullshit every single time..
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you know better than this aerial... if someone is going to use the word of the lord to justify their position then im sure as hell going to use those words to argue their point if i disagree with it. that is not hypocrisy.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Again I ask, how so?
Great post right here.
I'm not so sure it's great. Lockheed Martin running welfare offices? Where is this happening? Or is it more of an analogy?
This is a common assumption: "most gov't run and funded programs are indeed highly inefficient and poorly run", but is it a fair assumption? Many things in the private sector are also inefficient, so maybe it's an issue of human made systems can be inefficient because humans are flawed.
they may have since gotten out or transitioned it to another subsidiary ...
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.c ... artin.html
I didn't do a tremendous amount of searching on this, but here is one of the first articles that a google search produced:
http://www.democracynow.org/1999/6/4/fr ... w_lockheed
It sounds more like "workfare" from reading.
Of course there is inefficiency in the private sector-- and those that are least efficient fail, barring some connection to be bailed out. This is the beef that a lot of us have with government that inefficiency tends to be rewarded. Some notorious examples: The War on Drugs and The War on Terror. Rest assured though, it's not just GOVERNMENT that is to blame for all of the inefficiency and waste-- the public / private mergers of governments and huge corporations are what bleed us the worst.
I mean... not exactly. I have a staff of zero. It's just me and my business partner. We do everything, even answer the phone and take out the trash.
A bit busy at work today, will try to post my response tonight.
Based on information I received from the Office of Management and Budget I have revised this post. The numbers changed by enough that I though it worth revising.
I have been involved in some discussion of late regarding fairness of our tax system, income distribution, and income redistribution. It seemed to me that there was a lot missing in these discussions. In particular, the facts! So I set out to plow through some government reports to get a handle on were the money comes from and where it goes. This has turned out to be quite a challenge, especially since I am not an accountant (although I think even some accountants would be baffled by some of this stuff).
As I progressed it became obvious to me that this is a project that will need to be broken down into pieces. I decided the first piece would be welfare related expenditures because that has been a popular topic in my conversations and political debates. With that introduction, here are some of the welfare figures. I hope to have more analysis soon, depending upon when one very nice young intern named Karl at the Office of Management and Budget gets back to me with some information. (Karl has since gotten back to me which is why this has been revised. Thank you Karl!)
According to The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Historical Tables, total outlays for Means Tested Entitlements in 2006 were $354.3 billion. This was 2.7% of GDP and
Includes Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children's health insurance and veterans pensions.
(from Table 8.1, page 133)
The cost of these programs has increased from 0.8% of GDP in 1962 (before Medicaid) to 2.7% of GDP in 2006, or by 1.9% of GDP. If we exclude Medicaid, health care for children and veterans pensions it is 0.89 % of GDP, or $117 billion. (The numbers for the excluded items are found in Table 8.5, page 142). This represents approximately 7.5% of total non-Social Security receipts to the Federal Government. So, for every one of your tax dollars to the Federal Government, about 7.5 cents goes to these programs. I hate to use averages, but the average taxpayer had a tax rate of 12.45% in 2005 (the latest data available here), so if we multiply things out we see that about 0.93% of the average taxpayer's income went to non-medical "welfare". So, if you made $50,000 and paid $6,225.00 in Federal income tax, approximately $465.00 went to all of these programs x-healthcare and veterans pensions.
Next up I hope to isolate some of the health care numbers. I believe this is truly where our fiscal crisis lies and I hope to see whether I am correct. It will require working through historical budget numbers together with Social Security numbers - my head hurts already!
OK, for Social Security go here.
For helth care go here.
For the rest of the budget go here.
http://polecolaw.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... lfare-cost
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Its not the companies job to make sure you save your money and live within your means. Just because someone got laid off and wen't bankrupt, lost house, etc is not the companies fault. I was once laid off so was my wife, we managed to keep our house, feed our two kids, and get other jobs, all without losing our house, going bankrupt, etc.
So yeah, selft made millionaires SHOWS that if people take some responsibily, work hard, they can achieve monitary success.
Again YOUR not entitled to a job or money.
So again, how are you SCREWED by the system.
Is it the systems fault that you chose gay porn as your line of work? Maybe people shouldn't go to school for liberal arts degrees and start geting into medical/engineering fields where there is actual work/needs.[/quote]
i find it funny that people still believe that everyone can be rich. that is not the case. i am not saying that because the people are not smart i am saying this because you can't have a country of just high paying jobs. the way capitalist countries work now, you will always need low income people. its called inflation. if everyone was a millionaire, the person with only one million would be poor.
now does welfare have to be fixed? yes but please don't give me the bullshit answer that everyone can be rich cause that's not right.
are you selling a service or a commodity? if so then you will require others to pay for those, therefore you are reliant on a whole lot more people than just yourself and business partner to generate and grow your wealth, no?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Cars... are basic necessities for many/most people in order to work, look for work, obtain food, access medical care, etc. And just because people have cars doesn't mean (1) they run, or (2) they paid money for them. I have owned 5 cars in my life & never paid for any of them. (I paid $1500 for one of them, but part of the money came from an insurance settlement & the rest was a gift.)
Air conditioning... is a basic requirement for people to live in much/most of this country. People actually die from lack of air conditioning. And, as whoprincess said in her well-educated post which you have failed to address, (1) air conditioning comes free with housing, and (2) just because a person has an air conditioner doesn't mean s/he can afford to turn it on.
Refrigerators... another basic necessity, that usually comes with housing & which people can't always afford to operate even if they have one.
Stoves... same basic situation as the refrigerator, only somewhat less necessary.
Clothes washer & dryer... I don't actually believe that most impoverished Americans have washers & dryers of their own but, for those who do, they probably weren't purchased, but came with the housing like the other appliances. We should want welfare recipients to have these anyway, since it saves money on laundromat expenses.
Microwave... I've had the same microwave for the past 17 years, for which I paid $2.50 at a garage sale, so that's certainly no indicator of wealth. And, again, this is an appliance that comes standard in apartments these days, but it doesn't mean the people can afford the electricity to operate it.
Color TVs... I have two color TVs & didn't pay a dime for either of them. I've never purchased a TV in my life, actually.
VCR/DVD player... I have both, plus a Roku box. Again, they were gifts & cost me nothing.
Stereo... I don't currently own one (except in my car, which was a gift), but I didn't pay for any of the ones I have owned - both were gifts.
Now that I think about it, over the course of my entire life, I have paid a grand total of TWO DOLLARS & FIFTY CENTS for everything on this entire list. That's 15 CENTS per year of my adulthood. So your list is totally pointless - pretty damn comical, actually - especially as some kind of indication of excess wealth.
And then you're going to include food, health care, & housing - as if the fact that people on welfare HAVE these essentials is some kind of argument that we should END welfare?? Sounds like a pretty good argument that welfare is working, if you ask me.
Reading your post, you just defined me as poor, since I am barely able to afford those items and maintain them.
Why am I required to pay for those things to support my family if you deem them as necessities that all people should have to live?
Just because something applies to you and your situation does not mean its the same everywhere else. Just because you got everything in your house for $2.50 does not mean everyone can. Please understand that other people situations do not reflect yours.
btw, how do you like your ROKU?
likewise.....
At least the people getting welfare are poor and not millionaires and billionaires getting rich from their friends in government. I don't understand why so many middle class people get upset at those that have so little who get help from the gov't. As a Christian, I'd rather have the help go to the poor than these rich a*holes.
And once again, if someone have no education/planning/savings plans, etc, handing them monthly checks is not HELPING them... We should help educate them in how to save money.
Taking (forcing) someone elses money that they work for and giving it to someone who is not working to support their way of live is THEFT.
People seem to foget that there are charities...
then what do you call taking someone's money and forcing them to pay for bombs that kill innocent people?
I in no way just defined you as poor. I merely pointed out that your repeated assertion that people who have these things must have paid for them - and are therefore wealthy enough to support themselves & must just be abusing the system because they have bad priorities - is flawed to the point of being absurd.
The fact that you pay more for these things - and maintain them, which we already told you many people are not able to do - only reflects you inability and/or unwillingness to find & accept old, cheap things for your family. You are able to have this attitude precisely because you are NOT poor.
As I have said all along, poor people are usually able to have things because they have to resort to alternative methods of acquiring them (and often because they're willing to accept lower-quality things). My first three cars were ugly piles of junk that were older than I was & broke down all the time (one was actually totaled), but were given to me by relatives when they would otherwise have just taken them to a junk yard because they knew I needed a car. (Somehow I don't picture a responsible man such as yourself sending your wife & children off into bad neighborhoods at night in such unsafe vehicles - but you at least have that choice.)
Not everyone who is poor is able to acquire all these things so cheaply, so we should be careful to not assume that it's necessarily easy for poor people to get a car, for instance. This is why social capital is so important. But my extensive experience with poor people tells me that most of those who do have such things acquired them by similar alternative means. (Why do you think poor people are so much more likely to have broken-down cars in their yards? It's not because it's just their white trash lack of values.)
My Roku box is awesome!
but similar to you not wanting to pay for someone to eat ... i don't want to pay to have people killed ...
Because those have all killed people.
I haven't forgotten that there are charities. I already said that I've spent most of my adult life working at nonprofits, including what you would call charities. Because of the tremendous demands on them, particularly in this economy, they are limited in what kinds of services they can provide. They can fill in some gaps in public assistance but not all.
death by accident is much different than waging war ...
and really - i'm just following your example ... just because you don't believe in welfare programs ... many people do because it relates to national security and considered important to the overall well being of society ... calling it THEFT is absurd in so much calling any funding for gov't programs including roads, defense, etc THEFT ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Again, please point out where I said I don't believe in welfare programs...
Welfare programs are now entitlement programs, and hand outs. There needs to be severe regulations and some actual help.