So lets have a real discussion: What if we seriously slashed handouts?

[bucs90]

Not sure. I know some will say "We'll do whatever we did before we had all these handouts." And in theory, thats a good point. But..the world has changed. So have people. People are fucking crazier than they used to be. I partially blame prescription meds. We were never meant to have these blends of chemicals morphing in our blood stream with unknown side effects.

Anyway....I've always argued that the handouts are meant to simply keep the lower class under some sort of civil control. Just GIVE them enough to stay fed, housed and mostly sustained to the point they aren't excessively violent (i.e. raiding the suburbs to loot and steal). Take that away...and we will have masses of hungry, violent, uneducated and undisciplined people without direction. Thats true...because if they were educated and disciplined, they probably wouldn't have ended up on handouts.

I agree somewhat. There needs to be a culture change, one that won't be coming anytime soon. We are a generation growing comfortable and entitled to instantaneous gratification. Drugs, sex, fast food. It's all cheap and all available. I'm not against any of them, just in excess. I feel like, when people have the choice between working harder to provide and finding a quick fix, more often than not it's the latter.

Absolutely right. We've basically come to live such a comfortable life...I think we forgot what hardship is!!! Thats a good thing, but like the Roman Empire, we've become so soft and spoiled, the mere idea of having to WORK HARD...for our whole lives...seems cruel to some. I've seen this in some recent college grads. 24 years old with a 4 year degree in something worthless, and they want an 80K a year job with a 3 bedroom house instantly. Tell them "Hey, you may not own a house until your late 30's, even 40's" and they go crazy. They have never lived hard.

 

[bucs90]

I personally love talking about the budget and find it to be one of the most interesting political subjects right now. I have to say I'm strongly disappointed in the Obama Administration for pussying around the budget as the deficit was the initial reason I voted Obama the first time around.

But back on subject, it actually would be pretty easy to balance the budget by returning to Clinton era tax rates, getting the fuck out of Afghanistan, closing tax loop holes and tweaking a few government programs. If the federal government would do these things, the economy would start roaring again in America I believe.

Check out this game from the New York Times where you can decide the budget. It helped me understand the situation.
Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

It does seem like the world expects us to be World Police. But...I've heard that the world economies are basically maintaining the dollar as the standard currency ONLY in return for us fighting the nasty wars for them. Is it a good trade off?

I definitely support homeland defense over foreign wars. Sometimes it's neccessary. But in general...keep our troops out of harms way if at all possible.

 

[cutter]

All welfare should require some work being done. We have a million people coming up from mexico every year to do work that Americans won't do and a million people getting welfare and doing nothing. A marrage made in heaven.

 

[DonCherry]

Not sure. I know some will say "We'll do whatever we did before we had all these handouts." And in theory, thats a good point. But..the world has changed. So have people. People are fucking crazier than they used to be. I partially blame prescription meds. We were never meant to have these blends of chemicals morphing in our blood stream with unknown side effects.

Anyway....I've always argued that the handouts are meant to simply keep the lower class under some sort of civil control. Just GIVE them enough to stay fed, housed and mostly sustained to the point they aren't excessively violent (i.e. raiding the suburbs to loot and steal). Take that away...and we will have masses of hungry, violent, uneducated and undisciplined people without direction. Thats true...because if they were educated and disciplined, they probably wouldn't have ended up on handouts.

I agree somewhat. There needs to be a culture change, one that won't be coming anytime soon. We are a generation growing comfortable and entitled to instantaneous gratification. Drugs, sex, fast food. It's all cheap and all available. I'm not against any of them, just in excess. I feel like, when people have the choice between working harder to provide and finding a quick fix, more often than not it's the latter.

Absolutely right. We've basically come to live such a comfortable life...I think we forgot what hardship is!!! Thats a good thing, but like the Roman Empire, we've become so soft and spoiled, the mere idea of having to WORK HARD...for our whole lives...seems cruel to some. I've seen this in some recent college grads. 24 years old with a 4 year degree in something worthless, and they want an 80K a year job with a 3 bedroom house instantly. Tell them "Hey, you may not own a house until your late 30's, even 40's" and they go crazy. They have never lived hard.

I attribute much of that attitude to "entertainment" figures. The Kardashians and the HIltons and all these little glorified nobodies that get celebrated for reasons unbeknownst to me. It's infuriating to see and I think that kids can be so impressionable; they see these idiots and just assume that that's what people act like.

 

[OKTexas]

It could work in theory... but there are some serious problems. I know I'll probably get shit for talking about "the childreeeeeen!" But there are people born into situations where their parents are drug addicts, or gang members, or who knows what and they only have the slimmest of chances of escaping the cycle. Cutting these "handouts" means that it's taking their slim chance and making it even slimmer.

I think the only answer will be to get creative, but I have no idea how and I don't think anyone else does either.

We've made the fatal mistake of making people comfortable in poverty, that's not doing anyone a favor. Wefare for the able bodied must be time limited. We can offer education and other things to give them a hand up, but if they fail to take advantage then the money is reduced gradually and goes away. If they have children and refuse to take advantage of what is offered to have the ability to take care of them, then the children are removed from their care. There are many people who would be willing to adopt. Knowing they could lose their children would give added incentive to do what's necessary, if they fail with that knowledge, then they deserve to lose them and the children would likely be better served not being around them. I'm aware the bleeding hearts will say I'm mean, but so is keeping people dependent. I also agree with drug testing, if a parent is on drugs the children should be removed, and aid terminated. When I say drug testing I include tobaco, alcohol, marajuana and hard drugs. A peson on aid diverting resources to these activities when they can't support themselves is irresponsible. I would also require them to go through a financial course like Dave Ramsey's to learn money management.

 

[rdean]

Bill Clinton's welfare reform requires anyone getting welfare to work. Unless they are paraplegic or insane. Which is why so many right wingers get welfare. How can you have a debate when you start off without the facts?

 

[Clementine]

This thread is for a real discussion only.

What if we seriously cut handouts? Im not saying Social Security, Medicaid, etc. People pay into that. Thats another topic.

I mean Section 8 housing, welfare, food stamps, etc.

Well...if we seriously slashed all that stuff, we'd have a few results:

- More people would either be looking for a job, or stealing.
- More shitty applicants to the same number of job openings.

Now, Im not saying that would be a bad thing. But how do we deal with it? A lot of lazy or simply unable bodies are going to be without that handout that housed, fed, and paid some bills. They'll need some revenue to replace that. Some wont work. They'll simply steal. Will we need more cops and bigger jails? Maybe.

Demand for low wage jobs will jump, as it is true, cutting that shit will indeed force some into looking for work.

Is it just a simple fact that we overpopulated our country, and dont have enough resources and jobs to go around? Or...is it a fact that we have enough resources, but they are simply pooled together at the top, with the bottom not having any real chance to earn it?

I dont know which is true, or maybe both have some truth.

We do need to get everyone to calm down the discussion, lay off the rhetoric, and talk seriously about this stuff though.

What if we just had people submit a form showing their exact expenses, a paystub if they work and then calculate exactly how much help they really need. We have so many programs and some actually get too much here and there. My neighbor gets food stamps, WIC and other things. She always has boxes of cereal to give away because she can't fit them in her cabinet. She takes them because she's "entitled" and not because she needs them. Some people are using EBT cards at McDonald's or other fast food places, tattoo parlors, gambling casinos, convenience stores for cigarettes, etc. Clearly, they have been given too much money since they can blow it on completely unneeded items.

We need to have a system in place to stop waste and abuse. It won't balance the budget, but it still adds up to millions each year.

We could slowly cut down the expense as people start taking more responsibility for themselves, but currently, there isn't a lot of incentive to do that. If a person has gotten comfortable on welfare and easing off of it means working, yet still maintaining the exact same lifestyle, then why would they want to start working for what they now get for free?

For years, there was an effort to remove the stigma of accepting charity. Now, it seems people expect it and have no problem with it. I'm not saying make them feel ashamed, but make it clear that they are being helped with the expectation that they will do their part to pull themselves up. For many, that means getting a high school equivalency diploma and maybe attending trade school at the very least. It means not continuing to have more children to increase the check. I just think people who show no initiative should be made to jump through a few hoops. We have to stop those who have become experts at gaming the system and there are many out there.

The point is that we shouldn't make people too comfortable on the doles. It needs to be touted as a temporary solution. People need to be motivated to do more for themselves.

I think merely telling people they will have a certain amount of time before the checks stop will cause many to get their butts in gear. If they can't get it together, they should have to reapply for welfare every other month and give an explanation of what they are doing to find a job. Time to get serious and give them a nudge.

 

[blackhawk]

If we don't start to cut spending somewhere what will the results be? Just taxing the so called super rich more will solve nothing even you taxed them at 50% or more you would not even make a dent in our 16 trillion and counting debt. I have said this before if we want to really start dealing with this problem we will have to raise taxes but we can't just confine it to the rich and we will have to do serious across the board cuts most important we all have to come to terms with the fact there is no easy simple painless way to deal with this problem. This will take a long time it will be tough and people will get hurt but until we accept this fact were going nowhere in dealing with this problem.

No doubt we must have production and growth. We NEED to be the most powerful country in the world, economically and militarily. Those two are what sustains the success inside our borders.

I think that is where Social Security, Medicaid, etc, somes in. 65 for SS is simply too young. It was never meant to be a 20-30 year pay program.

Also, this one is very important to me, WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT OUR OBESITY PROBLEM. Obesity related problems contribute a HUGE amount to our healthcare bills. Supply/Demand......obesity and the complications from it has caused a HUGE DEMAND for more healthcare, which of course, raised prices. That is one of the things I do like about the Obamas...Michelles push for health and fitness. Im not so sure about mandating nutrition...but shedding light on it, providing info, educating people on it, thats a great thing. Hell, even the government funded recreation departments are great. They're low cost/high reward. Thats a good use of tax money if people participate and get fit.

So......lots of problems, lots of possible solutions. How do we get politicians to actually act on it?

I would suggest term limits for starters so they would actually focus on the job they were sent there to do in the time they have then focusing on getting reelected every couple year's.

 

[WillowTree]

All welfare should require some work being done. We have a million people coming up from mexico every year to do work that Americans won't do and a million people getting welfare and doing nothing. A marrage made in heaven.

We'll just tax the evil rich, everything will be okay.

 

[OKTexas]

It would be interesting to see people demanding a living wage from the corporate moochers.

Labor is a commodity, it garners what it's worth.

 

[Dot Com]

All welfare should require some work being done. We have a million people coming up from mexico every year to do work that Americans won't do and a million people getting welfare and doing nothing. A marrage made in heaven.

We'll just tax the evil rich, everything will be okay.

ewe seem a tad bitter 2nite willow Is this because of thumping that occurred last week?

 

[OKTexas]

I personally love talking about the budget and find it to be one of the most interesting political subjects right now. I have to say I'm strongly disappointed in the Obama Administration for pussying around the budget as the deficit was the initial reason I voted Obama the first time around.

But back on subject, it actually would be pretty easy to balance the budget by returning to Clinton era tax rates, getting the fuck out of Afghanistan, closing tax loop holes and tweaking a few government programs. If the federal government would do these things, the economy would start roaring again in America I believe.

Check out this game from the New York Times where you can decide the budget. It helped me understand the situation.
Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

Maobama raised the federal base line 30%, we need to get back to the 2007 or 2008 base line. Along with modernizing the tax code.

 

[Dick Tuck]

If we don't start to cut spending somewhere what will the results be? Just taxing the so called super rich more will solve nothing even you taxed them at 50% or more you would not even make a dent in our 16 trillion and counting debt. I have said this before if we want to really start dealing with this problem we will have to raise taxes but we can't just confine it to the rich and we will have to do serious across the board cuts most important we all have to come to terms with the fact there is no easy simple painless way to deal with this problem. This will take a long time it will be tough and people will get hurt but until we accept this fact were going nowhere in dealing with this problem.

No doubt we must have production and growth. We NEED to be the most powerful country in the world, economically and militarily. Those two are what sustains the success inside our borders.

I think that is where Social Security, Medicaid, etc, somes in. 65 for SS is simply too young. It was never meant to be a 20-30 year pay program.

Also, this one is very important to me, WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT OUR OBESITY PROBLEM. Obesity related problems contribute a HUGE amount to our healthcare bills. Supply/Demand......obesity and the complications from it has caused a HUGE DEMAND for more healthcare, which of course, raised prices. That is one of the things I do like about the Obamas...Michelles push for health and fitness. Im not so sure about mandating nutrition...but shedding light on it, providing info, educating people on it, thats a great thing. Hell, even the government funded recreation departments are great. They're low cost/high reward. Thats a good use of tax money if people participate and get fit.

So......lots of problems, lots of possible solutions. How do we get politicians to actually act on it?

I would suggest term limits for starters so they would actually focus on the job they were sent there to do in the time they have then focusing on getting reelected every couple year's.

Seems that Ryan is pissing on the pledge he made and is trying to keep his seat on the budget committee.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This thread is for a real discussion only.

What if we seriously cut handouts? Im not saying Social Security, Medicaid, etc. People pay into that. Thats another topic.

I mean Section 8 housing, welfare, food stamps, etc.

Well...if we seriously slashed all that stuff, we'd have a few results:

- More people would either be looking for a job, or stealing.
- More shitty applicants to the same number of job openings.

Now, Im not saying that would be a bad thing. But how do we deal with it? A lot of lazy or simply unable bodies are going to be without that handout that housed, fed, and paid some bills. They'll need some revenue to replace that. Some wont work. They'll simply steal. Will we need more cops and bigger jails? Maybe.

Demand for low wage jobs will jump, as it is true, cutting that shit will indeed force some into looking for work.

Is it just a simple fact that we overpopulated our country, and dont have enough resources and jobs to go around? Or...is it a fact that we have enough resources, but they are simply pooled together at the top, with the bottom not having any real chance to earn it?

I dont know which is true, or maybe both have some truth.

We do need to get everyone to calm down the discussion, lay off the rhetoric, and talk seriously about this stuff though.

Just a minute.
If you want to have a serious discussion then ask questions as though you were the interviewer in an attempt to take a consensus of responses.
Do not answer your own questions so as to steer the thread in the direction you wish.
In fact, this is a perfect comparison of the type of so called journalism we see today from the main stream media. We get not the news. We get an editorialized version of the news. We get the slant and the predetermined direction of the opinion of the news. We get reporting from people who not only seem compelled to give us their point of view on a given story, we also are told whether a story is news or not.
SO please, of you wish to start and maintain an honest debate, keep your opinions out of it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This thread is for a real discussion only.

What if we seriously cut handouts? Im not saying Social Security, Medicaid, etc. People pay into that. Thats another topic.

I mean Section 8 housing, welfare, food stamps, etc.

Well...if we seriously slashed all that stuff, we'd have a few results:

- More people would either be looking for a job, or stealing.
- More shitty applicants to the same number of job openings.

Now, Im not saying that would be a bad thing. But how do we deal with it? A lot of lazy or simply unable bodies are going to be without that handout that housed, fed, and paid some bills. They'll need some revenue to replace that. Some wont work. They'll simply steal. Will we need more cops and bigger jails? Maybe.

Demand for low wage jobs will jump, as it is true, cutting that shit will indeed force some into looking for work.

Is it just a simple fact that we overpopulated our country, and dont have enough resources and jobs to go around? Or...is it a fact that we have enough resources, but they are simply pooled together at the top, with the bottom not having any real chance to earn it?

I dont know which is true, or maybe both have some truth.

We do need to get everyone to calm down the discussion, lay off the rhetoric, and talk seriously about this stuff though.

I'll tell you exactly what happens when you slash the public safety net. The reason it is necessary is because a capitalist society will always have a majority that is under the other classes. If you can't provide some sort of fail-safe for them to stay in a reasonable state of living, all that talk of a civilized society goes down the drain.

Not only that, the less educated a populace is, the less productive they are.

Welfare checks educate people how?

 

[Ernie S.]

Make the ones that can work, work on infastructure projects.

Or picking up garbage, or unskilled jobs that would be contracted out. Make them do SOMETHING. Who knows, they may learn a skill or decide to try something else for more money. If nothing else, it may instill a work ethic and a sense of personal pride.

It's not all about a college education either. neither of my 2 sons have degrees, but both make 6 figures. The older is looking at a hefty tax hit in obama's second term.

 

[Ernie S.]

Not sure. I know some will say "We'll do whatever we did before we had all these handouts." And in theory, thats a good point. But..the world has changed. So have people. People are fucking crazier than they used to be. I partially blame prescription meds. We were never meant to have these blends of chemicals morphing in our blood stream with unknown side effects.

Anyway....I've always argued that the handouts are meant to simply keep the lower class under some sort of civil control. Just GIVE them enough to stay fed, housed and mostly sustained to the point they aren't excessively violent (i.e. raiding the suburbs to loot and steal). Take that away...and we will have masses of hungry, violent, uneducated and undisciplined people without direction. Thats true...because if they were educated and disciplined, they probably wouldn't have ended up on handouts.

I blame Benjamin Spock.

 

[OKTexas]

An interesting note to this discussion, I checked the unemployment rates since we started the war on poverty in 1965. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars nothing has really changed. The unemployment rate for blacks have remained roughly twice that of whites, while hispanic UE rates are actually higher.

Link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERP-2012/pdf/ERP-2012-table42.pdf

 

[Photonic]

An interesting note to this discussion, I checked the unemployment rates since we started the war on poverty in 1965. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars nothing has really changed. The unemployment rate for blacks have remained roughly twice that of whites, while hispanic UE rates are actually higher.

Link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERP-2012/pdf/ERP-2012-table42.pdf

Because we all know population doesn't change over time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

An interesting note to this discussion, I checked the unemployment rates since we started the war on poverty in 1965. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars nothing has really changed. The unemployment rate for blacks have remained roughly twice that of whites, while hispanic UE rates are actually higher.

Link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERP-2012/pdf/ERP-2012-table42.pdf

Because we all know population doesn't change over time.

Hmm. The percentage of immigrants in the US had tripled in the last 50 years. The black percentage has remained relatively stable. The white population percentage has fallen to around 70%.
The fact is but for the rapid influx of immigrants, not the population percentages would have been relatively flat