Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Cut taxes at any cost! GREAT idea! (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/153166-cut-taxes-any-cost-great-idea.html)

ratbastid 02-02-2010 06:30 AM
Cut taxes at any cost! GREAT idea!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Denver Post
Colorado Springs cuts into services considered basic by many
By Michael Booth
The Denver Post
Posted: 01/31/2010 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 01/31/2010 09:17:44 AM MST

COLORADO SPRINGS — This tax-averse city is about to learn what it looks and feels like when budget cuts slash services most Americans consider part of the urban fabric.

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.

The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.

Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.

Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.

City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won't pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need.

"I guess we're going to find out what the tolerance level is for people," said businessman Chuck Fowler, who is helping lead a private task force brainstorming for city budget fixes. "It's a new day."

Some residents are less sanguine, arguing that cuts to bus services, drug enforcement and treatment and job development are attacks on basic needs for the working class.

"How are people supposed to live? We're not a 'Mayberry R.F.D.' anymore," said Addy Hansen, a criminal justice student who has spoken out about safety cuts. "We're the second-largest city, and growing, in Colorado. We're in trouble. We're in big trouble."

Mayor flinches at revenue

Colorado Springs' woes are more visceral versions of local and state cuts across the nation. Denver has cut salaries and human services workers, trimmed library hours and raised fees; Aurora shuttered four libraries; the state budget has seen round after round of wholesale cuts in education and personnel.

The deep recession bit into Colorado Springs sales-tax collections, while pension and health care costs for city employees continued to soar. Sales-tax updates have become a regular exercise in flinching for Mayor Lionel Rivera.

"Every month I open it up, and I look for a plus in front of the numbers instead of a minus," he said. The 2010 sales-tax forecast is almost $22 million less than 2007.

Voters in November said an emphatic no to a tripling of property tax that would have restored $27.6 million to the city's $212 million general fund budget. Fowler and many other residents say voters don't trust city government to wisely spend a general tax increase and don't believe the current cuts are the only way to balance a budget.

Dead grass, dark streets

But the 2010 spending choices are complete, and local residents and businesses are preparing for a slew of changes:

• The steep parks and recreation cuts mean a radical reshifting of resources from more than 100 neighborhood parks to a few popular regional parks. The city cut watering drastically in 2009 but "got lucky" with weekly summer rains, said parks maintenance manager Kurt Schroeder.

With even more watering cuts, "if we repeat the weather of 2008, we're at risk of losing every bit of turf we have in our neighborhood parks," Schroeder said. Six city greenhouses are shut down. The city spent $19.6 million on parks in 2007; this year it will spend $3.1 million.

"If a playground burns down, I can't replace it," Schroeder said. Park fans' only hope is the possibility of a new ballot tax pledged to recreation spending that might win over skeptical voters.

• Community center and pool closures have parents worried about day-care costs, idle teenagers and shut-in grandparents with nowhere to go.

Hillside Community Center, on the southeastern edge of downtown Colorado Springs in a low- to moderate-income neighborhood, is scrambling to find private partners to stay open. Moms such as Kirsten Williams doubt they can replace Hillside's dedicated staff and preschool rates of $200 for six-week sessions.

"It's affordable, the program is phenomenal, and the staff all grew up here," Williams said. "You can't re-create that kind of magic."

Shutting down youth services is shortsighted, she argues. "You're going to pay now, or you're going to pay later. There's trouble if kids don't have things to do."

• Though officials and citizens put public safety above all in the budget, police and firefighting still lost more than $5.5 million this year. Positions that will go empty range from a domestic violence specialist to a deputy chief to juvenile offender officers. Fire squad 108 loses three firefighters. Putting the helicopters up for sale and eliminating the officers and a mechanic banked $877,000.

• Tourism outlets have attacked budget choices that hit them precisely as they're struggling to draw choosy visitors to the West.

The city cut three economic-development positions, land-use planning, long-range strategic planning and zoning and neighborhood inspectors. It also repossessed a large portion of a dedicated lodgers and car rental tax rather than transfer it to the visitors' bureau.

"It's going to hurt. If they don't at least market Colorado Springs, it doesn't get the people here," said Nancy Stovall, owner of Pine Creek Art Gallery on the tourism strip of Old Colorado City. Other states, such as New Mexico and Wyoming, will continue to market, and tourism losses will further erode city sales-tax revenue, merchants say.

• Turning out the lights, literally, is one of the high-profile trims aggravating some residents. The city-run Colorado Springs Utilities will shut down 8,000 to 10,000 of more than 24,000 streetlights, to save $1.2 million in energy and bulb replacement.

Hansen, the criminal-justice student, grows especially exasperated when recalling a scary incident a few years ago as she waited for a bus. She said a carload of drunken men approached her until the police helicopter that had been trailing them turned a spotlight on the men and chased them off. Now the helicopter is gone, and the streetlight she was waiting under is threatened as well.

"I don't know a person in this city who doesn't think that's just the stupidest thing on the planet," Hansen said. "Colorado Springs leaders put patches on problems and hope that will handle it."

Employee pay criticized

Community business leaders have jumped into the budget debate, some questioning city spending on what they see as "Ferrari"-level benefits for employees and high salaries in middle management. Broadmoor luxury resort chief executive Steve Bartolin wrote an open letter asking why the city spends $89,000 per employee, when his enterprise has a similar number of workers and spends only $24,000 on each.

Businessman Fowler, saying he is now speaking for the task force Bartolin supports, said the city should study the Broadmoor's use of seasonal employees and realistic manager pay.

"I don't know if people are convinced that the water needed to be turned off in the parks, or the trash cans need to come out, or the lights need to go off," Fowler said. "I think we'll have a big turnover in City Council a year from April. Until we get a new group in there, people aren't really going to believe much of anything."

Mayor and council are part-time jobs in Colorado Springs, points out Mayor Rivera, that pay $6,250 a year ($250 extra for the mayor). "We have jobs, we pay taxes, we use services, just like they do," Rivera said, acknowledging there is a "level of distrust" of public officials at many levels.

Rivera said he welcomes help from Bartolin, the private task force and any other source volunteering to rethink government. He is slightly encouraged, for now, that his monthly sales-tax reports are just ahead of budget predictions.

Officials across the city know their phone lines will light up as parks go brown, trash gathers in the weeds, and streets and alleys go dark.

"There's a lot of anger, a lot of frustration about how governments spend their money," Rivera said. "It's not unique to Colorado Springs."


Read more: Colorado Springs cuts into services considered basic by many - The Denver Post
This is the end-game of the short-sighted, selfish "cut my taxes at any cost" thinking that the right wing of American politics has pushed middle America into.

Tell you what, let's just end all services. Let potholes turn into sinkholes. Let your weekly garbage just sit out at the curb to rot. Libraries? Schools? Snow plows? Who needs 'em. At least we won't be paying those evil, evil taxes.

Never mind REALITY. Never mind the fact that tax rates at both ends of the income spectrum are far lower than they have been historically. No, the way to whip America into a teabagging frenzy is to claim our taxes are too high and then scare them with the threat of NOT lowering them.

Thoughts?

Baraka_Guru 02-02-2010 06:33 AM
Let's not get too hasty here....maybe they should privatize everything.

ratbastid 02-02-2010 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2754299)
Let's not get too hasty here....maybe they should privatize everything.
Good, yeah, that's a plan. Paying twice as much is fine as long as it's not going to that evil gummint.

Derwood 02-02-2010 07:19 AM
It's the mentality of "I don't want to pay for what I don't use."

I drive to work, so why should I have to pay for public transport?

I don't have kids, why should should I have to pay for public schools?

I don't use the library, why should I have to pay for it?

Etc.

etc.

etc.

Rekna 02-02-2010 07:32 AM
If they cut all that stuff this is actually good for liberals as this city is going to become a crime ridden dump, property values will fall, and everyone will start to move out. This will highlight the importance of the services that were cut.

aceventura3 02-02-2010 07:49 AM
I have had to cut back in my household and business. Last summer I did not water my grass, I turn off lights, etc, why shouldn't government? Colorado Springs is a great place to live and will continue to be a great place to live.

Derwood 02-02-2010 07:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2754314)
I have had to cut back in my household and business. Last summer I did not water my grass, I turn off lights, etc, why shouldn't government? Colorado Springs is a great place to live and will continue to be a great place to live.
does not compute

dksuddeth 02-02-2010 07:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2754317)
does not compute
why not?

Derwood 02-02-2010 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2754322)
why not?
household budget vs. city budget is apples to oranges.

fresnelly 02-02-2010 08:09 AM
I suppose in an ideal world, the citizens would form community councils and co-ops to chip in and take care of local services such as groundskeeping, snow-plowing and garbage pick-up.

I suspect the local debate will focus strongly on this nugget instead of grassroots initiatives or any mass call for increased taxes:
Quote:
...while pension and health care costs for city employees continued to soar...

dogzilla 02-02-2010 08:18 AM
Well, when my total tax bill amounts to about 1/3 of my income, and what I get for it is basically national defense, education, public safety and roads to drive on, why shouldn't I question why I am paying this amount? I track my spending fairly carefully, and no other category of my budget comes anywhere close to 33% of my income. I don't need the government telling me that I need to finance things because someone else thinks they are a good idea. That includes Obama and his asinine economic stimulus programs that don't seem to be doing much other than sticking it to the taxpayer in upcoming years.

Derwood 02-02-2010 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogzilla (Post 2754333)
Well, when my total tax bill amounts to about 1/3 of my income, and what I get for it is basically national defense, education, public safety and roads to drive on, why shouldn't I question why I am paying this amount? I track my spending fairly carefully, and no other category of my budget comes anywhere close to 33% of my income. I don't need the government telling me that I need to finance things because someone else thinks they are a good idea. That includes Obama and his asinine economic stimulus programs that don't seem to be doing much other than sticking it to the taxpayer in upcoming years.

so what's your solution?

dksuddeth 02-02-2010 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2754328)
household budget vs. city budget is apples to oranges.
now I can comprehend your error in logic. there's no hope for you to understand basic economic reality.

Derwood 02-02-2010 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2754350)
now I can comprehend your error in logic. there's no hope for you to understand basic economic reality.
it's not that hard: my household has 2 adults and 2 kids. If we decide we're not going to eat at restaurants for a month, we'll save a little money. Simple.

a city government has hundreds (or thousands) of employees, systems of checks and balances, and hundreds of moving parts. They can't simply say "we'll just not do X for awhile to save money". It's not that simple.

To say "I can tighten my belt at home, why can't the city government?" is extraordinarily naive

aceventura3 02-02-2010 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2754328)
household budget vs. city budget is apples to oranges.
I have a lot of experience with budgets, personal, big business, small business, organizations, schools, and municipal. You may have different line items, you may have more or fewer 000's but they are all the same, you have income, expenses and a net. The net amount or your access to other funds determines what you have to go back and adjust. It is not complicated no matter how big or small the budget is.

dogzilla 02-02-2010 09:04 AM
My opinion? First, limit entitlement programs strictly to those who are disabled and cannot work. Second, any non-essential government services are either funded on a self-supporting basis or they are closed. If I want to take advantage of a park, a daycare, cultural event or other non-essential government function, then I should have to pay for it. Third, until government debt is reduced to much more reasonable levels, government spending for anything other than key government responsibilities of defense, public safety and education is at best cut significantly and at worst held to no increases. Key government programs need justifiable reasons for any increases. And no, going off to Iraq and Afghanistan in search of problems is not justifiable. Fourth, public employee benefits are renegotiated downward. Fifth, earmarks, or whatever other pork Congressmen return to their districts is forbidden. Sixth, taxation is not to be used as a form of wealth redistribution.

aceventura3 02-02-2010 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2754353)
it's not that hard: my household has 2 adults and 2 kids. If we decide we're not going to eat at restaurants for a month, we'll save a little money. Simple.

a city government has hundreds (or thousands) of employees, systems of checks and balances, and hundreds of moving parts. They can't simply say "we'll just not do X for awhile to save money". It's not that simple.

To say "I can tighten my belt at home, why can't the city government?" is extraordinarily naive
There are different types of expenses some are fixed, some variable and some discretionary. Watering grass is discretionary for a home or a city, perhaps not for a sod farm. Cutting the use of electricity is an example of a variable expense for a home or a city. And so it goes...

Derwood 02-02-2010 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2754355)
I have a lot of experience with budgets, personal, big business, small business, organizations, schools, and municipal. You may have different line items, you may have more or fewer 000's but they are all the same, you have income, expenses and a net. The net amount or your access to other funds determines what you have to go back and adjust. It is not complicated no matter how big or small the budget is.
Does your small business have a group of elected officials, all with different opinions, who are required to debate and vote on every budget change for your business?

Jinn 02-02-2010 09:23 AM
Wow, an article that I'm actually relevantly tied to!

Seeing as how I live in Colorado Springs, I actually saw this first hand and was really dissapointed with the budget cuts and the ballot issues that people voted against simply because it might mean giving an extra 12 cents a month to that horrible, evil government. My girlfriend works at the largest hospital here in the Springs, and despite being self-sufficient, the city and the newspapers were publishing articles of every salary of every employee at the hospital in an effort to 'shame' people into saying they were overpaid and somehow getting more money out of it for city budgets. The average police response time to a 911 call here was 14 minutes, and it's now jumped to over 20 minutes. A lot changes in a burglary situation between when I call and what is happening twenty minutes later.

Lights are indeed being turned off, they're taking trash cans away.. just about everything is being reduced or cut completely because people are so incensed by the idea that they should actually have to pay the city for the services they use.. OH THE INJUSTICE!!

They don't plow the streets anymore, and so if there's more than five or six inches of snow I end up being forced to work from home, the list goes on and on. But really, city services are the least of my concerns, living in a city with the home base of Focus on the Family and surrounded by the Air Force Academy on one side and an Army base on the other.

aceventura3 02-02-2010 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2754362)
Does your small business have a group of elected officials, all with different opinions, who are required to debate and vote on every budget change for your business?
Mine does not but when I worked for a large corp. we had a board of directors, CEO, and various department heads, all with their own agenda. In my personal life I have a wife, son, a mother-in-law and a homeowners association, all with opinions on how our household money be spent.

ratbastid 02-02-2010 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2754401)
Mine does not but when I worked for a large corp. we had a board of directors, CEO, and various department heads, all with their own agenda. In my personal life I have a wife, son, a mother-in-law and a homeowners association, all with opinions on how our household money be spent.
I remember when Bush II was elected, he was hailed as the "first CEO president". We can see how well that went. Guy was a fiscal train wreck.

Daniel_ 02-02-2010 12:04 PM
If he'd been good as a CEO, he'd not have had to go into politics...

Rekna 02-02-2010 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinn (Post 2754368)
Wow, an article that I'm actually relevantly tied to!

Seeing as how I live in Colorado Springs, I actually saw this first hand and was really dissapointed with the budget cuts and the ballot issues that people voted against simply because it might mean giving an extra 12 cents a month to that horrible, evil government. My girlfriend works at the largest hospital here in the Springs, and despite being self-sufficient, the city and the newspapers were publishing articles of every salary of every employee at the hospital in an effort to 'shame' people into saying they were overpaid and somehow getting more money out of it for city budgets. The average police response time to a 911 call here was 14 minutes, and it's now jumped to over 20 minutes. A lot changes in a burglary situation between when I call and what is happening twenty minutes later.

Lights are indeed being turned off, they're taking trash cans away.. just about everything is being reduced or cut completely because people are so incensed by the idea that they should actually have to pay the city for the services they use.. OH THE INJUSTICE!!

They don't plow the streets anymore, and so if there's more than five or six inches of snow I end up being forced to work from home, the list goes on and on. But really, city services are the least of my concerns, living in a city with the home base of Focus on the Family and surrounded by the Air Force Academy on one side and an Army base on the other.
I'm curious to know what has happened with property values in Colorado Springs since this has gone through. I'm guessing they are going to drop like a rock.

scout 02-02-2010 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2754410)
I remember when Bush II was elected, he was hailed as the "first CEO president". We can see how well that went. Guy was a fiscal train wreck.
HaHaHa that's funny. Like our current leader is a banner boy for fiscal astuteness and responsibility. And please save me the rhetoric about having to spend our way out of this recession as you know as well as I that was nothing but political bullshit. It was political bullshit when Bush signed the first recovery act and it was still bullshit when Obama signed the second one. It was nothing but a way for both parties to pay back political cronies. Neither one has saved or created any jobs to speak of. Unemployment still continues to stay steady or grow with each passing week. In fact in a direct camparison between Obama and Bush our present illustrious leader wins the spending battle hands down. With less than a year in office and single stroke of a pen he more than doubled the debt it took Bush to accumulate over 8 years. So please your arguments would be much more believable if you just called bullshit bullshit and spared us the bipartisanship.

Charlatan 02-02-2010 05:07 PM
His post wasn't about Obama. It wasn't bipartisan. It was a statement aimed to rebuff a comment that implied that what is needed is more business-like thinking in government with a comment that Bush was lauded as a CEO President. No comparison was made or is needed. Simple statement.

If anyone is being bipartisan it is your comment that brought it up.

matthew330 02-02-2010 08:03 PM
I'm concerned. The "dead grass, dark streets" was powerful, but it doesn't stop there:
please refer to this photograph that accompanies this article here: michael booth Colorado Independent

This is the face of anti-tax conservatism in America today. If you zoom in real close to a picnic bench and look down, EVIL EVIL..............trash. Conservatives are killing us.

My take on this: Global warming failed to convince the populace that conservatives destroying the world when... well, it actually got colder, "climate change" didn't help - Colorado Springs - DONT LET US DOWN!!!!!

Ratbastid, my other thought would be - how close to Colorado Springs are you? and if not that close, where did you find this? Perhaps you shouldn't jump the gun this time. Wait to see what happens before you make fools of yourselves again. Lets look at colorado springs from outside underneath that picnic bench in a year, and then maybe you'll be worth listening too.

Cynthetiq 02-02-2010 08:17 PM
Cry me a river.

NYC is cutting teachers, police officers, closing firehouses, closing schools, and more. They have already turned off lights on some of the highways and exits. Homeless shelters are being closed. When 9/11 happened to save money they stopped collecting recyclables, i wouldn't be surprised if it gets cut again. MTA is cutting service on subways and buses. Many other services are getting cut.

While I don't agree that the general populace should be allowed to deal with fiscal issues, I do believe that services should not be provided if the budget doesn't provide the funds to cover it.

Baraka_Guru 02-02-2010 08:18 PM
The ironic thing is that Outside magazine voted Colorado Springs as America's Best City in 2009.

Cynthetiq 02-02-2010 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330 (Post 2754599)
I'm concerned. The "dead grass, dark streets" was powerful, but it doesn't stop there:
please refer to this photograph that accompanies this article here: michael booth Colorado Independent

This is the face of anti-tax conservatism in America today. If you zoom in real close to a picnic bench and look down, EVIL EVIL..............trash. Conservatives are killing us.

My take on this: Global warming failed to convince the populace that conservatives destroying the world when... well, it actually got colder, "climate change" didn't help - Colorado Springs - DONT LET US DOWN!!!!!

Ratbastid, my other thought would be - how close to Colorado Springs are you? and if not that close, where did you find this? Perhaps you shouldn't jump the gun this time. Wait to see what happens before you make fools of yourselves again. Lets look at colorado springs from outside underneath that picnic bench in a year, and then maybe you'll be worth listening too.
There are plenty of parks that look like that in LA during the normal times when there was no economic crisis. go to any park that has scores of people playing soccer on the weekends and it looks just like that at the end of the day on Sunday.

Iliftrocks 02-09-2010 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew330 (Post 2754599)

My take on this: Global warming failed to convince the populace that conservatives destroying the world when... well, it actually got colder
Hey, look, a climate change denier. My day is complete. I can scratch that off of my internet scavenger list.

It got colder, hehehehehaahahhhaaahhhhaaa whoop

RogueGypsy 02-09-2010 08:58 AM
There will be no working reform through our current governments, ever. Public service has become the cash cow of the inept and corrupt. No one polices them and they take full advantage of that situation. If we want responsible, affordable government we will have to fix that ourselves, the politicians are not going to do it for us, they have too much to loose. Would anyone go to their boss and say 'I think you need to cut my salary and reduce my benefits' ?????

If we really want to fix this we need to: down-size government, return rights to the states, introduce term limits on all public offices, eliminate retirement benefits for those offices, introduce a flat tax, fire the IRS and take a more active roll in governing ourselves.

I could go on and on about this, but I hate to be preachy. I will share one immediate solution with long term impact.

Welfare, kill it! I know there are those who do need help, but the system is so over run with slackers and dirt bags now, I see no way to fix the current system. The new system would require all who can work in any capacity to work.

If you had 5 kids to get a bigger check , great, you are now going to be caring for 15 more while those parents work. You will be paid minimum wage. If that's not enough, get a better job. Public works, administration, library workers, meter maids, postal workers, highway crews, forest rangers, census takers.....etc. There are millions of low level public service jobs that require little or no skills that could accommodate a pool of cheap labor.

That should reduce welfare to about 25% of the current cost. Give 50% of that fund to education including 2 years of college for any citizen. Now we have a more productive society, we're saving money and are better educated.

Derwood 02-09-2010 10:14 AM
so much wrong with that post....where to start....

Baraka_Guru 02-09-2010 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2756774)
so much wrong with that post....where to start....
Are you talking about the plan or the "facts"? Both?

Derwood 02-09-2010 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2756781)
Are you talking about the plan or the "facts"? Both?
Mostly the idea that welfare is "overrun" with abusers, which is patently false. They get the most publicity, sure, but the VAST majority of those who use welfare are NOT abusers of the system.

rahl 02-09-2010 10:59 AM
Is welfare tied into medicaid? I admit I don't know much about the administration of medicaid, just the result of the system, which in my opinion is taken advantage of to the point where it is becoming useless. I tend to lump together welfare, medicaid, and social security disability when it's being abused. I'm not sure of the distinctions.

Baraka_Guru 02-09-2010 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2756797)
Mostly the idea that welfare is "overrun" with abusers, which is patently false. They get the most publicity, sure, but the VAST majority of those who use welfare are NOT abusers of the system.
Oh, I also got hung up on the idea that there's a problem with welfare recipients having more children to get bigger cheques....yet no mention that many welfare recipients only use the system temporarily.

Before killing a system, it's best to know how it works and how it's used.

Derwood 02-09-2010 11:25 AM
or the idea that we should cut everyone off of welfare and force them to work in an economy with 10% unemployment

dksuddeth 02-09-2010 12:32 PM
I thought the downsizing government idea was excellent though.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2756811)
or the idea that we should cut everyone off of welfare and force them to work in an economy with 10% unemployment

I re-read my post and obviously omitted a system for the truly needy, whom I do believe exist and do deserve our help. I would not want nor intentionally suggest they be deserted.

The rest however are dirt bags. If you have doubts, buy some Kevlar and hang out in the projects. The vast majority of the residents I've encountered are junkies or baby factories. The former openly discuss wanting more kids for a bigger payday. Sure they get the most press, but I've met may others walking around in daily life. People too fat to comfortably move about. I don't think I, or anyone else should have to pay for their poor diet choices. People with too many kids to support themselves. People who've never worked a day in their lives because their parents didn't. People with nondescript 'medical conditions' . For every 1 deserving person I've met, there are 4 or 5 who are just plain lazy. This is not something local to my locale either, I've lived all over the country in my lifetime and found the same in each place East, West, North and South.

As for forcing people to work in an economy with 10% unemployment. To me sounds much better than paying someone to sit around and do nothing in an economy with 10% unemployment. At least working there is some return. If the check is being written anyway, why shouldn't they earn it?

Of course I'm a little biased, I'm usually working 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. The third job I work usually covers the amount the government takes from me to support those who don't work. So I'm sure you can see where that makes me wonder why they can't support themselves or contribute in some way.

Very few people are completely useless, every day I see disabled and impaired people leading happy and productive lives. Suggesting anyone short of a quadriplegic or a similarly physically or mentally debilitated person is incapable of helping to sustain themselves is simply untrue. Fuck look at Stephen Hawking, he really makes them all look like cunts. He's strapped in a chair drooling on himself, but some guy with a twitch needs our support???

Welfare has become a way of life for many families in this country and it needs to come to an end.




0...

---------- Post added at 08:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2756804)
Oh, I also got hung up on the idea that there's a problem with welfare recipients having more children to get bigger cheques....yet no mention that many welfare recipients only use the system temporarily.

Before killing a system, it's best to know how it works and how it's used.
There was only brief mention of those who use the system properly because they are not the problem. And although omitted from the previous post, there should be a system in place for those who are truly needy. I am very familiar with how the system works through both recipients of the benefits and those who disperse them.

I can appreciate those who like to see only the good in the world, unfortunately that view rarely solves any problems or creates any progress. It is not an idea that recipients have move children to get bigger checks, it is a very sad reality.

---------- Post added at 08:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2756811)
or the idea that we should cut everyone off of welfare and force them to work in an economy with 10% unemployment
What does a bad economy have to do with ones abilities?

Baraka_Guru 02-10-2010 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757137)
There was only brief mention of those who use the system properly because they are not the problem. And although omitted from the previous post, there should be a system in place for those who are truly needy. I am very familiar with how the system works through both recipients of the benefits and those who disperse them.

I can appreciate those who like to see only the good in the world, unfortunately that view rarely solves any problems or creates any progress. It is not an idea that recipients have move children to get bigger checks, it is a very sad reality.
I suppose my point is that killing the welfare system will bring harm to the wrong people. What concerns you about the welfare system is likely a group smaller than the "invisible" majority. Do you have any stats on those who abuse the system? It's my understanding that "having more kids to get more money" is a problem of mythical proportions. I recall that chronic welfare users aren't even a majority of users. Correct me if I'm wrong.

dc_dux 02-10-2010 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757137)
I re-read my post and obviously omitted a system for the truly needy, whom I do believe exist and do deserve our help. I would not want nor intentionally suggest they be deserted.

The rest however are dirt bags. If you have doubts, buy some Kevlar and hang out in the projects. The vast majority of the residents I've encountered are junkies or baby factories. The former openly discuss wanting more kids for a bigger payday. Sure they get the most press, but I've met may others walking around in daily life. People too fat to comfortably move about. I don't think I, or anyone else should have to pay for their poor diet choices. People with too many kids to support themselves. People who've never worked a day in their lives because their parents didn't. People with nondescript 'medical conditions' . For every 1 deserving person I've met, there are 4 or 5 who are just plain lazy. This is not something local to my locale either, I've lived all over the country in my lifetime and found the same in each place East, West, North and South.

As for forcing people to work in an economy with 10% unemployment. To me sounds much better than paying someone to sit around and do nothing in an economy with 10% unemployment. At least working there is some return. If the check is being written anyway, why shouldn't they earn it?

Of course I'm a little biased, I'm usually working 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. The third job I work usually covers the amount the government takes from me to support those who don't work. So I'm sure you can see where that makes me wonder why they can't support themselves or contribute in some way.

Very few people are completely useless, every day I see disabled and impaired people leading happy and productive lives. Suggesting anyone short of a quadriplegic or a similarly physically or mentally debilitated person is incapable of helping to sustain themselves is simply untrue. Fuck look at Stephen Hawking, he really makes them all look like cunts. He's strapped in a chair drooling on himself, but some guy with a twitch needs our support???

Welfare has become a way of life for many families in this country and it needs to come to an end.
Welfare, as you described it, came to an end in 1996, with the passage of comprehensive welfare reform, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that, in effect, ended welfare as an entitlement program, and imposed requirements that recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits and placed a lifetime limit of five years on benefits. Some states have imposed stiffer restrictions and there are a few exceptions in the federal law so as to protect the health and welfare of children after the five year time limit.

As a result, the percentage of individuals receiving welfare (afdc/tanf) dropped from over 5% of the total population in 1995 to under 2% by 2006.....only rising again in the last few years because of the recession.

Using the Reagan "welfare Cadillac queens" and "junkies and baby factories" type anecdotes is dishonest and disingenuous...and years out of date.

rahl 02-10-2010 09:36 AM
I never got an answer to my post. Is there a difference between welfare, SS disability, and medicaid?

dc_dux 02-10-2010 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2757158)
I never got an answer to my post. Is there a difference between welfare, SS disability, and medicaid?
Yes.

Welfare generally refers to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (afdc) which was replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (tanf) with the 96 welfare reform.

SS disability and medicaid are entirely separate with different eligibility requirements and funding sources. So is SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or food stamps.

rahl 02-10-2010 10:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2757160)
Yes.

Welfare generally refers to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (afdc) which was replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (tanf) with the 96 welfare reform.

SS disability and medicaid are entirely separate with different eligibility requirements and funding sources. So is SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or food stamps.
Thanks, I can't speak for everyone but the generalizations that I make on the abuse of these systems, I tend to lump them all into the same category.

Derwood 02-10-2010 10:06 AM
the truth is that no one is living it up on welfare. no one. welfare is a pitiful sum of money for anyone to live on, and though your assistance goes up with children, it's still paltry. The people you see who have no jobs but are driving the nice cars, etc. are more than likely participating in illegal activities

dc_dux 02-10-2010 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2757167)
Thanks, I can't speak for everyone but the generalizations that I make on the abuse of these systems, I tend to lump them all into the same category.
There are abuses in any large government program and probably greater abuse in corporate welfare programs like the DoAg federal crop subsidy program (just one example) where the agri-business giants know how to scam the system far better than a working single mom.

The_Dunedan 02-10-2010 10:42 AM
Quote:
Using the Reagan "welfare Cadillac queens" and "junkies and baby factories" type anecdotes is dishonest and disingenuous...and years out of date.
The problem is that it's not just AFDC or TANF that gets milked this way. Talk to my neighbors; these imbiciles will -brag- about the ways they scam Social Security/Disability ("back problems" that don't prevent them from lifting heavy loads, putting up several tonnes of hay every fall, or participating in lawn-mower races, closed head injuries that somehow just keep re-occurring every year, "accidental" injuries of various superficial kinds, etc), Medicare/Medicaid (claim injuries as before, treat the pain with Johnny Walker and Nyquil, sell the prescription 'meds), WIC (get monthly supplement, buy stuff, -resell- stuff at a profit* to friends and family, plow profits into more booze/drugs/toys), etc...to say nothing of the scams people will run on a Church or private Charity. To these people, scamming their way into more of -your- money is a -good- thing, something to boast about! And they do!

And while you're correct that AFDC doesn't actually work that way anymore, plenty of people still try to game the system that way because that's how it worked for the past several generations. One family on my street saved up $500.00 worth of their meth money and used it to pay a Mexican tree-trimmer to impregnate Grammaw; a 55yr-old harridan who looked like a 98yr-old pregnant Treblinka survivor, in order to get more welfare money. They were -most- displeased when they were informed that although the child would probably get SS/D (due to the likelihood of birth defects being borne to a 55yr-old meth addict with chronic malnourishment issues), no further AFDC would be forthcoming.

Yes, there are still plenty of welfare queens, junkies, and baby factories out there, I promise. I live next door to 'em.

Quote:
the truth is that no one is living it up on welfare. no one. welfare is a pitiful sum of money for anyone to live on, and though your assistance goes up with children, it's still paltry.
BS. When you cram 5-10 people into one double-wide, and they're all drawing $1400+/mo from various State assistance programmes, that adds up QUICK, especially when you supplement -that- income by selling prescription meds, cooking methamphetamine, and various sorts of petty theft and fraud.




*Which, since they didn't pay for it anyway, means that "a profit" could be had by selling $8.00 ribeye steaks for $2.00 apiece. Lots of local morons do a brisk business this way, using WIC to buy up a truckload of expensive grub, which they then resell at a fraction of its' market value.

Baraka_Guru 02-10-2010 10:51 AM
Okay, so the problem isn't with the welfare system; it's with crime. Maybe Colorado Springs shouldn't have cut the police budget.

The_Dunedan 02-10-2010 11:10 AM
Or maybe the problem -is- with the welfare system: a system which not only allows but encourages such behavior in the larcenous and the lazy. Remove the ability/incentive to finance their criminality with other people's money, and these individuals might have to try an honest living. As long as the system remains these people will see it as a cash cow (because that's exactly what it is) and continue to exploit it. Since this provides a ready-made plantation of votes for whomever promises and delivers the most "free" money and stuff, which changes depending upon who's in power, neither party is terribly interested in doing anything about this.

Baraka_Guru 02-10-2010 11:59 AM
So the welfare system is a problem because of the minority of users who not only widely abuse drugs but also make and distribute them? Interesting. I wonder if you have the same warped view of businesspeople: they're all lying, cheating inside traders who prey on employees and consumers. Maybe the U.S. government should move toward a socialist if not communist state to ensure important businesses are doing what they should be doing. Maybe we should just jail them all: businesspeople and welfare recipients.

Pardon the hyperbole.

In my opinion, many of the problems in America would be solved by reallocating 10% of the military budget to education and public health care. That a welfare system exists is not a big problem.

ratbastid 02-10-2010 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2757191)
finance their criminality
What a weird turn of phrase. In my view of the world, people resort to risky behaviors like crime when they NEED finances, or when they see that the risk of it is worth the potential benefit.

I can hardly fathom a world in which there is inherent criminality that is enabled by public funding. That's so backwards, in terms of how I see the cause and effect of crime, I can't even really get my head around it.

dippin 02-10-2010 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2757191)
Or maybe the problem -is- with the welfare system: a system which not only allows but encourages such behavior in the larcenous and the lazy. Remove the ability/incentive to finance their criminality with other people's money, and these individuals might have to try an honest living. As long as the system remains these people will see it as a cash cow (because that's exactly what it is) and continue to exploit it. Since this provides a ready-made plantation of votes for whomever promises and delivers the most "free" money and stuff, which changes depending upon who's in power, neither party is terribly interested in doing anything about this.
The idea that programs that covers 2 to 5% of the population (a section that is among the least likely to vote, by the way) are the cause for the problems of the "system" is highly hyperbolic.

Especially when other classes have direct and indirect subsidies that far outstrip the cost of said welfare programs.

The_Dunedan 02-10-2010 12:14 PM
And where, exactly, did I confine my objections to welfare simply to thieves and scumbags like my neighbors? Thieves and scumbags inhabit penthouses too, you know, and I want them cut off the Gov't tit as well.

Baraka_Guru 02-10-2010 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2757236)
And where, exactly, did I confine my objections to welfare simply to thieves and scumbags like my neighbors? Thieves and scumbags inhabit penthouses too, you know, and I want them cut off the Gov't tit as well.
So you want both social and corporate welfare eliminated because of an abusive minority?

dippin 02-10-2010 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2757236)
And where, exactly, did I confine my objections to welfare simply to thieves and scumbags like my neighbors? Thieves and scumbags inhabit penthouses too, you know, and I want them cut off the Gov't tit as well.
This is where definitions matter. What is the "welfare system?"

Are agricultural subsidies part of what you consider the "welfare system?"

Are military family benefits part of what you consider the "welfare system?"

Are differing tariffs that end up benefiting certain business over others part of what you consider the "welfare system?"

Are the sort of privileged status that courts and police confer on the wealthy due to their ability to influence politicians and hire good lawyers part of the "welfare system?"

Are the sections of the military budget that are used to fund foreign interventions that benefit specific American corporations part of the "welfare system?"

Are the sections of the state department used to strike favorable deals for specific American business part of the "welfare system?"


And this is not a merely academic question: we all want to do away with abuses of the system, but it isn't as easy as saying "let's end abuse." You'd have to either cut or alter programs, and Im curious where you draw the line at regarding state action.

roachboy 02-10-2010 12:44 PM
i have to say i find this entire way of thinking about the redistribution of wealth to be bizarre.
it's a bit of received wisdom in some circles, but i can't help but see in it a kind of strange type of resentment that passes from one dominated fraction of a socio-economic class to another. classic reconstruction-period stuff. and even now after having heard and seen this nonsense recycled over and over as an aspect of the building of resentment conservative-style as a way to hold together an otherwise kinda disparate demographic, i'm still suprised each time i see it and even more each time i see it repeated.

this idea of it "feeding criminality" seems to me a particular far-right political thing which feeds into other discourses of "social parasitism" that have worked out real well when they've been transposed into policy.


in most countries with a social-democratic tradition, welfare was set up as a socio-political compromise. the idea was that the wealth capitalism generates owes itself to the social systems that enable it (i can't believe i have to explain this again)...so the holders of capital owed it to the system to maintain it, to buy solidarity.
the ethical argument was that capitalism was supposed to elevate this fiction they call "civilization" above the level of law of the social-darwinist jungle, and could do so pretty easily (assuming that 30% of your budget doesnt go into things like military procurement of course).

it's depressing to have to outline these arguments in 2009.

The_Dunedan 02-10-2010 12:47 PM
Quote:
Are agricultural subsidies part of what you consider the "welfare system?"
Yes. It's not the Gov't's job to use other people's money to artificially inflate the prices I can sell my beef and corn for.

Quote:
Are military family benefits part of what you consider the "welfare system?"
No. They are a benefits package negotiated between an employer (DoD) and an employee (servicemember) for services rendered. Now, whether the military as it currently exists is a morally and constitutionally valid organisation, that's another debate.

Quote:
Are differing tariffs that end up benefiting certain business over others part of what you consider the "welfare system?"
Yes. It's not the Gov't's job to use other people's money to influence the market and gain favorable or unfavorable outcomes for different participants.

Quote:
Are the sort of privileged status that courts and police confer on the wealthy due to their ability to influence politicians and hire good lawyers part of the "welfare system?"
No, because this is de facto instead of de jure, a social fact rather than a political one. Again, the morality or practicability of such facts is for another debate.

Quote:
Are the sections of the military budget that are used to fund foreign interventions that benefit specific American corporations part of the "welfare system?"
Yes. It isn't the Gov't's job to use other people's money to start wars for the benefit of someone else's bank account.

Quote:
Are the sections of the state department used to strike favorable deals for specific American business part of the "welfare system?"
Yes, see above.

dksuddeth 02-10-2010 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2757240)
So you want both social and corporate welfare eliminated because of an abusive minority?
the liberals use that for the gun control argument, why shouldn't it work both ways?

dippin 02-10-2010 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2757263)
the liberals use that for the gun control argument, why shouldn't it work both ways?
This parallel doesn't really make a lot of sense.

First of all, because there is already a lot more social control exercised over welfare recipients than gun owners.

Second of all, because I am not aware of any significant position within the gun control movement that favors the complete elimination of gun ownership. The strictest gun laws in the nation don't eliminate gun ownership, simply restrict the types of gun, who can have them, and where one can carry them.

Baraka_Guru 02-10-2010 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2757273)
This parallel doesn't really make a lot of sense.
It also assumes all things being equal—which they aren't.

dksuddeth 02-10-2010 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2757273)
This parallel doesn't really make a lot of sense.
it makes perfect sense when you look at how gun control developed over the last 50 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2757273)
First of all, because there is already a lot more social control exercised over welfare recipients than gun owners.
false. at least depending on where one lives. In Texas, it might be real easy to get a gun, but not NYC. Welfare in NYC or Chicago is alot easier than getting a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2757273)
Second of all, because I am not aware of any significant position within the gun control movement that favors the complete elimination of gun ownership. The strictest gun laws in the nation don't eliminate gun ownership, simply restrict the types of gun, who can have them, and where one can carry them.
VPC, LCAV, Brady Campaign, etc. All of these groups started out wanting the elimination of handguns for citizen ownership, unless you were military or law enforcement. Their public face may have changed, but their ultimate goal is banning private gun ownership. To think anything different is either completely naive or intellectual dishonesty.

Derwood 02-10-2010 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2757282)
Welfare in NYC or Chicago is alot easier than getting a gun.
no, THIS is false

dippin 02-10-2010 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2757282)
it makes perfect sense when you look at how gun control developed over the last 50 years.

false. at least depending on where one lives. In Texas, it might be real easy to get a gun, but not NYC. Welfare in NYC or Chicago is alot easier than getting a gun.
BS. TANF requires not only registration, but showing of need, that people accept jobs, that single parents work at least a certain number of hours, and regulates a number of other factors like childcare options and so on. NYC requires a permit and registration, but no need to show need or any other restrictions to have a gun at home.


Quote:
VPC, LCAV, Brady Campaign, etc. All of these groups started out wanting the elimination of handguns for citizen ownership, unless you were military or law enforcement. Their public face may have changed, but their ultimate goal is banning private gun ownership. To think anything different is either completely naive or intellectual dishonesty.

First of all that is false, at least regarding the Brady campaign.


Again, as i said: "I am not aware of any significant position within the gun control movement that favors the complete elimination of gun ownership."

If that is "intellectual dishonesty," prove it. Show me one significant group that openly advocates for the complete elimination of gun ownership. If that is based on nothing more on what you think they would do in the future depending on how things go blahblahblah, then it would be obvious who is being intellectually dishonest here.

dksuddeth 02-10-2010 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2757290)
no, THIS is false
do you know what the gun laws are in NYC or chicago? Do you know the steps it takes to acquire one in those two cities?

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2757291)
Again, as i said: "I am not aware of any significant position within the gun control movement that favors the complete elimination of gun ownership."

If that is "intellectual dishonesty," prove it. Show me one significant group that openly advocates for the complete elimination of gun ownership. If that is based on nothing more on what you think they would do in the future depending on how things go blahblahblah, then it would be obvious who is being intellectually dishonest here.
The Brady Campaign started out named Handgun Control, Inc. Their purpose was to ban civilian ownership of handguns. Their 'public position' has changed because of the publics position, but to think that their position is no longer about banning handgun possession, or gun possession in general is pure intellectual dishonesty. That position is evidenced by their stated briefs in heller v. DC and the upcoming Mcdonald v. Chicago case.

dippin 02-10-2010 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2757293)
do you know what the gun laws are in NYC or chicago? Do you know the steps it takes to acquire one in those two cities?

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------



The Brady Campaign started out named Handgun Control, Inc. Their purpose was to ban civilian ownership of handguns. Their 'public position' has changed because of the publics position, but to think that their position is no longer about banning handgun possession, or gun possession in general is pure intellectual dishonesty. That position is evidenced by their stated briefs in heller v. DC and the upcoming Mcdonald v. Chicago case.
Intellectual dishonesty is quietly moving the goal posts by trying to use gun and handgun interchangeably.

And yes, Ive read the steps necessary to acquire handguns in those cities. Do you know what is required in order to get into and stay in TANF?

dksuddeth 02-10-2010 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2757303)
Intellectual dishonesty is quietly moving the goal posts by trying to use gun and handgun interchangeably.
there is no difference in these two terms when it concerns the anti gun groups i've discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2757303)
And yes, Ive read the steps necessary to acquire handguns in those cities. Do you know what is required in order to get into and stay in TANF?
no, I don't. But i'd be very interested to know them please.

dippin 02-10-2010 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2757321)
there is no difference in these two terms when it concerns the anti gun groups i've discussed.



no, I don't. But i'd be very interested to know them please.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : About

"Q. Is Brady a "gun ban" organization?

A. No. Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns.

We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.

First and foremost, we should try to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, including criminals and children.

Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.

Third, we believe that those who do own guns ought to be held to the highest standards of safety. They should be well trained in the use of their weapons and they should be required to keep weapons secure, so that neither innocent children nor prohibited persons can get a hold of them."

All gun control groups and most enacted legislation in the US distinguish between gun and handgun.


Regarding TANF:

for new york
Federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

dksuddeth 02-10-2010 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2757330)
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : About

"Q. Is Brady a "gun ban" organization?

A. No. Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns.

We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.

First and foremost, we should try to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, including criminals and children.

Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.

Third, we believe that those who do own guns ought to be held to the highest standards of safety. They should be well trained in the use of their weapons and they should be required to keep weapons secure, so that neither innocent children nor prohibited persons can get a hold of them."

All gun control groups and most enacted legislation in the US distinguish between gun and handgun.
lip service. it's bullshit. they are flat out lying.

dippin 02-10-2010 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth (Post 2757342)
lip service. it's bullshit. they are flat out lying.

Except that none of these groups ever proposed or advocated what you are claiming they do.

Rekna 02-10-2010 05:26 PM
Wow I didn't know this thread was about gun control.

DK can you please add a signature which says "This thread is now about gun control" so when you post in a thread I know it is now about gun control.

Derwood 02-10-2010 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna (Post 2757360)
Wow I didn't know this thread was about gun control.

DK can you please add a signature which says "This thread is now about gun control" so when you post in a thread I know it is now about gun control.
if he's posting in the thread, it will eventually turn into taxes and/or guns

dksuddeth 02-10-2010 05:43 PM
although guns and gun control do end up a common thread in my posts, looking at the bigger picture one would realize that i'm about ALL rights and freedoms, not just picking and choosing which ones are more important like most people.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 08:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2757154)
Welfare, as you described it, came to an end in 1996, with the passage of comprehensive welfare reform, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that, in effect, ended welfare as an entitlement program, and imposed requirements that recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits and placed a lifetime limit of five years on benefits. Some states have imposed stiffer restrictions and there are a few exceptions in the federal law so as to protect the health and welfare of children after the five year time limit.

As a result, the percentage of individuals receiving welfare (afdc/tanf) dropped from over 5% of the total population in 1995 to under 2% by 2006.....only rising again in the last few years because of the recession.

Using the Reagan "welfare Cadillac queens" and "junkies and baby factories" type anecdotes is dishonest and disingenuous...and years out of date.
So you're saying 'comprehensive welfare reform' still did not eliminate the abuses?

I'm speaking from my experience of daily interaction with 'abusers'. I could not care less about government-mental statistics or any other propaganda generated to impress the masses. As stated previous, my opinion has been formed through interaction with those dispensing and receiving benefits.

dc_dux 02-10-2010 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757409)
So you're saying 'comprehensive welfare reform' still did not eliminate the abuses?

I'm speaking from my experience of daily interaction with 'abusers'. I could not care less about government-mental statistics or any other propaganda generated to impress the masses. As stated previous, my opinion has been formed through interaction with those dispensing and receiving benefits.
So the facts are propaganda and your anecdotal interactions are far more reflective of the truth ?

Sorry dude, that doesnt work for me.

Facts matter.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are now relatively short-termers who benefit from the social safety net and dont abuse the system.

Baraka_Guru 02-10-2010 08:26 PM
Yes, I'm sure all the research conducted by universities is merely for pleasing the government and the masses.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2757413)
So the facts are propaganda and your anecdotal interactions are far more reflective of the truth ?

Sorry dude, that doesnt work for me.

Facts matter.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are now relatively short-termers who benefit from the social safety net and dont abuse the system.
Okay, disregarding that you don't except experience as fact.

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.


So how exactly has this 'reform' helped?

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2757414)
Yes, I'm sure all the research conducted by universities is merely for pleasing the government and the masses.
Funding for the studies has to come from somewhere. If you're findings contradict your benefactors interests do you get more funding?

dc_dux 02-10-2010 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757416)
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.

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.
Social Security and Medicare account for about 75% of entitlement spending and account for even a larger percent of the increase in the last 10 years, as a result of the first wave of baby boomers.

Until 2007 and the onset of the recession, spending on TAFN had decreased in every year since 1996.

Baraka_Guru 02-10-2010 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757416)
Funding for the studies has to come from somewhere. If you're findings contradict your benefactors interests do you get more funding?
Well considering a lot of university research is conducted for themselves or some other related organization, much of it wouldn't benefit from painting a rosy picture. And I'm guessing many universities are painfully aware of funding biases related to research, especially the research universities.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 08:51 PM
It's a huge game of 3 Card Monty. The statistics may say less money is going out in one area, and it is, but the total outlay continues to grow. The spending has just been increased in other programs being abused by the same recipients. Look around you, those you know who are consistently employed tend to remain employed. Those who aren't, do not.

I'm really not trying to be a Troll here and I appreciate all points of view. It's what makes this country great. I just firmly believe that we have been headed down an unrecoverable path for generations and without some real reform in government we are doomed.

dc_dux 02-10-2010 08:54 PM
From the 2010 Statistical Abstract of the US

1996 - 4.4 million families (12.3 million recipients) receiving TANF aid and declining every year after the welfare reform was implemented, to:
2007 - 1.7 million families (3.9 million recipients) receiving TANF aid

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0553.pdf

Facts are a stubborn thing.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2757421)
From the 2010 Statistical Abstract of the US

1996 - 4.4 million families (12.3 million recipients) receiving TANF aid and declining every year after the welfare reform was implemented, to:
2007 - 1.7 million families (3.9 million recipients) receiving TANF aid

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0553.pdf

Facts are a stubborn thing.
As I said 3 Card Monty

The current welfare system is highly complex, involving six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. It is not unusual for a single poor family to receive benefits from four different departments through as many as six or seven overlapping programs. For example, a family might simultaneously receive benefits from: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant. It is therefore important to examine welfare holistically. Examination of a single program or department in isolation is invariably misleading.


Means-Tested Welfare Spending: Past and Future Growth



..

dc_dux 02-10-2010 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757423)
As I said 3 Card Monty

The current welfare system is highly complex, involving six departments: HHS, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. It is not unusual for a single poor family to receive benefits from four different departments through as many as six or seven overlapping programs. For example, a family might simultaneously receive benefits from: TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing, WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant. It is therefore important to examine welfare holistically. Examination of a single program or department in isolation is invariably misleading.


Means-Tested Welfare Spending: Past and Future Growth



..
Ah...the Heritage Foundation.

No bias there.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 09:03 PM
How are facts bias?

dc_dux 02-10-2010 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757428)
How are facts bias?
The fact remains that the entitlement increase as percent of GDP is almost entirely the result of Social Security and Medicare.

TANF beneficiaries have decreased; and Food Stamps and other direct payments have only marginally increased in recent years..and all are used overwhelming by short-termers.

Heritage uses its own definitions of "welfare" and and cherry picked data to support their pre-disposed position.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 09:07 PM
Isn't it strange how all other programs increased around the mid 90's when cash, food and housing leveled out?

dc_dux 02-10-2010 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757430)
Isn't it strange how all other programs increased around the mid 90's when cash, food and housing leveled out?
It is not strange at all the AFDC/TANF recipients decreased starting in 96...it is directly related to the comprehensive reform implemented that year.

Social security and Medicare increased as a result of more beneficiaries.

Food Stamps didnt start increasing significantly until the 2006-07. In 2000-03, it was lower than the early 90s.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0558.pdf

I would suggest using source data as opposed to Heritage reports.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 09:20 PM
Indeed. So making the recipients work for their money got them out of the program?

But it still did not decrease overall spending in welfare.

dc_dux 02-10-2010 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757434)

But it still did not decrease overall spending in welfare.
*shrug"

Depends how you define welfare.

Heritage uses a very broad definition, far broader than any objective definition, for its own benefit.

The more important fact is that the vast majority of recipients of direct assistance are short-termers and dont fit your anecdotal profile....of lazy, cheating, baby-factory, drug users.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 09:36 PM
Welfare: Financial assistance paid to people by governments.

Any way you cut it, the system is out of control and needs to be reformed. Your own assertions validate my original post. When reform in a segment was implemented it increased the well-being of those who left the mighty tit and relieved some burden in that segment. The rest of the system needs the same reforms to weed out the abusers who simply slipped under another shell.

dippin 02-10-2010 09:38 PM
If anyone wants to make "overall [insert economic variable]" here always grow, it's fairly easy. Just make it in currency, without any sort of basis or share measurement. Most if not all economic statistics trend upward, even when controlled for inflation.

As a percentage of GDP, total welfare spending in the US (including unemployment benefits)

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...6_4.14&legend=

dc_dux 02-10-2010 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757438)
Welfare: Financial assistance paid to people by governments.

Any way you cut it, the system is out of control and needs to be reformed. Your own assertions validate my original post. When reform in a segment was implemented it increased the well-being of those who left the mighty tit and relieved some burden in that segment. The rest of the system needs the same reforms to weed out the abusers who simply slipped under another shell.
Food stamps are a good example and I dont think it validates your original post at all. Quite the contrary.

Quote:
The Food Stamp Program serves as a temporary safety net for millions of families experiencing short-term economic crises. Most people turn to food stamps because of a job loss or reduction in earnings, and remain on the program for a brief period of time. The single most important reason for people leaving the program is a household's increase in earnings.

Half of food stamp participants receive benefits for nine months or less. The average length of participation is less than two years.

FRAC - Food Stamp Program FAQ
It is welfare?

Not to me.

It is a temporary social safety net as a result of a temporary economic setback.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 09:43 PM
That's wiki's definition of welfare.

Just looking at a single segment of the system is ignoring the reality of the big picture.

I can quit buying hamburger and brag all day about the money I'm saving not buying hamburger, but if I'm buying steak instead, I'm still spending more money. Just not on hamburger.

dc_dux 02-10-2010 09:45 PM
But you are still ignoring the fact that the vast majority of recipients of direct assistance (TANF, SNAP, etc) are short-termers and dont fit your anecdotal profile....of lazy, cheating, baby-factory, drug users.

dippin 02-10-2010 09:46 PM
And that welfare spending is not continuously growing. It grows during recessions... like it's supposed to.

RogueGypsy 02-10-2010 10:08 PM
Not at all, you're assuming my definition of welfare is limited to those programs and not the whole system of government assistance.

As far as I'm concerned the short term users needing a little temporary help are who the system was intended to help. While I have met very few of these people, life members of the welfare club abound. I can think of a couple dozen of these dead beats without much thought at all. They all seem to have some mysterious incurable/recurring ailment that prevents them from seeking gainful employment or can't afford to feed their kids because their baby daddies are on welfare too, or need housing assistance because they don't want to live in the part of town they can afford -don't even ask how that one works, I have no clue-. Maybe I just attract dirt bags and the respectable short term users avoid me.

---------- Post added at 10:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2757446)
And that welfare spending is not continuously growing. It grows during recessions... like it's supposed to.
What recession? I thought Pelosi, Reid and Obama fixed that.

dippin 02-10-2010 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757450)

What recession? I thought Pelosi, Reid and Obama fixed that.
If that is the game you want to play, I'm done with you.

dogzilla 02-11-2010 02:36 AM
Here's an article that was posted this morning
NYT: Food stamps find new acceptance - The New York Times- msnbc.com

Quote:
A decade ago, New York City officials were so reluctant to give out food stamps, they made people register one day and return the next just to get an application. The welfare commissioner said the program caused dependency and the poor were “better off” without it.

Now the city urges the needy to seek aid (in languages from Albanian to Yiddish). Neighborhood groups recruit clients at churches and grocery stores, with materials that all but proclaim a civic duty to apply — to “help New York farmers, grocers, and businesses.” There is even a program on Rikers Island to enroll inmates leaving the jail.

“Applying for food stamps is easier than ever,” city posters say.
The same is true nationwide. After a U-turn in the politics of poverty, food stamps, a program once scorned as “welfare,” enjoys broad new support. Following deep cuts in the 1990s, Congress reversed course to expand eligibility, cut red tape and burnish the program’s image, with a special effort to enroll the working poor. These changes, combined with soaring unemployment, have pushed enrollment to record highs, with one in eight Americans now getting aid.
Maybe the feds claim to have cut welfare, but they have just renamed it.

How about when the politicians in DC say they did something, they really do it?

Rekna 02-11-2010 08:14 AM
Are public schools government welfare? Because they seem to match your definition. Should we close down the public school system?

RogueGypsy 02-11-2010 08:34 AM
Once again, that is not my (as in I made it up) definition of welfare, it is the (as in generally accepted in the English language) definition from Wiki.

There a specific taxes paid for schools, they are not government assistance. If you read my original post you may also not that I suggest using money saved from revamping welfare to better fund schools and to include 2 years of college for any citizen.

dc_dux 02-11-2010 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueGypsy (Post 2757578)
Once again, that is not my (as in I made it up) definition of welfare, it is the (as in generally accepted in the English language) definition from Wiki.
By your own definition - Financial assistance paid to people by governments - most of the programs that Heritage (and you) call welfare, are not.

WIC, Head Start, and the Social Service Block Grant, etc. are not financial assistance paid to people. Even Medicaid and/or SCHIP do not meet that definition.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:32 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54