Entitlement Mentality Will Ruin America

[red states rule]

The give me mentality and attitude the government must take care of me will be the ruin of the US economy

Despite the failure of social handouts over the last 40 years, and after spending over $9 trillion, the left only wants to tax us more, and increase the amount of handouts

snip

the future obligations of Medicare are now so staggering that liquidating all the residential real estate in the country — a sum of almost $12 trillion dollars — wouldn't even cover the costs. The Social Security tax rate, which began at 2% in 1935, has been raised consistently since, with the system's trustees suggesting the payroll tax will need to be increased to 16% by 2041 in order to maintain benefits — higher if life expectancy rates continue to climb. The same suffocating scenario will inevitably play out for insurance, health care, housing or any other government-controlled efforts to redistribute wealth from those who've earned it to those who haven't.


http://www.smartmoney.com/tradecraft/index.cfm?story=20080331-stock-investing

[Yurt]

according to mfm, thats progress...

[red states rule]

according to mfm, thats progress...

I expect MFM will not see a problem with it when it all crashes down and nobody gets nothing

[Lizabeth]

It is the Medicaid portion that is draining the program. The people who are collecting because they are non functioning due to their own indulgence in Alcohol and Drugs. These people collect maximum amounts and have never paid into the system. They are always at the doctor or the emergency room and are forever getting new and more expensive prescription to battle the self inflicted chemical imbalances they themselves have created.

[red states rule]

It is the Medicaid portion that is draining the program. The people who are collecting because they are non functioning due to their own indulgence in Alcohol and Drugs. These people collect maximum amounts and have never paid into the system. They are always at the doctor or the emergency room and are forever getting new and more expensive prescription to battle the self inflicted chemical imbalances they themselves have created.

and Social Security

and all the handouts

I see Dms this year looking for the candidate who promises to give them the most in handouts. Dems are not looking to elect a President. they are looking to elect a babysitter that will take care of them

[Dilloduck]

and Social Security

and all the handouts

I see Dms this year looking for the candidate who promises to give them the most in handouts. Dems are not looking to elect a President. they are looking to elect a babysitter that will take care of them

Don't forget that they are going to make the whole world like us again !

[red states rule]

Don't forget that they are going to make the whole world like us again !

Yea, by bowing down before them, and handing over more money to buy their love and respect

[LiberalNation]

and I suppose all the old and disabled people should just starve or die off. Social security ain't much of an entitilment considering most everyone that gets it had paid into it.

[red states rule]

and I suppose all the old and disabled people should just starve or die off. Social security ain't much of an entitilment considering most everyone that gets it had paid into it.

Typical liberal response

After 40 years and $9 trillion we are told the poor are worse off then ever before - and only more money will solve the problem

Try reforming the programs, and letting people take over financing their own retirement

But libs will have none of that. That will reduce their power over old people

People do not get what they pay into it. If you lucky enough to live to colect you might get a 2% return on your money

[Lizabeth]

and I suppose all the old and disabled people should just starve or die off. Social security ain't much of an entitilment considering most everyone that gets it had paid into it.

Old and disabled and I mean truly disabled I have no problem helping. In my job I see on a daily basis a large majority of drug and alcohol addicted people who do nothing to help themselves. The worst part is that when I tally up what they receive they are making out better than I am on a monthly basis. Think about this for a moment, they get anywhere from $800 to 1000 per month from Social Security not including the medicaid and prescriptions which by the way seniors have to pay for whether they use it or not. The municipality and county gives them housing and in my area that is a nice apartment in most cases. This also includes utilities on the house (electric, gas, oil) and cable. After all they need to watch TV all day. They also get free telephone service and food stamps which they pay $20 per $100 in stamps. Food stamps by the way are not stamps anymore because god forbid they should be embarrassed about using them on line in the grocery store. It is a plastic card like a credit or debit card. They are not restricted from buying any kind of food they want and believe me it is usually all the expensive frozen meals that I usually wait to go on sale and use coupons before I even think about buying them. Total all this up. Yeah that is right these lazy bastards have $800 to $1000 clear monthly to buy more drugs and alcohol. When that isn't enough they burglarize homes in your neighborhood!!!

No I don't mind if Seniors or those who are truly disabled are receiving social security or SSI payments.

[red states rule]

What the left will not admit is, Amercia has the richest poor in the world


The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

[Dilloduck]

What the left will not admit is, Amercia has the richest poor in the world


The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

That doesn't mean it's fair tho !!! If we all aren't the same it ain't fair. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

That doesn't mean it's fair tho !!! If we all aren't the same it ain't fair. :laugh2:

But it does punch a hell of big hole in the typical liberal sob story on how the poor in America live

[Lizabeth]

I have a problem when those poor have all those things becasue the working poor like myself, are paying for it.

We have a kid in our building who is for lack of PC wording - retarded. That kid is at work every day. I don't think he has ever been out sick. He only gets minimum wage and he couldn't be more helpful. He is glad to have a job any job. I don't mind making sure he has a place to live with a tv, vcr, etc.

[red states rule]

I have a problem when those poor have all those things becasue the working poor like myself, are paying for it.

We have a kid in our building who is for lack of PC wording - retarded. That kid is at work every day. I don't think he has ever been out sick. He only gets minimum wage and he couldn't be more helpful. He is glad to have a job any job. I don't mind making sure he has a place to live with a tv, vcr, etc.

That is one of the building blocks of liberalism

The redistribution of wealth

[Lizabeth]

That is one of the building blocks of liberalism

The redistribution of wealth

I don't really see that as "redistribution of wealth" I see it more as an obligation to see that this kid is living a decent a life as possible. Because of his limitations he does not have the ability to earn enough to live a "normal" life. I think "ability" is the key.

I saw an interview with a woman in her 40's who has been a resident in public housing all her life in New Orleans. And damn it if she wasn't complaining about her new apartment and the dirty conditions outside. I wished the interviewer asked her why she doesn't get up off of her fat ass and clean up the mess herself? 40 years in public housing and there was nothing wrong with her physically. That is redistribution!!!

[red states rule]

I don't really see that as "redistribution of wealth" I see it more as an obligation to see that this kid is living a decent a life as possible. Because of his limitations he does not have the ability to earn enough to live a "normal" life. I think "ability" is the key.

I saw an interview with a woman in her 40's who has been a resident in public housing all her life in New Orleans. And damn it if she wasn't complaining about her new apartment and the dirty conditions outside. I wished the interviewer asked her why she doesn't get up off of her fat ass and clean up the mess herself? 40 years in public housing and there was nothing wrong with her physically. That is redistribution!!!

I have no problem helpiong those who can't work

But libs want as many people as possible on a government program. That is where they get their politcal power

Like a drug dealer, they want people dependent on them for their next fix - their next government check

[Lizabeth]

I have no problem helpiong those who can't work

But libs want as many people as possible on a government program. That is where they get their politcal power

Like a drug dealer, they want people dependent on them for their next fix - their next government check
I can agree with that.

[red states rule]

I can agree with that.

It is the liberal game plan

Page one - play one in their playbook

[stephanie]

From the looks of things..I'd say we're pretty much there already..

Very sad..:salute:

[red states rule]

From the looks of things..I'd say we're pretty much there already..

Very sad..:salute:

The previous Republican did their part, but the current crop of Dems see taxpayers as a renewable money source

[LiberalNation]

Yeah that is right these lazy bastards have $800 to $1000 clear monthly to buy more drugs and alcohol. When that isn't enough they burglarize homes in your neighborhood!!!

No I don't mind if Seniors or those who are truly disabled are receiving social security or SSI payments.

I agree there, people who use their welfare checks and other benifits just to support their drug habit shouldn't get them.

[Monkeybone]

I agree there, people who use their welfare checks and other benifits just to support their drug habit shouldn't get them.

that's why i think that ppl on welfare should have random drugs testing monthly or bi-monthly.

[Immanuel]

and I suppose all the old and disabled people should just starve or die off. Social security ain't much of an entitilment considering most everyone that gets it had paid into it.

The problem as I see it is that those who have paid into it all thier lives would have been 10-fold or more better off had they simply stuck that money underneath their mattress and waited until they were ready to retire before using it. A simple savings account would have done them much, much, much better.

Now, I realize that getting them to save that money was a problem, but a privatized plan requiring contributions to a 401(k) plan would be the best solution if we could work out how to handle two things... 1) those who have been forced into SS all their lives and are ready to retire and 2) those who in a privatized plan become disabled at an early age. There are solutions to both problems if the government wants to work on it. Unfortunately they don't.


Old and disabled and I mean truly disabled I have no problem helping.

No I don't mind if Seniors or those who are truly disabled are receiving social security or SSI payments.

I completely agree with this.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

that's why i think that ppl on welfare should have random drugs testing monthly or bi-monthly.what good will any of this do if they are drug addicts? what makes them different than alcoholics? shouldn't they be banned also from receiving welfare....make everyone take a breathalizer too?

all of this is fine and dandy but i personally think that if we do not have a kazillion drug rehab centers to treat the addicts....our problems and crime rates will even get worse....and to lock all these people up when they break the law will cost us on MINIMUM $50k a year to imprison them....

ya'll need to be careful for what you wish for....meaning....look at the consequences of our future actions instead of a kneejerk reaction to the HERE and NOW....

also, it's unconstitutional for us, the gvt, to make these guys take a drug test imo....

and if you are for liberalizing drugs, how would that come in to the picture with welfare recipients then?

i just think this is much more complicated than what we all are talking about and reform to these programs needs to be looked at comprehensively and not just patchwork style...ya know?

jd

[red states rule]

that's why i think that ppl on welfare should have random drugs testing monthly or bi-monthly.

The ACLU would be all over that in a heartbeat.

And Dem in DC would be screaming bloody murder how their rights are being violated

[Monkeybone]

what good will any of this do if they are drug addicts? what makes them different than alcoholics? shouldn't they be banned also from receiving welfare....make everyone take a breathalizer too? it would make them get help for one thing. and some (most) of the ppl would be able to work if they weren't destroying their bodies on drugs. i would give them time to get better before completely yanking any help that they are recieving. and if you're an alcoholic you can get fired form work can you not? then what? go on and welfare also and just keep drinking cuz hey! you don't have to work for it anymore...you're a victim.



all of this is fine and dandy but i personally think that if we do not have a kazillion drug rehab centers to treat the addicts....our problems and crime rates will even get worse....and to lock all these people up when they break the law will cost us on MINIMUM $50k a year to imprison them.... yah, the price of imprisoning them would be a big hit. the crime rate might increase...and it might not. never know. and if they are already involved in drugs then you already have problems with crime anyways.


ya'll need to be careful for what you wish for....meaning....look at the consequences of our future actions instead of a kneejerk reaction to the HERE and NOW.... this isn't that much of a knee-jerk reaction. i have said this before. they should be held to a certain standard. yes they are on welfare, but that doesn't mean that they should just get to do whatever they really want to and then collect a check generated from those of us that have to live with standards and rules with consequences at our jobs.


also, it's unconstitutional for us, the gvt, to make these guys take a drug test imo.... how would it be unconstitutional? could i claim that when they want to give me a drug test when applying to a job? you could almost count them as "gov workers" (use that term loosely) since that is who pays for everything. why not make sure that they just ain't collecting and taking advantage.


and if you are for liberalizing drugs, how would that come in to the picture with welfare recipients then? you mean like making them legal? cuz if that is what you mean then no..i am really not. and if they were, then that wouldn't affect any of us in the normal work place either, so it really has no point. you could watch to make sure thay weren't doing it in excess and hurting themselves.

i
just think this is much more complicated than what we all are talking about and reform to these programs needs to be looked at comprehensively and not just patchwork style...ya know? it is and isn't. some bad eggs taking advantage make it bad for the ones that really need it. but at the same time, if you are living off of the government tit then you should have to live up to some sort of a standard (if able to) and not just free-load



The ACLU would be all over that in a heartbeat.

And Dem in DC would be screaming bloody murder how their rights are being violated
yah...completely agree with that. but anything you do, no matter what, you are gonna have someone that is gonna bitch.

[red states rule]

what good will any of this do if they are drug addicts? what makes them different than alcoholics? shouldn't they be banned also from receiving welfare....make everyone take a breathalizer too?

all of this is fine and dandy but i personally think that if we do not have a kazillion drug rehab centers to treat the addicts....our problems and crime rates will even get worse....and to lock all these people up when they break the law will cost us on MINIMUM $50k a year to imprison them....

ya'll need to be careful for what you wish for....meaning....look at the consequences of our future actions instead of a kneejerk reaction to the HERE and NOW....

also, it's unconstitutional for us, the gvt, to make these guys take a drug test imo....

and if you are for liberalizing drugs, how would that come in to the picture with welfare recipients then?

i just think this is much more complicated than what we all are talking about and reform to these programs needs to be looked at comprehensively and not just patchwork style...ya know?

jd

This is why the cost of handouts keeps skyrocketing

Liberals oppose any accountability. We are told to shut up and keep forking over our money

When i am giving people money to libe on, I should be able to set some basic rules like no drugs

[JohnDoe]

it would make them get help for one thing. and some (most) of the ppl would be able to work if they weren't destroying their bodies on drugs. i would give them time to get better before completely yanking any help that they are recieving. and if you're an alcoholic you can get fired form work can you not? then what? go on and welfare also and just keep drinking cuz hey! you don't have to work for it anymore...you're a victim.

So, you want to FORCE, innocent, non drug using Americaqn citizens, to take a drug test because YOU want to CONTROL the lives of drug addicts?

You are in dangerous territory....


yah, the price of imprisoning them would be a big hit. the crime rate might increase...and it might not. never know. and if they are already involved in drugs then you already have problems with crime anyways.

Yes, it would be a HUGE HIT....the crime rate WILL increase, unless we plan out a strategy to get these addicts, off of the drugs they are addicted to.....

this isn't that much of a knee-jerk reaction. i have said this before. they should be held to a certain standard. yes they are on welfare, but that doesn't mean that they should just get to do whatever they really want to and then collect a check generated from those of us that have to live with standards and rules with consequences at our jobs.

wow! that's a pretty authoritarian outlook imho!

Because our gvt pays for a good portion of everyone's health Insurance via the tax credit/write off given to business for it can the gvt require certain tests from these people too, in order for tax monies to pay for the deduction?

Can you also request that all senior citizens be required to take a drug test because we are sending them SS checks? Why not do this too?

Because our gvt pays in the most part for all of our postal service, does that give them the right to open our mail and read it?

Because Vets receive disability checks every month from us should we force them to be drug free in order to get them and make then do bi monthly tests?

Because our government is sending us a stimulous check, does this aqllow all of us that receives a stimulous to be required to be drug tested bi monthly?

Be careful for what you wish for or want to put upon other citizens, that have the SAME constitutional rights as YOU and me....

the Constitution does not just throw our rights out the window because you are POOR or receive some sort of gvernment benefit for goodness sakes!!!!


how would it be unconstitutional? could i claim that when they want to give me a drug test when applying to a job? you could almost count them as "gov workers" (use that term loosely) since that is who pays for everything. why not make sure that they just ain't collecting and taking advantage.

Applying for a job that has a drug test is your choice, and the private entitie's choice in requesting one is what the SC has ruled.

I don't happen to agree with the ruling.

you mean like making them legal? cuz if that is what you mean then no..i am really not. and if they were, then that wouldn't affect any of us in the normal work place either, so it really has no point. you could watch to make sure thay weren't doing it in excess and hurting themselves.

i it is and isn't. some bad eggs taking advantage make it bad for the ones that really need it. but at the same time, if you are living off of the government tit then you should have to live up to some sort of a standard (if able to) and not just free-load

we all live off the government's tit in one way or another, should the government be allowed to force all of us....ALL OF US...a drug test twice monthly? If not, why not?

[red states rule]

JD, SS checks are different then welfare checks. Again, if I am giving you money to live on - I have a right to ensure some accountablity on your part

Agai8n, this is why year after year the cost of handouts keeps going up. Libs do not want to hold people repsonsible for their actions

They just send the bill to the rest of us, and demand we pay it. No questions asked

[Classact]

It is out of control...
Hunger and Food Stamps

Published: May 13, 2007
If you think people do not go hungry in America, you’re wrong. At last count in 2005, 35 million low-income Americans — about a third of them children — lived in households that cannot consistently afford enough to eat. Since 2005, the situation has most likely become worse. Last year, real wages for low-income workers were still below 2001 levels. This year, job growth is slowing and prices are rising.

And each year, the federal food stamp program — the bulwark against hunger for 26 million Americans — does less to help. In large part, that is because a key component of the formula for computing most families’ food stamps has not been adjusted for inflation since 1996. Over all, food stamps now average a meager $1.05 per person per meal. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/opinion/13sun1.html

I was watching CSPAN this morning and they played a TV commercial promoting people to sign up for food stamps, unbelievable.


Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger Offers
Food Stamp Program Screening and Application Assistance http://www.hungercoalition.org/pressroom/foodstampoutreach.html


How about outreach for get off your lazy ass and get a job and feed your family.

[JohnDoe]

JD, SS checks are different then welfare checks. Again, if I am giving you money to live on - I have a right to ensure some accountablity on your part

Agai8n, this is why year after year the cost of handouts keeps going up. Libs do not want to hold people repsonsible for their actions

They just send the bill to the rest of us, and demand we pay it. No questions asked

rsr, it is NOT different.... many pay in to SS and do not get back what they paid in while others that pay in very little get back triple of what they pay in.... there is still some tax payers contributing to the welfare of others.

there is no difference.

Most of the people on welfare, like food stamps ARE WORKING PEOPLE....a great deal of them are the enlisted Military families.

jd

[red states rule]

It is out of control... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/opinion/13sun1.html

I was watching CSPAN this morning and they played a TV commercial promoting people to sign up for food stamps, unbelievable.

http://www.hungercoalition.org/pressroom/foodstampoutreach.html


How about outreach for get off your lazy ass and get a job and feed your family.

Now libs have their government handouts advertised. They have to make sure they do not spend less then they did last year - or gasp - their budget might be reduced for the following year. So they have to make sure they sign up as many people as possible for the free goodies

[Classact]

Now libs have their government handouts advertised. They have to make sure they do not spend less then they did last year - or gasp - their budget might be reduced for the following year. So they have to make sure they sign up as many people as possible for the free goodiesCompassion belongs at family, church and community level and out of the federal government. If a community wants to give out freebies to freeloaders then let them advertise nationwide so all the freeloaders go to their state. Welfare used to work like that didn't it?

There are people that need help but it should be sorted out locally where the dead wood can be sorted out and put to work or jail.

[red states rule]

Compassion belongs at family, church and community level and out of the federal government. If a community wants to give out freebies to freeloaders then let them advertise nationwide so all the freeloaders go to their state. Welfare used to work like that didn't it?

There are people that need help but it should be sorted out locally where the dead wood can be sorted out and put to work or jail.

Let me know if you ever run for elected office. I will send you a check and work on your campaign

It used to be if you were on welfare, had another kid, the government rewarded you with more money.

That bullshit stopped thanks to Republicans.

Hell we have some cities telling illegals to flock to their town and get the freebies.

[JohnDoe]

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).


http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html


And since welfare reform that took place under Gingrich, Welfare costs have gone down....

also, there is a requirement to work, to receive welfare...that was part of the reforms that Gingrich put in to place....and the budget deficit reduction Act.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-21-06tanf.pdf

jd

[red states rule]

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).


http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html


And since welfare reform that took place under Gingrich, Welfare costs have gone down....

also, there is a requirement to work, to receive welfare...that was part of the reforms that Gingrich put in to place....and the budget deficit reduction Act.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-21-06tanf.pdf

jd

1% of $3 trillion is still a hell of alot of money JD

Ober the last 40 years, the bill is up to $9 trillion in wealth transfers thanks to the Dems

And there is no end in sight

[Monkeybone]

i understand what you are saying JD. and no, i don't want to make it a complete control system over ppl on welfare. but there still needs to be some checks and balances. be it drug test are one of them. so be it. and like if we went to national healthcare, i would like to see the same chunk taken out of that check that is taken out of mine.

sorry, i might have a skewed view, but the ppl around here, most of them learned it from their parents, they do whatever they want. they feel entitled to free service and if they have to wait 5 mins they bitch. there are ppl younger than me that come in on medicaid and drive 40,000 dollar cars. when i used to work @ the Great Blue Devil (Wal-Mart), i saw first hand a guy that wouldn't let his wife get an extra thing of diapers or food or new clothes for the baby...and why? because he needed that case of beer or carton of cigs. so sorry, i just have seen some of these ppl and it makes me sad and angry at the same time. i am not saying that all of them are like it, but enough to of them are atleast around here to give the majorty and drinking-drug using name.

now, i am not saying that all are like this. there are ppl that honestly and seriously need help.

so what if i change my view to, not that everyone gets the checks. but if you have one problem then you have certain requirements to meet. sorta like probation.

the whole gist of what i am trying to get at is that there needs to be some sort of system other than just handing them checks. (this part is bolded because it is the main point that i wanna make)

[JohnDoe]

1% of $3 trillion is still a hell of alot of money JD

Ober the last 40 years, the bill is up to $9 trillion in wealth transfers thanks to the Dems

And there is no end in sight
IMPOSSIBLE rsr....

less that 300 Billion has been spent on welfare the last 40 years...AT MOST....for 40 YEARS.... let alone 300 billion in Iraq for ONE YEAR.....or less.

And I am not arguing that some people don't abuse the system....

What I am saying is that the amount of money wasted in a year's time is less than everyone seems to claim.... one theft from KBR/Halliburton took care of the whole year's worth of welfare recipients that are cheating...

Too much time is spoent on something that could save us VERY LITTLE money when the big picture is looked at for WASTE within our government.

Welfare WAS ALREADY REFORMED, and no one just gets handed a check as you all seem to imply....at least not from all the rules and regulations that I have read and also LINKED above.... and there is also a limit, where it just plain ends.... but you guys imply that it goes on forever? Welfare reform under gingrich took care of that as far as I know it put in limits?

So what is the outrage?

jd

[red states rule]

IMPOSSIBLE rsr....

less that 300 Billion has been spent on welfare the last 40 years...AT MOST....for 40 YEARS.... let alone 300 billion in Iraq for ONE YEAR.....or less.

And I am not arguing that some people abuse the system....

What I am saying is that the amount of money wasted in a year's time is less than everyone seems to claim.... one theft from KBR/Halliburton took care of the whole year's worth of welfare recipients that are cheating...

Too much time is spoent on something that could save us VERY LITTLE money when the big picture is looked at for WASTE within our government.

Welfare WAS ALREADY REFORMED, and no one just gets handed a check as you all seem to imply....at least not from all the rules and regulations that I have read and also LINKED above.... and there is also a limit, where it just plain ends.... but you guys imply that it goes on forever? Welfare reform under gingrich took care of that as far as I know it put in limits?

So what is the outrage?


jd



What is impossible JD? The Dems war on poverty has been going on for over 40 years, and there has been $9 trillion in wealth transfers

What is the outrage?

Libs rant and rave about the war in Iraq. They sneer how it has been going on for 6 years, and whine about the money being spent

HOWEVER, when it comes to their war on poverty - they ignore how long it has been going on and dismiss the price tag

Year after year we have to listen to the left rant how poverty is getting worse, and how more programs, and more money is needed to solve the problem

If you point all the flaws in the history of their social prgrams, we are claaed meanspirited, and if we were not so cheap, and be willing to pay more in taxes - libs could end poverty

[JohnDoe]

What is impossible JD? The Dems war on poverty has been going on for over 40 years, and there has been $9 trillion in wealth transfers

What is the outrage?

Libs rant and rave about the war in Iraq. They sneer how it has been going on for 6 years, and whine about the money being spent

HOWEVER, when it comes to their war on poverty - they ignore how long it has been going on and dismiss the price tag

Year after year we have to listen to the left rant how poverty is getting worse, and how more programs, and more money is needed to solve the problem

If you point all the flaws in the history of their social prgrams, we are claaed meanspirited, and if we were not so cheap, and be willing to pay more in taxes - libs could end poverty

if we spent $30 billion this year on the 3 tril budget, that is the 1%...take 40 years times that 30 billion...this comes to 1.2 trillion RSR....

And 1.2 trillion is assuming that the federal gvt had a budget of 3 trillion each one of those years which is simply not the case....

during the reagan years our budget was around 1 trillion a year in the peak....

In the clinton years it was about 2 trillion in its peak...

and the 20 years before reagan the budget was much, much smaller....

it is absolutely impossible RSR for the usa gvt to have spent 9 trillion in 40 years with welfare at 1% of the budget?

jd

[red states rule]

if we spent $30 billion this year on the 3 tril budget, that is the 1%...take 40 years times that 30 billion...this comes to 1.2 trillion RSR....

And 1.2 trillion is assuming that the federal gvt had a budget of 3 trillion each one of those years which is simply not the case....

during the reagan years our budget was around 1 trillion a year in the peak....

In the clinton years it was about 2 trillion in its peak...

and the 20 years before reagan the budget was much, much smaller....

it is absolutely impossible RSR for the usa gvt to have spent 9 trillion in 40 years with welfare at 1% of the budget?

jd


It is not only welfare JD - it is all of the wealth transfers


$9 Trillion Didn't End Poverty -- What to Do?
by Jenifer Zeigler

September 1, 2004.


At the Republican National Convention this week, there was a lot of talk about money. Pay raises for firefighters. Money for Swift Boat ads. Money to rebuild Iraq, and so on. One thing the pundits and presidential candidates didn't say much about, however, is how much money has been spent fighting the "war on poverty"--$9 trillion and counting. Yes, $9 trillion.

Yet, as the Census Bureau just reported, poverty in America is up. So what do the candidates propose we do?

Well, one candidate believes the solution is to spend more money on social programs, while the other believes the solution is to spend more money on ... social programs. Since 2000, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the traditional welfare program) spending has increased 6 percent. What did we get for that money? A higher poverty rate. Obviously a stagnant economy and poor job market are responsible for the increase in those living below the poverty line. However, spending more money on social programs is not raising them back out of poverty.

The best way to reduce the poverty rate is to convince people to avoid poverty in the first place by finishing school, delaying parenthood, and getting a job (any job). High school dropouts are roughly three times more likely to end up in poverty than are those who complete at least a high school education. A common reason why teens drop out of high school is out-of-wedlock births. Teenage pregnancy initiates a single mother into a life of dependency that is difficult to overcome, especially if she goes on to have additional children. Over half of welfare money is spent on families that began with a teen birth.

for the complete article
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2807

[red states rule]

JD, the tab in 1993 was $5 trillion. This link has more details then the previous link


The Poverty Paradox: How America Spent $5 Trillion on the War on Poverty without Reducing the Poverty Rate
by Rector, Robert
Executive Memorandum #364

Next week the United States Census Bureau will release its annual report on income and poverty. The Cen- sus Bureau will report, as it has for many years, that there are over 30 million -pooe, persons in America. This picture of chronic, pervasive American poverty is a myth; it is caused by obvious deficiencies in the way the Bureau measures income and defines the poor. According to the Census Bureau there are almost as many poor people today as when the War on Poverty began in the mid- 1960s. This picture of unremitting poverty is perplexing because welfare spending grew enor- mously throughout the 1970s and 1980s, even after adjusting for inflation. Welfare spending, excluding programs for the middle class such as Social Security and Medicare, reached an all-time high of $306 billion in .1992.

Welfare now equals 5 percent of the gross national product, up from 1.5 percent in 1964 when the War on Poverty began. America has spent $5.1 trillion in fighting the War on Poverty since its inception under Presi- dent Lyndon Johnson. In constant dollars, this amount is greater than the cost of battling Germany and Japan in World War H. Erroneous Picture. After adjusting for inflation, annual welfare spending is now almost seven times the amount spent in the mid- I 960s when the War on Poverty began. How can welfare spending expand sevenfold while the number of poor Americans remains nearly unchanged? The answer is simple: the Census Bureau poverty count is grossly inaccurate. The Census Bureau undercounts incomes, excludes assets, and creates an er- roneous picture of the living standards of low-income Americans. Key facts missing from the Census report are: S/ Nearly 40-percent of the persons identified as "poor"by the Census Bureau own their own homes. The median value of homes owned by poor persons in 1991 was $46,652, or 58 percent of the median value of all homes owned by Americans in that year;


for the complete article

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/EM364.cfm

[avatar4321]

What's really frustratinging is the money for these entitlements never really sees the people who its supposed to help. most of it goes to the bueacracy that supposed to support it in overhead.

This is exactly why churches and other private institutions are much better at dealing with social issues. They dont have the overhead the government welfare state has.

[LiberalNation]

They also don't have the reach or drive to help everyone, only their select group.

[red states rule]

What's really frustratinging is the money for these entitlements never really sees the people who its supposed to help. most of it goes to the bueacracy that supposed to support it in overhead.

This is exactly why churches and other private institutions are much better at dealing with social issues. They dont have the overhead the government welfare state has.

Poverty is a big business for the left. It keeps so many government worker employed, government programs growing, and the recipients of the money shackled into a never ending cycle of dependency