View Full Version : Government Assistance Programs
Trying hard to not sound completely ignorant here, but I need help figuring out the truth. Redfox posted a comment in the voting thread that surprised me a little. Specifically, the comment was that the average length of time spent on government assistance was 18 months. There are those here in the suburb of wonder-bread that are under the impression there are significant numbers of people in this country to whom assistance/welfare/aid/etc. is basically a lifestyle. That it is generational in many cases with people who spend their entire lives in the system. That certain areas (usually urban) and certain ethnicities (often African American) tend to dominate the "welfare rolls". That there really are some families that look on young women as bread winners for their ability to produce offspring.
So what's the truth? Is that picture a skewed urban myth nudged along by some group for who knows what purpose or are those situations real and widespread enough to be something we, as a society, should spend more time and effort addressing?
Gregg, I think you find that is more true in some geographic regions than others. The generational poverty that is quite prevalent (sp?) in poor rural regions, i.e., Appalachia, deep south Texas, etc. is a way of life. I can't speak to the poverty in large urban areas firsthand.
I have a little clearer picture of rural poverty thanks to some extended family members and friends families that are caught up in it. The generational aspect I'm curious about is whether or not children get raised on assistance of some kind then have kids of their own and remain in those programs.
Almost any practice can become the accepted norm for people who are raised with it and have not been exposed to other options. If there are now multiple generations who have been raised looking for a monthly check from the government it would be a miracle if anyone ever made it out of that cycle. It would also be very wrong of me to assume the fix is as easy as simply providing an opportunity for someone to do something different. Said opportunity would be greatly appreciated by someone with my experience and upbringing, but may be absolutely ridiculous to offer to someone else.
Isn't actual "welfare" welfare (there are other programs out there), largely limited in timeframe after the reforms pushed through Clinton? I thought there was now a limited number of years (5?) one could be on welfare.
iris lily
7-28-11, 10:21am
Isn't actual "welfare" welfare (there are other programs out there), largely limited in timeframe after the reforms pushed through Clinton? I thought there was now a limited number of years (5?) one could be on welfare.
I would modify that question to say:
Isn't actual welfare... largely limited in timeframe after the reforms pushed through by Newt Gingerich and the Republican Congress in carrying out their Contract for America?
You are right that President Clinton signed it because he saw the handwriting on the wall. And really, Clinton DOES get credit since he was in the seat at the time and it happened on his watch.
There's no limit. I live in area where generation after generation makes a career out of living on taxpayers money. Its quite common for mother's to be proud of their teenage daughters for getting pregnant. The way they look at it, they'll never have to worry about money as long as there's a minor in the house.
It's gotten so out of hand around here that young women will actually find retirees that are well off and bed down with them in hopes of getting a peice of their pension check in the form of child support.
Trying hard to not sound completely ignorant here, but I need help figuring out the truth. Redfox posted a comment in the voting thread that surprised me a little. Specifically, the comment was that the average length of time spent on government assistance was 18 months. There are those here in the suburb of wonder-bread that are under the impression there are significant numbers of people in this country to whom assistance/welfare/aid/etc. is basically a lifestyle. That it is generational in many cases with people who spend their entire lives in the system. That certain areas (usually urban) and certain ethnicities (often African American) tend to dominate the "welfare rolls". That there really are some families that look on young women as bread winners for their ability to produce offspring.
So what's the truth? Is that picture a skewed urban myth nudged along by some group for who knows what purpose or are those situations real and widespread enough to be something we, as a society, should spend more time and effort addressing?
Both can be true. An average composed of some who collect all their lives and many who just need a month or two to get past a spell of bad luck could come out to 18 months.
Commedian JJ Walker once proposed that welfare should NOT give more money if another child is added after the parent is already on welfare. He asked, Does your employer give you a raise just because you had another child?
There's no limit. I live in area where generation after generation makes a career out of living on taxpayers money. Its quite common for mother's to be proud of their teenage daughters for getting pregnant. The way they look at it, they'll never have to worry about money as long as there's a minor in the house.
It's gotten so out of hand around here that young women will actually find retirees that are well off and bed down with them in hopes of getting a peice of their pension check in the form of child support.
What was welfare reform then? Just smoke and mirrors?
In the state I live in, they have to show that they are attempting to find work. This means they go around to local businesses and request that management fillout a form acknowledging that they requested work. Many times I find that these people aren't even interested in sitting in my restaurant long enough to fill out an application because they know that Joe Blow down the street will fill out the form and send them on their merry way.
There are always loopholes for those who want to find a way to keep on keeping on...
In the state I live in, they have to show that they are attempting to find work. This means they go around to local businesses and request that management fillout a form acknowledging that they requested work. Many times I find that these people aren't even interested in sitting in my restaurant long enough to fill out an application because they know that Joe Blow down the street will fill out the form and send them on their merry way.
There are always loopholes for those who want to find a way to keep on keeping on...
There must be a lot people not up to finding those loopholes - for people getting food stamps, for about 6 million of them it's their only income http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14112108
Creaker-
I skimmed through the article and it sounds about right. To me, food stamps are a form of welfare and for many their sole income. BUT add to that the freebies from food banks, the red cross, clothing handouts, free christmas presents for the entire family and a tax credit for every child in the house and you have a pretty good thing going.
Also, just because they say they don't have another income doesn't mean they aren't working for cash and not reporting it. Very common here. Or trading food money for other items. Around here they can get several months worth of heating fuel for free and everything!
Here's an example. I was in line at the local Walmart a couple of months ago. Two young women were in front of me buying groceries and baby items (one of them was pregnant). They were separating the groceries as they came down the belt and it was obvious they were for two different places. The pregnant lady used food stamps to purchase the groceries for them both and then the other woman paid for the non edible items with her credit card. Do I know for sure what was going on, admittedly no, but I'm confident enough about what I saw to make a wager that I'm right in saying that food stamps were exchanged for non-edible items.
I should add that I don't think that everyone on assistance is looking to shaft the system. Its there for a reason and anyone who needs help should take advantage of it. My parents were on it for a while when I was a baby and my dad was newly discharged from the military. Life happens and we all need some help from time to time.
flowerseverywhere
7-28-11, 11:11am
there is a time limit in most states for cash benefits but not all. I believe how it works is states get a block grant and figure out how to distribute it under federal guidelines. However, there are food stamps, medicaid, free school lunches, heating and housing assistance etc. that many qualify for.
And every child who lives in a school district goes to school, in many cases is bussed there regardless of whether or not their parent pays anything into the system.
In our area when I look at the statistics almost across the board the higher the free lunch percentage, the lower the high school graduation and the higher the crime rate for the area.
iris lily
7-28-11, 11:17am
Recently the state of Michigan cut their family assistance (ie welfare) program to a limit of 4 years on.
I should add that I don't think that everyone on assistance is looking to shaft the system. Its there for a reason and anyone who needs help should take advantage of it. My parents were on it for a while when I was a baby and my dad was newly discharged from the military. Life happens and we all need some help from time to time.
Thanks for this addendum - exactly the reason I was getting defensive.
There will always be people scamming the system - corporations hire teams of people to scam the system, although they don't call it that. It bothers me when everyone gets condemned for the actions of a few.
ApatheticNoMore
7-28-11, 12:27pm
The people I know who tend to scam the system are things like: drug addicts who also have psychological problems and thus get disability. They live off government checks and yet they blow several hundred dollars on drugs for a weekend. But people like that probably aren't ever going to be right anyway.
A woman I know partipated in kind of welfare fraud one time that really bothered me. She and her boyfriend had children together and lived together, but were not married. He had an income of about $60,000 and she had an income of about $25,000. They bought a house and overspent a bit fixing it up and got themselves into a bit of a bind financially. She claimed that they didn't live together and she was a single mother and she got assistance. $85,000 is a pretty high income to be on assistance. It should be there for people who need it, not for people with perfectly reasonable middle class incomes. She has since broken up with that guy and is now living with her new boyfriend. She is on the verge of losing her job for lack of attendance and her back-up plan is to go on welfare even though she is living with a man who, again, makes a good middle class income in a 5 bedroom house with a pool. She gets her nails done weekly and goes out drinking most Saturday nights.
OTOH I have a friend who got pregnant and her husband promptly left her. She was on welfare for 6 months. She found a job as an office manager for a small family owned plastics manufacturer and has been doing well ever since. She is more annoyed by people scamming the welfare system than most people I know. I am very glad it was there to help her when she needed it. I have known more people like her who have recieved assistance, so I think the 18 month number sounds reasonable.
Sorry Creaker, I didn't mean to sound out of line. Unfortunately I have witnessed it being abused over and over around here. Its considered acceptable to milk the system for all its worth. I don't understand why it isn't monitored better or how to fix it. I think the problem is that all the checks and balances don't amount to much because crooks (and that's what you are if you're abusing the system) don't play by the rules anyways.
I would be the first to offer to drive someone to the local county office if I thought they needed it so they could get on some sort of assistance. I donate to foodbanks and the women't shelter and blindly hope that I am helping someone who truely needs it.
What's the old saying? "There but for the grace of God go I."
I'm with the rest who believe the system is something we should have for anyone who is in need. It's the level of abuse I'm curious about. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, but limiting abuse is one way to cut the budget back. If we can figure this one out maybe we can take on Medicare fraud next!
Gardenarian
7-28-11, 2:30pm
Here is a link to the federal welfare (TANF) page, which describes the limits pretty clearly. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/tanf_factsheet.html
I'm sure individual states and counties have their own sorts of assistance as well.
Frankly, this is such a teeny part of our federal and state budgets that I don't worry about it. The insane defense budget (and the incredible abuse of those funds) corporate welfare, subsidies for corporate farms, pork barrel projects - those are the things that drive me crazy.
Sorry Creaker, I didn't mean to sound out of line. Unfortunately I have witnessed it being abused over and over around here. Its considered acceptable to milk the system for all its worth. I don't understand why it isn't monitored better or how to fix it. I think the problem is that all the checks and balances don't amount to much because crooks (and that's what you are if you're abusing the system) don't play by the rules anyways.
I would be the first to offer to drive someone to the local county office if I thought they needed it so they could get on some sort of assistance. I donate to foodbanks and the women't shelter and blindly hope that I am helping someone who truely needs it.
What's the old saying? "There but for the grace of God go I."
No apologies needed. I did not fully know where you were coming from. The system is milked at all levels - on the other hand there are people really in need. And limited resources. It's easy to get angry at anyone abusing a good thing.
I volunteer at a supper program pretty much every week. I see people we're clearly helping - and people we're clearly enabling. But I think it would be more harmful shutting the doors on everyone as a method of "fixing" it than just leaving things as they are.
Frankly, this is such a teeny part of our federal and state budgets that I don't worry about it. The insane defense budget (and the incredible abuse of those funds) corporate welfare, subsidies for corporate farms, pork barrel projects - those are the things that drive me crazy.
I agree. IMO, any monies that go directly to people instead of businesses or organizations I am all for. Trickle down doesn't work.
Private contractors as of June 1 were 132,610 in Iraq and 68,197 in Afghanistan with each business charging $600 to $1000 per day per person for their services. That is just those two wars - don't get me started on the "drug" war. Welfare is a problem only for those that don't understand the "big picture".
Peace
loosechickens
7-28-11, 3:53pm
To me, the folks who say that people on welfare "have a good thing going" are people who have never experienced the challenges, together with the lack of skills, health and abilities to meet those challenges, faced by many, especially those mired in generational poverty.
We lived for a number of years in a rural PA county with heavy generational poverty, high teen pregnancy rates, low high school graduation rate, high unemployment, no public transportation, few jobs, etc. And my husband, for years, worked with the population under discussion, as a director of a group home, developer of a GED program in the county jail, head of a countywide jobs training program, as a teacher, etc.
And honestly, I don't begrudge one cent of taxpayer money going to those folks. Even the ones who "milk the system" are pennies to the dollar of the corporations lined up for corporate welfare, no bid contracts, subsidies, etc. that are the REAL source of the waste of taxpayer money. And the percentage of people who really NEED that assistance is so great in relationship to the percentage cheating the system, that it isn't even funny.
Personally, I would prefer to live in a country that believed it unconscionable that even one citizen go without health care, even one child went to bed hungry, or one old person had to make a decision between eating and needed medications. And was willing to pay taxes to ensure that these conditions were addressed in a far better way, such as universal access to good health care for all, good schools for ALL kids, etc. But, we don't. So what we have is a safety net full of holes, conditions under which it takes an almost superhuman effort to escape that poverty, with few tools to work with to do it.
The conditions under which the poor in this country live their lives is SO much more complex than it seems from the outside, particularly from the observations of a middleclass person watching someone buy their groceries on food stamps, judging their purchases, believing them to be "having a free ride", etc. that one can't even know where to start.
The percentage of people who scam the welfare systems is, I'm sure, no larger than the percentage of people who cheat on their income taxes, steal from their employers, or milk any other kinds of systems where they can. Because we've known a LOT of these people, up close and personal, and literally none of them were, on close observation, even remotely like the stereotypes that abound.
Welfare is like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound, but until we are willing to look at societal barriers, educational barriers, lack of access to good health care, the wounds to the spirit of growing up one of "those people", and the wages of ignorance, we're probably still going to have the problem.
When you grow up in a family without prospects, in an area with endemic poverty, are treated from an early age as "beneath" others, have inadequate or nonexistent health care (it was not unusual for us to see people in their forties, who had never in their lives seen a dentist, for example), have no role models for good hygiene, have no role models for how to prepare yourself for employment, look for a job, impress an employer, etc., no access to good sex education, and no sense of having a future, it is no wonder that many end up pregnant as teenagers, (in our area, it was heavy fundamentalist Christian, so for most of these teens, the idea of abortion was out, so it was almost certain that pregnancy meant the end of any hopes of pulling out of the pattern), it wasn't hard to see how people got mired in and stayed in bad situations in life.
Just throwing money in the form of welfare checks is not really the answer. But it's easier than dealing with the real, underlying problems of our society that cause this situation. So that is what we do. When what would work far better would be to have good public transportation, opportunities for employment at living wages, access to child care, preventative health care, good schools, substance abuse programs for people who need them, etc.
I've often wished that every middle class person in this country have to walk a few miles in the moccasins of that bottom group. AND only have the tools to bring to bear on their problems that those people have, rather than the work ethic, good health, respect for education, and decent families that are the wind in their sails they don't even recognize, that help them figure out things and work their way out of problems that arise in their lives, unlike those who haven't been so lucky as to have those tools in their own "toolbox of life".
JMHO, from someone who hates subsidizing the corporations who have made hundreds of billions of dollars in profit in our war machine, but doesn't begrudge one dollar of money that goes to the poor, at all.
Gardenarian
7-28-11, 4:12pm
+100 loosechickens!
WORD, loose chickens! Here is my addendum:
In every system involving money, there is a small percentage of folks who try to game the system. Are their millionaires hiding wealth in Swiss accounts to avoid taxes? Are there corporations offshoring their business to avoid paying their fair share? Are there middle income folks hedging their income tax returns? Umm hmm. Are there low income people lying about their circumstances? Umm hmm.
Who do I worry about - the millions of unpaid taxes from tax shelters & offshoring, etc., or the hundreds of dollars regular folks try to hoard by hedging their taxes, and the scanty dollars someone who is trying to feed their children is hoping to preserve? I imagine my language gives this one away. Frankly, for every dollar spent in public assistance on someone gaming the system, there are millions lost to CEO's and shareholders hiding their wealth. I am not into kicking the weakest and lowest in our society. What is to be gained by going after pennies form hungry, desperate people, when there are millions to be had from the wealthy who are willfully not laying their fair share?
People on public assistance CANNOT pay for housing, food, transportation & health care on this aid. Yes, some game the system - you would too if you had hungry, cold, ill children to care for. That gaming usually consists of off-the-records part time work, as getting a straight job means the end to benefits and the increased cost of child care. The large majority do not game the system, they use it as a stop-gap and get the hell off ASAP. It is a MISERABLE existence.
The University of Washington School of Social Work did a study about 15 years ago looking at the educational level required to successfully fill out a public assistance application. A Master's level command of English was required. If you doubt this, go try for yourself. I challenge everyone here to take all your kids down to the local public assistance office and try to apply for aid. It will drive you crazy, I promise.
If for one minute anyone thinks that people wake up in the morning looking forward to living on public assistance, think again. Those individuals who see this as their life are depressed, discouraged, hopeless individuals, who live in a society where they have had little hope and few opportunities.
The stereotype of African American mothers being on welfare is one of the deepest and most ingrained racist myths around. It's a detestable myth - the Black Welfare Queen in her Cadillac, 15 children, countless men, and multiple checks rolling in. This myth has been around for decades, and that it is still alive is one of the biggest indicators of the deep prejudice our society has towards anyone who is poor and of color. Please look at your own racist and classist assumptions that promulgate this myth, and get rid of them!
Our species takes care of each other when we are at our best. I worked for the state of Washington Social Services, I've worked with pregnant and parenting teens, homeless families, in shelters, with domestic violence survivors, and I have seen every story imaginable. NONE OF YOU would trade places with the families I've worked with - AND MANY OF US HAVE BEEN THERE. The call, I believe, is to compassion, love, aid, assistance, kindness, caring, understanding. Shelter for the homeless. Food for the hungry. We CAN afford it. We pay anyway, and more, when we don't provide these things for each other, in so many ways, including the criminal justice & health care systems.
In our time on this planet, we have been bigger than race, class, gender, legal status. As a people, as a species, we've survived by cooperation, compassion, caring. You know, those qualities that differentiate us from other animals... every religion calls us to these qualities. It's the best of who we are.
I've often wished that every middle class person in this country have to walk a few miles in the moccasins of that bottom group. AND only have the tools to bring to bear on their problems that those people have, rather than the work ethic, good health, respect for education, and decent families that are the wind in their sails they don't even recognize, that help them figure out things and work their way out of problems that arise in their lives, unlike those who haven't been so lucky as to have those tools in their own "toolbox of life".
Amen, LC. Amen, Redfox. As someone who still works inside the shelter system, I watch this question cycle through the forum every few months, then I sit back and hope at least one person will respond with understanding. Tonight I found two.
The statistics, the protocols, are all online for those who seek them. It's the light of understanding that's too often missing.
Mangano's Gold
7-28-11, 8:02pm
I'm with the rest who believe the system is something we should have for anyone who is in need. It's the level of abuse I'm curious about. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, but limiting abuse is one way to cut the budget back. If we can figure this one out maybe we can take on Medicare fraud next!
I'm with ya on the Medicare fraud!
As for "welfare", I'd put Americans into two buckets: single mothers and everyone else. For single mothers, small cash payments are available for a limited time.* They have access to government health insurance, and WIC/FoodStamps. If you are not a single mother, you are probably SOL on the first two, and can get food stamps for a limited time. The American safety net isn't very broad.
My sense is that there is fairly significant abuse. The scenario that Stella described is probably pretty common (there is a husband-like figure not reported, though him earning $60K is proabably the exception). Food stamps are a fungible asset, indirectly bartered for things such as tarot card readings, sports equipment, or second-hand clothes. But it is hard to be both efficient and ferret out abuse.
* According to the HHS link another poster provided, the expense to the government for these payments is well under 1% of the budget.
I read an interesting book a while back by a couple of researchers that did an extended study on poor people, following specific people over a number of years to see how their economic circumstances changed. The result was that a significant group stayed poor, bouncing between minimum wage dead-end type jobs and occasional public assistance, a few had achieved steady work that enabled themselves to support themselves but not really ever get beyond a pretty low paycheck to paycheck income level, and a smaller batch had achieved real success, most often by landing a "good" government job such as the post office or management at a housing project or by getting into a well paying blue collar union job. One of the things the book made clear is that it's not easy to move from a poor background into the middle class. Life is complicated and oftentimes people in low wage jobs have little support in terms of things that many of us take for granted such as being able to leave work early if your regular daycare falls apart and you need to go get your kid.
Just last week I went to a presentation at work by an organization that my company supports called Year Up. What they do is take young people (18-24 years old) and spend 6 months training them how the corporate world works and teaching them useful job skills (they partner with a bunch of large corporations and tailor the skill training in areas that the corporations actually need) and then another 6 months the participants work a paid internship. The program has high standards in terms of things like professional dress code, not being late, etc. Four participants mid-way through came to talk about their experiences. They all talked of how the program had provided invaluable information about how the corporate world functioned that they had not learned anywhere else. Even stuff I have "always" known, like don't wear white socks with your suit, were new knowledge to these people. Watching these people, all of whom were poised and professional, and in my guess very likely to ultimately succeed, talk about needing training in such basic things as what socks to wear made it clear to me that we can't just expect people to somehow "pull themselves up and succeed." It takes education in a lot of specific areas. These people are lucky enough to be getting it, but it doesn't come free.
I agree with loosechickens. While there may be some people who game the system, especially with generational poverty where it is all that someone may have ever experienced, the amount of money our government spends on welfare type programs is so small that I don't worry about it. I'm much more concerned about the hundreds of billions, or even trillions, spent on big corporate welfare programs like the bank bailouts and the military industrial complex and tax laws that allow a hedge fund manager to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary simply because it's considered "investment income". True reforms or eliminations of much of that will make a far bigger impact on the federal budget than would eliminating even every single bit of help to individuals in need.
Education is socialization. The more education you get, the higher into the professional ranks one can get to learn the protocols and practices there. (Not always of course!) Every class rank has its protocols and unspoken way of communicating rank - the white socks with a suit is a fabulous example; outsiders are recognized and kept outside.
I experienced this in the non-profit sector when I worked for a well heeled arts organization. I knew which clothes to get, and how to wear them, but I was a rebellious hippie underneath my oh so expensive threads, and my lack of willingness to follow the behavioral protocols ended my career there after 4 months. It was a total relief to get out - I felt like I'd been straitjacketed. Of course, that position paid the highest of any non-profit work I've done till now. Being smart & capable wasn't enough to keep me there.
Few successfully make it into the world of middle class culture or income without knowing these subtle, complex ways of being. For poor folks, education is the primary way out of poverty, and only partially for actual job skills. The socialization is so so important.
flowerseverywhere
7-28-11, 11:53pm
LC, I don't think that people are saying that people on welfare "have a good thing going"
It's really hard for people to put things in perspective when they listen to the debt debate, see their hard earned retirement income dollars plummet, and even go to the grocery store and see the prices of food. So many people are out of work but have too much to qualify for any assistance that there is resentment and an attitude of wait a minute, I worked hard for years and now I get nothing after paying for years into the system while others get assistance and don't work? Especially people who are paying huge health insurance premiums, are upside down on mortgages they got through honest loans with down payments, or raiding their retirement accounts to stay afloat.
I know I won the life lottery by being the right race and being born of parents who stressed education, however I also did not become pregnant before marriage, limited my family size, lived below my means and got out of bed and went to work on time for years.
In the 50's when I was a child I remember my mother saying "the rich get richer and the poor have babies" so sometimes things don't change. Sad.
Zigzagman
7-28-11, 11:57pm
Education is socialization. The more education you get, the higher into the professional ranks one can get to learn the protocols and practices there. (Not always of course!) Every class rank has its protocols and unspoken way of communicating rank - the white socks with a suit is a fabulous example; outsiders are recognized and kept outside.
I experienced this in the non-profit sector when I worked for a well heeled arts organization. I knew which clothes to get, and how to wear them, but I was a rebellious hippie underneath my oh so expensive threads, and my lack of willingness to follow the behavioral protocols ended my career there after 4 months. It was a total relief to get out - I felt like I'd been straitjacketed. Of course, that position paid the highest of any non-profit work I've done till now. Being smart & capable wasn't enough to keep me there.
Few successfully make it into the world of middle class culture or income without knowing these subtle, complex ways of being. For poor folks, education is the primary way out of poverty, and only partially for actual job skills. The socialization is so so important.
You are so so correct. Education tends to be the key to the door and after that is it mostly about socialization. I worked as a RF engineer for 20+ years before being talked into becoming an operations manager, then area, then regional. I'll never forget get my recruitment into the dark side. A trip to Las Vegas to get to know everyone in the club, etc. I came back to Austin with absolutely no intention of taking the job and told the wife I thought they were just not my kind of people. It was as if they would just not take NO as an answer and I actually think my recruitment became a challenge.
After taking the job and having a close friend at the VP level the progression came quickly and all the while I just knew this was not for me. I also was a hippie (but had cleaned up a bit and even quit smoking pot for years) and because I usually thought from a engineering perspective I always thought of the job as pretty much useless and unnecessary. After a little over 10 years of that I was totally ready to retire ASAP and I did. Those were the most boring of my 33 years but I played the game long enough to secure a good retirement so I guess it was worth it? I still feel like taking a shower when thinking about it.
The socialization aspect of many careers - especially with major customers become a way of life for most that are successful. I am thankful that I only lost my spine in those years and it has grown back since retirement.
Peace
loosechickens
7-29-11, 12:40am
Just a few more thoughts.......something that has occurred to me over the years as to why people seem to be so much more emotional about perceived abuses of the welfare system, when the actual dollars wasted by fraud and abuse in welfare systems are so small compared to other areas and groups where huge amounts of money are spent with lots of fraud and abuse, without incurring wrath from the taxpayers.
Certainly there are obvious things......the poor are quite visible, often very much able to be observed and judged in our towns and neighborhoods, stores and schools. Racism is certainly present, and where the judgers are the same race as the judgees, certainly class differences. Sometimes, people don't want to look at the fact that they, themselves, might be only a couple of paychecks away from disaster themselves, so it helps them emotionally to separate themselves from "those people", so to calm fears of ending up in similar circumstances. All those things come into play, especially if you can see folks out there making poor choices, like buying junk food with food stamps, using drugs, smoking, etc., where you can't SEE the huge waste and fraud that occurs between government and corporations, sweetheart deals, nobid contracts that line the pockets of a few at the expense of the many, etc.
But, there is something else, and that is that, often, the poor are really, to the middle-class eye, unlovely people. They may have poor hygiene, bad teeth, have the kind of obesity that comes from poor diet and lots of cheap, simple carbs which provide lots of calories and little nutrition. Since they have few resources, their family difficulties, domestic violence, etc., are often public, visible and require intervention from authorities. Because of the many stresses of their lives, and the few resources they have to deal with them, it is a population with a high incidence of mental and emotional problems, serious depression, anxiety disorders, etc., which may make them undesirable as neighbors, cause behaviors that are disruptive, lead to drug and alcohol abuse, etc.
The incidence of serious, chronic illness of a physical nature is common as well. Diabetes from poor diet, with lots of cheap, simple carbs is rampant, and because of limited access to health care, few get preventative care through life, so by the time they present at an emergency room, their diabetes is out of control, they have been feeling really unwell for a long time, complications have set in, etc.
And, despite the popular stereotype of the welfare person, rocking in the rocking chair on the porch, yelling at the coon hounds, a large number of the poor work, and work harder than most of us middle class people have ever worked in our lives. At dirty, often dangerous, low wage jobs with no benefits, no sick time, no understanding bosses when the child care doesn't show up, or the car won't start, and you live on a dirt road a dozen miles from your job and there is no public transportation.
All these things don't make welfare recipients as a group, seem like warm, furry, "deserving" people to many of us. Few of us really realize how many unseen and taken for granted advantages we've had in our lives, everything from living in a family where work and education is valued, having had dental care so teeth are not diseased, missing or deformed when we have to face a prospective employer. To the casual eye, lots of these people just LOOK like losers. And are judged as losers. Without any real understanding of the overwhelming obstacles in their lives that make just navigating through ordinary life an endless round of problems, no money, broken stuff, insufficient housing, crime ridden neighborhoods, and a host of other things that leave many on welfare with symptoms of PTSD from the levels of long term stress.
I guess what I'm saying is that they are a handy place to deposit our frustrations. They aren't attractive. Most of us, if we're honest, can admit that often we make ourselves feel better by having others to whom we can feel superior. And if we are struggling ourselves, we hate that our tax money is going to these unlovely people, and we get into a "blame the victim" stance, rather than look at the endemic problems in our society that both create and ensure an underclass that finds it harder and harder to compete in a 21st Century world. Yet, we admire, vote for and support many others who steal from our pockets at FAR greater rates, and in far larger amounts, without a blink of an eye.
It is no fun at all to live in poverty, and for anyone who want to talk about "free rides", I have to say, IMHO, you have no idea. Most every one of those people would exchange their life for yours, but you wouldn't want that "free ride" if it was handed to you, believe me.
Maxamillion
7-29-11, 1:05am
Thank God there are people who actually get it.
"Jesus in all His distressing disguises."
~Mother Teresa
http://findingpeaceamidsorrow.blogspot.com/2011/02/seeing-jesus-in-all-his-distressing.html
Here's an example. I was in line at the local Walmart a couple of months ago. Two young women were in front of me buying groceries and baby items (one of them was pregnant). They were separating the groceries as they came down the belt and it was obvious they were for two different places. The pregnant lady used food stamps to purchase the groceries for them both and then the other woman paid for the non edible items with her credit card. Do I know for sure what was going on, admittedly no, but I'm confident enough about what I saw to make a wager that I'm right in saying that food stamps were exchanged for non-edible items.
I consider this a smart way to make sure everyone gets their needs met. Were they buying fur coats? No. I bet they were buying things like... toothpaste, underwear, maybe a dvd. Maybe a splurge on a nice pair of jeans - something you & I take for granted.
When I lived in Antigua, Guatemala, I got taken by this scam, and over the year watched other non-Guatemalans also get taken by it - and I came to admire the man who created it:
A sad looking Guatemalan man approached me begging for help. His wife had just had a baby, and had an infection in her chest. The baby was hungry. Would I go to the Farmacia to buy a can of formula? Of course I would! One can of formula cost me pennies. I paid the Farmacia owner, and gave the can to the man.
He in turn sold the formula at a cut rate to a mother. Farmacia owner gets full price from someone who can afford it. Mother gets formula at a cut rate (too bad she's not breastfeeding...). Beggar makes his profit. The perfect scam!
People who are poor are just as smart as you or I. They use their smarts to figure out how to make it by doing things such as you observed, bke. I call it good economics.
I have been of the opinion for many years that one of the BASIC qualifications needed to hold public office is having had to live solely on public assistance for 2 years. I bet those two women in Kmart know how to work a balanced budget.
ApatheticNoMore
7-29-11, 2:27am
Just a few more thoughts.......something that has occurred to me over the years as to why people seem to be so much more emotional about perceived abuses of the welfare system, when the actual dollars wasted by fraud and abuse in welfare systems are so small compared to other areas and groups where huge amounts of money are spent with lots of fraud and abuse, without incurring wrath from the taxpayers.
I think why people are emotional about it is well many (most?) people hate their jobs. They might wish little more in the universe than to be able to quit. But they simply aren't able to economically or even in a few cases where they are able, they don't *think* they are able. So to see people who can live without working just drives them batty, and then to think it comes out of the pay they get for doing what they hate drives them even more batty. Now let's say the military also wastes our taxes all over the place. Well at least a lot of people in the military are also doing things they hate (many of the grunts and defense department employees probably are, maybe not the profiteers). Let's say homeland security is also a tremendous waste of money (and yes that is what I think of much of it :)), well at least those employees feeling people up are also doing things they hate. But to think someone lives without going to a job they hate :devil:
Now this isn't really a good way to solve the people hating their jobs problem. If welfare could be reformed perfectly by some all knowing law it would just drive even more people into an already fiercely competitive job market probably making conditions even worse. Nor is people hating their jobs purely an individual matter (for a few lucky people yes), but for many it's part of the social system.
P.S. I think a lot of what marks a person as middle class is social cues. It's not education. I mean education definitely helps but I rose far beyond where my education should have taken me. I'm still insecure about it especially now, and may change it, and whatever but .... It's not social skills, if success was purely dependent on social skills I wouldn't have ever been as successful as I have. I deliberately chose a field that didn't rely on social skills (avoiding my handicap yea even if working with people would have made me happier), and only after decades of working on myself do I have any social skills. I'd have been the worse salesman ever. It's way more subtle than any of that, it's certain social cues.
I have pondered the amount of people on some sort of G.A.P.s many times lately. I thankfully grew up in a middle class wonder bread house of the 1960-70's. No one on either side of my family/husband's family got any type of help. Just did not happen. The 80's came and the bottom fell out of MI, so we went to TX lived on min wage. We still joke about one chair, no phone, credit what was that?? but wow we thought we had it all! During that time my folks were part of the down turn also lost a job of 30 years. Still no one took any help. Then the baby came and I remember the doctor giving me forms for government help. I was working part time as a cashier and thought why would I need help?? We counted our pennies and got by. Ended up doing well taking care of ourselves and the future.
Fast forward 25 years. I can count and keep counting all those I know of that get something. My son and his GF are students get food cards. other son gets a food card, his words are 'everyone has one'. Brother with MBA had been on unemployment 99 weeks and got/gets every program out there, right down to the food bank visits, SSI i can count at least 5 assorted neighbors in my rural summer lake area that get it for Back problems/health issues, 3 relatives same thing, Nieces and nephews on Food Cards (all of these people mentioned have cells and cars).....Not saying any of this is wrong, not judging any of them, just a note at how things have changed. And this is the tip of the ice burg we think.
SO how can this change?
ctg, I have noticed a similar shift.
redfox, I can see the value in that scam too. I don't see the harm in the girls at KMart either. If they've been given X amount of money for groceries and can live within that, big deal if they trade some food for toothpaste and diapers.
There is more than one kind of person who uses public assistance. I have the utmost compassion for people who are caught in a cycle of poverty. Even the ones of that group that make poor choices or outright scam, I kind of understand. It's just not that cut and dry. That is a tough existence and I don't envy those people for a second.
What I have been seeing, as ctg points out, is a set of people on assistance that is different than that. I have had several friends go on some kind of public assistance lately because of job difficulties, etc. Absolutely understandable. The job market is not good right now. Maybe it's wrong of me, but I do think that in these cases, cutting back should be a part of the program if you are going to accept government help.
I have one friend and her DH who both grew up in upper middle class households. Her parents are PhDs. I don't know what his parents did but I do know that he went to one of the most expensive private high schools in the state. Her mom and dad made an agreement with them that if they would go back to school (neither of them had finished college) they would buy a house for them, pay the mortgage and watch their kids. She was working part-time as an administrative assistant and he was working at his high school job stocking shelves at a grocery store. She got laid off and decided to get through school faster by not going back to work, so her parents paid their utilities also to get her through. They went on food stamps, WIC, MA, etc. Again, that government assistance seems reasonable to me. The faster she got through school the faster she could get a better paying job. In the meantime his aunt bought them high end stainless steel appliances, a HE washer and dryer, a million kids clothes from Gymboree, nice clothes for both of them, a nice patio set for their new house, a plasma TV. Her mom paid off her car loan. They were in very good shape to hunker down in "poor student" mode for a year and a half.
The husband dropped out of school with no intention of returning. He intends to stay at his stocking job indefinitely and let others, his wife, his mother, his in-laws and the government, support him. He spends money on things like pot, guitars, an XBox subscription, an iPhone, $300 in fishing lures, concert tickets, etc. That gets me emotional because there are so many people who are really do need help out there. It feels like an injustice to those people that really do need the help.
Bastelmutti
7-29-11, 9:44am
I am not very knowledgeable about this issue, but isn't one of the problems that many jobs actually put you in a worse situation financially than public aid? The Boxcarkids' Blog is a blog I like to read that illustrates this example. The author has 4 kids and lost her house after moving to another state for a job. She was then laid off from her professional job and couldn't find another one. The family lived in tents, then a trailer, now a bigger used trailer (no heat or A/C, broken stuff still to be fixed, no lights in the bathroom, etc., so not a "luxury" trailer). So, the author recently found a job after a few years of unemployment, but it's part-time and the check will be smaller than her assistance was. Where is the incentive to struggle day after day, month after month, to find a job? And this woman is clearly very educated, was middle class before (so has those important skills), has a computer and knows how to use one, etc.
Here is a post I found today. WIC has a strong track record of helping babies get off to a good start. It's a fabulous public assistance program.http://www.parenthelp123.org/resources/food-resources/wic
We have an instance of generational welfare in my family, a white middle class family. My cousin started it. She had a kid and she lived that hand-to-mouth welfare existence where 1/3 of her income was welfare, 1/3 was under the table "work" (ummm, selling drugs among other things) and 1/3 was handouts from family.
Her kid grew up in that environment and promptly produced 2 children and the cycle repeated.
Now one of those kids produced another child, one that has extreme health difficulties, so there is public money going to support that extra difficulty.
At times they all piled into one house and live together, and sometimes they piled into their grandma's house, grandma who worked every day of her life until she dropped dead in her 80's while she was a greeter at Walmart.
That's 4 generations of a classic matriarchal multi-generational welfare family. My genes, my blood. I have to claim them although I wish that I did not.
That's 4 generations of a classic matriarchal multi-generational welfare family. My genes, my blood. I have to claim them although I wish that I did not.
This is an apt description of several branches of my extended family as well. I think the one defining characteristic in this trend is matriarchal. An upswing in two parent families would go a long, long way to eliminating poverty in this country.
This is an apt description of several branches of my extended family as well. I think the one defining characteristic in this trend is matriarchal. An upswing in two parent families would go a long, long way to eliminating poverty in this country.
I think the defining characteristic is dysfunctional. And I don't know if having two parents in a dysfunctional household would be much of an improvement.
I have the utmost compassion for people who are caught in a cycle of poverty. Even the ones of that group that make poor choices or outright scam, I kind of understand. It's just not that cut and dry. That is a tough existence and I don't envy those people for a second.
I also have compassion for people in the cycle of poverty but I don't think throwing money at it over the long term is a solution to the problem. If you have a drug addict you send them to rehab, you don't continue to fund his lifelong drug habit or that of his off spring. We need to institute somesort of reform - educational reform, a sort of rehab for those on welfare - to stop the cycle. In this day and age with the multitude of birth control options, from absenence to sterilization and everything in between, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to become pregnant. I would rather fund welfare to work programs and mandatory educational programs for welfare reciepients and their families then continue to prepetuate the cycle.
Two working adults is very very helpful in supporting a family, regardless of gender! It will also be very helpful when women get equal pay.
loosechickens
7-29-11, 3:24pm
"I also have compassion for people in the cycle of poverty but I don't think throwing money at it over the long term is a solution to the problem. If you have a drug addict you send them to rehab, you don't continue to fund his lifelong drug habit or that of his off spring. We need to institute somesort of reform - educational reform, a sort of rehab for those on welfare - to stop the cycle. In this day and age with the multitude of birth control options, from absenence to sterilization and everything in between, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to become pregnant. I would rather fund welfare to work programs and mandatory educational programs for welfare reciepients and their families then continue to prepetuate the cycle." (Spartana)
================================================== ============
I couldn't agree more, yet what we do in this country is almost exactly the opposite. you might wait for years and years to get a spot in a rehab program, if you have a substance abuse problem. In the area of rural PA where we lived for many years, meth is a scourge that has entrapped many, with little opportunity for any kind of rehab or help in breaking the addiction, other than going to jail).
All over the country, funding is being cut for Planned Parenthood, which provides preventative care, birth control and many other needed services to many with no money to afford birth control on their own, because 3% of Planned Parenthood's work is providing abortions, and NO government money is used for them, but the antiabortion folks are determined to close them down. The hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies that will occur because of loss of services of Planned Parenthood will ensure more and more children thrown into that cycle of poverty.
Not only are more educational and job training opportunities needed, but JOBS themselves are needed. If people in the middle class, with skills, education and abilities are having a hard time finding any kind of job, just imagine how a poorly educated person with few social skills, bad teeth, and no job skills fares.
It is such a complex problem, and we don't address that the money we spend on the poor is less designed to actually help them lift themselves out of poverty and far more to provide just enough subsistence to keep them from revolting and coming after the "haves".....heck, even food stamps was designed more as a way for large corporations to get profits from processed foods, because up until that time, the government passed out "commodities", which were stockpiles of foodstuffs that they had purchased to provide price supports and subsidies for farmers, and the big multinational food processing companies wanted a piece of that pie for themselves...........
We see the "unlovely" welfare recipient.......we rise up in righteous indignation, ignoring or unable to see the huge engine of the system that causes much of the problems in the beginning, and we blame the victims of that system instead.
The huge majority of people receiving assistance in this country are children and the ill and disabled. The myth of the ablebodied person just milking the welfare system is really sometimes limited to the people with the smarts and education (see several examples above) to understand far better than most welfare recipients just how to milk the system for their own benefit.
Most every welfare recipient we have ever known, and believe me, we've known a LOT of them, up close and personal, has lived a life of constant stress, disappointment, catastrophy, heartbreak, insecurity and misery. The REAL people of our underclass, are as unlike the stereotype of the "happy welfare queen sitting, watching TV and popping out children" living the high life on our tax dollars as it's possible to be. And most of the people who say, "must be nice not to have to work" should be thrown into that life just long enough to see how wrong they are.
We see the "unlovely" welfare recipient.......we rise up in righteous indignation, ignoring or unable to see the huge engine of the system that causes much of the problems in the beginning, and we blame the victims of that system instead.
Not me, I blame the system as being an enabler. History has shown that the more money we throw at poverty, the more widespread it becomes.
I have pondered the amount of people on some sort of G.A.P.s many times lately. I thankfully grew up in a middle class wonder bread house of the 1960-70's. No one on either side of my family/husband's family got any type of help. Just did not happen. The 80's came and the bottom fell out of MI, so we went to TX lived on min wage. We still joke about one chair, no phone, credit what was that?? but wow we thought we had it all! During that time my folks were part of the down turn also lost a job of 30 years. Still no one took any help. Then the baby came and I remember the doctor giving me forms for government help. I was working part time as a cashier and thought why would I need help?? We counted our pennies and got by. Ended up doing well taking care of ourselves and the future.
Fast forward 25 years. I can count and keep counting all those I know of that get something. My son and his GF are students get food cards. other son gets a food card, his words are 'everyone has one'. Brother with MBA had been on unemployment 99 weeks and got/gets every program out there, right down to the food bank visits, SSI i can count at least 5 assorted neighbors in my rural summer lake area that get it for Back problems/health issues, 3 relatives same thing, Nieces and nephews on Food Cards (all of these people mentioned have cells and cars).....Not saying any of this is wrong, not judging any of them, just a note at how things have changed. And this is the tip of the ice burg we think.
SO how can this change?
Similar experiences in my own life are what lead to this thread in the first place. Apparently it is not an isolated incident.
Not me, I blame the system as being an enabler. History has shown that the more money we throw at poverty, the more widespread it becomes.
I absolutely believe that is correct Alan. It's a little like Jevon's Paradox is to resource consumption. LC and others have said that aid is merely a band aid to cover deeper afflictions and I believe that is also correct. I guess the real question is how do we get to the root of the problem? How do we wipe out poverty?
I guess the real question is how do we get to the root of the problem? How do we wipe out poverty?
Unless you're willing to direct every aspect of every individual life, you can't. I'd be happy to simply stop encouraging it through systems designed to promote it.
History has shown that the more money we throw at poverty, the more widespread it becomes.
History also shows that the more cooperation and sharing of resources, the more stable a society. The more we spread wealth around, the more people benefit and no longer need assistance.
And then there's corporate welfare to consider. Are we actually better off as a society granting huge tax breaks to oil companies - whose profits are epic - while we cut off heating assistance to poor people?
And then there's corporate welfare to consider. Are we actually better off as a society granting huge tax breaks to oil companies - whose profits are epic - while we cut off heating assistance to poor people?
I wonder why we tax businesses at all. Shouldn't we be helping them maximize cash flow so that it can go to employees and investors?
History also shows that the more cooperation and sharing of resources, the more stable a society. The more we spread wealth around, the more people benefit and no longer need assistance.
Then why don't we simply declare that all assets, all property and all wealth belongs to the government and allow it to disperse it as it sees fit? Wouldn't that make us all happier?
I wonder why we tax businesses at all. Shouldn't we be helping them maximize cash flow so that it can go to employees and investors?
Google "why do we tax corporations" ;)
We should actually tax corporations more to encourage reinvesting profits into expanding the companies. As it is now, it makes more sense to take that money out of the company in the form of bonuses for executives, dividends, or as we see now just sitting on cash.
I think we need to stop all corporate and business subsidies and tax breaks including agriculture. Instead give tax breaks and subsides to individuals to encourage certain behaviors or initiatives.
Peace
ApatheticNoMore
7-29-11, 9:13pm
Quote Originally Posted by redfox View Post
And then there's corporate welfare to consider. Are we actually better off as a society granting huge tax breaks to oil companies - whose profits are epic - while we cut off heating assistance to poor people?
I wonder why we tax businesses at all. Shouldn't we be helping them maximize cash flow so that it can go to employees and investors?
darn funny answer when the example given was taxing oil companies. Clear producers of an obvious social bad (pollution). Clear beneficiaries of a resource they didn't product rather a NON-RENWABLE one formed millions of years ago.
darn funny answer when the example given was taxing oil companies. Clear producers of an obvious social bad (pollution). Clear beneficiaries of a resource they didn't product rather a NON-RENWABLE one formed millions of years ago.
I guess it's easy to be an ideologue if you don't have to suffer the consequences.
ApatheticNoMore
7-29-11, 9:31pm
I don't and have never worked in the oil industry if that's what you mean. I'm not a major oil company investor. We all of course suffer the consequences of how we have chosen to use oil (all burned up and sent into the atmosphere a mere in 200 hundred years).
Mangano's Gold
7-29-11, 10:55pm
I wonder why we tax businesses at all. Shouldn't we be helping them maximize cash flow so that it can go to employees and investors?
Why tax anyone at all?
Mangano's Gold
7-29-11, 10:55pm
I guess it's easy to be an ideologue if you don't have to suffer the consequences.
You talkin' about the House Republicans? :-)
Then why don't we simply declare that all assets, all property and all wealth belongs to the government and allow it to disperse it as it sees fit? Wouldn't that make us all happier?
Isn't that the ideology behind the whole class warfare talk going on? That the money that "rich" people make belongs to the people at large. Because even though we have progressive tax rates, and wealthier people pay both more in absolute dollars and more in relative dollars as a percentage of income, any reduction in the tax rate is spoken off as "tax breaks for the rich". As if the government is entitled to it all. And allowing the rich to keep any of their money is a benevolent action by the government.
You never hear of anyone referring to "tax breaks for the middle or working class", although there are many: child care credit, mortgage deduction, earned income credit... Its easier to ignite class warfare, and hate those rich people or want higher taxes for other people, but not for yourself of course. I think everyone should pay /something/ in income tax, even just a token amount so they have skin in the game (yes, I know that even the half of the people who don't pay income tax do pay other taxes like fica or sales tax).
Isn't that the ideology behind the whole class warfare talk going on? That the money that "rich" people make belongs to the people at large. Because even though we have progressive tax rates, and wealthier people pay both more in absolute dollars and more in relative dollars as a percentage of income, any reduction in the tax rate is spoken off as "tax breaks for the rich". As if the government is entitled to it all. And allowing the rich to keep any of their money is a benevolent action by the government.
You never hear of anyone referring to "tax breaks for the middle or working class", although there are many: child care credit, mortgage deduction, earned income credit... Its easier to ignite class warfare, and hate those rich people or want higher taxes for other people, but not for yourself of course. I think everyone should pay /something/ in income tax, even just a token amount so they have skin in the game (yes, I know that even the half of the people who don't pay income tax do pay other taxes like fica or sales tax).
Yes, that is the ideology of class warfare. It always amazes me to see how many people are in favor of it. Thanks for seeing it for what it is.
Mangano's Gold
7-30-11, 2:24pm
Isn't that the ideology behind the whole class warfare talk going on? That the money that "rich" people make belongs to the people at large. Because even though we have progressive tax rates, and wealthier people pay both more in absolute dollars and more in relative dollars as a percentage of income, any reduction in the tax rate is spoken off as "tax breaks for the rich". As if the government is entitled to it all. And allowing the rich to keep any of their money is a benevolent action by the government.
You never hear of anyone referring to "tax breaks for the middle or working class", although there are many: child care credit, mortgage deduction, earned income credit... Its easier to ignite class warfare, and hate those rich people or want higher taxes for other people, but not for yourself of course. I think everyone should pay /something/ in income tax, even just a token amount so they have skin in the game (yes, I know that even the half of the people who don't pay income tax do pay other taxes like fica or sales tax).
Oh phuleeez. Gag me with a spoon. Look at the real world. If there are class warriors on the left, they are inept, bungling, bufoons incapable of accomplishing anything. Those on the right? They are kicking a$$$$$. They have systematically lowered capital gains, dividend, estate, and the top marginal tax rates. According to a study just published in Tax Notes, the top 1% is richer than the bottom 90%. Worth repeating, the top 1% is richer than the bottom 90% (by a fairly wide margin, link of summary below).
And look at the current push from the right. They want none of the burden of cleaning up our fiscal house to fall on the uber-rich. None. No tax increases at all. And the Budget passed by the House (the Ryan Plan) - and I'm not kidding - wants to CUT taxes at the top even further, while chopping away at everyone else. It is truly amazing when you stop and think about it with a sober mind.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/07/cohen-.html
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds like the preferred method of dealing with the issue in this venue.
Just out of curiosity, how much would we need to tax the rich annually to get our deficit down to something managable, let's say under $500B as we did up through 2007?
And if we could do that, at what point would it be prudent to slow down our spending as well?
I guess I believe that the "increased revenue" and "stop spending" arguments are a little like the "what came first, chicken or egg" question. I doubt that raising taxes on any group would have any discernable effect on our deficit, it's against our political nature. As a result, I believe that tax increases are a waste of time.
loosechickens
7-30-11, 3:21pm
oh, for God's sake, just taking back the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest, together with some reasonable spending cuts would work wonders over time. Please remember that in the year 2000, we had NO DEFICIT AT ALL, but after a completely unfunded tax cut without attendant spending discipline, a completely unfunded giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies in the form of the Medicare prescription drug plan, dealing with 9/11, going after the Taliban, and invading Iraq (which cost hundeds upon hundreds of billions of dollars and was not even necessary, since Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11), is what has caused this deficit and continues to bleed money.
It isn't necessary in any way to start throwing around the old Marxist stuff. The wealthiest in this country pay less than half of the taxes they used to pay, and have increased their share of the wealth of the country steadily in the past thirty years, until now, the top 1% holds more of the country's wealth than the bottom 90%, which includes all of us, with the possible exception of bae. Asking the richest of the rich to pay a couple percent more taxes, in fact, the amount of taxes they were paying through the nineties, when they were making money hand over fist and increasing their wealth despite those taxes, is not too much to ask.
We didn't HAVE this mess until we cut, cut, and continued to cut taxes, while blithely committing the country to hundreds of billions spent in wars and other spending. Who are you kidding?
oh, for God's sake, just taking back the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest, together with some reasonable spending cuts would work wonders over time. Please remember that in the year 2000, we had NO DEFICIT AT ALL, but after a completely unfunded tax cut without attendant spending discipline, a completely unfunded giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies in the form of the Medicare prescription drug plan, dealing with 9/11, going after the Taliban, and invading Iraq (which cost hundeds upon hundreds of billions of dollars and was not even necessary, since Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11), is what has caused this deficit and continues to bleed money.
It isn't necessary in any way to start throwing around the old Marxist stuff. The wealthiest in this country pay less than half of the taxes they used to pay, and have increased their share of the wealth of the country steadily in the past thirty years, until now, the top 1% holds more of the country's wealth than the bottom 90%, which includes all of us, with the possible exception of bae. Asking the richest of the rich to pay a couple percent more taxes, in fact, the amount of taxes they were paying through the nineties, when they were making money hand over fist and increasing their wealth despite those taxes, is not too much to ask.
We didn't HAVE this mess until we cut, cut, and continued to cut taxes, while blithely committing the country to hundreds of billions spent in wars and other spending. Who are you kidding?
See, that's the problem with having a reasoned discussion here, too much emotion.
Do you think that a booming economy (well until the tech bubble burst) had anything to do with the surpluses of '98 - '01?
Throughout the last 30 or so years, every time we've increased taxes it has been in conjunction with a pledge to cut spending. Unfortunately, the cut spending thing has never worked out for us. I believe it's time to make that a requirement to any further confiscation of personal income, but two thirds of our elected government doesn't want to put it in writing. Do you think we should trust them?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.