View Full Version : Entitlement feeling
I am wondering how a person reaches a point when they feel they deserve something or many things from the government? Not accepting the help when needed, but when it turns to imo, using the system? Or is it none of my business, it is there for the taking and some are just going to take it?
I fully understand doing what has to be done to make ends meet till you are able to again.:confused:
Well, I think most people who go on assistance of some kind do use it as a last resort, and I believe people with kids will go on it sooner than a single person.
But that is really such a small part of what the government does, or how it helps all of us. I presume you aren't talking about Seniors who get SS or medicare. Or disabled vets. I know the BIG FOCUS has been on 'welfare queens/kings', or food stamps, but that isn't really where the money goes, and to be honest, it's kind of cowardly of some politicians to focus their budget knife on these less fortunate among us. It doesn't take much courage to toss grandma, or the little poor kid, under the bus. It takes a little more courage to tell your rich donors that the corporate welfare gravy train is stopping. It takes more courage to tell the fat cat who isn't hurting for anything that in order to take care of the less fortunate, basic food, shelter and medical when they need it, you just can't have your wealthy industry subsidized, or even pony up a bit more.
Frankly, I think the number of people who simply 'use' the system, as you say, is pretty small. And I'm thinking you would be surprised who is on that list.
No I did not mean this post to be about the SS medicare vet and such, I should have stated that.
I am peeved today. I have a family member who has worked the system imo many times over. Today alone was a converstaion about the cable premium bundle package. I mention the cell phone they have, OH that is a government supplied phone he says. My mouth drops open. I have watched so many things they have used/taken in the last many years, that now they feel entitled. I see the vacations and sporting events, newer car purchase last week. All while getting reduced lunches for the kids.........I know this is the tip of the iceburg or maybe they are the only ones.
awakenedsoul
10-16-12, 4:51pm
Lately I've been meeting people in California who are on disability. It's a little disturbing. One stays home and does arts and crafts all day. She told me excitedly that she had had a stroke and heart attack, and that the doctor said that she can't work anymore. She's very energetic and enthusiastic about knitting, beading, crocheting, etc...She and her mother are hoarders. They're very nice, but the home is depressing.
The other woman told me that she worked for CPS and went on "medical leave" because they were overloading her with cases. She teaches knitting and is trying to sell knitting needles and supplies on line. She is very smart, capable, and experienced.
I believe there are a lot of people doing this. My SIL was able to get a doctor's note during her pregnancy for disability. She stayed home and made notecards. (She hated her job.) Some people really know how to work the system.
I have a couple of friends who really are disabled. (One broke his neck during a rehearsal, the other fell 50 feet through a trap door during a show, due to a stage manager's error.) It's such a difference to see their situations.)
I know there are a lot of people who need assistance. I just also feel there are many in California who are collecting disability, when they could work.
It's my guess the real users among us are balanced out by those who, though legitimately needy, don't seek help.
Agree. And it's my guess that for every one of these cases where the system is "abused" (and I always have to keep in mind there's no way for me to truly know) there are probably five more people in your life who have used the safety net to get themselves through a hard patch and you will never know, because they are too ashamed to admit it.
I have horror stories just like everyone else. But I still choose to think abuses are the exception rather than the rule.
I'm ALL for tightening up the requirements to receive government aid. I think many of these should go through a mandatory, supervised overhaul and should start yesterday. I do think it's too slack in a lot of cases. But that's not the same as gutting these programs, which is what's being proposed in many places across the country. To me, people who propose changing the system by simply taking away funding (not accompanied by reforms to ensure the program's still there for people who depend on it) are just as lazy -- or lazier -- than the people they are pointing fingers at.
catherine
10-16-12, 5:46pm
DH and I were watching "Capitalism: A Love Story"--the Michael Moore movie. I liked it, and definitely was in sync with him on a lot of things. But he had one part where a family had been evicted from their home after the housing bust, and then the local neighbors organized and moved the family back into their home. Moore's movie made it seem like the family had every right to be there and that Bank of America had no right to claim its assets. Believe me, I'm not a fan of BofA at all, but I can't really side with people who haven't paid their mortgage in years, either. (From what I understand, the Trody family continues to live there. They hadn't paid their mortgage in 3 years before the eviction, and they have yet to pay it).
My DH did a video for the AARP to lobby against Christie's property tax programs for seniors. He made it a real tear jerker (he's great at doing that), but frankly, the video's theme, that every senior has a right to their homes whether or not they can afford them, was something I could not buy into. If you can't afford your house, get a cheaper one.
In general, I HATE attitudes of entitlement, but I still believe in the "entitlement" social programs of SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
ApatheticNoMore
10-16-12, 5:52pm
Perhaps they see a system nakedly slanted against them at every turn. They see stuff like: banks get bailed out, underwater homeowners mostly not bailed although some are sitting in their houses for a couple years paying no mortgage (that's a good scam if you can do it), honest homeowners paying through the nose, new potential homeowners priced out by every trick in the book. Housing is only an example I'm using here for a MUCH larger system of graft and corruption. They see stuff like this again and again, how playing by the rules means playing the fool, and it's enough to make anyone want to cheat the system.
and I believe people with kids will go on it sooner than a single person.
there are not many programs someone without kids qualifies for, very few and very far between. We childless people are just here to pay most of the taxes, that's why we were put on earth see ... :~)
I am peeved today. I have a family member who has worked the system imo many times over.
Family members can be some pretty bad examples. Trust me there is nothing on earth to kill ones faith in humanity like family, that's my quote of the day. Of strangers I can assume the best, of family members well .... no.
Big business hire staff whose job it is to know and acquire everything they are "entitled" to from the government.
ToomuchStuff
10-16-12, 6:59pm
I know of more bad cases then good. I believe that in a lot of cases, that MAY (doesn't mean is) mean that those who really need it, don't want the stigma of it. (at least locally) A good portion of the abuse cases that I hear, are from generationers (ones who have learned how to abuse the system from their parents/spouses/neighbors/friends). I believe that is the closest your going to find to an answer to your question.
I know what a basic cell phone goes for, as mine, if I started new, would cost $100 a year. Yet in an area that is known for "welfare kings/queens" (a term I had never heard before an above post), the state pays more then that and they have "smart phones" which are a lot more then a basic phone, that is what was supposed to be provided. I frequently hear about the selling food for drug busts, etc. between a friend who works at the grocery store in the middle of that area, as well as local law enforcement.
The ones we think of as abuse cases, are typically nosier (flagrant).
Whenever you have social programs designed to help victims of genuine misfortune, there are always going to be some who will abuse those programs. Obviously, you do all you can to minimize such abuses. Yes, seeing people bilk the system is infuriating, but I'm not willing, for example, to penalize poor children even in cases where their parents are largely to blame for their own predicament. And I'm certainly not willing to withold help from people who are sick or unemployed through no fault of their own because a few get benefits they don't deserve.
I also think ApatheticNoMore raises an excellent point about differing levels of fraud. I don't like paying taxes to support welfare, but I dislike paying taxes to support corporate welfare even more. Five years ago gangs of crooks in the financial industry brought the world economy to the brink of collapse and the taxpayers bailed them out. To date, there hasn't been a single criminal action brought against any of these bozos. Seeing this, a worker with a mild injury milking Social Security disability might be excused for not feeling terribly guilty.
Zoe Girl
10-17-12, 12:57pm
I was just thinking as I was driving today about how it would be interesting to look at 3 facts going into this election (although I am not sure how relevant this would be to others)
* who got bailed out and how much
* a couple years later how many people they employ at a living wage
* and how many top management are still earning what they did or close to that.
I just want to know that the bail outs actually in data show they worked in employing people at a living wage so that they do not need assistance. I can assume my answer but data may prove me right or wrong.
San Onofre Guy
10-17-12, 1:20pm
I see abuse in my line of work. The vast majority of people on assistance deserve the assistance. I do see many people living in subsidized housing with their "common law" spouse. They don't get married as if they did they would earn too much to receive housing assistance, AFDC, Food Stamps, Free Lunch, public healthcare. They drive new cars which are in the spouses name and go on expensive vacations. This abuse is not caught because when the social worker visits with the recipient, the visit is scheduled and the spouse is at work and evidence of his living there is hidden.
There will always be people taking advantage of the system.
In California it takes a lot more than a doctors note to go on disability. I would guess it is the same in most states.
I read today on yahoo of a Mexican drug lord's daughter caught at the border trying to cross so she could have her baby in the US. I think of all the "taking advantage of the system" abuses, this is the kind that bothers me the most. I don't know that people who scam feel entitled; I think they just like a good deal. Human nature.
iris lily
10-17-12, 3:07pm
In California it takes a lot more than a doctors note to go on disability. I would guess it is the same in most states.
People use "disability" to mean several things. Getting onto a regular income stream from the Social Security Administration due to disability is difficult and will not happen with a doctor's note.
Getting time off from work due to real or imagined physical/mental impairment by employee or family member is a cake walk. All ya need is a physician's note.
Lately I've been meeting people in California who are on disability. It's a little disturbing. One stays home and does arts and crafts all day. She told me excitedly that she had had a stroke and heart attack, and that the doctor said that she can't work anymore. She's very energetic and enthusiastic about knitting, beading, crocheting, etc...She and her mother are hoarders. They're very nice, but the home is depressing.
The other woman told me that she worked for CPS and went on "medical leave" because they were overloading her with cases. She teaches knitting and is trying to sell knitting needles and supplies on line. She is very smart, capable, and experienced.
I believe there are a lot of people doing this. My SIL was able to get a doctor's note during her pregnancy for disability. She stayed home and made notecards. (She hated her job.) Some people really know how to work the system.
I have a couple of friends who really are disabled. (One broke his neck during a rehearsal, the other fell 50 feet through a trap door during a show, due to a stage manager's error.) It's such a difference to see their situations.)
I know there are a lot of people who need assistance. I just also feel there are many in California who are collecting disability, when they could work.
Sounds like people who were miserable with their jobs, are burned out, and grateful for a break. I've been grateful for unemployment when the job that ended was horrible. In my belief, no one has "entitlement thinking". I believe that we each & all want to belong, to be seen as valued for who we are, and to have our talents and passion valued. I also believe that we live in a society where such belonging is the exception rather than the rule, and that many many of us feel dissed for who we are. Hard to not welcome some relief when it shows up.
Gardenarian
10-17-12, 3:58pm
One of the biggest entitlement programs is the mortgage deduction, one that most people overlook.
One of the biggest entitlement programs is the mortgage deduction, one that most people overlook.
Word. And one I am attached to!
I don't know how disability works in the civilian world, but for veterans who are getting money for a service connected disability (a disability or injury that occured directly from their time in the service) it's not based on whether or not you can work, it's based on a "loss" you suffered - both the kind and degree of that injury. They even have charts that will show lines thru different parts of the body with rating for your disability. Looks like one of those charts they have at the butcher to show the different cuts of beef. Lost one arm, you get this percent. Lost 2 arms, you get that percent, etc.. So even if someone CAN work, they are entitled to get disability of a certain percent for life. And even if they CAN work, they still may not be able to work in the same profession as they did before, and often can not stay in the military any longer.
So maybe this is the same in the civilian world of disability. People get paid for the loss they suffered thru their injury - as well as compensated for not being able to work in their profession any longer - but are fit and healthy enough to work at some kind of job - maybe a lower paying one. I don't know if that is correct or not though and may not be the case.
As for things like SS. medicare, unemployment, etc... I personally don't consider them entitlement programs as you had to earn them somehow - generally thru working a large portion of your life.
decemberlov
10-17-12, 4:18pm
I know of more bad cases then good. I believe that in a lot of cases, that MAY (doesn't mean is) mean that those who really need it, don't want the stigma of it. (at least locally) A good portion of the abuse cases that I hear, are from generationers (ones who have learned how to abuse the system from their parents/spouses/neighbors/friends). I believe that is the closest your going to find to an answer to your question.
I know what a basic cell phone goes for, as mine, if I started new, would cost $100 a year. Yet in an area that is known for "welfare kings/queens" (a term I had never heard before an above post), the state pays more then that and they have "smart phones" which are a lot more then a basic phone, that is what was supposed to be provided. I frequently hear about the selling food for drug busts, etc. between a friend who works at the grocery store in the middle of that area, as well as local law enforcement.
The ones we think of as abuse cases, are typically nosier (flagrant).
I'm shocked that the government is paying for phones for people. Let alone smart phones. How does this even make sense?!
When I was pregnant with my daughter I was fired from my job...I was 6 months pregnant (I spent a lot of time getting sick in the bathroom and this was not okay with my boss). 2 weeks later my name came up for a brand new townhouse that goes by your income. They told me they wouldn't be able to give it to me without any income and if I wanted the place I needed to go apply for welfare. I did and I got my place. It was an absolute blessing.
After my daughter was born and was 3 months old I decided I wanted to go back to work. I was only receiving $400.00 a month from the state. I knew that I was capable of making this much in a week. I went to the welfare office, thanked them for the help they had given me and asked to cancel it. I was absolutely taken back by how they treated me. I was made to sign some forms and was told that by me signing those forms and asking to be taken off of welfare that they would never, EVER help me again with any sort of help be it food stamps etc. I was so angry and confused! I honestly can not say what I did sign and if this is even true or if they were just trying to scare me. I never looked back and don't plan on it so I guess (hopefully) I will never know if they were bluffing or not I used them as a stepping stone like they were intended. I was 18 years old with a 3 month old child living on my own. I am grateful for the assistance at the time and don't feel a bit guilty about accepting the help.
I get really upset when I hear about people abusing the system. I know a girl that was receiving food stamps for her and her 5 children and her husband, he at the time was collecting unemployment from a union job..he made $750.00 a week on unemployment and they would buy filet mignon and lobster with the food stamps money they would receive. I couldn't for the life of me figure out how they were even eligible for them in the first place!
I kind of mentioned it in another post today, but my feeling is that our society is so heavily subsidized that we are all "entitled". Even those who rail against welfare mommas and section 8 deadbeats and whatever other misinterpreted stereotype you care to conjure up. We expect cheap gas and cheap food and cheap power and cheap healthcare and free roads and free schools and on and on. It is extremely difficult to find things in our lives that have not been subsidized by a government program at some point. Yes, we all know nothing's really free, but the way we borrow from the future to pay for today keeps the current cost of everything so (artificially) low that it might as well be. To me that's the REAL entitlement. Economically those subsidies dwarf medicare, ss, unemployment, food stamps, mortgage interest deductions, welfare or any other program we can name. Unfortunately they are a house of cards, too.
I'm shocked that the government is paying for phones for people. Let alone smart phones. How does this even make sense?
http://obamaphone.net/
Yea, its pretty crazy.
I think that once a person gets over the shame of needing welfare, then it becomes an easier way than going to work.
Many of the single parents whom I know here are supported by welfare. The benefits are actually really big. There's a living stipend, the food stipend, and then the stipend for the child's clothing, school supplies, etc. For children under school age, there is also a day-care stipend for 3 days of free care in order for you to work, and 5 days if you get a full time job.
If you are working, how much you earn affects how much you can get on these stipends, so most single parents whom I know work the minimum number of hours.
It does create a comfortable lifestyle. All of them work 1.5 days on average earning about minimum wage, which allows them to get the maximum stipends. While their homes aren't fancy, they can afford to rent an average family-sized home (2-3 bedrooms -- about 1200 sq ft) on the stipend, as well as feed their families (if they shop frugally). Using tip shops and savvy shopping, clothing themselves and their children is also easy (a lot of people here have capsule wardrobes!).
The rest of their time can be spent enjoying the outdoors or the many free cultural events around town. Most of them indulge in quiz night -- which are usually fund raisers for schools and the like anyway, so any money they spend is deductable, and doesn't impact their stipends.
Honestly, while I love my work and never ant to be on welfare (and support welfare services), I can see why the average employee (as opposed to the entrepreneur) would choose this easier lifestyle over working 40-50 hr work weeks to create opportunities for themselves and their children over time (you know, which is what middle class people do).
Here, the stipend allows a family to live in a comfortable, middle class way (so it does defeat many of the aspects of poverty, which I think is great), but without the middle class struggle of working diligently, saving diligently, and being able to support yourself comfortably.
There are a lot of good things about having this welfare system -- similar to the one in denmark -- which is that while there are rich and poor (and 270,000 NZ children currently still go hungry), overall it is socially flattened, so the more extreme problems of poverty are basically unheard of here.
The down side is that people do live comfortably, and so they aren't really "giving back" per se.
That being said, people on welfare pay GST on everything just like everyone else, and when they work (unless self employed and earning under a certain amount), they also pay income taxes on their pay checks. So, in that way, they are still 'supporting the system' from which they take.
So while they might not be "giving back" in terms of GNP and the like, they are still putting into the system that they are using. So I think that's good.
Also, according to a lot of documentation, fraud of the system in the US is under 4% (or was it .4%) anyway -- there are government statistics about it out there somewhere.
decemberlov
10-17-12, 4:39pm
http://obamaphone.net/
Yea, its pretty crazy.
DH showed me this video the other day I honestly thought it was a joke until now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
Gardenarian
10-17-12, 6:05pm
The phone situation is much more complex than this. Please read this article on Snopes which clarifies the issue: Phone Home (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp)
iris lily
10-17-12, 6:49pm
The phone situation is much more complex than this. Please read this article on Snopes which clarifies the issue: Phone Home (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp)
I did read it. The number people with LifeLine (i.e. gooberment program phones ) increased from 7 million to 12 million during the tenure of Barack Obama.
That the subsidy doesn't come from the tax base but instead is a goobermnet mandated tax on communication services, well--if you think that is better, OK!
Considering that public pay phones are disappearing in favor of cells (during the tenure of Barack Obama), I can see where this program makes sense. Something like my ten dollar pay as you go phone should be sufficient.
ApatheticNoMore
10-17-12, 7:39pm
That the subsidy doesn't come from the tax base but instead is a goobermnet mandated tax on communication services, well--if you think that is better, OK!
The companies aren't paying. It's one of the lines of taxes on every phone bill, it's only on there every month.
SteveinMN
10-17-12, 7:45pm
I kind of mentioned it in another post today, but my feeling is that our society is so heavily subsidized that we are all "entitled". Even those who rail against welfare mommas and section 8 deadbeats and whatever other misinterpreted stereotype you care to conjure up. We expect cheap gas and cheap food and cheap power and cheap healthcare and free roads and free schools and on and on. It is extremely difficult to find things in our lives that have not been subsidized by a government program at some point.
Exactly right. The New York Times ran an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www&_r=0) some months ago on an outstate-Minnesota town where they examined where U.S. government tax dollars were spent and then asked the residents what they thought of "safety net" benefit programs. It was surprising to find out just how many people were receiving government benefits -- but didn't think they were: aid to learning-disabled kids, farm subsidies, mortgage-interest deductions, ...:
He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. [snip]
Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.
Many of the benefits and tax breaks created over the years are there to encourage particular behaviors. Unraveling them will take a long time and may lead to consequences many did not anticipate. I wonder if we, as a population, really are up to it.
ApatheticNoMore
10-17-12, 8:06pm
Subsidies in terms of cheap oil and stuff sure, living off the future environmentally, I can't argue. Otherwise, no I'm not subsidized and I know I'm just a cow to be milked in the spring for the farmer's profit, and slaughtered for meat when I get too old probably. They'll take most of what are called "entitlements" away from my generation, mark my word.
I get what gregg is saying, we're living off the future, but we're not all taking entitlements proper. It's like I have a sibling who has lived off my parents their entire life (still do), at least 8 years past the age when I was long since moved out on my own, and my parents pay everytime they get in trouble and they get in lots and lots and lots of trouble, costing thousands at every pop, we are talking over 100k here total, no joke. Then if I ever bring it up, it's like "apathetic is the same way, you paid for her dinner once .....".
awakenedsoul
10-17-12, 9:24pm
When I was dancing professionally, I would go on unemployment between jobs. We paid into it when we were working, and so did our employer. We used to refer to it as "Unenjoyment." I don't see it as the same.
I don't have the mortgage interest deduction, because my tiny and inexpensive home is paid off. (Suze Orman style.)
I would like to see people budget carefully, buy smaller homes, have the number of children they can afford, save money, and live beneath their means. Many people used to live this way. We have more control than we realize.
Government assistance that I have received so far in my life:
Food stamps for 2 months while transitioning from being married to single mom/student.
4 years of government subsidied loans for my nursing degree.
mortgage interest deductions
farm subsidies (when I was co-owner of a factory hog farm)
Earned income tax credit for having too many children
tax credit for buying a hybrid car
I have not looked for these programs...but when they have benefited my family, I have taken advanage of them.
Over the course of my life so far, I think I have paid in more than I have taken out. But you Rebublican, non-parent persons may have a different perspective. :)
http://obamaphone.net/
Yea, its pretty crazy.
check snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
edited: sorry Gardenarian, I didn't see your post on this.
Time magazine Sept. 17 issue cover story was "One Nation Subsidized - How Big Government underwrites your life."
The author, a young married father of two, pointed out the subsidies he gets (and many of us get) that we don't even realize, including:
billions spent by fed gov't to provide clean water; cotton subsidies approaching $1.3 Billion a year; home office tax deductions; energy subsidies totaling more than $138 Billion a year to defray electricity costs; Charitable tax deductions; Depreciation of business property like computers and other capital goods cost the feds $5.7 Billion in 2011; Deductions for health care expenses; Home mortgage interest deductions = $84 Billion/year; subsidies for energy efficient home improvements; Federally subsidized home flood insurance; etc. etc.
Basically we're all moochers in one way or another, if that's how we want to look at it.
iris lily
10-17-12, 10:20pm
The companies aren't paying. It's one of the lines of taxes on every phone bill, it's only on there every month.
Yes I said it's a "...mandated tax on communication services". You call it "phone bill" I call it "communication services."
iris lily
10-17-12, 10:29pm
As for things like SS. medicare, unemployment, etc... I personally don't consider them entitlement programs as you had to earn them somehow - generally thru working a large portion of your life.
But they are generally considered "entitlement programs" when having conversations about the Federal budget. It's just a policy term and means "...guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation." There's nothing wrong with calling them that.
But certainly in any discussion about Federal delivered human services the word "entitlement" gets bandied about and ya gotta define your terms.
I point that out a great deal.
While not on direct assistance such as these programs, we do benefit from ACC (our national health care system here), as well as education subsidies. In NZ, all schools are supported by the government. ALL of them. Which means that the private school that my son goes to is a "special character" school and as such, they charge "special character donation." this donation is tax deductable and they also can't force you to pay it. Our school has $500 mandatory, non-tax deductable "processing fee" -- which is essentially what constitutes the tuition for the school. Everything else counts as "fund raising."
this means that in stead of staying in the US and paying $6k/annum for DS's schooling at this age, $10k/annum during grades, and $14k annum junior high and onwards, I pay $500 minimum and they "ask" that you donate $2k more per year (or more if you'd like).
The fact that it's tax deductible too makes it something that the government subsidizes again. There are lots of other ways, too, of course -- roads and police forces, and so on. But food is not subsidized or modestly so, same with power and gas.
I laugh when my friends in the US complain about the price of gas (and usually blame obama for some ignorant reason), liking pictures like "Like if you think gas should cost this much!" and showing a sign from the 1990s when gas was $.89/gal. They complain that -- in their area --it's over $4 per gallon!
oh no! It's over $9/gal here now. And honestly, we don't complain. NZ is heading toward (and preparing for) peak oil. They've been researching how to manage it for the last 5 years, and they've been decreasing the oil subsidy in order to ease people into using less petrol over time. And, people have responded overall. The only major problem is rural bus routes/driving routes and the cost of setting up the other transportation needs in/around cities in addition. So, there are several issues with which they are contending, but yeah.
I keep pointing out that the price of gas has a lot to do with the value of the dollar as compared to back then, the shifting cost and it's relationship to OPEC (and war, etc), the relative supply/demand issues independent of OPEC etc, and so on and so forth.
No, it's really obama's fault (or whomever is president). And gas "should be" only $.89 per gal. Right?
Everyone's a welfare queen these days. LOL
ApatheticNoMore
10-17-12, 11:32pm
The author, a young married father of two, pointed out the subsidies he gets (and many of us get) that we don't even realize, including:
Basically we're all moochers in one way or another, if that's how we want to look at it.
Um we pay taxes, shouldn't we get *something* for it. I mean maybe morally 100% SHOULD go to the military industrial complex, but you know greedy plebs, want a little something back from their tax load. It's not like we're necessarily getting a lot for our taxes considering how much we pay, we frankly get very little, is it really some big problem that some of the taxes, and taxes run 20-25% of my income every year, pays for something we use (like we can use the national parks during the week or two vacation we get a year).
The only big benefits, benefits that may be far more than what was paid, that exist are for the elderly, and they keep moving them further and further out of reach (ie keep raising the retirement age, and I expect more, I fully expect my generation will be on deaths doorstep before we can collect social security).
70% of people that pay income taxes take the standard deduction. Not everyone is getting itemized deductions. That's just the select 30%. We are the 70%.
The only big benefits, benefits that may be far more than what was paid, that exist are for the elderly, and they keep moving them further and further out of reach (ie keep raising the retirement age, and I expect more, I fully expect my generation will be on deaths doorstep before we can collect social security).
70% of people that pay income taxes take the standard deduction. Not everyone is getting itemized deductions. That's just the select 30%. We are the 70%.
That is actually how SS was set up to work, intentional or not. When it started the average retirement age was 65 and I believe the average life expectancy was around 67. The program is in dire straights because retirees are drawing benefits far longer than was ever planned. Bring the life expectancy from the 80's back to the 60's and the problem will solve itself. For some reason that doesn't seem to be a popular political solution.
There are a lot of people in your 70% that would benefit from itemized deductions. My guess is that, as often as not, they don't take them because they are intimidated by the tax code. If you really look at the deductions that can be taken they overwhelmingly favor middle income earners and small businesses. Look at something like a home office deduction. I take one every year and I bet Warren Buffett does, too. That savings of a few thousand dollars means a great deal more to me than it does to him.
Are people who are about to receive "help" or are already getting some, required or offered classes on how to budget?
I watch the family I posted about waste beyond belief, yet I believe they honestly do not have a clue on simple or frugal living. It is actually a sad situation with imo no future hope of ever getting a head in life or changing the ways.
ctg, I think that would be a fundamental part of any reform I would do, if I were Queen. Of course that would add to the bottom line for that program's budget (for trainers, materials, etc.) and that too would be criticized, I'm sure. But wouldn't that be for the best - to help people see how far they can stretch their dollar with some basic lifestyle and "process" changes? There will be some that will just shrug it off, I'm sure, but I know there will also be plenty who will find that incredibly useful, and it would carry over into their regular, non-government-supported lives.
Maybe what the nation needs is a Social Programs Reform Czar, whose job it is to unearth creative and helpful solutions to our bloated and abused systems.
On teaching people, I've often thought that one of my roles in my community is helping people learn simple living and budgeting tactics that aren't painful but offer big rewards. I just don't think people have a clue. Maybe that's my destiny, and maybe that's why I found this online forum to begin with, who knows?
iris lily
10-18-12, 10:13am
ctg, I think that would be a fundamental part of any reform I would do, if I were Queen. Of course that would add to the bottom line for that program's budget (for trainers, materials, etc.) and that too would be criticized, I'm sure. ...
That stuff, training programs, exist up the wazoo now, don't need to wait for you to be Queen. Do you honestly think they don't?
I can't tell you how many "cooking for food stamp recipient" programs exist around here, just to name one area of life skills.
I tire of the meme that this society doesn't fund programs for the poor. We throw tons of money at it. We take on programs recommended by the social workers. That they aren't effective to eliminate poverty isn't my fault.
The poor will always be among us.
Boy you have a big heart iris.
That stuff, training programs, exist up the wazoo now, don't need to wait for you to be Queen. Do you honestly think they don't?
There is a HUGE difference between having all of these resources out floating on the Interwebs for people who are motivated enough to find them, and making benefits contingent on taking education in these areas and on living within certain boundaries. (Naturally, I'm talking about benefits for the poor primarily.)
One of our most successful local organizations offers single moms terrific benefits in schooling, jobseeking assistance, etc. --- all contingent on things like agreeing to be trained in home/life economy, not moving in a baby-daddy, staying employed, etc.
That's what I'm talking about, and it rankles my lefty-liberal friends that I'm in favor of restrictions like that. If those kinds of stringent requirements already exist in federal programs, I'd like to know about it. Then I can stop trying for that tiara :D
decemberlov
10-18-12, 2:26pm
There is a HUGE difference between having all of these resources out floating on the Interwebs for people who are motivated enough to find them, and making benefits contingent on taking education in these areas and on living within certain boundaries. (Naturally, I'm talking about benefits for the poor primarily.)
One of our most successful local organizations offers single moms terrific benefits in schooling, jobseeking assistance, etc. --- all contingent on things like agreeing to be trained in home/life economy, not moving in a baby-daddy, staying employed, etc.
That's what I'm talking about, and it rankles my lefty-liberal friends that I'm in favor of restrictions like that. If those kinds of stringent requirements already exist in federal programs, I'd like to know about it. Then I can stop trying for that tiara :D
I agree Puglogic. Having these things available and making them mandatory in order to still receive assistance are very different. Who knows maybe that would be the deciding factory between people staying on assistance and those that say "screw that, I'm not letting them tell me what to do. I'm gonna go get a job so I don't have to take these bs classes". Who knows....
awakenedsoul
10-18-12, 4:22pm
Are people who are about to receive "help" or are already getting some, required or offered classes on how to budget?
I watch the family I posted about waste beyond belief, yet I believe they honestly do not have a clue on simple or frugal living. It is actually a sad situation with imo no future hope of ever getting a head in life or changing the ways.
That's the sad thing, the cycle. There are many books at the library that can teach you how to plan budget, and save money. I think it's really an internal shift. I like your idea of mandatory classes.
decemberlov
10-18-12, 4:38pm
Also, I've talked to some people older than me that said some of these classes, budgeting, explaining interest on credit cards etc were mandatory classes in high school. They definitely were not in mine. I think these classes should be given before people find themselves in extremely difficult situations.
My 13 year old daughter and I joke that she is part of the "deeerrr" (as in "duh") generation (her joke, not mine lol). Not that my generation is any better >8)
Maxamillion
10-18-12, 5:32pm
Here's a question: If poor people are getting so much money in benefits then...why are they still poor?
I think the classes are a great idea. Nothing like that is offered around here.
I think that the idea of having people who have less and people who have more will definitely always be among us. I think that this is appropriate -- or maybe just how the world works. It's largely a state of mind anyway, imo (hard to explain, but . . .).
But, I think when we are talking about these various social services (both government and charitable), we are looking for a method to keep our population as a whole -- our fellow citizenry, our "tribe" so to speak -- from experiencing the problems that abject poverty creates. The issues of excessive pollution, disease, disability, and how that aspect of poverty can get so severe that it inhibits the society's growth and development (overall health) as a whole.
So, when we look at situations such as the real poverty in, say, a refugee camp in darfur. . . we are looking at a place where humans are strugglign to live day to day and their real, vibrant human potential cannot be tapped for the betterment of society. If we can, therefore, provide for them the basics -- basic safety, basic medical care, basic clean water, basic food, basic shelter, and even basic education -- then we -- as a society -- can tap into the amazing "resource" of those human beings. . . their potential to really bring value to our society as a whole.
In the US, as here, most of the population has this situation due to a combination of both government and charitable opportunities. These systems are designed to provide the basics in order to allow the society to "tap into" the potentials of these individuals.
The reality is, though, that not all individuals are good social resources in some way. Some of them are simply lazy. It's just a bare fact of the human condition. Some of them are actively "scamming" the system because they feel "owed" somehow. It's just another bare fact of the human condition.
But most of the people on this system, or receiving these benefits, are just decent people. Honestly. And more importantly -- to me at least -- is that their *children* get a hand-up. A lot of impoverished children grow up to be great assets to the society as a whole and their communities.
A good friend of mine is a self-made (no college) IT professional. His mother was on welfare most of his life. His brother is a cocaine addict currently in jail. his mother was also an alcoholic (she recently passed). her entire estate was liquidated to pay debts. But my friend is a high-level clearance IT professional who commands a good income. He owns his own home outright. He volunteers with a dog rescue organization and rescues the "hardest cases" and prepares them for adoption (usually to adult males without families). He's involved in teaching yoga and marital arts in impoverished neighborhoods to give kids a chance to step out of the "mentality of poverty" as he calls it. He talks to them about how he grew up on welfare, but now he's working as a top-level professional. He never went to college, so even that isn't a barrier, he tells them.
So, those services provided to his mother -- who may have just been a lazy user of the system herself -- actually provided him with the basics in life that he could get himself OUT of poverty and be an asset to the community. And *THAT* is the real investment of these social programs. That is the ROI.
The real issues under question for me is what is that lowest bar? I would say that in Denmark, that lowest bar of those who have less is higher than in the US. In my opinion, the same is true here in NZ. There are rich, there are poor -- there are some abject poor -- but for the most part, the majority of the poor on services can lead basically middle-class styled lives and their *children* have the opportunity to be a real asset tot he community, even if they -- themselves -- are not, or are only marginally so (working only part time, not volunteering, etc).
In the US, the bar is set pretty low. But, aspects of it -- like the phones -- are set really high. There are aspects where not everyone is covered, and that lack of coverage can create great risk for people (particularly the middle class -- and I'm speaking of health care). So, it might just be looking at the whole process and asking ourselves -- is this the right level? Is that?
I would like to see schools funded equally. It's still going to mean that some are going to be 'better' than others (it's true here, even though all schools are funded equally). But, it at least means that the *basic* education and facilities are roughly the same and meet the same standard of adequacy.
I would like to see a better medical care system. I like the ACC system a lot. Everyone puts in; everyone benefits. You can carry your own health insurance if you want (which lets you jump the line, not worry about paying for dental for example. . . though you are really paying one way or another, right?). I would like to see all american's have basic coverage like medicaid/care/CHIP (or, like the senate?). And then from there, the person can choose to utilize it or not. I don't think that this is a "big government!" or "socialist!" thing.
Overall, I'd rather our tax dollars be spent less on war machines and more on our citizenry and making sure that our military is adequate (for defense rather than offensive positions) and well taken care of (i believe our military -- active and vets -- just keep getting the shaft and it's seriously uncool), but otherwise, we can decrease the war-machine spending and spend more on our infrastructure, development of business, arts and other cultural sectors, and of course, making sure that our citizenry has the basics.
Great post, Zoebird. +++1
iris lily
10-18-12, 9:42pm
...
...Overall, I'd rather our tax dollars be spent less on war machines and more on our citizenry and making sure that our military is adequate (for defense rather than offensive positions) and well taken care of (i believe our military -- active and vets -- just keep getting the shaft and it's seriously uncool), but otherwise, we can decrease the war-machine spending and spend more on our infrastructure, development of business, arts and other cultural sectors, and of course, making sure that our citizenry has the basics.
I don't think NZ spends much on war machines at all. Prove me wrong. How much of the GNP goes there?
iris lily
10-18-12, 9:46pm
...Many of the benefits and tax breaks created over the years are there to encourage particular behaviors. Unraveling them will take a long time and may lead to consequences many did not anticipate. I wonder if we, as a population, really are up to it.
No we are not. Sadly, those with common sense on both sides of the political spectrum know it won't happen, certainly not with the entrenched parties.
Close your eyes, plug you nose, and start voting Libertarian or for Ron Paul.
iris lily
10-18-12, 9:53pm
Boy you have a big heart iris.
Well free, tell me how much it will cost to remove the poor, permanently and irrevocably, from our midst. Tell me what my personal tax bill will be. Go ahead, what is the cost? Then, I will tell you if my "heart" (more likely my pocketbook ) will allow that.
I am deeply skeptical that $1 million per person would eradicate poor people. Give them the money. Watch what happens.
What do you think, free?
ApatheticNoMore
10-18-12, 10:05pm
I'm sure if you gave the poor money all their life they wouldn't be poor. That is of course not the intent of any policy, the alleged intent is to temporarily give them help so that they can move up in the world and not need it anymore. Not that that is working very well. To some extent how can it for everyone? Are there really enough good paying jobs that noone has to be at least a member of the working poor?
freein05
10-18-12, 10:22pm
Well free, tell me how much it will cost to remove the poor, permanently and irrevocably, from our midst. Tell me what my personal tax bill will be. Go ahead, what is the cost? Then, I will tell you if my "heart" (more likely my pocketbook ) will allow that.
I am deeply skeptical that $1 million per person would eradicate poor people. Give them the money. Watch what happens.
What do you think, free?
We could let them starve or not provide ER care for them. The ER part would save everyone money on their health insurance costs. Why does everything come down to your tax bill? I am so tired if hearing the tax word from Republicans. Stop taxing everyone if that is what it takes to stop the use of the word.
SteveinMN
10-18-12, 10:24pm
Close your eyes, plug you nose, and start voting Libertarian or for Ron Paul.
Not a chance.
Maybe it's a personality failing of mine (that I am willing fully to accept), but I find that "survival of the fittest" works far better as an evolutionary principle than a way to run a country.
Yes, the poor will always be with us. So will the disabled. So will the young and dependent. The pot of money is not endless. However, it appalls me that there are so many in this country who are so busy nervously guarding their own meager portion of seed corn that they are afraid to fight the pirates who have cornered the corn market and they feel they have to deny corn to people who cannot get their own (even a little). Fear is a powerful motivator, and some political thought leaders have done such a good job instilling unfounded fear that they have taken the humanity out of our society.
awakenedsoul
10-18-12, 10:26pm
This is a really interesting thread. Great post, Zoebird. If you look at people who win the lottery, often they spend all the money right away. They don't know how to manage money, protect it, invest it, and make it grow. We see this with professional athletes, too. What really got me clear with money was owning a business, and then receiving an inheritance. All of a sudden I realized that by 2011, I didn't want to put "my" money into my business. There's a different feeling to "other people's money," whether that means a grant, scholarship, loan, government assistance, etc...I had paid everyone back, but I didn't want to take a risk after seeing the direction of my profit and loss statements.
I really believe finances are a skill. I spent a lot of time reading, studying, and tracking to finally see my mistakes and self destructive patterns with money. I think when people are low income they treat themselves because they feel like they are working hard and they deserve it. (Even if they can't afford it.) I used to feel that way and overspend on groceries at Trader Joes's. There are a lot of psychological issues that surround money: deservability, self esteem, fear, etc...I remember Dr. Phil telling a couple who were overspending, "It's just math. But, some people won't do the math and face the music. People get into habits.
iris lily
10-18-12, 10:37pm
.... Why does everything come down to your tax bill?
Ok, whatever. Let the US just continue to print money it doesn't have. I give up.
. Stop taxing everyone if that is what it takes to stop the use of the word. I don't even know what this means.
iris lily
10-18-12, 10:38pm
...Yes, the poor will always be with us. So will the disabled. So will the young and dependent. The pot of money is not endless.....
Well we can at least agree on that. Stwp 1.
Ok, whatever. Let the US just continue to print money it doesn't have. I give up.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8N0ShIjtsjw/UEfIT6SieGI/AAAAAAAAGNM/V5kSJS_WEFc/s640/Awesomized.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-sRjREpXrEJ0/UEfIP-qHIoI/AAAAAAAAGNU/4VosjuxXOIo/s640/Awesomized.jpg
decemberlov
10-18-12, 11:31pm
I have the 100 trillion dollar bill hanging above my desk just as a reminder..
freein05
10-18-12, 11:56pm
I agree we can not continue spending like we have been doing. We need a balanced approach to balancing the budget. Cuts in spending and additional taxes. Don't put all of the spending cuts on the back of the poor. I would first start cutting defense spending. I sure would not increase it like Romney wants to do. Once the economy turns around that will help to increase revenue. The rich have done very good during these last four years. I see nothing wrong with taking taxes up to the level they were in Clinton's time. Clinton a Democrat was the last president to balance the budget! An increase in taxes to the Clinton level would not affect most of us on this board. Look at Romney he made 25 million dollars in 2011 and his tax rate was 14%. I would guess a lot of the people on this board paid more than 14% of their income in taxes. I did not. I paid less because most of my income comes from qualified dividends and interest. I would not mind paying more in taxes if it went to help people and not the military industrial complex.
Reagen is really the one who started us on the debt gravy train. We won the cold war weapons race under him but ended up with a pile of debt that continued to grow until Clinton. Then Bush 2 hit a home run when it comes to debt.
BayouGirl
10-18-12, 11:57pm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/jasper.asp
This woman is a perfect example of how entitlement went wrong. Here is an able bodied woman who has worked only ONE year out of her 60 plus years on earth. Working just wasn't for her and she wouldn't wish it on any of her family either. Meanwhile she complains she lives in a slum and click on link to see how nice "slums" are these days. Apparently "slums" have pretty hardwood floors, are recently renovated and spacious and have 60 inch TVs in them.
I worked in the inner city of New Orleans. My students mostly live in the projects. I brought my young son to work with me one day and as we passed the projects, he exclaimed "There must be rich people living there, look at all the fancy cars". I had many parents want me to help them get a "crazy check" (social security disability) for their child. The child would be perfectly healthy but if I could write a letter about their bad behavior then they could go to the doctor and apply for a "crazy check" (their words, not mine).
This is the kind of stuff that gets to me. These people were raising their children to expect something for nothing and that working was for "suckers". You know, suckers like me who pay taxes so they can get all those things they feel entitled to.
freein05
10-19-12, 12:03am
We fond a welfare Queen. Thank you BayouGirl.
ToomuchStuff
10-19-12, 12:29am
This is the kind of stuff that gets to me.
This is the kind of stuff that gets to most everyone. SCUM and I know several people who feel those like this and other criminals (this is stealing in a lot of people views) should be shot in the street and left out in the sun as an example.
Now, how many people here, haven't been poor?
Off the top of my head, I only know of three people who have/had trust funds. And only one for sure, can I say had $1,000,000 in it before his first birthday. Most people have been broke/poor. You turn 18 and you can have no home, if your smart, you have a little money (but it isn't much), transportation, etc. If your really lucky, you have help with school, or are in good enough shape, that the military is an option. (neither in my case)
You get what you get, no two ways about it. What you do with it, with a mix of luck (both self made and not) and skills/connections, etc., is up to you.
ApatheticNoMore
10-19-12, 3:19am
Meanwhile she complains she lives in a slum and click on link to see how nice "slums" are these days. Apparently "slums" have pretty hardwood floors, are recently renovated and spacious and have 60 inch TVs in them
The t.v. is huge and if all she is complaining about is the scratches on the floor haha, but I once had hardwood floors, parts of the wood was slowly rotting away from the building having major leakage problems, they had termite damage, they grew a mushroom out of the wood itself (a sign of rotting wood if anything) EVERY winter, so every winter this large mushroom would grow out of my floor. I researched mushrooms that grow out of rotting wood to learn about my new companion. Yea, suffice to say I am not impressed by the luxery of hardwood to put it mildly! I prefer fake stuff. It wasn't a slum, I wasn't poor, it was just a bad poorly maintained apartment (could probably fairly call the landlord a slumlord though for not doing the maintenance on that dump!).
BaYouGirl:"crazy check" (social security disability) for their child. The child would be perfectly healthy but if I could write a letter about their bad behavior then they could go to the doctor and apply for a "crazy check" (their words, not mine).
OMG this family I posted about gets this too, I know these kids and there is nothing that I can see is an issue when we are all together at grandmas. I put the pieces together (took me a while) the mom im me last year saying they got the "money" for the kids. I had no idea what that was till lately. The kids have ADD I guess they got classified as. Yet the sports they play 4 nights a week eats up the money. They were hoping to get the oldest to "free" college.The paper work was being filled out, since if the child is on assistance for 2 years there is a possibilty for this. WT*.
PS the folks have MBAs
I don't think NZ spends much on war machines at all. Prove me wrong. How much of the GNP goes there?
In NZ, I have no idea. In the US, the majority.
Since I'm still filing taxes (though currently I don't have any income to be taxed or that is at the taxable level yet) and voting there, I still have a 'stake' in what is going on in the US. And that's what I'm talking about.
After all, I was born and raised in the US, paid US taxes for the 10 years that I lived/worked post graduation (and some during school when I worked -- btu much less), and put into social security, and so on. So, I am "vested" even if . . . Romney was right and people just took their businesses off shore because it looked more attractive. :)
In NZ, I have no idea. In the US, the majority.
That would actually be 4.7% for the United States in 2011 and 1.1% for NZ.
In NZ, I have no idea. In the US, the majority.
Do you honestly believe that?
Part of the problem of the dialectic of politics these days is that things get lost.
The problem that I see with the dialectic is the assumption that if you are *for* social programs, then you are *against* fiscal responsibility at the governmental level. Likewise, if you want lower taxes and fiscal responsibility, it's because you do not believe in social programs.
Both are false, and the reality is actually quite different.
First, the parties simply have different perspectives on how things should go. Republicans -- ostensibly -- assert that they want a smaller federal government and that the states can do wahtever they want. They are looking to cut federal funding of various programming because they do not believe at the most essential level (at least, traditionally speaking) that these elements should be handled at the federal level, but at the state level. Therefore, federal funding for schools goes kaput, which that isn't part of the federal spending budget, which means that they can cut taxes.
The democrats see it differently. They assert that there should be more national cohesion, and as such these programs should have federal origin. To make sure that poorer states get what richer states are able to create (by way of having a wealthier populace, a larger populace, more natural resources in that state, whatever), we run federal programs to balance that out. As such, the budget is larger, and therefore you have to pay higher federal taxes.
At the most basic level, no one is saying "lets be unbalanced and overspend!" and no one is saying "social programs are stupid; let people starve!" At the most basic level, the parties are saying "this is not a federal issue, we can cut it, and then if we have more revenue than we need, we can cut the taxes." and "this is an issue that is federal, so we should support it, and as such, we need the tax rate to be X in order to support this."
In both instances, the desire is to run a balanced budget -- to be fiscally responsible -- while also meeting the underlying goals of what they think the federal government is for.
The real elephant in the room, though (and no pun here. i actually just mean it as the common phrase) is the neocon agenda of military interventionism. It is expensive, and I have to ask -- is it really what Americans believe in?
Most people don't know the history or relevance of this construct. It actually came out of a response to socialism -- and was considered a liberal ideology that was differentiating itself from socialism/communism that was on the rise in the 1930s. It was then labeled "neo-conservative" -- to denote that it was clearly *not* socialist. One of the hallmarks of this movement was military interventionism.
It wasn't until the 1960s/70s that it allied with the conservative movement, as a response to the development of then anti-war New Left, whose ideologist of being socially progressive still permeate the democrats to this day. And, as we have seen, the neocon agenda has greatly influenced the republican party's behaviors since the Regan administration.
What I find really interesting about this is that -- largely -- the US was, ideologically speaking, an isolationist nation. . . even after WW2 with the advent of NATO and the UN. Participation, yes, absolutely, no worries. But that's quite different than having a focus for military interventionism!
And so why is this relevant?
Military interventionism is not an aspect of our culture -- traditionally speaking, as Americans -- nor is it a clearly defined aspect of our constitution (our constitution would hint otherwise), nor is it traditionally a part of the republican party or the ideology of republic under jefferson as far as I can tell -- he being one of the luminaries of the movement.
Yet, military interventionism seems to be very important to that party right now -- moreso than any other topic really (aside from the theocon agenda) -- and military interventionism is. . .
wait for it. . .
EXPENSIVE.
At the end of the day, a really large portion of tax revenue is going to support military interventionism. Something that -- i think at least -- most republicans don't even comprehend. I asked my sister -- a rabid republican these days -- about her position on military interventionism and not only did she have to look it up, but she asserted that it was not a 'tea party agenda' (they are tea partiers now, with no clear connection to any understanding of the libertarian foundation in that ideology or how it has been co-opted by the modern GOP, but whatever), and I've even asked several of my highly educated republican friends (one's even a judge). Not one of them could tell me what it was, how the republican party utilized and practiced this ideology and how it affects us today.
I just pointed at the budget.
I'm not saying that people are dumb or incapable. I think they are genuine and smart, but not seeing -- or not willing to see -- the *fiscal responsibility* of keeping this pet named "military interventionism" which is neither an inherent American value, nor an inherent conservative value (certainly not!) and even more so, not an inherent republican value.
So why is it *so very* important that we will quibble night and day over whether or nto big bird should receive funding but we will NOT talk about the direct impact of this particular ideology -- and it's practical outcomes -- in terms of budget?
My suggestion is that we actually set aside quibbling about entitlements and start talking practically about the war machine.
I suggest we look closely as to whether this ideology is an american ideology and value. If it is, then we need to raise taxes to fund it. And if it isn't, then we need to extract ourself from that pathway, and then redistribute funds accordingly, and then tax accordingly.
And *then* we can talk about whether differnet benefits should be federal or state (the origin of the division between the two parties), and how big the revenue stream needs to be from there.
But until we talk about it, we're all going to fret over "welfare queens" and not wht's really going on with the budget.
Do you honestly believe that?
You'll forgive me that ti's 2 am. I'm not entirely clear headed. I also just saw looper this evening. so there's lots going on in there. :)
Perhaps a more clear statement would be that I think we are simply spending too much on defense when we don't truly need to -- imo.
To me, that's like telling someone who is telling me that they are broke that they don't need cable.
But that being said, here are some fun links. I would have gotten the fancy ones from the government itself, but wiki has them, so. . . here they are from wiki!
This one gives US federal spending: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
I grant you that the majority of spending there is on social security and medicaid. But, I thought social security was being excepted in this dialogue? Anyway. . . and also, no one was complaining about medicaid. We were talking about people who feel entitled (or "welfare queens").
Now, that's not my favorite budget chart. There's another one around that I can't seem to find that actually breaks out the "discretionary" and such all the way down to "scientific grants" and the like. But, I can't seem to find it.
But, I did find one that breaks down defense spending -- which is where Alan's numbers come from -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Again, it's wiki, but it's quick. ;) And, it has a chart adjusted for inflation as well.
This wiki goes over spending of the US vs other nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
My process is basically this -- if we didn't have an ideology focused on military interventionism, then the military needs in general would be lesser. As such, that 19% budget could shrink -- that revenue could be A. diverted elsewhere or B. ultimately dropped (in terms of decreasing taxes).
And for me, because I basically "run" on values -- I don't see any reason to spend that much revenue on something that I personally don't believe in (military interventionism), and that, honestly speaking, I'm not sure a lot of americans do either. And by that I mean americans in general, not americans in any given party.
I think that most republicans, for example, are really focused on the small government side of things, not recognizing that their party isn't always focused that way.
One of my friends even said to me "their social policy sucks because of theocons mucking it up; their neocon agenda with it's military focus is crap; but i prefer their ideas about small government."
I can't argue with that. But I also can't dislike two things and stay for one, when the other party has two things that I agree on and one that I'm not happy with.
As they say "c'est la vie."
And here is NZ's financial statements: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun12/018.htm
wiki didn't have the article. i had to go to the government web site. It just looks to me like a government that's spending the majority of it's revenue on it's people.
If i'm doing the math right, 1,693M was spent in defense, and the total budget was 92,474M, then that's 1693 divided by 92,474 to get percentage, and my calculator is coming up 1.8%. Which meant that the remaining money -- which is 98.2% of the budget -- went to social services, infrastructure and related.
And then there's the running of the government on the second chart (if i'm understanding that correctly).
Again, I know that it's not comparable in terms of size (being the population of RI), but I do think that in terms of *ideas* . . . we can speak about that.
I mean, the ideas around "where is that bar where we feel that people's basic needs are met so that they aren't dealing with the struggle of abject poverty and can be a benefit to society (or gives their children the opportunity)?" and also "where are we spending our money in other places that might be better diverted to paying down debt, or paying for other services that our citizens want?"
And this assumes (or the second question does), that the federal government is the means we (citizenry) want to utilize. For me, there's sense in using both state and federal, but there's also sense in streamlining federal down to the bare bones, and letting the states work it out for and between themselves.
To be honest, there are *a lot* of great ideas out there in the world. . . tons of them. . . on how to solve these problems. But I think they get lost in our aggressive behaviors towards each other of wanting to be absolutely positively right and/or win an election or something. :)
In my mind the quickest and simplest way to reduce military spending in the US is to cease the policy of playing policeman to the world. The military budget of NZ is, like every other ally, subsidized by the US (aka the US taxpayers). If that policy were to end I have a strong hunch NZ would need to meet or exceed 4.7% of GDP to secure itself. If charity begins at home its time for the US to be a little more charitable.
puglogic
10-19-12, 10:28am
In my mind the quickest and simplest way to reduce military spending in the US is to cease the policy of playing policeman to the world.
Absolutely agree. And the sooner the better. And that includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and everywhere else. We really, really can't afford this any more. Let the chips fall where they may, protect our own borders properly, spend the money on intelligence and surveillance to determine real threats to our homeland, but I humbly submit that we resign from the post of making things better in every corner of the world. What would we do with the money? Wow, I have some ideas....
ApatheticNoMore
10-19-12, 10:30am
Things like Social Security are actually self-funding (ahem if the money isn't used for other things) and solvent for quite awhile into the future (not indefinitely, so you are going to hit some problems eventually), but there is no need to cut it now. Republicans don't actually believe in funding at the state level either, they always oppose it at the state level, which it a problem when you need supermajorities for any taxes.
SteveinMN
10-19-12, 1:09pm
Republicans don't actually believe in funding at the state level either, they always oppose it at the state level, which it a problem when you need supermajorities for any taxes.
That's the issue with whacking taxation (essentially, government income) at the federal level. It's fine to say "it's better to handle it locally" but the local government(s), not having had to handle these expenses before, takes on the responsibility with ... wait for it ... more taxes!
Tim Pawlenty made a big deal out of the fact that he didn't raise taxes while he was Governor of Minnesota. Instead, he and his buddies in the state Legislature just kicked the can down the road with "creative" accounting/borrowing/synonyms and by announcing that some state functions were now county and city functions. So my county taxes went up.
Then the (previous and Republican) Mayor of St. Paul decided he needed that no-tax feather in his cap and announced that he would not raise taxes on St. Paul homeowners. Sho' nuff, my property taxes did not rise. But someone failed to deliver the memo to parks that kept growing grass and sewers that failed to clear themselves of debris and streets that collected snow and streetlamps that refused to keep their bulbs lit. As a result, I now pay "fees" for city duties which previously were paid by my taxes. And I'm now more out of pocket than I was back then.
As far as I'm concerned, keeping "taxes" flat and supplementing them with "fees" (that everyone has to pay) is a hoax, a semantic trick. No one interested in "small government" seems to look at it in the macro sense. If Republicans want to hand education to the states, fine. Then get rid of NCLB. if it's such a great idea, states will adopt it. If social services belong to the states, then quit lobbying against choice. For some reason, "smaller government" never seems to apply to people's lives. Unless guns are involved.
Gregg,
Precisely so. That is my point.
But the party that most supports military interventionism -- ie, the neocon agenda of the republican party -- is unwilling to cut military spending back to "simply securing ourselves."
I support simply securing ourselves and using our tax revenue to do that. I agree that other nations, likewise, would likely have to extend spending in that direction (and as such either cut other programs or increase revenue via taxes to do so -- and remain fiscally viable).
But if we are going to support military interventionism, we are either going to have to A. raise revenue to support it or B. cut spending in other areas -- notably in social programming.
The republican party seems to be fairly clear in it's process. It keeps telling us election after election that the world needs to be "safe for democracy" and that we need to do it. That military interventionism is very important, so we cannot cut spending there.
Which means that in order to reduce taxes and/or not raise them, we need to cut spending elsewhere. And, whatever we can't cover, we'll just go into debt over anyway.
This is not fiscally responsible.
And until people within the party actually speak up to this issue (and honestly, I wish they would), it's not going to change. They are not going to be fiscally responsible. They are going to keep spending money on what we do not need or want -- military interventionism -- and not spending money that we do raise on what we do want: paying down the debt, keeping basic programming going, and perhaps expanding that as useful to the citizenry.
That's the issue with whacking taxation (essentially, government income) at the federal level. It's fine to say "it's better to handle it locally" but the local government(s), not having had to handle these expenses before, takes on the responsibility with ... wait for it ... more taxes!
This is also true.
It is a reality that many people seem to forget in this dialogue.
Unless people go full-on libertarian from the ground up, which is mostly then that you are paying in TIME not money, because people are volunteering in groups to either A. fundraise by donations to cover those costs and/or B. taking care of the labor of managing those things themselves. Which would be in addition to their busy, productive lives and family lives.
iris lily
10-19-12, 5:34pm
...Unless people go full-on libertarian from the ground up, which is mostly then that you are paying in TIME not money, because people are volunteering in groups to either A. fundraise by donations to cover those costs and/or B. taking care of the labor of managing those things themselves. Which would be in addition to their busy, productive lives and family lives. Hunhhh? Um, no.
But there's is absolutely no danger with this country going "full-on libertarian" any time soon. Please don't worry about that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.