We're Deadbeats!

[phrogdriver]

What do you define as "welfare?" Most people think of Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). At least until the stim pkg changed it, the Welfare Reform Act already tightened eligibility greatly with work and education requirements. It's a miniscule part of the fed budget. Yes, every dollar counts, but you could zero welfare out completely and it wouldn't change our predicament one bit.

Social Security is a big deal, but it can be fixed by adjusting the tax structure and benefit formulae. The real time bombs are Medicare and Medicaid. Until medical costs are contained or those programs are gutted, we'll still be staring at financial armegeddon.

 

[Godspeed]

Most people think of Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). At least until the stim pkg changed it, the Welfare Reform Act already tightened eligibility greatly with work and education requirements.

Social Security is a big deal, but it can be fixed by adjusting the tax structure. The real time bombs are Medicare and Medicaid. Until medical costs are contained or those programs are gutted, we'll still be staring at financial armegeddon.

How do you propose fixing social security by adjusting the tax structure? I think the squandering and runaway spending structure of social security is the foot of the problem.

Couldn't agree more with medicare/medicaid. This whole latest notion of 'preventative medicine' offsetting the current costs is a load of horse shit. It's foolish to believe what we're being told, that we'll end up righting the program from it's upside down cost structure by simply treating people preventatively.

And yes, I was talking about 'AFDC' for the most part. I understand that welfare is a miniscule part of the budget, but I think this whole notion of entitlement, that you can get something for nothing is a larger root of the problem. I think the first step in the right direction is removing the proverbial 'tit' from the mouths of those that abuse the system.

 

[MasterBates]

I think the tax code could use some revision..

Why should I pay ~$15k+ more in taxes than another LT who also rents, doesn't have much other income, etc.

Too many loopholes, confusion and compliance issues. If we are talking pie in the sky, we should go to a consumption based tax.

 

[Flash]

Gutting the ATF and IRS is a good start. Never happen under this Administration/Congress though.

How would eliminating either one of those rally help? The ATF is a miniscule part of the overall budget and really isn't germane to this particular subject.

As for getting rid of the IRS, what is the alternative? No matter what tax you come up with you will have to have someone to make sure it is complied with. If not the IRS it would be something else, call it Revenue America or whatever else you want but some entity like that will have to exist.

The real time bombs are Medicare and Medicaid. Until medical costs are contained or those programs are gutted, we'll still be staring at financial armegeddon.

While I wouldn't call it armageddon they certainly are the biggest things we have to deal with in the budget or they will consume it all.

 

[usmarinemike]

Preventative medicine IS the way to go. Unfortunately, it would require that Americans adhere to healthy habits which we can't do without nationalized healthcare. Get ready for it gents. The pendulum is swinging HARD in the opposite direction of the past several years.

 

[Spekkio]

An essential program that is in dramatic need of reform. Lets start with one simple yet highly effective step: A high percentage of working, contributing Americans have to pass a urinalysis in order to CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY. It isn't too much to expect that if you need their money, you too should be subject to a urinalysis.

Many good, hard working Americans fall victim to poor economic times or unfortnuate circumstances, or are simply unable to provide for themselves and others; this should be the purpose of welfare; to serve as a springboard to help these people get a job and succeed, or provide for people that can't.

Let's say that every welfare reliant person in this country has exactly eight months (of continued welfare) to get (or stay) clean. After the eighth month, EVERY WELFARE DEPENDANT will be subject to a urinalysis every two months. They will be tested for controlled substances (Marijuana, Opiates, Methanphetomines(sp), etc). If you fail the test, you get a retest. If you fail the retest, no welfare check for you, period. Once you fail your retest, YOU HAVE TO PAY for a retest in the future after you get clean, of which you have to pass in order to receive welfare.

The welfare program will no longer be a contributor to this country's drug problem. The welfare program needs more reform than this, but this step will make it a drug free program and also will help decrease the cost of the program.

There are a lot of issues with your premises here:

1. It is true that some employers require drug tests for employment. However, this is not required by federal law. If welfare is a legal entitlement, you can't make it contigent on a drug test. That's like saying you can't get social security unless you pass a drug test.

2. Your solution to spending too much on welfare is to spend more money to make sure that welfare recipients are spending their money in a way that's suitable to you. If the goal is to REDUCE gov't spending, I think you can see the issue here.

3. I'm guessing that the premise of requiring these drug tests is that you believe that drug use leads someone to be a waste of life. However, there are plenty of people who use drugs recreationally and are still functional, productive members of society. More importantly, welfare recipients are not guarunteed to spend their money on something "productive," even if they never touch drugs.

My take:

Firstly, welfare (ie collect a check for being unemployed) is not "necessary." As phrog already pointed out, it's pretty insignificant at this point, but I still think it's worth doing away with it -- every little bit counts.

Secondly, this country's "drug problem" is the vast amount of tax money our government wastes on trying to put people behind bars for victimless crimes. It costs money to hire personnel to man organizations that focus on catching drug offenders. It costs money to prosecute suspects. It costs money to house, feed, and clothe those inmates, in addition to hiring enough personnel to man the prisons. Despite this, drug use has been unaffected. If prohibition teaches us anything, it's that the government cannot outlaw a product that has a high demand.

End this government obsession with drugs, and you'll suddenly find a lot of budget money leftover when a whole bunch of drug-centered gov't agencies become obsolete.

 

[phrogdriver]

Yes, you can do away with welfare, but the program is Aid to Families With Dependent Children. Whatever you think of welfare moms, their kids didn't ask to get born to a loser. Unless you're signing up to be a foster parent, you'd better come up with an alternative plan before totally axing the program. The work requirement of the reform act has thus far been very successful.

 

[Ajleger]

How do you propose fixing social security by adjusting the tax structure? I think the squandering and runaway spending structure of social security is the foot of the problem.

Right on. The social security tax structure already taxes the first 190k a person makes; in other words, it's already acting as a wealth redistribution program. I also agree that it would be completely reprehensible to pull the rug out from underneath the elderly, but a phased pullout (as a rough example, people from the ages of 35 to 55 will receive from 15-85% of their expected income from the program) would work. While I disagree with the entire premise of mandatory gov't retirement saving, the system would have worked if the surplus had never been spent over the last 60 years, and had instead been invested in conservative funds. Hell, imagine if they decided to stop spending the surplus today... That would at least delay the 'armageddon' (which i think aptly describes what will happen, since NEITHER party has made the slightest attempt to fix it).

And Spekkio, I agree 100%. That would save a LOT of money. Hell, tax it like they tax tobacco and alcohol and were talking about making the kind of money that is being wasted on our foolish drug war. People aren't going to go out and do drugs that aren't doing them now; just because something stupid is legal doesn't mean people will do it. And just because something people want to do is made illegal will make negligible difference on whether people decide to do it. Sorry for the thread jack.

Finally, go FAIRTAX.

 

[knobbzy]

Yes, you can do away with welfare, but the program is Aid to Families With Dependent Children. Whatever you think of welfare moms, their kids didn't ask to get born to a loser. Unless you're signing up to be a foster parent, you'd better come up with an alternative plan before totally axing the program. The work requirement of the reform act has thus far been very successful.

What he said, there is NO federal welfare -- these are state/city programs. And I couldn't agree with Phrog more about the children. If you punish the parents by cutting their aid, unfortunately, you hurt the children as well.

If you really wanted to put a dent in poverty and "welfare" use federal $ for birth control -- something that your dear "conservatives" fought tooth and nail against. :icon_rage

People who can't take care of themselves $$ shouldn't be popping out little clones. I would rather pay the $20/mnth to give somebody a supply of birth control pills, as opposed to the $100K+ it costs to raise their children.

JMHO

 

[Spekkio]

What he said, there is NO federal welfare -- these are state/city programs. And I couldn't agree with Phrog more about the children. If you punish the parents by cutting their aid, unfortunately, you hurt the children as well.

If you really wanted to put a dent in poverty and "welfare" use federal $ for birth control -- something that your dear "conservatives" fought tooth and nail against.

People who can't take care of themselves $$ shouldn't be popping out little clones. I would rather pay the $20/mnth to give somebody a supply of birth control pills, as opposed to the $100K+ it costs to raise their children.

I agree that the children issue is sticky, and admittedly I hadn't considered that. On the other hand, there are also people who exploit the system through having children.

I disagree with using any government money for birth control. It's not like condoms are particularly expensive. Most people who end up pregnant in less-than-desirable economic situations due to not using anti-contraception do so by choice, and not because they couldn't afford it. On top of that, I could probably find free condoms as easily as I could find illegal drugs, which is pretty damn easily.