Henry Raymond
Fairfax News => Political Issues/Comments => Topic started by: j_gluck on December 29, 2008, 11:23:24 PM
-
As we continue the discussion about how to deal with the State's budget shortfall, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has some thoughts in the New York Times. We do have other options besides slashing State jobs, programs and services.
Fifty Herbert Hoovers By PAUL KRUGMAN
No modern American president would repeat the fiscal mistake of 1932, in which the federal government tried to balance its budget in the face of a severe recession. The Obama administration will put deficit concerns on hold while it fights the economic crisis.
But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers — state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation’s economic future.
These state-level cutbacks range from small acts of cruelty to giant acts of panic — from cuts in South Carolina’s juvenile justice program, which will force young offenders out of group homes and into prison, to the decision by a committee that manages California state spending to halt all construction outlays for six months.
Now, state governors aren’t stupid (not all of them, anyway). They’re cutting back because they have to — because they’re caught in a fiscal trap. But let’s step back for a moment and contemplate just how crazy it is, from a national point of view, to be cutting public services and public investment right now.
Think about it: is America — not state governments, but the nation as a whole — less able to afford help to troubled teens, medical care for families, or repairs to decaying roads and bridges than it was one or two years ago? Of course not. Our capacity hasn’t been diminished; our workers haven’t lost their skills; our technological know-how is intact. Why can’t we keep doing good things?
It’s true that the economy is currently shrinking. But that’s the result of a slump in private spending. It makes no sense to add to the problem by cutting public spending, too.
In fact, the true cost of government programs, especially public investment, is much lower now than in more prosperous times. When the economy is booming, public investment competes with the private sector for scarce resources — for skilled construction workers, for capital. But right now many of the workers employed on infrastructure projects would otherwise be unemployed, and the money borrowed to pay for these projects would otherwise sit idle.
And shredding the social safety net at a moment when many more Americans need help isn’t just cruel. It adds to the sense of insecurity that is one important factor driving the economy down.
So why are we doing this to ourselves?
You can read the rest here - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29krugman.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29krugman.html)
-
Forgive me for finding your "expert" a nut case.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/krugman-death-panels-vat/2010/11/14/id/377008 (http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/krugman-death-panels-vat/2010/11/14/id/377008)
-
and another article regarding "Death Panels"
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/real-solution-us-debt-crisis-death-panel (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/real-solution-us-debt-crisis-death-panel)
-
So Mr. Krugman won a Nobel Prize as an economist. But is most known for his partisan politics on a platform of lending his "professional" voice to disparage Republican policies (primarily those of former President Bush). It sounds to me as though he strongly supports continuing deficits, causing moderate inflation, an adherence to continuing / increased government spending and a fondness for increased taxes to infict pain on "wealthy / greedy". His talk of shredding the "social safety net" at a time when more Americans need it, really spells out the answer (unbeknownst to him). Perhaps not increasing taxes on anyone and beginning to dismantle the social safety net is the first step. Stop paying people to do nothing. Perhaps not extending benefits continuously. I work two jobs, plus take on other jobs whenever possible. And what do I have to look forward to.... this state and our federal government contemplating how they can get more out of me to give to the next group of "needy". What is next? Can anyone tell me which group we will have to support next? We have and continue to have to support the "homeless", the "hungry", the "ill equipped", the "un-educated", criminals that need "rehabilitation" and illegal immigrents. Where does it stop?
Good will and the caring human nature can only handle so much. When it reaches the point of inflicting pain on my family in order to support non working members of a society, it is becoming much easier to draw the line.
I wonder how much of his $10,000,000 Swedish Krone prize (about $1.5 million USD) Mr. Krugman donated to charity? Hopefully he did it early on, as the value is decreasing daily with the current QE2 debacle.
-
Amen Thor!! and I have to Agree with Chris this Guy is a "Nut Job"!!!!
-
"Death panels? C'mon people.
If you want real facts, check out sites such as politifact.com, which is non-partisan and un-biased. Not like the junk-journalism that is so prevalent these days.
-
The FACT is a journalist with the New York Times is calling for Death Panels on ABC.
The FACT is that this same journalist blasted Palin and others for suggesting such a ludicrous idea.
The FACT is that the New York Times has more readers AND
ABC has more viewers than politifact.
-
Chris,
I just checked politifact. I am not sure I would use the same descriptives as non-partisan and un-biased. But everyone is entitled to their view. But speaking of non-partisan and un-biased, I wonder what the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission has been discussing.
-
The FACT is a journalist with the New York Times is calling for Death Panels on ABC.
The FACT is that this same journalist blasted Palin and others for suggesting such a ludicrous idea.
The FACT is that the New York Times has more readers AND
ABC has more viewers than politifact.
Chris, remember that as you said, that Krugman is an opinion columnist. He has no policy-making power, nor is he even a real reporter. He is just another one of the talking head partisans that tries to pass off opinion as actual journalism. I dont care if he blasted Palin or whoever else. Nowadays, most people dont seem to look for facts, but instead look for opinions that already confirm what they think or believe. If someone thinks "death-panels" are going to be killing people, they are going to gravitate towards writing that confirms their suspicions, no matter how improbable a particular idea is. Opinion-journalism is sadly the prevalent form of "news" (using that term very loosely) right now. FOX and MSNBC lead the way in this trend.
About these supposed "death panels", what about a health-insurance company? They decide what things will cover and pay for, and if it is too expensive for their profiteering they wont do it. Their only motivation is to make money. If you get sick with something that will cost them too many dollars to cover, their wish for you is: "Die quickly and cheaply." I'd much rather have a watchdog on these predatory corporations, then to leave them to their own greedy devices. They have to be profitable & viable of course, but they dont need to make billions and billions in profits every year.
Thor, politifact seems to call-out politicians from left, right, or center, regardless of party, on their bull-crap statements. How is this not non-partisan? Is it because you may not like that some of the particular people you do believe in being exposed as liars? I'm asking honestly, not facetiously. There are liars on all sides of every issue. That's how politics works, sadly.
-
We're getting somewhere,
First, you say:
"Death panels? C'mon people.
Then you say:
About these supposed "death panels",
Then you go on to say:
insurance companies are death panels.
"They decide what things will cover and pay for, and if it is too expensive for their profiteering they wont do it. "
Okay, I can go along with that.
A death panel is not a firing squad, but a coverage denier.
We agree.
Now, do you know which of those evil insurance company denies the MOST claims ?
http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=4459 (http://www.independent.org/blog/index.php?p=4459)
-
Perhaps the pundits should just shut up--they just make matters worse by distorting the facts on everything. No one knows what the real truth is, but we all have plenty of opinions about what is "right" and what is "wrong!"
If every so-called political "analyst" would take their collective opinionated partisan blinders off as well as everyone else in this country/state people would realize that every politician in the last 40 years(or more?) has led us to this mess we're in now. They share equal blame. Not just this one or that one, but ALL of them.
Hardcore Republicans have their opinions and Hardcore Democrats have theirs. Everyone else is somewhere in between. It seems best to agree to disagree, because trying to prove a point is pointless, the press can't be trusted and opinion columns are exactly that...some Jackass's opinion on a subject because he/she feels the need to incite an argument over something that just can't be successfully argued!!
I'm sorry, but no one is right, everyone just has opinions that fall left or right. The one with the most web sources to back up an opinion is simply the loudest, not the most right. Many web sources are barely more than opinion blogs and not necessarily credible news outlets anyway and honestly I don't believe there is a credible news outlet anymore. Everything leans left or right, which means it can't be trusted to be accurate in its reporting of facts--which are supposed to be unbiased.straightforward, provable, and checkable. There is nothing about this HCR bill that is even in practice yet, so everything is speculation at this point--no one knows anything for certain.
I think we can all agree that something needs to be done about health care--while the thought of the government running anything is scary for anyone to think about, it seems that instead of higher powers or pundits shouting out hyperbolic things like "death panels" a better idea would be to offer real solutions. Isn't there some old axiom that goes something like: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem?" Partisan pundits and partisan politicians ARE the problem.
For as much as Sarah Palin runs her mouth, I have never heard a single useful thing come out of it. She's a highly opinionated, highly partisan, quasi politician turned celebrity, who never offers a single solution to anything she incites a rage over. I don't see how this is helpful to anyone?
It seems there are several camps on the health-care issue: those who are for reform and those who are against it is the first divide.
In general, those who are for reforming healthcare see a need to do something, because they see and feel the pinch of the rising cost of health ins for less coverage. They may have reservations, but know it has to start with something, the status quo isn't really working for a lot of people.
Those who are against it seem to line up in a few different camps:
Group A: The money: don't want to pay more in taxes to pay for healthcare that will cover people without insurance--see those people as freeloading welfare cases (regardless of whether of not this is true), it's a general consensus among this group.
Group B: Loss of Choice: Diabolically opposed to the government being in charge of healthcare, feel their choices will be limited, they will not get the care the need/deserve, believe the gov will save $$ by rationing care to the elderly (Death Panels)
Group C: Loss of Esteem: May or may not have the same feelings as Groups A & B, but carry an unvoiced secret shame--the idea of of being on a government healthcare program makes them feel like welfare recipients and that's mostly what they don't like about it. It's an insult to this group to even consider having to be on a government run program, because they look down on it. They see that sort of thing as something for people of a lower class than themselves and if they are forced into giving up private health ins for a gov sponsored one, it will hurt their pride and they're afraid of that.
I came by these sub groups by reading numerous news stories on the internet and reading the comments-- they've followed the patterns I outlined repeatedly, since this controversy began.
I don't have any clue what the answer is, but I'm pretty certain that their isn't an accurate news source on it. And I think that's pretty sad--for the people of the U.S. and the state of American journalism. :-(
-
Here's an interesting article on the subject of news vs entertainment. And remember, this is an opinion piece, not a new article. People seem to get these things confused so easily.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html
Chris my use of the "death-panel" term to describe health-care providers was intended to be satirical, to demonstrate that what mirjo aptly called "pundits shouting out hyperbolic things like "death panels"...a better idea would be to offer real solutions," really doesnt add anything to the conversation. All it does is evoke reactionary anger, and not carefully considered or logical opinions, which could lead to solutions. It seems my writing was probably too opaque. I could probably write convincing arguments for many things to be deemed "death-panels" but that wouldnt make it true. One thing about what I wrote that holds a kernel of truth for me is that the health-care companies do not have your best interests at heart. Think about it this way: Medicare denies so many claims because it cant afford to cover so many things. Health-care companies deny so many claims because they dont want their profits to get smaller. They could afford much more, and still make huge profits, just not quite so monumentally huge as before. To say that there is moral equivalency with these two things is ridiculous. If people cant see the difference, some moral compasses need some serious re-tuning. It's my opinion that health-care companies often pursue policies that are immoral, in pursuit of dollars.
Further, following a logical progression, if you are pissed-off about Medicare denying people's claims, then you must want Medicare to cover more things. The best solution would be to seriously increase spending for Medicare. Problem solved! I'm sure thats what everyone wants, right?
To me, the problem is not the size of government, but the efficiency and effectiveness of it. It's not the size, but how you use it, as the saying goes. ;)
Mirjo, you said some things that do provoke some interesting thoughts. Definitely well-said.
-
And so, among the many benefits we have come to believe the founding fathers intended for us, the latest is news we can choose...This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.
While it's an opinion piece, it's Ted Koppel's fact-based opinion. He's from the old school of real journalists like Cronkite, Brokaw and that ilk, when integrity meant something--before networks were owned by large corporations and news divisions were expected to show profits.
My view of politics--especially the huge divide I have witnessed in the past few years (perhaps it has always been this way?) Is that it's like being on any device that requires a certain amount of balance--if you lean too far in either direction, you fall over with devastating consequences--any five-year-old who learned how to ride a bike w/o training wheels understands this fundamental concept, any one who skis, rides a motorcycle, has been in a boat, canoe, or kayak, roller blades, or does any number of sports, understands the concept of balance.
There is balance in every aspect of everything we do in our lives--if you cook you know what things taste like if you don't get the right balance of seasonings that the recipe calls for--BAD.
This is why I am always so bewildered that otherwise reasonable, intelligent, basically balanced people get so loopy--one-sided and so stuck in a single lens POV that they willingly believe and regurgitate even unreasonable assertions, when it comes to politics.
I honestly don't understand this "pick-a-side" concept as if one is better than the other. Not only is it divisive, it just doesn't make any sense when everything else we deal with daily dictates balance!
Think about it for just one minute--absolutely everything in our lives dictates balance and moderation for healthy living etc. balanced diet, moderate exercise, stay between the line when driving down the road--too far left or right will be detrimental--the list goes on & on, put politicians & pundits want us to believe that left or right is the only way to go! Why is that and who are these people that they live their lives so out of balance?
To return to the article that started this discussion, I found this nugget in the comment section, by a man from Texas:
...It is apparent neither the neo-conservative or the neo-liberal economic positions are capable of resolving the current fiscal and monetary policy issues separately utilizing their differing ideologies...
The comments are always where the best information is--there are a lot of fruit loops out there and also a lot of interesting intelligent people.
That one sentence pretty much sums up the reality of our current situation.
-
Since we're speaking of opinions and these long-winded posts are obviously just mine, I have to address a couple of things Thor said:
Perhaps not increasing taxes on anyone and beginning to dismantle the social safety net is the first step. Stop paying people to do nothing. Perhaps not extending benefits continuously. I work two jobs, plus take on other jobs whenever possible. And what do I have to look forward to.... this state and our federal government contemplating how they can get more out of me to give to the next group of "needy". What is next? Can anyone tell me which group we will have to support next? We have and continue to have to support the "homeless", the "hungry", the "ill equipped", the "uneducated", criminals that need "rehabilitation" and illegal immigrant's. Where does it stop?
Good will and the caring human nature can only handle so much. When it reaches the point of inflicting pain on my family in order to support non working members of a society, it is becoming much easier to draw the line.
This is a prevailing attitude I see all over the internet comment sections, from local & well known large national newspapers. Since you are local, hardworking and I will presume a kind and decent person--I have to ask why it is that you assume that those "in need," "do nothing," want nothing more from life than to be lazy slags, and are simply sucking the oxygen out of the air just so they can separate you from your hard earned money? What has happened that you deeply believe that the disenfranchised have nothing better to think, worry, or care about? I'm asking not to be sarcastic, but because I really want to know the answer--no one ever says why they feel this way! We live in the same small town--we've likely passed each other in the store/on the road--so please explain your position.
I know there are some slackers out there who give social service programs a bad name and I also know there is an overall prevailing attitude that poor people are undeserving of even the simplest dignities, that they are somehow, dumb, dirty, and unworthy simply because they have not had the good fortunes that others have had. You all know what I'm saying here. We all have known a family like I'm describing. While I don't know the reasons why certain families suffer more than others, I do know that children of these families suffer in untold ways for many years.
What you are also not considering is that while you have a job (two & three, I think you stated), not everyone across the country is as fortunate. A lot of people are complaining about the president not doing anything about the high unemployment rate--a lot of people in other states lost jobs and with that, their way of life. Vermont has been relatively unscathed, comparatively speaking in this recession, which is probably why you have work to spare. I believe Thor, that if you and I together went out and did a Jay Leno type poll of a group in an unemployment or social services office and asked those people if they would rather have that unemployment check/welfare/foodstamps or a paying job, I would bet they would all want a job. I would also bet that despite how they're dressed, if you asked anyone in the "welfare" office to to give an honest personal account of their situation, they would likely tell you they had to swallow their pride to go there.
I might be foolish to think so , but I doubt the majority are sitting there because it's a lifestyle choice. Seriously, who wants to be ridiculed, rummage through charity clothing bins, stand in line for foodstamps and other aid, to be looked down upon? Not having enough money to support your basic needs in a socially acceptable style is the same as being obese, you are stigmatized. You can't tell me it isn't so. Not only does your quote speak to the homeless, the hungry, the ill equipped ( reference to the mentally ill?) and the uneducated, but I have witnessed people give clothes away to a church or other charity (that they couldn't sell at a consignment shop), because in their mind the poor people who need it, don't care if there is a little rip, stain or button missing or if they wear clothing that is modern and not 30 years old.
Consider the next time you see some one wearing old clothes--they may have got them from a well meaning, but clueless relative or charity, where everyone brought in their oldest clothing, because "the poor people don't need something nicer or newer." Which is a crock full of expletives. I get angry thinking about it, because I have seen it happen. Why else would anyone give clothes away to a charity or a needy family that clearly should go in the trash if they didn't feel it was "good enough" for them?
You may not even realize what you're implying, I'm sure most people don't. I actually believe that the majority of people have a genuine interest in the well being of others and the convoluted hateful things that are being parroted from one to another are reactionary and out of fear, because of the shaky ground we all are standing on. And, make no mistake, we ALL are standing on it.
These programs are designed to be temporary supports when people are in need of them, if you've never known anyone who was ever in temporary need of help (from friends, family), yourself included, then you've lived a rather charmed life and no wonder you look down on people in need as being leeches. Sorry, but I just don't understand the attitude that people who need help are dregs of society. I have known people who needed food stamps, ANFC, or daycare subsidies at one time or other and were able to get a leg up because of it. It wasn't permanent, those people didn't want to be in that position and moved on as quickly as they could, just as they were supposed to. Some have gone on to have good paying jobs and I haven't ever heard any complain about what they have to pay.
I'm going to push this a little further, because what you're saying doesn't make sense to me: If you're working so many jobs just to cover your expenses, then it suggests that you aren't making enough money to live on ("good will...inflicting pain on my family...") but your stance is in-line with the republican complaint about the Bush tax cuts expiring and Obama's presidency in general.
If on the other hand, you're working numerous jobs to keep your family in high-end amenities, that's different. I just don't get where your attitude is coming from, it's not just yours, it's many others' as well. Please explain your fears, I would like to understand--I have certainly given my perspective and would like to hear how you have come to yours, what causes you to feel this way.
I don't have a clue about the policies and I'm not convinced that any of the politicians involved do either--if they have to draft a document that is thousands of pages long--you know they aren't reading it, you know as well as I do it's too large for anyone to realistically comprehend--even the brightest scholars in the world. So we (the little people) are all sitting here grousing about things that are extremely complicated and I really wonder if we even know all we need to know? I can say for certain that I don't. I'm trying to figure it out, but I don't have it understood yet. I hear a lot of things, but until I have it vetted from a reliable source in terms I understand, I'm not going to say anything other than what I know and all I know is my own opinion--my guess is that's what you know too--so we are in the same boat.
We may never agree on anything other than being thankful that we live in a country where we are still able to voice our dissenting opinions. Happy Thanksgiving! :-)
-
Let's see if I can keep this shorter than the opinions we have been reading.
I have been asked why I "feel this way" about social welfare recipients? But obviously you missed the point; I'm not down on welfare recipients... I hate the whole system, as it is nothing more than renamed method of wealth redistribution. Take from those that earn, and give to those that don't.
"These programs are designed to be temporary supports when people are in need of them". How's that working out for you (and me)?
"Why do you work so many jobs"? Is it because, a) "I am not making enough to live on" or b) "to keep my family in high-end amenities"? Quite frankly, it is none of your business why I work or what drives me. Perhaps it is because I am a driven person. But obviously taking care of my family is the most important reason. Preparing for the future (mine and my children). I certainly don't work so someone else doesn't have to! If you tax group "A" to give money to group "B", both groups will lose the incentive to work. Then what'aya got!?
Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving.
Gotta run now. Don't want to be late for work!!
-
I don't think I missed the point at all. You don't want to pay more of your wages to the government for programs that you consider to be helping lazy people stay that way--I get that. That's the part we disagree on. I think it's an over generalization, as I stated.
I think there are far worse problems in government spending than programs that help others.
For the record--it makes no difference to me why, when, or how much you work. It is your business, but you seemed so hateful and bitter toward the underprivileged/disenfranchised that I had to throw it out there.
They're in a huge mess in Ireland and I don't know the details well, but it went down over the weekend. In the article I read, among the things that have been cut was the minimum wage--a woman was quoted in the story said, a true leader would have cut his own salary and that of his administration also, before cutting the minimum wage. (or something to that effect)
If you were a minimum wage earner in this or that country struggling to get by on the small amount you earned (minimum wage isn't a livable wage), wouldn't you feel the same way? It seems to me your anger at the feds could be directed to other areas of bloated spending, but they cleverly keep the spotlight off themselves when it comes to money--we only hear about the hot button social programs--not other things. AND there are many other things. A sample would be...
Many of our congressmen/women are millionaires, but the cuts are never to any of their salaries or benefits. There is so much wasteful spending that never gets talked about in the light of day--just the that makes heads spin. Can you name a government agency that couldn't use a little trimming?
Have you ever questioned why it's only certain programs that ever get talked about when it comes to funding or cutting? What about the rest of federal spending? What about that--where does that $$ go? Maybe as citizens we should demand some kind of spread sheet for the government account? How about a tally of white house monthly expenditures--maybe there should be a household/congressional budget they all have to follow for whatever it is they do? How much money is spent on running the white house? How much is really necessary? What about the Capitol, etc? I remember Nancy Reagan buying some outrageous china in the 80's--who knows what else is bought that taxpayers don't know about? We just don't know a lot of things. I'm not trying to get down on any first family, it's really a suck-job, but there really should be some accountability to the American public--we never knew what the Clintons or either Bush family ever spent. We should.
Congress shouldn't have a blank check either. those are just two examples of the public not knowing how much or where $$ is spent at the federal level--and it could be significant. If we're hurting as bad as it seems then they all need to tighten up too.
Think about how we don't know or hear anything about any of THAT spending, unless it's one party that's pissed at the other party and pointing fingers...it's not the needy, it's the entitled....
-
Well stated!
-
So kind of like our troops not getting a cost of living increase this year, but all our politicians are?
I agree there are a lot of things that can be cut besides all of the subsidy programs we have in this country. I also think that those programs are broke though and there needs to be some restrictions 1. Drug test, if I'm giving you a pay check out of my pay check I don't want you sitting around snorting pills and smoking dope!! 2. The money we give doesn't go to buy Smokes or Beer! Those are privileges or luxuries that you don't need to live. 3. WORK!! if you can't find a job no problem we will find one for you I don't care if it is sweeping side walks for 2 hours a week it is something!! We are giving them money it shouldn't be free!! This is my opinion anyway.
-
I've always thought the welfare system as it exists did little to really help people in the way in which they needed it the most. I think there was some major reform during the Clinton Administration, but I don't know the details of how things are different than they once were before the reform. I think a system that requires you to be destitute, before it will assist you, is asking to be riddled with fraud. A better approach would be to assist those who need it (meaning, if they're working, but can't make ends meet) within parameters, of course, with a plan and time frame to no longer need the assistance.
A jobs plan sounds like a good idea, most people would rather be working anyway, it's less demeaning. But I disagree about the drug testing--you can't justify drug tests for poor people on public assistance--no matter how many times you claim it's your dime that's being spent. Same for denying people basic rights to choose whether or not they smoke or drink, it's a bit fascist don't you think?
We all are very quick to judge how others should live and behave when it comes to our own believe systems. I'm no different than you, Josh. I do the exact same things. You're not alone in your thinking there are many well meaning people out there who believe that anyone who is poor enough to need public assistance, shouldn't have the right to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol or do anything that anyone else might do, because they aren't earning a wage. If you really think about it closely, the logic is flawed. Sure, it sounds good and why not, but is it right to say, believe, or even expect such a thing?
All the people with such harsh opinions towards those without, who are being supported by those with, are also likely the same folks who fill up the churches on Sundays and this is where the Christian doctrine fails to meet the logic of all that's being said here and all across the country.
If things weren't so out of balance in so many areas--more people, single parent families and underemployed families would be able to get a long a lot better than they do now. I understand no one wants to pay higher taxes at risk to their own well being; however, I really find it hard to listen to so many people in this country carry on so much about having to give more to the lazy welfare recipients or however it's repeatedly worded. Some of it is very hateful and I believe it stems from a misguided ideology, in this ridiculous political climate we're in.
Heaven help us all!
-
Josh, your idea was tried by Clinton. It was called the "Workfare Program". This was a huge failure and really resulted in an increase in taxes paid by the middle class, unbeknownst to them though, as Clinton, used his uncanny prose to provide the smoke and mirrors. But I would tend to agree with you that there should be "limits or restrictions" on what can be purchased with gov't provided assistance.
Mirjo, once again, I think I have failed at making my point (not that you missed it, I think I see where I am failing). I do not think that everyone on the welfare system is a drain on the system. I understand that there are people in circumstances that need help. And I am not saying they should not get help. What I am saying is, the system is broken and I don't want to keep paying into it until they fix it. If I am going to pay taxes, how about not raising them until the system gets fixed. Helping those in need has been the mainstay of the community level. Not the federal government. If you had the same amount of money that they take out of your taxes every month, available to disperse to the charity or community support mechanism of your choice, wouldn't you give it to the one that helps the most people? Of course. And ultimately, just like business, the organizations who were not as efficient or squared away would go away, because people would recognize their inefficiency. That is how it should work. WE find the place where WE want to give our money. Handing it off to the crooks we call "elected officials" only devalues our currency and helps them.
In one of your previous posts, you mentioned "other ways to make cuts". I would tell you that I have a lengthy list of ideas that I have shared with Sanders, Leahy, Welch. None of which they appeared to be to ready to discuss. They are Career Politician's. But just so you know, I play on a level playing field, I also lambasted Boehner and hs crew, when they contacted me about helping their cause. Hey, I have no problem helping out the guy who is going to do the right thing. But, do the right thing!
The train wreck is coming and with the Fed continuing to devalue the dollar and line their pockets, it is coming much faster. Once the wreck occurs, and the federal gov't has no way of supporting all the current welfare recipients, people will see it shift back to the community level. Of course it will still be difficult for everyone, as our dollars will be worth pennies.
-
I have a problem with the idea that people have a "right" to smoke and drink. It seems there are people claiming "rights" to all sorts of things. Tangible materialistic things, or services provided by someone else. The RIGHTS that are protected by the Constitution of the United States are not claims to materialist things. They are intended as protections.
We don't have RIGHT to government provided guns - we have a Protection against the government taking the guns we buy/build.
We don't have a right to free housing, we have Protection against the government mandating that we house someone else (a soldier) in our home.
We don't have a right to a job, we have a Protection against being denied a job because of defined, unchangable, personal characteristics (and even some chosen characteristics like religion)
We do NOT have a right to medical care (it is a service provided by a skilled person). If we have a right to that, I'm going to claim a right to a professional massage.
Back to my point. IF a person is in a situation in which he/she is living off someone elses money, and they don't like the restrictions placed on that money, they DO have a RIGHT to seek their money elsewhere. It pissed a lot of people off when Nevada mandated that state benefits cards be programed so they wouldn't work at ATM in any gaming establishment. Would anyone here complain about that?
IF WE the tax payers are paying for someone's food, AND we are paying for their healthcare, the I would go a step farther and start restricting the types of foods that can be bought: no fast food (which is already being done in a lot of places), no soda/candy/potatoe and corn chips.
I don't recall seeing anything in the constitution about having a "RIGHT to Government Provided Living". It is something we do as a society because most of us recognize that it would be inhumane to allow someone to starve to death when we have the means to prevent starvation - especially if they don't have the ability to provide for themselves (physically or mentally incapable).
-
I know and recognize the importance of public assistance programs. When I was growing up, my father would occassionally swallow his pride and apply for food stamps to be able to afford plain white bread, milk, rice, pasta, etc to get us through the winter months. There were no pizza's or other fancy foods until we could work again and earn enough for better food.
We used those "old" clothes that nobody wanted. When we were done with any clothes, they went to the dump because that is all they were good for.
I know what being poor is like. It makes me greatful for what I have, and willing to help others as much as I can. I am still far more willing to directly help someone I see as really needing is, and far more critical and judgemental of individuals I KNOW who are abusing the public support system. I do look down on those individuals whom I KNOW personally are physically able to work, but use some crap excuse for not working, but they work on the side.
There are NO easy answers. From past information I've read, Clinton's concept for workfare had a lot of popular support, and did reduce the number of people on welfare, but was not as successful as it could have been due to constraints put in place by the federal government as to who was eligible for extra help to get back to work.
I can see how legislators and "benefits" administrators can spend months working on this issue with little progress, and it is just one issue.
As for cost of living adjustments - that is driven in part by the calculated cost of living index, which for 2009 was slightly negative due to drops in energy (fuel) cost, therefore, there was not COL adjustment in 2010 because, on paper, the cost of living did not go up. Personally, I believe it was inappropriate for congress to not vote against their annual raise, even though that is only a symbolic budgetary savings in the big picture.
-
I read an interesting article in the New York Times (I think) this weekend on Bobby Jindahl, the governor of Alabama, he had some fascinating ideas about how Washington and the federal government should be restructured. I was intrigued and I think you all would be also. He actually sounded like a sane thinking person and not a politician with an agenda--but then again they all do when they want in, don't they?
Unfortunately, I couldn't find the link to post it here--but I recommend that you all google his name and see if you can locate the story. I think you'll like what you read if you find it. He's a fairly young guy and has an eye on a run for the presidency at some point--so I recall hearing some time back. And since I know how much you all love the current Admin--he's a Republican, so that should cause you to want to seek out what he has to say on the matter of government restructuring.
I agree that the government and the way it operates is totally out of sink with what is right for the American public, I just think what's happening is that we're turning on each other, because of party politics instead of working together to do what's right.
We hear so many conflicting things about healthcare how it works well in European countries, how it doesn't work in Canada, how it should be provided to all citizens, how it shouldn't be...wah, wah, wah, wah... it's like the adults talking in a Peanuts cartoon. You know they're speaking, but you don't know what the hell they're saying. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know this--if whatever Sweden or Switzerland has going is so good, then why aren't we using it as a model? No one ever answers those questions.
This stuff is too complicated to argue about. Que sera, sera...until we find a way to fix our government. :-(
-
Bobby Jindal is the governor of Louisiana and yes, he's brilliant.
-
Amen Cedarman!! I to grew up wearing hand me downs and my family received WICK(not sure what it stands for) so I'm all for programs to help people that need it. In the little bit of time that I have worked in Law Enforcement though I see way to many people that abuse the system. Liking using their Food stamps to buy cigarettes that the sell to get money for drugs. I can name 5 people off the top of my head that live here right in Franklin county that do this and not 1 of them has had a job in the last 2 years nor do they try looking for one.
I also get where you are coming from Mirjo though but there has to be a line somewhere. I truly would like to believe that 90 percent of people on the programs really do need it and I am more then happy to help them out. If i was in the situation I hope someone would help me!!
-
I think WIC stands for Women, Infants, and Children (the target groups it is designed to serve). I honestly believe that food stamps and many other social assistance programs should be set up similar to WIC which as I understand it, the WIC programs have approved food lists. If it's not on the list, WIC funds can't be used to buy it. I'm not sure about the efficiency of the program in distributing assistance, but the concept is great and it would be great to see others follow a similar plan.
-
Josh, I too agree with you and could write a list down. I am all for helping those in need, help them get on their feet and move forward. However, that is not the case for all.
When I am going through tough times or need to tighten the belt to pay my bills, what do I do, I definitely don't go out drinking or drink at home, my furnace is now set at 64 not 70, the lights are off in my house unless I am in the room, and my "spending money" is for food and gas only. So if I have to make changes to my life to afford to get by, I don't see why those getting assistance don't have to meet certain conditions. I wish I could do all the things I want to do too, but I got taxes/bills to pay.
I do not believe this is the only place to where things need to change and agree with many points presented in this string of chat. It is just one that I see near my homefront on a regular basis and I wish I could correct it!
-
I am a newbie to this forum and wanted to express my appreciation for all of the thoughtful comments in this thread. Our ideals and political representations may be different, but certainly we are a town with a great many caring people in it! I am proud to live in Fairfax!!