Douglas - one of fifty Herbert Hoovers?

[mirjo]

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....

[suze]

Well stated!

[Stand Alone Defense]

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.

[mirjo]

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!

[Thor]

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.





 

[cedarman]

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).

[cedarman]

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.

[mirjo]

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.

[Chris Santee]

Bobby Jindal is the governor of Louisiana and yes, he's brilliant.

[Stand Alone Defense]

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!! 

[cedarman]

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.

[mkr]

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!

[suze]

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!!