0
kallend

What entitlement programs would you cut, and how much would it save?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

... has some worthwhile info and charting for those who are interested. Takes a little more work than just reading an article, but the numbers break down pretty easily. Of course, of interest for this thread would be the Welfare section of each year's budget.



How much of the "welfare" section would be buying plasma TVs for worthless lazy people who refuse to work?



Even if we knew that we wouldn't have the whole total because of people who choose to work for less money (due to time or job), shoulder less of the tax burden, and leave more for the rest of us.

The middle quintile of Americans are averaging a 6% tax rate. 30% of American workers pay no income tax. The bottom two quintiles actually have negative average income tax rates.

Some of those people are working in easy low-paid jobs that they're over qualified for.

Even after earning under graduate and masters degrees from two separate private colleges my sister decided she'd rather work low stress part-time jobs like summer camp counselor and yoga instructor.

Some of those people are capable of learning skilled labor but chose not to exert themselves and go to college or trade school while working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

For some time now I've been asking those who complain loudly about people who won't work and collect welfare to quantify. How many are they talking about? How much money?

So far none of the complainers has been able to answer.

So in essence they are whining about a supposed problem whose existence thay are unable to prove.



just because the numbers are not posted doesn't mean it's not happening. i didn't see your canopy colission does that mean that didn't happen?


There were about 200 witnesses and a photo published in Parachutist.

None of the whiners about welfare cheats can come up with any data to support their position.

We DO know how much money is being wasted every month in Iraq, though.


how is 5.4 trillion dollars since 1965?
www.heritage.org/research/welfare/HL524.cfm


Oh, thanks for find such a NON PARTISAN source:D:D of CURRENT:D:D information.

You are aware that the welfare laws were changed, right?

had some troublr finding good numbers but here is one on illegal imagration and welfare.
www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

i know that the legal people would be costing alot more. some of the things that piss me off about welfare are the ones that abuse it. some of the people cash their welfare checks at the boat and gamble the money away(i have seen this). why are we giving people checks to cash? why not pay the bills for them? instead of giving them the check have them bring in a bill and the gov pays their bills up to x amount amonth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

why are we giving people checks to cash? why not pay the bills for them? instead of giving them the check have them bring in a bill and the gov pays their bills up to x amount amonth.



Because making it harder to abuse a system is either racist, elitist, or disenfranchising. There is a magic number out there that is the percentage of people who are misusing a system that determines when something should be done about it. Welfare hasn't reached that yet. Oh you'll never know the number... "they" will just tell you when it is a problem and as long as they get votes from not doing something about it... it'll never be a problem.
Oh, hello again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

why are we giving people checks to cash? why not pay the bills for them? instead of giving them the check have them bring in a bill and the gov pays their bills up to x amount amonth.



Because making it harder to abuse a system is either racist, elitist, or disenfranchising. There is a magic number out there that is the percentage of people who are misusing a system that determines when something should be done about it. Welfare hasn't reached that yet. Oh you'll never know the number... "they" will just tell you when it is a problem and as long as they get votes from not doing something about it... it'll never be a problem.



So you don't think Gingrich(R) and E. Clay Shaw Jr (R)knew what they were doing when welfare was reformed. OK.

The "magic number" you seek is the point at which it becomes more expensive to fix a problem than the cost of the problem itself. In order to know that "magic number" , you must first know the extent of the problem. As we've seen in this and other threads, you righties whine and whinge about the problem without knowing its extent (or even if it's a real problem at all).
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The "magic number" you seek is the point at which it becomes more expensive to fix a problem than the cost of the problem itself.



Exactly! And we've seen that trillions of dollars later, the problems of poverty have not been made any better and possibly even worse. So the welfare programs are themselves evidence of what you speak of.

Rehabbing from a drug problem may cost more than the drugs - and may be pretty brutal, too. Let's not do it - and keep pumping money into a drug habit. After all, cutting off the supply can lead to horrible withdrawal symptoms.

Cutting off the national smack will cause a great deal of societal pain. The cost of concentrated benefit had already been spread out to many others. Now, there will be a diluted benefit to concentrated pain. Yes, the poor will feel the pain.

And so will the wealthy (if you lefties are actually serious, cutting corporate welfare along with social welfare will cause pain to the wealthy - one of your favorite goals.)

Do you deny, professor, that entitlement spending is responsible for more of our national debt than anything else? Seeing as how much more is spent on it than even on defense (remember, states and localities also pump billions into welfare) you can't really put all the blame on inflated defense spending.

How do we balance a budget, John? The quickest way is to cut spending. You simply cannot expect any windfalls in revenues. "I was expecting that money for Christmas. I already spent it. I needed that money. What will I do?"

Answer - in the future, you will not spend money you don't have. But that's not the right answer, is it?


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The "magic number" you seek is the point at which it becomes more expensive to fix a problem than the cost of the problem itself.



Exactly! And we've seen that trillions of dollars later, the problems of poverty have not been made any better and possibly even worse. So the welfare programs are themselves evidence of what you speak of.

Rehabbing from a drug problem may cost more than the drugs - and may be pretty brutal, too. Let's not do it - and keep pumping money into a drug habit. After all, cutting off the supply can lead to horrible withdrawal symptoms.

Cutting off the national smack will cause a great deal of societal pain. The cost of concentrated benefit had already been spread out to many others. Now, there will be a diluted benefit to concentrated pain. Yes, the poor will feel the pain.

And so will the wealthy (if you lefties are actually serious, cutting corporate welfare along with social welfare will cause pain to the wealthy - one of your favorite goals.)

Do you deny, professor, that entitlement spending is responsible for more of our national debt than anything else? Seeing as how much more is spent on it than even on defense (remember, states and localities also pump billions into welfare) you can't really put all the blame on inflated defense spending.

How do we balance a budget, John? The quickest way is to cut spending. You simply cannot expect any windfalls in revenues. "I was expecting that money for Christmas. I already spent it. I needed that money. What will I do?"

Answer - in the future, you will not spend money you don't have. But that's not the right answer, is it?



The most egregious expense with no justification other than corporate welfare is the fact that we spend as much on military as all the rest of the world put together. Simply NO WAY that is necessary.

Rooting out the "worthless lazy" from the truly needy will be very difficult if not impossible to do in a cost effective manner. And we STILL have no number for the money spent on the "worthless lazy", so how can you possibly evaluate whether or not it is a significant % of the total expenditures?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The most egregious expense with no justification other than corporate welfare is the fact that we spend as much on military as all the rest of the world put together. Simply NO WAY that is necessary.

Rooting out the "worthless lazy" from the truly needy will be very difficult if not impossible to do in a cost effective manner. And we STILL have no number for the money spent on the "worthless lazy", so how can you possibly evaluate whether or not it is a significant % of the total expenditures?



there is no need to try and sort out the worthless lazy from the truly needy. the federal gov. should be spending $0.00 on social programs

--------------------------------------------------
I am a greek midget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


The most egregious expense with no justification other than corporate welfare is the fact that we spend as much on military as all the rest of the world put together. Simply NO WAY that is necessary.

Rooting out the "worthless lazy" from the truly needy will be very difficult if not impossible to do in a cost effective manner. And we STILL have no number for the money spent on the "worthless lazy", so how can you possibly evaluate whether or not it is a significant % of the total expenditures?



there is no need to try and sort out the worthless lazy from the truly needy. the federal gov. should be spending $0.00 on social programs



Even though I am libertarian, I disagree. I have little problem with a safety net. I have a problem when the safety net is a hammock.

As with military spending, I think there should be a point where enough is enough. The government can't spend less than $3 trillion in a year, then there is a problem. A BIG problem.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0