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

[klingeme 0]

Quote

I disagree. They ARE possible. It will just take some very, very courageous politicians to do that.

Congressional retirement system is another thing to cut immediately. Cut the retirement benefit by 50% at least. It's an obscenity.

But congress would have to vote that it. I don't see that EVER happening.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Well, I'd start with Social Security by means testing it to ensure that nobody receives more than will put them at poverty level. . But I'd look at those statements and ensure that they receive no more than 100% per year of what they paid into it. I'd grandfather in everyone on SS, but I'd make sure that it slowly gets cut by informing the populace, "This ain't gonna be here. Yes, you were promised way back when, but the don't have to deliver it. I'd suggest you all save money, because SS won't be here to cover your ass."

Then I'd take over Medicare. I'd make sure that all Medicare money is paid through the VA and that the VA handle all Medicare treatments. I'd cancel all contracts with private health care providers and let the public know, "You'll be kept alive with this. But if you want any of the frills, go pay a private doctor." And people will scrape together the dough for nicer treatment.

Instant cut of a large amount of money. Then I'd cut Medic-Aid and Welfare and move the money toward adoption and foster care programs. Can't afford your kids? Well, we'll put them with loving parents - gay or straight - who CAN. And people would find how much they can do on their own when there is something to lose.

The lack of welfare will result in less people trying for it. And then immigrants won't be a problem anymore because they are not a drain on the resources and they will be welcomed. (Not by xenophobes but they will have lost their big argument over the last 40 years).

Right there is probably $500 billion in yearly savings within a couple years. I'd take the money saved and make early ayments on the national debt.

Unemployment? Perhaps cut it 10%. Benefits to max out at 75% of average monthly income for last 24 months. It is payable for a maximum of 25% of months worked in last 4 to peak at one year. Thus, for someone like me who never used unemployment and averaged 5500 monthly gross for the last 24 months, I'd get get $4,125 per month in unemployment for one year. If I've only worked three years at 4000 per month then I get $3000 per month for 6 months.

Oh, yeah. One more thing. I can extend that monthly by performing public service for 30 hours per week. (not 40 hours per week since I should be looking for a job, too). FDR did it. I'll reinstitute it.

SO there will be a cut there but some benefit, too.

I reckon that with these I can manage to save another 100 billion or so.

And then I'll be roundly villified for the next 20 years, and in hindsight it'll be said that I did the right thing.

you forgot people collecting on dissabilities. this area has alot of people sucking the system dry. if you lost a legg you can still type. make it mandatory that anyone collecting dissability be made to see another doctor and then retrained to a field they can still do. just because you can't do something doesn't mean you live on us for the rest of your life.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

you forgot people collecting on dissabilities. this area has alot of people sucking the system dry. if you lost a legg you can still type. .

OK, but what if you lose a legg and can't spell either?

...

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

[billvon 2,396]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Your one warning. Cut it out.

How should I rephrase the question? (Asking questions is still OK, I assume).

...

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

you forgot people collecting on dissabilities. this area has alot of people sucking the system dry. if you lost a legg you can still type. make it mandatory that anyone collecting dissability be made to see another doctor and then retrained to a field they can still do. just because you can't do something doesn't mean you live on us for the rest of your life.

That's pretty harsh. I doubt you know too many disabled people. I receive disability and can still work. Hell, I can still drive, type, even skydive.

Am I gaming the system? Sucking it dry? Should I be cut off from disability compensation?

Would it change your answer to know I lost my arm fighting in Afghanistan?

I agree that someone who is faking an injury to get a check needs to be punished, but I don't think we should punish people with permanent disabilities for rising above and succeeding. Cutting people off from disability because they are able to work some Joe job just provides a disincentive for them to work at all. Of course, it sounds to me like you group severely disabled people in with all those lazy people who don't want to work and just want Obama to give them your tax money.

I personally make more at work than I get from the VA, but I'll bet a lot of disabled vets don't. Oh well, fuck 'em. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up, right?

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Back in the 1800's people went west. Had the climate been the same they would have gone west if they got federal grant money.

homesteaders were given land - 40 acres, right?

Actually 160 acres and it would go up to 320 acres. There were conditions, though. They had to apply. They had to improve the land. And then they could file for the deed.

This was all part of "Manifest Destiny." The US Govt. wanted people to go West. The promise of land would lure people out there. Again - the land was practically free. But the people had obligations:
1) They had to go out there and claim it. Note that this isn't like today where you could rent a U-Haul and take a couple day drive to Oklahoma. They had to get a wagon and take a weeks or months long trek to get there.

2) When they got there they had to claim their little portion of bare land.

3) Then they had to do something with the bare land - namely farm it.

Point? The free land wasn't free.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

you forgot people collecting on dissabilities. this area has alot of people sucking the system dry. if you lost a legg you can still type. make it mandatory that anyone collecting dissability be made to see another doctor and then retrained to a field they can still do. just because you can't do something doesn't mean you live on us for the rest of your life.

That's pretty harsh. I doubt you know too many disabled people. I receive disability and can still work. Hell, I can still drive, type, even skydive.

Am I gaming the system? Sucking it dry? Should I be cut off from disability compensation?

Would it change your answer to know I lost my arm fighting in Afghanistan?

I agree that someone who is faking an injury to get a check needs to be punished, but I don't think we should punish people with permanent disabilities for rising above and succeeding. Cutting people off from disability because they are able to work some Joe job just provides a disincentive for them to work at all. Of course, it sounds to me like you group severely disabled people in with all those lazy people who don't want to work and just want Obama to give them your tax money.

I personally make more at work than I get from the VA, but I'll bet a lot of disabled vets don't. Oh well, fuck 'em. They knew what they were getting into when they signed up, right?

my point was to the ones that sit back and collect and live on the system. I am all for helping those that help themselves. this is the problem with the welfare and dissability systems in this country, they promote staying on the system and not getting off.

i did say train people to do someting else, to make them a productive person. i also believe in a sliding scale instead of just droppin them off when they start getting back on there feet. the longer you stay on the program the less you get untill it is gone. this will make people look for new ways of making a living and shorten their time living on the system.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

you forgot people collecting on dissabilities. this area has alot of people sucking the system dry. if you lost a legg you can still type. .

OK, but what if you lose a legg and can't spell either?

unlike alot of the system sucking loosers i will figure it out and make myself a respectable life doing something. if that means i need to learn to type and spell better so be it. I have NEVER been out of work except by my own choice since i was 12. alot of people haven't worked since they were 12 by their own choice and these are the ones that need to be taken off any government programs and let rot if they don't do something for themselves

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

you forgot people collecting on dissabilities. this area has alot of people sucking the system dry. if you lost a legg you can still type. .

OK, but what if you lose a legg and can't spell either?

Now fuck. That was FUNNY. I'm still laughing while typing. LOL

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[billvon 2,396]

>this is the problem with the welfare and dissability systems in this
>country, they promote staying on the system and not getting off.

No, they don't.

In 1996, the welfare system was reformed at the federal level. It now:

-requires people to work within two years of receiving welfare or they lose it
-limits benefits to five years lifetime max (even if you get fired again)
-allows states to add caps so that no new children born while on welfare are covered.

>i did say train people to do someting else, to make them a productive person.

The problem with that is that many people then just went to school forever because it was easier than working. Most training programs nowadays require you to work as well as go to school, and they emphasize short term training over longer term education.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Back in the 1800's people went west. Had the climate been the same they would have gone west if they got federal grant money.

homesteaders were given land - 40 acres, right?

Actually 160 acres and it would go up to 320 acres. There were conditions, though. They had to apply. They had to improve the land. And then they could file for the deed.

This was all part of "Manifest Destiny." The US Govt. wanted people to go West. The promise of land would lure people out there. Again - the land was practically free. But the people had obligations:
1) They had to go out there and claim it. Note that this isn't like today where you could rent a U-Haul and take a couple day drive to Oklahoma. They had to get a wagon and take a weeks or months long trek to get there.

2) When they got there they had to claim their little portion of bare land.

3) Then they had to do something with the bare land - namely farm it.

Point? The free land wasn't free.

Yeah. And don't forget they had to kill all those baD injuns WHOSE LAND THEY WERE STEALING. Edit to add: Were those bad injuns terrorists or freedom fighters?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[DanG 1]

Quote

i did say train people to do someting else, to make them a productive person. i also believe in a sliding scale instead of just droppin them off when they start getting back on there feet. the longer you stay on the program the less you get untill it is gone. this will make people look for new ways of making a living and shorten their time living on the system.

I agree about job retraining. I don't agree about kicking someone off the disability roles once they get another job. For temporary disability, sure. For permanent disability, just because you got retrained to be a clerk/typist, the leg won't grow back. People with permanent disabilities have additional financial needs than people without. What was your wheelchair budget last year? Probably zero. For someone with no legs, their wheelchair budget is probably pretty hefty, whether they are working or not. I recently lost my prosthetic arm (good story, I need to get around to posting it). If I hadn't been in the VA system, it would have been extremely difficult to replace. These things are frickin expensive.

- Dan G

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

i did say train people to do someting else, to make them a productive person. i also believe in a sliding scale instead of just droppin them off when they start getting back on there feet. the longer you stay on the program the less you get untill it is gone. this will make people look for new ways of making a living and shorten their time living on the system.

I agree about job retraining. I don't agree about kicking someone off the disability roles once they get another job. For temporary disability, sure. For permanent disability, just because you got retrained to be a clerk/typist, the leg won't grow back. People with permanent disabilities have additional financial needs than people without. What was your wheelchair budget last year? Probably zero. For someone with no legs, their wheelchair budget is probably pretty hefty, whether they are working or not. I recently lost my prosthetic arm (good story, I need to get around to posting it). If I hadn't been in the VA system, it would have been extremely difficult to replace. These things are frickin expensive.

isn't that what insurance is for? not to make light of your situation, and everyone is different, but if you get your retraining paid for and medical condition paid for why would you continue to collect ?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>this is the problem with the welfare and dissability systems in this
>country, they promote staying on the system and not getting off.

No, they don't.

In 1996, the welfare system was reformed at the federal level. It now:

-requires people to work within two years of receiving welfare or they lose it
-limits benefits to five years lifetime max (even if you get fired again)
-allows states to add caps so that no new children born while on welfare are covered.

>i did say train people to do someting else, to make them a productive person.

The problem with that is that many people then just went to school forever because it was easier than working. Most training programs nowadays require you to work as well as go to school, and they emphasize short term training over longer term education.

if this is the case, why are so many people still on it for all these years?

time limits are needed so people don't string out the retraining. if you can't get retrained in x amount of time then i guess you loose. to many people have found loop holes to use the system as it is.

[billvon 2,396]

>if this is the case, why are so many people still on it for all these years?

They're not. In 2005, there were about 2 million people using it, and none were on it for more than 2 years. In 1995, there were 5 million on it, some for decades.

>time limits are needed so people don't string out the retraining. if you
>can't get retrained in x amount of time then i guess you loose.

That's the way it works now.

[DanG 1]

Quote

isn't that what insurance is for? not to make light of your situation, and everyone is different, but if you get your retraining paid for and medical condition paid for why would you continue to collect ?

Good question. I suppose society has decided that people who are permenantly injured while working for someone else deserve to receive disability compensation from that entity as long as the injury remains. That is what insurance is for, and many companies have disability insurance that does exactly that. I suppose you could consider the VA as the disability insurance provider in my case. I was working for the government when I was injured, so the government gives me a check every month until my arm grows back.

I think society has also chosen to recognize the sacrifice made by wounded servicemembers as something special. Whether it is or not can be debated. I suppose you could make the argument that a wounded soldier is no different than a carpenter who fell off a roof at work. I think most people believe that solders, sailors, and Marines are serving a higher purpose than just a regular job. If you disagree, that is fine. I believe you'd be in the minority, at least these days. Maybe less so during the Vietnam era.

From a practical standpoint, I think it would be pretty hard to recruit for the Army if potential soldiers knew they wouldn't be taken care of if they became seriously injured.

- Dan G

[akarunway 1]

"to many people have found loop holes to use the system as it is." --------------------------------------------------------lllllllllllllll''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''Let's take it to the next level. How about all those corps. and rich motherfuckers that cost us taxpayers WAAAAAAYYYYYY more money that some bum on welfare or disabilty?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Would you say that the US Constitution is a historical document, fixed and immutable for all time or one that, by design, allows for interpretation and modification?

I would agree that it is a historical document.

I would also agree that it is fixed but not immutable. Indeed, the Bill of Rights itself is an indication that the Constitution can be changed, and the amendment process laid out in it is a vehicle for that change.

I also agree that it does provide room for interpretation. Nevertheless, once interpretated, that interpretation should be the rule until such time as the Constitution is amended, as happened with the 16th Amendment being passed to supercede the interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS that declared income taxes Unconstitutional.

Paul - when laws and rules are subject to interpretation and reinterpretation at any time, it means there is no rule. It means that it is subject to the whim or caprice of the judge. It also means that there is no notice as to what conduct is acceptable or unacceptable.

The only modifications to the Constitution should be the letter of the Constitution, and not modifications to established jurisprudence.

I readily admit to being personally, socially and politically pleased with the steps toward individual freedom that marked the Warren Era. However, I must also admit to being dismayed at how these changes were brought about - via judicial caveat of finding things that just aren't there. The judges said that they think that the Constitution should protect these things.

That's not the way the process should work.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Would you say that the US Constitution is a historical document, fixed and immutable for all time or one that, by design, allows for interpretation and modification?

I would agree that it is a historical document.

I would also agree that it is fixed but not immutable. Indeed, the Bill of Rights itself is an indication that the Constitution can be changed, and the amendment process laid out in it is a vehicle for that change.

I also agree that it does provide room for interpretation. Nevertheless, once interpretated, that interpretation should be the rule until such time as the Constitution is amended, as happened with the 16th Amendment being passed to supercede the interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS that declared income taxes Unconstitutional.

Paul - when laws and rules are subject to interpretation and reinterpretation at any time, it means there is no rule. It means that it is subject to the whim or caprice of the judge. It also means that there is no notice as to what conduct is acceptable or unacceptable.

The only modifications to the Constitution should be the letter of the Constitution, and not modifications to established jurisprudence.

I readily admit to being personally, socially and politically pleased with the steps toward individual freedom that marked the Warren Era. However, I must also admit to being dismayed at how these changes were brought about - via judicial caveat of finding things that just aren't there. The judges said that they think that the Constitution should protect these things.

That's not the way the process should work.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

you forgot people collecting on dissabilities. this area has alot of people sucking the system dry. if you lost a legg you can still type. make it mandatory that anyone collecting dissability be made to see another doctor and then retrained to a field they can still do. just because you can't do something doesn't mean you live on us for the rest of your life.

Disability is an insurance program, not welfare. I paid just under $700 to California this year for the state disability program, and some portion of my 6.2% (X2) for SS.

I don't know if servicemen pay an actual fee for this, but clearly it's an expense that the government has to be responsible for, and probably to a greater degree than they have.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yeah. And don't forget they had to kill all those baD injuns WHOSE LAND THEY WERE STEALING. Edit to add: Were those bad injuns terrorists or freedom fighters?

Helluva point! The land was given away. It actually belonged to someone else. The Homestead Act was an "entitlement." Available to many and paid for by others who lacked the political might to prevent it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

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.

...

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

[marks2065 0]

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?

[kallend 1,623]

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.

...

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