nope.jpg. i simply work in an industry where i get to see firsthand how the handout regime works in real life, instead of in an ivory tower where people can moralize without ever having to look the consequences of their pet theories in the eye.
do say what industry this is -Social activist? -Sub-prime mortgage hawker? -Government official? -Receiver of said handouts? -Postmaster general?
methinks you don't know what you're talking about. perhaps you should stop taking online debate so seriously, stress is bad for your blood pressure.
Because it wouldn't make a dent that's why it's not an option. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html 66% tax increases 34% spending cuts As it's been repeated on this board for awhile, reduce military spending, repeal the Bush tax cuts, eliminate the SS cap, budget solved.
methinks you misunderstand my genuine desire to get to know you better. i kid and sarcasm a bit (it's a part of my nature), but i'm genuinely interested what makes you so cynical-since I have "firsthand experience" in the field as well, I guess you could say. as for stress, no stress-kush and oj makes sure of that.
first of all, i don't care about whether it makes a dent or not. It's a philosophical problem, not a numbers one. same reason why i made so many cuts and raised taxes far beyond what's needed to balance the budget. i'm a manager at a supermarket, of which about 1/3 of our income comes from food stamps or other welfare-type programs (i realize that i include many state-funded initiatives such as WIC in this). It sickens me how many people who obviously don't need the help come in, their attitude about the benefits they receive (it's ok to waste it because "it's not their money anyway," some will even decline usage of discount cards because it's not their money). I live in a community where there is a ton of youth unemployment and drug culture and people are encouraged to have children irresponsibly because the welfare program prioritizes people who have children, to the point that people who legitimately need help aren't qualified because they don't have kids or a debilitating disease. Don't get me wrong, there are people who legitimately need a hand. I just think the system is set up in a terrible terrible fashion, that promotes irresponsibility and doesn't address ANY of the core issues facing the "culture of poverty" that has sprung up. You won't believe how much of your average unemployment check or welfare benefits goes into buying alcohol, cigarettes, or lottery tickets. I work hard for my living, and these people slack off all the time, and buy things that I could not even imagine affording on my budget. It irks me greatly.
Perfectly understandable. I'm a student at an "Ivory Tower"ish university (not nearly as good as the Ivies or even some nice public universities in the States-but the "Harvard of Canada"-10 points if you get the reference!), and my (very) limited experience is based on volunteering with organizations that serve food to the homeless/provide temporary shelter etc. That does mean I'm a bit biased-I only see one side of the story-but straight out man, there are people in this country (well technically, continent) that need help and have some f****d up stories. that said, i guess it all comes down to the same thing-effective safeguards and measures and accountability. I still don't see where your zeal for eliminating the programs come from, but I can definitely understand your frustration about it all.
my zeal for eliminating them comes from a belief that, as they are, they can't be fixed. I'm not opposed to programs to help the needy. What I'm opposed to is handouts. If you're getting government aid, you should be required to take a class in which you learn to balance a checkbook, draw up a budget, and be responsible. The government is not your parent, and should not be giving you an allowance.
Your philosophy is correct if you fight the underlying disease (wealth disparity) instead of blindly trying to eradicate the manifestation (people on welfare taking advantage of the system). You are going to hurt the innocent just to try and get at the few cadillac mothers that are out there. Numbers is what is important here, you want to attack food stamps while other policies like deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy allows for Trillions to be wiped out and concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. I appreciate that you probably want to attack those as well. You might as well be complaining about the lady who eats a couple of grapes versus the shoplifters who run out with DVD players and jewelry. (Not that you probably have that in the supermarket.)
It may become a bigger problem soon if the economy doesn't recover soon; unemployment is pretty much double digits with some people saying as high as 19% including discouraged workers/unemployed not actively looking for work. As a country somehow we've adopted the idea that the government is supposed to act as a safety net for everyone. Obama's already extended unemployment benefits to two years, but what happens when that runs out? Are you going to be so forgiving of the lady who's shoplifting batteries if you had to fight and scrabble to earn enough to pay for your own?
I'll play....56tax/44cuts. Couple of comments: I was saddened to see all but one of you (of the links I checked) would cut foreign aid even though it has a minuscule effect on the budget. Most of the 'fixes' had more then enough room to leave it as is. Sucks for those developing nations without clean water and huge poverty and health problems. Seems like the most heartless of all cuts. Guess they're not our problem . Not saying it couldn't be better and more efficiently distributed -- but it has relatively no effect on the budget -- and was slashed all the same (me thinks the NYT may have been making a point ). The military took the brunt of my cuts -- mainly because I needed to -- and the items listed seemed to be a reduction in growth rather then a cut. Plus my impression is that military spending has been crazy nuts for too long. I avoided capping medicare growth because I don't know how you do that with an aging populace and given global med costs are growing faster then GDP. The math was tempting-- but the effect could be devastating. This really made it hard -- because the 2030 effect of $500B was a third of the 2030 deficit. So I had to cut and raise where I didn't really want to. The deficit fix would have been so easy if I'd taken this one. Using an 'alternate' measure for inflation for SS was also tempting -- but what it really means is less then CPI adjustments for SS. And I don't think CPI is excessive. I would have liked to go with Clinton tax rates for those under 250K and 'eliminate loopholes' with lower rates -- which really means tax simplification. But the program wouldn't let me choose both. So I went with the combo that had the greatest effect in 2030. (keep the under $250K cuts and eliminate loopholes with high rates -- grrrr). I'd still prefer eliminating the Bush cuts for those under 250K coupled with tax simplification. The US continues to have amongst the lowest personal tax rates of the industrialized world. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing -- and a hodge podge of deductions, credits and unwarranted complexity -- which is. I avoided the SS increase for high earners since I don't think the max SS pension needs to go up significantly -- so I don't think the premiums to those workers should go up. Unless you just want to call it a tax and fund the pensions from general revenue. I resisted the National Sales tax because -- well, they suck and disproportionately hit the poor-- but I did put through the carbon tax. This means gas prices and heating prices go up. Again -- I needed the money, and I'm not so sure that long term this isn't a decent disincentive to continued use. I would have liked to tax the banks -- just because they're generally evil -- but, alas I didn't have to! I'm also not a fan of targeting certain industries for tax, or breaks -- and I'm not so sure this one could be done equitably or that a tax would be a disincentive to the risk taking.
Again you are focusing on the manifestation of a larger problem. It's easy to do because it's much more salient, you after all see it daily. I am much more tolerant of the lady shoplifting some batteries than the millionaires and billionaires who "shoplifted" huge tax breaks under Bush that culminated in the worst job growth decade EVER. I feel much worse about my fighting to save money in my 401k and watch it get cut in half because of the repeal of Glass-Steagal then someone shoplifing something that I myself bought. I guess maybe it comes down to bothering me more when the rich steals then when the poor does it.
humans are humans, stealing is wrong. you are not a better human if you're rich or if you're poor. There's a lot of outrage when people hear about rich people stealing, and yet it's somehow "ok" if poor people steal. Should rich people get away with stealing millions? No. Should poor people be given a free pass to steal? No. I'm not saying that rich people should be able to evade taxes. If you'll notice my choices, I (for the most part) did not approve tax cuts for the wealthy, and (for the most part) also wanted to increase taxes on them/close loopholes.
I went with 56% tax increases, 44% spending cuts. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=5mxl65nu
They have kind of a half-assed proposal for adjusting the mortgage interest destruction. Complete elimination should be on the table and discussed. England, Australia, Canada do not permit the deduction. The deduction is projected to cost the Treasury Department $104 billion THIS YEAR! It will also be a start to getting the government completely out of the housing market limiting their ability to **** up house prices. It's mainly rich people that take advantage of it anyway. For many people with low or middle income, the standard deduction isn't much lower or even higher than what they pay in mortgage interest every year. Seriously, it's the stupidest idea ever. Giving people a reward for borrowing money. The worse/higher the loan, the bigger the reward. Get rid of it...save upwards of 100 billion every year.
