Politics

[mikey]

Not 3/4, but just short of 1/2.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid

49,901,000 who collected Social Security; 49,073,000 who got food stamps; "46,440,000 on Medicare; 23,228,000 in the Women, Infants and Children program, 20,223,000 getting Supplemental Security Income;13,433,000 who lived in public or subsidized rental housing; 5,098,000 who got unemployment; 3,178,000 who got veterans' benefits; and 364,000 who got railroad retirement benefits."

So I'm seeing more like 50 mill, not 150 mill

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

"In total, the Census Bureau estimated, 151,014,000 Americans out of a population then estimated to be 306,804,000 received benefits from one or more government programs during the last three months of 2011. Those 151,014,000 beneficiaries equaled 49.2 percent of the population."

[mikey]

a large portion of those benefits HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT AT HAND.  Raising the minimum wage would do nothing to decrease the number of, say, military veterans receiving money.  To imply such a thing is folly.  You actually have to read the numbers instead of lumping them together

[blueflower999]

In all honesty social security is fine because you essentially pay for yourself. At least, that's how it should be. Medicare is probably justifiable too but to a lesser degree, and certainly not as many people need it that get it. Food stamps you could also probably make a case for but those could use some cuts as well. We're spending money we don't have, or so it would appear.

Out of curiosity, any ideas how long it would take to pay back the entire national debt if the government stopped dishing out benefits like it is currently? A little more than two 8-term presidencies, or roughly 18 years. It's a huge problem but it's not unsolvable if we just get our acts together and stop being fiscally irresponsible. We're essentially the richest and most powerful country on earth and yet we're not smart enough to manage our checkbook. Of course, I'm not in favor of dropping all government programs, but slashing them down until we're spending the money that we take in and only the money that we take in is the only sensible action here.

[FireArrow]

^Do you really think the republicans are gonna do that? They're just gonna spend money on their republican agenda rather than the democratic one. Do you want our money to go to government programs or tax cuts and the military?

[blueflower999]

Preferably a bit should go to all of the above (we don't need a military all the time, but currently it would be nice to not be shrinking it), but in the degree that they still leave a bit of a surplus behind. In other words, the debt shouldn't be going up.

Also, I'm pretty sure John Kasich could do it, seeing as how he's done it twice before (once in Ohio and once during a previous federal administration I believe)

[FireArrow]

Preferably a bit should go to all of the above (we don't need a military all the time, but currently it would be nice to not be shrinking it), but in the degree that they still leave a bit of a surplus behind. In other words, the debt shouldn't be going up.

Also, I'm pretty sure John Kasich could do it, seeing as how he's done it twice before (once in Ohio and once during a previous federal administration I believe)

Well, it says on his campaign page that he's gonna increase military funding and cut taxes.

Supposedly he has had success in Ohio, so maybe that approach works?

[KefkaticFanatic]

I don't see why people are so angry about government funded support, that's the point of government.  It's like they want to revert back to some barbaric society where you're either in the bourgeois or some flea ridden peasant.

The focus shouldn't be that too many people are using it, or it should be taken away, it should be how do we ensure that it can continue being funded as it should be, and how can we further support people that have a need to pull on these programs.  It's absurd how selfish some people are.

[blueflower999]

I don't see why people are so angry about government funded support, that's the point of government.  It's like they want to revert back to some barbaric society where you're either in the bourgeois or some flea ridden peasant.

The focus shouldn't be that too many people are using it, or it should be taken away, it should be how do we ensure that it can continue being funded as it should be, and how can we further support people that have a need to pull on these programs.  It's absurd how selfish some people are.

Now we're just getting into the semantics of what government's primary function is, and unfortunately for you, no one agrees on that and I don't think anyone ever will. I mean if you honestly believe that government's biggest responsibility is to dispense benefits to people then that's fine but stop assuming that everyone shares your point of view. The programs all need major reform or else we're never going to be able to support them. Actually we can't support them already but that doesn't seem to be anyone's concern. Votes are far more important!

[Ruto]

Lol everyone. Does anyone agree that the government's role ISN'T to take care of their citizens? Sorry, but Lord Reagan isn't a good example when it comes to what works, we know the the trickle down effect doesn't work.

Example:

Suddenly a billionaire has $300 million more to spend. Will he buy 100,000+ cars and save an American automaker from bankruptcy?

Suddenly $100,000 working class people get $300 million total from a tax refund (yes, these exist). Will they buy 100,000 cars so they don't have to drive their old cars to work?

The reason a safety net exists is because bad things happen to anybody. And don't say it'll never happen to you. Let's say your parents both get into a car accident and can't work. Would you honestly say 'tough luck, maybe you shouldn't have been driving"? Then give them bootstraps and tell them to work anyway, so you can keep your house and appliances? Will all people feel obliged to give you their services for free until you get back on your feet (try this at Wal-Mart)?

Earlier this year:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/conservative-spurns-obamacare-and-insurance-but-blames-obama-now-that-hes-going-broke-and-blind/

The update to that story is that people on GoFundMe donated $28k and told him to get insurance ASAP after the story went viral. It's also amazing that I hear a lot of people who talk about people abusing the welfare system (we know this doesn't happen on the scale they think) find no issue with soliciting strangers for help with crowdfunding sites.

[blueflower999]

I'd like to make a few comments and then I have a new political update.

Firstly, Regan's economic policy wasn't intended to give rich people more money to go out and buy cars or whatever. Basing an economic system on the faith in the goodness of human beings is doomed from the start. The system was designed to lower tax rates and thus get the rich people to stop investing their money overseas to avoid the high tax rates in America. Then, of course as rich people tend to do, they would try to make more money. How would they do that? By starting more businesses, of course! This resulted in a boost to the economy, more employment, and an increase in revenues to the government.

You can argue all you want about how successful the plan was, but the fact is that Reagan is still one of the most beloved Presidents of the modern era for it, and it certainly had quite a few positive outcomes.

Secondly, I don't think anyone should advocate that the government shouldn't have a safety net of last resort. But it truly has to be of last resort. Pumping out one trillion dollars a year into entitlement programs doesn't sound to me like it's being used as a last resort.

Also, here's the political news: Scott Walker has supposedly dropped out of the election. Such a shame too. I rather liked him. He just couldn't stand out with so many similar and better candidates in the field.

[FireArrow]

Since we're still on the topic of money, you guys might find this useful. http://www.ontheissues.org/Budget_+_Economy.htm#Headlines

[Ruto]

Firstly, Regan's economic policy wasn't intended to give rich people more money to go out and buy cars or whatever. Basing an economic system on the faith in the goodness of human beings is doomed from the start. The system was designed to lower tax rates and thus get the rich people to stop investing their money overseas to avoid the high tax rates in America. Then, of course as rich people tend to do, they would try to make more money. How would they do that? By starting more businesses, of course! This resulted in a boost to the economy, more employment, and an increase in revenues to the government.

You can argue all you want about how successful the plan was, but the fact is that Reagan is still one of the most beloved Presidents of the modern era for it, and it certainly had quite a few positive outcomes.

Tax cuts=welfare for the rich and is in every way, a handout. Honestly, these companies that tell you trickle down works are the ones who are best at sucking money out of the government/taxpayers for their own benefit. It seems like you're the one putting faith in a terribly flawed system.

I thought about this today because under Fiorina (who is running for president), her company among others lobbied for a tax cut in exchange to bring money, r&d and jobs to the US. What actually happened was that she took $4 billion out of $4.3 billion in handouts to buy stock (illegal). Later she made a bad decision to buy Compaq and then laid off tens of thousands of workers and she got fired for that with a nice $21 million severance package. So how much of this $21 million did the fired workers get? And what do you think rich people did with their money? Buy YOU a house? They put their money back in stock and investments and begged the government to bail them out when that turned sour! If the rich have never been richer, then why is the government in massive debt and some people are unemployed?

Since 1969 only Clinton ended his term with a surplus. Reagan closed down mental hospitals and sold weapons to Iran.

Pumping out one trillion dollars a year into entitlement programs doesn't sound to me like it's being used as a last resort.

Entitlement programs for the rich? We haven't paid a trillion to barely feed people with food stamps. How is it entitlement to give people a chance at having enough to eat or stay alive? Let's blame the poor people instead while the rich people are running off with money.

Look at Scott Walker's record in Wisconsin's education, labor unions and environment. I could never justify tax cuts on education but somehow afford a sports stadium. 

While I'm at it, there is this article about how businesses reinvented themselves with Christianity as PR. Also, a history of the Koch brothers and Fred Koch are worth reading.

[blueflower999]

Uck here we go again.

Tax cuts=welfare for the rich and is in every way, a handout.

hand·out
noun
1. something given free to a needy person or organization.

wel·fare
noun
1. financial support given to people in need.

Don't really think it meets either of these definitions. In order for something to be a handout you have to... hand it out. I mean if gas prices go down people don't think "wow this is great the gas companies are giving us free money!"

Honestly, these companies that tell you trickle down works are the ones who are best at sucking money out of the government/taxpayers for their own benefit.

And I'd much rather have politicians suck money out of the taxpayers for their own benefit? No, not really. The rich keep the economy going. The government throws money down the drain, hence 18 trillion some dollars in debt.

It seems like you're the one putting faith in a terribly flawed system.

Ah, absolutely. I trust Pope Francis who's in charge of a country with no economy for all of my economic needs! Next we can learn about climate change from the man who invented the internet!

I thought about this today because under Fiorina (who is running for president), her company among others lobbied for a tax cut in exchange to bring money, r&d and jobs to the US. What actually happened was that she took $4 billion out of $4.3 billion in handouts to buy stock (illegal). Later she made a bad decision to buy Compaq and then laid off tens of thousands of workers and she got fired for that with a nice $21 million severance package.

I don't know enough about the particular situation to defend her. I can tell you, however, that I'm going to take everything from Rawstory.com with a grain of salt. I mean, come on, if I posted a link to a Fox News article would you take me seriously? Probably not. All that website needs is knowledge of her being conservative and it has a motivation to drag her through the mud.

Reading up Carly's Wikipedia page (which is a good deal less biased) reveals that she hired more people during her career than fired, so there was a net gain of employees for the company. In addition, she was fired for "declining stock value, disappointing earning reports, disagreements about the company's performance, and her resistance to transferring authority to division heads."

So how much of this $21 million did the fired workers get?

Well they actually probably got some of it depending on whether they filed for unemployment benefits or not.

And what do you think rich people did with their money? Buy YOU a house?

Why the heck would I want rich people to buy me a house? I'll work hard and buy my own house, thank you. And yes, of course I know not everyone has the opportunities to buy a house.

They put their money back in stock and investments and begged the government to bail them out when that turned sour!

Government should never bail people out. Ever. It's not their problem.

If the rich have never been richer, then why is the government in massive debt and some people are unemployed?

The rich being rich doesn't have anything to do with the government being in debt. Let's get a president that won't double the debt in their presidency, shall we?

Since 1969 only Clinton ended his term with a surplus.

I'm aware of this. From what I understand, he cooperated with Republicans (John Kasich likes to take partial credit for this) to balance the budget. And that's nice and I respect him for that. I mean if he didn't he would have been as "the Monica Lewinsky" President for all of history so he kind of saved his own behind in that regard.
 
Reagan closed down mental hospitals and sold weapons to Iran.
Yeah, I'm aware of this. Reagan himself was never directly linked with the affair, but I suppose like Harding and Teapot Dome a President gets blamed for what his subordinates do behind his back, huh?

Entitlement programs for the rich? We haven't paid a trillion to barely feed people with food stamps. How is it entitlement to give people a chance at having enough to eat or stay alive? Let's blame the poor people instead while the rich people are running off with money.

Here's another quote from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's Wikipedia page:

"SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014 and supplied roughly 46.5 million Americans with an average of $125.35 for each person per month in food assistance.[2]" I'm assuming that because it says "each person," that families with numerous children would get more than this, but I could be wrong on that. That's certainly enough to live off of per month for food, certainly. It wouldn't be very luxurious or healthy but the poor that I've seen in Bolivia would kill for that income a month.

Look at Scott Walker's record in Wisconsin's education, labor unions and environment. I could never justify tax cuts on education but somehow afford a sports stadium. 

Here's Scott Walker's budget for the upcoming few years. As for labor unions and the environment, those are other debates entirely.

While I'm at it, there is this article about how businesses reinvented themselves with Christianity as PR. Also, a history of the Koch brothers and Fred Koch are worth reading.

Ooh boy, another rawstory article. "Merrrrr capitalism and religion are evil, everyone's a blind sheep to what the media tell them, merrrrr."

[KefkaticFanatic]

You can argue all you want about how successful the plan was, but the fact is that Reagan is still one of the most beloved Presidents of the modern era for it, and it certainly had quite a few positive outcomes.

Conservatives like him because of his STOP THE DAMN REDS WITH THE POWAH OF JESUS speakings, not anything to do with his actual policies.  His views are hilariously out of line with all of the leading conservative agendas at present.