Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on May 08, 2012, 11:27:45 PM
-
Over the weekend voters in Europe tossed out many leaders who were trying to impose austerity measures to stave off financial ruin. Rather than accept that they'd spent themselves broke, the voters chose new leaders who promised more free stuff.
Here in the USA, Eugene Robinson had a column in which he warned Republicans that their push for cutting spending could cost them elections as well. He thinks that it's possible to keep spending, but still balance the budget. The welfare state must continue, at least according to him.
What sort of drugs do you have to take to view the situation in Europe as he does? His column is here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/austerity-as-a-bridge-to-nowhere/2012/05/07/gIQAVBAw8T_story.html).
-
A guy at work asked me if I would favor an additional dollar of taxation, if it went to paying down the deficit. I basically said no, we've given them enough money, and they haven't used it to pay down the debt yet, have they? Then something like, "We'll know they're serious when they actually defund totally unnecessary stuff like PBS."
It's stunning that the government's tendency (compulsion?) to mismanage money has become so perfectly obvious, yet it is still credible to suggest that the supply of money in the U.S. should be taken from the people who know how to make money, and given to those most likely to waste money. :facepalm:
-
Over the weekend voters in Europe tossed out many leaders who were trying to impose austerity measures to stave off financial ruin. Rather than accept that they'd spent themselves broke, the voters chose new leaders who promised more free stuff.
Here in the USA, Eugene Robinson had a column in which he warned Republicans that their push for cutting spending could cost them elections as well. He thinks that it's possible to keep spending, but still balance the budget. The welfare state must continue, at least according to him.
What sort of drugs do you have to take to view the situation in Europe as he does? His column is here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/austerity-as-a-bridge-to-nowhere/2012/05/07/gIQAVBAw8T_story.html).
Here's the problem: "they" didn't spend that money or get rich off of it; their governments arranged with the ECB to do that in a way that led to enormous fortunes for bankers and executives. Voters rightly don't feel any ownership of that debt - it wasn't spent on them.
Europeans would now like to use monetary policy and spending to soften the blow of the crisis on the majority, and also to ensure that their economies don't further collapse. In other words, they want their financial institutions to be accountable to voters for their interests rather than to financial institutions. Accountability to market theories and banks is how the Euro system works, it works on conservative (ie, cut spending and deregulate markets), and today's economies are the result.
Europe isn't in the situation it's in now because of social spending. It's there because it let the banks set its financial and monetary policies through the Euro system.
-
Here's the problem: "they" didn't spend that money or get rich off of it; their governments arranged with the ECB to do that in a way that led to enormous fortunes for bankers and executives. Voters rightly don't feel any ownership of that debt - it wasn't spent on them.
Europeans would now like to use monetary policy and spending to soften the blow of the crisis on the majority, and also to ensure that their economies don't further collapse. In other words, they want their financial institutions to be accountable to voters for their interests rather than to financial institutions. Accountability to market theories and banks is how the Euro system works, it works on conservative (ie, cut spending and deregulate markets), and today's economies are the result.
Europe isn't in the situation it's in now because of social spending. It's there because it let the banks set its financial and monetary policies through the Euro system.
-
Well he is right, the Euro WAS a stupid idea.
Also, European austerity is a myth anyway.
-
The largest portion of the us budget goes to social spending. I'd imagine the European budgets are similar. You can't take that much money out of the economy without consequences.
Deregulation? What deregulation? Legalized plunder, encouraged through crony capitalists is not deregulation.
-
The largest portion of the us budget goes to social spending. I'd imagine the European budgets are similar. You can't take that much money out of the economy without consequences.
Deregulation? What deregulation? Legalized plunder, encouraged through crony capitalists is not deregulation.
And since we pay for Europe's defense, they have miniscule defense budgets. (Unlike the U.S.)
-
Don't try arguing with DeSelby. He throws out blanket statements that sound authoritative, but you need to do a hour or so of research in order to completely refute what he says.
Socialized medicine, mandatory six weeks of vacation, retirement from civil service in one's 40's or 50's...things like that can't be the cause of economic collapse. It has to be a secret and sinister banking conspiracy.
In this sequel of "The International", DeSelby revives Clive Owen's Interpol agent Louis Salinger character, battling against corrupt bankers who are stealing everyday Europeans' vacation time through so-called "austerity measures", and selling the time to wealthy Germans looking to prolong their life expectancy.
-
Don't try arguing with DeSelby. He throws out blanket statements that sound authoritative, but you need to do a hour or so of research in order to completely refute what he says.
Socialized medicine, mandatory six weeks of vacation, retirement from civil service in one's 40's or 50's...things like that can't be the cause of economic collapse. It has to be a secret and sinister banking conspiracy.
In this sequel of "The International", DeSelby revives Clive Owen's Interpol agent Louis Salinger character, battling against corrupt bankers who are stealing everyday Europeans' vacation time through so-called "austerity measures", and selling the time to wealthy Germans looking to prolong their life expectancy.
I think DS believes that mandatory six weeks of vacation, 30 hour work weeks and huge public sector hiring are a good idea.
-
I think DS believes that mandatory six weeks of vacation, 30 hour work weeks and huge public sector hiring are a good idea.
They're great ideas, except to the 14 people in each country who pay for all of that.
-
Real social welfare requires both a society and true caring. Increasingly, we lack both. We substituted government and escapism.
-
Yeah, he got his hands on the really good stuff today...
Wow !! "We have to grow the economy, but first we have to punish all those who can grow the economy !!"
That's a great plan !! I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't work..... :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Well he is right, the Euro WAS a stupid idea.
Also, European austerity is a myth anyway.
Yeah....that (sadly) seems to be the general concensus of opinion. :'(
I always believed the euro was a bad idea.
But I also think many european nations tax & spend much too freely. And long term, that isn't a good thing.
-
A guy at work asked me if I would favor an additional dollar of taxation, if it went to paying down the deficit.
Fed.gov is more likely to spend $1.50 for each additional dollar they take in rather than pay down the deficit, let alone retire part of the national debt.
Here's the problem: "they" didn't spend that money or get rich off of it; their governments arranged with the ECB to do that in a way that led to enormous fortunes for bankers and executives. Voters rightly don't feel any ownership of that debt - it wasn't spent on them.
There's actually a grain of truth in here - look back at Iceland. When some Icelandic banks (with substantial foreign ownership) went under due to bad loans (mostly to foreigners), the Icelandic government proposed raising Icelander's taxes to make good on those losses, mostly to the benefit of foreign investors. Icelanders - who had no prospect of ever personally seeing any profits if the banks had been successful - didn't accept that they should personally make good the losses. So they defeated the bailout scheme resoundingly, since higher taxes on the behalf of foreigners would have exacerbated the resulting economic hardship.
-
^^^ I was just going to quote the Icelandic example. I wonder how their economy is doing right now. I recall reading that many of the financial speculators had to go back to cod fishing and what not.
But put me in the camp of I don't think that austerity measures, in and of themselves, can solve the European or American economic woes. Judicious control of expenditures and judicious increases in revenues combined are a good thing. But in today's political climate, I don't think it has a chance.
-
Someone in Europe and in the future the US will have to define "austerity measures." I will hazard a guess the elements will include high taxes, reduced social spending, and increased regulation of commercial life; will not include financial institution taking a sizable reduction in principal owed (aka "haircut). You wanna pay down debt? Cut principal owed; don't mess with extended terms for lower rate. Reduced principal = reduced interest = reduced need for taxes = more money for the private sector = less demand for regulation.
It'll never happen short of a total currency collapse.
-
It'll never happen sort of a total currency collapse.
Coming to an economy near you. Don't miss it!
-
What drugs is Eugene Robinson taking?
Hopium
-
The largest portion of the us budget goes to social spending. I'd imagine the European budgets are similar. You can't take that much money out of the economy without consequences.
Deregulation? What deregulation? Legalized plunder, encouraged through crony capitalists is not deregulation.
It's more complicated than that because the money pays for things - the medical industry receives enormous sums of money from Medicare, and no doubt a significant amount of the consumer products business comes from those social security checks. It's simply not true to say that money is taken out; it's distributed to different places.
A financial crisis led to the European budget problems, not a resources crisis. Who regulated the financial industry in the decades prior to the European collapse, and whose policies did they implement? I'd sure love to see some evidence of the ECB promoting welfare spending for anyone other than banks, which get interest free loans and other perqs not available to the average joe from the Euro.
Now that the financial and monetary policies failed, it's only fair that the banks who benefitted most handsomely from those policies bear the costs first.
-
Don't try arguing with DeSelby. He throws out blanket statements that sound authoritative, but you need to do a hour or so of research in order to completely refute what he says.
Socialized medicine, mandatory six weeks of vacation, retirement from civil service in one's 40's or 50's...things like that can't be the cause of economic collapse. It has to be a secret and sinister banking conspiracy.
In this sequel of "The International", DeSelby revives Clive Owen's Interpol agent Louis Salinger character, battling against corrupt bankers who are stealing everyday Europeans' vacation time through so-called "austerity measures", and selling the time to wealthy Germans looking to prolong their life expectancy.
The problem with your theory on social spending is that entitlements and socialist policies have been rolled back in Europe since the 70s, not stepped up. Then there's Scandinavia, but who needs to ask why those actual socialist economies aren't failing?
We should just keep repeating the mantra tha socialist welfare causes collapse, as if the banks don't get welfare payments that cost money (and unlike socialist welfare, don't house or feed people).
-
^^^ I was just going to quote the Icelandic example. I wonder how their economy is doing right now. I recall reading that many of the financial speculators had to go back to cod fishing and what not.
The Icelandic economy?
Why I'm glad you asked.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/iceland-the-broken-economy-that-got-out-of-jail-2349905.html
Iceland experienced one of the most severe recessions in the world when the markets crashed in 2008. Economic output fell by about 12 per cent over two years. But the latest report on Iceland by the International Monetary Fund shows that growth is resuming. GDP is expected to increase by a relatively healthy 2.5 per cent in 2011. The Icelandic public finances are on a sustainable path too with government debt projected to fall to 80 per cent of GDP in 2016.
Latest GDP growth estimate I could find is 3.5%, unemployment at 7%.
Now that the financial and monetary policies failed, it's only fair that the banks who benefitted most handsomely from those policies bear the costs first.
Silly De Selby, didn't you know capitalism is for poor people, socialism is for banks?
-
Silly De Selby, didn't you know capitalism is for poor people, socialism is for banks?
And that is precisely my problem with all of the "blame welfare!" business: I blame welfare too, I just think that the billionaires living in mansions because of welfare need to be outed first.
-
We give Ireland millions every year.
Ireland has a good standard of living, why do we need to give them foreign aid?
Lets look at the policies of Ireland.
You get the dole super easy there, you can put your dole money into a bank or credit union and borrow against it. 90% of the folks on the dole work off the books to get more money that doesn't get taxed.
Two weeks a yr you can travel to someplace like Portugal for your vacation ( from not working ) and legally collect the dole there.
....oh you say you're illiterate? no wonder you cant find a job, so thousands of people sign X on the paperwork as they wander around collecting the dole at every post office in driving distance.
We are funding this as well as our own waste
-
Let's be rational here.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program comprised 700 billion United States Dollars.
The idea this doesn't contribute to the national debt (and remember this is not the only such program) is madness.
Hundreds of billions dollars are spent each year by governments on either side of the fund in subsidies, bailouts, etc.
The idea that the big corporations do not benefit from the modern state, have not lobbied for it, asked for it, begged for it, whimpered for it - flies in the face of everything we know.
-
It's more complicated than that because the money pays for things - the medical industry receives enormous sums of money from Medicare, and no doubt a significant amount of the consumer products business comes from those social security checks.
Ok. First off, I'd like to see some proof of your second statement there. Because I'm calling BS on that one.
Now, to address your first statement. It's true that the medical industry receives millions in Medicare payments. But other than a small minority, most healthcare providers actually LOSE MONEY on Medicare patients. Because the government sets the reimbursement rate for the services provided, completely ignoring what it actually costs to provide said services. The vast majority of providers that I have spoken to would stop taking Medicare patients in a heartbeat if they could. And those that can already have. Let's take my industry as an example. The reimbursement rate for a 911 ambulance transport from Medicare is at best $300 - $400, and usually less in urban areas. Ours is closer to $200. Oh, and we are prohibited by law from charging the balance to the patient. Medicaid is actually even worse. If we ran only Medicare or Medicaid patients, we'd be out of business. Instead, to stay in business, we have to charge a higher rate to patients with other insurance, or even no insurance in order to subsidize Medicare and Medicaid patients. Except, whoopsie, our rates are capped by the contracts we sign with the municipalities in which we operate as the 911 service provider. I work for one of, if not the, largest private ambulance services in the country. And we are laying people off because we are losing so much money on Medicare and Medicaid patients.
So don't give me that bushwa that healthcare is making money on Medicare.
-
The idea that the big corporations do not benefit from the modern state, have not lobbied for it, asked for it, begged for it, whimpered for it - flies in the face of everything we know.
And to paraphrase Keyser Soze: the greatest trick the corporations ever pulled was convince America that if they only got ever-increasing tax breaks, bailouts and sweetheart deals, everyone would benefit.
-
And to paraphrase Keyser Soze: the greatest trick the corporations ever pulled was convince America that if they only got ever-increasing tax breaks, bailouts and sweetheart deals, everyone would benefit.
But we have! Now that unions are mostly busted in the private sector, working conditions are better than ever, and everyone is making more money. We're also not worried about bankruptcy from one illness, because our efficient market based health and income insurance schemes protect us.
-
But we have! Now that unions are mostly busted in the private sector, working conditions are better than ever, and everyone is making more money. We're also not worried about bankruptcy from one illness, because our efficient market based health and income insurance schemes protect us.
Our healthcare is so skewed by government control and influence that calling it "market based" is a laugh. Our working conditions ARE better than ever, except for maybe a short 10 year period. (Recessions/depressions tend to do that.)
And I'm completely opposed to bailouts and targeted tax breaks and subsidies. Further, I don't trust corporations; I just trust the government even less.
-
Our healthcare is so skewed by government control and influence that calling it "market based" is a laugh. Our working conditions ARE better than ever, except for maybe a short 10 year period. (Recessions/depressions tend to do that.)
And I'm completely opposed to bailouts and targeted tax breaks and subsidies. Further, I don't trust corporations; I just trust the government even less.
By what measure are working conditions better than ever?
-
By what measure are working conditions better than ever?
Do we use the English system or metric? [popcorn] :facepalm:
Working conditions in America are better in America now than they were in England when Dickens wrote Hard Times.
They're better now than in Feudal times.
Awhile ago I read a book about the history of Winchester Firearms. Back in the mid 19th century when that company was getting started, workers worked atleast 12 hour days 7 days a week. Oh, wait, not, that's not exactly right. They got Sunday mornings off for church.
The average workweek now is maybe @ 40 hours per week. Plus we have lunch hours and other breaks as well as overtime.
Or, by "better than ever," did you mean Nov. 27th, 2011? [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
I think it's pretty evident that working conditions have improved, however, expecting any real degree of "improvement" in a short time range (like November 27th 2011) is a bit unrealistic.
-
By what measure are working conditions better than ever?
By what measure are they not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#United_States
Currently economists are actually suggesting a slightly shorter workweek might improve productivity, but that isn't the point.
Let's see. Workers generally work less hours.
They are also paid much more in inflation-adjusted terms. In 1820, when Monroe was President, GDP per capita was approaching $1257 in inflation-adjusted dollars - in 1990, the poverty level was 12 times that high.
So workers are paid more for far less work. Since I am not a Calvinist, I regard this a farging awesome thing.
Not only that, but more and more people are working in far less physically taxing work. I do not think that the impact of automation, mechanization, etc. on the economy of Western (and even many non-Western) countries needs to be restated.
-
Yeah Micro I thought we were comparing this to the incomes and working conditions when trade unionism and socialist programs were prevalent (FDR to LBJ) to how they've gone since Reagan dismantled them.
If you look at working conditions and wages over the past 50 years, the picture is not nearly so rosy. We are indeed better off than the days of Oliver twist, but that doesn't mean our current policies are improving conditions.
-
Yeah Micro I thought we were comparing this to the incomes and working conditions when trade unionism and socialist programs were prevalent (FDR to LBJ) to how they've gone since Reagan dismantled them.
If you look at working conditions and wages over the past 50 years, the picture is not nearly so rosy. We are indeed better off than the days of Oliver twist, but that doesn't mean our current policies are improving conditions.
You think the working conditions, wages (and I guess standard of living) were better in 1962?
-
De Selby, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here and guess that you didn't see my post on page 1 there. Mind answering that post? I'll even make it easy and quote it here:
It's more complicated than that because the money pays for things - the medical industry receives enormous sums of money from Medicare, and no doubt a significant amount of the consumer products business comes from those social security checks.
Ok. First off, I'd like to see some proof of your second statement there. Because I'm calling BS on that one.
Now, to address your first statement. It's true that the medical industry receives millions in Medicare payments. But other than a small minority, most healthcare providers actually LOSE MONEY on Medicare patients. Because the government sets the reimbursement rate for the services provided, completely ignoring what it actually costs to provide said services. The vast majority of providers that I have spoken to would stop taking Medicare patients in a heartbeat if they could. And those that can already have. Let's take my industry as an example. The reimbursement rate for a 911 ambulance transport from Medicare is at best $300 - $400, and usually less in urban areas. Ours is closer to $200. Oh, and we are prohibited by law from charging the balance to the patient. Medicaid is actually even worse. If we ran only Medicare or Medicaid patients, we'd be out of business. Instead, to stay in business, we have to charge a higher rate to patients with other insurance, or even no insurance in order to subsidize Medicare and Medicaid patients. Except, whoopsie, our rates are capped by the contracts we sign with the municipalities in which we operate as the 911 service provider. I work for one of, if not the, largest private ambulance services in the country. And we are laying people off because we are losing so much money on Medicare and Medicaid patients.
So don't give me that bushwa that healthcare is making money on Medicare.
-
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt AD - I did forget you had posted there.
Medicare services do cause a loss for some providers, but not for all, and whether one individual shop loses money doesn't change its outflow of cash - the Medicare budget was $485 billion this year and Social security was $778 billion. Those dollars end up in people's hands, who then use them to buy other things. It's not like the docs who do profit from Medicare smoke the bills. Cutting $485 billion out of the sector would destroy it. Cutting $778 billion out of the consumer economy will do the same. That's why individual stories about these programs are misleading; yeah, one persons costs and spending might not matter much, but multiplied by a hundred mil there's an economic impact.
-
You think the working conditions, wages (and I guess standard of living) were better in 1962?
In many ways, yes - what a dollar bought you (and how long it took you to earn it) were relatively much more favourable. Given the advances in productivity, we should be able to earn an equivalent standard of living with much less work today, but that is far from the case.
-
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt AD - I did forget you had posted there.
Medicare services do cause a loss for some providers, but not for all, and whether one individual shop loses money doesn't change its outflow of cash - the Medicare budget was $485 billion this year and Social security was $778 billion. Those dollars end up in people's hands, who then use them to buy other things.
Where do you think those dollars came from in the first place, if not people's hands? Why not cut the fed.gov's over head out and just leave that money in the economy?
-
Where do you think those dollars came from in the first place, if not people's hands? Why not cut the fed.gov's over head out and just leave that money in the economy?
Because leaving them in people's hands doesn't mean you'll get healthcare or consumer dollars - hence the point that cutting those programs would undoubtedly ruin many consumer and medical businesses. It's not as simple as "money out!"
-
Because leaving them in people's hands doesn't mean you'll get healthcare or consumer dollars - hence the point that cutting those programs would undoubtedly ruin many consumer and medical businesses. It's not as simple as "money out!"
So, let me see if I understand you correctly. If Person A has money in his hand, .gov should take it. If Person B doesn't have money, .gov should give him some of person A's money. If, sometime down the road, Person B has some money in his hand, .gov should take that plus maybe a little more. If Person B never gets any money in his hands, he still gets some of person A's money.
All the while this money is changing hands, it's moving through the government, which employs millions of people and thus, to cover its costs, must take a percentage of the money that's moving from one person's hands to another. So, perhaps 50% of the money taken from Person A actually gets to Person B. And this is the solution?
Is that about right?
-
So, let me see if I understand you correctly. If Person A has money in his hand, .gov should take it. If Person B doesn't have money, .gov should give him some of person A's money. If, sometime down the road, Person B has some money in his hand, .gov should take that plus maybe a little more. If Person B never gets any money in his hands, he still gets some of person A's money.
All the while this money is changing hands, it's moving through the government, which employs millions of people and thus, to cover its costs, must take a percentage of the money that's moving from one person's hands to another. So, perhaps 50% of the money taken from Person A actually gets to Person B. And this is the solution?
Is that about right?
Seriously, how is that in any way related to what I said here????? Considering that "I blame welfare" is a quote from my posts?
I'm saying we shouldn't be doing that to give corporations welfare, and observing at the same time that social welfare is actually a significant part of the consumer economy, and hence it isn't a simple "cut and we will save!" proposition. I'd rather spend my energy stopping welfare for billionaires, and creating an economy that will let individuals choose how they want to live. Simply cutting social welfare would make people more, not less, dependent on the corporate welfare queens.
-
I don't think you quite get the point I was trying to make. I know that there is a lot of money moving through the system. The problem is the system. The system itself is broken. It doesn't matter how much money the government is shoveling through the system in the form of Medicare/Medicaid. The fact is because these programs DO NOT PAY what the services cost, it RAISES THE COST for the rest of us. Right there, that is part of what causes healthcare costs to GO UP.
My employer is just one example. Medicare only pays $200-300 for a transport. Medicaid pays even less. You know what the average transport is billed at? Between $900-$1000. That means we LOSE $600-$800 for EVERY TRANSPORT that is billed to Medicare. Believe me, if we could avoid accepting Medicare/Medicaid, we'd do it in half a heartbeat. And between all the capital costs of the ambulances, medications, equipment, the cost of fuel, insurance on the vehicle, and the wages paid to two paramedics, our profit margins are actually pretty thin.
So yes. There's a lot of money moving through there. But all it does is raise the costs for everyone else.
-
In many ways, yes - what a dollar bought you (and how long it took you to earn it) were relatively much more favourable. Given the advances in productivity, we should be able to earn an equivalent standard of living with much less work today, but that is far from precisely the case.
Fixed that for you. If I want the same standard of living as the average person in the 1970s, I could probably work 20 hours a week or less. One car, no airbags, no computer control, and no hugely costly EPA requirements; no air conditioning; no computer; no Internet; one Color tube Tv with an antenna; very little eating out; most meals cooked from scratch; no exotic foods. Oh and the finest 1970s healthcare would be very cheap.
The problem is you just assume health care and all other goods today are the same as it was before. We cure and save and prolong life much better than ever before. Yes, it is costly but better goods and services tend to cost more.
-
Seriously, how is that in any way related to what I said here????? Considering that "I blame welfare" is a quote from my posts?
I'm saying we shouldn't be doing that to give corporations welfare, and observing at the same time that social welfare is actually a significant part of the consumer economy, and hence it isn't a simple "cut and we will save!" proposition. I'd rather spend my energy stopping welfare for billionaires, and creating an economy that will let individuals choose how they want to live. Simply cutting social welfare would make people more, not less, dependent on the corporate welfare queens.
Ok. Again. At least with Medicare/Medicaid, MOST providers would drop those patients if they were able to/allowed to. And yes. I don't think there's a single person on this board that thought any of the bailouts we've had so far were a good idea. So "welfare for billionaires" is just plain stupid.
The problem is that the welfare system in this country is BROKEN. I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I can give *SEVERAL* examples of abuse of the welfare system. Are there people that genuinely need help? Absolutely. But that's maybe 5% of the population that is on welfare. There are entirely too many people for whom welfare is a generational way of life. Why should I be forced to subsidize the life of someone who is too lazy to work for themselves, but rather have figured out how to game the system?
-
Ok. Again. At least with Medicare/Medicaid, MOST providers would drop those patients if they were able to/allowed to. And yes. I don't think there's a single person on this board that thought any of the bailouts we've had so far were a good idea. So "welfare for billionaires" is just plain stupid.
The problem is that the welfare system in this country is BROKEN. I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I can give *SEVERAL* examples of abuse of the welfare system. Are there people that genuinely need help? Absolutely. But that's maybe 5% of the population that is on welfare. There are entirely too many people for whom welfare is a generational way of life. Why should I be forced to subsidize the life of someone who is too lazy to work for themselves, but rather have figured out how to game the system?
This.
The sad part is, with as much effort as some of these people spend gaming the system, they could actually have just gotten a frickin job and been productive. And people who actually legitimately need the benefits get *expletive deleted*it.
-
The problem is that the welfare system in this country is BROKEN. I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I can give *SEVERAL* examples of abuse of the welfare system. Are there people that genuinely need help? Absolutely. But that's maybe 5% of the population that is on welfare. There are entirely too many people for whom welfare is a generational way of life. Why should I be forced to subsidize the life of someone who is too lazy to work for themselves, but rather have figured out how to game the system?
I'm really curious where you are getting this "maybe 5%" figure from. Because you're right, a plural of anecdotes is NOT data. It certainly doesn't lend itself to calculating percentages.
-
BR, I'm sorry. I was using hyperbole to make my point. I don't know that it's only 5%. But my personal experience has been that the percentage of people who really actually need help is markedly the minority.
-
Because leaving them in people's hands doesn't mean you'll get healthcare or consumer dollars - hence the point that cutting those programs would undoubtedly ruin many consumer and medical businesses. It's not as simple as "money out!"
So, what can people do with money?
I'll make it easy for you. Save, invest, give or spend. Taxes get filed under spending. So if people were taxed less, would that money the .gov is no longer taking just disappear?
-
So, what can people do with money?
I'll make it easy for you. Save, invest, give or spend. Taxes get filed under spending. So if people were taxed less, would that money the .gov is no longer taking just disappear?
Uh, no, but it doesn't disappear from taxes either - and that was the point. Do you honestly believe that cutting 485 billion dollars that currently goes, via government welfare, into the health industry would have no significant impact on medical providers!? Or that cutting 700 odd billion from monthly payments to seniors wouldn't impact basic goods providers?
-
If you think private corporations do not rent-seek, makattak, I have a bridge.
-
Those medical providers, as in AD's case, could probably charge less to their non-Medicare/Medicaid patients and make a larger total profit at the same time. Some would loose out, sure. But there's lots more loosing out now under the current system.
And none of us are argueing for cutting of seniors all of a sudden. But a gradual phase out would not severely impact basic goods providers. People would still buy those goods and services, just with money that hasn't been previously laundered through the .gov.
-
If you think private corporations do not rent-seek, makattak, I have a bridge.
Where in my posts can you possibly get that from. Let me quote for you the most relevant part:
Further, I don't trust corporations; I just trust the government even less.