Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Moochers Against Welfare


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Moochers Against Welfare Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Moochers Against Welfare - 2/17/2012 9:25:09 AM   
Fightdirecto


Posts: 1101
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
Moochers against welfare

quote:

Modern Republicans are very, very conservative; you might even (if you were Mitt Romney) say, severely conservative. Political scientists who use Congressional votes to measure such things find that the current G.O.P. majority is the most conservative since 1879, which is as far back as their estimates go.

And what these severe conservatives hate, above all, is reliance on government programs...

Many readers of The Times were, therefore, surprised to learn, from an excellent article published last weekend, that the regions of America most hooked on Mr. Santorum’s narcotic — the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasn’t Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don’t eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts?

The article made its case with maps showing the distribution of dependency, but you get the same story from a more formal comparison. Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.

Now, there’s no mystery about red-state reliance on government programs. These states are relatively poor, which means both that people have fewer sources of income other than safety-net programs and that more of them qualify for “means-tested” programs such as Medicaid...

Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “HAVE NOT USED A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.

Presumably, then, voters imagine that pledges to slash government spending mean cutting programs for the idle poor, not things they themselves count on.
And this is a confusion politicians deliberately encourage. For example, when Mr. Romney responded to the new Obama budget, he condemned Mr. Obama for not taking on entitlement spending — and, in the very next breath, attacked him for cutting Medicare.

The truth, of course, is that the vast bulk of entitlement spending goes to the elderly, the disabled, and working families, so ANY SIGNIFICANT CUTS WOULD HAVE TO FALL LARGELY ON PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY DON’T USE ANY GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.

The message I take from all this is that pundits who describe America as a fundamentally conservative country are wrong. Yes, voters sent some severe conservatives to Washington. But those voters would be both shocked and angry if such politicians actually imposed their small-government agenda.


_____________________________

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.””
- Ellie Wiesel
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Moochers Against Welfare - 2/17/2012 10:42:36 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “HAVE NOT USED A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.”


Wow.

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Moochers Against Welfare - 2/17/2012 11:42:06 AM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
A smart bunch aren't they....

My sister and I had a similar 'discussion' when the health reform issue blew up. (the crazy bint has decided she's certainly not republican but damned if she doesn't talk like it.......she doesn't actually bother to vote mind you)

I asked her who paid for the birth of her son. He wasn't born at home. She didn't have health insurance. She sure as hell didn't pay the hospital bill herself. She decided she didn't want to discuss it.

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Moochers Against Welfare - 2/17/2012 11:52:51 AM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
People on Social Security don't consider it an "entitlement" program because they have paid in to the program all the years they worked, therefore earning the small amount of money they receive.  Medicare is the insurance available ONLY with Social Security, it is not Medicaid, which is totally different.  Likewise, people pay in to the unemployment program that is why it is referred to as Unemployment INSURANCE.

Medicare is not free, recipients pay for it out of their social security funds, as well as having co-payments and ever increasing medication costs as medicare decides to not cover more and more prescriptions.

In theory, people could be considered to "use government programs" every time they take tax credits or deductions.  Qualify for the earned income credit?  Child care credit?  Those are tax programs to help people, so at the very base, they aren't any different.

Social Security was developed years ago so that when people retired from working they were rewarded for their years of service, because not every employer had pension programs (even less do now). 

I find it truly bewildering how anyone can think that something they paid for over years of employment is an "entitlement." 

(in reply to LaTigresse)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Moochers Against Welfare - 2/17/2012 11:53:28 AM   
Fightdirecto


Posts: 1101
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
A interesting illustration of the evolution of a Tea Party fool:




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.””
- Ellie Wiesel

(in reply to LaTigresse)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Moochers Against Welfare - 2/17/2012 1:11:33 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
The OP reminds me of those signs at TEA party rallies.

"Keep the Government out of my Medicare"

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Moochers Against Welfare - 2/17/2012 1:13:54 PM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
When someone comes along and proves that everyone only gets as much as they've paid in, I will agree.

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Moochers Against Welfare - 2/17/2012 5:00:07 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
If you work for a company for say, 50 years, and during all those years, your employer takes money out of your check for your retirement, supposedly investing those funds so you will get "X" amount when you retire, do you believe you earned the money or are you sponging off your employer?

Social Security is no different.  People work.  Money is taken out of their check each pay period for social security and supposedly invested for their retirement.  To say those people should not receive that money is utter idiocy.

How about teachers, policemen, all other government workers who have not only retirement plans, but health benefits (far better than medicare) at the tax payers expense? 

Unless you have never taken a tax credit and plan on donating your social security and paying for your own health care in old age, you will be "sponging" off the same programs.  Programs you paid for during the years you worked. 

(in reply to LaTigresse)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Moochers Against Welfare - 2/17/2012 9:27:30 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

How about teachers, policemen, all other government workers who have not only retirement plans, but health benefits (far better than medicare) at the tax payers expense?


My Brother in law, who is some 13 years my senior and for an 'ex-hippie', one hell of a right-winger-neuveau. Spent his whole career as an Art Teacher/ Director of Arts Education in our home town. I remember back when he was in his late 50s and they were scaling down certain benefits and he took early retirement so he would not lose the benefits... then he trotted off to the Vanderbelt's famous tea house with an artist buddy to do some real pricey restoration painting. Course while he made all that money, WE paid for his health insurance. Then he finally retired to an 80% pension and everything else including his and I have lost count as to how many times he has gone into a conniption fit of some labor union wanting a benefit or the condition of the retirement system in the state of RI (It's of course bad and likely to implode.... but it won't touch a DIME of his nest egg because of the way the teachers retiring before a certain year worked it out).
   Now I don't really care that he gets the percentage of his salarary he put away, plus a matching kick from the school system... but 80% is over the top. And then to have to pay all the other benefits? Okay, well it's the deal that was worked out. What I would like is for him to take his loot and shut the fuck up.
 


_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Moochers Against Welfare - 2/17/2012 11:06:47 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
I got a chuckle from an aquaintence the other day. He told me in the past he's one of these tea party supporters and hates the idea of the goverment spending his and others 'tax money' on programs and things that no one uses. So I asked him if he could discribe what exactly the goverment purchased last year with $3.2 trillion dollars of budget spending. Now this guy holds a college degree and yet, couldnt give an answer better then a 4th grader. He said 'Stuff'. So, I asked him if he knew if the goverment spend money directly or indirectly on his company. Turns out, the goverment is the third largest income source for his company (budget spending) and like fifth and seventh indirectly (two other companies do business with the goverment, and buys products/services from this guy's company). Well, the goverment made cut backs like this guy was ranting and raving to have. He practically cheered to have such 'wasteful' spending being cut from the budget. As it turns out, the goverment stopped doing business with his company and put a real crunch on the other company that did business with his company. The result was a bottom line for his company much lower than expected a few months later. He was laid off recently. And STILL has not connected the dots.

The whole moral of this story is: Be careful what you wish for!

How much does $100 Billion of budget spending buy/maintain in US Jobs? Now consider that as between 30-32 units of $100 Billion spending units worth of jobs. It may surprise most people to learn that the biggest losers of budget spending are NOT goverment jobs, but the private sector and those jobs 'down stream' from the public/private sector's interaction with companies and organizations. And that cutting that spending effectly lays off quite a large number of people from their companies months down the road. The really sad part is, those people that are laid off generally never make the connection to just how much their job was tied into goverment spending.

The whole moral of this story is: Dont bite the hand that feeds you!

As Goverment spending is cut, and setting people up knowing or not, for their lay offs down the road, it has the added problem of 'drying up' the economy as a whole. One would have to understand the complex and complicated nature of the Money Market Machine (its actually called several things in Economics depending on whom you talk to). As the money disappears it starts to have even more odd effects on money being poured into those companies th serve the public need (like auto dealerships, dry cleaners, resturants, etc). This in turn, limits a business's ability to expand and grow (either as a whole or into new markets or business categories). Which is always a 'wise' idea to do during a recession with high unemployment (and by wise, I mean foolish).

The whole moral of this story is: "It takes money to make money, and the money that money makes, makes more money" Benjamin Franklin

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Moochers Against Welfare Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.156