Chef Jim Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Why is it if the social programs that you hold so dear are there to temporarily support those who cannot support themselves until they can get on their feet is used by these folks for years, decades or even generations while many others who have made a very nice life for themselves did so with little or no support of said social programs? To me that just points to the failure of those programs and they're not being used as they were designed. And don't give me that crap that those that made it didn't need the government because they had support of their families. That may be true for some but there are many, many, many others who got no or little support from their family but made it on their own and made it quite well. Me for example. I needed $12k to go to Culinary School. Dad gave me $6k and I took a loan for the other $6k. I've relied on very little of those social programs. Maybe a few months when I and my wife was unemployed but that was it. I think we'd find many others here with similar stories. So explain how these programs work?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 We need to let people stay on these programs for decades because the 1% aren't paying their "fair share". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Specifically what social programs are you referring to. Are you referring to; head start program, food stamps, welfare aka temporary assistance for needy families (TANF), section 8 housing, unemployment insurance, social security (old age, survivor-ship & disability), medicare, medicaid, federally backed student loans, federal perkins loans, stafford loans, federal direct student loans? By and large many of these programs can be reformed and/or scaled back. Do we need to give criminals section 8 housing? clearly not. Personally I'd like to talk about the 2.3 million adults who are now imprisoned in local, state, or federal jails. The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. At year-end 2009 it was 743 adults incarcerated per 100,000 population. The "war on drugs" is clearly a failure. Outsourcing state run prisons to private corporations is an out-cry. No wonder why these private corporations want to keep these drug laws on the books. Ron Paul is right, we should legalize drugs and put the million plus drug criminals to work rebuilding our national infrastructure. I'll let Fareed Zakaria make my final point: "In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education. In 2011, California spent $9.6 billion on prisons, versus $5.7 billion on higher education..... The state spends $8,667 per student per year. It spends about $50,000 per inmate per year. Why is this happening? Prisons are a big business. Most are privately run. They have powerful lobbyists and they have bought most state politicians. Meanwhile, we are bankrupting out states and creating a vast underclass of prisoners who will never be equipped for productive lives." — Fareed Zakaria, CNN, March 30, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 well, what social programs? unemployment? ss medicare medicaid school lunch program welfare for single mothers tuition assistance? i would say all these are justified. a single mother might have problems if she has little skills. some kids cant afford to go to college. my dad didnt have 6gs, so i joined the military. sometimes markets dont provide basics. so the govt helps out a little to keep a stable political system. but yeah, welfare forever with 10 kids, thats a problem, although its a very small problem. gsa/ge/public workers getting millions a year, yeah, thats a problem. you find corruption, and you deal with it. within any institution, the bigger it gets, the more waste and fraud will happen. this is why leninism does not work. my 2 cents. We need to let people stay on these programs for decades because the 1% aren't paying their "fair share". if someone making millions pays a smaller percentage than a garbage man, than yeah, thats not fair. its a regressive tax system we have. its not the amount, rather the percentage that matters. obviously the more money you have, the more purchasing power you have. this is why 10% of a 1000 is much harder to deal with than 10% of a 100 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Why is it if the social programs that you hold so dear are there to temporarily support those who cannot support themselves until they can get on their feet is used by these folks for years, decades or even generations while many others who have made a very nice life for themselves did so with little or no support of said social programs? To me that just points to the failure of those programs and they're not being used as they were designed. And don't give me that crap that those that made it didn't need the government because they had support of their families. That may be true for some but there are many, many, many others who got no or little support from their family but made it on their own and made it quite well. Me for example. I needed $12k to go to Culinary School. Dad gave me $6k and I took a loan for the other $6k. I've relied on very little of those social programs. Maybe a few months when I and my wife was unemployed but that was it. I think we'd find many others here with similar stories. So explain how these programs work?? they don't always work. what you've stated is the goal for many programs but certainly not for medicare and social security. so, i think you're mostly talking about welfare and food stamps, correct? in recent history, Bill Clinton did the best job with welfare reform, i think. many people were removed from the dole and that is still the goal. the problem is finding how to get there, especially in the middle of a recession. i think most on the left are very receptive to ideas and solutions as long as it doesn't involve cutting out the safety net suddenly and entirely. starving people are bad for the stability of the country, not to mention those that might starve. oh, andf the solutions need to be less expensive than the current system. many times, handing out money is cheaper than retraining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 well, what social programs? unemployment? ss medicare medicaid school lunch program welfare for single mothers tuition assistance? i would say all these are justified. a single mother might have problems if she has little skills. some kids cant afford to go to college. my dad didnt have 6gs, so i joined the military. sometimes markets dont provide basics. so the govt helps out a little to keep a stable political system. but yeah, welfare forever with 10 kids, thats a problem, although its a very small problem. gsa/ge/public workers getting millions a year, yeah, thats a problem. you find corruption, and you deal with it. within any institution, the bigger it gets, the more waste and fraud will happen. this is why leninism does not work. my 2 cents. if someone making millions pays a smaller percentage than a garbage man, than yeah, thats not fair. its a regressive tax system we have. its not the amount, rather the percentage that matters. obviously the more money you have, the more purchasing power you have. this is why 10% of a 1000 is much harder to deal with than 10% of a 100 million. Don't perpetuate the myth of someone making millions paying a lower income tax percentage than someone making $30-$40000. It's flat out wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Capital letter: A. Lower case letter: a. Capital letters help the reader, by calling attention to the start of a new thought, or proper noun. Mistakes happen. Mispellings occur. Grammar and usage may not be perfect. But hitting the shift key is a common courtesy. Failure to do it doesn't make you cool, a new age e.e. cummings, or interesting. It makes you a self-centered dick. Edited May 9, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 It makes you a self-centered dick. Or an AP sportswriter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 they don't always work. what you've stated is the goal for many programs but certainly not for medicare and social security. so, i think you're mostly talking about welfare and food stamps, correct? in recent history, Bill Clinton did the best job with welfare reform, i think. many people were removed from the dole and that is still the goal. the problem is finding how to get there, especially in the middle of a recession. i think most on the left are very receptive to ideas and solutions as long as it doesn't involve cutting out the safety net suddenly and entirely. starving people are bad for the stability of the country, not to mention those that might starve. oh, andf the solutions need to be less expensive than the current system. many times, handing out money is cheaper than retraining. Revisionism. He was forced to get on board with the Contract With America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Or an AP sportswriter. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Capital letter: A. Lower case letter: a. Capital letters help the reader, by calling attention to the start of a new thought, or proper noun. Mistakes happen. Mispellings occur. Grammar and usage may not be perfect. But hitting the shift key is a common courtesy. Failure to do it doesn't make you cool, a new age e.e. cummings, or interesting. It makes you a self-centered dick. I disagree, in that you've reversed cause and effect. I believe that being a self-centered dick is what causes people to neglect the shift key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Don't perpetuate the myth of someone making millions paying a lower income tax percentage than someone making $30-$40000. It's flat out wrong. romney? capital gains? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule -The Buffett Rule is named after American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he disagreed with rich people, like himself, paying less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy.[4] The rule would implement a higher minimum tax rate for taxpayers in the highest income bracket, to ensure that they do not pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than less-affluent Americans.[5] In October 2011, Senate leader Harry Reid (D–Nev.) proposed a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires to pay for new stimulus provisions, but the change did not go through.[6] A White House statement released in January 2012 defined the rule as part of "measures to ensure everyone making over a million dollars a year pays a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30 percent ... implemented in a way that is equitable, including not disadvantaging individuals who make large charitable contributions."[7] The White House also stated that "no household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays."[8] Edited May 9, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 romney? capital gains? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule That's been discussed here ad nauseum. Income tax/Capital gains=Apples/Oranges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 romney? capital gains? Last I checked, I pay the same rate as he does on my capital gains. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule -The Buffett Rule is named after American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he disagreed with rich people, like himself, paying less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy.[4] The rule would implement a higher minimum tax rate for taxpayers in the highest income bracket, to ensure that they do not pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than less-affluent Americans.[5] In October 2011, Senate leader Harry Reid (D–Nev.) proposed a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires to pay for new stimulus provisions, but the change did not go through.[6] A White House statement released in January 2012 defined the rule as part of "measures to ensure everyone making over a million dollars a year pays a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30 percent ... implemented in a way that is equitable, including not disadvantaging individuals who make large charitable contributions."[7] The White House also stated that "no household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays."[8] All hail the Wikiwarrior! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 romney? capital gains? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule -The Buffett Rule is named after American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he disagreed with rich people, like himself, paying less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy.[4] The rule would implement a higher minimum tax rate for taxpayers in the highest income bracket, to ensure that they do not pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than less-affluent Americans.[5] In October 2011, Senate leader Harry Reid (D–Nev.) proposed a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires to pay for new stimulus provisions, but the change did not go through.[6] A White House statement released in January 2012 defined the rule as part of "measures to ensure everyone making over a million dollars a year pays a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30 percent ... implemented in a way that is equitable, including not disadvantaging individuals who make large charitable contributions."[7] The White House also stated that "no household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays."[8] You do realize, don't you, that were the Buffett Rule to pass, Warren's tax rate would become even lower, right? That's kind of the point of the 'including not disadvantaging individuals who make large charitable contributions.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Not sure exactly what programs are in question, but all social program should have this goal in mind: 1. Be of last resort- it should be subsistence, providing only the very basics. 2. They should not incent people to stay on them, i.e. to have more children for more money. 3. For program like Welfare, they should have time limits on time they will be provided. Just like Foundations will not fund charities indefinitely for the very reason to not make them dependent. 4. Keep people's feet to the fire. As far as SS: 1. It was not intended to be a pension program or retirement fund. It should be a program designed to help people are are really badly off live a dignified end of their lives. People who have saved and invested well and live off 10-20K a month in retirement should not get SS. If we stopped paying everyone, the cost of the program would go down, and we could really hone in on the people that truly needed SS income. There is ALWAYS going to be a segment of the population that is useless for a variety of reasons. I guess I don't care for Welfare, but the people on the program tend to spend every dime they get... I see it as pass through dollars, dollars that net impact on the economy.... I would prefer everybody work, pay their bills, pay for the retirement and plan ahead.... but lets be honest, most middle class working people can't do that... expecting the poor or really dumb to to that is a pipe dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) You do realize, don't you, that were the Buffett Rule to pass, Warren's tax rate would become even lower, right? That's kind of the point of the 'including not disadvantaging individuals who make large charitable contributions.' as long as its progressive, that all i can ask for. thats fair. the whole charity thing is a joke. bill maher talked about this last week. the public should not subsidize the mormon church or the art show that has a toilet seat. lol so i agree with you here. Edited May 9, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 as long as its progressive, that all i can ask for. thats fair. the whole charity thing is a joke. bill maher talked about this last week. the public should not subsidize the mormon church or the art show that has a toilet seat. lol so i agree with you here. The Buffett Rule in effect will be REGRESSIVE, at least for the people you are trying to stick it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 9, 2012 Author Share Posted May 9, 2012 Sorry I wasn't clear on what social programs. I'm referring to: Unemployment Disability (some are truly disabled and can't work however many are not) Welfare Food Stamps So the question that has yet to be answered is how have programs designed to help people until they can get back on their feet turned into a lifestyle? And why is that lifestyle tolerated and tolerated mostly by people/politicians on the left. They stopped being safety nets a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 (edited) Why is it if the social programs that you hold so dear are there to temporarily support those who cannot support themselves until they can get on their feet is used by these folks for years, decades or even generations while many others who have made a very nice life for themselves did so with little or no support of said social programs? To me that just points to the failure of those programs and they're not being used as they were designed. And don't give me that crap that those that made it didn't need the government because they had support of their families. That may be true for some but there are many, many, many others who got no or little support from their family but made it on their own and made it quite well. Me for example. I needed $12k to go to Culinary School. Dad gave me $6k and I took a loan for the other $6k. I've relied on very little of those social programs. Maybe a few months when I and my wife was unemployed but that was it. I think we'd find many others here with similar stories. So explain how these programs work?? Holy contradiction Batman!! well, what social programs? unemployment? ss medicare medicaid school lunch program welfare for single mothers tuition assistance? i would say all these are justified. a single mother might have problems if she has little skills. some kids cant afford to go to college. my dad didnt have 6gs, so i joined the military. sometimes markets dont provide basics. so the govt helps out a little to keep a stable political system. but yeah, welfare forever with 10 kids, thats a problem, although its a very small problem. gsa/ge/public workers getting millions a year, yeah, thats a problem. you find corruption, and you deal with it. within any institution, the bigger it gets, the more waste and fraud will happen. this is why leninism does not work. my 2 cents. if someone making millions pays a smaller percentage than a garbage man, than yeah, thats not fair. its a regressive tax system we have. its not the amount, rather the percentage that matters. obviously the more money you have, the more purchasing power you have. this is why 10% of a 1000 is much harder to deal with than 10% of a 100 million. Careful, Sensible statements like this one end up on KC in CT or whatever the !@#$ he calls himself's sig. Edited May 9, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts