Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Handouts have the most room to be trimmed right now, we need to do it.
Ok, fair enough tell us what you want to cut. A mom and 2 kids in Tennessee receive $185 in cash (ends after 60 months) and between $450 and $500 in SNAP benefits. It is unlikely that the family will receive a housing voucher unless they spend 6-8 years on a wait list. They also receive medi-caid and if they pay their own utilities they might qualify for a 20% discount on energy costs and if mom is pregnant or there are children under 5 they would qualify for WIC, the average monthly value of which is about $60. So..where are you going to start cutting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5
Oh, and I believe I demonstrated in another post the percentage comparison between handout spending (69%) and defense spending (18%).
Yes, you did but as I pointed out, it is disingenuous to include Social Security and Medicare and claim they are 'handouts'
Perhaps there is some confusing between Food Stamps and WIC. Food Stamps have no restrictions on types of foods that can be purchased, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) does.
That's what I'm wondering too, either WIC or maybe some local program for people not eligible for food stamps
If you actually read about how social security and Medicare work, you will learn interesting things. For starters, the amounts that they take out of your paycheck labelled Social Security and Medicare don't actually go into some sort of Social Security and Medicare money pools. They are put in with the rest of the money as if they were plain old taxes, which they are. They are just extra taxes with misleading labels. Then, when you get old enough to receive social security, they use a formula which may or may not have a little something to do with what you "paid in" over the years. And that money is paid out to you, as a handout, if you qualify, from the general federal tax pool.
Also, you cannot opt out of Social Security and Medicare payments from your paycheck. It is not a voluntary retirement program. It's just plain old taxes. You have to pay them no matter what.
The thing you use to save for retirement where you get out what you put in is the 401k. That's your money, and yours alone, and the brokerage firm pays you interest for you letting them use your money for a bit. If you were allowed to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put that money in a 401k, you would have a whole lot more money saved up by retirement age than you would ever get from Social Security and Medicare payouts. The government does not pay you interest. They tax you, and then later give you a handout, if you qualify. It's a handout. The old person who receives the handout does not provide any good or service to the government in return for the money. They just get a handout.
Social Security works like a defined benefit pension plan does. You can't opt out of one of those either, and your heirs have no claim to your benefits when you die. Those plans have served people well for many, many decades. The only thing that has changed is that wall street and investment bankers decided they could play with our money and lose it and still get rich off of the fees associated with 401k's. Here is the math someone did on a 401k vs Social Security: “I looked at my last Social Security statement that was mailed to me, which covered the years from 1967 to 2011. The contributions of my employers and my own added up to $115,000. From then to retirement, another $8,000. Thus a total of $123,000 gives me a retirement income of just over $1800/month. For a 401K to achieve this at a 5% rate, I would need to save an amount of $432,000.
I've advocated either community service or that they'd have to go to a designated location and sit in a room for 8 hours. No sitty downy = No payoutty. Punctuality would be important and a certain number of lates would get them booted, as would being violent or even uppity. Sorry Shaniqua, but you're gonna have to sit your giant butt down, shut your pie hole, and be quiet & humble for once.
If I have to go work my butt off to pay taxes then they can at least muster themselves to a designated area and sit. Two, maybe 4 bathroom breaks would be allowed and they can only drink water. No more X-box at home while drinking liquor on the taxpayer time. No TV or movies either. They can read books if they want, but no magazines. Obviously viewing a selection of help wanted ads and filling out applications would be allowed, but that activity should be supervised. No playing on the internet.
Once they're bored many will want to get jobs very very quickly.
Drug testing will occur weekly on a random day or at the supervisor's discretion. If I am subject to being drug tested (haven't been at my current job but my employer has that option should he ever choose to use it) then welfare recipients should be too. I don't care that it costs a bit because the fraud is more expensive and the moral implications of welfare are far too destructive to our society overall.
I can't believe you're actually advocating this. You would do well to remember the adage, "But for the grace of God go I." And the myth that Food Stamp recipients don't work is exactly that: a myth. The majority do i.e. Walmart employees. Alternatively, they have lost their jobs and are looking for another one, and because they are unemployed, can't afford to pay basic living expenses. Obviously. Here is a link to the common SNAP myths.
I myself am very grateful to the Food Stamp program. When I was a college student, I was able to get on Food Stamps for a brief period which helped me immensely because I was subsisting on Ramen noodles and was actually sick and suffering from iron deficiency anemia due to a lack of meat in my diet. Unfortunately, I was only on them a few months, because Food Stamp requirements changed while I was still going to school and because I had no kids and no job (I was taking a full college load instead), I became ineligible. I scraped by on iron supplements, more Ramen noodles, a couple of trips to the Food Bank (which didn't help much because I still didn't get any meat) and somehow graduated with a high GPA.
They used to have big no-name cans of food like peanut butter, peaches or powdered milk that would be given to people on welfare.
It was called government commodities. Each family would get peanut butter, canned whole chickens with bones, real butter, cheese, powdered milk, powdered eggs, lard, bulgar wheat. Recipients had to go to distribution warehouses. It ended about 1970.
I've advocated either community service or that they'd have to go to a designated location and sit in a room for 8 hours. No sitty downy = No payoutty. Punctuality would be important and a certain number of lates would get them booted, as would being violent or even uppity. Sorry Shaniqua, but you're gonna have to sit your giant butt down, shut your pie hole, and be quiet & humble for once. If I have to go work my butt off to pay taxes then they can at least muster themselves to a designated area and sit. Two, maybe 4 bathroom breaks would be allowed and they can only drink water. No more X-box at home while drinking liquor on the taxpayer time. No TV or movies either. They can read books if they want, but no magazines. Obviously viewing a selection of help wanted ads and filling out applications would be allowed, but that activity should be supervised. No playing on the internet. Once they're bored many will want to get jobs very very quickly. Drug testing will occur weekly on a random day or at the supervisor's discretion. If I am subject to being drug tested (haven't been at my current job but my employer has that option should he ever choose to use it) then welfare recipients should be too. I don't care that it costs a bit because the fraud is more expensive and the moral implications of welfare are far too destructive to our society overall.
That's really sad..you have decided that all SNAP recipients are like your much hated fictional Shaniqua. Maybe you should quit writing prescriptions on how we can punish the poor and find out who is actually receiving SNAP benefits?
SNAP eligibility rules require that participants be at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level. Recent studies show that 44% of all SNAP participants are children (age 18 or younger), with almost two-thirds of SNAP children living in single-parent households. In total, 76% of SNAP benefits go towards households with children, 11.9% go to households with disabled persons, and 10% go to households with senior citizens.
According to demographic data, 39.8% of SNAP participants are white, 25.5% are African-American, 10.9% are Hispanic, 2.4% are Asian, and 1% are Native American.
The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year.
1.5 million Veterans and up to 22,000 active duty military personnel receive SNAP benefits
If you actually read about how social security and Medicare work, you will learn interesting things. For starters, the amounts that they take out of your paycheck labelled Social Security and Medicare don't actually go into some sort of Social Security and Medicare money pools. They are put in with the rest of the money as if they were plain old taxes, which they are. They are just extra taxes with misleading labels. Then, when you get old enough to receive social security, they use a formula which may or may not have a little something to do with what you "paid in" over the years. And that money is paid out to you, as a handout, if you qualify, from the general federal tax pool.
Also, you cannot opt out of Social Security and Medicare payments from your paycheck. It is not a voluntary retirement program. It's just plain old taxes. You have to pay them no matter what.
The thing you use to save for retirement where you get out what you put in is the 401k. That's your money, and yours alone, and the brokerage firm pays you interest for you letting them use your money for a bit. If you were allowed to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put that money in a 401k, you would have a whole lot more money saved up by retirement age than you would ever get from Social Security and Medicare payouts. The government does not pay you interest. They tax you, and then later give you a handout, if you qualify. It's a handout. The old person who receives the handout does not provide any good or service to the government in return for the money. They just get a handout.
As I said earlier, I am not an economist.
However, I do know that "regular, middle-class people" (i.e., people who work for for others and get a paycheck that pays enough for all their expenses without the help of SNAP, TANF, or any other such programs) who work pay a LOT more taxes than those who don't earn much -- or OTOH, earn so much that they are knowledgeable about write-offs, shelters, etc. And we middle-class people pay a LOT in taxes.
So, if people pay more in taxes, than why shouldn't they receive more in retirement than those who don't?
But, yeah, I get it -- if you are ashamed or embarrassed about sponging off other taxpayers (and good for you if you do feel that way unless it is truly impossible for you to earn a living wage through no fault of your own -- and, yes, I do know that is often the case -- and therefore have no reason to be ashamed or embarrassed), then you will probably try to justify such behavior as well as you can.
And, btw, when I was a child, I had a LOT of hand-me-downs and a LOT of 10-for-a-dollar pot pies (this was in the 60's), and our big night out was going to the A&W for a 5-cent kids' A&W root beer -- so yeah, I know all about being part of the "working poor" -- and although my parents COULD have qualified for assistance if they had applied, they had too much pride to do so. Too bad more people don't feel that way.
(And I think the above is a good example of the difference between many -- but, again, certainly not all! -- of the working poor today and the working poor of 50 years ago.)
Last edited by katharsis; 01-24-2016 at 03:25 PM..
I watched this show where this young, healthy, adult man was out driving his Caddy, surfing, having fun all week then was buying lobster. He was calling it EBT lobster. Guy knew how to work the system.
And there needs to be a time limit on how long you can be in welfare.
I wish people would stop perpetuating this ignorant myth. It's certainly not applicable to the majority of SNAP beneficiaries. Of course, any sentence that begins with "I watched this show" is suspect to begin with.
And there are time limits on how long one is eligible for various benefits, including SNAP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jess5
If food stamps aren't welfare, what are they called? Are EBT and food stamps the same thing? Some people get their utilities paid for. Is that welfare? Are free medical benefits welfare? Some people don't have to work and live completely off the government, so why wouldn't it all be welfare?
Because it isn't. There's no other explanation necessary. Assistance with food, utilities, medical care and the like are all different programs with different requirements. It's not rocket science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InchingWest
I've advocated either community service or that they'd have to go to a designated location and sit in a room for 8 hours. No sitty downy = No payoutty.
What an unwieldy suggestion. Who's going to pay for the space for thousands of people to sit in, for the drug testing, for the personnel to administer and supervise this "designated area"?
That's right. You are.
I can't wait for the lawsuits that will happen when some poor soul falls into a diabetic coma because all anyone is allowed in this "designated area" for eight hours is water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5
They tax you, and then later give you a handout, if you qualify. It's a handout. The old person who receives the handout does not provide any good or service to the government in return for the money. They just get a handout.
Oh, for heaven's sake. You have no grasp of Social Security whatsoever. The old person has provided money toward the Social Security system, and receives an amount based on what was paid in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbab5
We're racking up huge amounts of debt, and when we get to the point where the debt interest payments become unsustainable, we won't have enough money for a social safety net, the military, schools, anything. That needs to not happen. Defense has been cut big time in the past couple years, but the handouts have grown. The handouts need to face the same cuts as defense has, so that we can get closer to a balanced budget. Handouts have the most room to be trimmed right now, we need to do it.
Agreed. Let's start with corporate handouts, corporate welfare, and corporations that pay no taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leilaniguy
It was called government commodities. Each family would get peanut butter, canned whole chickens with bones, real butter, cheese, powdered milk, powdered eggs, lard, bulgar wheat. Recipients had to go to distribution warehouses. It ended about 1970.
Distribution to individuals ended later than that, because I got some Government Cheese when I was unemployed in 1982. Distribution of surplus food commodities to schools, nursing homes, food banks, etc. never ended.
There might still be some sort of emergency nutrition distribution for senior citizens, but I haven't heard anything about it lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whocares811
As I said earlier, I am not an economist.
However, I do know that "regular, middle-class people" (i.e., people who work for for others and get a paycheck that pays enough for all their expenses without the help of SNAP, TANF, or any other such programs) who work pay a LOT more taxes than those who don't earn much -- or OTOH, earn so much that they are knowledgeable about write-offs, shelters, etc. And we middle-class people pay a LOT in taxes.
So, if people pay more in taxes, than why shouldn't they receive more in retirement than those who don't?
Good thing you're not an economist ... Taxes have nothing to do with retirement. Especially since the bulk of taxes paid by the middle class are property taxes, which go to support local government services and to schools.
Then why aren't you out there protesting CVS, who bought Duane Reed in Canada so they can avoid paying taxes? You're giving much more of your money to corporate entitlements and the military profit machine than all the other government "handouts" put together.
1) That's not true, I already posted the actual numbers. Handouts altogether is much much bigger (69%) than defense (18%).
2) I do dislike corporate welfare. I HAVE protested corporate welfare. Back at the very very beginning of the tea party, when it was the tea party patriots, and they were protesting government spending and corporate welfare, I went to a tea party protest. To protest, you guessed it, corporate welfare. The tea party has since morphed into something unrecognizable and disgusting, but in the beginning, the very beginning, they had it right.
3) I am good with military spending because we get a vitally important service in return for the money we contribute. I'm good with any of my taxes that go to pay for a good or service that benefits all citizens. The issue is with the handouts for which there is no good or service received for the money. It's just a handout.
These are handouts too, but I don't hear too many people clamoring to cut them, I wonder why not? Maybe because it's easier to grab money from the poor, most of them don't vote anyway, right?
deductions for donations to a church or charity
mortgage deduction which does little for the middle class
preferential tax rate of capital gains.
Moderator cut: Personal Attack I hear lots of clamor to cut those things. Especially the preferential capital gains tax rate.
Yes, we need to cut across the board, so everyone hurts a little, not just 1 portion of society. Defense has been cut from about 26% to 18% in the last 3 years, but I haven't seen anyone else take any cuts at all. Rich people, poor people, middle class people, olds people, none of them have had cuts. Just the soldiers. It just makes me so mad that the military has actually put their money where their mouth is, taken the cuts, no one else follows suit, and then folks STILL have the nerve to whine about defense spending. Take a cut in social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and government assistance as big as the cut defense took. THEN you can talk.
Last edited by Jeo123; 01-24-2016 at 10:47 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
