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.
Not 100% true. Many of the welfare programs that are instituted by our government are meant to quell the lowest earning part of our population. This continues a beneficial business environment, which is mutually beneficial to everyone.
So, we'd need some basic welfare for citizens who can't care, or are unwilling to care for themselves.
I agree that SOME citizens need to be taken care of. However, our government has become a MASSIVE program for social and entitlement programs that we can no longer afford. These programs, once instituted, are a political "third rail" to eliminate, as people become accustomed to feeding at the federal trough and will resist any changes, even if it means our assured mutual destruction.
I agree that SOME citizens need to be taken care of. However, our government has become a MASSIVE program for social and entitlement programs that we can no longer afford. These programs, once instituted, are a political "third rail" to eliminate, as people become accustomed to feeding at the federal trough and will resist any changes, even if it means our assured mutual destruction.
Well which programs are you referring to?
Social Security? It'd be just fine if the money was taken out of the general fund, and put into its own individual trust fund. (of course then we'd have a MASSIVE shortfall in income for military expenses and other crap we don't need. Politicians can't have that)
Medicare? Personally I think that healthcare should be provided by the government if your employer doesn't provide it. A hybrid system is the best in the world. Government providing basic needs for those who can't afford it, and employers offering insurance to employees as a benefit to attact the best workers to their companies. Most elderly people are upset about losing their medicare, Republicans would never run on a platform to elimnate it, its not going away.
Welfare? You realize that you can only get welfare for a lifetime maximum of 5 years right? Most people go no where near that lifetime maximum.
What other social programs or "entitlements" are you referring to?
................Welfare? You realize that you can only get welfare for a lifetime maximum of 5 years right? Most people go no where near that lifetime maximum..........
One of the means to reducing taxes be they compulsory, or be they voluntary with a defined goal of levels attained, must include the reduction of financial support handed over to those who are not producing, or have never produced any of their own financial support.
Until that level can be defined, it is, in my opinion, impossible to define a percentage that could be voluntary and expected to fund those programs which have become the social "entitlements" we see today. It would seem that historically a boom economy does little to significantly reduce those numbers of welfare recipients. However, we do know that the welfare roles increase during poor economic climates. Something MUST change in the way we approach social welfare.
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 09-13-2010 at 10:20 AM..
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.
