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.
OK then. If these things hold then I will say start with those programs but you never see anyone go after those programs.
That't because of who people perceive to receive those benefits.
But understand that when conservatives discus entitlement spending that social security, medicare and medicaid are the entitlement programs they are discussing.
So why then do you hear so much about entitlements?
The entitlement noise is all about Medicare/Medicaid.
The teaparty Super Pacs did a fine job of refocusing the masses away from corporations and made it all about the idiot Obama phone lady. This makes sense, given the primary source of funding.
Many of the most profitable corporations pay little to no federal taxes. A few have even managed to get rebates. They are the union busters and in some cases, the employers who made it clear, heads will roll if their taxes increase. And a few of these cortporations are privately held by the wealthiest people in the world.
1) How do you know that the corporations are passing their subsidy to the customer instead of just pocketing it as profit?
2) You make inconsistent arguments. You are against giving money to poor people but are in favor of giving money to large corporations that already are making healthy profits. You theory, such as it is, is that not subsidizing corporations would increase prices, which hasn't been shown to be so. But even if it is so, I'd rather give that money to the poor so that they could afford the higher prices than to subsidize corporations with tax money.
3) The argument you make is contradictory to your free-market philosophy -- but I guess since it helps corporations it's ok.
Sorry I misunderstood the intent of one of your posts. I didn't read enough and jumped to a erroneously conclusion.
Medicare is a federal social insurance program for which eligible recipients must pay payroll tax premiums for a minimum of 10 years or 40 quarters and as such, wasn't listed on the chart.
Medicaid (CHIP, etc.) IS welfare and was listed on the chart.
Again, there was a HUGE decline in the numbers of people receiving welfare after the late 1990s welfare "reform" , but an ASTRONOMICAL INCREASE in welfare spending during that same time period.
MTAtech claims the number of people receiving welfare declined after 1997 up until the recent recession. I posted a chart showing that at the same time, the COSTS of welfare increased astronomically. I want to know how MTAtech explains the decrease in the number of welfare recipients and the corresponding HUGE INCREASE in welfare spending.
The declining number of people using TANF is an objective fact.
All of the OPs ideas have been shown as ridiculous and results provided as well as statistics.
He acknowledged none of it, shows no statistics and blames the poor.
He doesn't turn in those who he knows are criminals which makes him a criminal by complicity.
Dems let me explain something and clear up the lies!
Most of what you guys talk about on here are the same things as comservatives want but how we get there differs. Conservatives want to help people who need help but we feel the federal goverment is the most costly and inefficent way to do anything. It opens up plenty of chances for fraud and abuse. The closer you get to those you are helping the more you can help them. This is where the obama care vs romney care argument was lost on the dems. Why could romney be against a plan based on his? Because it was a federal plan! If the national health plan was based on 50 seperate state plans funded by a national mandate it would have had more conservative support! It wouldnt have be perfect but it would have been better than what we got. Same with medicaid and medicare.
Same with this topic! Put states in charge of all assistance with just a federal oversight in case a state decides to cut everyone off. Kinda like schools, where districts are in charge but states can take over short term if theres proof that district isnt doing job.
In other words, because some employers have created an arbitrary obstacle to employment you want to duplicate that arbitrary obstacle to survival benefits.
There is "nothing" wrong with drug testing to be employed. Why are you so against it? If you had your way then it would not be legal to drug test?
Imagine going to the hospital and health care workers used drugs. Since there is no drug testing some were bold enough to get high before going into work. Before drug testing it did happen.
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.
, but an ASTRONOMICAL INCREASE in welfare spending during that same time period.
