Miller
-
Okay, so your argument is
"because welfare, therefore Greece"
Like I said, show me some numbers that support that.
And let's take Cysko's example, above. Those people who are together but don't get married are entitled to their benefits, and miss out on the tax breaks for married couples.
Okay, so your argument is
"because welfare, therefore Greece"
Like I said, show me some numbers that support that.
And let's take Cysko's example, above. Those people who are together but don't get married are entitled to their benefits, and miss out on the tax breaks for married couples.
It's not close to the same amount they rake in in food stamps. Food is expensive when you have to feed a household and don't exist off fast food
-
I still don't really see your point.
So, if two people live together, and one of them is on food stamps, it's immoral if they don't get married?
-
Yes because their combined income as a married couple would make them ineligible for food stamps.
-
Let's not pretend it's simply welfare, it isn't.
You should be able to count up all the extra programs benefits handouts etcetera since World War Two.
You can use that rate of increase and multiply it over the next 60 years.
And that, I believe, would be very generous to you liberals.
We can't afford what were spending now, how do you think it will be when it doubles? Triples?
And exactly where do any of you see the big upcoming cuts that would make a difference?
WSS
-
But they get the best of both worlds. Both incomes and food stamps. Fraud. Nobody looked at their housing situation. Just the woman's gross income. What's the incentive to do the right thing?
-
You guys should try to answer Vapor's question because then you'll see the point some of us have been trying to make in here for months/years: that for guys like you, who make up the bulk of the Republican Party, the question isn't how to right the fiscal ship and get this country on a more sustainable path. Because you never deal with the issues that are relevant to that subject. You are almost entirely - and I mean entirely - focused on the idea that lazy minorities are taking handouts they don't deserve.
Really, that's your political philosophy: I don't like it when lazy people cheat the system so they can not work. That's it. This is 70%-80% of what you complain about. Even though it's .2% of what the fiscal problem is.
It doesn't matter to you that welfare or food stamp fraud doesn't add up to a whole lot, even when taking those budgets into consideration. It doesn't matter to you that the amount of money wasted on fraud is an irrelevant and infinitesimal contributor to our actual deficit problems. It doesn't matter to you that the main cause of increased food stamp use is simply the recession and its after effects. It doesn't matter to you that the "takers" of government money aren't simply the poor lazy minorities you obsess about, but more and more it's the middle class and the wealthy who take advantage of tax deductions, home mortgage deductions, the growing elderly population, veterans, etc.
When people talk about the "party of white resentment" this is exactly what they're referring to: the people- you guys - who can't focus on anything other than your anecdotal stories of some lazy good-for-nothing who is grifting while you work.
Start spending some time on what actually matters. The game in the real world is tax code reform, entitlement reform, figuring out ways to control health care costs, and lowering military spending. That's the game. You can either get in it, or you can stand on the sidelines and bitch about black welfare queens, but you can't do both.
-
Well, heck, you'll see that when I stated that the onus was on them to show evidence that welfare fraud was widespread, Steve simply answered.
No it isn't.
So there.
-
I'm not even talking about minorities. I'm talking about caucasians I personally know, call that anecdotal if you want, but fraud is happening. By whites right here in Ohio. How widespread is it? I couldn't say. But its widespread enough to demand reform.
-
You made a claim that welfare fraud wasn't a huge bite out of the GDP.( or something akin to that)
I agreed using the words:
No it isn't.
So I doubt you were able to comprehend the rest.
WSS
-
You're going to tell me that widespread welfare fraud is draining the nation's pockets?
-
Id say it causes a lot of bitter resentment. What's my incentive not to divorce my wife and still live together so she can claim she's poor enough to get an ebt card to pay for food? That way I could have hundreds of extra dollars a month to spend on myself.
Only because I'm too proud to take government handouts? Thats abuse, my friends, no matter what kind if spin you try to put on it.
-
Steve, check what you quoted in your earlier post, I assumed your "no it isn't" was to the last part. That there would be our miscommunication.
Cysko, if it's bugging you, go report it then! Get your friends audited if you think it's that big of a problem.
In 2009, there was 2.9 billion dollars of questioned allocation of funding. Of that 2.9b, about 25m was taken back, 3m in fines were assessed, and another 25m through settlements. That's $53 million. What percent of 2.9 billion dollars is 53 million?
(53*10^6)/(2.9*10^9)*(10^2)
There, the math is all done for you, just C&P that into google to find out how big of a problem this is.
-
I wasn't clear enough.
But again, it's not welfare that's turning us into Europe.
We have all sorts of social programs for all sorts of Citizens growing and growing and growing.
And it's getting harder and harder to pay for them even now.
I don't think we'll be able to tax the rich enough to keep them solvent as they continue to skyrocket.
Then we will be forced kicking and screaming into real austerity measures.
WSS
-
Yes, Steve said it wasn't a big problem.
It's just the problem he and the rest of the right devotes 85% of their time to. And when Bill O'Reilly gets up after the election and says Obama won because the white establishment is shrinking and the demographics are changing and "these people" want "stuff" from government, this is lauded as truth telling.
And not only that, but the rest of us won't admit just how brilliant his analysis is!
Are you guys getting the point yet? This is not where the money is being spent. It's being spent on retiring Baby Boomers, health care, and defense. It's being lost in the tax code, which doesn't raise enough money to pay for the current size of government.
You have to either raise revenues or cut government or what most people prefer: both.
And if you want to crack down on food stamp fraud or welfare fraud, this will be done at the state level and involves hiring what would be called "bureaucrats" to design better systems, then spend money to implement them, and money to police them. And states have done this. There are savings to be had here. No one is saying grifters aren't annoying, or that they don't cost money, or that there's no such thing as government dependency.
They're saying this is tinkering around the edges stuff that really doesn't matter too much, and you guys have to put your anecdotes aside and open your eyes to what the government actually spends its money on.
-
Steve, check what you quoted in your earlier post, I assumed your "no it isn't" was to the last part. That there would be our miscommunication.
Cysko, if it's bugging you, go report it then! Get your friends audited if you think it's that big of a problem.
In 2009, there was 2.9 billion dollars of questioned allocation of funding. Of that 2.9b, about 25m was taken back, 3m in fines were assessed, and another 25m through settlements. That's $53 million. What percent of 2.9 billion dollars is 53 million?
(53*10^6)/(2.9*10^9)*(10^2)
There, the math is all done for you, just C&P that into google to find out how big of a problem this is.
Steve, check what you quoted in your earlier post, I assumed your "no it isn't" was to the last part. That there would be our miscommunication.
Cysko, if it's bugging you, go report it then! Get your friends audited if you think it's that big of a problem.
In 2009, there was 2.9 billion dollars of questioned allocation of funding. Of that 2.9b, about 25m was taken back, 3m in fines were assessed, and another 25m through settlements. That's $53 million. What percent of 2.9 billion dollars is 53 million?
(53*10^6)/(2.9*10^9)*(10^2)
There, the math is all done for you, just C&P that into google to find out how big of a problem this is.
It's not even and always about the money. It's about right and wrong. Stealing is wrong. It's pretty basic. Why you would see were in a debt crisis where our ship is sinking and you want to turn a blind eye to theft. Especially when your taxes are paying for it. I just don't get that.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
What are you implying? That the welfare system is on the up and up and we should pay more taxes to help what's an efficient and honest system? Everybody on it truly deserves the help?
-
Not sure if heck is going for the red man or the straw herring.
This isn't simply welfare we're talking about.
Everyone has been crying that Republicans need to reach out to four group that voted big for Obama.
Blacks who would like to see more social programs. Just like heck. Stuff.
Hispanics who would like to see a fast track for friends and relatives living here illegally so they can ride the US gravy train. Stuff.
Single women who want the government to pay for either their contraception or their children.
Stuff.
Young people who want the government to pick up the tab for not only their health care but their college tuition as well.
Stuff.
So Republicans lost by a good margin in those four group.
I'd imagine that the unemployment rate among those group is higher than the average.
So I'd suspect that they would all prefer even longer periods of unemployment pay.
Stuff.
Personally I can't imagine what the Republicans might do short of trying to outbid the Democrats.
I just think that will be impossible regardless of political affiliation.
WSS
-
Here's what I'm saying: that the food stamp benefit is $4.50 a day, or $32.59 a week. Say you bust those people you were talking about and they lose their food stamps. Say you make this your life's work and over the course of the year you bust 100 of them. Probably generous, but let's just assume.
You just saved the state of Ohio about $170,000. Not nothing, but not exactly budget balancing material. A few cops work a detail, a new teacher is hired, and there goes your savings.
Okay, now picture that we decide we hate food stamp fraud so super duper much that we're going to create a fraud task force to find these grifters and show them what's what. We hire five accountant investigators to work with Social Services to root out the undeserving in Ohio. I'm sure this would sound good coming out of a politician's mouth, right? You guys would love this proposal.
Okay, five more public employee salaries, ranging from about $70,000 to $90,000 plus benefits, trying to root out food stamp fraud costs the government $1700 per violator...
See my point? In terms of where the government spends its money, or even wastes its money, this isn't the problem. There isn't much money to be found here.
-
Not sure if heck is going for the red man or the straw herring.
This isn't simply welfare we're talking about.
Everyone has been crying that Republicans need to reach out to four group that voted big for Obama.
Blacks who would like to see more social programs. Just like heck. Stuff.
Hispanics who would like to see a fast track for friends and relatives living here illegally so they can ride the US gravy train. Stuff.
Single women who want the government to pay for either their contraception or their children.
Stuff.
Young people who want the government to pick up the tab for not only their health care but their college tuition as well.
Stuff.
So Republicans lost by a good margin in those four group.
I'd imagine that the unemployment rate among those group is higher than the average.
So I'd suspect that they would all prefer even longer periods of unemployment pay.
Stuff.
Personally I can't imagine what the Republicans might do short of trying to outbid the Democrats.
I just think that will be impossible regardless of political affiliation.
WSS
Not sure if heck is going for the red man or the straw herring.
This isn't simply welfare we're talking about.
Everyone has been crying that Republicans need to reach out to four group that voted big for Obama.
Blacks who would like to see more social programs. Just like heck. Stuff.
Hispanics who would like to see a fast track for friends and relatives living here illegally so they can ride the US gravy train. Stuff.
Single women who want the government to pay for either their contraception or their children.
Stuff.
Young people who want the government to pick up the tab for not only their health care but their college tuition as well.
Stuff.
So Republicans lost by a good margin in those four group.
I'd imagine that the unemployment rate among those group is higher than the average.
So I'd suspect that they would all prefer even longer periods of unemployment pay.
Stuff.
Personally I can't imagine what the Republicans might do short of trying to outbid the Democrats.
I just think that will be impossible regardless of political affiliation.
WSS
I've got to get to work, but this just makes me shake my head.
You really shouldn't fool yourself into thinking that I don't understand this argument, or know what it is. That's the problem - that I know exactly what argument you're making.
-
And among the group the President did not win big?
Working white people and married women.
Heck would have you believe it's because they are misogynist racists.
I would say that they might resent being accused of causing all the world's ills.
And I suspect they understand that no matter how you punish the rich man you can't begin to pay for the stuff everybody wants.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login