Quite right. As Al Capone said, “You can get farther with a kind word and a gun that with just a kind word.”
quote:
The budget passed by the House is particularly gruesome. It mugs the poor and the helpless while giving unstintingly to the rich. This blueprint for domestic disaster has even moderate Republicans running for cover.
The House plan offers the well-to-do $1.4 trillion in tax cuts, while demanding billions of dollars in cuts from programs that provide food stamps, school lunches, health care for the poor and the disabled, temporary assistance to needy families — even veterans’ benefits and student loans.
An analysis of the House budget by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that its proposed cuts in child nutrition programs threaten to eliminate school lunches for 2.4 million low-income children.
Under the House plan, Congress would be required to cut $265 billion from entitlement programs over 10 years. About $165 billion would come from programs that assist low-income Americans.
This assault on society’s weakest elements has been almost totally camouflaged by the war, which has an iron grip on the nation’s attention.
Are these actual cuts in welfare programs? Or are these merely reductions in the projected rates of growth for these welfare programs?
If they are actually cuts, that is good news indeed. If they are merely growing these welfare programs a little less slowly, that is not so good news.
I tend to be sceptical. I predict the the welfare budget will increase after these supposed “cuts”
Oh No! Not the dreaded school lunch cuts again! You mean to tell me that the mothers of these kids will actually have to prepare their children lunches with food bought by the Food Stamp program, instead of the “free” lunch program? After all, if they kids are poor enough to get “free” lunch, then the parents probably qualify for food stamps. Why arent these food stamp families sending thier kids off with a packed lunch, instead of sucking onto yet another welfare program(“free lunch”)
Oh, and you do know that the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is a collection of left wing nut jobs, dedicated to using the Government to steal as much of the money of the productive as possible, in order to give it to the leaches of society.
I’ve listened to Bricker. I just don’t agree with most of what he has said.
I have never made the “greedy capitalist” argument. At least, not here. Nor do I believe in income redistribution. One can believe that feeding poor children is the right thing to do without being a freakin communist.
I believe in social welfare for the same reason that I believe in public eduction. Both things benefit society in both tangible and intangible ways. I’m not against cutting the budget when times are bad, but no one can convince me that times are bad when we are giving folks a $1.4 trillion tax cut. If everyone was going to be making a sacrifice, you wouldn’t be hearing a peep out of me. But no. For some reason, the meekest among us are going to be suffering the most because of the country’s financial woes. This is what infuriates me. All the other stuff that has been brought up here is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan:
With the reduced foodstamp allotment, those free lunch kids will be taking steak sandwiches and key lime pie with them to school. Because you know with the free lunch program, those theiving parents hoard all the groceries for themshelves. :rolleyes:
Lissa had a pretty big list of the amount of money we shell out for corporate welfare, and yet no one has lambasted those “greedy capitalists” quite as hard as they have welfare parents and their poor, broke-ass, boloney-sandwich-snatching children. When another Enron scandal pops up, how much you want to bet people will still be whining about those theiving, lazy-ass welfare, “foodstamp” people? We’ve been bamboozled into thinking we’re more like the rich than the poor, even as the rich play hide-n-seek with our life savings and then lie to us when they’ve been caught! It must be the American way.
I love you Monstro!
Tell me Monstro, what is it about you that you think that some people are just *owed *something by other people?
Obviously the tax-man wasn’t standing there with a 9mm to your temple while you sat, furiously writing out a check, but you can’t say that the government does not use the threat of force to take tax money. Whether they use actually force, or a coercive threat, it’s not a voluntary situation.
He has complete control over his money because the amount of assistance he gives (if any) is totally under his discretion. Once he voluntarily gives up the money, it is no longer his. He can, however, make certain conditions on the gift, unlike the money that is taken from the taxpayers.
Then you still don’t see the difference between receiving money from someone as a completely voluntary act and receiving money from someone through the forcible, coercive actions of a third party.
But social welfare programs are all forms of income redistribution. This claim makes no sense.
[/quote]
Lissa had a pretty big list of the amount of money we shell out for corporate welfare, and yet no one has lambasted those “greedy capitalists” quite as hard as they have welfare parents and their poor, broke-ass, boloney-sandwich-snatching children.
[/quote]
Perhaps no one is making as big a deal about corporate welfare because this is a thread that was started with a rant against the government cutting social welfare programs (or at least cutting the rate of increase of said programs). However, I would lend total support behind any call for the abolition of both corporate and social welfare programs. After all, they both stem from the same concept of taking my money without my consent and giving it to someone else.
My point, milroyj, which seems to have escaped you, is that these regulations and programs PREVENT the wealthy from stealing from others. (Wage slavery, labor laws, swindling land from others, etc.)
:rolleyes:
Either your grammar is terrible or I’ve been on the computer way too much today.
I don’t like people telling me we’re in a budget crisis while foisting over trillions of dollars. Either someone’s lying or somebody’s being stupid. And I don’t like people crying about foodstamps and free lunches when the real problem isn’t the poor in the first place.
I like when things make sense. This House plan is not making sense to me.
I pay my taxes. With that, I expect to be protected from crime and wars and whatnot. I expect clean water and manageble roads. I expect a bunch of stuff, because I paid my taxes like a good little citizen. Why is it so wrong for me to think my government owes me a decent society in which to live? And why is it so wrong for me to think a decent society includes no hungry people?
Since when have Dopers been averse to going off topic? I seriously doubt this is the reason why people haven’t rallied against corporate welfare. No, the real reason is because politicians never use corporate welfare to get us to despise the rich like they do with social welfare and the poor. Why? Because many of them benefit from corporate welfare. Their best friends are CEOs. Just once I would like to meet a politician who’s best friends with a welfare mom.
In your world, GWB’s salary would be cut in half. The war budget would be reduced by 40%. Maybe that’s not such a bad scheme. Too bad it’s just a childish fantasy.
Yeah, DDG got in trouble for that in GD. I just didn’t want to see you get yelled at.
The only thing the government is obligated to do is to protect your God given rights. Period.
It is not obligated to “level the playing field”, it is not obligated to “make the rich pay more, so the poor pay less”, it is not obligated to feed anyone, or clothe anyone, or provide healthcare for anyone.
If you can prove otherwise, please point out where it is written in the Constitution. Otherwise, quit your whining.
No, it really does.
Your first cite gets to its conclusion by leaving out the two largest welfare programs the government runs. It would be like me saying that the government really doesn’t spend much on the military once you leave out salaries and modernization costs. It’s a nice factoid, but without a point.
Moreover, your cites contradict each other. Nader says $200 billion while Cato says $87 billion. That’s a big difference. A huge difference.
Corporate welfare means whatever anyone wants it to mean, so it’s a really vague term and pretty much useless in an argument for that reason. Direct assistance outlays were about 12% of the budget. And that’s not counting unemployment, assisted housing, job training, and student aid. Welfare programs probably consist of 15-20% of the budget. That’s not a “relatively small amount of money” especially when you consider that we are considering 15-20% of ALL outlays, including Social Security, etc. which take up around 35% of the budget. Just between the two that’s around 50% of total outlays. Plus another 18% going to general government and the debt, we only have 32% of outlays left to go to other crap like defense, business subsidies and such.
Now, then, I’m certainly not saying that business is not subsidized in this country - sometimes for silly things, IMHO. And I would certainly rather see that cut rather than social programs. And I’m not in support of this supposed cut in free lunch programs, since I have seen with my own eyes the good they do and the help they bring. But social programs in the US are also not a pittance, nor are they relatively small. The government makes a very large contribution to social development and direct contributions.
That’s something to be proud of. At least, I think so.
Um… where did I say I hated it?
And where did I characterize it as stealing?
And did I not post the following quote?
In light of the above, do you wish to revise any of your remarks towards me?
This is in the constitution? Wow. I really should have paid more attention in civics class.
My whining? I’m not the one crying about how my taxes get spent. I’m not the one crying about all those people stealing my hard-earned money. I’m not the only crying wishing taxes would only go to things that benefit me. I’m not the one whining, fella. Ranting is not the same thing as whining.
Just in case you missed Reeder’s beautiful and succinct excerpt from the Constitution:
People who support social welfare aren’t pulling that concept out of their asses.
No, it isn’t obligated to do anything of these things, not out of thin air. But the last time I checked, the politicians I elected were in favor of things that I support. That’s why I elected them. I didn’t elect them to cut programs that I deem essential. THEY have an obligation to me, their constituent, to make policy that coincides with how I want society to be. And if they screw around with my society, I want to make them hear about it. It’s not called whining. It’s called democracy.
Read the tenth Amendment. The Fed Gov is prohibited from doing those things which the States have not authorized it to do.
Also, that “promote the general welfare” thing means that the government can do things which help the nation in a general way, such as pollution laws or research and development. It doesn’t mean the Feds have the power to take money from one citizen and give it to another citizen.
Too bad for you, this nation is not a democracy.
Politicians, of whatever stripe, take a vow to protect and defend the Constitution. That is their job. If they are derelict, they should pay the price. They are under no obligation to vote for Monstros “society”.
quote:
THEY have an obligation to me, their constituent, to make policy that coincides with how I want society to be. And if they screw around with my society, I want to make them hear about it. It’s not called whining. It’s called democracy.
Pretty delusional, arent you?
Hey, Monstro you do not live in a democracy. Our nation is a republic, so… maybe, yeah, you should have paid more attention in civics class.
The constitution states that we should PROMOTE the general welfare-not PROVIDE for the general welfare of our citizens.
monstro: I already wrote out a long reply a few hours ago, but Internet Explorer, Comcast and and a brewing cold are all conspiring against me, so I’ll make my response brief(er) this time and send it off to the abyss.
How do you know that the charities wouldn’t work well if people had more disposable income to give to them? How do you know that your mom’s charity (and many other charities) wouldn’t get more support and flourish if everyone knew that they were having to pick up more slack in taking care of the needy? How do you know that the world would go to hell in a handbasket if the government didn’t bleed the taxpayers so much? How do you know that the general public are all greedy and selfish who would never dream of giving to charity? You don’t know, and you can rest assured—you’ll never find out. Because the government won’t stop taxing us. (And just to make it clear—I am not saying that I am against taxes altogether. But it’s hard not to be critical of a system that sucks so often.)
You have no idea how positively people might react if they saw that they could give money to charities that were actually effective, which didn’t let the money hemmorage out, get wasted on con artists (at least not quite so much) or just generally get managed poorly? You don’t know. And of course you’ll never know.
And where do you get off saying that the charities who collected money didn’t give it to the people who “really” needed it? Who appointed you the person to decide such things? The charities worked the way they were supposed to—people donated money, with the expectation that the money would actually go to (get this!) certain people—the 9/11 victims. And guess what? The charities are trying to do that. The nerve of them to honor the wishes of the people who donated the money!
And why do you assume that all the charities would have “strings attached” to their giving? You seem to want to see the worst case scenario, and you want to set up the government (and people like you) as the only ones who can save us from our greedy, selfish selves. And the only ones who can save the poor and needy.
Who knows who generous people could and would be if they had more disposable income? Of course the whole structure of charities would change if the government got less involved in helping the poor—more “awareness campaigns” to let people know who needed help, where they needed help. Hey, who knows how well it could work? (True, it might not work well at all, but of course we’ll never be given the chance to find out.)
Just because you screech about how the “sky is falling” and how no one will do anything to help others unless they’re forced, doesn’t make it so. But we’ll never get the chance to find out. The government (and people like you) will never allow us that chance.
And, of course, those four people you mentioned are typical of ever single poor person in America. They’re all lazy, immoral losers, or why would they be poor in the first place, right?
Americans seem to have an amazing amount of disgust and resentment for the poor. I’ve always had the theory that it’s because the idea that the “American Dream” was easily achievable by all was pounded into our heads in grade-school civics classes. The poor are only poor because they’re too lazy to be rich. They deserve what they get.
Never mind the fact that our economy is a zero-sum game. Never mind the fact that they’re aren’t enough high-paying jobs to go around for everyone. Never mind the fact that the poor “surplus labor pool” are the first to get fired or laid-off in an economic pinch. Never mind the fact that capitalism requires that some be the “have-nots.” Never mind the fact that a lot of people don’t have the automatic advantages that come with being raised in a white, middle-class home. To hell with the lazy scum!
You’re also forgetting that welfare has been severely limited in the last few years. As I understand it, unless disabled, you can only recieve welfare benefits for five years. The majority of welfare recepients get benefits only teporarily, and the money recieved is definitly not enough to keep anyone in a high-living lifestyle. (In fact, on welfare, you barely scrape by.)
Here are some facts about welfare recepients.
Many welfare recipients * do * work to supplement meager benefits, but the lack of affordable child care makes working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply do not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty. Often, losing welfare benefits and “going to work” would lower a family’s standard of living into abject poverty.
Here are some myths and facts from Kansas.
Nor is education a protection. A Canadian welfare site I visited during this research said that 11% of its recepients had post-secondary educations.
From this site:
I suggest you read the book Sweet Charity by Janet Poppendiek.
I quote from one of the editorial reviews: