A Welfare Nation?

[Pappy13]

^^^ Fair enough. I don't have a problem with that. We were talking about lower income people in the current conversation.

And I'm giving you an example of how lower income folks aren't ANY different from higher income folks. Irresponsibility isn't a function of one's age, sex, ethnicity, social status, upbringing, income, etc, etc, etc. It's simply a byproduct of free will. Some choose to be irresponsible and some choose not to.

[badger6]

I was thinking more along the lines of misguided soul that I should pray for.

Thanks for the thought and I really hope you don't take this the wrong way because I really do think that your faith is a good thing, just no my thing.

Don't bother, in the end nothing will help any of us.

[Dave Gray]

I will meet you 1/2 Dave. I agree that those that abuse the system are in the great minority and those who get assistance need it. However, there should be something in place to ensure that the situation is temporary and they can get back to productive lives. Agree?

First off, thanks for being reasonable and talking.  Sure, I agree with your point.  I am all for limiting waste in those programs.  I don't have any specific ideas to make changes, but the ones that I hear most often (drug testing, etc), I think would hurt the wrong people.

Have to disagree that conservatives gloss over the fact that most on programs are elderly or vets. I have never heard one single conservative (politician for that matter) criticize helping those people.

I don't mean that conservatives don't want to help those people.  What I mean is that they fail to recognize that the vast, vast majority of people on entitlements are those very people and not the "welfare queens".

Just one question. Since the food stamp program has almost doubled during the current administration, does this mean the population of elderly and homeless has also doubled?    

No, but it's a down economy.  The percentages of all kinds of people that would need that program have gone up, because more people, in general, are struggling.  That's poor, middle class, and the elderly.  I think it's naive to believe that it's Obama's policies that have caused the increase in food stamp need.  It's a larger economic issue.  As the economy gets better, the dependence on welfare and food stamps will, as well, regardless of who is President.

[badger6]

And I'm giving you an example of how lower income folks aren't ANY different from higher income folks. Irresponsibility isn't a function of one's age, sex, ethnicity, social status, upbringing, income, etc, etc, etc. It's simply a byproduct of free will. Some choose to be irresponsible and some choose not to.

Ok, then tell me how a entire ethnic race in America gets to the top of so many negative categories including entitlements if none of those things that you listed have any factor in it....

[Dave Gray]

SC, I think you're the first person I've ever "known" who is both socially conservative and fiscally liberal.  It's an odd mix that you don't often find.  You're like the anti-libertarian.

[Pappy13]

Thanks for the thought and I really hope you don't take this the wrong way because I really do think that your faith is a good thing, just no my thing.

Don't bother, in the end nothing will help any of us.

No offense taken, I'm not really much into praying for others anyway, but I do still hope that one day you'll see things with a more open mind. Whether that inspiration comes from God or somewhere else really doesn't matter to me.

[Pappy13]

Ok, then tell me how a certain demographic gets to the top of so many negative categories including entitlements if none of those things have any factor in it....

Black is not a demographic, that's a particular trait of a demographic. You see "black" and I see "female ages 16-20 from low income household in urban areas". That's a demographic and I bet if you compare the numbers for that demographic you would see similar numbers. So is it the fact that they are black or the fact that they are from low income households in the ages from 16-20 from urban areas? Could that possibly be the reason? How many non african americans fall into that demographic and how many of them hit those same negative categories? Bet the white women that fall into that same demographic experience approximately the same issues that the black women do. If that's the case then it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that they are black, it has to do with a lot of other factors, wouldn't you agree?

[badger6]

No offense taken, I'm not really much into praying for others anyway, but I do still hope that one day you'll see things with a more open mind. Whether that inspiration comes from God or somewhere else really doesn't matter to me.

Nah, a open mind is overrated. Make your own choices in life and deal with the results, no big deal. I may be a cynical asshole but at least I have integrity and take responsibility. Got to be worth something right ?

 

[badger6]

Black is not a demographic, that's a particular trait of a demographic. You see "black" and I see "female ages 16-20 from low income household in urban areas". That's a demographic and I bet if you compare the numbers for that demographic you would see similar numbers. So is it the fact that they are black or the fact that they are from low income households in the ages from 16-20 from urban areas? Could that possibly be the reason? How many non african americans fall into that demographic and how many of them hit those same negative categories? Bet the white women that fall into that same demographic experience approximately the same issues that the black women do. If that's the case then it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that they are black, it has to do with a lot of other factors, wouldn't you agree?

Pardon me sir, I made an error, please forgive me. My post has been corrected to reflect my accurate reply. It is below.

Ok, then tell me how a entire ethnic race in America gets to the top of so many negative categories including entitlements if none of those things that you listed have any factor in it....

[Spider-Dan]

The thing about stereotypes is that if they aren't true, they wouldn't be stereotypes. If they weren't true, they wouldn't survive long as stereotypes.

Gold!

[badger6]

Gold!

Platinum. I win !!!

[Spider-Dan]

But, similarly, we (read: moderate conservatives) fear the tremendous sovereign debt which they cause us to pile on (source: http://econperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-federal-government-spending-by.html). The trouble is this: our intentions w/ these programs are good, and the effect they have are good... but, like any company looking off into the future, are they feasible over the long term?

The problem with the "concern" over debt is that deficit, by definition, is when revenues are less than expenditures.

The idea that our debt must be reduced by harsh spending cuts is not particularly credible.  If you look at the last time we were in surplus (the end of Clinton's last term), we didn't have draconian cuts to government programs across the board.  Instead, we had reasonable, fiscally responsible tax rates.

Now, you can argue that those tax rates would not support the number of people joining the rolls of SS/Medicare,  and you may be right.  If we want to maintain the same standards in Medicare/SS, raising taxes should be on the table.  There is a price to pay for the kind of society we want; one where the elderly are not sickly and destitute.

[SCFinfan]

SC, I think you're the first person I've ever "known" who is both socially conservative and fiscally liberal.  It's an odd mix that you don't often find.  You're like the anti-libertarian.

I'll take that as a compliment. Seriously though - I was sitting thinking one day and I realized that while both sides talked up freedom because it sounded nice on the campaign trail, neither one really wanted it. Regulated freedom, a/k/a ordered liberty, is where it's at.

I would also note that I'd be a pretty typical Democrat in the 1950s, or a Republican of the 1980s. I think that shows that the goalposts have moved all over the place in this country.

The problem with the "concern" over debt is that deficit, by definition, is when revenues are less than expenditures.

The idea that our debt must be reduced by harsh spending cuts is not particularly credible.  If you look at the last time we were in surplus (the end of Clinton's last term), we didn't have draconian cuts to government programs across the board.  Instead, we had reasonable, fiscally responsible tax rates.

Now, you can argue that those tax rates would not support the number of people joining the rolls of SS/Medicare,  and you may be right.  If we want to maintain the same standards in Medicare/SS, raising taxes should be on the table.  There is a price to pay for the kind of society we want; one where the elderly are not sickly and destitute.

Which is precisely why I'm not in favor of harsh spending cuts. I am in favor of spending cuts that occur from the necessities of re-structuring, and some of those cuts may be "harsh" in the sense that they may cause some economic pain for some people, but I'm not here arguing for the privatization of social security (though, I could see myself doing so, if the situation were to call for it).

Anyway, as regards the Clintonian surpluses, I think we need to be careful and not get locked into thinking that the situation we had during that time is *the one true way of taxing and spending.* Look at this chart: http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

The Dems have been in control during a number of years where deficits were exacerbated. The Republicans too. Neither side has the magic bullet in their political dogma. Not to mention, Clinton had the luck to be President while the internet became a part of everyday life, which eventually caused a minor bubble that he never had to manage.

So, the answer must be a little bit of both, it would seem - cut spending where you can (have a duplicative government program? do away with the less advantageous program!), and maybe raise some taxes (but only on individuals, not corporations, as the corporations just pass the losses down the chain to the consumer, and this by and large hurts those who are poorest, like gas, energy and food prices), but I would much prefer the cuts.

Yes, there is a price for the society in which we live, but we have to grasp the fact that, well, maybe we've lived a little too high on the hog. Life has its ups and downs. Americans need to realize this, grow accustomed to it, and learn to manage the situation that confronts them.

Hell, if a whiny ninnie like me can do it, anyone can.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

SC, I think you're the first person I've ever "known" who is both socially conservative and fiscally liberal.  It's an odd mix that you don't often find.  You're like the anti-libertarian.

Actually it the bulk of the Republican party.  "W" was hardly fiscally conservative even though he claimed otherwise. 

[Spider-Dan]

SCFinFan, I would just add one more thing:

I don't see any real point in even attempting to combat the national debt while the Grover Norquist wing of the GOP maintains control of that party.  You may recall that when last we had a surplus, many so-called "fiscal conservatives" insisted that a surplus necessarily means that we are overtaxing the citizenry, and that tax cuts should immediately be enacted to return this extra money back to the pockets of the taxpayers.

Why even bother agreeing to cutbacks in the safety net when the reward for such tough fiscal discipline is more tax cuts?