A Welfare Nation?

[bsmooth]

I know the way the information is being provided is quite extreme but at times, there are points being made by badger6 in terms of personal responsibility, but it probably applies for a lot of low income people, not just the black population. For instance, I believe the personal responsibility just isn't there and their (poor people) priorities are messed up. I live by a very low-income area but it's not shocking to see people living in a 400sq.ft. house with a run down cadillac sporting new 22"-chromed out rims with the new iPhone. I will admit, I know nothing of their financial situation or even their background, but just from the outside looking in, how in the world can you be spending money on luxury items like that when you live in a dilapidated house? It just never made sense to me.

Anyway, carry on.

Others have tried to point out that in areas where there are not a lot of minorities, a lot of whites both use the system, and a portion of them abuse it. So the entitlement abusers do not drive around in Cadillacs, buy $300 basketball shoes, eat lobster, etc. They also do not live in urban areas, but in nice, rual farming communities too.
There is way too much screaming and over-generalization when it comes to those who use entitlements, or get money from the government.
I also notice there seems to be a whisper from the right when it comes to the free money in the form of subsidies that go to businesses that do not create jobs.
I wish the people and politicians who are so angry over misuses of entitlements by the people, are as angry by the misuses of money by businesses and corporations too.

[Fau Teixeira]

Others have tried to point out that in areas where there are not a lot of minorities, a lot of whites both use the system, and a portion of them abuse it. So the entitlement abusers do not drive around in Cadillacs, buy $300 basketball shoes, eat lobster, etc. They also do not live in urban areas, but in nice, rual farming communities too.
There is way too much screaming and over-generalization when it comes to those who use entitlements, or get money from the government.
I also notice there seems to be a whisper from the right when it comes to the free money in the form of subsidies that go to businesses that do not create jobs.
I wish the people and politicians who are so angry over misuses of entitlements by the people, are as angry by the misuses of money by businesses and corporations too.

Especially the abuses of religious organizations that have a tax exempt status and then actively campaign for a candidate from the pulpit. That's a severe abuse of a government welfare program.

[SCFinfan]

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?

I was unaware of that. If it is true... well, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I don't have a problem returning tax surpluses to the citizenry per se. My big problem here, again, is the dogma of either side. Arguing that we are necessarily overtaxing people simply because we have a surplus doesn't follow. That said, if you can fully fund government with the tax rates you have, then, I can see why a slight decrease in taxes may be warranted assuming there are no obvious headwinds in the economy.

Likewise, stating that the surplus money is the government's and the government's only is irrational as well. After all, the government in a republic like ours should mainly be acting as a steward of tax revenues - using them in the best interests of the people. However, we all know that surplus money won't necessarily be shoved into programs to make them better, or even national defense/intelligence to make sure we are more secure. It may just go into administrative costs, or into government investments which don't pan out. These choices are not normally in the bests interests of the people, and, frankly, often are caused mainly by politics, rather than good entrepreneurship.

I think the trouble, again, is that both sides think they have the magic bullet when they don't. The only orthodoxy in economics, as far as I can tell, is pragmatism. If you can fully fund government and are doing well, ok, maybe invest more in the programs which help your people live in a more comfortable, enjoyable, secure world and promote domestic tranquility. If you can't fully fund government, then restructure your programs (or, again, if the situation is dire, cut them at least temporarily) and go from there.

Anyway, Spider, if you Dave, Brian, Fau, CF, and a few of the other reasonable people on here can come to a couple of joint agreements/compromises regarding these issues (and I think we, to an extent, have), I don't see why politicians can't. Yes, the Republicans are radicalized. So are the Democrats. But... the people, us, elected them. We're getting what we deserve.

[SCFinfan]

Especially the abuses of religious organizations that have a tax exempt status and then actively campaign for a candidate from the pulpit. That's a severe abuse of a government welfare program.

It cuts both ways, Fau. There are plenty of instances of the government impinging upon "free exercise thereof," or at least attempting to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_and_School_v._EEOC

Given that the government often steps on the toes of the churches and the religious, in derogation of their constitutional rights, should the churches not be expected to push back?

[Fins4ever]

Disagree. Clearly the current administrations polices have made it more difficult on business. Have heard entrepreneur after entrepreneur explain the challenges of starting or expanding their business and if it has anything to do with the environment, forgetaboutit. The environmentalist OWN Obama (see Keystone pipeline.

The red tape has become staggering due to more and more government involvement. I know you don't have much respect for my opinion, but maybe you will listen to this guy.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TKCwSVH7Bw

[Spider-Dan]

Likewise, stating that the surplus money is the government's and the government's only is irrational as well.

If the stated purpose of the spending cuts/tax increases is to combat the national debt, then the surplus money most certainly IS for the government alone.  That's the point.

In order to pay down the supposedly-crippling national debt, we need to have many years of substantial surpluses.

[Spider-Dan]

The red tape has become staggering due to more and more government involvement. I know you don't have much respect for my opinion, but maybe you will listen to this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TKCwSVH7Bw

http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Closures-Layoffs-Jan-25-31-Caterpillar-Microsoft-Home-Depot-Layoff-Tally-Tops-32000/109532

8 years of pro-business GOP policies led Home Depot to announce 7,000 layoffs in January 2009.

Perhaps this gentleman is not quite the best person to articulate what is and is not needed for business to succeed.

[Spider-Dan]

It cuts both ways, Fau. There are plenty of instances of the government impinging upon "free exercise thereof," or at least attempting to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_and_School_v._EEOC

Given that the government often steps on the toes of the churches and the religious, in derogation of their constitutional rights, should the churches not be expected to push back?

That's an incredibly strange example to choose.  A teacher at a Lutheran school left on disability, was medically cleared to return to work, and when she attempted to do so, she was informed that she no longer had a job.  She sued them because normally, you can't do that.  The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the church (on employment discrimination grounds), while specifically leaving open the possibility of other cases suing a church on other grounds (e.g. breach of contract).

If it is your position that labor laws obviously shouldn't apply to religious organizations (for some reason), then I guess you might see that as an "infringement of liberty."  It seems to me that such a position would lead to the conclusion that it is perfectly acceptable for the principal of a religious school to tell one of his teachers that she should start dating him or be fired.

In any case: given the taxpayer subsidies that we all provide to these organizations (via tax-exempt status, or even direct payments in the case of many Catholic hospitals), I think the best way to make sure that they enjoy maximum liberty is to remove all gov't subsidies.  Then they can act without worrying about all the restrictions that tax-exempt organizations face.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

8 years of pro-business GOP policies led Home Depot to announce 7,000 layoffs in January 2009.

Home Depot's problem is quite simple-- they import too much cheap crap from China. 

Home Depot use to sell quaility merchandise now they only sell inferior stuff.  You can pay a $1 or so less for a can of paint but it will be peeling in half the time.  Home Depot has gone to suppliers and spefically asked for lower price in exchange for lower quaility control on the goods.

Most people now realize this and when you figure in the cost and/or effort involved in home improvement projects... buying stuff there is pennywise and poundfoolish.     

[SCFinfan]

If the stated purpose of the spending cuts/tax increases is to combat the national debt, then the surplus money most certainly IS for the government alone.  That's the point.

In order to pay down the supposedly-crippling national debt, we need to have many years of substantial surpluses.

Not necessarily, what if part of the budgetary expenditures for a governmental fiscal year include debt service (which I believe they do)? If that is the case, and we can pay our own way for all of our other government expenditures, then, the surplus could possibly be best spent on checks to the taxpayers.

Admittedly, the best way to clear a debt is to save up your money (or win the lottery), and then slam the debt w/ the wall of money you have specifically for that purpose. But, if the government can make minimum payments and pay its own way on everything else... then there isn't necessarily a NEED, but rather, merely the option.

Also, think of it this way: some sovereign debt is held by citizens, right? Ok, well, then, if you take your surplus money to pay off, say, treasury bonds which are held by US citizens, what is the difference between that and repaying excess tax levies? The only difference would be that one clears a debt quicker than the other. It would still go to the same place... it would actually, if you think about it, be an extra boon to those who bought treasury bonds. They'd receive a check from the government to repay their bond-debt, and also a check to pay back on taxes w/ their surplus money.

That's an incredibly strange example to choose.  A teacher at a Lutheran school left on disability, was medically cleared to return to work, and when she attempted to do so, she was informed that she no longer had a job.  She sued them because normally, you can't do that.  The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the church (on employment discrimination grounds), while specifically leaving open the possibility of other cases suing a church on other grounds (e.g. breach of contract).

If it is your position that labor laws obviously shouldn't apply to religious organizations (for some reason), then I guess you might see that as an "infringement of liberty."  It seems to me that such a position would lead to the conclusion that it is perfectly acceptable for the principal of a religious school to tell one of his teachers that she should start dating him or be fired.

In any case: given the taxpayer subsidies that we all provide to these organizations (via tax-exempt status, or even direct payments in the case of many Catholic hospitals), I think the best way to make sure that they enjoy maximum liberty is to remove all gov't subsidies.  Then they can act without worrying about all the restrictions that tax-exempt organizations face.

The heart of the free exercise clause is that the government does not get entangled with the internal governance of churches and other religious establishments. This is probably the most clearly defined precedent in free exercise clause jurisprudence. Ms. Perich was a "called" minister-teacher. That they fired her is a clear matter of internal church governance, as is every decision concerning who they consider a minister, who they consider fit for ministry, etc.

And yet, the EEOC went right after this church for the violation of labor laws, as if they applied to, again, what is clearly a matter of internal church governance. The Obama administration is brazen in that way. They act like the free exercise clause doesn't exist. To quote Justice Roberts in Hosana-Tabor:

�

[Spider-Dan]

Not necessarily, what if part of the budgetary expenditures for a governmental fiscal year include debt service (which I believe they do)? If that is the case, and we can pay our own way for all of our other government expenditures, then, the surplus could possibly be best spent on checks to the taxpayers.

Admittedly, the best way to clear a debt is to save up your money (or win the lottery), and then slam the debt w/ the wall of money you have specifically for that purpose. But, if the government can make minimum payments and pay its own way on everything else... then there isn't necessarily a NEED, but rather, merely the option.

Let's cut to the end of this discussion: if we can spend the money we saved (via cutting safety net programs) on tax cuts because we don't need to pay down the debt that quickly, then we never needed to cut those programs in the first place.  Q.E.D.

edit: split the other part into another thread, as I think it's an interesting (but completely separate) discussion

[bsmooth]

Yes, the Republicans are radicalized. So are the Democrats. But... the people, us, elected them. We're getting what we deserve.

This is the only truth about D.C. right now. Both parties are only listening to the fringe elements, because those people will always vote for their chosen party no matter what. The middle is ignored until it is time to try and woo them over during elections. Of course the middle buys into the lesser-of-two-evils theory, instead of demanding better candidates and refusing to vote for either of the two main parties until that happens.

[Fins4ever]

http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Closures-Layoffs-Jan-25-31-Caterpillar-Microsoft-Home-Depot-Layoff-Tally-Tops-32000/109532

8 years of pro-business GOP policies led Home Depot to announce 7,000 layoffs in January 2009.

Perhaps this gentleman is not quite the best person to articulate what is and is not needed for business to succeed.

LOL  I give up. We are just too different and will never agree. For every example you give, I can find one to dispute it.

Laying off is not all that unusual. Businesses go through cycles and you can't blame HD on what has been happening in the entire economy. You failed to mention HD hired over 3000 about a year ago. 

I asked you your age and education which you declined to answer and that is OK. However, I want you to know that I am 52, been involved with businesses all my life. In college I studied psychology and business. Ended up getting a MBA and minored in psych. I like to think I know just a little bit.

Have a nice day.  Let's just agree to disagree on religion and economic issues. We still have the Dolphins. I think?? lol

[Spider-Dan]

Laying off is not all that unusual. Businesses go through cycles and you can't blame HD on what has been happening in the entire economy. You failed to mention HD hired over 3000 about a year ago.

Are you saying that HD hired over 3000 people under Obama?  That doesn't seem consistent with Marcus' claims that Obama is bad for the economy.

I asked you your age and education which you declined to answer and that is OK. However, I want you to know that I am 52, been involved with businesses all my life. In college I studied psychology and business. Ended up getting a MBA and minored in psych. I like to think I know just a little bit.

Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize for economics and believes strongly in Keynesian economics.  (And he's older than you, too.)  I'd like to think he knows just a little bit more.  So when the things that you say are at odds with the things that he says, I'm going to go with him.

Of course, we probably could have some sort of proxy discussion where instead of me making my own statements, I simply cite people (that agree with me) who are older and have more letters after their name than you do.  I'm not sure how productive that would be, though.

Let's just agree to disagree on religion and economic issues.

You're certainly not required to respond to my posts.  However, discussion is what the message board is for.  If you don't like having your points disputed, there's one way to avoid that...

[badger6]

Are you saying that HD hired over 3000 people under Obama?  That doesn't seem consistent with Marcus' claims that Obama is bad for the economy.
Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize for economics and believes strongly in Keynesian economics.  (And he's older than you, too.)  I'd like to think he knows just a little bit more.  So when the things that you say are at odds with the things that he says, I'm going to go with him.

Government interventions and spending is the main problem with the Keynesian thought process. Governments are totally incapable of stopping the money printing and borrowing money. All this does in the long run is to debase our currency and raise debt to unsustainable levels. Alternatively, the markets and economy corrects itself over time if allowed to according to the Austrian model.

Our economy is based on debt and spending instead of savings and productivity. We are on the wrong path and it will only end badly.....


“Gold is money, everything else is credit.” - JP Morgan

"Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants - but debt is the money of slaves" - Norm Franz