Bush's New Plan- Get Rid of Welfare

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Where does the basic income come from? A lot of small countries can do all kinds of things that a big country can not.

In the case of Norway it's funded by their oil exports and a high tax rate. This is the main thing luthier and I were discussing, the amount of additional tax revenue that would be required to do the same thing here.

The main advantage to doing so would be in the ability to cut spending from certain areas. For example food stamps could be cut back significantly or eliminated entirely as could disability, tanf, pipp, lifeline, and anything else I'm not thinking of. Basically everything aside from health care and social security for those who are retired.

originally posted by: luthier
No we do not need to give children money. We don't agree. Yeah the parent has to work or get housemates. I have three kids and feed two others from an after school program I teach.

Whoops, meant to say agree to disagree. Getting roommates at lower income would have to happen, but that has to happen now so nothing is different there.

You are forgetting to subtract the social programs that already exist. Currently we have 3.5 trillion wrapped into them. There is close to 2 trillion that could be cut immediately if the GI went in place for most people.

If you want to count things like the MIC as a social program (which in my opinion, that's all it is at this point) then sure. But I was assuming we continue to spend on things like education, transportation, nasa, defense, and all the rest.

How about this, since I listed some things out you do the same. What programs could we cut? I'm just not seeing where you're getting $2 trillion from unless you're including health care.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Where does the basic income come from? A lot of small countries can do all kinds of things that a big country can not.

In the case of Norway it's funded by their oil exports and a high tax rate. This is the main thing luthier and I were discussing, the amount of additional tax revenue that would be required to do the same thing here.

The main advantage to doing so would be in the ability to cut spending from certain areas. For example food stamps could be cut back significantly or eliminated entirely as could disability, tanf, pipp, lifeline, and anything else I'm not thinking of. Basically everything aside from health care and social security for those who are retired.

originally posted by: luthier
No we do not need to give children money. We don't agree. Yeah the parent has to work or get housemates. I have three kids and feed two others from an after school program I teach.

Whoops, meant to say agree to disagree. Getting roommates at lower income would have to happen, but that has to happen now so nothing is different there.

You are forgetting to subtract the social programs that already exist. Currently we have 3.5 trillion wrapped into them. There is close to 2 trillion that could be cut immediately if the GI went in place for most people.

If you want to count things like the MIC as a social program (which in my opinion, that's all it is at this point) then sure. But I was assuming we continue to spend on things like education, transportation, nasa, defense, and all the rest.

How about this, since I listed some things out you do the same. What programs could we cut? I'm just not seeing where you're getting $2 trillion from unless you're including health care.

I would love to but am on mobile. And there are a LOT of programs.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Just add up the non medical and the ssi will have to be a more ellobarate fix. The whole thing is supposed to be self sufficient but its not.

Add upp all the state and federal housing, cash, food stamps, EIC, etc.

Medical is a big spending problem too. So much wasted for such mediocre care.
I think the approach Switzerland took with non profit healthcare is a decent market approach that can translate to the American economic system. To me the Swiss are a lot like the classical liberal US. They have plenty of drug companies that can do research in those parameters.

I am including social tax breaks and gov spending on private wellfare spending

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Aazadan

Mandatory birth control.

We have a nation of welfare addicts that breed like cockroaches on someone else's dime.

Stop the idiocracy.

For this to even work, there would have to be a complete stripping of protection of religious rights. I doubt many Christians would support mandatory sterilization (aka birth control) after they realized this would have to apply to the sects that eschew birth control, and support having as many kids as humanly possible. Do you really see sects such as Catholicism being gung-ho about that? Christians aside, there's plenty from other religions who wouldn't jump on board as per their beliefs, either.

And besides, if the religious were excluded from the requirement, what's to stop people from claiming to be of a sect or religion, or converting to one, if it meant their reproductive organs were protected from being sterilized? You either have a slippery slope problem, or an unattainable demand with this idea no matter how you slice it.

a reply to: Aazadan

If you can't afford a child, don't have one.

I make far less than $20 an hour, have a two bedroom apartment and a 7 year old daughter.

I don't have an I-phone, I don't go to "the club",I don't party and do drugs, I don't wear $200 sneakers, and I'm not making any more babies or asking anyone else to pay for the one I have.

Would I support no kids for anyone below 60k/year? Sure, condoms are less than $1 each.

If you are too lazy, stupid, or poor to put on a condom you shouldn't foul the Earth with any of your obviously defective seed.

Great plan Jeb!

Most states are as broke and corrupt as the Feds. Any money given to the states to help the poor would be to help keep the bloated bureaucracy alive or used to build golf courses for the elite.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Aazadan

If you can't afford a child, don't have one.

I make far less than $20 an hour, have a two bedroom apartment and a 7 year old daughter.

I don't have an I-phone, I don't go to "the club",I don't party and do drugs, I don't wear $200 sneakers, and I'm not making any more babies or asking anyone else to pay for the one I have.

Would I support no kids for anyone below 60k/year? Sure, condoms are less than $1 each.

If you are too lazy, stupid, or poor to put on a condom you shouldn't foul the Earth with any of your obviously defective seed.

If that's the case, you either live in a low cost of living area or you are not living within what most personal finance experts consider to be a healthy budget. Rent+Utilities shouldn't be more than 30% of take home pay. $20/hour is about $40,000 pre tax and I'm going to ballpark around $29k post taxes. 30% of that is $8700 which is $725/month. Where are you living where you're paying for a 2 bedroom place plus utilities on $725 per month, or even less since you said you make under that?

Also, condoms aren't 100% successful, sometimes they fail and sometimes people make mistakes. Do you also support abortion in the event people mess up?

originally posted by: luthier
I would love to but am on mobile. And there are a LOT of programs.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Just add up the non medical and the ssi will have to be a more ellobarate fix. The whole thing is supposed to be self sufficient but its not.

From your article

Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States, of which half was for medical care and roughly 40% for cash, food and housing assistance.

$717 billion, or if we reduce state taxes as well (likely a good idea) $927 billion. That's not even 1 trillion and is only about $200 billion more than what I outlined above as I didn't think about state contributions.

originally posted by: Aazadan

If that's the case, you either live in a low cost of living area or you are not living within what most personal finance experts consider to be a healthy budget. Rent+Utilities shouldn't be more than 30% of take home pay. $20/hour is about $40,000 pre tax and I'm going to ballpark around $29k post taxes. 30% of that is $8700 which is $725/month. Where are you living where you're paying for a 2 bedroom place plus utilities on $725 per month, or even less since you said you make under that?

Also, condoms aren't 100% successful, sometimes they fail and sometimes people make mistakes. Do you also support abortion in the event people mess up?

I agree with the 40k, but is that a single income or a household income? I would put it closer to 50k as as household income since Obama has been in office, but as I said before, it seems in America most want to base this on the single income person, and that is just not the norm in about 95% of the world. My family is single income because I can afford it, but 30 years ago I needed 2 incomes and no kids to live what I saw as a good life.

When a person can only get 10 bucks an hour that is about 20k per year, with two working people that is 40k, with 4 working people that is 80k, so now throw some kids in there too and it is doable, but not great. People need to realize that single family housing is not a right but a privilege, privacy is not a right but a privilege. I had roommates until I was in my 30s, I didn't have kids until late 30s, today my family does rather well since I worked hard for 35 plus years to get better and better. I'm sure if I made tones of mistakes along my life I would not be where I'm at today, so I would still need a roommate(s) to live a somewhat pleasurable life.

I really do not think the young today see things the same as I do though. I blame most of it on the universities that created crap degrees that are basically worthless in the open market, but told people that if they pay 60k and work hard, their degrees would get them 100k job... Boy talk about a true scam that has tainted them for life.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I was assuming that's household, but that's just an assumption on my part, it very well could not be in which case my numbers are all wrong. My experience though has been that dual income families aren't really any more secure because that puts the family in a bind if either loses their job rather than just one. It introduces a second point of failure. I realize that's not practical for most people, but it's how I view things.

On the matter of degrees, this isn't the thread for it but I have a lot of experience with college since I have 11 years of it at this point. I could easily write entire essays on the merits and lack of merit with the whole system. I probably have at some point. I will say this though, interestingly enough it's not humanities degrees that are overproduced and worthless these days, popularity in those dropped off years ago. Business degrees are the single biggest waste today (unless you take it up to an MBA), followed by pretty much anything STEM related. Those are the areas with the most unemployment and underemployment.

originally posted by: CB328
It looks like no one has posted this yet. Bush is struggling to keep his campaign from complete annihalation. Here is his new plan to get the Republican base enthusiastic about him- get rid of welfare. ?

No, he will not get rid of welfare.

He will only get rid of welfare for individuals.

He will then use that same amount of money for more corporate welfare, but then again, I suppose most Americans have never heard of corporate welfare and therefore never thought about it either because the man on the TV has not told them about corporate welfare has he?

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: CB328

Luckily Bush has almost no chance of being elected. 

Time for him to drop out and quit making an ass out himself.

It's much too late for that...

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: luthier
I would love to but am on mobile. And there are a LOT of programs.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Just add up the non medical and the ssi will have to be a more ellobarate fix. The whole thing is supposed to be self sufficient but its not.

From your article

Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States, of which half was for medical care and roughly 40% for cash, food and housing assistance.

$717 billion, or if we reduce state taxes as well (likely a good idea) $927 billion. That's not even 1 trillion and is only about $200 billion more than what I outlined above as I didn't think about state contributions.

I think you missed the private wellfare and tax breaks they get for doing it. The reason wellfare looks so low is the shell game. Clinton started the privatization of wellfare. Check out the wiki link again. This time pay attention to private wellfare and tax breaks. Though I will need to link you another breakdown of how the private wellfare system works.

TextIn addition to government expenditures private welfare spending[clarify] in the United States is thought to be about 10% of the U.S. GDP or another $1.6 trillion.[8]

And this is what can be cleaned up

Total Social Security and Medicare expenditures in 2013 were $1.3 trillion, 8.4% of the $16.3 trillion GNP (2013) and 37% of the total Federal expenditure budget of $3.684 trillion.[6][7]

Enormous federal programs such as Social Security, Medicare and the recently pass Healthcare Reform.
What happened to the enumerated powers?
How did these things possibly get by the Supreme Court? Not that aid to citizens is wrong but it was never intended to be the role of the federal government.

That's what the 10th amendment was for, reserving all other powers than those enumerated to the federal government for the states.

The states should be providing these programs if they so choose and if they work they will compete with other states for populace and hence power in the House. This is how it was meant to be.

The states are engaging in no competition other than that for federal funds. and that's what our government wants so they can make laws and fund the states that agree with there laws

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xtrozero

I was assuming that's household, but that's just an assumption on my part, it very well could not be in which case my numbers are all wrong. My experience though has been that dual income families aren't really any more secure because that puts the family in a bind if either loses their job rather than just one. It introduces a second point of failure. I realize that's not practical for most people, but it's how I view things.

You are suppose to do better and better in life as you gain first education then skills. People who have no education can still get skills, but people who have neither and find themselves in their 30s and 40s, I do not know what to say about fixing that or finding them a single living wage job.

The Government Created the Welfare State, it has nowhere else to go with it. To defund it would cause complete Civil unrest, and the end of this country as we know it.

Bush should have never entered the race in the first place. Hes another loser, like Obama, and the rest of his Treasonous Family

Really? Is this what you think? Conservatives want to kill off the poor?

Obviously, remember when Ron Paul was talking to Republicans about Obamacare and he said something like "should we just let people without insurance die?" and a bunch of the Republican audience yelled "let them die!"

a reply to: CB328

Getting rid of welfare will force those do not work to get a job. Most on welfare do have a job though.
What this will do is squeeze the average American even more and make the rich richer.

Is he going to get rid of illegal immigration, H1B Visas, Global Trade Pacts, Corporate and Banking Lobbyists and so on that put American citizens at a disadvantage? Nope.

He is a Anti American Coorporate Globalist Puppet that wants to continue the descent for everyone until we are all slaves for them. Jeb can go to Hell

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: luthier

That would be an inflation nightmare. They have been holding that at bay with cpi which can't exist without cheap labour.

So you are saying that those $150 Nike snickers cost them $135 to get them into your hands so they can reap 10% profit?

No but the shareholders aren't giving up the profit. What you are suggesting would severely dammage the whole system. Those 150 dolla Nike would cost 145 to make in the US.

Hey I am all for it the system needs to change and we have created this problem. But its not as simple as bringing jobs home. The stock market/retirements and the cost of product would be a problem.

The problem is that Wall Street is being put ahead of Main Street.
Main street can exist without Wall Street but Wall Street cannot exist without main street
They need to take a paycut.

It costs 200 dollars including labor to build an Iphone in China, and they sell it back to American Suckers for 600+ Dollars so that investors and executives can make bank.

In this globalist utopia, the wealthy in this country need to take a paycut or we go back to local economies and local labor.

originally posted by: luthier
I think you missed the private wellfare and tax breaks they get for doing it. The reason wellfare looks so low is the shell game. Clinton started the privatization of wellfare. Check out the wiki link again. This time pay attention to private wellfare and tax breaks. Though I will need to link you another breakdown of how the private wellfare system works.

You'll have to give me a link on that then. Aside from in the opening paragraphs private welfare isn't mentioned in the article, and the link to private welfare goes to a page that doesn't exist.

originally posted by: madenusa
Enormous federal programs such as Social Security, Medicare and the recently pass Healthcare Reform.
What happened to the enumerated powers?
How did these things possibly get by the Supreme Court? Not that aid to citizens is wrong but it was never intended to be the role of the federal government.

That's what the 10th amendment was for, reserving all other powers than those enumerated to the federal government for the states.

The problem with that, is that Congress is authorized by the Constitution to do quite literally anything it deems to be in the national interest. Read Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 1, it is extremely broad. The 10th states that anything not under the domain of the federal government is up to the states. But due to the section I just mentioned, the feds can put anything under their jurisdiction that they want. The 10th is essentially nothing more than a clause that says the feds can't restrict a state from doing something, but then not do it themselves.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You are suppose to do better and better in life as you gain first education then skills. People who have no education can still get skills, but people who have neither and find themselves in their 30s and 40s, I do not know what to say about fixing that or finding them a single living wage job.

You're supposed to, but that's not how it works. I know people with math and engineering degrees that make pizza because of a lack of jobs. I'm really at the point where I think there must be two Americas, myself I live in part of the poorest area of Appalachia. The way you and others describing things working is simply not how they work here. This is an area where gas station attendants rely on tip jars to make minimum wage, where tuberculosis is still a serious and common illness, where the median income is 13k per year, and where employment is based on who you know rather than what you know. In the area I live in there is only one skill necessary to get a job: Successfully passing a drug test. Skills and education are 100% worthless.