Jump to content
wevsspot

Interesting Perspective on the United States

Recommended Posts

Well then since this topic has mostly been about the economy, please point to areas that states should have more power instead of just continuing with generalizations. Also note the addition I made to my previous post regarding this.

I'm no economist so I won't attempt to act like one. I just agree with the sentiment that the Federal government has been implementing policy that is unsustainable financially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no economist so I won't attempt to act like one. I just agree with the sentiment that the Federal government has been implementing policy that is unsustainable financially.

 

I agree that it has gotten to an unsustainable point, but I'm sure we disagree to the extent that it's unsustainable and the reasons that led to it being unsustainable. The way I see it, we're really not that bad off economically if we make a few minor changes in foreign policy and taxation. So far I have been somewhat satisfied regarding Obama's foreign policy and will be glad if the Bush tax cuts expire for the $250,000+ bracket. But I would also like to see the capital gains tax go back up to 20% (what it was under Bush).

 

But whereas I suspect you are opposed to the healthcare overhaul, federal income taxes, etc., I am more for singlepayer healthcare, more progressive income tax, free post-secondary education (which coincidentally would only cost about $30 billion and create a much more educated populace), and clean energy investments. These are simple solutions to creating a competitive global economy that only a federal government is capable of.

 

Edit: The point people seem to overlook, is that when the federal government spends money, whether it's on SNAP, Medicare, unemployment benefits, etc., it isn't just throwing money on a fire. These are investments to allow people to get back to work and pay back what they can in taxes. Does that mean I think that there isn't some abuse within the system? Of course not. I would surely advocate limiting what people can buy with SNAP to nutritional foods, and not just a bunch of crap. I would also advocate tighter restrictions on who qualifies for SNAP. But that doesn't mean I go around ridiculing people for having $250 in food stamps and claiming that they probably aren't even legal. The woman could have had ten legal US children at home who are sick and hungry for all I know, and it's not my place to tell people like her that she's a moocher for wanting what's best for her family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. You're quite clearly another Ron Paul fanatic who thinks that diluting powers to the states will magically create a better democracy with more individual voices being heard. But quite the contrary. It was the states who suppressed voting rights for women, blacks, the poor, and other minority groups. Consistently, the federal government has had to overturn oppressive behavior from states in areas of women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, environmental rights, and much more. Furthermore, states are just as easy, if not easier, to lobby than the federal government, leading to more power in the hands of corporate interests. Only federal anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws can counteract this. But if you dream of a kind of fascist society where you have even less of a voice than you do now, then keep on screaming for states' rights.

 

The US wasn't the only country that at one point in time didn't allow women and minorites to vote. Whether it was left up to the federal gov't or the states it would have happened eventually. It was a change in the times. But i'm ok with those kind of Federal changes. You know...the kind that expand freedom, liberties and rights? I kinda don't like giving them up to Big Daddy Gov't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then since this topic has mostly been about the economy, please point to areas that states should have more power instead of just continuing with generalizations. Also note the addition I made to my previous post regarding this.

 

 

I think there is a misconception here, a lot of people do not feel the States should have "more" power, they think the Federal Government should have less. This might seem like a play on words but this is actually not, there is a difference.

 

That being said I personally do not feel it is anything about were the power resides but rather who holds the power. Look lets begin with the fact that the republican and Democrat parties are both threats to this nation. Yes I said it and I can back it up. Over the years they have through coercion and bully tactics created an atmosphere were a third party or even independent candidate cannot get a fair shake in the election process. They have gotten the main stream media to get in bed with them and the result is any threat to their current status quo is trivialized and then destroyed. Look at the Presidential Debates. These used to be run by a third party group. The group now running them is made up of appointees by the two major parties, and suddenly a third person in those debates is impossible to achieve. In essence these two parties have worked to usurp the American peoples free will during elections by limiting our choices. Then once they get into office the people elected show that their loyalty is not to this country or the people that elected them, but rather their political party and it's agenda first.

 

To maintain this power they "buy" support from various social groups. Do you really think that the Democrats push so many social programs because they care about the people? If they did care they would spend less time trying to force others to support people and more trying to teach them to support themselves. Or the Republicans care about lowering taxes for the rich? They would create the tax code in a way that actually gave them more money, it would be easy such as pushing for the fair tax system, something the main party avoids like the plague. Both parties pay lip service to certain social groups and use that lip service to buy votes.

 

The truly sad part is there is nothing we can do about it. The election process is now so rigged in this country no one bats an eye when whole precincts come in with total votes 20% higher than the voter roll. The American people do not decide the elections, the media and political parties have already decided in advance for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, I am very familiar with the struggle that third party politicians face in this country. In 2008 I campaigned for a third party candidate and served as his presidential elector for the state of Texas in the unlikely event that he were to win this state. In fact, the debates used to be run by the League of Women Voters, but they opted out in 1988 because they didn't want to "perpetrate a fraud on the American voter". I've practically written a book on the influence of money on elections as a result of Citizens United v. FEC and Freespeechnow.org v. FEC.

 

I'm sure we can all agree that the Ds and Rs are more partisan and corrupt now than ever. But that's not what this conversation is about. This conversation is about the US economy and the supposed "moochers" and "looters" that Wev felt the need to rant on in his opening post. If anything in this country is disgusting, it's that people will applaud a rich, smart businessman for using tax loopholes to legally save millions in taxes, but when the poor use the same legal policies to gain a couple hundred dollars to feed their families, they are known as "moochers", "looters", and "parasites."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mal - I'd hardly call my opening post a rant. I wasn't ranting about anything or anyone. The title clearly says; "Got this and thought I'd share". I didn't add any editorial opinion to the content, nor did I advocate or disavow anything included in the original note that I received. It was posted exactly as it was written by the author. I'm not going to argue economics, socialism (definition), republican vs. democrat ad nauseam.

 

I can tell you where the rubber hits the pavement though.............. At 8:00AM this morning the company we contract to provide our hourly workforce (un-named to protect their identity) held a meeting with 114 of their employees (on our plant floor) and informed them that effective December 31st vacation benefits are eliminated because it is the only way they can fund the increased cost of the new health care program and associated costs as it impacts their P&L. There is a perfect example of how miss-guided policies (however well intentioned) impact the "producers".

 

I don't think their is a single person in our country that is of good character and anchored moral compass that doesn't believe that we need to care for those that can't do so for themselves. But anyone that doesn't recognize that a sizable portion of those who get government assistance milk the system to the detriment of our entire country is delusional. We continue to breed entire generations of people who expect the government to provide for their every need, whether they contribute a dime to helping someone else or not.

 

The only way to fix a completely broken system is to tear it down and start from scratch - but unfortunately there probably isn't a workable way to do this short of revolution.

 

You're observation on what you find "disgusting" is well taken - to the point that each of the persons and families that get that $200 really needs it because they are out of any other option. But the system doesn't work that way and you know it. For every one person that truly needs assistance, there is one person who is just working the system because they refuse to do anything else. Maybe more people these days should do what many of us did to get ahead - get educated or trained in a trade, and work our way up through the ranks and earnings. I come from a poor (very poor family). My dad was disabled in an industrial accident when I was 2 years old, and my mom held a full time job as an assembly worker for GTE when we were growing up. We were a family of five living well below the "poverty" level at the time. I never once saw my mom pay for groceries with food stamps, and the only "welfare" checks my parents got was through the union at my dad's former employer and a small check from SS disability. I've had a job since I was 15 years old. I went to high school, college, worked and played sports. I took an engineering apprenticeship with a company when I was a junior at the U of A. I paid for my education through part time work, student loans and two academic scholarships that lasted until the 2nd semester of my sophomore year.

 

I worked hard to get where I'm at. I didn't finish paying off my student loans until I was almost 30 and we didn't finish paying off my wife's until she was 33. So what's my point? My point is that the majority of people in our country have the opportunity to be self supporting and contribute in our society. And I don't have any shame for not being sympathetic to those that won't at least make an effort to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think their is a single person in our country that is of good character and anchored moral compass that doesn't believe that we need to care for those that can't do so for themselves. But anyone that doesn't recognize that a sizable portion of those who get government assistance milk the system to the detriment of our entire country is delusional. We continue to breed entire generations of people who expect the government to provide for their every need, whether they contribute a dime to helping someone else or not.

 

Exactly. I have no problem with Welfare, or whatever program we are harping on now. I have a problem with the people who misuse it. I don't begrudge anyone a few months support while they get back on their feet and find a job, but most of those i know and know of who are on these systems have NO interest in getting a job, welfare pays better than the jobs round here for some of them. Especially when you add up all their kids..... Last year while on a construction mission in WV i met a family, recommended to us by the local DSS, or whoever the local gov office dealing with those types of people is, who had 3 kids two of whom were on disability for fragile bones disiease one parent aswell for the same reason and the other for chronic obesity or some such rubish. They live in a single wide trailer, all sounds fairly reasonable so far right? Then you turn and look at their yard. A 2008 Mustang GT a 2003 Mustang Coupe and a 2010 Camaro all parked in the shade of a 40 ft Camper..... The file we were given that included the elegibility info told us that neither of the parents had been 'able' to work in 7 years, and the icing is that the husban proudly told us that all the vehicles and the house were paid off....

Its people like that that just get me mad. And the fact that the gov recommended them to us for a free roof and other various house repairs!!!!

I'm sorry if y'all don't agree but i can't believe any good of system that has sunk that low.

/end rant b4 i break my keyboard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we need meaningful tax reform - and I agree that it's disgusting when millionaires/billionaires milk the system to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. And it's disgusting when corporations do the same, and when companies outsource work to improve the bottom line to appease impatient and finicky investors (many of whom are already very wealthy). The bottom line is that we need to address both the revenue and spending sides of the equation. True deficit reduction won't happen unless we attack this problem from both sides.

 

To TJ - my son and daughter-in-law aren't selfish, just horny and stupid. And yes, even they (like millions of others milk the system). Last year my son paid about $3200 in Federal Income Tax, they got double that back on their federal tax refund courtesy of the child tax credit. Since when is is fair to give double back what someone pays in????

 

And I'm still not sure who came up with a figure of $200,000 single / $250,000 married makes you a "wealthy" person. That might make you wealthy if you live in a state like ours, but I doubt folks living in the NE or W parts of our nation think that $200,000 annual income makes them rich. That number needs to be adjusted demographically - or at least revised upwards to the point where if you earn more than XX you are truly in the top 1 or 2%.

 

Frankly - I'm to the point where we just drive off the "fiscal cliff" and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe that will open up some eyes and it might just be the catalyst needed to get people off their asses and doing something meaningful to get our country back on track. The only thing that should be off the table is social security since it is self funded and people have been paying social security taxes for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mal - I'd hardly call my opening post a rant. I wasn't ranting about anything or anyone. The title clearly says; "Got this and thought I'd share". I didn't add any editorial opinion to the content, nor did I advocate or disavow anything included in the original note that I received. It was posted exactly as it was written by the author. I'm not going to argue economics, socialism (definition), republican vs. democrat ad nauseam.

Ok, well it seemed like you were placing that statement out there advocating your opinion.

 

I can tell you where the rubber hits the pavement though.............. At 8:00AM this morning the company we contract to provide our hourly workforce (un-named to protect their identity) held a meeting with 114 of their employees (on our plant floor) and informed them that effective December 31st vacation benefits are eliminated because it is the only way they can fund the increased cost of the new health care program and associated costs as it impacts their P&L. There is a perfect example of how miss-guided policies (however well intentioned) impact the "producers".

Ok, then the question that you should be asking them, is why are they doing this at the end of 2012 when the employer mandate doesn't go into effect until January 1st of 2014. Furthermore, I never said the ACA was perfect. Quite honestly I think it's a poor idea to put healthcare in the hands of employers, but I think it's an even poorer choice to not have a healthy workforce. In the longrun I think this will be better for our economy, although not as beneficial as a singlepayer system.

 

I don't think their is a single person in our country that is of good character and anchored moral compass that doesn't believe that we need to care for those that can't do so for themselves. But anyone that doesn't recognize that a sizable portion of those who get government assistance milk the system to the detriment of our entire country is delusional. We continue to breed entire generations of people who expect the government to provide for their every need, whether they contribute a dime to helping someone else or not.

This series of statements I have to completely disagree with. Are there some that milk the system? Yes. Is it a sizable portion? There's really no way to measure that. We all hear stories about the people who buy iphones while taking government funds for childcare, but I don't think they make up the majority, or even 5% for that matter. Some people seem to think that President Obama is the cause of the increase in welfare spending. But the fact is that President Obama has not changed anything about welfare requirements in his first term. The increase in welfare spending is simply because there are more people who qualify for it because they are unemployed, underemployed, or have taken lower paying jobs and cuts in work benefits. In fact, here are a few graphs I found with a quick google search that reflect this trend.

post-63719-0-96398300-1354204276_thumb.jpg

post-63719-0-19963500-1354204284_thumb.jpg

 

So likewise, as the economy begins to recover and more people move back above the poverty line, so too will the welfare spending return to "normal" levels. So, no, I don't think there is a sizable portion of people who are taking an unethical advantage of their eligibility for federal assistance. I don't know if you have ever paid with food stamps, but it truly is a degrading and dehumanizing experience, and I don't know why anyone would willingly do that if they had another option.

 

The only way to fix a completely broken system is to tear it down and start from scratch - but unfortunately there probably isn't a workable way to do this short of revolution.

You don't "fix" a system by destroying it. The system is working, and any accusations of a sizable portion of people "milking the system" are nothing but speculation and unfounded statements. Nearly three million unemployed and 30 million in poverty currently rely on this system through no fault of their own. Should we really take that assistance away from them simply because a few are taking advantage of it? Tearing it down isn't going to do anything but cause illnesses to go untreated, people to go hungry, and homes to be foreclosed. It will save us a bit of spending in the short run, but as I've stated before, welfare spending is an investment in the well being of these people so that they can soon get back to work and begin to put more money into the economy and more money back to the government in taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. I have no problem with Welfare, or whatever program we are harping on now. I have a problem with the people who misuse it. I don't begrudge anyone a few months support while they get back on their feet and find a job, but most of those i know and know of who are on these systems have NO interest in getting a job, welfare pays better than the jobs round here for some of them. Especially when you add up all their kids..... Last year while on a construction mission in WV i met a family, recommended to us by the local DSS, or whoever the local gov office dealing with those types of people is, who had 3 kids two of whom were on disability for fragile bones disiease one parent aswell for the same reason and the other for chronic obesity or some such rubish. They live in a single wide trailer, all sounds fairly reasonable so far right? Then you turn and look at their yard. A 2008 Mustang GT a 2003 Mustang Coupe and a 2010 Camaro all parked in the shade of a 40 ft Camper..... The file we were given that included the elegibility info told us that neither of the parents had been 'able' to work in 7 years, and the icing is that the husban proudly told us that all the vehicles and the house were paid off....

Its people like that that just get me mad. And the fact that the gov recommended them to us for a free roof and other various house repairs!!!!

I'm sorry if y'all don't agree but i can't believe any good of system that has sunk that low.

/end rant b4 i break my keyboard

 

I agree that a situation like that is complete and utter bull. People like that are ruining the system for the taxpayers who fund it and for those who legitimately need it. But the issue I have with stories like this, is that it's purely anecdotal evidence. Additionally, I see so many more people bringing these stories up since 2008, but hardly anyone ever mentioned it in 2000, or 1990, or 1980. The last person I recall to make an issue out of it was Reagan, with his "welfare queen" story, which was likely just hyperbole. But it existed back then and it probably continues to exist at about the same rate per capita today.

 

But here's why it's so hard to go through with any kind of entitlement reform. So far, our Congressmen who are pushing this agenda are only considering the options of making it more difficult to qualify for welfare programs, which is only going to hurt those who really need it. We don't need entitlement reform. We need fraud investigation reform. Currently the fraud investigations are handled by the states, and clearly it's not working too well. We could create a federal agency to handle the investigations, but it will likely turn out the same way that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform and consumer protection agencies turned out -- that is, we just slapped some new signs on doors, called it a new agency, and then didn't give them enough funding to do their job. Even if we did create an agency and give them funding to operate, it could end up costing us more money than we save. But we really wouldn't know that until we knew how bad welfare fraud is, and right now we don't really have much of a clue.

 

So for those of you who meet these people who tell you their stories about how they're stealing from welfare, record them in the act, and report it to the appropriate agency, whether it's the Inspector General, Dept of Social Services, or whoever handles it in your state. That's how you'll get results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So for those of you who meet these people who tell you their stories about how they're stealing from welfare, record them in the act, and report it to the appropriate agency, whether it's the Inspector General, Dept of Social Services, or whoever handles it in your state. That's how you'll get results.

 

Best statement made yet! If you see what you consider welfare fraud.....REPORT IT! Don't just stand round and complain about! By not reporting it you're helpping it continue! Thus making you just as guilty. IMHO

Edited by kyfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×