In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Had a woman at the grocery store tonight pull out her EBT card while carrying a new Coach purse ($350) and shoes ($200) while on her iPhone and dressed very nice according to my fiancée. I wish I would have been there, I would have said something.
Your example fits your preconceptions of how welfare works, unfortunately that example isn't the norm.
One of the Mexican ladies that works on our production floor worked 50 hours last week at $8.00 an hour. Husband died in an accident at a meat processing plant several years ago. She drives a 1996 Toyotta Corrolla. Welfare supplements her meagre income.
There is fraud in every government program. 6 years ago the US spent over $5,000,000 transporting sand from Kuwait to Iraq. Apparently we couldn't find any sand in Iraq. Is the best solution to eliminate the fraud and trim the budget, or should we just get rid of the military?
Thought this for years. Any new welfare applicant who already has a child should be sterilized before receiving a check. Any childless welfare recipient who needs assistance longer than 1 year should automatically be required to be sterilized on their welfare anniversary.
All recipients should have to pass a monthly random drug test & do community service while actively receiving benefits.
There should be different levels of welfare based on how many years a person has maintained a job and paid into the system prior to applying for welfare. They should go to the front of the line & get better benefits.
The status quo is not sustainable. The main obstacle with getting it fixed is that the politicians aren't really worried about doing what they know needs to be done but about getting re-elected instead.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Hilarious how you followed that with a quote from Jefferson. A citation from Mein Kampf would have been more appropriate.
Let me get this right.
$10 billion in cash assistance and $70 billion in food stamps, in an annual budget of $3.7 trillion, is unsustainable?
You guys freak out about the stupidest stuff.
Keep in mind military spending has doubled annually from $400 billion to $800 BILLION since 9/11.
But Tyrone and Charmesha are the problem.
Welfare reform has culled the number of people receiving government assistance and cut spending by more than half. Conservatives hail its success, while liberals say it leaves many poor out in the cold.
That's 90 per cent of Detroit--- no?
not many said delete welfare although 80 billion divided just one year among the middle class would be a huge boost to the economy.
keep the program in tact & simply begin the "MAW" Project (originally Make America Beautiful) - "Make America Work"
*a drug screen & a 50 hour work slate at your local Public Works Dept.
a) a job placement / training program so to speak
b) build self-worth of the individuals through "doing their part"
c) make America beautiful along the way
as for the military ? send the welfare nation to Iraq
better yet pull out all together & cut another 800 billion from the budget. the Sand Fleas have been fighting since the days of Cain and Able.
Sig bet he's on welfare or part of the NAACP
Lol nope I am white.
I just read at slightly above an 8th grade level, so I pay more attention to details than someone like yourself.
Tyronne and Chaquesa doesn't protect this wonderful nation which gives you the right of having freedom of speech. Detail that Jack
We don't need to spend $800 billion a year to protect the nation Jack.
The F-22 has killed more American pilots than terrorists.
Coincidentally, the correct Spanish translation for mustache is "El Bigote"
Rather spend 800 billion on protecting our nation than giving 80 billion to people who don't earn it.
Well thats because you aren't very good at math.
Military budget has increased 100% since 9/11. Much of that is fraud and waste. We don't need billion dollar planes to fight terrorists. The B-52 has been around 60 years and is just as effective as a B-2 bomber when the enemy only has RPGs.
Foodstamps and Cash payments have decreased 50% since Bill Clinton changed the laws.
But yeah that $80 billion is what is causing the deficit.
And again most of the people on "welfare" work. I agree that spending needs to be cut, but welfare is the least of our concerns.
Obviously, if I posted 49 times a day on average like yourself, I would probably agree with your stupid logic.
Unfortunately I have an IQ above room tempurature, and spend my free time slightly more productively.
Please keep posting intelligent snarky comments.
Maybe at 25,000 posts you might say something useful or intelligent.
This post was edited by rms02d 23 months ago
So smart that you insult someone you nothing about. I don't need to be productive with my free time, I'm productive enough with my work time
^^^People like this is what's wrong with this country^^^
Though exaggerated, I agree with your point.
Defense - constitutionally required
Welfare at the Federal level - not constitutionally required and therefore in the strictest sense, not authorized
Do we need to cut the defense budget? Sure, but only as we scale back foreign operations/bases and identified waste. We still need to field the best military on earth. The best way to prepare for peace is to prepare for war.
Do we need to end all items/programs not specifically in direct support of the 18 enumerated powers of Congress? HELL YES. This is not to say that these programs cannot continue at a state or local level, that would depend on their respective constitutions/charters.
What we have here (the US Federal Gov't) is referred to as scope creep in the contracting world. Anybody with PM experience knows that one of the fastest ways to blow a budget/schedule is to have scope creep. We have to pare our federal gov't back down to the current contract (Constitution + ammendments). If there is some policy/program that we really like, then we need to do a change order (amendment). We have had horrible PMs (congress) and oversight (President and SCOTUS). It isn't confined to 1 party, so this paragraph isn't pro-GOP or pro-DEM. There really is no logical argument against this paragraph. The debate would come about when would looked at the "change orders" or the amendments.
So back to the OP's point, drug testing of welfare recipients is fine. It should be used as a method to scale back and end federal welfare.
General welfare clause.
The "general welfare clause" is part of a preamble. Preambles do not give power, but rather explain why the following powers are granted. This argument makes me insane b/c it shows the utterly horrible civic education that most of us receive. The powers that follow are defined in Article 1, Section 8. There are 18 of them and these are the powers that congress has to "promote the general welfare". Welfare (checks or services of modern vernacular) did not exist then, they were simply saying do these 18 things in order to support the well being of society as a whole. For example, we have a postal system to provide for communication (no internet back then), congress is to maintain a Navy, so our ships are safe at sea and our shores too... Of the 18 powers granted, there is not one that could possibly be construed to provide for welfare as we know it today.
Einstein must be a satirical name in this case. Sorry, I don't mean to offend, but I am tired of people (judges and congress too) twisting our founding documents based on their wants and wishes. Read the federalist papers or any documents pertaining to the debates/writing of the Constitution, the intent could not be clearer and this is NOT OPINION.
Refer to my earlier post about scope creep. People (congress, judges, lawyers, etc) have used constitutional scholars to find loopholes to avoid going through the amendment process to add to functions of government. This is why we have a bloated Federal gov't that spends TOO MUCH. Some of the additions may be valid/warranted, but they should have been vetted through the amendment process.
Every time any cuts to anything are mentioned to always get the "defense spending" argument. It's as if you can't even bring up cuts in any social program without it. Maybe the reason we don't need 800 billion in defense funding is because we have it? I don't know. Maybe all those new weapons keep countries from even thinking of attacking us. I have no problems cutting the defense budget 200 billion or so. Once Obama does what he stated and pulls the troops then I'm sure we can. In the mean time there's still other cuts that can be made and social programs that give unearned money is one.
The point was you are wanting to add costs (drug testing) to a $60 billion foodstamp program and a $40 billion TEMPORARY Cash Assistance program, while ignoring the fact that defense spending has doubled to $800 billion dollars. We are also spending $300 billion a year monitoring the private lives of Americans for "their safety"
Keep in mind much of that increase was on a pointless war in Iraq, and keeping an open tab in Afghanistan. The Homeland Security budget provided Swat Teams, APCs, and other expensive equipment to sheriffs offices that will never need the equipment.
The Pentagon has insisted on increased spending in order to have the ability to fight on two fronts simultaneously. But after all that spending, we found out that we didn't have enough translators, predator drones, and logistical personnel to fight two wars against inferior opponents, much less being able to fight WW3.
You are also complaining about fraud and waste, while ignoring that you and everyone else on this board receives "unearned" tax credits that take over $1.2 trillion out of the annual budget. None of these credits were ever intended to be permanent. We could eliminate deficit spending just by removing the "temporary" tax credits. And we can create a surplus by cutting spending across the board.
There is fraud in any government program. We spend billions on weapon systems that will never need to be used. The B-1 bomber was a complete failure from the 1980s but Boeing made billions on the contract. The F-22 will not be able to fly "invisibly" over modern radar and infrared systems currently being created by the Russians (which they sell to anyone who can afford it), and at $66 billion dollars the F-22 still hasn't been used in actual combat. We gave millions of dollars to a guy in Miami who was buying up used old surplus ammo and reselling it to the Pentagon as new. We spent billions for Halliburton to build McDonalds and Burger Kings on military bases in Iraq.
If you think all of that $800 billion goes towards "protecting us", then you might as well believe that no one cheats the "welfare" system. Both beliefs are very "silly".
We spend more than half the world combined on defense spending, and the possibility of fighting China, Russia, Germany, or any other large country is essentially zero because our economies are interdependent. How does one bomb a country that owns over $1 trillion in US Treasury Bills?
If you are going to complain about 2% of the budget, you might want to consider how money is being spent in the other 98% of the budget.
Ignoring defense spending when talking about EBT card abuse, is either irrational or disingenuous on your part.
If we need to spend an infinite amount of money to keep us safe from real and imagined threats, then the left is going to insist on spending an infinite amount on social programs. You can't balance the budget without cuts across the board, and more taxes. Thinking we can fix our budget simply by eliminating welfare spending is silly, but I bet you will be voting for the first person who tells you that.
And to everyone complaining about "poor people", you might want to look at the data of who is actually enrolling in the military and getting shot at. Most of the guys on the ground doing the work, are from poor families. And OMG many of them weren't even American citizens while getting shot at in places like Falluhjah.Some of them even have sex with other men.
You are just creating or using a "scape-goat" to blame for America's problems. Your indifference to facts, and unwillingness to vote for anyone who rescinds your "unearned" tax credits, is a much bigger problem than the "fraud" in welfare spending.
Multiple Choice Question:
Which of following is the biggest strain on the Federal Budget?
A. $800 billion defense budget
B. $1.2 TRILLION in tax credits (student loan deductions, mortgage deductions, child tax credit, 401K deductions, etc. )
C. $66 billion dollar food-stamp program
Hint: C is the least of our problems. Circling C means you aren't serious about discussing the Federal budget and you shouldn't post on such topics.
Since you apparently know more than I about my own personal finances could you let me know exactly what unearned tax credits I receive? Could you also let me know what my next quarter projected revenue is? I'm a bit uncertain on that. As a business entrepreneur of 6 years now, who generates well above the qualification line of 99% of tax credits you are referring to i'd like too know if my actual account messed up and I'm currently missin out on anything of importance. Unless of course you're arguing certain credits for being married or having children. I would argue that any tax credits I may receive, go back into the company and stimulate growth from the inside out thus creating more capital.........which of course is then taxed again.
"If you are going to complain about 2% of the budget, you might want to consider how money is being spent in the other 98% of the budget."
You also may not read very well as I've stated I have no problem with decreasing an inflated defense budget as well. Did I not consider how the other 98% of the budget I'd allocated or did I just dream I did?
Another counter to rms02d's point is very simple, I will use an anology we can all understand.
You are the crew leader for a handyman crew and have been at the current house for over a week and have spent a lot of time and your company's money. You original job was to pressure wash the house and paint it (no exact units were given on what you had to paint). In addition to the tasks required by contract, you have fixed an outside light, replaced broken steps, trimmed the hedges, and have painted every conceivable surface at the property.
Now your boss calls you and is furious that your crew is still at the same residence wasting time and money. How did you go over budget and how do you keep from doing that in the future (assuming you are not fired)? First cut the things that are not contractually reqquired, such as fixing the light, hedges, etc (analagous to anything that isn't in the 18 enumerated powers of congress - ie social programs). Then we look at what we are required to do and balance fullfilling the contract and minimizing cost. In this case, what did we verbally agree to paint (write up the work order/contract better next time). This would be similar to defense spending, we are required to do it, but exactly how much is not defined. We should look at it, but that comes after cutting anything that we (congress/Fed Gov't) are not required to do.
This post was edited by menichols74 23 months ago
Yeah, great analogy. Except if you don't trim the hedges, poor children starve.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports