Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Exactly. If you're going to rail and politicize something - it should be disability.... People on welfare with 72" TVs, that's just not reality...nightmare69 wrote:Disability is the new welfare. Not hard to get, pay some doctor to write up you can't work then apply. Sounds easy enough.
Jakes on them I don't pay social security. State employee rules.AndyC wrote:Wow - fascinating read:cb1000rider wrote:If you want to rail against people that are abusing the system, you should read this: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We're in really big trouble.federal disability programs became our extremely expensive default plan. The two big disability programs, including health care for disabled workers, cost some $260 billion a year.
People at the Social Security Administration, which runs the federal disability programs, say we cannot afford this. The reserves in the disability insurance program are on track to run out in 2016, Steve Goss, the chief actuary at Social Security, told me.
Goss is confident that Congress will act to keep disability payments flowing, probably by taking money from the Social Security retirement fund. Of course, the retirement fund itself is on track to run out of money by 2035.
Goss and his colleagues have worked out a temporary fix under which the retirement and disability funds will both run out of money by 2033. He says he hopes the country will have come up with a better plan by then.
You heard what the guy said, can't get a job because he's a criminal and been to jail. So I say, we'd all be better off keeping guys like him in jail, since we're paying for his existence either way. At least in jail he won't be able to make trouble for the rest of us.anygunanywhere wrote:A large percentage of welfare recipients have no intention of ever working at an honest job, stop using drugs, producing children out of wedlock, supporting their families, or performing any other part of what can be counted as responsible behavior.
A large percentage of illegals do not want to be citizens. A large percentage of those who will be granted amnesty are now or will become welfare recipients. When they are granted voting rights they will continue to vote for their money. Even if they work and start to pay taxes , few of them will ever get to the point of paying in more taxes than they consume in welafare. Remember, the lower 47% of wageearners do not pay taxes - they receive earned income credits which is in and of itself welfare.
THE ONLY MONEY THE GOVERNMENT CAN SPEND IS MONEY THEY GET FROM TAXING US.
Where is that reboot switch?
Anygunanywhere
The point isn't that welfare is financially bankrupting the country....it isn't.....welfare and immigration are socially and culturally bankrupting the country (and the same thing is true of corporate welfare in our now thoroughly crony capitalistic country, so corruption is now pervasive and endemic). Yeah, the guys in the video look healthy and capable of working, but the system has made them permanently unemployable in all but the most menial jobs. This is a problem that is now so entrenched it cannot be solved in less than several generations. The major cities in this country, especially those in the blue states, are probably beyond salvation. The reason we have a financial problem is because we first had a moral problem. The financial problem cannot be fixed without first fixing the moral problem, and as it degenerated over decades, it will take decades to regenerate.cb1000rider wrote:Yes we are in big financial trouble. Maybe we can put it off and leave or kids with even more financial trouble...
And if you're mad about 72" TV "welfare" recipients, you're totally missing the forest because you're looking at a very small tree.
What simple steps could be taken to being to solve this problem? Take away the "lifetime" award of disability. That is, re-evaluate every X years. Right now it's a permanent free ride and it encourages those who are on it to evade taxes further, as you lose benefits if you have too much documented gainful employment. Setup rules that encourage employment rather than penalize it. Make it really tough to be on disability long term.
I do see a legitimate need for a living disability wage in extreme cases. I don't like it. I don't want to pay for it, but I admit it's there. But when I find out that 25% of the could-be-working population is taking retirement because they "can't" work, yea, that works me up..
Again... My point is largely that all of this rhetoric is ridiculous. It makes me ill.. And the people that do it to support their point of view, Democrat or Republican, just lose my support even more. If a politician (and I don't care what party) stood up and said he/she was going to balance the budget by getting people off welfare who were buying 72" TVs, I'd see right though that as a non-solution in about 2 seconds. We should be proposing solutions instead of stirring up diversity on half-baked facts...
Watch out for diversive posts. Be skeptical. Make your own decision by looking at both sides.
AndyC wrote:Wow - fascinating read:cb1000rider wrote:If you want to rail against people that are abusing the system, you should read this: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We're in really big trouble.federal disability programs became our extremely expensive default plan. The two big disability programs, including health care for disabled workers, cost some $260 billion a year.
People at the Social Security Administration, which runs the federal disability programs, say we cannot afford this. The reserves in the disability insurance program are on track to run out in 2016, Steve Goss, the chief actuary at Social Security, told me.
Goss is confident that Congress will act to keep disability payments flowing, probably by taking money from the Social Security retirement fund. Of course, the retirement fund itself is on track to run out of money by 2035.
Goss and his colleagues have worked out a temporary fix under which the retirement and disability funds will both run out of money by 2033. He says he hopes the country will have come up with a better plan by then.
If they have all those things, why should they be on welfare? No one is entitled to expensive cars, phones, TV sets, or steak dinners. If they could afford an expensive car they could afford saving money for a rainy day. Regardless of whether it costs too much or not, the system is both unfair and counterproductive. Why should anyone save money if they can just get on welfare should they be confronted by a rainy day? It is absolute and utter hooey that I should have to support people who spent their money on expensive cars and fancy TV's instead of taking care of themselves and preparing for the future. Your logic here would also justify taking food away from those who stocked up and prepared for an emergency and giving it to those who didn't. The principal is exactly the same. And why should anyone work their way up from a low paying job when they can do what they want and achieve about the same standard of living on welfare? The social consequences of welfare are far more destructive to the country than the money it costs; and on the economic side the fact is that whenever you pay for something, you get more of it, not less. Welfare has virtually destroyed the black family and will ultimately destroy low income Hispanic family life as well.Tecumseh wrote: It is easy to complain about welfare recipients buying steaks or having expensive cars, phones, or TV sets but how do you know they didn't have them before they got on the welfare? And why aren't we complaining about subsidies to companies and corporations? Corporations are people and it is insane to see some "people" get billions of dollars of tax money and not complain about it but do complain when another person gets a few thousand a year to eat with. Isn't it?
We agree on this.Tecumseh wrote:I for one am tired of the public roads. Congress should not be paying for them nor should it be paying social security, welfare, disability, for a standing army, for the FDA, for any sort of agricultural subsidies, no oil subsidies, no research for any sciences, no disaster relief, or any of that. The biggest form of welfare is going to states. http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states- ... l-money/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The majority of those states are GOP controlled states. A Fox Business article citing the same states: http://247wallst.com/2012/08/03/states- ... l-money/2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is nice to see that the Obama administration got it right when they turned Texas down for FEMA relief after the fertilizer plant exploded.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/us/fe ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Isn't it?
You're right on most counts, as the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to do most of the things you mention. About the only Constitutional authority Congress has to do any of the things you mention is to provide for a common defense and build roads. It doesn't give them the authority for paying social security, welfare, the FDA, agricultural subsidies, oil subsides, scientific research, and maybe or maybe not, disaster relief. And yeah, not only should their be no FEMA relief, there should be no FEMA. Funny how this great country lasted so long without FEMA. But the states getting the most money stuff is a complete liberal red herring, whether it is broadcast on the less liberal Fox or the rest of the liberal media.
I don't get it, this is a gun forum, where are all these collectivists coming from?anygunanywhere wrote: How long have you worked for ACORN?
Anygunanywhere
A non-responsive answer even if true, which it isn't. You should try living in the Rio Grande Valley and keeping your eyes open --you'll see a quite different picture than the Democratic party line you're spouting here.cb1000rider wrote:Drama. Seriously guys?nightmare69 wrote: So you have no problem with some able body person who is perfectly capable of working but chooses not too and taking your hard earned money and buying booze, cigs, latest Iphone, 74in flat screen TV, or anything else that is considered a luxury? Sorry but I do have a problem with it.
I'm sure that you guys know that what you're citing above certainly isn't the norm. Presenting is as normalcy is just more bending the truth for political advantage and sensationalism. Sure, there might be a welfare recipient out there with a 74in TV and absolutely no other income, but what is it going to be? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10000?
Remember, collectivists do not want us subjects ( ex-citizens) to own firearms. Firearms are only for the elite and the government.VMI77 wrote:I don't get it, this is a gun forum, where are all these collectivists coming from?anygunanywhere wrote: How long have you worked for ACORN?
Anygunanywhere