@Gresch – I am very liberal and I think I would support that general idea. I might choose 1970 instead of 1960. I might say parent as of 1960 instead of grandparent. It would take some serious thought. But, the general idea is not bad.
@Sandy and others, read Walter Williams articles. He points out the number of two parent black families has been drastically reduced by liberal welfare.
In 2011 HHS reported 23.1% of the population received assistance from 3 programs (Aid to Families w/Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income, and SNAP – food stamps). Their definition of receiving is living in a family where one or more individuals receives assistance. The Census Bureau counts a welfare recipient as living in a family where one or more members receive benefits from any of the 185 means-tested programs. Using that criterion 35.4% are on welfare. If you toss in non-tested programs (social security, unemployment, veterans benefits) 49.2% of the population are receiving government assistance. I don’t consider most of social security or veterans benefits to be a handout, the folks getting them earned them. Unemployment, I’m up in the air about. Some is necessary, 18-24 months, I’m not so sure. The scary part of this is one half of the population has a dog in the fight to raise benefits. As to Sandy67’s comment on poor rural areas. I live in a poor rural area, NE Georgia) and while I do not know what percentage of the population is receiving welfare (as defined above) I do know that every large business I go into has signs proclaiming that they participate in all the various government programs. And with “food stamps” now being a debit card that you swipe at checkout I can’t see how you can tell who is receiving assistance and who is maxing out their credit card.
And now that we all know that corporations are people too…..let’s consider the corporate welfare we provide to agribusiness and energy companies, and all the loopholes that allow companies like General Electric to not only pay no taxes, but to get a “refund”. Also, consider the popular ploy of “inversion”, where a company headquartered in the US with a small subsidiary in Ireland can suddenly declare that the headquarters are in Ireland and that the larger, totally unchanged US company is now Ireland’s subsidiary. This practice is predicted to cost the country $19 billion within the next ten years.
Add to this government make-work projects like building tanks even the Pentagon does not want, only to create employment in Ohio, the only state in the Union that counts when it comes to presidential elections. This is only one example of pork that provides short-term answers to long-term problems.
So, not only are real, living people depending on government assistance, non-real, non-living “people” are also “takers”. It’s endemic in our system.
Two points here: one is that there is more than one group that is dependent on the government, and that to point fingers at only one is to be unwilling to face the problem head-on. The other is that we must closely examine why people and people-corporations seem to need this assistance, and what we can do to encourage them to improve their lot to the point where assistance is unnecessary. A total re-work of the tax code would be a great place to start, as the tax code makes it more profitable for businesses to take their jobs out of the country, while using our country’s educated people, roadways, and other infrastructure without paying for them.
Another way that we can turn things around is to stop coddling the banking industry, and to “encourage” them to do their jobs. We loan them money at essentially no interest to stimulate their investment into our economy. However, these banks are still unwilling to loan for small businesses either to open or to expand. After over 30 years of being a doctor, and proving a loyal patient base, I had to go far from my hometown banks to find one that would be willing to provide a business line of credit to open a new practice. If a doctor with a proven track record cannot easily get a loan, I can just imagine the problems of a young entrepreneur. If we encourage big business to leave our country, and discourage small business from ever starting, we leave our children with a very ugly legacy.
Do your homework. Vote out the dead wood. Keep any good representatives, but be sure they really are as good as you think they are. We don’t want to lose value, but we could stand to lose a lot of “representatives” who do nothing but posture and point fingers.
Those who want to see where the really big bucks of “welfare” are going, should start with the oil, coal, timber, and mining corporations doing “business” on government lands and resources. Then of course, there’s the MIC getting R & D money to produce junk the military will still buy, even though it’s overpriced, and well, just doesn’t work.
I see what you meant by mods were “busy”. Yet, only after I protested that my initial objection to ConservGov’s more obnoxious comment had been deleted, was ConservGov’s comment removed as well. Interesting to note what they see as more grievious. Greggy is still a hypocrite.I also see the comment where I voiced my annoyance of someone’s mantra spam didn’t make it either. Spam is fine so long one is religious about it.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
How many of those jobs are now overseas?
sw10mm over 9 years ago
How many are looking? With 1/3 of the US on govt welfare, I’d be curious.
tbemont Premium Member over 9 years ago
@Gresch – I am very liberal and I think I would support that general idea. I might choose 1970 instead of 1960. I might say parent as of 1960 instead of grandparent. It would take some serious thought. But, the general idea is not bad.
jones.knik over 9 years ago
@Sandy and others, read Walter Williams articles. He points out the number of two parent black families has been drastically reduced by liberal welfare.
derdave969 over 9 years ago
In 2011 HHS reported 23.1% of the population received assistance from 3 programs (Aid to Families w/Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income, and SNAP – food stamps). Their definition of receiving is living in a family where one or more individuals receives assistance. The Census Bureau counts a welfare recipient as living in a family where one or more members receive benefits from any of the 185 means-tested programs. Using that criterion 35.4% are on welfare. If you toss in non-tested programs (social security, unemployment, veterans benefits) 49.2% of the population are receiving government assistance. I don’t consider most of social security or veterans benefits to be a handout, the folks getting them earned them. Unemployment, I’m up in the air about. Some is necessary, 18-24 months, I’m not so sure. The scary part of this is one half of the population has a dog in the fight to raise benefits. As to Sandy67’s comment on poor rural areas. I live in a poor rural area, NE Georgia) and while I do not know what percentage of the population is receiving welfare (as defined above) I do know that every large business I go into has signs proclaiming that they participate in all the various government programs. And with “food stamps” now being a debit card that you swipe at checkout I can’t see how you can tell who is receiving assistance and who is maxing out their credit card.
I Play One On TV over 9 years ago
And now that we all know that corporations are people too…..let’s consider the corporate welfare we provide to agribusiness and energy companies, and all the loopholes that allow companies like General Electric to not only pay no taxes, but to get a “refund”. Also, consider the popular ploy of “inversion”, where a company headquartered in the US with a small subsidiary in Ireland can suddenly declare that the headquarters are in Ireland and that the larger, totally unchanged US company is now Ireland’s subsidiary. This practice is predicted to cost the country $19 billion within the next ten years.
Add to this government make-work projects like building tanks even the Pentagon does not want, only to create employment in Ohio, the only state in the Union that counts when it comes to presidential elections. This is only one example of pork that provides short-term answers to long-term problems.
So, not only are real, living people depending on government assistance, non-real, non-living “people” are also “takers”. It’s endemic in our system.
Two points here: one is that there is more than one group that is dependent on the government, and that to point fingers at only one is to be unwilling to face the problem head-on. The other is that we must closely examine why people and people-corporations seem to need this assistance, and what we can do to encourage them to improve their lot to the point where assistance is unnecessary. A total re-work of the tax code would be a great place to start, as the tax code makes it more profitable for businesses to take their jobs out of the country, while using our country’s educated people, roadways, and other infrastructure without paying for them.
Another way that we can turn things around is to stop coddling the banking industry, and to “encourage” them to do their jobs. We loan them money at essentially no interest to stimulate their investment into our economy. However, these banks are still unwilling to loan for small businesses either to open or to expand. After over 30 years of being a doctor, and proving a loyal patient base, I had to go far from my hometown banks to find one that would be willing to provide a business line of credit to open a new practice. If a doctor with a proven track record cannot easily get a loan, I can just imagine the problems of a young entrepreneur. If we encourage big business to leave our country, and discourage small business from ever starting, we leave our children with a very ugly legacy.
Do your homework. Vote out the dead wood. Keep any good representatives, but be sure they really are as good as you think they are. We don’t want to lose value, but we could stand to lose a lot of “representatives” who do nothing but posture and point fingers.
sw10mm over 9 years ago
Yes, but you’re not disputing my point.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
Those who want to see where the really big bucks of “welfare” are going, should start with the oil, coal, timber, and mining corporations doing “business” on government lands and resources. Then of course, there’s the MIC getting R & D money to produce junk the military will still buy, even though it’s overpriced, and well, just doesn’t work.
OmqR-IV.0 over 9 years ago
I see what you meant by mods were “busy”. Yet, only after I protested that my initial objection to ConservGov’s more obnoxious comment had been deleted, was ConservGov’s comment removed as well. Interesting to note what they see as more grievious. Greggy is still a hypocrite.I also see the comment where I voiced my annoyance of someone’s mantra spam didn’t make it either. Spam is fine so long one is religious about it.