I've seen some stupid ideas before...

[Bulova]

No matter what side of the scale you are on you can name someone who has been in too long but they bring in plenty of Pork so they keep getting elected. Sen. Robert Byrd is a prime example of this.

I forgot to make the obligatory "Senator Robert Byrd as Prime Pork" joke.

[Horace]

"It wasn't protocol to do so until the REPUBLICANS took it upon themselves to "try to destroy the president in office" with their Whitewater witch hunt (Nothing there? Let's expand the investigation to his personal life. Ah-ha! Caught him lying about an illicit affair! "

If there was nothing there, why did so many of bill and hills close friends and business partners go to prison?
Oh, and speaking of witch hunts, can you say "Clarence Thomas"? . Had to find anita with a classified ad. Of course that was after she followed him for more than a decade, moving her family from one state to another just so she could keep working for him.

"But during Reagan's time in office the standard was set for deficit spending. "

Thank you to the dem controlled congress.
Presidents only propose. Had Reagans budgets been passed, and more of the waste cut, the deficits would have been considerably smaller.

"Without the Cheerleader-In-Chief, "

Please, I know you are smart enough to leave behind the childish name calling.
Or at least come up with something original instead of just repeating what moveon.org gave you.

"Except for a few scapegoats, and a few other former directors, what has the Government done about:

* The Lincoln Savings and Loan Association
* Enron
* MCI-Worldcom"

You know, I always find it amusing that so many people (no, not in this instance, this just reminded me of it) blame President GW Bush for enron. Enron was playing their games for more than six years. They got caught less than two years after President Bush was sworn in.  Guess what that means?

As much as I consider GW Bush to be the lesser of the two evils in the last two presidential elections (a divinity school flunkie who thinks there was enough mankind at the peak of the last ice age to effect climate change, or a confessed war criminal)  He most definitely is no great gem.
My personal preference would be for both major parties to find themselves unemployed.
I hope to still be around when enough of America gets fed up with the BS from both the dems and reps that a party like the Libertarians gets power. Want to see the deficit and debt dissapear? Get the federal gov't out of the hideously long laundry list of things they do not have the Constitutional authority to be involved in.

Something else I always found amusing
" The country today is run by rich corporate directors and shareholders,"
Got a pension plan?
If you say yes, you are one of those shareholders.

[Bulova]

If there was nothing there, why did so many of bill and hills close friends and business partners go to prison?

Are we now presuming "guilt by association"? The bottom line is that there was nothing substantial that millions of dollars of Kenneth Starr investigation uncovered that showed any wrongdoing by the sitting President other than his having lied about an illicit affair. For which he was impeached by the House of Representatives. And found "Not Guilty" by the Senate. What a waste of resources. I submit that to search where there is nothing of substance until one actually fabricates something to pin on the victim is the textbook definition of "Witch Hunt."

Oh, and speaking of witch hunts, can you say "Clarence Thomas"? . Had to find Anita with a classified ad. Of course that was after she followed him for more than a decade, moving her family from one state to another just so she could keep working for him.

Although I have heard of the rare instance of Associate Justice Thomas sitting up, taking notice, and forming his own opinion in recent years, for most of the first decade of his tenure on the Court his picture could have been in the dictionary alongside the word "toady." Witch-hunt or no, there is no way he could have been considered one of the leading jurists in the country at the time of his nomination to the Supreme Court. This entire tangent, like most tangents, is totally beside the point.

"But during Reagan's time in office the standard was set for deficit spending. "

Thank you to the dem controlled congress.
Presidents only propose. Had Reagan's budgets been passed, and more of the waste cut, the deficits would have been considerably smaller.

And the burgeoning chasm between the rich-and-entitled and poor-and-down-trodden in this country would have widened even more swiftly. His *proposed* budgets slashed support for the arts, for the underprivileged, for child-care services for lower- and middle- class working families, for medical coverage (Medicaid), for national parkland. Oh, but NOT the military! And the accompanying tax cuts were principally aimed at cutting the tax burden borne by the higher tax bracketed earners.

Except in specific cases, I don't believe that Society should allow its members to exist on "the Dole," but to cut off without any form of safety net people who have only known that subsistence is the height of cruelty. Breaking a Welfare Society cannot be a "sink-or-swim" proposition, but must be accompanied by job training and counseling in order to, well, wean people who have known no way of getting by other than that monthly government handout.

Bottom line here: Not all of the Reagan's cuts were "pure pork." If Reagan's budgets HAD been passed unaltered, countless more poor citizens would have gone hungry and medically untreated.

"Without the Cheerleader-In-Chief, "

Please, I know you are smart enough to leave behind the childish name calling.
Or at least come up with something original instead of just repeating what moveon.org gave you.

I hate to disappoint you, but that one sprang from my own grey matter. If moveon.org (which I generally do NOT read) has used it, it was independently derived. Which makes me think that I'm not the only one who considers it an appropriate moniker for President Reagan, that accurately describes one of the things he actually did.

Something else I always found amusing
"The country today is run by rich corporate directors and shareholders,"
Got a pension plan?
If you say yes, you are one of those shareholders.

You're right. Only significant numbers of shares in large corporations have any real power, whether they be in one person's holding (and they are probably sitting on Boards of Directors) or a result of a large number of smaller shareholders banding together to effect a policy (and there, the actual power is too diffuse to accomplish much more than some agreed-upon goal).

[LucasJamison]

Leaving aside the problematic usage of the term "witch hunt":

I hope to still be around when enough of America gets fed up with the BS from both the dems and reps that a party like the Libertarians gets power. Want to see the deficit and debt dissapear? Get the federal gov't out of the hideously long laundry list of things they do not have the Constitutional authority to be involved in.

I would absolutely not benefit, personally, from a full implementation of the Libertarian platform. Neither would most of my family, or many people I know.

Would you?

[Socket]

Ah, gotta love the Flames & Rants board.  Always good for polarized finger pointing 

What the heck, the thread's already way off-topic, might as well join in:
While I agree with the ideals of libertarianism, I think it would be a great social experiment to seal off some wasted space, like New Mexico, and put all the serious libertarian proponents in there to see how long it takes to collapse and/or fall to complete anarchy.

[Bulova]

What the heck, the thread's already way off-topic...

I wasn't aware that a "Flames & Rants" thread *could* go off-topic 

some wasted space, like New Mexico

...as millions hundreds of thousands of angry-townspeople New Mexicans collect at your doorstep, menacingly wielding pitchforks and torches...

[Horace]

Well lets see, in no particular order;

Bulova, are you saying that when there is an allegation of a crime that you or I would lose our job and face criminal penalties for, that there shouldnt be an investigation?
Considering the severity of some of the accusations made against BC, including rape, I think more should have been spent if needed to get to the truth.
What spurred Congress to request and the AG to grant a special prosecutor was the substantiated allegations against BC in a sexual harrassment suit. But that should only be investigated when you dont like the guy, right?
But then again, according to some, all the charges against BC were just fabrications of hillarys "vast right wing conspiracy."

Re Thomas;
Just because you dont like his position, or he isnt constantly speechifying doesnt make him a "toady".
If you dont think he was qualified as a jurist, ok. Show me some ruling he made that you base that on.
But the point remains that people who oppose the investigation of BC for the crimes he was accused of can not turn around and say that what was done to Packwood and Thomas was OK.

Re Reagan;
Let me know when you have some facts about the budgets he proposed.
Not increasing a program by what the built in "base line budget" amount asks for does not equal a cut. (many on the left keep trying to say it is, which is like asking for a 2 dollar pay raise, and complaining that a one dollar increase is a cut.)
As to the Reagan tax cuts, they benefitted you and me proportionally to anyone else. That is, if you had any kind of retirement investment plan. The Bush tax cuts benefitted everyone who paid federal income tax.

"but to cut off without any form of safety net people who have only known that subsistence is the height of cruelty. "
Show me any such plan. You cant, because no such proposal was ever made. Just like the lies told about GW Bush's proposal to give people the OPTION to take up to 2% of what they normally put in to SS and invest it as they see fit, with the understanding that they accept the resulting financial outcome, good or bad.
I believe that welfare should be like it was during the Depression. If you were physically capable of working, you got on the truck every morning when it came by. In exchange you got food, a voucher for your rent and utilities, and other necessities. If you didnt show up, and didnt have a valid excuse such as illness, you didnt get your vouchers and etc.
Ross Perot was a whack job, but even insane people sometimes get something right. He said that with all the money we spend on our cities, through HUD, Welfare and other programs, we should have the cleanest cities in the world.
People on welfare do not need to be driving a lexus or wearing $150.00 sneakers. Talk about fairness, how is it fair for me to not be able to afford as nice a car or TV as someone who has never worked for a living? And yes, that does happen, quite often. Woman used to work in my store, 9 kids, no two of which had the same father. She was only working because her case worker told her she had to. She drove to work in a then current model lexus, and complained about having to pay for her own heat. She was getting away with it too, till she tried to save her job by trying to get me fired.

"I hate to disappoint you, but that one sprang from my own grey matter"
Perhaps you came to it independantly, but so did the propagandists on hate sites like moveon.
Point remains tho, that I had assumed that you had a high enough IQ to not have to resort to name calling. Did I overestimate you?
And it was GW Bush who was a cheerleader.

Libertarianism;
I accept that I could be wrong, but I get the distinct impression that those who have so far commented on libertarianism dont know what the party is all about.
How would you not benefit from the Fed Govt being restricted to those things that the Constitution gives them authority to do?
We actually dont believe in or expect to ever get back to a strictly constitutionally allowed federal gov't. Some things it is just impractical for the states to do for themselves, such as NASA, some aspects of law enforcement and a few other things.
But the fed doesnt need to be, and is not Constitutionally allowed to be involved in things like education, except to ensure that there is no discrimination (Constitution doesnt allow the Fed ANY involvement). The state and local gov'ts are fully capable of setting curriculum and moving necessary funding from one district to another.

Would I benefit? Yes. Lower taxes for one. Everyone benefits from that, as has  been proven time and time again.
How would you be harmed?

[Bulova]

Well let's see, in no particular order;

Bulova, are you saying that when there is an allegation of a crime that you or I would lose our job and face criminal penalties for, that there shouldn't be an investigation?

Of course there should be an investigation. And I don't object in principle to the appointment of the Special Prosecutor. But keep said investigation to the specifics of the charge. Make sure before proceeding in a new direction that unrelated investigatory "discoveries" are true "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (words utilized by the Constitution in the Article that deals with impeachment, and used by the House in bringing the impeachment charge) and not fibbing about some piddling little affair.

If it had been me in the witness chair in front of Mr. Starr, and he asked about details of an illicit relationship, I would have declined to answer. It is immaterial to the charges being investigated, and not a Federal Crime in and of itself. But once I had made the mistake of misleading the investigation, even those old fogies in the House should have contemplated their own flies, gotten over their hatred and outrage, and had the good judgment and restraint not to proceed with an impeachment. Again, I say: What a waste of resources!

Re Thomas;
Just because you don't like his position, or he isn't constantly speechifying doesn't make him a "toady".

What classified him as a toady was his tendency to yield his judicial judgment to Associate Justice Scalia. And, except that Justice Scalia is a staunch Conservative (whatever that is), he is a brilliant mind on the court, and Justice Thomas yielding to him as long as he felt overwhelmed by the office was not necessarily a bad thing. But it is toadying.

Re Reagan;
As to the Reagan tax cuts, they benefited you and me proportionally to anyone else. That is, if you had any kind of retirement investment plan. The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone who paid federal income tax.

Most lower-income class people do NOT have much of "any kind of retirement investment plan." So even by your argument, the member class I cited was disproportionately harmed by the Reagan budgets.

Those, and the GW Bush cuts, may feel good in your pocketbook now, but the debt will have to be paid. Somehow, our longest period of surplus budgeting (and spending) came during the eight years under Clinton, even with a hostile Congress fighting him at nearly every turn.

Call me a borderline Socialist, but I believe that someone who is more well off has a societal responsibility to shoulder more of the burden of keeping the Government (including support for the Military, the Arts, Scientific Research in order for the US to keep its edge, and yes, even entitlement programs for the poor) than someone of lesser means. If that translates to someone who earns over $1 million per year paying, by percentage, 3% more than those "under" him, and those earning more than $5 million per year paying 5% more, and those earning over $10 million paying 10% more, well...will that materially affect their standard of living?

If you collect the tax burden of each income class, there is a vast middle that pays a significant majority of the taxes collected. This is because there are greater numbers in that class doing the paying. However, if you massage the same numbers by total value of income (fewer taxpayers in the "above $1 million" line, but those numbers add up to nearly as much as the entirety of the wages earns below that level) you will see that, by total earnings, those fewer richest people pay a lot less per dollar earned than their lower-earning "brothers." Equalize the burden based on that formula, and you will approach a fair distribution of the tax burden. Pipedream. Remember what I said about the rich running the country?

"but to cut off without any form of safety net people who have only known that subsistence is the height of cruelty. "
Show me any such plan. You cant, because no such proposal was ever made. Just like the lies told about GW Bush's proposal to give people the OPTION to take up to 2% of what they normally put in to SS and invest it as they see fit, with the understanding that they accept the resulting financial outcome, good or bad.

If you haven't seen "any such plan" that threatens to essentially toss indigents off the welfare rolls, then you haven't read the papers during the debate phase.

As far as the privatization of Social Security, just remember: it's so much easier for wealthy people (who reach the FICA withholding cap, anyway) to voluntarily find some percentage of their income and invest it. Most of them are doing that, anyway. The 2% proposal only works if you believe that between then and now, the less wealthy will RELIGIOUSLY take that 2% and invest it wisely enough, without any safeguards, so that it will be there for when they do retire. What Social Security is, is a SOCIAL program. With it, middle and lower class earners can depend on having some income guaranteed by their government at their retirement. And yes, I recognize that it boils down to a "forced savings" program. Oh well.

I believe that welfare should be like it was during the Depression. If you were physically capable of working, you got on the truck every morning when it came by. In exchange you got food, a voucher for your rent and utilities, and other necessities. If you didn't show up, and didn't have a valid excuse such as illness, you didn't get your vouchers and etc.

Rather a hand-to-mouth existence. Putting people to work for the minimum daily requirements may sound like a good idea, but it gives no opportunity to "get off the truck." I'd rather see a program developed that issues such vouchers for people attending a work-training program focussed on improving their existing skills (if any), and afterward places them in jobs where they are paid a bit more than subsistence wages. With a clear opportunity for advancement.

People on welfare do not need to be driving a lexus or wearing $150.00 sneakers. Talk about fairness, how is it fair for me to not be able to afford as nice a car or TV as someone who has never worked for a living? And yes, that does happen, quite often. Woman used to work in my store, 9 kids, no two of which had the same father. She was only working because her case worker told her she had to. She drove to work in a then current model lexus, and complained about having to pay for her own heat. She was getting away with it too, till she tried to save her job by trying to get me fired.

No, they don't, and no, it's not fair (even if you have exaggerated a bit to present the worst picture of Welfare Fraud in existence, it's just wrong). This kind of thing is a result of lack of supervision within the Department of Human Services. I am outraged when I hear reports of such systemic abuse. (Would you be surprised if I said that my outrage is directed more at the abus-er than the program that "allows" such abuse?)

Was a time when "Welfare Moms" would pop out another dependent because it would generate an increase in that monthly check that was greater than their perceived increase in expense for their care. And they didn't have to worry about how to send them all off to college when they came of age! This one sounds like a throwback to then.

And unless they can make me "run faster, jump higher, get girls, make *it* bigger and keep my feet from aching so badly at the end of a long day" I don't even want a pair of $150 sneakers!

"I hate to disappoint you, but that one sprang from my own grey matter"
Perhaps you came to it independently, but so did the propagandists on hate sites like moveon.
Point remains tho, that I had assumed that you had a high enough IQ to not have to resort to name calling. Did I overestimate you?
And it was GW Bush who was a cheerleader.

This is interesting. I didn't intend it as "name-calling" but classifying. One of the things that Reagan was BEST at was Cheerleading for his country, even in the face of the mounting deficits. And, yes, I thought it was a clever alliteration. But one might think you are insulting real cheerleaders with that last sentence.

I lived in NYC in the 60s, and moved back in the 80s. What I noticed was that there had always been homeless people on the streets and subways. But not until the Reagan Administration codified policy to cut payments to institutions housing "borderline" psychotics resulting in their wholesale discharge was it that I would trip over them on a daily basis.

[Mark]

Since we are getting off target I've moved my replay to a new thread:

Get your tax facts right.

[LucasJamison]

Libertarianism;
I accept that I could be wrong, but I get the distinct impression that those who have so far commented on libertarianism dont know what the party is all about.

I've read the party platform, and listened to speeches by various party VIPs over time. Neither libertarianism or the US Libertarian party is a new phenomenon, and they've been brought to some degree of national attention in every presidential election cycles since the mid-90s when I started paying attention, if only as a footnote.

How would you not benefit from the Fed Govt being restricted to those things that the Constitution gives them authority to do?

I think you're working from a slight mischaracterization of constitutional authority. Granted, the scope of powers assumed by the federal government, especially since WW2 (though the Civil War era saw a pretty major expansion), is quite beyond what it was in the 18-aughts, by way of comparison.

We actually dont believe in or expect to ever get back to a strictly constitutionally allowed federal gov't. Some things it is just impractical for the states to do for themselves, such as NASA, some aspects of law enforcement and a few other things.

If you're arguing from the principle that more limited government is inherently better, i'm not sure how starting off with conceding a major point to the opposing side is good idea.

But the fed doesnt need to be, and is not Constitutionally allowed to be involved in things like education, except to ensure that there is no discrimination (Constitution doesnt allow the Fed ANY involvement). The state and local gov'ts are fully capable of setting curriculum and moving necessary funding from one district to another.

I don't recall the Constitution mentioning state-run (and I mean that in the sense of state that means government, not one of the several states comprising the United States) education at all. If you're referring to the the 10th Amendment to the constitution, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Would I benefit? Yes. Lower taxes for one. Everyone benefits from that, as has  been proven time and time again.

Could provide a link or two, on that? I'm not sure that follows. At any rate - a lower tax rate doesn't necessarily do good things for me. If you eliminated all state and federal and local taxes, which I think you'll agree is as impractical as expecting New Jersey to fund its own space agency, I would gain about $12000 per year at my present salary, in take-home dollars.

I could not possibly begin to afford all of the services and benefits provided (directly and indirectly) by those various levels of government for $12000 per year.

How would you be harmed?

Well, as noted above, loss of services is one area that would impact me pretty directly.

[LucasJamison]

Just like the lies told about GW Bush's proposal to give people the OPTION to take up to 2% of what they normally put in to SS and invest it as they see fit, with the understanding that they accept the resulting financial outcome, good or bad.

Maybe you can find better sources than I could, but the (rather detail-light) documents highlighting the plan you reference, that are still up on the White House website, indicate a maximum annual contribution of 4% of payroll taxes (reached over time, the caps would be lower to start), invested according to a system analogous to the Thrift Savings Plan. Seems like a big mutual fund, to me, though I'm no expert on that stuff. Just like my 401K - the plan administrator gives me a list of funds I can choose from, tells me he can't tell me which one's to choose, and leaves me to make a choice based on a prospectus I can't begin to make sense of.

Except, actually, I HAVE a non-matching 401K, so what do I need another one for?

I also wonder where my company's half of the payroll taxes paid for my wages would go, in this plan.

People on welfare do not need to be driving a lexus or wearing $150.00 sneakers. Talk about fairness, how is it fair for me to not be able to afford as nice a car or TV as someone who has never worked for a living? And yes, that does happen, quite often. Woman used to work in my store, 9 kids, no two of which had the same father. She was only working because her case worker told her she had to. She drove to work in a then current model lexus, and complained about having to pay for her own heat. She was getting away with it too, till she tried to save her job by trying to get me fired.

DUDE. WTF?

[Frigemall]

I am not a big fan of Libertarian politics. I am a conservative. I agree with some of the Libertarian policies but disagree with many of them. I work in a homeless shelter where we provide a safety net for the poor. Having some programs to provide job training, mental health programs, drug and alcohol treatment, etc. are all important. Some of these services are far better administered by the private sector. The rescue mission I work for mostly operates on donations (from those nasty rich and middle class people). We also direct people to funds administered by the government. The problem comes in when people who have no desire to change try to live off of these benefits. I believe Welfare, Medicare, etc should be very temporary programs designed to get people back on their feet, not to provide a level of subsistance that allows for dependancy on the government. There are some who have permanent disabilities and cannot function at all, these people need to be provided for by either private means (the ideal) or public means.
I see people all the time that are perfectly capable of working that decide to continue to exist on Government Assistance. They sell their food stamps, spend that and their checks within days, sometimes with prostitutes, gambling, alcohol, and drugs, and begin to complain because they are broke. Many of these people carry expensive cell phones, have MP3 players, have portable DVD players, wear new clothing and shoes (usually also donated by those nasty rich people), and lay around mission property, and other public buildings all day before trying to sleep in the missions at night. I have great sympathy for those who stumble and need a hand to get back up. I do not have alot of sympathy for those who choose to stay where they are.

[LucasJamison]

Some of these services are far better administered by the private sector.

Could you explain why you think that way, or what the advantages would be? Because I haven't generally seen this to be the case, in other areas, but I'm sure you have more direct experience in the instance of programs like the ones the mission you work for provides.

The rescue mission I work for mostly operates on donations (from those nasty rich and middle class people). We also direct people to funds administered by the government.

I'll note, for my part, that I don't have a problem with people making money. I see certain problems being exacerbated by relative wealth disparity, and think that some problems which develop from such disparity may be unavoidable, meaning that minimizing that disparity is the best solution, so in that instance some people getting TOO rich relative to everyone else may very well be a problem (or the cause of problems) in and of itself. But that's another discussion, I think.

The problem comes in when people who have no desire to change try to live off of these benefits. I believe Welfare, Medicare, etc should be very temporary programs designed to get people back on their feet, not to provide a level of subsistance that allows for dependancy on the government.

Well, if the programs don't provide people with enough of a benefit to get by, how the heck can they get back on their feet, much less get ahead, ever? Seems like it's not the size of the benefit, but the conditions and duration for which it's provided, that would be the problem. If someone realisitically need a $3000 a month in aid to get back on their feet, and in a good place, and you give them $800, and then tell them six months later because they weren't able to parlay that $800 into another $2200, they're morally deficient and undeserving of further aid, I think you'd agree that's pretty shitty. I pulled those numbers out of my ass, BTW.

Also, I think Medicare is the one for seniors, and Medicaid is the one for low/no-income folks. Also, what exactly do people GET on welfare, anymore? You have some experience with people who are accepting these benefits - how much are we talking about? And I recognize they may get different amounts for different program - depending on need and usage, and other factors.

I see people all the time that are perfectly capable of working that decide to continue to exist on Government Assistance. They sell their food stamps, spend that and their checks within days, sometimes with prostitutes, gambling, alcohol, and drugs, and begin to complain because they are broke. Many of these people carry expensive cell phones, have MP3 players, have portable DVD players, wear new clothing and shoes (usually also donated by those nasty rich people), and lay around mission property, and other public buildings all day before trying to sleep in the missions at night. I have great sympathy for those who stumble and need a hand to get back up. I do not have alot of sympathy for those who choose to stay where they are.

So, for those folks who are living the good life without working hard enough (not that I would ever have considered blowing all my cash on sex and drugs and gambling, then beggin for crash space at a homeless shelter, the "high life", however many nifty electronic devices it might allow me to acquire), how many (by percentage) would you say, of the people your rescue helps, fall into that group?

[Mack Ravensline]

Could you explain why you think that way, or what the advantages would be? Because I haven't generally seen this to be the case, in other areas, but I'm sure you have more direct experience in the instance of programs like the ones the mission you work for provides.

Sure, when the government gets involved, the regulations they place on the institution make it so they are hamstrung in how they do things. They take out any religious overtones, make it so you can not do restrictions ie discipline without their involvement etc. Also there is usually more community involvement when it is private. When people know you depend on their donations they want to be more involved. Churches send in chapel teams and volunteers as well as money. When it is government run, there is usually waste. The passion for doing God's work slowly goes away because you are no longer able to preach the gospel. I gaurantee that when you have a government shelter and a faith based shelter in an area, the faith based shelter will have a better success rate. The more government involvement, the more the clients see it as an entitlement also instead of an oppertunity.

Well, if the programs don't provide people with enough of a benefit to get by, how the heck can they get back on their feet, much less get ahead, ever? Seems like it's not the size of the benefit, but the conditions and duration for which it's provided, that would be the problem. If someone realisitically need a $3000 a month in aid to get back on their feet, and in a good place, and you give them $800, and then tell them six months later because they weren't able to parlay that $800 into another $2200, they're morally deficient and undeserving of further aid, I think you'd agree that's pretty shitty. I pulled those numbers out of my ass, BTW.

I know what your point is, there are many programs set up to fill needs. One such program I like alot is a program called Homeless Prevention. It is a program that allows for people to show them three recent pay stub slips, and an agreement from a landlord that will accept a voucher from the program and one time only they will pay the first month's rent and security deposit to get someone into an apartment, as long as they can realistically afford the apartment based on their pay stubs. This program is really nice when combined with our Work Status program that allows someone to stay at the mission for up to 3 months while we require them to save 70% of their pay. They are provided a bed and 3 meals a day while on this status. When they leave we hook them up with another charitable organization called Project restart that will provide them with donated furniture for their apartment. When done right this is enough to get back on their feet. They also can get food baskets from the food bank and us once a month after they move out until they do not need it any longer. They can still come in on clothing nights and get clothing when they need it, and if they are hungry they can get breakfast and dinner here too. That is just one way without handing them money that could be used inefficiently without them moving forward.

Also, I think Medicare is the one for seniors, and Medicaid is the one for low/no-income folks. Also, what exactly do people GET on welfare, anymore? You have some experience with people who are accepting these benefits - how much are we talking about? And I recognize they may get different amounts for different program - depending on need and usage, and other factors.

Medicare is sometimes given to those who are able to obtain SSi benefits instead of just welfare or SSD benefits. Many of the clients on disabilities are able to get SSI, especially if there is a mental health issue involved. Those that receive SSI can get up to $2200 per month, plus food coupons, Medicare etc.
Those who are on SSD make between $800 and $1200 per month in general, plus food coupons, Medicaid etc. All others recieve GA which is about $120 a month, food coupons (which are often sold) and either Medicaid or can get Charity Care for health. It is not a large amount, but it adds up fast and does not stop. It is not enough to live on, just enough to slip through most of the recipient's fingers.

So, for those folks who are living the good life without working hard enough (not that I would ever have considered blowing all my cash on sex and drugs and gambling, then beggin for crash space at a homeless shelter, the "high life", however many nifty electronic devices it might allow me to acquire), how many (by percentage) would you say, of the people your rescue helps, fall into that group?

This is not about 'living the good life.' None of them have a good life this way, it is simply a waste. The homeless should be offered financial counciling and job oppertunities, as well as job training and other services instead of a meager amount that will just continue a cycle of binge and beg. The goal should be to get as many into society instead of providing a way for them to remain outside of it.

[Horace]

Most lower-income class people do NOT have much of "any kind of retirement investment plan." So even by your argument, the member class I cited was disproportionately harmed by the Regan budgets.

Actually, if they had no retirement plan, they were neither harmed nor helped, but left in the same position they were in before the cuts.

[quote/]Those, and the GW Bush cuts, may feel good in your pocketbook now, but the debt will have to be paid. Somehow, our longest period of surplus budgeting (and spending) came during the eight years under Clinton, even with a hostile Congress fighting him at nearly every turn.

Granted there could have been much more done to improve the budget. Much more waste should have been cut. But the revenues from the fed income tax have increased every year since the cuts. Had Congress and the President been more disciplined, the deficit would have shrunk even faster than it has and would potentially have been eliminated. As I have said, GW and the current crop of Reps are no gems.

As to the surplus, it was projected. If any of it materialized it was only very late in the last year, and not by much.
And you have it a bit backwards, it was Clinton that did the fighting at every turn to continue spending more than Congress wanted on certain things. Otherwise there would have been more of a surplus that would have appeared sooner.

"If you collect the tax burden of each income class, there is a vast middle that pays a significant majority of the taxes collected. "

No, there isnt. Vast majority of the tax burden is borne by the richest. But I believe Mark posted about that in another thread.

"If you haven't seen "any such plan" that threatens to essentially toss indigents off the welfare rolls, then you haven't read the papers during the debate phase."

I have.
You'll have to show me where it was proposed that people be just bluntly thrown off the welfare rolls.
The proposal was to make those capable start working to get their benefits.

Cookie is asking for her nightly walk.
Maybe I'll get back to the rest of this some other time, but dont wait,.

As far as the privatization of Social Security, just remember: it's so much easier for wealthy people (who reach the FICA withholding cap, anyway) to voluntarily find some percentage of their income and invest it. Most of them are doing that, anyway. The 2% proposal only works if you believe that between then and now, the less wealthy will RELIGIOUSLY take that 2% and invest it wisely enough, without any safeguards, so that it will be there for when they do retire. What Social Security is, is a SOCIAL program. With it, middle and lower class earners can depend on having some income guaranteed by their government at their retirement. And yes, I recognize that it boils down to a "forced savings" program. Oh well.
Rather a hand-to-mouth existence. Putting people to work for the minimum daily requirements may sound like a good idea, but it gives no opportunity to "get off the truck." I'd rather see a program developed that issues such vouchers for people attending a work-training program focussed on improving their existing skills (if any), and afterward places them in jobs where they are paid a bit more than subsistence wages. With a clear opportunity for advancement.
No, they don't, and no, it's not fair (even if you have exaggerated a bit to present the worst picture of Welfare Fraud in existence, it's just wrong). This kind of thing is a result of lack of supervision within the Department of Human Services. I am outraged when I hear reports of such systemic abuse. (Would you be surprised if I said that my outrage is directed more at the abus-er than the program that "allows" such abuse?)

Was a time when "Welfare Moms" would pop out another dependent because it would generate an increase in that monthly check that was greater than their perceived increase in expense for their care. And they didn't have to worry about how to send them all off to college when they came of age! This one sounds like a throwback to then.

And unless they can make me "run faster, jump higher, get girls, make *it* bigger and keep my feet from aching so badly at the end of a long day" I don't even want a pair of $150 sneakers!
This is interesting. I didn't intend it as "name-calling" but classifying. One of the things that Reagan was BEST at was Cheerleading for his country, even in the face of the mounting deficits. And, yes, I thought it was a clever alliteration. But one might think you are insulting real cheerleaders with that last sentence.

I lived in NYC in the 60s, and moved back in the 80s. What I noticed was that there had always been homeless people on the streets and subways. But not until the Reagan Administration codified policy to cut payments to institutions housing "borderline" psychotics resulting in their wholesale discharge was it that I would trip over them on a daily basis.[/size][/color]