Raise Taxes or Cut Waste?

[Flopper]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

As painful as it will be, I think we should raise taxes first. But we have to do it across the board, so everyone feels the pain. And we need to keep raising them until the budget is balanced. Then there will be no need to convince people we need to cut spending. They'll be howling for it.

I see it as cutting waste first to see if we even need to raise taxes. There is a lot of waste and fraud associated with government spending.

A huge portion of what you pay in taxes goes to prevent fraud and to insure that money is spent as congress intended. The amount of money spent on documentation and duplication of work is almost beyond belief. This is one of the reasons government is so costly. It can't operate like the private sector. In the federal government you can't buy from a merchant just because you know he has the best price and quality. There must exist some documented basis for the decision such as a bid. A social worker can't give food to hungry children just because they're hungry. Documentation must be collected on earnings and assets of the parents. There has to be validation and periodic reviews. In short government is expensive because it must operate under a ridge set of rules and laws. If those regulations and laws are responsible for the waste employees can't just ignore them and it's extremely difficult to get them changed.

I think one thing that can save an awfully lot of money is do more contracting to the private sector while reserving functions for government that really should be done by government. Another thing is expand the GAO cost reduction and effectiveness program. If government is to be made efficient, it has to come from within the executive branch, not just from congress.

I understand what you're saying here, and I agree concerning documentation, rules, and regulations. But, lets look at what doesn't require rules, regulations, nor documentation. (1) Building mosques on foreign soil. (2) Supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists. (3) The care and support of illegal immigrants. (4) Paying bribes to North Korea and Iran. (5) Building the useless stupid fence along our southern border. (6) The excessive number of military bases on foreign soil. (7) Exploring the far reaches of the universe. (8) Report 65 Secret Service Agents on Hand for Hillary Clinton s Paid Speech in Canada The Weekly Standard (9) Our luxury prisons. (10) Excessive government travel. (11) Improper use of government credit cards ( gambling in Vegas trips ). (12) Lavish White House parties. (13) Mr. and Mrs. Obama's lavish vacations ( the last one was 17 days in Hawaii ) (14) Ridiculous perks, benefits, and retirement for members of Congress. (15) Subsidies for Brazilian corn crops. (16) Three senseless deadly costly wars ( Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan ). (17) pork spending. (18) Bailouts ( GM, AIG, Wall Street ). (19) No-bid government contracts ( Halliburton ). (20) Planes and ships the Pentagon doesn't need nor want. (21) The multi-$Billion Medicare and Medicaid fraud scams. (22) Subsidies paid to big oil and rich farmers. (23) Supplying local police across the country with Military vehicles, weapons, and gear. (24) most foreign aid ( Africa, Afghanistan ). (25) etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

How many hundreds of $Billions did I just list? Have any idea? Could it be $Trillions?

I agree with a number of your points. However, keep in mind when you examine reported wastes and you see the complete picture these wastes may not be as wasteful as it seems or possibly they just can't be avoided because the politics that surrounds it. Just remember, there are two sides to every story and usually you hear just one from the media.

 

[auditor0007]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

I have a great idea. Let's raise taxes on the wealthy, back to the rates we had in the 1950's. I believe 90% was the top rate. Now, before you go ballistic on me, please understand this very important fact; nobody paid those top rates. The effective rate for millionaires back then was around 50%. The key to reducing those tax rates was in using various loopholes to avoid paying taxes, and here is where we find the reason that those high tax rates worked favorably for all Americans. You see, to avoid paying those high tax rates, both individuals and corporations had to reinvest that money back into the economy. They actually had to do something constructive with the money to avoid paying those taxes. Today, we just let them keep the money. They don't have to reinvest it, and for the most part they do not, and this is not just a problem for the US, it is a global problem. This is why corporations globally are currently sitting on over $7 trillion, $5 trillion by US companies.

Now I'm sure some of you will tell me that they most certainly do invest it, but putting money into hedge funds and using it to buy out other companies is not really reinvesting it. Google has used its massive profits to buy up one company after another, but it is not creating any new wealth. Company after company we see buying out smaller companies, but there are fewer and fewer start-ups. And who is getting screwed the most out of all this? The middle class of course.

 

[auditor0007]

Lower taxes on everyone, especially thr cih (progressive taxation is completely unfair, everyone should be taxed at the same rate ala a flat tax.)

Implement mandatory conservation, recycling, and more efficient versions of things. It's absurd we tax more rather than cutting back even if that means draconian laws 'encouraging' it. Can't build new power generating plants everytime existing supply can't meet the deamnd - you cut back usage and the demand. Otherwise it's like raising the debt ceiling every year instead of capping it and facing the music at long last.

I also believe in taxing everyone at the same rate. And, I believe that having a sales tax that covers all taxation is way better than what we have now.

All taxation is just legalized theft by the government. Suppose it's a necessary evil though. Though I'd lvoe to see what happens when there are no taxes at all. Bet there's less wars... But it seems to me if we tax more successful people a higher percentage then that's just punishing that success and is thus unfair. Also, there seems to be a lot of overlap with taxes. If you tax a set amount once, then taxing it again is also unfair. Yet that's exactly what we do with federal, state, and local taxes taxing the same fixed amount multiple times.

We tax earnings.
Then we tax what remains again at the state level.
Then we tax that remainder a third time locally.
Then we tax it yet again, a fourth time if you dare to actually spend any of it via Sales Tax.
And we don't stop there. You get taxed additional times if you invest in others and are actually successful. Get taxed if you dare die and have a balance remaining.

We're awfully taxed for a supposedly free coutnry. This is the only area I'm aware of I actually agree with the Tea Partiers.

No, it is not punishing success to tax the wealthy at higher rates. First of all, they only get taxed at higher rates on incomes over a certain amount. Secondly, much of their income comes from capital gains which are taxed at much lower rates anyway. I find it humorous when flat taxers think a flat tax is fair but never consider the fact that the wealthy stop paying SS tax after their first 118,500 for 2015, or that since they spend a very small percentage of their income on consumables, they pay a much lower rate in sales tax than average Americans. In the end, they don't pay a significantly higher rate overall than anyone else. In some cases, they are actually paying less, but you guys want to reduce their rate and raise the rates of those who can afford it least. It really is mind boggling when you think about it.

 

[Flopper]

Why do you feel entitled to other peoples money?

Contain your irrational hatred of the 'rich' lib.

If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest....

"If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest...."


Sure, THEY'LL JUST PUT IT UNDER THEIR MATTRESSES RIGHT? lol



STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

I think we can raise taxes while lowering them across the board just by removing all loopholes and deductions. It could be a flat tax or based upon income as we have today. Of course, that would mean a tax system which was simple and you immediately have both the lawyers and the accountants in opposition, not to mention large corporations who would actually have to start paying tax.

The problem with waste is that it really doesn't have much of an impact. People will get up in arms because of a miniscule grant to study squid but will defend monstrous waste in other areas. More than $8 billion in cash just disappeared in Iraq, and I don't mean misspent - I mean disappeared, and no one was held accountable, no congressional committee was formed to investigate, no uproar in the press. Major contractors will underbid projects with the feds and then pump of the cost through cost over runs and no one bats an eye.

Yes, I remember reading about all the money that went missing in Iraq. Yes, defense spending is favoritism, kick-backs, and wasteful beyond words. But, we have many other areas of obvious waste and abuse of tax dollars also. We could save untold multi-$Billions by cutting just the obvious waste.

What waste?

Yer kidding, right?
The amount of money wasted on for example...research to determine the libido of a certain species of birds when high on cocaine.
The total lack of enforcement on the rules governing the issuance of social program payments. In other words, no one is watching where the money for social programs is going.
One such example is the school lunch program. It is a violation of federal law for a school district to make inquiries as to the income eligibility of families whose children are on the program.
When I see people using food stamps or the debit card that permits purchases, get into new or late model vehicles, I see a problem.
When over 50% of the federal budget is spent on social programs, I see a problem.

Rarely have I seen so much misinformation in a given one post.

• When you look at the study of species of birds when high on cocaine, it's certainly not a waste of money. Cocaine and the sexual habits of quail or why does NIH fund what it does The Scicurious Brain Scientific American Blog Network
• If it's a violation of federal law to inquire into income eligibility, then the FDA is violating that law because they certainly inquire into the income eligibility of every family applying for free and reduce lunch. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/english.pdf
• 50% of the federal budget is certainly not spent on social programs. The 2014 budget breakdown is, 26% healthcare, 26% federal pension program, 22% defense, 11% Welfare, Education 3%, Interest 7%, 5% other programs.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Raise TAXES on the super rich and cut waste. Smart and efficient government = good.

We can then use the money we didn't waste on 1,000 dollar hammers on space travel and new roads!!!!

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you feel entitled to other peoples money?

If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest....

"If you punish people for investing like the left wants to do all the time by raising the tax on capital gains
those that have money will not invest...."


Sure, THEY'LL JUST PUT IT UNDER THEIR MATTRESSES RIGHT? lol



STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

I think we can raise taxes while lowering them across the board just by removing all loopholes and deductions. It could be a flat tax or based upon income as we have today. Of course, that would mean a tax system which was simple and you immediately have both the lawyers and the accountants in opposition, not to mention large corporations who would actually have to start paying tax.

The problem with waste is that it really doesn't have much of an impact. People will get up in arms because of a miniscule grant to study squid but will defend monstrous waste in other areas. More than $8 billion in cash just disappeared in Iraq, and I don't mean misspent - I mean disappeared, and no one was held accountable, no congressional committee was formed to investigate, no uproar in the press. Major contractors will underbid projects with the feds and then pump of the cost through cost over runs and no one bats an eye.

Yes, I remember reading about all the money that went missing in Iraq. Yes, defense spending is favoritism, kick-backs, and wasteful beyond words. But, we have many other areas of obvious waste and abuse of tax dollars also. We could save untold multi-$Billions by cutting just the obvious waste.

What waste?

Yer kidding, right?
The amount of money wasted on for example...research to determine the libido of a certain species of birds when high on cocaine.
The total lack of enforcement on the rules governing the issuance of social program payments. In other words, no one is watching where the money for social programs is going.
One such example is the school lunch program. It is a violation of federal law for a school district to make inquiries as to the income eligibility of families whose children are on the program.
When I see people using food stamps or the debit card that permits purchases, get into new or late model vehicles, I see a problem.
When over 50% of the federal budget is spent on social programs, I see a problem.

Rarely have I seen so much misinformation in a given one post.

• When you look at the study of species of birds when high on cocaine, it's certainly not a waste of money. Cocaine and the sexual habits of quail or why does NIH fund what it does The Scicurious Brain Scientific American Blog Network
• If it's a violation of federal law to inquire into income eligibility, then the FDA is violating that law because they certainly inquire into the income eligibility of every family applying for free and reduce lunch. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/english.pdf
• 50% of the federal budget is certainly not spent on social programs. The 2014 budget breakdown is, 26% healthcare, 26% federal pension program, 22% defense, 11% Welfare, Education 3%, Interest 7%, 5% other programs.

I believe we should protest paying more in interest on the spending and then financing debt, than we are on education.

It must be more fiscally responsible to centrally plan our economy better than that, through justifying taxing and then spending.

 

[Flash]

Waste = all government transfer payments to include welfare, bailouts, subsidies and entitlements.

Let cut that shit out before raising any taxes. In fact if we cut that shit out we could lower taxes, which is always a good thing.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Waste = all government transfer payments to include welfare, bailouts, subsidies and entitlements.

Let cut that shit out before raising any taxes. In fact if we cut that shit out we could lower taxes, which is always a good thing.

Welfare is a necessity, a dire necessity. I totally agree with you on bailouts and subsidies. What "entitlements" are you talking about? Remember, "the people" pay into Social Security, some pay for a half century, others die way before ever collecting a single penny. Social Security is NOT funded by the government. Social Security is funded by employees and employers, and NOT by the government. So, again, what "entitlements" are you speaking of?

 

[SwimExpert]

Waste = all government transfer payments to include welfare, bailouts, subsidies and entitlements.

Let cut that shit out before raising any taxes. In fact if we cut that shit out we could lower taxes, which is always a good thing.

Welfare is a necessity, a dire necessity. I totally agree with you on bailouts and subsidies. What "entitlements" are you talking about? Remember, "the people" pay into Social Security, some pay for a half century, others die way before ever collecting a single penny. Social Security is NOT funded by the government. Social Security is funded by employees and employers, and NOT by the government. So, again, what "entitlements" are you speaking of?

Based on that reasoning, nothing is funded by the government. The taxpayers are the ones who are paying into all that funding.

 

[Flash]

Waste = all government transfer payments to include welfare, bailouts, subsidies and entitlements.

Let cut that shit out before raising any taxes. In fact if we cut that shit out we could lower taxes, which is always a good thing.

Welfare is a necessity, a dire necessity. I totally agree with you on bailouts and subsidies. What "entitlements" are you talking about? Remember, "the people" pay into Social Security, some pay for a half century, others die way before ever collecting a single penny. Social Security is NOT funded by the government. Social Security is funded by employees and employers, and NOT by the government. So, again, what "entitlements" are you speaking of?

I don't know where you came up with this idea that welfare is a necessity. Sounds like something a socialist would declare.

The government should not ever be in the business of taking money from a person that earned it and giving to someone that didn't earn it.

The government should also not be in the business of running a mandated retirement system. That should be the responsibility of the individual.

Social Security has a lot of shit tacked on to it like disability and that makes a welfare program.

Social Security is not worth the 15% percent of most wages that the incompetent government charges an individual and his employer for the stupid pension. Besides, it is an entitlement monster Ponzi scheme with a future liability of 56 trillion dollars.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Waste = all government transfer payments to include welfare, bailouts, subsidies and entitlements.

Let cut that shit out before raising any taxes. In fact if we cut that shit out we could lower taxes, which is always a good thing.

Welfare is a necessity, a dire necessity. I totally agree with you on bailouts and subsidies. What "entitlements" are you talking about? Remember, "the people" pay into Social Security, some pay for a half century, others die way before ever collecting a single penny. Social Security is NOT funded by the government. Social Security is funded by employees and employers, and NOT by the government. So, again, what "entitlements" are you speaking of?

Based on that reasoning, nothing is funded by the government. The taxpayers are the ones who are paying into all that funding.

The reasoning is that welfare is a necessity, bailouts are corruption, subsidies are corruption, and "entitlements" ( most ) [ food stamps, aid for dependent children, monthly retirement checks for those have paid into the system, etc. etc. etc. ] are funded through payroll deductions, employer contributions, and people are entitled to them.

What "entitlements" are you referring to? What 'welfare" are you referring to?

 

[Flash]

Raise TAXES on the super rich and cut waste. Smart and efficient government = good.

We can then use the money we didn't waste on 1,000 dollar hammers on space travel and new roads!!!!

A progressive rate of taxation is government thievery. That is immoral and bad government when greedy shitheads uses the electorate system to steal money.

All Libtards think somebody that makes more than a dollar a year than themselves are the
"super rich" and should be taxed by the government and the money given to them.

You shouldn't be entitled to other people's money simply because you are alive. That is greed.

It is a poor system of government that allows the majority (which is usually only a plurality) to steal money from the minority.

 

[SwimExpert]

Waste = all government transfer payments to include welfare, bailouts, subsidies and entitlements.

Let cut that shit out before raising any taxes. In fact if we cut that shit out we could lower taxes, which is always a good thing.

Welfare is a necessity, a dire necessity. I totally agree with you on bailouts and subsidies. What "entitlements" are you talking about? Remember, "the people" pay into Social Security, some pay for a half century, others die way before ever collecting a single penny. Social Security is NOT funded by the government. Social Security is funded by employees and employers, and NOT by the government. So, again, what "entitlements" are you speaking of?

Based on that reasoning, nothing is funded by the government. The taxpayers are the ones who are paying into all that funding.

The reasoning is that welfare is a necessity, bailouts are corruption, subsidies are corruption, and "entitlements" ( most ) [ food stamps, aid for dependent children, monthly retirement checks for those have paid into the system, etc. etc. etc. ] are funded through payroll deductions, employer contributions, and people are entitled to them.

What "entitlements" are you referring to? What 'welfare" are you referring to?

I'm talking about your view on Social Security not being funded by the government because taxpayers "pay in." If you take that view, then nothing is funded by the government. Food stamps, medicare, it's all funded by the money tax payers are paying into it.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Waste = all government transfer payments to include welfare, bailouts, subsidies and entitlements.

Let cut that shit out before raising any taxes. In fact if we cut that shit out we could lower taxes, which is always a good thing.

Welfare is a necessity, a dire necessity. I totally agree with you on bailouts and subsidies. What "entitlements" are you talking about? Remember, "the people" pay into Social Security, some pay for a half century, others die way before ever collecting a single penny. Social Security is NOT funded by the government. Social Security is funded by employees and employers, and NOT by the government. So, again, what "entitlements" are you speaking of?

I don't know where you came up with this idea that welfare is a necessity. Sounds like something a socialist would declare.

The government should not ever be in the business of taking money from a person that earned it and giving to someone that didn't earn it.

The government should also not be in the business of running a mandated retirement system. That should be the responsibility of the individual.

Social Security has a lot of shit tacked on to it like disability and that makes a welfare program.

Social Security is not worth the 15% percent of most wages that the incompetent government charges an individual and his employer for the stupid pension. Besides, it is an entitlement monster Ponzi scheme with a future liability of 56 trillion dollars.

Welfare is very much a necessity. EXAMPLES: The elderly that can not care for themselves. Children that can not care for themselves. The disabled that can not care for themselves. War veterans. The handicapped. The poor. The needy. ---- What are we suppose to do with those people? Are we to allow them to starve? Are we to allow them to die because they have no health care insurance? Are we to allow women and children to live on the streets eating out of dumpsters and trash cans?

Are you saying that we should ignore all who can't be self-supporting? What do we do with them? What's the alternative to welfare and government assistance programs?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Waste = all government transfer payments to include welfare, bailouts, subsidies and entitlements.

Let cut that shit out before raising any taxes. In fact if we cut that shit out we could lower taxes, which is always a good thing.

Welfare is a necessity, a dire necessity. I totally agree with you on bailouts and subsidies. What "entitlements" are you talking about? Remember, "the people" pay into Social Security, some pay for a half century, others die way before ever collecting a single penny. Social Security is NOT funded by the government. Social Security is funded by employees and employers, and NOT by the government. So, again, what "entitlements" are you speaking of?

Based on that reasoning, nothing is funded by the government. The taxpayers are the ones who are paying into all that funding.

The reasoning is that welfare is a necessity, bailouts are corruption, subsidies are corruption, and "entitlements" ( most ) [ food stamps, aid for dependent children, monthly retirement checks for those have paid into the system, etc. etc. etc. ] are funded through payroll deductions, employer contributions, and people are entitled to them.

What "entitlements" are you referring to? What 'welfare" are you referring to?

I'm talking about your view on Social Security not being funded by the government because taxpayers "pay in." If you take that view, then nothing is funded by the government. Food stamps, medicare, it's all funded by the money tax payers are paying into it.

That is correct. As a matter of fact, we'll be paying for all of it for many generations to come. And, we're not only going to be paying for our welfare and well-being, but we'll also be paying for senseless deadly costly wars, subsidies to big oil and rich farmers, exploring the far reaches of the universe, building mosques on foreign soil, foreign aid, supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorists, bribes paid to North Korea and Iran, the care and support of illegal immigrants, the ridiculous perks and benefits given to members of Congress, excessive government travel, lavish White House parties, lavish vacations for the first family, subsidies to Brazilian corn crops, building the worthless fence along our southern border, bailing out Wall Street, financial institutions, GM, AIG, and others, no-bid contracts given to Halliburton and others, Medicare and Medicaid fraud and corruption, pork spending. the excessive number of military bases on foreign soil, planes and ships the Pentagon doesn't want nor need, and loss revenue due to tax loopholes and tax fraud.

Yep, we'll be paying on the debt a very long time. The government borrows each and every day just to keep itself running. The interest alone is astronomical. Yes, we pay for all of that, either through sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, and a hundred other forms of taxation.

 

[SwimExpert]

That is correct. As a matter of fact, we'll be paying for all of it for many generations to come.

So why single out Social Security as if it were some kind of special circumstance? The idea that people are "paying in" to Social Security for future benefits, as if it were a savings plan, is a false concept that people need to abandon. When Social Security was first created, the beneficiaries had paid nothing in. The benefits were paid by the people who were paying the taxes. The quality of Social Security benefits has always been primarily related to the current taxes of those currently working, not the past taxes of beneficiaries.

Social Security should be ended now. Let people keep their savings and invest them as they see fit for their own retirement/savings goals.

 

[Sonny Clark]

That is correct. As a matter of fact, we'll be paying for all of it for many generations to come.

So why single out Social Security as if it were some kind of special circumstance? The idea that people are "paying in" to Social Security for future benefits, as if it were a savings plan, is a false concept that people need to abandon. When Social Security was first created, the beneficiaries had paid nothing in. The benefits were paid by the people who were paying the taxes. The quality of Social Security benefits has always been primarily related to the current taxes of those currently working, not the past taxes of beneficiaries.

Social Security should be ended now. Let people keep their savings and invest them as they see fit for their own retirement/savings goals.

What do we do to replace it? Not everyone receiving benefits is able to work and be self-supporting. We have many receiving Social Security that can not support themselves. Any suggestions as to what we do with all of those people? Children? Disabled and handicapped citizens? The elderly? What do we replace Social Security with?

 

[Flash]

[



Welfare is very much a necessity. EXAMPLES: The elderly that can not care for themselves. Children that can not care for themselves. The disabled that can not care for themselves. War veterans. The handicapped. The poor. The needy. ---- What are we suppose to do with those people? Are we to allow them to starve? Are we to allow them to die because they have no health care insurance? Are we to allow women and children to live on the streets eating out of dumpsters and trash cans?

Are you saying that we should ignore all who can't be self-supporting? What do we do with them? What's the alternative to welfare and government assistance programs?

Wrong!

Welfare is not a necessity. That is a stupid ass idea that socialists spout all the time.

I should not be forced by the government to pay for your welfare simply because you are alive and don't have the personal responsibility to pay for your own. It is your responsibility to provide for your welfare, not mine.

I am a very generous person and I may willing to help you if you really need it and have a good reasons for being indigent but that should be my freedom to decide and not something mandated by the government. I don't need the government telling me how to be charitable. I am quite capable of doing that myself.

The thing that you are missing big time is the concept of freedom and personal responsibility. The government takes both of them away with the welfare state and that is bad government.

The biggest problem with the welfare state is that it managed by corrupt and incompetent bueracrats that were elected by special interest groups like the welfare queens and that is the reason you have shit like this:

[video]

 

[SwimExpert]

What do we do to replace it?

Personal responsibility.

Not everyone receiving benefits is able to work and be self-supporting.

They should have thought of that when they were working.

We have many receiving Social Security that can not support themselves. Any suggestions as to what we do with all of those people? Children? Disabled and handicapped citizens? The elderly? What do we replace Social Security with?

Disability needs to be divorced from Social Security. The elderly who didn't save on their own for their retirement can go live with their children.

 

[Sonny Clark]

[



Welfare is very much a necessity. EXAMPLES: The elderly that can not care for themselves. Children that can not care for themselves. The disabled that can not care for themselves. War veterans. The handicapped. The poor. The needy. ---- What are we suppose to do with those people? Are we to allow them to starve? Are we to allow them to die because they have no health care insurance? Are we to allow women and children to live on the streets eating out of dumpsters and trash cans?

Are you saying that we should ignore all who can't be self-supporting? What do we do with them? What's the alternative to welfare and government assistance programs?

Wrong!

Welfare is not a necessity. That is a stupid ass idea that socialists spout all the time.

I should not be forced by the government to pay for your welfare simply because you are alive and don't have the personal responsibility to pay for your own. It is your responsibility to provide for your welfare, not mine.

I am a very generous person and I may willing to help you if you really need it and have a good reasons for being indigent but that should be my freedom to decide and not something mandated by the government. I don't need the government telling me how to be charitable. I am quite capable of doing that myself.

The thing that you are missing big time is the concept of freedom and personal responsibility. The government takes both of them away with the welfare state and that is bad government.

The biggest problem with the welfare state is that it managed by corrupt and incompetent bueracrats that were elected by special interest groups like the welfare queens and that is the reason you have shit like this:

[video]

Then, what do we do with the millions that can't take care of themselves? What do we do about the children, the disabled, the elderly, the poor, the needy, the severely handicapped, injured Vets, the ones mentally challenged, and the sick? Have any suggestions on what we might do with them once we cut them off? Can to explain?