Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[sealybobo]

No I'm not, lol. I'm advocating an end to the system of labor exploitation known as capitalism.

Good luck trying to explain anything to these frauds. Conservatives lie constantly, exercise sophistry, and willfully and deliberately mislead because their arguments cannot stand on their merits. Every single Conservative posting on this thread is a fraud. And they know it.

I'm a liberal too. Can't be too hard to convince me. I agree we need to break capitalism. Do you know how to do that? You stop having lots of babies. When we do that then the American corporations that run our government will tell the government to give families tax breaks for having kids and corporations will start paying parents a wage that promotes having more kids. If we keep pumping out cheap labor and consumers they'll never stop fucking us.

Current public policy encourages the poor to have more kids, instead of be more ready to take advantage of any available, (job) opportunities.

Not working class people. Nothing about our society encourages people to have more than 1 or two kids. If a middle class family does that today that couple can forget about helping their kids go to college or ever retiring.

Poor people don't give a fuck because they are already poor. In fact having more kids gives them more benefits. But who's trying to encourage them to have more kids other than the corporations who love the market flooded with cheap labor?

 

[The Derp]

Poor people don't give a fuck because they are already poor. In fact having more kids gives them more benefits. But who's trying to encourage them to have more kids other than the corporations who love the market flooded with cheap labor?

Religious Conservatives.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stupid budget rules, how so?
The budget rules that say tax cuts have to be paid for to be permanent.
Any other budget rule that favors increased spending.

So you are now admitting tax cuts do not pay for themselves. OK. So if they don't pay for themselves, then there is no economic benefit to them. So why do them at all? If they did what you all promise they would do, increase consumption, then they would pay for themselves from the pretend economic activity that would come from them, right? So by putting a sunset provision on them, Conservatives are tacitly admitting they make no economic sense. So then why even do them at all? To manufacture budget deficits that are used as an excuse to cut spending that you lack the courage and/or support to repeal through legislation. Which would make the entire premise of your argument a bunch of bullshit.

And why would they listen to liberals at all?
I agree, listening to stupid liberals is stupid.

Maybe they should start listening to liberals since Conservatives seem incapable of balancing a budget after cutting taxes.

So that means there's no economic benefit to doing them.

There is no economic benefit if they don't pay for themselves 100%? That's a stupid claim.

The stupid claim was that they would pay for themselves at all. You need to reconcile that before moving the goalposts. You all promised that if taxes were cut, there would be so much economic activity that we would have surpluses as far as they eye could see. But now, since that was a bullshit claim, you've moved the goalposts again, lowered the bar, to make a self-defeating argument in favor of a policy to which there is no positive empirical evidence to support. You're the ones who say tax cuts pay for themselves, that they will be a shot of adrenaline into the economy, that they will create jobs...even though they don't. So why are you still making those claims?

hat if they pay for themselves 50%?

But they don't. So instead of arguing in hypothetical and theory, let's debate in reality. We know the effects of tax cuts, both long and short term. They're universally negative. I'm beginning to think you support them because they're two syllables and you can spell it. You haven't even proven they pay for themselves 1% (because they don't). You first need to establish they do that before you can start making wider claims and shift those goalposts again and again and again ad infinitum.

So if they don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs

If they pay for themselves 50%, that means they don't create jobs?

They don't even pay for themselves 50%, and you haven't shown any proof they do. In fact, all the proof shows the opposite; that they end up costing everyone more and increase the deficit. Which is what happened most recently in Kansas, and 15 years ago nationally.

We have the empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't.

Great. Now post empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster MW job growth than states that didn't.

I did that. It is literally the title of from NPR:

States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says
New data released by the Department of Labor shows that raising the minimum wage in some states does not appear to have had a negative impact on job growth, contrary to what critics said would happen.

In a report on Friday, the 13 states that raised their minimum wages on Jan. 1 have added jobs at a faster pace than those that did not.​

I want tax cuts, not hikes.

You don't even know why you want them. I think you just want them because it's two syllables, seven letters, and you can spell it. Every other excuse you give gets smacked down by facts. You're left with just rhetoric. When someone adheres to ideology over facts, that makes them an ideologue and ignoramus. So congrats on being 2-for-2 in suckiness.

Then why did you invoke a tax cut that set the rate to 70%?
Because it was a tax cut.

But it was to 70%, which is much higher than it is now.

No, where are you getting the $100K from?

Pick any number you please

No, no. We aren't arguing in your make-believe hypothetical fantasy land. We are talking in terms of reality. You are now admitting that you're pulling your argument right from your fat ass. So why do you do that? Simple; because you are insecure and need validation that only posting anonymously on an internet message board can give you. You wouldn't dare make these claims IRL because doing so would result in your humiliation.

We are talking about the unemployment rate.

We're talking about a government mandated increase in wages.

And your claim was that increase in wages would kill jobs, but all the evidence from just three years ago says the opposite. So your theory does not align with the facts. And you have yet to account for that massive discrepancy. If what you're saying is true, those 13 states that raised their MW 3 years ago would not have seen the faster job growth than the 37 states that didn't. It's your principle that is disproved by facts. So that means either the facts are wrong, or you are.

If you think raising the MW doesn't decrease the demand for MW workers, submit your
work for publication.

13 states + DC raised their MW in 2014 and those 13 states + DC saw faster job growth than the 37 that didn't. So you need to re-examine your misunderstanding of economics, loser. If what you are saying is true, then those states would not have seen job growth faster than the others. If what you're saying is true, those states wouldn't have seen job growth at all. But they did. So how do you account for that?

No one is proposing raising it to $30 or $50/hr.

Because the job losses would be too obvious.

Because your argument has no validity unless we are talking in those terms you are defining. But no one has said they want to raise it that high. You created a straw man for the purpose of this debate because you are a sophist and cannot have a legitimate debate on the merits because your beliefs have no merits.

Less money?

Yes, raise their MW costs by 30%, that reduces the cash they have to buy other things.

Not if they're seeing an increase in sales, which they would. Which happened in those 13 states + DC and is reflected in the faster pace of job growth when they raised their MW in 2014.

Since their revenues are increasing thanks to increased consumption

If their expenses increased by $10,000 do you think their revenues will increase by $10,000? Why?

Well, their revenues would probably increase by more because of the free market and people spending their money where they want. Again, 13 states + DC raised their MW and those states + DC saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. That means revenues went up, forcing businesses to expand and hire more. They only could do that because their sales (revenue) increased as a result of consumers spending more money because they have more to spend.

and what would they do with the money they have anyway?

The money they have now buys equipment, supplies, pays interest on debt, pays rent, pays dividends to owners.

But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand. No business is going to expand just because. They expand when there is a need to do so. This is your "if you build it, they will come" philosophy of economics. And just like the movie, it's pure fantasy.

So you are now admitting tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

I've always said that except for capital gains tax rate cuts and income tax rate cuts from high levels, they don't pay for themselves.

Just as I've always said, the purpose of the cuts isn't to pay for themselves.
The purpose is to increase jobs, grow GDP and let people keep more of their own money.

Are we on the left side of the Laffer Curve?

I don't care, I think we need to cut rates.
Cut individual rates. Cut capital gains rates. Cut corporate rates.

So if they don't pay for themselves, then there is no economic benefit to them.

Bullshit.

So why do them at all?

The purpose is to increase jobs, grow GDP and let people keep more of their own money.

So by putting a sunset provision on them, Conservatives are tacitly admitting they make no economic sense.

That provision was because of the moronic budget rules.

Maybe they should start listening to liberals

Nope. Liberals are morons and should never be listened to.

The stupid claim was that they would pay for themselves at all.

If tax rates are cut to an extent that lets people $100 billion more of their own money, how much does the additional increase in GDP raise government revenues?

But they don't.

If the number isn't 50%, what is the number?

We know the effects of tax cuts, both long and short term. They're universally negative.

Of course. You feel any dollar people keep is a lost opportunity for government to spend that dollar.
That's one of the reasons why Hillary lost.

You haven't even proven they pay for themselves 1% (because they don't).

People keep more of their own money and that never causes more economic growth?
I know it was painful for you to fail Econ 101 two or three times, but that's no reason to remain ignorant your entire life.

But it was to 70%, which is much higher than it is now.

But the cut led to faster growth. Just as those cuts always do.
1920s, 1960s, 1980s, 2000s.

We aren't arguing in your make-believe hypothetical fantasy land. We are talking in terms of reality.

Awesome! Take a real employment cost number, add a number to that cost.
Look at the real revenue number. Add the same number to revenues that you added to cost.
Tell me how your 2 profit margins compare.
Use math.
Ask an adult if you must.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not? Now that they got rid of all their workers on welfare, how much do welfare expenses decrease?

But who is replacing the workers they just fired and what rate are they paying them?

No, it doesn't. We pay $6B to provide welfare to walmart workers.

Great. Fire those workrs, how much does the $6B fall? Spell it out.

So who is Walmart foing to hire to replace the workers they just fired?

But who is replacing the workers they just fired

People who aren't collecting welfare.
How much do welfare payments shrink now that the government isn't subsidizing WalMart's profit?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stupid budget rules, how so?
The budget rules that say tax cuts have to be paid for to be permanent.
Any other budget rule that favors increased spending.

So you are now admitting tax cuts do not pay for themselves. OK. So if they don't pay for themselves, then there is no economic benefit to them. So why do them at all? If they did what you all promise they would do, increase consumption, then they would pay for themselves from the pretend economic activity that would come from them, right? So by putting a sunset provision on them, Conservatives are tacitly admitting they make no economic sense. So then why even do them at all? To manufacture budget deficits that are used as an excuse to cut spending that you lack the courage and/or support to repeal through legislation. Which would make the entire premise of your argument a bunch of bullshit.

And why would they listen to liberals at all?
I agree, listening to stupid liberals is stupid.

Maybe they should start listening to liberals since Conservatives seem incapable of balancing a budget after cutting taxes.

So that means there's no economic benefit to doing them.

There is no economic benefit if they don't pay for themselves 100%? That's a stupid claim.

The stupid claim was that they would pay for themselves at all. You need to reconcile that before moving the goalposts. You all promised that if taxes were cut, there would be so much economic activity that we would have surpluses as far as they eye could see. But now, since that was a bullshit claim, you've moved the goalposts again, lowered the bar, to make a self-defeating argument in favor of a policy to which there is no positive empirical evidence to support. You're the ones who say tax cuts pay for themselves, that they will be a shot of adrenaline into the economy, that they will create jobs...even though they don't. So why are you still making those claims?

hat if they pay for themselves 50%?

But they don't. So instead of arguing in hypothetical and theory, let's debate in reality. We know the effects of tax cuts, both long and short term. They're universally negative. I'm beginning to think you support them because they're two syllables and you can spell it. You haven't even proven they pay for themselves 1% (because they don't). You first need to establish they do that before you can start making wider claims and shift those goalposts again and again and again ad infinitum.

So if they don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs

If they pay for themselves 50%, that means they don't create jobs?

They don't even pay for themselves 50%, and you haven't shown any proof they do. In fact, all the proof shows the opposite; that they end up costing everyone more and increase the deficit. Which is what happened most recently in Kansas, and 15 years ago nationally.

We have the empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't.

Great. Now post empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster MW job growth than states that didn't.

I did that. It is literally the title of from NPR:

States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says
New data released by the Department of Labor shows that raising the minimum wage in some states does not appear to have had a negative impact on job growth, contrary to what critics said would happen.

In a report on Friday, the 13 states that raised their minimum wages on Jan. 1 have added jobs at a faster pace than those that did not.​

I want tax cuts, not hikes.

You don't even know why you want them. I think you just want them because it's two syllables, seven letters, and you can spell it. Every other excuse you give gets smacked down by facts. You're left with just rhetoric. When someone adheres to ideology over facts, that makes them an ideologue and ignoramus. So congrats on being 2-for-2 in suckiness.

Then why did you invoke a tax cut that set the rate to 70%?
Because it was a tax cut.

But it was to 70%, which is much higher than it is now.

No, where are you getting the $100K from?

Pick any number you please

No, no. We aren't arguing in your make-believe hypothetical fantasy land. We are talking in terms of reality. You are now admitting that you're pulling your argument right from your fat ass. So why do you do that? Simple; because you are insecure and need validation that only posting anonymously on an internet message board can give you. You wouldn't dare make these claims IRL because doing so would result in your humiliation.

We are talking about the unemployment rate.

We're talking about a government mandated increase in wages.

And your claim was that increase in wages would kill jobs, but all the evidence from just three years ago says the opposite. So your theory does not align with the facts. And you have yet to account for that massive discrepancy. If what you're saying is true, those 13 states that raised their MW 3 years ago would not have seen the faster job growth than the 37 states that didn't. It's your principle that is disproved by facts. So that means either the facts are wrong, or you are.

If you think raising the MW doesn't decrease the demand for MW workers, submit your
work for publication.

13 states + DC raised their MW in 2014 and those 13 states + DC saw faster job growth than the 37 that didn't. So you need to re-examine your misunderstanding of economics, loser. If what you are saying is true, then those states would not have seen job growth faster than the others. If what you're saying is true, those states wouldn't have seen job growth at all. But they did. So how do you account for that?

No one is proposing raising it to $30 or $50/hr.

Because the job losses would be too obvious.

Because your argument has no validity unless we are talking in those terms you are defining. But no one has said they want to raise it that high. You created a straw man for the purpose of this debate because you are a sophist and cannot have a legitimate debate on the merits because your beliefs have no merits.

Less money?

Yes, raise their MW costs by 30%, that reduces the cash they have to buy other things.

Not if they're seeing an increase in sales, which they would. Which happened in those 13 states + DC and is reflected in the faster pace of job growth when they raised their MW in 2014.

Since their revenues are increasing thanks to increased consumption

If their expenses increased by $10,000 do you think their revenues will increase by $10,000? Why?

Well, their revenues would probably increase by more because of the free market and people spending their money where they want. Again, 13 states + DC raised their MW and those states + DC saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. That means revenues went up, forcing businesses to expand and hire more. They only could do that because their sales (revenue) increased as a result of consumers spending more money because they have more to spend.

and what would they do with the money they have anyway?

The money they have now buys equipment, supplies, pays interest on debt, pays rent, pays dividends to owners.

But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand. No business is going to expand just because. They expand when there is a need to do so. This is your "if you build it, they will come" philosophy of economics. And just like the movie, it's pure fantasy.

But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand.

There's no demand and you insist they shell out more for employee expenses?

You're dumber than I first suspected.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, GSE's were prohibited from purchasing risky subprime loans thanks to a Clinton HUD rule in 2000.
Show me.

You make it so easy for me!!! I expect an apology and atonement for the fact that you aren't well-versed in this, or any other topic:

From the Washington Post, June 10th, 2008:
"(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."​

You're welcome.

Bush reversed that rule in 2004, and that's why GSE's resumed purchasing risky subprimes.

When the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages, was that an example of deregulation?

When Bush did it, yes. That would be an example of deregulation. Bush reversed that 2000 Clinton rule in 2004, and GSE's purchased billions in risky subprime loans they previously were prevented from purchasing by Clinton.

"(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

Ummmm....thanks!
What that means is HUD made them buy a certain percentage of crappier loans, but didn't give them credit for loans with "abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay"
Not quite the prohibition you claimed.

Then.......


In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.


Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.

They required them to buy more of the crappier loans. The opposite of deregulation.......and.....

But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.

That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent.

Wow! The government required them to buy over half their mortgages from the crappy end of the pool.

Yup, whenever the government tells you what to buy, that's a sure sign of deregulation. DERP!

I expect an apology

I'm sorry, I thought you were smarter than a 5th grader.....I was wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Was that more or less than Clinton wanted to spend?

Was it more or less than Gingrich wanted? And BTW - Congress writes the budget, not Clinton.

Was it more or less than Gingrich wanted?

It was more. So much for the credit you've been giving Clinton for budget rectitude, eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Take your pick; no income verification
What was the regulation on income verification that Countrywide violated?

That the income was verified. Duh.

Wall Street was churning out as many subprimes as they could

Of course they were, the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy so many of them.

Not the government, Conservatives and Bush. And GSE loan performance was more than 6 times better than those of private label issuers. GSE-backed loans defaulted at a rate of 4% from 2005-7. Private label-backed loans defaulted at a rate of 26% from 2005-7. So the problem wasn't GSE's. The problem were the private labels.

Go watch

The Big Short.
I watched it. It was okay. Had a couple of errors, fewer than most movies about finance.
Don't remember it saying much about the Fed or the GSEs.

You weren't paying attention, clearly. Watch it again.

That the income was verified. Duh.

Show me the reg. Duh.

 

[danielpalos]

No I'm not, lol. I'm advocating an end to the system of labor exploitation known as capitalism.

Good luck trying to explain anything to these frauds. Conservatives lie constantly, exercise sophistry, and willfully and deliberately mislead because their arguments cannot stand on their merits. Every single Conservative posting on this thread is a fraud. And they know it.

I'm a liberal too. Can't be too hard to convince me. I agree we need to break capitalism. Do you know how to do that? You stop having lots of babies. When we do that then the American corporations that run our government will tell the government to give families tax breaks for having kids and corporations will start paying parents a wage that promotes having more kids. If we keep pumping out cheap labor and consumers they'll never stop fucking us.

Current public policy encourages the poor to have more kids, instead of be more ready to take advantage of any available, (job) opportunities.

Not working class people. Nothing about our society encourages people to have more than 1 or two kids. If a middle class family does that today that couple can forget about helping their kids go to college or ever retiring.

Poor people don't give a fuck because they are already poor. In fact having more kids gives them more benefits. But who's trying to encourage them to have more kids other than the corporations who love the market flooded with cheap labor?

How many, "welfare to legislature" stories are there, under any form of Capitalism?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
It's you...because you want to hand it over to corporations who will consolidate and form monopolies. Like what Trump is going to try to do to the air traffic controllers. Make no mistake; Conservatives absolutely support a centrally planned and managed economy...only instead of the government doing it, it's oligarchs who profit at our expense.

Ah lying, the primary attribute of you Fascists.

No Herr Himmler, I don't support government supported monopolies the way you do.

You see, the ONLY way that a monopoly is possible is for the government to support it. Without government, anything save a natural monopoly is impossible. In a free market, monopolies or near monopolies such as GM will collapse under their own inefficiency. They only way they survive is when the state steps in to crush their competition or make massive transfers of cash from the public to the well connected. as Obama did.

That is you. You're the ones who want to take away a woman's right to choose what she does with her body while also exercising white privilege. You quite literally want to put government in the middle of people's lives.

While abortion has not come up, I'm betting you deny 13th amendment protections to hated Christians. The group called LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ is FAR, FAR more important than individual liberty.

Bake the cake slave, amirite?

That would be you guys again. Look at the reaction you snowflakes had over an all-female screening of Wonder Woman.

Oh just look at you lie, Nazi boi. Neither I nor any other Conservative here is the Taliban. In fact, it's YOU fuckers that have and continue to back ISIS and other Islamic terrorists,

So what have we learned?

1. You're a total fucking liar
2. You say what you think will further the goals of your fascist party regardless of facts
3. You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag

 

[Uncensored2008]

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are nothing but, command economics.

Only the right wing never seems to be able to distinguish.

You are an idiot, which is actually better than that lying little fuck the derp.

{
What is a 'Command Economy'
A command economy is a system where the government, rather than the free market, determines what goods should be produced, how much should be produced and the price at which the goods are offered for sale. The command economy is a key feature of any communist society. Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union are examples of countries that have command economies, while China maintained a command economy for decades before transitioning to a mixed economy that features both communistic and capitalistic elements.}

Command Economy

You should go back to high school and try to earn the GED.

The Derp is without ethics, no hope for the pile of shit.

 

[Markle]

Dude; we are on the Wrong Side of the Curve; our massive debt, Proves it.

Yeah, WAY beyond your ability to comprehend. Got it!

 

[Markle]

So, just curious, what was the National Debt in 2009, after 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts, and what was the % of GDP when Bush left office? Why did you just skip over the Bush years? Pretending they didn't happen?

Great, here is what I posted: "The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP. By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP."

The GDP at the end of the year 2008 was $10,025 and 67% of our GDP. Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama took office in January of 2009 so he owns that year. If you make a claim that President Obama doesn't own 2009, then you agree that President Bush does not own 2001.

 

[Markle]

The price inflation canard from the right wing? How literally, incredible.

The dollar menu won't even double.

So, in your opinion, if all wages double, the menu at your MacDonalds does not? Exactly how would that work?

 

[Markle]

First of all, there was no job growth after the Reagan Tax Cuts in 1981. In fact, unemployment skyrocketed starting the month the Reagan Tax Cuts were passed, and continued growing throughout 1982, bringing the unemployment rate up by more than 3% to 10.8% by December 1982. And the 60's, the top tax rate was cut to 70%...so if you want to return to a 70% top tax rate, I'm fine with that. But also keep in mind that government spending grew by 25% from 1961 to 1964 and then 50% from 1964 to 1968.

The Unemployment rate went from 7.6%, up to 9.7% in 1982 when his tax cuts took effect. As you know, from there it fell annually until his last year in office 1988 to 5.5%. Inflation from 10.38% down to 4.14%. Thirty-year mortgage rates from 18+% in 1981 down to 10.34% in 1988.

 

[Markle]

Yes, the average wage should be higher, but it's not because the minimum wage is so low, and states also have low wages. The BLS just released their employment report for May, which showed wages grew just 0.2%, which is much worse than they grew during Obama's last two years. Likewise, the jobs numbers for March and April were "dramatically" revised downward, and about 400,000 people left the labor force last month.

How much have the average wages increased during the first two years of the Trump Administration?

Strange, people leaving the labor force was not important the past eight years. Go figure.

 

[Markle]

That turn against FDR started in 1934.

FDR, miserable failure with regard to our economy. He extended the Great Depression by seven years.

 

[Markle]

Here's the link from the sophist poseur who tried to make the laughable argument that Seattle's MW hike to $15/hr killed jobs. Note the date from the editorial to which he linked: February 13, 2016.

And here is the latest jobs data from the BLS for the State of Washington and the city of Seattle. Note the date that this covers April 2017.

Unemployment in Seattle for April 2017 was 3.3%, which is down 0.9% from April 2016.

So Uncensored lied. Deliberately.

It hasn't gone up to that figure yet.

 

[Markle]

Was it more or less than Gingrich wanted? And BTW - Congress writes the budget, not Clinton.

When was the requirement for the President to submit a budget to Congress halted?

 

[Markle]

Which ones? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? And what does cutting them accomplish, exactly?

How about this. Eliminate all plans that overlap.

We have EIGHTY programs that supposedly serve people living below the welfare level.

Do you think we really NEED that many? Do you think that at least fifty or sixty of them overlap and could be done away with or merged with several other programs?