Would you support a 50% cut in Welfare to help the Economy?

[Sallow]

Actually..that would hurt the economy.

 

[koshergrl]

Percent of recipients who are white38.8
Percentage of recipients who are black: 39.8

How are these numbers even accurate when Black people only make up 13% of the population?

You musta forgot to add all the Asians and Hindus on welfare too huh?

Blacks are disproportionately represented.

The Asians and *other* are included in the link. I just quoted the blacks and whites because according to you, everyone on welfare are white middle aged farmers.

I have a feeling perhaps you were being facaetious?

 

[Toro]

I know guys who manage big macro hedge funds. To a tee, not one single one of them believes cutting government spending will help the economy in the near. Every single one of them believes big government cuts will contract the economy in the near term, probably pushing the country into a recession if the cuts are deep enough. Most, however, believe spending must be cut to help the economy in the long run. They also believe taxes have to go up.

A good hard and short recession to clear out the bad and allow for the good to spring up.

Fair enough. Just so long as we know what we're getting into. Not "cutting the budget will cause the economy to grow this year," which is what I think many conservatives really believe.

 

[auditor0007]

I hear the peanut gallery chirping about "taxing the rich" all damn day long. just echoing Obama spin talk.

But what about cutting funding on Welfare by 50% to help boost the Economy? would any of you support that?

Or what about limiting Welfare benefits to only those that show proof that they are unable to work for a time being. (ie-just got outta the hospital, car accident/injury, etc...)

Because if the lazy squatter assholes on welfare don't get of their asses soon, we're all gonna eat it..

Damn taxing the rich. get more bodies in the workforce, problem solved. why all the lazy talk and "I can't do"..???

Whatever happen to YES WE CAN your Dear leader preached 24/7 ????

The end result would simply be that we move a high percentage of welfare recipients onto the streets as they become homeless. It would also take money out of the economy making it even more difficult for people to find jobs. As you move welfare recipients into the homeless category, then it becomes almost completely impossible for them to ever find work. Companies just don't hire homeless people.

I do understand the frustration with having so many on welfare, especially the ones who game the system. The problem is that removing them is not going to make things better. It will only cause more problems as crime rates increase and cities then have to deal with a much bigger problem of homeless people. In the end, the cost may well end up being much more than the welfare money saved.

 

[Noomi]

I hear the peanut gallery chirping about "taxing the rich" all damn day long. just echoing Obama spin talk.

But what about cutting funding on Welfare by 50% to help boost the Economy? would any of you support that?

Or what about limiting Welfare benefits to only those that show proof that they are unable to work for a time being. (ie-just got outta the hospital, car accident/injury, etc...)

Because if the lazy squatter assholes on welfare don't get of their asses soon, we're all gonna eat it..

Damn taxing the rich. get more bodies in the workforce, problem solved. why all the lazy talk and "I can't do"..???

Whatever happen to YES WE CAN your Dear leader preached 24/7 ????

If you cut welfare, people would end up on the streets.

I say tax the rich more. 10% of their yearly income. They can claim it back on tax the following year.

 

[Politico]

Hell no. Not near enough.

 

[Grandma]

Are you aware of the number of military families getting subsidized housing and food stamps? The number of Americans getting benefits that work 40 or more hours per week?

Raise the minimum wage to $12.50 per hour, with middle class wages also increased proportionally. There will be very little need for welfare and the tax revenues will help the economy. Yes, the corporate pigs can afford to pay the higher wages, more spending money for workers means more demand for products means more sales of products means more profits for business owners.

 

[editec]

I hear the peanut gallery chirping about "taxing the rich" all damn day long. just echoing Obama spin talk.

But what about cutting funding on Welfare by 50% to help boost the Economy? would any of you support that?

Or what about limiting Welfare benefits to only those that show proof that they are unable to work for a time being. (ie-just got outta the hospital, car accident/injury, etc...)

Because if the lazy squatter assholes on welfare don't get of their asses soon, we're all gonna eat it..

Damn taxing the rich. get more bodies in the workforce, problem solved. why all the lazy talk and "I can't do"..???

Whatever happen to YES WE CAN your Dear leader preached 24/7 ????

Define "Welfare".

I hate to ask but some of your right wing freak chums have some very strange ideas about what welfare really means, so answering your question demands that we first know what YOU are talking about.

What is welfare, who gets it and how much does it cost this nation in total?

If you cannot answer these questions for us, there's no way any of us can answer your question honestly.

 

[there4eyeM]

Make the most vulnerable suffer even more! Yeah, right the phuk on!

How in hell is anyone going to be able to sufficiently decide who is really in need enough to remain in the fifty percent who are helped? Or is it just 50% off for everyone, a 'flat tax' on poverty?

If 'the rich' pay more, they will still have more than enough (some might say too much).

If the poor have less, they won't eat!

America, the richest and most powerful country in history, would be that barbaric?

Why not just forgive all private debt and 'reset'?

 

[4Horsemen]

I hear the peanut gallery chirping about "taxing the rich" all damn day long. just echoing Obama spin talk.

But what about cutting funding on Welfare by 50% to help boost the Economy? would any of you support that?

Or what about limiting Welfare benefits to only those that show proof that they are unable to work for a time being. (ie-just got outta the hospital, car accident/injury, etc...)

Because if the lazy squatter assholes on welfare don't get of their asses soon, we're all gonna eat it..

Damn taxing the rich. get more bodies in the workforce, problem solved. why all the lazy talk and "I can't do"..???

Whatever happen to YES WE CAN your Dear leader preached 24/7 ????

would i support a 50% cut.....
only if they are trying to cut other things that much.

cool. such as?

oh.... there are many things i would want to put limits on in order to qualify for welfare.

good. such as?

 

[Article 15]

I know guys who manage big macro hedge funds. To a tee, not one single one of them believes cutting government spending will help the economy in the near. Every single one of them believes big government cuts will contract the economy in the near term, probably pushing the country into a recession if the cuts are deep enough. Most, however, believe spending must be cut to help the economy in the long run. They also believe taxes have to go up.

Yes, but you are talking about educated people who aren't actively pushing a political agenda.

There's no room for that in right wing dogma.

 

[4Horsemen]

I hear the peanut gallery chirping about "taxing the rich" all damn day long. just echoing Obama spin talk.

But what about cutting funding on Welfare by 50% to help boost the Economy? would any of you support that?

Or what about limiting Welfare benefits to only those that show proof that they are unable to work for a time being. (ie-just got outta the hospital, car accident/injury, etc...)

Because if the lazy squatter assholes on welfare don't get of their asses soon, we're all gonna eat it..

Damn taxing the rich. get more bodies in the workforce, problem solved. why all the lazy talk and "I can't do"..???

Whatever happen to YES WE CAN your Dear leader preached 24/7 ????

Define "Welfare".

I hate to ask but some of your right wing freak chums have some very strange ideas about what welfare really means, so answering your question demands that we first know what YOU are talking about.

What is welfare, who gets it and how much does it cost this nation in total?

If you cannot answer these questions for us, there's no way any of us can answer your question honestly.

ALL Welfare across the board. Corporate on down to the freeloaders. did that answer your question?

Now, my question to YOU is, would that not work to boost the economy?

 

[uscitizen]

I go for cutting military spending 50%.

 

[Article 15]

To the OP:

Define "welfare".

Provide evidence for how much "welfare" costs each year.

 

[4Horsemen]

Would you support a 50% cut in Welfare to help the Economy?

Kind of like asking if I wanted to help the economy would I be willing to kill this cat--

It may be a cheap way of making a bogus point, but serious real life for adults doesn't work that way. It's more a matter of measuring alternatives, risks and benefits. We got more ways to 'help the economy' than making half the poor starve.

Gotta scramble some eggs to make an omelette

And the poor are already starving and they are ON Welfare now. So your point is moot.

At least if they are working their bodies are in motion getting excercise, WORKING for that check so your "starving the poor" is just a lame excuse to regress and stagnate progress and prosperity. It's a guilt trip projection. and there's really no need for that.

 

[4Horsemen]

Actually..that would hurt the economy.

But ONLY taxing the Rich won't?

gotta love Liberal-logic

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I know guys who manage big macro hedge funds. To a tee, not one single one of them believes cutting government spending will help the economy in the near. Every single one of them believes big government cuts will contract the economy in the near term, probably pushing the country into a recession if the cuts are deep enough. Most, however, believe spending must be cut to help the economy in the long run. They also believe taxes have to go up.

A good hard and short recession to clear out the bad and allow for the good to spring up.

Fair enough. Just so long as we know what we're getting into. Not "cutting the budget will cause the economy to grow this year," which is what I think many conservatives really believe.

Who could possibly believe that true budget cuts would have a positive short term effect?
We have to begin thinking about the long term health of the nation by actually saving and investing, preferrably with a solid monetary policy.

A guy in my building does credit assessment for small/medium/large manufacturing firms (of all kinds) tells me I wouldn't believe how the US industries are paying for things. The average on payment of credit is 120 days, where it used to be less than 60. They borrow money to buy 3 days worth of materials just to keep the engine running because the leverage is so high they cant make long term commodity deals.

We're a train wreck and the correction is only going to become more severe the longer we put it off.

 

[4Horsemen]

Percent of recipients who are white38.8
Percentage of recipients who are black: 39.8

How are these numbers even accurate when Black people only make up 13% of the population?

You musta forgot to add all the Asians and Hindus on welfare too huh?

Blacks are disproportionately represented.

The Asians and *other* are included in the link. I just quoted the blacks and whites because according to you, everyone on welfare are white middle aged farmers.
I have a feeling perhaps you were being facaetious?

Did I say that? NOPE. I said..the MAJORITY of Welfare recipients are WHITES....

FACT.


Now go post the correct numbers and YOU stop being facetious

 

[4Horsemen]

I hear the peanut gallery chirping about "taxing the rich" all damn day long. just echoing Obama spin talk.

But what about cutting funding on Welfare by 50% to help boost the Economy? would any of you support that?

Or what about limiting Welfare benefits to only those that show proof that they are unable to work for a time being. (ie-just got outta the hospital, car accident/injury, etc...)

Because if the lazy squatter assholes on welfare don't get of their asses soon, we're all gonna eat it..

Damn taxing the rich. get more bodies in the workforce, problem solved. why all the lazy talk and "I can't do"..???

Whatever happen to YES WE CAN your Dear leader preached 24/7 ????

The end result would simply be that we move a high percentage of welfare recipients onto the streets as they become homeless. It would also take money out of the economy making it even more difficult for people to find jobs. As you move welfare recipients into the homeless category, then it becomes almost completely impossible for them to ever find work. Companies just don't hire homeless people.

I do understand the frustration with having so many on welfare, especially the ones who game the system. The problem is that removing them is not going to make things better. It will only cause more problems as crime rates increase and cities then have to deal with a much bigger problem of homeless people. In the end, the cost may well end up being much more than the welfare money saved.

Not true. If the Jobs are halted from being farmed out to places like India, Turkey, Japan and Pakistan, those who were sqautting on the Welfare would have jobs and could then become productive citizens again. The reason a lot of people have to go on welfare is because of the ignorant Economic policies coming from Washington. and guess whose in charge right now that could've "changed" all that in 4years? You guessed it, Barack Obama. By one stroke of the pen in an Executive Order, he can halt our Industries from being farmed out for cheaper labor and employees. but he, like many other braindead Presidents still seem to think we can sustain our economy by having the rest of the world do OUR WORK while we sit on our butts and drain welfare.

This is why cannot vote for him nor Romney because neither one has the American people or economy in mind.

What I'm talking about is a common sense solution, not Chinese math.

the old saying goes "You don't work, You don't eat". and there is NO WAY around that Law of Nature.

 

[4Horsemen]

I hear the peanut gallery chirping about "taxing the rich" all damn day long. just echoing Obama spin talk.

But what about cutting funding on Welfare by 50% to help boost the Economy? would any of you support that?

Or what about limiting Welfare benefits to only those that show proof that they are unable to work for a time being. (ie-just got outta the hospital, car accident/injury, etc...)

Because if the lazy squatter assholes on welfare don't get of their asses soon, we're all gonna eat it..

Damn taxing the rich. get more bodies in the workforce, problem solved. why all the lazy talk and "I can't do"..???

Whatever happen to YES WE CAN your Dear leader preached 24/7 ????

If you cut welfare, people would end up on the streets.

I say tax the rich more. 10% of their yearly income. They can claim it back on tax the following year.

If you over tax the Rich aka Job-Creators, they will cut more jobs, and THOSE people would end up on the streets.

And for the Record, I have NEVER known a Homeless or Welfare recipient to create no jobs.


THINK!