Evolution

I wasn't going to comment on that ridiculous article, but...

First of all, money spent on welfare has gone up because 1) the
population has doubled in the last 30-40 years and 2) the number of poor
has risen dramatically under the Raygun/Bush/Bush administrations.

Chris wrote:
> Hate to say it. But I'm gonna give Diggler a nod for this one. The
> reality is that the way we will go exists somewhere in between. The
> article is correct in saying that Democrats like to increase funding
> to government programs. Republicans like to decrease funding for many
> government programs so they can increase funding for defense.

Which is welfare for the defense industry...

> Democrats want to raise taxes on the middle and upper-middle class to
> increase funding to government programs and pay down the national
> debt. Republicans are currently doing the converse.

This is just wrong. Democrats want to eliminate the tax cuts for the
wealthy, not raise taxes on the middle class. The tax cuts would only
be eliminated for the wealthy. The Republicans have only cut taxes for
the wealthy. The middle class got a piddling little cut, but most of
their cut went to the wealthy.

I don't think
> that anyone has proposed raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans by
> 40%. You can attempt to correct me if I am wrong. That's the problem
> with everyone...we're all a bunch of money-grubbing whores because
> money equals power, influence, and expanded opportunities in our
> world. Money is a valuable commodity. And certain individuals don't
> want to pay tax dollars to broken programs that help the poor when
> certain individuals view the poor as a social liability.
>
> A small-to-moderate increase in income tax for the wealthiest
> Americans is probably in order. As is the elimination of government
> waste in the form of useless programs. I don't consider Medicare/
> Medicaid and Social Security to be welfare programs. On that point, I
> disagree with the author. The only true WELFARE PROGRAM is the social
> WELFARE PROGRAM. And while we all hear about individuals who suck off
> this program like little leeches, there are also individuals who
> better themselves and raise their families out of poverty with the
> help of money from welfare. While welfare is sometimes a choice, it
> isn't ALWAYS a choice.

The average stay on welfare in California is 1 year. Only a very few
abuse this necessary safety net.

>
> Diggler, if you or I have a long protracted chronic illness that
> requires one of us to be in a hospital for a long period of time prior
> to your or my death, it benefits us greatly to use a program like
> Medicaid. Healthcare is expensive and those costs continue to rise.
> It is a wise decision to gift your assets to your progeny as you age
> to decrease your total assets. This will come into play when
> determining what kind of healthcare assistance and the quantity of
> healthcare assistance you will qualify for at the time you need it.
> You can't believe that your private health insurance will cover the
> total costs of your hospital stay. And why leave that debt to be paid
> by your estate when you have been paying into the Medicare/Medicaid
> system since you began working for a living? It would be your right
> to use that program. Why would you want it eliminated? Simply
> because there are people in this country who abuse the system? What
> about capping Medicare/Medicaid coverage based on how much an
> individual pays into the system over their working lifetime? And only
> making it available for use after a certain age, say 60 years old?
> That encourages personal responsibility to maintain one's health and
> also encourages individuals to purchase private health insurance to
> cover their healthcare needs 100% prior to age 60 and supplementally
> thereafter?

Hate to say it, but I'm quite sure Diggler wouldn't qualify for
Medicaid. You have to be poor, i.e. you can't own a home, car or IRAs
or any other assets. You would have to spend all your assets in order
to get Medicaid. Actually, I think they allow you a car worth no more
than a certain amount.

>
> The elimination of social programs is not the right path.

True. The elimination of corporate welfare is the right path, including
spending billions of dollars we don't have in order to enrich
Haliburton, the oil companies, etc.

Laurie

>
Laurie