|
Re: OT: United States - a welfare state...
"Evolution" <myname@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:wNOdnc_IIpyxWE7YnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@rcn.net...
>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.
>
I thought spending more money on welfare got people off the rolls. Guess
not...
> 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...
>
Blah blah.
>> 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.
>
How many Democrat Presidents have EVER cut taxes on the middle-class?
Hint: A number between -1 and 1...
> 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.
>
No no no no...
>>
>> 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.
>
If I didn't have health insurance or my benefits run out ($5,000,000 worth)
then yes, I would get Medicaid eventually...
>>
>> 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.
>
Blah blah blah...
DD
|