US Budget deficit shrinks to $680B

[Vteckidd]

Dont forget underpayments

See last response

Probably also doesn't happen as much as you think...

Shouldnt happen AT ALL. There been more than enough objective news reports that show its a large enough section that it should be stopped. Just My opinion. If youre ok with poeple using EBT cards for ciggs and booze, thats your opinion.

Subsidized phone service has been going on since before you were born.

There you go making it a left an right issue , i never mentioned who was reponsible, and this is a classic example of you going off subject. Unlike you, I dont discriminate against bad right and left policies. Any waste is waste. We shouldnt be subsidizing free cell phones

How does it hurt people who are truly in need?

If people are taking money that they dont need because they are gaming the system, it takes money away from those who truly need it. If you have 90 people in dire need of social programs, and 10 people who are scheming and scamming, that 10% is taking away from the 90% in true need, and squeezing out people that should be there before them.

99 Weeks of unemployment, 5 years after the recession has ended, is wrong. It should be shrunk back down to the 6 month limit. theres NO REASON for 99 weeks of UE. Force people to look for jobs, not sit on their ass for 2 years.

[.blank cd]

Shouldnt happen AT ALL. There been more than enough objective news reports that show its a large enough section that it should be stopped. Just My opinion. If youre ok with poeple using EBT cards for ciggs and booze, thats your opinion.

But we're being realistic. We realize there will be some amount, however marginal, of indiscretion. And this marginal amount doesn't affect how much I contribute to the system, and if buying cigs and beer from a grocery store contributes to the economy, who cares? If you find a way to legislate people's discretionary habits to 0, we're all ears.

There you go making it a left an right issue , i never mentioned who was reponsible, and this is a classic example of you going off subject. Unlike you, I dont discriminate against bad right and left policies. Any waste is waste. We shouldnt be subsidizing free cell phones

I don't see subsidized phone service as a bad right-wing policy. It's actually one of the better ideas right wingers have come up with.

If people are taking money that they dont need because they are gaming the system, it takes money away from those who truly need it. If you have 90 people in dire need of social programs, and 10 people who are scheming and scamming, that 10% is taking away from the 90% in true need, and squeezing out people that should be there before them.

Its not a closed system though. I can go apply for SNAP whenever I want provided I meet the requirements, and my benefits will never decrease no matter how many times my rich neighbor gamed the system to get SNAP

[Vteckidd]

But we're being realistic. We realize there will be some amount, however marginal, of indiscretion. And this marginal amount doesn't affect how much I contribute to the system, and if buying cigs and beer from a grocery store contributes to the economy, who cares? If you find a way to legislate people's discretionary habits to 0, we're all ears.

I dont accept mediocrity. This is always your argument. that wasted money gets spent, so technically its not wasted. Its a fallacy, its not true.

You dont understand where that money comes from. It comes from John Q Taxpayer. Youll never convince me that people who are taking money they dont deserve get a pass because their "stimulating the economy". Its a stupid argument. You are ignoring the fact that the money originally came from someone who earned that money, they could have spent it. They could have hired a person.

Now you are debating acceptable waste and abusing the system as a means to stimulate the economy. you can debate that with yourself because I am not going to go another 20 pages where you claim opinions as facts and facts that dont agree with your views as opinions.

I don't see subsidized phone service as a bad right-wing policy. It's actually one of the better ideas right wingers have come up with.

If you gave people jobs, they wouldnt need free phones. The dirty secret is that Obama has no economy to run on, people cant get jobs, so he has to keep UE at 99 weeks. If people were being hired, there would be no need for the 99 weeks, we could go back to 6 months.

Its a bad program. (MY opinion). Why do people need free cell phones? For jobs? Ok, so after 3 months if they cant find a job, will they ever? The problem is these programs have good intentions, but they never work the way designed.

Its not a closed system though. I can go apply for SNAP whenever I want provided I meet the requirements, and my benefits will never decrease no matter how many times my rich neighbor gamed the system to get SNAP

Not true. Govt programs dont appear from thin air. Tax Money is used. I guess you should go look up "national debt" and "how social programs are paid for" to understand what Im saying.

I wont argue anymore, Ive learned my lesson with you.

Its not worth arguing the sky is blue to someone who only sees green. Youve already deviated and gone off topic from simple statements i made and tried to make it something else. I know your tactics, I wont fall for them anymore

[Elbow]

Probably also doesn't happen as much as you think...

If I see it with my own eyes numerous times per week than I am going to say it probably happens MORE than I think.

This past weekend I was in a gas station paying for gas and a guy and a beautiful girl (sike) bought $70.00 worth of soda, candy, chips, and some cigs with their EBT card. I see it at LEAST once a week.

[.blank cd]

I dont accept mediocrity. This is always your argument. that wasted money gets spent, so technically its not wasted. Its a fallacy, its not true.

You dont understand where that money comes from. It comes from John Q Taxpayer. Youll never convince me that people who are taking money they dont deserve get a pass because their "stimulating the economy". Its a stupid argument. You are ignoring the fact that the money originally came from someone who earned that money, they could have spent it. They could have hired a person.

First of all, not a fallacy at all. The sole job of public assistance is to give people who don't have money, money to spend. I realize you have a very individualist view of the very collectivist public assistance program. Second of all, I know economics, so before you say things like "you don't know where money comes from" "look up national debt", just realize you're talking to yourself. Lol.

How many people can you hire with 10% of your salary BTW?

If you gave people jobs, they wouldnt need free phones.

If you gave people jobs, they probably wouldn't need public assistance either. So what's your point?

Its a bad program. (MY opinion). The problem is these programs have good intentions, but they never work the way designed.

How was it designed, and how has it failed?

[Elbow]

First of all, not a fallacy at all. The sole job of public assistance is to give people who don't have money, money to spend. I realize you have a very individualist view of the very collectivist public assistance program. Second of all, I know economics, so before you say things like "you don't know where money comes from" "look up national debt", just realize you're talking to yourself. Lol.

How many people can you hire with 10% of your salary BTW?



If you gave people jobs, they probably wouldn't need public assistance either. So what's your point?

How was it designed, and how has it failed?

It has failed because it's royally abused.

[.blank cd]

I think y'all's definition of royally abused, and what royally abused actually is, is fundamentally different. Lol.

The whole point of public assistance is to give people money who are financially disadvantaged. It's not to change people's discretionary spending habits. That's on the individual to change.

The system works, very well. No one will dispute that. You want to change people's spending habits, not the system. And that is a tough problem to legislate.

[Elbow]

I think y'all's definition of royally abused, and what royally abused actually is, is fundamentally different. Lol.

The whole point of public assistance is to give people money who are financially disadvantaged. It's not to change people's discretionary spending habits. That's on the individual to change.

The system works, very well. No one will dispute that. You want to change people's spending habits, not the system. And that is a tough problem to legislate.

Then the system is flawed because it should only be there for people who have no other options.

If you want to spend $70.00 on crap, screw you, do it with your own money. I've been in rough times and didn't get food stamps, I bought peanut butter sandwiches.

If the system worked it would be for people who need it because they would literally starve without it.

So yeah...it's flawed. In your definition it may not be abused, but it is flawed.

[Vteckidd]

Elbow, the #1 statistic that shows its failed is that since 1950 when we started the war on poverty, the numbers are about the same with little change. Despite trillions in spending, the numbers are around 15%

File:Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate 1959 to 2011. United States..PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Elbow]

Elbow, the #1 statistic that shows its failed is that since 1950 when we started the war on poverty, the numbers are about the same with little change. Despite trillions in spending, the numbers are around 15%

File:Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate 1959 to 2011. United States..PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well there you have it.

[.blank cd]

So I guess your "utopian" idea of a public assistance system would be strictly for people who need it, and only for essentials, correct?

And we always love data with no context here. Let me fix that for you...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

[Vteckidd]

Well there you have it.

I think people with different ideological views can make agreements on common sense ideas.

No one thinks that ALL social programs are wasted, and no one thinks all social programs are great. I see signs popping up for WE TAKE EBT cards at gas stations, and Im like WHY?? Are you kidding me? The place that sells every good at 20% over what a grocery store sells it for is accepting EBT cards? HMMMM I WONDER WHY?

the money that goes to social programs is a safety net, not a lifestyle. In instances where its a lifestyle choice, i absolutely advocate taking away that money. It would be easy to pass a law forbidding all EBT cards from being used for anything other than groceries. I dont care if you want to be a dumbass and spend $100 on lobster. But we should have limits and evaluate who is on these programs. 2 years of EBT, i would like to know why. 2 years of UE , i would like to know why.

Again, its a simple as if we focused on getting poor people JOBS, they wouldnt need public assistance.

[Vteckidd]

So I guess your "utopian" idea of a public assistance system would be strictly for people who need it, and only for essentials, correct?

not what i said. Try again

[Sinfix_15]

I hope you never need any of it.

Seems mind of dick like to me..

If i ever need government assistance, it will be because the government took too much from me for me to make a living.


Yes, i am a dick. If you want to donate to charity, that's fine, and i will admire you for it. What we have in America today is literally me being forced to donate to charity via a gun to my head.

[Sinfix_15]

That's the crazy thing. It tends to be the people who bitch about it the most that end up using it and abusing it the most

I have received $0 of government assistance in my lifetime. I would rather starve than beg for food...... which is the number one reason i will never starve..... or beg for food.

so how about you shove that comment right back up your ass where you pulled it from.

[Vteckidd]

So I guess your "utopian" idea of a public assistance system would be strictly for people who need it, and only for essentials, correct?

And we always love data with no context here. Let me fix that for you...

War on Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL figures. So the definition of the "war on poverty" is supposed to provide context? Elbow and I are way ahead of you, its getting old having to drag you along

Well, ripped from your Wikipedia article, which was demonstrated in my charts, and which doesnt need context. If you know how to read bar graphs and charts, youll get all the context you want.

In 2004, more than 35.9 million, or 12% of Americans including 12.1 million children, were considered to be living in poverty with an average growth of almost 1 million per year. According to the CATO institute, since the Johnson Administration almost $15 trillion has been spent on welfare, with poverty rates being about the same as during the Johnson Administration.[23]

I left the footnote so you can find it and read it and then tell me how its "out of context"

Thank you for agreeing with my previous point.

[Sinfix_15]

Have to agree with Blank on this one - no politician is going to really attempt to get rid of the programs.

Yes, we do need a food stamp program, and yes, we need government subsidised housing, and many other public assistance programs. Ideally though, these should be run at the local or state level though, not the federal level.
The federal government should be a "safety net" for local or state-run public assistance programs. They shouldn't be the first stop. At the federal level, they have too many issues with fraud due to lack of oversight. If you brought that down to a local level, the people receiving the assistance should be more likely to work to get off it, and have access to direct help in doing so.

The real issue is the fraud that is rampant in the system, not the program itself.

My comment is spoken in the sense of "i dont want to give another $1 to these broken programs until they are fixed". The government should not have the freedom of being so disgustingly incompetent on my dollar. If these programs were a value, i wouldnt feel the way i feel.

[Elbow]

What we have in America today is literally me being forced to donate to charity via a gun to my head.

That's far over the top.

[Vteckidd]

My comment is spoken in the sense of "i dont want to give another $1 to these broken programs until they are fixed". The government should not have the freedom of being so disgustingly incompetent on my dollar. If these programs were a value, i wouldnt feel the way i feel.

Could we agree to say:

Reduce UE to 6 months like it was under Bush/Clinton
Means test SS or raise age of retirement
Restrict EBT cards to grocery stores only, and ban cigarettes and alcohol from being purchased. Only food items.
Means test Cell Phone program, have a limit, after 6 months, no job, then you have a social worker take you to mcdonalds.

Its irrational to think that social programs should last forever, and its irrational to think we cant make them operate better which is ultimately leading to the poor person making more money, from a job.

[Sinfix_15]

That's far over the top.

Yes, it is...... but is it not true???????????????? What happens to me if i say "fuck it, i am no longer paying into this fraudulent system because it goes against everything i believe".....


Wont be long before someone with a gun is knocking on my door. Am i telling a lie?

[Sinfix_15]

Could we agree to say:

Reduce UE to 6 months like it was under Bush/Clinton
Means test SS or raise age of retirement
Restrict EBT cards to grocery stores only, and ban cigarettes and alcohol from being purchased. Only food items.
Means test Cell Phone program, have a limit, after 6 months, no job, then you have a social worker take you to mcdonalds.

Its irrational to think that social programs should last forever, and its irrational to think we cant make them operate better which is ultimately leading to the poor person making more money, from a job.

"We should judge welfare programs by the amount of people who leave welfare".....


When these programs fail to product results, they should not be funded. These programs should be safety nets....... not safety condos with fully stocked mini fridges and an unlimited stay. Ultimately, i dont care how they chose to make these programs effective... there's a lot of ways to do it. I just dont think ineffective programs should be funded.

[Vteckidd]

IN FOR "INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS STIMULATE THE ECONOMY DOE"

[Elbow]

Yes, it is...... but is it not true???????????????? What happens to me if i say "fuck it, i am no longer paying into this fraudulent system because it goes against everything i believe".....


Wont be long before someone with a gun is knocking on my door. Am i telling a lie?

Have you not always paid taxes?

I understand feeling upset that a lot of the benefit programs are abused and you may feel like you're being robbed your money so others can do nothing, but that's not the case, at least not as large as people make it out to be. You're hardly robbed if $3.00 goes to the BS a year. More than you want to pay maybe but this is America and that's how it is.

I doubt someone would come to your door with a gun, probably a notebook and a lot of questions.

I agree, the programs need to change and need to provide results, not just be a lifestyle option.

[Sinfix_15]

Have you not always paid taxes?

I understand feeling upset that a lot of the benefit programs are abused and you may feel like you're being robbed your money so others can do nothing, but that's not the case, at least not as large as people make it out to be. You're hardly robbed if $3.00 goes to the BS a year. More than you want to pay maybe but this is America and that's how it is.

I doubt someone would come to your door with a gun, probably a notebook and a lot of questions.

I agree, the programs need to change and need to provide results, not just be a lifestyle option.

The government isnt gonna volunteer to reduce it's size and ability to dispense funds to voters. How do you suggest we fix these problems?

Yes, i pay taxes.... and i am currently out numbered by people who think they should be able to control me financially, how do i resolve this?

[Elbow]

The government isnt gonna volunteer to reduce it's size and ability to dispense funds to voters. How do you suggest we fix these problems?

I wouldn't say changing the laws surrounding the programs or how one can get the benefits/keep them won't be changed somewhere down the road.

[Sinfix_15]

I wouldn't say changing the laws surrounding the programs or how one can get the benefits/keep them won't be changed somewhere down the road.

Isnt gonna happen with a democrat in office.

[.blank cd]

"What part of the program is ineffective?"

"PEOPLE BUY ALCOHOL AND CIGS HURRDURR"

"...."

[Elbow]

Isnt gonna happen with a democrat in office.

I disagree. May not happen with the moron we have now in office, but...

"What part of the program is ineffective?"

"PEOPLE BUY ALCOHOL AND CIGS HURRDURR"

"...."

I don't mean this in a rude way, but you're an idiot.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't mean this in a rude way, but you're an idiot.

Dont be so harsh. Blank just believes that luxury items should be available to everyone, whether they can pay for them or not.



Blank is right on one thing though. More money is lost and wasted by corporate fraud on a yearly basis than welfare fraud. Then again, medicare/medicaid and social security fraud accounts for a lot more than both of those combined. I am quite willing to bet that fraud within SS, SSI, medicare and medicaid account for a quarter trillion a year in wasted govt spending.

Add in tax fraud and people that dont do their taxes incorrectly and you can probably add another quarter trillion in funds the govt isnt collecting.


There is a very simple fix to the tax problem, thats either a consumption tax or a flat tax.

Fraud is far more difficult to root out. I would propose 25k new fraud investigators within the problem programs. These new investigators would pay for themselves by rooting out less than 10% of fraud.

[.blank cd]

Dont be so harsh. Blank just believes that luxury items should be available to everyone, whether they can pay for them or not.

It's not that I believe in it, I honestly just don't care. It doesn't affect what I contribute to the system whether everyone buys cigarettes or not. And to believe that it's as simple as banning EBT cards from gas stations or controlling what they do with the money is incredibly naive.

[Sinfix_15]

It's not that I believe in it, I honestly just don't care. It doesn't affect what I contribute to the system whether everyone buys cigarettes or not. And to believe that it's as simple as banning EBT cards from gas stations or controlling what they do with the money is incredibly naive.

Stupidest thing typed out by a keypad in the history of humanity.

[Elbow]

It's not that I believe in it, I honestly just don't care. It doesn't affect what I contribute to the system whether everyone buys cigarettes or not. And to believe that it's as simple as banning EBT cards from gas stations or controlling what they do with the money is incredibly naive.

You're right, it wouldn't change how much is to the system, but eventually the cost put into it may drop, people may not have it that don't NEED it, and the positives continue growing. Maybe you just like the country to waste money, who knows. Not caring though is just ignorant if you actually care about the countries future.

I don't think anyone thinks banning EBT cards from gas stations is a fix all solution, nobody said that.

[Sinfix_15]

Being on welfare should not be comfortable. You shouldnt be able to smoke, drink, eat steak dinners, rent movies and go shopping. You should be able to not starve to death until you find another job.

How can anyone say that what theyre allowed to buy has no effect on the cost?????? If they can afford to smoke and drink on welfare, then welfare is paying out too much and that's an area in which it can be reduced. Welfare should not allow you any luxury. Luxuries are.... a luxury.

[.blank cd]

Could someone please point me to the waste? I'm not seeing it. LOL all the data I see say the misuse of welfare money is minimal at best.

I am, however,seeing the fact that every dollar spent on welfare is bringing in $1.50. Because of this, it won't change, until there's a more economically beneficial model. No one with the purse strings actually cares what anyone thinks about people's personal discretionary spending habits. That's why it hasn't been changed in 70 years.

[Sinfix_15]

Could someone please point me to the waste? I'm not seeing it. LOL all the data I see say the misuse of welfare money is minimal at best.

I am, however,seeing the fact that every dollar spent on welfare is bringing in $1.50. Because of this, it won't change, until there's a more economically beneficial model. No one with the purse strings actually cares what anyone thinks about people's personal discretionary spending habits. That's why it hasn't been changed in 70 years.

So for every dollar spent on welfare, americans are taxed $1.50. What's your point? is there a point to be made? can you explain a point?

You cant argue that welfare is not a cost.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................




how can you be this stupid??? seriously...... you are unfathomably stupid.

[Elbow]

Being on welfare should not be comfortable. You shouldnt be able to smoke, drink, eat steak dinners, rent movies and go shopping. You should be able to not starve to death until you find another job.

How can anyone say that what theyre allowed to buy has no effect on the cost?????? If they can afford to smoke and drink on welfare, then welfare is paying out too much and that's an area in which it can be reduced. Welfare should not allow you any luxury. Luxuries are.... a luxury.

He doesn't understand the fact that the government isn't making a profit off handing out EBT cards.

Could someone please point me to the waste? I'm not seeing it. LOL all the data I see say the misuse of welfare money is minimal at best.

I am, however,seeing the fact that every dollar spent on welfare is bringing in $1.50. Because of this, it won't change, until there's a more economically beneficial model. No one with the purse strings actually cares what anyone thinks about people's personal discretionary spending habits. That's why it hasn't been changed in 70 years.

Where is this database you have?

Every dollar spent brings in $1.50, is that $1.50 profit from their "investment" as you clearly see it?

Know what would be even better? Lowering how much they throw in there and use it for something with meaning. Cut costs. Just because Cletus puts $1.50 in Obama's hand after he buys a few 12 packs doesn't mean the system is winning.

[.blank cd]

He doesn't understand the fact that the government isn't making a profit off handing out EBT cards.

Sure about that?

Just thought y'all should know, every dollar spent in public assistance creates $1.50 in economic growth. Since this subsection has a heavy "conservative" slant, this will go in one ear and out the other.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/134245...summary_1_.pdf

[Sinfix_15]

Sure about that?

Breaking news from Blox cd news, welfare doesnt cost anything and actually makes $.50 on the dollar. Tune bACK in at the top of the hour for coverage on the bigfoot capture.


YOU CAN NOT ARGUE THAT WELFARE IS NOT A COST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



if welfare was a self sustained program that paid for itself in economic growth................... it wouldnt need my support.... it would be a self sustained program that paid for itself in economic growth and we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.

[.blank cd]

So for every dollar spent on welfare, americans are taxed $1.50. What's your point? is there a point to be made? can you explain a point?

You cant argue that welfare is not a cost.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................




how can you be this stupid??? seriously...... you are unfathomably stupid.

You make up a bunch of numbers, and then call me stupid? LOL

[Vteckidd]

I don't think anyone thinks banning EBT cards from gas stations is a fix all solution, nobody said that.

I was more or less questioning why someone, who is poor, would shop for food and necessities at a gas station. I mean if youre poor, why would you buy milk which is 20-50% MORE at a gas station? The real reason is because some places will trade EBT cards for cash.
Do i think limiting EBT cards to groceries solves the problem>? Nope, but its a minor step in the right direction. If you cant agree to that, then theres no reason to debate any reforms because you (IMO) arent serious about tackling the spending problems in washington