US Budget deficit shrinks to $680B

[.blank cd]

The thing is, "conservatives" like you are in the small minority of Americans who don't want "nanny programs". No one who's smart would want to get rid of them, and no politician would ever even dream about committing political suicide. They'll just keep telling people like you that you're giving your hard earned paycheck to lazy people and you'll eat it right up because you don't know any better, nor do you want to

[David88vert]

The thing is, "conservatives" like you are in the small minority of Americans who don't want "nanny programs". No one who's smart would want to get rid of them, and no politician would ever even dream about committing political suicide. They'll just keep telling people like you that you're giving your hard earned paycheck to lazy people and you'll eat it right up because you don't know any better, nor do you want to

I dont want to pay for a single food stamp, or section 8 house, or welfare check, or bailout, or food drop to korea, or guns to arabs.... i dont want any of it. $1 is $1 too much.

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.

[Elbow]

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.

This.

[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.

[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]

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.