• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So the Pub strategy is to hold the nation and economy hostage?

SC, what tax increases do you support?
 
RJKarl said:
Shorty, it's reality. If 10% of those who get subsidies ofr housing don't get them, you don't think people will end up on the street?
Click to expand...

I believe if we cut out the fraud in the various welfare programs, we can cut more than 10% of the money going to such programs and not affect those that really need it. Hell, there was a story on Yahoo earlier today about a Michigan man that won $2 million in a lottery last year and he is still on food stamps.

The problem is people are too scared to investigate the fraud. They are worried that they may mess up and accidently cut off someone that needs the aid. So we waste money that could be saved.

Hear me, I think it would be deplorable for someone that actually needs the aid to not get it, but I also think all of those programs are fraught with waste and fraud that could be saved.
 
There's probably more waste and fraud in federal money going to the rich than going to the poor. Why not work to investigate it all? If we investigate fraud at the top, we don't have to worry about cutting off someone who needs it.
 
PhDeac said:
SC, what tax increases do you support?
Click to expand...

Well first off the whole tax system is a complete clusterfuck that a team of accountants can't even decipher.

Most deduction, exemptions, loopholes, creidts or whatever you want to call them need to go away. Since nothing close to a national sales tax would ever pass and the repeal of the amendment to the Constitution okaying the income tax is unrealistic, I'd like to see some form of the flat tax that Steve Forbes proposed a number of years ago. With of course an exemption up to a ceratin income level to shield low earners. You could actually file your tax return on a postcard and not have to keep box loads of receipts and other shit throughout the year.

With deep spending cuts, spending caps that require a 2/3 vote to exceed, and some real reform of entitlement and other dysfuntional programs I'd be willing to swallow going back to the rates of the 90's...maybe even a little higher.

I'd also support a 5 or 10 cent per gallon increase on fuel. Our roads suck...and that isn't just in SC.

I don't know much about corporate taxation but it has to be really fucked up too when you have a company like GE paying zilch.

Like I said earlier both sides of the poltical spectrum are going to have to compromise in a big way....higher tax rates, entitlement reform, deep spending cuts...225-35% in defense...no reason for us to have troops in dozens of other countries.

I'd love to see a balanced budget amendment with a requirement of a 2/3 vote on Congress to override and run a deficit....that ain't gonna happen though so I won't waste much time pushing that one.

Tax rates can be lower is the base is broadened...instead of higher rates with tons of loopholes and exemptions. We have a 7% sales tax in SC and around 300 sales tax exemptions...get rid of the exemptions and you can lower the sales tax rate to 3% and still collect more. Many of those exemptions go back well into the last century and having no usefulness today.
 
Ph, you may notice that I have advocated raising taxes across the board. I would think that since I advocate that and want to clear up fraud, it would be kind of clear I want all fraud cleared up, including that that benefits the rich.

This goes back to what I and others have said before. Everyone has to be willing to give something up. There has to be compromise, but yet all too often it is the Democrats who are saying they don't want to touch "their" programs.

Again, everyone has to give. There are people on unemployment, welfare, etc. that shouldn't be. I have received unemployment before, for 23 weeks, so I understand the importance of it. However, after being on it, I also see how easy it is for those that don't qualify to receive the aid. Case in point, in the 23 weeks I was on the unemployment, I never once had to prove that I was actively looking for work, which is one of the rules for receiving unemployment. Let's start enforcing rules such as this and see how many people out there really are taking a free ride instead of actively searching for work.
 
PhDeac said:
There's probably more waste and fraud in federal money going to the rich than going to the poor. Why not work to investigate it all? If we investigate fraud at the top, we don't have to worry about cutting off someone who needs it.
Click to expand...


There are a ton of people on the public dole who need a kick in the ass....I deal with them everyday.

Able bodied losers on subsidized housing, Medicaid, utility assistance, food stamps, WIC, SSI, you name it they get it. I'm talking people in their 20's with the only thing they have to show for their existence is either having a bunch of illegitimate kids....or fathering a bunch of bastards and then not taking one shred of responsibility.

These are the ones robbing from those who truly need it...and I see plenty of those folks everyday too. The poor old 80 year old widow just scrapping by while some 25 year zero takes anything and everything society will provide.
 
GaDeac said:
Ph, you may notice that I have advocated raising taxes across the board. I would think that since I advocate that and want to clear up fraud, it would be kind of clear I want all fraud cleared up, including that that benefits the rich.

This goes back to what I and others have said before. Everyone has to be willing to give something up. There has to be compromise, but yet all too often it is the Democrats who are saying they don't want to touch "their" programs.

Again, everyone has to give. There are people on unemployment, welfare, etc. that shouldn't be. I have received unemployment before, for 23 weeks, so I understand the importance of it. However, after being on it, I also see how easy it is for those that don't qualify to receive the aid. Case in point, in the 23 weeks I was on the unemployment, I never once had to prove that I was actively looking for work, which is one of the rules for receiving unemployment. Let's start enforcing rules such as this and see how many people out there really are taking a free ride instead of actively searching for work.
Click to expand...

Hell, I've fired people in the past 12 months for stealing, drug use, fraud, and they all received unemployment...in the words of former Rep. Traficant....BEAM ME UP!
 
I'm with you SC and GA, my southern brethren. I outlined my thoughts on the problems with unemployment on the other board. We need programs that utilize our human capital instead of just handing them cash and hoping they have initiative to get another job.

The problem is "kick in the ass" programs are pretty expensive. You can say "teach a man to fish" and all that, but it's much cheaper to just hand out fish and assume the people who get it need it to eat.
 
PhDeac said:
I'm with you SC and GA, my southern brethren. I outlined my thoughts on the problems with unemployment on the other board. We need programs that utilize our human capital instead of just handing them cash and hoping they have initiative to get another job.

The problem is "kick in the ass" programs are pretty expensive. You can say "teach a man to fish" and all that, but it's much cheaper to just hand out fish and assume the people who get it need it to eat.
Click to expand...

So very true.
 
I think the problem with the "kick in the ass" programs are the laziness of our society today. I mean, during the Great Depression when Roosevelt instituted all the public works programs, things like the TVA, you know all the people that worked on those projects didn't have the expertise needed. However, they were willing to get out and work and learn on the job.

Today, we have gotten people so used to receiving hand outs that they don't think like people did back then. Why should they learn on the go when it can just be given to them?

I remember now your postings on the other thread and I thought they were a great idea. We have so many public projects that need to be done that we should use those on unemployment to get them completed. Two things are going to happen, the public projects are going to be completed and the lazy SOB's who really don't want a job are going to drop off the government payroll because they won't work on the public projects.

And since I know its coming from someone, I'm not saying everyone receiving welfare, unemployment, etc. is lazy. However, there are too many examples to deny that some of the people are.
 
Now the real cynic in me has a pretty simple explanation of why federal programs "encourage dependence" and not innovation.

The folks at the top benefit greatly from a dependent class of people who don't have the capital to innovate and challenge the prevailing social order.

Think about it like this. A welfare check probably gets sucked up into the economy back to the top pretty quickly because people are buying the most essential goods and services in order to sustain themselves. There's no money for them to invest in themselves or save. So in other words, money goes straight from taxpayers to the poor and then up to the wealthiest Americans. It's a great deal.

GA, we could tell people tomorrow that in order to get an unemployment check, they have to get up and work 20 hours a week on local projects. I bet most would do it.
 
Shorty said:
If 10% of those who get subsidies by scamming the system don't get them, you don't think it would save taxpayers a shit load of money?
Click to expand...

There's a very small percentage that are scamming the system. Yes, they should be found out.
 
Oh I definitely agree that most would do it. But I bet there are probably 10-20 percent that wouldn't Think about how much money would be saved by that 10-20 percent.

I would even go so far as to say for those that are willing to work, up the amount they receive each week. If you trim the fat, I think you could give those that are willing to work more money and still save a ton of money.
 
I wouldn't say the problem is so much scammers, but the loafers who rather let society take care of their every need. Some are 3rd and 4th generation losers...I guess it's not really their fault, they don't know anything but dependence..I blame all of us as a society for creating and encouraging a permanent class of parasites.

That said...when you're talking a $1.6 trillion annual budget deficit how much does this actually acount for...I'd say less than 5% of spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top