article on budget...

[Soonerjeepman]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012

thing is, it's pretty clear...

CUT spending and prob increase income a bit. It's the how...Romney says getting people back to work increases tax base therefor more income obama says tax the rich...both want to cut..but what?

I can't AFFORD a new 55" tv so I use the old big box one I got free from a friend..does it suck, yes I have to Fonzy it once in awhile...but I'd rather have heat/water/ele than a new TV...oh and not be in debt. SOMETIMES that $hit has to happen...

[badger]

i am following your link and more than half of "entitlement" spending is on social security, medicare and medicaid-related programs.

"entitlement," to me, implies welfare leeches that are faking disabilities, having tons of kids to receive more government checks, and will cry foul if they have to lift one finger to earn money.

"entitlement," to me, does not mean people that have worked their entire lives paying into the system in order to have something to live on during their golden years and be able to receive medical treatment that they need.

"entitlement" really doesn't seem to be a fair term.

[Soonerjeepman]

agreed, I just thought it was a good look at where the money is going...actually wasn't looking at it as a "political" issue if it came out that way.

just frustrated that I, as a person, can do what I need to do to "survive" and the gov can't. Maybe it's because the majority of both sides have never had to really budget...like their livelihood depended on it.

[badger]

i totally understand. i also know that even if it's the "right thing to do" that you can't always do it.

Donating to charity? Right thing to do, but can I afford to?
Donating blood. Right thing to do, but am I healthy enough?
Donating time to non-profits. Right thing to do, but I need to put my obligations to family and others first.

Then, there's the wishy washiness that government suffers from and people use as excuses to not do the right thing, even if they are able.

Volunteering at school on Saturday. I could, but I'd rather watch football.
Giving part of your paycheck to United Way. I could, but I'd rather spend it on crap I found on Amazon.
Buying a nice, well-thought-out gift for your parents' birthday. Meh, I'll just call them or send them a card.

So, there's kind of an impasse. What's the right thing to do, and can we do it. If we can do the right thing, why aren't we willing to?

[cleller]

We need a serious re-thinking of what is poverty. When a big percentage of the country lives in poverty, yet has multiple smart phones, TVs, cable, internet, computers, cars, video game systems something is messed up. That's not poverty.
That's a much higher standard of living than most of the people born 50 years ago found themselves in.

I'd say that if you have any of the above, you've got no reason to need any form of govt assistance.

[badger]

We need a serious re-thinking of what is poverty. When a big percentage of the country lives in poverty, yet has multiple smart phones, TVs, cable, internet, computers, cars, video game systems something is messed up. That's not poverty.
That's a much higher standard of living than most of the people born 50 years ago found themselves in.

I'd say that if you have any of the above, you've got no reason to need any form of govt assistance.

Why do people judge poverty on what they have instead of what they don't have.

Let me take that further: Why are be judging poverty based on LUXURY, UNNECESSARY ITEMS people have instead of what NECESSITIES they don't have.

Is the argument that all luxury items must be sold off before necessities can be provided by the government?

[FaninAma]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012

thing is, it's pretty clear...

CUT spending and prob increase income a bit. It's the how...Romney says getting people back to work increases tax base therefor more income obama says tax the rich...both want to cut..but what?

I can't AFFORD a new 55" tv so I use the old big box one I got free from a friend..does it suck, yes I have to Fonzy it once in awhile...but I'd rather have heat/water/ele than a new TV...oh and not be in debt. SOMETIMES that $hit has to happen...

You are being unpatriotic because according to the economic experts that know what makes our economy run every person is supposed to wrack up as much debt as they can and buy the latest fad bauble and trinket. Saving is unpatriotic and Ben Bernanke will punish you for doing it.

[badger]

You are being unpatriotic because according to the economic experts that know what makes our economy run every person is supposed to wrack up as much debt as they can and buy the latest fade bauble and trinket. Saving is unpatriotic and Ben Bernanke will punish you for doing it.

hehe, reminds me of a cartoon i saw this weekend:
http://i49.tinypic.com/28r1tgm.jpg

[cleller]

Why do people judge poverty on what they have instead of what they don't have.

Let me take that further: Why are be judging poverty based on LUXURY, UNNECESSARY ITEMS people have instead of what NECESSITIES they don't have.

Is the argument that all luxury items must be sold off before necessities can be provided by the government?

My quarrel is that usually people are acquiring these things while they are receiving assistance, or paying the on-going bills for them. However, I most certainly would sell off or discontinue all those things before I expected my fellow taxpayers to support me.

[badger]

My quarrel is that usually people are acquiring these things while they are receiving assistance, or paying the on-going bills for them. However, I most certainly would sell off or discontinue all those things before I expected my fellow taxpayers to support me.

Would you? Let me give a scenario:

You have $10,000 in the bank, but you also are paying off a 30-year mortgage which you still owe $100,000 on. Do you sell off every resource and empty your bank account to pay off all of your debts immediately, or pay off your debt gradually while retaining assets (including your bank balance)?

To people in "poverty," their bank account may be those luxury items that they prefer to hold onto until a real emergency arises. Being in debt like a 30-year home mortgage is not an emergency to many, myself included. Likewise, being beholden to the government programs offering assistance for necessities is not an emergency to many, such as those low income households that have incomes that qualify them for "poverty" status.

I can picture people in poverty selling off luxury items when they are about to be foreclosed on (or evicted), when money needs to be raised in advance of a major medical procedure, when the government check doesn't arrive on time and ends need to be met, mouths need to be fed.

I'm really not trying to argue, I'm just trying to see stuff from another perspective

[cleller]

Would you? Let me give a scenario:

You have $10,000 in the bank, but you also are paying off a 30-year mortgage which you still owe $100,000 on. Do you sell off every resource and empty your bank account to pay off all of your debts immediately, or pay off your debt gradually while retaining assets (including your bank balance)?

To people in "poverty," their bank account may be those luxury items that they prefer to hold onto until a real emergency arises. Being in debt like a 30-year home mortgage is not an emergency to many, myself included. Likewise, being beholden to the government programs offering assistance for necessities is not an emergency to many, such as those low income households that have incomes that qualify them for "poverty" status.

I can picture people in poverty selling off luxury items when they are about to be foreclosed on (or evicted), when money needs to be raised in advance of a major medical procedure, when the government check doesn't arrive on time and ends need to be met, mouths need to be fed.

I'm really not trying to argue, I'm just trying to see stuff from another perspective

I'll bet we have that generation gap thing going. I'm 50, I imagine you are 30 or under. People my age or older can still relate to a B&W TV, window unit a/c, and nothing much more. Its hard to understand people having these things mentioned, and be considered to be living at a poverty level.

Using your mortgage analogy, imagine a friend needing to borrow money for basic necessities, plus their cable bill, some games for the kid's nintendo, their Iphone data plan, insurance on a second car, cable tv bill plus the added high speed internet charges, but your are just tapped out. No money at all. Would you be willing to add more to your mortgage, then give the money to them?

So you just go ahead and do it, they are in a bad situation. Yet, your see them at the convenience store buying fountain drinks and chips, which you avoid due to being cash-strapped. You see them at home all day, but going out at night to clubs.

Then, they are back every month. Every month you've got to add to your mortgage. You realize that you are actually only accruing a bigger mortgage, its going to take you longer to pay it off.

That's similar to what's going on with our govt programs. We don't have any cash to give anyone. We have to borrow it, then give it to them. The borrowers are those of us who pay taxes. We have to pay interest on what we borrow to give to people. That's why I cast a doubtful eye at folks receiving assistance, who are still able to maintain a tech-laden and mostly comfortable lifestyle.

[Tiptonsooner]

I'll bet we have that generation gap thing going. I'm 50, I imagine you are 30 or under. People my age or older can still relate to a B&W TV, window unit a/c, and nothing much more. Its hard to understand people having these things mentioned, and be considered to be living at a poverty level.

Using your mortgage analogy, imagine a friend needing to borrow money for basic necessities, plus their cable bill, some games for the kid's nintendo, their Iphone data plan, insurance on a second car, cable tv bill plus the added high speed internet charges, but your are just tapped out. No money at all. Would you be willing to add more to your mortgage, then give the money to them?

So you just go ahead and do it, they are in a bad situation. Yet, your see them at the convenience store buying fountain drinks and chips, which you avoid due to being cash-strapped. You see them at home all day, but going out at night to clubs.

Then, they are back every month. Every month you've got to add to your mortgage. You realize that you are actually only accruing a bigger mortgage, its going to take you longer to pay it off.

That's similar to what's going on with our govt programs. We don't have any cash to give anyone. We have to borrow it, then give it to them. The borrowers are those of us who pay taxes. We have to pay interest on what we borrow to give to people. That's why I cast a doubtful eye at folks receiving assistance, who are still able to maintain a tech-laden and mostly comfortable lifestyle.

I don't believe I've ever seen it explained that way, awesome... I agree with your analogy, 100%.

I'm not wealthy, by any means, but I don't owe anyone in the world a damn dime. 10 years ago I couldn't say that, I earned it by working hard, making good choices and many, many sacrifices. Now my family is comfortable and I have piece of mind. Why should I have to support some other deadbeat that can make the same climb I did??

[rock on sooner]

It is unfortunate and true that abusers of the system are alive and well. I see
it in the grocery checkout with what some buy with stamps. BUT, those folks
are in the distinct minority. The vast majority of those on WIC, welfare, stamps,
whatever, do not want to be there. I grew up with my parents feeding four kids
with "commodities" from Carter county, OK. The man who married my mom worked
his butt off in the oil patch...all he knew to do..WWII decorated soldier..worked on
WPA projects (Texoma dam comes to mind) when he got out of the army. I still
remember riding along to pick up the commodities and seeing the welfare queens
in their new cars loading the stuff up. Remember the comments from my parents,
too. Abuse exists and always will. Get used to it and qwitcher bitchin'! I also
remember saying to myself that was not gonna be me. It aint...paid into the system
for 52 working years and am now retired. Really ticked that someone like R/R
can talk with a straight face about how they want to burden the poor, working poor
and middle class in order to give more to the high income earners, believing that
they are the job creators and it will all trickle down. BS! That's what Reagan said
and it never happened. That's what Dubya said and look at the mess it took him
8 years to create! Now, many don't want to wait any longer, let's try the same oh,
same oh, since Obama had four years to fix an 8 year old mess. Mark this down,
R/R get in and we'll see it all over again.

Rant over.

[sooner46]

Badger

Thank you, I do not consider Social Security an "entitlement program," I paid a lot into that program and some into Medicare. If Social Security had not dumped into the general fund so that Welfare could be taken out it, it would be just find today.

What needs to be cut first is Welfare probably 80% plus getting it should not be on it. The Bible state if don’t work you don’t eat, straight to the point.

I do not have a problem with helping people that truly need nor does the Bible.

A lot of people with handicaps still work, I worked a year and a half after losing my right foot and would still be working if other health issues had not ended job. I am 66 going on 67, my plan was to work until I was 70. I am doing better now and looking for new job, because my parents instilled in me that is my responsibility to take care of my family and myself not others.

Sooner46

[pphilfran]

Badger

Thank you, I do not consider Social Security an "entitlement program," I paid a lot into that program and some into Medicare. If Social Security had not dumped into the general fund so that Welfare could be taken out it, it would be just find today.

Sooner46

No..SS being dumped into the general fund is not the problem with SS...the SS fund balance would be no different if it were kept out of the general fund....the only difference is that SS is funded by special issue bonds instead of the cash that was paid in...

It being in the general fund has lowered the annual deficits but has raised overall future debt liabilities...

[LiveLaughLove]

It is unfortunate and true that abusers of the system are alive and well. I see
it in the grocery checkout with what some buy with stamps. BUT, those folks
are in the distinct minority. The vast majority of those on WIC, welfare, stamps,
whatever, do not want to be there. I grew up with my parents feeding four kids
with "commodities" from Carter county, OK. The man who married my mom worked
his butt off in the oil patch...all he knew to do..WWII decorated soldier..worked on
WPA projects (Texoma dam comes to mind) when he got out of the army. I still
remember riding along to pick up the commodities and seeing the welfare queens
in their new cars loading the stuff up. Remember the comments from my parents,
too. Abuse exists and always will. Get used to it and qwitcher bitchin'! I also
remember saying to myself that was not gonna be me. It aint...paid into the system
for 52 working years and am now retired. Really ticked that someone like R/R
can talk with a straight face about how they want to burden the poor, working poor
and middle class in order to give more to the high income earners, believing that
they are the job creators and it will all trickle down. BS! That's what Reagan said
and it never happened. That's what Dubya said and look at the mess it took him
8 years to create! Now, many don't want to wait any longer, let's try the same oh,
same oh, since Obama had four years to fix an 8 year old mess. Mark this down,
R/R get in and we'll see it all over again.

Rant over.

Well rock, you had me for about half of your rant. My granddad worked on the texhoma dam.

Where you lost me is slamming r/r and Reagan. Reagan fixed the mess that a democrat named Carter left him, and did it in his first four years. The fact that you believe r/r are ONLY going to help the rich and screw over the middle class is absurd. They gain nothing by doing that. They haven't proposed anything remotely construed as burdening the middle class to let the rich soak it up.

Only the most strident liberal ideologues can believe that. I didn't have you pegged in that group.

[rock on sooner]

Well rock, you had me for about half of your rant. My granddad worked on the texhoma dam.

Where you lost me is slamming r/r and Reagan. Reagan fixed the mess that a democrat named Carter left him, and did it in his first four years. The fact that you believe r/r are ONLY going to help the rich and screw over the middle class is absurd. They gain nothing by doing that. They haven't proposed anything remotely construed as burdening the middle class to let the rich soak it up.

Only the most strident liberal ideologues can believe that. I didn't have you pegged in that group.

LLL, how do you account for every economist saying that R/R's tax plan is
unworkable as presented? Their belief that 20% across the board is gonna
work, because that will create jobs and give the gov't more revenue and
decrease the deficit. Everyone that I've read has said that the deficit won't
come down without additional revenue and spending cuts but R/R won't say
what loopholes, cuts, etc they'll tackle, just tax cuts skewed to the "job creators"
and all say that the middle class will bear the brunt. I'd LOVE to see specifics,
only ones I've seen are cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, Public Broadcasting,
EPA regs, Amtrak, etc.. Strident? Yup, liberal ideologue, nope... just a voter that
genuinely concerned about the mess the my kids and grandson are facing.

Reagan tried the trickle down stuff, did not work, Bush copied him, did not work.
Reagan raised taxes 13 times (I think) and THAT worked. Bush had the deep tax
cuts from Clinton and, well, we know how that turned out. I am convinced that
R/R are gonna do the same thing as Bush and it scares the bejeebus outa me.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

i am following your link and more than half of "entitlement" spending is on social security, medicare and medicaid-related programs.

"entitlement," to me, implies welfare leeches that are faking disabilities, having tons of kids to receive more government checks, and will cry foul if they have to lift one finger to earn money.

"entitlement," to me, does not mean people that have worked their entire lives paying into the system in order to have something to live on during their golden years and be able to receive medical treatment that they need.

"entitlement" really doesn't seem to be a fair term.

Entitlement just means a guaranteed access to a benefit. One question is, should we be entitled to unlimited health care when we turn 65? Or should it be limited?

I pay into a retirement plan at work, but my benefits are limited by how much my employer and I contribute to it, and by the earnings of the contributions.

I have unlimited health care coverage for me and my family, but my employer and I pay several hundred dollars every month for it.

[badger]

I'll bet we have that generation gap thing going. I'm 50, I imagine you are 30 or under. People my age or older can still relate to a B&W TV, window unit a/c, and nothing much more. Its hard to understand people having these things mentioned, and be considered to be living at a poverty level.
Don't worry, my parents didn't believe in having more than one color TV (there was a b/w one downstairs that had an old atari hooked up to it - they didn't believe in nintendo either hehe), we never had cable till after we both went to college, and since we lived in Wisconsin, we only got a/c after my grandma moved in (and then we only used it when she lived there for a few years during the two hottest days of the year).


What needs to be cut first is Welfare probably 80% plus getting it should not be on it. The Bible state if don’t work you don’t eat, straight to the point.
The one way that welfare is like social security is that often the recipients never pay in what they get out of it. SS recipients always seem to get more than they ever put in, much like welfare recipients get more than they ever paid in taxes before losing their jobs. So, perhaps there's some "entitlement" going on.


Entitlement just means a guaranteed access to a benefit. One question is, should we be entitled to unlimited health care when we turn 65? Or should it be limited?
It's pretty eyebrow raising to see the COLA adjustments matching the rising senior expenses as far as rent and medicine costs. It's like they perfectly planned the seniors to never have more extra money!

All of this will stop somewhere, but till then, I expect a lot of can-kicking as we walk down this road of China-borrowing