What is your "Debt Free Date"

[cdaigle430]

EddieW- most of welfare fraud is in the private sector (small business)

Eight Great Myths About Welfare

MYTH: Welfare recipients commit a lot of fraud, at the expense of American working people.

FACT: Besides the fact that a lot of welfare recipients are American working people, a study in Massachusetts showed that vendors committed 93% of welfare fraud. This aspect of the welfare system drastically needs reform: it is harming recipients as well as taxpayers. But all of the political attention is on limiting the amount of money going to recipients.

And although the fraud by welfare vendors is terrible, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the burdens on the American taxpayer of military fraud, government waste, and corporate welfare. The Savings and Loan bailout alone cost $132 billion.
-------------------------------------------------
80% are on assistance less than five years
------------------------------------------------
MYTH: People are poor because they are lazy.

The majority of people on welfare have been in and out of the work force, returning to the welfare rolls when they lost their job or disaster (illness, car accident, house fire) struck.
From Steve Kanga's research:
Time on AFDC Overview of Entitlement Programs, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994)

Less than 7 months

19.0%

7 to 12 months

15.2

One to two years

19.3

Two to five years

26.9


Over five years

19.6


The largest single group "on welfare" is children -- about one in every four children under the age of 18 receives welfare benefits. America has the greatest level of child poverty anywhere in the industrialized world:
Percent of children below the poverty level (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P60-185)


1970 14.9%

1975 16.8%

1980 19.5%

1985 20.1%

1990 19.9%

1992 21.1%

The drop in the welfare rolls has corresponded with a rise in child poverty and child hunger. This is enforcing family values how?
-------------------------------------------------------

This data is from 10 years ago - so numbers are likely changed. One thing I feel could make a significant difference would be an incentive to work. Currently if a recipient makes any money it should be reported and the benefit is reduced dollar for dollar. They can't afford to take a low paying job because they lose benefits including health coverage. A program that lets the recipient keep a portion of the money they earn from a part time job might help them work their way to a decent full time position.
Changes that discourage the use of public money on anything other than necessities would be helpful.

Many recipients are either single mothers, mentally challenged, poorly educated, or people with medical issues and therefore are quite difficult to employ.

Loren

I frankly dont care, the way Amercians and its governemnt treat the welfare system is a crime to working Americans. All of those that I know of who are welfare recipients are fully capable of working. Sure there are some that are truly worthy recipients and I don't mind my tax dollars helping in those situations.

This money-by the way is not coming from the "Government"-it comes from working Americans-period!

Once someone gets on welfare it's easy to fall prey to free money-why would you want to go to work to earn a little more when you can stay at home with a little less?

Until Welfare is overhauled Welfare should die like the corporations we bailed out should have.

 

[lilranch2001]

Affordable Care Act: In a Nutshell | BHM Healthcare Solutions

Some of the central changes made by the legislation include:
Health insurers can no longer refuse or drop coverage based on patients medical histories or because of a pre-existing condition
Health insurers cannot charge different rates based on patients medical histories or gender
Establishing minimum standards for qualified health benefit plans
Young adults can remain covered under parents until age 26
Most employers must provide coverage for their workers or pay a surtax on the workers wage up to 8%
An expansion of Medicaid to include more low-income Americans by increasing Medicaid eligibility limits to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level and by covering adults without dependents as long as either or any segment doesn't fall under the narrow exceptions outlined by various clauses throughout the proposal
A subsidy to low- and middle-income Americans to help buy insurance
A central health insurance exchange where the public can compare policies and rates
Requiring most Americans to carry or obtain qualifying health insurance coverage or possibly face a surtax for non-compliance
A 5.4% surtax on individuals whose adjusted gross income exceeds $500,000 ($1 million for married couples filing joint returns)
Inclusion of language originally proposed in the Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act
I］clusion of language originally proposed in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
Also in effect is a limit on operating costs (15% to 20% depending on company size) for insurance companies. This is a significant change and effects cost to consumer.

And the most significant point is that the law's provision that will change the number of uninsured goes into effect in 2014. How can it be claimed that the law doesn't work when it has not had a chance. If it stands up in the Supreme Court we will be able to analyze how well it worked in about 5 years.

Also there is nothing in this law that prevents other cost cutting changes. If there is a clear way to make positive changes where are the proposed laws. Each party has had a chance when they controlled congress and the Presidency.

I believe some positive changes are being made though this compromise that works through "healthcare for profit" is not the direction to go. An expanded Medicare type program similar to all other industrialize countries is the way to go.

(we're probably not going to solve this one today)

Loren

Loren, I am not going to read your left leaning link.
I am sure it is as full of bull chips as the rest of them

Common sense tells me.....
Why and how many of Obamas "friends" been let out of the Healthcare rules?
How come Congress does not live under these rules?
How come Obama will not live under these rules?
How come Nancy would not let us know what was in it before they voted it in?

You answer all of these questions with any sort of legitimacy and I will read your links

 

[Loren49]

An explanation of different forms of corporate welfare for any who care to read it. Public money and property transfered to a few (and not the poor)

Corporate Versus Social Welfare

Loren

 

[tom4018]

What doe ANY of the past 3 pages (save 2 posts) have to do with the OP's original question... What is your Debt free Date??

Not soon enough to suit me, 11 years left on the mortage if ran to the full term. Some other small debts. As some would say I have paid/paying my share of "stupid tax".

 

[CurlyDave]

An explanation of different forms of corporate welfare for any who care to read it. Public money and property transfered to a few (and not the poor)

Corporate Versus Social Welfare

Loren

I read that piece of left-wing nonsense and came away with my belief in the immorality of liberals reinforced.

Let me address just one part of the article: Giveaway of public lands is one of the oldest forms of corporate welfare. The National Mineral Act of 1866 gave millions of acres to mining companies free. Railroad corporations received more than 100 million acres and millions in federal subsidies for rail construction. Yet the promise to freed Blacks of 40 acres and a mule remains unrealized to this day.

From your point of view this seems pretty bad, but lets look at the real history of what happened. When I learned US history, I learned that railroads were given alternating sections of land (section = 1 sq. mile) within 10 miles of a railroad track as an incentive to build tracks across the western US. The reason was that the country did not have money to build these tracks as a public works project and saw that as inappropriate in a capitalist society in any event. Enormous capital investment was required and there was no guarantee that it would ever be profitable. So, a deal was struck. The railroad companies would get the land to "sweeten the pot", and the country would get the tracks. If everything worked out this would be enormously profitable for the railroad companies, if it didn't the companies would take a loss, but the US treasury would not be depleted.

Now, it worked out stunningly well, and the railroad companies did make great profits. And, of course, since it worked out well, liberals want to renegotiate the deal with 20-20 hindsight. This is what I call morally bankrupt. The US made a deal, and you need to man up and learn to live with it.

When I look at the prosperity those tracks and companies generated, I think it was a pretty even deal.

What needs to be recognized is that he railroad companies had something the US didn't have, capital money, and the US needed to entice the companies to spend it how the US wanted it spent.

Same with the mining. The country had lots of trackless wilderness and needed it developed. Should we put up barriers to mining, or should we tear down barriers to mining?

As far as the 40 acres and a mule promise, the US government made and then broke that promise. The fault lies with the government, and is proof that only promises to the powerful are kept. The shame lies with the government of the 1870s, not with me today. I wasn't even alive then.

Most of the other examples of "corporate welfare" are merely examples of the fact that governments have a difficult time just ordering people and companies with money to spend it as the government desires. They must be given incentives to spend their money as the government desires, and a lot of times when the free market is distorted in this way it turns out poorly, not because of malfeasance on the part of corporations, but because of the foolishness of trying to distort the free market.

If the government tries to order corporations to spend their money in a certain way, corporations will simply not bring any new money into that jurisdiction.

Look at what is happening right now -- liberals in Illinois decide to raise taxes on corporations. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange thinks this over and decides to move to avoid the taxes. Illinois is forced to cut them a special deal not to move. Just what were those ninnies thinking when they raised the taxes? The CME has no obligation to stay in Illinois if the state wants to punish then. And then the press steps up and points out how "unfair" this is: the great big CME gets special treatment while the Mom and Pop small businesses have to pay the extra tax. Sadly, the Mom and Pop businesses don't realistically have the option of moving when their customers are in Illinois, but I bet some of them will go under. And, the ninnies who raised the taxes in the first place will call it "bad luck".

Just one more example: Detroit, Mich., recently gave $50 million in public funding and prime land to corporate casinos to open gambling in the city. The payoff to the city? At best, a handful of low- to moderate-paying service-sector jobs, anticipated increased crime requiring additional funding for the police, and the likelihood that locally-owned restaurants and hotels will be forced out of business as has happened in cities, such as Atlantic City, N.J., that bet on casinos for unrealized economic development that benefits city residents.

1. Why are corporations to blame for the stupidity of local government? If I decide to pay $50 for a pair of jeans I could get for $25 at a discount store, that is not the fault of the $50 store. That is my fault for not doing any research. What happened in Atlantic City is not a deep dark secret, Detroit officials should be smart enough to investigate before they make a deal.

2. Where is there any "prime" land in Detroit? What I read says that entire city blocks are being abandoned, the city is trying to consolidate what few people live there into much smaller areas and turn formerly developed land back into farms. Even the downtown has plenty of vacant buildings. The entire city is a great example of what happens when too many welfare recipients are concentrated in one area.

3. While I suspect that crime will increase in Detroit, it will increase with or without casinos. Crime is increased by increasing the number of people living on the dole, and is decreased by jobs and concealed carry.

The downfall of Detroit did not come from giving land to corporations. It came from corporations giving in to union demands for higher wages not backed by productivity increases, and US cars pricing themselves out of the market in both initial cost and unreliability. Sure, they have improved reliability, but once you lose your good name and reputation it is very hard to get back.