The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Please Read: The choice 2012

Punishing those that abuse it. Were at a breaking point. We can't sustain the level of handouts we are at and in so far as I can tell Obama wants to make it easier to get some and get more people taking handouts. If it doesn't stop it won't matter if our economy recovers because were going to be broke.

Those were just a few samples of abuse that I gave. I have more. Working off book, or only partially on the books and using that to gain unemployment or welfare or food stamps.

IMagine if somebody was working full time.off the books, making 500 a week. Because it's off book he applies for unemployment and gets awarded 200 a week, then applies for food stamps and gets 200 a month for food because he only makes 200 a week from unemployment. That's alot of money out of the taxpayers pocket.

What about our ridiculous health system. An illegal immigrant can get help at a hospital easier then I can and not have to pay much for it. Then there tab gets put on Medicaid because they're undocumented and work off books and are "poor" even if they live 15 to a house and everyone pulls in money. They pay no taxes and yet take from the system.


If you had a friend who needed help, someone unemployed and they needed a place to stay and some money to get on their feet again, how long before you cut them off because all he does is eat your food, spend the money you give him on smokes and sleep on your couch?

Yes, we are at a breaking point, but do you think social handouts (to individuals) that got us there?

I think it is a really big part of it. I include those idiotic "bailouts" as part of the handouts. Too big to fail my ass. The war is responsible as well but I have views on that you won't like. I don't think defense cuts are the way to go. We are already extreme downsizing and more cuts scare me

Government is the waste. We need less of it not more. I hate bush for creating the DHS. That mission was already covered by both FBI and CIA. We didn't need a whole new bureaucratic nightmare. We need to downsize the government itself. Streamline it as best we can and get it on a more efficient path.

That is not good inclusion. Bailouts went to 1%ers, not people who are eligible for social payments.

So lets re-focus, what portion of our existing fiscal trouble is going to welfare, specifically the "tax-cheating, drug-dealing crackheads" kind you seem to oppose most.

I hope you actually look up numbers and compare corporate bailouts, corporate subsidies and corporate tax break as a total sum, then compare it to welfare spending. Lets not include medicare in here, because you wanted to talk about specific case of "tax-cheating, drug-dealing crackheads" that are supposedly key to our problems.

It is a good inclusion because it's still people getting money they didn't earn handed to them. I don't care if your a billionaire or Joe Schmidt making 40k a year or a homeless crackhead, money you did nothing to earn is still undeserved.

As for the numbers, no I haven't looked up anything. I do most of my posting from my cell while I'm at work. I don't have to much time to look up stats. Especially since in my opinion, the numbers are not really relevant. It isn't right and something needs to be done about it. I don't mind helping someone who truly needs it for awhile, but I don't exist to support anyone but my own family on an indefinite basis.

Except for people who are permanently disabled or elderly no one should have access to unending free handouts.

Yes, but do you think 1% bankers and single moms getting social checks have much in common? You were specifically talking about how social programs contribute to running this country into the ground. "Social programs" have very specific meaning, when you include other things just to artificially inflate numbers in order to claim "social programs cost us tons of money, lets cut them!" you are not talking about cutting bailouts, you are talking about cutting welfare. Again, your problem definition and your proposed solution do not align.

I very much agree with you that 2b2f is a perversion of the free market process and has to be stopped. I also disagree with you that social programs are significant contributor to our fiscal predicament, nor that throwing more people under the bus will save us any money.

In ideal society everyone will have opportunity and ability to be self-sufficient, but we don't live in the ideal society. We have a social problem, and it has to be solved in some way and question you should be asking is not "how we can kick people off welfare", but "given that some people will be drain on society, how do we minimize costs of taking care of them". You will also quickly realize that "kick off welfare, Darwian style" option cost a lot more than other alternatives.

In closing, believe it or not, I am not some bleeding-heart liberal hippie that just want to give out money to crackheads. I too find it upsetting that welfare could be abused in many ways, but unlike you I realize that existing system is much more optimal in cost/effect than alternatives and can resist feel-good "throw the bums out!" urges knowing it will cost me, the taxpayer, more at the end of the day.

No they don't. I wasn't trying to include the bailouts in the social programs category. Just the "here's free money" category. A way to show I'm not just upset about the little people getting money for nothing.

Maybe you're right and it would cost more to cut these programs then not, but we have to cut something, and not only cut but also decrease spending otherwise the cuts are just meaningless. I think the social programs need an overhaul in this regard, not more money. I can get behind you minimizing costs vs. Kicking people but your man O is going to just keep adding dependants, he doesn't care about the costs.

Maybe you right, Obama may end up adding more defendants to social programs. Still, its a pocket change comparing to say, defense budget. Looking at it you'd think we are still fighting Soviets.

Well we are still fighting the Reds, its just they're Chinese not Russian. Its also an economic battle, via currency...but still I don't doubt for a second that they'd attack us if they thought they'd succeed. Part of keeping them from thinking they can is our military power. This world is never going to sing kumbaya around a campfire while holding hands and roasting marshmallows. We could probably stand a few cuts to defense, mostly in the operating costs for the Iraq and Afghanistan shenanigans. If we end all that and bring everyone home that would put a nice chunk of change back in the governments purse.


Pocket change or not, if we can't afford to help everyone already on these programs, adding more is irresponsible and reckless and in my opinion is enough to cost Obama the election. I wish I had realized what his agenda really was back in 08 instead of being one of the idiots caught up by his frustration with the GoP and Obamas hope and change bs.

Yes, battle with China is economic in nature. It only makes sense we spend on economy, not military.

Hypothetical example - imagine if ENTIRE DEFENSE BUDGET was given as a tax cuts to corporations for employing Americans. Can you say 0% unemployment and melting economy in China?

Instead we bicker over cutting down on 800/mo handouts to crackheads and single moms.