world

Trump budget calls for deep cuts to social safety net

41 Comments
By Michael Mathes

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2017 AFP

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.


41 Comments
Login to comment

I can hear republicans now defending the cuts to SNAP. "No one ever died from lack of food".

Trump economy record so far: 

The poor becomes poorer, the rich becomes richer.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

The State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency would each see their budgets cut by about a third, while defense spending would increase by more than $50 billion, or 10 percent above 2017 levels.

Seems these changes are backwards. Cut the DoD and increase the EPA and State and NASA and Interior.

Fortunately, Congress makes the budget with the Prez's advice.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

"We're not kicking anybody off of any program who really needs it," Mulvaney insisted.

"We have plenty of money in this country to take care of the people who need help, and we will do that. We don't have enough money to take care of everybody who doesn't need help."

In other words, the people that REALLY need it and can't work or care for themselves, they don't need to worry, but the freeloaders that CAN work SHOULD work. You should have compassion, this is not for the people that are disablied, this is for the people that cheat the system, under Clinton, they reduced welfare to significant levels by limiting it to a few months, under Obama, it ballooned the system as well as the deficit.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

As always, right wing "populism" is the perfect means of misdirection. Don't blame the people who've actually made your lives so much worse, bankers and billionaires and vile corporations. In the GOP narrative these people are where they are b/c of merit and bootstrappy goodness, never, as is the case with aristocrats like Bush or Trump, b/c they were born in silver diapers. Give them massive tax cuts and free reign and simply wait for all that new wealth funneled their way to rain down on you. Golden showers, anyone?

Meanwhile, keep your eyes on the prize, there are some brown people to blame for your woes, welfare queens and illegals and Moo-slims. If it weren't for them we'd all be living on a Happy Days set. Ignore the fact that those days were so happy b/c the top marginal tax rates under Ike were 90%.

There's nothing wrong with populism, Americans simply picked the wrong rabble rouser last year.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Trump cutting health insurance for low-income families and also food stamps. Watch his support plummet even further.....and he's only been POTUS for 4 months!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Feed the rich and eat the poor policies. That's going to go down a storm.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

There's nothing wrong with populism, Americans simply picked the wrong rabble rouser last year.

No, I just think liberals need to buy more boxes of tissues and get over themselves and man up!

Trump cutting health insurance for low-income families and also food stamps. Watch his support plummet even further.....and he's only been POTUS for 4 months!

So that means you are in favor of able-bodied to just sit on their butts and collect entitlements and mooch off the system. That's good to know.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

No, I just think liberals need to buy more boxes of tissues and get over themselves and man up!

So, by your warped logic the 260 million Americans who didn't vote as you did and disagree with the policy objectives of the current administration should sit silent? Any criticism we might offer is the equivalent of crying? The GOP spent years resisting the Obama & Clinton agendas, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I did the same thing, only from the left. This is what a functioning democracy looks like in case you're confused. Manning up isn't rolling over and giving up. It's about continuing to fight for your vision year in and year out.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

with anti-poverty programs like Medicaid -- which provides health insurance to low-income families -- and food stamps bearing the brunt of the cutbacks.

*"I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid."*

--Donald Trump, May, 2015

*"Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it."*

--Donald Trump, June, 2015

Another broken campaign promise from the snake oil salesman in chief.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

No, I just think liberals need to buy more boxes of tissues and get over themselves and man up!

This "man up" business keeps cropping up. What does it mean? Are people on welfare lesser beings? Are those who are concerned over the widening gulf between the haves and have nots somehow less "masculine"?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Food stamps are a good investment for the government since they mostly pass through to local businesses. Usually they are in the $200 a month range so it's not like any of it is being pocketed. Without it, stores (business) will take the biggest hit. Very bad for local economies, especially smaller ones, in the South and Southeast US.

As for Medicaid, people will still get treatment. They'll just show up at the ER with no insurance and the burden will be placed on the hospitals and the taxpayers. Small problems will fester into big problems which are much more expensive to treat and we'll all pay the bill for it.

The GOP gets around these realities by focusing on buzzwords like "personal responsibility" and principals while the nuts and bolts of what happens on the ground is swept under the carpet.

Fox News will begin to run a serious of stories about waste and fraud, and they will include a heavy focus on illegals. They will make sure that things like legitimate need and returns on investment are removed from the story so they can maximum outrage to gain support for policies that will ultimately hurt a large portion of their base. And they will be very successful at it.

They will also work with Trump to present a new kind of gaslighting which they are rolling out with their economic plans, which is to basically say that we can cut a trillion dollars from Medicaid but won't see a reduction in coverage or services. It's part of the "I'll worry about the future in the future" tactic and they're going all in on this. They know their base is consolidated with a handful of conservative news outlets and they can say this and won't be questioned even though the entire thing is obviously illogical and just really dumb.

bass: under Obama, it ballooned the system as well as the deficit.

Well of course it did. The last GOP administration oversaw a job market where over a million jobs evaporated in the 90 days before Obama took office. Obviously the social safety nets are going to kick in and outlays will take a massive jump. The trick the GOP pulled was blaming Obama for the "spending." It would be like Obama starting a war last December and then Democrats complaining about how much the GOP is spending on the war the day Trump takes office.

If anyone is interested, they have great articles out there where they break down spending by choice (i.e. arbitrarily increasing military spending) vs obligation (higher unemployment outlays due to higher unemployment). Check it out to see the real difference between the GOP and Democrats.

And the fact is that if we're going to live in an economy where Wall Street and the billionaires can destroy that many jobs that quickly, social safety nets are needed now more than ever. Hard working people can lose their income overnight through no fault of their own. Those are the people I am worried about and if 2007 taught us anything it was that you can work your ass off and still have the rug pulled out from under you.

The sad thing is those people will turn on the TV and listen to the GOP describe them as lazy, takers, moochers, pretty much every derogatory term in the book. It sounds better to take a lobster away from a lifeguard than to strip healthcare away from a teacher who is saddled with student debt and just got fired from a school district strapped for cash.

Just takers, I tell ya.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Food stamps are a good investment for the government since they mostly pass through to local businesses. Usually they are in the $200 a month range so it's not like any of it is being pocketed.

And the other side of it is that people need to eat. It's not a luxury, it's a base requirement of humanity, one of the first priorities that needs to be satisfied, on the lowest tier of Maslow's Hierarchy. If people don't have money to eat, they will turn to crime, because to not eat is to die.

Cutting food stamps will lead to an increase in crime rates. People who need to eat (and yes, that's a need, not a want) stop worrying about the morality of whether or not it's ok to steal something, or to sell some drugs.

So it's in everyone's best interests to provide the poor with food (stamps), so that everyone doesn't have to live in a society where people are turning to crime so they can satisfy the base human need of eating.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Hmmm...

Not buying it. We've had crime, always have and always will, just another excuse to keep people that are normally able to work, lazy and to depend more on government entitlements. I don't have a problem with helping the needy, but if you can work, get up, put on your pants, throw some coffee down your throat and work just like the rest of us.

http://www.ocregister.com/2016/09/27/violent-crime-rises-in-california-us-but-is-still-low-compared-to-past/

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Oh, I forgot that they don't tell you in the bubble that a significant number of people on food stamps are already working.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Oh, I forgot that they don't tell you in the bubble that a significant number of people on food stamps are already working.

Why is it that liberals are either hard of hearing or completely incapable of it? Sure there are people that work and receive food stamps, my problem is not with the people that REALLY need it, my problem rests with people that abuse the system and there are millions that do and it should be heavily scrutinized and the people that really doesn't need government assistance, it should be cut off, pure and simple.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Does anyone know who costs the taxpayer more - low income welfare cheats, or very high income tax dodgers?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Sure there are people that work and receive food stamps, my problem is not with the people that REALLY need it, my problem rests with people that abuse the system

Those are the people I referred to in my initial post, to which you replied "Not buying it.".

You're all over the place.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Does anyone know who costs the taxpayer more - low income welfare cheats, or very high income tax dodgers?

Who pays more into the system and who keeps the economy going and hires people, welfare cheats or maybe some of these hypothetical tax dodgers?

You're all over the place.

No, I'm referring to the people that take advantage of the system.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

No, I'm referring to the people that take advantage of the system.

Then why did you reply that you're not buying it in reply to a post that was clearly talking about those who aren't taking advantage of the system?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Does anyone know who costs the taxpayer more - low income welfare cheats, or very high income tax dodgers?

Or reckless bankers repaid with our tax dollars after costing Americans a 1/3 of their net worth during the great recession. Privatize & offshore the profits, socialize your losses, then ask the voters to choose between two parties that are both cashing your checks. B/C apparently the fox is going to police the henhouse.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

my problem is not with the people that REALLY need it, my problem rests with people that abuse the system / So that means you are in favor of able-bodied to just sit on their butts and collect entitlements and mooch off the system

You haven't done any research and you don't know what you're talking about except for insulting people on assistance as being lazy.

A vast majority of the people who receive assistance are the elderly, the disabled, and children. Nearly half of the recipients alone are children.

but the freeloaders that CAN work SHOULD work

Once you remove those working and getting SNAP there's less than 20% remaining, and there already are rules in place about requiring them to look for work. You can see the requirements here: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/able-bodied-adults-without-dependents-abawds.

You are offering nothing new at all, you are just supporting a blind cut in funds, and all you have is anger as your justification. You've been spoon-fed so many anecdotes by the right-wing media that you probably think the "lazy bums" are some massive group of recipients. They aren't. You're going to hurt children more than any other group, and that's a fact. And the GOP knows this.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

You haven't done any research and you don't know what you're talking about except for insulting people on assistance as being lazy.

I know all too well, my sister is a social worker and yes, I expect liberals to make that kind of statement, it's always the fault of the system or the people implementing the system, it's never the person's fault. Sorry, lived in California too long and know for a fact that there are millions that abuse the system, heck, even Bill Clinton knew that, that's why he limited welfare.

A vast majority of the people who receive assistance are the elderly, the disabled, and children. Nearly half of the recipients alone are children.

Again, I'm not talking about them, I am though talking about the parents of these children that won't or refuse to work.

Once you remove those working and getting SNAP there's less than 20% remaining, and there already are rules in place about requiring them to look for work.

Sorry, not buying that, especially when it comes from the government.

You are offering nothing new at all, you are just supporting a blind cut in funds, and all you have is anger as your justification.

I'm not angry at all, I work, I have a great life, I don't spoon off the government, so why would I care? Again, I am NOT talking about the people that really have no other means of assistance and need government help, that is NOT my argument, but hear almost every day from my sister how people constantly abuse the system.

You've been spoon-fed so many anecdotes by the right-wing media that you probably think the "lazy bums" are some massive group of recipients. They aren't. You're going to hurt children more than any other group, and that's a fact. And the GOP knows this.

No, I just had parents and family members that told me never to depend on the government, don't be lazy and if you want something, you have to work hard for it, but also show compassion to those that absolutely can't work and that's what I have believed and done all my life, I don't make excuses, I leave that to the Dems.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

What a waste of paper - Trump's proposals have zero chance of being activated. Ryan has his own plans which differ greatly, and those, too, are likely headed straight to the garbage bin of history (as they have always been). Aside for some modest tweaking designed to save face for some GOPers, we'll most likely have a continuing resolution. And this is because the majority of Americans abhor the GOP's plans, and GOP congresspeople do not want to lose their jobs. They're in enough trouble as it is.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Article: The plan claims it would help balance the budget within 10 years

 Ha-ha. Is Trump planning to stay in the WH so long?

   

@Article: "You have to have compassion for folks receiving federal funds, but you also need compassion for folks paying it"

 Hmm. Talk about widening the social gap… But yeah, this was on the Reps’ agenda since the beginning. Never pay into a social benefits system which has somebody else receive the benefits.

 

@Article: The State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency would each see their budgets cut by about a third, while defense spending would increase by more than $50 billion, or 10 percent above 2017 levels.

Wow. Left speechless.

 

 @Article: The proposal also adds $2.6 billion for border security and immigration enforcement -- including $1.6 billion for building a wall on the US-Mexican border, one of Trump's controversial campaign promises.

 Laughed out loud. What happened with the rhetoric on Mexico paying for the wall??

 

@Article: Mulvaney stressed that Trump's budget request reflected an effort to "bring some fiscal discipline" to US spending, and stressed that the 2018 budget was a pro-taxpayer affair.

 

Any shortsighted  tax-payer who cannot see farther than the tip of his/her nose would be happy with this request. The problem though is that short-term solutions are never good in the long term. And Trump is definitely not going to be in the WH to see the results in 10 years.

 

@Article: "We have plenty of money in this country to take care of the people who need help, and we will do that."

Yeah, most of the Reps definitely needed help to make sure they keep their money for themselves. Social security nets??? What are those dems talking about? We do not live in a Utopia Land, do we now?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Again, I'm not talking about them, I am though talking about the parents of these children that won't or refuse to work.

How many are there? This is just like Trumpian voter fraud claims. There is some fraud, but very, very little. Certainly not $3 trillion in fraud, even over the course of a decade.

Sorry, not buying that, especially when it comes from the government.

Government bad. Private sector good. Oddly enough, it seems you fail to understand that private sector doesn't exist without government. In fairness government also needs business, but framing gov't vs. private sector as good vs. bad is a false dichotomy.

Again, I am NOT talking about the people that really have no other means of assistance and need government help, that is NOT my argument, but hear almost every day from my sister how people constantly abuse the system.

No Bass, that IS your argument. There is no way there is $3.6 trillion welfare fraud. According to the Department of Labor, welfare fraud accounts for less than 2% of unemployment payments, for just one example. So own that.

No, I just had parents and family members that told me never to depend on the government, don't be lazy and if you want something, you have to work hard for it, but also show compassion to those that absolutely can't work and that's what I have believed and done all my life, I don't make excuses, I leave that to the Dems.

I did too, and I'm liberal. I work 6 days a week, and I'm liberal. Post after post you push this false narrative that welfare recipients, government workers, and liberals are inherently bad, while private sector companies, workers, and conservatives are inherently good. Not true. I work my butt off and we all should, but not everyone is fortunate enough to be blessed with good health and a steady job. We should help this people, and $3.6 trillion in cuts does nothing to help these people. Welfare fraud does exist, but not to the tune of $3.6 trillion. So while you claim this is merely trimming the fat, you're cutting through a lot muscle.

Finally Trump's forward growth estimates are unrealistic. There is no way you're going to hit 3% growth, especially if they're cutting immigration figures. Trump's budget will only increase the deficit, so much for fiscal conservatism. But as Sen. Rubio says, "people are getting what they voted for." Have fun without your healthcare or welfare benefits- that you paid for.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

"You have to have compassion for folks receiving federal funds, but you also need compassion for folks paying it," 

That might be less than half the population now, so politically this may struggle.

"We're not kicking anybody off of any program who really needs it," Mulvaney insisted.

This is conceptually, dead-right.

"We have plenty of money in this country to take care of the people who need help, and we will do that. We don't have enough money to take care of everybody who doesn't need help."

And if you did have enough money, you wouldn't for long.

As a non-American observer, one thing that strikes me as peculiar is the talk about "mandatory" spending programmes. Hello! It's the US government, it can decide to do whatever it wants, can't it? The only thing "mandatory" about spending money is that it may be necessary in the political short-term to spend it, for fear of upsetting the vested interests who receive it, to the detriment of everyone else. The thing is that vested interests reap more in benefits per capita than the cost per captia borne by those who pay for it. E.g. you can take a hundred bucks from one person and they'll complain, while the majority is per a cent each barely notice.

the Medicaid cuts would end such benefits for 10 million people, and some Republicans have expressed unease about such changes.

This is a very worthwhile debate. You don't want to hurt those who are truly in need.

But at the same time it is important for all indebted governments around the world to put a stop to spending on people who don't need help. (This includes me). We'd all be better off overall if the incompetent governments weren't needlessly messing with our personal affairs. Support the needy yes, but don't tax some rich person in the name of helping me, nor tax me in the name of helping him/her. The government as the middle man in the personal affairs of all grown adults results in great waste.

"The entire Trump budget is based on unrealistic growth estimates that have already been rejected by many leading economists," warned Senate Democrat Mark Warner.

It's funny, Obama budgets assumed high rates of economic growth, but those high rates of growth never eventuated under his policies - the recovery post-crisis was the most anemic in post-war history. So did Obama's budgets get a pass because his heart was in the right place?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Does anyone know who costs the taxpayer more - low income welfare cheats, or very high income tax dodgers?

This is wrong Simon.

I could make a million bucks next year, or I could make only 50K. How much I make effects how much I pay in tax, but it doesn't effect how much any one else pays.

Look at this Furusato nozei scam here in Japan. It's insane - the government has created a scheme by which municipalities can compete for tax revenues!! It's no longer a matter of how much tax revenues are REQUIRED to meet spending objectives, it's a mere tax revenue collection free-for-all.

The cost to the tax payer isn't increased as a result, however.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

We're not kicking anybody off of any program who really needs it," Mulvaney insisted.

This is conceptually, dead-right.

Concept aside, you really think that is what will happen? Do you really believe that no one, "really truly" needing help will be hurt? It begs belief.

But at the same time it is important for all indebted governments around the world to put a stop to spending on people who don't need help. (This includes me). We'd all be better off overall if the incompetent governments weren't needlessly messing with our personal affairs.

Yet somehow military spending is ramped up. Funny, isn't it?

Support the needy yes, but don't tax some rich person in the name of helping me, nor tax me in the name of helping him/her. The government as the middle man in the personal affairs of all grown adults results in great waste.

This budget doesn't support the needy. It kills them, so the rich can get richer. As flummoxing as the government middleman can be, many markets wouldn't exist without the government, think IP law. No the government is not the bogey, neither is the private sector.

It's funny, Obama budgets assumed high rates of economic growth, but those high rates of growth never eventuated under his policies - the recovery post-crisis was the most anemic in post-war history. So did Obama's budgets get a pass because his heart was in the right place?

Nope.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Concept aside, you really think that is what will happen?

This is a big, slow-moving government, so I think nothing much will happen except more of the same, and things will continue to get worse.

Do you really believe that no one, "really truly" needing help will be hurt? 

You are right - the government is incompetent and lacks the ability to funnel money to the needy. Instead, the realistic alternative is to funnel money to anyone who hopefully raises their hand.

This budget doesn't support the needy. It kills them, so the rich can get richer.

There are two things here.

1) We all agree that the needy ought be supported, because we humans are caring people.

2) We agree that the non-needy need not be receiving assistance.

I don't think there is any controversy on these principles, it's really only the details that people are arguing.

I'm here to say, I don't need assistance, and I don't think my rich neighbour needs assistance either. Therefore, cut my taxes, and cut my neighbours taxes. We'll take care of ourselves. As for the tax that we do both continue to pay, it should go to support for the needy, and for collective goods like national security.

But it should NOT go via the government middle-men to my rich neighbour and vice versa. My neighbour and I work and support ourselves - we don't need so many government middle-men, or the middle-men we have can focus their attention on helping the needy more effectively.

Who could possibly disagree with me on this? (Government middle-men aside)

As flummoxing as the government middleman can be, many markets wouldn't exist without the government

Yes, but government's role is to facilitate a good business environment. Not to operate business. This is a key point.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What a waste of paper - Trump's proposals have zero chance of being activated.

Maybe, we shall see once everything heads to the Supreme Court. Dems now know they are seriously taking a gamble on this, so far they have been very unlucky in anything, losing legislative seats, ballooning the deficit, running on a platform of hate and wanting to increase and spend more on entitlements, No direction, fractured and No real leadership, even if they COULD get Trump out, they would have to deal with a REAL conservative politician who would carry on Trump's agenda, so either way, the Dems are climbing a very slippery slope.

Ryan has his own plans which differ greatly, and those, too, are likely headed straight to the garbage bin of history (as they have always been). 

That's Ryan, as of now, he's not that important, another possible casualty of political war seems like.

Aside for some modest tweaking designed to save face for some GOPers, we'll most likely have a continuing resolution. And this is because the majority of Americans abhor the GOP's plans, and GOP congresspeople do not want to lose their jobs. They're in enough trouble as it is.

Hey, the same goes for the Dems, they don't want to lose their jobs either, so if that means to obstruct and take a chance on losing more elections, I say, go for it.

How many are there? This is just like Trumpian voter fraud claims. There is some fraud, but very, very little. Certainly not $3 trillion in fraud, even over the course of a decade.

Ok, sure.

Government bad. Private sector good. Oddly enough, it seems you fail to understand that private sector doesn't exist without government. In fairness government also needs business, but framing gov't vs. private sector as good vs. bad is a false dichotomy.

And you fail to understand without the Private sector, the government sector wouldn't exist, who pays for all these government workers and hires them. I get your point, but companies like Apple and Amazon create jobs, government jobs and their salaries are subsidized by the taxpayers, No jobs, unsure of the market, sitting on the money, game over.

No Bass, that IS your argument. There is no way there is $3.6 trillion welfare fraud. According to the Department of Labor, welfare fraud accounts for less than 2% of unemployment payments, for just one example. So own that.

As I have said before, I am skeptical of anything the government puts out, particularly stats.

I did too, and I'm liberal.

I would have never guessed that.

We should help this people,

Sure, If they cannot work, I already said, we should if there are people that need it and cut the cord for those that don't.

and $3.6 trillion in cuts does nothing to help these people. Welfare fraud does exist, but not to the tune of $3.6 trillion.

Are you an economist?

I'm not, but I have seen abuse of the system, so I'm all for the admin. doing this.

So while you claim this is merely trimming the fat, you're cutting through a lot of muscle.

God, I sure hope so!

Finally, Trump's forward growth estimates are unrealistic. There is no way you're going to hit 3% growth, especially if they're cutting immigration figures. 

"Illegal immigration"

Trump's budget will only increase the deficit, so much for fiscal conservatism. But as Sen. Rubio says, "people are getting what they voted for." Have fun without your healthcare or welfare benefits- that you paid for.

I don't worry about healthcare, I pay as I go. As for the country, the Dems want to try and strike fear that everyone will be left out in the cold when that is totally a fabricated and outright lie. Getting rid of this excess entitlement is a much-needed necessity and couldn't come soon enough.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

You are right - the government is incompetent and lacks the ability to funnel money to the needy. Instead, the realistic alternative is to funnel money to anyone who hopefully raises their hand.

Sorry, I said nothing of the kind. That is no alternative, certainly not realistic.

This is a big, slow-moving government, so I think nothing much will happen except more of the same, and things will continue to get worse.

Again, that wasn't my question. Allow me to be a bit more clear: If this budget is approved, do you really think that is what will happen?

Who could possibly disagree with me on this? (Government middle-men aside)

You are oversimplifying here. Of course non-needy shouldn't be getting money, but by and large they don't! Republicans time and time trot out these examples of voter fraud or welfare fraud, but in the vast majority of cases it doesn't happen. Certainly not to the tune of $3.6 trillion, even over a decade

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/just-how-wrong-is-conventional-wisdom-about-government-fraud/278690/

Yes, but government's role is to facilitate a good business environment. Not to operate business. This is a key point.

Disagree. Its not the role of government to facilitate a good business environment. The role of government is to serve the people by making laws. Nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes these laws (think IP) help business, sometimes they hurt businesses (slavery/carbon caps), but its not the government's job to facilitate a good business environment.

And I've read your comments before about Japanese government spending etc., and it seems you are no fan of government interference in the free market, so I've gotta say I'm a bit surprised to read that you believe this is government's role.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

And you fail to understand without the Private sector, the government sector wouldn't exist, who pays for all these government workers and hires them. I get your point,

No Bass, you don't get my point. I've already written that business and government are codependent. They both need each other. I then went on to explain that we shouldn't frame this discussion has government (bad) vs. private sector (good), but that is exactly what you did.

As I have said before, I am skeptical of anything the government puts out, particularly stats.

Well, let's see your stats then, Bass. I may very well be wrong, but I'd like to see some statistics to verify. For the sake of having a conversation, shooting the messenger and relying on what one has "seen" or "heard" are not compelling.

Sure, If they cannot work, I already said, we should if there are people that need it and cut the cord for those that don't.

Again, how many are there? Give me a statistic Additionally, let me give you a few more:

"The Office of Management and Budget has estimated improper payment levels of $55 billion across the federal government. Figures for US social security program are not available, but it is possible to compare the proportion of fraud and error within specific federal programs."

"In Florida, from July to October 2011, cash welfare recipients were drug-tested, with advanced notice, and only 2.6% of the tests came back positive. Thus, 97.4% of recipients who chose to partake in the testing program were not using any kind of illegal or illicit drugs. Of the 2.6% who tested positive, most people tested positive for marijuana" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_fraud#United_States

Are you an economist?

Are you an economist?

I'm not, but I have seen abuse of the system, so I'm all for the admin. doing this.

No, but a little common sense will more than suffice. When the OMB comes out and says all improper payments total $55 billion dollars, and the Trump budget will cut funding by $3.6 trillion, simple math tells me that actual, needy people are going to get hurt. And that's not hyperbole.

"Illegal immigration"

No, no. The GOP also wants to curb legal immigration as well. Something about making America white again, maybe? http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bill-to-halve-the-number-of-legal-immigrants-can-hit-indians-working-in-the-us/story-W6pi6DjtMy1ZIqWHEan1bP.html

As for the country, the Dems want to try and strike fear that everyone will be left out in the cold when that is totally a fabricated and outright lie.

Nope. Not a lie. Not even close. Welfare fraud amounts to roughly $55 billion a year, or $550 billion over a decode, so when the GOP proposes $3.6 trillion in spending cuts, those cuts will get people killed.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Well, let's see your stats then, Bass.

I don't follow government stats, I remember a few years ago when one stat said that the LA gang culture is dwindling, I was through after that. What a crock of stinking lies. So no, I don't have stats, but I'm not buying what the government is trying to indoctrinate me.

needy people are going to get hurt. And that's not hyperbole. 

Needy people will be taken care of.

No, no. The GOP also wants to curb legal immigration as well. Something about making America white again, maybe?

No, I think it's vital to hire Americans first regardless of color, get rid of the H1B-visa program and once the jobs are filled by Americans, then look outward towards foreign help. What is up with libs and color always??!

Nope. Not a lie. Not even close. Welfare fraud amounts to roughly $55 billion a year, or $550 billion over a decode, so when the GOP proposes $3.6 trillion in spending cuts, those cuts will get people killed.

LOL, yeah, ok.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I don't follow government stats, I remember a few years ago when one stat said that the LA gang culture is dwindling, I was through after that. What a crock of stinking lies. So no, I don't have stats, but I'm not buying what the government is trying to indoctrinate me.

I didn't ask for government stats, I asked for stats! Any stats. Still nothing? This, Bass, is the very definition of indoctrination. What you do here everyday is indoctrination. You offer no facts, no statistics, and when I offer government statistics you claim they are  "crock of stinking lies."

Needy people will be taken care of.

By whom? How do you know? What charity or group is going to cough up $3.6 trillion to make up the difference. Nonsense.

LOL, yeah, ok.

Yes, robbing the poor to give the rich is very funny. Great, pithy response.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I don't follow government stats, I remember a few years ago when one stat said that the LA gang culture is dwindling, I was through after that. What a crock of stinking lies. So no, I don't have stats, but I'm not buying what the government is trying to indoctrinate me.

Thanks for clarifying that you are just making stuff up as you see fit, and not actually basing it on any larger reality that that which you have been able to see with your own eyes.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I didn't ask for government stats, I asked for stats! Any stats. Still nothing? 

Do I have to repeat myself again?

This, Bass, is the very definition of indoctrination.

What, that you believe in everything the government tells you, like South Central LA isn't violent, that's one stat I read, give me a break.

What you do here everyday is indoctrination.

No, people can believe and drink any Kool-aid they want, just don't ask me to drink it.

You offer no facts, no statistics, and when I offer government statistics you claim they are  "crock of stinking lies."

Facts, last year every fact checker said, Trump wouldn't run, wouldn't win, low in the polls, impossible. You believe what you want and I'll do the same.

By whom? How do you know? What charity or group is going to cough up $3.6 trillion to make up the difference. Nonsense.

I don't know and I don't worry about it, I'm sure Washington will find a solution.

Yes, robbing the poor to give the rich is very funny. Great, pithy response.

Well, all the filthy rich libs in California, NY and the coastal states are doing just that and then talking out the sides of their mouths.

Thanks for clarifying that you are just making stuff up as you see fit,

No, I just said, I don't believe in government stats, that's for me reality.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

If we care about the kids, and want to stop people from being killed by this budget that's nice.

But wait - are we saying that there is (more than) 360 billion dollars worth of aid being dished out each year to the needy?

If that is the case (and as a non-American observer I haven't a clue) then that would indicate to me that the American system is an utter failure - not as bad as Venezuela - but still what does it say that so much money is spent on assisting the needy?A successful community doesn't have numbers like that. A successful community doesn't fail its people like that.

Something is wrong, and if it isn't the budget, then what is it?

takeda shingen - government makes laws for a purpose. Improving the business environment through good laws helps the community as a whole. Government is about governing though. It's not called Businessment for that reason.

Also your numbers are off. You have compared a one year 50 billion number with a 10 year 3.6 trillion number. And I'm not sure how it can be claimed that that 3.6 trillion is all needed by needy people. What does one need to qualify for this stuff? Is it really the case that the criteria are so perfectly defined already, and any adjustment will result in people and even kids dying?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If that is the case (and as a non-American observer I haven't a clue) then that would indicate to me that the American system is an utter failure - not as bad as Venezuela - but still what does it say that so much money is spent on assisting the needy?A successful community doesn't have numbers like that. A successful community doesn't fail its people like that.*

When you subtract the overhead from the spending, the actual amount that reaches the "needy" is much smaller. Like in all state-spending schemes, the lion's share tends vanish before it reaches the end project. Much like a state spending $10 million to build a new school, which a church or private company could build for $1 million. America spends vastly more on health and education than other countries, yet the amount of money which reaches patients and students is minute.

The systems rife with graft and corruption, so your comparison to Venezuela is not far off. If America taxes people more to increase funding for healthcare, education, and social security, there will be no increase in end benefits, any extra funding will be absorbed by the bureaucracy and contractors, so we might as well not bother.

In America we are required to contribute some 13% of our income to social security for our pension. We can begin to collect benefits when we reach retirement age. But the amount you will collect will be far less than what you contributed. If you have income from other sources, this will be partially deducted from your social security payment. If you receive disability payments, these too will be deducted from your social security payments. When you sit down and look at the numbers, you have to wonder why it is worth the bother.

On the other hand, if you put your money into your own retirement account, your will return will be greater than your contribution.

It would be much better if you could opt out of social security, and save for your own retirement, but of course you cannot. You are forced to pay into a system which takes a lot, and gives back but a little.

I have my own "safety net", I see that as a matter of personal responsibility.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

wait a minute... the US has a social safety net?

Because I was under the impression that the US has a lot of stopgap disaster prevention measures in place just to keep horrible atrocities from occurring, but does the US even have a competent systematic structure that one could call a safety net?

Let's review: Volunteers run food banks. Churches run shelters. Food stamps. School meals. Hospital emergency rooms. A smattering of municipal and state programs. And almost nonexistent federal programs.

So let's cut that? What are you cutting? Some housing and medical programs, I guess. How terrible. Is this what it has come to? Is this really going to make America great?

America in 30 years will be known for its cheap food and abundant but dilapidated housing. Medical care might be almost inaccessible. If its social structure survives, it will be sustained by its ability to provide, wholly through charity, for its people, not according to a principle or standard. It will just do the best it can.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Bass4funk, Seriously, these deep cuts to the social safety net benefit will not effect you, your pocket. Nor would it effect you, your pocket if they increase it by 30%. So why be so down on people who have been class by the government authorities to be in need of these funds or food stamps. I assume you are a good nature person Bass4 funk. A kind of person who would help a old lady cross the road, but unlikely to still her food stamp afterwards. So do you really think the cuts are needed ? Their will be far more needy people effected then a few mouches.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I learn that spending is going to increase anyway. Just not as much as would otherwise be the case.

'Cuts' relative to the baseline, but not absolute cuts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites