Upcoming Tax Rebates

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>g_c, </p>

<p>The money not spent in handouts is completely offset by the amount that gets spent by people with lower tax bills and a sudden rise in their discretionary funds. I'm not even asking for a complete rollback of taxes, as something has to be done about the debt. </p>

<p>But worrying about what happens to the addict when you force him to go cold turkey is the sort of thinking that started this whole social welfare spending spree. As a country, we should create no impediment to individual success and allow none to be created privately, but we have to draw the line at subsidizing failure. We all agree we shouldn't bail out a corporation that fails, so why does it make sense to bailout even one person who either made a bad choice, had some bad luck, or just doesn't want to put in the effort required to move up in life? More to the point, we have been feeding this cycle for 70 years and there has been little to no progress. Now it is clear that those in power are fully aware of it and content to let it continue, even encourage it when politically expedient. Enough is enough.</p>

<p>I'm taking my $600 and giving it to a homeless shelter that feeds, showers, and clothes those who want help. My wife is giving hers to a national medical charity, and both donations are being matched by her employer dollar for dollar. Stimulate that, Uncle Sam!</p>
 
T!m,



Please remember that "the military" is a tool utilized by the civilian government. Our freedom is, in fact, protected by "the military." As a US Marine who enlisted at 18, I sincerely resent those who place blame on "the military" or characterize it as some nefarious organ used to protect the elite. In my opinion, that is lazy and intellectually corrupt.



My boot camp platoon was fully 80% inner-city minorities (this was in the '80s) and the USMC was their ticket out of that poverty and into a profession (at least for 4-8 years) of pride and purpose. We started out as 90 brawling, quarrelling individuals - farm boys, street thugs, spoiled brats - African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Caucasian. We graduated as a unified, proud, cohesive, and GREEN family. I'm not being feel-good here, just telling it like it is. Guys I got in fights with at the beginning had my back unconditionally at the end.



Protect the rich? Hell no. Protect each other and the country? Hell yes!



The world is a dangerous place, and - for the sake of argument - I would much rather have a strong, expensive military and live in a free country than pursue some egalitarian fantasy that does not exist anywhere in the world (except possibly remote subsistence communities). If we were invaded, it would be by a people or government that wants what we have and would immediately subjugate us.



That's reality and the history of human endeavors on this planet. Strength fosters peace.
 
CM_Dude, I agree with everything you wrote. I didn't mean to suggest that the military doesn't protect our freedom, in general. (I don't think it is doing that in Iraq though. We were all told that it was, but it was a lie. I think the idiot President was wrong to get so many killed and injured.) I don't blame the military for anything. My brother served in the Navy. I have many uncles and cousins that served in the Marines. I want a military. I have never suggested otherwise. (If it helps, I work for Boeing and help to make things that make our military better equipped.)



My point about the military, is that if we didn't have it and were overrun by another country, who would suffer the most from it? I contend it would be the rich. The poor, by definition, have nothing to lose. So, therefore, the rich benefit more than the poor by having our country protected. This was all related to awgee's questioning if the rich use more government services than the non-rich.
 
Nude,

You say "why does it make sense to bailout even one person who either made a bad choice, had some bad luck, or just doesn't want to put in the effort required to move up in life?" Do you really mean that we should not help even one person that had some bad luck in life? I'm guessing I don't understand what you mean because you then say you are giving money to a homeless shelter. Wouldn't those be people that had some bad luck or something?



My wife ran a women's shelter for a while. It was really hard to determine who was worthy. No system is perfect.



As for missing the point, I was just trying to address awgee's question of whether the rich use more govt services. I was trying to show how they do benefit more, albeit indirectly. I was not trying to say anything about welfare. In fact, if you get rid of welfare-type programs, then the discrepency of the rich's use of govt services will be even greater.
 
It worked so great when Reagan closed a whole lot of mental health facilities and just let the people walk. I know criticizing Reagan is almost sacrilegious around these parts, so forgive me for that sin.
 
Nude, you said:



"We all agree we shouldn't bail out a corporation that fails, so why does it make sense to bailout even one person who either made a bad choice, had some bad luck, or just doesn't want to put in the effort required to move up in life? More to the point, we have been feeding this cycle for 70 years and there has been little to no progress."



Somehow there is an assumption all government welfare is wasteful and bad. I don't think that is the case. Let me give you a couple of real life example that I am familiar with.



A friend of mine was in grad school when he had his second child with health issues. His wife had to quit her job and take care of their two kids. They received government aid through healthy child program. They got formula, diapers, etc to help them get through the rough patch. He is now a professor at a major university and very productive member of society.



How about a person with with Down syndrome who was abandoned by his family years ago, when society encouraged this behavior, and now lives on SSI because he has no one to look after him?



Would you have an issue with the government aids in above cases? I am not an expert but in my personal experience, most people who received welfare seemed appropriate. I don't want to subsidize some dude's surfer lifestyle, but I think most cases of welfare is not wasted. Providing a safety net and a helping hand for someone in need is a form of insurance. You or someone in your family may need it someday. Also, by having an infrastructure to help a person in need may prevent him from acts of desperation which is good for the security of our society.
 
<em>"It worked so great when Reagan closed a whole lot of mental health facilities and just let the people walk".





</em>And don't I deal with this brilliant decision every DAY ! Hollywood is full of these poor people....who unfortunately, love to fight with cops. In my perfect world, those hospitals would reopen and these people would get the care that they need.
 
<p>T!m,</p>

<p>Your premise is flawed. The middle class have far more to lose than the rich, because the rich have means to escape a country under siege while the middle class would be left to take the brunt of the occupation as they would be the greatest threat. Also, as they are the majority in the country, by definition, they use the majority of government services.</p>

<p>Do I really mean we should not help those who've had some bad luck in life? Yes. My donating my money to a homeless shelter is a decision I get to make because it is my money. Involving the Federal government puts you (or your representative) in my place, deciding for me where my money goes. Considering that the problem my money is being used to finance your solution and the problem seems to stubbornly remain, I don't want to waste any more of my money on your solution. If you don't see the difference between having the freedom to help, and being forced to help, then we can just stop exchanging posts because you will never understand.</p>

<p>ocpop,</p>

<p>For every federally-funded assistance program, there are 5-10 privately funded programs that do the same thing but on a smaller local scale. My niece is the beneficiary of one such program. While the story tugs on the heart-strings, I don't think the federal government should be a one-stop shop for relief from every personal disaster people face in life. This country is 232 years old, but only in the last 80 years has social democracy infected the country and it's government. In that time, Democrats have repeatedly intoduced programs, legislation, and spending bills to provide care, help, assistance, training, and money to the poor, disadvantaged, downtrodden, and sick. Despite the billions of dollars, millions of man-hours, and countless recipients of all the financial firepower Democrats could bring to bear, we still have homeless, we still have poor, we still have people down on their luck. No progress has been made on the overall problem, and no end is in sight. I am not making the charge that welfare is rampant with fraud, or that people are bilking the system. Much like your ancedotal examples, I am sure that happens but I am also sure that it isn;t the majority of the problem, nor even the point of my post.</p>

<p>My point is simply that we have been told that the solution was "A" for 80+ years, and we have been funding that solution for more than 70 years with little or no change in the problem. Between funding a never-ending problem and financing the cutting edge military whose presence allows this kind of conversation to occur uncensored (think about that, T!m, would the rich suffer from lack of free speech?) we have spent ourselves into a hole. At least with defense spending I can point to a plane, a gun, a soldier, a barracks, and say "there, there my money has made a difference and helped the country", while with social spending all I can point to is a failed theory that has produced no change. No one can claim we haven't spent enough money, had enough programs, or given it enough time. The solution is wrong.</p>

<p>Look, I don't deny that there are people that need help. But how best to help them is not something that can be determined, implented, or funded on a national scale. The last 70 years and billions of dollars show that it simply isn't working and continuing to fail is not something I think taxpayers should be funding.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh, almost forgot... green_cactus, not that you would know this because you are clearly a f*&cking idiot capable of little else but regurgitation of the latest meme you picked up from democraticunderground.com, but the law Reagan signed in 1967 was called the <em>Lanterman Petris Short Act</em> and was the work of Democrats in the state House and Senate and was supported by the California State Psychological Association, the ACLU, and the Department of Mental Health. It was a result of a desire to reform the truly horrible conditions that mental patients suffered under the old psychatric methodology and the need for the state assembly to reign in the spending in state hospitals. It was intended to help patients not only get better care, but to prevent them from being forcibly commited without due cause. At the same time, the number of patients in state hospitals was dropping while the number of staff was not. The bill went into effect at the same time that Reagan's budget went into effect which, in part, cut 1700 surplus jobs and closed several <em>after-care</em> facilities. I know right about now your brain has tuned out any facts and you are still fuming over being called names, but go educate yourself by reading this link: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.desertpacific.mirecc.va.gov/news/lps-reform.shtml#history">http://www.desertpacific.mirecc.va.gov/news/lps-reform.shtml#history</a></p>

<p>As always, make sure you know what you are talking about before shooting your mouth off.</p>

<p> </p>
 
Nude,



You are generalizing all federal aid as programs to find a solution to problem. I am sure you don't really think that, but your argument is based on that premise. There is a constant flux of new people who need assistance. There is a constant stream of temporarily out of luck and a constant stream of newly disable, or whatever. Some folks receive the aid and move on and are replaced by other folks. It's like saying why keep spending money on education, we'll never solve the problem of uneducated. Or why help the disabled, they will always be disabled. The goal of unemployment benefits is not to end unemployment, but to help the unemployed temporarily. And you assume that the the poor is a permanent class composed of same individuals. But this is America, after all, not India with an entrenched caste system. There is mobility between the classes. I am sure many poor have improved their lives with the help of the government and moved on to better their lives. The standard of living in this country has improved greatly over the last 80 years, in part, I think, due to the government.
 
<p>ocpop,</p>

<p>Actually, I do really think that all aid is intended to solve a problem. But as you pointed out "some folks receive the aid and move on", but how many and for how long? What about those who don't move on? Where can I find published results on the efficiency, success rate, and long term effectiveness of these aid programs? Please, don't hold up the public education system as an example of the fine work of the federal system, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. Define "help". Do we pass laws requiring ramps, access, and acommodations? How much are we paying for that? Are we retraining them or just cutting a check so they can sit home and play video games? I don't assume the poor are part of anything. I know who the poor are and where they live. I know that they span all races, creed, and religions. I also know that they are share a common lack of success, but for myriad reasons. I also know that if you gave one of them all of awgee's gold, they'd be poor again in a matter of weeks, months, years. So does the federal government, which is why they are only giving the "poor" and middle class economic stimulus while the upper middle class and the pseudo-rich get nothing.</p>

<p>The standard of living increased in the country in the last 60 years. The twenty years before that were depression and war. The reason our standard of living rose is because the Germans, the Japanese, the Americans, the British, the Chinese, the Australians, and the Russians bombed everything else to smithereens while we kept our own factories, transportation systems, and raw materials intact and funtional. The rest of the world began catching up in the 80's, and all gradually our high-paying jobs went from manufacturing to services and tech because all the manufacturers gradually moved out of the country. Now our highest paying jobs are being filled with people from other countries because they have better educational systems than we do, and their people work harder than ours do... especially the illegal immigrants. The only thing government had to do with that was providing the bombs and the trade agreements. It was private enterprise that produced what the rest of the world needed and wanted and they in turn paid high wages to a skilled labor pool.</p>

<p>Honestly, does everyone on the left always put the cart before the horse?</p>
 
Nude, I need to be more clear. My reasoning has to do with the numbers at an individual level. A single "rich" person gets more benefit than a single "non-rich" person. I don't mean the class in aggregate. The rich cannot all just get up and leave and take their wealth with them during an invasion. How exactly are they taking their stocks, art, businesses, and real estate with them? In any case, the military is just one of many, many ways the government provides our society with stability and safety.





As for welfare, yes there are many ways to help others. In this country, a majority of voters seems to want the government involved. You are free to not like it, of course. Sure, I understand the difference between being forced to pay for something, and choosing to pay for it. The problem with having help for the poor be done only through charities is that it would be a disaster. First of all, did you see the table of % of income donated by zip code? For pretty much all of the OC, the % was about 3%. That is to ALL charities. If the government stopped helping the poor and lowered taxes, how much extra money would go towards helping the poor? Very little. So, one problem is that the total amount of money would go way down. (You may be happy about that though.)





The other problem is that when economic times are bad, charities bring in less donation. They would have less money to use to help people at the time when it is needed the most. The federal government, in theory can run a surplus when times are good and run a deficit when times are bad. Of course, what it does is run a deficit all the time. In any case, it is able to help those who need help when times are bad.





Also note that 25-33% of those on welfare have a job. And most people on welfare don't stay on it long.





Of course, none of this matters to conservatives. They think the magic of private enterprise will solve everything. You say it is about choosing what to do with your money. Maybe it is for you. But for most conservatives, I don't think it is. I think it is about them just wanting to keep more of their money. Compassionate Conservatism really means, "I got mine, screw you, you get yours." Then when they are facing BK due to health issues, they change their minds.
 
>First of all, did you see the table of % of income donated by zip code? For pretty much all of the OC, the % was about 3%. That is to ALL charities. If the government stopped helping the poor and lowered taxes, how much extra money would go towards helping the poor? Very little. So, one problem is that the total amount of money would go way down. (You may be happy about that though.)





Ummm, if government lowered taxes, you would expect the amount given to charities to either go up because people have more of their own money, or to at least stay the same. Also, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Aggregate_income_distribution) the aggregate income in the US in 2005 was $4.3 trillion. Assuming that your 3% number is correct, and assuming that the average is the same throughout the United States, this is $129 billion.





Of course, if people didn't have to give as much money to government, they would be more generous with their money instead of having a bureaucracy be generous for them.
 
<em>"Of course, if people didn't have to give as much money to government, they would be more generous with their money instead of having a bureaucracy be generous for them."</em>





Yes, they would probably give 3% of the money they did not have to pay in taxes...





The government does have a role to play in providing funds for certain social services because private donations do not meet the need. It becomes a problem when there is no real need and the government is merely taking money from one group to benefit another.
 
WINEX - Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant, that the total amount of money given to charities after the tax cut would be less than the current total of (amount given to charities to help the poor + amount the government spends helping the poor).





Also remember that the 3% is for ALL kinds of charities - Habitat for Humanity, GreenPeace, NPR, LACMA, ACLU, NRA, etc. So, we are dealing with less than 3% that would go to help the needy.
 
Nude, I was referring to the funding part of his mental health reform. Policy is great, but when you take away money, mentally ill don't end up under proper care - rather, they become the burden of the criminal system (arrested for minor transgressions) or they become vagrants. In neither case they do get the medical treatment they require. Another consequence of restricting involuntary commitment is that they end up on the street as a danger to themselves or other - often getting arrested for violent actions.In any case, numerous studies have been published that show the impact of Reagan's fiscal policies on the mentally ill.





BTW, I'd much rather read the DailyKos or stop by at Eschaton.
 
Nude,



Okay, you made your point. All government aid is wasted because we'll never break the cycle of poverty and need. But then you stated you will be giving your $600 refund check to a homeless shelter. Why? These are the same poor you don't want the state to be helping out because they are hopelessly mired in poverty and laziness. Is your $600 somehow magically better than $600 from the state? To the homeless, that money buys him the same shelter, food, and clothes on his back. To the homeless, 600 bucks is 600 bucks whether it comes from you, the government, or a monkey's ass. Before you go off on how private charity is the only kind of charity, are you going to be giving another 600 to the shelter next month, or the month after. What if you and your private citizen donating buddies decided that you want to go out buy a big screen TV next month? The homeless still needs the shelter. You believe that the state should stay out of the business of improving people's lives. Fair enough. I strongly disagree. I think the government can and should try and improve the lives of it's citizens. I've seen countless cases where the state has greatly improved the quality of life of an individual.



My public school experience has been pretty fantastic, thank you very much.



Standard of living has been improving steadily for much longer than the last 60 years. Not just in the US, but in every other industrialized nation. There are many reasons for this, progress in science, medical discoveries, increased productivity, and social enlightenment to name a few. I think that a more activist government had a part in raising the standard of living for the population as a whole. Obviously, you disagree. I'm sure there is nothing I can say or anyone else can say that will convince you.



Why is the right so convinced that their values and policies are so unfailingly right until a meaningful life experience hits him on the head?
 
<p>g_c,</p>

<p>You didn't read the link, did you?</p>

<p>ocpop,</p>

<p>The difference is not what the money does, but who gets it and why. Having been homeless on more than one occasion, I have experience and perspective that informs my opinion and belief. Is that what you call a meaningful life experience? Donating to a homeless shelter privately means I have a choice in who and what gets funded. I can choose one that provide things homeless people need to get off the streets permanently, if they are willing to do the work, and that have a definite set of expectations of and from those they help. More importantly, I am free to <strong>stop</strong> contributing my money if I feel they are not using it wisely. With government programs there is no such freedom, and the results speak for themselves.</p>

<p>With federal programs like AFDC, the "success" breaks down like this: ~20% gain full-time employment and ~14% voluntarily end aid. But what about the rest you ask? Well here are the reasons people get kicked off AFDC: ~2% hit the five-year limit, ~10% get "sanctioned" due to collecting benefts while employed or some form of fraud, an astounding ~14% for failure to co-operate with the program, ~9% due to state policy, and the rest (~27%) fall into a generic "other" category. These stats have been roughly the same since 1997. Prior to that, HHS didn't count the number of people that were dropped from the AFDC program, but the number of people getting benefits who had previously received them was ~41%. all these numbers come from <a href="http://www.acf.hhs.gov/">http://www.acf.hhs.gov/</a> reports. If we get real generous and split the "other" category between success and failure, you get ~47% who find a job or no longer need help... and that's with job training, education assistance, and cash money. The total discretionary budget for children and familes was ~$9 Billion, and it appears we wasted more than half of that... and that was just 2006... for 1.8 million cases. That works out to $5000 per case. So not only are we wasting 53% of our money, the money we are spending isn't enough to get anyone out of poverty, but it's just enough to keep them coming back.</p>

<p>Which brings me back to my original thought: we could do a lot more with a lot less if we held people accountable for actually making a change in their own lives rather than take the easy way out and legislatively giving them someone else's money. I contribute to charity because I want to help those people in the same situation I once was, but in a way that provides them the tools to be successful. </p>
 
Nude, I don't understand what point it is you are trying to make. The LPS Act establishes that we should not just indefinitely commit mentally ill patients. Who could argue against that? Certainly not me. But it goes on to say that "Over the last 30 years, the number of patients who once might have been in State hospitals, but are now on the streets, or in our jails and prisons, has risen significantly." This is sort of what I was arguing before. People who are not getting care in an institution are ending up on the street or in jail. It goes on to say that "Between 20,000 and 30,000 people with mental illness are in our jails and prisons. At least an equal number are homeless on the streets.". As noble as the LPS Act is, the report concludes that "we have replaced one inadequate system of care -- keeping people institutionalized for long periods of time -- with another inadequate system of care."





How is this so much different from me saying "It worked so great when Reagan closed a whole lot of mental health facilities and just let the people walk."?












 
<p>Well, because Reagan didn't.</p>

<p><em>LPS was signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan, the same year in which his budget act abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and <strong>closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities</strong>. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. <strong>Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960</strong>.<sup> </sup>The LPS Act became effective January 1, 1969 giving the system a year to reconstitute itself to the new procedures.</em></p>

<p><em>After the statue's passage, the community mental health system reconstituted itself to accommodate additional patients who previously had been placed in hospital because of financial or social dependence and who could accept treatment voluntarily. But, <strong>the new stringent behavioral criteria for involuntarily committing a patient to treatment applied to both state and community hospitals</strong>. How to handle the serious, hard to reach patients -- who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go.</em></p>

<p><em>Frank Lanterman would say days before his death, "<strong>I wanted the LPS Act to help the mentally ill</strong>. I never meant for it to prevent those who need care from receiving it. The law must be changed."</em></p>

<p>So to recap, Lanterman took the lead in preventing people who had some treatable form mental illness from being locked away in some state asylum with no access to the treatment that would make them able to live, work, and enjoy a normalish life. Advances in the field of mental health proved that people could be helped, rather than locked in a rubber room, and the number of people leaving mental hospitals after treatment left many of them fully-staffed but underutilized. After some 300 amendments in the state assembly, and with support from state agencies, advocacy groups, and mental health professionals, the LPS Act was passed by the state assembly and signed by Reagan. Reagan didn't let these people walk, the people who wrote the law did, with the best intentions and full support of qualified experts because they thought that sticking them in a room forever was inhumane, cruel, and unjustifiable. Reagan closed facilities that were NOT BEING USED so that state funds could be used in other areas.</p>

<p>You want to pretend that Reagan said "Screw those crazy people, we need to cut the budget. Kick'em loose!" because it jibes with your world view. The truth is far different, and therefor no use to you, so you ignore it. How typically liberal.</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top