White House Calls for End to ISS Funding in 2025

[cyclone3d]

Ah yes, the old "he has a big screen TV so isn't worthy of government assistance" argument so popular on the right. The funny thing is most of the people making these kinds of arguments will also argue that they're the ones who really deserve the assistance. It's those damn neighbors of theirs who are cheating the system. Red states are actually the biggest recipients of welfare. It's hilarious that the poor whites in these states vote against their own economic interests.

I've never taken assistance.. even when out of a job for almost a year.

What I do/have seen in multiple states is people blatantly gaming the system.

1. Woman goes to the grocery store and buys food with food stamps. Has another cart full of alcohol that she pays for with cash. That person should be cut off completely. My tax dollars don't need to be going towards buying booze for lazy bums.
2. People in subsidized housing (my tax dollars going towards their housing) driving around in high end cars or highly modified cars with custom paint jobs and 20+" rims/tires. Yeah, I really want to pay for that with my taxes.
3. People on welfare smoking multiple packs a day... you know how much that costs per month? I don't need my tax dollars going towards that either.


Oh yeah, and another big one... people that don't want to pay for medical care go to the hospital emergency room for whatever little thing ails them. And because of the stupid laws, the hospital is forced to provide care for them for free.. which drives up the cost for people that actually need real hospital care.

The real problem is that people are content to just leech off of everybody else and the people they are leeching off of continue to let them do it. So much so, that we have children saying that they are looking forward to growing up and getting a monthly check from the government.

I don't care where you live, it is a real problem whether or not you want to admit it or not.

 

[bugleyman]

I am not sure what you think I am arguing about. I am pointing out what is necessary for real change. As for the part about grossly overspending compared to the rest of the world, that is also vastly overplayed. The reason we do that is because we need to do that. We police most of the world and put ourselves in this position of being the shepherds so to speak for the world. The fact that we don't want to do that, doesn't change the reality. If we just cut military spending drastically now, we would be vulnerable to all kinds of threats, not to mention all the allies we have would now be completely vulnerable. You can't just up and leave and expect everything to work out nicely, even when you plan an expedited departure and delay it, there are still consequences, as Obama found out vividly when he was president.

The budget is a problem, the amount we spend on domestic mandatory spending is a huge and immediate problem. The amount we spend on military is unfortunately a long-term problem until we can cease being the world police. The only thing that isn't a problem in any of this, is decommissioning the ISS.

I'm saying we need to stop arguing about what shouldn't be cut. Your'e going on about why we don't need to cut the military. What's hard to understand?

 

[Rizen]

I've never taken assistance.. even when out of a job for almost a year.

What I do/have seen in multiple states is people blatantly gaming the system.

1. Woman goes to the grocery store and buys food with food stamps. Has another cart full of alcohol that she pays for with cash. That person should be cut off completely. My tax dollars don't need to be going towards buying booze for lazy bums.
2. People in subsidized housing (my tax dollars going towards their housing) driving around in high end cars or highly modified cars with custom paint jobs and 20+" rims/tires. Yeah, I really want to pay for that with my taxes.
3. People on welfare smoking multiple packs a day... you know how much that costs per month? I don't need my tax dollars going towards that either.


Oh yeah, and another big one... people that don't want to pay for medical care go to the hospital emergency room for whatever little thing ails them. And because of the stupid laws, the hospital is forced to provide care for them for free.. which drives up the cost for people that actually need real hospital care.

The real problem is that people are content to just leech off of everybody else and the people they are leeching off of continue to let them do it. So much so, that we have children saying that they are looking forward to growing up and getting a monthly check from the government.

I don't care where you live, it is a real problem whether or not you want to admit it or not.

All of your examples are anecdotal and don't represent the majority of people on welfare assistance.

 

[Rizen]

Social security would be solvent if the cap was removed on SS tax. Problem solved.

Welfare programs (other than SS/Medicare) make up a comparatively tiny portion of the budget. If you removed all of them completely it wouldn't even make a dent.

Military spending needs a serious overhaul. People are quick to blame fraud in the social assistance programs and completely ignore how much wasteful spending goes on with the military and military contracts. That's a far larger problem.

 

[bugleyman]

Oh yeah, and another big one... people that don't want to pay for medical care go to the hospital emergency room for whatever little thing ails them. And because of the stupid laws, the hospital is forced to provide care for them for free.. which drives up the cost for people that actually need real hospital care.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that you'd be comfortable with hospitals turning away desperately ill people (and make no mistake, most uninsured very often are desperately ill by the time they go to the hospital) because they can't afford treatment?

 

[bugleyman]

Social security would be solvent if the cap was removed on SS tax. Problem solved.

Welfare programs (other than SS/Medicare) make up a comparatively tiny portion of the budget. If you removed all of them completely it wouldn't even make a dent.

Military spending needs a serious overhaul. People are quick to blame fraud in the social assistance programs and completely ignore how much wasteful spending goes on with the military and military contracts. That's a far larger problem.

Medicare/Medicaid is actually a huge problem as well.

But again, we can't afford to have a "cut yours, not mine" mentality. We're past the luxury.

 

[SilverSliver]

Social security would be solvent if the cap was removed on SS tax. Problem solved.

Please, give me a convincing argument to raise my taxes? How much should I give to pay for the choices others make? I have no issue giving to charity, and paying taxes to give help to the poor, medically disabled, veterans, etc. Convince me to give more money to help Joe Schmoe live without saving and waking up at 65 with no retirement money.

 

[variant]

Ah yes, the old "he has a big screen TV so isn't worthy of government assistance" argument so popular on the right. The funny thing is most of the people making these kinds of arguments will also argue that they're the ones who really deserve the assistance. It's those damn neighbors of theirs who are cheating the system. Red states are actually the biggest recipients of welfare. It's hilarious that the poor whites in these states vote against their own economic interests.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...cs-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/

 

[bugleyman]

Please, give me a convincing argument to raise my taxes? How much should I give to pay for the choices others make? I have no issue giving to charity, and paying taxes to give help to the poor, medically disabled, veterans, etc. Convince me to give more money to help Joe Schmoe live without saving and waking up at 65 with no retirement money.

And this sort of thing is exactly why we're driving headlong off the fiscal cliff. We can't stop arguing about whom should bear the pain, completely missing the fact that we all have to bear the pain -- and a great deal of it -- if we're going to avoid disaster.

Spoiler alert: We're not going to avoid disaster.

 

[SilverSliver]

And this sort of thing is exactly why we're driving headlong off the fiscal cliff. We can't stop arguing about whom bear the pain, completely missing the fact that we all have to bear the pain -- and a great deal of it -- if we're going to avoid disaster.

Spoiler alert: We're not going to avoid disaster.

You have not convinced me. When the argument is to take more money from someone, to give to another, you need to give me a compelling reason for that.

I am fine with paying taxes - reasonable taxes - for the military, infastructure, roads, poor, disabled, veterans, scientific endeavors, national security, etc.

Let me know why I should subsidize the decisions of average people. Convince me that you have the right to my labor and money.

 

[Burticus]

TLDR, I guess people confused ISS (the space station) with SS (social security : aka the gov'ment pyramid scheme)

I get that the ISS has an eventual "end date", but it just strikes me as wrong to throw something away just because it's old. Get the other countries to pony up a little more cash to maintain it? Because it's the only one we have. If they drop it into the ocean, how long do you think it will take to build a new one? If ever?

At this point I assume the main costs are propellant to keep it in it's orbit. Secondary is whatever it costs fix minor broken things, and to feed/heat the people working there. It's not like astronauts are making $500 an hour or something.

 

[SilverSliver]

TLDR, I guess people confused ISS (the space station) with SS (social security : aka the gov'ment pyramid scheme)

I get that the ISS has an eventual "end date", but it just strikes me as wrong to throw something away just because it's old. Get the other countries to pony up a little more cash to maintain it? Because it's the only one we have. If they drop it into the ocean, how long do you think it will take to build a new one? If ever?

At this point I assume the main costs are propellant to keep it in it's orbit. Secondary is whatever it costs fix minor broken things, and to feed/heat the people working there. It's not like astronauts are making $500 an hour or something.

I don't know what started the social security discussions either, aside from a general discussion about fiscal responsibility. I don't have any issues with part of my tax money going to the ISS, and space/scientific programs in general.

I wish we could check a form on our taxes that would weight how the government spent money on secondary spending efforts.

 

[Trepidati0n]

oh look some one that has never used public assistance
this is how works atm other then the drug testing... and when it was tired they spent MILLIONS to catch THREE people so your looking at spending billions to catch maybe a few 100 people might as well just let them have the money any way

Oh...you are quoting that article that gave data on a flawed test? There was no "drug testing", they were asked if they used drugs. There is only one answer any rational person would give; "no". It was only the people that foolishly answered yes. Sorry, but drug use does not favor one social class or another. The fact that data made it look like the unemployed were about 300x less likely to use drugs should have been enough doubt to call the article bullshit..but heh...whatever allows you to make an argument.

 

[bugleyman]

You have not convinced me. When the argument is to take more money from someone, to give to another, you need to give me a compelling reason for that.

I am fine with paying taxes - reasonable taxes - for the military, infastructure, roads, poor, disabled, veterans, scientific endeavors, national security, etc.

Let me know why I should subsidize the decisions of average people.

Your ire is misplaced (unless you're OK subsidizing, say, bad investments made by corporations). Welfare fraud is noise. You'd spend more trying to eliminate it than you'd save.

But that isn't what I'm trying to convince you of. I'm trying to convince you that, as long as we keeping arguing along these partisan lines, we are lost, because we're never going to agree. Hence, just institute an across the board spending cut, no exceptions. Which, although almost certain to cause a depression, is better than the alternative.

 

[SilverSliver]

Your ire is misplaced (unless you're OK subsidizing, say, bad investments made by corporations). Welfare fraud is noise. You'd spend more trying to eliminate it than you'd save.

But that isn't what I'm trying to convince you of. I'm trying to convince you that, as long as we keeping arguing along these partisan lines, we are lost, because we're never going to agree. Hence, just institute an across the board spending cut, no exceptions. Which, although almost certain to cause a depression, is better than the alternative.

Not partisan at all. You want my money. Explain to me why I should give it to you. This isn't abstract. It's not red vs blue. I believe a big spending cut is in order too, starting with the 100% dissolution of social security.

 

[bugleyman]

Not partisan at all. You want my money. Explain to me why I should give it to you.

*sigh*

It isn't *me* that "wants your money." We as citizens of the United States have a collective debt we have to figure out how to repay. You -- along with many others -- apparently believe that the debt is someone else's problem. It is precisely that attitude which makes the problem insurmountable (which was, of course, my point in the first place).

 

[Wierdo]

That's right, let China handle this space stuff too, a new world leader is rising as an old "empire" exits their golden age as always.

 

[SilverSliver]

*sigh*

It isn't *me* that "wants your money." We -- all of us -- have a collective debt we have to figure out how to repay. You -- like many others -- apparently believe it is someone else's problem. That attitude makes the problem completely insurmountable (which was, of course, my point in the first place).

Nope. It's very easy to cite the collective, the magnanimous WE that have the need. Do you believe we should shut down social security? If not, explain to me why YOU deserve MY money. It's that simple. If you don't believe that SS should be shut down, you want the government to take money away from me, for you.

 

[Burticus]

I don't know what started the social security discussions either, aside from a general discussion about fiscal responsibility. I don't have any issues with part of my tax money going to the ISS, and space/scientific programs in general.

I wish we could check a form on our taxes that would weight how the government spent money on secondary spending efforts.

Agreed. Keep the ISS functioning, $5 billion a year? Check. Fund 1 more month of (imho, useless) war in Afghanistan? NOPE

 

[Uvaman2]

Nope. It's very easy to cite the collective, the magnanimous WE that have the need. Do you believe we should shut down social security? If not, explain to me why YOU deserve MY money. It's that simple. If you don't believe that SS should be shut down, you want the government to take money away from me, for you.

So he wants 6 trillion dollars for himself.. shit and i thought i was ambitious wishing for 200k in the lottery.

 

[SilverSliver]

Agreed. Keep the ISS functioning, $5 billion a year? Check. Fund 1 more month of (imho, useless) war in Afghanistan? NOPE

Shut down all aid to other countries, remove all bases not strategically critical to American interests, exit all conflicts not directly involved with protecting American citizens on a daily basis, reduce funding to the UN to make up for GDP shortcomings of other UN members defense budgets.

 

[Uvaman2]

Not partisan at all. You want my money. Explain to me why I should give it to you. This isn't abstract. It's not red vs blue. I believe a big spending cut is in order too, starting with the 100% dissolution of social security.

Social security failing since 1935.

 

[bugleyman]

Nope. It's very easy to cite the collective, the magnanimous WE that have the need. Do you believe we should shut down social security? If not, explain to me why YOU deserve MY money. It's that simple. If you don't believe that SS should be shut down, you want the government to take money away from me, for you.

I don't know what argument you're trying to have, but I've already read Atlas Shrugged. It sucked.

Meanwhile, in the real world WE share the public debt. If you're a citizen, then it's your problem, too...whether you like it or not. The thing about "your money" is that it was, all of it, earned in the context of a system of society which has run up ruinous debt. You don't get to ignore all the benefits you've enjoyed as a member of society just so you can claim that you have zero culpability for society's debts.

As for SS: Wow, where to start. First of all, you are presenting a false choice. "Continue with no changes" or "shut it down" aren't the only two options. Second, it would be manifestly and grossly unfair to current and near future recipients -- most of whom have paid into the system for decades -- to just "shut SS down." Third, you assert that continuing SS mean that I'm taking your money with zero supporting evidence. Has it really never occurred to you that the opposite could be true?

 

[SilverSliver]

I don't know what argument you're trying to have, but I've already read Atlas Shrugged. It sucked.

Meanwhile, in the real world WE share the public debt. If you're a citizen, then it's your problem, too. Whether you like it or not. The thing about your money is that it was, all of it, earned in the context of a system of society which has run up ruinous debt. You don't get to ignore all the benefits you've enjoyed as a function of society just so you can claim that you have zero culpability for society's debts.

As for SS: Wow, where to start. First of all, you are presenting a false choice. The choices aren't "continue with no changes" or "shut it down." Second, it would be manifestly and grossly unfair to current and near future recipients -- most of whom have paid into the system for decades -- to just "shut SS down." Third, you assert that continuing SS mean that I'm taking your money with zero supporting evidence. Has it really never occurred to you that the opposite could be true?

Explain to me what part of the social security system has helped me earn my money, and why I should be grateful for it.

Tell you what, I agree - I will continue to pay into SS until the present generation that has planned on it being there, is done drawing on it. I'd be fine with a 5 year phase out, maybe a 5 year extension with reduced tax burden for those in critical need. And, no, it never occurred to me that the opposite would be true, as it's almost certainly not.

 

[bugleyman]

Tell you what, I agree - I will continue to pay into SS until the present generation that has planned on it being there, is done drawing on it. I'd be fine with a 10 year phase out.

Ten years isn't long enough. What we'd actually have to do is gradually push out the retirement age until the system came into balance. Problem solved. If you really want to eliminate it altogether, you could just continue to push the retirement age up to, say, 100, then drop it entirely. But it'll take at least fifty years to "unwind." Which I'd actually be fine with. Certainly some kind of cuts are necessary no matter what. Believe it or not, I'd forego collecting SS altogether if I knew it meant we would return to solvency as a nation.

And, no, it never occurred to me that the opposite would be true, as it's almost certainly not.

Ok...I'll take your word for it. But unless your last name is "Walton" or Bezos," it is the case for someone. Are you neceswsarily out to take their money?

Explain to me what part of the social security system has helped me earn my money, and why I should be grateful for it.

Don't be obtuse. I should think it would be obvious that you haven't yet directly benefited from Social Security if you've not retired (although if you, say, own a business that caters to seniors you certainly may have). My comments were in reference to other aspects of society, from which you have most certainly benefited (which perhaps you have no problem with, but then it is unclear to me why you latched on to my comments about the national debt).

 

[SilverSliver]

Don't be obtuse. I should think it would be obvious that you haven't yet directly benefited from Social Security if you've not retired (although if you, say, own a business that caters to seniors you certainly may have). My comments were in reference to other aspects of society, from which you have most certainly benefited (which perhaps you have no problem with, but then it is unclear to me why you latched on to my comments about the national debt).

You quoted my comment, which argued that we should eliminate SS and an argument against another poster that said we should eliminate the cap on SS taxes. You disagreed with my objection to him, ergo, you supported eliminating the cap on SS taxes. Being pro-SS is advocating taking, by force, money and labor from others to distribute at the discretion of the government. Instead of having an abstract argument about social security, I asked you to clarify - on the most simple level possible, why you thought some people were entitled to the money and labor others.

You have not done that. Until you can answer why you deserve a paycheck from me, aside from being a veteran, government employee, mentally or physically disabled - I will assume you have no defense of social security, aside from it being a blankie that some are going to be ill fated to depend on in the near term.

 

[Elf_Boy]

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that you'd be comfortable with hospitals turning away desperately ill people (and make no mistake, most uninsured very often are desperately ill by the time they go to the hospital) because they can't afford treatment?

Or for that matter a person who was just robbed, mugged, has amnesia from hitting his/her head and really does have insurance? No Card No Medicine, right?

The laws were made because hospitals were turning people away to die.

People would much rather go to the cheaper Urgent care or regular Dr visit and avoid the emergency room.

 

[tetris42]

Being pro-SS is advocating taking, by force, money and labor from others to distribute at the discretion of the government. Instead of having an abstract argument about social security, I asked you to clarify - on the most simple level possible, why you thought some people were entitled to the money and labor others.

You have not done that. Until you can answer why you deserve a paycheck from me, aside from being a veteran, government employee, mentally or physically disabled - I will assume you have no defense of social security, aside from it being a blankie that some are going to be ill fated to depend on in the near term.

I can't speak for the poster, but I can answer that. You're looking at things in reverse. You're asking why the government deserves some of your money for social security. The question you should be asking is what makes YOU exempt from the laws of the country that you should NOT pay your share that's expected from everyone else as part of being an American citizen? So many libertarians feel like the burden of proof is on the government, forgetting that where they live and the benefits they enjoy (granted, some more than others) aren't free.

On a more esoteric level, social security has been very successful with keeping the elderly out of poverty and not homeless. I'm not saying it's the best way of doing things, however, I'm generally in favor of solutions that involve covering the weakest link and ensuring everyone meets their base needs, food, shelter, etc. Social security gets us closer to that for the elderly. Getting rid of it with no substitute does not. We're the richest country in the world, so any steps that INCREASE the amount of people that go homeless I consider a form a barbarism as a nation, no matter how you want to dress it up. This reasoning usually has little weight with libertarians, whom I've found usually care more about individual property rights than human life, hence why I started with the first paragraph.

 

[Uvaman2]

I want some of that self righteous right wing pot I'll tell what..
Its not about debt, its not about money.. its about priorities.. you prioritize war, and there is money.. you prioritize rich people interests annnnd the rich get richer. So wtf is this weird argument about my money for you or some shit... That way of thinking is basically against the most basic tenets of society itself.. i mean jeez shit. Social security is exactly what society is about, you give up some of you for all , good God.

 

[LightsOut41]

I would like to know what the true ROI is for the ISS. Can anyone name the top 3 or 5 benefits of the 20-year-old space station?

 

[bugleyman]

You quoted my comment, which argued that we should eliminate SS and an argument against another poster that said we should eliminate the cap on SS taxes. You disagreed with my objection to him, ergo, you supported eliminating the cap on SS taxes. Being pro-SS is advocating taking, by force, money and labor from others to distribute at the discretion of the government. Instead of having an abstract argument about social security, I asked you to clarify - on the most simple level possible, why you thought some people were entitled to the money and labor others.

You have not done that. Until you can answer why you deserve a paycheck from me, aside from being a veteran, government employee, mentally or physically disabled - I will assume you have no defense of social security, aside from it being a blankie that some are going to be ill fated to depend on in the near term.

Assume what you like. You advocated pulling the plug on social security, which as I pointed out, would be grossly unfair to those that have paid in for decades. The fact that the social contract is implicit does not absolve you of it.

You're like the guy in the back of the boat insisting that you have no moral obligation to row even as we head over the falls.

 

[sfsuphysics]

why you thought some people were entitled to the money and labor others

Well the first thing that comes to mind is to say "because you earned it", the way the system works is not to simply give you a free check if you've been a bum you're whole life. You need to have put into the system, much like any pension, a set number of working years to even be eligible (what is it 10 full years of work? 40 "units"). So in that sense they are entitled to the money of others because they were once on the other side of that fence and were the ones giving money and labor to others. Now the question revolves around stating the obvious of "but what if I don't want to be part of that system", well that's perfectly fine if you don't want to be part of the system you can very easily move to another country where there are no laws in place to take your paycheck for retirement purposes. But you shouldn't have to leave the country? Well then you need to follow the rules of this country, and one aspect of taxes which you state you are happy to pay is that of social security, in this country we do not get to pick and choose (at least directly) which programs our tax dollars go towards.

Now fine you still aren't convinced what's the exit strategy now? Just cold turkey everyone? Elderly collecting it get collectively fucked out of all the money they put in, those people who are about to retire get collectively fucked out of all the money they put in, and younger people like yourself manage to get out of paying and will be perfectly fine in the future? Basically fuck over everyone except yourself. Think first think self strategy definitely has it's place in government, I will agree there. Personally I think a better option would be to pledge yourself to not collect any social security, and if enough like minded people have that same thought process then eventually SS might in fact disappear.

What would be the ramifications of no social security? Well look back in history before it existed. You were either lucky enough to have children who can take care of you until you died, or you simply died alone when you were unable to work any further. Now if the government decided to take care of the elderly rather than letting them rot on the streets then it probably would end up costing more than social security costs today.

 

[sfsuphysics]

I would like to know what the true ROI is for the ISS. Can anyone name the top 3 or 5 benefits of the 20-year-old space station?

Quick google search
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_ways_iss_benefits_earth

That said, like many science projects the actual benefit isn't directly related to the science that is being done but instead the real ROI comes on a secondary level.

 

[SilverSliver]

What would be the ramifications of no social security? Well look back in history before it existed. You were either lucky enough to have children who can take care of you until you died, or you simply died alone when you were unable to work any further. Now if the government decided to take care of the elderly rather than letting them rot on the streets then it probably would end up costing more than social security costs today.

I have a tremendous idea. SS is predicated on working. Work and save a portion of your paycheck. Let's call it, I don't know, a 401k.

I'm fine with the government offering incentives for people to make the right choice and live within their means/save for their own retirement. If you cannot live within your means/save for retirement? Get fucked, in my opinion.

 

[rudy]

My welfare reform package.

1. ONLY eligible if you are REALLY unable to work
2. For unemployment, you MUST be actively be looking for a job.
3. A regular/random audit can happen to you if you are a welfare recipient.
--a. If you are paying for cable or any other TV service (anything above basic internet access), your welfare is cut by that amount.
--b. If you are buying alcohol, your welfare is cut by that amount.
--c. If you are buying tobacco products, your welfare is cut by that amount.
--d. If you have a vehicle that is more than basic transportation (I am sick of seeing welfare recipients driving around in Escalades, BMWs, Mercedes, etc), your welfare is cut off completely unless you can prove that you purchased it legally for a very low amount.
--e. If you have a positive drug test result, your welfare is cut off immediately and you are banned from re-applying for at least 2 years.
--f. If you are a drug dealer, your welfare is cut off immediately and you are banned from re-applying for life.
--g. If you commit medicare/medicaid fraud, you are cut off immediately and are banned from welfare for life.

That right there would cut out most of the fraud IF the government would actually implement and follow through with those rules.

How exactly do you intend to enforce all this? Here is a basic premises, if a person is really a leech and lacks the moral understanding to not rip everyone off why on earth would you think that they wouldn't lie, or create false evidence to pass every one of your requirements above? Since you mentioned them I will tell you they will easily get past everything above.

Let me explain to you how it really works. Large amounts of the people on government assistance know all the rules, and they know exactly what to put on the applications to qualify and exactly how to deal with it, for instance a lady I know is on disability and there are rules about how much money she can work for, not surprisingly she negotiates to keep her income at or below that level, they know how to create proof. Every single rule you made above they will pass. She even had a lawyer to get her disability. They will get a fake receipt for their car, they will fill out crappy applications once a week that are sure to be rejected, or screw up in the interview, they will flip over to online streaming etc.... And all that will happen is a bunch of people whom were sent to enforce all your rules will just waste more of the tax payers money and create nothing productive for society. They know the system they know how to work it all your rules will be useless and change nothing. When someone is poor and they can get assistance that secures their life they will be very motivated to figure out how to qualify for it.

I don't care for your argument because I think that a lot of people think like you and fail to realize the real problems with these programs is exactly because people like you are encouraging politicians to make laws like this that do more harm than good, I actually used to think more like you then I realized how futile it is. The more rules and garbage you pile on the programs the less they help people who need it, the less they encourage people to get off the programs. I will give you an example. Things like food stamps have applications and if you have more than a certain amount of money in assets or investments, they will not allow you to have the assistance, people like you might say great, if someone has that extra money they should spend it, the only problem is it locks people into poverty and never encourages them to learn how to invest and get themselves out of poverty, once they spend down their assets now they are on the program for life and have no investments for the future. It doesn't give people the freedom in life to figure out the best way to live their life and be the most independent. It doesn't create a good safety net for someone who gets laid off for a year or so to keep saving toward a better future, ironically if you do the opposite, which is go rack up a ton of debt in credit cards, and be as foolish as you possibly can with money guess what? You will qualify easy. For me personally I had a situation with tax credits, where I had invested money in the stock market, at the time I had a small amount of money to invest and tried to make more money good right? Well I ended up making about 5-6k in the stock market, so I go to do my taxes and find out that I lost about 4k in tax credits because there was some arbitrary rule that if you make more than X dollars in capital gains it disqualifies you. For me it wasn't worth the time I put into that year of stock trading to make that money even though I made a really good return. Cause my net profit was only between 1-2k. And I could thank someone with a mentality like you for turning me completely off the stock market until I have a much larger investment pool. Ironically our income wasn't that great that year. Right then and there I felt first hand how broken your thoughtline is. Here I was trying to experiment with making my life better and the government basically said, hey bud if you want to invest you better not bother doing it until you can make at least 10k or more in capital gains (something you can never know). Otherwise its just not worth the time or the risk because you will be losing tax credits.

For my entire life people have been making the argument you make and nothing works. I think its time we stop doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result and think about trying something different and asking what we really want the programs to achieve. I personally want them to be something that encourages people to get themselves into the best financial place in life, and I want them to create a safety net that discourages people from turning to lives of crime to make society safer.

 

[Ski]

For my entire life people have been making the argument you make and nothing works. I think its time we stop doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result and think about trying something different and asking what we really want the programs to achieve. I personally want them to be something that encourages people to get themselves into the best financial place in life, and I want them to create a safety net that discourages people from turning to lives of crime to make society safer.

Everything you said was spot on and I agree with, mostly because I've witnessed and experienced this countless times before. Now... my question to you is how do you feel about Universal Basic Income? I'm only asking because your talking points in reference to cyclone3d's ideas squares mostly around the fact people are more resourceful and intuitive in terms of figuring out the loop holes to the system, and the more rules and regulations you put in place will never succeed. With that said, what are your thoughts on UBI and what kind of impact it would have on those recipients we've alluded to.

 

[SilverSliver]

How exactly do you intend to enforce all this? Here is a basic premises, if a person is really a leech and lacks the moral understanding to not rip everyone off why on earth would you think that they wouldn't lie, or create false evidence to pass every one of your requirements above? Since you mentioned them I will tell you they will easily get past everything above.

Easy. First strike of welfare fraud of any sort gets you 5 years of being off welfare. Second strike is permanent loss of benefits. Make the punishment for defrauding the system so severe, that someone who really needs the support would not even think about jeopardizing it. The people who are really good at hiding it will continue to do so, least for a while. The rest will get caught, eventually. Everyone else uses the system for its intended purpose.

 

[Rizen]

Please, give me a convincing argument to raise my taxes? How much should I give to pay for the choices others make? I have no issue giving to charity, and paying taxes to give help to the poor, medically disabled, veterans, etc. Convince me to give more money to help Joe Schmoe live without saving and waking up at 65 with no retirement money.

The social security tax applies to everyone up to $127,500 a year. Do you make more than that? Probably not. So you wouldn't be impacted at all anyway.

Eliminating the cap would just mean everyone who does make over that amount would contribute at the same rate they already do for the first $127.5k of income. Not a big deal.

I do make over that amount, and I don't mind at all contributing to ensure that elderly people aren't starving or struggling to live in their retirement years. The system works fine if the government would stop using SS funds as a budget IOU.

 

[Rizen]

How exactly do you intend to enforce all this? Here is a basic premises, if a person is really a leech and lacks the moral understanding to not rip everyone off why on earth would you think that they wouldn't lie, or create false evidence to pass every one of your requirements above? Since you mentioned them I will tell you they will easily get past everything above.

Let me explain to you how it really works. Large amounts of the people on government assistance know all the rules, and they know exactly what to put on the applications to qualify and exactly how to deal with it, for instance a lady I know is on disability and there are rules about how much money she can work for, not surprisingly she negotiates to keep her income at or below that level, they know how to create proof. Every single rule you made above they will pass. She even had a lawyer to get her disability. They will get a fake receipt for their car, they will fill out crappy applications once a week that are sure to be rejected, or screw up in the interview, they will flip over to online streaming etc.... And all that will happen is a bunch of people whom were sent to enforce all your rules will just waste more of the tax payers money and create nothing productive for society. They know the system they know how to work it all your rules will be useless and change nothing. When someone is poor and they can get assistance that secures their life they will be very motivated to figure out how to qualify for it.

I don't care for your argument because I think that a lot of people think like you and fail to realize the real problems with these programs is exactly because people like you are encouraging politicians to make laws like this that do more harm than good, I actually used to think more like you then I realized how futile it is. The more rules and garbage you pile on the programs the less they help people who need it, the less they encourage people to get off the programs. I will give you an example. Things like food stamps have applications and if you have more than a certain amount of money in assets or investments, they will not allow you to have the assistance, people like you might say great, if someone has that extra money they should spend it, the only problem is it locks people into poverty and never encourages them to learn how to invest and get themselves out of poverty, once they spend down their assets now they are on the program for life and have no investments for the future. It doesn't give people the freedom in life to figure out the best way to live their life and be the most independent. It doesn't create a good safety net for someone who gets laid off for a year or so to keep saving toward a better future, ironically if you do the opposite, which is go rack up a ton of debt in credit cards, and be as foolish as you possibly can with money guess what? You will qualify easy. For me personally I had a situation with tax credits, where I had invested money in the stock market, at the time I had a small amount of money to invest and tried to make more money good right? Well I ended up making about 5-6k in the stock market, so I go to do my taxes and find out that I lost about 4k in tax credits because there was some arbitrary rule that if you make more than X dollars in capital gains it disqualifies you. For me it wasn't worth the time I put into that year of stock trading to make that money even though I made a really good return. Cause my net profit was only between 1-2k. And I could thank someone with a mentality like you for turning me completely off the stock market until I have a much larger investment pool. Ironically our income wasn't that great that year. Right then and there I felt first hand how broken your thoughtline is. Here I was trying to experiment with making my life better and the government basically said, hey bud if you want to invest you better not bother doing it until you can make at least 10k or more in capital gains (something you can never know). Otherwise its just not worth the time or the risk because you will be losing tax credits.

For my entire life people have been making the argument you make and nothing works. I think its time we stop doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result and think about trying something different and asking what we really want the programs to achieve. I personally want them to be something that encourages people to get themselves into the best financial place in life, and I want them to create a safety net that discourages people from turning to lives of crime to make society safer.

There is a very easy solution to poverty traps. Universal basic income. But good luck convincing people in the US of that, everyone thinks their temporarily embarassed millionaires and someday when they've made it they won't want to pay taxes.

 

[mope54]

I have a tremendous idea. SS is predicated on working. Work and save a portion of your paycheck. Let's call it, I don't know, a 401k.

Sounds like a fantastic idea. Do you think anyone tried that before SS was implemented? Maybe there was a good reason for society to implement SS...perhaps there's something on wikipedia about the social and political context surrounding designing social security.