Comments about ‘America's safety net’

The super rich need less taxes to stash away more money. Government needs to use money to enhance the military industrial profiteers. This will be the main plank of the GOP.

The "piggy banks" would be a lot more full if bankers didn't act like piggies, we didn't try to pay for two foreign wars with credit, and we didn't lower the taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

get rid of it all together peole will learn not to live of the sweat of there neighbors brow. Sink or swim people learn how to swim. Individuals and churches can and do help the poor people government shouldn't though. Rich pay the bulk of taxes anyway are your taxes going up when theres go down?

I have yet to see one serious idea from the Republicans on how they will help the middle class. Lower taxes for the wealthy, eliminating capital gains and estate taxes, cutting funds for education and job training, and similar proposals don't help the middle class - only the wealthy.

So the rich are doing fine and the middle-class is disappearing? Gee, and here I thought these Bush tax cuts were supposed to be helping us!

Simple questions, if the rich are doing fine, then why aren't they creating jobs? The repubs keep claiming that the more money the rich have, the more jobs they will create. This obviously isn't working.

Susan. It is a mistake to put Obama as the reason for the increased use of the so called safety net. He did not make this financial mess in the first place. That you can lay at the feet of earlier Administrations both republican and democrat. For partisan political reasons the republicans are trying to tie the state of the economy to Obama like a set of concrete shoes. They will fail because in truth has actually improved the economic situation since becoming president.

You are entiled to your mistaken opinion of course, but not your own set of facts. You try to boulster opinion by citing your experience in this area but that experience really does not fully translate to an undertanding of the causal effects, just the resultant impact.

@higv
Spoken like a true Ebenezer Scrooge. "Are there no prisons? And the workhouses, are they still in operation? Those who are badly off must go there . . . If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

It is extremely presumptuous of you to pass judgement on the poor who, for whatever reason, are not able to make ends meet on their own, and rely on the public "safetly net" to get by. If the public welfare coffers were eliminated, as you suggest, how long do you think it would take for the needs of America's impoverished to overwhelm the available funds of the churches and private charities and philanthropists? How many people would fall through the cracks as a result of the decentralized and highly varied and inconsistent "system" of private charity?

The truth is, both public welfare and private charity play an important role in meeting the needs of the poor, and it is possible to both be fiscally responsible AND to provide for the poor and needy out of the the public coffers in a way that is both intelligent and compassionate.

higv | 7:31 a.m. Feb. 7, 2012
Dietrich, ID
=======================

Aren't you retired higv?
Those are some pretty harsh words coming from someone on the dole himself.

What you want is Anarchy, like Somalia - go there if you want.
We Americans like our lives, we just need to make some adjustments, like not starting ridiculous Wars and such.

BTW - If churches can handle it, why do LDS Bishops ask and assist if those needing help are seeking Government aid or getting help from family?
That to me says Churches are the 3rd option.

My Ward back in Seattle was an entire Zip Code.
I doubt our 1 Bishop could help every American in that area.

FYI - The Rich pay the bulk of the taxes, for the very same reason the Rich pay the bulk of Tithing, it's based on INCOME.

Why is that so difficult for ultra-Cons to understand?

LDS Liberal, you are completely off-base when you imply that a retired citizen is on the dole when he receives Social Security and Medicare.

Those who are retired who paid into the "system" are owed everything promised to them by the Government. They had no choice when it came time to make their Social Security "contributions".

The government mingled that money with the general fund. The government spent it. Now the government is pointing fingers at those who PAID the money. The government is trying to find ways to NOT keep the promises made.

The GOVERNMENT failed, not those who paid into the system.

Everyone who paid in is ENTITLED to the money promised, just as if they paid that money into a retirement fund. It is not the recipient's problem that the Government messed up.

Mike Richards | 9:06 a.m. Feb. 7, 2012
South Jordan, Utah

Everyone who paid in is ENTITLED to the money promised, just as if they paid that money into a retirement fund.

====================

That's why its called "Entitlements".
And you and your ilk want to end all "Entitlements".

No - strike that - you want to end OTHER people's entitlemens, just not yours.

How do you sleep at night with all those rationalizations going on?

FYI - Social Security is still Secure for now, unless Mitt and the rest of the GOP start another war or keep handing out $$$ to their WallStreet buddies...

Corporate Welfare, something Republicans still deny is happening,
because it's easier to blame and steal from Grandma and Grandpa or little kids at Primary Childrens Medical Center than their Corporate Mahans.

We have the wealthiest poor people in history. The dole has created idleness, begging, and whining.

@ Mike Richards comments reveal a common conservative tactic, argue that Social Security was paid into and people are getting their money back, but when it suits their argument, turn around and argue that SS is a government welfare plan and should be abolished. It is so hard to keep track of their moving target. No wonder efforts to strengthen SS are so elusive.

Mike Richards

You sound like you voted for Al Gore. He was the one who wanted to put all SS money into a "lock box" and keep it out of the general funds. Remember that Republicans did not like this idea at all.

We voted it down.

It's time to tax the rich. And fire people like this. I guess Newt still wants to build a 5 star resort yet on the moon, and for security guards do more research and then development for "star wars." We know that Reagan is famous for preaching that helping the wealthy would help the rest of us, but since that time they did not create any jobs for the middleclass. In case Newt pushes for the new world order and wants more guns and much more deregulation's, he'll massively increased military spending, and never lower taxes with a balanced budget. Yes Newt should admit that Reagan was a pragmatic moderate. But "moderate" is the dirty name, it would let the cat out of the bag, of true American Exceptionalism" (aka) bow down to K Street and Wall Street Corporate sneakiness, outright-scams and con-games. Koch Brother's and ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics, deregulated for kickbacks for the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, in their "Field Of Dreams," (of corn and sugar cane), with more corruption, and "crony capitalism." What about Reagan's illegal immigration policy and Newt's?. Crooks of a feather stick together. They should all be jail birds by now.

Liberals want to tax us all of our lives, with a promise that part of those taxes will be paid back in the form of a government pension plan - Social Security. Then, when they can see that there is NO MONEY in the fund because THEY have spent that money and replaced that money with an I.O.U., they call us cheats and thieves for wanting what THEY PROMISED to RETURN to us. They took it under false pretences. They spent it illegally. Now, when there is nothing but an I.O.U. in the fund, they tell us that we are corrupt for expecting THEM to keep their promises.

If we failed to pay into the fund, they would put us in jail. If we gave them an I.O.U. instead of money, they would put us in jail.

They have failed to maintain the fund. They have cheated. They robbed us of our ENTITLED (pre-paid) government managed retirement.

Now they want 17% more of our money for "health care". Does anyone care to guess what they will do with THAT money?

It's all about these cafeteria style Constitutionalist that uses their political theories if and when it fits them and when it effects them alone, with a no waiting staff table service, in their private Patroit restaurant or within an institution of the Tea Party. That's what they think is their "Constitutionalist Platform" is to spout off about. That crashed America. Are you ready for that again?. "HEY", the rich get richer, we get poorer.

"There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 'Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund'. . . . The Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Trust Fund, and, in addition, such amounts as may be appropriated to the Trust Fund as herein under provided." (Title II, Section 201a) (1939)

LBJ mingled the Social Security trust fund with the general fund in 1968:

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."

Since 1968 when LBJ really messed up Social Security, other laws have been passed to handle the accounting of those funds. The fact remains that all that we have is a gigantic I.O.U. in the Social Security trust.

With all those K Street and Wall Street Republican's in the US House and US Senate, let's show them in 2012, that this is going to be "America's new real safety net" because they won't write a Bill for Term Limits, that means you don't do the Senate, then run for a seat in the US House, then burn that out and re-run for another term in the Senate, burn that out then run for President, and then V.P, then back to the Senate again, it means 2 years and then your done for any Office ever again, with real teeth in the Bill like this. It's time to tax the rich. And fire people like this. Corporate Welfare, something Republicans still deny is happening,
because it's easier to blame and steal from Grandma and Grandpa or little kids at Primary Childrens Medical Center than their Corporate K Street and Wall Street plus Big Oil greed. Never ever pass judgement on the poor who, for whatever reason, are not able to make ends meet on their own. Todays GOP and Tea Party are nothing more then anti-Jesus and are a Ebenezer Scrooge.

My truthful views.

Everyone, please pay attention. Quit you political posturing and meaningless rhetoric.

Just increasing the tax rate (under the current code) does NOT solve the long-term problem of yearly deficit level spending which continues to add to the +$15 trillion U.S. debt at a rate of over $1 trillion/year. You could tax the rich at 100% of their income and it will NOT reduce the deficit or any of the current debt level by one penny. Reducing expenditures alone will also not solve the problem.

What needs to be done is to basically implement the recommendations (or some constructive variant) of the Bowles-Simpson Committee, which was commissioned by Obama. The Bowles-Simpson recommendations have been totally ignored by this Administration and the Congress in the name of ridiculous political posturing for re-election purposes. We need to entirely revise the tax code per the Bowles-Simpson guidelines and entirely throw out the current code with all the loopholes, tax subsidies, and deductions. Otherwise, we will continue to follow Greece into economic oblivion.

The piggy bank of the United States (I love that description) has been wasted on foreign wars (as opposed to defense) and the old and infirm are being blamed for it.