General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy all this talk of cutting social welfare programs?
Wall Street is at an all-time high in record profits. Big Business has never been doing better, maybe we should be talking about cutting corporate welfare and not social welfare? Since one group seems to be doing better then ever and the other group is looking at how to make ends meet on 14k a year.
Just a thought.
patrice
(47,992 posts)paths for the politically ambitious, just like this board; people get used.
TRUE story.
Rex
(65,616 posts)but that is to be expected.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Stop disrespecting the truth I bring.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Please do carry on with your huge amount of respect for everyone else you show in every post.
patrice
(47,992 posts)around a bunch of people who have computers and money for internet connections and who refuse to post under anything but false names.
Rex
(65,616 posts)My my my...you are starting to come unraveled. Please proceed!
Response to patrice (Reply #35)
Blue Palasky This message was self-deleted by its author.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I think it's cool to have only one name like "Prince" before his name became a weird symbol (another bold choice).
Having no computer or money for internet connections must be hard for you, do you use carrier pigeons that sneak messages to a wealthy ally who then posts for you? You work so very hard for so very little.
No wonder you're angry.
Social programs might help you you know, if they are funded well and not cut, you really should not rail against them so.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)I bet they even have cars and refrigerators.
Since you "give what you get" or whatever the hell it was, I don't get your shit any longer, so I'm not going to give one about you.
Ignored. Bye.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The chained CPI will not cause the deaths of babies. What in the world are you talking about? Drones cause the deaths of babies. Wars cause the deaths of babies. Lack of healthcare causes the deaths of babies. Illness and birth defects cause the deaths of babies.
I don't understand your posts.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)aieeee
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We are now at the point of reflexive, general naysaying of SOCIAL PROGRAMS?
Rex
(65,616 posts)social welfare programs to advance political ambitions...THANK goodness NOT A ONE goes into the private sector for career ambitions...NO it is all those nasty SOCIAL programs they go for.
Don't you remember, when Tom Delay got caught doing insider trading while he was running the WIC program?
Member that?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I have to get out of this thread now. It's making me dizzy!
And I have a microwave, so there's a lot of guilt involved, too...
Rex
(65,616 posts)But COME ON...you must remember all those backstabbers with political ambition that used social programs as a springboard into politics!
There must be dozens and dozens of them!
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I sorta forget the details
Rex
(65,616 posts)using a hot WIC card. All over the news! Launched his career into Dancing with the Stars it did! Patrice is SO right...DAM those greedy assholes using Food Stamps to further their political careers!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the depth of the problem we ourselves in a way, contributed to. And as I have said before, I believe it is a good thing. It appears that all the anger from certain 'Democrats' at George Bush when he tried to do something similar, was fake? We have in our midst people who either never supported the Democratic Party Platform or are willing to give up on being a Democrat to try to save the reputation of a politician.
One thing I know, we have a huge job to do to clear out Wall St's Third Way from this party before they succeed in totally destroying it. They are undermining the very foundation of the Democrat Party and I for one, do not think we should allow them to do that.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)the liberal bashing has become on a par with Hate Radio
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)what social welfare programs don't work and do you think they should end?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)truly bizarre
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)course. Any talk of doing something about all that wasted money going to mostly corrupt, failed institutions who outsource jobs and really contribute little to this country?
Btw, Social Security is not a Welfare Program. Did you know that?
Rex
(65,616 posts)and corporate welfare programs. No mention of SS.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)How is this board a career path for the politically ambitious.
I, for one, have no political ambitions. My working life is over. I just want a just and moral society.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks in advance
Response to patrice (Reply #1)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
WCLinolVir
(951 posts)I get the picture of Obama using the issue to garner votes. But don't bother dismissing the value of programs that help people. There is always room for improvement, but the the hue and cry that "they don't work" just isn't going to cut it anymore and you do not get to frame the debate with such negativity. It is called rhetoric. And unless you want to address the facts of an issue, don't bother peddling your alarmist crap. TRUER STORY.
Maven
(10,533 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Or is that the other way around?
Rex
(65,616 posts)I mean I know they bring good things to life, but why don't they pay taxes? Is it a good merit badge you can earn or something?
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)yeah, it's the other way around.
That happens.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)n/t
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Controlling the Dialogue *** or *** The Revolution Will Not Happen
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660816
Rex
(65,616 posts)how much money would we save if we did away with corporate welfare - discluding the military? Would it be more than $122 billion dollars in the next 10 years? Something tells me it would be ten times that number in ONE year.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Though, that falls outside the bounds of acceptable political discussion with our main-stream media.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)now would we?
We have a chance in 2014.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)that was something I didn't hear about every 2 to 4 years from the exact same people, I would believe you.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)progressoid
(49,827 posts)We need a LIBERAL Democratic congress.
Even so, the current "Democrats" aren't doing anything. They could be mounting a media blitz to get the public behind actual reform, but they aren't because they are doing the bidding of their corporate buddies.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Ranting on the internet about one part of the WH proposed budget that won't pass?
That did not work after the several outrages of 2010. This board looks just like it did in 2009 and 2010 and that didn't get a liberal Democratic Congress for the midterms.
progressoid
(49,827 posts)This online "ranting" is just part of a broader activism for many of us. In fact, it was so effective that I remember a certain Senator that took advantage these online ranters for his run for president.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And I don't recall any ranting on the internet regarding Obama. He came from a positive place, not a negative one.
progressoid
(49,827 posts)And I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding 2010?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I do.
[font size=3]In an obscene demonstration of "bi-partisanship" seldom seen in Washington, they handed over a $TRILLION DOLLARS
to Wall Street,
no questions asked,
no strings attached,
after receiving a 3 page extortion note threatening the quarterly profits of their 1% Portfolios.
This forever puts to rest the myth that Congress is too monolithic, too large, too cumbersome, too bureaucratic, or too divided to act quickly on any issue.
They can strike faster than a Rattlesnake when they might have to pay off a personal gambling debt. [/font]
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
treestar
(82,383 posts)You have no specifics to your claim.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I didn't feel the need to post specifics,
but just for you:
http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/govt_bailout.htm
"
The hottest stock on the market prior to that time were the banks, hedge funds and pension funds, and all the BIG "Portfolios" were heavy with these stocks.
Our Leaders claimed to have "Saved the Economy",
and that is debatable. What they DID save were the corrupt institutions and their "Executives" that were engaged in these risky practices and their investors from having to pay off their gambling losses.
I wouldn't hesitate to bet that at a minimum 95% (but most probably 100%) of our politicians, Democrats and Republicans, held investments in the institutions they voted to save.
It took them less than 10 days from the moment Paulson delivered his ransom note
to the final passage of the bill that took these bad debts off of the books.
Clear enough for you?
"Thank GAWD it passed!!!!"
treestar
(82,383 posts)Geez Louise!!!!!
progressoid
(49,827 posts)The rest of us are still screwed.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..Saving Wall Street IS Saving THEIR economy,
or at least saving their fat portfolios.
For the Upper Middle Class with fat 401Ks, they would have taken a hit too.
But for all the rest of us, not so much.
"The Economy" is much, MUSH bigger than just Wall Street Banks and the investment gambling of the Well Off.
The Economy would have recovered just fine had the we let the market take its course.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Fool me 1000 times, shame on me!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)nice try though
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Personally, I think we need to drastically cut defense spending before ANYTHING else.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and just decided to cut corporate welfare, would that be $122 billion in 10 years savings?
Corporate welfare is out of control but no one will talk about it.
Remember, corporations are people!
Rex
(65,616 posts)Plus being in business for myself (and working for others) means I have to know the tax rate in each county I do business and I do all that...my my. You think I should call D.C. and ask for my corporate welfare entitlements?
Wonder how THAT conversation would go.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)I'm sure they will invite you to DC for a wonderful lunch...probably at HOOTERS or OLIVE GARDEN.
Rex
(65,616 posts)A 100% tax break or a 100% subsidy? Since I am asking for you too, I need to know.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Which group has more power: the Wall Street crowd or the ones who depend on social programs to survive? Therein lies your answer.
paulk
(11,586 posts)don't vote and/or don't have the money to affect the political process in any way.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)mostly because I drive them to the election stations.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)that makes it easy for the elderly and shut ins. The poorest people are left out though, the homeless, because they don't have addresses to receive ballots at. Some of the homeless shelters try to get as many of them registered and to the polls as possible but still many are left out.
Rex
(65,616 posts)as the Haves like to put it. Too many of the kids go home from school to dirt floors. I guess this is why I am pissed off so much about it.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I heard a blip in passing on the TV while I was doing my chores that the economy was doing better and everyone at the top were getting raises. Sorry I don't have a link because as I said it was in passing and I don't even remember what channel or show.
Rex
(65,616 posts)it is like each one has a pool full of money now...I just know that if one is doing great on the government dime...so should not the other one be doing great, since they actually pay the taxes? Seems if we are looking to save $100 billion over 10 years, it would only be fair to all.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Deficit obsession on both sides.
And look at what we have now. A Democratic Party offering to cut Social Security.
You are spot on. The corporate wealth in this country is obscene and growing, but we still have both parties banging the austerity drum for the rest of us. That's what happens when both parties are corporate-bought.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Pelosi said moving to a less generous formula for adjusting Social Security benefits to inflation if it protects the most vulnerable Social Security beneficiaries might be preferable to other entitlement cuts Republicans are urging, like raising Medicare's eligibility age.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/288157-pelosi-open-to-obama-proposal-on-entitlement-cuts
That's called good-cop vs bad-cop.
patrice
(47,992 posts)does is fucked-up, but, oh wait, SOCIAL PROGRAMS work just fine. Now let me guess what percentage of persons, posting under false names here, have anything to do with social programs, especially pay-check wise. That wouldn't have to be a very high percentage to be significant in this milieu.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)claiming what the Government does is fucked up, at least regarding social programs. May I ask how long have you been helping to demonize these social programs that have you in such emotional distress? Are you afraid some poor person might get a cookie you should have instead?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)in a rage and waste us, and our families, because of our liberal viewpoints.
Something you don't have to worry about, for obvious reasons.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)I would like to sign you up for my newsletter!
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)They like to invest some of those profits in policy because it doesn't cost them that much (relative to their wealth).
They staff and finance the think tanks that write legislation and proposals to cut social welfare programs, then their purchased politicians try to get them passed using the talking points created in those think tanks. They work both sides of the aisle, they appear to be quite successful in their purchases, both parties are dutifully pushing their agenda for them.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)It's a bit of a vicious cycle. They use their money to drive politics. Then use government to get more money. Bit of a capitalist death spiral we seem to be it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)As long as We are driving that bus over the cliff...everything is hunky dory.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)If you are one of the people that feels it is not okay, those cheering the drive over the cliff here become quite angry with you - or me - well most of us actually, but they like to think they are the majority.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And the ones that are are just collateral damage.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)"They like to invest some of those profits in policy."
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....one would think the basics are covered and the money you make from working is all gravy.
Rex
(65,616 posts)It is apparent they are what make this country rich. It is their wealth.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)are those who have a record cash hoard and record profits.
Because they own the government.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)at the very least.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)too greedy for that. It really would put millions into the coffers and the Wall Street banksters wouldn't miss the money except on paper. It wouldn't be enough to change their lifestyles one iota. Thom Hartmann riffs on this from time to time.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)However, the bankers would never tolerate it, and why i believe it isn't even brought up, unless for scorn and ridicule.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)I'd say its a cold day in hell before that happens.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Not to mention all of our CxO's, before any ordinary American, they are so transparent in their corruption they must be on some something potent.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I get the distinct impression that one or more DUers on this thread cracked open their 13th beer when they posted.
Edit to add: just one DUer, and that must have been 13 beers on an empty stomach.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)These poorest among us will spend every last dollar they get, plowing
that money directly into the local economy to buy essential goods and
services, which has a multiplier effect benefiting both the local economy
and the economy as a whole.
It is not only immoral and reprehensible to cut social programs, it is
also piss-poor public policy; esp. while trillions are spent on pointless
wars and corporate tax loopholes and noa-bid contracts for $500
toilet seats, etc.
JEB
(4,748 posts)would lead to more jobs and hiring and back to a more healthy economy. I just don't get why helping poor people is such a demonized idea. The money flows immediately back into the economy also helping businesses and rich people as well. Like a chain, we are only as strong as our weakest link.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)That's why we call it an ECO-nomy, it's an ecosystem.
The super-rich aren't investing, they are hoarding their capital.
JEB
(4,748 posts)that at least one rich SOB has the foresight this guy does. I'd advise him to avoid small planes.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)instead we have Reagan.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Reagan got us out of a bad recession through adequate government spending.
Obama is Hoover.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)the wealthiest state ever, anywhere -
And yet, we "need" to cut spending?
Um, no. We need to increase revenue, first and foremost.
K&R
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)from 1980 until most recently was taken and spent used as general funds for tax breaks and wars. Now the government wants the same people whose deposits into S.S. they took pay again by reducing their benefits.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Austerity.
It's the natural course of things, dontcha know.