Understandably, I am not able to consider every detail of how govt money is doled out but I think my idea would be a big improvement to how the system now works. I think that anyone who gets money from the govt be it welfare, food stamps or unemployment should be required to submit a resume of their skills, education and experience. Then any govt agency or non profit would be able to hire anyone in this pool of recipients for a rate that would determine how many ours that individual is required to work. They receive 100 dollars and the job is rated at 10 dollars they would have to work up to 10 hours or lose their benefits. Mothers with kids, well hire some from this group to staff day cares and you have a place for the mothers to place their kids when they work. Storm or disaster efforts would be aided by all these people who would have to work for the money they get. Cities could then do some of the things that makes their town nicer but are too expensive like picking up litter or cleaning the outside of their buildings or cutting the grass on abandoned properties.
My guess is that you would see a dramatic drop in the number of people who stay unemployed until their benefits are about to run out. And a big drop in those who view Welfare as the easiest job that a person can have. Anyone who thinks that everyone who gets a govt check for sitting at home really is desperate to find a job is delusional. For many unemployment is like a paid vacation and for some it is a logical decision. If a job they can get only pays a little more than they are getting to sit at home well for some and perhaps many it is much easier to do nothing and get paid for it.
I also had an idea for that bad idea of stimulus that they did. They sent out money to everyone and found that many just used it to pay off some credit cards or put it away in savings in case things got worse. I think that it would be a simple thing to just issue credit cards that had limits like flexible spending cards have. The limit would be that it had to be used to buy goods or services that are made in the USA. US companies would get their products certified and the card could only be used to buy certain certified goods. The money gets spent and the products are all of US origin or it goes to US contractors.
I realize that idea might not be as easy as I seem to imply but I think it very similar to how a flexible spending card works and it would at the very least insure that the money that they hand out is spent and that ti goes toward the maximum benefit inside of the US.
I guess I think that the things the govt does is intentionally confusing so that they can lie to the people about how great it is and how it helps them while at the same time making sure that the money goes to those who will support their time in office.
I looked at the way the money was spent in NE PA during the one round of stimulus and it was clearly a total waste and nothing more than a political pay off. For example during the dead of winter they put some water lines in. At that time of year it is difficult to dig and since these lines go down the middle of the street the roads were destroyed. Soil compaction is difficult if not impossible so that when things start to thaw well any patching they did to the roads was just a mess. But these contractors spent the money before the time expired and they of course were always those who supported the politicians in the area.
Well, not to rain on your parade, but why would I want to get out and do any of these menial jobs for? My check from SSA is the fly in the ointment. I worked and was required to pay into the SSA for my older age benefit. At the start of this benefit, it was never classified as an entitlement but now it has been renamed as one. I have worked since I retired but could not now. So, what do I get? Before the SSA started this so called benefit, my great-grandma went from relative to relative and stayed with some of her grown children until she thought she wore her welcome out. Her husband died first. They farmed all their lives and raised whatever they ate. I well remember the old house they lived in before granddad passed. When this benefit started, it seemed like a good thing but you see how that bright idea has deterioated under some of the scum in politics can't keep their hands off of designated funds. Now, we are all told that it will run out by a certain time, yet what will happen to the funds that are being paid into it now? Are the ones paying into the SSA now paying for the errors of the idiots in Washington? How will their monies be recouped for them?
So, basically, what I get out of your proposal is that all entitled people drawing a check should be assessed as to their work background and paid a nominal wage compared to what it should be paid in order to draw any check at all from the government. That's whether you worked and paid SS taxes or not. You see where I'm coming from on this? After all of these years of it working the way it was planned, now they want us to work for it? It wasn't enough to pay taxes on it all of those years? Just another punishment if anything like that is ever enacted in the present scheme of things. Of course there's another way they might accomplish something like this. They could round up everybody older than 62 and gas us, then they could start over and make everybody work that could walk or gas them too, no benefit for working and paying taxes all of your lives. Just work until you drop or get shoveled into a ditch somewhere.
Didn't mean to sound irate but I'm speaking solely on the side of the SS recipients.
I don't see how some folks just sit back and wait on handouts either. What do they have to look foward to? Whatever any of us draw, it is not near enough to cover our expenses. Unless you allocated so much of your pay when you worked for programs to help you in your old age, you would find that SS is a mere pittance to what is needed.
Oddly enough, they label Social Security an entitlement - which is correct - IF YOU'VE PAID INTO THE FUND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FROM IT - easy enough to understand. What I don't understand, is why they label all these other government giveaways as "entitlements" - as if you're entitled to receive freebies from the Feds for simply existing. One would think that in labeling SS an "entitlement", along with all these other programs, they're simply trying to muddy the waters.
Obviously we should separate SS from other payments such as unemployment, welfare and food stamps. For the latter group the governement should require their time for the benefits. If someone is drawing unemployment they should be actively looking for a job or show up for daily activity. With local governments being strapped for revenues these folks could assist with jobs on a local level. I realize this will never happen, but if someone is being given something the provider is also entitled to their time.
So sorry but I do not include SSA in this discussion and never meant to imply that I was talking about that. All that I am really talking about are those things that they hand out to people who are getting money because they are not working. Unemployment is in a sense paid for because of the labor of the individual but most is paid by the employer.
I do not think that I ever mentioned SS although the Dem's like to include them when it comes to govt entitlements. I think that is why they fight so hard when there is any suggestion that an individual should be able to manage the money that they send into the fund. I honestly think that if all the money that I contributed as well as what the employer contributed were managed well my retirement would be far better than it would on SS alone.
Sorry to get you so worked up to write such a long reply but I never ever thought that someone would think that I consider SS a hand out.
I think they should track Social Security Numbers and Bank accounts of Welfare recpients and if you win Lottery money you pay everything back
the Govt gave you.
Billy
Here is how I think government handouts should be handled. They should be stopped at the federal level. if a state wants to create a safety net of some sort that is their right.
Quote from: mdgiles on January 08, 2013, 10:36:09 AM
Oddly enough, they label Social Security an entitlement - which is correct - IF YOU'VE PAID INTO THE FUND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FROM IT - easy enough to understand. What I don't understand, is why they label all these other government giveaways as "entitlements" - as if you're entitled to receive freebies from the Feds for simply existing. One would think that in labeling SS an "entitlement", along with all these other programs, they're simply trying to muddy the waters.
Sorry to disappoint you but, according to the SCOTUS, you are not "entitled" to one red cent of the money you paid into the Social Security ponzi scheme.
From the Social Security Administrations website...
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html)
Flemming v. Nestor
Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social
Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 08, 2013, 11:05:20 AM
So sorry but I do not include SSA in this discussion and never meant to imply that I was talking about that. All that I am really talking about are those things that they hand out to people who are getting money because they are not working. Unemployment is in a sense paid for because of the labor of the individual but most is paid by the employer.
I do not think that I ever mentioned SS although the Dem's like to include them when it comes to govt entitlements. I think that is why they fight so hard when there is any suggestion that an individual should be able to manage the money that they send into the fund. I honestly think that if all the money that I contributed as well as what the employer contributed were managed well my retirement would be far better than it would on SS alone.
Sorry to get you so worked up to write such a long reply but I never ever thought that someone would think that I consider SS a hand out.
Well, you still don't get my drift. I didn't mean for you to take SS as a hand out. The government is now classifying it as a handout and I'm surprised you haven't known that. Why would we be treated any differently by the government in regards to say a welfare recipient? Do you think that there should be a different set of rules for each group? Brother, wouldn't that raise a stink amongst some of our people? I can just hear jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton already.
Some of your thoughts were ok by me but you have to include ALL entitlements.
edited by taxed -- fixed broken quoting
Quote from: Darth Fife on January 08, 2013, 06:24:34 PM
Sorry to disappoint you but, according to the SCOTUS, you are not "entitled" to one red cent of the money you paid into the Social Security ponzi scheme.
From the Social Security Administrations website...
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html)
Flemming v. Nestor
Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social
Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
Off course that's true. But most people have paid into this none existent "Trust Fund" all their working lives. The fact that the politicians took the money and left worthless IOU's is still another point. The point I was making is that, unlike other recipients of government largesse, theoretically Social Security recipients contributed toward their own checks. That makes it unlike other "entitlements".
So I am not entitled to any money the government rakes from me?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 08, 2013, 09:44:50 PM
So I am not entitled to any money the government rakes from me?
Nope! Giles explains this much better than all the replies. I especially like his description of how politicians "borrowed from Peter to pay Paul", using our paid in monies until Peter ran out of funds. The monies paid in right now are to catch up the debts they ran up off your and my money. Can you say crooked? This is another reason that we should stop giving money to other countries, we are in the red for the foreseeable futures of our children.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 08, 2013, 09:44:50 PM
So I am not entitled to any money the government rakes from me?
BINGO!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 08, 2013, 09:44:50 PM
So I am not entitled to any money the government rakes from me?
I find IF I get money back from the government, the good wife thinks it is hers. :lol:
Quote from: keyboarder on January 08, 2013, 06:37:35 PM
Well, you still don't get my drift. I didn't mean for you to take SS as a hand out. The government is now classifying it as a handout and I'm surprised you haven't known that. Why would we be treated any differently by the government in regards to say a welfare recipient? Do you think that there should be a different set of rules for each group? Brother, wouldn't that raise a stink amongst some of our people? I can just hear jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton already.
Some of your thoughts were ok by me but you have to include ALL entitlements.
edited by taxed -- fixed broken quoting
I think the libs would be up in arms if you make any or all recipients do anything. Last night on Hannity the one guest said it was outrageous to stop people from using their welfare cash cards to get money in a strip club or bar. If you saw it, well it is clear that there are a lot of people that believe that they are some how owed this money because they do not have all the money they think they should have. The guest said he once was a stripper and all of the strippers were on welfare because they did not make enough money. They were kind to him because they never asked if he included all his tips as income which I am sure evades being counted to some extent. But the Peoples need that money.
In my world my idea only applies to those who are getting a check because they do not have a job or earn less than what ever the income level is. So every able bodied person getting that money theoretically would not be in that spot if they had a job. So treat the money as if it were payment for a job. SS is paid when you hit an age which cannot be changed because you are working. It would be nice if you could make me younger by giving me a job but at this point I do not think that is possible.
Back in 1976 I heard something similar to this in one of my sociology classes so it is not a new idea. Looking back I am not surprised what we were told were the consequences of having them do work for the money they receive. They implied that it would cause people to lose their jobs because you would use these people and that making them work was unfair and equated to slavery. I have no doubts that the Libs would see this as an outrage. I would even be OK if instead of work they were enrolled in training or college assuming they were performing at an acceptable level.
I do believe that there are a substantial number of people getting welfare and unemployment that could be working if they wanted too. I do not deny that there are a number of people collecting on either that are there through circumstances of life. As one more benefit it would also reduce the number of cheats who collect a check while doing work under the table.
I think I get your drift when you say that the Dem's and Libs of the world would be hysterical and I assume that the GOP would be afraid of being called heartless if they pushed something even a little like this. So I have no belief that we as a nation will ever require them to earn this money in some way. I think that is truly a shame.
Does it matter if their up in arms? What are they going to do - except burn their own neighborhoods down? A person who has lived their entire life on the government dime, isn't what you'd call a self starter.
I think that it is a give that the Lib side views any action against their favorite programs as an affront to humanity. O'reilly asked one yesterday if she would be OK with a govt audit to insure that the money going to Planned Parenthood was not being used illegally. She was 100% against an audit and with equal conviction declared that they did not spend any of their money illegally. Elimination of fraud is taken as an attempt to remove services from the program they are ripping off.
I think if they do not protest that you are going down the wrong path.
EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY GOVERNMENT PROGRAM SHOULD BE AUDITED IMMEDIATELY, if only to combat "waste" and to make sure they have their spending under control. I would do it with outside auditors if possible, and instead of paying them, give them a break on their next few years tax bill.
Quote from: mdgiles on January 09, 2013, 09:55:37 AM
EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY GOVERNMENT PROGRAM SHOULD BE AUDITED IMMEDIATELY, if only to combat "waste" and to make sure they have their spending under control. I would do it with outside auditors if possible, and instead of paying them, give them a break on their next few years tax bill.
Do you think it's physically possible?
Quote from: taxed on January 09, 2013, 09:56:49 AM
Do you think it's physically possible?
It is a great idea and obviously not possible to audit the entire government in a short time period. However, with all the waste evreywhere just throw a dart at a federal organization chart and start where it lands. However, being serious, the pols and and employee unions would never allow an independent study to identify the waste in government.
If the pols ever did what everyone says they are going do, which is eliminate govt waste our deficit argument would be very different today. There is not an agency that does not have a large amount of waste which can be identified and removed. Toss in Fraud which is not so easy to find would just be gravy.
An audit would be helpful but if they allocate 10 hours labor to a job that private industry would allocate 2 hours, the audit would see that 10 hours was allocated and 10 hours was used. So they would not find anything wrong. What type of audit that is needed is one that evaluates how the work is done, how it flows and the amount of resources that are applied. All this would be very difficult with so many unions involved who are more interested in expanding work hours and not interested in increasing efficiency.
I would toss that dart and open up for bid to private industry half or a quarter of the work done by that group. If they do the work quicker or more cheaply they get to take it all over. Very black and white comparison to determine who would be more efficient. I would guess that there would be very few that would bet that the govt agency would perform the job quicker and less expensively than the private company.
I think that the GOP really shoots themselves when they say things like cuts to the DOD are unacceptable. I think that there are lots of cuts that are possible that would not diminish our capabilities one bit.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 09, 2013, 11:23:15 AM
If the pols ever did what everyone says they are going do, which is eliminate govt waste our deficit argument would be very different today. There is not an agency that does not have a large amount of waste which can be identified and removed. Toss in Fraud which is not so easy to find would just be gravy.
An audit would be helpful but if they allocate 10 hours labor to a job that private industry would allocate 2 hours, the audit would see that 10 hours was allocated and 10 hours was used. So they would not find anything wrong. What type of audit that is needed is one that evaluates how the work is done, how it flows and the amount of resources that are applied. All this would be very difficult with so many unions involved who are more interested in expanding work hours and not interested in increasing efficiency.
I would toss that dart and open up for bid to private industry half or a quarter of the work done by that group. If they do the work quicker or more cheaply they get to take it all over. Very black and white comparison to determine who would be more efficient. I would guess that there would be very few that would bet that the govt agency would perform the job quicker and less expensively than the private company.
I think that the GOP really shoots themselves when they say things like cuts to the DOD are unacceptable. I think that there are lots of cuts that are possible that would not diminish our capabilities one bit.
I agree wholeheartedly about the DOD. there are plenty of opportunity areas there. One of the issues with DOD, and other departments, is the pols keep appropriating funds that are not necessary, but are "bringing home the pork". Weapons systems, etc; standout as examples.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 09, 2013, 11:32:56 AM
I agree wholeheartedly about the DOD. there are plenty of opportunity areas there. One of the issues with DOD, and other departments, is the pols keep appropriating funds that are not necessary, but are "bringing home the pork". Weapons systems, etc; standout as examples.
The DOD is not where we need to start cutting.
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 09, 2013, 10:40:32 AM
It is a great idea and obviously not possible to audit the entire government in a short time period. However, with all the waste evreywhere just throw a dart at a federal organization chart and start where it lands. However, being serious, the pols and and employee unions would never allow an independent study to identify the waste in government.
I'm saying, I don't think it's actually possible.
Find some "waste" or "problems" in dept. "A", and dept."B", and dept. "C"; and then play them off against each other. You know one of those: "Well, we've identified 21 billion dollars, of waste, which is 7 billion apiece - unless you can show us where you should keep part of your 7 billion and the other departs should have their share increased".
Quote from: walkstall on January 09, 2013, 05:57:16 AM
I find IF I get money back from the government, the good wife thinks it is hers. :lol:
The wife. The only thing more powerful than the government....
Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 09, 2013, 03:31:10 PM
The wife. The only thing more powerful than the government....
:lol: Yes but she is tax deductible, the government is not.
Quote from: mdgiles on January 08, 2013, 10:36:09 AM
Oddly enough, they label Social Security an entitlement - which is correct - IF YOU'VE PAID INTO THE FUND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FROM IT - easy enough to understand. What I don't understand, is why they label all these other government giveaways as "entitlements" - as if you're entitled to receive freebies from the Feds for simply existing. One would think that in labeling SS an "entitlement", along with all these other programs, they're simply trying to muddy the waters.
Exactly, they paid into it so they are entitled to the money. What infuriates me is the welfare lifers who are an expense to all Americans but never did their fair share of anything (work, paying taxes) then think they are entitled to even more. If I had my way, to get on welfare it would be so demeaning they wouldn't want it but then again I don't think they know what demeaning means. After downsizing welfare that share would go to increase the income of SSI and people who really need the help (disabled, military, our kids coming home to give them time to adjust and get started again. Why do we keep feeding the people who don't respect themselves enough to provide for themselves? Now it even seems they are encouraging it.
EBT only pays for gruel, vegetables, and meat - once a week? And of course any citizen who sees it being used to pay for anything else, could turn in the malefactor - anonymously of course.
Quote from: not_one_of_them on January 12, 2013, 04:40:08 PM
Exactly, they paid into it so they are entitled to the money. What infuriates me is the welfare lifers who are an expense to all Americans but never did their fair share of anything (work, paying taxes) then think they are entitled to even more. If I had my way, to get on welfare it would be so demeaning they wouldn't want it but then again I don't think they know what demeaning means. After downsizing welfare that share would go to increase the income of SSI and people who really need the help (disabled, military, our kids coming home to give them time to adjust and get started again. Why do we keep feeding the people who don't respect themselves enough to provide for themselves? Now it even seems they are encouraging it.
It is extremely frustrating, we even give SSI to illegals, people that didn't even pay into the system.
But it's the way the Dims but votes.
By the way, welcome to the forum NOOT. :smile:
Quote from: Solar on January 13, 2013, 08:12:25 AM
It is extremely frustrating, we even give SSI to illegals, people that didn't even pay into the system.
But it's the way the Dims but votes.
According to the IRS and CBO, you've got that backwards. Illegals are not eligible for SSI. Many illegals pay in via payroll taxes, but can't receive anything out.
That's not to say there is some fraud which should be more aggressively prosecuted, but overall it's a net-gain for SSI.
Quote from: mhughes on January 13, 2013, 08:25:54 AM
According to the IRS and CBO, you've got that backwards. Illegals are not eligible for SSI. Many illegals pay in via payroll taxes, but can't receive anything out.
That's not to say there is some fraud which should be more aggressively prosecuted, but overall it's a net-gain for SSI.
Maybe I should have stated that it is coming.
As many as 1.7 million people could qualify for the program, which enables them to apply for work permits, Social Security cards and driver's licenses, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48860018/ns/us_news-life/t/california-oks-drivers-licenses-some-undocumented-immigrants/#.UPLlL4YfkX4 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48860018/ns/us_news-life/t/california-oks-drivers-licenses-some-undocumented-immigrants/#.UPLlL4YfkX4)
Quote from: Solar on January 13, 2013, 08:52:21 AM
Maybe I should have stated that it is coming.
As many as 1.7 million people could qualify for the program, which enables them to apply for work permits, Social Security cards and driver's licenses, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48860018/ns/us_news-life/t/california-oks-drivers-licenses-some-undocumented-immigrants/#.UPLlL4YfkX4 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48860018/ns/us_news-life/t/california-oks-drivers-licenses-some-undocumented-immigrants/#.UPLlL4YfkX4)
Social security cards lets you be tracked and pay in, not necessarily get benefits. Lots of people have SS cards but are not eligible for benefits. As far as I know, it would take an act of congress to modify the "Qualified Alien" criteria for determining that. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I'm all up for more tracking of illegal immigrants, that's what this does.
And besides, the age requirements and limited duration of that program would mean it hits no retirement age people.
Quote from: mhughes on January 13, 2013, 09:11:48 AM
Social security cards lets you be tracked and pay in, not necessarily get benefits. Lots of people have SS cards but are not eligible for benefits. As far as I know, it would take an act of congress to modify the "Qualified Alien" criteria for determining that. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I'm all up for more tracking of illegal immigrants, that's what this does.
And besides, the age requirements and limited duration of that program would mean it hits no retirement age people.
The idea of millions of people paying in but unable to collect, appeals to our crooked politicos.
Quote from: mdgiles on January 13, 2013, 10:30:17 AM
The idea of millions of people paying in but unable to collect, appeals to our crooked politicos.
"The idea of millions of people paying in but unable to collect,"
Isn't that basically the definition of a ponzi scheme?
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 13, 2013, 11:07:37 AM
"The idea of millions of people paying in but unable to collect,"
Isn't that basically the definition of a ponzi scheme?
Yes. Don't forget the retirement age was originally set at 65 - by Bismarck - because few people lived that long, and thus the majority would be unable to collect
Quote from: mdgiles on January 13, 2013, 10:30:17 AM
The idea of millions of people paying in but unable to collect, appeals to our crooked politicos.
As I remember they were counting on most people not getting past 65.
Quote from: mdgiles on January 13, 2013, 11:11:51 AM
Yes. Don't forget the retirement age was originally set at 65 - by Bismarck - because few people lived that long, and thus the majority would be unable to collect
I think it was always to be their private piggy bank.
All of you are too kind and optimistic towards our government in saying that aliens will pay but they won't collect anything.
Why did our government take x amount of money out of medicare? Medicare normally going to SS recipients has been reduced/benefits reduced to take care or accomodate aliens the government is letting in, as in "proposed expansion of medicaid". The people coming here from Mexico/other places have little or no security when they arrive. Our government wants them to work and pay taxes but will more or less help them on that road by taking care of their most pressing needs like food, health care and some kind of housing subsidies for a short while. That'll sound like a good deal to the aliens until.......they start having to pay for EVERYTHING out of their $10.00-12.00hr job like workers here are doing. One job won't be enough either, they'd better be able to work another one to keep up. It's worse than a ponzi scheme! Wonder how long it'll take these alien folks to realize they've messed in their hands and rubbed it into their hair? They will soon figure out that they've run into the exact scenario that they ran away from? :rolleyes:
Quote from: mhughes on January 13, 2013, 09:11:48 AM
Social security cards lets you be tracked and pay in, not necessarily get benefits. Lots of people have SS cards but are not eligible for benefits. As far as I know, it would take an act of congress to modify the "Qualified Alien" criteria for determining that. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I'm all up for more tracking of illegal immigrants, that's what this does.
And besides, the age requirements and limited duration of that program would mean it hits no retirement age people.
You put far more trust into the Dim party than i do.
Look at all those Husein just made legal by the stroke of a pen, EXO.
And you don't think the Dims won't screw the taxpayer over for a few more votes?
They care nothing about the deficit, absolutely nothing at all, so giving our money to illegals is nothing but a "Screw You America" we're buying more votes.