Are government programs really a bad thing?

[The Black Wolf]

So I was listening to a radio show and the guy speaking said some things that got me thinking.

He basically stated that government programs are a bad thing. Of course, I should have expected this. He calls Social Security "Social Insecurity" and encourages people to save and invest for retirement instead of relying on the government for retirement. So any way, he stated that taxing the rich for government or social or whatever programs is a bad idea. He said that the people who want everyone to get help in everything are being unrealistic and childish.

Here's the thing: What about the people who cannot help themselves? What about physically and mentally disabled people who are not able to work and need income to live? What about the people who really need the help? Like a single mom who is employed or unemployed, would you pull food stamps off under her? I understand about the people who abuse the system, women who have six babies so they can continue to live off welfare and etc. However, what about the people who need the help?

He said that it's with good intentions that people want everyone to get help in everything, but it's childish. I say if they don't get help, then does he want them to live on the street? Does he want mentally and physically disabled people to live on the streets when they have no place to go or parents still alive?

I'm not trying to bash a certain way of thinking. I'm trying to understand it. He did make some good points. Social Security is contributing to this country's debt and the welfare mentally is not a good thing at all.

My question to you guys is, what do you think about government programs?

[BoyBettaKnow]

Do Americans not even get a state pension?

[Yuuichi]

Do Americans not even get a state pension?

Dont think so. Gov programs are good they just need reworking. When a guy who wins 1 million dollars in lotto can still collect benefits that shows you system is messed up. Same with O.D.B. He was making millions and still got gov benefits. To many lazy people abuse the system. there a girl at work who refuses to work over 12 hour because her gov benefits will be cut. Her and her 6 kids, tho I heard recently they cap you at 4 kids and any more you get no extra benefits.

[BoyBettaKnow]

O.D.B as in the guy from Wu Tang? Haha, no way thats ridiculous

I do think there are some things that should be standard - a state pension would certainly be part of that for the old who are in a position to not be able to look after themselves as easily and especially a health care system. Maybe i have jaded views though as i'm from the UK where we have both

[Fijiandoce]

i was thinking the same thing just a couple of hours ago....but with businesses, not child support.

its a slippery slope.

the programs would work if they could be enforced thoroughly. they can't be enforced as the money to do so would make it a pointless exercise.
i don't mind government programs (i love the UK government for this) they help out those in need.
however, there are those who mooch off the system as a means, not an aid.

i kinda like the new University policy (though others think its too high) where the government holds the bill until you're in a position to pay it off. (this is in the UK though)

i have a special dislike for those who have kids for gov income.....if i ever go on a rampage, this will probably be the trigger.

[BoyBettaKnow]

Yeah your right, Fiji. Unfortunately we have many people who think of JSA/welfare as a way to live their life and they in turn go on to abuse the system. Not sure if it's a pride thing but even if i didn't have a job i'd rather go without money and spend the extra time searching - even though i've paid my fair of taxes.

And your right. There are many people, typically teenage mums it seems now, who have children just because they know they'll get put up in a council house/flat and never have to work a day in their pathetic little lives.

[davin_g]

The problem is what we face right now in america and what the EU is facing. When the money being paid out in these programs and others far far outweigh what the govt can raise in taxes then we have a deficit. Then we want to tax people more. We do need tax reform here but they did this in California. Raising the tax rates to meet the deficits. What happened???? They got even less money by raising the tax rate then they did before. Why? Because raising taxes on wealthy individuals, small business owners, and corperations caused them to create less jobs....in fact a lot of companies and work left the state for other states that didn't tax as much and so now all the rich people and job creators went to different states that have lower tax burdens. That left California with less tax money and less jobs. Jobs create more tax revenue. So the solution isn't to tax more.

The tax system needs cleaned up but also so does govt and state pensions. Those people getting state paid pensions for LIFE don't have to do what the avg worker in america has to do. They don't have to fund theirs even 1%. Most americans have 401 k and personal savings for retirement. Not the tax payers paying for their retirement. Eliminating or limiting these state and govt pensions (for new) not necessarily those already retired or money contributed..but going forward...would free up more money to take care of the other govt programs. These programs need overhauled as well but as soon as someone mentions changing things....people start crying out "oh no...they are going to take old peoples social security away...poor people and disabled peoples checks...going to hurt the poor and thus scare the reformers out of office or from making change. No change...system brakes and people suffer. Politics get in the way from both sides and thus broken systems don't get fixed. This is why a lot of people say govt programs are bad.

The good ideas end up being abused and outdated and so on. One example is in Indiana they said for you to get your unemployment/state handouts you had to pass a drug test. ALL hell broke lose. What happened...turns out only 8-10% failed...but the real thing was that claims were down almost 20%. State paid out less and the druggies didn't get tax payer money. Anyways point is these programs get abused by the lazy and politicians. Real reform is needed but people get demonized.

Some people just have the view that America was formed on hard work, blood, sweat, and tears. Asking for a hand out just isn't American in nature. So a lot of people look down on a lot of these programs. They are there for those down and to help them get back on their feet or to take care of the truely poor people or disabled. Problem is the healthy and capable are lazy..and politicians prey on those that get handouts to get them elected or keep them elected.

[Tutankhamun]

Socialism is good on paper but in reality it rarely works. The idea of the government taking care of you from the cradle to the grave sounds great but the problem is if the government takes care of you finically are you truly free? Can you criticize the same organization that gives you your way of life? Will they abuse it? They probably will. They have absolute power over you.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

Keep in mind that socialism has been tried before and it didn't end so well. The Soviet Union was a truly socialist society. Nazi Germany was about socialism Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialism.

The globalist, call them the NWO or the Illuminati, want socialism that way they control the money and they can control you.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

I can recommend reading these books if you want to understand how this game is played:

Rule By Secrecy

The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy

The Rise of the Fourth Reich

[-Kwesnoth-]

There shouldn't be Gov. programs. It was set up only to protect Americans from other nations, and to enforce law and order through police and such. Everything else should be dropped.

[The Black Wolf]

There shouldn't be Gov. programs. It was set up only to protect Americans from other nations, and to enforce law and order through police and such. Everything else should be dropped.

Including programs used to help the disabled and elderly?

[-Kwesnoth-]

Including programs used to help the disabled and elderly?

As sad as that is yes. Our country is broke and going down the crapper every second things aren't cut back. It can't afford to provide any services.

[keefy]

Yea fuckem those old people should have the decency to just die already and those without legs should just grow a pair.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Yea fuckem those old people should have the decency to just die already and those without legs should just grow a pair.

Didn't say that at all. But its like a homeless guy with paper money trying to pay for everyone around him.

America can't afford jack shit, its not just handicapped and old. But all government hand outs.

[keefy]

And I didnt say you said it.

[Vulgotha]

This kind of pertains to government programs and how far the government has the right to reach into our private lives (taxes, etc). A friend of mine just wrote this:

"Terrorism? - If some have such control that they can operate above the law, the only way that justice can be served is outside the law. You think changing the name of oppression makes it any less oppressive. Look just in your own life at the simple hypocrisies of the powerful trampling all over you constitution and your rights. How is property tax not feudal rent? You are assessed a fee upon the value of your property every year, and if you do not pay to the Lord of the County - he then becomes the owner. You were never the own in the first place if he can charge you rent and take it away if you don't pay. We have a restriction in our nation on usury interest, yet if a man overdrafts 10 cents on his account he may be assessed a $50 fee...which is equivalent to a 500% rate on DAILY term - yet such interest is illegal. How are innocent until proven guilty, yet you must wait in jail until your trial and have to pay to get out? That they impound your car for suspicion of driving under drugs, yet when your test results come back clean - you are not reimbursed for the impounding fee nor the time spent in jail the night of. You are a 'free man' yet you can be jailed even for a life sentence for victimless crimes that only involve your own body. How is your crime capable of being erased if you agree to pay an exorbiant fine to the government whereas the poor man walks with that mark for the rest of his life? The fools are content to buy the fancy names they put on institutions that mimic the very foul acts that our revolution was based upon. Those with honest minds see right through the bullshit. How much longer will we tolerate this bullshit?

More to the point, the issue here isn't whether or not the government intends well. Certainly it does and certainly there should be some sort of 'safety net' for the disfortuned. The problem becomes when the government goes to any length to fund itself, to find ways to control your life (ostensibly for your own good, of course), to deny your rights, and to ensure its dominance in power.

It's repugnant.

[btbam]

It really depends on the program and whether or not the private sector can provide those services better. Take social security for example. i'm being forced to pay into it, when it is a stated fact that within 30 years it won't be able to pay full benefits. I'm being forced to pay into something my whole life that i won't get the same return from. In this case, i would like to opt out knowing and redirect that money into private investment. The problem with the government programs, they always act as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial bodies. They become more concerned with rule enforcement rather than 'customer service' the customer being the US citizen obviously. Now to address another feature. Taxing the rich to pay for everything. I think people believe there are more rich people than their actually are. You cannot pay for anything really by taxing the rich because their are too few to substantially pay for anything. They already pay 30% so really, i don't think you can tax them any more.

[squirrelbo1]

On the rich people creating jobs that's bullshit. The middle classes create jobs. The last thing big bussinessmen want to do is pay more workers. Companies actively engage in ways of streamlining the work force and getting rid of jobs. Expansion is a last resort to meet consumer demand.



Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[weskurtz81]

On the rich people creating jobs that's bullshit. The middle classes create jobs. The last thing big bussinessmen want to do is pay more workers. Companies actively engage in ways of streamlining the work force and getting rid of jobs. Expansion is a last resort to meet consumer demand.

Without capital, jobs aren't created, but without demand there would also be no need for "jobs" either. So, "rich" people DO create jobs by creating products that people want to buy or society needs.

As far as businessmen not wanting to pay for labor, that's partially correct but I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Businesses don't care if they have a work force of 1 million if that's what it takes to create the product or service they are selling. Where you get into businesses cutting work force and streamlining is because they are always looking for a competitive edge in the marketplace and efficiency is often times key. Labor is the SINGLE largest cost of the vast majority of companies, so naturally it's the SINGLE largest target when companies start trying to figure out how to increase revenue as well as efficiency.

It has nothing to do with any sort of hatred of labor, it has to do with what consumers demand and how technology advances. If every company is one the same footing, the labor costs wouldn't be an issues as they would all be the same, but that just isn't the case so labor comes under fire.

Anyway, without consumers there's no need to create a product, many people (at least in America) go from the middle class to the upper class by creating products that people demand. They are rewarded for doing what they did, and in turn that innovation creates jobs, that's a rich person creating jobs, pretty simple.

[The Black Wolf]

Socialism is good on paper but in reality it rarely works. The idea of the government taking care of you from the cradle to the grave sounds great but the problem is if the government takes care of you finically are you truly free? Can you criticize the same organization that gives you your way of life? Will they abuse it? They probably will. They have absolute power over you.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

Keep in mind that socialism has been tried before and it didn't end so well. The Soviet Union was a truly socialist society. Nazi Germany was about socialism Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialism.

The globalist, call them the NWO or the Illuminati, want socialism that way they control the money and they can control you.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

I can recommend reading these books if you want to understand how this game is played:

Rule By Secrecy

The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy

The Rise of the Fourth Reich

Wow, so the Illuminati is really real?! Is it true the singer Rhianna's song and video "Umbrella" has symbols of the Illuminati? They also say the video "Black and Yellow" has devil worshipping in it.

[DayWalker]

Social security really isn't for "you"...

medium income in the US is what? $40k a year? Pretty hard to save up a nest egg capable of supporting yourself (and maybe a spouse) for 40+ years. Even if you are frugal/responsible.

And if you rely on private investments... then you have to deal with the risk of crashes/collapses etc that can wipe out the investments of an entire generation at an age where they are too old to "stick it out" and recover.

...which leaves you with the same problem. A bunch of old/sick people who need help surviving.

Not saying it doesn't need to be reformed... but the safety net needs to be there.
Unless we are all comfortable seeing Americans who worked hard their entire lives littering the streets....

[squirrelbo1]

Without capital, jobs aren't created, but without demand there would also be no need for "jobs" either. So, "rich" people DO create jobs by creating products that people want to buy or society needs.

As far as businessmen not wanting to pay for labor, that's partially correct but I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Businesses don't care if they have a work force of 1 million if that's what it takes to create the product or service they are selling. Where you get into businesses cutting work force and streamlining is because they are always looking for a competitive edge in the marketplace and efficiency is often times key. Labor is the SINGLE largest cost of the vast majority of companies, so naturally it's the SINGLE largest target when companies start trying to figure out how to increase revenue as well as efficiency.

It has nothing to do with any sort of hatred of labor, it has to do with what consumers demand and how technology advances. If every company is one the same footing, the labor costs wouldn't be an issues as they would all be the same, but that just isn't the case so labor comes under fire.

Anyway, without consumers there's no need to create a product, many people (at least in America) go from the middle class to the upper class by creating products that people demand. They are rewarded for doing what they did, and in turn that innovation creates jobs, that's a rich person creating jobs, pretty simple.

I admit I generalised somewhat but tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the middle classes is bullshit (and has been happening in America (and elsewhere) quite significantly since the 80's)

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[weskurtz81]

Social security really isn't for "you"...

medium income in the US is what? $40k a year? Pretty hard to save up a nest egg capable of supporting yourself (and maybe a spouse) for 40+ years. Even if you are frugal/responsible.

And if you rely on private investments... then you have to deal with the risk of crashes/collapses etc that can wipe out the investments of an entire generation at an age where they are too old to "stick it out" and recover.

...which leaves you with the same problem. A bunch of old/sick people who need help surviving.

Not saying it doesn't need to be reformed... but the safety net needs to be there.
Unless we are all comfortable seeing Americans who worked hard their entire lives littering the streets....

Actually, there are working models currently in place that don't rely on the typical unfunded liabilities of the government to provide everything SS does at a much higher rate of return. They are basically those "evil" private investments, but they've been working great for those involved since the 80's, they even made through 2008...

Basically, the only involvement the government needs to have is to have the funding taken out of income like SS and let someone that actually knows what they are doing manage it... problem solved!

I admit I generalised somewhat but tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the middle classes is bullshit (and has been happening in America (and elsewhere) quite significantly since the 80's)

So, you are saying the tax rate on the middle class has been going up while the tax rates on the rich has been going down?

Why can't the government just spend less money and tax everyone less?

[btbam]

Social security really isn't for "you"...

medium income in the US is what? $40k a year? Pretty hard to save up a nest egg capable of supporting yourself (and maybe a spouse) for 40+ years. Even if you are frugal/responsible.

And if you rely on private investments... then you have to deal with the risk of crashes/collapses etc that can wipe out the investments of an entire generation at an age where they are too old to "stick it out" and recover.

...which leaves you with the same problem. A bunch of old/sick people who need help surviving.

Not saying it doesn't need to be reformed... but the safety net needs to be there.
Unless we are all comfortable seeing Americans who worked hard their entire lives littering the streets....

At this point in time, i would rather risk my retirement prospects in private investment when at this point in time the system is not working. Right now i have a 100% chance that i will not get my full benefits from social security, so why am i gonna play the sucker and pay into it? i don't disagree with the concept, but its a broken system, it needs to be reformed before i'll be satisfied with it.

[RaY_210]

I'm not that big of a political guy, so even though I read most of the comments, I'm not going to reply to them but just answer her original question: My parents divorced when I was 10 and although he paid child support, my mom still worked and raised the 4 of us, and we had housing and food stamps, so Im gonna say no they are not a bad thing. I really don't know what we would have done of we didn't have that. The problem is with the way they work and the people that abuse them.

[Rapture]

The entire function of a government is to protect the people, so the question is redundant. As well, wanting a better world is far from childish. Direct or indirect, the money comes from both the people and the Government, so the problem we are represented with is how we currently spend out money. Efficiency is key, so all we need to do is cut our over-expenditure while better monitoring who exactly needs these social safety nets, as well as balancing taxes between the classes and businesses while removing tax loopholes.

If even under better circumstances we cannot survive as a nation, then it simply was not meant to be. That is reality.