And I think you greatly overestimate how big of a role this social programs play. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Yeah but republicans aren't proposing a 2% rate for everyone. They're proposing stuff like 9/9/9. What do you think "broaden the tax base" and "get some skin in the game" means? Do you think it means anything other than you paying more in taxes while no one else's taxes really go down, except maybe the wealthy? (Because you know, haven't we bled these people dry enough already? How much is enough? When does it stop?)

Well I dont agree with those republicans, but you have to start somewhere. If given the choice between the current system and a 9% broad income tax system, I would prefer the 9% broad income tax system, but I think they are both bad. And Cain had a 9% national sales tax in his plan, which is dumb.

I think the fairest tax code is progressive tax based on the actual $ amount people are paying the govt, not based on a % of their income. So someone making 100 times as much money pays 4 times as much taxes. Thats progressive and certainly is still wealth redistrubtion on a far more limited scale.

I like Ron Paul's philisophy of lets get taxes as close to 0 as possible given budget constraints. I trust Paul will do a good job of shrinking the govt to the maximum.

Dude, the dad abandoned his kid because he doesn't care.

All I'm saying is it takes two people to have a kid. The financial responsibility of raisng the child is on those two people alone. Not me,not you,not Obama the mom and the dad,period.

Maybe young women would be more careful about birth control if they knew there would be no(or minimal)help available. Maybe if the dad knew that his kids weren't going to be taken care of by others he would be a man and do it himself.

this is a good moral philisophy to have. There needs to be more people that take personal responsiblity for their actions instead of dumping it on society.

can collecting along with begging can fetch 18-30k a year no problem.

The problem is competition.

There are becoming too many can collectors in my town. It cuts down on their profits which means they beg more which really annoys me.

It's like the south park "change" episode where all the homeless are like scumbag zombies.

THE SAME COUPLE for the last 5 years walks up and down the main drag of town collecting cans/bottles and BEGGING for food, money anything...

The bottom line is they are "HAPPY" with being homeless and staying at the shelter when it's cold and sleeping outside when it's hot as hell.

So if they are happy and don't want to work or get a home then they should not get the same benefits as someone who was in a crisis lost his job and his home and is in a shelter but would do anything to get back to work.

If there's one thing history has borne out, it's that humans always make good decisions regarding whether and how to have sex when the stakes are high.

People have kids out of wedlock when they have no money because they are dumb and don't plan ahead, not because they think they are gonna get cash money from the government. Jesus.

Thread/

So its ok because they didnt know any better? What about the psychopath that didnt know murdering someone was bad? Should we let them off the hook too?

I think the appropriate punishment for a poor person having a child they could not afford is to give the child care and put them up for adoption or foster care but cut the offending person from any aid until they child is completely grown. If people knew that was going to happen they might suddenly wise up. It is not OK to have a child if you have no plan for how to feed it.

I think the vast majority of welfare money in my mock budget would be going to children anyway. They are by far the most deserving of any welfare.

Do we punish the kids? I think we can have honest disagreements on the extent of the safety nets but to think we should eliminate them is just sad imo.

i never said elminate them. Edited my previous post. In my mock budget something like 30% of the budget goes towards welfare/safety nets.

I would also support garnishment of wages for offending people whose kids have to be put in foster care.

I totally and 100% agree with this but I rather subsidize a child's upbringing and education for 18 years than paying welfare (or jail) for their entire 60 years of sorry existence because they couldn't get a decent education.

Conservatives like to use incentive based arguments a lot, but when the incentive effects can be shown to be negligible or outweighed by other considerations, the true reason they don't like welfare etc emerges: Those people just don't deserve it!

What % of the budget do you think is spent on welfare/safety nets at the moment?

Probably. They should be treated if possible. But that's my opinion.

Probably about 30%.

I mean, in my budget its actually over 50% depending on whether you count interest on the national debt as an expense. I would say no because inflation cancels that out and then some.

I hate military spending, random govt dept spending, bank bailout spending, FBI/CIA/DEA spending, and foreign aid much much more then welfare/medical spending. Those are the areas I would attack first.

i wonder how many orphaned kids with deadbeat dads and busto mommas the united states could take care of with the money we could save from not bombing brown civilians and "nation building" in the middle east?

i wonder how many we could take care of with all that sweet sweet banker bailout money?

or how about all that foreign aid we give to prop up corrupt regimes?

"we take money from poor people in a rich country and give it to the rich people in poor countries" - ron paul

food, housing, and education for the disenfranchised..... naaaa im with obama, i think we should be murdering muslims and giving more money to the corporations and elite class

Why don't they just move back in with their parents like spino1?

IM SURE YOU MEAN THESE DAILY CONTRACTS .

http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/default.aspx

Bout time we got to some "bombing brown people" itt. I was starting to wonder.

Clearly no issue that isn't supported by libertarians can ever be discussed because anyone on the pro side is always a baby-killer. We should just split into a libertarian forum and baby-killer forum so at least the baby-killers can discuss their own issues.

Spinning Obama as anti-welfare now? Nice.

suzzer,

i support social safety nets to a degree. i think we could fund them better and have better programs all while not bustoing this country if we had a foreign policy closer to that of ron pauls view than the foreign policy of bush/obama.

i think we could fund such programs and make the world a better place for the poor and disenfranchised if instead of bailout out banks and corporations that money/capital/resources were put towards more nobles causes.

i think that giving foreign aid to corrupt/rich regimes in other countries is not as useful as public education programs in this country.

i think that all 3 of those things are germane to the current discussion of "but who will feed the poorz"

but hey, pretty awesome way to avoid having to actually think about my last post and consider some things, instead just making it out like you are some sort of victim of baseless attacks. personally i find that fairly perverted and disturbing.

If you are looking for thoughtful consideration of your posts, consider not ending them with drivel like "food, housing, and education for the disenfranchised..... naaaa im with obama, i think we should be murdering muslims and giving more money to the corporations and elite class ".