Entitlement and Welfare Spending Catch-all

So I took a closer look at that Cato Institute paper:

The single largest welfare program today is Medicaid. Medicaid spending that supports health care for the poor, excluding funding for nursing home or long-term care for the elderly, topped $228 billion in 2011. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) was the second most expensive welfare program, costing taxpayers nearly $72 billion.

Why is 'welfare' being blamed for not getting people out of poverty when the two most expensive programs are for medicine and food? Looking at Figure 2, it seems those two programs alone are the size of every other 'welfare' program put together. I realize death is technically a cure for poverty, but I don't think it's an acceptable solution to any of us. Am I crazy, or did the Cato Institute (once again) try to bullsh*t us, hoping we'd only read the "Executive Summary"?

We should focus less on making poverty more comfortable and more on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty.

That sure is a funny use of the word "comfortable"

No one has explained how the vaunted market is going to do a better job providing social services than the government.

But that question inherently assumes that social services are a thing that must be provided. Are they?

Malor wrote:
No one has explained how the vaunted market is going to do a better job providing social services than the government.

But that question inherently assumes that social services are a thing that must be provided. Are they?

It absolutely does not assume that. It just asks the question. Whether they must be provided is a completely different discussion.

Does someone have a link to that Degrasse Tyson bit on NASA versus private space programs?

CheezePavilion wrote:

So I took a closer look at that Cato Institute paper:

The single largest welfare program today is Medicaid. Medicaid spending that supports health care for the poor, excluding funding for nursing home or long-term care for the elderly, topped $228 billion in 2011. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) was the second most expensive welfare program, costing taxpayers nearly $72 billion.

Why is 'welfare' being blamed for not getting people out of poverty when the two most expensive programs are for medicine and food? Looking at Figure 2, it seems those two programs alone are the size of every other 'welfare' program put together. I realize death is technically a cure for poverty, but I don't think it's an acceptable solution to any of us. Am I crazy, or did the Cato Institute (once again) try to bullsh*t us, hoping we'd only read the "Executive Summary"?

We should focus less on making poverty more comfortable and more on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty.

That sure is a funny use of the word "comfortable"

It's Obama that has basically said that the American Dream is "just getting by":

If your basic medical needs are taken care of and you've got a full stomach, what more do you really need?

I realize that shooting the messenger isn't the best strategy in a debate, but could I possibly get the opinion of Downtown Julie Brown and Jesse Camp as well?

MacBrave wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

So I took a closer look at that Cato Institute paper:

The single largest welfare program today is Medicaid. Medicaid spending that supports health care for the poor, excluding funding for nursing home or long-term care for the elderly, topped $228 billion in 2011. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) was the second most expensive welfare program, costing taxpayers nearly $72 billion.

Why is 'welfare' being blamed for not getting people out of poverty when the two most expensive programs are for medicine and food? Looking at Figure 2, it seems those two programs alone are the size of every other 'welfare' program put together. I realize death is technically a cure for poverty, but I don't think it's an acceptable solution to any of us. Am I crazy, or did the Cato Institute (once again) try to bullsh*t us, hoping we'd only read the "Executive Summary"?

We should focus less on making poverty more comfortable and more on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty.

That sure is a funny use of the word "comfortable"

It's Obama that has basically said that the American Dream is "just getting by":

If your basic medical needs are taken care of and you've got a full stomach, what more do you really need?

You didn't actually listen to that before posting it, did you?

CheezePavilion wrote:

You didn't actually listen to that before posting it, did you?

I listen to No Agenda most every week during my drive to/from my job.

If you have any podcasts with a more liberal bent, please share them. I'd be happy to listen and consider other viewpoints.

MacBrave wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

You didn't actually listen to that before posting it, did you?

I listen to No Agenda most every week during my drive to/from my job.

If you have any podcasts with a more liberal bent, please share them. I'd be happy to listen and consider other viewpoints.

No, I mean you didn't listen to it, as in 'play it and pay attention to the words.' "get ahead and give their kids a better life" =/= "your basic medical needs are taken care of and you've got a full stomach." You shouldn't put so much faith in the synopsis of political matters you get from cranky geeks and 8th street kidz.

CheezePavilion wrote:

No, I mean you didn't listen to it, as in 'play it and pay attention to the words.' "get ahead and give their kids a better life" =/= "your basic medical needs are taken care of and you've got a full stomach."

Look, I live in a town where over 68% of the kids in the public school system receive free or reduced lunches. I see poverty in this town on an almost daily basis. In my dealings with many of these poor individuals via various volunteer efforts I've been involved with in the 14 years that I've lived here it's clear that the poverty is not getting any better. Kids that I knew who grew up with parents on public assistance are now in your early-to-mid 20's. Lots of them now have kids, no job, and are living on the public dole, just like their parents did. Do you really think those parents, and now these young adults, really care about "getting ahead and giving their kids a better life?" No, most of them are content with living on some sort of public assistance for pretty much the rest of their lives. After all, if it was good enough for their parents shouldn't it be good enough for them?

CheezePavilion wrote:

You shouldn't put so much faith in the synopsis of political matters you get from cranky geeks and 8th street kidz.

What are "8th street kidz"? Never heard of it.

May I please ask from what sources you get your political news from?

MacBrave wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

No, I mean you didn't listen to it, as in 'play it and pay attention to the words.' "get ahead and give their kids a better life" =/= "your basic medical needs are taken care of and you've got a full stomach."

Look, I live in a town where over 68% of the kids in the public school system receive free or reduced lunches. I see poverty in this town on an almost daily basis. In my dealings with many of these poor individuals via various volunteer efforts I've been involved with in the 14 years that I've lived here it's clear that the poverty is not getting any better. Kids that I knew who grew up with parents on public assistance are now in your early-to-mid 20's. Lots of them now have kids, no job, and are living on the public dole, just like their parents did. Do you really think those parents, and now these young adults, really care about "getting ahead and giving their kids a better life?" No, most of them are content with living on some sort of public assistance for pretty much the rest of their lives. After all, if it was good enough for their parents shouldn't it be good enough for them?

I really don't know where you're going with this.

Malor wrote:

But that question inherently assumes that social services are a thing that must be provided. Are they?

To be considered a developed country, yes. To be considered one of the leading developed countries in the world, yes.

It's really hard to put on the big foam hand and shout we're #1 when that just simply isn't the case for tens of millions of Americans.

Not only that, but it's the Christian thing to do and apparently a lot of people think we're a Christian nation.

CheezePavilion wrote:
MacBrave wrote:

Look, I live in a town where over 68% of the kids in the public school system receive free or reduced lunches. I see poverty in this town on an almost daily basis. In my dealings with many of these poor individuals via various volunteer efforts I've been involved with in the 14 years that I've lived here it's clear that the poverty is not getting any better. Kids that I knew who grew up with parents on public assistance are now in your early-to-mid 20's. Lots of them now have kids, no job, and are living on the public dole, just like their parents did. Do you really think those parents, and now these young adults, really care about "getting ahead and giving their kids a better life?" No, most of them are content with living on some sort of public assistance for pretty much the rest of their lives. After all, if it was good enough for their parents shouldn't it be good enough for them?

I really don't know where you're going with this.

I'm gonna take a wild guess that he'd like to cut them all off from the government teat so his taxes don't go to who he considers deadbeats.

I don't want want to make it a requirement for my government to stay on budget when it comes to these programs. It's moronic to even ask for it. Why? Because when the economy tanks, the need for the programs increases dramatically and the allocation of funds would always lag actual need. How would you like to depend on food stamps only to be told, "sorry, we're over budget, come back next fiscal year and we might have something for you."

So we can afford trillion dollar debts each year for the foreseeable future, until the point where America owes several times the ENTIRE WORLD's GDP in debt? Oh wait, we're already there according to Ben Bernanke:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/71...

While the official debt is sitting at $15.66 trillion, the additional amount of unfunded liabilities owed by the United States government is a mind-numbing $115.49 trillion, bringing the total debt level to $131 trillion . Even Ben Bernanke is finally warning Congress that things aren't as rosy as the Federal Reserve boss has tried to paint them.

Bernanke's words to the Budget Committee are ominous, to say the least: "By definition, the unsustainable trajectories of deficits and debt that the CBO outlines cannot actually happen, because creditors would never be willing to lend to a government with debt, relative to national income, that is rising without limit."

Considering that it would take more than two years of the entire world's GDP to pay off all of the U.S. government's current outlays and liabilities, it's a wonder that America's debt rating has only been downgraded once. Additionally, the federal deficit for the first half of FY 2012 alone is greater than the entire GDP of Indonesia. Amazingly, politicians don't seem intent on actually doing anything about this.

I don't think what you all realize is that when the American economy completely collapses, the vulnerable you're trying to help will be the first to die. Look at what's happening in Greece. That country also had an extremely corrupt government that lavished citizens with government paychecks and benefits. At one time the retirement age in Greece was 53. Now the country is facing mass starvation and people are choosing suicide in the streets rather than continue.

OG_slinger wrote:

I'm gonna take a wild guess that he'd like to cut them all off from the government teat so his taxes don't go to who he considers deadbeats.

For those that game the system, yes. They are deadbeats.

jdzappa wrote:

I don't think what you all realize is that when the American economy completely collapses, the vulnerable you're trying to help will be the first to die. Look at what's happening in Greece. That country also had an extremely corrupt government that lavished citizens with government paychecks and benefits. At one time the retirement age in Greece was 53. Now the country is facing mass starvation and people are choosing suicide in the streets rather than continue.

MacBrave wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'm gonna take a wild guess that he'd like to cut them all off from the government teat so his taxes don't go to who he considers deadbeats.

For those that game the system, yes. They are deadbeats.

Once again, the moral and the practical are being conflated. Even the numbers from the Cato Institute of all places show--once you get around their smoke and mirrors--that the difference between "happy fun time" and "economic disaster" are not "welfare queens and poverty pimps." Private charities won't automagically get their donations off the books of the same GDP the government gets its taxes from.

You guys say there are deadbeats and we're headed towards Greece (even though that has to do with Greece not having control of its own money and the fact that Germany does not want to become the New Jersey to Europe's Mississippi). Great! What does that have to do with government welfare vs private charities?

The only argument I see here is that if a private charity goes into debt it can't repay, the private charity can fail without taking down anything but itself. So what argument are you guys actually making?

jdzappa wrote:
I don't want want to make it a requirement for my government to stay on budget when it comes to these programs. It's moronic to even ask for it. Why? Because when the economy tanks, the need for the programs increases dramatically and the allocation of funds would always lag actual need. How would you like to depend on food stamps only to be told, "sorry, we're over budget, come back next fiscal year and we might have something for you."

So we can afford trillion dollar debts each year for the foreseeable future, until the point where America owes several times the ENTIRE WORLD's GDP in debt? Oh wait, we're already there according to Ben Bernanke:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/71...

While the official debt is sitting at $15.66 trillion, the additional amount of unfunded liabilities owed by the United States government is a mind-numbing $115.49 trillion, bringing the total debt level to $131 trillion . Even Ben Bernanke is finally warning Congress that things aren't as rosy as the Federal Reserve boss has tried to paint them.

Bernanke's words to the Budget Committee are ominous, to say the least: "By definition, the unsustainable trajectories of deficits and debt that the CBO outlines cannot actually happen, because creditors would never be willing to lend to a government with debt, relative to national income, that is rising without limit."

Considering that it would take more than two years of the entire world's GDP to pay off all of the U.S. government's current outlays and liabilities, it's a wonder that America's debt rating has only been downgraded once. Additionally, the federal deficit for the first half of FY 2012 alone is greater than the entire GDP of Indonesia. Amazingly, politicians don't seem intent on actually doing anything about this.

I don't think what you all realize is that when the American economy completely collapses, the vulnerable you're trying to help will be the first to die. Look at what's happening in Greece. That country also had an extremely corrupt government that lavished citizens with government paychecks and benefits. At one time the retirement age in Greece was 53. Now the country is facing mass starvation and people are choosing suicide in the streets rather than continue.

Government social programs are not the cause of our debt. See the picture posted earlier in this thread (I believe it was this thread).

It seems so obvious to us, how to get ahead. So quickly we forget that success is a learned skill.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Once again, the moral and the practical are being conflated. Even the numbers from the Cato Institute of all places show--once you get around their smoke and mirrors--that the difference between "happy fun time" and "economic disaster" are not "welfare queens and poverty pimps." Private charities won't automagically get their donations off the books of the same GDP the government gets its taxes from.

You guys say there are deadbeats and we're headed towards Greece (even though that has to do with Greece not having control of its own money and the fact that Germany does not want to become the New Jersey to Europe's Mississippi). Great! What does that have to do with government welfare vs private charities?

If government spending continues unabated there won't be any government welfare, or if there is will be a ghost of what it is now.

And on the tangent of Germany they could end up pretty much controlling most of the euro zone countries, something they have failed at twice before in the modern era. And all without firing a single bullet.

MacBrave wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Once again, the moral and the practical are being conflated. Even the numbers from the Cato Institute of all places show--once you get around their smoke and mirrors--that the difference between "happy fun time" and "economic disaster" are not "welfare queens and poverty pimps." Private charities won't automagically get their donations off the books of the same GDP the government gets its taxes from.

You guys say there are deadbeats and we're headed towards Greece (even though that has to do with Greece not having control of its own money and the fact that Germany does not want to become the New Jersey to Europe's Mississippi). Great! What does that have to do with government welfare vs private charities?

If government spending continues unabated there won't be any government welfare, or if there is will be a ghost of what it is now.

And on the tangent of Germany they could end up pretty much controlling most of the euro zone countries, something they have failed at twice before in the modern era. And all without firing a single bullet.

So why the focus on social safety net and not on defense spending which is a much, much larger amount of money being wasted?

SixteenBlue wrote:

So why the focus on social safety net and not on defense spending which is a much, much larger amount of money being wasted?

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Y-wG-JJ4FQs/T3CGitKA16I/AAAAAAAAAu8/gCDtIo2Rg2I/s1600/Because-f*ck-you.jpg)

MacBrave wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Once again, the moral and the practical are being conflated. Even the numbers from the Cato Institute of all places show--once you get around their smoke and mirrors--that the difference between "happy fun time" and "economic disaster" are not "welfare queens and poverty pimps." Private charities won't automagically get their donations off the books of the same GDP the government gets its taxes from.

You guys say there are deadbeats and we're headed towards Greece (even though that has to do with Greece not having control of its own money and the fact that Germany does not want to become the New Jersey to Europe's Mississippi). Great! What does that have to do with government welfare vs private charities?

If government spending continues unabated there won't be any government welfare, or if there is it will be a ghost of what it is now.

And on the tangent of Germany they could end up pretty much controlling most of the euro zone countries, something they have failed at twice before in the modern era. And all without firing a single bullet

Maybe, maybe not, but that's not the question. The question is "What does that have to do with government welfare vs private charities?"? Like I said, if what you are saying is true, then when it comes to "government welfare vs private charities"

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/QisM.jpg)

because then if charity spending takes over for government spending, then there won't be any charity, or if there is it will be a ghost of what it is now. It's just a choice of who we want to fail.

Like I said, I can see the logic in wanting private charities to fail instead of the government, but there's no connection between "this level of spending will bankrupt the government" and "private charities could fix the problem" unless we go with the idea that the answer lies in the number of deadbeats, which, yeah--like I said, even the numbers from the Cato Institute paper trash that idea unless we're willing to embrace the concept of death/sickness/starvation of poor people as a solution to poverty.

That's why I keep going back to the moral vs. the practical: just because kicking the deadbeats off the dole might be a solution to a moral problem, all the numbers we've seen indicate it's not a solution to the practical problem.

jdzappa wrote:

So we can afford trillion dollar debts each year for the foreseeable future, until the point where America owes several times the ENTIRE WORLD's GDP in debt?

How in the hell do you jump from me saying that it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to run needs-based programs on a rigorous budgets because the size of those programs are going to vary according to the state the economy is in with trillion dollar debts?

Food stamps, housing vouchers, and the like aren't responsible for the state of our finances. Remember the whole VA crisis that happened a few years after we invaded Iraq? The one where they had massive resource problems for years because their budget was locked while demand for their services soared? That's what happens when you fixate on the controlling the budget for needs-based programs: people suffer because there's always a lag between when services are needed and the next budget cycle.

Speaking of the military, it's hard to claim (even if you believe the Cato numbers) that spending $600 billion on our own citizens is a bad thing when we're spending far more than that every year to kill brown people.

MacBrave wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

I'm gonna take a wild guess that he'd like to cut them all off from the government teat so his taxes don't go to who he considers deadbeats.

For those that game the system, yes. They are deadbeats.

Go on. Seriously. I want to know how the conservative wet dream of getting all those welfare deadbeats would actually actually work.

Let's look at the numbers. Nearly 12% of Clinton County is below the poverty line. What are you going to do when nearly 4,000 residents get their government aid cut off and no longer have any money coming in to buy necessities, feed their children, or make sure they have a roof over their heads? Are you going to institute Depression Era laws where every jobless person has to be out of town before the sun goes down? Are you going to turn a blind eye to the shanty towns that will pop up? Or are you just going to organize "citizen groups" to chase the unwanted out of town?

Then there's the children. More than 20% of the children under 18 in the county, some 2,000 of them, are living in poverty. How are you going to cut off the benefits of their parents without impacting them? Are you going to have the government swoop in and take custody all 2,000 of them? Are you going to have the government give the minors the benefits directly and then monitor the families to make sure that the parent doesn't eat any of the food bought with government assistance? What am I thinking? Those parents would have to move out of the government subsidized housing. Can't give those deadbeats an inch, you know?

Then just think of what would happen to the rest of Clinton County. I've looked at the numbers. You guys are practically in economic stasis. Your economy isn't growing at all. You're losing citizens. You had 13 new building permits issued for the entire county last year. Thirteen. What do you think is going to happen to Clinton County's economy when all those federal dollars go away? I'll tell you what will happen. It'll contract and more residents will lose their jobs. And then the county is in an economic death spiral.

It sure sounds satisfying to say "get ride of those welfare queens," but the reality is far different.

OG, I know how you catch all of the deadbeats. You turn it into a jobs program. I am currently collecting unemployment myself, with some side work going on as well as law school. But I would be happier if my checks went along with some work, and I know many people in the same mindset. If you have a degree, require people to tutor, substitute teach. If you have a labor skill, your municipal, state, county commission certainly has need of you.

The same can be done for disability, save for those bedridden.

I am actually fortunate, I was let go, but my side work will allow me to keep a steady job history. Many people are facing gaps of 6 months - 2 years in their job history who are in similar straights to me.

KingGorilla wrote:

OG, I know how you catch all of the deadbeats. You turn it into a jobs program. I am currently collecting unemployment myself, with some side work going on as well as law school. But I would be happier if my checks went along with some work, and I know many people in the same mindset. If you have a degree, require people to tutor, substitute teach. If you have a labor skill, your municipal, state, county commission certainly has need of you.

The same can be done for disability, save for those bedridden.

Are you not required to apply for jobs and to go to training courses on getting a job? I was when I was on unemployment.

Also, where are all of these jobs? I think what you're suggesting is a great idea but we have these unemployed people for a reason (and it's not because they're deadbeats).

KingGorilla wrote:

OG, I know how you catch all of the deadbeats. You turn it into a jobs program. I am currently collecting unemployment myself, with some side work going on as well as law school. But I would be happier if my checks went along with some work, and I know many people in the same mindset. If you have a degree, require people to tutor, substitute teach. If you have a labor skill, your municipal, state, county commission certainly has need of you.

The same can be done for disability, save for those bedridden.

Why not just hire more teachers and laborers then? If it's worth doing--especially when we're talking about dealing with our kids or things that can collapse on them--it's worth having someone do it who thinks it's a job, isn't it?

I mean, if we have to we'll get half the people to dig ditches and half the people to fill them back up, but it's not like America is flush with gleaming infrastructure and over staffed government services.

Considering we're focusing on entitlement spending and I created this thread in a hurry as to not piss off Certis for going off topic in the War on Women thread, I've changed the lead topic to "Entitlement & Welfare Spending Catch-all."

Maybe that's moving the goal post but I thought it was appropriate considering the direction of the conversation.

Speaking of the military, it's hard to claim (even if you believe the Cato numbers) that spending $600 billion on our own citizens is a bad thing when we're spending far more than that every year to kill brown people.

Military spending compared with GDP is not the highest it's ever been - it was much higher in WW II and during the height of the cold war. That being said, military defense is one of the primary roles of govt according to our Constitution. Entitlement spending is not.

And PS - I'm all for cutbacks in defense if they don't come on the backs of the troops. As a guy who was in the Army during Clinton's "peace dividend" years, a lot of the cost-savings came from frozen pay increases, fewer promotion and training opportunities, and no replacements for aging gear. Of course, the nifty weapons programs were never cut.

jdzappa wrote:

Considering we're focusing on entitlement spending and I created this thread in a hurry as to not piss off Certis for going off topic in the War on Women thread, I've changed the lead topic to "Entitlement & Welfare Spending Catch-all."

Maybe that's moving the goal post but I thought it was appropriate considering the direction of the conversation.

Heck, along the lines of what OG said, this may turn into the 'can the American population distribution that resulted from an era of individual homesteading farmers survive today without Federal dollars moving around' thread. Once you don't need people to be able to commute to a field of crops, why are so many of us living near farmland?

Military spending compared with GDP is not the highest it's ever been - it was much higher in WW II and during the height of the cold war. That being said, military defense is one of the primary roles of govt according to our Constitution. Entitlement spending is not.

actually, aren't they right next to each other? The Taxing and Spending clause reads: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

And PS - I'm all for cutbacks in defense if they don't come on the backs of the troops. As a guy who was in the Army during Clinton's "peace dividend" years, a lot of the cost-savings came from frozen pay increases, fewer promotion and training opportunities, and no replacements for aging gear. Of course, the nifty weapons programs were never cut.

Okay, but again: let's keep the moral separate from the practical. It makes sense you'd not be for cutbacks in an area you were involved with, but we need to keep personal preferences separate from rational arguments. Not saying the fact that you've seen something close up isn't valuable, but on the other hand I'm sure a social worker has some very strong opinions about entitlement spending too.

KingGorilla wrote:

If you have a degree, require people to tutor, substitute teach. If you have a labor skill, your municipal, state, county commission certainly has need of you.

It's an interesting idea, but you'd kinda be taking jobs away from other people. I have a friend who finally got her act together and just got her teaching license. Until she get's a full time position she's relying on substitute teaching to pay the bills. It'd be kind of a dick move to tell her that the job she's depending on to pay her mortgage just went to someone so I could feel better about the government simply not giving money to people.

Same with laborers. My brother-in-law works for the maintenance department of a smallish local township. They've lost about half their workforce to budget cutbacks, but I don't think they'd be too keen on having what amounts to a scab work with them.

If you want a jobs program, then fund a jobs program. Cut checks to the states so they can hire more teachers. Cut checks to local governments so they can hire actual employees to provide services that are clearly needed. Don't create some quasi-prison labor scheme where the unemployed do the same jobs of other people, just for a lot less money.

I am afraid that is about as close to new deal or square deal thinking we may get in the current climate.

OG_slinger wrote:

Go on. Seriously. I want to know how the conservative wet dream of getting all those welfare deadbeats would actually actually work.

As opposed to the liberal wet dream of having everybody dependent on the federal government for a substantial portion of their well being; be it housing, food, etc.? I would like to know how that would work when only 5% of the citizens are having to pay to support the other 95%. Just raise their taxes some more I guess.

OG_slinger wrote:

Let's look at the numbers. Nearly 12% of Clinton County is below the poverty line. What are you going to do when nearly 4,000 residents get their government aid cut off and no longer have any money coming in to buy necessities, feed their children, or make sure they have a roof over their heads? Are you going to institute Depression Era laws where every jobless person has to be out of town before the sun goes down? Are you going to turn a blind eye to the shanty towns that will pop up? Or are you just going to organize "citizen groups" to chase the unwanted out of town?

Then there's the children. More than 20% of the children under 18 in the county, some 2,000 of them, are living in poverty. How are you going to cut off the benefits of their parents without impacting them? Are you going to have the government swoop in and take custody all 2,000 of them? Are you going to have the government give the minors the benefits directly and then monitor the families to make sure that the parent doesn't eat any of the food bought with government assistance? What am I thinking? Those parents would have to move out of the government subsidized housing. Can't give those deadbeats an inch, you know?

Hyperbole. *yawn*

OG_slinger wrote:

Then just think of what would happen to the rest of Clinton County. I've looked at the numbers. You guys are practically in economic stasis. Your economy isn't growing at all. You're losing citizens. You had 13 new building permits issued for the entire county last year. Thirteen. What do you think is going to happen to Clinton County's economy when all those federal dollars go away? I'll tell you what will happen. It'll contract and more residents will lose their jobs. And then the county is in an economic death spiral.

It sure sounds satisfying to say "get ride of those welfare queens," but the reality is far different.

Yeah, having Clinton County more and more dependent on federal dollars sure is going to move it out economic stasis. I suppose the county where you live everything is peachy keen, all courtesy of the feds.

And I would like to know where in the hell I said all 4,000 of those residents were deadbeats. I've come to recognize the need for limited public assistance, it's those individuals and families that have come to rely on it, year after year after year that are the problem. How is the federal government breaking the cycle of generational poverty in this country? The most common remedy put forward is education, yet our piss poor government schools are not making the grade.