The approach proposed by the President seems quite fair. On one hand he wants to cut expenditure while making sure that the rich few pay the fair share of taxes.
He has no serious proposal to address entitlement reform, which is the most important part of the equation. His proposal outlines exactly where the tax hikes will occur yet hand-waves the specifics about where the spending will come from (talks of commissions and such). And his proposal only looks fair if you view this as a debt problem rather than a spending problem. If you view it as a spending problem, all his proposal looks like is "throwing in a few bones to get a free check to spend more money"
If you're not willing to compromise, then don't get into politics....If you can't find balance between points of view, you can't govern.
And yet this is true of practically every politician out there. Name me a single Democrat willing to take a serious stand for social spending reform. Hell, even Obama wasn't willing to compromise when he held all the cards (remember Mr. "ride in the back")? He spent 2 years deadset on forcing people onto his terms and suddenly wants to compromise when he can't just do as he pleases.
What's worse is that projected debt (as in "taking into account future expense of SS/Medicare") has never been this high in this history of our country.
They are refusing to even consider a deal that includes any revenue increases at all.
Good for them. While the Dems held Congress, Obama spent his entire presidency running up a gigantic debt while ignoring the Republicans and telling them to "ride in the back" -- and now suddenly he wants to play compromise? Fuck that. Running up a tab and then using it as an ultimatum to raise the debt ceiling (or taxes) is complete bullshit and just as disgusting as what you blame the Republicans for. It's like telling a habitual spender to "just get another job" instead of addressing the root cause.
How does lifting the Bush era tax cuts raise the deficit?
You never raise taxes during a recession. That's like Econ 101. Secondly, it doesn't change the fact we're spending way way too much. I almost feel like Obama is stuck on jacking taxes on 250k+ solely out of spite to stick it to the rich.
Maybe you should look at their proposals?
They all suck. Most use "winding down wars" (which is already going to happen) as part of their calculations, as well as tax increases. Between those things, the actual "spending cuts" they're putting forward are pitiful. And the fact they completely gloss over or otherwise refuse to address are the biggest projected expenses (social security/medicare) make them not even worth talking about.
The Republican side wants to keep taxes lower than they've ever been while severely cutting programs affecting millions of Americans.
I'm fairly certain raising taxes would "affect millions of Americans" as well. It's also a bit disingenuous to be concerned about the "programs affecting millions of Americans" when those programs are unsustainable by all projected estimates. They require reform regardless of intent or need. Just "passing the buck" and delaying the inevitable problem is not a solution.
Which means that seniors, people on medicare assistance due to crippling injuries or congenital disorders, and the military would then NOT GET their checks.
Maybe this should have been thought about before driving the country into debt by spending money we don't have? It's like someone taking out a bunch of loans and running up unsustainable debt on all their credit cards and then crying about "omg, but I'll be homeless!" when the bank comes to take their house.
Which assets, pray tell?
The exact question asked by people wary of the level of government spending that is occurring.
In other words, you think playing shell games, the equivalent of paying this month's Mastercard bill with a cash advance from Discover Card, is a good idea?
Is not the example of "cash advance with a Discover card" the exact thing being done when you pass a budget that exceeds the debt ceiling and then simply expect that ceiling to be raised down the road? Hell, it's even worse than that -- it's like charging more to your credit card than your maximum spending limit and then just assuming the credit card will raise your cap to compensate.
Those seem like they would be a good start and would probably do more than stupid crap like suggesting means testing Social security or Medicare.
Really? Have you run the numbers? I certainly don't see any. Since social security/medicare amount to nearly two-thirds of all our national spending, I believe you have quite a task ahead of you to prove cuts in any other area of our budget are even remotely close to reforming those two cash cows. This is especially true considering we have a new social cash cow on the horizon (obama's healthcare program).
The ceiling isn't spending the money. The budget is. When congress passed it's budget they know when and how much the ceiling was going to have to be increased.
That's a poor argument. It's like me maxing out my credit card and then bitching to my credit card company for not raising my maximum spending limit because they should have "known I was going to continue running up debt". Perhaps they should have raised the debt ceiling before agreeing to spend money they didn't have?
In the past decade the biggest factors for increased debt (according to bloomberg business news) was the Wars, the medicare drug program, and TARP.
Not true. The wars I'll give ya. Medicare too, but that is one of the things the Republicans are drawing a hard line on reforming -- it's the Dems refusing to step up to that bill. And TARP paid for itself (actually a net gain). And the biggest runup you completely do not mention is all the spending under Obama's watch. The Stimulus bills and his healthcare program are huge expenses, all the more reason for the Republicans to draw a hard line: the bulk of our debt was generated by Obama and now he's trying to run the show on spending cuts.
Social Security had a surplus "During 2009, total benefits of $686 billion were paid out versus income (taxes and interest) of $807 billion, a $121 billion annual surplus"
Even if it were true that the program had a surplus, it's irrelevant. The only numbers that matter is "total taxes" vs "total spending". If this were not true, I could split off a separate tax for whatever pet project I'm in love with, set that separate tax artificially high, and then claim I have a surplus every year, despite the country running a massive deficit. To even make this "surplus" claim about Social Security is incredibly misleading and naive about budgeting/debt. We are spending a ludicrous amount of money on Social Security. That is the debate.
So it's okay for that scumbag to threaten the lives of seniors, of poor people, of veterans, of anyone by threatening to let the nation default which means the checks wont be sent out to them?
So lowering the defense budget by any amount would be threatening the lives of our soldiers? (since they wouldn't have the latest and greatest tech and equipment). You hyperbolize a straw man...governing is about budgeting, and that requires actual thought beyond the kneejerk "think of the children"-esque imploring.
but he's threatening to withhold their pay that they earned fair and square
I earn my pay fair and square as well, yet it is withheld all the time (its called tax wildholdings). Then they take it and give it to someone else. Why is this any different? As I said before, if you believe that taxing is an important legislative function, you must accept that money will be taken from you. From that point forward, the debate amount to "how much and where to spend", which is exactly why this debate is important.
What about law enforcement who protects scumbags like him from being robbed and preyed upon?
I'm fairly certain the state police are paid with state dollars, not federal.
And all this said, everything you're bitching about can apply exactly the same to Obama for insisting that tax cuts be included. What you find to be reasonable you let fly yet what you don't find to reasonable you call extortion and blackmail. At the core, this is no different than any other legislative disagreement.
It's hard to argue with someone who ignores an entire paragraph and keys in only on the source (and not the material) of a single link. Have fun believing whatever you want to believe, regardless of the facts. Pesky things just get in the way anyways.
That's insane. There isn't a single indicator of possible deflation. Even the people claiming "omg, double dip recession" were proven handily incorrect. All the numbers are either stable or rising. Companies are having blowout quarters beating all estimates, hiring is trending up, unemployment is trending downward, housing is trending sideways. And on top of that, there's the aforementioned commodities spiking that will cause an inevitable increase in the cost of goods (which frankly we've already been seeing for a long time in things like gasoline, but the government just blissfully ignores that when calculating its bullshit CPI number). Hell, decreasing prices at the pump would be one of the best ways to kick the recovery into high gear -- but instead, they're focused on driving oil prices higher via dollar devaluation. Deflation is a near impossibility at this point. It's just another example of the Fed being woefully unaware and asleep at the wheel -- they're going to be once again way late to the party and no amount of slamming on the brakes will be able to slow the rampant inflation to come.
I'm not saying that "inflation" is never a problem, I'm saying that inflation isn't our problem right now.
But that doesn't make any sense...just because it isn't happening right now doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about it. It'd be like saying "global warming isn't our problem right now", so why bother even thinking about it? We know that everything we're doing is pushing inflation and all the signs are heavily pointing in that direction. And we're actually capable of doing things to curb that inflation prior to it becoming dangerously out of control (in the same way we had the power to curb the housing bubble but didn't). Seriously, were you the same guy saying "nahhhh, housing prices _never_ fall, get back to me when they actually do"?
You should look up the term "leading indicator". That's what gold is. It's an inflation HEDGE, where people put their money because they're expecting inflation will be coming. And based on the rising prices of a whole score of commodities (Corn, Coffee, Sugar, Copper, Oil, etc, etc...pick your poison), I'd say they got it right. I've little doubt these costs will eventually filter down to the consumer. Hell, I know for a fact we've already seen that in coffee prices: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-03-18-starbucks-coffee-prices.htm
You're deluded if you don't think inflation isn't a problem. You're also nuts if you think all of these commodity spikes are somehow "speculation" driven.
A person that watches 10 movies a year and pays for 80% buys less than a person that watches 100 movies a year and pays for 20%, but the last guy is much closer to being a "freeloading, non-contributing jerk".
Not according to the math they aren't. Paying for 20 movies vs paying for 8 movies. As far as what benefits the industry/artists the most, it's the guy that bought 20 movies. The percentage of watched vs paid is irrelevant. It doesn't matter at all that he actually watched 100, especially if he never would have paid for those other 80 movies in the first place.
My comment wasn't about people voting themselves dollars. My comment was about how those that are well off really have no clue about how broken some of the social support systems are in this country.
I realize what you meant. And I meant what I said. As much as you believe rich people just don't "get" poor people, the reverse is just as true. There's absolutely no one crying a river for people with money. But many don't actually realize how shitty having a good portion of your income taken is until they're in that position. This is why younger folk in college with no income typically end up being Democrats, and wealthier elderly folk tend to lean Republican. I've no doubt the "correct course of action" lies somewhere between the agendas of both groups, but it's not fair to demonize the one group as being out of touch without doing the same for the other.
The overwhelming view of republicans is that those that make use of social services are stupid lazy leeches who do nothing but act as a drain on our country.
And the overwhelming view of democrats is that those who succeed are exploitative evil fat cats whose greed overshadows even the most basic of morals, taking every dollar from society and giving nothing back. As I said before, these stereotypes are not one sided. They're both wrong -- don't only fault one side.
I might also add, there's a decent portion of Republicans that don't rail against the existence of social programs but rather the size and ineffectiveness of said programs. When nearly two-thirds of our entire federal budget is going towards social spending, I expect more than the shitty healthcare and lack of suitable retirement money they currently provide.
Poverty relief programs have shown solid real-world numbers in lowering crime rates. In the real world, the presence and absence of social safety nets have real effects, and these are measurable, although there can be complicating factors (complex systems have many contributing factors, etc, etc.)
The "complicating factors" are what I'm concerned with. It's easy to show something that is gained, and far harder to show what never came to be (or was lost). The broken window fallacy exists for a reason -- it's very very hard to demonstrate conclusively that a spent dollar is a well spent dollar. For an extreme counter example, if we took the money we were spending on social programs and instead funded a much larger police, we might see equally low crime numbers (and who knows what else?). But to some extent, I'm just playing devil's advocate here...I do believe in limited social spending -- however, I also do believe it direly needs reform. For example, there's absolutely no reason Social Security or Medicare shouldn't have substantial means-testing (more than is there already) .
But since the U.S. currently has a runaway problem of starving social programs, redistributing wealth upward, and blaming it on the poor, you'll pardon me if those are the particular battles I fight. As soon as we're a runaway socialist state that caps income arbitrarily and overspends on social programs, I'll start working on fighting that.
Starving social programs? You do realize Mandatory spending (which is by far social programs...I think maybe a few hundred billion go to interest on debt) is over 2 trillion dollars a year? That's two-thirds of our total budget. Even by % GDP (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_net_soc_exp_of_gdp-economy-net-social-expenditure-gdp), we're #11 in the world. By what definition of "starving" are you using?
And as far as redistributing wealth upward, where do you think all that Mandatory Spending is going? A hint: SS and Medicare are eligible at age 60-65, which is pretty much the peak of net worth (http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/97/07/9707jw.pdf) -- pg.11 if you miss the chart.
Perhaps you're misdirecting your battles. We do overspend on social programs...poorly designed ones that merely funnel money to the wealthy. And that is why I fight the battles I'm choosing to fight.
It may not have occurred to you that a lot of unemployed people do, in fact, have spouses and kids. I know, isn't that really fucking selfish of them?
Well, for one, yes, it is in fact selfish to have children when not financially prepared for them (in the same way it's selfish to get the biggest house you can even marginally afford with no "safety buffer"). Secondly, don't you believe its selfish to demand that another family that might have wanted children but chose not to have them because they didn't want the expense suddenly has to pay for the children of another family through taxes? (which of course will be far higher for them than the other families because they're "rich").
But all that aside, why the hell can't two families with children cohabitate? Why can't you cram a whole family into a flat? Believe it or not, you can fit quite a few blowup mattresses on the floor of almost any apartment. It seems that we're once again talking about standards of living...expectations that "having a wife+kid" just somehow magically grants you a 2-3 bedroom house (that you own of course, not rent).
Suppose there are no remotely desirable jobs within a couple of hundred miles?
I would say you're either lying, not looking hard enough, or have standards that are way too high. Even in this recession, I believe you've be very hard pressed to not find _any_ work in a 100 mile radius. Teens in high school certainly don't have much of a problem with absolutely no resume, experience, or degree to speak of. What of the grocery clerks? Restaurant waiters? Fast food employees? Etc etc... YES people should be grateful for these jobs. I know at least one single mother who works two such jobs for relatively low pay and raises a kid by herself while doing night school on the side. She doesn't have much of a recreational life, but sometimes that's the price of misfortune. And with the kind of effort I see her putting forward, I've no doubt things will change down the road for her. Being financially paralyzed because of "using up one's time and energy" on a McJob is such a copout bullshit excuse.
I believe the ultimate fault here is the word "desirable" that you chose. People in this country are spoiled -- they have standards, and those standards are high. If they lose their job, they aren't going to accept a "lesser career" or "lesser salary" than they had before. They aren't going to take blue collar work or get their hands dirty. Hell, I seriously doubt they'd even cancel their cable or cell phone to save themselves the monthly expense. This is a country of entitlement...people don't "roll with the punches" -- they instead simply expect their lifestyles to be maintained. And if they can't maintain it themselves (be it through misfortune or calamity), they expect the government to maintain it.
All that said, I do believe the truly downtrodden should have some kind of net to land in, but this bullshit about "desirable jobs" is just that: bullshit.
The difference between a middle class republican and a middle class democrat is a single unexpected calamity.
All that proves is that people are shallow and vote themselves dollars based on their status in life. Whereas that's sadly true for the most part, I do believe in a segment of society with real beliefs that don't change as life throws a few curveballs, people that don't put their vote behind whoever benefits their wallet the most.
Sorry, but your "if you're poor it's cause you're stupid" narrative has never had any value, and is deeply, deeply disgusting to anyone who's ever actually interacted with someone affected by poverty.
Actually, I'd say it has equal value to "if you're rich, you're evil and heartless and don't deserve any of your money". Sadly, such blanket superlatives are all people really need these days.
Because regardless of whether we provide unemployment or other job assistance or not, the unemployed people are still going to exist. And you know what sucks more than paying a small amount of tax dollars into unemployment benefits and job assistance programs? Adding to the homeless problem, the crime rate, and the other problems that poverty serves as a primary driver for. And hey - if they turn to crime, you get to pay, not partial income, but full room and board in one of our fine correctional institutes, which costs a whole lot more than unemployment.
All debatable, and I don't believe in societal blackmail through the passive threat of "allow me to leech or I'll turn to crime". For all you know, making it harder to cruise through life on mediocre govt handouts might actually scare some people into action, resulting in a net gain for society. It's all open to interpretation.
But I'll grant you this: you are right that not all poor people are poor because they're stupid/lazy, and you may be right.that the net effect of societal Darwinism could be worse than giving them a basic subsistence.
Where I definitely agree with the lazy factor, I believe the primary reason this won't become a reality is due to HOAs, which in this day and age are _everywhere_.
Slashdot Mirror
He has no serious proposal to address entitlement reform, which is the most important part of the equation. His proposal outlines exactly where the tax hikes will occur yet hand-waves the specifics about where the spending will come from (talks of commissions and such). And his proposal only looks fair if you view this as a debt problem rather than a spending problem. If you view it as a spending problem, all his proposal looks like is "throwing in a few bones to get a free check to spend more money"
And yet this is true of practically every politician out there. Name me a single Democrat willing to take a serious stand for social spending reform. Hell, even Obama wasn't willing to compromise when he held all the cards (remember Mr. "ride in the back")? He spent 2 years deadset on forcing people onto his terms and suddenly wants to compromise when he can't just do as he pleases.
Because the debt has only been this bad once in the entire existence of our nation (in the 40s during World War 2).
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html
What's worse is that projected debt (as in "taking into account future expense of SS/Medicare") has never been this high in this history of our country.
Good for them. While the Dems held Congress, Obama spent his entire presidency running up a gigantic debt while ignoring the Republicans and telling them to "ride in the back" -- and now suddenly he wants to play compromise? Fuck that. Running up a tab and then using it as an ultimatum to raise the debt ceiling (or taxes) is complete bullshit and just as disgusting as what you blame the Republicans for. It's like telling a habitual spender to "just get another job" instead of addressing the root cause.
You never raise taxes during a recession. That's like Econ 101. Secondly, it doesn't change the fact we're spending way way too much. I almost feel like Obama is stuck on jacking taxes on 250k+ solely out of spite to stick it to the rich.
They all suck. Most use "winding down wars" (which is already going to happen) as part of their calculations, as well as tax increases. Between those things, the actual "spending cuts" they're putting forward are pitiful. And the fact they completely gloss over or otherwise refuse to address are the biggest projected expenses (social security/medicare) make them not even worth talking about.
I'm fairly certain raising taxes would "affect millions of Americans" as well. It's also a bit disingenuous to be concerned about the "programs affecting millions of Americans" when those programs are unsustainable by all projected estimates. They require reform regardless of intent or need. Just "passing the buck" and delaying the inevitable problem is not a solution.
Maybe this should have been thought about before driving the country into debt by spending money we don't have? It's like someone taking out a bunch of loans and running up unsustainable debt on all their credit cards and then crying about "omg, but I'll be homeless!" when the bank comes to take their house.
The exact question asked by people wary of the level of government spending that is occurring.
Is not the example of "cash advance with a Discover card" the exact thing being done when you pass a budget that exceeds the debt ceiling and then simply expect that ceiling to be raised down the road? Hell, it's even worse than that -- it's like charging more to your credit card than your maximum spending limit and then just assuming the credit card will raise your cap to compensate.
You mean like the "OMG THE GUVMINT WANTS TO DESTROY YOUR MEDICARE/SOCIAL SECURITY/WELFARE" fringe on the other side?
Really? Have you run the numbers? I certainly don't see any. Since social security/medicare amount to nearly two-thirds of all our national spending, I believe you have quite a task ahead of you to prove cuts in any other area of our budget are even remotely close to reforming those two cash cows. This is especially true considering we have a new social cash cow on the horizon (obama's healthcare program).
That's a poor argument. It's like me maxing out my credit card and then bitching to my credit card company for not raising my maximum spending limit because they should have "known I was going to continue running up debt". Perhaps they should have raised the debt ceiling before agreeing to spend money they didn't have?
Not true. The wars I'll give ya. Medicare too, but that is one of the things the Republicans are drawing a hard line on reforming -- it's the Dems refusing to step up to that bill. And TARP paid for itself (actually a net gain). And the biggest runup you completely do not mention is all the spending under Obama's watch. The Stimulus bills and his healthcare program are huge expenses, all the more reason for the Republicans to draw a hard line: the bulk of our debt was generated by Obama and now he's trying to run the show on spending cuts.
Even if it were true that the program had a surplus, it's irrelevant. The only numbers that matter is "total taxes" vs "total spending". If this were not true, I could split off a separate tax for whatever pet project I'm in love with, set that separate tax artificially high, and then claim I have a surplus every year, despite the country running a massive deficit. To even make this "surplus" claim about Social Security is incredibly misleading and naive about budgeting/debt. We are spending a ludicrous amount of money on Social Security. That is the debate.
So lowering the defense budget by any amount would be threatening the lives of our soldiers? (since they wouldn't have the latest and greatest tech and equipment). You hyperbolize a straw man...governing is about budgeting, and that requires actual thought beyond the kneejerk "think of the children"-esque imploring.
I earn my pay fair and square as well, yet it is withheld all the time (its called tax wildholdings). Then they take it and give it to someone else. Why is this any different? As I said before, if you believe that taxing is an important legislative function, you must accept that money will be taken from you. From that point forward, the debate amount to "how much and where to spend", which is exactly why this debate is important.
I'm fairly certain the state police are paid with state dollars, not federal.
And all this said, everything you're bitching about can apply exactly the same to Obama for insisting that tax cuts be included. What you find to be reasonable you let fly yet what you don't find to reasonable you call extortion and blackmail. At the core, this is no different than any other legislative disagreement.
It's hard to argue with someone who ignores an entire paragraph and keys in only on the source (and not the material) of a single link. Have fun believing whatever you want to believe, regardless of the facts. Pesky things just get in the way anyways.
That's insane. There isn't a single indicator of possible deflation. Even the people claiming "omg, double dip recession" were proven handily incorrect. All the numbers are either stable or rising. Companies are having blowout quarters beating all estimates, hiring is trending up, unemployment is trending downward, housing is trending sideways. And on top of that, there's the aforementioned commodities spiking that will cause an inevitable increase in the cost of goods (which frankly we've already been seeing for a long time in things like gasoline, but the government just blissfully ignores that when calculating its bullshit CPI number). Hell, decreasing prices at the pump would be one of the best ways to kick the recovery into high gear -- but instead, they're focused on driving oil prices higher via dollar devaluation. Deflation is a near impossibility at this point. It's just another example of the Fed being woefully unaware and asleep at the wheel -- they're going to be once again way late to the party and no amount of slamming on the brakes will be able to slow the rampant inflation to come.
By what evidence do you claim deflation is "more likely", let alone even a remote possibility. The charting trend is obvious, even if you do as the govt does and cheat by excluding food and gas: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/economy/14econ.html. Hell, even the retailers see the writing on the wall: http://inflation.us/blog/2011/03/major-retail-price-increases-coming-in-june/
But that doesn't make any sense...just because it isn't happening right now doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about it. It'd be like saying "global warming isn't our problem right now", so why bother even thinking about it? We know that everything we're doing is pushing inflation and all the signs are heavily pointing in that direction. And we're actually capable of doing things to curb that inflation prior to it becoming dangerously out of control (in the same way we had the power to curb the housing bubble but didn't). Seriously, were you the same guy saying "nahhhh, housing prices _never_ fall, get back to me when they actually do"?
You're deluded if you don't think inflation isn't a problem. You're also nuts if you think all of these commodity spikes are somehow "speculation" driven.
Not according to the math they aren't. Paying for 20 movies vs paying for 8 movies. As far as what benefits the industry/artists the most, it's the guy that bought 20 movies. The percentage of watched vs paid is irrelevant. It doesn't matter at all that he actually watched 100, especially if he never would have paid for those other 80 movies in the first place.
I don't think length is the primary driver of that game's suckiness ;P
I realize what you meant. And I meant what I said. As much as you believe rich people just don't "get" poor people, the reverse is just as true. There's absolutely no one crying a river for people with money. But many don't actually realize how shitty having a good portion of your income taken is until they're in that position. This is why younger folk in college with no income typically end up being Democrats, and wealthier elderly folk tend to lean Republican. I've no doubt the "correct course of action" lies somewhere between the agendas of both groups, but it's not fair to demonize the one group as being out of touch without doing the same for the other.
And the overwhelming view of democrats is that those who succeed are exploitative evil fat cats whose greed overshadows even the most basic of morals, taking every dollar from society and giving nothing back. As I said before, these stereotypes are not one sided. They're both wrong -- don't only fault one side. I might also add, there's a decent portion of Republicans that don't rail against the existence of social programs but rather the size and ineffectiveness of said programs. When nearly two-thirds of our entire federal budget is going towards social spending, I expect more than the shitty healthcare and lack of suitable retirement money they currently provide.
The "complicating factors" are what I'm concerned with. It's easy to show something that is gained, and far harder to show what never came to be (or was lost). The broken window fallacy exists for a reason -- it's very very hard to demonstrate conclusively that a spent dollar is a well spent dollar. For an extreme counter example, if we took the money we were spending on social programs and instead funded a much larger police, we might see equally low crime numbers (and who knows what else?). But to some extent, I'm just playing devil's advocate here...I do believe in limited social spending -- however, I also do believe it direly needs reform. For example, there's absolutely no reason Social Security or Medicare shouldn't have substantial means-testing (more than is there already) .
Starving social programs? You do realize Mandatory spending (which is by far social programs...I think maybe a few hundred billion go to interest on debt) is over 2 trillion dollars a year? That's two-thirds of our total budget. Even by % GDP (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_net_soc_exp_of_gdp-economy-net-social-expenditure-gdp), we're #11 in the world. By what definition of "starving" are you using?
And as far as redistributing wealth upward, where do you think all that Mandatory Spending is going? A hint: SS and Medicare are eligible at age 60-65, which is pretty much the peak of net worth (http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/97/07/9707jw.pdf) -- pg.11 if you miss the chart.
Perhaps you're misdirecting your battles. We do overspend on social programs...poorly designed ones that merely funnel money to the wealthy. And that is why I fight the battles I'm choosing to fight.
Well, for one, yes, it is in fact selfish to have children when not financially prepared for them (in the same way it's selfish to get the biggest house you can even marginally afford with no "safety buffer"). Secondly, don't you believe its selfish to demand that another family that might have wanted children but chose not to have them because they didn't want the expense suddenly has to pay for the children of another family through taxes? (which of course will be far higher for them than the other families because they're "rich").
But all that aside, why the hell can't two families with children cohabitate? Why can't you cram a whole family into a flat? Believe it or not, you can fit quite a few blowup mattresses on the floor of almost any apartment. It seems that we're once again talking about standards of living...expectations that "having a wife+kid" just somehow magically grants you a 2-3 bedroom house (that you own of course, not rent).
I would say you're either lying, not looking hard enough, or have standards that are way too high. Even in this recession, I believe you've be very hard pressed to not find _any_ work in a 100 mile radius. Teens in high school certainly don't have much of a problem with absolutely no resume, experience, or degree to speak of. What of the grocery clerks? Restaurant waiters? Fast food employees? Etc etc... YES people should be grateful for these jobs. I know at least one single mother who works two such jobs for relatively low pay and raises a kid by herself while doing night school on the side. She doesn't have much of a recreational life, but sometimes that's the price of misfortune. And with the kind of effort I see her putting forward, I've no doubt things will change down the road for her. Being financially paralyzed because of "using up one's time and energy" on a McJob is such a copout bullshit excuse.
I believe the ultimate fault here is the word "desirable" that you chose. People in this country are spoiled -- they have standards, and those standards are high. If they lose their job, they aren't going to accept a "lesser career" or "lesser salary" than they had before. They aren't going to take blue collar work or get their hands dirty. Hell, I seriously doubt they'd even cancel their cable or cell phone to save themselves the monthly expense. This is a country of entitlement...people don't "roll with the punches" -- they instead simply expect their lifestyles to be maintained. And if they can't maintain it themselves (be it through misfortune or calamity), they expect the government to maintain it.
All that said, I do believe the truly downtrodden should have some kind of net to land in, but this bullshit about "desirable jobs" is just that: bullshit.
All that proves is that people are shallow and vote themselves dollars based on their status in life. Whereas that's sadly true for the most part, I do believe in a segment of society with real beliefs that don't change as life throws a few curveballs, people that don't put their vote behind whoever benefits their wallet the most.
Actually, I'd say it has equal value to "if you're rich, you're evil and heartless and don't deserve any of your money". Sadly, such blanket superlatives are all people really need these days.
All debatable, and I don't believe in societal blackmail through the passive threat of "allow me to leech or I'll turn to crime". For all you know, making it harder to cruise through life on mediocre govt handouts might actually scare some people into action, resulting in a net gain for society. It's all open to interpretation.
But I'll grant you this: you are right that not all poor people are poor because they're stupid/lazy, and you may be right.that the net effect of societal Darwinism could be worse than giving them a basic subsistence.
Where I definitely agree with the lazy factor, I believe the primary reason this won't become a reality is due to HOAs, which in this day and age are _everywhere_.