re: "Limited/Small Government" and Job Creation

<blockquote><b>Quoting Back to Noob Status:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting khigh:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting Back to Noob ... [snip!] ... I would rather work with the long time dead. They don't complain or argue!  "</blockquote> That doesn't surprise me."</blockquote>




It doesn't surprise anyone. 5000 year old corpses are interesting to me.

<blockquote><b>Quoting SpaceCowgirl:</b>" I know, right? Let's tax Julie Blue Eyes to oblivion. The charity that is the federal government needs that money more than the charities she chose."</blockquote>

Or let's just cut all government assistance and let those lazy ass poor people starve. She would love that.

Quoting Back to Noob Status:" <blockquote><b>Quoting SpaceCowgirl:</b>" I know, right? Let's tax Julie Blue Eyes ... [snip!] ... Or let's just cut all government assistance and let those lazy ass poor people starve. She would love that."

Nobody is advocating that.

Though, I think a private charity given $100 to help the poor would do a whole lot more than $100 given to the federal government to help the poor.

<blockquote><b>Quoting SpaceCowgirl:</b>" Nobody is advocating that. Though, I think a private charity given $100 to help the poor would do a whole lot more than $100 given to the federal government to help the poor."</blockquote>


How so?

Quoting Back to Noob Status:" <blockquote><b>Quoting SpaceCowgirl:</b>" Nobody is advocating that. Though, I think ... [snip!] ... the poor would do a whole lot more than $100 given to the federal government to help the poor."</blockquote> How so?"

When you give money to a charity whose main concern is helping the poor, then the majority of your money goes straight to the poor. A little is taken out for administrative costs, brick and mortar, etc.

If you send that same money to the federal government, it gets filtered through countless agencies and they have no need or desire to be efficient with the money.

Have you ever researched how the government spends money? Halliburton, for example? Sure, charge through $30 for 10 cent nail...the government is paying for it.

Quoting Back to Noob Status:" <blockquote><b>Quoting SpaceCowgirl:</b>" Nobody is advocating that. Though, I think ... [snip!] ... the poor would do a whole lot more than $100 given to the federal government to help the poor."</blockquote> How so?"

The government is terribly inefficient.
Local charities tend to know more about individual needs AND they also tend to know who may not need the help. the government isnt close enough to the recipient to determine who is abusing the system.

Quoting khigh:" 1. Government should stay out of jobs, job creation, product regulation, etc. Where in the Constitution ... [snip!] ... will see an increase in jobs. I am three things (not a right winger), a Constitutionalist, a Libertarian, and a minarchist. "

I'm confused ... you don't think products should be banned because they're dangerous but think we should just wait for enough people to die to scare others away from the product?

I'm not even talking about "cutting all social programs"





I'm talking about deregulation. It's out of control and it needs to be reigned in. Rep. Kelly's speech is inspiring. Watch it. Sure, there are social programs that need overhaul. Right now and for the last 4 decades or so, welfare begets more welfare. It's no longer used for a hand UP, it is more used for a hand OUT.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/07/cash-value-of-welfare-spending-to-households-in-poverty-greater-than-median-household-income/


A new analysis of Congressional Research Service data by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that the amount spent on federal means-tested welfare programs, if converted to cash payments and divided among households below the poverty line, would equal a daily income greater than the median household income in 2011.
The cash value of welfare spending, according to the analysis, is $167.65 daily per household in poverty. The median household income in 2011 was $50,054 or $137.13 per day, according to the analysis, released Friday.
When broken down into an hourly wage, welfare spending would be enough for $30.60 an hour for 40 hour weeks for each household in poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03, which drops to between $21.50 and $23.45 after federal taxes, depending on deductions and filing status, the minority side of the committee showed. The wage is further reduced with local and state taxes. Benefits from government assistance programs, they note, are not taxed federally.
In 2011, means-tested federal welfare spending was government’s largest budget item. Federal spending on the 83 programs reached $745.84 billion, a number greater than spending on Social Security, Medicare, non-war defense, among others. When combined with state spending on federal assistance programs, the total spend reached approximately $1.03 trillion.
“The diffuse and overlapping nature of federal welfare spending has led to some confusion regarding the scope and nature of benefits,” they write.

As an example of the lack of understanding, the Republican side of the Budget Committee notes that Newark Mayor Cory Booker with his “Food Stamp Challenge,” attempting to live on about $30 for a week is an inaccurate demonstration of what it is like to live on the one of the fastest growing welfare programs in the country, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.
“The situation Booker presents, however, is not accurate: a low-income individual on food stamps may qualify for $25,000 in various forms of welfare support from the federal government on top of his or her existing income and resources — including access to 15 different food assistance programs,” they write. “Further, even if one unrealistically assumes that no other welfare benefits are available, the size of the food stamp benefit increases as one’s income decreases, as the benefit is designed as a supplement to existing resources; it is explicitly not intended to be the sole source of funds for purchasing food.”
The minority side of the committee adds that President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal would see means-tested spending increase another 30 percent over the next four years.

So, just curious to those proposing cuts to the welfare programs (not saying this doesn't need to happen). How would you cut them? How do you get to decide who starves and who doesn't?

Quoting Nymphadora:" So, just curious to those proposing cuts to the welfare programs (not saying this doesn't need to happen). How would you cut them? How do you get to decide who starves and who doesn't?"

Cut taxes, deregulate and CREATE JOBS.

The more people work, the less people "starve".

Quoting Nymphadora:" So, just curious to those proposing cuts to the welfare programs (not saying this doesn't need to happen). How would you cut them? How do you get to decide who starves and who doesn't?"

I dont think there were many people starving 10 yrs ago. Perhaps we could shrink the programs to the size they were 10 yrs ago. I wouldnt do it that drastically, but I'd phase the redctions over ~3yrs.
Our biggest issue is that lots of people arent working. and, those who are working may be making less in the past 2 yrs than in the prior years.
WE NEEDS JOBS.

Quoting The (super kinky) Master:" I'm confused ... you don't think products should be banned because they're dangerous but think we should just wait for enough people to die to scare others away from the product? "

Yep. Free market values. The government has no role in any regulation per the US Constitution and they ban the stupidest things. Like the Nap Nanny. People are idiots and their kids die. It's not the products fault that people are idiots.

Quoting Nymphadora:" So, just curious to those proposing cuts to the welfare programs (not saying this doesn't need to happen). How would you cut them? How do you get to decide who starves and who doesn't?"

Cut 47% off the top and reduce the bloat. There's no reason to spend $100 on staples for one person at the FDA. I also think they should eliminate all of the federal programs and give the rest of the money to the states to divvy up where they think the money should go. The states know better what their citizens need than people 1000 miles away in DC/

Quoting khigh:" Cut 47% off the top and reduce the bloat. There's no reason to spend $100 on staples for one person ... [snip!] ... up where they think the money should go. The states know better what their citizens need than people 1000 miles away in DC/"

If we did that, it would be interesting to see which states self-implode.