My Blog

Progressive Conservative Cautious Liberal

   Mon, January 9, 2012 - 2:33 AM

These are just some private notes:

I'm not a Conservative or a Liberal, yet in some areas i'm Conservative and some areas Liberal

This is based on the recent topics of race, social programs, and the weight on government spending and taxes.

This article may come off very liberal but this is just half of the story, I believe I have some of the solutions, the solutions IMO will not come from being dependent on government programs per se and will generate tax dollars

Statistics IMO can be and are deliberately misleading, these stats were are to find

"61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available"

[What about "corporate welfare, tax loopholes, and the bail-out? should the government not take care of the businesses?]

Based on the 2009 TOTAL population of each respective race in the United States, it is:

37.8% white* (37.8% of the white population is on welfare)

27.78% black* (27.78% of the black population is on welfare)

15.47% Hispanic* ** (15.47% of the Hispanic population is on welfare)

I'm a progressive conservative and a cautious liberal, in some area's i'm conservative in others i'm liberal

I don't believe the government has a right to tell you who to marry and what to do with ourselves, as wrong as I might think it is or against my religion and faith, I will share my opinion with others if ask but I adhere to my own faith, i believe others have a right to their own beliefs and actions as long as it doesn't infringe on others, and some beliefs and actions do impact others.

As a Christian (Ausarian) I'm not conservative when it comes to Love, I believe in Social Justice, Equality, and to Love one another, wealth and abundance for all, the differences is perhaps how we get there and how we define it.

Taxes and money are a big issue, also governance of law and equality are very important, there big government is good. Taxes are important as well but more important is how it's allocated, I don't want my money going to war and killing others for gas and oil, though I may be naive in how the real world works, I believe in world peace. Defense and national security are very important. just IMO not excessive greed and exploitation of others.

We have to ask ourselves what's good for the planet and mother earth, individually and socially, us and the world. I have serious issues with the Social Justice System and Prisons and discrepancies of poverty, race, and racism, with poverty being a direct correlation to crime, lack of education, and inequality. So when we say every man for himself, that's really not true in some ways we are reliant upon everyone else, that's fine on an individual level, but not so much on a social level. So yes in some cases i believe the government should step in and help others.

I think health care, food, clothing, shelter, and education are important.

I believe money itself is a problem, I believe there's an alternative solution Money and market's stock exchange rule and run our lives when it should be the other way around, that's by working together


add a comment
Mon, January 9, 2012 - 2:35 AM

Summary (this article is old but will suffice to make a point - I believe we have to look at saving money in defense and public relations

The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student loans.

One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and have babies. Yet AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both programs cost $34.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined federal, state and local budget of $3,487 billion. (1)

To rescue their point that welfare is responsible for runaway government spending, conservatives must expand the definition of "welfare" as much as possible. Unfortunately, AFDC and food stamps are by far the largest welfare programs for the poor, and any expanded definition is going to include popular middle class programs like Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, and pensions for needy veterans. In other words, so called conservatives must villainize the middle class if they wish to villainize the poor. But for the moment, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and accompany their line of argument to the end:

Many conservatives expand "welfare" to include all one-way transfers of cash, goods or services to persons who make no payment and render no service in return. The Library of Congress provides a list of such programs (which will be included in the appendix below). In these expenditures for combined federal, state and local governments came to 12 percent of the combined budget. Keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc.

If conservatives are still frustrated that this does not prove their point that government is drowning in welfare, then they might try expanding "welfare" to include all social welfare expenditures, which include every entitlement program under the sun, including Social Security and Medicare. (Forget, for the moment, that the middle class is defending these programs with bazookas and rocket launchers.)

These defense expenditures comprised 62 percent of combined government outlays. However, at least at the federal level, these benefits are paid to literally every income bracket, and in a remarkably proportional manner:
Mon, January 9, 2012 - 2:35 AM

--- "Deficit" vs. "Debt"---

Suppose you spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a "budget deficit". So you borrow (ie; use your credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you spend more than your income, another deficit, you must borrow some more, and you'll still have to pay the interest on your debt (now larger).

If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don't have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy.

"Reducing the deficit" is a meaningless soundbite. If the DEFICIT is any amount more than ZERO, we have to borrow more and the DEBT grows.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress's appropriations. Here is a direct link to the Congressional Budget Office web site's deficit analysis. We have to pay interest* on that huge, growing debt; and it cuts into our budget big time.


What about "corporate welfare, tax loopholes, and the bail-out?

Corporations don't pay taxes. When you buy stuff, you pay their taxes for them.

- This is known as embedded taxes, and it does NOT show on your cash register ticket.
- This form of taxation hits low income folks the hardest because it's a higher percentage of their income.
- This would be fixed with the Fair Tax as defined in H.R.25 and S.13. More info.

"There is no such thing as government money - only taxpayer money." William Weld, quoted in Readers Digest.

"For society as a whole, nothing comes as a 'right' to which we are 'entitled'. Even bare subsistence has to be produced.... The only way anyone can have a right to something that has to be produced is to force someone else to produce it... The more things are provided as rights, the less the recipients have to work and the more the providers have to carry the load." Thomas Sowell, quoted in Forbes and Reader's Digest.

According to Mr. Kneeland, "...all dollars come from the people. Where do [you] think Coca-Cola gets the money to pay its taxes, Exxon gets its money to pay the Exxon Valdez fines, Denny's gets the money to pay its Justice Department fines, or even Microsoft gets the money to defend itself? It all ultimately can come from only one place, and that's from individuals." ED: When you buy a product, the price of that product has to cover ALL the costs to get that product to you.

"A politician cannot spend one dime on any spending project without first taking that dime from the person who earned it. So, when a politician votes for a spending bill he is saying that he believes the government should spend that particular dollar rather than the individual who worked for it." Neal Boortz.
Mon, January 9, 2012 - 2:36 AM

---The Government cannot provide anything to anyone without first taking money from someone else to pay for it.


is not part of the Federal Budget. It is a separate account from the General Fund, and has its own source of income ("Payroll Tax"). Social Security payments go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. But, the Government is under NO OBLIGATION to pay Social Security benefits.

As of August 2010, there is less being paid into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. Social Security is now using its "surplus".

Other Government agencies borrowed from that trust fund, and now have to pay it back. But they already spent it! So how will they pay it back? Through bailouts and taxes. Here is a "must read" about the problem. Your payroll taxes are going into a bottomless hole!

The Social Security Administration's iwb FAQ page about the Trust Fund, and their latest Report (August 2010) explain it well.

Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed.
Mon, January 9, 2012 - 2:37 AM

Who gets welfare? Despite prevailing stereotype, whites, not blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars

Despite prevailing stereotype, Whites, not Blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars

SAY the word "welfare" and immediately the image of the lazy Black wellare queen who breeds for profit surfaces in the minds of those who have come to believe the hideous stereotype. It is a myth that persists despite government figures and authoritative studies showing that Whites overwhelmingly reap the lion's share of the dole.

The image of the Black "welfare cheat," public aid advocates say, is based on misconceptions about poor minorities. The notion, they say, comes from society's resentment of seemingly ablebodied people getting paid for doing nothing.

"For some people, there is a need to believe that there are professional welfare recipients who are deliberately trying to get not only what they need to survive, but more," says Anne D. Hill, director of programs for the National Urban League. "People say to themselves: 'I work. How come this person who appears to be healthy isn't working?' We tend to equate our condition with others without fully knowing their circumstances."

Hill and other welfare supporters argue that numbers, and not erroneous stereotypes, tell the real story about public assistance clients: Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.

The federal government defines welfare as all entitlement programs funded through taxes. These programs, listed as "direct benefit payments for individuals" by the Office of Management and Budget, make up $730 billion or 43 percent of the $1.47 trillion the government will spend this fiscal year.
Mon, January 9, 2012 - 2:37 AM

Social Security is the nation's largest welfare program, although many Whites prefer to call it a retirement plan. The government writes retirement and disability benefit checks to 35.4 million recipients of whom 88.7 percent are White and 9.6 percent are Black.

The reason behind this shocking disparity is perhaps the most lamentable of all: The life expectancy rate for Blacks is six years shorter than that of Whites, meaning Black workers spend years paying into a retirement system only to have White retirees reap the benefits for a longer time.

Welfare critics rarely search the Social Security rolls for "welfare cheats," but train their sights on people getting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and food stamps, the relief programs with the most Black clients. Yet government figures show that Whites not Blacks make up the bulk of clients on these public aid programs; a fact that dispels the notion that Blacks are scheming for a free lunch courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Among the poorest of the poor--single mothers, living below the poverty line with minor children to support 39.7 percent of AFDC clients are Black single mothers and 38.1 percent are White women with children. Food stamp recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White. Medicaid benefits are paid to 27.5 percent Black recipients compared to 48.5 percent White clients.

Although the numbers show that Whites get the biggest chunk of public aid dollars, welfare critics still charge that Blacks shouldn't collect 33 percent of welfare benefits when they only make up 12 percent of the general population. They say the imbalance proves their case that Blacks are too busy complaining and blaming racism for their plight to look for a job.

But racism is at the heart of the standard-of-living gap between Blacks and Whites, welfare advocates argue. Unlawful race-based hiring practices, they contend, keep Blacks from getting jobs that pay enough to lift them out of poverty. Until more blue-collar jobs open up to Black workers, Blacks will continue to battle poverty and the freeloader misconception.

"Public and congressional deliberations over... welfare reform in the last few years have been fueled by distortions and outright falsehoods about poverty," the National Urban League asserted in its 1988 report, Black Americans and Public Policy. "Welfare reform is not solely a Black issue, but one in need of immediate attention."
Mon, January 9, 2012 - 2:38 AM

Turning welfare reform into a "Black issue" makes racial scapegoating easy and allows stereotypes, like the Reaganera "welfare queen," to go unchallenged, public aid supporters say. Rightwing reformers cast Whites as "deserving" clients who are legitimately unable to pay their own way through no fault of their own. Blacks are labeled "undeserving" recipients who are looking for the feds to subsidize their slothfulness.

Attaching a moral value to work is not a new convention; it is a philosophy deeply rooted in the religious beliefs and social welfare laws that Anglo-Saxon settlers brought to the New World. These values were imposed upon poor immigrants from other European countries who later perpetuated them after moving into mainstream society.

The Puritanical work ethic faced its greatest challenge following the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The nation was forced to re-think its social welfare conventions when it realized that economic forces--not misplaced values--could lead to financial disaster.

President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal programs and the adoption of the Social Security Act of 1935 symbolized the country's commitment to protecting family and personal incomes. President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society anti-poverty programs of the 1960s ushered in some of the programs of today's welfare system.

Ironically, the social welfare policies of three decades ago are under attack today by political conservatives who have placed the blame for the recent Los Angeles riots on the "failed social programs of the 1960s," That characterization has drawn fire from welfare advocates and sociologists as well as ordinary citizens,

"I think that the problems of South Central Los Angeles and other urban communities are far more complex than the simple kinds of characterizations we are getting from elected officials," says Evelyn K. Moore, executive director of the National Black Child Development Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy center. "We cannot criticize family values unless we are willing to support families."

Dr. Marcus Alexis, a Northwestern University economist and former acting chairman of the federal Interstate Commerce Commission agrees. "'Welfare' is the new code word thats being substituted for Willie Horton," Dr. Alexis points out. "It means that inner-city Blacks are viewed as chronically poor, heavily subsidized, irresponsible, highcost individuals. That's where the administration is coming from."

As a lingering recession and high unemployment drive more Whites onto relief rolls, welfare reformers are going to have to pin the blame on the economy and not "immoral" poor people in the nation's inner cities. They only need to look at the White families streaming into welfare offices in rural New Hampshire for proof that poverty has more to do with economics than race. The oncethriving state has seen an 88 percent jump in welfare cases since 1989, yet the states Black population is a meager 0.6 percent.

The economic slump has created a social welfare crisis: Some 13.5 million Americans are on welfare, 2.2 million more than two years ago. That means that one in seven American children is on relief with about 2,000 more joining their ranks every day.

Congress could not have anticipated a surge in welfare clients when it drafted The Family Support Act of 1988, hoping to end welfare dependency by providing educational programs and jobs for ablebodied people. These clients would eventually move into the work force and stave off the labor crunch. With flourishing local economies, states could afford to pick up part of the tab for participants' education, child care and Medicaid benefits with the balance paid by federal matching funds.

It didn't work that way. The economy ground to a near-halt in the late 1980s and many blue- and white-collar workers found themselves seeking public aid. Welfare clients took the biggest hit when state welfare officials upended their pencils and erased names from public aid mils.
Mon, January 9, 2012 - 2:38 AM

Michigan welfare officials, for example, dumped 90,000 people from its general assistance program last year to save the state $250 million. Unfortunately, a majority of those clients, as is the case nationwide, are poor Black men living in urban areas with staggeringly high unemployment rates. Many of these men suffer from physical or mental disabilities. Without welfare benefits, they face a grim future.

The question of who gets welfare is one that society would do well to ponder. As it stands now, poor Black Families are up against the burdens of systematic racism, urban warfare and limited paths leading up and out of poverty. And many working class and middle class Black families are a paycheck away from joining their poorer brothers.

The welfare question goes to the heart of individual attitudes about race, class, values and beliefs. Those judgments, often made by the powerbrokers who shape public policy, rarely coincide with the sensibilities of the poor. How they decide who gets welfare can irrevocably alter the destinies of generations of impoverished people.

Bibliography for: "Who gets welfare? Despite prevailing stereotype, whites, not blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars"

"Who gets welfare? Despite prevailing stereotype, whites, not blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars". Ebony. 09 Jan, 2012.

COPYRIGHT 1992 Johnson Publishing Co.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group