Congress Plans to Eliminate Subsidized Stafford Loans for Graduate School

[roubs]

Nope. The problem is the money is not there. The gov uses it like any other tax. What they have is a fund full of IOUs. What needs to happen with SS is to privitize it and get it OUT of the government's sticky fingers. Because, at the moment, this is a Madoff style pyramid scam, we need to do a lot of work to fix it gradually. Start privitizing some of it, increase the retirement age a bit. . . The SS situation is pure theft as the moment. It was never supposed to be a tax.

What a great response. A poster explains how the money actually flows, and a simple way to correct the problem and your response is. "No, the money is not there." Evidence? In reality, SS has been funded by the FICA tax since the New Deal in the 1930s. In this way the working generation has always supported the retired generation, only to be supported by the next working generation that comes up. It's really as simple as that. We are running into a demographics problem now, but as aagman noted this would be easily fixed by lifting the silly cap on FICA.

Using Madoff as evidence that the government needs to take a smaller role. Wow. It seems as if in your ideal world every child could aspire to become their own Madoff.

Again and again we have overly simplistic answers to the problem of social welfare excesses: Get rid of it. I'd like to note that you declined to address my rather straightforward question: What happens to people who are actually disabled? Instead you choose to talk about the people with tendonitis.

And really, as a Psychologist can you really envision no circumstances under which a person with Depression / Bipolar / Schizophrenia is unable to work for a period of time? Notice I'm not arguing with your contention that there are problems with long term reliance on this. That contention supports altering SSI, not abolishing it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[roubs]

Yeah, I agree that to that person, it's not going to make much of a difference until one party or another ends that option for a tax dodge. I actually include myself in a demographic for whom it doesn't matter who is in power (monetarily, anyway...it certainly matters for my blood pressure). Throughout Clinton, Bush, and Obama my taxes have stayed the same. However, my husband was laid off from his job 2 weeks ago, so if he doesn't find another one within a reasonable time frame, it may start to matter a whole hell of a lot .

Sadly cuts in spending leads to job losses. Many don't understand how government budget priorities should actually be opposite to their household counterparts. Deficits should be slashed in good economic times and deployed during bad ones. This is a bit counter intuitive and also anathema to certain ideologies.

Again, a flexible way of approaching this says cut spending under this circumstance, raise spending under that one. Your Tea Party/Libertarian friends will only say: Cut spending now, cut spending later, cut spending always.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yeah, I don't know why people think gov't insurance will be better. If anything, they'll probably cover less.

And I don't wanjt to go back to the Gilded Age type of industrialism, but I'm all for happy mediums.

aagman: It's funny how conservatives blame the liberals for the banks and the liberals blame the conservatives. We can't even agree on what caused the housing bubble!

The problem I have with the insurance system as is is that it just completely screws over people with pre-existing conditions. I have a number of friends with childhood/young adult cancer, congential disabilities, etc. (thus, who obviously did not "cause" their disabilities or illnesses through decades of poor life choices), who are completely SOL if they can't get employer sponsored insurance coverage. Linking health care to employment is kind of ironic, I think, because a severe health condition (e.g., cancer) may very well keep you from working--but if you don't work you don't have insurance, so... JMHO (and admittedly I have a personal stake in this, so I'm not exactly unbiased)

Of course, I'm also one of the rare people who flat out wouldn't mind me being taxed more in exchange for more government services provided, so that makes my views unpopular among EVERYONE! (even democrats always talk about taxing "other people"---never themselves, their constituents, etc.).

Also, government funded things include more than "welfare"--infrastructure, higher education, public education, research funding, etc., which I think sometimes gets lost in these arguments. YMMV on whether these should be government funded, of course.

But I play both my political and religious views pretty close to my chest, so I'm mostly unopinionated on these matters for most intents and purposes.

 

[2012PhD]

Where does this idea that when you privatize things the system becomes more ethical and efficient come from? So far the opposite is true. Unlike other developed countries, our health care system is privitized and also the most expensive, inefficient, and unequal. U.S. ranks # 1 for highest percentage of GDP that goes to health care and #34 overall behind all other developed countries. I have yet to meet an American who is satisfied with our health care system. Because teh private sector controls its, nobody can afford $600 to 1000 per month and you can't enroll with a pre-existing condition so anybody who is middle class or has a health problem is left out. Obama care at least attempted to regulate some of these unethical issues. If you don't get employer coverage in the U.S., you are completely screwed. Health care is also the cause of the most bankrupcies in the U.S.

To those of you that are complaining about the poor screwing the system. While i agree that there are some people out there that do this, let's talk about how little the welfare system provides. First of all, people on SS disability are only getting about 1,000 per month. Food stamps max out at about $200 per month. Nobody in their right mind would want to stay on these government services because they can't live decently. This amount of money is nothing compared to the high cost of not taxing the top 1% and providing loopholes.

The fact that a huge chunk of the population does not pay taxes has more to do with how unequal the U.S. system is. We have a large population that is unemployed and also a large population that is earning 10,000 per year or less. Those people are not taxed because they are not earning money. That has more to do with the fact that the U.S. economy is mostly composed of poor people and ultra rich people. The middle class is slowly disappearing. Our economy is pretty weak right now and uncompetitive so there are no jobs out there for uneducated people.

 

[2012PhD]

As I said before, we need to alter SSI. Depression/bipolar/schizophrenia are very different groups of people and all heterogenous. It's a little easier to see SSI for schizophrenia than bipolar/depression, both of which have better treatment stabilization/outcomes.

Having MDD, bipolar, and schizophrenia is not treated the same and does not give someone automatic disability benefits. On paper, the bar is pretty high. Nobody can get social security unless they have solid evidence (through a physician, other provider) that they can't work in any type of job even part-time. You must prove that you can't work even 5 hours per week in a filing job. If the system fails, its because clinicians and physicians are being unethical. I agree that most people with MDD and bipolar disorder can work--at least part-time.

 

[2012PhD]

I don't know how much your deductable was, but insurance is supposed to be used for preventative care and check-ups, not just for emergencies. If you had some sort of emergency, you would be stuck paying 10,000 plus out of pocket. Is that doable for most people earning a middle class salary? What happens when people have kids? The out of pocket expenses skyrocket pretty quickly. Other countries are able to provide universal health care for everyone that is government sponsored so we don't need to be re-inventing the wheel here. [/I]

That's $1200 a month without working. If they're in section 8 housing, they may only be paying $100.00 a month for rent. They may also work on the down low and add to that. Further, you aren't counting payments for kids and also health insurance. We trap the poor. I'll give you an example. I knew a young woman who was pregnant with twins when her boyfriend left her. A single mom. She would have made more money and had health insurance if she stayed home. She decided to continue working because 10, 15 years down the line she'd have a career. But, the incentive to stay home and not work was huge. Some more examples. I've worked with schizophrenics that want to work. But, if they make too much, they lose their healthcare benefits and it takes forever to get them back. They can't count on being stable or keeping a job; further, getting a job that matches the value of those health benefits is challenging at entry level. Therefore, they do not work. Those people aren't gaming the system. How about what we did to black families? More profitable for the father to be gone. . . Excellent.

I agree with the above. I don't think that these benefits need to be cut, we just need a more effective and efficient system for managing the welfare system.

 

[aequitasveritas]

ROUBS Again and again we have overly simplistic answers to the problem of social welfare excesses: Get rid of it. I'd like to note that you declined to address my rather straightforward question: What happens to people who are actually disabled? Instead you choose to talk about the people with tendonitis.

I love this type of argument from liberals....the- "your being too simplistic..it's more complex"

I gess my stoopad brane just kant kepe up with al this entalleckuel stuff

Style of government begins with personal philosophy. Mine is that we start with zero taxes and then we add them incrementally based on absolute necessity.

What happens with people on disability? Well, someone who is clearly and obviously physically disabled should be supported...like from a broken back...not a "bad" back. someone who can't work due to mental illness....I say we give them a period of time to be on SSI...and after that, sorry but that's life.

I am actually in favor of bringing back mental institutions and improving the care they provide. People with seriously impairing mental illnesses should be given the option of living there. Guess what would happen...mental illness disability claims would suddenly decrease if that was the form of support. All of the sudden people would be trying to work.

We should say "ok...we agree...you're disabled...here's your room (a nice room with a view mind you)"
....instead of "oh yes...here're your SSI check..here's your section 8...here's your food stamps (to buy oreos)...here's your metro card so you can do all your important business (going to redbox)..here's your acupuncture voucher that that guy across the street working construction didnt mind giving 30% of his salary to pay for.

We need to have radical change from "safety net" style thinking to "I'm going to be *&^%ed if I don't work" thinking

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I gess my stoopad brane just kant kepe up with al this entalleckuel stuff

I've had the same sig. line for probably 4+ years, though I think you just dethrowned it.

 

[erg923]

With regards to disability...I still am not sure about my opinion there. I am torn. I worked in a depression research clinic in grad school (severe depression) and I can probably count on one hand (out of the scores of patients I saw) those that really were "unable" to work for years on end.

Severe psychotic disorders are another matter. But, the SSDI for "depression" thing seemed to, more often than not, create learned helplessness that did more harm than good.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

I love this type of argument from liberals....the- "your being too simplistic..it's more complex"

I gess my stoopad brane just kant kepe up with al this entalleckuel stuff

Style of government begins with personal philosophy. Mine is that we start with zero taxes and then we add them incrementally based on absolute necessity.

What happens with people on disability? Well, someone who is clearly and obviously physically disabled should be supported...like from a broken back...not a "bad" back. someone who can't work due to mental illness....I say we give them a period of time to be on SSI...and after that, sorry but that's life.

I am actually in favor of bringing back mental institutions and improving the care they provide. People with seriously impairing mental illnesses should be given the option of living there. Guess what would happen...mental illness disability claims would suddenly decrease if that was the form of support. All of the sudden people would be trying to work.

We should say "ok...we agree...you're disabled...here's your room (a nice room with a view mind you)"
....instead of "oh yes...here're your SSI check..here's your section 8...here's your food stamps (to buy oreos)...here's your metro card so you can do all your important business (going to redbox)..here's your acupuncture voucher that that guy across the street working construction didnt mind giving 30% of his salary to pay for.

We need to have radical change from "safety net" style thinking to "I'm going to be *&^%ed if I don't work" thinking

Perfect! But let's be sure to cover our butts and shake the impression that psychology is the ultimate gambit/handmaiden of the nanny state...let's do away with the insanity defense.

 

[cara susanna]

Uh oh, are we starting to get into Thomas Szasz territory now?

 

[Wilhem]

Where does this idea that when you privatize things the system becomes more ethical and efficient come from? So far the opposite is true. Unlike other developed countries, our health care system is privitized and also the most expensive, inefficient, and unequal. U.S. ranks # 1 for highest percentage of GDP that goes to health care and #34 overall behind all other developed countries. I have yet to meet an American who is satisfied with our health care system. Because teh private sector controls its, nobody can afford $600 to 1000 per month and you can't enroll with a pre-existing condition so anybody who is middle class or has a health problem is left out. Obama care at least attempted to regulate some of these unethical issues. If you don't get employer coverage in the U.S., you are completely screwed. Health care is also the cause of the most bankrupcies in the U.S.

To those of you that are complaining about the poor screwing the system. While i agree that there are some people out there that do this, let's talk about how little the welfare system provides. First of all, people on SS disability are only getting about 1,000 per month. Food stamps max out at about $200 per month. Nobody in their right mind would want to stay on these government services because they can't live decently. This amount of money is nothing compared to the high cost of not taxing the top 1% and providing loopholes.

The fact that a huge chunk of the population does not pay taxes has more to do with how unequal the U.S. system is. We have a large population that is unemployed and also a large population that is earning 10,000 per year or less. Those people are not taxed because they are not earning money. That has more to do with the fact that the U.S. economy is mostly composed of poor people and ultra rich people. The middle class is slowly disappearing. Our economy is pretty weak right now and uncompetitive so there are no jobs out there for uneducated people.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Uh oh, are we starting to get into Thomas Szasz territory now?

Hey, it's a nice break from RxP/FSPS threads!


On another note, I do have issues with the assumptions on this thread that people with disabilities are inherently lazy, unwilling to work, and unmotivated leeches on the public coffers, though. Speaking as someone with a disability who has never received disability/medicaid/public assistance benefits and has worked for pay (RA/TA/Instructor) the past three years, it *is* appreciably harder to get a job if you have a disability--many employers are unwilling to accommodate due to fear (realized or not) of too much cost and effort. I think most people who do have disabilities would overwhelmingly choose to work if they could. Not saying people don't game the system, but just that some, probably most, don't, and that many people do have legitimate disabilities that impact employment. Personally, I have every wish to be gainfully employed if at all possible, both in spite and because of my disability--hence why I'm in grad school (yes, you can joke about that ) [/soapbox]

 

[ForensicNeuro]

This is a fantastic and hilarious summary of SSI and disability for mental illness via the last psychiatrist...it's a must read:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/the_terrible_awful_truth_about_1.html

 

[erg923]

I'll give it a try, but I dont think I'm smart enough to understand most of his posts and points.

You cant read tone via a blog and his blog seems to be ALL about tone (and sacrcasm). I cant really pin down his actual true opinions about topics most of the time. I also get a little tired of his incessant need to point out hidden messages..and if he tells me that "thats not the REAL issue here" or that "Im asking the wrong question" one more time I might have homicidal ideation!

 

[aagman01]

Getting SSI for disability is NOT a simple process. I am speaking about this through (a) having seen and worked with numerous clients for whom it took years and multiple appeals, often without success and (b) having a brother, who is a lawyer, and who worked as a SSI lawyer in Baltimore. My brothers' job involved working with SSI judges (they exist), and reviewing and finding evidence to support or deny SSI cases. I do not know the absolute specifics of the work, but I do know that he used case precedence, examined DSM and other medical sources, and conducted other reviews in making recommendations on decisions to judges. And I do know that a majority of time, SSI was DENIED to applicants. And I do urge posters on this forum to actually read what SSI is and how it is funded - unless the US defaults on its legal obligations (which I guess it almost did/pretended to do), SSI is and can be quite solvent. It is not a pyramid scheme (unless the US government decides to expropriate the payroll tax and not fulfill its legal obligations to reimburse for it.

If it was there, we wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling to pay it (according to Obama).



That's a pyramid scam. You get an SS statement yearly that shows what you've "invested" and what your check would be if you stopped working now. They are paying those investments with what other people are putting into the system, not what you've put into the system. To make it solvent, the way to do it, to borrow a phrase from Al Gore, is to put it into a "lockbox." Stop stealing from it and using it for other ****.



My point in using Madoff is he was doing what SS does. Using "investments" to pay "investors" without generating any actual wealth/returns.



As I said before, we need to alter SSI. Depression/bipolar/schizophrenia are very different groups of people and all heterogenous. It's a little easier to see SSI for schizophrenia than bipolar/depression, both of which have better treatment stabilization/outcomes.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

We should say "ok...we agree...you're disabled...here's your room (a nice room with a view mind you)" ....instead of "oh yes...here're your SSI check..here's your section 8...here's your food stamps (to buy oreos)...here's your metro card so you can do all your important business (going to redbox)..here's your acupuncture voucher that that guy across the street working construction didnt mind giving 30% of his salary to pay for.

We need to have radical change from "safety net" style thinking to "I'm going to be *&^%ed if I don't work" thinking

While this would never make it through, I agree that radical change is needed. I wish we had leader that would make the tough (but correct) call.

 

[Buzzwordsoldier]

This is a fantastic and hilarious summary of SSI and disability for mental illness via the last psychiatrist...it's a must read:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/the_terrible_awful_truth_about_1.html

Oh that's the best summer reading I've had yet. A good ol' fashioned reality slap. As for the objection that it's not so easy to secure benefits, it is precisely this difficulty that cements the perception of earned value to which the beneficiary typically clings.

 

[aequitasveritas]

As for the objection that it's not so easy to secure benefits, it is precisely this difficulty that cements the perception of earned value to which the beneficiary typically clings.

very, very good point

 

[CharmedDiamond]

We should say "ok...we agree...you're disabled...here's your room (a nice room with a view mind you)"
....instead of "oh yes...here're your SSI check..here's your section 8...here's your food stamps (to buy oreos)...here's your metro card so you can do all your important business (going to redbox)..here's your acupuncture voucher that that guy across the street working construction didnt mind giving 30% of his salary to pay for.

We need to have radical change from "safety net" style thinking to "I'm going to be *&^%ed if I don't work" thinking

Best thing I've heard this whole thread

BTW, $200 in foodstamps? Not quite. My friend was getting almost $400 for 2 people. My unemployment check to live off of completely was less than that! She gets salmon at the full price grocery store. I get ground turkey at the cheapest store there is. ONE of us had a full time job for 1/2 of their employable lifetime, that was cut due to government offices not paying their bills. The other hasn't ever worked a full time job. I'll let you guess which is which

 

[KillerDiller]

Best thing I've heard this whole thread

BTW, $200 in foodstamps? Not quite. My friend was getting almost $400 for 2 people. My unemployment check to live off of completely was less than that! She gets salmon at the full price grocery store. I get ground turkey at the cheapest store there is. ONE of us had a full time job for 1/2 of their employable lifetime, that was cut due to government offices not paying their bills. The other hasn't ever worked a full time job. I'll let you guess which is which

So why don't you apply for food stamps then?

We need to have radical change from "safety net" style thinking to "I'm going to be *&^%ed if I don't work" thinking

Have you ever been involuntarily out of work? It is easy to draw a thick line between ourselves and "those people who use social programs." As I mentioned previously, my husband was laid off unexpectedly and I've learned just how thin that line really is. Health care when you are unemployed alone will bankrupt you. If you think that either of us has had one restful night in the past few weeks, or that we would not jump at the chance for a job, you're sorely mistaken.

 

[2012PhD]

BTW, $200 in foodstamps? Not quite. My friend was getting almost $400 for 2 people. My unemployment check to live off of completely was less than that! She gets salmon at the full price grocery store. I get ground turkey at the cheapest store there is. ONE of us had a full time job for 1/2 of their employable lifetime, that was cut due to government offices not paying their bills. The other hasn't ever worked a full time job. I'll let you guess which is which

People post these experiences that are extreme and don't add up. Everyone i know who has received unemployment has gotten about 1500 per month. Plus, you CAN get food stamps while on unemployment. I know people who have. Even my friends who were unemployed after internship got about 1200-1500 per month for a salary of 25,000. People on unemployment can get WAY more than someone on disability unless there income was ridiculously low. Its not a fair comparison. Either there was a mistake or your income was 10,000 before.

200 is the max for food stamps. This may be per person or per family...need to verify. Regardless, people can't really live off this amount per person or per family. I just went to trader joe's (not an expensive grocery store) and I spend about $250 for two weeks of groceries for 2 people and this is bargain shopping and looking for deals. I would be hungry most of the month if i had to live off $200 for grocery shopping even just for myself. Why do we want to cut services even more than how ridiculously low they are? These people are hungry if they have to live off 200 bucks for grocery shopping or $400 for family. This is not comfortable. Graduate school stipends are about 1600 per month and this is really tight.

Look at any country that is doing better economically and is more humane than us and has lower crime, the commonality you will see is that they have way more government services (government health care for all, free universities, high taxes) and take care of their poor. None of the libertarians have addressed this issue. We know what happens when the private sector takes over: Research studies are sponsored and funded by pharmaceutical companies, they find independent (no gov interference) IRB's that will give them the OK to endanger lives, and we have a health care system where anybody with a pre-existing condition can't get insurance. The professional school movement that everyone on this board also resents is also caused by a lack of government regulation (apa is an independent body and thus doesn't regulate as long as they are paid). They don't have this problem in europe or canada.

 

[roubs]

I love this type of argument from liberals....the- "your being too simplistic..it's more complex"

I gess my stoopad brane just kant kepe up with al this entalleckuel stuff

Style of government begins with personal philosophy. Mine is that we start with zero taxes and then we add them incrementally based on absolute necessity.

What happens with people on disability? Well, someone who is clearly and obviously physically disabled should be supported...like from a broken back...not a "bad" back. someone who can't work due to mental illness....I say we give them a period of time to be on SSI...and after that, sorry but that's life.

I am actually in favor of bringing back mental institutions and improving the care they provide. People with seriously impairing mental illnesses should be given the option of living there. Guess what would happen...mental illness disability claims would suddenly decrease if that was the form of support. All of the sudden people would be trying to work.

We should say "ok...we agree...you're disabled...here's your room (a nice room with a view mind you)"
....instead of "oh yes...here're your SSI check..here's your section 8...here's your food stamps (to buy oreos)...here's your metro card so you can do all your important business (going to redbox)..here's your acupuncture voucher that that guy across the street working construction didnt mind giving 30% of his salary to pay for.

We need to have radical change from "safety net" style thinking to "I'm going to be *&^%ed if I don't work" thinking

Yes, a-v, when I ask you to appreciate the complexity of the situation, just pretend I'm calling you stupid . The funny thing is, I pretty much agree with your position on "What happens w/someone on disability?"

What I was talking about re: complexity are the angry calls for eliminate social welfare, eliminate dept of labor, eliminate dept of education. All based on the well reasoned position "We are broke. Cut it". The idea that "Our schools suck, eliminate the DoE" is mind boggling. Is the contention really that eliminating the DoE will improve our schools?

No one here has been this egregious(because you're all smart!), but I'm talking about the 40% of people on Medicare that insist they've never benefited from a government program.

 

[roubs]

If it was there, we wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling to pay it (according to Obama).

?? We need to raise the debt ceiling because congress already passed a budget months ago that took us X further into debt. Agree or disagree, that budget is now law. To lawfully fulfill that budget, we have to be able to borrow the amount specified.

That's a pyramid scam. You get an SS statement yearly that shows what you've "invested" and what your check would be if you stopped working now. They are paying those investments with what other people are putting into the system, not what you've put into the system. To make it solvent, the way to do it, to borrow a phrase from Al Gore, is to put it into a "lockbox." Stop stealing from it and using it for other ****.

Try again. The point of a pyramid scheme is that the source of revenue does not really exist. SS revenue comes from the payroll tax. You earn real money and the government taxes a portion. The revenue is there.

Though, it definitely is wealth redistribution from the working generation to the retired one. So if you want to peg it with a "dirty" label you could always scare people by saying their wealth is being re-distributed.

 

[CharmedDiamond]

So why don't you apply for food stamps then?

Foodstamps are based off of household income. I had to move back home with my mother (who owned her home) when I lost my job, so I was not eligible, since it's based on household. That's fair though, and I appreciate that kind of regulation to prevent system abuse.

People post these experiences that are extreme and don't add up. Everyone i know who has received unemployment has gotten about 1500 per month. Plus, you CAN get food stamps while on unemployment. I know people who have. Even my friends who were unemployed after internship got about 1200-1500 per month for a salary of 25,000. People on unemployment can get WAY more than someone on disability unless there income was ridiculously low. Its not a fair comparison. Either there was a mistake or your income was 10,000 before.

200 is the max for food stamps. This may be per person or per family...need to verify. Regardless, people can't really live off this amount per person or per family. I just went to trader joe's (not an expensive grocery store) and I spend about $250 for two weeks of groceries for 2 people and this is bargain shopping and looking for deals. I would be hungry most of the month if i had to live off $200 for grocery shopping even just for myself. Why do we want to cut services even more than how ridiculously low they are? These people are hungry if they have to live off 200 bucks for grocery shopping or $400 for family. This is not comfortable. Graduate school stipends are about 1600 per month and this is really tight.

Well, yes, I only did work for 7 months. I got a job right out of college (before I graduated), thought I was lucky getting hired during a "freeze" due to a new grant, but funds had to be "reallocated" because DCFS hadn't paid our office for a year and a half. I had worked part time during college for 2.5, which is the only reason my unemployment claim has held out. When you're on unemployment, they don't count the last three months you worked, which REALLY sucks when you've only worked 7! So yes, my unemployment "salary" was based off of 4 months of full time play + 2 1/4 years of variable hour part time work. So tell me what I did wrong?

And I honestly don't mean to be rude, but if you think Trader Joe's is cheap, then I'm not really surprised 200$ isn't doable. My boyfriend and I shop at Aldi's and Walmart mostly, occassionally Meijer for "special stuff," and get basics when we can at the dollar store or Big Lots. We spend less than $200 for the two of us per month and eat very healthy.

I look forward to the day I have 1600 a month to live off of! Truly!!

 

[2012PhD]

And I honestly don't mean to be rude, but if you think Trader Joe's is cheap, then I'm not really surprised 200$ isn't doable. My boyfriend and I shop at Aldi's and Walmart mostly, occassionally Meijer for "special stuff," and get basics when we can at the dollar store or Big Lots. We spend less than $200 for the two of us per month and eat very healthy.

I look forward to the day I have 1600 a month to live off of! Truly!!

I don't think trader joe's is cheap. just not expensive. In CA or NYC, you can't live off $200 for groceries. no way, even if you go to Walmart. 1600 is close to poverty wages in NYC or California. My internship stipend of 25K or so is impossible to live on out here in a big city.

You can get 1500 per month if you get into a funded PhD. There are also apa minority fellowships that pay about 25K per year. I didn't apply for one but know many that did.

 

[2012PhD]

I look forward to the day I have 1600 a month to live off of! Truly!!

This should be easy. If you have a college degree, it is easy to get a job for at least 25K outside of psychology if you have a decent gpa. Pick any field and the salaries are higher for BA holders. Admin jobs, HR jobs, and paralegal full-time jobs should pay more than 25K starting. That's what i would do if the alternative was living with parents

I was earning more than 45K as a paralegal. You just have to look outside of psychology.

 

[CharmedDiamond]

This should be easy. If you have a college degree, it is easy to get a job for at least 25K outside of psychology if you have a decent gpa. Pick any field and the salaries are higher for BA holders. Admin jobs, HR jobs, and paralegal full-time jobs should pay more than 25K starting. That's what i would do if the alternative was living with parents

I was earning more than 45K as a paralegal. You just have to look outside of psychology.

I start my masters in a few weeks (and student loans!) but thank you for the advice I do live in Chicago, but I know in the city that food is more expensive and Walmarts are less abundant.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Yes, a-v, when I ask you to appreciate the complexity of the situation, just pretend I'm calling you stupid .

...well, I mean, I had to check

The funny thing is, I pretty much agree with your position on "What happens w/someone on disability?"

Cheers!

What I was talking about re: complexity are the angry calls for eliminate social welfare, eliminate dept of labor, eliminate dept of education. All based on the well reasoned position "We are broke. Cut it". The idea that "Our schools suck, eliminate the DoE" is mind boggling. Is the contention really that eliminating the DoE will improve our schools?

No one here has been this egregious(because you're all smart!), but I'm talking about the 40% of people on Medicare that insist they've never benefited from a government program.

Uh...I actually called for eliminating all that stuff up-river a little bit.

Me = egregious

 

[Ollie123]

While I'm not exactly one to believe that Jon Stewart is any less biased or really anything beyond a comedian, I did like his quote from a show or two ago that "Some of us believe that government should be better....not gone". I personally don't define my "freedom" solely or even primarily by my tax rate, and am perfectly comfortable paying taxes if I feel the money is being put to good use (which admittedly is often not the case).

I don't disagree that spending could be cut in a number of places (though will again reiterate that I think the place that should be hit the hardest is the DoD, whereas even many of the folks pushing hardest on the budget cuts seem to ignore the full 1/3 of the budget going there). I actually agree strongly with Jon (Snow now, not Stewart)'s point, that a large part of where funding could be cut is reducing the endless red tape and other "Make-work" positions that exist. However, I don't think a short-term budget cut can or will achieve that, especially not alone - bureaucracy can't be eliminated overnight. Staffing is going to get cut, programs are going to be cut, paperwork will likely remain identical except perhaps become even more burdensome because it will be the same amount of bureaucracy spread over fewer staff.

I don't want red-tape, but I do want a government that insures quality education is available for as many citizens as possible - not just those who can afford it (and this would hold true even if I bought into the notion that people are poor solely due to laziness/ineptitude). Class mobility seems far more critical to freedom for me than a small difference in my tax rate, and a strong education system is certainly one way of insuring class mobility is possible. Even if long-term trends might lead to a more efficient government if it is forced to operate on a leaner budget, are we willing to raise a generation or two of *****s who can't keep up with folks from other countries? Ironically, it seems an inefficient way of achieving the goal of efficiency in an organization like that where the goals are diverse, detached from one other, potentially competing at times, etc. Again, the devil is in the details and I think if the goal is to decrease government waste, the way to do that is to appoint leaders who are able to figure out ways to cut costs and create incentives for them to do so rather than just cut the budget and say "Figure something out" - but that's not how our system works, and politicians are not the ones responsible for the details.

I'd like to pay less taxes and see the red tape disappear but I worry significantly about where this country is heading and what we are willing to do to achieve that goal. I just returned from a few week trip to what is very much a "developing" country. They are trying to find ways to improve their support for education even with the very limited resources that they have...we seem hellbent on destroying ours under the notion that "The market should handle it and government shouldn't have to be involved...somehow". I can fully understand arguments about the merits of redistribution of wealth (welfare, etc.) though am somewhere in the middle on those issues. I simply cannot wrap my brain around the notion that government should not be involved in education (or research for that matter), that this is something the market could handle, or that some kind of "redistribution" at least regarding education is unacceptable...we might as well revert to a feudal system if we aren't going to try and insure some kind of equal opportunities for education, and I'm unclear who besides the federal government can handle that.

 

[roubs]

...well, I mean, I had to check



Cheers!



Uh...I actually called for eliminating all that stuff up-river a little bit.

Me = egregious

Ah, I was being unclear. My 'egregious' was modifying the statement that followed about medicare people denying that medicare is a government program, not the DoE stuff. And just because you also believe medicare is theft does not mean it isn't a government program. That people benefit from...so yeah denying that can be labelled ignorance.

As for Jon's ideas about SS being theft, I mean it opens up all taxes to being labelled theft because it's taking money from one group and giving it to another. Is doing this across space vs across space & time theft also?

Historically wealthier states in New England pay in way more to the federal government than they get, and poorer states benefit. Is this theft? Seems to be more theft than SS is because, barring demographic adjustments, people get out of SS what they paid in. And sure, the demographics suck from the younger generation's perspective. But what is the alternative? When our parents get old do we tell them they don't get social security because the current working generation is numerically smaller? When the simple alternative to raising the tax cap would basically ensure the solvency of the program?

From a utilitarian perspective, SS has been the biggest poverty reducing program ever and was integral to building the middle class because fewer families had to go broke caring for their parents and could instead invest that wealth in their children. Many of us wouldn't have made it to graduate school without SS, so if it's a ponzi scheme I guess it's the best freaking one ever devised.

Oh and as far as the uselessness of the DoE, I just came across this:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/kevin-jennings-obama-anti-bullying-czar

I guess if using the DoE to institutionalize anti-bullying and do things like working with the nation's school bus drivers to try and reduce bullying is useless then primary mental illness prevention must be useless as well--to me that's exactly what his efforts should be called.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Jon, you need to accept that the gov't knows what is best for us; resistance is futile. We obviously do not have the capacity to direct our own finances and be trusted to make informed decisions about our own lives. Thankfully we'll soon be able to sit back and let the gov't decide what medical treatments we should receive (or not). I personally can't wait to have an advanced care planning consultation, as they have been shown to save money! You know how you were complaining about the gov't wasting money? Here is a great example of how they will save tax payers BILLIONS of dollars; those bombers and munitions are not going to pay for themselves!

As for this SS business, you need to learn to trust our gov't because everyone knows that they will only do what is best for us. They have employed tens of thousands of people to manage our "investments" and to ensure that we are able to grow old and collect a check equal to what we invested. Just to be clear, I mean "equal" in the sense that everyone will get $, not that everyone pays into it equally. We all need to share the burden of those who don't pay nearly as much, as expecting everyone to pay their fair share is just not realistic. President Obama was very clear on this issue. The people who pay into the system need to pay for those who don't.

There is no sense trying to fix the system, because that may penalize people who make poor choices and are waiting to be bailed out by the gov't. Have you even followed the banking crisis? Or the auto-maker bailouts? If you did, you'd know that the gov't is supposed to pay for irresponsible decision making. You need to understand that people are going to do whatever they want to do, and when it doesn't work...tax payers need to pay for them to get better. Expecting personal responsiblity and autonomy as an American citizen is completely unrealistic.

Our Founding Fathers were clear when they drafted the US Consitution, we must defer to the Federal gov't for everything, as personal autonomy was just a fad. Taxation without representation is so 1750's! Now we have people in office that spend day and night thinking about ways to best spend more and more of our money! At least all of this spending is going towards things that benefit the society as a whole, like welfare and corn subsidies!

I think what is lost in all of this is our Constitution. It's so old, I totally understand people forgetting about it. US Constituation << The new Twilight book! Is there an app for it? In case there isn't, here are the highlights: We can speak up, but only about certain stuff. Religion is totally tolerated, as long as Religion = Christianity. We can own guns, as long as they say we can, and we pay excessive fees and are held to ridiculous standards that don't apply to criminals. We don't need guns when we have para-military SWAT teams! We don't have to let soliders stay with us, but we do have to pay for them to say overseas for many years without an actual declaration of war or valid reason for occupation of multiple countries. No sense bothering Congress, as they have to argue about steriods and esoteric procedural decisions about how to yield and defer speaking time. We are allowed to have property, unless they need it for something like an airport or if it can be used to generate more tax dollars.

Thankfully we can't be held prison without formal charges, unless you stop over in Cuba...then, well...you get an extended vacation on the gov't dime! We don't have to worry about not being able to enjoy their hospitality, because it can often take years to sort out. Free vacation! Don't worry if you have to go to court, because they can forego a jury and endless witnesses, such a time saver! No representation, no problem! As for punishment, that is where we really are lucky. They are all about being fair and balanced. I'm so happy that they can make a decision right there if there isn't a law that actually applies, it is a real "fly by the seat of your pants" kind of approach. It's very progressive, trust them! Best of all, you don't have to worry about States getting in the way. The Federal Gov't has taken care of all of that riff-raff. Things like immigration enforcement...no worries, they got it covered!

We live in the best country, EVER! I'm just glad that even if I leave this country, I can go to a place like Germany, France, Italy, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan...and literally hundreds of other places that all have US military facilities. I feel safer just thinking about all of that firepower!

That was a great use of my lunchtime....

 

[IOPsych]

People post these experiences that are extreme and don't add up. Everyone i know who has received unemployment has gotten about 1500 per month. Plus, you CAN get food stamps while on unemployment. I know people who have. Even my friends who were unemployed after internship got about 1200-1500 per month for a salary of 25,000. People on unemployment can get WAY more than someone on disability unless there income was ridiculously low. Its not a fair comparison. Either there was a mistake or your income was 10,000 before.

200 is the max for food stamps. This may be per person or per family...need to verify. Regardless, people can't really live off this amount per person or per family. I just went to trader joe's (not an expensive grocery store) and I spend about $250 for two weeks of groceries for 2 people and this is bargain shopping and looking for deals. I would be hungry most of the month if i had to live off $200 for grocery shopping even just for myself. Why do we want to cut services even more than how ridiculously low they are? These people are hungry if they have to live off 200 bucks for grocery shopping or $400 for family. This is not comfortable. Graduate school stipends are about 1600 per month and this is really tight.

You need to work on your budget. I am a 240 lb male that eats roughly 250-300g of protein a day (bodybuilder) and I can eat easily off of 200 dollars a month. My wife and I never spend over 350 a month. Most of our monthly grocery bills are closer to 300 dollars.

I'm also almost positive food stamps are $200 a person and this includes children (A family of 3 would get roughly $600 a month). If a 28 year old 240 lb male that eats plenty of baked/grilled chicken, vegetables, and fruits can live off of 200 a month than I am fairly certain a 4 year old can.

I think food stamps should at least limit the food one can buy. As is you can buy anything that is not a pre-made hot lunch/dinner. This includes lobster tail, filet, sushi, etc.

I am fine with providing food for people that are struggling, but let's make it more basic; Chicken breast, lean beef, vegetables, fruit, rice, milk, oatmeal, legumes, etc.

Not filet mignon, lobster tail, sushi, soda, lil' debbie's, doritos, bakery cupcakes, etc.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think food stamps should at least limit the food one can buy. As is you can buy anything that is not a pre-made hot lunch/dinner. This includes lobster tail, filet, sushi, etc.

Why not eliminate food stamps and instead provide vouchers that can be redeemed for pre-selected foods from the store? You can ensure healthy food is chosen and the system is not abused. This option will still provide a great deal of flexibility to the person/family.

For those people/families that need help with meal planning using the approved food, there can be pre-selected "packages" that include everything needed to make a week's worth of healthy food. Dietitians can be hired to teach people the basics of good nutrition. A basic "nutrition" class can be mandated for anyone using the system, and additional classes can be made available to people/families who want to learn more.

A majority of the produce can be locally sourced, which supports local business and farmers. Communities can invest in themselves, instead of throwing all of their $'s at The Dollar Menu and fake/processed foods.

The gov't is already encroaching into our homes, so we might as well try and get something positive out of it.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Why not eliminate food stamps and instead provide vouchers that can be redeemed for pre-selected foods from the store? You can ensure healthy food is chosen and the system is not abused. This option will still provide a great deal of flexibility to the person/family.

For those people/families that need help with meal planning using the approved food, there can be pre-selected "packages" that include everything needed to make a week's worth of healthy food. Dietitians can be hired to teach people the basics of good nutrition. A basic "nutrition" class can be mandated for anyone using the system, and additional classes can be made available to people/families who want to learn more.

A majority of the produce can be locally sourced, which supports local business and farmers. Communities can invest in themselves, instead of throwing all of their $'s at The Dollar Menu and fake/processed foods.

The gov't is already encroaching into our homes, so we might as well try and get something positive out of it.

It takes the government one year to move their hands to scratch their asses, which is why nothing gets done and bills that are passes are filled with useless pork barreling crap that do more harm than good. Someone once said that the government was like a huge 100-headed monster...you try to cut off one head to skim the fat, three more grow in its place. I have never been a fan of big government encroaching on our personal freedom or our education for that matter. The welfare system does not work (food stamps, ssi, etc), not even 10% who get on get off, which is why they capped it at 5 years. Instead of handing out free resources and let others cheat the system, we should think of a solution that works, that gets those folks employed and educated. As a taxpayer from a self-made family, I refuse to pay for someone else's laziness and lack of initiative. I understand that there are folks who are really struggling and need help, but I have worked in social service agencies and I have seen so many people cheat the system and expect the government to pay for thier problems it makes me sick. The government needs to trim the fat and start getting things done.

 

[2012PhD]

Why not eliminate food stamps and instead provide vouchers that can be redeemed for pre-selected foods from the store? You can ensure healthy food is chosen and the system is not abused. This option will still provide a great deal of flexibility to the person/family.

For those people/families that need help with meal planning using the approved food, there can be pre-selected "packages" that include everything needed to make a week's worth of healthy food. Dietitians can be hired to teach people the basics of good nutrition. A basic "nutrition" class can be mandated for anyone using the system, and additional classes can be made available to people/families who want to learn more.

A majority of the produce can be locally sourced, which supports local business and farmers. Communities can invest in themselves, instead of throwing all of their $'s at The Dollar Menu and fake/processed foods.

The gov't is already encroaching into our homes, so we might as well try and get something positive out of it.

I think smarter programs like this can work, instead of just saying "let's cut spending!," "People are cheating the system." I am surprised that you can use food stamps to buy anything. They should be changed.

I don't think libertarians and tea partiers would go for this. I'm surprised that a libertarian suggested something like this!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I don't think libertarians and tea partiers would go for this. I'm surprised that a libertarian suggested something like this!

I recognize that there needs to be some compromise to get something done. I loathe gov't interference into the lives of private citizens, but sometimes it is a necessary evil.

 

[futureapppsy2]

You guys have been good so far, but just a general reminder to please keep things civil while debating and if possible, somewhat related to psychology.

Thanks!

As an FYI, SDN does have a dedicated sociopolitical forum as well, although things can get rather heated there, as one might expect.

 

[aagman01]

a pure libertarian system wouldnt work for a similar reason a pure socialist system wouldnt work.....they both go against human nature. a pure libertarrian system wouldnt work in reality because it would result in unfettered coercion of the weak by the strong. a pure socialist system would result in the masses relying on the state in place personal initiative.

that said i am afraid we are much closer to the libertarian side than the socialist at the present. the powerful can get socialist protections at will (eg bank and financial bailouts, annual welfare subsidies to oil, big pharma and other businesses that DWARFT total expenditures for food stamps, housing subsidies etc).

unfortunately we need a check on unfettered power......and, fortunately or unfortunately, government is that primary check---its just sad that people so often support big business at their personal expense (in my opinion)



QUOTE=Jon Snow;11384846]I think this is one of the reasons George Washington warned against the two party system. A pure libertarian system would never work in my opinion (constant battle with corporate aristocracy, see Snow Crash). However, at present, I lean that direction. A lot of Ron Paul would be good for the country right now. There has to be balance. The government doesn't need to persistently grow. Philosophy wise, the government is too hierarchical. In the VA, the answer is way too often, get your supervisor's permission to do "x." That's how gov works. Individual freedom is important. We do not want, in my opinion, government control over industry and personal decisions.[/QUOTE]

 

[aagman01]

good luck with all that......your basically suggesting preventative care regarding eating habits----and we know that any sort of preventative care is WAY too logical an investment for government to make!


QUOTE=Therapist4Chnge;11384445]Why not eliminate food stamps and instead provide vouchers that can be redeemed for pre-selected foods from the store? You can ensure healthy food is chosen and the system is not abused. This option will still provide a great deal of flexibility to the person/family.

For those people/families that need help with meal planning using the approved food, there can be pre-selected "packages" that include everything needed to make a week's worth of healthy food. Dietitians can be hired to teach people the basics of good nutrition. A basic "nutrition" class can be mandated for anyone using the system, and additional classes can be made available to people/families who want to learn more.

A majority of the produce can be locally sourced, which supports local business and farmers. Communities can invest in themselves, instead of throwing all of their $'s at The Dollar Menu and fake/processed foods.

The gov't is already encroaching into our homes, so we might as well try and get something positive out of it.[/QUOTE]

r

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

good luck with all that......your basically suggesting preventative care regarding eating habits----and we know that any sort of preventative care is WAY too logical an investment for government to make!

Sadly, the biggest barrier would be Big Farm. They don't like competition, and they are all about low-quality processed foods.

 

[aequitasveritas]

a pure libertarian system wouldnt work for a similar reason a pure socialist system wouldnt work.....they both go against human nature. a pure libertarrian system wouldnt work in reality because it would result in unfettered coercion of the weak by the strong. a pure socialist system would result in the masses relying on the state in place personal initiative.

I think you are a little off target here. Socialism would entail the govnmt allocating financial resources where it deems fit. This is coercion of the working class. Libertarianism doesn't require anyone to do anything...it coerces nothing by it's definition.

that said i am afraid we are much closer to the libertarian side than the socialist at the present. the powerful can get socialist protections at will (eg bank and financial bailouts, annual welfare subsidies to oil, big pharma and other businesses that DWARFT total expenditures for food stamps, housing subsidies etc).

Difference between the "powerful" and the welfare subsidies: one of them work for their wealth (yep...most of the rich actually worked their *&%es off to get their money) and also create jobs for others. One of them does not.

unfortunately we need a check on unfettered power

OH wow...we need a "ckeck on unfettered power"
.....Enter the little red book. What exactly is a "check" and what do you consider "unfettered power"?

This is great, what you typed, because it's a paraprax into the thinking process of the left: the idea that you can decide what is wealthy enough and make people "eat their peas" when you think they're getting too much of that power and money stuff. I mean, someone only needs like $250,000 max..ever, right? Whatever they make above that should just be redistributed as "revenue", not taxes, because, the Wild and Wonderful Whites (check it out on Netflix) are all on SSDI and they need "support".

Seriously though, leftist thinking is closer to Fascism than right wing thinking in many ways.

Interesting fact: one of the first things Hitler did after he was elected was disarm the public through anti-gun laws.

......and, fortunately or unfortunately, government is that primary check---its just sad that people so often support big business at their personal expense (in my opinion)

bad bad "big" business. Those evil companies...all efficient and with their job creation. Bastards.

IMO, every democracy is on a continuum of voting itself into socialism.

 

[Ollie123]

Libertarianism doesn't require anyone to do anything...it coerces nothing by it's definition.

This assumes everyone has equal opportunity to make such decisions....without some government in place I'm not sure how that could be achieved. Again, I'm not defending the current system but I'm unclear how we could continue to claim to be the land of opportunity if we have a system where poor people's children can't get educated in order to break out of the cycle because there is no education available for the "have-nots". Again, I'm totally unclear how this would not lead to a situation much like the feudal systems of days past. A system with no class mobility isn't any more "free" than a socialist one. I've yet to hear a convincing argument why this wouldn't happen with the libertarian extreme (note: extreme - not all by any means). If one exists, I'm open to it. All I've heard is some belief that "People will provide these on a volunteer basis" without any rationale for how or why that would happen, or any indication that this would be effective.

Liberals may be pushing towards socialism, but I'm failing to see a distinction between libertarian and anarchist here, and that scares me a helluva lot more than the hints of socialism we are currently seeing. At least in a socialist state I can rest easy in the box the government has put me in, rather than lay awake at night staring at the door surrounded by an arsenal I need to defend my sugar packets. I'll take Sweden's government any day over a purely libertarian one.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Liberals may be pushing towards socialism, but I'm failing to see a distinction between libertarian and anarchist here, and that scares me a helluva lot more than socialism. At least in a socialist state I can rest easy in the box the government has put me in, rather than lay awake at night staring at the door surrounded by an arsenal I need to defend my sugar packets. I'll take Sweden's government any day.

There are different flavors of libertarianism, some more palatable than others to mainstream America. Anarchism is on the fringe of libertarianism in that they want the complete elimination of the Federal (and State) gov't, compared to most/all libertarians who will tolerate both as long as they do not interfer with the individual rights of each person.

The foundation of libertarianism is best described as, "...the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. [We] defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property." A common description credited to David Boaz, who is a well known liberatarian scholar.

I prefer Dr. Ron Paul's version: Libertarianism via interpretation and application of the US Constitution. The fuction of gov't is to allow for order, with minimal infringement upon individual rights. This goal can be accomplished through a proper distribution of power, which was clearly outlined in the Constitution. The executive office was never meant to have unilateral control over the country.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

This assumes everyone has equal opportunity to make such decisions....without some government in place I'm not sure how that could be achieved. Again, I'm not defending the current system but I'm unclear how we could continue to claim to be the land of opportunity if we have a system where poor people's children can't get educated in order to break out of the cycle because there is no education available for the "have-nots". Again, I'm totally unclear how this would not lead to a situation much like the feudal systems of days past. A system with no class mobility isn't any more "free" than a socialist one. I've yet to hear a convincing argument why this wouldn't happen with the libertarian extreme (note: extreme - not all by any means). If one exists, I'm open to it. All I've heard is some belief that "People will provide these on a volunteer basis" without any rationale for how or why that would happen, or any indication that this would be effective.

Liberals may be pushing towards socialism, but I'm failing to see a distinction between libertarian and anarchist here, and that scares me a helluva lot more than the hints of socialism we are currently seeing. At least in a socialist state I can rest easy in the box the government has put me in, rather than lay awake at night staring at the door surrounded by an arsenal I need to defend my sugar packets. I'll take Sweden's government any day over a purely libertarian one.

The grass is not always greener on the other side. I think that those liberals who are pushing for socialism should live in and study other socialist cultures before sending our country down the socialist ****ter. I know people who were pro socialism and then lived in a socialized government (e.g. on foreign exchange)...they were singing a different tune after that. IMO, socialism does not work. There is a theory in social psychology called tragedy of the commons which talks about resources running out because no one takes responsibility to replenish them or care for them. There is also diffusion of responsibility in social psychology, which can be interpreted as people don't take initiatve when they are not held responsible for something. Socialism eliminates personal freedom and personal responsibility. Without personal responsibility, nothing gets done and resources dwindle. I value my freedom and refuse to be "put into the box" the government has for me.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm aware of the dictionary definitions for the movement at large. I'm just unclear in this particular situation how we can say we respect people's right to own and obtain property while supporting a system where there will be few/no opportunities for huge segments of the population to do so.

I'm all for some amount of cautious deregulation (or at least de-bureaucratization), but when people are shouting that we should not have any kind of public education, centralized research programs, etc. I see a society that is probably going to recede into total insignificance within a couple decades, at most. As long as we've opened the door to Hitler comparisons, I might as well point out that complete lack of regulation is quite prevalent in 3rd world nations. Do they have the ideal government? I'm for balance.

PsyDLICSW: Without a doubt - I'm not arguing socialism is great, I'm arguing that it falls a notch or two above anarchy in my eyes. That's not exactly a grand endorsement There is also a big difference between some socialist policies (Sweden), and a truly unfettered socialist state. I don't believe a government program that says, if you fall into poverty for one reason or another we will arrange some kind of vocational rehab to get you back on your feet (rather than the current welfare system - which I agree needs reform) means we might as well be in Lenin's Russia, but that's what much of the country seems to believe. I think extremes in any form are simply idiotic, but that seems to be how our current political climate operates.

 

[2012PhD]

The grass is not always greener on the other side. I think that those liberals who are pushing for socialism should live in and study other socialist cultures before sending our country down the socialist ****ter. I know people who were pro socialism and then lived in a socialized government (e.g. on foreign exchange)...they were singing a different tune after that. IMO, socialism does not work.

You are talking about extremes like russia. I agree with Ollie here. There are many countries with "socialist" policies that work, and work way better than the U.S. Australia, Canada, Switzerland have many more socialist and humane policies and they are doing better than us economically, have lower crime rates, less terrorism, better education, better health care, longer life spans, etc. etc. We rank lower than most (if not all) developed countries in health care and education and we have a much more privatized system. Australia and Switzerland are booming right now with basically no debt and 4% unemployment, yet they have universal health care run by the government.

Here is a ranking of health care in the world: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html.

We rank #37, yet have the most expensive health care system. And don't blame this on obama care, this data is pre-obama. Also, if you aren't convinced. Check out average life spans. We also have the shortest life span in the developed world and rank close to Cuba.

 

[KillerDiller]

The foundation of libertarianism is best described as, "...the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. [We] defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property." A common description credited to David Boaz, who is a well known liberatarian scholar.

How does libertarianism proposes to provide these rights to people who are born with no means? If you cannot get education and a job in the first place--or your job is taken away from you--how are you free to pursue life, liberty, and property in any way (let alone a way of your own choosing)? Don't the social programs help provide the poor with the rights you speak of? I understand the importance of cutting waste from these programs, and I agree with your suggestions about food stamps. However, cutting funding while failing to open new tax revenues amounts to "fixing" social welfare with a bulldozer instead of a scalpel (apologies if this metaphor has already been used).

 

[roubs]

Actually no. It was sold to the people as a "trust fund" a sort of forced savings. It's not. It was never intended to be a "tax." That is why it is theft in my opinion. They are using that money for other things. They should not be allowed to do that.

It is and has always been paid for by a tax. We all pay this tax and see it on our paycheck. The tax goes to retirement payments, unemployment, medicare/medicaid, ssi, schip etc. Those are the other things. Is your real beef with this that you are paying in more money than the poors and the poors are benefiting?

 

[roubs]

Depends how you define benefit. For example, if I can buy a Mercedes for $40,000 (used, whatever) and you forcibly take my money and buy me an old Yugo for the same cost to me, I have not benefited.

Yeah, a health care plan is just like a Mercedes. Those Mercedes that decide when to eject your car seat and leave you by the side of the road because you're not young and hot and fitting the image of a proper Mercedes owner anymore. Buh-bye!