middleagedgamer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Mandatory spending accounts for about 90% of tax revenue. That means that, if we balanced the budget without raising taxes, we would have to cut optional spending down to just barely enough to exist at all, much less carry out their duties.
However, one thing we can do to lower our social security bill is to crack down on abuse of that system. The first ever episode of Family Guy shows a prime example of welfare abuse.
Now, don't get me wrong; there are some honest, legitimate uses of welfare.
To provide the basic necessities when your part-time job simply cannot.
When you just had a kid, and can't go to work without risking health, or leaving your child unattended.
Some people, in this economy, are using their welfare money as a nest egg in this economy, but are still trying to find real jobs.
However, there are some out there who's admitted career goal is to simply have as many children as possible so that they can get more money from the state. No! No no ****ing no!
First and foremost, we need to make provisions in the social security laws that outlaw welfare money when the otherwise-qualified applicant has no good reason for not trying to become a productive member of society, other than their expectations that social security will pay for it.
Also, even if you are a legitimate, honest applicant, and not just an Octomom, even then, you should only get just barely 100% of the poverty level.
Octomom has 15 people in her household (herself, and 14 kids), so even if she gets to keep her welfare check, her income will go from $120,000 to $63,190, and not a cent more, according to this chart right here:
FY 2009/2010 Federal Poverty Guidelines - LIHEAP Clearinghouse
That's a cut of over 47%; imagine if we did that across the board, how much we could save? The 2010 budget allocates $695 billion to social security; if we do this kind of cut across the board, our social security bill will be reduced to a little bit over $400 billion (single-person households typically make about $9,000 a year, so this will require a bit of an increase for them), which means that we're saving over $200 billion.
Also, these benefits will apply to everyone, indiscriminately, based only on their deficit of income-to-poverty level. If Octomom gets a job that pays $50,000 a year, her benefits are reduced to $13,190 a year. However, even if you're an individual household, with no disabilities and no minority classes, you can still qualify to be reimbursed up to the poverty level. Having your qualification of social security based solely on income can save tremendously on administration costs. Also, the burden of proof will lie on the applicants to prove that they qualify.
Not only will we reduce the deficit by $2-300 billion, but this will encourage even state-bums like Octomom to get off their butt and find a job, because the nest egg that social security provides is just that: A nest egg, as in, it's not supposed to be relied upon; it's supposed to help you out in your time of need, but only in your time of need.
Thoughts?
However, one thing we can do to lower our social security bill is to crack down on abuse of that system. The first ever episode of Family Guy shows a prime example of welfare abuse.
Now, don't get me wrong; there are some honest, legitimate uses of welfare.
To provide the basic necessities when your part-time job simply cannot.
When you just had a kid, and can't go to work without risking health, or leaving your child unattended.
Some people, in this economy, are using their welfare money as a nest egg in this economy, but are still trying to find real jobs.
However, there are some out there who's admitted career goal is to simply have as many children as possible so that they can get more money from the state. No! No no ****ing no!
First and foremost, we need to make provisions in the social security laws that outlaw welfare money when the otherwise-qualified applicant has no good reason for not trying to become a productive member of society, other than their expectations that social security will pay for it.
Also, even if you are a legitimate, honest applicant, and not just an Octomom, even then, you should only get just barely 100% of the poverty level.
Octomom has 15 people in her household (herself, and 14 kids), so even if she gets to keep her welfare check, her income will go from $120,000 to $63,190, and not a cent more, according to this chart right here:
FY 2009/2010 Federal Poverty Guidelines - LIHEAP Clearinghouse
That's a cut of over 47%; imagine if we did that across the board, how much we could save? The 2010 budget allocates $695 billion to social security; if we do this kind of cut across the board, our social security bill will be reduced to a little bit over $400 billion (single-person households typically make about $9,000 a year, so this will require a bit of an increase for them), which means that we're saving over $200 billion.
Also, these benefits will apply to everyone, indiscriminately, based only on their deficit of income-to-poverty level. If Octomom gets a job that pays $50,000 a year, her benefits are reduced to $13,190 a year. However, even if you're an individual household, with no disabilities and no minority classes, you can still qualify to be reimbursed up to the poverty level. Having your qualification of social security based solely on income can save tremendously on administration costs. Also, the burden of proof will lie on the applicants to prove that they qualify.
Not only will we reduce the deficit by $2-300 billion, but this will encourage even state-bums like Octomom to get off their butt and find a job, because the nest egg that social security provides is just that: A nest egg, as in, it's not supposed to be relied upon; it's supposed to help you out in your time of need, but only in your time of need.
Thoughts?
