• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Behind Trump’s Plan to Overhaul the Government: Scaling Back the Safety Net [W:33]

MTAtech

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
36,610
Reaction score
35,612
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
[h=2]Behind Trump’s Plan to Overhaul the Government: Scaling Back the Safety Net[/h] WASHINGTON — President Trump, spurred on by conservatives who want him to slash safety net programs, unveiled on Thursday a plan to overhaul the federal government that could have a profound effect on millions of poor and working-class Americans.

Produced over the last year by Mr. Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, it would reshuffle social welfare programs in a way that would make them easier to cut, scale back or restructure, according to several administration officials involved in the planning.
Among the most consequential ideas is a proposal to shift the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a subsistence benefit that provides aid to 42 million poor and working Americans, from the Agriculture Department to a new mega-agency that would have “welfare” in its title — a term Mr. Trump uses as a pejorative catchall for most government benefit programs.
Click to expand...
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if House Republicans get their way, more than two million people, many of them young children, will lose access to the food stamp program known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

But you say, these people should get get off the public teat and get jobs. Apart from the fact that so many beneficiaries are children, history and research have shown that stringent work requirements are good at forcing people off benefit rosters but terrible at lifting them out of poverty.

We "elitist" liberals warned you that Trump wasn't the populist that he pretended to be but the heartland voted for him anyway. He's now going to harm the very people that voted for him, while helping the people that he golfs with on his $200,000/yr. membership golf course. Owsley County, KY, where 46% of the population is on SNAP and 84% of voters chose Trump.
 
MTAtech said:
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if House Republicans get their way, more than two million people, many of them young children, will lose access to the food stamp program known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

But you say, these people should get get off the public teat and get jobs. Apart from the fact that so many beneficiaries are children, history and research have shown that stringent work requirements are good at forcing people off benefit rosters but terrible at lifting them out of poverty.

We "elitist" liberals warned you that Trump wasn't the populist that he pretended to be but the heartland voted for him anyway. He's now going to harm the very people that voted for him, while helping the people that he golfs with on his $200,000/yr. membership golf course. Owsley County, KY, where 46% of the population is on SNAP and 84% of voters chose Trump.
Click to expand...

If this goes through I guess some folks will learn it isn't only "welfare queens" who are on public assistance.
 
ElChupacabra said:
If this goes through I guess some folks will learn it isn't only "welfare queens" who are on public assistance.
Click to expand...
They have convinced themselves that they aren't the beneficiaries of government "hand-outs" which only go to "Those People." In reality, they benefit greatly from Social Security -- which they need for retirement; Medicare -- for their old age health care and some get disability. Many, especially rural Americans, get Medicaid and SNAP.
 
He's not cutting anything, he's making it easier TO cut. And I agree with moving SNAP out of the dept of agriculture. Never made sense to be run by that dept in the first place.
 
KevinKohler said:
He's not cutting anything, he's making it easier TO cut. And I agree with moving SNAP out of the dept of agriculture. Never made sense to be run by that dept in the first place.
Click to expand...
"Reforms" is code for cutting. Essentially, as Ryan promised, the tax-cuts on the rich will be paid for by cuts to the most needy. {In my best Gomer Pyle voice} "Surprise, surprise, surprise!
 
Aside from the stating "stave the poor" as the alleged motive, it makes complete sense to place the various, means tested, federal income redistribution programs under central managerial, and thus budgetary, control.

We started, some decades ago, with a federal Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) department. Since that time, health and education were elevated to their own cabinet level federal departments so it makes complete sense to do that with welfare as well.

SNAP being part of our agriculture department makes as much sense as giving "the poor" aid (based on personal/household financial disadvantage) for gun and ammo purchases to the DHS or BATFE.

Placing all "safety net" programs based on a financial means tested formula under a single federal department is a good idea - cutting (or raising) funding for them is neither implied nor assured by making such an organizational change. Calling it the federal Welfare Department is completely optional. I would prefer to call it exactly what it is: the federal Redistribution of Income Department (RID).
 
MTAtech said:
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if House Republicans get their way, more than two million people, many of them young children, will lose access to the food stamp program known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

But you say, these people should get get off the public teat and get jobs. Apart from the fact that so many beneficiaries are children, history and research have shown that stringent work requirements are good at forcing people off benefit rosters but terrible at lifting them out of poverty.

We "elitist" liberals warned you that Trump wasn't the populist that he pretended to be but the heartland voted for him anyway. He's now going to harm the very people that voted for him, while helping the people that he golfs with on his $200,000/yr. membership golf course. Owsley County, KY, where 46% of the population is on SNAP and 84% of voters chose Trump.
Click to expand...

Give me a fricken break, your hatred for Trump has no bounds. Another prediction that hasn't happened yet but designed to stir up the radical base that is stirred up anyway. Your radical leftwing Democratic Party today is so corrupt that all you do is divert from that corruption. Personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world and you make things up as you go along to promote the total destruction of this country, just like the separation issue on immigration which NEVER HAPPENED.

Crying migrant girl on TIME magazine cover was not separated from mother, family says | Fox News

What is wrong with you people? You elitist liberals lie, distort, divert, cheat, steal and want to be trusted?? No way, a red wave is coming this fall
 
ElChupacabra said:
If this goes through I guess some folks will learn it isn't only "welfare queens" who are on public assistance.
Click to expand...

Yep, but they could also learn the extent of combined financial means tested income redistribution programs as a single federal budgetary line item. Burying (hiding?) many such programs inside (under?) others, with completely different missions, is simply dishonest.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Aside from the stating "stave the poor" as the alleged motive, it makes complete sense to place the various, means tested, federal income redistribution programs under central managerial, and thus budgetary, control.

We started, some decades ago, with a federal Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) department. Since that time, health and education were elevated to their own cabinet level federal departments so it makes complete sense to do that with welfare as well.

SNAP being part of our agriculture department makes as much sense as giving "the poor" aid (based on personal/household financial disadvantage) for gun and ammo purchases to the DHS or BATFE.

Placing all "safety net" programs based on a financial means tested formula under a single federal department is a good idea - cutting (or raising) funding for them is neither implied nor assured by making such an organizational change. Calling it the federal Welfare Department is completely optional. I would prefer to call it exactly what it is: the federal Redistribution of Income Department (RID).
Click to expand...

MTA and the radical left want all social programs resting with the bureaucrats in D.C. and not where they belong at the state and local level thus under control closest to the people. Not sure what is wrong with these people, so full of hate and so focused on promoting a radical agenda
 
Conservative said:
MTA and the radical left want all social programs resting with the bureaucrats in D.C. and not where they belong at the state and local level thus under control closest to the people. Not sure what is wrong with these people, so full of hate and so focused on promoting a radical agenda
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's called Trump Derangement Syndrome...
 
KevinKohler said:
He's not cutting anything, he's making it easier TO cut. And I agree with moving SNAP out of the dept of agriculture. Never made sense to be run by that dept in the first place.
Click to expand...

By that same logic it is also easier to increase its funding. The DoD being a separate federal department in no way decreases (or increases) its odds of getting budgetary changes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
By that same logic it is also easier to increase its funding. The DoD being a separate federal department in no way decreases (or increases) its odds of getting budgetary changes.
Click to expand...

Then no one should object when the Dems are in control that they raise benefits. That will be soon enough and even sooner if the Cons go after social programs, count on me that.
 
Conservative said:
MTA and the radical left want all social programs resting with the bureaucrats in D.C. and not where they belong at the state and local level thus under control closest to the people. Not sure what is wrong with these people, so full of hate and so focused on promoting a radical agenda
Click to expand...

Putting all of that toothpaste back into the tube (returning functions/powers to the states) is very unlikely to happen. The closest to that concept are schemes to 'convert' these federal income redistribution programs to (huge?) block grants to the states - which simply increases the number (and cost) of those administering them.

The consolidation of all federal means tested personal/household income redistribution programs could (or at least should) decrease that administrative overhead - why send a person/household 4 to 6 separate federal payments when they could be combined into one payment of slightly greater value at the same cost to the taxpayers?
 
Casper said:
Then no one should object when the Dems are in control that they raise benefits. That will be soon enough and even sooner if the Cons go after social programs, count on me that.
Click to expand...

I agree, the federal representatives of the people and states (congress critters) should be more honest and forthright in their intentions. Hiding loads of "safety net" payments under various federal departments, agencies and programs allows for (demands?) more overhead and less accountability than simply having a single "safety net" (dole or welfare) payment to persons/households that is much more easily tracked for budgetary purposes.
 
Conservative said:
MTA and the radical left want all social programs resting with the bureaucrats in D.C. and not where they belong at the state and local level thus under control closest to the people. Not sure what is wrong with these people, so full of hate and so focused on promoting a radical agenda
Click to expand...
You really think that poor states like Mississippi have the money to provide SNAP and Medicaid to their poor? That's precisely why the federal government does this -- to help Americans, regardless of the means in the states.
 
MTAtech said:
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if House Republicans get their way, more than two million people, many of them young children, will lose access to the food stamp program known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

But you say, these people should get get off the public teat and get jobs. Apart from the fact that so many beneficiaries are children, history and research have shown that stringent work requirements are good at forcing people off benefit rosters but terrible at lifting them out of poverty.

We "elitist" liberals warned you that Trump wasn't the populist that he pretended to be but the heartland voted for him anyway. He's now going to harm the very people that voted for him, while helping the people that he golfs with on his $200,000/yr. membership golf course. Owsley County, KY, where 46% of the population is on SNAP and 84% of voters chose Trump.
Click to expand...

Typical. Liberals know that a bloated, convoluted, inefficient government is the only thing standing between their costly, fraud-ridden entitlement program's existence and oblivion.
 
Mycroft said:
Typical. Liberals know that a bloated, convoluted, inefficient government is the only thing standing between their costly, fraud-ridden entitlement program's existence and oblivion.
Click to expand...
Except that Medicare runs more efficiently than private health insurance and Social Security operates on a 1% overhead rate , far less than private pensions. Thus, while you proclaim the assumption of government inefficiency you provide no real examples in these programs.
 
MTAtech said:
They have convinced themselves that they aren't the beneficiaries of government "hand-outs" which only go to "Those People." In reality, they benefit greatly from Social Security -- which they need for retirement; Medicare -- for their old age health care and some get disability. Many, especially rural Americans, get Medicaid and SNAP.
Click to expand...

They have absolutely no empathy. It doestn' effect them so the hell with others less fortunate. These people are the absolute worst humanity has to offer. Ironically they pretend to be so moral and high and mighty. Just heartless, ignorant POS is what they really are
 
MTAtech said:
Except that Medicare runs more efficiently than private health insurance and Social Security operates on a 1% overhead rate , far less than private pensions. Thus, while you proclaim the assumption of government inefficiency you provide no real examples in these programs.
Click to expand...

Mick gave examples. I'm sure he could have given many more.
 
Damn that means a chunk of the right-wing posters on this forum are screwed.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Putting all of that toothpaste back into the tube (returning functions/powers to the states) is very unlikely to happen. The closest to that concept are schemes to 'convert' these federal income redistribution programs to (huge?) block grants to the states - which simply increases the number (and cost) of those administering them.

The consolidation of all federal means tested personal/household income redistribution programs could (or at least should) decrease that administrative overhead - why send a person/household 4 to 6 separate federal payments when they could be combined into one payment of slightly greater value at the same cost to the taxpayers?
Click to expand...

This is exactly the country our Founders feared would happened which is why they promoted a small central govt. whose main and only responsibility was to provide for the Common Defense. Bureaucrats found a way to gain power and create career jobs which is why we have a 4 trillion dollar govt. today with the only term limits on the President who doesn't have the power of the purse or legislation
 
MTAtech said:
You really think that poor states like Mississippi have the money to provide SNAP and Medicaid to their poor? That's precisely why the federal government does this -- to help Americans, regardless of the means in the states.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do and they would get a lot of help if they didn't have to do what most citizens do, send more money to the federal bureaucrats to waste. You really have no clue as to the role of the Federal Govt. thus continue to embarrass yourself. What you promote is spending in the name of compassion because it makes you feel good but the reality is it only creates dependence and the need for higher taxes thus more power to the bureaucrats
 
MTAtech said:
Except that Medicare runs more efficiently than private health insurance and Social Security operates on a 1% overhead rate , far less than private pensions. Thus, while you proclaim the assumption of government inefficiency you provide no real examples in these programs.
Click to expand...

That is typical leftwing bull**** and rhetoric. Let me know when you get on Medicare. I lost my doctor, lost my hospital and get less care than I ever got before. You continue to show how poorly informed you are
 
Sampson Simpson said:
They have absolutely no empathy. It doestn' effect them so the hell with others less fortunate. These people are the absolute worst humanity has to offer. Ironically they pretend to be so moral and high and mighty. Just heartless, ignorant POS is what they really are
Click to expand...

Empathy to me means getting results not just throwing money at the problem which you leftists always do. There never will be enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite. Why don't you take a history class and find out the true role of the Federal Govt.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Aside from the stating "stave the poor" as the alleged motive, it makes complete sense to place the various, means tested, federal income redistribution programs under central managerial, and thus budgetary, control.

We started, some decades ago, with a federal Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) department. Since that time, health and education were elevated to their own cabinet level federal departments so it makes complete sense to do that with welfare as well.

SNAP being part of our agriculture department makes as much sense as giving "the poor" aid (based on personal/household financial disadvantage) for gun and ammo purchases to the DHS or BATFE.

Placing all "safety net" programs based on a financial means tested formula under a single federal department is a good idea - cutting (or raising) funding for them is neither implied nor assured by making such an organizational change. Calling it the federal Welfare Department is completely optional. I would prefer to call it exactly what it is: the federal Redistribution of Income Department (RID).
Click to expand...

That phrase, "redistribution of income department" is conservative dogwhistleing. You don't want to call the defense department the "murdering beown people department", do you? Or, how about calling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom