Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Hey, I am trying to be generous here. LOL Not to start a food fight. Though I still maintain that things get a lot murkier once control of Congress comes into it. But yeah, the GOP is clearly prone to excessive deficit spending. And when you take into account how the interest on that deficit spending adds up, it really gets stark.
"As far as party responsibility, it is more complicated than it seems, when taking into account control of Congress. I am will to call it a wash (at best) and be deeply suspicious of all involved. The myth of partisan superiority by anyone is now decimated.'
But..but...but... surely you can't mean the the recent "Inflation Reduction Act" was mis-named ??
(Note: I'm a life-long registered Democrat, but lately wondering why neither party seems to reflect my values.)
My theory is that no party works to maintain support of those values, because they are not held to account. Only the opposing party is ever held accountable by the electorate.
The national debt is long ago and way beyond obscene. Remember the '50s? Jim Crow. No Medicare yet. I do not think we had such a huge expansion in "welfare," as we do now. Yes, WIC and Food Stamps/SNAP and Medicaid serve a good purpose. And Head Start.
They all add to the federal deficit, because we do not take in sufficient tax dollars to cover the expense. SS is being deliberately starved, too.... Common sense says: Raise the salary cap, or ELIMINATE it. People have paid into it for their entire working lives. It's not something to be fooled around with by Presidential Administrations. SCREW the ones that DO.
What to do? I mean, without just ARBITRARILY throwing people off programs they need? Ah, the key question: WHY do they need such programs? Insufficient income? Disability? Failure to use common sense birth control, if they're going to be sexually active? (Remember the drug criminal Mayor of Wash, DC confronting a Wash. woman with the fact of her many children, without the means to support them, sans gov't assistance?) SOME people living on the streets could be helped, besides. To get our streets completely cleaned up of those choosing to live there, fundamental laws must be re-written: if homeless person X is mentally ill somehow, then how much should their refusal of assistance count for?
At least a partial answer to these issues might be found in a return to a sense of personal responsibility, and grabbing a sense of ambition, in the good sense of the word. Also, this country must reclaim a collective sense of the Common Good. "I've got mine, I hope you get yours, bye bye" doesn't cut the mustard. I see all types, riding the bus all over the place. I'm not as fat or as stupid or as loud or as oblivious and inconsiderate as a lot of them are; but we are all here, simply put. Everyone deserves at least a decent, if not an extravagant, life. In the USA, that very idea is on NOBODY'S radar. Hasn't been for decades at least. You want to see how it's done? Look to Europe. I'm an EU citizen. It's not heaven over there... Just a helluva lot better than it is here. (Apart from the weather in Hawaii, most of the time.)
("Remember, it's a song about Alice"...) Should there be a lifetime limit on how much anyone can draw from social programs? Or it it already the case?
Comments
They all add to the federal deficit, because we do not take in sufficient tax dollars to cover the expense. SS is being deliberately starved, too.... Common sense says: Raise the salary cap, or ELIMINATE it. People have paid into it for their entire working lives. It's not something to be fooled around with by Presidential Administrations. SCREW the ones that DO.
What to do? I mean, without just ARBITRARILY throwing people off programs they need?
Ah, the key question: WHY do they need such programs? Insufficient income? Disability? Failure to use common sense birth control, if they're going to be sexually active? (Remember the drug criminal Mayor of Wash, DC confronting a Wash. woman with the fact of her many children, without the means to support them, sans gov't assistance?) SOME people living on the streets could be helped, besides. To get our streets completely cleaned up of those choosing to live there, fundamental laws must be re-written: if homeless person X is mentally ill somehow, then how much should their refusal of assistance count for?
At least a partial answer to these issues might be found in a return to a sense of personal responsibility, and grabbing a sense of ambition, in the good sense of the word. Also, this country must reclaim a collective sense of the Common Good. "I've got mine, I hope you get yours, bye bye" doesn't cut the mustard. I see all types, riding the bus all over the place. I'm not as fat or as stupid or as loud or as oblivious and inconsiderate as a lot of them are; but we are all here, simply put. Everyone deserves at least a decent, if not an extravagant, life. In the USA, that very idea is on NOBODY'S radar. Hasn't been for decades at least. You want to see how it's done? Look to Europe. I'm an EU citizen. It's not heaven over there... Just a helluva lot better than it is here. (Apart from the weather in Hawaii, most of the time.)
("Remember, it's a song about Alice"...) Should there be a lifetime limit on how much anyone can draw from social programs? Or it it already the case?