Olof has a way with words.

In the meantime, Obama's committee on deficit reduction has put out its proposals to get our house in order.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Defici...76174.html?x=0

Sure looks like a Republican committee to me.... proposals are cut Social Security, raise the retirement age, cut Medicare, cut defense spending while we're at war, cut here, cut there, simply the tax code. Fine, but then it goes on to cut taxes, reduce the corporate tax rate, reduce the maximum tax rate, broaden the tax base (tax more poor people while the rich pay less). And on and on.

I can agree cuts need to be made, but why is it always social programs that have to go and why does it always have to be attached to lower tax rates for corporations and the wealthy.... and this from Obama's committee. It is a bi-partisan committee, but Obama is going to take the heat for it.... as he should.

We will never balance anything by taxing the poor more and reducing taxes on those who can afford to pay it.

"We will never balance anything by taxing the poor more..."

Thanks to the 'earned income tax credit program (EITC)' workers reporting less than $30,000 income actually can receive up to $5,020 in a 'tax refund check' for taxes they didn't pay in the first place. Add to that Food stamps (SNAP), national school lunch program (NSLP), medicaid and CHIP, Section 8 rent subsidy, Utility Bill Assistance (LIHEAP) and Childcare reimbursements, the "poor" are doing quite well, thank you. In fact, I have a United States Welfare Analysis chart that shows that in the state of Mississippi a family of three (one parent and two children under twelve) reporting $14,500 income has, with all these "benefits," the equivalent of $37,777 dollars in his pocket, whereas the worker reporting $60,000 actual income ends up with $34,366 in his pocket. This same table shows a worker reporting money earned in a year as $3,625.00 has an economic benefit of $31,630.00. So where is the incentive to work? Or, more accurately, where is the incentive to report income? Money earned "under the table" pays for the fun stuff while keeping the reported income low keeps the benefits flowing. Think people don't know how to work the system? Think again! While the "rich" work the system to keep the money they earn, the "poor" work the system to get money they didn't earn. So who has the moral high ground?
All the while, politicians work diligently trying to find ways to take money away from people who earned it and give it to people who didn't earn it. (And get some for themselves in the process, of course.) They tell everyone they are "watching out for the less-fortunate." And they incite class warfare by speaking endlessly of the "rich," as if these "rich" people were just "greedy," and took "more than their share." It's time to get a handle on some of this!

Wendell has a point. Whenever there is a benefit made available to the poor, substantial hoards quickly learn to game the system whatever checks and balances are in place. Here in Halifax, Nova Scotia we have families that are third generation welfare recipients.

"we have families that are third generation welfare recipients."
Same here. At least third generation. And when you are drawing "benefits" that your mother, your grandmother and your great-grandmother drew, it's easy to get the idea that these are your "rights". Good luck to the politician that broaches the idea that these benefits are going to be curtailed. Therein lies the problem!

Don't be expecting me to disagree with you and Wendell because I think there are abuses, too. But, for the record, the average/typical welfare recipient in the US is an elderly widow living in a rural community, not the ghetto stereotypes we hear so much about.

To make my previous point a little clearer.... in 1985 the maximum rate on the US income tax was 50 percent. The proposal from Obama's commission would put the max rate at 23 percent. Clearly what's being proposed is a shifting of the tax burden..... particularly away from those who are fortunate enough to be in that top income tax bracket. Started with Reagan and continued with Bush.... the ones who brought us deficit spending as a way of life. Cutting taxes to raise govt income and get out of debt is, indeed, voodoo economics.

I actually agree with some of what is being proposed and clearly some cuts in spending and some sacrifices are going to have to be made. Those sacrifices have to be shared.

Devaluing the dollar at home and abroad is not the answer. Current G-20 members meeting this week seem to agree with that position, at least some of them, because it is feared other nations will follow the lead and devalue their currencies, too, setting off a chain reaction that will hurt everybody and destroy trade.

While it is true that there are abuses to the welfare system, they are in the minority. As somebody who actually spent portion of my childhood benefitting from such services, I can tell you that it is hardly living the high life. I went hungry when food was scarce, shivered when heat was too expensive, and wore hand-me-downs because that's all there was. And that was with benefits. We never did "quite well" on welfare.

Too many people are unaware that most welfare recipients are whites who receive benefits temporarily (as in my family's case) and spent the years before and after paying taxes into the system that helped support them. Welfare is somewhere between one and two percent of the federal budget, much less than many people believe.

The problem persisting from one generation to the next is relatively rare, although it does happen. But limited eduction and limited prospects are a major factor in those cases.

As for the EITC, to quote the IRS

Did you know that the Social Security Wage Base is currently $106,800? That means that lower income earners could pay a larger percentage of their income to Social Security than high income earners. This is true of other taxes as well. Hence, the EITC.

The system needs to be improved, no doubt about it, but demonizing the poor won't help.

"..who receive benefits temporarily.."
That's what the system was designed for, and no one should be ashamed for having used it that way.
"..I actually agree with some of what is being proposed and clearly some cuts in spending and some sacrifices are going to have to be made. Those sacrifices have to be shared..."
I agree! It's got to start somewhere. I happen to live in a place where welfare abuse is rampant. That may flavor my opinion. I apologize for my words and I don't pretend to have answers.

No harm done. I wish I had the answers. Even if we did, we'd be swimming against a tide of opposition.

And yet, most people are. Partly because it is humbling and stressful experience, partly because of the cruelty and ignorance too often directed towards welfare recipients. I know from experience that some people feel justified lecturing the less fortunate - children, even - about their failings without having any idea what they are talking about.

I know that my experience affects my opinion, although I try to maintain a semblance of objectivity. I lived in low income housing when I was young. Most played by the rules, a few made all of us look bad, and they are the ones remembered, not the rest of us. I know it's worse in some areas than others. The reasons are usually complex.

I can sympathize with your frustration. My neighbors are a white, single income family. The husband has a union job with decent benefits. He worked under the table during a brief period of unemployment to milk the system. They lied in order to receive free school lunch and food stamps and extended unemployment. They borrow their parents' car instead of paying for a dump sticker. And so on. And they refuse to register to vote in an attempt to avoid jury duty. Yet they are quick to complain about unions, politicians, taxes, and welfare cheats. We work hard to live within our means, and don't begrudge our tax dollars helping those in need, but my neighbors' behavior is infuriating. My wife used to be a social worker, helping pregnant and parenting teens. Lower income families tended to work hard to avoid going on welfare. Higher income families tended to complain that they weren't entitled to more benefits. It was infuriating. And yes, I've seen the tiny kernel of truth that gets distorted into stereotypes. It wasn't rampant, but it was no less infuriating.