That’s the official word from President Obama. It’s awful when the financial sector gives its employees $18.4 billion in bonuses. It’s inexcusable when Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain spends $1……

Do you really think that the reason most people live paycheck to paycheck is some personal lack of motivation on their part?

In most cases, YES. Most (not all) made the conscious decision to be “ditchdiggers” etc by not pursuing a better career or applying themselves. So how is that my, or the other taxpayers, repsonsibility for their poor choices? Afterall, aren’t we told all children have equal abilites to succeed, thus why we don’t better target educational spending on those that actually want an education? Now, I am not saying we should throw the poor into the streets, but how is it fair to deny the smae benefits to a middle class person until they too are poor? Isn’t “fairness” a central tenet of being a liberal? Futhermore, what about those who made equivalent earnings for all those years as the person who did save $1M, but spent every dime on vacations, cars, etc? They will be provided assistance just as well as the ditchdigger. In the end they are rewarded for their irresponsible behavior. But the person who saved is punished (or at a minimum, forced to pay very high long term care insurance rates). Beleive me, I have seen this in my own family.

Then yes I think they should and I think this takes precedence over the accumulation of wealth for transfer to one’s children.

Got it. The collective supercedes the individual. So what incentive does that provide for anyone to work hard, accumulate assets, or save? The gov’t will come and save the day, as long as you are poor.

I also think that someone who has saved up 1 million dollars should have given some thought to long term care insurance, which is readily available.

Agreed 100%, except long term care insurance is something VERY few ever think about until they need it. To compare it to home insurance is a strawman IMO.

I think you and I see “welfare reform” form a different angle. I want to stop giving welfare to the younger lazy layabouts who are either gaming the system (by claiming some bogus disability), or made horriffic decisions (like have 4 kids from 4 different fathers). You, on the other hand, seem more concerned with denying assistance to someone who worked hard their whole lives, paid into the system their whole lives, and managed to save a little $ back. I believe these folks should be rewarded for their efforts, not have to watch it disappear due to a catastrophic event. The cutoff amount is debatable,but I firmly beleive someone who saved $100K-$1M over their lifetimes (and paid a disporportionate amount of taxes to support welfare) should not be asked to liquidate all those assets to be eligible for the same benefits the ditchdiger has. We could force them to pay some portion of long term care costs, which would encourage LTC insurance purchases, but they should be allowed to keep the bulk of their assets to spend or pass down.

Do you really think that the reason most people live paycheck to paycheck is some personal lack of motivation on their part?

We can only have so many business entrepreneurs. And even if everyone were equally capable of succeeding if gosh darn it, they would only try, the country needs ditch diggers and burger flippers too. The great flaw, I believe in conservative thinking is that it tries to take microeconomic principles of personal success and ambition, and think that this translates to the macro level. This is illogical.

And if someone with 1 million can pay for their own care, Then yes I think they should and I think this takes precedence over the accumulation of wealth for transfer to one’s children. I also think that someone who has saved up 1 million dollars should have given some thought to long term care insurance, which is readily available.

Frankly, under your idea of “welfare reform”, I will see no benefit in saving $ and working hard to give my children a better life, because one catastrophic life event can easily mean I lose everything I tried to accomplish.

There are no guarantees in life. Our concern should not be with ensuring people have something to give their children. If they do, awesome. But not at the expense of forcing taxpayers to foot a bill you are obviously able to cover. For example, if someone without homeowners insurance has a fire, we certainly would not expect the government to pay for the cost of a new house simply so that they can preserve their wealth to pass down, would we?

Obviously the issue is a lot more complicated than we can discuss here, but I do think that any guiding principle of entitlement reform of any kind is to get people off it that don’t need it.

On January 29th, 2009 at 12:41 am, chapoutier said:

D*mn Chap, you had to go and blow my “hope” that most dems might oppose growing the wefare state. Rather than trying to force those who are not in truly desperate need off the gov’t dole, your idea is to close loopholes so that someone who has worked their whole life and paid into the system must lose it all before getting anything back for all those years. I agree with you for someone with $10M in assets. But what about the guy who is 65 and has a stroke, and has slaved to save $1M over his lifetime in order to hopefully leave a little to his childeren and grandchildren to make their lives a little better? You think it’s ok for the gov’t to refuse assistance to him until that $1M is gone? Meanwhile, some guy who was not motivated to succeed (didn’t get a degree or motivated to make a better life), and did just enough work to get by, should be provided all the assistance they need? That is just plain wrong and nothing but punishing those who were motivated to do better. Frankly, under your idea of “welfare reform”, I will see no benefit in saving $ and working hard to give my children a better life, because one catastrophic life event can easily mean I lose everything I tried to accomplish. I am better off spending it as I make and have no assets to leave my children. In other words, I am rewarded for being irresponsible and selfish.

En qué consisten las propuestas
El pasado 16 de enero tuvimos la oportunidad de recibir el detalle de las iniciativas que, en una homilía desde el Monte Olimpo, Zeus en persona, el Presidente Electo anunció el pasado mes de diciembre para reflotar l…

On January 29th, 2009 at 12:41 am, chapoutier said:

But I am talking about people that have lots of personal wealth that, rather than spend it for the care they know they will need, manipulate the system in order to qualify for the public dole when they really have no business.

There are no easy solutions, but it is infuriating.

It WAS infuriating knowing some of the people who were receiving medicaid.