• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Poverty Programs Extend to the Upper-Class?

Read the intro and vote accordingly


  • Total voters
    15

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think it's clear that the attempt by Democrats to extend the SCHIP program, meant to fund insurance for poverty-level kids, to people who make many times the poverty rate is clearly designed to lure the maximum amount of people into free health care, getting them use to treating it as a right, thereby making it politically impossible to take away. And naturally, with increased federal funding comes increased federal jurisdiction.

This is about Democrats wanting to rescue us from cutting edge free market health care in exchange for government bureaucracies and endless red tape by getting their foot in the back door...since they've proven they cannot win this debate on merit.
 

dragonslayer

Counselor
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
139
Location
Pacific Northwest, Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Makes no sense at all for me, unless you are arguing for entitlements based on taxes.



Rape is illegal in all states, to my understanding.
what your saying does not make sense. the poor rape the public. Man your forgetting that the Poor are part of the public. With over 50% of Americans living below the poverty level now. the death of the middle class, the decline of education and opportunity, With the rich shipping thousands of jobs overseas to other countries. the poor pay most of the taxes in the uSA.

Look at the major increase in Poverty rates from only 33% of the people in 1993 to over 60% now. We have really taken some bad hits from the right wing radicals since Bush came into office.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
what your saying does not make sense. the poor rape the public. Man your forgetting that the Poor are part of the public. With over 50% of Americans living below the poverty level now. the death of the middle class, the decline of education and opportunity, With the rich shipping thousands of jobs overseas to other countries. the poor pay most of the taxes in the uSA.

Look at the major increase in Poverty rates from only 33% of the people in 1993 to over 60% now. We have really taken some bad hits from the right wing radicals since Bush came into office.
What is the source for the assertion that 50% live below poverty or poverty rates over 60%? I've never seen that.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
US Census Press Releases
Household Income Rises, Poverty Rate Declines, Number of Uninsured Up

Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006. There were 36.5 million people in poverty in 2006, not statistically different from 2005. The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006.

About 9.8 percent (7.7 million) of the nation’s families were in poverty in 2006. Married-couple families had a poverty rate of 4.9 percent (2.9 million), compared with 28.3 percent (4.1 million) for female-householder, no-husband-present families and 13.2 percent (671,000) for those with a male householder and no wife present. The poverty rate for these types of families in poverty showed no statistically significant change between 2005 and 2006.

As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2006 was $20,614; for a family of three, $16,079; for a family of two, $13,167; and for unrelated individuals, $10,294.

---------------

Doesn't look like 50-60% to me.. ???
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
US Census Press Releases
Household Income Rises, Poverty Rate Declines, Number of Uninsured Up

Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006. There were 36.5 million people in poverty in 2006, not statistically different from 2005. The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006.

About 9.8 percent (7.7 million) of the nation’s families were in poverty in 2006. Married-couple families had a poverty rate of 4.9 percent (2.9 million), compared with 28.3 percent (4.1 million) for female-householder, no-husband-present families and 13.2 percent (671,000) for those with a male householder and no wife present. The poverty rate for these types of families in poverty showed no statistically significant change between 2005 and 2006.

As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2006 was $20,614; for a family of three, $16,079; for a family of two, $13,167; and for unrelated individuals, $10,294.

---------------

Doesn't look like 50-60% to me.. ???
That is more in line with my understanding.

Good to see there was finally some improvement in '06 after 5 years of stagnation/decline.
 

ronpaulvoter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
627
Reaction score
111
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There should NOT be any poverty programs of ANY kind, for upper or lower classes, at least poverty programs that are government-run or government financed.

These programs only entice people to be parasites. They also draw additional parasites from abroad. That is why we have so many parasites.

For the truly needy, let the churches and charities do it. They are a lot more effective than government.
 

t125eagle

Active member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
384
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
no, if someone makes enough to do what the need to do and have some extra cash, then they do not need the government to help them. honestly, medicare, medicaid, welfare and the other government programs were only supposed to be short term fixed by FDR.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
54,653
Reaction score
22,189
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No....Poverty Program are meant to help the poor. Being in the Upper class would obviously exclude you from said program.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
People who are earning four times the poverty level do not need benefits designed for those who are not evening making poverty level wages.
Then they should be exempt from the program and not have to pay into the system if they will not get the same benifit as everyone else.

If a taxpayer earns less than $25,000 per year, they should qualify for government subsidized healthcare. Period.
You mean government should make someone else pay for this persons health care.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Then they should be exempt from the program and not have to pay into the system if they will not get the same benifit as everyone else.



You mean government should make someone else pay for this persons health care.
Where in the world did you get this idea that people shouldn't have to pay for any government program that doesn't directly benefit them personally?
 

Donc

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,789
Reaction score
2,588
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Quote aquapub


In New York, almost 15,000 families who pay the alternative minimum tax would be covered under the healthcare program if the state's plan to increase eligibility to those earning four times the poverty level — $83,000 for a family of four — is approved..."



Its looks like aquapub has posted false information, and expects everyone to vote on it. He quotes a false statement that that the President said, and evidently so has the” Washington Times”. Seems to me if they were a legitimate news organization they would have checked before they posted this BS.

On the second page of their article is the source of the story <” This bill essentially extends a welfare benefit to middle-class households," stated a policy paper issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget.> Seems to be rather lazy journalism to me, but what I would expect from a propaganda machine of the Bush White House.


. Here is a snip, and a link that just might clarify some of the information, plus two more links that might be of interest also . Note the date on this, August 30,2007.

New York tried to get their benefits kicked up but that was shot down, the bill states that the poorest children will be first in line for benefits .It targets resources to low-income children plus it discourages expansion to families with moderate incomes by lowering there government share.

Pay particular attention to sections 106, and 110,of the following link.

http://www.senate.gov/~finance/sitepages/leg/LEG 2007/Leg 110 071307 Mark.pdf


Note the dates on the following snip, and link, more that a month before the Congress passed the law. Yes New York tried to get some goodies, but it was shot down.

Thursday
August 30, 2007


< Last week, the Administration issued new requirements that states must meet in order to provide health insurance to children in families earning more than 250 percent of the federal poverty rate.>

<New York is currently seeking a waiver to make children in families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty rate ($82,600 per year for a family of four) eligible for coverage, due to the high cost of living in the state. >



http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/ch_helins_Lowey-30Aug07.html


Here is a link to: “THE 2007 HHS POVERTY GUIDELINES” if anybody wants to do the math for their State.
2007 Federal Poverty Guidelines
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Where in the world did you get this idea that people shouldn't have to pay for any government program that doesn't directly benefit them personally?
If that is how the program was created as SS and Medicare and Medicaid, where did you get the idea that some people shouldn't get the benefits they pay for? If you get rich should your life insurance policy not pay out because they think you had enough? How about your company 401-K, should the company be able to tell you you can't have it cause you are worth too much?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If that is how the program was created as SS and Medicare and Medicaid, where did you get the idea that some people shouldn't get the benefits they pay for?
Because that defeats the entire purpose of the program. If everyone just gets out exactly what they paid in, there's no point. The programs were designed to make certain services available to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford them.

Stinger said:
If you get rich should your life insurance policy not pay out because they think you had enough? How about your company 401-K, should the company be able to tell you you can't have it cause you are worth too much?
Those are private programs that have signed contracts with you. They are designed to make money, as private businesses should be. In contrast, government social programs are designed to help the poor.


If you can't even understand what these programs are intended to do, it makes it rather difficult to debate the economics of them.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Because that defeats the entire purpose of the program.
NOT paying the contributors the benefits they paid for defeats the program.

If everyone just gets out exactly what they paid in, there's no point.
Why did you make that statement when it has nothing to do with what I said?

The programs were designed to make certain services available to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford them.
No it wasn't. It was designed so that EVERYONE pays in and EVERYONE gets the same monthly supplement. Where on earth do you get the idea that when SS was set up the benifits were ONLY to go to the poor? Did they teach you that in a government school?


Those are private programs that have signed contracts with you.
So what, SS is suppose to be a contract between government and the citizen. Else lets do away with all the smoke and mirrors and call it a welfare program.

They are designed to make money, as private businesses should be. In contrast, government social programs are designed to help the poor.
SS is designed to make money so it can pay the benefits promised to the citizens, it just doesn't make enough.

If you can't even understand what these programs are intended to do, it makes it rather difficult to debate the economics of them.
If you are ignorant of what SS and Medicare is it makes it EXTREMELY difficult to debate the program with you. One is a government retirement system, the other is a government health insurance program.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
NOT paying the contributors the benefits they paid for defeats the program.



Why did you make that statement when it has nothing to do with what I said?



No it wasn't. It was designed so that EVERYONE pays in and EVERYONE gets the same monthly supplement. Where on earth do you get the idea that when SS was set up the benifits were ONLY to go to the poor? Did they teach you that in a government school?
OK, then here's a pop quiz for you: What was the rationale behind creating SS in the first place then? Just to withhold money from people for decades for the hell of it? If that was the case, it would have been quite politically unpopular, even at the time.

The rationale behind SS (and other social programs) is to help the poor. Now you may not agree that SS (or other social programs) accomplishes that goal, but if you are going to feign ignorance about the reasons the programs even exist, there is little point continuing this discussion.

Stinger said:
So what, SS is suppose to be a contract between government and the citizen. Else lets do away with all the smoke and mirrors and call it a welfare program.
Umm I wasn't aware that there WERE any "smoke and mirrors." You're one of the few people (of ANY political ideology) I've ever seen who has called it something OTHER than a welfare program.

Stinger said:
SS is designed to make money so it can pay the benefits promised to the citizens, it just doesn't make enough.
Why was the program set up in the first place? Why did it promise benefits to its citizens? Just for the hell of it?

SS is *not* designed to make money. It never has been. Even most liberals would agree that making money is not something that the government does well.

When you suggest that people should be allowed to "opt out" of the programs, you are missing the entire point of their existence and it undermines any arguments you may have.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
OK, then here's a pop quiz for you: What was the rationale behind creating SS in the first place then?
So that EVERYONE, would contribute to and EVERYONE would recieve at least a small stipend when they retire, not a "livable" retirement but a supliment.

Just to withhold money from people for decades for the hell of it? If that was the case, it would have been quite politically unpopular, even at the time.
Withhold it and then provide them with a small steady income upon retirement.

Where did you get the idea it was founded as a welfare program? Your turn to answer.

Umm I wasn't aware that there WERE any "smoke and mirrors." You're one of the few people (of ANY political ideology) I've ever seen who has called it something OTHER than a welfare program.
You my friend are one of the few who DO call it a welfare program. Where did you learn this fallacy?

SS is *not* designed to make money. It never has been.
It recieves interest off the bonds it is invested in, those bonds do not pay enough to meet the needs.


When you suggest that people should be allowed to "opt out" of the programs, you are missing the entire point of their existence and it undermines any arguments you may have.
When you say that some people should be denied their rightful benefits you are missing the entire point of the program and undermines any credibility you have on the matter. If you are going to deny them their rightful benefits then where do you get off still making them pay for them? Where do you get the idea that Social Security is only paid out to the poor ?
 
Top Bottom