Senate Fiscal Cliff Bill Approved by House

[AGDee]

I had to read the entire paper because I was struggling to understand their definition of "using a social program" and how they decided to define a social program. Is a student loan that is paid back with interest truly a government social program? If that loan would also be available from a private source if it was not offered by the government? Pell grants, yes, but student loans? I'm not convinced. They also used the words social policy in their hypothesis but used social program when questioning participants. There is a difference between those two terms, in my own head anyway.

I think the big thing is that when people talk about "cutting spending", that doesn't include "increasing revenue" as we've seen. Increasing revenue means increasing taxes and they don't want that. So the submerged items they discuss, such as pre-tax contributions for health care and retirement are not really "spending", they are ways that revenue is reduced. Additionally, you will pay taxes on that retirement money eventually. It is a deferred tax, not an eliminated tax.

When I think of "entitlements" or "social programs", I think of the government directly spending money to provide a service or necessities to people facing hardship. I don't think I'd include veteran benefits in that either because I see that as fringe benefits of that job... sort of like hazard pay combined with workman's comp for dangerous jobs in the private sector.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I had to read the entire paper because I was struggling to understand their definition of "using a social program" and how they decided to define a social program. Is a student loan that is paid back with interest truly a government social program? If that loan would also be available from a private source if it was not offered by the government? Pell grants, yes, but student loans? I'm not convinced. They also used the words social policy in their hypothesis but used social program when questioning participants. There is a difference between those two terms, in my own head anyway.

I think the big thing is that when people talk about "cutting spending", that doesn't include "increasing revenue" as we've seen. Increasing revenue means increasing taxes and they don't want that. So the submerged items they discuss, such as pre-tax contributions for health care and retirement are not really "spending", they are ways that revenue is reduced. Additionally, you will pay taxes on that retirement money eventually. It is a deferred tax, not an eliminated tax.

When I think of "entitlements" or "social programs", I think of the government directly spending money to provide a service or necessities to people facing hardship. I don't think I'd include veteran benefits in that either because I see that as fringe benefits of that job... sort of like hazard pay combined with workman's comp for dangerous jobs in the private sector.

I'd also like to add that most of these "social programs" for the middle and upper class are actually designed to benefit the government in the long run in terms of spurring economic growth and generating higher tax revenues. It's very beneficial for the government to get people owning homes and paying property taxes as well as getting educations and earning higher taxable income than just minimum wage.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I'd also like to add that most of these "social programs" for the middle and upper class are actually designed to benefit the government in the long run in terms of spurring economic growth and generating higher tax revenues. It's very beneficial for the government to get people owning homes and paying property taxes as well as getting educations and earning higher taxable income than just minimum wage.

And "social programs" for the working poor are also meant to benefit the government/country. If the working poor have no way to make ends meet, what do you think is going to happen?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

And "social programs" for the working poor are also meant to benefit the government/country. If the working poor have no way to make ends meet, what do you think is going to happen?

They go on welfare? IF the poor can't make ends meet, there are multiple programs available to them such as Sec 8 housing, SNAP, utility, and tax credits. I don't agree with the notion that a employer provided 401k is a gov benefit no different than food stamps or cash welfare assistance. I don't see your point there.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

They go on welfare? IF the poor can't make ends meet, there are multiple programs available to them such as Sec 8 housing, SNAP, utility, and tax credits. I don't agree with the notion that a employer provided 401k is a gov benefit no different than food stamps or cash welfare assistance. I don't see your point there.

Sorry, my question is what happens if there is no welfare. Do you want to live in a city where people have no legal means of feeding themselves? Because I don't.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Sorry, my question is what happens if there is no welfare. Do you want to live in a city where people have no legal means of feeding themselves? Because I don't.

I'm not saying that I want a system that depends exclusively on private charity, but a city without government welfare isn't necessarily a city where people have no means of feeding themselves.

I agree with the point that most "entitlements" deliver social benefits beyond the recipient.