WE DON'T NEED CUTS IN ENTITLEMENT SPENDING!

[kag]

I'm disgusted at the headlines I'm seeing that say, "Campaign to cut entitlement spending growing in U.S."

People are screaming about fiscal responsibility and our maddening national debt. But the REASON we have this debt is because

A. We're paying for two unfunded wars, neither of which have any end in sight,
B. Billionaires in this country don't pay taxes because they sock it away in the Caymens and Switzerland.
C. Billionaires in this country are crooks who cheat and steal to make their fortunes while
D. Our jobs are being sent overseas by corporations who also don't pay taxes, and
D. We were tricked into following Wall Street toward a cliff, and then getting shoved in front when we got to it.

And how do we fix it? Well according to the right, we need to take money from people who receive welfare, social security and Medicare. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS GODDAMN PICTURE!!??

We don't need to reel in entitlement spending, we need to reel in unbridled greed! We need to tax corporations, tax billionaires, regulate the banks and the insurance companies, and audit the fucking fed! We need to not be afraid to throw people in jail when they rig the odds on Wall Street or when they improve their corporate bottom line by not giving people the healthcare that they paid for. We need fix our military--not so that we can necessarily cut its spending, but so that the soldiers who fight for us get the pay and benefits that they deserve, instead of getting tortured into signing an agreement that says they have a "personality disorder" when they actually got brain damage because a BOMB EXPLODED NEXT TO THEM! We need to legalize pot and stop throwing half of our citizens in jail for smoking weed. We need to treat mental illness instead of ignoring it. We need to suck it up and offer a path to citizenship to the people who are here, and then come up with a reasonable immigration policy for the ones who aren't. We need to close Gitmo, close the black prison sites, and stop hiring Halliburton to fuck up our relationship with Islamic countries!

BUT WE DO NOT NEED A CUT IN ENTITLEMENT SPENDING!!!

Okay. I'm done. For now.

Edited to change the subject line so that people will know what I'm ranting about!

[dana_b]

1. and a lot of the easily manipulated

will actually support it. They already hate unions and anyone who fights for fair wages and benefits. Now let's go after Medicare/caid and SS. Hey - we can then all just work until we collapse and well, if you can't physically work - there's always the tent cities!

[dotymed]

29. Astonishingly(?), most of these teabaggers

are on gubmint assistance, just like the billionaire$ and corporations they idolize. Only it is their "entitlements(?)" that will be cut, not the "elites".
How does a person work hard all of their able lives, pay large social security ;-) and payroll taxes, yet when they are disabled or need to retire, the money that they are owed is considered a "government entitlement?" Of course the wealthy only have to pay SS (very fitting symbolism), on a comparatively small amount of their "earnings." Of course when they reach retirement, no matter how many billion$ they have, they receive SS and medicare. Most US corporations pay no income taxes but they are given billions or trillions of dollars in subsidies.
In 1970, when we had a healthy middle class and CEO's were paid about 40x the pay of an average worker (now they are paid about 40000x average salary) the top income tax bracket for the wealthiest was 75% and the corporations had to pay also. The current top tax (the top rate ends with a $200,000 cut off. Income taxes do not progress up to wealthiest)is 35%. If that is not an "entitlement program for the wealthy", nothing is.
So, yes, we must cut entitlement spending...for the wealthy, so that the other 95% can survive.
George Orwell wrote a fictional book in the 1930's, called "1984." I think the elites really studied this book and perfected propaganda, doublespeak, thought crimes and all the rest. Come to think of it, who was in office in 1984?
Reagan, and his policies and their continuation are really what has brought us to this point in history. Feudalism, or as Orwell called us proletariats.
If we could get one million non-violent protesters to march, on a given day, in different cities across America; we could make a difference. Our demands would be listened to and acted on. 1% of our population owns the majority of the wealth. 5% own about 95% of the wealth and 80% owns 3% of the wealth in our country.
We outnumber "them" by millions to one. If we could just organize one million of the disenfranchised Americans to protest, the minority of the minority would definitely be scared shitless. They know that they cannot control us when we unite. Lets talk to some neighbors and set a date. It is time our needs are met.

[dana_b]

41. "Lets talk to some neighbors and set a date"

I'm with ya! Now realistically in order to organize such a big protest, there would need to be organizations (i.e. like A.N.S.W.E.R. for the anti-war movement, Move On, etc.) involved to get the message out and support the protest. How do we go about coming up with 1) a well defined point to the protest 2) getting the support of such organizations 3) getting the people excited and involved.

[inna]

2. K&R

:kick:

[me b zola]

3. K&R

[Lyric]

4. Actually, welfare is not an entitlement program anymore.

The 1996 reform bill stripped it of that status. As of right now, the only real "entitlement" programs left are Social Security, Medicare, and smaller, program-specific benefits like VA benefits.

In political and legal terms, an "entitlement program" is a program that pays benefits to anyone who qualifies under the terms of the program. If you qualify, then you are "entitled" to receive benefits. Welfare used to be that way, back when it was still AFDC. If you qualified under the guidelines of the program, then you were guaranteed benefits. The 1996 reforms changed that--now, states can decide for themselves who gets benefits and who doesn't, and they are allowed to reject people even if they qualify under the program's guidelines.

Welfare used to be a social safety net that people could count on as a last resort. That is no longer the case. A lot of people don't realize this, but thanks to the 1996 law that stripped away "entitlement" status from welfare...there is NO social safety net anymore. That was the whole point behind the Gingrich-House push to remove welfare as an entitlement. They were laying the cornerstones for what will eventually be a complete dissolution of the program in certain states. When those states finally get rid of welfare for good (or make it so restrictive that only good Christian white widows qualify) then they're hoping that all the poor brown people will move to friendlier blue states that still have welfare programs, and/or accept whatever terrible, low-wage jobs are available--thus benefiting the rich who employ them. That is the ultimate goal. That's also one reason why they hate illegal immigration so much. Those lettuce-picking jobs are eventually meant for poor black people. They intend to recreate the Confederacy with slavery intact again in everything but the name.

[anarch]

19. I can think of one instance of entitlement spending we need to curtail

we ought to debar goddamn Halliburton and anyone who has anything remotely to do with them from any federal contracting, forever.

[Lyric]

22. +1000000

[Beavker]

48. I was just reading that quote over again...

It's a good one!

[windbreeze]

33. and how about all those pensions/medical/ss coverage for Congresscritters

...I'm all for letting them get familiar with the pain...wb

[Mojeoux]

67. Cut Corporate Welfare!!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[wroberts189]

76. Yes this is what I remember as well. And since my family was on it I was able to survive ..

into a taxpayer and good citizen.


If we did not have it (my mom was sick and dad was gone) we would not have had a roof. I still had to start working at 14 to feed myself and help.. and even then my mom would worry as they wanted to know if any of us were making income .. even if we were to young to be doing so so they could reduce benefits. Welfare was about 360 a month with another 100 or so in food stamps. Even back then that was scrap change.

[leftstreet]

5. K&R

[WillyT]

6. HUGE K & R !!!

Damned tootin!!!

:kick:

[FarLeftFist]

7. We would be so effing rich if we...

Fixed problems A through E

[kag]

9. And I'd probably be taken more seriously if I...

learned my alphabet, huh? Should be A-E instead of two D's. Sorry 'bout that.

[Lance_Boyle]

27. Some people here frown on double-Ds.

Don't fall into that boobytrap!

[madmax]

8. K & R

[cutlassmama]

10. K & Fucking-A R!

[Hannah Bell]

11. not only that, but this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8311665

[OHdem10]

12. How about asking Business , ie, Health Care Industry to bring their

costs down??? In this Globalization crisis Businesses
need to "pony up" as well as the everyday man.

To make the economies work every entity will have to
sacrifice or we will end up with Instability around
the world including here.

Right now "hope that things are improving" is keeping
our country stable. Years and years of job losses
and lower and lower salaries while companies and a
"special few" get richer get richer is not a recipe
for peace and contentment.

[liberal N proud]

13. Conservatives have been trying to kill entitlements since they

were first introduced.

It is part of what they stand for. Making the poor poorer.

[PinkFloyd]

84. But almost all of them don't want to lose their SS and medicare

You see teabaggers all the time with signs bitching about socialism and entitlements but keep your damn hands off my social security and medicare. I've even seen middle-aged teabaggers against axing SS/Medicare because they know if it ever happens they probably won't get shit for all the years they paid in. Yet they still bitch about socialism and entitlements.

[Scuba]

14. Nailed it.

[kag]

15. Here's another one...

We need to either tax the churches or get them the hell out of our national politics!

[Lasher]

57. Where the hell have you been?

Fix your profile so we'll know where you're from and stick around. I strongly agree with every single word you've said.

[NorthCarolina]

16. However, we do have two ongoing wars and Israel to support,

not to mention the possibility of future action in Iran. Where is the funding for these ongoing endeavors going to come from if we don't make sacrifices elsewhere? :shrug:

[Stumbler]

20. How about we ask the wealthy to make a sacrifice for a change?

Instead of asking the millions of poor families to send their sons and daughters to fight wars overseas because of a lack of employment and educational opportunities at home, let's increase the taxes on those individuals who make - say - over $3 or $5 million a year? It's been done before and can be done again: All income under that threshold is taxed at an equal rate - maybe 25% - but all income over that point is taxed at 50% or more.
This accomplishes several things:
1) Many of the business owners, CEOs, etc would rather re-invest that money back into their companies instead of paying themselves huge incomes that'll be taxed at such a high rate.
2) This reinvestment increases income equality as fewer people would make hundred-million or billion dollar annual incomes
3) This increases the amount of revenue accumulated by the national gov't to pay for wars, oil spill clean up and "entitlement programs"
And best of all, this can't be used as a claim of "punishing success", as 99% of Americans make far less than $3 million a year...

[NorthCarolina]

23. While a commendable thought, that doesn't jive with the DLC/New Dem creedo. n/t

[laughingliberal]

17. K & R nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. I'm for actual taxation of actual income well before cuts in spending

well-said

[Dappleganger]

21. CUT CORPORATE WELFARE

Stop waging war all over the planet.

[Enthusiast]

62. +1 nt

[troubledamerican]

82. Cut military (no-bid defense contractor) welfare

[mistertrickster]

24. Exactly right. Soc Sec is funded with its own TAX. That shouldn't even

be counted as an "entitlement," since it doesn't come from the general fund.

Medicare is partly funded by a dedicated tax which would be enough if medical costs weren't skyrocketing unsustainably.

So what "entitlements" are they talking about?

The biggest expense in the budget is the military. If you want to cut, you've got to go there.

[dem mba]

26. the biggest discretionary expense is military

so you're correct on that front, but the problem is huge rise in mandatory spending (ie Medicare, SS, etc)

Also, more people are retiring and going on SS than are being born or paying into the SS fund. Hence, the coming problem.

[dotymed]

34. But, you're only looking out of one eye.

The "huge rise in mandatory spending(ie medicare, SS,etc)"
1) America is the only country in the world that does not bargain over the price of medicine. If we implemented Universal healthcare and used our huge bargaining power (our government funds most of the research being done on medicines anyway, we turn it over to the drug companies for free when it looks promising), like every civilized country in the world does (except US), we would save trillions of dollars annually. Our own CBO (Congressional Budget Office), who has an excellent track record has made these findings available, yet they were not allowed "at the table." So not only is Universal healthcare the right thing to do (our healthcare currently ranks below that of the civilized nations also), it will save us lots of money. I'd be glad to debate why with you.
2)Social Security has been pillaged by politicians since it began. If all of the money were paid back to that fund, paid for by us, and all future money left alone, there would not be a SS problem. Also, we'll use that previously random number of $3 million, if people who had this kind of money were not allowed to draw SS, because they do not need it and others do, SS would remain solvent indefinitely. Amazingly, some people want to "invest" that money on wall street..thats a great idea :sarcasm:

[dem mba]

42. oh im with you on all of that

i favor universal health care, or at the least a public option.

but its important to note the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending, which that poster wasn't doing. reducing military spending is great, but it doesn't address any of the fundamental issues with the rise in mandatory spending.

[dotymed]

45. Yes, America spending 15x more than the combined

nations of the world is beyond words. But, I was pointing out that by looking at our wealth distribution (or lack of), that the wealthy are definitely not paying their progressive (our income tax) share. If they were made to, then the cuts in mandatory spending would not even be a consideration.. nor would our faltering economy as long as regulations like glass-steagal were reinstated.

[mistertrickster]

50. That's the standard line about Social Security. However there's a lot of

data that says demographics aren't a big deal. See italicized sentence below.

From a 2005 Paul Krugman interview in The Rolling Stone:

What would you say to college students and young workers who are convinced they'll never see a dime of the money they put into Social Security?

You've been sold a scare story. Right now Social Security has a large and growing trust fund — a surplus that has been collected to pay for the surge in benefits we'll experience when the baby boomers start to retire. If you're twenty now, you'll be hitting retirement around 2052. That's the year the Congressional Budget Office says the trust fund will run out. In fact, many economists say it may never run out. If the economy continues to grow at an average rate, the trust fund could quite possibly last forever.

But what happens if it doesn't?

Even if the trust fund does run out, Social Security will still be able to pay eighty percent of promised benefits. The actual shortfall would be a pretty small part of the federal budget, quite easily made up from other sources. Once the whole baby-boomer generation is into the retirement pool, Social Security's share of the gross domestic product will only increase by about two percent. Well, President Bush's tax cuts are more than two percent of GDP — and they're happening right now, not fifty years from now. So the idea that there's this Social Security thing that is a huge problem is just wrong.

URL: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6822964/the_fake_crisis

[Lance_Boyle]

25. What about means-testing entitlements?

Get $10K/month from your pension/401K? Maybe you ought not to get that Social Security check in addition to it. I know, I know... "but I paid into it all my life!" Me too, and I expect to get zero out of it personally.

I'm less keen on means-testing medicare, because I still believe single-payer to be the (most) ideal system for the US. Let the richies buy supplementals to what single payer provides if they really want that private room and a mint on the hospital pillow.

[dem mba]

28. I think your rant is a bit ill informed

SS and Medicare are going to go through the roof as the baby boomers retire and there aren't enough younger workers to pay into the fund. So-called entitlement spending is going to explode in the next 10-20 years. You are also leaving out interest payment on the debt, which will swell over the next few decades.

To ignore these major factors of our debt is a big, big problem.

A few of the other tidbits in your post are wrong too, rich people pay a greater portion of our tax revenues than middle class or poor people (as one would expect, since they have all the money). Corporate income tax is a drop in the bucket next to individual income tax revenue. Corporate income tax in itself is almost a double-dip on a company's income anyway, but that's another debate.

I'm with you on most of the other stuff though.

[dotymed]

37. Lets See

Since the wealthy pay (and yes they do) the greater portion of income taxes, how did they become wealthy? Their own hard work? They must be super people. It seems like the taxpayers just "bailed out" some of the wealthiest individuals and "their" companies. Yet these people are paying income taxes at the same rate as a person who earns $200,000 a year? 30 years ago they were paying 75% and they were not allowed to steal from others by usury and monopolies. America has the worst distribution of wealth of all of the "civilized nations", yet that makes it right and all of the other, citizen-centered countries wrong? You have been thoroughly propagandized. Greed is not a good thing. Life should be more about equity than selfishness. I'm not talking about amortization, the other equity. People are not here to be used and discarded so the wealthy can become wealthier. That notion reaches all the way back to the magna carta and beyond.

[dem mba]

46. greed?

people try to get rich for lots of reasons, greed being one of them. But what of the father who grew up in poverty and is trying to create a better life for his children? Is it greed that motivates him to amass wealth? Is it the function of government to tell that guy when he's made "enough" money? That's not an easy thing to answer, when you consider the logistics and implications of it all.

All our government should be doing is regulating enough to create a level playing field for a fair fight. We need more regulation in some industries, less in others. Let public policy create and encourage a meritocracy in the labor forces, where the best and brightest can succeed regardless of race, gender or class.

Income inequality is a major issue in this country, but it can be fixed. We can roll back Bush tax cuts. We can increase capital gains taxes and estate taxes a bit. However, structural economic shifts have probably made it very difficult for lower skilled workers to thrive in America. We can reign in the top earners a bit, but I don't know how we raise the income for the bottom workers. That's the trick.

[kag]

63. My 13-year-old son asked me yesterday...

...If we're supposed to be a "capitalist" economy, where people get to keep what they earn--mostly--how are just a few people making billions of dollars? They can't be "earning" it.

And he's got a point. You talk about increasing capital gains taxes "a bit" but what we need is to roll back both the Bush tax cuts AND the Reagan tax cuts. If people making over 2 million dollars a year had a 90% tax on their income above that 2 million, they would be more likely to reinvest that income back into their companies, and grow the economy for their employees, so that they have a shot at the 2 million dollar mark too. That's how our economy worked up until Reagan when the right ushered in these decades of bubbles, crashes, and redistributing all of our wealth toward a tiny fraction of the population--a fraction who, ironically, feel somehow "entitled" to their millions and billions of dollars.

[AllyCat]

94. +1

[dotymed]

87. We could legislate the wages (minimum wage) of the

"bottom workers", and make sure that it is a "living wage." I'm sorry that in your estimation life should be a "fair fight." I don't think that life should be a fight. Of course, currently it is a hugely unfair fight, everyday. This in the "wealthiest (debtor) nation on earth."

[AllyCat]

73. Corporations have a tax "rate" but pay little if any tax

thanks to numerous loopholes and off-shore bank accounts. And their CEOs get lower-tax-rate "stock options" at the expense of salary that would be taxed at a higher rate and for which they have to pay GASP! payroll taxes that consequently would cover part of the first problem you mention. Social Security is NOT in imminent danger. And even if it was, the way to fix it is not by lopping people off at the knees who need the money!

[midnight]

30. Great post. However, I was wondering how many see our military budget as entitlement spending?

And if so, if that could possibly be, the one entitlement program to cut?

[JDPriestly]

31. Unless you are talking about entitlements for huge corporations like

cheap oil leases and tax credits and deductions for wasteful business expenses like private jets for the CEOs, then entitlements should not be cut.

If you cut entitlements to ordinary people and the poor, you will just end up either with people dying from hunger and the misery of untreated illnesses or you will have to provide the people with housing, food and the basic necessities of life. That is about all that the average Social Security check covers.

Medicare, by the way, is not generally "free." The free parts of Medicare do not cover some of the most important costs that seniors eventually face. So, most seniors have to buy some form of supplemental insurance or Medicare Advantage. In my case, the premiums are taken right off the top of the Social Security check, so there is no way I can fail to pay it. Then you also have co-pays for doctors' visits, etc. So, for most of us, Medicare is by no means free. In fact, I know seniors who pay almost as much for their Medicare Advantage plans as I did for my cheap HMO plan before I reached 65.

There is no fat to cut on entitlements.

I must say, though, there is fat to cut on the government retirement plans that go to former presidents (of which we currently have four). They should receive Social Security just like everyone else in the U.S. and nothing more.


By EMILY BRANDON
Posted: January 16, 2009
President George W. Bush will ride out the recession with a pension of $196,700. The pension begins immediately upon his departure from office at noon on Inauguration Day, January 20. And unlike many private sector pensions, Bush’s payouts will grow to $203,600 next year and $210,700 in 2011.

In contrast, private sector workers have their pensions insured by the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. up to a maximum benefit of $54,000 in 2009 for those who retire at age 65 and elect payments as a single life annuity. But because Bush is age 62, if he claimed a private sector pension this year he would only be insured for $42,666. Former presidents currently receive a pension that is equal to pay for the head of an executive department.

In addition to a pension, the 1958 Former Presidents Act provides past presidents with support staff, office space, travel funds, and mailing privileges. The legislation aims “to maintain the dignity of that great office” and to prevent an expresident from engaging “in business or occupation which would demean the office he has held or capitalize upon it in any way deemed improper.” Prior to 1958, former Presidents leaving office received no pension or federal assistance. Some former Presidents — including Ulysses Grant and Harry Truman — struggled financially after leaving office. Total allowances for former presidents in fiscal year 2008 were $518,000 for Jimmy Carter, $786,000 for George H. W. Bush, and $1,162,000 for Bill Clinton, fueled primarily by his office space in Harlem, New York. Carter’s Atlanta office and Bush’s Houston office are considerably less expensive.

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2009/1/16/president-bush-will-get-a-196700-pension.html

Read the whole article and you will see how this money adds up over time. Before anyone cuts granny's pensions, they should cut the allowances for these past presidents. They should receive Social Security like everyone else.

[windbreeze]

32. What we need to cut is Gov'ts' ability to STEAL SS and "entitlement" funds..

for other things....my husband and I are both on SS...we barely make it now...and SS would have been fine if ALL PRESIDENTS would have been stopped from stealing it...wb

[SocialistLez]

35. +1 No more raiding the piggy bank.

[Enthusiast]

61. That would be a good start.

They should not have been able to spend social security money to start with. Then the I.O.U.s would be money.

[Lorien]

36. We used to call it "Social programs". Reagan pushed the term "entitlement spending"

to make it sound like something undeserved.

[dflprincess]

38. And many people don't think of Social Security when they hear "entitlement"

they think "welfare". Even though they are incorrect. And, while Reagan started using the term, our pals in DLC have continued it - they've had Social Security & Medicare on their hit list for quite some time.

There's a whole lot of people who think they support cuts to entitlements who will be in for a rude awakening if those cuts happen.

[h9socialist]

51. Amazing how those are the same people who support big increases for the Pentagon!

But they are scandalized by the idea that a mother and child might have dinner tonight because of "federal largesse."

[Lorien]

52. And not one peep from any of them when billions go "missing" in Iraq

or Halliburton is caught scamming the taxpayers AND the troops. The RNC and DLC have made it trendy to scapegoat the sick and the poor instead of the criminal predators who are emptying the Federal reserve.

[h9socialist]

54. Alas, that's been true for centuries . . .

. . . but they're real genius lies in how they have tricked so many poor folks into believing that this is all OK.

[dflprincess]

55. The poor have always been an easy target -

it's easier to get the middle class into a frenzy over someone who has less than they do getting a "free ride" than it is to get them upset over those in the upper class who actually are getting the free ride. I suppose it's because of the delusion that someday, if we work really hard (and God loves us :sarcasm:) we too can join the "haves" or, at least, never join the have nots.

Back (in the 70s) when I was working on my Social Work degree one of the books we were assigned was called "Blaming the Victim" a few years ago I was surprised to see my niece had been assigned the same book in a sociology class. I can't remember if it was in the book or the professor just pointing out terms used to cast blame and suspicion on every poor person. Even in the cartoon "Underdog" he was described as a "poor, but honest shoeshine boy" and then, of course, there are the "deserving poor" as opposed, apparently, to the "undeserving".

[mntleo2]

39. Uhhh one entitlement needing to be eliminated:

...Title IV B and E finding which funds the legal kidnapping of low income kids for adoption. It is destroying families and hurting kids with a heueuge Adoption and Foster Care Industrial Complex. CPS is coming into entire housing areas and taking all kids. It is happening in almost all states but it has for sure been documented in my state (WA) as I am a watchdog. See this funding is based on how many kids taken, *not* on family preservation. As a matter of fact CPS, the courts, CASA, foster homes nor anyone affiliated gets a red cent if they return the kid to the family. These entities are so greedy, they also go after and take away about 1/3 TANF money (welfare for desperately poor families) to pay themselves even more. All the more disgusting since it is commonly known and has been proven a child is 3 X more likely to be abused in foster care than they would at home, especially if the family is given services, they fare much better.

While I am for entitlements, thanks to Welfare Reformed (or Welfare DEFormed as I call it), which took welfare out from under entitlements, and is now responsible for plunging millions of children and their families into permanent poverty,which the middle class wildly applauded in their ignorance, (these laws are now coming for them as they were warned by we activists at the time). I am also for watching where this entitlement money is going and how it is used. In my state, it has not been so much as monitored by the Feds (HHS is responsible) in over 8 years and the money keeps pouring in no questions asked while kids are being yanked from their parents and sold to the highest bidder.

I am sure you are not aware of this as few people are, but suffice it to say, entitlements need a raking over because often they are given out to entitled non-profits and agencies like CPS with few questions or oversight. The only thing We The People ever see in those entitlements are with Social Security and SSI ~ both which use every legal way and thing in their power not to give out if they can possibly get away with it.

Maybe this will raise your conscience and make you an activist for these low income families who are being actively destroyed on lies and mis-representation solely for CPS and their minions to make a buck off the backs of little kids.

My 2 cents

Cat in Seattle .

[cornermouse]

68. Uhhh....

self-delete but if I could unrec your post, I would. It's deceptive and misleading.

[mntleo2]

85. It is not misleading but the truth

...I am sorry but I have been working on this for awhile and investigating it in my own state. It has happened to hundreds here in this state. I have the facts and I went to DC last February and met with other mothers and grandparents who have had it happen to them and it happened to me. When we confronted our legislators, they admitted that it is the truth. Here read this this site by a group of progressives fighting for these families: http://www.nccpr.org/reports/12Financial.pdf.

I am not making any of this up. I wish I were. Much more to tell if anyone will listen.

Cat In Seattle

[cornermouse]

89. Around here they prefer to either leave them

with abusive parents or if they go so far as to take them away, return them soon afterward in the name of family values and refusal to fund alternative care so much as it pains me I'm afraid I have to say that I simply don't believe you.

[mntleo2]

90. Kids 3X more likely to get abused in foster care than ...

...if left in the home with parents who would be able to provide for their kids if they got services. This is not just one study but from several from The NY Dependency Court System, to Michigan State University based on thousands of kids and their outcomes, to the most gathered of information about all this information coming from the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

We hardly hear anything about foster care deaths and abuses. Media blackout. Think about it and you will realize, when in your area has reported on any foster care abuse? But hey the first time a parent is abusive, it is all over the news.

There is a reason for that. The Adoption and Foster Care Industrial Complex wants you to get all full of hysteria about parents and a virtual blackout about foster care neglect and abuse. Because the industry makes millions for taking kids and NOTHING for bringing them home. They skew the courts against family members and exaggerate and lie on purpose in order to get children because they depend on it to make a living. If you really want to know the truth, simply ask Representative McDermott who is chairman of the subcommittee for Children's Services in the U.S. House of Representatives. He will admit that this is going on and all I told you is true. I have heard it straight from these people's mouths ~ as well as parents and grandparents who have been through false and exaggerated accusations. Worse, a CPS worker can merely point their finger at you and accuse you and you will have it on your record for the rest of your life with no way to dispute them unless you are a millionaire.

In Seattle and Philly I am working with people where entire low income communities are emptied of children and sold. I am working with parents in GA who have internal documents from their TANF offices where the case manager is instructed to advise parents in need to give their children up. If they don't "cooperate" they send in CPS workers to take them anyway. These are low income workers who have gotten sick themselves or injured on the job, are homeless, or are domestic violence victims themselves. Instead of helping them with services, "in the best interest of the child" they come in and take the kids.

Non-profits, foster care, GAL/CASA, consultants, the courts all keep their jobs if these kids are permanently taken. Again, they get nothing in funding if they send these kids home, where they would do better if the billions spent on taking them was put into services instead.

Thank YEW Welfare DE-Rormed. I guess on the backs of kids who are terrified and traumatized for the rest of their lives, at least it employs people, right? Again I wish I were exaggerating, but i am not. It is based on afra act and takes billions inorder to maintian this industry and make money off the backs of little kids>

[cornermouse]

91. Baloney. n/t

[mntleo2]

92. I doubt you will read it but ...

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/01SAFETY.pdf If you do carefully read it, check out the footnotes and the myriad of evidence. I think tracking 100,000 kids might be evidence that something is amiss. But I am done trying to convince you. If you want to remain ignorant of the facts, well hey, ignorance is bliss as you prove and as they say.

Cat In Seattle

[cornermouse]

93. Your organization is a throwback to the 1890s.

I am not impressed.

I briefly looked up your board.
I am not impressed.

What do you plan to do with the children who require major surgery to repair the damage done to them? I know because I worked with one of them quite a few years ago.

[BrklynLiberal]

40. I agree 100%

[WCGreen]

43. My pleasure for 100....

[defendandprotect]

44. Agree . . . but public has little say in corporate government --!!

CUT THE HELL OUT OF THE MIC . . . !!!

END THE WARS --

HELP THE HOMELESS, THE IMPOVERISHED --

THOSE LOSING THEIR HOMES!!

CREATE JOBS --

OVERTURN THE TRADE AGREEEMENTS --

DOUBLE THE MINIMUM WAGE IMMEDIATELY --

[Greyhound]

47. We've been warned about it for years, and just like the other looming disasters,

we pretend that if it hasn't happened, it can't/won't happen.

Make no mistake about it, they are coming after your Social Security as well as Medicare and Medicaid.

"All hail our corporate overlords, may they reign in their righteous greed for eternity!"
:kick: & R

[CLANG]

49. Put a bullseye on her fat ass!

[Change Happens]

53. Can we raise the eligibility age for SS at least?

Volker suggested increasing it by one month per year over the next 15 years...Very reasonable, no?

I would like to see Military budget capped at $500 billion!

[ultracase24]

56. There is plenty of spending to be cut

corporate welfare, military waste and fraud, the prison/justice system, etc. The list goes on and on.

[BEZERKO]

58. I have seen the same headlines,

They piss me off too!

[Enthusiast]

59. K&R! nt

[NewJeffCT]

60. As a percent of GDP, our debt is LOWER

than many western countries - most EU countries, Japan, Singapore, etc. The media never seems to bring up that fact.

Yes, our debt is the highest overall, by far, but the US also has the biggest economy overall, by far.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30308959/The_World_s_Biggest_Debtor_Nations?slide=2

US is #20 at 96.5% of GDP.
Australia is #18 at 124% of GDP
Italy is #17 at 147%
Germany is at 182%
Spain is at 186%
France is at 248%
the UK is at 426%

[liberation]

64. These are not "entitlements" we pay for them, we deserve them...

... what it is "entitled" is the attitude of those who spend all their energy figuring out how to not pay their fair share, while feeling entitled to the social security and other social funds for which the middle and lower classes pay largest share, with our taxes.

The super wealthy and large corporations spend a big deal of time and effort figuring out who to pay even less taxes year after year. Yet they want all that public money for them. That is "entitled" and I would suggest we stop playing their projection-driven manipulation of the language by labeling things that should be considered as basic human rights to be "entitlements."

[Dave From Canada]

65. Kag, your problem is with basic math. America currently has $108 TRILLION DOLLARS in unfunded

liabilities. Entitlements have to be cut, as well as taxes will have to be raised. A combination of both. Otherwise, prepared to be Greece in 10 years.

Math isn't ideological and math doesn't lie.

http://usdebtclock.org/

[liberation]

69. Math has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty...

Greece is not in the shitter because of social spending.

Either get your facts straight, or at the very least don't pretend to pass talking points as mathematics.

[Dave From Canada]

78. Their debt is 110% of their GDP. That's not a talking point, it's the truth. Face facts. They've

spent themselves into bankruptcy. They pay public employees for 14 months of a 12 month work year. Their retirement age is 53, with full pensions. They don't have the money to pay for their debt. Greece is absolutely in the shitter for social spending. Decades and decades of massive deficits. That's a fact. Facts can be stubborn things. Jon Stewart had a great piece on it on the Daily Show last week.

[girl gone mad]

75. Our currency is sovereign.

We can never be Greece.

[Dave From Canada]

79. Yes, but if American debt reaches Greece type levels, you're going to have to massively devalue your

currency.

[craigmatic]

66. We need cuts in military spending. That's where the bulk of the budget goes

[sam sarrha]

70. these are the only "Entitlements that are destroying the economy.. >Link>>

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

"...The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010)..."

[amborin]

71. K&R

[AllyCat]

72. Good rant! And welcome to DU!

[Lagomorph]

74. So, how about earmarks?

And I wouldn't miss farm subsidies.

Most of the entitlement money goes straight into corporate pockets. We are creating our own demons.

[wroberts189]

77. THANK YOU ! KNR/nt

[femrap]

80. What a lovely

:rant:

And I want those Hedge Fund Mgrs. taxed till their eyes bleed!

Would the rich prefer to be taxed or fed to the hungry?

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. They call it "entitlement" because you're entitled by virtue of having loaned $2t to the government.

We're entitled to Social Security because the US government owes it to retirees, in a very real and "backed by the full faith and credit of the US" sense.

[troubledamerican]

83. Stop using the word "ENTITLEMENT", that's a Frank Luntz hot-button framing word

How obvious is it? Apparently, not so obvious.

[lonestarnot]

86. Perfect rant and keep 'em coming!

:patriot: carry on!

[Vinca]

88. The people screaming about entitlement spending are either

so wealthy it doesn't matter or so stupid they don't realize it will mean they will have to give up Social Security and Medicare.