So, You Are Running For President of the United States

[phildinftlaudy]

I thought it would be interesting to start a thread in this election year here in the U.S. where members can actually tell what their platform would be.....

So many times we criticize those running for President.... without offering solutions -

So..... you are running for President of the United States.... how would you address many of the issues (economy, civil rights, foreign policy, domestic policy, taxes, etc.)?

Maybe we can actually see the viewpoints of others in a respectful way, generate a productive discussion, and understand the rationale behind viewpoints......

(I'm sure some will take this serious and others may inject some humor into it or take it less seriously). For me, I have always been solution-focused and don't like to criticize or identify a problem without exploring or listening to potential solutions.

So, in addition to the incumbent, President Obama and Mitt Romney..... your name now appears on the ticket as a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States - you are on the campaign trail, on Sunday morning news shows, and appearing in debates against your opponents..... your platform.... your view on the issues.... and your solutions to the problems facing the United States:

.... Oh, and feel free to post more than once as you gain additional insight, identify other issues and how you would address them, etc.

(I will start it out on the next post)

[phildinftlaudy]

Taxes - reform the tax code and go with a "Flat Tax" - modify the Earned Income Credit (the way it is now, a person can actually receive a higher refund back then the taxes he/she paid in). The EITC should be capped - with individuals not able to get back more than what they put in.

Drugs - decriminalization of marijuana. Put an appropriate tax on it and allow it to be sold with similar laws on it as alcohol.

Corporate taxes - increase corporate tax rate to a level that put a disincentive on shipping jobs overseas and almost makes it cost prohibitive to do so

Social Security - limit the death benefit paid to surviving spouses who are within working age (18 years old - 62 years old) to 6 years maximum. Provide educational and training opportunities so they have access to gainful employment. Currently, a surviving spouse is able to collect social security death benefits for children until they turn 18.... This made sense when women weren't in the workforce, but it is now an outdated model.

Social Security tax rate should be 4.25% for those making under $100,000 per year; 5.25% for those making between $100,000 - $200,000; 7.25% for those making between $200,000 - $500,000; and 8.25% for those making $500,000 and up. Also, persons with incomes of more than $1 million per year could pay a reduced rate of 5.25% but would not be eligible to collect social security benefits.

Civil Unions/Same-Sex Marriage - the government should not have ever used the term "marriage" as this is a term associated w/ religion and the government's use of the term and laws that give preference to "married" couples is a violation of the separation of church and state. Instead, the government should recognize equally civil unions between same sex and opposite sex couples equally; marriages would then be the responsibility of whatever religion a person (same or opposite sex) decides to go through (if they choose to go through this route).

Balanced Budget - the federal government should be required to have a balanced budget  - accomplished a) by implementing a flat tax; b) by legalizing and taxing marijuana; c) by increasing corporate tax on businesses that ship jobs overseas; d) reforming social security in regards to survivor's benefits; e) analyzing and eliminating funding to those programs that should be the responsibility of the states, local communities, or the private sector

Foreign policy - bring troops home from Afghanistan and South Korea. Keep limited peace keeping presence in these areas. Better train and support troops here in the United States and improve military infrastructure to allow for rapid deployment, if needed

Health Care - universal health care with a focus on prevention and early diagnosis; regulation of prescription drug prices w/ income-based caps.

Just some early thoughts..... feedback on any of the above - I'm open to suggestions, rational debate, and definitely open to revisiting any of the above if flaws or better approaches are identified...   

[bocker3]

Balanced Budget - the federal government should be required to have a balanced budget  - accomplished a) by implementing a flat tax; b) by legalizing and taxing marijuana; c) by increasing corporate tax on businesses that ship jobs overseas; d) reforming social security in regards to survivor's benefits; e) analyzing and eliminating funding to those programs that should be the responsibility of the states, local communities, or the private sector

Don't have much time right now, so I'm focusing on this one, because it's always been an "issue" to me.

Mandating a Balanced Budget at the Federal level (I'm assuming you are meaning a balanced budget "law" or "amendment") would be too onerous.  There are times when the government would (and should) be able to borrow.  Some "easy" times that come to mind -- War, disaster relief (natural or unnatural), serious economic recession (to provide stimulus -- not the 4-letter word some would like to be).  It has proven tough enough for states to deal with these amendments and we have seen them resort to accounting gimmicks and underfunding pension funds, etc -- in order to "balance" their budgets.  The Feds have far more they need to deal with.
Yes, sometimes you could balance by increasing revenue -- but if unemployment goes high, you can't tax people for what they don't have.  We often here folks say that if you remove a bunch of zero's, you can pretend it is a family budget.  What would a family do in "hard times" -- perhaps work more, if possible, perhaps cut "extras" -- sometimes -- they borrow in order to get things that they need and can't afford to pay cash for -- like houses, cars, education, medical costs, etc..........

Just my thoughts in the "cons" of a balanced budget mandate.  Of course, this does not mean I don't think we should generally live within our means -- as I do think that is prudent.  My only debt is my mortgage, and my car loan (which I just got after about 8 years without a car loan) and I pay my credit cards off each month, so I do practice that too.

Mike

[phildinftlaudy]

Good points Mike -
I think there have to be allowances with a "balanced budget" approach -
Of course, we have to be able to take care of unforeseen circumstances, such as natural disasters, war...

At the same time, right now there is no incentive to even attempt to balance a budget - Even working where I work, and benefiting from many of the government grants and programs that serve our students/college, I still believe, as a taxpayer, that a lot of what is being paid for by the federal government should not be their responsibility and that there is a lot of waste and duplication of services.

As President, I would be a lot more likely to give money directly to the states and eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy that currently exists. There are way too many layers to the federal government and too much duplication.

I see it as a decision has to be made - either we are going to be lean, trim, lower taxes, and shrink government or we are going to go the other way and fully fund all of the services - without running a deficit in the trillions of dollars - through taxation. The two roads spending and income need to be going the same direction and not being running contradictory to each other as they have been - particularly over the past 12 years. You can only stretch a rubber band so far in opposing directions before it will break.

[Miss Philicia]

As President, I would be a lot more likely to give money directly to the states and eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy that currently exists.

You're joking, right? You live in the state with the worst ADAP waiting list. You should be advocating that state governments be eliminated full stop and have a republican government more like France, with departments at the local level like a county to administer a certain amount of programs.

[phildinftlaudy]

You're joking, right? You live in the state with the worst ADAP waiting list. You should be advocating that state governments be eliminated full stop and have a republican government more like France, with departments at the local level like a county to administer a certain amount of programs.

That could also be a plan -

However, there is also a way to give states block grants and to put requirements as to minimum levels of services that have to be provided.... Ideally, the funding is always best used when it is closer to the point of its use.

The greater distance that funding has to travel to reach its intended purpose, the less likely it is that that purpose is going to be met. And the more "middle men" the less of that money that is actually available for services....  Administrative costs from federal, to state, to local, to actual service providers eat up a lot of funds that could be used for direct service impact.

[Miss Philicia]

So you still don't make sense -- the state government is a "middle man".

[leatherman]

... lower taxes,..
The two roads spending and income need to be going the same direction and not being running contradictory to each other as they have been

we actually have some of the lowest tax rates in like 60 yrs. What needs to be done is the loopholes closed so that people corporations actually pay their fair share of taxes. (everyone keeps talking about "people's taxes"; but what about corps earning their highest profits ever in the history of the world and paying, to the detriment of the country, the lowest amount of taxes ever?) The government hasn't been taking in enough, along with spending out too much on unfunded prescription drug costs and two wars, and actually needs to increase it's revenue to pay off it's debt and fulfill it's obligations.

Of course, programs can always be leaner and trimmer, however, the one of the real problems as I see it, as the GDP and population has been rising, is not so much that debt has been increasing but that revenues have been decreasing.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

[Mrmojorisin]

I have not read any of the other replies...What I would do:
 I would reform the so called "Obamacare" to make it only offer health insurance. Get ride of the mandate. That everyone buy healthcare.
 I would balance the budget with a combination of spending cuts and eliminating tax breaks across the board. I would cut spending in every part of government by really coming down on the fraud that is rampant. That means cutting the military budget, reducing the size of government by eliminating the many redundancies that exist..
 I bet we could balance the budget by simply cracking down on the fraud...

 The best way to get corporations to bring jobs back is to reduce the corporate tax to be in line with the rest of the world.

 There is a need to address illegal immigration..first we need to control the borders. then we need to address those that are already here. And deporting them is not a realistic solution....
 Limit the campaign contributions that any candidate is allowed to receive..

[phildinftlaudy]

So you still don't make sense -- the state government is a "middle man".

Yes - state government is "middle man."  But, this is why I said that one of the first things I would do is revisit those programs that the federal government is providing that are not "mandates;" that do not fit the role of federal government; and that would be better handled by the states or even local municipalities themselves.

So, here's how it would roll:
a) Programs that match the role and are appropriate for federal government would continue (supported by federal income taxes - individual and corporate);
b) Programs that match the role and are appropriate for federal government, but that need to take into account the individual differences of states (i.e. geographic location, economic condition, demographics) would fall under federal government; however, block grants and/or formula grants provided to states w/ minimum requirements established and then allow for states to tailor other parts to fit the residents within that state;
c) Programs that do not match the role and are not appropriate for federal government. These would no longer be funded by the feds. If states and/or local government wanted to have these programs, they would be funded at the state/local level (through state/local taxes).

I would much rather be taxed at a local level, where I am more likely to be able to see where my tax dollars are (or aren't) being spent and where I can have more of an impact on affecting change (i.e. electing in or out of office candidates) - as opposed to paying a taxes to feds and not being as likely to affect change through my vote due to the undue and unfair influence of special interests, including corporations.

Which would be another issue to be addressed, if I were running for President - that is reforming the lobbying and campaign financing - which currently is out of control and gives unfair advantage to special interests/corporations.

The key point I want to make about the above..... is that I am at least proposing solutions. They may not be the solutions that others would propose, but they are potential solutions nevertheless. If I only focus on knocking holes in proposed solutions, without offering any solutions of my own, then I have basically fallen into the "trap" (if it can be called that) of what is going on in politics today ------- too much criticism of how candidates would address an issue, with no alternatives proposed.

It is easy to tell someone that they are traveling the wrong direction.....but, it takes a little more effort to actually provide the correct directions or propose alternative routes.

I'm Phildinftlaudy and I support this message 

[wolfter]

I would campaign on the platform of increasing spending and reducing taxes.  I would also guarantee that every able bodied person would have adequate employment. 

After elected; Sorry!!! Not possible, but at least I'm better off.   

[denb45]

Phil, the way look at it is , if you can keep it in your pants, and stop putting things into your mouth ( and that means staying out of them bookstores)

 and if you can keep your noise clean ( pays your bills and not have shitty credit)
and not get arrested w/ a felony record, you just might have a shot ( key word might)

so, it looks like you have a lot of work to do, before you can even consider any of this   

Hugs

Dennis

[Miss Philicia]

When you premise your argument on what is "appropriate for the federal government" I have no idea what you're trying to say, because it's entirely subjective. I feel like I'm in a local chapter meeting of the Federalist Society with Justice Scalia.

[phildinftlaudy]

When you premise your argument on what is "appropriate for the federal government" I have no idea what you're trying to say, because it's entirely subjective. I feel like I'm in a local chapter meeting of the Federalist Society with Justice Scalia.

So..... judging from your responses to date.... you would be one who criticizes rather than proposing any solutions?   

BTW, there is no "argument" to premise - if you read my posts you will see that I said that there would have to be an analysis done of what is "appropriate for federal government" and what is more appropriate for states/localities to handle. I am not identifying those items (appropriate/non-appropriate) now as to do so would negate the need for said analysis.

I am sure that the right team of advisors would be able to assess those functions that should legitimately fall within the scope of the federal government and those that would be better handled by the states/localities. Whether these recommendations/findings would be subjective or not ------ I suppose some would be and others would not be (as I am sure there are some Constitutional scholars who could easily identify and articulate those functions that are clearly outside of what the federal government was established to handle and there are probably other scholars who could make an argument - albeit loose in some cases - that every current function of the US government falls within its Constitutional mandates and/or limits.)

Your suggestions? Your platform? Your proposed solutions to some of the issues raised? Inquiring minds want to know.

Love ya!
(I'm phildinftlaudy and I support this message)

[BT65]

I don't have a "platform" but I wanted to say something about EITC.  That is when a lot of single working-poor mothers catch up....with back rent, overdue utilities, getting caught up on a car loan they were forced to get from a scam buy here-pay here dealer, so they could get to work, get their children clothes etc.....

Just don't forget the working poor.

[phildinftlaudy]

I don't have a "platform" but I wanted to say something about EITC.  That is when a lot of single working-poor mothers catch up....with back rent, overdue utilities, getting caught up on a car loan they were forced to get from a scam buy here-pay here dealer, so they could get to work, get their children clothes etc.....

Just don't forget the working poor.

I definitely agree that EITC allows single working poor mothers to catch up ---- unfortunately, that is one time a year..... thus, EITC doesn't work.... I would much rather ensure that signle working poor mothers have a living wage, access to childcare, education/training, and that they don't have to wait for the one time a year for EITC to get caught up.... as that is really a stressful way to have to live (and a disparaging one at that)...

In some ways, EITC is a cruel smokescreen that has allowed politicians to get away with not doing anything to solve the underlying problems of poverty and  of single mothers struggling to feed their children, clothe them and keep a roof over their heads..... It is a one time a year temporary cash infusion that does nothing to alleviate/eliminate the issue over the long-term.

This is why I would cap it and use the funding that is saved to be able to provide incentives for more affordable housing, education/training opportunities, additional childcare subsidies, etc.  ----- Definitely would never forget about the working poor (single mothers, fathers, or others).

Thanks for bringing this up.

[BT65]

Back when I was a working poor single mother, making just over minimum, even while working I had to rely on welfare for food stamps. Otherwise I would never have been able to even pay the basics i.e. rent, electric, heat etc., besides childcare cost, necessities for my daughter like clothes, school supplies etc.

I can just imagine in today's economy how much a single mother would have to make to keep up with every bill and be able to furnish the child(ren) with what is needed for say, school, like a pc or laptop.  While I totally agree there should be more programs dealing with child care (without having to give up 1/2 the paycheck) and education (without going into humongous debt), I believe it would take years to accomplish this.  Until then, EITC is all some people have to keep up living arrangements and children's needs that would otherwise be beyond reach.

[phildinftlaudy]

Back when I was a working poor single mother, making just over minimum, even while working I had to rely on welfare for food stamps. Otherwise I would never have been able to even pay the basics i.e. rent, electric, heat etc., besides childcare cost, necessities for my daughter like clothes, school supplies etc.

I can just imagine in today's economy how much a single mother would have to make to keep up with every bill and be able to furnish the child(ren) with what is needed for say, school, like a pc or laptop.  While I totally agree there should be more programs dealing with child care (without having to give up 1/2 the paycheck) and education (without going into humongous debt), I believe it would take years to accomplish this.  Until then, EITC is all some people have to keep up living arrangements and children's needs that would otherwise be beyond reach.

True -
but in its current form, basically a rebate is given 1 time a year..... things like rent, food, child care, gasoline (or bus passes) are everyday expenses... I think it would be a lot more effective to be able to have this money in a person's weekly/bi-weekly check then to have to wait until income tax return time to get it.....

Nothing should be "scrapped" overnight - but I would rather have an effective solution that doesn't make a single mother trying to get by on a daily, weekly, monthly basis have to wait until the end of every year to be able to try to catch up for that year (and then to have to do it all over again).

[denb45]

If your elected President Phillip, can Bob & I get paid and be on your staff, we make good fluffers, and we won't disappoint , I'd be a very happy man to be on your Staff and get PAID so I can get off of disability 

[BT65]

I agree working mothers should have living wage, help with things like child care, education etc.

With a lot of single working mothers in this area, there are shady landlords who will let someone fall behind in rent and catch up once a year.  There are also agencies to help with utility disconnects etc.  Yes, it's frustrating for women to have to survive like this.

Here in Indiana, a single mother (or needy family) can only get TANF (temporary assistance to needy families) for one child and only for a certain time.  And the head of the household has to bring in proof that s/he's applying for jobs.  Any jobs, not jobs making $30,000+/year.  So if the head of household gets a job, it doesn't matter if the job pays minimum wage, the person has got to take the job.  And the TANF stops.  The food stamps may continue, but try to pay child care, utilities, transportation,and personal needs for oneself and the child(ren) on a minimum wage check. 

To get a living wage, it takes education.  That would mean more child care costs, and balancing that + work + taking care of the family + transportation and any extra a pell grant wouldn't cover.  To be honest, most living wage jobs, for families, take a master's, which means student loans.  More debt and more expense.

I agree living wage, but I believe it would take a long time to achieve this, working with someone familiar with the plight of single working mothers, who knows exactly what they have to do to survive, in order to form programs to make it doable.  Great idea, just one that would take a tremendous amount of time and effort.

[phildinftlaudy]

I agree working mothers should have living wage, help with things like child care, education etc.

Great idea, just one that would take a tremendous amount of time and effort.

If I would ever run for office, you would definitely be someone who I would approach to be a Cabinet member - I agree it would take a tremendous amount of time and effort.  Social security required a tremendous amount of time and effort, as did Medicare, and many other programs that arose out of the "war on poverty" and the Great Depression.

I started my social work career out back in 1992, as a Housing Case Manager - helping people with rent assistance, utility assistance, mortgage assistance, etc.

I have also been on the other end - on food stamps back in 2007, and stood in line at food pantries trying to get just a few ingredients to be able to make dinner to eat.

The greatest rewards have come from the greatest efforts and from overcoming what seem to be insurmountable odds....

I think that reform of EITC, adjustments (lowering) of corporate tax rate, while at the same time going to a flat tax and eliminating loop holes would pay great dividends that would allow the working poor to earn a living wage; have incentives for employers to pay for advanced education for employees, as well as child care....

A cost/benefit analysis would easily show the savings that would be achieved, a substantial increase in tax base, and - most importantly, the benefits to human capital.

A simplified example:

A single mother of just one child working 40 hours a week at $8.00 an hour = $16,640 a year with no taxes paid (as a result of EITC). Instead she gets back around $3,200. If we were to assume that she was receiving a static EITC based on no increase in income over an 14 year period or that the EITC adjusted slightly due to some small increases in income - over this period she would have received approximately $44,800 in refunds with, in essence, no tax paid.

Because her income is at less than 133% of Federal Poverty Level - she qualifies for food stamps. Assuming approximately $300 month in SNAP (FS) x 12 mos = $3,600/yr x 14 yrs. = $14,400

Childcare subsidy - while she is at work  = approx. $50 week x 52 weeks x 6 years = $15,600

Medicaid insurance coverage (for mother and child)  - based on avg. market premium of $600 mo. x 12 x 14 =  $100,800

Section 8 housing assistance (portion of rent) @ $400 mo. x 12 x 14 yrs = $67,200

Total government outlay over approx. 14 years = $242,800
Her income over same period (conservative estimate) = $232,960
Total taxes she pays = 0
And she still struggles - week to week, check to check - with no hope in sight....

Now, let's try this:
6 years of support and incentives to support her while working and while pursuing a high-skill, high-wage career through education -

A single mother of just one child working 40 hours a week at $8.00 an hour = $16,640 a year with no taxes paid (as a result of EITC). Instead she gets back around $3,200. If we were to assume that she was receiving a static EITC based on no increase in income over an 6 year period or that the EITC adjusted slightly due to some small increases in income - over this period she would have received approximately $19,200 in refunds with, in essence, no tax paid.

Because her income is at less than 133% of Federal Poverty Level - she qualifies for food stamps. Assuming approximately $300 month in SNAP (FS) x 12 mos = $3,600/yr x 6 yrs. = $21,600

Childcare subsidy - while she is at work and school  = approx. $100 week x 52 weeks x 6 years = $31,200

Medicaid insurance coverage (for mother and child)  - based on avg. market premium of $600 mo. x 12 x 6 =  $43,200

Section 8 housing assistance (portion of rent) @ $400 mo. x 12 x 6 yrs = $28,800

Tuition for school @ $9,000 yr. x 6 = $54,000

Total government outlay over approx. 6 years = $198,000
Her income over same period (conservative estimate) = $99,840
Total taxes she pays = 0

But with her high-skill, high-wage career oriented education the next 8 years (that she previously would have been struggling and receiving assistance), she is now working in a career at higher than living wage:

So, let's assume:
$35,000 yr. income x 8 yrs. = $280,000
Total government outlay over 8 years = 0
Total taxes she pays: $42,000

The end result based on the above:

Stay the way we are now:
Her income over 14 years = $232,960
Her taxes paid over 14 years = 0
Total government outlay over 14 years = $242,800

Support w/ career-oriented education:
Her income over 14 years = $379,840
Her taxes paid over 14 years = $42,000
Total government outlay over 14 years = $198,000

And she isn't struggling....
And employers benefit...
And tax revenues increase...
It is a win for everyone.

And keep in mind, these are conservative, quickly figured estimates.

[denb45]

But Phill, how would you fix people like me who are @ 133% to 175% of the FPL, who don't get many services, or much help, who cannot even get Meidcade or QMLB to even pay for that medicare premium...

 would you increase that amount @ the State-level so people like me can live a happy & healthy life who are 55 to 65 yrs old, or older, do we just get lost in the shuffle or do we just slip-thur-the cracks  , and I'm not alone, there are MANY just like me out there

[bocker3]

Here is the problem that will likely always prevent us from being anywhere near "balanced" in our budget.

No matter where you "cut" a service, someone will say, "what about me?"  Whether justifiable or not (who gets to say where is "justifiable" anyway) -- we will never have the revenue to meet the demand.  There will always be more people who want/need a service -- with the argument, "I'm just X% off the cut-off, it's not fair to leave me hanging"

I don't know how we tackle that one -- it seems almost insurmountable, because the bar will always be asked to be raised higher.  Perhaps the answer is something other than the Federal Poverty Level equation.  Let's face it, folks at 133% FPL in NY have a different struggle than someone at 133% FPL in, say, Iowa.
Another option -- getting folks to take what they need, not what "they have coming" or what they want.  Also, not taking anecdotes and applying them broadstroked (that is on both sides, btw).  I know that it does not always take a college degree (and certainly not a Master's degree) to earn a living wage - perhaps in some areas, but not in most.  One may need to take a job they don't particularly care for, but if it pays the bills, well, that is what is required.
I'm not at all unsympathetic to the plight of the poor in the US -- I grew up poor -- my mother often had to choose between a bill being paid or feeding me and my 3 brothers.  I get it -- I also know that there are ways out that don't require a cookie cutter solution and I don't buy, in all instances, that someone can't do it without everything being given to them.  People should have the basics (food, housing, clothes and medical care), the extras are something, I believe, should be earned. 
I suppose some are going to call me a cruel monster, or, worse -- a Republican because of this, but I'm neither.

Mike

[denb45]

Well No, Mike..lol no one will call you that, (I certainly won't) 

 It's a very hard sell ,whatever way it's looked at, you simply cannot please everyone, that the way it is, however, the basics, food, shelter & health care will always be problematic....

  I'm sure none of THIS will be solved and done away with @ least not in my lifetime..........someday it will be tho, as everything comes to a head 

[phildinftlaudy]

But Phill, how would you fix people like me who are @ 133% to 175% of the FPL, who don't get many services, or much help, who cannot even get Meidcade or QMLB to even pay for that medicare premium...

 would you increase that amount @ the State-level so people like me can live a happy & healthy life who are 55 to 65 yrs old, or older, do we just get lost in the shuffle or do we just slip-thur-the cracks  , and I'm not alone, there are MANY just like me out there

Den - first I wouldn't "fix" you  (LOL)
You unfortunately are in that "in between" boat - I have been there too - where I make too much to qualify for this service, but not enough to pay for the service on my own.... thankfully, I was able to get out of that predicament. But, many times I get anxiety that I may end up in that boat again..... which is why I have become so much more fiscally conscious.

I would say that there is no single "magic bullet." As Mike said so well. We will never solve every problem or be able to address every scenario.

However, I do think that there are things that can be done to improve the situation and to provide assistance. Some potential solutions - some of which I have already covered in detail previously, so I will only reference them here:

reform social security - the original model was developed in a time that was much different than the times we live in now - so, a scaled % contribution model would allow for benefits to be adjusted to better fit the person's economic status. Solvency and better tailoring toward the individual would also be strengthened by changes to survivors benefits (previously discussed), more frequent independent medical reviews to address social security (this would improve benefits for those who are disabled, while at the same time assisting those who may be able to return to work to do so - not through the "ticket to work" approach, but a more refined, individually-tailored approach;

implement a flat tax - this will allow for a more equitable system - increase revenues - actually pay for service expansion;

Giving states/localities more control and incentives to provide services to people who are "in the middle," such as yourself.... the benefits of this are greater than the costs of not doing so;

holding religious institutions accountable - what do I mean?  Well, religious institutions are tax-exempt, yet, as we all know very well, they directly try to (and many times successfully) influence federal, state, and local government policy. This is in direct violation of the law regarding tax exempt, religious organizations. The separation of church and state goes both ways. If religious institutions want to lobby and campaign around various issues - and use their "tax exempt" funds to influence the outcomes of elections or government policy, then they should be required to pay their fair share of taxes. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Additionally, with a religious institution located within a mile or two any direction - and benefiting from not paying property taxes, it is time to put the expectation that they will actually contribute to the community (many do this, but there are still too many that only open their doors on Sunday morning, pocket their money, and expect to receive a tax exemption 365 days of the year). Even having a small tax on them would solve the budget woes of most city and county governments - almost overnight.

The increased tax revenue - at a local level - would allow services to be implemented and expanded that directly meet the needs of specific communities and the residents of those communities.

There are a host of other methods that could be investigated and that if implemented, even partially, but in identified bundles could go a long way towards improving the situation of people such as yourself who currently are shut out of some programs, but are stretched to afford the services they need out of their own pocket.

In regards to QMB, have you checked out SLMB as well? 

[denb45]

Well I couldn't be fixed even if I wanted to , I'm too dam old, just an old dawg here, nothing more 

and if I were to go back to work, I wouldn't make more that the working poor..

as I'd have all start over again, and I make more than a person that makes about 10 to12 bucks an hour,

why go back to work and make less, and loose my Teamsters Pension that I worked so hard for.... that just not an option for me health-wise

but thanks for your reply, ( now you know I don't have my new glasses just yet) and these readers really hurt my old-age-eyes 

[BT65]

Here is the problem that will likely always prevent us from being anywhere near "balanced" in our budget.

does not always take a college degree (and certainly not a Master's degree) to earn a living wage - perhaps in some areas, but not in most.  One may need to take a job they don't particularly care for, but if it pays the bills, well, that is what is required.

Easy to say when one has a master's degree and works in a profession one loves.

I never said people should have everything "given" to them.  I believe in working for things one wants.  When I was 16 and got my license, I asked my dad if I could get a car.  He told me that when I got a job and saved the money I could get one.  So my first job, at 16, was working as a nurse's aide in a nursing home.  I've never had any extras handed to me.

Being that I've worked with the homeless, I know people who don't even have the basics-shelter, clothing, well they have food because there are programs where I live that provide free breakfast, lunch and supper.  And a couple times, at the church I worked at, we helped homeless mothers, with children. 

Unless one has been in the situation of being poor and responsible for more than just oneself, which includes not just "knowing someone" who has done that, it's hard to imagine how difficult it could be to try to provide and be able to get just a little profit.  I have a client who is homeless, because he would rather smoke crack with his SSI check than have shelter.  Fine.  But when you're talking about being responsible for a young life, that's a whole other situation.

I never said someone should get to a better living arrangement by having everything given to them.  But I believe that those who have should help those who have not, in order to bring people up to the same level, or at least a more balanced level.  I know in this area, northcentral Indiana, one has to have a master's to earn near the $35,000 example Phil offered.  Unless they can snag a manufacturing job, and remember when Elkhart (the city over from where I live) went belly up due to the sagging economy?  Now manufacturing jobs are a crap shoot.

Real solutions are needed to assist the working poor to get them to the comfort level of working middle class.  Not having everything handed to them, but how to get them in a better position, while making sure they're being self sufficient.  I don't know if I'm making sense.  I certainly don't believe a  person will learn how to be independent and climb the wage ladder if everything is provided with no effort being required.  Working together, and showing people how to get to that better wage, and living situation, and then helping them get those jobs and careers so they can start "earning their own way," and can provide a decent life for themselves and dependents. 

[phildinftlaudy]

Real solutions are needed to assist the working poor to get them to the comfort level of working middle class.  Not having everything handed to them, but how to get them in a better position, while making sure they're being self sufficient. I don't know if I'm making sense.  I certainly don't believe a  person will learn how to be independent and climb the wage ladder if everything is provided with no effort being required.  Working together, and showing people how to get to that better wage, and living situation, and then helping them get those jobs and careers so they can start "earning their own way," and can provide a decent life for themselves and dependents.

^ Exactly...

You nailed it perfectly...... 
This is exactly what needs to happen -
That is why there is no easy solution and multiple strategies need to be used - because once a person has the support and training/education, there also need to be high-skill, high wage jobs to go into.
Any solutions proposed really have to address the needs at both the micro and macro levels....
Which is particularly hard to do - not impossible, but a challenge - because so many times only part of the plan gets implemented.

If only some ingredients are added to a bowl, it is hard to come up with the perfect cake...

This is the problem that the President has faced - and others before (as well as the challenge tomorrow's President will face) ---- getting enough of her/his ideas implemented to really see change occur... 

Betty, you articulated the above so well - it is actually what needs to occur - and there are a lot of policies that have to be put in place (across the board) in order to make it a reality.

Thanks for sharing your insights..... because if one really digests what you just said, it makes the problems and possible solutions much clearer.

[denb45]

Betty you are spot-on  I didn't have a big-time college degree ( only a trade-school one for a Police Officer P.O.S.T State of California) and I only made 32K a yr. 

so it wasn't much after taxes, but, i was able to support myself, put food on the table, pay my car-note, bills and do whatever else I wanted ( keeping within a budget) 

that 32K I made almost 20 yrs. ago would be 42k now
if my math is correct.....

Hugs

Dennis

[mecch]

Tax and spend.

Spend on health care, education, infrastructure - public transportation, especially.

Spend on green energy production using current technologies with Germany as a model.

Brainstorm how to improve post-secondary education and reduce student debt. Stick it to overpriced but average private colleges and universities so they radically change: either fold into their state's universities, or fund better endowments, or fucking close! Ban for-profit education, that is degree-granting, at every level. Federally sponsored payment of student loans to all students completing Bachelors and Masters in Education and working as teachers.

Pursue policies that decrease wealth inequality in the nation.

Redefine drug-related crime, and redefine white-collar crime, and prosecute white-collar crimes.  Aim, radically, for a smaller number of imprisoned Americans and a ethnic mix of prisoners that reflects the ethnic mix of Americans.  Prosecute financial crime.  Decriminalize most drug possession. Create more kinds of "state tutorship" - which cost the same or less than imprisonment, and put more offenders through that, rather than prison.

Decriminalize most drugs, but tax them at the same rate as alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling.   Let big business or anyone, the free market, determine how the business will be done, just all on the up and up. I don't care if its an Anheuser-Busch joint sold in a smoke shop, or a Ralph Lauren brand opium den.

LGBTQIA into Bill of Rights.

Find a way to radically cut military spending.

Do away with Citizens United.

Make it a goal to get quickly out of foreign interventions. Even if the countries face horrible new challenges.

Mandate recognised churches to operate as charities or NPOs. (501C) Should have to publish annual reports, freely available online to the public, listing incomes and all expenses. Members can see if the church is doing the work they want to support. The IRS will have guidelines as to when a church is no longer an NPO and therefore subject to taxes.

Smaller stuff:

Executive order to investigate Church of Scientology, free its prisoners, and rescind its recognition.

Close Gitmo

Eliminate pensions for Senators serving less than 3 terms. For Representatives: 8 terms minimum. Dump the entire Congress out of special health care, as well.

Encourage D.C. to apply for statehood. Encourage P.R. as well.

Eliminate Christmas from the US Federal National Holiday list.

Go out of my way to appoint Americans of Muslim faith to very visible posts in government.   

Stack the Supreme Court.

Mandate 3 weeks minimum, starting, holidays for all US workers. Increase to 4 weeks minimum after 5 years with a company.