We're such spoiled folks in this country. Even our poor are rich by the rest of the world's standards. Don't believe me? Check out this story out from www.nj.com:
Bush Releases $100 Million to Help Poor Pay Cooling Bills



Edited to add working link: Bush Releases $100 Million to Help Poor Pay Cooling Bills

That is ridiculous. Why do I, as a tax payer, have to pay poor people's bills?

I like how the article says "released". He "released" the money. He freed the money from it's captors, the federal government.

Maybe if the government collected less taxes, these people could afford their own utility bills, and the government wouldn't have to give them my money.

Or maybe the President should recognize that air conditioning is a luxury, and if you don't have it, well, too bad for you.

Mike

When I moved away from home all I took with me was the cloths on my back, a change of undies and 100 dollars. Granted that I had some good friends that let me live with them (expecting me to come up with rent) but I honestly hand nothing. Not at any moment did the thought enter my head…”oh maybe I should get some government money to get by.” I worked, I worked at a corn dog stand in the mall, at a local frozen food packing plant. The bottom line is that I went out and worked…for me to hear that I now have to support people who don’t have a job because they are lazy, stupid or both makes me so mad. What ever happened to achieving the American Dream through blood sweat and tears? What ever happened to hard work? Why is it now that people expect? When did the nation founded on the basis that Americans can achieve anything turn into a welfare state?

You have to pay their bills because you need to learn sensitivity. You evil little conservative. How damned heartless can you be?

Oh, I'm sensitive to their needs.

Like their need to get a job, their need to get an air conditioner, and their need to pay for the electricity to run that air conditioner.

Mike

Electricty? Electricity is evil. They sould live on communal farms and work for their keep...

How about we use them for medical research?
















Sorry, that was mean.

Mike

Don’t you dare call us heatless conservatives. Us conservatives are the only people who think they can amount to anything anyway. Sure we might use “tough love” but it’s a heck of a lot better than encouraging their cycle of poverty by giving the homeless a “new shopping cart” like so many liberal groups do in San Francisco.

I know that they can do it…if the guy that sits outside the taco bell here by us would actually walk into taco bell and say I need a job I bet they would give him one. (after a series of baths in bleach) I care about the poor, I care so much that I am encouraging them to become un-poor.

Where I live their are quite a lot of people begging on corners. Once I gave one of these financially challenged individuals an application for the Burger King down the street instead of money. . . . I wouldn't suggest doing that, to anyone else. It really makes them angry

-Kisov

I know this is racial profiling and I should be convicted of a hate crime for classifying people into racial categories, but I thing it shows a lot about the race by who you see begging.

I live in Southern California, I being white am the minority, but I NEVER see Mexican beggars, Indian beggars or Asian beggars, all I ever see are white and black beggars, (with the occasional American Indian). Just shows how those cultures, although not always in the best of situation are always willing to work to get their due rather than get a hand out.

Don’t get me wrong there are too many of ALL races asking for hand outs, but I see less from all but blacks and whites. It seems the longer your culture has been in America the more you feel you are owed.

Wow! I never noticed that before, but drmarcs might be on to something. The only people I see begging are white, at least that is where I live. Maybe they think they are too good to work at a fast food joint or hard labor jobs.

-Kisov

Come east & see people of all colors begging on the streets!

OK, at least the places I've been.

Washington D.C. is the worst. It is shameful how bad the homeless problem is in our nation's capital. The beggars in D.C. are agressive, too, which takes them beyond annoying and into dangerous.

My city recently decided to enforce panhandling laws in the downtown "historical district." Sure, this problem was solved downtown - the bums just moved outisde the historic district and into my neighborhood.

So what solutions are there? Should we even bother?

The solution is to stop encouraging them. Soup kitchens, hand outs, welfare, and homeless shelters are all reasons why its ok to be homeless. You got food, money and shelter waiting for you courtesy of the government. Take it all away, there should be no long term safety net. Short term…yes we all have our down times… but these people make a life out of getting something for free. I know that solution is just cruel, but I have been a volunteer at the homeless shelter. These people get upset if what you are serving them (for free) is not what they want.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Give a man a fish 5 days in a row and I bet he keeps coming back for his fish…

It seems we have gone from energy bill paying to the homeless. As concervative as I am (believe me I am) there are some good reasons for being homeless... some are mentally ill. These deserve our pity and our help. I do not believe we should give them hand outs on the street because it enables them to spend money on alcohol or whatever. Shelters and feeding them is only humanitarian. NO MONEY! From these places perhaps jobs could be found for them or medical help. They should come from the private sector and not the government.
Getting back to the energy thing.Like dmarcs my husband and I started with absolutely nothing, but we worked hard, and he finished his education. Many a night and day we were in 90+ degree weather with humidity you wouldn't believe. We survived as many did before air conditioning. Again, temper this with looking out for the infirmed and very elderly. My point is everything is not black and white.
[S

Nettie.
How would this be accomplished? Not so much the food and shelter, there are churches and other
orginizations that provide temporary food and shelter. I'm not so sure about long term.

My biggest concern is the mentally ill. I know there are doctors that donate time to free
clinics, but they are overworked, and the clinics overcrowded. As you probably know, it is not always
easy to diagnose a specific mental illness because of the overlap in the symptoms of mental illinesses
. It's not as if there is one medicine to hand out for all mental illnesses. (no sarcasm intended)
Many times it's a trial and error until the right combination of meds is found.

Then there is the follow up. People often wonder why those suffering from a mental illness don't
take their meds. It's not that simple. Often, meds have horrible side affects. Sometimes they
disappear after a while and other times other meds have to be substituted. Sometimes the ill
person is so depressed he can barely function, let alone take his meds on his own.

If a mentally ill person has no family, they become street people and will more than
likely end up in prison. One way or another we are going to spend money on them.
It can be through government programs that offer treatment in meds and counseling
or we can support them in prison. I have no objection to help from the private sector
but I don't see how it could work. Another option is private insurance, but no one wants
to insure the mentally ill.

Mentall illnesses are treatable, some more than others. People might be surprised at how
many mentally ill people they, unknowly, deal with every day. They are in all professions.
Your doctor or your banker might have a manageable mental illness.

One last thing. Schools are now watching for signs of MI and this is so important becasue
an early diagnosis will protect the child from years of suffering that usually causes
behavioral and emotional problems.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with anything you've posted here, Madtown, concerning mental illness....

I was wondering if you think we should subsidize low income people's air conditioning bills?

Or now that the cold weather is setting in, do we subsidize their heat?

I was unable to read the article you were referring to,but I do remember that there was concern about older people and very young people who could not tolerate the very hot temperatures. Many low income people live in housing developments where they are afraid to open their windows. Like you, I also lived for many years without air conditioning, but I have always lived in the midwest where it is usually not hot for long stretches at a time.

I believe utility companies offer year round payments to make it easier for customers to pay their heating bills. Also customers are able to contribute each month toward the heating bills of low income customers if they so desire. Maybe the wealthy should start paying their fair share of taxes. Maybe someone should let utility companies know that they don't have a god given right to earn x amount of profit each year at the expense of the poor. But,I guess that wouldn't sit well with the stockholders. Thank goodness that , at least here in Wisconsin, utility companies are not allowed to turn off anyones heat during the winter months.

I don't know the answer to this problem, but I do know that children and the elderly are involved and we can't just let them freeze. I don't think we can depend on help from that portion of the private sector that really can afford to contribute because they would rather buy $6000.00 shower curtins.
Some, will say these people are lazy, etc. and deserve no help and of course, that is a good way to shrug off guilt.

Right on Madtown. I whole heartedly agree with everything you say. I would much rather my tax money go into helping the homeless, than to building bombs, and researching an outdated missle defense system. People seem to think that welfare is draining our tax money, when the culprit is really military spending and corporate welfare.

As for the private sector dealing with the mentally ill, how many people would actually be helping? Because there are plenty of churches, shelters etc, that are donating time and money into helping the mentally ill/homeless, yet the problem still persists. I think it is time that the government actually offered some sort of solid solution for its citizens. If there was a universal healthcare program, is it impossible to think that maybe there would be less sick people out on our streets? There would institutions for them, or their families would be able to help and cover medical costs. Alot of those who are homeless are also Vietnam Veterans, suffering from psychiatric collapse. Is this how we reward those who served our country, by letting them freeze and starve in the streets (they're obviously just too lazy to get a job)?

I have to agree drmarcs we need to stop encouraging them. These people decided themselves to be homeless. They were the ones weho decided not to out and find a new job when they lost theirs. I know that it is not that easy but it is pretty easy. All you have to do is go a soup kitchen get a meal, get a shower and shave, look presentable and go look. It is their faults they did not finish high school, or go to college. There is plenty of help out there if they wanted to go to college or get their GED. Why should we help them, is our tax money not enough. Personaly i don't think the money that i make should go to someone who is not working or has a lousy job. To the mother out their who is 18 with 2 kids and works at a fast food place"I'm sorry but that is just to tough, you should have worn protection." We al make mistakes in life and we have to pay for them, so now u are paying urs, as well as the rest of the poverty stricken. I came from a single parent household, i know how hard it is but you have to try to succeed and i don't see much trying.

"You should have worn protection"?! So because she made the mistake, her kids should suffer needlessly? That is unfair and repulsive. Do you really think it is feasible for a good family to grow if they have a mother working 60+ hours a week at 5.15 an hour? Do you think that provides any adequate standard of living? In Colorada (where I live.) rent for a one bedroom apartment is about $600 dollars, plus phone and electricity (but maybe those kids and that woman dont really need electricity).HOW is she going to be able to support two children? Especially if they are under the age of 15, because she should be home parenting them, and not working. Exactly how does your "sorry them's the breaks" attitude help anyone at all? Do you really think children, or anyone deserves to live in poverty?

Also youre magical, "They should go to college" isnt going to apply to this imaginary family. How is she able to afford college and raising kids, when there is no one around to help her? There are plenty of women and children that want to better themselves, but the high cost of tuition and living expenses prevent them from breaking out the poverty cycle.

Also, its not everyone's fault they are poor. Most people do not "choose" to be poor. I dont know if you realize that, but sometimes ###### things just happen. Its incredibly difficult to find a decent job right now (I should know, I got laid off of one job and now work three days a week at two different places simply to make enough money to get by) Its not always because people are "lazy" that they can not get a job. It isnt because there is someone lacking an education (there are more and more graduates who are forced to work menial 6.00 jobs at Starbucks). In fact, I would say that most people are poor because they are mentally ill, or they have fallen on hard times, not because they simply want to "get rich" off the welfare system. You need to step into reality and see that helping people is more important than bitching about them.

I just want to add that people who have children also have to shoulder the high cost of daycare in addition to their daily living expenses. For someone working a minimum wage job, this is next to impossible. A lot of these women end up on welfare for this very reason, and it's a very difficult cycle to break. Help from outside sources can help some of these people rise above their current situations.

Having said that, I don't think that the government should shoulder the cost of air conditioning because it truly is an unecessary expense, but I do think that they should assist with necessary expenses to help people become productive members of society. It's to the benefit of the entire system to help get people off of the streets.

NEWS RELEASE
HOUSE REPUBLICANS ACT TO RELEASE EMERGENCY HEATING FUNDS FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES

ST. PAUL - - House Republicans take the lead on emergency legislation to authorize the release of almost $12.2 million of federal funds for emergency heating assistance. House File 421 was introduced and passed on the House floor Monday, January 29, 2001.


"The money has already been authorized by the federal government and designated for Minnesota families," said Rep. Dan McElroy (R-Burnsville). "But we need to authorize its release to prevent families from being cut off from power before February 13."





Of course your original target was not available any longer, but I thought the above was of interest since it spoke of federal money. How much of this goes on in the other states for either air conditioning or heat do you think?

Sorry Kim, I know you're new around here, but I have to take issue with most of what you said, and by default with most of what Madtown said on October 15.

I understand everyone's desire to help poor people. We'd all like to help everyone we can.

But prioritizing social programs over defense is the exact reason we should not subsidize these poor individuals.

If it wasn't for our seemingly outlandish defense spending levels, September 11th would have been much, much worse. Events like that would occur much more often. We need a big military. We need the best military.

If we do not have national security, we do not have a secure economy. With no secure economy, who pays for these poor people?

In regards to your comments about the mentaly ill, and your keen injection of the "universal healthcare" plan, I ask you this: Have you ever been to the DMV? Ok, now imagine that, but for healthcare.

"...life, liberty, an annual physical, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Who are we kidding here? Any government attempt at nationalized healthcare is doomed for failure. As Americans, we feel we are entitled to the best of everything. Why would we draw a line with healthcare? Got cancer? Uncle Sam will cover your chemotherapy. Brain tumor? No problem. Obese? Let's tie that stomach. After all, it is your right just because you were born on our chunk of the earth.

You went on to say in another post:



Nobody thinks anyone deserves poverty. While not agreeing with iwcnfalahpour's comments, there are consequences to decisions we make. If someone makes mistakes, why should the federal government reward them?

People seeking benefits from the government to raise their kids should be forced to live at the minimum standard of living. No TV, no cable, no luxuries of any kind. Air conditioning is a luxury. It is entirely possible to have a "good family" with the bare essentials. After all, it is not about the things, it is about family.



She can get a student loan. She can take night school when her family is available to watch her children. Or she can provide the best tools for her children so they can break out of the "poverty cycle". Maybe her opportunities have passed.



Of course people do not choose to become poor, but in America, people who remain poor choose to remain poor. There is plenty of opportunity left in the land of opportunity.

Mike

She can get a student loan. She can take night school when her family is available to watch her children. Or she can provide the best tools for her children so they can break out of the "poverty cycle". Maybe her opportunities have passed.


Mike-What do we do about those Vietnam Vets and mentally ill wondering the streets homeless? Why are the mentally ill homeless anyway? Because Reagan closed the institutions that took care of them. Don't kid yourself, you will spend money on these unfortunate people, one way or another. You'll pay for their jail stays when they're arrested for small crimes. You'll pay for the detox (sp) centers where they end up quite often. For some you'll pay to support them for years in prison. There are better and more humane, and less expensive ways to help these people and I think you know what they are.

She could go to night school when family is availabe to watch her children? What if she has no family? I'm not even sure she could get a student loan. How much better to give her some temporary help so she could learn some skills and become independent. That way she would become a worthwhile contributing citizen who could take care of her children.

I think that giving to the homeless is good. I think if you have money, you should give willingly. In the long run you will be rewarded.

I agree bthomas. Willingly is the key word. The government should not force us to give.

Why do the United States provide money for other countries poor and needy?

This is ridiculous. I understand the need to maintain a military, but to spend over 40% (im not sure of the actual percentage) on our military budget is ridiculous. We need to MAINTAIN a military, not rebuild one. And I dont see how 9/11 would have been worse, since no military personnel came to the rescue during the attacks. We were taken by surprise and no amount of military spending will have stopped it. We arent really at war with anyone (unless we are counting the war on terrorism and the war on drugs, which I hardly do. They are both fighting a faceless enemy, and the threat seems more abstract) and there are people in this country who truly need the help, as opposed to keeping up the image of the "best military." No other country spends as much on our military as we do, because it isnt necessary. There comes a point when having a huge military will be seen as offensive, instead of defensive.

That being said, why are spending money on a supposed threat when there are literally millions of people who are starving, cold, hungry and without much shelter or clothing? That is where the real problem lies. Why not put 25 billion into helping defeat poverty, that still would leave us with 225 billion dollars on precious homeland security.

Also, youre little fantasy of having the hypothetical family we are referring to, go to night school is ludicrous. Lets say she works 40 hours a week, gets some student loans and goes to night school at least 12 hours a week (because to qualify for student loans she will have to go to school at least half time), she will not be spending time raising her family. She will spend over four years trying to get a degree, work to support her two kids, and NOT RAISE THEM. Either way its a lose lose situation, she either works 40+ (and the truth is, she may well work 60 to 80 hours a week) at 5.15, so she wont be on welfare, and can provide food and shelter. Will she be able to afford day care? Do you think her job would even offer it? So her kids are alone for a good portion of the day, possibly all day. Or she can go to school, but its pretty much the same cycle. She works 40+ hours a week, goes to community college at night and her kids are STILL LEFT ALONE. Which means she will not be able to endow her children with any tools, because she working to keep them alive.

It is hardly "rewarding" someone to let them have some money to live. No one gets rich off welfare. A better solution is to allow for welfare to either support a mother or father going to school (ie, having it count as work credits, since most welfare plans require you to actively seek out a job) Or, let those same people with kids, only work part-time so they will be able to raise their childern properly. When the kid become teenagers, they will be able to be by themselves, and then the mother or father (or both) can go back and work full time. It is a fact that kids grow up better if they have a parent around most of the time. (There are plenty of awful career motivated baby boomer parents, and look at their kids today....You know what Im saying.)

People respond better when they are encouraged and helped, instead of left in a gutter to fester for their "mistakes."

2.0532 Trillion

That's the number for which you are looking.

I'd recommend you check out your bugetary figures. You can find them here.

Of that 2.0532 trillion, we spent about 331 billion on defense. Compare that to the 459 billion spent on health and human services.

So we are not spending 60% of our budget on defense, we are spending 16.1%.



We did. We increased HHS spending by $32,569,000,000 from FY2000-FY2001.



Please reread my comment:





No one gets American rich from welfare. But every welfare recipient is being "rewarded", and they are getting rich off of welfare. Just not American rich.

Mike

Please, the Heritage foundation? They are a conservative think tank, I went and DL acrobat reader (turns out theres the "easy dowload one that doesnt take two hours. So Im stupid.) and went to http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2002/maindown.html
It says that National Defense spending is 325 billion dollars, while only 109 million goes into education (K-12, theres more on post secondary schools and student loans), 505 million goes into "promoting families" 64 million to strenghthen the roles of fathers, 1.1 billion into for assisting the elderly, 193 billion into health. You can see where all the money goes to.

And I couldnt find anything about welfare, the documents are a little scattered. There are tables that say it refers to things in the "millions" in which national defense was 326,000 million and unemployment was 2600 million (I rounded the numbers off).

The government currently spends 17% on defense and 13% on welfare projects. The breakdown is:

7% Medicaid
2% Subsidized housing
1% Food stamps
1% Earned income tax credit
1% TANF family support (Welfare)
1% Other nutrition programs, including school lunches

The highest percentage is Medicaid. Judging from the other threads on the forum, I think that we all agree that healthcare needs to be reformed. We just don't agree on how.

The remainder totals 6%. That, in my opinion, is very low. If people want to be angry about how their taxes are being spent, I can understand that, but there are much greater expenditures that are eating up your taxes.

I pulled my budget figures from this site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/guide.html

I acquired the breakdown here:
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfil...welfare&list=17