Unofficial Off Topic Thread

[Balr14]

You can bash FOX news all you want, (I don't watch anymore since they fired Tucker), but history is the real barometer of news worthiness. FOX has been right on way more than the alternative at about a 90/10 split. If not more. Any fact check site you can link has been bought and paid for the skew the results to what they want you to believe. If you deny the facts that history proves to you, then you can't be helped.

Case in point, CNN was 100% wrong on "Russia Collusion" and FOX was right. Of course, when FOX was calling it a witch hunt, there were people all over the net saying, "Oh you can't believe FOX news", but turns out, FOX was telling the truth. On top of that, it turned out that Hillary was the one colluding with Russia. You can probably Cherry pick any major story out there and FOX was hitting the nail on the head while CNN and MSNBC lied their asses off.

History as seen with your own eyes lets you know if you're on the right side or not.

Therein lies the problem. We believe different realities. I don't think that will ever be fixed.

Sponsored

 

[526 HRSE]

Therein lies the problem. We believe different realities. I don't think that will ever be fixed.

Pick a major new story. Russia? Trayvon? Michael Brown? George Floyd? Spying on Trump campaign, January 6th? Pick one.

 

[sk47]

Therein lies the problem. We believe different realities. I don't think that will ever be fixed.

Hello; There is only one reality. May be lots of opinions. A recent example after i posted hopes the 2017 tax cuts will not be allowed to expire this year. Someone on here posted to the effect that I was wanting a "handout" which would be short term as best I recall. The thing is the reality being the money we who work have earned is already ours. A tax cut simply means the government get to take less away from us. If I have earned $1000 and under the old tax code the government got to take $200, then under the new tax code (tax cut) the government taxes only $150 such is not a "handout" for us who earned the money. That $50 difference is in no way a handout to the wage earner. That wage earner already had the money.

Same goes for the so called other "realities" or I suspect a similar thing when I hear someone saying some such is "my truth". As if somehow, we each get to remodel the world at our convenience. A truth is many of us never bought into the play on words. I never fell for the "woke" stuff myself. I knew there were two genders all along and like it or not we are stuck with the one we are born with.

How to tell if someone is male or female. Works for teenagers and older. Go stand next to a wall. Put the toe of one foot so it touches the wall. Place the other foot directly behind the foot touching the wall with the toe touching the heel. Then move the first foot away from the wall and directly behind the second foot with the toe touching the heel. (you are now three heel to toe foot lengths from the wall) Once the distance is determined, (three foot sized lengths) have both feet side by side about shoulder width apart.
Now lean forward with forehead touching the wall. Have a light weight chair close by so you can get it. Hold the chair in the air with both hands and try to straighten up with the chair in your hands without pushing off.

Women can do it. Men cannot.

 

[Skye]

Someone on here posted to the effect that I was wanting a "handout" which would be short term as best I recall.

It was me.

Directly and indirectly, I've enjoyed the deficit spending of the federal government all my life; it's been subsidizing my standard of living. The dollars being inserted into the US economy by the federal government over and above what it has been taking in has decreased my expenses and given me the potential to keep more. Unfortunately, there's a cost associated with that.

I realize not everyone will agree.

 

[Skye]

I've been doing some deep dives into a few topics this morning. I'll attempt to summarize that.

For everything in this post, I'd encourage everyone to review their state programs on these topics.

Anyone applying for a Social Security Card needs to identify themselves in some way. With respect to illegals, before applying for a card, they are first required to register at the Department of Homeland Security. Laws specific to illegals registering go back as far as the 1940s.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10096.pdf

If an illegal shows up at the Social Security Administration today, Customer Service will point them to DHS. At the DHS, there are different programs for registration. Eligible workers, sponsored, refugees, etc. As part of the process, people are fingerprinted, photos taken, etc. With that accomplished, someone can then return to SSA and request a card. The DHS data is then tied to the Social Security Card.

From that, the DHS, IRS and SSA each have methods of tracking individuals.

Illegals don't have to do any of the above; they don't necessarily need a SSN#, state or federal benefits. There's the underground economy. People work for cash and are paid under the table. I can't say how many people there are. I didn't study that (yet).

How many people have multiple cards? I found one study, from 2019. It lists less than 200 people that were given multiple cards.

https://oig-files.ssa.gov/audits/full/A-08-18-50472.pdf

Are there people going around with multiple cards? I'm sure there are, citizens and illegals alike. Again, I did not study this specific aspect of these programs today. In my state, people applying for assistance will be cross-checked in different systems mentioned above. Simply showing up with a card is a non-starter. Other information is required.

With card in-hand, the benefits begin rolling in, right? No. While the federal programs are available, states have their own requirements. For example, in my state, children and pregnant women could be eligible for Medicaid, regardless of citizenship. Continuing to focus on illegals, males, women and children over the age of 18 are not.

Rental Assistance? Generally, no. Citizens, if they were working before, met income and asset requirements, can receive temporary assistance, 12-18 months. Afterwards, all benefits stop, for two years.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), aka Food Stamps. Medicaid recipients, maybe. Others, no.

Subsidized Communications Services, aka Obamaphone.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers

This program was established in the 1980s. As communications devices and services change, the program is adjusted. Available to all if certain requirements are met. Involves one phone with certain restrictions, and/or subsidized internet. If eligible for one of the above programs, you could receive an Obamaphone. Once clear of those programs, this benefit, like the others, stop.

That's a very broad and general synopsis of what's possible in my state. Others might be more generous. Or less. Being eligible for one program does not necessarily make one eligible for all. Most references in my state define benefit eligibility, citizen and non-citizen, how long available, etc.

Setting that aside, there are several national, state and local charity organizations. Shelters, food banks, access to phone, Internet and legal services. These groups have nothing to do with the government. It's all funded from personal and corporate donations, money or assets. Some states have more established programs and networks than others. Most don't know or care who you are. Show up, discuss what's an offer and possibly receive assistance.

To get a clearer sense of any of these programs, study them within your state. Most state departments are good at posting this information, often in great detail. It's not just the federal government, an all-or-nothing system for anyone who asks for assistance. Each state will have their own relationship with the national programs, and often ultimately decide who receives what.

Edit,

A plausible scenario for someone accessing these programs, illegal or not, are the working poor, often minimum wage workers. While they work, pay taxes, etc., if healthcare and other benefits are offered at all, they're often so expensive there wouldn't be enough left over to cover rent, vehicle or other expenses. IF they meet the income requirements, they could apply to any of the state or federal programs.

 

[Skye]

First example is a man I have known for decades. He took over his father's business of being a middleman for retail furniture stores. Not sure of the actual title of the job. He made very good money all his life. Has a large three-story house on several acres of land outside of Louisville KY. Somehow, he has been able to get on Medicaid for years now.

You'd need to check with your state and eligibility requirements. I can think of several scenarios involving asset transfers, income, trusts, people with disabilities, etc.

Medicaid is primarily interested in cash on-hand and income, not assets. Medicaid cannot force someone to sell their house or other assets to fund their healthcare. But states will put liens on those assets and the estate. And be first in-line to recover those funds at the person's passing or item (home, land, business, etc.). As the estate settles and closes, the coroner, estate lawyer and court will all be involved in certifying the death of the individual and opening the estate up for claims by the state and federal government.

At the low end, an everyday American with virtually no income and no cash, but living in a house, can request Medicaid. At their passing, the state and government will bring forward their claim to recover funds.

At the upper end, someone with means could transfer virtually everything to other family members, if done five years or more before Medicaid is sought. The IRS is aware of this statute and sometimes scrutinizes people making transfers, then claiming to be "poor".

Disability claims are a whole other issue, which I have not studied.

It's a complicated topic involving state and federal statutes, the IRS tax code and lawyers. But either scenario would not be unheard of. In fact, the former is quite common. To the less fortunate, they can live in their home until passing. To the well-off, they can use it as a means to potentially reduces expenses and transfer estate assets in the most efficient way possible.

 

[sk47]

It was me.

Directly and indirectly, I've enjoyed the deficit spending of the federal government all my life; it's been subsidizing my standard of living. Unfortunately, there's a cost associated with that.

I realize not everyone will agree.

Hello; Interesting admission. First let me ask again if you still consider the tax break I and others have gotten the last few years to be a "handout"???

Based on your above post it appears you have found ways to cash in on the deficit spending of the federal government, perhaps at the expense of others. The post is cryptic and leaves much to the imagination. Please explain more directly and concisely this comment. How has such worked for you?

The dollars being inserted into the US economy by the federal government over and above what it has been taking in has decreased my expenses and given me the potential to keep more.

Hello; Also what is your take of the associated cost?

 

[Skye]

Based on your above post it appears you have found ways to cash in on the deficit spending of the federal government, perhaps at the expense of others. The post is cryptic and leaves much to the imagination. Please explain more directly and concisely this comment. How has such worked for you?

I can give some examples:

- A large enterprise enjoys a favorable tax environment, with some of its employees on food stamps. That lowers the company's costs. As a shareholder, I receive a greater amount of profits

- Someone who is eligible for and receives Medicaid allows me to pay less for private insurance

- An oil firm receiving a subsidy for maintaining a previously developed field. Gas is cheaper at the pump

There are countless others.

If the GOV is spending more than it is taking in, it is stimulating the economy over and above what would otherwise occur. We all benefit as a result. It involves the multiplier effect. Most of us spend much more than we save. For example, people spend 95 cents of each dollar received, while saving 5 cents. As those direct and indirect funds change hands several times over, the effect is much greater.

The expense of others is current and future generations.

Hello; Also what is your take of the associated cost?

The national debt.

People will not accept those comments. I get it. IDK what else I could say.

Have a Good Morning Everyone.

 

[sk47]

Medicaid is primarily interested in cash on-hand and income, not assets. Medicaid cannot force someone to sell their house or other assets to fund their healthcare. But states will put liens on those assets and the estate. And be first in-line to recover those funds at the person's passing or item (home, land, business, etc.). As the estate settles and closes, the coroner, estate lawyer and court will all be involved in certifying the death of the individual and opening the estate up for claims by the state and federal government.

At the upper end, someone with means could transfer virtually everything to other family members, if done five years or more before Medicaid is sought. The IRS is aware of this statute and sometimes scrutinizes people making transfers, then claiming to be "poor".

t's a complicated topic involving state and federal statutes, the IRS tax code and lawyers. But either scenario would not be unheard of. In fact, the former is quite common. To the less fortunate, they can live in their home until passing. To the well-off, they can use it as a means to potentially reduces expenses and transfer estate assets in the most efficient way possible.

Hello; You respond to my post about a well to do man on Medicaid. I do not doubt you are correct about the avenues the well off can take to get health car benefits at the expense of others. The fellow I knew had a good financial life from childhood to old age. Expensive homes, cars, vacations and all. Then manages to be on Medicaid as an old man. He will game the system even after his passing as he does not have any children. So in a sense even if his physical assets are taken after he dies, there is no emotional skin off his back.

I knew another man who was seriously ill. He transferred all his property to his only son. His plan was to live the required number of years so the state cannot take the property back from the son. Do not know if he made it as I moved away 15 years ago. May not have mattered too much as the son was become a lawyer.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Also what is your take of the associated cost?

The national debt.

Hello; Perhaps we have an example of costs associated with the massive national debt. Just days ago, the final holdout rating agency which had the USA at AAA did lower that rating.

‘Sell America’ is back on after a massive debt warning

 

[526 HRSE]

Your answer is in your statement

 

[526 HRSE]

I can give some examples:

- A large enterprise enjoys a favorable tax environment, with some of its employees on food stamps. That lowers the company's costs. As a shareholder, I receive a greater amount of profits

- Someone who is eligible for and receives Medicaid allows me to pay less for private insurance

- An oil firm receiving a subsidy for maintaining a previously developed field. Gas is cheaper at the pump

There are countless others.

If the GOV is spending more than it is taking in, it is stimulating the economy over and above what would otherwise occur. We all benefit as a result. It involves the multiplier effect. Most of us spend much more than we save. For example, people spend 95 cents of each dollar received, while saving 5 cents. As those direct and indirect funds change hands several times over, the effect is much greater.

The expense of others is current and future generations.



The national debt.

People will not accept those comments. I get it. IDK what else I could say.

Have a Good Morning Everyone.

You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. This comes off as if you don't have kids and are not worried about their future.

 

[sk47]

Uncle Sam’s biggest creditor faces a fiscal crisis ‘worse than Greece’ as its borrowing costs hit 20-year high
Hello; Thinly veiled warning of the dire consequences of such a huge national debt. not just the USA with these crushing debts. Not as tho warning cries have not been shouted loud and long for decades. There have been such warnings at all levels. From low standing private citizens such as myself to career politicians (Rand Paul comes to mind) to financial experts. Those voices have largely been ignored or even shouted down. A thing is this most recent credit rating downgrade will not be ignored.

I am old and do receive SS. With my other incomes I have to pay taxes on my SS benefits. While i like the idea of not having to include my SS income on the yearly tax report, I could continue to pay. While my continued paying tax on my SS will not put me in a poor house, I do resent the continued waste of taxpayer monies.
It is not like the new DOGE reports are exactly a bolt out of the blue. I and any other who pay attention have know of the waste for a long time. Often after the underhanded omnibus spending bills get passed by the house & senate we get readings of "pork" stuffed into the bills. Always some disgusting spending approved by our elected officials.
Of course, DOGE is casting sunlight on a different sort of spending waste. The pork in spending bills, however disgusting, has the dubious honor of being a legal sort of theft. DOGE is finding additional and ongoing corruptions on top of the "pork".

As Skye tried to characterize it, my wish a continuation of tax cuts, he calls a "handout". Near as I can figure after a recent exchange of posts is he resents my wanting to deprive the government of extra monies taken from my pockets. I suppose the additional extra funds could make it more for him to take advantage of. I await his answer on this. Perhaps a clever new "reality".

Some years ago, years before 2016, I had long verbal discussions with a fellow i went to high school with. Among the topics was a question I brought up often. Basically, I asked about out of control spending. His answer had odd parts. Something he called "modern monetary theory". It is based on the US dollar being the fiat currency of the world if I understood him. That any amount of dollars can be printed, as needed, without limit. I thought he must be nuts but later on heard the same sort of guff from an authority. That is just one screwy aspect.

 

[K4fxd]

If the GOV is spending more than it is taking in, it is stimulating the economy over and above what would otherwise occur. We all benefit as a result. It involves the multiplier effect. Most of us spend much more than we save. For example, people spend 95 cents of each dollar received, while saving 5 cents. As those direct and indirect funds change hands several times over, the effect is much greater.

Wow, just wow. SMH

 

[Skye]

You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. This comes off as if you don't have kids and are not worried about their future.

Guilty. I readily admit I am part of the problem. I am concerned, that we are on the precipice of something with one foot over the edge.

I was asked how I'm the one benefitting from all the increased spending at others' expense, and attempted to provide some examples.

I genuinely do not believe the next generation will enjoy an economy the standard of living we have. It's not something I'm proud of.

Decades ago, when we did deficit spend, it was when the economy was in a recession, there was a large, national need, a war, etc. And later, we dialed that back down. Sometimes, we actually had a national debt tax. Unfortunately, deficit spending became routine. We are not alone. Several other developed nations are experiencing same problems we are. We're a little bit behind Japan and the UK, but ahead of France and Italy.

Times past, it might have been easy to change a few things and make some difficult choices. Now, it's much more significant. It's no longer a simple matter of cutting things we can do without. Now, we need meaningful structural reform that will impact all of us. Me, you, everyone else here. And future generations.

It's not longer a simple matter of trimming a few billion or tens of billions. It's trillions. Trillions+ when you factor in future Social Security and Medicare outlays, to say the least.

Pairing back Medicaid and stopping all benefits to illegals could certainly have some positive effects. But I'm afraid the problem is too large. Way to big.

Specific to the comments on Social Security cards, that's one study I could find. I was hoping to locate some more recent data, and could not. I was not attempting to be flippant. I would like to see better security and enforcement. There's legislation circulating to improve verification measures, stop fraud quicker, etc. That's going to take some money upfront to implement, but money well spent. But with respect to GOV spending as a whole it is only one piece.

Regarding the underground economy, I'd need to read up on that. And, include everything not being reported to the state revenue offices and the IRS. How much could be gained by better scrutiny and enforcement? Estimated dollar amounts, IDK. The program the IRS has had does look promising. The additional revenue received was paying for the program several times over. Trillions? No. Billions or tens of billions? Quite possibly. And that's just at the federal level. States could enjoy any additional as well.

We've got some real problems. If they were so easy to fix, someone would have done so and taken credit for it by now. What I'm most concerned about is the nation as a whole cannot agree on what the problem is, what path to take.

Sponsored