The government should cut significantly spending on welfare

The welfare programs available to the American population are antiquated at best. When you consider welfare as a whole you must include the employees that the government has determined it will take to manage the various programs. Those individuals are often paid exorbitant salaries to push pencils all day long and currently to learn new programs on a computer that they should know how to operate from day one. We have been using technology in all of our systems for some time; any individuals employed with the social welfare facilities nationwide should have the education to at least operate a computer, most do not. That said, when I referenced the $59 billion in the previous round I was using only the programs that you speak of, food stamps and the like. There are a great many programs available to individuals that far exceed those we were initially debating. The elderly are a tremendous burden on the taxpayers, they currently represent 12.9% of the general population (http://www.aoa.gov...). Furthermore we must consider disabled Americans, people whom cannot work or perhaps those that can but won"t, they represent 19% of the roles (http://www.ssa.gov...). The total welfare deficit against the national debt is more like $800 billion when you consider everything (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...). The "large" spending on welfare is due to antiquated programs, young women being allowed to have more children than they can support, people claiming disabilities when there are none, the list is endless and long. Child support is a joke and a far cry from proper management, men or women whom are required to pay $20 per week are burdening this system to no end. The government has no particular control on how businesses operate, they do however control what a business is taxed, but in all honesty most businesses outsource employment therefore taxes become an issue of fraud. The majority of businesses that make money do in fact provide their employees with proper support, the businesses that feel the burden of tax laws are often operating within the laws of government, but the truth is this, the companies that laid off and initiated the unemployment lines did so due to the fact that if they kept the workers on their great income would be affected. It really had nothing to do with neither taxes nor government. You reference all of the regulations that companies live under, truth is DEREGULATION was a major campaign issue, companies have been allowed to run amuck due deregulation, and the workforce has suffered for it. Regulation went out the window with Bush and has continued to affect the American People. Again, I differ with you; "rich" people suffer very little. They often pay accountants tens of thousands of dollars to deflect huge tax impositions. In fact "rich" people pay on average the very same percentage rate that you and I do, and while that is a substantial amount of dollars, isn"t it fair since we pay the same thing on very little? And madam, rich people do spend a lot of money. One of their favorite expenditures is yachts, that didn"t save Hatteras Yachts. There are very strict limits on the length of time that an individual may receive unemployment; the Bush administration actually set the extensions because he saw what was coming. The sad thing is that unemployment benefits barely cover what the individual"s expenses were prior to becoming unemployed, which is what leads them to the welfare lines. People have to eat. Businesses like government need to help themselves, the six figure salaries that owners and GOVERNMENT believe that they deserve would be an ideal place to begin expense cuts. Consider that every PRIOR President continues to receive a salary, and then ask yourself why? When you and I become retired Americans we will receive a pension, because we paid for it, these men aren"t retired. The cuts in government need to begin in the White House, there are billions wasted right there.