Joshua wrote: Reading the posts in this thread scares me. There are a lot of very very cold and uncaring people out there...
<---- Cold and uncaring
Joshua wrote: Reading the posts in this thread scares me. There are a lot of very very cold and uncaring people out there...
<---- Cold and uncaring
Grizz wrote:Joshua wrote: Reading the posts in this thread scares me. There are a lot of very very cold and uncaring people out there...<---- Cold and uncaring
That's sad, I pity you.
<----Not cold and uncaring. I am happy to have my money go to help those who need genuinely need help and are trying to turn things around. I am not here to support someone who doesn't want to get a job, feels they are better than the jobs offered to them, and plays the system.
Are there people out there who genuinely need the services provided by the government today, ABSOLUTELY.
Could we cut the monetary support of aid programs by 50% and still support those truly in need if we weeded out the ones leeching off the system. I believe YES.
Joshua wrote:Grizz wrote:That's sad, I pity you.Joshua wrote: Reading the posts in this thread scares me. There are a lot of very very cold and uncaring people out there...<---- Cold and uncaring
You shouldn't. I'm cold and uncaring because I've been worse off than the majority of people complaining about how bad they have it, so I'm sick and tired of it and no longer care.
Since there's talk of people playing the system I'm just going to leave this here and be on my way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AhOdM4Pl_4
I think there needs to be a lot of reform in the system because we can't just let people live off the government and never do any work at all. But to just say berkeley you poor people isn't going to help anyone at all. I mean you are just going to end up with higher crime rates and etc because anyone who is starving will steal for food if they have to. I don't know what the answer is but it isn't some black and white easy thing that will happen over night.
Also on a semi related note, as my significant other who is a teacher has seen it is unfortunately the people who can't afford kids that have the most.
Bobzilla wrote: <--Conservative. Does not "prop up Jesus" and does not call this a "christian nation." I also love how the "lowest taxes in modern history" crowd likes to ignore the dozens of smaller taxes that have been added over the last 10 years that push up the ACTUAL tax rate.
I've been adding up all the taxes we pay at the sign company from payroll to the tax es on utilities and looks like we will be paying over 8x more in taxes than we will make in net profit for the year. Granted its only a 2 year old company so I'm not expecting to be rolling deep in cash.
rotard wrote:Javelin wrote: For those of you who support Government healthcare, please drive to your nearest VA hospital and sit in the lobby for 15 minutes. I guarantee you will no longer support Government healthcare in any way, shape, or form. Sincerely, Veteran.VA hospitals suck balls.
I feel sorry for both of you ( that the VA hospital in Kelso and Greenville are so bad... I wouldn't trade the one here in Asheville for any hospital I've ever been to or heard of
In reply to JG Pasterjak:
Sweet. I've got that single. I think it is Headhunter as the A side with Welcome to Paradise on the back.
If anyone got the impression I advocate continuing free handouts to those who play the system or dont work and expect to live off free aid, I do not. I also agree with a fair amount that has been said in this post. I for one plan to work hard to get where I want to be , I work 12 hours a week during the school year and during summer and vacations 40 hours a week.
But I recognize that I haven't really been exposed to the real world, and am ignorant to all the ways the world works, so forgive me. looks bleak out there though.
what is this refrigerator they speak of ?
In reply to fasted58:
Yeah, I really work hard and still I live in a van down by the river. I've got no damn refrigamerator.
PubBurgers wrote: My take home is about $17,000 a year. With this I have to feed and house a four person family. We make it work but I have a hard time not rolling my eyes at the people who claim we need to get rid of things like the child tax credit and raise my taxes. I'm not saying there aren't people who abuse the system (I know a few myself), I'm just saying there are also plenty of other hard working families who use it as intended. Don't forget about them just because you've seen a few slackers.
Not to pry into your personal situation, but if you had kids when your income was the same or even lower, why should that be my problem?
If you are posting from home, internet/cable isn't a necessity, it's a luxury. etc etc etc
I know it makes me sound horribly cold/uncaring, but I gave up plenty to get where I am. I've made sure not to get anyone before my wife or her pregnant, so no other mouths to feed. We purchased a small enough house, that if either of us lost our jobs, we'd take a hit to our lifestyle, but not lose our home.
And actually as we've begun to make more money, we continue to cut even more expenses.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to fasted58: Yeah, I really work hard and still I live in a van down by the river. I've got no damn refrigamerator.
Back when I was a boy, I had to walk 10 miles through the freezing snow wearing worn out shoes with holes in them and no socks....
The really sad thing is that there is a system of welfare that can be worked.
Once upon a time it was considered an insult to offer people charity. It was as if you'd slapped them and said you didn't think they were capable of feeding themselves and their family.
The Civilian Conservation Corp helped people out, taught them a skill and we got something back for their efforts. Not as much as it cost, but it did offset the costs. Compare that to today. No one lost their dignity and it didn't go on generation after generation.
There is a saying that says you get more of what you subsidize and that's definitely true of the "present day certified poor". It's a lifestyle instead of a situation.
Long term Welfare programs simply don’t work. People will work the system to continue to be able to get the freebies rather than better themselves and get off. There’s not a “project” neighborhood anywhere that doesn’t have people selling drinks, food, cigarettes, drugs or whatever out of them to garner some invisible income so they don’t pass the income limitations.
The bottom line is that welfare pays too well with too many loopholes. I didn’t say welfare paid enough to make me want to live on it, but it pays so much that entry level jobs can be a step backwards. Welfare needs to pay a small enough amount that you want to get a job so you can do better. If you get a job and end up with less cash then why get a job?
Workfare, not welfare.
Looking back on the core of what John Stewart was saying there, I think he's more pointing out that "it's the poor gaming the system" is a scapegoat to avoid finding a real solution to the budget issues in this country. Is there something that could be done to reasonably reduce the cost of unnecessary or abused social programs? Yes. But if what we really care about is getting our budget and economy back on the track it should be, that is only a fraction of what it's going to take to fix it.
This is not saying we shouldn't majorly overhaul welfare, just that it is an easy, visible scapegoat that is good for getting people emotional and distracted from other issues.
^ Yes
I personally don't like seeing people get handouts and take the free road because I dont like people who live off of others, but this goes for rich trust fund kids too who dont work a day in thier life. But this is not the main cause of our economic woes.
Snowdoggie wrote:Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to fasted58: Yeah, I really work hard and still I live in a van down by the river. I've got no damn refrigamerator.Back when I was a boy, I had to walk 10 miles uphill both ways through the freezing snow wearing worn out shoes with holes in them and no socks....
FTFY
Strizzo wrote:Salanis wrote: The big thing that killed it was that it would have eliminated the tax credit for home buyers. So no legislator wanted to vote for it, even though it would have been the right thing, because they'd get demonized and voted out.wait, are you talking about the tax credit for first time homebuyers, or the mortgage interest tax *deduction*? these are two separate things
They are different, but they have similar goals. Both are government programs to assist people in home ownership. Despite this, Suzanne Mettler found that, of the people in her study who claimed the Mortgage Interest Deduction, more than half claimed that they weren't taking part in any government assistance programs
Lot's of people who don't think they are using government assistance programs seem to conveniently forget that they actually are
fritzsch wrote: ^ Yes I personally don't like seeing people get handouts and take the free road because I dont like people who live off of others, but this goes for rich trust fund kids too who dont work a day in thier life. But this is not the main cause of our economic woes.
It is a very large portion of our economic woes. Not just the measure of wasted tax money but also wasted potential GDP. For every person on welfare you a double negative impact. The more you have the worse the problem becomes until it destroys the foundations of the economies. This is a known outcome and the main goal by liberal/progressive/socialists. It is called the Cloward-Piven strategy.
Here's a thought.
Why don't we stop giving our criminals free housing, TV and food (Prison) and use those resources to take care of the poor.
Then, take those who belong in prison, force them to do the jobs that pay less than wellfare does at no salary because, hey, you're a criminal, you have no rights anymore. Cram them in tents all year round when they're not working and make sure the guards are well-armed.
nah.
Makes too much sense, they'll never do it.
In reply to Trans_Maro:
Because Australia is already populated.
With welfare not only do you have the money going to the recipients but you have a vast and wasteful agency sucking up tons of the money.
I'll bet if you funded welfare by having people who file taxes checking a box Yes or No whether they wanted any of their money to go to welfare you'd find welfare to be a much trimmer beast.
I want to decide when and where my money goes as a handout, not have it thrust down my throat.
But, even if you instantly ceased welfare it wouldn't give us enough $$$ to fix things, even if all the people on welfare went out and instantly got a job and increased the productivity of America.
But the difference in attitudes of the people might give us what we need to recover and stay recovered much more quickly.
Back to Obamacare:
The real problem with the "estimates" are the assumptions. They take the bill as written and assume steady, good economic growth and no behavioral changes. For one thing, as soon as the bill goes into effect behavior WILL change and Congress WILL start expanding the benefits without paying for them. That's exactly how Medicare and Social Security got to be the revenue-sucking entitlement monsters they are today. Both of those systems are about to implode the country, so let's add another one! Logic only a vote-mongering politician can follow.
Oh, and on taxes. You pay taxes under threat. You literally have no choice. If you don't give it up, then the full force of the Govt is unleashed upon you. Most people work very hard for their money. If I'm confiscating your earnings essentially under threat, then I damn well better have a bloody good reason for doing so. That's a test that many Govt programs will fail. I would include supporting NPR or bridges to nowhere or weapon systems the Pentagon doesn't want in the "fail" category. Unfortunately, politicians (especially liberal politicians, though conservatives are often guilty, as well) think they are entitled to have these funds and they know better than the person that earned them where they should be spent.
Yes, taxes are necessary and a part of being a citizen, but those spending the money need to show more respect to those they've seized it from by spending for necessities, not buying votes and funding their pet projects.
Sorry, rant over.
You'll need to log in to post.
