Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Zigrat on August 03, 2001, 09:21:00 AM
-
im sick and tired of welfare
my dad owns a small business. he cant get any help. its a meat market/deli, and for that type of business you can't afford to pay more than 8/9 dollars an hour for a clerk. people dont want to work for 9 bucks an hour, and the people you do get are toejamty people who wont show up and/or are lazy. as a consequence, my dad (aged 61 yrs) has to work 80 hour weeks.
he has a couple of part time employees. one of them, who is one of his better employees, wont work more than 2 days a week. why? because if she did, she'd stop getting welfare (too much income). why should she work more when she gets the same amount of money for working 2 days a week as she would get for 5.
screw welfare. america is a rich company, and ANYONE with ambition and drive can make it. if you dont have ambition and drive, well screw you, i dont wanna pay for you to live. we dont need scumbags in america.
i dont wanna get rid of all types of aid. like for old people, they need help. or kids, them too. but healthy people between 18 and 62 should NEVER get a CENT from the government, other than possibly unemployment insurance, which isnt from the government anyways since employers 3 cents on the dollar of payroll to pay unemployment insurance. i realize it might take a few months to find a job if you loose yours so tahts ok too. but you better go find another, because when your 6 months is up you're gonna be broke.
welfare makes people lazy. mabye if they didnt have that saftey net to fall back onto they would actually get to work.
btw i would support the government enccouraging charitable donations, like mabye offering a 110% writeoff on charitable donations to churches and other charity organizations. im not against charity, but i justthink the government should NOT be providing it.
-
first step toward your noble goal is to chase the dumacrats and their partners in crime, the warm and fuzzy media out of D.C. and your wallet. Lower taxes, responsible spending - two ideas which are foreign in the beltway. If you remove the entitlement programs ie welfare, who'll vote for the dems? :)
-
im all for removing welfare!
-
Zigrat,
That is one of the problems with democracy and a reason for it's inevitable downfall. People realise that they can vote themselves money and to so to the detriment of economy.
US welfare recepient has much better standard of living then working professionals in countries like Russia. Still, try talking about limiting that help, and democrats will rip you to pieces.
miko
-
For what welfare was intended for back in the 30's and what it is today is about close in comparison as comparing a tax increase to a tax cut.
-
zigrat, here's a idea , why don't YOU work for your poor old dad for $8 a hour?
-
i work for my dad for free this summer.
well he feeds me. so i guess its not free.
-
btw i think fdr did a good thing implimenting welfare during teh depression. there was a crisis, and no work to bee found. rather than having millions starve like was happening in other countries at the time, he had the govermnet help out. it was appropriate.
the program should have ended with the end of ww2. unfortunately, fdr died and truman was an amazinhunk in my opinion, no where near the man fdr was.
there is no crisis njow. unemployment is like 2%. everywhere you go there are help wanted signs, but not enough ppl to work.
why? because we have able bodied people in america sitting on their tulips collecting money from the government. hey if you are independently wealthy and dont wanna work, fine. but dont get money from the govermnet paying you to do it. its gotta stop.
-
Inevitable downfall is stretching it a bit methinks :).
Denmark (and scandinavia in general) has the largest welfare system in the world. I saw some numbers that said that 43% of our tax kroner goes to the welfare system.
Denmark is doing ok internationally, and has done ok overall since the introduction of the welfare system in the midst of last century.
Now, what exactly qualifies as "welfare"? In Denmark, things like financial aid to students do not (I get around 3000 DKK, or $350, a month from the state). But it is a form of welfare.
Supporting education is something I'd always want to do. It's an investment rather than a pure expense. People with higher education tends to up a country's competitiveness, earn more money (and therefore pay more taxes) and generally have much less of a need for receiving cash for nothing (i.e the "welfare" system in the more common sense of the phrase).
There's of course the added ideological bonus that it gives you the right to say "everyone has the same shot at getting an education: those that haven't got one haven't got one because of issues directly relating to the individual in question. It's not the 'same* chance, since we're genetically different and all grow up in different environments, but the chance itself it equal.
Survival help - I'm for that. There should (IMHO) be some kind of mechanism in place that'll on short term help a person out if he or she loses favour on the job market. An example: outdated working skills. let's say a programmer has programmed in pascal all his life, and that the company he is employed by does not send him or her for some up to date training. The language becomes obsolete and with it, the programmer (more or less, at least job opportunities will dwindle). Survival help will be suitable here.
Reeducation is an investment as well. I have no problems paying for this, as again, it leads to a more competitive country with a better economy.
What I *do* have a *major* problem with is that the druggie next door to me gets his rent paid by the states, gets his medicine paid by the state, gets "pocket money" pfrom the state, food from the state, free bus rides from the state and overall has a much larger disposable income than I have. I'm working very hard to get ends to meet; and at the start of each semester I have book expenses of up to $300. I'm already living below the poverty line, but that's all the backing I can get.
Career welfare people. Weed these people out and you can drop welfare spendings in half. In political discussions with my Danish friends, I aruge this; but to my dismay, it seems I'm a single uncompassionate capitalistic swinedog surrounded by those with more "human" values. Apparently they mistake my lack of desire to pay for freeloaders for cynicism and no compassion.
Another aspect of the welfare system is it helps to reduce the crime rate through levelling out income inequality, a factor that most sociologists and crimonologists agree is important in terms of crime rate. Breing on welfare doesn't stop my druggie neighbor from committing crimes; he was just sentenced for drug possession, armed robbery and shop lifting. So he got 6 months on parole and will now undergo a psychiatric evaluation in order to see what treatment fits him. The dude has been a criminal addict since he was 15; he ain't gonna chance. Stop wasting money.
So, personal anecdotes mixed with some logic has given me the following philosophy: there *should* be help for pople on dire straits - it can happen to anyone. One should make *investments* into the people of a nation. but one should *not* overdo it, and there *has* to be a philosophy of "we'll help you help yourself, but we'll be damned if we let you mooch off us". In Denmark there currently isn't.
That being said, access to university and so forth without having to pay tuition is one of the strong points of this nation. Access to education should not be limited by no access to cash.
*Note* It is possible to work and study at the same time. You try doing it while being enrolled where I'm at; after a full day at the place, rthere's 2 hours of problem solving and then another 3 hours of preparation for the next day. I'm exhausted; some might be able to pull it off, but I'm not, and I know most are similar to me.
-
Just curious Zig. Is your father willing to provide her with income barely adequite to survive on + medical benefits? If not, then you need to rethink your criticism of this lady. If she has kids, then she NEEDS medicaid, and i doubt that your father is going to pay his employees and provide benefits. Children have alot of health issues (especially when young) and I think many mothers stay on assistance because the bottom line is that their standard of living is higher than it would be working for chump change and trying to pay for health insurance. You wanna complain? How about all the sickeningly greedy rich folks who accumulate more money than they or their families will ever spend and only donate enough to charity so that they dont feel so goshdarn greedy and evil. It seems easy to blame the welfarites for everything, and you better believe that the wealthy would rather have you blame poor people (who are already screwed) than to look towards them and their sickening greed.
no i am not a socialist, but I have lived in poverty and I know that being on welfare is not living the good life. Dont expect people to be happy working their tulips off for barely enough money to survive...oh maybe its more "noble" but dude...poverty is worse when you are busting your bellybutton for nothing.
I feel sorry for poor people and the lot they have been dealt. I refuse to blame the already screwed poor (whether on welfare or not). Society views them as unworthy, which I think perpetuates the whole mess.
Lets stop villainizing the poor...they are
ALREADY SCREWED DUDE...
-
ok i am not against temporarily unemployment benefits for people who loose their jobs, like is the case now (6 months benefit, which is more than enough time to get back on your feet)
im not against helping the elderly with medecation costs, or feeding children.
im not against helping with education costs for higher education, provided there is a minimum gpa requirement for continued assistance.
im against able bodied people aged 18-62 collecting money from the government when they could be working.
btw yes the person in question does have kids, 4 of them i think. by 3 different fathers if i remember correctly. she is 32, and has a 16 year old son i think. looks like she cast her own lot in life, noone told her to be having sex when she was 15 years old. my sister just graduated valedictorian of her class, and got a full scholarship to college. SHE cast her lot in life, too. Guess who will end up better off.
-
in the united states, as rich a country as it is, people are only poor because of choices they have made. i have pity for those born in less rich lands than ours and who don't have the opportinuty to succeed. in america everyone has that chance.
-
Welfare doesnt suck... the abusers of it do. We've catered to an entire welfare society who routinely used every loophole in the book to get more money...ie more kids...
xBAT
P.S. If they are gonna collect it I say make them work like hell for it...big rocks to little rocks. This work will suck so bad they be like... I gotta get off this welfare sh(*.
-
zapkin
The problem is many if not most of the receivers of welfare are playing the system, just like the lady in Zigs case. Just about everyone starts at the bottom, i.e. $3.75 an hour, 19 years old, married with pregnant 18 year old wife = me. Too sit on your bellybutton and watch Jerry Springer instead of busting it and getting ahead is the easy way and a road too well traveled by many welfare recipients.
The system is dated, abused and corrupt and needs to be re-vamped. Many states, including FL, now have time limits to force these ppl to find employement. These programs include training and "entry - level" job placement. No, sorry they don't start at 50k a year.
Welfare should be a temporary condition, not a way of life. Don't try to turn this into a have against the have nots class war. I WAS a have not 23 years ago...now I'm a "have some" but didn't get there by sitting on my arse watchin tv, drinking beer and waiting on my food stamps and next gov check :)
-
Its another example of people putting me, myself and I before anything else. How dare you tell me to work full time and try to provide my *own* insurance and such. I've been there and down it, worked 2 jobs so I could afford a car payment, health insurance and such. Plus, most employers have access to health plans, but the employees must have been there for over a year.
The problem, you see, is the ease in which people can apply for and get these benefits. I remember people that had food stamps could only buy essentials...no chips, alcohol and such like that. Now, heck they cant use them at the local SUBWAY restaurant. There is no feeling humble about asking for help...people INSIST that the goverment help them because its that "we deserve it" attitude.
Maine has the highest tax rate in the nation, according to a new article that ran this week. 14.9% income tax. Add that to the Federal and its just a lot of dough to be spending out in taxes.
I feel for your Dad, I've been in the situation where I've wanted to hired part time help. Asides going through the enormity of taxes, FICA, workers comp and everything else, its a hassle. Its amazing how many people will apply for a job, just to sign their little welfare book to show they did look for a job that week.
I really wish more people had a work ethic versus a leaching one. But that's what it is. Listen to the radio, that kook is out there plugging his book to show people how to take advantage of goverment programs to get free money, and milk an already abused system.
-
Two weeks ago I was diagnosed as epileptic.
Fortunately, it isn't very severe and the seizures I've had were separated by 14 months. The drugs the doctors will be giving me will control it.
But what if it had been very severe epilepsy? What if I was having seizures every couple of weeks, even though I was medicated to eyeballs?
I'd like to think there would be a social security system to help provide for me, since any kind of normal work would be unavailable to. I could do other community based work to give something back, but without the social security my life would not be worth living. Without any income I'd have no means of supporting myself; homelessness would follow. Homeless people with medical problems don't tend to last very long.
Social security should exist to provide a bare minimum, no luxury lifestyle for the unemployed. It should also care for the disabled and sick.
I despise parasitical elements in my society who are work-shy and make false claims to support themselves.
I agree Santa, working and trying to get an education might be very admirable. But those I knew who tried it ended up with very poor degrees compared to those who simply worked in the summer or other holidays.
-
when i was in highschool i worked as a pizza deliverer.
i used to dread the 1st and 15th because we would get swamped with orders to the ghetto as people got their welfare checks!
the first thing they would do is order a pizza for some reason. we would start preparing for those days a few days in advance by making extra boxes etc.
our place was owned by a cheap short little man who was the only guy in town who would actually deliver to those neighborhoods. he wasn't one to pass up a chance at a $. ironically, most of the people would argue about their order to try to get a discount anyway...
-
EAT THE POOR !
Solyient green is made out of welfare mothers! Its made out of welfare mothers !!
-
Ya know - I'd bet some pretty good money that nobody else posting in this thread was a member of a visible minority. There is a lot of interesting attitude floating between the lines and peeking out of the phrasing :)
- Yoj
-
Did anyone see on MTV a rich rapper pull up in a limo to collect his welfare check? made me sick! :mad:
-
Originally posted by Yoj:
Ya know - I'd bet some pretty good money that nobody else posting in this thread was a member of a visible minority. There is a lot of interesting attitude floating between the lines and peeking out of the phrasing :)
- Yoj
huh? please explain..
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
looks like she cast her own lot in life, noone told her to be having sex when she was 15 years old. my sister just graduated valedictorian of her class, and got a full scholarship to college. SHE cast her lot in life, too. Guess who will end up better off.
Well, Zig, maybe her partents weren't around to inform her for those interesting facts when she was 15 ? Maybe they were too busy working for minimum wage like a good citizens ?
If she does take a full time job, her children will be brought up by the streets, sooner or later one of them will commit a crime or two, and everyone will be screeming for his head, while she's working...
Somewhat exaggirated, i know, but you get a point. Single mother with 4 kids who is working part time should recieve assistance. I'm suprized that she's working at all. As per your father's deli, i hope it works out ok. If he has trouble finding people - he needs to raise wages. The free market that everyone is so up tight about, remember ? If the demend is too low you need to increase the attractiveness ( aka wages )
Let's get a count of hands - how many of you folsk here came from single partent families with income lower then 20k ?
-
Ya know - I'd bet some pretty good money that nobody else posting in this thread was a member of a visible minority. There is a lot of interesting attitude floating between the lines and peeking out of the phrasing
- Yoj
Actually Yoj, I though this post was a bit mild in that way compared to some of the others I have read. Still, I do imagine many of the "Angry White Males" circa 1994 do have a colorful image in their minds when they think of these issues.
Coming from a family of varied economic circumstances, I can attest that it is not a race issue as much as it's a poverty/environmental issue. I have one distant relative who is currently working very hard to get on disability -- which is not uncommon in his part of Applachia (along with stepdads sleeping with their teenage daughters, multiple unmarried parents for multiple children, etc. - real Jerry Springer stuff).
Here's a quote from another board (H-Net, Humanities & Social Sciences OnLine) that goes into the welfare perspective better than I can trying to rehash these points:
I think what I have most often heard is that many people view poverty as a black, urban underclass phenonmenon and, by extension, assume the same of welfare. And welfare is most often understood as AFDC, with food stamps, SSI, WIC, Head-Start, various forms of housing assistance, medicare and medicaid, etc. Every now and then someone will choose to make an issue of state-run general assistance programs. These definitions, as I note below, are not necessarily the only ones possible and I would strongly urge you to pay attention to them when people start making any sorts of claims about social policy.
Poverty, of course, is not exclusively a black urban underclass phenomenon - au contraire. There are zillions of sources you can look to to confirm this. See, for instance: Christopher Jencks' "Rethinking Social Policy: Race, Poverty and the Underclass", Harvard U Press, 1992 or Michael Katz' "The Undeserving Poor: From the War on Poverty to the War on Welfare, Pantheon, 1989. However, what we find is that while there are far more poor white people than poor black people, poverty rates are higher among black people than among white people. Among white people the poverty rate is only around 11% or 12% while among black people it is over 30%, if I remember correctly.
As for division according to who receives AFDC, according to Jencks (citing statistics from the House Ways and Means Committee from 1989, see page 264 of his book, note 7), nationally recipients are about 40% black, and 39% non-Hispanic white. He doesn't say who the other 20% are. One would suppose that virtually all of the recipients are women, since the program is (currently) designed to aid single mothers. This is not true of all "welfare" programs. In any case, the division of aid recipients by "race" varies widely from place to place - where the majority of the population is white, say, in rural Minnesota, the majority of aid recipients are as well. Its a big country, after all, and policy is not necessarily best served by broad generalizations about who gets what aid.
In fact, if we redefine social welfare spending to include all the programs I cited above, aimed primarily at poor people (except Medicare), as well as things like college loans and military pensions, social security, various forms of home loan assistance, etc., the majority of such spending goes to the middle classes. Jencks' writes (p.76), "In 1980, only a fifth of all social-welfare spending was explicitly aimed at low-income families, and only a tenth was for programs providing cash, food, or housing to such families." Which of course suggests that overall social spending is oriented towards white folks, since more of them are middle-class.
I am sure others will chime in here with lots more relevant references and stats. I should point out, however, that the question you ask really ought to be followed up with others: why do we think its significant to analyse program participation by "race"? How sure are we of who belongs in which "race" (as in Jencks' missing 20%)? Does welfare lift anyone, anywhere, above or even near to the poverty line? Does it lift some people, but not others? What part of the federal budget is taken up by social spending on poor people and, more broadly, by social spending in general? What part of state and local budgets?
Enjoy.
David Beriss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David I. Beriss
Department of French and Italian
University of Southern California
THH126
Los Angeles, CA 90089
Of course, he leaves off corporate welfare programs like energy policy and the missile defense initiative, to name a few, from recent headline :)
Charon
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
Zigrat, My thoughts... I also own a small business, and Medical for my family or employees is just unreachable. I do have a family doctor and my duaghter has really bad asma(SP). I've paid Cash ( on the spot) out of pocket for all her medication and doctor visits, Dental and everything else. 6 years ago I was diagnost with cancer, and had 2 operations. I paid cash for all test up to the Operation itself, Since i do pay taxes i had to lay myself off, and go on unemployment JUST TO GET FREE MEDICAL!!!! The state picked up the tab, AND gave me more money per week than i was taking home self employeed. What really got me pissed was, forking over $2,400.00 dollars for a test ( cash) and waiting for the receptionist to figure out WTF to do since NOBODY pays cash in a hospital. While waiting for her to figure out what to do, A young couple walked in with a 1-2 year old,, flashed the Public assistance card, and was screaming because her 1-2 year old Lost some of his gold rings!!! They were head to foot jewelryed out. I looked down at my only peice of jewerly i owned ( a plain gold wedding band) and gave it a kiss. Sometimes we need to step back and enjoy what we HAVE , not complain what we have not.
NUTTZ
-
i amnot against welfare for its cost (which is relatively low compared to other federal expendatures) i am against it for its negative effect on business. it is hard to start up new business or expand to new markets when you are unable to find people to do teh work for you.
btw nuttz that sucks. my dad lived for 40 years without health insurance. just this past year his business finally started making money and he got health insurance, and went on his first vacation (to visit his father in italy) since iw as born (22 years ago - could never leave the store because noone good enough to replace him - now my brother and i are old enough and we ran the store whilehe was gone) and he had a heart attack on his first vacation. just bad luck.
-
im with zigrat. Welfare should end...but for those who dont need it.
FL has recently put in some amazing restrictions on welfare recipients, almost dumping 60% of the current users out of the program because they were leeching off the system without any reason. Those left, or those who managed to squirm from the restrictions are either elderly, disabled or in hardships (aka, 18 year olds with kids and trying to go to college.. people who are TRYING to better their lives). The healthy 28 year old with a broken pinkie finger is suddenly deprived of his HBO, friday pizza & rented movie and has to flip burgers or starve.
Funny thing is, people actually re-applied for welfare a few weeks after that.
I think the idea should be to HELP those in need, not to SUSTAIN them.
-
hey tac that sounds good
my topic heading was a bit harsh, i guess im just against the leechers mostly. sounds like florida has a good program. i'd like to see it nation wide.
-
Of course, he leaves off corporate welfare programs like energy policy and the missile defense initiative, to name a few, from recent headlines
Charon
There's welfare for the poor, but then there's welfare for the rich. Example: there is a new IT contract for the Navy won by a Texas company (whos ads show 'cat herding'). This contract is $7B. Yes.. that's seven Billion. Since I work for the Navy, I will be getting a computer off this contract (actually I am forced to whether I need it or not). It is a Dell. I went on the Dell web page (for normal acquisitions) and the identical computer is listed at $799. I am being charged by the Texas contractor $12,000 for this computer (ie my government account is- you, the tax payers, foot the bill). This is no lie. It's about $3000 a year and refreshed every 4 years. Even funnier: if my CURRENT computer, which I (ie you the tax payer again) already paid for, meets the specs- the Texas contractor still charges me $12,000, gives me nothing, lets me keep my current setup, and TAKES POSSESSION of my current computer. I get reimbursed nothing. The contract includes internet connection, but even at $40/month for a high speed line that doesn't come to $12,000/4 yrs now does it? That Texas contractor is making a monster profit: welfare for the rich.
By the way, unemployment is not 2%. It's 4.5%, and that isn't accurate either. That number counts only those who are applying for unemployment insurance. If you run out of unemployment insurance and still can't find a job, you are not counted in the 4.5%. You just become invisible to the statistics.
[ 08-03-2001: Message edited by: 715 ]
-
Welfare can't be a "choice". Make it support you so you won't die, but make it suck big time so you have no incentive to stay on it.
The problem we have in US is that the welfare is a much better alternative to the low-end job. And, since the politicians are interested in getting as much folks to apply as they can (they love slaves and ZOO kind of people), many people double or tripple dip. Their "thinking" is pretty simple, why would I refuse "free" money. Obviously they do not "think" far enough to figure out whose stolen money pays for it.
"Oh, I'm pretty sure that this is some rich guy's money that pays for it"
Think again :(
-
Last year I have "earned" less than half of the money I realy earned.
This means that in addition to suporting my own family, I am actualy supporting another family who lives as good as mine, has a same kind of house as mine (I pay the mortgage), same number of cars, and they vacation as frequently as I do.
Ain't that nice. An they (whoever thay are) do not pay a frik... n penny for "my" lifestyle.
I'm still waiting for a "thank you" card.
:(
-
Last year I have "earned" less than half of the money I realy earned.
mietla
Wow, you're in a 50+%tax bracket and every cent of your tax dollars is going to support a welfare family? I'd be upset too...
Some of that money, as 715 pointed out, just may go for things like this:
Military Waste (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Military_Fraud.html)
More Corp Welfare (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/TakeRichOffWelfare.html)
Charon
[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
mieleta,
You're living in a dream world (or nightmare world) if you think welfare recipients can approach the lifestyle of somebody who makes so much that they pay more than half their income in taxes.
Actually, I'd like to know how you managed that. The combined state and federal taxes should peak at less than 50%.
My mom owned her house, and needed assistance, but because she owned it she didn't qualify.
I kept her and my siblings housed. I bought the house to keep it from being repossed. I am spending my future and my ability to start a family of my own in order to keep my mom and siblings housed. I get no assistance from the government to do so.
Is that fair? No, but its the way things are. Of course I get accused of being a liberal just looking for a hand out by the likes of the conservatives on this BB even though I kept my mom off the government rolls.
Keep in mind how many businesses in poor rural and urban areas would fail if welfare was canceled. Many of the customers in those areas are welfare recipients. Whenever you remove money from a system there will be greater unemployment, at least in the short term.
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Actually, I'd like to know how you managed that. The combined state and federal taxes should peak at less than 50%.
Bzzzztttt Wrong ;)
Add up, sometime, what is deducted from your paycheck (no matter what they call it if you can not refuse to have it taken out it is a tax of some sort). Divide this by your total earnings and you get your raw "VISIBLE" tax bite. Now most states have a sales tax, (you can find this out by taking the % against the total amount you spend in a year). THEN, many things/products you buy have added taxes you don't see, Gas, Tobacco products, airline/concert tickets, motel/hotel bed tax, cars, etc. etc. In real life you need not be in the top "federal" tax bracket to pay 50% taxes in this country, starting about 1964-65 the Govt. (Federal state and local) started the "hidden tax bites in a big way, and it is getting worse. But now they have taken to calling them user fees and other assorted pc crud. Uncle Ronnie's Tax reforms (no matter which side of that issue you are on) took away most of the former "Rich Folks deductions", so even though the "rate" went down taxes increased. (and folks thought it was all those new burger flippers on the tax roles. :D
And I'm not even about to get into the paying taxes on taxes you pay issue.
I topped the 50% bracket during the Carter years and am still there even though retired. Do I wish to see half of all I worked for and paid taxes on go to the fed (death tax) when I die ... Yea right. Then the kids can go on welfare ... ahhh what's the use.
New laws needed
4) Congress may never spend more money than the govt. took in the previous year. Except for time of national emergency.
3) 10% of all govt. revenue MUST be budgeted to pay down the national debt if any.
2) Elected Federal Officials are paid (along with all benefits) by the States that send them to Washington.
1) Anyone who wishes to run for political office can't. This would get em :D
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
mieleta,
You're living in a dream world (or nightmare world) if you think welfare recipients can approach the lifestyle of somebody who makes so much that they pay more than half their income in taxes.
Of course I'm not saying that the welfare recipient live as good as the rest of us. I was trying to show the scope of the problem. A half of my income is confiscated but only a small portion of it is used for legitimate government activities.
Actually, I'd like to know how you managed that. The combined state and federal taxes should peak at less than 50%.
+ gasoline tax, + property tax, + local taxes, + sales tax, + phone surcharges, + PG&E surcharges +, +, +
[quoteI am spending my future and my ability to start a family of my own in order to keep my mom and siblings housed. I get no assistance from the government to do so.
[/quote]
no medal here. It is your obligation to support your fam,ily, just like it was mine obligation to support mine.
Whenever you remove money from a system there will be greater unemployment, at least in the short term.
you don;t remove any money from the system by eliminationg thw welfare. It's just a differnet person who spends it.. the one who earned it!
-
Originally posted by 715:
There's welfare for the poor, but then there's welfare for the rich. Example: there is a new IT contract for the Navy won by a Texas company (whos ads show 'cat herding'). This contract is $7B. Yes.. that's seven Billion. Since I work for the Navy, I will be getting a computer off this contract (actually I am forced to whether I need it or not). It is a Dell. I went on the Dell web page (for normal acquisitions) and the identical computer is listed at $799. I am being charged by the Texas contractor $12,000 for this computer (ie my government account is- you, the tax payers, foot the bill). This is no lie. It's about $3000 a year and refreshed every 4 years. Even funnier: if my CURRENT computer, which I (ie you the tax payer again) already paid for, meets the specs- the Texas contractor still charges me $12,000, gives me nothing, lets me keep my current setup, and TAKES POSSESSION of my current computer. I get reimbursed nothing. The contract includes internet connection, but even at $40/month for a high speed line that doesn't come to $12,000/4 yrs now does it? That Texas contractor is making a monster profit: welfare for the rich.
Hmmm... I'm betting that this is NMCI and the company is EDS.
-
you don;t remove any money from the system by eliminationg thw welfare. It's just a differnet person who spends it.. the one who earned it!
Yes, but you're not going to spend it in those areas of the country. So what you will have is the poorest areas with the highest unemployment will have their unemployment and poverty rates go up. It will do that in the short term, long term is much harder to see.
Its simply a judgement call on what you think is best. I wasn't meaning to say one was right or wrong, I was simply pointing out one effect that had not been mentioned.
Out of curiosity, again, what do you think legitimate government expenses are? I'd be surprised if they don't already absorb the majority of the federal budget.
-
The Constitution enumerates them pretty well (the defense of the nation being most prominent), and the Tenth amendment forbids the feds to usurp more power.
The feds have no business to meddle with education, environment, welfare, social security, speed limits, the water level in your toilet and the price of the electricity in California.
Less then 25% of the fed's spending is legitimate.
(http://www.raf303.org/images/budget2001.jpg)
-
Comparing welfare in late 1940s and blaming Truman does not fly.In late 40s and 50s people on welfare were embarassed to be on it and were really destitute when they applied.Their homes were inspected on a regular basis by inspectors checking for things like a TV or other things that they were not allowed to have if they were poor.Anybody in my neighborhood that went on welfare were pitied that they had to do it.It was a last resort.The people that were on it did everything they could to get off as soon as they could.
Now the libs have made it an entitlement that every one earns even if they are not citizens.They have created a dependant class who thinks they are owed by the government and have to be supplied a certain standard of living."I can't work,I have to stay home and raise my children" "I can't work for 9 bucks an hour.it screws up my welfare" Tell that to all the working Moms and folks that do work for those wages.
The real change in the original welfare came when liberal democrats had control from the 60s to the 80s.They found a way to buy votes without raising campaign funds and this cost every worker in this country a lot of money in taxes.The liberals have stolen the pride of self sufficiency from these people and made beggers out of them.That hurts the entire country.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Career welfare people. Weed these people out and you can drop welfare spendings in half. In political discussions with my Danish friends, I aruge this; but to my dismay, it seems I'm a single uncompassionate capitalistic swinedog surrounded by those with more "human" values. Apparently they mistake my lack of desire to pay for freeloaders for cynicism and no compassion.
DING!!!!
Now you have an idea what it's like being a conservative in America. Fork out the money fork out the money fork out the money.... Stop (the realization that your money is going into a gigantic black hole sets in).... I don't want to fork out the money any longer..... American liberal, socialist say "oh you sick evil bastard you want to starve children and kill the elderly! and your a racist!" When in reality I'm just a single dude trying to get ahead in life, but the government (state and federal) takes over 1/2 my money in taxes.
Santa, at least in your country you get something in return for your taxes. In America it gets squanderred and waisted on absolutely nothing and in some instances literaly disapears off the face of the Earth, defying the laws of phisics that matter can neither be created or destroyed.
Hell I am actualy entertaining the notion of moving to another country mine's full of idiots. At least I live in Texas. HEHE funny thought, I don't want to leave Texas but I do want out of the USA. Texas should exercise our rights!!! ;)
Udie
-
Lets stop villainizing the poor...they are
ALREADY SCREWED DUDE...[/QB]
sorry, the vast majority of them are screwed because they screwed themselves. If your able bodied there isn't ANY reason you shouldn't work uness your already rich, then you have to work to stay that way.
I do understand there are people who just don't know what to do. They need to be educated on how to find work or tought a basic skill. Heck give them a ham sandwich and a bag of lay's while their in class this way they don't starve to death. But welfare should suck so much to be on that people who are on it will do almost anything to get off of it. Or let the rich liberals pay for them if they want to. But G-damnit stop keeping me just obove the squealing poverty level with taxes and "user fees"
Udie
-
I tell ya... subsistance sucks. It's a lot of work.
My sister in law was ran over by a car when she was two. She is mentally impaired. To add to the problem, she has three children. Yes, THREE children and one of them is also impaired. If you want to get into the birthing rights of people physically or mentally incapable of raising children properly, be my guest. I'm not going to touch it. Anyway... how she got here is not the issue. The issue is the three children. My wife spends an enormous amount of time (in addition to her own job) filing forms and working with county, state, and federal services to make sure that these children get what they need. We have our own family and I cannot afford to support two so the public aid is absolutely necessary.
Anyone smart enough or energetic enough to screw the system over absolutely does not deserve the benefit.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
...We have our own family and I cannot afford to support two ...
Guess what? Nobody asked me, but I am supporting someone's family. Half of what I make is stolen from me and given to someone else.
-
Put that way, I should have said I can't afford three. :)
-
Sandman
In the case you described,I do not mind at all paying taxes to help.If a worker had an accident and could no longer work at all,I would not mind helping him either.It's the mentally competant,physically able people who need to be weeded out.The one's that are gaming the system.Any one taking government welfare money should work 20 hours a week for that government and take job trainng classes for another 20 hours.Any one that can not or will not do that should be taken off the roles.A town mayor in N.J.once put them to work painting park benches and got slammed by liberals as demeaning these people.
Cases of real need should get real help and the con artists should be told to take a walk.
-
FWIW, my sister in law does work for the county... strictly part time and it's less than minimum wage. She's on federal subsistance (social security) so the work for the county doesn't result in lower welfare subsistance paid by the county/state to support her daughters. For her, it's a win/win. Of course, the concessions made for the truly disabled are probably a bit more liberal than those given to the undisabled, unemployed, etc.
Here's the really hard part for my wife. The federal government as determined that her sister is unfit to take care of her own personal finances. Therefore she has a payee, my wife. My wife receives her social security checks and pays the bills: rent, utilities, etc. At the same time, the county/state sends the welfare checks directly to my sister in law, not my wife. It makes absolutely no sense that the is unfit to receive her own check but somehow fit enough to receive the checks for her daughters.
-
Um, are we including corporate welfare in this discussion, too?
-
Personally, I think we should start a purge. For starters, anyone registered as a Dumbocrat should be arrested, collected in work camps in North Dakota, and Nevada, then used as slave labor. And, no, they don't get a health plan. If they get sick while digging ditches on the plains in -40F weather - well - they die. Tough. Next, anybody who voted pro-Gay for any State/Federal issues, has been registered in an abortion clinic, or burned a United States of America Flag, should be shot outright. We'll just send them to North Dakota or Nevada, shoot 'em all there, then let the Dumbocrat slaves bury them all.
God Bless America!!!
:p
-
Seriously though, Zigrat, sorry your father is having a bad time of it. Part of the problem is that wages need to be so high, because there isn't enough gov't. support for social welfare. Thus, people need more money to make their own security, their own welfare. $8-9/hour is not much for anyone with a family, house and/or car. About the only people who will take this wage are young people who are in college, or just out. I'm not saying your father needs to raise his wages, not at all. But the only way people will take a wage that low is if they have support for health care, or housing, or retirement. The USA is a poor example of social welfare, so it sounds like a no-win situation for your Dad.
-
i know leonid
its not that his business is doing poorly, far from it. he is doing great business now (he killed himself for no money in a bad locaation -- he moved his business 2 years ago and has been doig great now)
and i agree that 9 dollars is not alot. hell im 22 and i wouldnt work for him (well i work for free because he has raised me for free for 18 years) for 9 dollars an hour.
my uncle is the same way.. he owns a tile business and has more business than he can handle because he can't get competent help. there is business to be had for small businessmen in upstate new york, but noone to do the work. he is a millionaire several times over and got there by working his bellybutton off.. but he can't retire now because he ca't find anyone to replace him.
incidentally, my father and uncle etcera are all italian immigrants.. its seems these guys who came over in the 60s from italy were really hard workers, but i guess young people in america (including me) just don't wanna work like that anymore. most young people with any kind of work ethic get an education, unlike 40 years ago, so it is very difficult to find hard working but unskilled people.
-
btw leonid i think it would be great if the government made a scaling for of social assistance. instead of having a fixed income "cap" for assistance, make it gradually fade out. this might encourage people to work. as it is, tehreis no incentive to goign to work since just as much is made but not working as by working.
having money isn't an indication of standard of living either. my dad makes good money, but his 2 day a week employee certainly has a better standard. she goes every weekend she takes off to a camp she rents in teh adirondacks and camps out with her buddies getting drunk/playing card/ etcera. my dad has no time to spend his money, he has to work 12 hour days 7 days a week, after which he is so tired he just comes home, eats, watches an hour of tv and goes to bed. he can afford to hire people, but the people just aren't there to be found.
income isn't necessarily a good indication fo quality of life.
-
Originally posted by leonid:
Personally, I think we should start a purge. For starters, anyone registered as a Dumbocrat should be arrested, collected in work camps in North Dakota, and Nevada, then used as slave labor. And, no, they don't get a health plan. If they get sick while digging ditches on the plains in -40F weather - well - they die. Tough. Next, anybody who voted pro-Gay for any State/Federal issues, has been registered in an abortion clinic, or burned a United States of America Flag, should be shot outright. We'll just send them to North Dakota or Nevada, shoot 'em all there, then let the Dumbocrat slaves bury them all.
God Bless America!!!
:p
Finally!
Someone making some sense around here :)
-
yes imagine a country run only by conservatives.....Sieg Heil....Sieg Heil...
-
Thats crap... I'm conservative mostly but I hardly consider myself to be Nazi like. 99 percent of us are individuals who feel that as in the case of welfare some common sense needs to be applied. It simply doesnt take a rocket scienctist to see the open abusers of a system mired in beaucracy/red tape.
If I fail to have some sort of sympathy for a single mom who has never held a job but yet continues to have childrean while ON welfare then so be it. These people are parasites on our society. They contibute nothing. When I see individuals who bettered themselfs though extream adversity often going hungrey,working 2 jobs or more etc and then I see some welfare abuser complaining about some simple job she has to do to recieve her welfare now...I get pissed. Like I said in an earlier post... if they want it, give it them but make it hell so they'll APPRECIATE a real job.
xBAT
-
Originally posted by zapkin:
yes imagine a country run only by conservatives.....Sieg Heil....Sieg Heil...
lol
someone's been brainwashed..
don't worry, you'll grow out of it :)
-
Originally posted by zapkin:
yes imagine a country run only by conservatives.....Sieg Heil....Sieg Heil...
Ummmm Maybe I do not remember correctly But was not Hitler's Party called
the National SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS? :D
-
Originally posted by MrBill:
Ummmm Maybe I do not remember correctly But was not Hitler's Party called
the National SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS? :D
you quoted it wrong : it was NATIONAL socialist party ... and in now way it was democracy..
-
I consider myself moderate. I like big military spending, and I also like big social spending. My seig heil comment was meant as a joke and I am sorry if it offended any of you. I know each is entitled to his beliefs.
I am compassionate when it comes to the poor. I am not from a very well to do family and so I am able to relate to poor folks easier than I can relate to even the middle class. Welfare is a nice safety net. I have heard people say that middle class has no safety net..that is hog wash. Having a person who can co-sign your first loan, or help you buy a cheap car, or get you some extra groceries when things go bad is part of the middle class safety net. Most middle class folks have these things. Most poor people dont (unless you count begging the churches for help).
In any case, I do not believe that the poor are the root of all evil. In Ohio where I live, welfare is now temporary. 36 months is all you get. If you are able bodied you must work for your benefits. If you do not have day care they will help you with arrangements and cost. The idea is to get people self sufficient. In fact, you must sign what is called a self sufficiency contract here in Ohio. I think the welfare system is moving in the right direction.
Bashing the poor for their lack of motivation is counterproductive. If you want people to change, encourage them to do better and then reward them for their progress. No body likes being treated like a second class citizen...nobody!
If you are really worried about your tax dollars, check out the cost of a b-2 stealth bomber. Its unbelievable for a weapon system that is probably too valuable to ever risk using. Now that is a waste of tax payers money! Think of all the tomahawk cruise missiles you can have for a billion bucks...makes me get gooseflesh just thinking about it.
Anyway, I am for the poor. I am not against them. The last thing that they need is the middle class (who clearly has MORE) despising them! :rolleyes:
As for eagles comment about growing out of things. That is hilarious post on a BB devouted to a video game! LOL
I think we are all a bit "immature" when you consider the time (and money???) some of us put into a "video game". I don't really think anyone on this BB has much right declaring someone else immature...LOL...its a video game BB for crying out loud. LOL.
anyway...i just wanted to appologize to anyone that I may have offended.
Take care folks....even you poor people with no motivation.
:)
-
there is nothing wrong with being poor. You have every right to be poor, but being wealthy is better :)
-
Originally posted by zapkin:
In any case, I do not believe that the poor are the root of all evil. In Ohio where I live, welfare is now temporary. 36 months is all you get. If you are able bodied you must work for your benefits. If you do not have day care they will help you with arrangements and cost. The idea is to get people self sufficient. In fact, you must sign what is called a self sufficiency contract here in Ohio. I think the welfare system is moving in the right direction.
sounds like Ohio is doing good things with their welfare system. Jobless Assistance should be just that, assistance to get you self-sufficient again. It shouldn't be a continuous thing. I wholeheartedly agree that able bodied individuals should work for their benefits/assistance.
-
People, pick up
on what I'm puttin' down now
Welfare mothers
make better lovers
Down at every
Laundromat in town now
Welfare mothers
make better lovers
While they're washin'
you can hear this sound now
Welfare mothers
make better lovers
Divorcee!
Hard to believe
that love is free now
Welfare mothers
make better lovers
Out on the street
with the whole family now
Welfare mothers
make better lovers
Hard to believe
that love is free now
Welfare mothers
make better lovers
Divorcee!
People, pick up
on what I'm puttin' down now
Welfare mothers
make better lovers
Down in every
Laundromat in town now
Welfare mothers
make better lovers
While they're washin'
you can hear this sound now
Welfare mothers
make better lovers
Divorcee!