Why does the government know better than I?

[Backtothemac]

What to do with my money? Why should I support someone that wants to take more of my money and give it to those that don't have money. Why? I have never had someone explain it to me well.

Because I should want to help others? Nope. I came from a poor family, we never had governmental assistance. Because we would have been ashamed to take it. We worked hard to get where we are, and now Kerry wants to take take take.

WTF. Personally, I think Bush has been to soft on taxes. Why in the hell should someone have to give over 30% of their income to the government, much less, why should they even have to give more than 10%. It is crap!

Sorry, rant from angry republican on the notion that his taxes may go up, and force him to work an additional 5 to 10 years to retire because of unfair, and unjustified taxes, and redistribution of wealth.

[skunk]

What to do with my money? Why should I support someone that wants to take more of my money and give it to those that don't have money. Why? I have never had someone explain it to me well.

Because I should want to help others? Nope. I came from a poor family, we never had governmental assistance. Because we would have been ashamed to take it. We worked hard to get where we are, and now Kerry wants to take take take.
You are fortunate as well as hard-working. Some are not.

WTF. Personally, I think Bush has been to soft on taxes. Why in the hell should someone have to give over 30% of their income to the government, much less, why should they even have to give more than 10%. It is crap!
There's something to do with math there: if your government wants to spend 500 billion dollars on what it laughingly calls "defense", it's going to have to tax you to do so. If you cut back on this ludicrously extravagant budget predicated on a megolomaniacal desire to take on the entire world if necessary, there would be plenty of scope for tax cuts. As it stands, you should be paying considerably more than 30% to achieve a balanced budget. It's only because the rest of the world is lending you money hand over fist that you are able to afford to threaten them. Funny, that.

[Backtothemac]

You are fortunate as well as hard-working. Some are not.


There's something to do with math there: if your government wants to spend 500 billion dollars on what it laughingly calls "defense", it's going to have to tax you to do so. If you cut back on this ludicrously extravagant budget predicated on a megolomaniacal desire to take on the entire world if necessary, there would be plenty of scope for tax cuts. As it stands, you should be paying considerably more than 30% to achieve a balanced budget. It's only because the rest of the world is lending you money hand over fist that you are able to afford to threaten them. Funny, that.
Ah, but their is the point. I don't have a problem paying for defense. I have a problem paying for after school programs. For social security, for medicare, for state funded abortions, for pork barrel projects, etc.

When will people stop asking for the government to fix their lives?

[Mav451]

Some reason...the tone of your response reflects a lot of the reasoning that Republicans use to argue AGAINST environmental responsibility -_-.

Why should we protect the earth? Because you're not the only one living on it! Because you want it to be as safe (chemical wise), clean (air quality), full of life (would you rather see trees, or skyscrapers outside your window) as you had when you were a child?

Alot of Republican hostility against environmental responsibility is shared in financial selfishness...and this is generally expected so I'm not really suprised. What I am suprised about is that you posted in another thread that you do want fuel alternatives--that shows an effort toward environmental responsibility, that oddly enough, is not reflected in your other opinions. How are you so split in your ideals? I mean essentially you are FINANCIALLY conservative, but by that statement you are showing to be ENVIRONMENTALLY liberal -- which is points in my book, but confusing by your other statements...I'm a lil puzzled.

[Backtothemac]

Some reason...the tone of your response reflects a lot of the reasoning that Republicans use to argue AGAINST environmental responsibility -_-.

Why should we protect the earth? Because you're not the only one living on it! Because you want it to be as safe (chemical wise), clean (air quality), full of life (would you rather see trees, or skyscrapers outside your window) as you had when you were a child?

Alot of Republican hostility against environmental responsibility is shared in financial selfishness...and this is generally expected so I'm not really suprised. What I am suprised about is that you posted in another thread that you do want fuel alternatives--that shows an effort toward environmental responsibility, that oddly enough, is not reflected in your other opinions. How are you so split in your ideals? I mean essentially you are FINANCIALLY conservative, but by that statement you are showing to be ENVIRONMENTALLY liberal -- which is points in my book, but confusing by your other statements...I'm a lil puzzled.


Well, I am a fiinancial conservative, and a liberal on many issues. I am confusing, but I am fun ;)

[blackfox]

Ah, but their is the point. I don't have a problem paying for defense. I have a problem paying for after school programs. For social security, for medicare, for state funded abortions, for pork barrel projects, etc.

Ah, but BTTM, you need to defend society from itself as much as from outside threats. People do not succeed in America in a vacuum. Many of the (invisible) aspects of social-spending give people such as yourself the stepping-stones to reach independent success. If only, in the bare-minimum of ensuring some measure of societal stability. There is a post around somewhere that illustrates this point, if I find it I will post it. These segments of the population that you feel are unfairly subsidized by your tax-dollars, will not simply disappear if cut-off from aid, and may pose serious burdens on the rest of the population, from either a practical or moral standpoint.

On a completely different note:
Nice to see you posting around here again...and when will you have pictures of your new digs posted?

[Backtothemac]

Ah, but BTTM, you need to defend society from itself as much as from outside threats. People do not succeed in America in a vacuum. Many of the (invisible) aspects of social-spending give people such as yourself the stepping-stones to reach independent success. If only, in the bare-minimum of ensuring some measure of societal stability. There is a post around somewhere that illustrates this point, if I find it I will post it. These segments of the population that you feel are unfairly subsidized by your tax-dollars, will not simply disappear if cut-off from aid, and may pose serious burdens on the rest of the population, from either a practical or moral standpoint.

On a completely different note:
Nice to see you posting around here again...and when will you have pictures of your new digs posted?


Hopefully pics of the house will be up soon. I am itching for you guys to see them. As for society, sure, tax dollars pay for police, fire, etc. But does it need to pay for studies of the mating habits of Alaskan Caraboo? My family never took government assistance. Even after my mother was diagnosed with cancer, we never took financial help. I started working 2 jobs when I was 12 so that I could help my mom out. She worked, and we made it. I just don't think people need free rides.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Ah, but their is the point. I don't have a problem paying for defense. I have a problem paying for after school programs. For social security, for medicare, for state funded abortions, for pork barrel projects, etc.


And there we have a problem. I have a problem with a bloated defense budget. I have a problem with the government bailing out private enterprise. I have a problem with faith based initiatives being paid with my tax dollar. I have a problem that you get extra deductions if you have children. I too have a problem with pork barrel projects.

But one man's pork is another mans needs (for pork projects vary greatly, so it is hard to know what the rant is about).

I have no problem with after school programs. My payroll dollars contributed to social security and medicare.

When will people stop asking for the government to fix their lives?

Maybe when the government gets out of taking sides in the religious debate of who should get married. Maybe when the government realizes that the Constitution said that "all men are created equal", not just the ones you like. Maybe when they bring back the draft so that the military looks like the nation as a whole, not the hard hit cities and rural areas.

[Backtothemac]

And there we have a problem. I have a problem with a bloated defense budget. I have a problem with the government bailing out private enterprise. I have a problem with faith based initiatives being paid with my tax dollar. I have a problem that you get extra deductions if you have children. I too have a problem with pork barrel projects.

But one man's pork is another mans needs (for pork projects vary greatly, so it is hard to know what the rant is about).

I have no problem with after school programs. My payroll dollars contributed to social security and medicare.



Maybe when the government gets out of taking sides in the religious debate of who should get married. Maybe when the government realizes that the Constitution said that "all men are created equal", not just the ones you like. Maybe when they bring back the draft so that the military looks like the nation as a whole, not the hard hit cities and rural areas.

Sorry to be insulting, but I know I will. Have you ever served? Then don't believe what the statics say. I have no problem with the draft, and in fact I support it as manditory for every able male. As for who marry's who. Look. You are argueing the morality of laws. If that is the case then is it moral to force someone to take their money and use that money to fund the lives of other people? Is that not theft? I agree with you, I am 100% for gay marriage, I think gay people have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. But social programs that are funded by my tax dollars. No. Raising my taxes to fund John Kerry's programs, no. Even after the Bush cuts, I still am paying far more than I morally should.

So if this is a moral issue as you are making it, then are taxes not the most imorral action the government can take against it's people?

[Neserk]

It would be interesting to create a world where your view was what was done and see how you felt about all the uneducated, homeless, hungry, sick, and dying people all around; possibly including yourself.

[jihad the movie]

I have no problem with the draft, and in fact I support it as manditory for every able male.


Just like how you don't want to pay taxes because you were poor, and worked for your current place in life, I don't want to have to go to war and get killed or maimed after all I have worked for. I worked my ass off for 4 years just so I could get into the college I am to attend in the fall. The program I got into only accepts seven people as incoming freshmen. (Jewelry making/metalsmithing in case you were curious) I don't want to be a Sophomore in College and get pulled out for a war. I don't want to come back from Iraq with a missing arm, and not be able to finish my studies.

However, I would be 100% satisfied with some sort of "national" service, where I would have to take two years off and help to fix problems in America, do some sort of Environmental Conservation, help ailing inner city areas, or take care of the elderly, anything really.

Also, based on my internal convictions, I feel that killing another person is wrong, regardless of what he or she has done. So I don't think I would be cut out for being a soldier. Some people are, I am not. Let them draft somebody who is ready to do that, and let them draft me to do something that does not involve killing.

That's all.

[Stelliform]

.....

[LethalWolfe]

I don't have a problem w/a well-regulated welfare system nor do I mind funding defense spending. And if after school programs can give kids a bright light and an alternative to joining a gang and head-hunting cops for the hell of it I'm for that too.

I do have a problem, though, of my money being wasted on people that are just to damn lazy to work and milk the system. I think there needs to be more done to ensure that those who truly need a temporary helping hand get it and those that are just lazy get jack.

BTTM, your family was able to rally together and make it, but not every one has a family like that. Or a family at all. Or people have a run of bad luck that is just devistating. Shouldn't these people be given a change to get back on their feet? I'm not talking about a free ride, but I mean temporary help until they get going again.


Lethal

[Neserk]

America used to be like that. It wasn't until the 1900's that all the welfare came about. Before welfare people donated to their church and their church helped the poor. It just wasn't mandatory until the government stepped in.

And if people knew that they couldn't count on the government then they might get working.

I was thinking today about why the US is so successful when compared to other countries. I really think it is because of capitalism. It is a system where we all compete. Where I know that if I do not work harder than my competition then I will lose and have to close my doors. That competition makes us faster and better than we otherwise would be.

I don't have a problem with a welfare system that only supports you for a year or two, then cuts you out completely. And one that only feeds and insures your children, but if you are over 18 then you have to get a job, or live with family or in shelters until you find one. It is harsh in some instances, but without consequences for our actions, then we will not take care of ourselves.

Finally on BTTM's tax points, I think a flat tax is the way to go. You would save Billions by virtually eliminating the IRS, and at the same time you would reduce everybody's tax except the most poor. I bet you could even not have a tax for less than $20,000 yearly income and you would still come out ahead. I think churches wouldn't hurt for donations as they fear.
I do know that tax attorneys and tax accountants would be finding new lines of work, and they have strong lobbists in Washington, so a flat tax probably never will be.

you might want to look up current statistics about who is on welfare. It is quite enlightening.

[Stelliform]

.....

[Neserk]

(I had to stop my oldest from chasing a fly around the house by squirting it with his perscription nose spray. :rolleyes: And people wonder why kids get you tax deductions. ;)


That is funny.

[3rdpath]

sounds like you're suffering from PMS--post mortgage syndrome. :D did you just get your first supplemental tax bill?

anyhoo...i think the u.s. would be a much better place if they let us choose how our tax dollars are spent. those that want to allocate their $$ to defense can....and those that choose other projects can do so. if the military only gets $63.95, thats their budget for the year. it's funny that pure capitalism touts voting with your wallet but we can't do that when our government holds the purse strings. just remember, all our tax expenditures are decided by politicians with amazing health benefits who also don't contribute to SS...and yet have outstanding retirement plans.

btw, there is an interesting documentary called " an act of conscience" about tax protesters who donate their tax dollars to their choice of charities instead of the federal government. as you would expect, the IRS descended on them pretty hard but in the end the protesters came out o.k....and they still refuse to pay taxes.

[pseudobrit]

Ah, but their is the point. I don't have a problem paying for defense.

What about paying for offense? When has Bush used his vastly expensive "defense" spending to defend US soil?

I have a problem paying for after school programs.

I"m sorry you feel that way. I think the children of our nation need all the education and supplemental enrichment we can give them. And unless we want to fall further behind the world standard, we must give them more.

Our society is built upon the promise of the future, and the future is built upon the nation's children and their education.

For social security, for medicare, for state funded abortions, for pork barrel projects, etc.

Okay:

1) Social Security has been screwed because Congress can't keep their paws off the cash in the fund. If not for that, it'd be in good shape.
It's a good idea to keep our elderly out of the gutter, no?

2) Medicare

It's a good idea to keep people from dying just because they can't afford heathcare, no?

3)State funded abortions

Do they have them in your State? If not, then why complain to a national audience?

If they do, then you have a much better chance of getting rid of them because state representatives are much more reflexive to individual voters than federal reps.

I know neighboring boroughs that have silly zoning laws and some that have bike helmet laws, and I don't give a **** because I don't live there and the regulations don't affect me.

4) Pork

I agree.

When will people stop asking for the government to fix their lives?

When society helps those who need it out of the kindness of their hearts and the recognises that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't think many people ask the government to fix their lives. That hasn't been my experience in life. I wonder where you get this notion from.

Moreover, I wonder where you get the idea that Kerry would increase our taxes. Unless you've recently joined the upper-middle class, I doubt you'd even notice a reversal of GW's (record deficit-causing) tax cuts.

[blackfox]

Well stated 'brit...

[Neserk]

btw, there is an interesting documentary called " an act of conscience" about tax protesters who donate their tax dollars to their choice of charities instead of the federal government. as you would expect, the IRS descended on them pretty hard but in the end the protesters came out o.k....and they still refuse to pay taxes.

I read a story where a family purposefully keeps their income below the taxable level so they do not have to pay any taxes so they know none of their money is going to things like killing people in the Middle East.

Talk about sacrifice.

[pooky]

However, I would be 100% satisfied with some sort of "national" service, where I would have to take two years off and help to fix problems in America, do some sort of Environmental Conservation, help ailing inner city areas, or take care of the elderly, anything really.


Americorps or Peace Corps.

[wordmunger]

I had a hard time finding an unbiased source, but I did find a world tax table here (http://www.worldwide-tax.com/). After scanning it briefly, it looks like it would be hard to find a place you could move to in order to find lower taxes. Perhaps Saudi Arabia or Singapore. The U.S. has some of the lowest tax rates in the world, but you might prefer one of these two oppressive regimes. However, with all the deficit spending the U.S. is doing now to fund the war in Iraq, it may be inevitable that a future administration might raise taxes, so the time to leave just might be now.

[themadchemist]

It's simple. In exchange for services necessary for the operation of the nation, you pay taxes.

You like not getting robbed all the time? Thank your taxes.
You like how there's a fire dept.? Thank your taxes.
You like how there are roads on which to drive? Yep.
How about defending you in a dangerous world? Well, sort of.
School for your children? Yes!

And so what if some of your tax money is going to help your fellow citizens? The government doesn't just look out for YOU, it looks out for 300,000,000 people. If you're so fortunate as to be better off than most, then you have a duty to pull more weight.

People gripe about taxes and yet expect to live in a safe and happy nation. Well, I guess all that's important is that the wealthy people are safe and happy. Goodness knows they don't care to look out for those who are less fortunate.

:mad:

[Backtothemac]

You guys are missing my point. I don't have a problem with State, or local taxes being whatever our elected officials make them. What I have a problem with is Washington taking over 35% of my income and giving it to those that would prefer to sit on their rear ends instead of bettering themselves.

People point the finger at others and say they are keeping me from making it, and yet they don't do anything about it.

I came from poor to be where I am. I did it without welfare, etc. If I can, anyone can.

I don't have a problem helping those that can't help themselves. But as an example. A lady came into the store to get 5, yes 5 ****ing cellphones. For her and her family. We get to the credit app. She doesn't have a drivers license because of her DUI's. She has a state ID. So, when I ask for her work number, nope. Doesn't have one. Meanwhile her 7, yes 7 kids are running around my store like hellions. AND SHE IS PREGNANT WITH NUMBER 8! Guess what? She is a 1,000 deposit on each line. Why, because she has never paid a bill in her life. And she lives on? Anyone? Buler? WELFARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY!

That is what I am tired of, that is what is BS. Why should I pay for that person to live? Nuts, truely nuts.

[Neserk]

I came from poor to be where I am. I did it without welfare, etc. If I can, anyone can.




1) you are not everyone. You are you. The above is a lame argument.
2) Check the stats about welfare it is quite enlightening.
3) I don't want a penny of my money going to pay people who are too lazy to get a real job and go into the military so they can kill people so I don't think any of my money should go to aggressive acts of war!

[blackfox]

You guys are missing my point. I don't have a problem with State, or local taxes being whatever our elected officials make them. What I have a problem with is Washington taking over 35% of my income and giving it to those that would prefer to sit on their rear ends instead of bettering themselves.
.
Well, BTTM, I must say perhaps you are missing the point, or I took the above argument to be more simplistic than you intended...Washington does, in your case, take over 35% of your income (although I thought the top tax-rate was 35%, maybe it is 36%...). anyway, it is not like that is ALL going to "entitlement" programs, and even the money that does, is not all going to "those who prefer to sit on their rear-ends...". There are some people who are truly deserving of temporary assistance these programs offer, even if there are those like the example you offered...tax money is distributed to a number of programs, some worthy, some not. Some worthy ones are poorly managed/regulated, but if improved in those regards would be excellent. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...it is waste that we should be trying to eliminate, not pragmatic social programs...

[Stelliform]

....

[themadchemist]

Not so, saying BTTM is extraordinary is a disservice to all americans. (no offense BTTM ;) ) People were taking care of themselves for well over a century in america before welfare. Lets not forget the milions of poor immigrants. They came here with nothing, yet they survived and flourished.


By "flourished" you mean they took jobs that nobody else would take at wages nobody else would accept? Their strife is exactly the kind of repression that social service programs are meant to prevent.

Oh, and for every "American dream" story splashed about the press, there are few stories you don't hear: Those about people who worked hard and died poor.

[Voltron]

Oh, and for every "American dream" story splashed about the press, there are few stories you don't hear: Those about people who worked hard and died poor.
Everyone who works hard should die rich? I never saw that in the constitution. BTW Poor is relative, there will always be poor because you define poor by comparing them to middle class or rich. Poor didn't use to mean a microwave, a car, a refrigerator, our poor is much richer than they have ever been.

[Neserk]

our poor is much richer than they have ever been.


also richer than many of the world's poor... like you said: it is all relative. Right now I feel rich because I have more than $10 to carry me over to Friday when I get paid.

[Neserk]

Not so, saying BTTM is extraordinary is a disservice to all americans. (no offense BTTM ;) ) People were taking care of themselves for well over a century in america before welfare. Lets not forget the milions of poor immigrants. They came here with nothing, yet they survived and
flourished.


You sure about that?


You must not know anybody who is in the military. Lazy people stay as far away from the military as possible. Those who sign up work their asses off.

Do they go through job training before they go in and have to go into countless interviews to get in? Didn't think so!

[themadchemist]

Everyone who works hard should die rich? I never saw that in the constitution. BTW Poor is relative, there will always be poor because you define poor by comparing them to middle class or rich. Poor didn't use to mean a microwave, a car, a refrigerator, our poor is much richer than they have ever been.

I never said wealth was a right. I said that it was a myth to proclaim that anyone who works hard can get ahead.

Yes, poor is better than it used to be. But considering the stature and wealth of this nation, I think everyone is entitled to health care, a good education, a safe living space and job environment, and meaningful work with the opportunity for advancement.

[Daveman Deluxe]

You sure about that?
You must not know anybody who is in the military. Lazy people stay as far away from the military as possible. Those who sign up work their asses off.

Do they go through job training before they go in and have to go into countless interviews to get in? Didn't think so!

Last time I checked, running three miles in 110-degree heat with 85% relative humidity is no mean feat. By the way, that's what new folks from the National Guard do every day for eleven weeks during basic training in Georgia.

Yeah, it may not be hard to get into the military as long as you have two eyes and four limbs, but it's damn hard work once you're in. And OTC isn't a cakewalk if you want to go the officer route.

[LethalWolfe]

I never said wealth was a right. I said that it was a myth to proclaim that anyone who works hard can get ahead.

Yes, poor is better than it used to be. But considering the stature and wealth of this nation, I think everyone is entitled to health care, a good education, a safe living space and job environment, and meaningful work with the opportunity for advancement.


I think everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness but not happiness itself.

I think everyone should recieve basic healthcare coverage, a chance at a good education (you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink) and a safe place to live.

As far as jobs go there are dangerous jobs that must be done, and there are nonglamorous jobs that must be done, and there are dead-end jobs that must be done. There are also crappy places to work at and good places to work at. If you don't like where you work then change jobs. If for whatever reason you cannot/will not change jobs than suck it up and make the best of it. No one said life was fair, or if they did they were lieing. :p


Lethal

[Voltron]

Yes, poor is better than it used to be. But considering the stature and wealth of this nation, I think everyone is entitled to health care, a good education, a safe living space and job environment, and meaningful work with the opportunity for advancement.
Sounds like communism to me. You know to each according to his needs from each according to his ability.

Who takes out the trash, makes the hamburgers, or dig the ditches?

[Voltron]

Last time I checked, running three miles in 110-degree heat with 85% relative humidity is no mean feat. By the way, that's what new folks from the National Guard do every day for eleven weeks during basic training in Georgia.

Yeah, it may not be hard to get into the military as long as you have two eyes and four limbs, but it's damn hard work once you're in. And OTC isn't a cakewalk if you want to go the officer route.
I don't know I had to take a test, if memory serves they called it an ASVAB test. I have no idea whether or not they would've accepted me had I failed. Also I believe you have to be a high school graduate or have a GED or you can't get in. That was before Basic Training which was before AIT both of which can be considered schooling with a required passing of tests before being able to move on.

[wordmunger]

My mother was on welfare and food stamps for less than year because her husband had left her and she was saddled with two kids and no way of providing for them. Now she is a productive manager, who managed to finish her college degree and put those kids through college as well. That is what welfare is for.

My stepfather was incapacitated with a back injury and couldn't work for over two years. He received Social Security income to sustain himself for those two years, and when he finally recovered, he rejoined the workforce. That is what Social Security is for.

My stepbrother worked for twenty years on assembly lines and at construction sites. Now he is incapacitated with osteoarthritis. Since none of those jobs provided health insurance, he must rely on Medicaid to get treatment for his condition. That is what medicaid is for.

These people are not cheating leaches. They are people who had a string of bad luck. The government helped them get back on their feet. If the government hadn't, then not only they, but also their dependents, would have become even more of a drain on society. Anyone can have bad luck, but because we all work together, we can help those who are less fortunate than we are. That is what government is for.

Some people abuse the system. Some people steal. Some people destroy the property of others. The government provides a justice system to deal with those people. If there were fewer taxes, there would be even more people like that. That is what government is for.

[skunk]

Very nicely put, WM.

[themadchemist]

Sounds like communism to me. You know to each according to his needs from each according to his ability.

Who takes out the trash, makes the hamburgers, or dig the ditches?

The people who take out the trash, make hamburgers, and dig ditches can still easily come from the population that doesn't take advantages of opportunities given. HOWEVER, right now, getting stuck in a low-paying, dead-end job has as much to do with overarching socioeconomic structure as it does with one's personal initiative. McLeod, in his "Ain't No Makin' It," does a convincing job demonstrating that the socioeconomic structure of society often trumps hard work, placing the hard working Black in the same position as the dawdling White.

In an even better society, jobs like those you have mentioned would be transient. They would largely be completed by youngsters and students before those individuals moved onto more skilled work. Additionally, jobs like digging ditches could be partially completed by prison populations, so that we see a return on our investment there.

Voltron, "sounds like communism" is a pretty weak defense...It's gotten really old in the last 50 years.

Edit: LethalWolfe and Voltron, too--you guys pointed out something in my earlier post that I seemed to miss by omitting a single world. I think that people should have the OPPORTUNITY to get meaningful work. That is, if they work hard, it should be possible. I think that there is pretty solid evidence that right now, a lot of people in this country have a very minimal opportunity to "make it," even if they work hard. There will always be stratification and someone will always have the short end of the stick, but I think that short end is just a little TOO short right now, especially for Blacks and Hispanics, poor Whites, and women across the board.

[Neserk]

Yeah, it may not be hard to get into the military as long as you have two eyes and four limbs.


"Finding a job is the hardest job you'll ever have." -- My dad when I was first out of college trying to find a job.

I"m sorry, but running is not work, it is exercise to get into shape. Try substitute teaching... *that* is hard work!

[Neserk]

My mother was on welfare and food stamps for less than year because her husband had left her and she was saddled with two kids and no way of providing for them. Now she is a productive manager, who managed to finish her college degree and put those kids through college as well. That is what welfare is for.

My stepfather was incapacitated with a back injury and couldn't work for over two years. He received Social Security income to sustain himself for those two years, and when he finally recovered, he rejoined the workforce. That is what Social Security is for.

My stepbrother worked for twenty years on assembly lines and at construction sites. Now he is incapacitated with osteoarthritis. Since none of those jobs provided health insurance, he must rely on Medicaid to get treatment for his condition. That is what medicaid is for.

.


THank you! These are the more typical (although less news worthy) examples of people who need gov't assistance.




As far as churches etc. go. If they had been doing their job well in the first place the gov't wouldn't have needed to step in!

[Chip NoVaMac]

I"m sorry, but running is not work, it is exercise to get into shape. Try substitute teaching... *that* is hard work!

Amen to that! Did it back when I first entered into college. One day in the teachers lounge a teacher asked me if I could sub for her the next day. Told her I couldn't because of a doctors appoint, complained that when I got home from subbing that all I wanted to do is take a nap. The room broke out laughing, I was told that this was common among the teachers! It's called mental exhaustion!

[themadchemist]

I don't know I had to take a test, if memory serves they called it an ASVAB test. I have no idea whether or not they would've accepted me had I failed.

I'm not sure that you can fail the ASVAB...It's an aptitude test.

[Neserk]

Amen to that! Did it back when I first entered into college. One day in the teachers lounge a teacher asked me if I could sub for her the next day. Told her I couldn't because of a doctors appoint, complained that when I got home from subbing that all I wanted to do is take a nap. The room broke out laughing, I was told that this was common among the teachers! It's called mental exhaustion!

I take a nap everyday when I'm subbing. It is how I avoid getting sick. I'm suffering from insomnia for the last 2 months (give or take) and sure enough, got sick about 2 weeks ago!!! Still suffering from insomnia, but at least I slept past 4 am today! :D I don't mind waking up at 6ish because starting Wednesday I'll have to anyway!

[pseudobrit]

You guys are missing my point. I don't have a problem with State, or local taxes being whatever our elected officials make them. What I have a problem with is Washington taking over 35% of my income and giving it to those that would prefer to sit on their rear ends instead of bettering themselves.

Hmm... (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm) 35% of you income goes to welfare, eh?

Social Security: would you prefer grandma diggin ditches? Getting gramps off his lazy retired ass and out there making Blizzards at DQ?

Really, if you have a problem with the federal government taking your money, you should look at places other than welfare to direct your rage. It's simply not a significant chunk of where your taxes go.

Instead, look at what we spend paying interest on the debt. A debt which is growing astronomically every year since Bush took office.

[pseudobrit]

Last time I checked, running three miles in 110-degree heat with 85% relative humidity is no mean feat.

Sounds like a decent warmup for me.

[skunk]

What do they do AFTER breakfast?

[Dr. Zauis]

However, I would be 100% satisfied with some sort of "national" service, where I would have to take two years off and help to fix problems in America, do some sort of Environmental Conservation, help ailing inner city areas, or take care of the elderly, anything really.
I think forcing someone to give up two years of their life/time for a public works project is wrong. It's a little socialistic. The same thing with the draft but it is a necessary evil in times of military need.
I also think the US public school system is inefficient and wastes money. School vouchers would solve that.click me to see what Bush did (http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/rel2303.html) The average tuition for all private schools, elementary and secondary, is $3,116, or less than half of the cost per pupil in the average public school, $6,857.linkage (http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-025.html)
Giving parents more options on where to send their children would cause competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition) between public and private schools and bring cost down and the quality of the education up.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm not sure that you can fail the ASVAB...It's an aptitude test.

The ASVAB is used to determine where a potential recruit will best find their niche in the military. When I took it back in '76 I aced the electronics section. So despite my desire for communications (film/photography) the Navy wanted me for the nuke field.

As to failing it, I am sure that they do use it weed out those that are undesirable.

[Taft]

Hmm... (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm) 35% of you income goes to welfare, eh?

Social Security: would you prefer grandma diggin ditches? Getting gramps off his lazy retired ass and out there making Blizzards at DQ?


Well, my position is that once people are no longer useful to society, they should be euthanized immediately. In fact, I'd say most people aren't of any use when over 60. Lets just start rounding people up and putting them down when they get a day over 60, shall we?

And don't forget welfare cases! I say, if a person has been out of work for too long, instead of GIVING them money, lets put them down too. Think of all the money we'll save! Plus, I bet society will be so much more productive if the threat of death was out there, lurking around the corner the next time you get laid off.


Ha, ha, ha! I've had my jokes, but there is a serious point here: we, as a society can't treat life as an expendable commodity. EVERY life is precious.

Now, I can't understand and simpathize with arguments which address the effectiveness of governments in providing safety nets such as welfare. I've seen many people argue that government is less efficient and effective at providing these services than the private sector combined with charitable donations in an non-taxed environment. These aguments identify the need to support the less fortunate in society and address ways to help to get them back on their feet.

What I can't identify with is people who take the greedy and self serving standpoint of, "the government shouldn't get to tell me what to do with my own money." Bull roar! You think the government should provide education to all people? Roads? Clean water? Then why not a safety net for people who get laid off and can't find work? How do you assign value to the former and find the latter has none?

It IS societies responsibility to ensure that its own are taken care of. Sure, this doesn't mean we let society be taken advantage of by people who don't help themselves (just as if your own sibling or parent was down and out; you'd want to help, but you wouldn't give them unlimited access to all of your assets or an indefinite salary while they sat around and watched TV).

I also find it laughable that someone would say the government was acting "immorally" by helping out the poor through tax dollars. Which is more immoral? Doing nothing while some in this country starve to death, become too old to find work and abandon their children because they can't provide for them? Or by taken a little from everyone so that a safety net can help these people who often times can't help themselves? Morality has nothing to do with taxation. Don't try to bring it into the argument.

Lets try to end corruption. Lets try to change the system to disallow free loaders, welfare dependents, etc. Lets try to find better ways to get necessary items and money to those who need it. (Private sector participation is more than welcome).

Taft

[Taft]

I think forcing someone to give up two years of their life/time for a public works project is wrong. It's a little socialistic. The same thing with the draft but it is a necessary evil in times of military need.
I also think the US public school system is inefficient and wastes money. School vouchers would solve that.click me to see what Bush did (http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/rel2303.html)
Giving parents more options on where to send their children would cause competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition) between public and private schools and bring cost down and the quality of the education up.

It could also create an environment where the have-nots are forced to send their children to places of education completely unable to provide a decent education. Current voucher systems generally provide vouchers which do not FULLY fund an education at any private schools. This creates a situation where kids from poor families are stuck in a public school which is losing money--through vouchers--to private schools in the area. The more people who leave a public school, the less money they get, the less prepared they are to educate kids. Combine this with the "higher bar" the government is trying to hold public schools to (without additional resources or plans of action to cause real reform), and you have a situation where public schools could actually shut their doors, thereby killing the meager chances for a decent education most poor people currently have.

The biggest problem I have with vouchers is that, almost 100% of the time, public schools are unable to effectively compete with private schools. This means someone will always be "left behind" (in GW parlance). I could see myself supporting such a system in the case where public schools were in a position to effectively compete with private schools. This could only come about through massive reform of the current public schools system (which IMO, is badly needed).

Taft

[Chip NoVaMac]

It could also create an environment where the have-nots are forced to send their children to places of education completely unable to provide a decent education. Current voucher systems generally provide vouchers which do not FULLY fund an education at any private schools. This creates a situation where kids from poor families are stuck in a public school which is losing money--through vouchers--to private schools in the area. The more people who leave a public school, the less money they get, the less prepared they are to educate kids. Combine this with the "higher bar" the government is trying to hold public schools to (without additional resources or plans of action to cause real reform), and you have a situation where public schools could actually shut their doors, thereby killing the meager chances for a decent education most poor people currently have.

The biggest problem I have with vouchers is that, almost 100% of the time, public schools are unable to effectively compete with private schools. This means someone will always be "left behind" (in GW parlance). I could see myself supporting such a system in the case where public schools were in a position to effectively compete with private schools. This could only come about through massive reform of the current public schools system (which IMO, is badly needed).

Taft

Sort of like healthcare. The haves can afford to go to a doctor and pay for it themselves in some cases, or in the very least have far better health insurance than the have-nots. Same "I got mine" attitude....

[mactastic]

The government doesn't know better than you personally, but it does know better than society at large. Mob mentality is scary.

Look, think of social programs as investments against a more expensive alternative. A national 'saftey net' level of health care (just catastrophic, not full go-to-the-doctor-everytime-your-tummy-hurts health care, as some would like to portray my position ;) ) is cheaper than allowing catastrophic illnesses to devestate a family and force them onto welfare with a giant medical bill attached. Making sure someone who's worked their entire life gets enough from the government to not die on the streets once they can no longer work is cheaper than dealing with the masses of homeless that would descend onto the streets of cities otherwise. Think about it, a few hundred homeless in your cities downtown could really cause some serious economic harm. Why do you think cities are always trying to write ordinances that prohibit the 'bad' kind of people downtown, and encourage the 'good' kind. (You know, the ones with money.)

What social programs are more expensive than is the hands-off approach that allows people to die. But face it, even though there are people here on the right who advocate that approach, Americans will never stand for that in large numbers. And what happens when people have nothing to lose and are poor? Crime, that's what. Although I suppose we could just lock all those people away, perhaps we could triple or quadruple our prison population. That would sure create some jobs, wouldn't it?

Oh I know what you'll say, if only the badnastymean gummint would get off my back and stop making me support these lazy loafing good-for-nothing drains on society with my taxes, then there would be plenty of money to go to private charities to deal with the problem. That's right, if you'll stop STEALING from me and FORCING me to give money to those I despise, I'll stop hating them and start donating right away. YEAH RIGHT!

[Stelliform]

.....

[Neserk]

I think welfare was designed to maintain a voter base for certain people in governement. :mad:


:rolleyes:


I gave my Secretary a raise, (single mother, three kids, was on welfare, now just down to food stamps for the kids.) and food stamps cut her food by more than the raise I gave her. So she ended up losing money!


You should have given her a bigger raise ;)



Where is the incentive for her to make more and better herself. I cannot give her more of a raise, and I fear that if I give her another raise, I will cost her more money. :mad:

You should check to find out at what point she will be able to have more by the fact you gave her a raise!

[Chip NoVaMac]

I think welfare was designed to maintain a voter base for certain people in governement. :mad:

I gave my Secretary a raise, (single mother, three kids, was on welfare, now just down to food stamps for the kids.) and food stamps cut her food by more than the raise I gave her. So she ended up losing money!

Where is the incentive for her to make more and better herself. I cannot give her more of a raise, and I fear that if I give her another raise, I will cost her more money. :mad:

20 years ago I had an employee that might be considered marginal.My job was threatened . In the end she had to quit since the minimum that i and my bosses gave her was too much for her to continue training to become even better. this was thanks to Reagan.

[Backtothemac]

Oh I know what you'll say, if only the badnastymean gummint would get off my back and stop making me support these lazy loafing good-for-nothing drains on society with my taxes, then there would be plenty of money to go to private charities to deal with the problem. That's right, if you'll stop STEALING from me and FORCING me to give money to those I despise, I'll stop hating them and start donating right away. YEAH RIGHT!

Don't asume you know me. You don't. I donate over 10% of my yearly earnings on top of the social welfare that the government steals from me. I donate over 20 hours a month to local childrens organizations, and have spent my life trying to help those who could not help themselves, and even those that could.

So, yes, the government should not be able to take my money and give it to who they want. I SHOULD DO THAT. Or not, that should be MY right to decide. But just to clear the air, yea, I do care, and do make a difference.

[pseudobrit]

Don't asume you know me. You don't. I donate over 10% of my yearly earnings on top of the social welfare that the government steals from me. I donate over 20 hours a month to local childrens organizations, and have spent my life trying to help those who could not help themselves, and even those that could.

So, yes, the government should not be able to take my money and give it to who they want. I SHOULD DO THAT. Or not, that should be MY right to decide. But just to clear the air, yea, I do care, and do make a difference.

Good for you. Really.

But if we let government operate on a "pay what you can, donate when and where you feel you should" revenue generation plan, well, that'll spell the end of our society in short order. The buses don't run, the police don't respond, the roads aren't fixed, the water isn't safe... you get the picture.

[Stelliform]

.....

[Neserk]

This system was obviously designed to keep people on it.


You give the gov't WAY TOO MUCH credit ;)

It works the same with taxes. If I work 10 days a month or less I bring home X amount of money per day. But if I work more than that I bring home X-N amount of money per day.

[pseudobrit]

But it has always seems supremely stupid that you lose money when you try to get out of the system. Why doesn't she get to keep 50% of the raise I gave her? So she has an incentive to work harder and make more money.

I never understood this system either. If it's supposed to be a hand up (not a hand out), it should keep paying until they're clear of poverty.

The root of it lies in the selfish, hateful attitude many have toward those who need assistance. The thinking is "if he was making $100 a week and getting $50 from the government and this week he's making $125, he should only be getting $25 this week. We're not here to give him a raise, we're here to keep him from starving to death, and these beggars should be grateful."

So next time you feel anger toward people who are trapped on government assistance, just remember, because of that type of anger and sentiment, Congress has made it so that a man who sits on his ass all day brings home the same amount of money as a man who busts his ass at a minimum-wage job all day. Of course, with the "welfare-to-work" programme, we've started forcing people to slave at those minimum wage jobs.

The system was paradoxical before "welfare reform." Now it gives big business a steady supply of slave labor.

[Backtothemac]

Good for you. Really.

But if we let government operate on a "pay what you can, donate when and where you feel you should" revenue generation plan, well, that'll spell the end of our society in short order. The buses don't run, the police don't respond, the roads aren't fixed, the water isn't safe... you get the picture.

Brit, I am not talking about taxes that go to public works. I think they should exsist, but should be collect by the states and the cities. I just don't like the federal tax structure, and the lack of control that we the people actually have on the spending of the government. It is out of control.

[Neserk]

Too bad many states are moronic in their activity. The Fed Gov't is necessary, especially for protecting minority groups!

[pseudobrit]

Brit, I am not talking about taxes that go to public works. I think they should exsist, but should be collect by the states and the cities. I just don't like the federal tax structure, and the lack of control that we the people actually have on the spending of the government. It is out of control.

The federal government does an awful lot that wouldn't or couldn't otherwise be done. From funding research to education, it does more than we think.

If we left it up to states and cities to fully fund their own projects, education and public works, you realise that poorer areas would be neglected while richer areas would have a surplus, right? We already see this to some extent, if we subtracted the federal distribution system from the equation, it would worsen.

As I said before, if you have a problem with out of control federal taxes, you have a problem with the runaway military spending and Bush's tax cuts, not with drop-in-the-bucket things like welfare.

[mactastic]

Don't asume you know me. You don't. I donate over 10% of my yearly earnings on top of the social welfare that the government steals from me. I donate over 20 hours a month to local childrens organizations, and have spent my life trying to help those who could not help themselves, and even those that could.

Don't assume I'm speaking to you specifically. I'M NOT! I was answering a general question about who knows best that comes up TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN THESE FORUMS. And every time the response from someone (NOT NECESSARILY YOU) comes back that if only the government would stop taxing us so heavily that suddenly all those who bitch about how rotten and lazy the poor are would suddenly have a change of heart and actually INCREASE the amount of money they give. If this doesn't mean you FINE. I don't know you and don't really care to. But take a chill pill before you react as if I slapped you across the face. I wasn't even talking to you directly.

So, yes, the government should not be able to take my money and give it to who they want. I SHOULD DO THAT. Or not, that should be MY right to decide. But just to clear the air, yea, I do care, and do make a difference.

Do I get that right to decide who and what programs get my money too? Or is it only those who are out to gut the social programs that get to whine about how unfair it is that their money goes to programs they don't support?

[Backtothemac]

Don't assume I'm speaking to you specifically. I'M NOT! I was answering a general question about who knows best that comes up TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN THESE FORUMS. And every time the response from someone (NOT NECESSARILY YOU) comes back that if only the government would stop taxing us so heavily that suddenly all those who bitch about how rotten and lazy the poor are would suddenly have a change of heart and actually INCREASE the amount of money they give. If this doesn't mean you FINE. I don't know you and don't really care to. But take a chill pill before you react as if I slapped you across the face. I wasn't even talking to you directly.



Do I get that right to decide who and what programs get my money too? Or is it only those who are out to gut the social programs that get to whine about how unfair it is that their money goes to programs they don't support?
I did not assume anything. It was pretty clear that YOU WERE TALKING to me. Let's see, I think the quote was, " I KNOW WHAT YOU'LL SAY." That isn't a generalization. So, don't come out swinging and when someone calls you on it back track by claiming that you did not mean anything by it.

You challanged ME on a point of contention by saying that I would say that if they took less of my money, I would donate more, and you ended it with "YEA RIGHT."

So, how did I mistake the nature of your post? And frankly, I was very polite about my response as someone that does do for those less fortunate than themselves.

So, I don't need a chill pill as you put it, because, if you were not talking to me directly, then you need to learn what the quote button is and is not for.

[mactastic]

I did not assume anything. It was pretty clear that YOU WERE TALKING to me. Let's see, I think the quote was, " I KNOW WHAT YOU'LL SAY." That isn't a generalization. So, don't come out swinging and when someone calls you on it back track by claiming that you did not mean anything by it.

You challanged ME on a point of contention by saying that I would say that if they took less of my money, I would donate more, and you ended it with "YEA RIGHT."

So, how did I mistake the nature of your post? And frankly, I was very polite about my response as someone that does do for those less fortunate than themselves.

So, I don't need a chill pill as you put it, because, if you were not talking to me directly, then you need to learn what the quote button is and is not for.

I didn't quote you. Go back and look. Thus the general nature of my post towards conservative thought. Then *please* come back and enlighten me as to what the quote button is and isn't for.

I also notice that you haven't dealt with the substance of my post at all.

[Ugg]

Too bad many states are moronic in their activity. The Fed Gov't is necessary, especially for protecting minority groups!

Absolutely! Can you imagine the chaos that would occur if the states had sole control of benefit payments? Minorities of all sorts would be instantly discriminated against and states would do everything in their power to "export" those receiving benefits to other states. No, benefits should be adminsitered by the feds not the states. It may be more unwieldly, it may be more wasteful but in the long run it is a much more equitable system than state control.

[zimv20]

benefits should be adminsitered by the feds not the states. It may be more unwieldly, it may be more wasteful but in the long run
i've never understood that notion. it seems to me that a federal bureaucracy plus 50 little bureaucracies (to administer funds) is more efficient than 50 bigger bureaucracies.

i'm not one to often advocate applying business efficiency models to gov't, but reduction of duplication of effort seems like a big win in such cases. i wonder how many states do very nearly the same kinds of studies as other states.

[mactastic]

Hmmm... you got back to me pretty quick when you thought you were right...

So, does anyone here actually think giving to charities will actually go up by at least an equal amount if taxes for social programs are removed?

[Leo Hubbard]

Hmmm... you got back to me pretty quick when you thought you were right...

So, does anyone here actually think giving to charities will actually go up by at least an equal amount if taxes for social programs are removed?
Even if it doesn't, that doesn't make it right to take from those who earn it to those who don't. Helping those in need is one thing, but too much of this money is going to folks unwilling to help themselves.

[Backtothemac]

Hmmm... you got back to me pretty quick when you thought you were right...

So, does anyone here actually think giving to charities will actually go up by at least an equal amount if taxes for social programs are removed?

Edited pending the answering of a question by the Mods.

Yea I am pretty sure you did quote me, but that doesn't matter, it was addressed to me, and I responded with kind.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Even if it doesn't, that doesn't make it right to take from those who earn it to those who don't. Helping those in need is one thing, but too much of this money is going to folks unwilling to help themselves.

Does a system that penalizes those that are trying to move forward by keeping them in their place work either?

You are taking a small subset, the abusers, and trying to apply to the whole.

Maybe we do need a living wage even for the lowest of workers. Affordable health insurance for all.

I feel too much money is being spent on the military and foreign aid. To countries that careless about us and our values, but they do care about our money and weapons.

[Ugg]

Even if it doesn't, that doesn't make it right to take from those who earn it to those who don't. Helping those in need is one thing, but too much of this money is going to folks unwilling to help themselves.

Yeah, you're right, so why do companies like Enron, Halliburton, et al, continue to be the biggest receivers of federal aid? That is the real problem with federal benefit programs, not the impoverished of middle America.

[mactastic]

Edited pending the answering of a question by the Mods.

Yea I am pretty sure you did quote me, but that doesn't matter, it was addressed to me, and I responded with kind.

Go look. It's an unedited post, #53. I never quoted you, I just took the premise of your initial post and ran with it. Something like 2 days after you started this thread. I can't make it any more clear. I was not addressing you personally.

Regardless, you feel I personally insulted you. If there was any misconceptions, I apologize, but I reiterate here and now that my post was NOT aimed at you personally. It was aimed at heading off the inevitable comment from some of the right-wingers here that comes up every time we discuss this. Every time I say 'there's no way private donations will pick up the slack if we cut the taxes on social programs' there is a guarantee that SOMEONE (not necessarily BTTM) will say 'but if my taxes are lowered I'm sure to donate more to those in need.' I was calling BS on that argument in advance, since it comes up so often.

Of course, I could take any response to a thread I start as a personal attack too, but that's sort of counterproductive. Hell, I've given the benefit of the doubt to people who replied to a post of mine that they quoted and totally missed my point.

Also, if you'd care to discuss the actual substance of my post (ie. that social program spending is an investment against higher spending in other areas) that would be super instead of taking an argument personally that was never meant to be personal.

[Backtothemac]

Go look. It's an unedited post, #53. I never quoted you, I just took the premise of your initial post and ran with it. Something like 2 days after you started this thread. I can't make it any more clear. I was not addressing you personally.

Regardless, you feel I personally insulted you. If there was any misconceptions, I apologize, but I reiterate here and now that my post was NOT aimed at you personally. It was aimed at heading off the inevitable comment from some of the right-wingers here that comes up every time we discuss this. Every time I say 'there's no way private donations will pick up the slack if we cut the taxes on social programs' there is a guarantee that SOMEONE (not necessarily BTTM) will say 'but if my taxes are lowered I'm sure to donate more to those in need.' I was calling BS on that argument in advance, since it comes up so often.

Of course, I could take any response to a thread I start as a personal attack too, but that's sort of counterproductive. Hell, I've given the benefit of the doubt to people who replied to a post of mine that they quoted and totally missed my point.

Also, if you'd care to discuss the actual substance of my post (ie. that social program spending is an investment against higher spending in other areas) that would be super instead of taking an argument personally that was never meant to be personal.
Now that is respectful. Apology accepted. Now, let me clear about something, I wasn't trying to slap you. I was trying to say that not everyone claims one thing in life, and then doesnt' back it.

I think the notion that without social welfare we spend more, is not a valid point of contention. If anything, that would actually help the economy because if it did happen, more money would be going through the system, thus total employment could be reached. The point about social programs is that they just don't work. Studies show it. Sure, they do help some people, but as a whole, they fail. They fail to move people off the dependence of the government.

Here is what I would purpose.

For example. Say someone is on welfare, because they just got fired from their 6 dollar an hour job. The person has a high schoold diploma and did well, but never went to college. So what do we do? make them look for another 6 dollar an hour job, and what, support them until they find it? How about give them 2 years at a vocational school for free? How about empowering the person to better themselves?

You want social programs? Find, have the government pay for the education of everyone that can meet standards of educational processes. As we become more educated we become more liberal right? So that would be a good thing?

I just can't accept the slippery slope arguement. It was a bad arguement in debate, and it never works. Everything leads to nuke war, or the worst case senerio with it, and it is bogus. ;)

[Neserk]

BTTM I think the problem is you've oversimplified social welfare. You seem to have a very myopic view of it. It is a complex matter. The extreme abuse cases of it are rare. Look up some stats on it that come from neutral sources. You might be surprised. I know I was :eek:

[Backtothemac]

BTTM I think the problem is you've oversimplified social welfare. You seem to have a very myopic view of it. It is a complex matter. The extreme abuse cases of it are rare. Look up some stats on it that come from neutral sources. You might be surprised. I know I was :eek:

Well, I agree with you, but don't you think that we can find a way to help people, and yet reduce our load of taxes? Not federal tax, but social security, medicare, etc? I am an independent contractor, so I pay twice what you guys pay in that. It friggin hurts bad.

I just think we need major overhaul, and you are right. It is very myopic having gone back and reread it. I just know the burden that it puts on my family having to pay as much as we do.

[zimv20]

How about give them 2 years at a vocational school for free?
i'm a big proponent of providing education.

regarding your two examples of dodgy social welfare...

i hadn't heard about scottie's farm subsidy. at first glance, it does seem awfully ridiculous. i suspect there may be something additional to consider.

i obviously don't know the woman who came into the store. i'm sure it's easy to come up w/ some, if not many, examples of abuses in the system. the question i pose is, is that a valid reason to denounce the entire system?

per your education suggestion, just about everyone in this country has available to them a publically funded education (to a certain level). certainly, many of these people completely squander that opportunity, to say nothing of being disruptive to those around them. but do we then conclude the system must be done away with?

i'll leave you with this item, which always makes me smile:
"light a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. light a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

[Backtothemac]

Good post buddy.

I like,

"give a hungry man a fish and he will be full for the night. Teach a hungry man to fish, and he will be full for the rest of his life." :D

[zimv20]

I am an independent contractor, so I pay twice what you guys pay in that. It friggin hurts bad.
believe me, i know.

i feel very strongly that the self-employed and the smaller small businesses need some serious help wrt taxes and health insurance. why the **** do we have a self-employment tax? i've never understood the rationale in hurting the little guy like that.

[mactastic]

Well, I agree with you, but don't you think that we can find a way to help people, and yet reduce our load of taxes? Not federal tax, but social security, medicare, etc? I am an independent contractor, so I pay twice what you guys pay in that. It friggin hurts bad.

I just think we need major overhaul, and you are right. It is very myopic having gone back and reread it. I just know the burden that it puts on my family having to pay as much as we do.

I think your anger is misplaced. How about we go after fraud and waste in government expenditures rather than social programs? Do you doubt the military wastes at least as much as is scammed out of social programs? I bet we could reduce our tax load and still keep all the social (and military for that matter) programs if we got serious about it.

Have you read about the DoD credit card fiasco?

[Neserk]

Well, I agree with you, but don't you think that we can find a way to help people, and yet reduce our load of taxes? Not federal tax, but social security, medicare, etc? I am an independent contractor, so I pay twice what you guys pay in that. It friggin hurts bad.

I just think we need major overhaul, and you are right. It is very myopic having gone back and reread it. I just know the burden that it puts on my family having to pay as much as we do.


I was once an independent contractor, so I hear you.

I'm sure there is a better way to do it, since I'm not in social services I can't give any specifics. I did have a friend in college who needed to get food stamps in order to survive. She had a myraid of psychological problems which kept her from working at a living wage. It was humiliating for her, the way she was treated. Anyone who thinks it is a free ride for the lazy is crazy.

[Backtothemac]

I was once an independent contractor, so I hear you.

I'm sure there is a better way to do it, since I'm not in social services I can't give any specifics. I did have a friend in college who needed to get food stamps in order to survive. She had a myraid of psychological problems which kept her from working at a living wage. It was humiliating for her, the way she was treated. Anyone who thinks it is a free ride for the lazy is crazy.

No, you are right, and you know what, the way the system is set up, if you are working at all, help is almost impossible to get. O.K. Here is an admission from me. When my wife and I were students, we were really poor. Really poor. So, we decided to get food stamps to help us out. Guess what. The job that I had working at the student rec center making $800 - 1300 a month disquallified us from the assistance. The lady at the center actually told me to quit my job, and then I could get the food stamps. How pathetic is that. But you are right in what you said.