FIRST off...Put your hand back in your pocket...NO MORE HANDOUTS....Get a JOB(I know your studying, but For the rest of the "handout kings" get a JOB
Second...Albert said it best the definition on insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.....IT WON'T WORK!
The number of freeloaders looking for handouts is just going to spiral out of control. I support gov't benefits for those that are truly disabled (mentally or physically, like missing both legs, no hands, etc.), but to hand money out for no reason just to TRY and jump start the economy. Maybe if they stop handing out funds to those that are irresponsible and lazy, the rate of the defecit increase will slow slightly and the gov't can focus on real fiscal issues like getting our troops out of Iraq.
The number of "freeloaders" looking for handouts will likely be no more, or no less than it's ever been in my adult lifetime.
Contrary to snopesian mythology, the vast majority of men and women in America are more than willing to work in exchange for a fair wage.
If the coming eight years honestly focuses on rebuilding America's infrastructure and thus creating millions of legitimate and fair wage jobs in America (rather than in Iraq) we've got a good shot at moving a lot of folks currently on the welfare line into true honest paying jobs.
Part Two of the above is that there's not really many people interested in "living off the government" since such a lifestyle is assured to be extremely substandard.
The reason why a significantly noticeable number of Americans are seeking government assistance at this juncture in our history is that over the past decade, manufacturing jobs and other fair wage employment opportunities have shrunk. People with 40-50 hour work weeks bringing home less than $400 per week should not be slotted as "lazy" when they try and tap a couple hundred bucks a month in government assistance for food and/or housing subsidies.
Contrary to snopesian mythology, the vast majority of men and women in America are more than willing to work in exchange for a fair wage.
If the coming eight years honestly focuses on rebuilding America's infrastructure and thus creating millions of legitimate and fair wage jobs in America (rather than in Iraq) we've got a good shot at moving a lot of folks currently on the welfare line into true honest paying jobs.
Part Two of the above is that there's not really many people interested in "living off the government" since such a lifestyle is assured to be extremely substandard.
The reason why a significantly noticeable number of Americans are seeking government assistance at this juncture in our history is that over the past decade, manufacturing jobs and other fair wage employment opportunities have shrunk. People with 40-50 hour work weeks bringing home less than $400 per week should not be slotted as "lazy" when they try and tap a couple hundred bucks a month in government assistance for food and/or housing subsidies.
If the coming eight years honestly focuses on rebuilding America's infrastructure and thus creating millions of legitimate and fair wage jobs in America (rather than in Iraq) we've got a good shot at moving a lot of folks currently on the welfare line into true honest paying jobs.
--Yes infrastructure jobs will help. Stimulus payments, will not.
"People with 40-50 hour work weeks bringing home less than $400 per week should not be slotted as "lazy" when they try and tap a couple hundred bucks a month in government assistance for food and/or housing subsidies.
--You're correct. Those that work should be eligible. As should those that recently got laid off (unemployment benefits for which the worker pays for). However, those that choose to sit around, watch court shows, and go out partying at night, w/o putting in the effort to find work, should get nada.
--Yes infrastructure jobs will help. Stimulus payments, will not.
"People with 40-50 hour work weeks bringing home less than $400 per week should not be slotted as "lazy" when they try and tap a couple hundred bucks a month in government assistance for food and/or housing subsidies.
--You're correct. Those that work should be eligible. As should those that recently got laid off (unemployment benefits for which the worker pays for). However, those that choose to sit around, watch court shows, and go out partying at night, w/o putting in the effort to find work, should get nada.
yes. ive always said i'd rather live in a society where some of my money can elevate the people around me, which will improve my life. i think of it this way. i'm in a house, the houses on each side of me are in foreclosure and the yards covered in weeds. possibly vandals inside messing up the house. broken windows, etc.
now what i would want to happen is to get those people who had to leave there houses elevated off the money I give them to stay in there house, avoid going to the street, etc. because it not only benefits them, but it benefits myself.
you get those 2 houses on each side of your house renovated, the yard cleaned up with productive tax paying citizens, then my house will gain the value it lost, instead of just keeping the money i made for myself.
i want to live well, but i also want the people around me to do well, because as I said that'll benefit me in the end as well. taxing the rich heavily is a good way of doing that. the new administration just has to be smart where they put the money, unlike the bush admin.
I agree with much you have to say, but the reality is that the government does what it wants...it becomes almost a creature in itself when it takes on this route of governing. Individualism is the key to prosperity from both a personal standpoint as well as a national standpoint and while im the first to admit that we have some serious gaps and loopholes that must be addressed, just assuming the government will fix it is a giant mistake. Socialism, like a bee hive has no class structure and there is no individualism. Its just the state. The state has no conscious...it has no soul.
So its not so much what the people want its what the people are going to get. And nothing will change from the last 8 until now. Its still the spending of money we dont have. I dont care how you do it, its still spending the money we dont have. If you want to fix a bridge here and dont have the money is just as irresponsible as not having the money to fix a bridge you blew up in Iraq under Bushco or in Afghanistan under Obama. In the end its a zero sum game. And for the record....people will take the quickest route from point a to point b. It just varies on where they settle along the way. There is many people who would rather not work collect SSI and buy natural ice and live off that 600+ a month then go out and find a job....that is a fact jack.
Then, you would be willing to buy a membership to something and let random people use it? I mean if you have AAA, you would be willing to pay for it and let me use it? All those gay porn sites...would you allow fellow closet homosexual MJ have a password or two so that he could milk his prostate thus giving him less time to post and more time to slap his hoss?
Why not a password to anything you have to other internet sites? Help a brother out....
All i know is that me paying more money to people who need it, who would in turn make my life better by them making there lives better is worth being taxed more. I'm an environment guy, people around me making my life better guy. Money isn't my main issue, being comfortable is. I'd feel comfortable knowing my money is going to help them, which will help me, via lower crime rate, increase in real estate, what have you.
Why should people work hard if someone who makes more money than they do are going to give them money they haven't earned?
Why should the potential high wage earners work harder or take risks in creating new businesses (and create new jobs) if they are going to have to give more money away to people who aren't as hard working or creative as they are? There is no reward in taking risks or working hard or spending money improving yourself if you are going to have to give a large part of it away to people who don't take risks or work hard. Therefore the overall economy suffers because people have no incentive to produce or to create jobs to make jobs for other people.
What is better, to give a little money to someone who make $5/hour like you suggest or to create a job for that person that pays $10/hour?
This is fine. That is honorable, but the reality is, who collects, holds and redistributes this "donation". Bureaucrats in bureaucracy do, thats who. How efficient is it for the government to give your neighbors that you talk about on each side of you this money? How would they get it back? How long would it take. Would the money be used for something else? The Reality is that money would probably be used for something else and instead, they would have to borrow form the Fed and promise to pay it back with interest. That is why government redistribution doesnt work, never has never will. You live next door. Give it to a church...give it united way or other non taxed non profits. Or instead help him do the work himself, costing you the sweat from your brow...a much more worthy donation IMO. The lesser the government the better. If you really are you brothers keeper, then give it to him yourself.
Or how about start a business and employ his neighbor? People always have more respect for themselves when they can earn their own money rather than have it given to them for nothing they have done of themselves.
If you just give it to him you have to add in the government's take like you mention fletch and you have a person who is poorer off had the business owner not been taxed so much.
:toast:
couple things here.
1. these high wage earners are still going to be making a ton. so i'll make 500k instead of 750k. i'm still bringing in 500k.
2. plenty of reason, to not have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck. high quality of life instead of just hoping to survive when its all said and done.
3. overall economy would improve because consumer confidence would increase if you have more people spending money. creates more jobs, etc.
what i want is the tax burden on the top percent to raise the bottom class to the middle class. because I'm going to have all of those people spending money now, there going to be jobs created to handle the increase in spending, and you eliminate a lot of the entitlement programs.
what your doing though is eliminating a potential segment of people from the market place. your eliminating there purchasing power and extra added boost to the economy to keep the top percent satisfied.
See thats the thing. The government of course would be in charge of it. We lost all the trust in government after Bush so we assume Obama can't fix it. I'm telling you if you got the right government in place, these problems can be solved. They can distribute the money correctly, etc. We got Bush stuck in our heads. Take a look at Canada. Remarkable the progress they've made with a majority government run country. Very affordable college education, low illiteracy, low crime. People are satisfied with paying more taxes because there government makes the right decisions which benefits them in the end.
You need to rinse Bush from your brain, heh. You get a new regime in here, hopefully they can thrive like they are in Canada. I can see your hesistancy though after what we've gone through with Bush.
i am sure someone will correct me but everyone talks about this "redistribution" as taking 50 grand from someone who making 250 and handing it to some guy in a crappy apartment who works 40 hours a week at mickey d's for $8 an hour.
in reality we are talking about giving that guy who made your big mac an extra $1000 back on his refund check at the end of the year.
not talking about making it so he does not have to work hard for his $320 a week... divide that $1,000 by 52 and it comes out to $19.23...
$19.23 a week is gonna stop the cook at mcdonalds from trying to improve his situation, right.
in reality we are talking about giving that guy who made your big mac an extra $1000 back on his refund check at the end of the year.
not talking about making it so he does not have to work hard for his $320 a week... divide that $1,000 by 52 and it comes out to $19.23...
$19.23 a week is gonna stop the cook at mcdonalds from trying to improve his situation, right.
no uno. it would be initially redistributing all the wealth from the top class to the middle and lower classes. the top class would then be part of the middle class, the upper middle class. lower class apart of the middle class. one class nation. you get serious and invest in this green society, will give you millions of jobs. you get those lower class people making middle class salaries in those green manufacturing, technical jobs. have the top continue with new investments and entrepreneurship and you have a thriving society.
quantum leap thinks the country is run, or should be run from the top down. i say it should start in the middle. thats the main difference.
quantum leap disregards a class of people that would pump billions more into the country. I utilize all three.
quantum leap thinks the country is run, or should be run from the top down. i say it should start in the middle. thats the main difference.
quantum leap disregards a class of people that would pump billions more into the country. I utilize all three.
