Welfare Recipient:"Why Would Anyone Want To Work in America??"

[KnobbyWalsh]

Thats the problem, Knowing and proving is to different things

"are"

congrats u caught a spellin error on the internet. Easier to do than proving your point I see

Can't blame his "tight" shoes for that one!

 

[eflatminor]

Thats the problem, Knowing and proving is to different things

"are"

congrats u caught a spellin error on the internet. Easier to do than proving your point I see

No, a grammatical error. Better luck next time.

 

[eflatminor]

Agreed, so how do you assist those people in need while removing those who are gaming the system?

By embracing the idea of voluntary. When charity is provided on a voluntary basis, those doling out the help have a direct interest preventing abuse and the means to remove anyone gaming the system. A federal/state bureaucrat, not so much...hell, not at ALL. In fact, they have just the opposite motivation...the more on the dole, the more secure their job.

All I have seen from your conservative buddies is sweeping generalizations that they are all moochers and none of them should be helped.

Can't speak for Conservatives but personally, I don't think they're all moochers. I do think they all would be better helped with a voluntary system of charity, organized and overseen on a local basis.

If charitable contributions were enough to cover the truly needy why hasn't this been done already?

Because government has cornered the market on charity through force and the threat of incarceration. Despite the theft, American remain incredibly charitable. Where voluntary charity is implemented, it works, but it cannot work on a larger scale with government telling the populace "This is government's job".

Charity is great but is it realistically going to cover what is needed?

It sure did before the start of entitlement spending. It can again.

 

[Foxfyre]

By embracing the idea of voluntary. When charity is provided on a voluntary basis, those doling out the help have a direct interest preventing abuse and the means to remove anyone gaming the system. A federal/state bureaucrat, not so much...hell, not at ALL. In fact, they have just the opposite motivation...the more on the dole, the more secure their job.

Can't speak for Conservatives but personally, I don't think they're all moochers. I do think they all would be better helped with a voluntary system of charity, organized and overseen on a local basis.

If charitable contributions were enough to cover the truly needy why hasn't this been done already?

Because government has cornered the market on charity through force and the threat of incarceration. Despite the theft, American remain incredibly charitable. Where voluntary charity is implemented, it works, but it cannot work on a larger scale with government telling the populace "This is government's job".

Charity is great but is it realistically going to cover what is needed?

It sure did before the start of entitlement spending. It can again.

Exactly. Charities have vested interest in achieving the best possible results with the funds they have available to them. Those working for charities almost always do so because they want to make a difference, want to make things better, want to meet real needs, want to allieviate real suffering, want to feed those who are truly hungry and heal those who are truly sick. And those running charities have a huge aversion to wasting money and/or throwing it down an ineffective rathole. If a charity manages to eliminate the purpose for its existance, it simply disbands or finds a new need to address. Thus when March of Dimes was no longer needed to fight polio, it simply switched its emphasis to birth defects--both prevention and helping people deal with them.

Government on the other hand tends to create a class of people, whether elected, appointed, or hired, who have a vested interest in making themselves necessary to enough people who will keep them in their lucrative positions. Because it utilizes baseline budgeting, there is little or no incentive for any government leader or bureaucrat to be efficient, effective, or utilize any form of cost saving. The more they spend, the bigger their budget the next time round, and the bigger the budget, the more pay they can command.

They certainly have no interest in reducing the number of the poor or others dependent on government. They have every incentive to increase those numbers, however.

 

[Jarhead]

Agreed, so how do you assist those people in need while removing those who are gaming the system? All I have seen from your conservative buddies is sweeping generalizations that they are all moochers and none of them should be helped.

and all I have seen from you progresive buddies is sweeping generalizations as well.

Such as?

Solution?

Dammed if I know.

Personally, I have no issue with Welfare.

Why?

Becuase there is no solution to rid those that game the system and the need of those that dont is too dire for me to ignore.

See this is where we need to do better than this. Instead of arguing we need to be figuring out how to improve the system to make it so that it truly serves the needy and doesn't benefit the greedy.

The answer is not always easy or obvious, but not trying to come up with a solution gets us nowhere.

Blame the GOP who claim the democrats want to enslave their voter base.
And blame the democrats who claim the GOP hate the poor.

Perhaps if those we elect and pay to come up with solutions spent more time listening to the other side, we would have some solutions.

Instead?

They spend most of their time villifying the other side with spin.

 

[Foxfyre]

and all I have seen from you progresive buddies is sweeping generalizations as well.

Such as?

Solution?

Dammed if I know.

Personally, I have no issue with Welfare.

Why?

Becuase there is no solution to rid those that game the system and the need of those that dont is too dire for me to ignore.

See this is where we need to do better than this. Instead of arguing we need to be figuring out how to improve the system to make it so that it truly serves the needy and doesn't benefit the greedy.

The answer is not always easy or obvious, but not trying to come up with a solution gets us nowhere.

Blame the GOP who claim the democrats want to enslave their voter base.
And blame the democrats who claim the GOP hate the poor.

Perhaps if those we elect and pay to come up with solutions spent more time listening to the other side, we would have some solutions.

Instead?

They spend most of their time villifying the other side with spin.

It isn't a matter of either side not hearing the other. We've been hearing both sides for decades now.

It IS a matter of honestly assessing the stewardship, effectiveness, and efficiency of how the government spends the people's hard earned money. It IS a matter of honestly looking at results instead of the political spin and propaganda. Just because a program or bill has a compassionate sounding title, does not translate into the legislation itself being anything other than self serving for those voting for it.

A few anecdotal stories out of thousands does not give us a good perspective on whether a program is good, bad, wasteful, productive, or whatever.

We need more clear eyed honesty and perspective and a whole lot less of finger pointing, accusations, and partisanship.

 

[DiamondDave]

"demanding payment". Lol. You do pay taxes, don't you? I am voicing my opinion of where i would like to see our tax dollars go. I want it to go to help people who are truly in need, you don't. Simple as that.

And your version of "treating people equally" is in fact not equal. I've proven this to you before countless times in numerous threads. You're obviously too closed minded to be able to grasp the concept so i'll let you continue to live in ignorant bliss.

uh huh.. Tax dollars you want more of from others.. while wanting yourself to pay less. and some to pay nothing at all

you have only proven that taxing someone more than the zero they currently pay is an increase... You have proven nothing.. Everything you have given is the subjectivity of perceived impact and 'fairness'

i want tax monies to only go to those things specifically listed in the constitution.... And i want people to take care of their own personal needs, and for those who have a calling to support a cause to voluntarily contribute to those out of the goodness of the ir own heart. .and if, unfortunately, some people wish to exercise their freedom and give nothing, well that is on them.... But even if you don't like it, you do not get to infringe and force them to give for your want of charity

you sir, continue to be an idiot

there is that strawman again. feel free to show where i advocated i pay less while others pay more. I'll wait.

when you can't show this, i'll have shown you to be another idiot who needs to create strawmen to try and make a point. Emphasis on try, as you get knocked down each and every time we do this.

Sad.

progressive tax.. By definition

 

[RDD_1210]

uh huh.. Tax dollars you want more of from others.. while wanting yourself to pay less. and some to pay nothing at all

you have only proven that taxing someone more than the zero they currently pay is an increase... You have proven nothing.. Everything you have given is the subjectivity of perceived impact and 'fairness'

i want tax monies to only go to those things specifically listed in the constitution.... And i want people to take care of their own personal needs, and for those who have a calling to support a cause to voluntarily contribute to those out of the goodness of the ir own heart. .and if, unfortunately, some people wish to exercise their freedom and give nothing, well that is on them.... But even if you don't like it, you do not get to infringe and force them to give for your want of charity

you sir, continue to be an idiot

there is that strawman again. feel free to show where i advocated i pay less while others pay more. I'll wait.

when you can't show this, i'll have shown you to be another idiot who needs to create strawmen to try and make a point. Emphasis on try, as you get knocked down each and every time we do this.

Sad.

progressive tax.. By definition

LOL. And how is that me advocating I pay less? I'll wait.

It's fun busting you up over and over again. You got called out for being a bitch once, lets see if you bitch out again.

 

[DiamondDave]

there is that strawman again. feel free to show where i advocated i pay less while others pay more. I'll wait.

when you can't show this, i'll have shown you to be another idiot who needs to create strawmen to try and make a point. Emphasis on try, as you get knocked down each and every time we do this.

Sad.

progressive tax.. By definition

LOL. And how is that me advocating I pay less? I'll wait.

It's fun busting you up over and over again. You got called out for being a bitch once, lets see if you bitch out again.

Oh.. so you are advocating that you pay the highest rate??? Got it

Or is it that you, in the progressive system, pay less while you call for others to pay more??

You're certainly not calling for an equal flat rate on every dollar earned.... for you have stated many times you feel it is UNFAIR... (by your subjective notion of fairness)

You have not busted anyone up... you have been bitch slapped every time facts come out against your subjective feelings or personal impact arguments

 

[RDD_1210]

progressive tax.. By definition

LOL. And how is that me advocating I pay less? I'll wait.

It's fun busting you up over and over again. You got called out for being a bitch once, lets see if you bitch out again.

Oh.. so you are advocating that you pay the highest rate??? Got it

Or is it that you, in the progressive system, pay less while you call for others to pay more??

You're certainly not calling for an equal flat rate on every dollar earned.... for you have stated many times you feel it is UNFAIR... (by your subjective notion of fairness)

You have not busted anyone up... you have been bitch slapped every time facts come out against your subjective feelings or personal impact arguments

And like that, your entire argument burns down again. Good for you! At least you're consistent.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, the leech says, "Who would want to work in America, that's what the taxpayers for?" So if everyone thought like that, then taxpayers wouldn't exist. Talk about our country going down the pooper with idiots like that.

And second, STOP IT daycare centers and fast food restaurants for enabling leeches to use the EBT cards and getting free daycare!! And what's with the free daycare anyway? If the leeches are collecting welfare, that means they are not working therefore they should not have any use for daycare.

My daughter once, for a hot minute in a rough spot in life, had free day care for my two grandsons when she was working. Now her and her husband have a multi-million dollar business. I don't know - just a story.

When she was working... The woman in that video isn't working and promoting that.

Congrats on your daughter and son who has made great contributions with their lives.

I have worked for wages or run my own business since I was 14 years old. And I managed to get married, live in a house, have kids, raise those kids to be gainfully employed, responsible, and productive adults with their own families, and not one of us ever got free child care ever despite there being a lot of times that there was a lot more week than there was money.

I have no problem whatsoever with companies who offer day care to their employees as a perk or benefit for those employees. I have no problem with private organizations offering low cost or free child care to those who need it, at least temporarily. But it should not be the government doing it.

I have a huge problem with those who expect me to pay for their contraceptives while ordering me to stay out of their private business. I have a huge problem with those who expect me to pay for their child care most especially if they expect me to support their lifestyle and pay all or most of their everyday expenses.

At the same time, I have devoted a good deal of my time for a long time now working one on one, up close and personal, with low income families, moms, kids, including welfare families as well as routing contributions to organizations who also work up close and personal with folks who have fallen on hard times. So don't try to tell me, or any others of us who do that, that we are cruel, heartless, uncaring conservatives.

The government who confiscates resources from the productive in order to make people more comfortable in poverty while requiring absolutely nothing of such people is absolutely encouraging more and more poverty. And that is NOT compassion. It is organized cruelty.

I don't know why that is such a difficult concept to understand.

 

[DiamondDave]

LOL. And how is that me advocating I pay less? I'll wait.

It's fun busting you up over and over again. You got called out for being a bitch once, lets see if you bitch out again.

Oh.. so you are advocating that you pay the highest rate??? Got it

Or is it that you, in the progressive system, pay less while you call for others to pay more??

You're certainly not calling for an equal flat rate on every dollar earned.... for you have stated many times you feel it is UNFAIR... (by your subjective notion of fairness)

You have not busted anyone up... you have been bitch slapped every time facts come out against your subjective feelings or personal impact arguments

And like that, your entire argument burns down again. Good for you! At least you're consistent.

No... you saying it does not make it so...

Again... YOU state that equality in treatment across the board is not equal... you state that progressive treatment with differing rates etc based on subjective criteria is fair and equal

You have made no argument.. you have made no point except on your subjective criteria.... you have continually called for more taxation of others while calling for others to continue to pay less or none at all... you have, as proven, called for unequal treatment...

What next?? Gonna go back and tell us ho wit is not honorable to call for people giving freely of themselves... but it is honorable to use the government to collect and confiscate from others to do the charitable work you call for?? Gonna tell us how it is morally superior??

Give me a break, you pathetic progressive.... You are simply lost

Do you call for a progressive system of varying rates? Yes. Do you pay the top rate? No. Do you advocate for the top earners to pay more in higher rates? Yes.... The point is clear.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Oh.. so you are advocating that you pay the highest rate??? Got it

Or is it that you, in the progressive system, pay less while you call for others to pay more??

You're certainly not calling for an equal flat rate on every dollar earned.... for you have stated many times you feel it is UNFAIR... (by your subjective notion of fairness)

You have not busted anyone up... you have been bitch slapped every time facts come out against your subjective feelings or personal impact arguments

And like that, your entire argument burns down again. Good for you! At least you're consistent.

No... you saying it does not make it so...

Again... YOU state that equality in treatment across the board is not equal... you state that progressive treatment with differing rates etc based on subjective criteria is fair and equal

You have made no argument.. you have made no point except on your subjective criteria.... you have continually called for more taxation of others while calling for others to continue to pay less or none at all... you have, as proven, called for unequal treatment...

What next?? Gonna go back and tell us ho wit is not honorable to call for people giving freely of themselves... but it is honorable to use the government to collect and confiscate from others to do the charitable work you call for?? Gonna tell us how it is morally superior??

Give me a break, you pathetic progressive.... You are simply lost

So says Diamond Cutter Dave who got up on the wrong side of the gutter this morning. You have no concept of the bigger historical picture, do you?

 

[DiamondDave]

And like that, your entire argument burns down again. Good for you! At least you're consistent.

No... you saying it does not make it so...

Again... YOU state that equality in treatment across the board is not equal... you state that progressive treatment with differing rates etc based on subjective criteria is fair and equal

You have made no argument.. you have made no point except on your subjective criteria.... you have continually called for more taxation of others while calling for others to continue to pay less or none at all... you have, as proven, called for unequal treatment...

What next?? Gonna go back and tell us ho wit is not honorable to call for people giving freely of themselves... but it is honorable to use the government to collect and confiscate from others to do the charitable work you call for?? Gonna tell us how it is morally superior??

Give me a break, you pathetic progressive.... You are simply lost

So says Diamond Cutter Dave who got up on the wrong side of the gutter this morning. You have no concept of the bigger historical picture, do you?

No.. idiot.. RDD's own posts show what he has said, what he supports etc... RDD also cannot accept the fact that subjective feelings on how it personally effects person A are indeed subjective.. and that equality in treatment does not need a subjective basis..

But you, once again, add nothing at all... and we await you and the rest of your ilk to just return to living under your rocks

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

No... you saying it does not make it so...

Again... YOU state that equality in treatment across the board is not equal... you state that progressive treatment with differing rates etc based on subjective criteria is fair and equal

You have made no argument.. you have made no point except on your subjective criteria.... you have continually called for more taxation of others while calling for others to continue to pay less or none at all... you have, as proven, called for unequal treatment...

What next?? Gonna go back and tell us ho wit is not honorable to call for people giving freely of themselves... but it is honorable to use the government to collect and confiscate from others to do the charitable work you call for?? Gonna tell us how it is morally superior??

Give me a break, you pathetic progressive.... You are simply lost

So says Diamond Cutter Dave who got up on the wrong side of the gutter this morning. You have no concept of the bigger historical picture, do you?

No.. idiot.. RDD's own posts show what he has said, what he supports etc... RDD also cannot accept the fact that subjective feelings on how it personally effects person A are indeed subjective.. and that equality in treatment does not need a subjective basis..

But you, once again, add nothing at all... and we await you and the rest of your ilk to just return to living under your rocks

Because of the shallow soup you swim in, what's the point of trying to have a deeper point? Some of us make those threads and are lucky to get three visits. You and yours love trading one-liners - that fuckin' twitter mentality. Get a fuckin' book and read. I don't have time for imbeciles.

 

[RDD_1210]

No... you saying it does not make it so...

Again... YOU state that equality in treatment across the board is not equal... you state that progressive treatment with differing rates etc based on subjective criteria is fair and equal

You have made no argument.. you have made no point except on your subjective criteria.... you have continually called for more taxation of others while calling for others to continue to pay less or none at all... you have, as proven, called for unequal treatment...

What next?? Gonna go back and tell us ho wit is not honorable to call for people giving freely of themselves... but it is honorable to use the government to collect and confiscate from others to do the charitable work you call for?? Gonna tell us how it is morally superior??

Give me a break, you pathetic progressive.... You are simply lost

So says Diamond Cutter Dave who got up on the wrong side of the gutter this morning. You have no concept of the bigger historical picture, do you?

No.. idiot.. RDD's own posts show what he has said, what he supports etc... RDD also cannot accept the fact that subjective feelings on how it personally effects person A are indeed subjective.. and that equality in treatment does not need a subjective basis..

But you, once again, add nothing at all... and we await you and the rest of your ilk to just return to living under your rocks

LOL, your subjective fairness is funny as shit. You're focused on the same rate, right? Everyone pays the same rate, no matter what. Correct?

But that makes the rate equal, but not the actual amount that they are paying. That's not equal. If you're being a stickler for equal why don't you advocate everyone pays the exact same $ amount?

You see, there are multiple ways something can be considered equal. It's just that your way is ridiculous and wrong as has been pointed out numerous times and in numerous ways.

You've lost AGAIN.

 

[DiamondDave]

So says Diamond Cutter Dave who got up on the wrong side of the gutter this morning. You have no concept of the bigger historical picture, do you?

No.. idiot.. RDD's own posts show what he has said, what he supports etc... RDD also cannot accept the fact that subjective feelings on how it personally effects person A are indeed subjective.. and that equality in treatment does not need a subjective basis..

But you, once again, add nothing at all... and we await you and the rest of your ilk to just return to living under your rocks

LOL, your subjective fairness is funny as shit. You're focused on the same rate, right? Everyone pays the same rate, no matter what. Correct?

But that makes the rate equal, but not the actual amount that they are paying. That's not equal. If you're being a stickler for equal why don't you advocate everyone pays the exact same $ amount?

You see, there are multiple ways something can be considered equal. It's just that your way is ridiculous and wrong as has been pointed out numerous times and in numerous ways.

You've lost AGAIN.

Correct.. because the tax is on the earning, just as the sales tax applied equally is on the spending.. the dollar, each and every one treated equally no matter how it is earned or spent.. no matter by whom...

You do not seem to grasp the concept of taxing the income...

The income total changes.. it is not a set or finite game.. but the unit of measure, the dollar, IS THE SAME.. hence why it is the basis for a flat tax, and hence when each dollar is taxed or treated equally, it is indeed equality in treatment.. unless someone like YOU decides to look at it thru subjective criteria as to how it hurts person A because of situation B... and not caring about person X because you think their situation Y is subjectively better or more comfortable or that situation Y is easy

And once again, you just simply state a subjective adjective (this time 'ridiculous') and claim victory.. your typical ploy


Go fuck yourself, RDD.. and your continual little 'victory' claims... and please, tell us again how honorable it is to call for charity and use collecting or confiscating from others to get your charity jollies off is morally superior

 

[DiamondDave]

So says Diamond Cutter Dave who got up on the wrong side of the gutter this morning. You have no concept of the bigger historical picture, do you?

No.. idiot.. RDD's own posts show what he has said, what he supports etc... RDD also cannot accept the fact that subjective feelings on how it personally effects person A are indeed subjective.. and that equality in treatment does not need a subjective basis..

But you, once again, add nothing at all... and we await you and the rest of your ilk to just return to living under your rocks

Because of the shallow soup you swim in, what's the point of trying to have a deeper point? Some of us make those threads and are lucky to get three visits. You and yours love trading one-liners - that fuckin' twitter mentality. Get a fuckin' book and read. I don't have time for imbeciles.

You could not logically reason if your life depended on it...

 

[RDD_1210]

No.. idiot.. RDD's own posts show what he has said, what he supports etc... RDD also cannot accept the fact that subjective feelings on how it personally effects person A are indeed subjective.. and that equality in treatment does not need a subjective basis..

But you, once again, add nothing at all... and we await you and the rest of your ilk to just return to living under your rocks

LOL, your subjective fairness is funny as shit. You're focused on the same rate, right? Everyone pays the same rate, no matter what. Correct?

But that makes the rate equal, but not the actual amount that they are paying. That's not equal. If you're being a stickler for equal why don't you advocate everyone pays the exact same $ amount?

You see, there are multiple ways something can be considered equal. It's just that your way is ridiculous and wrong as has been pointed out numerous times and in numerous ways.

You've lost AGAIN.

Correct.. because the tax is on the earning, just as the sales tax applied equally is on the spending.. the dollar, each and every one treated equally no matter how it is earned or spent.. no matter by whom...

You do not seem to grasp the concept of taxing the income...

The income total changes.. it is not a set or finite game.. but the unit of measure, the dollar, IS THE SAME.. hence why it is the basis for a flat tax, and hence when each dollar is taxed or treated equally, it is indeed equality in treatment.. unless someone like YOU decides to look at it thru subjective criteria as to how it hurts person A because of situation B... and not caring about person X because you think their situation Y is subjectively better or more comfortable or that situation Y is easy

And once again, you just simply state a subjective adjective (this time 'ridiculous') and claim victory.. your typical ploy


Go fuck yourself, RDD.. and your continual little 'victory' claims... and please, tell us again how honorable it is to call for charity and use collecting or confiscating from others to get your charity jollies off is morally superior

LOL, Remind me again which economist supports your idea of a flat tax with absolutely no floor exemption? When you don't name anyone, AGAIN, I'll have shown how idiotic your ideas are.....AGAIN.

We can keep doing this but the result will be the same each time. You're wrong, simple as that.

 

[DiamondDave]

LOL, your subjective fairness is funny as shit. You're focused on the same rate, right? Everyone pays the same rate, no matter what. Correct?

But that makes the rate equal, but not the actual amount that they are paying. That's not equal. If you're being a stickler for equal why don't you advocate everyone pays the exact same $ amount?

You see, there are multiple ways something can be considered equal. It's just that your way is ridiculous and wrong as has been pointed out numerous times and in numerous ways.

You've lost AGAIN.

Correct.. because the tax is on the earning, just as the sales tax applied equally is on the spending.. the dollar, each and every one treated equally no matter how it is earned or spent.. no matter by whom...

You do not seem to grasp the concept of taxing the income...

The income total changes.. it is not a set or finite game.. but the unit of measure, the dollar, IS THE SAME.. hence why it is the basis for a flat tax, and hence when each dollar is taxed or treated equally, it is indeed equality in treatment.. unless someone like YOU decides to look at it thru subjective criteria as to how it hurts person A because of situation B... and not caring about person X because you think their situation Y is subjectively better or more comfortable or that situation Y is easy

And once again, you just simply state a subjective adjective (this time 'ridiculous') and claim victory.. your typical ploy


Go fuck yourself, RDD.. and your continual little 'victory' claims... and please, tell us again how honorable it is to call for charity and use collecting or confiscating from others to get your charity jollies off is morally superior

LOL, Remind me again which economist supports your idea of a flat tax with absolutely no floor exemption? When you don't name anyone, AGAIN, I'll have shown how idiotic your ideas are.....AGAIN.

We can keep doing this but the result will be the same each time. You're wrong, simple as that.

Which politician sponsored economist, or what economist?? Because we have many who call for flat tax.. including Laffer (even as recently as 2009)

But go change the subject again and add some subjective criteria in some more... and keep deeming yourself as the self-appointed champion