Who needs your $ more?

[Luissa]

Wicked thinks everyone is a drug addict!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Neither a lender nor a borrower be.

 

[SuMar]

how the hell is that the first thing that comes to mind instead of the thousand of legal ways it could happen?

Actually, the first thing that came to mind is that it was probably your typical liberal idiot who can't manage his fucking life!

Second thing that came to mind is that it's probably your stupid liberal ass!

Because cons can always manage their life?
If he has that many cars, a Harley, and a SUV. My money is on him being a republican.

Because there is no such thing as a rich democrat.

 

[QUENTIN]

Recently, a neighbor of mine has asked many of us for loans. I offered to buy one of his boats. Not an expensive boat but a small aliminum jon boat. No was his answer. He just needs 10K to get through the next "few" months.
2 Harleys, 2 boats, 2 jet skis, a new Camaro, late model truck and SUV and his wife drives one of those SUV small Lexus is just a small sampleopf his assets.
But according to my neighbor he needs my $ more than I do. Sound familiar?
I am a proponent of many social programs that ACTUALLY help people. However, many of the people that "qualify" under the absurd rules and regulations government bureaucrats set to determine what qualifies as "need" do not need, or deserve, my money more than I do.
Accordingly, the first question that should be asked when government, at the point of a gun, takes my $ is whether the person that will be getting my $ needs it more than me.
Does that person that qualified under some government bureaucrats' rules to get my $ actually have a need greater than my need to take care of my family? Is that program that government has set up that takes my $ to fund it more important than the needs of me and my family?
Now I will await the sewer, standing army,roads, military, police and the other arguments which will correctly be made. But those arguments are moot in this discussion. I am speaking of programs where it is a direct transfer of my $ to someone else that government has determined needs my $ than I do. And thos transfer will be to individuals THAT DO NOTHING OTHER than hold out their hand to get the $ and provide no service.
A thank you would seem appropriate but the sense of entitlement and the lack of pride associated with this mentality has spread like the plague nationally.
What is wrong with someone that has earned their $ objecting to the transfer of that earned income to someone that refuses to work for it or any $.

As long as we have a government, I support robust social services, but I see nothing wrong with this sentiment at all.

People paying taxes that go to social services for the poor (welfare, medicaid, SNAP) should be assured that the people receiving their tax dollars truly are needy and in more dire financial straits than the taxpayer.

The amount of actual welfare fraud in the country is actually fairly low, the DHSS put it at 4.1% of total welfare and welfare programs, including the cost to investigate and in some cases prosecute offenders according to their 2004 report published in its entirety in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Child-Poverty-Inequality-Securing-Americas/dp/0195305442/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274096663&sr=1-6"]Child Poverty and Inequality.[/ame] Independent studies utilizing government data have found comparable but slightly different rates, according to a University of Wisconsin-Madison study cited in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/War-Welfare-Poverty-Politics-America/dp/0812242041/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274096663&sr=1-9"]The War on Welfare[/ame], the rate of actual welfare money received by people who did not qualify or received more than they qualified for was 6.8% in 1992 and, following the The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, was down to 3.1% but that's not including the cost to investigate and deal with suspicion of fraud. The Libertarian and anti-welfare Cato Institute's study cited in the book put the number at 5.4% including all costs to the taxpayer related to welfare fraud following the '96 bill. In general, it's accepted that the rate of fraud was higher in the 1970's but it's relatively difficult now with greater technology and access to records as well as more frequent home visits to defraud the system.

The "Welfare Queen" stereotype is largely a hyperbolic and exaggerated political construct according to the actual data and rural communities are even worse in terms of poverty and welfare rates than urban ones.

Meanwhile the official poverty line/threshold has remain unchanged since 1981 (and barely changed since the early 70s), not reflecting inflation and other economic changes, so there are likely hundreds of thousands if not millions of people below the poverty line and in need who would qualify for assistance if the criteria were updated but currently do not. What a typical family receiving Welfare and SNAP aid has is practically not enough to eat enough proper food to meet basic nutrition requirements among other concerns like housing, school costs, proper medical care, etc.

None of that changes the fact though that people paying into the program should not have to do so if they have an even greater financial need than those receiving funds, so I think what you're saying is more than fair. Perhaps the data about who qualifies to receives funds should be more readily available.

A question though, you mentioned your neighbor was asking around the neighborhood for money and lives extravagantly, do you know that he's receiving welfare, food stamps, or other government aid?

 

[Douger]

Recently, a neighbor of mine has asked many of us for loans. I offered to buy one of his boats. Not an expensive boat but a small aliminum jon boat. No was his answer. He just needs 10K to get through the next "few" months.
2 Harleys, 2 boats, 2 jet skis, a new Camaro, late model truck and SUV and his wife drives one of those SUV small Lexus is just a small sampleopf his assets.
But according to my neighbor he needs my $ more than I do. Sound familiar?
I am a proponent of many social programs that ACTUALLY help people. However, many of the people that "qualify" under the absurd rules and regulations government bureaucrats set to determine what qualifies as "need" do not need, or deserve, my money more than I do.
Accordingly, the first question that should be asked when government, at the point of a gun, takes my $ is whether the person that will be getting my $ needs it more than me.
Does that person that qualified under some government bureaucrats' rules to get my $ actually have a need greater than my need to take care of my family? Is that program that government has set up that takes my $ to fund it more important than the needs of me and my family?
Now I will await the sewer, standing army,roads, military, police and the other arguments which will correctly be made. But those arguments are moot in this discussion. I am speaking of programs where it is a direct transfer of my $ to someone else that government has determined needs my $ than I do. And thos transfer will be to individuals THAT DO NOTHING OTHER than hold out their hand to get the $ and provide no service.
A thank you would seem appropriate but the sense of entitlement and the lack of pride associated with this mentality has spread like the plague nationally.
What is wrong with someone that has earned their $ objecting to the transfer of that earned income to someone that refuses to work for it or any $.

He has no assets. He is an ass whole
Typical Murkin. That's why you are all going down.

 

[rightwinger]

Recently, a neighbor of mine has asked many of us for loans. I offered to buy one of his boats. Not an expensive boat but a small aliminum jon boat. No was his answer. He just needs 10K to get through the next "few" months.
2 Harleys, 2 boats, 2 jet skis, a new Camaro, late model truck and SUV and his wife drives one of those SUV small Lexus is just a small sampleopf his assets.
But according to my neighbor he needs my $ more than I do. Sound familiar?
I am a proponent of many social programs that ACTUALLY help people. However, many of the people that "qualify" under the absurd rules and regulations government bureaucrats set to determine what qualifies as "need" do not need, or deserve, my money more than I do.
Accordingly, the first question that should be asked when government, at the point of a gun, takes my $ is whether the person that will be getting my $ needs it more than me.
Does that person that qualified under some government bureaucrats' rules to get my $ actually have a need greater than my need to take care of my family? Is that program that government has set up that takes my $ to fund it more important than the needs of me and my family?
Now I will await the sewer, standing army,roads, military, police and the other arguments which will correctly be made. But those arguments are moot in this discussion. I am speaking of programs where it is a direct transfer of my $ to someone else that government has determined needs my $ than I do. And thos transfer will be to individuals THAT DO NOTHING OTHER than hold out their hand to get the $ and provide no service.
A thank you would seem appropriate but the sense of entitlement and the lack of pride associated with this mentality has spread like the plague nationally.
What is wrong with someone that has earned their $ objecting to the transfer of that earned income to someone that refuses to work for it or any $.

Two things:

First your neighbor has a set of balls to ask for a personal loan. It is obvious that his credit is maxed out and none of those things are actually "paid for". A loan is unlikely to be repaid as his other creditors will be paid off first and any money he has left will go to buy more "stuff" before he pays you.

Secondly, I don't understand the connection between your story and government aid. it seems to try to resurect the old welfare people driving Cadillacs myths. Most people receiving government aid do not have many luxuries and I for one would not want to trade places with them. There is a means test before government aid is given. You may argue the threshold but I am not buying that many recipients are living in luxury

 

[my2¢]

Accordingly, the first question that should be asked when government, at the point of a gun, takes my $ is whether the person that will be getting my $ needs it more than me.

I imagine many do need the assistance, but the trouble is there are also many that will abuse any system for their own gain. Thus it has been my opinion that the best way to help the truly needy is though non-profit organizations. The government's role should be simply to encourage their funding through a tax credits and tax deductions for those giving to charities that meet tests for efficency and legitimacy.

 

[rightwinger]

Accordingly, the first question that should be asked when government, at the point of a gun, takes my $ is whether the person that will be getting my $ needs it more than me.

I imagine many do need the assistance, but the trouble is there are also many that will abuse any system for their own gain. Thus it has been my opinion that the best way to help the truly needy is though non-profit organizations. The government's role should be simply to encourage their funding through a tax credits and tax deductions for those giving to charities that meet tests for efficency and legitimacy.

Everyone is outraged by the perceived notion that welfare recipients are somehow scamming the system to get unwarranted benefits.

In fact, it goes both ways. It is the wealthiest Americans who scam the tax system to claim unwarranted deductions. More money is lost through tax cheats than welfare fraud

 

[Skull Pilot]

Accordingly, the first question that should be asked when government, at the point of a gun, takes my $ is whether the person that will be getting my $ needs it more than me.

I imagine many do need the assistance, but the trouble is there are also many that will abuse any system for their own gain. Thus it has been my opinion that the best way to help the truly needy is though non-profit organizations. The government's role should be simply to encourage their funding through a tax credits and tax deductions for those giving to charities that meet tests for efficency and legitimacy.

Everyone is outraged by the perceived notion that welfare recipients are somehow scamming the system to get unwarranted benefits.

In fact, it goes both ways. It is the wealthiest Americans who scam the tax system to claim unwarranted deductions. More money is lost through tax cheats than welfare fraud

And don't for get all those people who pay no income tax at all.

 

[QUENTIN]

In fact, it goes both ways. It is the wealthiest Americans who scam the tax system to claim unwarranted deductions. More money is lost through tax cheats than welfare fraud

This is undeniably true.

While welfare fraud accounts for, as noted, between 3.1% and 5.4% of welfare spending ($750 billion total this year, so between $23 and $40 billion lost), 72% of all foreign corporations and about 57% of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005 ($1.6 trillion total this year, so between $375 and $560 billion lost).

$20-40 billion lost to welfare fraud is nothing to shake a stick at, but it's also nothing compared to the half a trillion lost to wealthy fraud, and that's not even including all of the wealthy individuals who use creative accounting and offshore tax shelters to avoid paying their share. It's obvious which of the two has a more detrimental impact on the economy.

 

[Claudette]

Sounds like your neighbor is in way over his head.

Keeping up with the Jones can get real expensive.

Wonder how good that SUV would taste???

 

[Skull Pilot]

In fact, it goes both ways. It is the wealthiest Americans who scam the tax system to claim unwarranted deductions. More money is lost through tax cheats than welfare fraud

This is undeniably true.

While welfare fraud accounts for, as noted, between 3.1% and 5.4% of welfare spending ($750 billion total this year, so between $23 and $40 billion lost), 72% of all foreign corporations and about 57% of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005 ($1.6 trillion total this year, so between $375 and $560 billion lost).

$20-40 billion lost to welfare fraud is nothing to shake a stick at, but it's also nothing compared to the half a trillion lost to wealthy fraud, and that's not even including all of the wealthy individuals who use creative accounting and offshore tax shelters to avoid paying their share. It's obvious which of the two has a more detrimental impact on the economy.

I wish one of you libbies would actually define the term "fair share"

 

[WillowTree]

$10k he asked from a neighbor? He's got some balls I'll tell you that.

I bet hiz ballz izz at the pawn shop!

 

[Gadawg73]

Recently, a neighbor of mine has asked many of us for loans. I offered to buy one of his boats. Not an expensive boat but a small aliminum jon boat. No was his answer. He just needs 10K to get through the next "few" months.
2 Harleys, 2 boats, 2 jet skis, a new Camaro, late model truck and SUV and his wife drives one of those SUV small Lexus is just a small sampleopf his assets.
But according to my neighbor he needs my $ more than I do. Sound familiar?
I am a proponent of many social programs that ACTUALLY help people. However, many of the people that "qualify" under the absurd rules and regulations government bureaucrats set to determine what qualifies as "need" do not need, or deserve, my money more than I do.
Accordingly, the first question that should be asked when government, at the point of a gun, takes my $ is whether the person that will be getting my $ needs it more than me.
Does that person that qualified under some government bureaucrats' rules to get my $ actually have a need greater than my need to take care of my family? Is that program that government has set up that takes my $ to fund it more important than the needs of me and my family?
Now I will await the sewer, standing army,roads, military, police and the other arguments which will correctly be made. But those arguments are moot in this discussion. I am speaking of programs where it is a direct transfer of my $ to someone else that government has determined needs my $ than I do. And thos transfer will be to individuals THAT DO NOTHING OTHER than hold out their hand to get the $ and provide no service.
A thank you would seem appropriate but the sense of entitlement and the lack of pride associated with this mentality has spread like the plague nationally.
What is wrong with someone that has earned their $ objecting to the transfer of that earned income to someone that refuses to work for it or any $.

Two things:

First your neighbor has a set of balls to ask for a personal loan. It is obvious that his credit is maxed out and none of those things are actually "paid for". A loan is unlikely to be repaid as his other creditors will be paid off first and any money he has left will go to buy more "stuff" before he pays you.

Secondly, I don't understand the connection between your story and government aid. it seems to try to resurect the old welfare people driving Cadillacs myths. Most people receiving government aid do not have many luxuries and I for one would not want to trade places with them. There is a means test before government aid is given. You may argue the threshold but I am not buying that many recipients are living in luxury

You missed my message:
People with their hand out these days EXPECT THE $.
Government aid is the same thing. They EXPECT it.
Never said they are living in luxury. The fact is that most on the tit have a cell phone,color TV and a car. How many countries on earth is that a luxury?
And who needs my $ more? Someone with a cellphone, a car and a color TV?
Sell the car, sell the color TV and get rid of the cell phone AND THEN I will pay for your groceries.
But ONLY if you are made to turn around and say "thank you" to the folks behind you in line at Publix.

 

[Gadawg73]

Accordingly, the first question that should be asked when government, at the point of a gun, takes my $ is whether the person that will be getting my $ needs it more than me.

I imagine many do need the assistance, but the trouble is there are also many that will abuse any system for their own gain. Thus it has been my opinion that the best way to help the truly needy is though non-profit organizations. The government's role should be simply to encourage their funding through a tax credits and tax deductions for those giving to charities that meet tests for efficency and legitimacy.

Everyone is outraged by the perceived notion that welfare recipients are somehow scamming the system to get unwarranted benefits.

In fact, it goes both ways. It is the wealthiest Americans who scam the tax system to claim unwarranted deductions. More money is lost through tax cheats than welfare fraud

But that is THEIR MONEY. They earned it.
If someone breaks into your house and attempts to steal your property YOU are going to try and stop them. Why? Because YOU earned the $ to buy your property.
I treat the IRS the same way. The people that the government gives my $ to NEVER EARNED IT.

 

[rightwinger]

I imagine many do need the assistance, but the trouble is there are also many that will abuse any system for their own gain. Thus it has been my opinion that the best way to help the truly needy is though non-profit organizations. The government's role should be simply to encourage their funding through a tax credits and tax deductions for those giving to charities that meet tests for efficency and legitimacy.

Everyone is outraged by the perceived notion that welfare recipients are somehow scamming the system to get unwarranted benefits.

In fact, it goes both ways. It is the wealthiest Americans who scam the tax system to claim unwarranted deductions. More money is lost through tax cheats than welfare fraud

But that is THEIR MONEY. They earned it.
If someone breaks into your house and attempts to steal your property YOU are going to try and stop them. Why? Because YOU earned the $ to buy your property.
I treat the IRS the same way. The people that the government gives my $ to NEVER EARNED IT.

The wealthy are responsible for paying their taxes just like working Americans. A working American has a W-2 filed which details every cent they make. The wealthy have more flexibility in what they report and what they exempt.

Stealing is still stealing whether you are on Welfare or a mega millionaire. Tax cheats still steal more than welfare cheats

 

[rightwinger]

Recently, a neighbor of mine has asked many of us for loans. I offered to buy one of his boats. Not an expensive boat but a small aliminum jon boat. No was his answer. He just needs 10K to get through the next "few" months.
2 Harleys, 2 boats, 2 jet skis, a new Camaro, late model truck and SUV and his wife drives one of those SUV small Lexus is just a small sampleopf his assets.
But according to my neighbor he needs my $ more than I do. Sound familiar?
I am a proponent of many social programs that ACTUALLY help people. However, many of the people that "qualify" under the absurd rules and regulations government bureaucrats set to determine what qualifies as "need" do not need, or deserve, my money more than I do.
Accordingly, the first question that should be asked when government, at the point of a gun, takes my $ is whether the person that will be getting my $ needs it more than me.
Does that person that qualified under some government bureaucrats' rules to get my $ actually have a need greater than my need to take care of my family? Is that program that government has set up that takes my $ to fund it more important than the needs of me and my family?
Now I will await the sewer, standing army,roads, military, police and the other arguments which will correctly be made. But those arguments are moot in this discussion. I am speaking of programs where it is a direct transfer of my $ to someone else that government has determined needs my $ than I do. And thos transfer will be to individuals THAT DO NOTHING OTHER than hold out their hand to get the $ and provide no service.
A thank you would seem appropriate but the sense of entitlement and the lack of pride associated with this mentality has spread like the plague nationally.
What is wrong with someone that has earned their $ objecting to the transfer of that earned income to someone that refuses to work for it or any $.

Two things:

First your neighbor has a set of balls to ask for a personal loan. It is obvious that his credit is maxed out and none of those things are actually "paid for". A loan is unlikely to be repaid as his other creditors will be paid off first and any money he has left will go to buy more "stuff" before he pays you.

Secondly, I don't understand the connection between your story and government aid. it seems to try to resurect the old welfare people driving Cadillacs myths. Most people receiving government aid do not have many luxuries and I for one would not want to trade places with them. There is a means test before government aid is given. You may argue the threshold but I am not buying that many recipients are living in luxury

You missed my message:
People with their hand out these days EXPECT THE $.
Government aid is the same thing. They EXPECT it.
Never said they are living in luxury. The fact is that most on the tit have a cell phone,color TV and a car. How many countries on earth is that a luxury?
And who needs my $ more? Someone with a cellphone, a car and a color TV?
Sell the car, sell the color TV and get rid of the cell phone AND THEN I will pay for your groceries.
But ONLY if you are made to turn around and say "thank you" to the folks behind you in line at Publix.

Your examples of cell phone, color TV and a car are somewhat outdated.

You can still own a color TV and not have enough to eat. I don't have a problem helping people who are not able to take care of themselves. I do not begrudge someone owning a color TV. Cell phones and cars do come in handy when you are trying to get a job.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Everyone is outraged by the perceived notion that welfare recipients are somehow scamming the system to get unwarranted benefits.

In fact, it goes both ways. It is the wealthiest Americans who scam the tax system to claim unwarranted deductions. More money is lost through tax cheats than welfare fraud

But that is THEIR MONEY. They earned it.
If someone breaks into your house and attempts to steal your property YOU are going to try and stop them. Why? Because YOU earned the $ to buy your property.
I treat the IRS the same way. The people that the government gives my $ to NEVER EARNED IT.

The wealthy are responsible for paying their taxes just like working Americans. A working American has a W-2 filed which details every cent they make. The wealthy have more flexibility in what they report and what they exempt.

Stealing is still stealing whether you are on Welfare or a mega millionaire. Tax cheats still steal more than welfare cheats

Yeah, just ask half of Obama's administration. Nothin' but a bunch o' tax cheats in heat!

Fuckin' liberal bastards!

 

[Luissa]

Actually, the first thing that came to mind is that it was probably your typical liberal idiot who can't manage his fucking life!

Second thing that came to mind is that it's probably your stupid liberal ass!

Because cons can always manage their life?
If he has that many cars, a Harley, and a SUV. My money is on him being a republican.

Because there is no such thing as a rich democrat.

I hope you responded the same way to Wicked's comment.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What is wrong with someone that has earned their $ objecting to the transfer of that earned income to someone that refuses to work for it or any $.

A question best-asked of the average-Teabagger.