Dismantle all welfare programs.

[Richard-H]

One word describes you...Lunatic.

Either that or maybe you just don't think things through very well.

 

[The T]

One word describes you...Lunatic.

Either that or maybe you just don't think things through very well.

The site is laid out, THOUGHT OUT very well. Perhaps you doth protest and neglect to think? *YOU* probably didn't bother to go to the site did you?

I tend to think the latter is true.

 

[George Costanza]

I think we should end all welfare...period.

Obama was just to much.

Then what?

Seriously . . . then what happens?

People become responsible for themselves and are forced to make proper choices ?

What a concept, eh? Millions of us practice it daily.

You are assuming that people on welfare are otherwise capable of just stepping up and becoming useful members of society, i.e., they never really needed welfare to begin with.

I'm sure a certain percentage of them can probably do that. I am also quite sure that most of them cannot. There is a REASON people are on welfare and, if deprived of welfare benefits, society will soon begin to see what that reason is. People have to eat. If they don't have the ability to buy food, they will steal for it. Crime will rise. The number of homeless will increase. Public health and sanitation issues will increase.

Society provides welfare benefits largely out of self defense. It isn't all "bleeding heart altruism" as so many conservatives seem to think.

 

[WillowTree]

Well, what do you think about it, Dogbert?

It scares the living hell out of him. Gasp.. he will have to get off his lazy azz and go work for his supper.

 

[The T]

Well, what do you think about it, Dogbert?

It scares the living hell out of him. Gasp.. he will have to get off his lazy azz and go work for his supper.

Exactly.

 

[The T]

Then what?

Seriously . . . then what happens?

People become responsible for themselves and are forced to make proper choices ?

What a concept, eh? Millions of us practice it daily.

You are assuming that people on welfare are otherwise capable of just stepping up and becoming useful members of society, i.e., they never really needed welfare to begin with.

I'm sure a certain percentage of them can probably do that. I am also quite sure that most of them cannot. There is a REASON people are on welfare and, if deprived of welfare benefits, society will soon begin to see what that reason is. People have to eat. If they don't have the ability to buy food, they will steal for it. Crime will rise. The number of homeless will increase. Public health and sanitation issues will increase.

Society provides welfare benefits largely out of self defense. It isn't all "bleeding heart altruism" as so many conservatives seem to think.

The REASON why they are on it is because they have been taught that *IF* they fail...The taxpayers...will take care of it and they don't have to lift a finger.

*END STORY*

 

[Big Fitz]

W2 (Wisconsin Works) proved it's true. Capped the welfare, and required enrolement in a job training program.

Know what happened? Half went into the project to get off welfare in 24 months permanently and half fled the state to MN who had no such requirements. And still don't.

Which is why they have floods of welfare recipients up here who come from Chicago to collect from both states with dual addresses.

 

[GilbertArizona]

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Well I'll try again. What is equitable about $15,000 an investor spends on a new stock offering being considered non-taxable (other than a broker's transaction fee) as opposed to imposing a tax on the full $15,000 out-of-pocket medical expense that parents may need to spend to keep their child alive? It seems to me when it comes to choice, the former has a lot more latitude in the decision and yet receives beneficial tax treatment under the FairTax proposal in comparison to the parents.

I still maintain our present tax system could be means to eliminate federal warfare programs while the FairTax is strictly nonsense.

 

[The T]

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Well I'll try again. What is equitable about $15,000 an investor spends on a new stock offering being considered non-taxable (other than a broker's transaction fee) as opposed to imposing a tax on the full $15,000 out-of-pocket medical expense that parents may need to spend to keep their child alive? It seems to me when it comes to choice, the former has a lot more latitude in the decision and yet receives beneficial tax treatment under the FairTax proposal than do the parents.

*FIRST OFF*? You must remove your blinders that you wear, and WEAN yourself of current punitive TAX CODES, and the thought of *CLASS WARFARE* which the current CODES do by the power of YOUR GOVERNMENT.

Until you accomplish that?

There's NO USE in speaking to you regarding this subject.

Fair?

 

[The T]

W2 (Wisconsin Works) proved it's true. Capped the welfare, and required enrolement in a job training program.

Know what happened? Half went into the project to get off welfare in 24 months permanently and half fled the state to MN who had no such requirements. And still don't.

Which is why they have floods of welfare recipients up here who come from Chicago to collect from both states with dual addresses.

I'm a proponent of leading by example in cases as this. And it's a damned fine example...

 

[Immanuel]

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Well I'll try again. What is equitable about $15,000 an investor spends on a new stock offering being considered non-taxable (other than a broker's transaction fee) as opposed to imposing a tax on the full $15,000 out-of-pocket medical expense that parents may need to spend to keep their child alive? It seems to me when it comes to choice, the former has a lot more latitude in the decision and yet receives beneficial tax treatment under the FairTax proposal in comparison to the parents.

I still maintain our present tax system could be means to eliminate federal warfare programs while the FairTax is strictly nonsense.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Well I'll try again. What is equitable about $15,000 an investor spends on a new stock offering being considered non-taxable (other than a broker's transaction fee) as opposed to imposing a tax on the full $15,000 out-of-pocket medical expense that parents may need to spend to keep their child alive? It seems to me when it comes to choice, the former has a lot more latitude in the decision and yet receives beneficial tax treatment under the FairTax proposal than do the parents.

*FIRST OFF*? You must remove your blinders that you wear, and WEAN yourself of current punitive TAX CODES, and the thought of *CLASS WARFARE* which the current CODES do by the power of YOUR GOVERNMENT.

Until you accomplish that?

There's NO USE in speaking to you regarding this subject.

Fair?

Not much of an answer T and not a fair response to a fair question offered by Gilbert.

Gilbert, the way I see the facts of the question in relationship to this is that the $15,000 stock investment is in fact the placing of that cash into a "savings" program. Eventually those stocks will be sold and the money spent on a taxable event thus taxes will be paid on the $15,000. For instance, those stocks were sold in order to provide the out of pocket medical expenses of the investors child?

I'm not sure that is a good enough answer for you, but it is the kind of answer that I think I remember from when I read about the Fair Tax years ago.

I hope that helps.

Immie

 

[The T]

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Well I'll try again. What is equitable about $15,000 an investor spends on a new stock offering being considered non-taxable (other than a broker's transaction fee) as opposed to imposing a tax on the full $15,000 out-of-pocket medical expense that parents may need to spend to keep their child alive? It seems to me when it comes to choice, the former has a lot more latitude in the decision and yet receives beneficial tax treatment under the FairTax proposal in comparison to the parents.

I still maintain our present tax system could be means to eliminate federal warfare programs while the FairTax is strictly nonsense.

Well I'll try again. What is equitable about $15,000 an investor spends on a new stock offering being considered non-taxable (other than a broker's transaction fee) as opposed to imposing a tax on the full $15,000 out-of-pocket medical expense that parents may need to spend to keep their child alive? It seems to me when it comes to choice, the former has a lot more latitude in the decision and yet receives beneficial tax treatment under the FairTax proposal than do the parents.

*FIRST OFF*? You must remove your blinders that you wear, and WEAN yourself of current punitive TAX CODES, and the thought of *CLASS WARFARE* which the current CODES do by the power of YOUR GOVERNMENT.

Until you accomplish that?

There's NO USE in speaking to you regarding this subject.

Fair?

Not much of an answer T and not a fair response to a fair question offered by Gilbert.

Gilbert, the way I see the facts of the question in relationship to this is that the $15,000 stock investment is in fact the placing of that cash into a "savings" program. Eventually those stocks will be sold and the money spent on a taxable event thus taxes will be paid on the $15,000. For instance, those stocks were sold in order to provide the out of pocket medical expenses of the investors child?

I'm not sure that is a good enough answer for you, but it is the kind of answer that I think I remember from when I read about the Fair Tax years ago.

I hope that helps.

Immie

*YOU TOO* must remove your blinders.

 

[Immanuel]

Well I'll try again. What is equitable about $15,000 an investor spends on a new stock offering being considered non-taxable (other than a broker's transaction fee) as opposed to imposing a tax on the full $15,000 out-of-pocket medical expense that parents may need to spend to keep their child alive? It seems to me when it comes to choice, the former has a lot more latitude in the decision and yet receives beneficial tax treatment under the FairTax proposal in comparison to the parents.

I still maintain our present tax system could be means to eliminate federal warfare programs while the FairTax is strictly nonsense.

*FIRST OFF*? You must remove your blinders that you wear, and WEAN yourself of current punitive TAX CODES, and the thought of *CLASS WARFARE* which the current CODES do by the power of YOUR GOVERNMENT.

Until you accomplish that?

There's NO USE in speaking to you regarding this subject.

Fair?

Not much of an answer T and not a fair response to a fair question offered by Gilbert.

Gilbert, the way I see the facts of the question in relationship to this is that the $15,000 stock investment is in fact the placing of that cash into a "savings" program. Eventually those stocks will be sold and the money spent on a taxable event thus taxes will be paid on the $15,000. For instance, those stocks were sold in order to provide the out of pocket medical expenses of the investors child?

I'm not sure that is a good enough answer for you, but it is the kind of answer that I think I remember from when I read about the Fair Tax years ago.

I hope that helps.

Immie

*YOU TOO* must remove your blinders.

Seems to me it is you that is blind this evening.

Immie

 

[GilbertArizona]

*FIRST OFF*? You must remove your blinders that you wear, and WEAN yourself of current punitive TAX CODES, and the thought of *CLASS WARFARE* which the current CODES do by the power of YOUR GOVERNMENT.

Until you accomplish that?

There's NO USE in speaking to you regarding this subject.

Fair?

If you are sincere about it then let's try this, I'm totally for a universal tax rate for entire country. Now let's see if you'll walk-the-walk by wanting that common rate imposed universally on all forms of income whether it be wages, capital gains, welfare, inheritance, gambling proceeds, dividends, interest, etc.

When it comes to taxes it is figured on 2 components, the tax rate and the tax base. For those that wish to descrimiate against income in form of wages, I see that as practicing "CLASS WARFARE" in manner no less than that practiced by the soak-the-rich crowd.

 

[The T]

*FIRST OFF*? You must remove your blinders that you wear, and WEAN yourself of current punitive TAX CODES, and the thought of *CLASS WARFARE* which the current CODES do by the power of YOUR GOVERNMENT.

Until you accomplish that?

There's NO USE in speaking to you regarding this subject.

Fair?

If you are sincere about it then let's try this, I'm totally for a universal tax rate for entire country. Now let's see if you'll walk-the-walk by wanting that common rate imposed universally on all forms of income whether it be wages, capital gains, welfare, inheritance, gambling proceeds, dividends, interest, etc.

When it comes to taxes it is figured on 2 components, the tax rate and the tax base. For those that wish to descrimiate against income in form of wages, I see that as practicing "CLASS WARFARE" in manner no less than that practiced by the soak-the-rich crowd.

You're STILL speaking OLD SCHOOL Taxation.

*SHED IT* Fairtax speaks to ALL transactions at a flat rate...period.

 

[uscitizen]

Get rid of all forms of welfare? You do want a great depression.
We are a consumer driven economy and all of the welfare money goes right back into businesses pockets. Well except for some crack money and such.

 

[The T]

Not much of an answer T and not a fair response to a fair question offered by Gilbert.

Gilbert, the way I see the facts of the question in relationship to this is that the $15,000 stock investment is in fact the placing of that cash into a "savings" program. Eventually those stocks will be sold and the money spent on a taxable event thus taxes will be paid on the $15,000. For instance, those stocks were sold in order to provide the out of pocket medical expenses of the investors child?

I'm not sure that is a good enough answer for you, but it is the kind of answer that I think I remember from when I read about the Fair Tax years ago.

I hope that helps.

Immie

*YOU TOO* must remove your blinders.

Seems to me it is you that is blind this evening.

Immie

*WRONG* Go and read it [The SITE]. Is that beyond your capability?

I always thought better of you. Perhaps I was indeed wrong. And that in of itself is a shame on my part, and yours.

 

[The T]

Get rid of all forms of welfare? You do want a great depression.
We are a consumer driven economy and all of the welfare money goes right back into businesses pockets. Well except for some crack money and such.

FDR? Is that YOU?

 

[GilbertArizona]

Gilbert, the way I see the facts of the question in relationship to this is that the $15,000 stock investment is in fact the placing of that cash into a "savings" program. Eventually those stocks will be sold and the money spent on a taxable event thus taxes will be paid on the $15,000. For instance, those stocks were sold in order to provide the out of pocket medical expenses of the investors child?

I'm not sure that is a good enough answer for you, but it is the kind of answer that I think I remember from when I read about the Fair Tax years ago.

I hope that helps.

I like your answer because it presents a view I hadn't heard before and on the surface seems reasonable to me. It doesn't alleviate my concern that the system will be morphed by politicans who'll set tax rates based on their own discriminations, not much different than what we see now through "sin taxses" but on a grander scale.

 

[Immanuel]

Get rid of all forms of welfare? You do want a great depression.
We are a consumer driven economy and all of the welfare money goes right back into businesses pockets. Well except for some crack money and such.

Even the crack money eventually ends up in the cash register of a local business eventually.

Not that that justifies illegal drug trafficking or anything like that!

Immie