Should The Government Cut Back On Welfare Benefits or Should They Be More Generous?

[danielpalos]

So, if the private sector doesn't want to invest to create jobs, why do they need a special tax rate called, capital gains that is not taxed as ordinary income?

Full employment/part-time employment should correlate to full and part-time jobs availability.

Why don't our elected representatives to federal government become as fond of micromanaging those tax rates are they are regular income tax codes.

Capital gains is a tax that brings in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourages people to invest.

Remember that not all investments create jobs either. A business can invest in a huge warehouse, but only create about three or four jobs for the people that are going to operate that warehouse. Or they may invest in robotics or machinery that requires few if any employees to run them.

Right now there are McDonald's restaurants that are investing in automation in an attempt to have an employee-less store. Sure, there may be a few people there to oversee the operations, but now you have to push buttons on a keypad for what you want and your hamburger is going to be made by machines on an assembly line.

A tax break on investment to create jobs for the People is Only legitimate social reason for the capital gains distinction.

Capital gains is a tax that reaches many people beyond business. For instance, you bought a home 30 years ago for 80K, today it's worth 140K. You made a capital gains of 60K.

As far as a tax break intended for investments, yes, it has been done by George Bush. By allowing more write-offs for business purchases really helped with that economy he had at the time. My employer purchased a whole new fleet of trucks. Our customers were investing in new equipment for their operations. That tax cut put a lot of people back to work.

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

Simple; Only our federal Congress can pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

[Idadunno]

The welfare system is way too large right now, and discourages work by the generous payments it gives out, and the way it is structured. If we were to cut welfare benefits, the government would save money through less welfare funding, and earn more money through income taxes since more people would be getting jobs via the discouragement of living off a super small pay-check.

The government is turning the US into a welfare state with aiding corporations to farm out and/or hire/farm in cheap foreign labor--but this has been going on since the 18th century so nothing new.

 

[Idadunno]

So, if the private sector doesn't want to invest to create jobs, why do they need a special tax rate called, capital gains that is not taxed as ordinary income?

Full employment/part-time employment should correlate to full and part-time jobs availability.

Why don't our elected representatives to federal government become as fond of micromanaging those tax rates are they are regular income tax codes.

Capital gains is a tax that brings in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourages people to invest.

Remember that not all investments create jobs either. A business can invest in a huge warehouse, but only create about three or four jobs for the people that are going to operate that warehouse. Or they may invest in robotics or machinery that requires few if any employees to run them.

Right now there are McDonald's restaurants that are investing in automation in an attempt to have an employee-less store. Sure, there may be a few people there to oversee the operations, but now you have to push buttons on a keypad for what you want and your hamburger is going to be made by machines on an assembly line.

A tax break on investment to create jobs for the People is Only legitimate social reason for the capital gains distinction.

Capital gains is a tax that reaches many people beyond business. For instance, you bought a home 30 years ago for 80K, today it's worth 140K. You made a capital gains of 60K.

As far as a tax break intended for investments, yes, it has been done by George Bush. By allowing more write-offs for business purchases really helped with that economy he had at the time. My employer purchased a whole new fleet of trucks. Our customers were investing in new equipment for their operations. That tax cut put a lot of people back to work.

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

The number of earthquakes in fracking zones has increased. If people/insurance companies/state and federal have to spend money repairing damages from fracking, the country is not actually saving money. That does not include the "fire" hazards.
Trump has filed bankruptcy 4 times--do not make him out to be a financial wizard. He was born rich so he is not exactly a self-made man. I cannot believe people actually take that idiot seriously. That shows the level of voter mentality and why voting should not be mandatory.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Capital gains is a tax that brings in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourages people to invest.

Remember that not all investments create jobs either. A business can invest in a huge warehouse, but only create about three or four jobs for the people that are going to operate that warehouse. Or they may invest in robotics or machinery that requires few if any employees to run them.

Right now there are McDonald's restaurants that are investing in automation in an attempt to have an employee-less store. Sure, there may be a few people there to oversee the operations, but now you have to push buttons on a keypad for what you want and your hamburger is going to be made by machines on an assembly line.

A tax break on investment to create jobs for the People is Only legitimate social reason for the capital gains distinction.

Capital gains is a tax that reaches many people beyond business. For instance, you bought a home 30 years ago for 80K, today it's worth 140K. You made a capital gains of 60K.

As far as a tax break intended for investments, yes, it has been done by George Bush. By allowing more write-offs for business purchases really helped with that economy he had at the time. My employer purchased a whole new fleet of trucks. Our customers were investing in new equipment for their operations. That tax cut put a lot of people back to work.

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

The number of earthquakes in fracking zones has increased. If people/insurance companies/state and federal have to spend money repairing damages from fracking, the country is not actually saving money. That does not include the "fire" hazards.
Trump has filed bankruptcy 4 times--do not make him out to be a financial wizard. He was born rich so he is not exactly a self-made man. I cannot believe people actually take that idiot seriously. That shows the level of voter mentality and why voting should not be mandatory.

Trump relates to people. He talks about politics the way many do in forums like this one, at work during lunch, at the bar, or even family gatherings. He doesn't back down or away from anybody and people like that.

Trump is teaching other PC politicians how to act. If somebody is offended (like Kelly) tough ship. Do you want to apologize to the Mexican government for what you said? Hell no, and I'll say it again if they didn't get the message the first time.

We like that in a person that is running to be the leader of our country.

As for filing bankruptcy several times, so what? He's still managed to become very wealthy in spite of that. He was born rich, again, so what? I've seen many people born into money that lost all of it in a short period of time, particularly those who had very successful businesses handed down to them. You can read countless lottery winner stories about the same. You have to be pretty smart to manage that kind of money yet alone make it grow into a fortune.

While you may question the voter mentality because of Trump, have you ever done that with Obama? The Democrats had nearly a dozen candidates to choose from, and they chose the one with the least experience. The guy never even ran a hotdog stand in his life. His leadership skills (particularly foreign relations) has been disastrous, but what do you expect when you put a community organizer in charge of the greatest country on earth?

 

[danielpalos]

A tax break on investment to create jobs for the People is Only legitimate social reason for the capital gains distinction.

Capital gains is a tax that reaches many people beyond business. For instance, you bought a home 30 years ago for 80K, today it's worth 140K. You made a capital gains of 60K.

As far as a tax break intended for investments, yes, it has been done by George Bush. By allowing more write-offs for business purchases really helped with that economy he had at the time. My employer purchased a whole new fleet of trucks. Our customers were investing in new equipment for their operations. That tax cut put a lot of people back to work.

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

The number of earthquakes in fracking zones has increased. If people/insurance companies/state and federal have to spend money repairing damages from fracking, the country is not actually saving money. That does not include the "fire" hazards.
Trump has filed bankruptcy 4 times--do not make him out to be a financial wizard. He was born rich so he is not exactly a self-made man. I cannot believe people actually take that idiot seriously. That shows the level of voter mentality and why voting should not be mandatory.

Trump relates to people. He talks about politics the way many do in forums like this one, at work during lunch, at the bar, or even family gatherings. He doesn't back down or away from anybody and people like that.

Trump is teaching other PC politicians how to act. If somebody is offended (like Kelly) tough ship. Do you want to apologize to the Mexican government for what you said? Hell no, and I'll say it again if they didn't get the message the first time.

We like that in a person that is running to be the leader of our country.

As for filing bankruptcy several times, so what? He's still managed to become very wealthy in spite of that. He was born rich, again, so what? I've seen many people born into money that lost all of it in a short period of time, particularly those who had very successful businesses handed down to them. You can read countless lottery winner stories about the same. You have to be pretty smart to manage that kind of money yet alone make it grow into a fortune.

While you may question the voter mentality because of Trump, have you ever done that with Obama? The Democrats had nearly a dozen candidates to choose from, and they chose the one with the least experience. The guy never even ran a hotdog stand in his life. His leadership skills (particularly foreign relations) has been disastrous, but what do you expect when you put a community organizer in charge of the greatest country on earth?

Here is a perspective from some on the federal left; if a Capitalist has no Capital plan to Earn money for the People, it is a "red flag" regardless of how many Social plans a Capitalist can come up with using the (other) Peoples' tax monies.

 

[rightwinger]

You writing your children off on your taxes is as much a handout as a welfare mother gets.

Why should others pay to support your children or your mortgage?

How ******* stupid are you exactly? It isn't even close to the same thing. Me getting to keep more of the money I EARNED isn't the same as someone getting money that they DIDN'T EARN.

Educate yourself retard.

It is EXACTLY the same thing
Why should you pay lower taxes than someone with no kids? Why should he pay to raise your kids
You are like a welfare mother with society paying to help raise your kids
Freeloader

Are you really that stupid or are you just being a left wing asshole (pardon the redundancy)? Probably both.

Freeloading only seems to apply to others getting government handouts
Not others paying to support your kids and mortgage

No one pays to support my kids or my mortgage, idiot. Stop smearing your stupid all over this thread.

Do you get a deduction? If so we pay $12000 to $20000. Freeloader

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think the government should focus on jobs like infrastructure, science, education, r&d, etc. Welfare programs should be set to encourage education and advancement.

 

[rightwinger]

Who is the biggest freeloader?

Welfare mother with two kids who gets $700 a month or $8400 a year for rent

Multimillionaire who make two million a year and has a two million dollar house with a million dollar mortgage He gets a forty thousand deduction and at 39% gets $16000 s year towards his mansion

 

[ScienceRocks]

Capital gains is a tax that brings in revenue to the government while at the same time, encourages people to invest.

Remember that not all investments create jobs either. A business can invest in a huge warehouse, but only create about three or four jobs for the people that are going to operate that warehouse. Or they may invest in robotics or machinery that requires few if any employees to run them.

Right now there are McDonald's restaurants that are investing in automation in an attempt to have an employee-less store. Sure, there may be a few people there to oversee the operations, but now you have to push buttons on a keypad for what you want and your hamburger is going to be made by machines on an assembly line.

A tax break on investment to create jobs for the People is Only legitimate social reason for the capital gains distinction.

Capital gains is a tax that reaches many people beyond business. For instance, you bought a home 30 years ago for 80K, today it's worth 140K. You made a capital gains of 60K.

As far as a tax break intended for investments, yes, it has been done by George Bush. By allowing more write-offs for business purchases really helped with that economy he had at the time. My employer purchased a whole new fleet of trucks. Our customers were investing in new equipment for their operations. That tax cut put a lot of people back to work.

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

Simple; Only our federal Congress can pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

We need to find out where all this money is going because it isn't going to maintain and improve our country.. Infrastructure and science spending is at its lowest in decades.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Who is the biggest freeloader?

Welfare mother with two kids who gets $700 a month or $8400 a year for rent

Multimillionaire who make two million a year and has a two million dollar house with a million dollar mortgage He gets a forty thousand deduction and at 39% gets $16000 s year towards his mansion

The multimillionaire is a greedy **** that can't stand that helping those kids could make him competition. The republican loserterian idiot has their heads so far up his ass that they simply can't or won't see reality.

 

[danielpalos]

A tax break on investment to create jobs for the People is Only legitimate social reason for the capital gains distinction.

Capital gains is a tax that reaches many people beyond business. For instance, you bought a home 30 years ago for 80K, today it's worth 140K. You made a capital gains of 60K.

As far as a tax break intended for investments, yes, it has been done by George Bush. By allowing more write-offs for business purchases really helped with that economy he had at the time. My employer purchased a whole new fleet of trucks. Our customers were investing in new equipment for their operations. That tax cut put a lot of people back to work.

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

Simple; Only our federal Congress can pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

We need to find out where all this money is going because it isn't going to maintain and improve our country.. Infrastructure and science spending is at its lowest in decades.

Have you seen the social spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror? The Right only complains about income transfers and social spending that may actually benefit least wealthy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Capital gains is a tax that reaches many people beyond business. For instance, you bought a home 30 years ago for 80K, today it's worth 140K. You made a capital gains of 60K.

As far as a tax break intended for investments, yes, it has been done by George Bush. By allowing more write-offs for business purchases really helped with that economy he had at the time. My employer purchased a whole new fleet of trucks. Our customers were investing in new equipment for their operations. That tax cut put a lot of people back to work.

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

Simple; Only our federal Congress can pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

We need to find out where all this money is going because it isn't going to maintain and improve our country.. Infrastructure and science spending is at its lowest in decades.

Have you seen the social spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror? The Right only complains about income transfers and social spending that may actually benefit least wealthy.

Yep, they'll build thousands of prisons and throw millions of people in prison over a leaf but will ***** about helping a mother feed her kids. Heartless people.

They'll blow trillions on infrastructure and education in the middle east but will ***** about our nws, nhc and space program that is the pride of our nation.These assholes will whine about how building our infrastructure is a boondoggle to their blue in their ******* face but will do it in the middle east. What scum!

These people don't want us to be a world power..They just want us to be slaves to our nobility!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Capital gains is a tax that reaches many people beyond business. For instance, you bought a home 30 years ago for 80K, today it's worth 140K. You made a capital gains of 60K.

As far as a tax break intended for investments, yes, it has been done by George Bush. By allowing more write-offs for business purchases really helped with that economy he had at the time. My employer purchased a whole new fleet of trucks. Our customers were investing in new equipment for their operations. That tax cut put a lot of people back to work.

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

Simple; Only our federal Congress can pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

We need to find out where all this money is going because it isn't going to maintain and improve our country.. Infrastructure and science spending is at its lowest in decades.

Have you seen the social spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror? The Right only complains about income transfers and social spending that may actually benefit least wealthy.

Either that or all these "programs" that supposedly benefit the least wealthy are all failures.

 

[rightwinger]

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

Simple; Only our federal Congress can pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

We need to find out where all this money is going because it isn't going to maintain and improve our country.. Infrastructure and science spending is at its lowest in decades.

Have you seen the social spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror? The Right only complains about income transfers and social spending that may actually benefit least wealthy.

Either that or all these "programs" that supposedly benefit the least wealthy are all failures.

Which ones

 

[ScienceRocks]

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

Simple; Only our federal Congress can pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

We need to find out where all this money is going because it isn't going to maintain and improve our country.. Infrastructure and science spending is at its lowest in decades.

Have you seen the social spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror? The Right only complains about income transfers and social spending that may actually benefit least wealthy.

Either that or all these "programs" that supposedly benefit the least wealthy are all failures.

Lol,,,Well, we should do a little more to encourage college or a schools that teach skills. Our problem is our people don't have the skills to compete against other countries.

Also, I have no problem with helping some people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

Simple; Only our federal Congress can pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

We need to find out where all this money is going because it isn't going to maintain and improve our country.. Infrastructure and science spending is at its lowest in decades.

Have you seen the social spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror? The Right only complains about income transfers and social spending that may actually benefit least wealthy.

Either that or all these "programs" that supposedly benefit the least wealthy are all failures.

Which ones

Just about any welfare program. What have they done when it comes to solving poverty? Very little.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's
poverty rate
was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

 

[PredFan]

How ******* stupid are you exactly? It isn't even close to the same thing. Me getting to keep more of the money I EARNED isn't the same as someone getting money that they DIDN'T EARN.

Educate yourself retard.

It is EXACTLY the same thing
Why should you pay lower taxes than someone with no kids? Why should he pay to raise your kids
You are like a welfare mother with society paying to help raise your kids
Freeloader

Are you really that stupid or are you just being a left wing asshole (pardon the redundancy)? Probably both.

Freeloading only seems to apply to others getting government handouts
Not others paying to support your kids and mortgage

No one pays to support my kids or my mortgage, idiot. Stop smearing your stupid all over this thread.

Do you get a deduction? If so we pay $12000 to $20000. Freeloader

No moron, that isn't how it works. Go away, you are too stupid to talk to.

 

[danielpalos]

While I understand the benefits of the tax break, doesn't the tax break of that type constitute social spending that is not being spent on promoting the general welfare but merely bottom line issues of Persons of Capital.

There is nothing wrong with taking less from people and businesses. After all, how is our money better managed, by government or by individual?

I'll give you a hint: Our US government is 18 trillion in the hole, and Donald Trump is worth 3 billion dollars. Hillary? Forget about it. She's hasn't drove a car in over 20 years.

If you let people keep more of what they earned, they are likely to do better things with that money than government. Look what fracking did for our economy. It lowered the prices of gasoline and natural gas to the point it was sizable amounts for some families. They used that extra money for other things and that helps the economy greatly.

Simple; Only our federal Congress can pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

We need to find out where all this money is going because it isn't going to maintain and improve our country.. Infrastructure and science spending is at its lowest in decades.

Have you seen the social spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror? The Right only complains about income transfers and social spending that may actually benefit least wealthy.

Yep, they'll build thousands of prisons and throw millions of people in prison over a leaf but will ***** about helping a mother feed her kids. Heartless people.

They'll blow trillions on infrastructure and education in the middle east but will ***** about our nws, nhc and space program that is the pride of our nation.These assholes will whine about how building our infrastructure is a boondoggle to their blue in their ******* face but will do it in the middle east. What scum!

These people don't want us to be a world power..They just want us to be slaves to our nobility!

If Only we could find nice politicians of morals in modern times.

 

[rightwinger]

Simple; Only our federal Congress can pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

We need to find out where all this money is going because it isn't going to maintain and improve our country.. Infrastructure and science spending is at its lowest in decades.

Have you seen the social spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror? The Right only complains about income transfers and social spending that may actually benefit least wealthy.

Either that or all these "programs" that supposedly benefit the least wealthy are all failures.

Which ones

Just about any welfare program. What have they done when it comes to solving poverty? Very little.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Months after JFK's assassination, Lyndon Johnson told congress and the nation that he was declaring "an unconditional war on poverty in America." Five decades and $15 trillion later, that war is lost.

Taxpayers have been bilked trillions of dollars.

Back in 1964, America's
poverty rate
was 19 percent. Today, it's 15 percent and the number is rising thanks to failed programs. The government borrowed money and forced taxpayers to spend $15 trillion in anti-poverty programs. However, bureaucrats and politicians have not been held accountable for squandering America's wealth.

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades

Solve poverty?

When is welfare supposed to do that? You help people who need helping

 

[rightwinger]

It is EXACTLY the same thing
Why should you pay lower taxes than someone with no kids? Why should he pay to raise your kids
You are like a welfare mother with society paying to help raise your kids
Freeloader

Are you really that stupid or are you just being a left wing asshole (pardon the redundancy)? Probably both.

Freeloading only seems to apply to others getting government handouts
Not others paying to support your kids and mortgage

No one pays to support my kids or my mortgage, idiot. Stop smearing your stupid all over this thread.

Do you get a deduction? If so we pay $12000 to $20000. Freeloader

No moron, that isn't how it works. Go away, you are too stupid to talk to.

Freeloader