This mayor wants to publicize who’s on welfare and where they live

[rightwinger]

I have a better plan

Why not publish everyone's tax returns so we can know how our neighbors stack up

Why would my neighbor be entitled to know what's on my tax return?

How do you benefit from knowing which of your neighbors gets assistance?

 

[rightwinger]

Because the public pays their way, and shame can be a great motivator.

For those capable of feeling shame... Lol

Anyone who does not make enough money should be ashamed.
The losers in life need to be identified so everyone knows who they are

No, no, no, Mr Right. Maybe we nasty, racist, evil conservatives want to offer them a job, did you ever think of that? And if they refuse, then are we allowed to turn them in for defrauding the government according to lefty PC?

Now that's funny

Total bullshit....but funny as hell

 

[RodISHI]

I am evidently a liberal on this issue and 'here we go again' may want to try to kick my teeth in along with a bunch of others here that boast oh such great things about themselves as if they are really hot shit as they talk about "MY Investments".

First off if someone else does not have money your investments are worth spit. As for anyone who says "**** the poor" I say Lord strip them to the bone and leave them nothing!!!!

I have no problem whatsoever saying I have been on welfare, drawn food stamps and drew some unemployment too along the way. To try to degrade someone as you assholes seem to claim you would like to do is ridiculous.

Ray you have a lot to boast about evidently. Apparently you live in Cleveland and you like your gun. You rent to someone else and so you actually are making money from another. If they don't have money neither do you. You evidently are a male who has made perfect decisions your whole life from what you claim. Well la't'da! I left home before I was twelve. A bad decision some may say on my part but hey I was unwilling to stay in a place of abuse. I was married at fifteen, you all could say that was a bad decision too if you like. He worked and made a decent living I stayed their at home and played house keeper, cook, collected the eggs and raised a garden. He became involved in drugs. Dam that was a bad decision on my part, I suppose you could say that. The day he shoved our one year old down as he was just learning to crawl up using the couch as support, I did not give one bit of thought of the asshole ever living with us again. I divorced him, I was eighteen. So then I had two small children absolutely no education to fall back on and no support. Dam that was a bad decision on my part wasn't it, leaving some drugged out guy that actually worked and had a paycheck coming in but was a creep when it came to being around me or his own children. I have no problem whatsoever and none of you would ever make me believe that I should be ashamed to say or admit that I was on public assistance. So each and everyone of you who think "**** the poor" Go f' yourselves and I truly do desire the Lord insures you all personally see enough poverty to humble everyone of your asses into yesterday.

 

[imawhosure]

Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits.

Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Consider Grovum’s findings:

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

These numbers are important. US lawmakers have long struggled to show exactly how and where certain types of government assistance are helping Americans stay out of poverty.

Nobody, on the right or the left, wants more people to live in poverty. Yet America has a dismal record on poverty for an advanced nation. Already, over 14% of US households have experienced food insecurity. One in seven Americans live in poverty, including one in five US children. Of all the millions of unemployed people in the country, fully one-third have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Guess they're all deadbeats..
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

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

The statistics provided by Ray really do need discussion, don't you think? That is 15 trillion with a very large T of nothing more than transfer of wealth from working peoples pockets, to none working peoples pockets. And now, in many cases; from Americans, to none Americans.

Doesn't anyone think if the person collecting is over 18, and NOT in medical distress, there should be a cap on benefits over a certain period of time?

 

[rightwinger]

Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits.

Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Consider Grovum’s findings:

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

These numbers are important. US lawmakers have long struggled to show exactly how and where certain types of government assistance are helping Americans stay out of poverty.

Nobody, on the right or the left, wants more people to live in poverty. Yet America has a dismal record on poverty for an advanced nation. Already, over 14% of US households have experienced food insecurity. One in seven Americans live in poverty, including one in five US children. Of all the millions of unemployed people in the country, fully one-third have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Guess they're all deadbeats..
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

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

The statistics provided by Ray really do need discussion, don't you think? That is 15 trillion with a very large T of nothing more than transfer of wealth from working peoples pockets, to none working peoples pockets. And now, in many cases; from Americans, to none Americans.

Doesn't anyone think if the person collecting is over 18, and NOT in medical distress, there should be a cap on benefits over a certain period of time?

You have no concept of what contributed to our debt

 

[imawhosure]

Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits.

Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Consider Grovum’s findings:

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

These numbers are important. US lawmakers have long struggled to show exactly how and where certain types of government assistance are helping Americans stay out of poverty.

Nobody, on the right or the left, wants more people to live in poverty. Yet America has a dismal record on poverty for an advanced nation. Already, over 14% of US households have experienced food insecurity. One in seven Americans live in poverty, including one in five US children. Of all the millions of unemployed people in the country, fully one-third have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Guess they're all deadbeats..
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

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

The statistics provided by Ray really do need discussion, don't you think? That is 15 trillion with a very large T of nothing more than transfer of wealth from working peoples pockets, to none working peoples pockets. And now, in many cases; from Americans, to none Americans.

Doesn't anyone think if the person collecting is over 18, and NOT in medical distress, there should be a cap on benefits over a certain period of time?

You have no concept of what contributed to our debt

Exactly how does that response answer the question? I am not talking of debt on this thread, I am talking transfer of wealth. Nice pivot though, a true politician!

 

[Kosh]

And he's wrong why ?

When you tie into the government....you get a lot more than you want.

He's wrong because this is an invasion of privacy, puts peoples lives in danger, and is another pathetic way to demonize the poor.

The far left does not care about the poor until election times..

 

[Kosh]

Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits.

Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Consider Grovum’s findings:

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

These numbers are important. US lawmakers have long struggled to show exactly how and where certain types of government assistance are helping Americans stay out of poverty.

Nobody, on the right or the left, wants more people to live in poverty. Yet America has a dismal record on poverty for an advanced nation. Already, over 14% of US households have experienced food insecurity. One in seven Americans live in poverty, including one in five US children. Of all the millions of unemployed people in the country, fully one-third have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Guess they're all deadbeats..
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

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

The statistics provided by Ray really do need discussion, don't you think? That is 15 trillion with a very large T of nothing more than transfer of wealth from working peoples pockets, to none working peoples pockets. And now, in many cases; from Americans, to none Americans.

Doesn't anyone think if the person collecting is over 18, and NOT in medical distress, there should be a cap on benefits over a certain period of time?

You have no concept of what contributed to our debt

Only the far left does not know what contributed to the US debt..

Budget? We don't need no stinking budget..

 

[rightwinger]

Food stamps. Unemployment benefits. Social security. Earned income tax credits.

Do these social welfare programs work? Yes, according to a new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Safety nets like food stamps prevent millions more people from struggling to put food on the table, says Jake Grovum, who analyzed the data for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Consider Grovum’s findings:

• For people of all ages, the official poverty rate in the US was 14.5%. That’s equivalent to 45.3 million people.
  
• Without food stamps, the poverty rate would be 17.10% – another 8 million Americans would be living in poverty.
  
• Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would be 52.67% instead of the current 14.6%.
  
• Without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9%.

These numbers are important. US lawmakers have long struggled to show exactly how and where certain types of government assistance are helping Americans stay out of poverty.

Nobody, on the right or the left, wants more people to live in poverty. Yet America has a dismal record on poverty for an advanced nation. Already, over 14% of US households have experienced food insecurity. One in seven Americans live in poverty, including one in five US children. Of all the millions of unemployed people in the country, fully one-third have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Guess they're all deadbeats..
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

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

The statistics provided by Ray really do need discussion, don't you think? That is 15 trillion with a very large T of nothing more than transfer of wealth from working peoples pockets, to none working peoples pockets. And now, in many cases; from Americans, to none Americans.

Doesn't anyone think if the person collecting is over 18, and NOT in medical distress, there should be a cap on benefits over a certain period of time?

You have no concept of what contributed to our debt

Exactly how does that response answer the question? I am not talking of debt on this thread, I am talking transfer of wealth. Nice pivot though, a true politician!

If that was your point....you are looking in the wrong direction

All economic indicators show that transfer of wealth has gone from working Americans to the wealthy. The poor are still poor

 

[RodISHI]

If that was your point....you are looking in the wrong direction

All economic indicators show that transfer of wealth has gone from working Americans to the wealthy. The poor are still poor

I agree with you on this as much as I disagree with you on other issues. It is not the poor who is stripping the nation down. Its little wanna be's and fat cats who really think they are doing something using the system to gain advantage, Obbummer just gave them a better shot at it with Obummer care.

 

[Eaglewings]

So a drug dealer is not singled out as to where they live, but a mom and her 10 kids will....



~

 

[bodecea]

This mayor is a moron.
This mayor wants to publicize who’s on welfare and where they live

If you receive government assistance in the state of Maine, Lewiston Mayor Robert Macdonald thinks the public has a right to know about it.

In a Thursday column for the Twin City Times, Macdonald said a bill will be submitted during Maine’s next legislative session“asking that a Web site be created containing the names, addresses, length of time on assistance and the benefits being collected by every individual on the dole.”

He added: “After all, the public has a right to know how its money is being spent.”

Proposals to target welfare recipients and reform assistance programs have become lightning rods for broader discussions on how the poor are treatedand how taxpayer dollars are used.

Kansas lawmakers received both national criticism and praise this summer after approving a law limiting how people in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program can use their benefits. And at least 13 states have some sort of drug testing laws for public public assistance applicants or recipients.

[Kansas bans welfare recipients from seeing movies, going swimming on government’s dime]

Macdonald, a local Republican mayor who is up for reelection in November, can’t submit a state bill himself, so he would need a state lawmaker to back the plan in the legislature.

In his column Thursday, he wrote that Maine has a Web site listing the pension amounts individuals receive — something “taxpayers have a right to know,” he said — and wondered why welfare recipients’ information isn’t also publicly posted.

“The answer: our liberal, progressive legislators and their social-service allies have made them a victimized, protected class,” Macdonald wrote. “It’s none of your business how much of your money they get and spend. Who are you to question it? Just shut up and pay!”

Don't think that's such a bad idea.....would help get rid of the stereotype.....

 

[RodISHI]

This mayor is a moron.
This mayor wants to publicize who’s on welfare and where they live

If you receive government assistance in the state of Maine, Lewiston Mayor Robert Macdonald thinks the public has a right to know about it.

In a Thursday column for the Twin City Times, Macdonald said a bill will be submitted during Maine’s next legislative session“asking that a Web site be created containing the names, addresses, length of time on assistance and the benefits being collected by every individual on the dole.”

He added: “After all, the public has a right to know how its money is being spent.”

Proposals to target welfare recipients and reform assistance programs have become lightning rods for broader discussions on how the poor are treatedand how taxpayer dollars are used.

Kansas lawmakers received both national criticism and praise this summer after approving a law limiting how people in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program can use their benefits. And at least 13 states have some sort of drug testing laws for public public assistance applicants or recipients.

[Kansas bans welfare recipients from seeing movies, going swimming on government’s dime]

Macdonald, a local Republican mayor who is up for reelection in November, can’t submit a state bill himself, so he would need a state lawmaker to back the plan in the legislature.

In his column Thursday, he wrote that Maine has a Web site listing the pension amounts individuals receive — something “taxpayers have a right to know,” he said — and wondered why welfare recipients’ information isn’t also publicly posted.

“The answer: our liberal, progressive legislators and their social-service allies have made them a victimized, protected class,” Macdonald wrote. “It’s none of your business how much of your money they get and spend. Who are you to question it? Just shut up and pay!”

Don't think that's such a bad idea.....would help get rid of the stereotype.....

I don't think it would. A lot of people don't consider things until it hits home. Too many prideful arrogant asses out there and those would just use their positions to run others down even further, ie I know these people that he claimed she could not afford to live without him. When she finally got enough courage up to leave him it came down to he could not have such an extravagant boisterous lifestyle without her there to supplement his house keeping and financial needs.

 

[Nosmo King]

And he's wrong why ?

When you tie into the government....you get a lot more than you want.

Should the elderly recipients of Social Scecurity and Medicare benefits also be listed for public consumption? How about those receiving unemployment benefits?

Should those receiving benefits from Mental Health associations be listed publicly?

How much privacy should citizens expect from their government? Why are Conservatives so eager to bring this government interference into the lives of individuals?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Guess they're all deadbeats..
Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

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

The statistics provided by Ray really do need discussion, don't you think? That is 15 trillion with a very large T of nothing more than transfer of wealth from working peoples pockets, to none working peoples pockets. And now, in many cases; from Americans, to none Americans.

Doesn't anyone think if the person collecting is over 18, and NOT in medical distress, there should be a cap on benefits over a certain period of time?

You have no concept of what contributed to our debt

Exactly how does that response answer the question? I am not talking of debt on this thread, I am talking transfer of wealth. Nice pivot though, a true politician!

If that was your point....you are looking in the wrong direction

All economic indicators show that transfer of wealth has gone from working Americans to the wealthy. The poor are still poor

Of course there is a transfer of wealth to the wealthy. They are the people that sell us the products and services we desire.

Sometime this week, you, I and everybody here will be transferring our money to the top; probably several times this week.

We may buy gasoline from those multi-billion dollar oil companies, we may buy a new computer or computer program. We may stop at McDonald's for a hamburger or three. We may be ordering pay-per-view or buy a movie on DVD. Maybe buy a new smart phone.

No matter, we will all be transferring our money to the top this week and you are no exception. It's been going on for years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And he's wrong why ?

When you tie into the government....you get a lot more than you want.

Should the elderly recipients of Social Scecurity and Medicare benefits also be listed for public consumption? How about those receiving unemployment benefits?

Should those receiving benefits from Mental Health associations be listed public Ally?

How much privacy should citizens expect from their government? Why are Conservatives so eager to bring this government interference into the lives of individuals?

Unemployment, Medicare, and Social Security are all programs working people paid into most of their lives. Apples and oranges.

 

[RodISHI]

War on poverty: US spent $15 trillion over 5 decades
Next: Fox
January 8, 2014 6:24 PM MST

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

The statistics provided by Ray really do need discussion, don't you think? That is 15 trillion with a very large T of nothing more than transfer of wealth from working peoples pockets, to none working peoples pockets. And now, in many cases; from Americans, to none Americans.

Doesn't anyone think if the person collecting is over 18, and NOT in medical distress, there should be a cap on benefits over a certain period of time?

You have no concept of what contributed to our debt

Exactly how does that response answer the question? I am not talking of debt on this thread, I am talking transfer of wealth. Nice pivot though, a true politician!

If that was your point....you are looking in the wrong direction

All economic indicators show that transfer of wealth has gone from working Americans to the wealthy. The poor are still poor

Of course there is a transfer of wealth to the wealthy. They are the people that sell us the products and services we desire.

Sometime this week, you, I and everybody here will be transferring our money to the top; probably several times this week.

We may buy gasoline from those multi-billion dollar oil companies, we may buy a new computer or computer program. We may stop at McDonald's for a hamburger or three. We may be ordering pay-per-view or buy a movie on DVD. Maybe buy a new smart phone.

No matter, we will all be transferring our money to the top this week and you are no exception. It's been going on for years.

You are in error they are selling shit to people. These giants have forced out small business enterprises in order to supplement what people want with what they think people should be willing to accept. People do not want crap food and processed garbage but both parties have willingly subsidized these bastards and even passed laws to make everyone accept their agenda on the people. Farm subsidies, insurance subsidies, banking subsidies, pharmaceutical subsidies and now you are going to get college subsidies for colleges that teach people an agenda verses educating them to actually perform but yet you are going to say the poor are now at fault for being poor when they are not healthy nor bright enough to fight back at this point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every bit of this mayor's, and every one of his family member's, private information should be made public.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you can afford a jet ski and a motor home, should taxpayers be paying for your food stamps?

If you can afford a jet ski and a motorhome, should taxpayers be paying for your food stamps?

Should you get tax breaks for all your kids, and let the rest of us pay the difference?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The poor need to be shamed so they don't enjoy being poor so much

Only through suffering and humiliation will the poor give up their ways

Was that in the gospel of mark?

As Jesus once said to a beggar in the street.......Get a job freeloader!

Well that's the difference between the time of Jesus (which you on the left don't understand) and America today.

Back in Jesus's day, if you were born poor, you stayed poor because there were no choices. In a great country like ours, you have all the choices in the world including getting out of poverty.

There are still places like that where you have no choices but to be poor. Those people are trying to get into this country just to have a chance. Poverty in the US is a choice for most people.

I think you are starting to get it

If you are born poor...you stay poor

That is what has happened to our economy. The ladder to success is broken. Jobs in those communities have dried up. Those jobs that are available do not provide job progression
Used to be you could get a nice union job and you could work your way up

Now.....born poor, stay poor

Thats a load of horse shit.
Ray from cleveland has it right and he just described your example to a T.
You dont rely on your boss to make you wealthy,you have to go out and do it yourself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The statistics provided by Ray really do need discussion, don't you think? That is 15 trillion with a very large T of nothing more than transfer of wealth from working peoples pockets, to none working peoples pockets. And now, in many cases; from Americans, to none Americans.

Doesn't anyone think if the person collecting is over 18, and NOT in medical distress, there should be a cap on benefits over a certain period of time?

You have no concept of what contributed to our debt

Exactly how does that response answer the question? I am not talking of debt on this thread, I am talking transfer of wealth. Nice pivot though, a true politician!

If that was your point....you are looking in the wrong direction

All economic indicators show that transfer of wealth has gone from working Americans to the wealthy. The poor are still poor

Of course there is a transfer of wealth to the wealthy. They are the people that sell us the products and services we desire.

Sometime this week, you, I and everybody here will be transferring our money to the top; probably several times this week.

We may buy gasoline from those multi-billion dollar oil companies, we may buy a new computer or computer program. We may stop at McDonald's for a hamburger or three. We may be ordering pay-per-view or buy a movie on DVD. Maybe buy a new smart phone.

No matter, we will all be transferring our money to the top this week and you are no exception. It's been going on for years.

You are in error they are selling shit to people. These giants have forced out small business enterprises in order to supplement what people want with what they think people should be willing to accept. People do not want crap food and processed garbage but both parties have willingly subsidized these bastards and even passed laws to make everyone accept their agenda on the people. Farm subsidies, insurance subsidies, banking subsidies, pharmaceutical subsidies and now you are going to get college subsidies for colleges that teach people an agenda verses educating them to actually perform but yet you are going to say the poor are now at fault for being poor when they are not healthy nor bright enough to fight back at this point.

No, people chose to be sold shit. It's why Walmart is number one today and has been number one for a while. They didn't run anybody out of town. They opened up stores and people flocked to them.

A couple of years ago I had a taste for chicken. So I went to my local KFC and they were closed. So I went to one a litter further, and they were closed too.

Looking into it, KFC's were not only closing all around me, but around the country as well. They were making a killing out in China, and they weren't even selling chicken there.

KFC is the most expensive fast food chicken place in the country, and people rejected them. They went to Church's or Popeye's or other such places. KFC was losing too much money to keep these places open.

I'm an older guy and I feel sorry for younger people today that like fast food. They don't know what a real Big Mac tasted like. They don't know what a real Whopper from Burger King tasted like. As time went on and these places wanted to stay competitive, they kept purchasing cheaper and cheaper products to make their burgers with.

Consumers drive our providers with what they sell. If Americans were just the opposite and rejected cheap food and products, our stores wouldn't be selling them.