Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[Obiwan]

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

Still looking for a handout???

I have a suggestion...

Get off your drunk, lazy ass, ditch the drugs, and GET A JOB!!!

 

[OnePercenter]

Are you saying that OnePercenter is the actual bully???

He's much less of a one-percenter than I am.

The beauty of the internet is that you can be anybody you wish. I've supposedly had discussions with billionaires, astronauts, published authors, work-from-home liberals, and even proclaimed sports heroes.

Me? I'm the only truck driver here. LOL!

For the record, I don't believe he's a "one percenter" either. I think he is the typical little Marxist "useful idiot" carrying the water for a failed 18th century philosophy that hasn't ever worked. He thinks he can better persuade people posing as a George Soros wannabe. BUT... if he really IS all that wealthy, he's like Soros... he's a corrupt crony corporatist who exploits government to profit on the backs of others. Either way, he is a shit stain not worth the time and effort to try and educate.

For the record, I don't believe he's a "one percenter" either. I think he is the typical little Marxist "useful idiot" carrying the water for a failed 18th century philosophy that hasn't ever worked. He thinks he can better persuade people posing as a George Soros wannabe. BUT... if he really IS all that wealthy, he's like Soros... he's a corrupt crony corporatist who exploits government to profit on the backs of others. Either way, he is a shit stain not worth the time and effort to try and educate.

For the record, all capitalist exploit.

 

[OnePercenter]

The actual issue; You have yet to successfully refute any of my posts.

I refuted all of them. It's just that like most liberals, you refuse to accept it.

"The best part about being a liberal is never having to say you were wrong."
Ray from Cleveland

"The best part about being a liberal is never having to say you were wrong."
Ray from Cleveland

I've made hundreds of millions of dollars so far, and make more money in one year than you will make in your entire life. How am I wrong?

And you have yet to successfully refute any of my posts.

 

[Boss]

I get it. You don't mind driving on the roadway, you just don't think you should have to pay because it's some Marxist plot to overthrow, and your dog told you you look funny wearing a foil hat. You're a wack-job.....seek help.

No, the roadway I drive on was built by myself and my neighbors because we needed a roadway. We took the money we worked for and earned, pooled it together and built a roadway. That's what people in a free society are able to do... they don't need government.

In a Marxist system, we may not have the option of a roadway... depends on what the state thinks we should have. We might not be "worthy" of a roadway. The fruits of our labor may go towards building a roadway for our dictator and his cronies while we do without a roadway.

Same thing goes for fire departments and police departments, schools and bridges. Free people decide when and where they want them, then they build them. In your system, people don't get to decide.

No, the roadway I drive on was built by myself and my neighbors because we needed a roadway. We took the money we worked for and earned, pooled it together and built a roadway. That's what people in a free society are able to do... they don't need government.

I find it very hard to believe that you never drive on publicly (tax based) built roadways.

In a Marxist system, we may not have the option of a roadway... depends on what the state thinks we should have. We might not be "worthy" of a roadway. The fruits of our labor may go towards building a roadway for our dictator and his cronies while we do without a roadway.

Same thing goes for fire departments and police departments, schools and bridges. Free people decide when and where they want them, then they build them. In your system, people don't get to decide.

Why would you not want services you are already paying for?

Again, taxes being spent to build roads is not Marxism. Nor are fire departments, schools, bridges, etc. These are all things we have in a free market capitalist society through a government with constitutionally-enumerate powers.

We don't need the State to tell us where and when to build a road, or who can drive on the road, or what kind of road we can have, or where the road can go... WE can decide that without the State. Or... we might decide we don't need a road as bad as we need something else... again, it's up to US and not the State.

YOU prefer the system where we work as slaves for the State and the State decides what we need. We threw off these shackles 250 years ago and we've watched around the world as others have attempted to make your system work with nothing but abject failure and genocide.

 

[Boss]

For the record, all capitalist exploit.

Well... not exactly. Free market capitalists don't exploit and they're not greedy. In a free market, the consumerism is voluntary... A consumer makes a voluntary exchange... that's not exploitation. If the free market capitalist becomes "greedy" there is always a less-greedy capitalist out there who will gladly take his business.

But, free market capitalism is not exploitation at all. It is the mutual voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties. I have something you want or need and you have something I want or need... we agree to trade.

 

[OnePercenter]

I get it. You don't mind driving on the roadway, you just don't think you should have to pay because it's some Marxist plot to overthrow, and your dog told you you look funny wearing a foil hat. You're a wack-job.....seek help.

No, the roadway I drive on was built by myself and my neighbors because we needed a roadway. We took the money we worked for and earned, pooled it together and built a roadway. That's what people in a free society are able to do... they don't need government.

In a Marxist system, we may not have the option of a roadway... depends on what the state thinks we should have. We might not be "worthy" of a roadway. The fruits of our labor may go towards building a roadway for our dictator and his cronies while we do without a roadway.

Same thing goes for fire departments and police departments, schools and bridges. Free people decide when and where they want them, then they build them. In your system, people don't get to decide.

No, the roadway I drive on was built by myself and my neighbors because we needed a roadway. We took the money we worked for and earned, pooled it together and built a roadway. That's what people in a free society are able to do... they don't need government.

I find it very hard to believe that you never drive on publicly (tax based) built roadways.

In a Marxist system, we may not have the option of a roadway... depends on what the state thinks we should have. We might not be "worthy" of a roadway. The fruits of our labor may go towards building a roadway for our dictator and his cronies while we do without a roadway.

Same thing goes for fire departments and police departments, schools and bridges. Free people decide when and where they want them, then they build them. In your system, people don't get to decide.

Why would you not want services you are already paying for?

Again, taxes being spent to build roads is not Marxism. Nor are fire departments, schools, bridges, etc. These are all things we have in a free market capitalist society through a government with constitutionally-enumerate powers.

We don't need the State to tell us where and when to build a road, or who can drive on the road, or what kind of road we can have, or where the road can go... WE can decide that without the State. Or... we might decide we don't need a road as bad as we need something else... again, it's up to US and not the State.

YOU prefer the system where we work as slaves for the State and the State decides what we need. We threw off these shackles 250 years ago and we've watched around the world as others have attempted to make your system work with nothing but abject failure and genocide.

Again, taxes being spent to build roads is not Marxism. Nor are fire departments, schools, bridges, etc. These are all things we have in a free market capitalist society through a government with constitutionally-enumerate powers.

We don't need the State to tell us where and when to build a road, or who can drive on the road, or what kind of road we can have, or where the road can go... WE can decide that without the State. Or... we might decide we don't need a road as bad as we need something else... again, it's up to US and not the State.

YOU prefer the system where we work as slaves for the State and the State decides what we need. We threw off these shackles 250 years ago and we've watched around the world as others have attempted to make your system work with nothing but abject failure and genocide.

There is no free market, never has been, never will be.

 

[OnePercenter]

For the record, all capitalist exploit.

Well... not exactly. Free market capitalists don't exploit and they're not greedy. In a free market, the consumerism is voluntary... A consumer makes a voluntary exchange... that's not exploitation. If the free market capitalist becomes "greedy" there is always a less-greedy capitalist out there who will gladly take his business.

But, free market capitalism is not exploitation at all. It is the mutual voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties. I have something you want or need and you have something I want or need... we agree to trade.

Well... not exactly. Free market capitalists don't exploit and they're not greedy. In a free market, the consumerism is voluntary... A consumer makes a voluntary exchange... that's not exploitation. If the free market capitalist becomes "greedy" there is always a less-greedy capitalist out there who will gladly take his business.

But, free market capitalism is not exploitation at all. It is the mutual voluntary exchange of goods and services between parties. I have something you want or need and you have something I want or need... we agree to trade.

OMG! The closest thing we've ever had to a free market is when BushCo didn't enforce regulations. We ended up with the worst financial crash in the history of the United States.

What you happy-happy/joy-joy folks need to understand is that EVERY top floor of EVERY company in this country is loaded with crooks and liars, most of which would **** their Mother for a higher Net profit.

What we need in this country are stronger laws and regulations in not keeping it financially feasible to do wrong if the middle class wants to survive.

 

[dblack]

There is no free market, never has been, never will be.

What exactly does this statement mean to you? Its one of the most common fallback arguments for progressives, and they always state it like they've really said something - like it means something significant. But I'm not sure what that is.

Are you simply saying there's no such thing as a perfectly free market? That would seem obvious, but what does it prove in your view? How does it relate to the current debate?

 

[Anathema]

What you happy-happy/joy-joy folks need to understand is that EVERY top floor of EVERY company in this country is loaded with crooks and liars, most of which would **** their Mother for a higher Net profit.

Good. If I were an investor, or shareholder that's exactly what I would want. Businesses are not social welfare charities. They exist to maximize profits, not to be touchy Feely lovefests.

 

[OnePercenter]

There is no free market, never has been, never will be.

What exactly does this statement mean to you? Its one of the most common fallback arguments for progressives, and they always state it like they've really said something - like it means something significant. But I'm not sure what that is.

Are you simply saying there's no such thing as a perfectly free market? That would seem obvious, but what does it prove in your view? How does it relate to the current debate?

What exactly does this statement mean to you? Its one of the most common fallback arguments for progressives, and they always state it like they've really said something - like it means something significant. But I'm not sure what that is.

Are you simply saying there's no such thing as a perfectly free market? That would seem obvious, but what does it prove in your view? How does it relate to the current debate?

There is no free market in any shape or form.

 

[OnePercenter]

What you happy-happy/joy-joy folks need to understand is that EVERY top floor of EVERY company in this country is loaded with crooks and liars, most of which would **** their Mother for a higher Net profit.

Good. If I were an investor, or shareholder that's exactly what I would want. Businesses are not social welfare charities. They exist to maximize profits, not to be touchy Feely lovefests.

Good. If I were an investor, or shareholder that's exactly what I would want. Businesses are not social welfare charities. They exist to maximize profits, not to be touchy Feely lovefests.

Tell that to every American that lost monies in their 401K.

 

[Anathema]

Tell that to every American that lost monies in their 401K.

If they were stupid enough to put monies in those products, they get what they get. I have at least 2 arguments with my employers HRS department because I refuse to participate in that crap.

 

[dblack]

There is no free market, never has been, never will be.

What exactly does this statement mean to you? Its one of the most common fallback arguments for progressives, and they always state it like they've really said something - like it means something significant. But I'm not sure what that is.

Are you simply saying there's no such thing as a perfectly free market? That would seem obvious, but what does it prove in your view? How does it relate to the current debate?

What exactly does this statement mean to you? Its one of the most common fallback arguments for progressives, and they always state it like they've really said something - like it means something significant. But I'm not sure what that is.

Are you simply saying there's no such thing as a perfectly free market? That would seem obvious, but what does it prove in your view? How does it relate to the current debate?

There is no free market in any shape or form.

That's like saying there's no such thing as freedom. And I suppose it's possible to define freedom in such a way that that is a true statement. Which makes me wonder how you're defining a free market such that it doesn't exist.

We have as much, or as little, freedom as our laws accommodate. I'm really not sure what your angle is.

 

[Grizz]

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

"Safety net programs: About 10 percent of the federal budget in 2015, or $362 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2014 and 2015 as the economy continued to improve."

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Next.

 

[Boss]

OMG! The closest thing we've ever had to a free market is when BushCo didn't enforce regulations. We ended up with the worst financial crash in the history of the United States.

What you happy-happy/joy-joy folks need to understand is that EVERY top floor of EVERY company in this country is loaded with crooks and liars, most of which would **** their Mother for a higher Net profit.

What we need in this country are stronger laws and regulations in not keeping it financially feasible to do wrong if the middle class wants to survive.

Well, you're just plain WRONG. What's amazing to me in your commentary is how you can not comprehend your wrongness. In your first sentence, you clearly indicate that Bush's supposed non-enforcement of regulations is "the closest thing" we've had to a free market. So, you do understand, the less regulations --the more close to free market.... However, your last sentence you say we need more regulations.

In other words, by your own statements, you want to move AWAY from possible free market capitalism and toward... What? If free market capitalism is the voluntary mutual exchange of commerce... I suppose you mean you don't want commerce exchange to be voluntary or mutual? You would prefer it to be involuntary and one-sided. Heaping on more regulations and laws makes it like that and that's what you think works better.

The problem here is.... Free market capitalism works very well every single time it is tried. Attempts to destroy free market capitalism results in an abysmal failure when it is tried. Your middle sentence describes how you go about destroying free market capitalism... through class warfare rhetoric. Generating envy and jealousy between supposed "classes" of people who you never seemed to acknowledge, is an ever-changing demographic.

 

[Dekster]

If they were stupid enough to put monies in those products, they get what they get. I have at least 2 arguments with my employers HRS department because I refuse to participate in that crap.

If you are not in it automatically by them contributing a fixed percentage, then they are pushing your participation because their plan is in danger of becoming too top heavy at which point they would have to contribute a fixed percentage for all employees. Top heavy plans are when the big wigs are contributing high percentages of their income to defer taxes and too much of the total contributions is made by said big wigs.

 

[Anathema]

If you are not in it automatically by them contributing a fixed percentage, then they are pushing your participation because their plan is in danger of becoming too top heavy at which point they would have to contribute a fixed percentage for all employees. Top heavy plans are when the big wigs are contributing high percentages of their income to defer taxes and too much of the total contributions is made by said big wigs.

They contribute only if the employee contributes. They make a big deal about trying to have 100% participation in the program. I'm apparently one of very few holdouts and I'm fairly certain they'll try to make it mandatory in the next contract negotiations (2017); like they did with direct deposit in 2013.

 

[Dekster]

If you are not in it automatically by them contributing a fixed percentage, then they are pushing your participation because their plan is in danger of becoming too top heavy at which point they would have to contribute a fixed percentage for all employees. Top heavy plans are when the big wigs are contributing high percentages of their income to defer taxes and too much of the total contributions is made by said big wigs.

They contribute only if the employee contributes. They make a big deal about trying to have 100% participation in the program. I'm apparently one of very few holdouts and I'm fairly certain they'll try to make it mandatory in the next contract negotiations (2017); like they did with direct deposit in 2013.

I don't think can make it mandatory that you yourself contribute. Generally it has to be done one of the two ways so far as I know--either the employer sets a match ceiling or the employer contributes a set percentage whether you do or not. In the latter case, your funds will probably go into a default account--usually a money market account--until you go in and allocate it to something else.

 

[Anathema]

I don't think can make it mandatory that you yourself contribute. Generally it has to be done one of the two ways so far as I know--either the employer sets a match ceiling or the employer contributes a set percentage whether you do or not. In the latter case, your funds will probably go into a default account--usually a money market account--until you go in and allocate it to something else.

I guess we'll find out if they can or not. I truly believe they'll try to force it during Union negotiations next spring.

 

[hadit]

This should be interesting. Liberals can't stand it when they're reminded how economically liberal their most hated president really was.

This should be interesting. Liberals can't stand it when they're reminded how economically liberal their most hated president really was.

I'm not a liberal, I'm a dirty rotten capitalist.

Self hatred is a liberal characteristic.

Self hatred is a liberal characteristic.

Bloviating is your characteristic?

I'm not stating on internet boards that I regard myself as a dirty rotten anything. That was you.

I'm not stating on internet boards that I regard myself as a dirty rotten anything. That was you.

Dirty-rotten is what business competitors call me.

You also called yourself that. To quote a brilliant person, Self hatred is a liberal characteristic.