47% will pay no federal income tax (1 Viewer)

[dtc]

There are tons and tons of success stories of people doing real well that came from welfare households. That is not even questionable.

I think where Biz is coming from is if you should have children knowing full well that you cannot afford to support and raise them and will need assistance, not from family, but from the government/taxpayers. But Biz is thinking that way because he is a responsible person and he feels we should all be and do responsible things in life. This country is not one of responsible people for the most part. It shows in the way we live on credit and do things that directly and immediately affect others negatively, and for some in ways that drain society in general. He seems to be getting a lot of grief for it. However, he has to realize that is the way people are. Period. It will always be that way, just like you stated. Heck, even Jesus explicitly said that you will always have the poor. However, we have to realize that you have to try to help everyone in need to a certain extent, for some are not in need by their own irresponsibility, and some have been and are working past that fact, some will overcome their need in great ways, and some will always be in need by their own poor choices. You do not know who is which so you just have to provide help in general and let people make their own choices in life. That is a benefit of living in the USA and not a third-world country.




My point for myself would be do not raise my taxes anymore in order to pay for the excess of government. They need to tighten their belt like everyone else is.

As an atheist, it always pains me to quote Jesus, but wasn't it him who said something about judging others being up to someone else?

Anyway, I'm not going to judge who or why is deserving of government assistance. Frankly, I don't care. I pay my share and hope for the best for me and mine and you and yours. Begrudging a couple points of taxes takes more energy than simply making a few extra each year.

To each his own, but I've found that most of the people I hear whining and moaning about being over taxed aren't paying much and many of them benefited from public schools and college loans. I enjoy those facts.

 

[mb504]

Since I don't feel like wading through seven pages of posts, I'll just assume this is another one of those threads filled with misdirected envy of poor people for having it so easy.

I'll even offer some anecdotal evidence that some poor lady and her kids that she strategically birthed in order to live in wealthy poverty have a pretty good television set.

 

[KardiacKat]

Since I don't feel like wading through seven pages of posts, I'll just assume this is another one of those threads filled with misdirected envy of poor people for having it so easy.

I'll even offer some anecdotal evidence that some poor lady and her kids that she strategically birthed in order to live in wealthy poverty have a pretty good television set.

That's a pretty good summary.

 

[BHM]

Dood, you're assuming poverty can be fixed. You're assuming welfare was designed to turn people into productive members of society or that some element of fair comes into play if welfare = which you define as stealing from the rich to give to the poor - somehow results in fewer poor.

It's your assumptions that are wrong. There will always be poor people. There will always be lazy. There will always be dumb, crazy, ignorant, unlucky, unmotivated or otherwise incapable. Those people, in a civilised nation, are provided the bare minimum to get by. It's a tactic rich people learned some time ago and it prevents those fortunate enough to be rich from being rounded up and guillotined.

And, btw, our country's welfare system is rife with examples of those who have benefitted who otherwise would have been thrown on life's big trash heap. I think our current POTUS and most recent Supreme Court Justice appointee come to mind, but there are many, many, many more.

You are 100% correct if we continue the welfare system as it is. They are given just enough to live with no form of responsibility. Here's a few bucks, stay in the projects and do what you do. This cycle continues generation after generation. It is a perfect plan.

Everyday 2,660 children are born into poverty. Most will be doomed to a life of poverty. It is not their choice, it was the choice of their of parents but the kids will pay the price. Everyday we continue to allow these children to be born under these conditions and we do not care. But I am bassakwards for suggesting an alternative system?

Each year, an estimated 10,000
American children die from poverty's effects (The State of
American Children, 1992).

Early childhood experiences contribute to poor children's
high rate of school failure, dropout, delinquency, early
childbearing, and adult poverty (National Center for
Children in Poverty, 1990).

 

[Squeezebox]

You are 100% correct if we continue the welfare system as it is. They are given just enough to live with no form of responsibility. Here's a few bucks, stay in the projects and do what you do. This cycle continues generation after generation. It is a perfect plan.

Everyday 2,660 children are born into poverty. Most will be doomed to a life of poverty. It is not their choice, it was the choice of their of parents but the kids will pay the price. Everyday we continue to allow these children to be born under these conditions and we do not care. But I am bassakwards for suggesting an alternative system?

Each year, an estimated 10,000
American children die from poverty's effects (The State of
American Children, 1992).

Early childhood experiences contribute to poor children's
high rate of school failure, dropout, delinquency, early
childbearing, and adult poverty (National Center for
Children in Poverty, 1990).

You need to start putting "My daddy always told me" in front of everything you post.

 

[dtc]

You are 100% correct if we continue the welfare system as it is. They are given just enough to live with no form of responsibility. Here's a few bucks, stay in the projects and do what you do. This cycle continues generation after generation. It is a perfect plan.

Everyday 2,660 children are born into poverty. Most will be doomed to a life of poverty. It is not their choice, it was the choice of their of parents but the kids will pay the price. Everyday we continue to allow these children to be born under these conditions and we do not care. But I am bassakwards for suggesting an alternative system?

Each year, an estimated 10,000
American children die from poverty's effects (The State of
American Children, 1992).

Early childhood experiences contribute to poor children's
high rate of school failure, dropout, delinquency, early
childbearing, and adult poverty (National Center for
Children in Poverty, 1990).

I didn't say that. I said I'm simply not so greedy as to begrudge the few meager dollars I pay to support the 1/2% of so who are so poor/lazy/incapable/unmotivated that that's the best they're going to get.

Hell, I'm all for forced spaying and neutering of the poor. I support taking their kids away if they can't feed them and mandatory abortions. I'm all for whatever keeps the kids from suffering due to the choices of the parents. Spending a few more bucks on teachers, programs, food and whatever seems a little more humane than the tactics I mentioned above, but I'm good with it either way.

My real problem is that you and nobody else really has ever come up with another policy or solution. When you do, I'll back you 100%. Until then, I'm going to pay my meager taxes and hope the bureaucrats and elected officials we've charged with the task of improving the lot of our downtrodden do an ever improving job.



One thing though, you said they're given enough to continue to live irresponsibly forever and I take issue with that. There are really very few who are content to live miserably on welfare. There are those on this forum who have stated that in times past government programs have helped them. Your own kids may attend public school and we both drive on public roads. I think you're forgetting how very few really are permanent welfare recipients and completely over estimating the number of cadillacs in their driveways. Earlier I mentioned examples of those who've bootstrapped up off of welfare. During the Clinton administration government worked to reform the system to great success. Maybe you should read up on it. Just sayin.

 

[BHM]

You need to start putting "My daddy always told me" in front of everything you post.

Right, because the figures I post must not be true.

 

[dtc]

Right, because the figures I post must not be true.

Sure, they're true. What do you propose we do?

Should we kill the useless welfare queens?

 

[BHM]

Sure, they're true. What do you propose we do?

Should we kill the useless welfare queens?

I have given my thoughts on this and was called an idiot, advocater of starving a child and redistribution of children.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

Individuals who go on welfare should be put on educational welfare with the means to be supported and educated provided for them. If they fail to take advantage of the educational tools and still cannot survive on their own then too bad so sad they had a chance. If they have children they cannot support then those minors should be protected by the state by removing them from the situation instead of paying the individual to have them.

 

[RazorOye]

Individuals who go on welfare should be put on educational welfare with the means to be supported and educated provided for them. If they fail to take advantage of the educational tools and still cannot survive on their own then too bad so sad they had a chance.

what educational tools?

what do you mean when you say "educational welfare"?

Many people who you are describing were victimized by our current educational system - I don't know that subjecting them to more of that education is going to solve the problem.

But maybe I am just not understanding what you mean when you say "educational welfare"

If you mean programs that provide education, training, disbursements used toward education, college/vocational education credits, etc.... that's the same philosophy behind much of affirmative action, only in this condition it's being applied based on socioeconomic status.

A bit more clarity about what you mean here would help - I don't know that I'd disagree, really. But I'm hesitant because I'm not sure what you're describing

 

[Crzycjunx76]

If you mean programs that provide education, training, disbursements used toward education, college/vocational education credits, etc.... that's the same philosophy behind much of affirmative action, only in this condition it's being applied based on socioeconomic status.

A bit more clarity about what you mean here would help - I don't know that I'd disagree, really. But I'm hesitant because I'm not sure what you're describing

This^ only it should not have anything to do with affirmative action, qualifying for these programs should be based solely on socioeconomic status. The programs should cover more than just four year educational establishments though, they should cover associates certificates from JC's, apprenticeships, technical schools, ect... anything an individual shows a base aptitude for and chooses to pursue from a degree on down should be facilitated as long as the individual is a citizen in need... however once accepting said aid the citizen takes full responsibility for their personal welfare (their survival) barring a disabling catastrophe NOT of their own making.

 

[dtc]

This^ only it should not have anything to do with affirmative action, qualifying for these programs should be based solely on socioeconomic status. The programs should cover more than just four year educational establishments though, they should cover associates certificates from JC's, apprenticeships, technical schools, ect... anything an individual shows a base aptitude for and chooses to pursue from a degree on down should be facilitated as long as the individual is a citizen in need... however once accepting said aid the citizen takes full responsibility for their personal welfare (their survival) barring a disabling catastrophe NOT of their own making.

So, you're advocating welfare in order to end welfare?

 

[Crzycjunx76]

So, you're advocating welfare in order to end welfare?

I always said that I was only mostly a libertarian I always said I believed in some social programs done right (which sometimes means more short term investment) designed to help people help themselves... not provide a permanent supplement to their lifestyle. I am also typically very big on near infinite personal freedoms as long as they do not infringe on your fellow citizens rights... but when taking social welfare money from other taxpayers I believe that the individual getting the assistance should have to stick to a very strict set of rules and guidelines to receive said money.

I always found it ridiculous that people expected to make more than they did working labor jobs... like being a cashier or a shelf stocker at a Target... I always felt I was overpaid... even when I worked overnights in a much more high paced environment I felt I was probably getting too much compensation because nearly ANYONE could do what I was doing... if you want to make a living working such positions you had better be ready to put in 80 hrs a week working multiple jobs. Jobs like that should be HS/College jobs or positions people take to make some money on the side... expecting 10+ dollars an hour even with experience is asking way to much... the solution do not wine about your job being hard and not getting paid enough, get a skill or certificate that sets you apart from the masses and.

The problem is the distribution of wealth in its natural state is going to look more like a pyramid than a pillar.... would rather it look like a slab than accept it. Instead of trying to achieve a distribution of wealth we should be focusing on improving the opportunities to improve station.

 

[dtc]

I always said that I was only mostly a libertarian I always said I believed in some social programs done right (which sometimes means more short term investment) designed to help people help themselves... not provide a permanent supplement to their lifestyle. I am also typically very big on near infinite personal freedoms as long as they do not infringe on your fellow citizens rights... but when taking social welfare money from other taxpayers I believe that the individual getting the assistance should have to stick to a very strict set of rules and guidelines to receive said money.

I always found it ridiculous that people expected to make more than they did working labor jobs... like being a cashier or a shelf stocker at a Target... I always felt I was overpaid... even when I worked overnights in a much more high paced environment I felt I was probably getting too much compensation because nearly ANYONE could do what I was doing... if you want to make a living working such positions you had better be ready to put in 80 hrs a week working multiple jobs. Jobs like that should be HS/College jobs or positions people take to make some money on the side... expecting 10+ dollars an hour even with experience is asking way to much... the solution do not wine about your job being hard and not getting paid enough, get a skill or certificate that sets you apart from the masses and.

The problem is the distribution of wealth in its natural state is going to look more like a pyramid than a pillar.... would rather it look like a slab than accept it. Instead of trying to achieve a distribution of wealth we should be focusing on improving the opportunities to improve station.

lus-un2: