- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,406
- Reaction score
- 8,258
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Trickle down economics are pretty much a joke, btw.
Exactly. And if the government confiscates Person 3's wealth, nobody achieves anything and everybody gets nothing.
Tolerating Person 3's success lets everyone else work, feed themselves, and a chance at prosperity.
Demonizing Person 3's success lets everyone else go unemployed, hungry, with no chance for anything.
Private enterprise and capitalistic endeavor employ more people, feed more people, and accomplish more social good than all government programs combine. Government little more than a parasite--a problem, not a solution.
Nice math but you totally miss the point as a good right winger. You are so focused on the "rich" that you fail to see the huge majority of the people are in the first 2 categories. So you are basically saying, screw the less well off as long as the super rich get their tax breaks because then they can maybe invest the money somewhere. Like it or not person 1 and 2 are what drive any economy. Person 3 can invest all his wealth but without the spending of person 1 and 2, person 3 will never achieve or expand on his or her wealth.
And I love your last comment.. may I ask where your compassion is for person 1 and 2 when they cant afford to buy food for their children or cloths for themselves? Person 3 can afford to pay that little extra in taxes, where as person 1 and 2 cant. Giving a tax break to the majority of people vs the very small minority is and always has been the best course, but listening to you only the rich matter. Great compassion there dude.
Really.The entire state is affected by the situation, and to remove calWORKS completely would have a profound ripple effect throughout the state and the country.
Trickle down economics are pretty much a joke, btw.
Its been tried three times on a national level, and its worked three times on a national level.Trickle down economics are pretty much a joke, btw.
Trickle down economics are pretty much a joke, btw.
Trickle down economics is what the statists offer.Trickle down economics are pretty much a joke, btw.
Really.
Show that there are sufficient people on public assistance to plunge the entire state" into violent anarchy.
That statement is a joke, btw.
However, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Chavez would agree with you wholeheartedly, which judging by your moniker is exactly what you hope for.
Its been tried three times on a national level, and its worked three times on a national level.
The "joke" revolves around the people that deny this.
Whoop-whoop.A study by Beacon Economics - a California-based research firm - shows that the employment and economic activity generated by CalWORKs far exceeds the amount the state spends on it, Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors Association of California, said in letter to county social services directors.
According to the study, every $1 million spent on CalWORKs generates $7.35 million in economic output and employment in the state, he said.
Because families enrolled in the program use a portion of their cash assistance on housing, it could result in more county residents losing their homes, Work said.
Without job training, it also could mean fewer people finding work, which would stunt the county's economic growth, she added.
And this is on top of the current unemployment/foreclosure crisis they are facing, as well.
Show this to be true.If by "worked" you mean failed then yes.
Whoop-whoop.
This doesnt show what I asked you to show.
Show this to be true.
It's pretty ridiculous to claim that a program as successful as calWORKS is responsible for this when the government has been basically hemorrhaging money in much more bureaucratic and wasteful ways, just like every other state (and the federal government, as well).
"Blame the leftists" seems to me to be more of a cop out than an actual addressing of the issue.
The return is in not having the entire state collapse into rioting, chaos and economic meltdown, which is what would happen if they got rid of calWORKS.
The entire state is affected by the situation, and to remove calWORKS completely would have a profound ripple effect throughout the state and the country.
Actually that article does show that; I just didn't quote it because the amount of people on it at any one time is irrelevant, as it reaches many more people than the amount simply on it in one instance.
You certainly aren't suggesting that conservative economic policies caused this, are you?
The production of the private sector. For each dollar that it uses, how much economic activity is generated? After all, we need to compare your figure to something right?
What? I don't understand what you're asking here, but if I'm guessing right then your answer is in my last post:
According to the study, every $1 million spent on CalWORKs generates $7.35 million in economic output and employment in the state, he said.
So... you cannot show your claim to be true. Noted.Actually that article does show that; I just didn't quote it because the amount of people on it at any one time is irrelevant, as it reaches many more people than the amount simply on it in one instance.
Again... you cannot show your claim to be true. Noted.Just like how you wanted me to show that there was no Iraq-US cease-fire agreement? I'm not interested in wasting my time writing a book on something that you would just troll in response.
For the love of God, why is this so hard to grasp? I understood this concept in fourth grade, yet liberals love to wrap the "Reaganomics" tag on it and make it sound like some grand Ponzi scheme.
Either liberals are intellectually dishonest enough to argue against what they know to be true, or they are dumber than I was in fourth grade. I suspect the former, and unfortunately for them it flies in the face of their political agenda, which is to reward the lazy in exchange for the collective vote.
And I don't think California will ever just turn off welfare. As has been pointed out, the state would erupt in riots.
A Smith&Wesson in every household would be far cheaper.I don't think that a variety of people here realize for most intensive purposes that welfare is nothing more than a fee we pay to poor people to stop them from robbing us and burglarizing our houses.
According to the study, every $1 million spent on CalWORKs generates $7.35 million in economic output and employment in the state, he said.
If there were -ever- a case for -ending- welfare, it is this.I don't think that a variety of people here realize for most intensive purposes that welfare is nothing more than a fee we pay to poor people to stop them from robbing us and burglarizing our houses.
If there were -ever- a case for -ending- welfare, it is this.
Paying people to not be criminals is among the WORST thing a society can do.
A Smith&Wesson in every household would be far cheaper.
I'd read the Fair Tax book anyway, whether you agree with the premise or not it is a good read, I agree with you that it has little chance of being implemented for two reasons, one, as you mentioned the IRS doesn't want to give up it's power, and also the CPA lobby enjoys the easy way of "big hitting" around April 15, i.e., the bulk of their incomes comes between Jan.-Apr. with late filers allowing them to basically coast the rest of the year, with a flat tax these CPAs would actually have to find employment with companies and *gasp* work year round like the rest of us. I'll say this though, the fair tax is so simple it's brilliant.
The idea is to implement the tax first, it is weighted to provide sufficient operating funds for existing programs with the idea of weening the government off of spending and waste in an economically viable timeframe, the concept involves a trimming effect on overspending, forcing programs to lean down through the natural progression of legislative law, not by shock and awe economic leveraging
Most fair minded conservatives would state that we have too many entitlements, but we have so much at the moment that immediate elimination would damage the economy past the benefit of the reductions, many of us advocate a strategic roll back of programs to what is necessary, but to eliminate the fat, we would use a scalpel, not a hatchet. I agree, but I would also commend those that put their position at risk to do what needs to be done towards solvency.
A statement you cannot, in any way, support.Most gun owners are not the most intelligent people, especially when it comes to safety.
Another statement you cannot, in any way, support.Giving everyone a firearm when even the avid collectors don't have the best practices...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?