That is why I called your argument absurd.
So who exactly is caring as the taxpayer's pockets get picked? Who weeps for us? If someone wants the State to help them out then the choice is entirely theirs. If they don't agree, then that's fine. They can go to your house and ask to live with you.
As for the religious groups, this would be a perfect opportunity for them to help the needy. I'm a big booster of putting one's money where one's mouth is.
I've been on welfare (the dependent of an adult recipient). I'm aware of the Texas and Michigan qualifications for welfare. "Temporary" varies from state to state and time constraints can be loosened or eliminated with the introduction of a new baby, the loss of a job, or other "life events". You can be cut off after reaching the time limit only to reapply and begin receiving checks again a few months later. Additionally, most on the system learn very quickly that it pays more to work a low-income job and stay on welfare than it does to seek a higher paying job and lose benefits. So they work low-skill, low-pay positions so that they meet qualifications without losing benefits.
It isn't about being "deadbeats". It's about exploiting the flaws in the system to provide the most advantageous situation possible. The legislators built a system that allows for a lot of exploitation and provides little means of making a non-welfare life very appealing.
Nobody here was even saying that recipients are deadbeats, or dishonest, or abusing the system.
This entire thread was about how to make life after welfare more appealing and more productive than the current system allows.
So who exactly is caring as the taxpayer's pockets get picked? Who weeps for us? If someone wants the State to help them out then the choice is entirely theirs. If they don't agree, then that's fine. They can go to your house and ask to live with you.
As for the religious groups, this would be a perfect opportunity for them to help the needy. I'm a big booster of putting one's money where one's mouth is.
That's funny. You have a talent. Keep developing it.
You aren't religious, but you expect them to pick up the tab?
WHY is it absurd? Argument by assertion isn't convincing.
I think you are never going to get it. Who weeps for you? I do. But not because your "pocket is being picked." Because you have divorced yourself from humanity. You aren't religious, but you expect them to pick up the tab? You must know by now that you have just boiled down your argument to "I have a right to be a selfish curmudgeon, and I intend to execute that right no matter who it hurts."
WHY is it absurd? Argument by assertion isn't convincing.
He has the right to have his taxes go towards things that are for him. Like I do, like you do, like we all. If people are suffering in this world and you care for them using my money to help them is not representation in taxes. If you wish to help them you can use your own money to do it and leave my money and his money alone. If you think that makes me selfish, so be it. I really don't give a ****. So I'm selfish with MY MONEY, who cares. You are selfish with MY money too. The difference is its MY MONEY and not yours.
Are you disputing the notion that adding more workers to the low skill labor pool increases worker supply and thus decreases wage rates for low skill workers?
I've been on welfare (the dependent of an adult recipient). I'm aware of the Texas and Michigan qualifications for welfare. "Temporary" varies from state to state and time constraints can be loosened or eliminated with the introduction of a new baby, the loss of a job, or other "life events". You can be cut off after reaching the time limit only to reapply and begin receiving checks again a few months later. Additionally, most on the system learn very quickly that it pays more to work a low-income job and stay on welfare than it does to seek a higher paying job and lose benefits. So they work low-skill, low-pay positions so that they meet qualifications without losing benefits.
It isn't about being "deadbeats". It's about exploiting the flaws in the system to provide the most advantageous situation possible. The legislators built a system that allows for a lot of exploitation and provides little means of making a non-welfare life very appealing.
Nobody here was even saying that recipients are deadbeats, or dishonest, or abusing the system.
This entire thread was about how to make life after welfare more appealing and more productive than the current system allows.
Now this really is humorous. Look at the numbers sometime. The people whose "pockets are being picked" most are the ones who are clamoring for increased taxes. The way the government apportions tax revenues to the states really is wealth re-distribution.. not to people, but to the states, and to conservative states in particular. Meanwhile you don't hear the good people of Massachusetts screaming that they should be able to keep their own income tax revenues in their state (and if they did, it would be quite a lot more money poured into that state). No, they don't share your views, and you should be thankful. If your conservative reactionary friends get their way, you will get to see the states containing the majority of your own base constituency go bankrupt.
You're misunderstanding. I'm not expecting the religious to pick up the tab. You wrote that the religious would object to the policy. My response is that if they object to a cost saving policy then they can step in and make up the shortfall. It's easy to object to things when other people get stuck with the bill. If they are making a principled objection then they can sacrifice their own welfare in order to uphold their principle.
I generously support the charities of my choosing. I don't ask you to support them and then shirk my own obligation to give.
Now this really is humorous. Look at the numbers sometime. The people whose "pockets are being picked" most are the ones who are clamoring for increased taxes.
The way the government apportions tax revenues to the states really is wealth re-distribution.. not to people, but to the states, and to conservative states in particular.
Meanwhile you don't hear the good people of Massachusetts screaming that they should be able to keep their own income tax revenues in their state (and if they did, it would be quite a lot more money poured into that state). No, they don't share your views, and you should be thankful.
If your conservative reactionary friends get their way, you will get to see the states containing the majority of your own base constituency go bankrupt.
He has the right to have his taxes go towards things that are for him. Like I do, like you do, like we all. If people are suffering in this world and you care for them using my money to help them is not representation in taxes. If you wish to help them you can use your own money to do it and leave my money and his money alone. If you think that makes me selfish, so be it. I really don't give a ****. So I'm selfish with MY MONEY, who cares. You are selfish with MY money too. The difference is its MY MONEY and not yours.
Antiderivative said:It is hard to take Republican "rugged individualism" seriously when most Red States are welfare states feeding off of Blue States.
If we ended welfare, then Red States would be the most affected.
I'm a republican? Do you guys ever bother to look at leans?
MINE, MINE, MINE ... where have I heard that before .. oh yeah, from selfish 2 year olds (they can't help it though)
I've never seen a bigger group of whiners when it comes to paying taxes. Listen guys, there are lots of things I don't want to see my tax dollars go to, but they go there anyway .. if you want to change it, then start a movement about it .. if you hate the poor so much .. go ahead, start a petition, drive those poor people farther into the ground .. I'm going to focus my energy on leaving the poor alone and lobbying against useless spending like the "war on marijuana and hemp", our government encouraged addiction to foreign fuel sources, our excessive military occupation and so on .. stop trying to pick on the little guys and pick a good fight for once!
MINE, MINE, MINE ... where have I heard that before .. oh yeah, from selfish 2 year olds (they can't help it though)
I've never seen a bigger group of whiners when it comes to paying taxes. Listen guys, there are lots of things I don't want to see my tax dollars go to, but they go there anyway .. if you want to change it, then start a movement about it .. if you hate the poor so much .. go ahead, start a petition, drive those poor people farther into the ground .. I'm going to focus my energy on leaving the poor alone and lobbying against useless spending like the "war on marijuana and hemp", our government encouraged addiction to foreign fuel sources, our excessive military occupation and so on .. stop trying to pick on the little guys and pick a good fight for once!
As much as the right and psuedo-libertarians despise the poor and welfare, they never attack corporate welfare with the same amount of vigor.
It is almost an axiom.
Oh so the conservative states get the money. Yes? So when liberal states ask for money, which is often, you overlook it?
I'm sorry you need my money for your wants and desires. Maybe you should should pay for them and take some responsibly for your own wants and desires?
Have you ever seen some of my posts? You really should and you will see I don't pick on the poor as much as I pick fights with things across the board. I have no wants and desires from government other than police, military, courts and a money supply.
I'm sorry you need, but asking me goes a long way.
When we are talking about corporate welfare you will hear my hate for it, I think that is fair.
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?