aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
what your saying does not make sense. the poor rape the public. Man your forgetting that the Poor are part of the public. With over 50% of Americans living below the poverty level now. the death of the middle class, the decline of education and opportunity, With the rich shipping thousands of jobs overseas to other countries. the poor pay most of the taxes in the uSA.Makes no sense at all for me, unless you are arguing for entitlements based on taxes.
Rape is illegal in all states, to my understanding.
what your saying does not make sense. the poor rape the public. Man your forgetting that the Poor are part of the public. With over 50% of Americans living below the poverty level now. the death of the middle class, the decline of education and opportunity, With the rich shipping thousands of jobs overseas to other countries. the poor pay most of the taxes in the uSA.
Look at the major increase in Poverty rates from only 33% of the people in 1993 to over 60% now. We have really taken some bad hits from the right wing radicals since Bush came into office.
US Census Press Releases
Household Income Rises, Poverty Rate Declines, Number of Uninsured Up
Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006. There were 36.5 million people in poverty in 2006, not statistically different from 2005. The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006.
About 9.8 percent (7.7 million) of the nation’s families were in poverty in 2006. Married-couple families had a poverty rate of 4.9 percent (2.9 million), compared with 28.3 percent (4.1 million) for female-householder, no-husband-present families and 13.2 percent (671,000) for those with a male householder and no wife present. The poverty rate for these types of families in poverty showed no statistically significant change between 2005 and 2006.
As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2006 was $20,614; for a family of three, $16,079; for a family of two, $13,167; and for unrelated individuals, $10,294.
---------------
Doesn't look like 50-60% to me.. ???
the internal revenue serviceWhat is the source for the assertion that 50% live below poverty or poverty rates over 60%? I've never seen that.
the internal revenue service
People who are earning four times the poverty level do not need benefits designed for those who are not evening making poverty level wages.
If a taxpayer earns less than $25,000 per year, they should qualify for government subsidized healthcare. Period.
Then they should be exempt from the program and not have to pay into the system if they will not get the same benifit as everyone else.
You mean government should make someone else pay for this persons health care.
Where in the world did you get this idea that people shouldn't have to pay for any government program that doesn't directly benefit them personally?
If that is how the program was created as SS and Medicare and Medicaid, where did you get the idea that some people shouldn't get the benefits they pay for?
Stinger said:If you get rich should your life insurance policy not pay out because they think you had enough? How about your company 401-K, should the company be able to tell you you can't have it cause you are worth too much?
Because that defeats the entire purpose of the program.
If everyone just gets out exactly what they paid in, there's no point.
The programs were designed to make certain services available to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford them.
Those are private programs that have signed contracts with you.
They are designed to make money, as private businesses should be. In contrast, government social programs are designed to help the poor.
If you can't even understand what these programs are intended to do, it makes it rather difficult to debate the economics of them.
NOT paying the contributors the benefits they paid for defeats the program.
Why did you make that statement when it has nothing to do with what I said?
No it wasn't. It was designed so that EVERYONE pays in and EVERYONE gets the same monthly supplement. Where on earth do you get the idea that when SS was set up the benifits were ONLY to go to the poor? Did they teach you that in a government school?
Stinger said:So what, SS is suppose to be a contract between government and the citizen. Else lets do away with all the smoke and mirrors and call it a welfare program.
Stinger said:SS is designed to make money so it can pay the benefits promised to the citizens, it just doesn't make enough.
OK, then here's a pop quiz for you: What was the rationale behind creating SS in the first place then?
Just to withhold money from people for decades for the hell of it? If that was the case, it would have been quite politically unpopular, even at the time.
Umm I wasn't aware that there WERE any "smoke and mirrors." You're one of the few people (of ANY political ideology) I've ever seen who has called it something OTHER than a welfare program.
SS is *not* designed to make money. It never has been.
When you suggest that people should be allowed to "opt out" of the programs, you are missing the entire point of their existence and it undermines any arguments you may have.
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?