Rich dont pay enough but poor people dont pay any and people fine with that

[quote name='Knoell']And no, I dismiss it because you all keep throwing it around as if it actually proves your point.[/QUOTE]

That's right, run away bitch boy.

[quote name='Knoell']What is a level playing field?[/QUOTE]

It's not a system where investments are not taxed as normal income. For one...
 
[quote name='camoor']That's right, run away bitch boy.



It's not a system where investments are not taxed as normal income. For one...[/QUOTE]

So would you remove the tax exemption from 401ks and other investments?

Edit:

Here's a question, What do you think Wall Street will look like if you make the taxable rates of long term gains the same as short term gains?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']So would you remove the tax exemption from 401ks and other investments?[/QUOTE]

Not so much 401Ks (planning for retirement is important Knoell, better get up on it ol buddy) - but certain other investments are a no brainer.
 
I think retirement accounts (401Ks, IRAs etc.--things that can't be touched without penalty until retirement age) are the only investments that should get tax exemptions.

People need to be encouraged to save so we end up with fewer elderly people with no savings taxing the system.

Anything else shouldn't get any exemptions on any profits earned, and any profits should get taxed at a persons income bracket, the the 15% capital gains.

Encourage people to save for retirement. Otherwise any other investment profits should just be treated as income. Maybe that will encourage more execs to invest more in expanding their business etc. instead of lining their own pockets with profits from short term investments.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Here's a question, What do you think Wall Street will look like if you make the taxable rates of long term gains the same as short term gains?[/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHA...holy fuck! This can't be a serious question!:rofl:
 
It isn't a serious question. They will question you to death to avoid saying anything, find something they can twist around and go "AHA" and declare victory.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think retirement accounts (401Ks, IRAs etc.--things that can't be touched without penalty until retirement age) are the only investments that should get tax exemptions.

People need to be encouraged to save so we end up with fewer elderly people with no savings taxing the system.

Anything else shouldn't get any exemptions on any profits earned, and any profits should get taxed at a persons income bracket, the the 15% capital gains.

Encourage people to save for retirement. Otherwise any other investment profits should just be treated as income. Maybe that will encourage more execs to invest more in expanding their business etc. instead of lining their own pockets with profits from short term investments.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

However, even if we go by your theory, your best case scenario is that people will invest back into the business, rather than paying the higher tax. How does this increase revenue? But that isn't true either because its inevitable that people will have to take their money out, and they will inevitably pay the higher tax. Raising this tax is an emotional reaction at best, and there doesn't seem to be a clear benefit to do it, nor is there a plan to use any "potential" revenue that would be gained.
 
I care more about creating jobs and upping worker wages (investing in the business) more than I do upping tax revenue.

The issue is wealth being to concentrated in the top few percent due to greedy execs pocketing too much of profits rather than expanding the business and paying their workers more.

Tax revenue would still go up though, as plenty of greedy fucks will just continue pocketing money even though its taxed more rather than re-investing into the company as its still more money in their bank account that way.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I care more about creating jobs and upping worker wages (investing in the business) more than I do upping tax revenue.

The issue is wealth being to concentrated in the top few percent due to greedy execs pocketing too much of profits rather than expanding the business and paying their workers more.

Tax revenue would still go up though, as plenty of greedy fucks will just continue pocketing money even though its taxed more rather than re-investing into the company as its still more money in their bank account that way.[/QUOTE]

True but even more tax revenue is a more desirable result. At least we'd be paying down the debt instead of giving the rich another free ride.
 
woooo after this weekend i dont have to worry about quitting cause my job will be gone by next year probally..

was just told today expect the paper to sell at

OCT 2011 -- 33 cents per paper
March 2012 -- 37 cents per paper (was not bad)
OCT 2012 -- 41 cents per paper
March 2013 -- 46 cents per paper
OCt 2013 -- 50 cents per paper


what the entire increase the company took (we have not had a paid raise since 2010)


mostly its going up twice a year instead of once a year like before ..... very few people will take the paper at 50 cent per pop (12 per month) i lost 30 people from the march pop 11

down to 294 people so i expect it to fall to 260 by march and 230 by next oct and at that time It will not be profitable ...so i have one year
 
[quote name='slidecage']woooo after this weekend i dont have to worry about quitting cause my job will be gone by next year probally..

was just told today expect the paper to sell at

OCT 2011 -- 33 cents per paper
March 2012 -- 37 cents per paper (was not bad)
OCT 2012 -- 41 cents per paper
March 2013 -- 46 cents per paper
OCt 2013 -- 50 cents per paper


what the entire increase the company took (we have not had a paid raise since 2010)


mostly its going up twice a year instead of once a year like before ..... very few people will take the paper at 50 cent per pop (12 per month) i lost 30 people from the march pop 11

down to 294 people so i expect it to fall to 260 by march and 230 by next oct and at that time It will not be profitable ...so i have one year[/QUOTE]

slidecage, I'd like to introduce you to someone...

[quote name='dmaul1114']
The issue is wealth being to concentrated in the top few percent due to greedy execs pocketing too much of profits rather than expanding the business and paying their workers more.

Tax revenue would still go up though, as plenty of greedy fucks will just continue pocketing money even though its taxed more rather than re-investing into the company as its still more money in their bank account that way.[/QUOTE]
 
Slidecage, I feel your pain. I'm a firefighter and the area I'm stationed in now is near a lower socio-economic group of neighborhoods. This area is dominantly black, please refrain from the racist comments yet, I know of plenty of poor white trash in trailer parks in areas that I was previously stationed. I transport teenaged, unwed mothers to the hospital on a regular basis from government subsidized housing. Nails and hair styled up, touch screen cell phones, large flat screen TVs, XBOXes, and cable TV and internet are the norm in their homes. Multiple children are unfortunately another common observation. Children breeding children with no end in sight. Several generations live in the same household, usually with no more than 2 decades separating each. TANF, SNAP, free housing, and utility subsidies, plus whatever unclaimed income that is made under the table adds up to quite a nice amount when grouped together into one household. I'm not saying its a great, worry free lifestyle, but it is sustainable and offers many creature comforts. Poor in America is not like poor in many other areas of the world. How do we reform the system to stop the generational poverty that is now so deeply engrained on these populations? When you are raised with that condition as normal, as well as living in an area with a high violent crime rate, what chance do you have of breaking the cycle? I try to treat each patient with respect and kindness, but I have to bite my lip when asking a pregnant patient how many kids does she have,(its a legitimate medical question for imminent delivery calls) and being told that this will be her third "check". True story, no fooling. Welfare queens do exist, and I am seeing more and more every shift. Corporate welfare sucks also. Too big to fail is bs. Forced charity is not charity at all, though I see the pragmatic reality of either giving handouts to those who will not help themselves versus hiring a ton more police;-). No disrespect intended for those who use the safety net programs appropriately. It's just scary to see the rising numbers of those on assistance, and the disability rate is growing at an alarming speed. I wonder how much abuse is going on in that program. Just saw how this wall o text came out. As you can tell, I don't post on many forums;-) Sorry for the readability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='slidecage']down to 294 people so i expect it to fall to 260 by march and 230 by next oct and at that time It will not be profitable ...so i have one year[/QUOTE]

Feel free to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and find something better.

Alternatively you could always put yourself up for adoption.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Feel free to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and find something better.

Alternatively you could always put yourself up for adoption.[/QUOTE]

im packing up my bags to come live with you :)
 
Dammit, you let one in and then everyone who can't type worth a damn wants to start posting in here.

Ugh.......
 
[quote name='Clak']Dammit, you let one in and then everyone who can't type worth a damn wants to start posting in here.

Ugh.......[/QUOTE]

hey that's my kid you're talking about there, asshole :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
[quote name='slidecage']yea someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to keep having children


about the super rich

yea the took the risk so why shouldnt get the the breaks.. I give them a break over little old lazy fuck who sits on the ass all day and just waits for obama to come give them their government check

and he knows they are too lazy to get off their asses that is why he TOOK THE WORK REQUIREMENT OUT of getting government handouts

YOU DONT EVEN NEED TO LOOK FOR A fucking JOB ANYMORE[/QUOTE]

If you think it's Obama supporters who collect welfare, you need to get your facts straight. Unless you think its only blacks on welfare which it seems like that is typically the genesis of this hate for the poor. Red states generally take more than blue states and give less. So, who really likes getting a free ride? I think we need to ban red states. Such lazy ass people.
 
Slidecage is really the perfect republican voter. He's ignorant of facts, so it's easy as shit to fill his head with whatever bullshit you want. It really could have been any party or belief, but I guess he was exposed to conservatism fairly early on.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']If you think it's Obama supporters who collect welfare, you need to get your facts straight. Unless you think its only blacks on welfare which it seems like that is typically the genesis of this hate for the poor. Red states generally take more than blue states and give less. So, who really likes getting a free ride? I think we need to ban red states. Such lazy ass people.[/QUOTE]

i wouldnt say all of his supporters collect welfare, but if someone is on welfare, they will most likely vote democrate. is this not true?
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']If you think it's Obama supporters who collect welfare, you need to get your facts straight. Unless you think its only blacks on welfare which it seems like that is typically the genesis of this hate for the poor. Red states generally take more than blue states and give less. So, who really likes getting a free ride? I think we need to ban red states. Such lazy ass people.[/QUOTE]

so i guess YOUR saying the only people who support obama are black?



i really dont care what color or race they are ... No one should be able to sit on their asses all day just having kids and getting free money.
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']i wouldnt say all of his supporters collect welfare, but if someone is on welfare, they will most likely vote democrate. is this not true?[/QUOTE]

Not really. Plenty of rural poor on food stamps etc. that vote Republican because of being very social conservative (pro life, anti-gay marriage, want prayer in schools etc.).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not really. Plenty of rural poor on food stamps etc. that vote Republican because of being very social conservative (pro life, anti-gay marriage, want prayer in schools etc.).[/QUOTE]

i think you are right on this. but i would guess this is a very low percentage. i would like to see the stats for people on govt assistance and how they vote. would be interesting to me.
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']i think you are right on this. but i would guess this is a very low percentage. i would like to see the stats for people on govt assistance and how they vote. would be interesting to me.[/QUOTE]

Then look it up your damn self.
 
LOLZ...a libertarian public servant. The irony...it's palpable...

[quote name='egofed']Slidecage, I feel your pain. I'm a firefighter and the area I'm stationed in now is near a lower socio-economic group of neighborhoods. This area is dominantly black, please refrain from the racist comments yet, I know of plenty of poor white trash in trailer parks in areas that I was previously stationed. I transport teenaged, unwed mothers to the hospital on a regular basis from government subsidized housing. Nails and hair styled up, touch screen cell phones, large flat screen TVs, XBOXes, and cable TV and internet are the norm in their homes. Multiple children are unfortunately another common observation. Children breeding children with no end in sight. Several generations live in the same household, usually with no more than 2 decades separating each. TANF, SNAP, free housing, and utility subsidies, plus whatever unclaimed income that is made under the table adds up to quite a nice amount when grouped together into one household. I'm not saying its a great, worry free lifestyle, but it is sustainable and offers many creature comforts.[/quote]
What do you mean by "sustainable?" Sorry, but all those things are not prohibitively expensive anymore either. People have been saying what you've been saying about radios, fridges, microwaves, tv's, phones, and fucking socks for decades. So what if they have creature comforts...is not spending that money going to magically bring them out of poverty? Would you rather have people sit in an empty room that has the barest of necessities staring at each other? A lot of those higher priced items are also occasional purchases; not weekly.

Poor in America is not like poor in many other areas of the world.
Click to expand...
This is a stupid argument used by people that just want to completely dismiss what it's like to be in the poor underclass in the US.

No shit. Some of the poor in the US have it better than some other poor people elsewhere in the world. Just because it's "better" doesn't mean that things are great or good.

How do we reform the system to stop the generational poverty that is now so deeply engrained on these populations? When you are raised with that condition as normal, as well as living in an area with a high violent crime rate, what chance do you have of breaking the cycle?
Click to expand...
I have a bunch of ideas, but I happen to know the causes. Do you? It seems like you have no clue from what you've posted.

I try to treat each patient with respect and kindness, but I have to bite my lip when asking a pregnant patient how many kids does she have,(its a legitimate medical question for imminent delivery calls) and being told that this will be her third "check". True story, no fooling. Welfare queens do exist, and I am seeing more and more every shift.
Click to expand...
No they don't. $200 spent on something "frivolous" is money not spent on food/clothes; not both. There's also something deeper to saying "it's another check." If a person is shown no regard from society with little to no opportunities, how would you expect them to act? If that person belongs to a group that has been marginalized for generations while having resources taken away every year, how do expect them to bootstrap themselves out of their situation when they don't even have boots?

Corporate welfare sucks also. Too big to fail is bs. Forced charity is not charity at all, though I see the pragmatic reality of either giving handouts to those who will not help themselves versus hiring a ton more police;-).
Click to expand...
Why? So the cops can start locking more people up and therefore expanding government and requiring more tax dollars? And you say this while making the "taxes are theft/coercion/satan" argument as a person that makes their wage funded by taxes? You haven't really thought this through, have you?

No disrespect intended for those who use the safety net programs appropriately. It's just scary to see the rising numbers of those on assistance, and the disability rate is growing at an alarming speed. I wonder how much abuse is going on in that program. Just saw how this wall o text came out. As you can tell, I don't post on many forums;-) Sorry for the readability.
Click to expand...
The biggest economic downturn since the Depression tends to put more people on public assistance. Spending money "frivolously" tends to take resources away from spending money on healthier foods, which isn't exactly sustainable, nor is taking low paying heavy labor jobs that provide very little in the healthcare department. There are so many other reasons that explain those things on both individual and systemic levels.

dmaul1114 has a nice term he uses: concentrated disadvantage. It's something that you might want to think about.
 
dohdough, Your arguments rely on the misconception that people are all victims of society and have no common sense or responsibility when making choices that will have bad outcomes on their life. Having kids while on welfare is a selfish, idiotic choice. I would love to hear what liberal BS answer you have to dispute that. Self responsibility seems to be lost in this country. If you want to have tattoos on your face, rings in your nose, and clothes that reflect a "less than professional" attitude, I say go for it, but do not complain and expect society to care for you when you can not attain a well paying career. The examples of the lifestyle I gave are to show that this demographic has accepted that level as the norm and see no reason to escape "poverty". It is truly a broken system. Our war on poverty is a joke, much like our war on drugs. I also don't think that you understood my "more police" comment. I understand that eliminating welfare would lead to a rise in crime, just like making abortions illegal. We can either pay the entitlements, or pay to arrest and house the hungry who have no choice but to steal. I speak based on my personal observations. Welfare queens do exist. We had an incident of welfare recipients who were moving the same kids around to different households on inspection days in order to receive a higher pay out. My point is that the abuse is a lot more rampant than most liberals believe.

PS: I do quite enjoy being a Libertarian fireman. I genuinely enjoy helping people. Working 10 days a month leaves a lot of time for surfing;-) When I respond to a 911 call for a toothache, it just reassures me that as long as idiots are reproducing, I'll always have a job;-)
 
[quote name='dohdough']
dmaul1114 has a nice term he uses: concentrated disadvantage. It's something that you might want to think about.[/QUOTE]

I use it a lot, but can hardly lay claim to it. Very old and common concept in sociology/criminology. Particularly in work on communities and crime, social disorganization theory etc. :D
 
[quote name='egofed']dohdough, Your arguments rely on the misconception that people are all victims of society and have no common sense or responsibility when making choices that will have bad outcomes on their life.[/quote]
My arguments? You haven't even addressed any of them.

How can you say it's a misconception when you haven't gone into current an historical causes of said conditions? Vagueries like "common sense" and "responsibility" are meaningless without the context that creates them and you provide nothing of any depth. I'm guessing that you have none to offer.

Having kids while on welfare is a selfish, idiotic choice. I would love to hear what liberal BS answer you have to dispute that.
Click to expand...
And having money makes it less selfish or idiotic as if they're completely removed from society? Should the kids that had no choice in being born have to suffer for it?

Self responsibility seems to be lost in this country. If you want to have tattoos on your face, rings in your nose, and clothes that reflect a "less than professional" attitude, I say go for it, but do not complain and expect society to care for you when you can not attain a well paying career.
Click to expand...
This is assuming that those who make the most money are the most productive or hardworking. This is also assuming that we all have the same starting point as if some black kid born in the ghetto has the same starting point and opportunities as Mitt Romney, of which anyone with a braincell can understand that it's a ridiculous concept. Not to mention that you're jumping stereotypes.

The examples of the lifestyle I gave are to show that this demographic has accepted that level as the norm and see no reason to escape "poverty". It is truly a broken system. Our war on poverty is a joke, much like our war on drugs.
Click to expand...
All you've said is what they do and not go into any depth as to explain why.

I also don't think that you understood my "more police" comment.
Click to expand...
Then maybe you shouldn't use vague nonsense to make your points.

I understand that eliminating welfare would lead to a rise in crime, just like making abortions illegal.
Click to expand...
You're going to need to explain this one.

We can either pay the entitlements, or pay to arrest and house the hungry who have no choice but to steal. I speak based on my personal observations.
Click to expand...
This sounds like something called selection bias.

Welfare queens do exist. We had an incident of welfare recipients who were moving the same kids around to different households on inspection days in order to receive a higher pay out. My point is that the abuse is a lot more rampant than most liberals believe.
Click to expand...
Well, this liberal knows exactly how "rampant" it is according to the last federal study. I just gave you a hint so google it since you have so much time for surfing.

PS: I do quite enjoy being a Libertarian fireman. I genuinely enjoy helping people. Working 10 days a month leaves a lot of time for surfing;-) When I respond to a 911 call for a toothache, it just reassures me that as long as idiots are reproducing, I'll always have a job;-)
Click to expand...
Because someone that calls 911 for a toothache obviously has the means to know that dentists are the ones to handle those types of problems and are idiots instead of being in a situation in which that information where that type of knowledge is rarely perpetuated because of lack of access to regular dental care. But no, they're idiots for not growing up in a more privileged area. I have another term for you to learn: social capital.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I use it a lot, but can hardly lay claim to it. Very old and common concept in sociology/criminology. Particularly in work on communities and crime, social disorganization theory etc. :D[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but you're the only one that uses it here, so you own it like I own motherfucker.:lol:
 
[quote name='egofed']

PS: I do quite enjoy being a Libertarian fireman. I genuinely enjoy helping people. Working 10 days a month leaves a lot of time for surfing;-) When I respond to a 911 call for a toothache, it just reassures me that as long as idiots are reproducing, I'll always have a job;-)[/QUOTE]

Yeah you seem like a real compassionate person. You enjoy helping people yet call them idiots in the same breath.
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']i think you are right on this. but i would guess this is a very low percentage. i would like to see the stats for people on govt assistance and how they vote. would be interesting to me.[/QUOTE]
Define what constitutes as "gvt assistance." Red states tend to get more in federal funding than they give in tax revenue and those populations tend to be pretty white. Not to mention that people on assistance were mostly white only up until a couple years ago and it's still very close. I'd argue that being on public assistance has very little to do with how they vote as opposed to combinations of race, sex, age, and location.
 
You are a bit off in your assessment.

I found the following:
Blacks are indeed still the most numerous group on welfare, Pace NR, with 31.9 percent of recipients. Whites are right behind them at 31.8 percent.
But the big news: Hispanics now comprise 30 percent of those lounging on the dole.
Only 41 percent of recipients participated in some form of work during the reporting period. Of note: the work requirement for welfare that was added in the 1996 welfare reform bill appears to have had an effect – but is not stringently enforced. For example, in 1992, only 6.6 percent of the welfare class was employed. By 1999, this number rose to a high of 27.6 percent. But it has since fallen to 22.3 percent in 2010. So, despite the vaunted “work requirements,” almost 80 percent of welfare takers still do not work for their benefits.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-review-wrong-again-on-race-and-welfare
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final


Here's the latest 2012 population data I could find:
white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%


So 12.85% of the population is black, but make up 31.9% of the welfare recipients. Seems a bit disproportional to me. I really don't care, moochers are moochers no matter the ethnic background.
 
Perhaps you should stick to fighting fires and let others handle the statistics. You'll take this as an off handed remark, and I understand that. Do understand however that I'm saying this because it is apparent to me that while you can google for information, reading and understanding it is a different matter. I'm not going to point out what in your statement makes me say that because I shouldn't have to.
 
[quote name='egofed']You are a bit off in your assessment.[/QUOTE]
How can I be off when the person I was quoting never explained what he meant by "gvt assistance." That shit could mean anything and I went with the 2 most common usages. Not to mention that what you're saying addresses absolutely nothing about voting trends. Nice of you to quote a racist blog though.

I found the following:
Blacks are indeed still the most numerous group on welfare, Pace NR, with 31.9 percent of recipients. Whites are right behind them at 31.8 percent.
But the big news: Hispanics now comprise 30 percent of those lounging on the dole.
Only 41 percent of recipients participated in some form of work during the reporting period. Of note: the work requirement for welfare that was added in the 1996 welfare reform bill appears to have had an effect – but is not stringently enforced. For example, in 1992, only 6.6 percent of the welfare class was employed. By 1999, this number rose to a high of 27.6 percent. But it has since fallen to 22.3 percent in 2010. So, despite the vaunted “work requirements,” almost 80 percent of welfare takers still do not work for their benefits.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-review-wrong-again-on-race-and-welfare
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final
Click to expand...
So tell me, what happened in the last 5 years that might've increased the number of people on welfare?

Your blog is also wrong about Obama's welfare reform. Waivers were given to states that wanted STRICTER work requirements. Might be time to come down from Bullshit Mountain.

Here's the latest 2012 population data I could find:
white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%

So 12.85% of the population is black, but make up 31.9% of the welfare recipients. Seems a bit disproportional to me. I really don't care, moochers are moochers no matter the ethnic background.
Click to expand...
Really? Because you really seem to focus on the non-white ones a lot more. Now tell us why you think the numbers are disproportionate. I'm dying to hear this one!:roll:
 
You guys crack me up. A Racist blog?!? It provides stats taken from government provided information. The whole point is that the work for welfare requirements are not enforced. Only 22.3 % actually work. And I love when the race card is played, it shows me how desperate and deluded you are. I am against government welfare abuse. Period. I don't care about the person's race. I noted in my first post that my real world accounts are currently dominated by black abuse because that is my current experience from where I am stationed. I've seen plenty of white and hispanic abusers in different parts of the city. I responded to a young black man shot dead in the street in the middle of last night. Two in the chest and one in the head. I am deeply sorrowful to see a young life wasted. Compassion and intelligence can go hand in hand. I see a broken system. Generational poverty that is enslaving people of all races just as much as physical shackles. Throwing more money at this problem is not the answer. A fundamental change in attitudes and work ethic is what I perceive to be needed. Homes with both a mother and a father, not a governmental nanny state. And as far as the last 5 years, A lot of Democrat backed policies lead to our collapse as well as Bush's crazy spending. Good ol Barney Frank said not to worry about Freddie and Fannie. Mortgages for anybody with a pulse. Oh, I'm waaaayyyy against affirmative action also. Does that make me racist?
 
The work requirements require people to be looking for work, going to job training etc.

There aren't enough jobs for everyone who want them. Particularly for the unskilled and under-educated population that's most likely to be on gov't assistance. So we can never have full work requirement as that would just lead to people who can't find work getting kicked off wel-fare, increase the number of homeless (including children) etc.

No one likes the thought of someone living off gov't assistance while they are working hard to get by. But the alternative just isn't viable unless you're just a heartless bastard and don't care at all about people living in the street, going hungry etc.
 
How about road repair and construction, trash pickup, painting, etc organized by...shudder....the local city. Childcare could be provided by some in order that everyone could contribute. At least in urban settings, with population density, this should be possible. Cheap labor for municipalities, a work ethic instilled in everyone, its a win-win situation. As much as i dislike a larger government, this would be favorable over the current situation. I know I would work my ass off to attain my own desired career if I had to report to road work duty 40 hours a week to receive my SNAP benefit.
 
You don't really know how any of that works, do you? And you work for a city, which means you should have a better understanding.
 
The problem is that I know EXACTLY how that works. Why can't we try sweeping changes that will benefit everyone? Has the bureaucratic norm worked out so well? Shouldn't the number of welfare recipients be lower historically if we were pursuing the correct agenda? I'm truly talking fundamental change. Welfare, the Federal Reserve system, and our tax structure are all programs that I feel people just accept as the only route. That's why I support the Libertarian agenda. They can't possibly screw it up any worse than the 2 party ruling class that we have now.;-)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='egofed']How about road repair and construction, trash pickup, painting, etc organized by...shudder....the local city. Childcare could be provided by some in order that everyone could contribute. At least in urban settings, with population density, this should be possible. Cheap labor for municipalities, a work ethic instilled in everyone, its a win-win situation. As much as i dislike a larger government, this would be favorable over the current situation. I know I would work my ass off to attain my own desired career if I had to report to road work duty 40 hours a week to receive my SNAP benefit.[/QUOTE]

I believe you are referring to Public Works which are already done, to an extent.

My problem with your viewpoint is ideological purity.

The private market is pretty good about hiring the most qualified folks, our current problem is that business is down and therefore businesses can afford to be more picky about who makes the cut, which leaves alot of trustworthy hard-workers without an opportunity. This is the problem that I would like to see solved.

I'm fine with the fact that we'll never have 0% unemployment because there is always going to be a percentage of people who are unfit to repair roads, pickup trash, paint a wall, or (gods forbid) take care of the children.
 
Just to clue in here, road construction crews are not always city employees, neither are the folks who pick up trash, they're often working for third party companies. So if the city suddenly started doing this it would probably cost more. What the fuck he means by painting I don't even know.
 
[quote name='Clak']Just to clue in here, road construction crews are not always city employees, neither are the folks who pick up trash, they're often working for third party companies. So if the city suddenly started doing this it would probably cost more. What the fuck he means by painting I don't even know.[/QUOTE]

Already happened in Wisconsin. They outsourced road work in 09 and an audit found the State could have saved $1.2 million in recovery funds by allowing State employees to work on them.
 
ex-soldiers going to "the VA" are also counted under the govt assistance figure. fucking moochers.
Well that's different!
So are people collecting SSI and using Medicare. You know, folks that worked for 40 years already...
Well that's different!

Shall I keep going on?
 
[quote name='egofed']You guys crack me up. A Racist blog?!?[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is a racist blog founded by a known racist that speaks at white nationalist events. It's a blog with articles about the Bell Curve and the inferiority of blacks and Latinos. You not only cited it once, but twice, so I'm fairly certain that you not only read it regularly, but agree with most of it's content. You can cite any number of sources for your numbers, but you chose Vdare. The two posts you cited alone are full of racist dog whistles. So yes, I'm very comfortable with labeling the blog as Racist As fuck.

You might be new to vs, but if you're going to put out a blog as a source, I'm going to read that shit and not just those articles you cited.

It provides stats taken from government provided information. The whole point is that the work for welfare requirements are not enforced. Only 22.3 % actually work.
Click to expand...
Stats that can be gotten from non-white nationalist websites.

A person with little education and little to no money won't magically get off assistance or stop requiring it because they took an unsustainable job with pay that barely puts them above the poverty line. Forcing someone to "work" is a specious argument for all the reasons dmaul explained.

And I love when the race card is played, it shows me how desperate and deluded you are.
Click to expand...
Why? Do you have a problem with talking about the realities of race? Did racism stop existing because Obama was elected president? Or is it only relevant when some white girl can't get into a school she wanted to get into?

I am against government welfare abuse. Period. I don't care about the person's race.
Click to expand...
Then why bother citing those statistics and break them down by race at all?

I noted in my first post that my real world accounts are currently dominated by black abuse because that is my current experience from where I am stationed. I've seen plenty of white and hispanic abusers in different parts of the city. I responded to a young black man shot dead in the street in the middle of last night. Two in the chest and one in the head. I am deeply sorrowful to see a young life wasted.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the "I'm not racist because I have a black friend" argument rings hollow with me.

Compassion and intelligence can go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
I don't think you quite understand those concepts.

I see a broken system. Generational poverty that is enslaving people of all races just as much as physical shackles.
Click to expand...
And what are the causes of generational poverty?

Throwing more money at this problem is not the answer.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is. Even you think so.

A fundamental change in attitudes and work ethic is what I perceive to be needed. Homes with both a mother and a father, not a governmental nanny state.
Click to expand...

And as far as the last 5 years, A lot of Democrat backed policies lead to our collapse as well as Bush's crazy spending. Good ol Barney Frank said not to worry about Freddie and Fannie. Mortgages for anybody with a pulse.
Click to expand...
We had a recession which put more people on assistance and disproportionately affects people of color, it's Democrat-IC, Frank only pushed for subsidized loans to poor people, Freddie and Fannie were fine until they got into riskier loans because they were losing market share, and those home buyers that got financially ruined are the victims; not the banks that gave them the loans.

Oh, I'm waaaayyyy against affirmative action also. Does that make me racist?
Click to expand...
Being against affirmative action alone doesn't make you racist, but defending a known racist blog as being not racist makes it very likely.

[quote name='egofed']How about road repair and construction, trash pickup, painting, etc organized by...shudder....the local city. Childcare could be provided by some in order that everyone could contribute. At least in urban settings, with population density, this should be possible. Cheap labor for municipalities, a work ethic instilled in everyone, its a win-win situation. As much as i dislike a larger government, this would be favorable over the current situation. I know I would work my ass off to attain my own desired career if I had to report to road work duty 40 hours a week to receive my SNAP benefit.[/QUOTE]
So in other words: throw money at the problem?:rofl:

[quote name='egofed']The problem is that I know EXACTLY how that works.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you don't. You might know about some mechanics of it, but you have no clue about the bigger picture. This explains your cognitive dissonance with your "throw more at the problem!" argument with a government program like the New Deal that you just proposed amongst other stupid things you mentioned.

Why can't we try sweeping changes that will benefit everyone?
Click to expand...
Ummm...wut? This is a very non-libertarian comment to make.

Has the bureaucratic norm worked out so well? Shouldn't the number of welfare recipients be lower historically if we were pursuing the correct agenda?
Click to expand...
Ummm...did that recession a few years ago not happen?

I'm truly talking fundamental change. Welfare, the Federal Reserve system, and our tax structure our all programs that I feel people just accept as the only route.
Click to expand...
Sounds more like you want to destroy the social safety net because of 1.9% fraud. Btw, you'd be on that chopping block too.

That's why I support the Libertarian agenda. They can't possibly screw it up any worse than the 2 party ruling class that we have now.;-)
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Gilded Age and the Industrial Revolution...or you could move to Somalia. I'd like it if you could address my previous points first though.
 
[quote name='EdRyder']Already happened in Wisconsin. They outsourced road work in 09 and an audit found the State could have saved $1.2 million in recovery funds by allowing State employees to work on them.[/QUOTE]
Recovery funds? I just ask if that's money they'd only get for state employees doing the work, or if it would have actually just been straight up cheaper.
 
Good old VS...the constant "you don"t understand, and until you see it the way I do, you never will. I see the whooole picture, and your just (insert stupid, racist, dumb, etc)"
 
[quote name='Knoell']Good old VS...the constant "you don"t understand, and until you see it the way I do, you never will. I see the whooole picture, and your just (insert stupid, racist, dumb, etc)"[/QUOTE]
You might want to google "vdare." Apology accepted.:booty:
 
[quote name='EdRyder']Already happened in Wisconsin. They outsourced road work in 09 and an audit found the State could have saved $1.2 million in recovery funds by allowing State employees to work on them.[/QUOTE]

Alot of road work and garbage collection is tied up with the mafia, so it's hardly surprising that there are cost overruns when it is privatized.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Good old VS...the constant "you don"t understand, and until you see it the way I do, you never will. I see the whooole picture, and your just (insert stupid, racist, dumb, etc)"[/QUOTE]

WTF are you even talking about? Stay on topic or GTFO
 
[quote name='Knoell']Good old VS...the constant "you don"t understand, and until you see it the way I do, you never will. I see the whooole picture, and your just (insert stupid, racist, dumb, etc)"[/QUOTE]
Don't blame us for your shortcomings.
 
Vdare.com is the top google site that comes up when "welfare recipients by race 2012" is typed in. It uses the TANF stats from the .gov site. What about it is racist? I think that this was the first time I've been there, so please keep your accusatory tone down to a low grumble. 12.95% black total US population accounting for basically the same welfare recipient % as 79% of white US population does not sit out of whack with you guys? I brought this up because a true comparison would be done by percent of population. I do indeed have many black friends and co-workers. Guys I respect and trust with my life everyday. They work hard for everything they earn. They despise the welfare abuse as much as I do. So shut up with that racist crap.
I would not throw more money at the problem. You would work 40 hours a week if you live in subsidized housing and receive SNAP or TANF benefits. That's it. There are whole neighborhoods that fit this bill near my station. Housing improvements such as repairs, grass cutting, and painting would be done by the residents instead of paid employees. If anything, it would reduce expenditures and increase civic pride. And heaven help the person who is found unfit to pick up trash.
Social security should be paid out based only on the amount paid in. Those who have worked hard all their lives and paid into the system are not moochers. But the programs are open to much abuse now. Reform it or lose it. I actually don't pay into soc sec. My city opted out decades ago. I really enjoy the extra cash each paycheck that I can spend or invest myself, as a free citizen.
One last point, how do you guys see us overcoming our debt? If I have my facts straight, ;-), we are short 4 billion dollars of the 10 billion it takes to run our country each day. 0.42 cent of every dollar spent is borrowed basically. Seems pretty crazy to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top