100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Capitalism and Socialism | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I am against socialism... don't want to be like Venezuela and other socialist countries. People who are not TRULY disabled should get off their butts and work. I worked 47 years without complaining, because I bettered myself in each job I had. No way am I for people paying the "government" 70% in taxes across the board. Many (I am not saying ALL) -- Many of our unemployed, people getting welfare checks, food stamps, homeless, etc. are in fact LAZY. I know people who SAY they are too disabled to work, but they own Harleys and ride all over the country. People who get food stamps for the entire family and drive three cars. There are ways around the rules to get paid for doing nothing. When I worked for health & human services, there were people getting $600 in food stamps and driving new off-the-lot cars because they were not BUYING them, they were LEASING. So it could not be called an asset. I do not want thousands of people coming across our borders, putting more pressure on working people to support them. We have so many people with TRUE disabilities who wait in line and have to appeal decisions against them.... when we have socialist thinking people who want to tell us what we can do, should do, will do and what kind of job THEY think we are qualified for. I HATE SOCIALISM.
Be realistic and "BUILD THAT WALL" ** I have the right to remain silent but I don't have the ability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not for nothing, but that is capitalism at work actually. Stamps are only a supplement that are based on the difference between what people earn and what they need to feed their family. Whether a business or bank wants to allow someone with a stretched income to lease is their perogative. Also, it is their perogative, but a very odd chance, that they would lease 'brand new off the lot' cars to those who are not working anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several problems with socialism or the nice words of "safety net". Conservatives believe there should be minimum requirements for eligibility to receive social benefits. You say stamps are to help fill the hole between what someone earns and feeding their family yet we have no rules of how much they should work and earn. We also don't put any limits on the number of people in the household or have expectations of the effort people in the household should make for their selves. We also do not require that recipients partake in educational opportunities to better manage what resources they have. Now we just throw money at the problem and think if we throw enough, the problem will fix itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 02/04/19 12:41 PM
|
|
There are several problems with socialism or the nice words of "safety net". Conservatives believe there should be minimum requirements for eligibility to receive social benefits. You say stamps are to help fill the hole between what someone earns and feeding their family yet we have no rules of how much they should work and earn. We also don't put any limits on the number of people in the household or have expectations of the effort people in the household should make for their selves. We also do not require that recipients partake in educational opportunities to better manage what resources they have. Now we just throw money at the problem and think if we throw enough, the problem will fix itself. We cannot set rules on what they have to earn, when people have no control on what someone else pays them, and those who have the least are gonna need more help BECAUSE they dont have the income to stretch. As far as number in the household, the stamps are distributed on number in household and the vast majority of Snap households have no more than three people, so it really becomes a trivial concern. I doubt more than the rare embezzler(I call them this because all institutions with money will have them, but they are not the rule, and are breaking laws) is running out making more children just to get a whopping 130 dollars a month in food. If they already had the children, they are also ones who need the help to feed them when something happens that changes their financial situation. The concerns, though I believe are mostly good intentioned, are greatly over-hyped to the reality. People dont starve gracefully, so the investment is well worth it. In a capitalist society that has any humanity, we shouldn't make the whole of a human life be valued only on if someone has paid them an income, and we should value the need for human life, especially children, who are the VAST majority of those recipients, to be able to eat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several problems with socialism or the nice words of "safety net". Conservatives believe there should be minimum requirements for eligibility to receive social benefits. You say stamps are to help fill the hole between what someone earns and feeding their family yet we have no rules of how much they should work and earn. We also don't put any limits on the number of people in the household or have expectations of the effort people in the household should make for their selves. We also do not require that recipients partake in educational opportunities to better manage what resources they have. Now we just throw money at the problem and think if we throw enough, the problem will fix itself. We cannot set rules on what they have to earn, when people have no control on what someone else pays them, and those who have the least are gonna need more help BECAUSE they dont have the income to stretch. As far as number in the household, the stamps are distributed on number in household and the vast majority of Snap households have no more than three people, so it really becomes a trivial concern. I doubt more than the rare embezzler(I call them this because all institutions with money will have them, but they are not the rule, and are breaking laws) is running out making more children just to get a whopping 130 dollars a month in food. If they already had the children, they are also ones who need the help to feed them when something happens that changes their financial situation. The concerns, though I believe are mostly good intentioned, are greatly over-hyped to the reality. People dont starve gracefully, so the investment is well worth it. In a capitalist society that has any humanity, we shouldn't make the whole of a human life be valued only on if someone has paid them an income, and we should value the need for human life, especially children, who are the VAST majority of those recipients, to be able to eat. This is where the basic philosophy off what is the responsibility of society and what is the responsibility of the people in any program. I would suspect you believe everyone deserves a basic standard of living even if they are unwilling to contribute; I do not. I can even take this back to the basic tenant of communism: from each according to their ability. to each according to their need. It is a two way street and if you are not willing to contribute according to your ability, you do not deserve your needs met. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several problems with socialism or the nice words of "safety net". Conservatives believe there should be minimum requirements for eligibility to receive social benefits. You say stamps are to help fill the hole between what someone earns and feeding their family yet we have no rules of how much they should work and earn. We also don't put any limits on the number of people in the household or have expectations of the effort people in the household should make for their selves. We also do not require that recipients partake in educational opportunities to better manage what resources they have. Now we just throw money at the problem and think if we throw enough, the problem will fix itself. We cannot set rules on what they have to earn, when people have no control on what someone else pays them, and those who have the least are gonna need more help BECAUSE they dont have the income to stretch. As far as number in the household, the stamps are distributed on number in household and the vast majority of Snap households have no more than three people, so it really becomes a trivial concern. I doubt more than the rare embezzler(I call them this because all institutions with money will have them, but they are not the rule, and are breaking laws) is running out making more children just to get a whopping 130 dollars a month in food. If they already had the children, they are also ones who need the help to feed them when something happens that changes their financial situation. The concerns, though I believe are mostly good intentioned, are greatly over-hyped to the reality. People dont starve gracefully, so the investment is well worth it. In a capitalist society that has any humanity, we shouldn't make the whole of a human life be valued only on if someone has paid them an income, and we should value the need for human life, especially children, who are the VAST majority of those recipients, to be able to eat. This is where the basic philosophy off what is the responsibility of society and what is the responsibility of the people in any program. I would suspect you believe everyone deserves a basic standard of living even if they are unwilling to contribute; I do not. I can even take this back to the basic tenant of communism: from each according to their ability. to each according to their need. It is a two way street and if you are not willing to contribute according to your ability, you do not deserve your needs met. Im not sure what you mean. Every job I have held has had the hours set by the employer. I believe everyone deserves a chance to eat in a society that is not created for everyone to be 'paid' what is necessary for them to eat and pay other required bills like utilities, rent, food, et cetera, and where more and more states allow employees to terminate employment so easily. gone are the days of people working for one employer all their life, or having a skill set that they can market, except science or tech, that will pay a wage commensable with cost of living. I believe that to accomodate for the realities the 'free market' creates in terms of cost of living verse availability of work at cost of living rates, we do need to help people when they hit needful times and not set an arbitrary time limit of how long is too long for them to be in need. Who will determine what is a 'contribution'? I have posed that before. In the days before womens liberation, were mothers at home raising their children, taking care of their home and supporting their spouse, running the errands, doing the cooking and cleaning and transporting(all of which people can and do get paid for by strangers), was that not considered a 'contribution'? But now that women and mothers not only can work but in most people's views MUST work in the absence of a man, what happens to those kids? Who covers those cost, not just financially but emotionally? IF moms being moms is not enough of a contribution for them to at least feed their kids, unless it is a man willing to foot that cost, than what list of 'contributions' will we accept or respect and who will create it? no. I believe the basic need to EAT is important enough for the 'tax money' to be there to assist families with when the economy or their situation does not afford the income. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the article, and I have read all the comments here. First, the article is basically an interview with an author who wrote a book. As I believe Igor stated, it is a puff piece with an old dude, and if the interviewer was really hard-hitting, she might have called Mr Langone out on a couple of his "mis-statements", the first one being when Langone said "But look at what [Bill] Gates created; Jeff Bezos, the guy from Google, Home Depot, Walmart. Hey, we didn’t just get rich; we helped a lot of other people live better lives." First, Jeff Bezos is is the major COMPETITOR to the folks at Google. Second, Home Depot and especially Walmart have created the American sweat shop, where the employees are paid at the very bottom of the barrel. Anyone want to try to own a home, pay their utilities, try to raise a kid on a Walmart salary? 2o years ago I tried. Home Depot at its inception doctored their books and counted empty boxes as inventory to make the books look good (anybody who worked at The Home Depot 29 years ago heard the stories in orientation of Bernie and Art... Funny how Ken says he was a founder, but we never had a mention of HIM) THD and Walmart used "inferior Chinese crap tools" and the like to undercut good American goods... I had loyal American workers who refused to use said Chinese crap, preferring to use American-made tools, like Stanley. (If I brought a tool to their job site with "China" stamped on it, they would not use it) Most "American" toolmakers since then have stopped manufacturing domestically; they could no longer keep up with the quality of their brands and match the price at THD. THD and Walmart led the way for good manufacturing jobs to go to China, and I don't think Stanley even has an American tool plant anymore. This proves MsHarmony's point that GREED is a killer of many things, capitalism included. Lying about inventory on hand, filling the steel in the stores with empty boxes... hmmm, I am thinking that a lot of other American firms saw that "If it is good enough for THD, let's try it here" Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom (I used to call him "Uncle Bernie" in meetings) is still doing Federal time because of the shaky accounting practices the MCI folks convinced him "was the way everyone does it now". WorldCom was arguably the first of many firms whose failures, based on "Home Depot accounting" caused some serious crap in our economy. Oh, and watch the Enron documentaries to see how Enron's deception can be traced directly to the George W Bush White House. So now greed is cool. It is OK to start things like airlines and universities, bankrupt them, screw the little folks (or as Ken Langone says " Like it or not, we’re not all created equal, OK?" That hit me as a little out of step with what our founding fathers believed when THEY set up this 243-year old capitalist experiment). I mean, casinos basically PRINT money, as a result of human greed; tell me how ONE man can BANKRUPT four casinos? Greed, deception, dishonesty... It is not the LEFT, Ms Toody, who has been slowly killing this country, it is the greed of members of the Right who has gotten us here, and the poster child for greed and dishonesty is at the helm. I also question in the article how Mr Langone has such a bad taste about socialism, but knows so little about how it works. He can't name a place where it has not succeeded? I think his book was misnamed, it should have been "I Love GREED and Screwin my Employees" Good, call me names, but don't rebut ONE SINGLE THING in my argument? You are an ***. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several problems with socialism or the nice words of "safety net". Conservatives believe there should be minimum requirements for eligibility to receive social benefits. You say stamps are to help fill the hole between what someone earns and feeding their family yet we have no rules of how much they should work and earn. We also don't put any limits on the number of people in the household or have expectations of the effort people in the household should make for their selves. We also do not require that recipients partake in educational opportunities to better manage what resources they have. Now we just throw money at the problem and think if we throw enough, the problem will fix itself. We cannot set rules on what they have to earn, when people have no control on what someone else pays them, and those who have the least are gonna need more help BECAUSE they dont have the income to stretch. As far as number in the household, the stamps are distributed on number in household and the vast majority of Snap households have no more than three people, so it really becomes a trivial concern. I doubt more than the rare embezzler(I call them this because all institutions with money will have them, but they are not the rule, and are breaking laws) is running out making more children just to get a whopping 130 dollars a month in food. If they already had the children, they are also ones who need the help to feed them when something happens that changes their financial situation. The concerns, though I believe are mostly good intentioned, are greatly over-hyped to the reality. People dont starve gracefully, so the investment is well worth it. In a capitalist society that has any humanity, we shouldn't make the whole of a human life be valued only on if someone has paid them an income, and we should value the need for human life, especially children, who are the VAST majority of those recipients, to be able to eat. This is where the basic philosophy off what is the responsibility of society and what is the responsibility of the people in any program. I would suspect you believe everyone deserves a basic standard of living even if they are unwilling to contribute; I do not. I can even take this back to the basic tenant of communism: from each according to their ability. to each according to their need. It is a two way street and if you are not willing to contribute according to your ability, you do not deserve your needs met. Im not sure what you mean. Every job I have held has had the hours set by the employer. I believe everyone deserves a chance to eat in a society that is not created for everyone to be 'paid' what is necessary for them to eat and pay other required bills like utilities, rent, food, et cetera, and where more and more states allow employees to terminate employment so easily. gone are the days of people working for one employer all their life, or having a skill set that they can market, except science or tech, that will pay a wage commensable with cost of living. I believe that to accomodate for the realities the 'free market' creates in terms of cost of living verse availability of work at cost of living rates, we do need to help people when they hit needful times and not set an arbitrary time limit of how long is too long for them to be in need. Who will determine what is a 'contribution'? I have posed that before. In the days before womens liberation, were mothers at home raising their children, taking care of their home and supporting their spouse, running the errands, doing the cooking and cleaning and transporting(all of which people can and do get paid for by strangers), was that not considered a 'contribution'? But now that women and mothers not only can work but in most people's views MUST work in the absence of a man, what happens to those kids? Who covers those cost, not just financially but emotionally? IF moms being moms is not enough of a contribution for them to at least feed their kids, unless it is a man willing to foot that cost, than what list of 'contributions' will we accept or respect and who will create it? no. I believe the basic need to EAT is important enough for the 'tax money' to be there to assist families with when the economy or their situation does not afford the income. While the employer does establish working hours, a 40 hr workweek is still the standard. I realize a lot of unskilled work is not 40 hours which requires a person to have more than one job; this is not uncommon. All adults should have a marketable skill set or we should help them obtain one. Making a reasonable living without that skill set is nearly impossible. Our schools are failing us in educating our youth and society is failing in educating the adults! A significant driver of the cost of living in any area is the government especially local. Until you are willing to take on your local government, the cost of living will continue to increase at a rate where lower income people will not have a chance. It is not the employers responsibility to keep raising prices and wages to offset the effect of the government. If most married women work then we should expect the same from a single mother. It is not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset the fact she is a single mother. Maybe we should help her but the fact that she is a single mother is of her own making. At one time a woman being a homemaker was the norm and the man had no responsibilities beyond his job. The wife took care of everything else. In today's economy that no longer works for lower income people. They must both work and share the responsibilities of the home. That fact relegates most single parent with minimal income households to a poverty existence. Our current approach to poor, single parent households is not working and throwing more money at it will not fix the problem It is time to scrap what we have and find a whole new approach to the problem but the existing government in incapable of resolving anything. It also will involve forcing people to comply if they want any support. Unfortunately, we will not resolve those problems in these forums. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 02/04/19 08:22 PM
|
|
There are several problems with socialism or the nice words of "safety net". Conservatives believe there should be minimum requirements for eligibility to receive social benefits. You say stamps are to help fill the hole between what someone earns and feeding their family yet we have no rules of how much they should work and earn. We also don't put any limits on the number of people in the household or have expectations of the effort people in the household should make for their selves. We also do not require that recipients partake in educational opportunities to better manage what resources they have. Now we just throw money at the problem and think if we throw enough, the problem will fix itself. We cannot set rules on what they have to earn, when people have no control on what someone else pays them, and those who have the least are gonna need more help BECAUSE they dont have the income to stretch. As far as number in the household, the stamps are distributed on number in household and the vast majority of Snap households have no more than three people, so it really becomes a trivial concern. I doubt more than the rare embezzler(I call them this because all institutions with money will have them, but they are not the rule, and are breaking laws) is running out making more children just to get a whopping 130 dollars a month in food. If they already had the children, they are also ones who need the help to feed them when something happens that changes their financial situation. The concerns, though I believe are mostly good intentioned, are greatly over-hyped to the reality. People dont starve gracefully, so the investment is well worth it. In a capitalist society that has any humanity, we shouldn't make the whole of a human life be valued only on if someone has paid them an income, and we should value the need for human life, especially children, who are the VAST majority of those recipients, to be able to eat. This is where the basic philosophy off what is the responsibility of society and what is the responsibility of the people in any program. I would suspect you believe everyone deserves a basic standard of living even if they are unwilling to contribute; I do not. I can even take this back to the basic tenant of communism: from each according to their ability. to each according to their need. It is a two way street and if you are not willing to contribute according to your ability, you do not deserve your needs met. Im not sure what you mean. Every job I have held has had the hours set by the employer. I believe everyone deserves a chance to eat in a society that is not created for everyone to be 'paid' what is necessary for them to eat and pay other required bills like utilities, rent, food, et cetera, and where more and more states allow employees to terminate employment so easily. gone are the days of people working for one employer all their life, or having a skill set that they can market, except science or tech, that will pay a wage commensable with cost of living. I believe that to accomodate for the realities the 'free market' creates in terms of cost of living verse availability of work at cost of living rates, we do need to help people when they hit needful times and not set an arbitrary time limit of how long is too long for them to be in need. Who will determine what is a 'contribution'? I have posed that before. In the days before womens liberation, were mothers at home raising their children, taking care of their home and supporting their spouse, running the errands, doing the cooking and cleaning and transporting(all of which people can and do get paid for by strangers), was that not considered a 'contribution'? But now that women and mothers not only can work but in most people's views MUST work in the absence of a man, what happens to those kids? Who covers those cost, not just financially but emotionally? IF moms being moms is not enough of a contribution for them to at least feed their kids, unless it is a man willing to foot that cost, than what list of 'contributions' will we accept or respect and who will create it? no. I believe the basic need to EAT is important enough for the 'tax money' to be there to assist families with when the economy or their situation does not afford the income. While the employer does establish working hours, a 40 hr workweek is still the standard. I realize a lot of unskilled work is not 40 hours which requires a person to have more than one job; this is not uncommon. All adults should have a marketable skill set or we should help them obtain one. Making a reasonable living without that skill set is nearly impossible. Our schools are failing us in educating our youth and society is failing in educating the adults! A significant driver of the cost of living in any area is the government especially local. Until you are willing to take on your local government, the cost of living will continue to increase at a rate where lower income people will not have a chance. It is not the employers responsibility to keep raising prices and wages to offset the effect of the government. If most married women work then we should expect the same from a single mother. It is not the taxpayer's responsibility to offset the fact she is a single mother. Maybe we should help her but the fact that she is a single mother is of her own making. At one time a woman being a homemaker was the norm and the man had no responsibilities beyond his job. The wife took care of everything else. In today's economy that no longer works for lower income people. They must both work and share the responsibilities of the home. That fact relegates most single parent with minimal income households to a poverty existence. Our current approach to poor, single parent households is not working and throwing more money at it will not fix the problem It is time to scrap what we have and find a whole new approach to the problem but the existing government in incapable of resolving anything. It also will involve forcing people to comply if they want any support. Unfortunately, we will not resolve those problems in these forums. I guess what 'works' would also be a subjective perception. I am no fan of the two working parents mandate. I feel we have more and more broken homes and broken children because there is no family dynamic anymore. even families have a group of 'individuals' linked to nothing and no one except their own interests. I think it does contribute to raise children up into the citizens we want to have in the future, and I dont think the home with two working parents has alot left to do much 'raising' especially with the exponential growth of technology that contributes to their constant immersion in media and unhealthy trends and minimalist standards. I believe that it takes two to make a child. If people want the system to work 'better', perhaps instead of proposing to save money by allowing people to just starve, we start making the deadbeat parent more responsible for their part of that life they created. Perhaps a law along with tax reporting that requires employers automatically to send to the caretaker of their children a certain amount of that check? That might reduce some of the casual attitude towards sex that is creating so many children with at least one parent with no intention of spending that lifetime of financial responsibility for that child's care. I would be a fan of that for sure, before I would support letting people starve or viewed not letting them starve as 'throwing away money." a woman may choose to not be with the man, but a man should not be able to choose not to support their kid, two different roles, and the woman has nothing to do with his choice to take no financial responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MsH, Employers are legally required to withhold from paychecks for child support! Tax refunds can be taken for back child support. Legal requirements like trade licenses, even hunting/fishing privileges can be taken for failure to pay!! What rock are you living under???? The only time you can get away with not paying child support is if you are unemployed, in jail without work release, or dead! It is also a jail-able offense with work release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Toodygirl5
on
Tue 02/05/19 11:59 AM
|
|
If a father doesn't take financial responsibility, he can be forced to . Unless he has no employment.
Single moms don't have to live on welfare. Taxpayers shouldn't be the ones help paying for other people's children. Period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am against socialism... don't want to be like Venezuela and other socialist countries. Be realistic and "BUILD THAT WALL" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MsH, Employers are legally required to withhold from paychecks for child support! Tax refunds can be taken for back child support. Legal requirements like trade licenses, even hunting/fishing privileges can be taken for failure to pay!! What rock are you living under???? The only time you can get away with not paying child support is if you are unemployed, in jail without work release, or dead! It is also a jail-able offense with work release. not really true. Plenty of people dont pay child support because someone is required to first submit a complaint for that support and go through a tedious legal process to obtain it and many dont understand or have the patience for it. And if its approved, it's at the government level. The government takes the money and sends it on to the caretaker IF and AFTER someone goes through a tedious system to file for that support. I would want it to be as automatic a deduction as federal or income tax. It could be a matter validated in tax documents upon hiring, and automatically deducted the same way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a father doesn't take financial responsibility, he can be forced to . Unless he has no employment. Single moms don't have to live on welfare. Taxpayers shouldn't be the ones help paying for other people's children. Period. He can be forced to is not the same as he MUST. Single moms dont create children on their own. They shouldnt have to go out of their way to receive support from the other parent. Taxpayers should help with children just like they help with roads or schools or any other public interest that affects the country as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
FeelYoung
on
Tue 02/05/19 01:56 PM
|
|
Why as a taxpayer should I help support someone else's child?? I went to work after divorce and paid my OWN rent, food and travel when my kids were 1 and 4. AND THERE WAS NO "tedious process". Simply handled when I filed papers for a divorce, a hearing was scheduled automatically.
Judge told their father he had to pay $50 a month support and keep them on his Blue Cross til they were 18. If a woman has a bunch of children from different men or one child from one man, there is NO sense of responsibility from ME. Why in the world should I pay for someone else's situation?? oh yeah, I get it.... Socialism...... "BUILD THAT WALL" ** I have the right to remain silent but I don't have the ability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 02/05/19 02:46 PM
|
|
Why as a taxpayer should I help support someone else's child?? I went to work after divorce and paid my OWN rent, food and travel when my kids were 1 and 4. AND THERE WAS NO "tedious process". Simply handled when I filed papers for a divorce, a hearing was scheduled automatically. Judge told their father he had to pay $50 a month support and keep them on his Blue Cross til they were 18. If a woman has a bunch of children from different men or one child from one man, there is NO sense of responsibility from ME. Why in the world should I pay for someone else's situation?? oh yeah, I get it.... Socialism...... "BUILD THAT WALL" ** I have the right to remain silent but I don't have the ability. because its part of being a community and a country, why should taxpayers without cars contribute to taxes that pay for roads, why should taxpayers against war contribute to the military budget taxpaying is not a piece meal a la carte deal where hundreds of millions pick and choose what they think is worth supporting. It is 'constitutionally' laid out to address those common interests of the country as a whole. How intellectually and phsyically healthy todays children are impacts the future, when they are no longer children but contributing adults. not socialism, moral compass and the constitution. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. General welfare does not mean specific and individual welfare. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the government taxes us, but what do they DO with the tax dollars they collect? They certainly do not spend it carefully or we would not be Trillions of dollars in DEBT. And possibly reference checking has changed since I worked for health & human services, but when I was there, people DID drive new cars off the lot by Leasing and still collected food stamps and ADC. that's Aid to Dependent Children. The people I was processing were financially better off than I was and I was WORKING. To lease a car, you need a "down payment" and then pay a monthly fee or they come in the dead of night and repossess the car. it is NOT an asset, so it does not count toward welfare.
All the non-facts the left hurls at us daily from fake new, paper and media is mind-boggling. "BUILD THAT WALL" ** I have the right to remain silent but I don't have the ability. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 02/05/19 03:34 PM
|
|
Yes, the government taxes us, but what do they DO with the tax dollars they collect? They certainly do not spend it carefully or we would not be Trillions of dollars in DEBT. And possibly reference checking has changed since I worked for health & human services, but when I was there, people DID drive new cars off the lot by Leasing and still collected food stamps and ADC. that's Aid to Dependent Children. The people I was processing were financially better off than I was and I was WORKING. To lease a car, you need a "down payment" and then pay a monthly fee or they come in the dead of night and repossess the car. it is NOT an asset, so it does not count toward welfare. All the non-facts the left hurls at us daily from fake new, paper and media is mind-boggling. "BUILD THAT WALL" ** I have the right to remain silent but I don't have the ability. ADC has been resigned for the past twenty years, so perhaps such concerns are as well. I still dont know how one can lease a car without any work reference, perhaps that was something they were doing decades ago as well. as far as taxes, if the concern is spending carefully, once again, we can look to countries that have as part of their structure taxes going to HELP their citizens in need. We have high debt partly because we have high production. But our debt relative to production is still also high. interestingly enough, all the western countries with social democracy(general welfare for citizens in need) are way ahead of us in spending carefully. Which makes me wonder if the protests of welfare being a waste are just smokescreen to where the waste actually is. Where USA has a debt to gdp of 105.4 percent united kingdom has d to G of only 85.3 Germany has d to G of 63.9 Netherlands has d to G of 56.7 so, I wonder how these countries that practice taxing for the 'welfare' of the general public, are able to still be so much more careful with the tax spending? As I said, it could just be that the poor become an easy scapegoat for other areas where we place too much of our financial spending and priority. just a thought. source http://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ism , schism, jism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism is the goal of the weak and lazy.
|
|
|
|
|
