Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
22% of children are at the poverty level and below. The cost of their benefits should be deducted from any benefits their parents receive.
75% of TANF recipients are children. The percentage is lower for SNAP. I haven't looked up the WIC numbers. But I figure the TANF recipients are eligible for nearly everything.
28.3% pay no federal income tax, but they are working, they do pay payroll taxes. They have jobs, they simply don't make enough money, thus they qualify for enough deductions and credits that their liability is zero. If Romney takes a $77,000 deduction for a fancy dancing horse, and thinks that's okay because it's "legal," then the same concept should apply to these folks. They're paying everything they're "legally" required to do.
10.3% don't pay federal income tax because they're elderly.
That leaves 6.9% who don't pay federal income tax and presumably aren't working either. These folks make $20,000 or less a year. Not sure how giving the rich more tax cuts and asking these "deadbeats" to ante up some bucks is the moral thing to do, but I guess some of you are okay with that.
Seniors have paid for YEARS to receive the Medicare benefits for which they qualify. If you didn't pay; you don't qualify.
I KNOW. You cut off the rest of my statement, which was that all I was saying was that working people do contribute to THAT LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET I WAS QUOTING AS WRITTEN. It is a small thing and not enough to quibble over.
You didn't answer my question about denying programs to the working poor and children. Are you advocating cutting them off from all assistance, or are you only advocating that for perpetually unemployed adults?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
BUT... do NOT force me and one half of the US population to pay 15%, 24%, 30%, etc., of our annual income to subsidize the half who takes, takes, takes, and pays nothing.
That's not where all, or even most, of your tax dollars are going.
False premise. Seniors already PAID for their SS and Medicare benefits via paying payroll taxes for years. They have QUALIFIED to receive those paid for benefits. And most will actually lose money on the deal. Social Security not good deal it once was
They are among the 47% who don't pay income tax that you love to hate and for whom Romney has no hope they can ever take responsibility for their lives. If we gas the lot of them, the percent of Americans not paying taxes would drop by 1/3.
75% of TANF recipients are children. The percentage is lower for SNAP. I haven't looked up the WIC numbers. But I figure the TANF recipients are eligible for nearly everything.
Sadly, that's the VERY predictable result of the federal government's policy of PAYING the welfare-dependent extra benefits to breed. Those who receive public assistance have a birth rate 3 times that of those who actually support themselves.
Is that sustainable? Will the 49% who actually pay any federal income tax be able to afford to keep paying more and more to financially support an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class? And how "moral" or "kind" is a country that incentivizes the highest rate of birth among its poor? What kind of future are all those children born into poverty going to have? Right off the bat there are overwhelming odds AGAINST them. Why would any country do that to its own children? Why is incentivizing an increasingly larger poverty class Democrat/liberal policy?
You didn't answer my question about denying programs to the working poor and children. Are you advocating cutting them off from all assistance, or are you only advocating that for perpetually unemployed adults?
The working poor needs to live within their means. This can be done by acquiring roommates and consolidating and sharing other resources. If you can't afford to care for a child; don't have one.
Does the public assistance office just make up a father, or what?
Legally, they CANNOT go after a father who has not acknowledged paternity.
You said BC...Of course parentage needs to be established before they go after them for CS. But its up to THAT MAN to request a DNA test. Just because your name is listed on a BC does NOT mean your the father even if your married.
You know its going bad when your own VP calls your statements "inarticulate." I know its hard for repugs to grasp this so let me help you out:
The definition of inarticulate is as follows: lacking the ability to express oneself, especially in clear and effective speech: an inarticulate public speaker.
LOL Romney thinks bringing up some audio tapes of Obama from 1998 is payback. In the recorded audio Obama talks about redistribution of wealth. Thats nothing new, everyone knows Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and the majority of Americans agree with that. That's nothing compared to Romney saying he doesn't care about 47% of Americans and that he hopes an Iran type hostage crisis happens so he can politically benefit from it. The Romney campaign is just throwing stuff to the wall to see what sticks. They have no strategy in winning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
