There is no such thing as a free government benefit. (Clinton, solutions)
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.
This is a tired strawman argument. In reality the corporations rely on the tax payer to subsidize their operations while shipping jobs over seas, hoarding cash, and not hiring.
And you have the nerve to talk to me about strawman arguments while ignoring that after tax cuts were passed, we enjoyed YEARS of unemployment rates under 5%.. Tell me how they can be shifting jobs over seas and lowering the unemployment rate at the same time almost to the point of complete employment? The math says your wrong...
This is a tired strawman argument. In reality the corporations rely on the tax payer to subsidize their operations while shipping jobs over seas, hoarding cash, and not hiring.
And you do not see Democrat headed regulatory agencies in playing any roll in the flight of manufacturing from the US? Really?
Perhaps you should try to focus that critical eye upon the Democrat controlled government from time to time instead of gobbling up the spoon fed class warfare mantra.
When government punishes producers in the USA they simply go elsewhere to produce. It is actually quite simple.
This is a tired strawman argument. In reality the corporations rely on the tax payer to subsidize their operations while shipping jobs over seas, hoarding cash, and not hiring.
Do you know where this country stands in the world in regards to the amount of taxes that corporations have to pay? Tell me, if you do.
yeah except for a few facts you are missing..
Clean water is the responsibility of your local municipality and paid for by selling bonds which you pay back when you buy water.. not tax base
highway system are state / local responsibilities for the most part
Police definately is a local responsibility
Fire in much of the nation is paid for by donations, not at all federal
garbage disposal isnt government funded the least
traffic systems are paid for by fees.
Public libraries are paid for by voluntary local taxes...
And none of these backup your claims in relationship to the thread.
Again, do you think those living off social security and welfare have quality lifestyles?
I think that all of us have a tendency to use the term government to mean the national one and then some people forget that most of those things come from local and state governments and not the national government. Good post, but I don't know how many people will understand because of what I just said.
You see what you fail to understand is when people rely upon government they stop relying upon themself, and everyone else in society passes them bye.. Thats not quality...
Sort of stating the obvious. My concern is in the absence of effective strategies, or policies to lesson the reliance of individuals on government programs. So what are the alternatives? One school of thought is to essentially do nothing at best or to enact punitive measures at worst, while the other is only to maintain, to a great extent, the status quo. Given the choices I choose the latter.
So instead of incessantly arguing over the effects of government programs, i.e., how to punish those who are served by those programs I would be extremely interested in seeing a debate about effective policies to alleviate government dependence and provide the opportunity for a quality life for the poor and especially the working poor.
Ten very true words spoken by Michelle Malkin on Hannity tonight. There is no such thing as a free lunch from our government. Someone has to pay for all of them and, of course, it is small businesses, largely. The Democrats want to allow wealthy people to pay more of the cost but they know that there is nothing free in this respect.
Correct. So why are you calling entitlement programs "FREE LUNCH" when the vast majority of people using them paid for it upfront. You know, like normal people who buy something then take it home, not those freaky people who get paid up front for jobs they don't perform, or customers who take home merchandise they pay for later. What an interesting business model they're living out. Other people call that theft.
Why aren't you angry at the people who mismanaged the money paid into the entitlement program? Instead you blame employees expecting their paycheck at the end of the week, and customers expecting their product delivered. Weird place you're living in your head isn't where sane people want to wander.
Sort of stating the obvious. My concern is in the absence of effective strategies, or policies to lesson the reliance of individuals on government programs what are the alternatives. One school of thought is to essentially do nothing at best or to enact punitive measures at worst, while the other is only to maintain, to a great extent, the status quo. Given the choices I choose the latter.
So instead of incessantly arguing over the effects of government programs, how to punish those who are served by those programs I would be extremely interested in seeing a debate about effective policies to alleviate government dependence and provide the opportunity for a quality life for the poor and especially the working poor.
While I don't disagree with very much of your post I must ask you how we tax the wealthy enough to make the quality of life for the poor the same as those who are able to get by on their own. Somehow I wish all could be at a better level but there is little hope that we can have them equal to the rest of us without using a collective system. I sure don't want to see that happen and am sure that you don't either.
Sort of stating the obvious. My concern is in the absence of effective strategies, or policies to lesson the reliance of individuals on government programs what are the alternatives. One school of thought is to essentially do nothing at best or to enact punitive measures at worst, while the other is only to maintain, to a great extent, the status quo. Given the choices I choose the latter.
So instead of incessantly arguing over the effects of government programs, how to punish those who are served by those programs I would be extremely interested in seeing a debate about effective policies to alleviate government dependence and provide the opportunity for a quality life for the poor and especially the working poor.
Excellent point. Unfortunately, the status quo is easily maintained by the current political system. Creative problem-solving is not a part of politics right now. I think solutions will have to come from outside the parties; it's just "do we or don't we" right now. I think that's what Gingrich is trying to accomplish with his American Solutions effort. Whether it's though that effort or not, that's the kind of think tank effort it might take to generate some new ideas. I think he and a few others on the right could join with some on the left (Clintons for example) and create some solutions. I think it would need to be a group of people not in elected office, but people with enough recognition to then insert their ideas into the national conversation.
Correct. So why are you calling entitlement programs "FREE LUNCH" when the vast majority of people using them paid for it upfront. You know, like normal people who buy something then take it home, not those freaky people who get paid up front for jobs they don't perform, or customers who take home merchandise they pay for later. What an interesting business model they're living out. Other people call that theft.
Why aren't you angry at the people who mismanaged the money paid into the entitlement program? Instead you blame employees expecting their paycheck at the end of the week, and customers expecting their product delivered. Weird place you're living in your head isn't where sane people want to wander.
Some entitlement programs do seem to be very much free lunch. Do you remember the video of the black woman from Detroit about a year ago talking about Obama giving out his money to her and her friends. She and the several thousand who were gathered to get their, as she said, Obama money were thinking that they were on a free lunch program. She said that she didn't care where he got his money from but thought it must come from his stash. That doesn't sound like free lunch at all, huh?
You want to think that when 47% of our people do not pay income tax that all their government supplied money is just being given back to them? I can't manage thinking like that.
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.
