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.
The far left doesn't want to broaden the tax base by putting those dependant on the government to work. They need to keep them addicted to the government (a.k.a taxpayer) teat or the left will likely lose a great number of those voting for Democrats.
I'm not so sure of that. Low-income people are MORE likely to vote when they have jobs and are working. And low-income working people are quick to recognize the Republican affinity for regressive taxes when those taxes bite those working for low wages.
Now that was an overly broad brush there...i once lived in a state where the local Republicans never met a regressive tax they didn't like.
Now I live in a state where Democrats want a regressive sales tax and the Republicans generally oppose a sales tax, so here my above observations are reversed.
And if you're working at a crappy low-wage job, you might well tolerate the continued existence of Other People on the government teat even if you're not: if a bunch of people get kicked off some government program and now they have to fend for themselves, they might start coming after YOUR minimum wage job, which can't possibly be a Good Thing for you.
Thats what they said in the 1990's but they managed to find jobs, lowering the welfare rolls to record levels and balanced the budgets...
Guess its amazing to many that when you make cuts, which result in people working, that revenues increase to the federal government. To some of us, thats common sense..
Yes, they found "jobs" but they did not find good jobs, and they ended up generally marginally better off than they were on welfare. Few ended up substantially better off than they were on welfare.
It would be interesting to know what happened to those bottom-rung workers who were never on welfare in the first place. Sending millions of welfare recipients into the workforce to compete for jobs couldn't have been good for those who already were working at low-wage jobs.
1 out of 3 Americans expect to become rich one day.
And so by voting Republican, they're actually preparing for the day when they can kick poor people in the teeth publicly without fear of criticism...right?
I dont need to be rich, in order to vote for the nations benefit. I want more working, not more on welfare and dependent upon government. This seems to be a foreign idea to Democrats.
Yep...if you can barely make ends meet, and can't save for retirement, obviously you aren't doing enough to cut the debt. Just ignore the tax cuts for the wealthy, loopholes in the tax structure for the wealthy, and bailouts being used as 6 figure bonuses at AIG.
Well there is one thing. When you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. That is the number one reason people are poor. They're giving birth right and left with no ability to provide for their children, no insurance plan, no way to feed them. Not only that, it's the number one reason now for people to come illegally to the USA.
By the way, here is a quote from your idol and mine that summarizes his economic philosophy.
- The self-interested pursuit of wealth may not be individually satisfying but leads to an aggregate increase in wealth that is in the best interests of a nation.
Actually I was speaking of proportions (please read and try to understand the posts you're responding to), and had this quote in mind:
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
So we are back where we started, my analogy was right on target.
Now as for where we are to get the 100 bucks. Here's a novel idea. Spend 100 bucks less and you need not confiscate it from anyone.
Exactly.
So who are the poor? They are for the most part the welfare crowd which has higher birth rates than anyone else. That's what makes them poor in the first place, their own personal decisions to start families before they have a job and before they can afford them.
The War on Poverty is an utter failure, the more we throw at it, the bigger the problem becomes.
Yes, they found "jobs" but they did not find good jobs, and they ended up generally marginally better off than they were on welfare. Few ended up substantially better off than they were on welfare.
It would be interesting to know what happened to those bottom-rung workers who were never on welfare in the first place. Sending millions of welfare recipients into the workforce to compete for jobs couldn't have been good for those who already were working at low-wage jobs.
Thats just outright wrong.
Median incomes jumped from $37K in 1990 to to $59K in 2000. You are telling me welfare pays close to $59K a year? I dont think so..
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.
