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.
Notice how the people in favor of government social programs always frame others as greedy, selfish, or uncaring. It's just pure emotion and sentimentality.
"I want to help ALL the puppies in the world"
"Well you can't realistically help all of them..."
"So you're saying you just want them to die??"
"I don't want them to die, but.."
"I can't believe you don't want to help! What kind of person doesn't want to help puppies??"
You have to be rational. Of course if there was no downside to giving people stuff unconditionally we'd be in favor of it, but it isn't that simple.
Not to mention the most important part - you're using the government to force it on everyone else. *Politicians know it won't be sustainable, but they make it the law that you must help all the puppies, and then they're seen as heroes...they'll be long gone by the time problems arise*
Leftist: "I want to help ALL the puppies in the world. Everybody put their hands up and empty their pockets."
Conservative: "What about you?"
Leftist: "Duh, I am using your money because I don't have any money."
Conservative: "If you don't help, why should I help?"
Leftist: "We voted, remember."
Conservative: "What the ..."
Leftist: "Hey, SWAT team, lock him up! What a heartless bastard."
I've said it before and will again. The bankers would have been helped if the program were set up to give people, who demonstrated the need for it, enough money to pay off a significant portion of their mortgage, if not all, and forced them to pay it to the banks. That way everybody would have been helped.
Guess who stood to lose money on that... Yep. The millions of American workers and retirees who have in aggregate $27 trillion invested in corporation stock shares and debt-based securities (like MBS). See my prior post:
What you don't seem to grasp is that you are still paying for other people's healthcare even though you pay out of pocket. Where do you think the money for all the people who flood the emergency rooms for lack of insurance comes from? The answer: YOU!
Wrong.
I pay for me. I have zeroed out my taxes because of my tax credits. So I pay no taxes.
I have the wherewithal to pay for medical treatment out of pocket.
Leftist: "I want to help ALL the puppies in the world. Everybody put their hands up and empty their pockets."
Conservative: "What about you?"
Leftist: "Duh, I am using your money because I don't have any money."
Conservative: "If you don't help, why should I help?"
Leftist: "We voted, remember."
Conservative: "What the ..."
Leftist: "Hey, SWAT team, lock him up! What a heartless bastard."
Wonderful; now we can all relax over here because you've mastered the art of talking out of your azz at the same time as your mouth and guess from which part of your anatomy we're hearing the "conservative" side?
Status:
"Repub's IVF ruling is anti-family and anti-America"
(set 7 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,783 posts, read 3,565,940 times
Reputation: 5683
Also, GDP (PPP), income levels of the US vs Europe, etc. doesn't really say anything. What matters in the long run are two things: (1) income inequality, (2) the distribution of benefits resulting in the rise in GDP, (3) ease of access to low-cost education opportunities for skills, training, and higher education.
Suppose at the first second of Year 1, call this T-plus-one second to draw a NASA analogy, the 80th percentile of wage earners (bottom of the top 20%) earn $7.20 for every $1 earned by a 20th percentile ones do (top of the bottom 20%). Then 20 years later, the GDP exactly doubles but ratio goes to $12.00 for every $1. That is a serious social problem in some way - which can indicate at least one (usually more) of the following:
1. Simple taxation policies that have the rich getting more than a societally healthy share due to tax policies
2. Lack of access (geographic or affordability) for the poor to get education and skills
3. (often overlooked) lack of access to personal social connections that enable the poor who did get skills and training to network for better jobs - in short, the "who you know" thing.
Originally Posted by Cruzincat
I've said it before and will again. The bankers would have been helped if the program were set up to give people, who demonstrated the need for it, enough money to pay off a significant portion of their mortgage, if not all, and forced them to pay it to the banks. That way everybody would have been helped.
Guess who stood to lose money on that... Yep. The millions of American workers and retirees who have in aggregate $27 trillion invested in corporation stock shares and debt-based securities (like MBS). See my prior post:
But look at how many people would have started spending more money on goods and services, once they have more extra money available to do so, and how that would have jump started the economy, so much more than the money that went into the bank vaults and stayed there.
I misread your quote. Exhibit 5 states that 16% of children on SNAP are considered obese. While 15% were considered overweight. Neither of which addresses the underlying reason for that obesity being attributed to a cycle of starvation / bodily defenses.
You would likely cut funding for nutrition to children because you see a runaway gravytrain and I would increase the spending to make nutritional food more available to these same people.
I prefer my way.
Well in the real world it is not the "cycle of starvation" but bad dietary choices that cause obesity among children and their parent / parents. I used to work in the retail grocery industry. A majority of the time a parent paying with food stamps would load the cart with sugary cereal, frozen dinners, donuts and cookies, bags of potato chips, sugary sodas, etc. Very little in vegetables or anything at all healthy. Same thing when I am shopping now and the person in front is buying their groceries with ebt or whatever its called in your state. There are people who buy healthy food with food stamps but its the exception not the rule.
In my city there are trucks that pull up with 60 pounds of produce for $10. There are food pantries, churches that hand out food products. There are churches and schools that offer free lunches even when school is out for break or summer.
We don't need more tax dollars for these things. The nutritional foods are available people just opt not to buy them. Preparing healthier food at home is usually cheaper than buying prepared junk food.
Things like Q.E. is also forced redistribution. The manipulated interest rates are forced redistribution.
Again....end the socialist welfare programs for Wall Street and I will consider ending the programs that have to be implemented to offset those programs.
Did I say I was for corporate welfare? There should be no bailouts. Yet, it is intellectually dishonest when people claim tax breaks are corporate welfare. There is a huge difference between tax loopholes and subsidies.
"Why are so many Americans against having their liberties dismissed for the sake of a ruling party"
Now that you asked a proper question, my response is...
Isn't it obvious?
If you don't understand after that...
You are the problem.
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.
