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.
Give me proof of this. Because almost all evidence shows that the social safety net use it for short periods to get a firmer foothold economically. A voting block made up of the poor? Just simply doesn't happen year over year. The battle against "Cadillac Queens," voting or not, is demonstratively Quixotic. Voting happens to be a very middle class/income exercise by many measures.
What evidence? I can show you childern my kids go to school with who's parents I went to school with that are on welfare now, when I was in school these kids parents were on welfare & chances are IMO that when my grandchildren go to school they will be going with the grandchildren of my former schoolmates still on welfare. I dont know what Quixotic means but I do know that the Democrats cater to the poor & solicit their vote. I also believe that the poor vote in a higher proportion than middle class or wealthy simply because they have the time & its in their best interest to do so. I vote in every election but sadly many people dont. Not because they dont care but because we really have nobody to vote for who will represent our best interest. Its certainly not in our best interest to act like benevolent rich people while our state is broke.
Quote:
But that didn't last long in the Second American Republic, about 35 years. Plus this system was manipulated to really screw over the poor it was unfunny and caused huge social upheavals here and in Britain.
Whats the second American republic? How does it screw the poor? Are they actually owed anything or are they given charity out of the excess of society? My feeling has always been the later, nobody is owed anything except a chance to suceed. Today we are taking that chance to suceed away from hard working people in the form of overtaxation, largely in order to keep funding costly social programs that after decades still havent reduced the number of people in need of such assistance.
Matter of fact we create people needing assistance simply by our outrageous cost of living. A person barely getting by shouldn't have to pay for someone not even trying.
Not a scholastic paper, but cites them. The CBO, GAO, the Commerce Department, and dozens of sociological studies have been done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
I dont know what Quixotic means but I do know that the Democrats cater to the poor & solicit their vote. I also believe that the poor vote in a higher proportion than middle class or wealthy simply because they have the time & its in their best interest to do so. I vote in every election but sadly many people dont. Not because they dont care but because we really have nobody to vote for who will represent our best interest. Its certainly not in our best interest to act like benevolent rich people while our state is broke.
Quixotic, from the novel Don Quixote, who put valor and idealism over realism and fought against imaginary enemies. In Quixote's case it's windmills he believes to be giants, for modern "Conservatives" it's the poor that "take all them resources and vote en masse" or immigrants. The poor in Connecticut, and in America in general, simply don't vote and not in large enough numbers to matter. Most of the poor in the country on welfare, unlike Connecticut, are more rural and predominately white.
As for our state being broke, we have tons of money. The richest of the rich have gotten off easy both in CT and in the US it is now time for them to pony up. We can't deal with another asset bubble like they caused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Whats the second American republic?
The Second American Republic is the Government formed by the Constitution which established the United States as a federal entity, as opposed to a confederacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
How does it screw the poor? Are they actually owed anything or are they given charity out of the excess of society?
So you think the powerful should be able to do what they want by divine providence simply because they are already powerful? That's what happened, and it was disaster. And yes, they are owed something, there is a huge amount of Case Law that supports this as does the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
My feeling has always been the later, nobody is owed anything except a chance to suceed. Today we are taking that chance to suceed away from hard working people in the form of overtaxation, largely in order to keep funding costly social programs that after decades still havent reduced the number of people in need of such assistance.
Matter of fact we create people needing assistance simply by our outrageous cost of living. A person barely getting by shouldn't have to pay for someone not even trying.
But to someone else, YOU aren't trying. Doesn't matter if you are or not, they just simply... don't want to pay. You being literate and not a landed aristocrat means you benefited from Public Schooling. Did you deserve it?
Not a scholastic paper, but cites them. The CBO, GAO, the Commerce Department, and dozens of sociological studies have been done.
Where is it theyre talking about? Looking at the entire nation I can see that maybe the average is two years. But looking at urban centers I think would produce quite different results both in how long people were on assistance and what racial or ethnic groups recieved the most of it.
Looking at welfare alone doesn't give a true picture either, how many are on section 8 houseing & other programs that are taxpayer funded?
Quote:
Quixotic, from the novel Don Quixote, who put valor and idealism over realism and fought against imaginary enemies. In Quixote's case it's windmills he believes to be giants, for modern "Conservatives" it's the poor that "take all them resources and vote en masse" or immigrants. The poor in Connecticut, and in America in general, simply don't vote and not in large enough numbers to matter. Most of the poor in the country on welfare, unlike Connecticut, are more rural and predominately white.
Well I think we are talking about CT, not rural Alabama. This isn't some fictional fantasy, its simply numbers & math.
Quote:
As for our state being broke, we have tons of money. The richest of the rich have gotten off easy both in CT and in the US it is now time for them to pony up. We can't deal with another asset bubble like they caused.
Our state has a HUGE deficit. The problem isn't a lack of funding by a long shot. The problem is a lack of common sense. The answer isn't raising more funds, the answer is cutting costs. I'm sure it could be done & still give freebies to the minorities for the feel gooders.
What you forget is when you cause those filthy rich dirtbags to stop spending money it hurts the rest of us. I went from a great job with a pension, health coverage etc to nothing when building crapped out. Its taken the better part of two years to build my own company up to where we MIGHT not lose our house. I still paid my taxes & cost society nada.
Taxing the rich more will ONLY help some chosen few. Freeing them up to spend on the other hand helps everyone.
Quote:
The Second American Republic is the Government formed by the Constitution which established the United States as a federal entity, as opposed to a confederacy.
Ok cool. Who did they say could vote? No women, no Indians, no colored people. They certainly still had limitations on who could & couldn't vote.
I'm in no way implying that they were correct in the limits they chose. It was a different world & they felt women, indians & Black people among others, were not smart enough or wise enough to vote responsibly, for a variety of reasons.
We'v come a long way. Its common knowledge that race & sex dont have much to do with intelligence or the ability to think rationally. Its right in every way for women & minorities to be able to vote. As long as they contribute. Think of it as dues. I belong to several clubs. Anybody can use the facilities, but to vote and have a say in club policy you join, contribute & pay dues. Its not a difficult concept.
Quote:
So you think the powerful should be able to do what they want by divine providence simply because they are already powerful? That's what happened, and it was disaster. And yes, they are owed something, there is a huge amount of Case Law that supports this as does the Constitution.
No, I think people should be responsible for themselves. We arent talking about divine anything. I'm not rich & right now I have basically zero disposable income. Who is this "they" that the constitution says the rest of us need to support even when we are treading water financially?
Quote:
But to someone else, YOU aren't trying. Doesn't matter if you are or not, they just simply... don't want to pay. You being literate and not a landed aristocrat means you benefited from Public Schooling. Did you deserve it?
~Cheers
Not sure what this means. In my case it really doesn't matter if anyone thinks I'm trying. I try hard enough that I dont cost anybody anything and thats all thats relevant. I guess I deserved public schooling, my parents paid taxes here before I was in school, during & after, never complaining & now in their 70's are still paying. Maybe I didn't deserve it, but they deserved to have their kids educated, as I deserve to have mine educated.
We pay taxes & it irks me to no end that that money is squandered so recklessly. Not just on welfare but in general.
What evidence? I can show you childern my kids go to school with who's parents I went to school with that are on welfare now, when I was in school these kids parents were on welfare & chances are IMO that when my grandchildren go to school they will be going with the grandchildren of my former schoolmates still on welfare. I dont know what Quixotic means but I do know that the Democrats cater to the poor & solicit their vote. I also believe that the poor vote in a higher proportion than middle class or wealthy simply because they have the time & its in their best interest to do so. I vote in every election but sadly many people dont. Not because they dont care but because we really have nobody to vote for who will represent our best interest. Its certainly not in our best interest to act like benevolent rich people while our state is broke.
Whats the second American republic? How does it screw the poor? Are they actually owed anything or are they given charity out of the excess of society? My feeling has always been the later, nobody is owed anything except a chance to suceed. Today we are taking that chance to suceed away from hard working people in the form of overtaxation, largely in order to keep funding costly social programs that after decades still havent reduced the number of people in need of such assistance.
Matter of fact we create people needing assistance simply by our outrageous cost of living. A person barely getting by shouldn't have to pay for someone not even trying.
I'm a big time super-dooper liberal and I admit. My mother and father was conceived in the projects and so was I. Projects breed projects.
The last few posts have got me thinking. I recently read an article about a Kentucky legislator who wanted to drug test welfare receipents in his state.
I was talking to some people about this and some agreed others disagreed. I agreed because from what I understand there is a lot of fraud in the system. I understand most people on welfare need it, but there are few who abuse it and some who sell food stamps for cash, drugs, etc, and that is just one example.
It got me thinking that the Middle Class are the one's in this country who are honetestly getting screwed the most. A middle class person making 50-60,000 in the state of Connecticut is going to struggle to get by. The wealthy complain they are taxed to much, they still walk away with decent pay and an ability to live a lifestyle that the middle class cannot.
I'm all for social assistance and things, but with the fraud in the system I think the legislator's idea isn't that bad of an idea. If you have nothing to hide, why not take the test? Why should the struggling middle class pay for people who are abusing the system? The people who are out their slingin' their food stamps for drugs or booze?
Some said this is a racism issue, but to me it's not. White people abuse the system. Black people abuse the system. Immigrants more than likely abuse the system.
To me we need more oversight in the system. I know some of you may be upset by this saying why is it fair to drug test everyone at the expense of a few bad apples. But let's be real here, it's my theory that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't worry.
The reason I bring this up is because brasscitybluenwhite said the "projects breed projects". Why is that? Obviously it's their inability to get out? But why is that? The poster above him said the only thing we give to anyone is the ability to succeed? Why is it that more people in the projects are less likely to succeed? I understand education isn't the same in the inner city, but with the right mindframe anyone can get out of any circumstance.
Where is it theyre talking about? Looking at the entire nation I can see that maybe the average is two years. But looking at urban centers I think would produce quite different results both in how long people were on assistance and what racial or ethnic groups recieved the most of it.
Looking at welfare alone doesn't give a true picture either, how many are on section 8 houseing & other programs that are taxpayer funded?
If you read the abstract and sources it cites nationwide statistics. And this was over the course of many years researched. It doesn't take into the account other forms of support, but there is a firm theoretical and anecdotal evidence that areas with the best support have the richest citizens modally and are the most economically powerful. Adam Smith, Esa (aka "Jesus" pbuh), Muhammed (pubh), and Thomas Paine all great thinkers theorized this and economic models have been worked out; from Credit Suisse:
"As the new report underscores, personal wealth actually means much more in some places than others. If you live in a society with a frayed social safety net, your personal wealth is crucial. Without substantial net worth, you're going to be vulnerable "to shocks like unemployment, ill health, or natural disasters."
Well I think we are talking about CT, not rural Alabama. This isn't some fictional fantasy, its simply numbers & math.
But across the country the argument is the same for the modern "Conservatives." No matter where though, it isn't simply "numbers and math" but complex needs for superiority over a maligned group. There are a lot of people that are quietly on government assistance. Just because what you see you don't like doesn't mean that your perception is the end all be all of the programmes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Our state has a HUGE deficit. The problem isn't a lack of funding by a long shot. The problem is a lack of common sense.
First off, "common sense" isn't always common and rarely sensible. For example there's a fire in your house, so the "common sense" solution would be to put water on it, right? Well if that fire is in the kitchen, coming from a stove, on a pan, that is cooking bacon water would be absolutely the wrong headed choice. But in terms of societal issues, that is what you are calling for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
The answer isn't raising more funds, the answer is cutting costs.
Yes, and no. Cuts alone aren't going to do much to the year over year deficit and will likely cause a backlash economically that would be like taking one step back... then two more steps back. All the "savings" from the cuts almost always get eaten up by lost economic activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
I'm sure it could be done & still give freebies to the minorities for the feel gooders.
Minorities, you mean white people? Cause they are the biggest benefactors of welfare both personal and corporate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
What you forget is when you cause those filthy rich dirtbags to stop spending money it hurts the rest of us.
What? It actually doesn't, hate to break it to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
I went from a great job with a pension, health coverage etc to nothing when building crapped out. Its taken the better part of two years to build my own company up to where we MIGHT not lose our house. I still paid my taxes & cost society nada.
Ok, cost society nada?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Taxing the rich more will ONLY help some chosen few. Freeing them up to spend on the other hand helps everyone.
The rich spending has such a little effect on the broader economy, that the rich being the only game in town actually hurts themselves.
In 2008, the Ayn Randians got basically the closest they got to their vision. Taxes were the lowest they have been in 50 years (both Federal and State) on the top 10%, regulations were lax and compromised, and "privatizing" governmental services became the rage. What happened? It didn't create the job-making utopia promised, but rather created an asset bubble with nothing to show for it. Now, we are all suffering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Ok cool. Who did they say could vote? No women, no Indians, no colored people.
Indians that were US citizens could vote (some of my ancestors, for example), as Free Blacks. That right of Free Black vote was taken away by the Dred Scott case which tried to protect the same system you are promoting as better than ours. Connecticut actually was at odds with the system used in the south, because it helped consolidate power in Congress to a few in Southern States that absolutely hated New England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
We'v come a long way. Its common knowledge that race & sex dont have much to do with intelligence or the ability to think rationally. Its right in every way for women & minorities to be able to vote. As long as they contribute. Think of it as dues.
You have no idea how the federal or state government funds itself. Almost everyone contributes, a huge "drain" is state governments that protect their own rich. It's shocking. We really don't need to do much, but since tax increases are the third rail politically (even though it is support of the vast majority of Americans/Connecticutians) we'll see where it goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
No, I think people should be responsible for themselves. We arent talking about divine anything. I'm not rich & right now I have basically zero disposable income. Who is this "they" that the constitution says the rest of us need to support even when we are treading water financially?
It's called the Taxing and Spending clause. There's actually significant case law reaffirming this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Not sure what this means. In my case it really doesn't matter if anyone thinks I'm trying. I try hard enough that I dont cost anybody anything and thats all thats relevant. I guess I deserved public schooling, my parents paid taxes here before I was in school, during & after, never complaining & now in their 70's are still paying. Maybe I didn't deserve it, but they deserved to have their kids educated, as I deserve to have mine educated.
I deserve to have children on the other side of the state to eat, it does me no good that they would go hungry without support. I deserve to have the children in Hartford, far away from me, to have the same chance I have had. I deserve to have the mentally ill taken care of and not bound for a life on the streets or prison. All these things cost money, but end up costing less money in the long run. A nourished child needs to repeat classes less, a child with an education is less time causing criminal offenses, and the mentally ill being helped along in their struggles reduces expenses for immediate care at hospital.
As well, you did benefit from the labour of other people's brow. The sheer fact everyone had to contribute brought down the price so everyone even under a yeoman could get an education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
We pay taxes & it irks me to no end that that money is squandered so recklessly. Not just on welfare but in general.
What if the money you pay is less squandered than you have been led to believe. Not saying there isn't waste, or services can't be delivered better and cheaper, but way more of our money goes to services than credit is usually publicly tendered.
The last few posts have got me thinking. I recently read an article about a Kentucky legislator who wanted to drug test welfare receipents in his state.
I was talking to some people about this and some agreed others disagreed. I agreed because from what I understand there is a lot of fraud in the system. I understand most people on welfare need it, but there are few who abuse it and some who sell food stamps for cash, drugs, etc, and that is just one example.
It got me thinking that the Middle Class are the one's in this country who are honetestly getting screwed the most. A middle class person making 50-60,000 in the state of Connecticut is going to struggle to get by. The wealthy complain they are taxed to much, they still walk away with decent pay and an ability to live a lifestyle that the middle class cannot.
I'm all for social assistance and things, but with the fraud in the system I think the legislator's idea isn't that bad of an idea. If you have nothing to hide, why not take the test? Why should the struggling middle class pay for people who are abusing the system? The people who are out their slingin' their food stamps for drugs or booze?
Some said this is a racism issue, but to me it's not. White people abuse the system. Black people abuse the system. Immigrants more than likely abuse the system.
To me we need more oversight in the system. I know some of you may be upset by this saying why is it fair to drug test everyone at the expense of a few bad apples. But let's be real here, it's my theory that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't worry.
The reason I bring this up is because brasscitybluenwhite said the "projects breed projects". Why is that? Obviously it's their inability to get out? But why is that? The poster above him said the only thing we give to anyone is the ability to succeed? Why is it that more people in the projects are less likely to succeed? I understand education isn't the same in the inner city, but with the right mindframe anyone can get out of any circumstance.
Thoughts?
Our approach to social welfare is a disaster. We are reinforcing the behaviors that lead to poverty, so it ensures that there will always be a growing base of 'needy' people to get the assistance. The measure of success for a program should be how much it reduces the need for it in the future. If the program keeps growing, it's a failure.
In Connecticut, we buy off the poor in order to keep them away from us with a clear conscience. We're just a more extreme version of the national approach. We've created a growing underclass that isn't really interested in improving itself, and is happy to live off the system. Then we warehouse in our dilapidated cities, as those who earn enough to afford to move out. As long as the cost isn't too great, everybody's happy.
But the cost is growing out of control, and not just financial costs. We are paying people who are completely unsuitable to be parents to have children out of wedlock, when they are too young. These children are the ones who fill the prisons, have kids of their own too young, and fail to get any type of education in the dysfunctional urban school systems. Our 'kind' welfare policies, designed to 'help' people, have created a huge mess and nobody knows how to fix it.
Our approach to social welfare is a disaster. We are reinforcing the behaviors that lead to poverty, so it ensures that there will always be a growing base of 'needy' people to get the assistance.
What is the solution, let them all die on the street?
You would all do well to listen more to Beeker, someone who thinks clearly about this subject (and others).
Not all social problems are 'common sense' problems, and not all social problems are caused by some nefarious minority sticking it to the hard-working God-fearing whites.
Everyone needs to educate themselves on the roots, history, relevant case law, and up to date studies here. I'm sorry to say that the knowledge required to speak coherently about the subject requires more than just speaking from your gut -- or what angry middle-aged folks tend to point to, their 'life experience' (which may contain almost no experiences relevant to the subject).
If you read the abstract and sources it cites nationwide statistics. And this was over the course of many years researched. It doesn't take into the account other forms of support, but there is a firm theoretical and anecdotal evidence that areas with the best support have the richest citizens modally and are the most economically powerful. Adam Smith, Esa (aka "Jesus" pbuh), Muhammed (pubh), and Thomas Paine all great thinkers theorized this and economic models have been worked out; from Credit Suisse:
"As the new report underscores, personal wealth actually means much more in some places than others. If you live in a society with a frayed social safety net, your personal wealth is crucial. Without substantial net worth, you're going to be vulnerable "to shocks like unemployment, ill health, or natural disasters."
But across the country the argument is the same for the modern "Conservatives." No matter where though, it isn't simply "numbers and math" but complex needs for superiority over a maligned group. There are a lot of people that are quietly on government assistance. Just because what you see you don't like doesn't mean that your perception is the end all be all of the programmes.
I dont feel a need to be superior to anyone, I feel a need to live my life & feed my family.
Quote:
First off, "common sense" isn't always common and rarely sensible. For example there's a fire in your house, so the "common sense" solution would be to put water on it, right? Well if that fire is in the kitchen, coming from a stove, on a pan, that is cooking bacon water would be absolutely the wrong headed choice. But in terms of societal issues, that is what you are calling for.
Poor analogy at best. Water wont work on a grease fire in a kitchen. Are you saying employment wont work for those on assistance? Or that throwing free money at them, akin to throwing oil on a fire, will solve their problems any more than oil on a fire extinguishes it?
Quote:
Yes, and no. Cuts alone aren't going to do much to the year over year deficit and will likely cause a backlash economically that would be like taking one step back... then two more steps back. All the "savings" from the cuts almost always get eaten up by lost economic activity.
Cuts alone no, cuts across the board & a severe change in policy will though. How letting people keep THEIR money so they can spend it will cause a loss in economic activity is beyond me.
Quote:
Minorities, you mean white people? Cause they are the biggest benefactors of welfare both personal and corporate.
If you are right you are right, cut off whoever can be shown not to need it regardless of race.Corporate welfare simply should not exist in a capitalist society anyway. Businesses suceed & businesses fail, thats how it goes. Its not a taxpayer responsibility.
Quote:
What? It actually doesn't, hate to break it to you.
Are you serious? When wealthy stop spending it hurts everyone from trades people to services to manufacturering to investments. Thats common sense again, something it sounds like you dont believe in.
Quote:
Ok, cost society nada?
Nope, society has benefited from me since the day after I graduated highschool. Before actually since I was working at 13.
Quote:
The rich spending has such a little effect on the broader economy, that the rich being the only game in town actually hurts themselves.
They arent & never have been the only game in town. But they are an important part of it & dont deserve to be abused simply because our state has been run inefficiently.
Quote:
In 2008, the Ayn Randians got basically the closest they got to their vision. Taxes were the lowest they have been in 50 years (both Federal and State) on the top 10%, regulations were lax and compromised, and "privatizing" governmental services became the rage. What happened? It didn't create the job-making utopia promised, but rather created an asset bubble with nothing to show for it. Now, we are all suffering.
What created the asset bubble was irresponsible lending & borrowing more than anything else.
Quote:
Indians that were US citizens could vote (some of my ancestors, for example), as Free Blacks. That right of Free Black vote was taken away by the Dred Scott case which tried to protect the same system you are promoting as better than ours. Connecticut actually was at odds with the system used in the south, because it helped consolidate power in Congress to a few in Southern States that absolutely hated New England.
My point was simply that its untrue that everyone could always vote & theres plenty of precedent as far as limiting vote. Its been done wrongly before but its just as wrong to let people who are basically wards of the state have a say in how funds taken from tax payers are spent. We spend untold billions on aid around the world, should we let those recipients of our generousity vote as well?
Quote:
You have no idea how the federal or state government funds itself. Almost everyone contributes, a huge "drain" is state governments that protect their own rich. It's shocking. We really don't need to do much, but since tax increases are the third rail politically (even though it is support of the vast majority of Americans/Connecticutians) we'll see where it goes.
They fund themselves thru taxation & taxation only. Now if you consider taxes paid by a person or entity that exists only because of handouts an actual contribution I'm truly amazed. I do agree that the state itself is a money pit & if cut back to necessities things could be alot more affordable. We've gotten focused on welfare but welfare is just one instance of wasteing money. There are many many things we could cut to save a bundle.
Quote:
It's called the Taxing and Spending clause. There's actually significant case law reaffirming this.
So theres a clause in the Constitution that says that the state MUST pay, for life, the costs of living for people who choose not to work? That the taxpayers MUST bail out failed business? Thats strange since when they wrote the Constitution there pretty much was no tax as we know now. We started a war over wrongful taxation. I cant imagine those men thinking it ok to take a third of a mans earnings, tax his home, his property, his buying, his selling if he made a profit, his money he already paid tax on when he dies & gives it to his children. About the only things they taxed was liquor. They set up a tiny govt not meant to support the people but to give them a place to suceed or fail based on their own productivity.
Quote:
I deserve to have children on the other side of the state to eat, it does me no good that they would go hungry without support. I deserve to have the children in Hartford, far away from me, to have the same chance I have had. I deserve to have the mentally ill taken care of and not bound for a life on the streets or prison. All these things cost money, but end up costing less money in the long run. A nourished child needs to repeat classes less, a child with an education is less time causing criminal offenses, and the mentally ill being helped along in their struggles reduces expenses for immediate care at hospital.
Well we have all these things & I'm not saying we shouldn't let poor kids go to school. The kids may deserve it, but their parents dont. In addition once the kids are in school welfare should be cut off because now mom can work. You say they cost less in the long run, yet taxes are higher than they ever were. You say that a child with an education has less time to commit criminal offenses yet the crime rate among welfare families is much higher than average. The concept is pure, but people are people and will take advantage where they can.
Quote:
As well, you did benefit from the labour of other people's brow. The sheer fact everyone had to contribute brought down the price so everyone even under a yeoman could get an education.
Strange comment given your entire argument so far has been that some of us shouldn't have to contribute. My family benefited by throwing their money into a pool of taxpayers for a shared benefit. How is that in any way equal to another family getting a free ride?
Quote:
What if the money you pay is less squandered than you have been led to believe. Not saying there isn't waste, or services can't be delivered better and cheaper, but way more of our money goes to services than credit is usually publicly tendered.
~Cheers
What if the moon was made of green cheese?
We have gotten focused on welfare, I guess thats my fault but it is one of the easiest wastes to see. But the truth is its a small part of the problem. The size of govt is the true issue & the multitude of wasteful things dreamed up by that big tax & spend machine mostly to justify their existence.
Last edited by Tin Knocker; 02-01-2011 at 05:19 AM..
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.
