Why do so many oppose policies designed to help the working poor? (ideology, politicians)
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.
But why do so many also oppose policies designed to assist the working poor, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit?
Why do so many support policies which effectively impose high marginal tax rates on the working poor?
EITC encourages people to have children they cannot afford and settle for crappy wages ($14K/yr) when they should be hot and bothered enough about their situation to get off their fat *** and do something about it.
Rewarding poverty creates more poverty.
Rewarding the creation of children by poor people means more children will be born into poverty.
There are basically two type of people in America. Those that have no problem giving less fortunate people an opportunity to make a better life for themselves or help out people in severe economic, medical or social need.
And those who basically don't give a f**K about other people. They have bee fortunate enough to get and take advantage the opportunities available in this country and how absolutely no compassion for other human beings that are not as fortunate as they are.
Less fortunate?
The person who has a child they cannot afford to care for isn't unfortunate.
He or she is irresponsible.
Government rewarding irresponsible behavior creates more irresponsible behavior and more children born into poverty.
The person who has a child they cannot afford to care for isn't unfortunate.
He or she is irresponsible.
Government rewarding irresponsible behavior creates more irresponsible behavior and more children born into poverty.
I sometimes wonder why the simple fact that subsidizing something results in getting more of it seems lost on leftists.
We need to solve the problem of the rising cost of education not by lowering the cost of it but by making more money available to students. We need to help poor people not by getting them jobs but by giving them more food stamps and eliminating job search requirements for welfare.
If you pay someone to do something, they will do more of it. That just seems simple enough that even a Democrat can understand it. Yet their solution to problem after problem is to subsidize the very thing they are trying to eliminate.
There are basically two type of people in America. Those that have no problem giving less fortunate people an opportunity to make a better life for themselves or help out people in severe economic, medical or social need.
And those who basically don't give a f**K about other people. They have bee fortunate enough to get and take advantage the opportunities available in this country and how absolutely no compassion for other human beings that are not as fortunate as they are.
I'm a Democrat and I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. I got no problem helping people who are down and out; the working poor, etc.
But ~ I do not think welfare was designed to be a lifestyle choice and I don't think it should be. I'm all on board with helping a single Mom for a poor choice or two - but not ten poor choices.
I think we need to help those who really need it and crack down on welfare fraud. And it does exist - and we all know it.
The problem with the welfare programs is that they offer no transition. Earn $1 over the limit and everything is cut off.
I think that needs reform with a gradual weaning off of government subsidies. The more you earn the less you get until you can pay for your own life on your own salary.
Any able-bodied person who is accepting handouts in lieu of working to provide for him/her-self and those he/she is responsible for is a parasite. Breeding more than you can feed should not be facilitated by the government. Charity is not the role of the government.
So you like providing for those who choose to not provide for themselves, even though they are able? I'll be making many drops into the bell ringers buckets this holiday season, and writing a check to the Red Cross. I have no problems with those who need help, only with those who want handouts rather than work for themselves.
That's a pretty open-ended and nebulous statement.
The conservative vision includes taking responsibility for one's own life and well being. Equal opportunity rather than guaranteed equal outcome. Giving a hand-up is fine, giving a handout is not.
And what's *your* degree in?
Again you are wasting your time with me. I am already certain that you are convinced of your beliefs about millions of other Americans.
I know you look at your fellow citizens and see parasites. This is consistent with conservative ideology.
You are wrong from a factual basis, but you didn't arrive at your extreme ideas based on factual information.
You have biases/prejudices, this guides your ignorant and wrong conclusions.
It is the conservative way.
My only thing is I hope you and other conservatives who absolutely hate millions upon millions of their fellow citizens get more conservative elected officials to be very open about their disdain.
We need more Mitt Rmoney 47% moments from conservatives. This is the true heart of conservatism.
There are basically two type of people in America. Those that have no problem giving less fortunate people an opportunity to make a better life for themselves or help out people in severe economic, medical or social need.
And those who basically don't give a f**K about other people. They have bee fortunate enough to get and take advantage the opportunities available in this country and how absolutely no compassion for other human beings that are not as fortunate as they are.
You must have comprehension problems.
I've stated about 100 times that those who cannot care for themselves should be cared for. Hell, they should never have to worry about anything ever again. ALL of their needs should be met, no exceptions.
I just want to know where my responsibility lies in taking care of your children. Having children does not make you unable to work. If you lack the ability to find proper child care, why are you having children?
How about people who choose not to buy life insurance and die early? They leave a family behind with nothing! Why am I responsible for their irresponsibility? I know that it's not cheap, but one needs to prioritize.
I am insured for everything. Flood (even though I'm no where near a flood zone), earthquakes (believe it or not) health, life, unemployment, disability, I pay for extra disability insurance (just in case), full auto insurance, home owners insurance, food insurance, etc.
It's not cheap, but I place responsibility ahead of wants.
If you have ANY luxury items, aside from basic transportation, a wedding band, engagement ring, a basic TV, basic cable, basic cell phone and computer, you can afford insurance and food.
The problem is that millions of people tattoo up, carry the newest smart phone, 70 inch HDTV with all the cable programs, bling, iPads, etc and complain that they need food stamps.
There are basically two type of people in America. Those that have no problem giving less fortunate people an opportunity to make a better life for themselves or help out people in severe economic, medical or social need.
And those who basically don't give a f**K about other people. They have bee fortunate enough to get and take advantage the opportunities available in this country and how absolutely no compassion for other human beings that are not as fortunate as they are.
I agree that there are two types of people.....givers and takers.
Actually three types....givers, takers and those who demand that YOU give against your will.
About recipient class people....it would be nice to at least get a "thank you for the help" instead of "F**K YOU! I am entitled to more!"
What a bunch of hogwash. This is what liberals believe, not conservatives. Conservatives believe in rugged individualism where the state should not increase opportunities for others.
Plus, it is liberals always fighting for worker retraining programs and higher educational loans and subsidies, while conservatives attack higher education as communist propaganda.
Your idea that the liberal welfare state is all about handouts rather than increasing opportunities is pure and complete BS.
Essentially, you are arguing from a liberal perspective, not a conservative one.
Retrain people for what jobs?
Conservatives argue that there are mountains of proof that show that by giving and giving and giving produce a more dependent class. 49 MILLION people on food stamps.
Lefties tend to stick their fingers in their ears and go "La, la, la, la, la,.....".
Thanks, I will check that out. But I think condos are risky because lenders won't finance units if the condo development does not have a majority of owner-occupied units.
This means that you might be unable to sell your condo for a fair price if you need to sell quickly.
You are full of excuses.
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.
