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.
Omg you act like your supporting every deadbeat child or person in this country.
How is it that taxpayers are not doing so?
Actions have consequences. Why aren't the foster kids' parents held accountable for the consequences of their actions? If they're abusive parents, remove the kids from the home but continue to hold the parents responsible for the cost of their children's care. Pretty simple, really.
Foster care? Where are the parents? Those children are their parents' responsibility, not the responsibility of some working adult stranger who lives 2,000 miles away.
Are you suggesting we're still living in the 1800s?
Are you unaware that people are capable of making their own decisions, some of which will not turn out well, and that if society swoops in and makes everything all better for the people who create their own problems that they'll never learn from their mistakes? And that negatively impacts everyone, society-wide.
In short, you're arguing for the decline of our society.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionsgators
just a question. have you ever seen a poor person make a good financial decision/investment? do you think it's simply a coincidence that poor people who win the lottery often end up broke again? or are you just for taking wealth from the individuals, and giving it to the government for them to distribute for their own agendas? we all know government makes great investments. what is the end game of higher wages and "income equality?"
IF we 'redistributed' wealth?
How are we NOT redistributing wealth when we take US taxpayer $$$ and build a $700M Embassy in Iraq that benefits no one in the US? How are we NOT redistributing wealth when we take US taxpayer $$$ and give it to other nations in military aid that does nothing to benefit the US? Etc., etc., etc.?
Are you suggesting we're still living in the 1800s?
Are you unaware that people are capable of making their own decisions, some of which will not turn out well, and that if society swoops in and makes everything all better for the people who create their own problems that they'll never learn from their mistakes? And that negatively impacts everyone, society-wide.
In short, you're arguing for the decline of our society.
Exactly like how our trusty uncle "sam" subsidieses profit. And bails out big business every year. If we were practicing your philosophy, then profits are the reward of work and doesn't need to be subsidies by us? But for some reason, i only see foodstamps and welfare to the poor only being cut.
Exactly like how our trusty uncle "sam" subsidieses profit.
We've had this discussion. I'm all for ending corporate subsidies. Just be sure that YOU really are.
At least 2 consequences of ending corporate subsidies:
1) Higher unsubsidized prices on goods and services. The lower and middle income earners will only be able to afford less food, goods, services, etc., than they do now.
2) Lower corporate profits which will decimate union pension funds and everyone else's pension funds, IRAs, 401k's, etc. Retirement savings and pension plans are invested in corporate stocks. In fact, CalPERS, California's Public Employees' Retirement System is one of the largest institutional stock market investors in the U.S. Hit corporate profits, and you hit Americans' retirement income. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Now that you know at least some of the consequences of what you suggest , I don't want to hear any whining about how the lower and middle income earners can't afford necessities or how they have nothing to live on in retirement.
It is such a broad topic. It depends on whether there were guidelines or just giving money with no structure. I am for it possibly but only with a wise government such as you find in The Netherlands, the US is too corrupt in its current state to handle it.
I can look at my own families trajectory from poor to middle class in 3 generations and see that many would do well.
I see others though especially addicts that if given money would blow it, maybe almost literally.
I see some members within one white trash family all turning out different. I am connected to a family that has 4 siblings, they have from what I understand a white trash and a trust fund background, within 2 generations after that, 2 of the kids are doing well for themselves, one troubled perhaps on disability and one a low class, negative, bitter, man hating drug addict with no teeth who lost her $70,000 marriage inheritance to drugs and now weights 80 pounds.
So, I think with guidelines it would be good. It would improve things overall, but only from a government that you can trust. It is not the right time for America to have that. Too many fake political parties here.
We've had this discussion. I'm all for ending corporate subsidies. Just be sure that YOU really are.
At least 2 consequences of ending corporate subsidies:
1) Higher unsubsidized prices on goods and services. The lower and middle income earners will only be able to afford less food, goods, services, etc., than they do now.
2) Lower corporate profits which will decimate union pension funds and everyone else's pension funds, IRAs, 401k's, etc. Retirement savings and pension plans are invested in corporate stocks. In fact, CalPERS, California's Public Employees' Retirement System is one of the largest institutional stock market investors in the U.S. Hit corporate profits, and you hit Americans' retirement income. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Now that you know at least some of the consequences of what you suggest , I don't want to hear any whining about how the lower and middle income earners can't afford necessities or how they have nothing to live on in retirement.
I'm amazed at the gymnastics you go through to try and convince people that corporate welfare is REALLY welfare for lower and middle class people. Incredible.
Yes you're right a small % of that trickles down to them. How nice. How special. By god they should be THANKFUL! In fact, we should increase those subsidies! Yup! Thats it! Those who care about the little folk, should increase subsidies for large corporations.
I'm amazed at the gymnastics you go through to try and convince people that corporate welfare is REALLY welfare for lower and middle class people. Incredible.
As I've already said, I'm all for ending corporate subsidies. Just be aware of the consequences of doing so:
1) Higher unsubsidized prices on goods and services. The lower and middle income earners will only be able to afford less food, goods, services, etc., than they do now.
2) Lower corporate profits will decimate union pension funds and everyone else's pension funds, IRAs, 401k's, etc. Retirement savings and pension plans are invested in corporate stocks. In fact, CalPERS, California's Public Employees' Retirement System is one of the largest institutional stock market investors in the U.S. Hit corporate profits, and you hit Americans' retirement income. No ifs, ands, or buts.
If you're good with that, have at it. Go ahead and end corporate subsidies. One caveat, though... don't come back here whining and complaining about how the low and middle income earners can no longer afford sufficient food, clothing, etc., anymore, or how middle class retirees have too little retirement income to live on.
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.
what do you think would happen if we "redistributed" wealth?
