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.
First, you make it seem like a bad thing that first-time voters bucked the abysmal low turn-out rate and came out to vote in 2008. High turn-out is a good thing in a democratic society.
Second, the U.S. spends about $350 billion annually, out of a $4 trillion budget, on what is called "welfare." "Welfare" isn't breaking the Treasury.
As a comparison, we spend about $750 billion on defense.
Third, the system of welfare you describe, where generations stay on public support, has not existed since the welfare reforms of the 1990s. Welfare payments time out.
Do you understand why there were so many first time voters in 2008?? If it wasn't for first time voters, Obama wouldn't be president.
So you're OK that $350 billion is spent annually on welfare? I guess government will have to cut the defense budge and use that money for the "refugees" that will be coming to the US.
There IS a cycle of welfare dependency. Momma has four kids, two of them girls and underage and get pregnant, they go on welfare, and then it continues from generation to generation. It will only stop when momma runs out of kids to claim as dependents which could take 20 years or more. I guess that's when the "time out" kicks in.
I get it. You are all for healthy, capable people living off the government (the taxpayers) and collecting welfare. I'm not OK with it (I have no party loyalty), and I am entitled to feel that way, as you are entitled to feel the way you do, which is the way most democrats feel.
When the number of people on welfare decreases, get back to me. I don't expect to hear from you in the future.
It IS a handout. Why? MANY of those who "contribute" to social security recieve far more than they contributed. That is where the "social" in social security becomes relevant. I have paid in to social security (even at this point) far, far more than I would ever recieve. It is a wealth redistribution scheme.
Actually most workers lose money on SS now. And higher income earners lose money on Medicare, too, as there is no cap on Medicare tax.
Do you understand why there were so many first time voters in 2008?? If it wasn't for first time voters, Obama wouldn't be president.
Don't those people have a right to vote? What I takeaway from your statement is that votes from the young and minorities are somehow illegitimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by triple8s
So you're OK that $350 billion is spent annually on welfare? I guess government will have to cut the defense budge and use that money for the "refugees" that will be coming to the US.
$350 billion out of our $4 trillion budget is not an outlandish amount to be paying to take care of the needy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by triple8s
There IS a cycle of welfare dependency. Momma has four kids, two of them girls and underage and get pregnant, they go on welfare, and then it continues from generation to generation. It will only stop when momma runs out of kids to claim as dependents which could take 20 years or more. I guess that's when the "time out" kicks in.
Fictional people that you make up is not evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by triple8s
I get it. You are all for healthy, capable people living off the government (the taxpayers) and collecting welfare. I'm not OK with it (I have no party loyalty), and I am entitled to feel that way, as you are entitled to feel the way you do, which is the way most democrats feel.
When the number of people on welfare decreases, get back to me. I don't expect to hear from you in the future.
Unlike you, I do not know (or care) what most Democrats believe. I am all for ridding healthy, capable people living off the government rolls -- we should stop corporate welfare that allows this cycle of dependency for CEOs and the elite.
As an alternative to slashing social services, we could raise the taxes of the top 0.1%, who annually earn over a trillion dollars. Raising it by 10% would mean that they pay on average 26% in taxes, about what the upper-middle class pays.
Your numbers are way off. Research actual average effective federal income tax rates by income group, and redo your math.
Also, what income do you consider upper-middle class? The Census Bureau defines it as those in the top 1/3 of income earners, or about $70,000. There's no way a $70,000 earner pays the same tax rate as the average effective federal income tax rate paid by the top 0.1%.
Actually most workers lose money on SS now. And higher income earners lose money on Medicare, too, as there is no cap on Medicare tax.
Even higher earners could end up net positive since a typical Medicare beneficiary receives 2-3x in benefits compared to what they put in. Especially those of us with pre-existing.
The US tax systems is VERY PROGRESSIVE when one takes into account SS and Medicare. However, there is never enough, and the libs will never be satisfied with any degree of taxation, until it reaches 100%. Having arrived at 100% of income, they will initiate an asset or "wealth" tax.
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.
