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.
Have any of you welfare freaks that continue to claim that welfare is necessary to help people "get back on their feet" ever driven through a housing project during the middle of the day?
When I worked part-time for a finance company during business school, I had to go out there periodically to call on deadbeats who had skipped out on a car/furniture/flat screen TV payment.
I was always greeted by scores of loiterers, leaning on cars in the parking lot, drinking out of paper bags, blasting vulgar rap music, and smoking cigarettes and other substances. I mean there were THRONGS of these people everywhere, not just a few scattered here and there.
It was ALWAYS at an hour when most productive Americans were working, and these leeches were doing nothing to contribute to the betterment of society, and it always made me SICK to realize that my tax dollars were financing their disgusting lifestyle and additions.
I used to help out a nun who worked in the inner city of Philadelphia. She worked with the "loiterers" and found that most employers did not want to hire someone who came from that neighborhood, so we would find people who would allow us to use their address for job applications. She also found that most of the loiterers were high school drop outs either because they tried to go to work to help their mom's and ended up in one dead end job after another or they were in some sort of trouble as kids and were considered not hirable. She had alot of people coming to her for guidance and she used all the available programs to work with the people and help them escape their lives. So I have seen the positive side of the public social welfare system helping young men get GEDs, keeping them in housing, helping them find jobs, helping them get references to become employable. But she used the public funds to manage it. She is no longer a nun, but she does continue to work with prisoners and with poverty as a social worker.
Wade, how did Exxon receive a 'tax cut'? They paid the top marginal corporate tax rate of 41.7% last year. How much more would you like for them to pay? 50%? 75%? How much is enough?
With Exxon reporting the largest ever profits by any public corporation in history, I don't feel like they need tax breaks.
BOSTON (AP) - Proposals by congressional Democrats to eliminate oil industry tax breaks and subsidies would set a bad example overseas and discourage new industry investments, Exxon Mobil's top executive said Thursday.
For that same reason, I fail to see why taxpayers should subsidize any of their operations.
Exxon-Mobil Corp., one of the world's biggest oil companies, has turned up the heat on the Canadian government, saying the company will shelve the long-delayed Mackenzie Valley pipeline project unless it can get significant taxpayers' assistance for it.
Do you care to sight a source for that figure, or are we supposed to take your word for it over every news source, media outlet, and even the federal government who says that we spend more then that..
Stop population growth among poor people and you solve much of the problem. We won't do this of course, but it is an idea. This would apply not just to welfare, but sec 8 and food stamps (10% of US population is now benefitting from food stamps). Poverty also breeds other problems such as crime and gangs.
Bottom line, poverty is a bad thing. Fewer poor people translates into fewer people to deal with. There are a number of ways to do this, but I propose cutting off sec 8 and food stamp and welfare payments once you exceed a certain number of kids (2). It would be similar to what they do in big bad China. You can call it communism if you like but I am tired of paying for poor people who don't want to work who can. I would leave an allowance for those who are old or truly disabled mentally and physically.
Those already here would be grandfathered in but going forward the poor would be dissuaded from having so many offspring that the taxpayer currently pays for.
Do you care to sight a source for that figure, or are we supposed to take your word for it over every news source, media outlet, and even the federal government who says that we spend more then that..
most of the debt is racked up from wars and defense spending and things associated with defense such as veterans benefits and not to mention the intrest compiled on it over time
T'was not an argument at all at all. T'was an observation.
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.
