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.
When the rich learn how to replace the military and police with robots, it's all over. Already the military is struggling to find recruits because of drug problems and obesity. The poor might finally be done in, simply because they were too fat to get up and fight.
People can caterwaul about right and wrong all day long, but it won't change anything about their situation.
It's not over until the following person becomes POTUS: an SJW nagging Flat-Earth mother-in-law who lives in a van down by the river with Seymour, a Chris Walken-sounding and silent film-watching vegan cannibal zombie moose.
You don't think charity or the fact that technological advances have made it easier for the disabled to take care of themselves, would be sufficient? Plus government sucks at what they do so how much are they really helping?
I would think, percentage wise, there would be less disabled than 50 years ago. Just a guess though.
No, charity can never be sufficient. If you're disabled and cant work, do you honestly bank on a charity to take care of you for the rest of your life with all your needs and medications? You claim that government sucks, and I agree that a maximum of $700 a month for a disabled really suck, but getting nothing would suck even more and I think you know that.
50 years ago, many infants would die if they had severe complications. Now they usually dont and grow up, but need lifelong care and support.
Democrats want to cover nearly 90 million from birth to 23 years old with one expensive "education" scheme after another. There will be 78 million people on retirement programs with SS, Medicare, state or local pensions.
In 2030, with the aging of the population and the millennials children being covered with free childcare, free K-12 and then free college there will be up to 168 million on one expensive scheme or another, the issue is that there will be around 355 million people.
78 million Americans in 2030 will Medicare aged, OASDI, government pensions
76.7 million children a vast majority in public schools and some Democrats want free child care for birth to 5 years old.
13.7 million in public colleges which Bernie Sanders want to make free
Very easy solution: tax the rich more until they are bone dry.
I am happy to answer any civil question. This one is a fair question, but complex. On one side, the truly disabled are unable to fend for themselves, and I feel for them. I give a considerable amount to children's and veteran's charities. I am not a person of zero compassion.
But, here is the rub. I do it because I want to, and because I pick the charity I choose to support. Taxation for welfare is a different matter. No one gets to pick the recipients of their tax money, or decline to contribute if they feel it is not going to be wisely spent. In addition, when you donate to a major charity a good portion goes to salaries and operating cost. When the government taxes you it goes to salaries, operating cost, waste, fraud, inefficient business practices, and usually goods and services provided by insiders. The handouts given come with strings, and the understanding the recipients will vote for the party doling out the charity.
So to answer your question, no I don't want to cut the disabled's pay. But, I would like to see a better system. However as seems to be the trend on these post, none of this has anything to do with my post, which was that you can't pay for all this by taxing the rich. They don't have enough money to pay for all this, and even if they did, they would leave before giving it all up. I do want to see spending cuts, but not in the benefits paid, just in the way it spent. This nation is already broke. Right now if you have one dollar in your pocket that you don't owe someone, you are twenty two trillion dollars richer than our government. And, that is the official number which is miles lower than the real number. We wont be able to recover that by cutting some disabled person's $700.00. We need serious draconian cuts ASAP.
So you think getting $500-600 a month is sufficient for a disabled person? Remember $700 is the maximum not the average. You claim you dont want to see cuts there, but what is a better system that can increase the benefits paid? Surely, you agree that it is insufficient at the moment?
Charity has never been able to compensate for a lack of public safety net anywhere in the world so that cant possible be a solution. Charity was what we had a few hundred years ago, and it was brutal. It would be even worse today with much smaller families.
It’s hilarious how the Dems are trying to out “free” one another. Never going to happen, they’re just pandering to their base for votes. They know it, and most rational people know it.
After they get elected.... they’ll forget about their base and it will business as usual in DC.
Opps! Well, I tried.
Poor people can do nothing for them besides giving them their vote. It’s the rich in this country who have the power.
It’s hilarious how the Dems are trying to out “free” one another. Never going to happen, they’re just pandering to their base for votes. They know it, and most rational people know it.
After they get elected.... they’ll forget about their base and it will business as usual in DC.
Opps! Well, I tried.
Poor people can do nothing for them besides giving them their vote. It’s the rich in this country who have the power.
So who do you support and who are their major donors?
Democrats want to overload the system to break it. The Democrats' dream is to redistribute American wealth to the world.
Religious Republicans can be accused of pushing for needless babies, but increasingly other kinds of Republicans are pro-family planning. I think contraceptives are the best way to keep welfare costs down. I think the carte blanche people have to produce babies is what causes most of the misery in society.
I wish more Republicans became a little bit "pro poor" also because thats what is repeated many times in their religious text.
I am more than happy to pay a few dollars more in taxes if it benefits poor working mothers or some disabled people.
I wish more Republicans became a little bit "pro poor" also because thats what is repeated many times in their religious text.
I am more than happy to pay a few dollars more in taxes if it benefits poor working mothers or some disabled people.
So why don’t you cut out the middle man (who wastes about 70% of those tax dollars) and help those needy people directly at a local level?
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.
