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.
Dang but you liberals go crazy at the first sign of someone trying to stop taxpayer-funded giveaways to people ineligible for them! And by ineligible, I mean the 60% of a school that is middle income who "qualifies" for other people to feed their children because 40% of the children actually DO qualify. Nobody is talking about starving hungry children; Trump is talking about kicking people off the program who do not qualify. (I mentioned in another post how I know someone in her 50s who lives with her millionaire parents and works a few hours a week just to get out of the house - and collects food stamps. THAT is the type of nonsense we need to stop!)
As far as minimum wage: who says a person should work at a dead-end job for minimum wage for 50 years? I think we could solve the problem if we change the attitude and call it a "training wage" instead. The assumption would be that if you are conscientious and have a modicum of ability, you will move up the ladder. If there's no ladder to move up (such as in McDonalds), then you go nights to community college or to a vocational training program. But to just assume that small business owners should fork over $15/hour for jobs that a 14-year-old could do after a one-hour training period tells me that you have no comprehension of business, profit margins, and market value.
I think that person you know is committing fraud, though. She is part of a household and is not counting their income.
It was a democrat (Clinton) who signed welfare reform which made TANF temporary rather than permanent. I swear to God if Santa missed your house on Christmas eve some of you would blame it on a Democrat
The maximum time a person can receive TANF is 60 months but states can shorten that, Arizona only allows TANF for 12 months, California 48. No one without a minor child can receive TANF. So we are ONLY talking about parents with children. Only parents with children under 5 are exempt from the requirement of working or participatingin job training.
Specifically how would you change it? Would you require parents with infants to work? If so who pays for childcare.
When it first went into effect, the reform only exempted children under the age of 18 months. When it hit me, I was going through the legal battle to get divorced from the thing. I was court ordered to live in an area where I was denied the ability to work because when I had been hired before he would show up to the job and cause problems and get me fired. It was a small community where everyone knew everyone and everything about everyone. It got around pretty fast that if I was hired that he would show up. I had a restraining order at that last job I had, but his cop buddies refused to enforce it and told my employer that they would not be enforcing it since my job was a public place. I was told that if he showed up where I was that I would be arrested for violating the restraining order and that if he showed up somewhere that I would have to be the one to leave. Welfare reform literally put me and the life of my child in danger, because they spent years denying me my divorce and my time was about up when the divorce finally went through. Had I not got the divorce with the wording about my moving restriction removed before the time was up then I would've either died from lack of a place to go or had to go back to the thing and continued to be abused until he killed me. I never had any recognized rights during the whole thing. It was all about my forced husband and his rights the entire time. He even talked about how my daughter would be killed and that her death would be my fault for having left him.
At the time of the divorce, my name was still towards the bottom of the waiting list for child care assistance. I had complied with the work requirement only because I went to college and had work study, but I was due to graduate and still had no chance of being able to be employed unless I could legally move out of the area. It was made clear to me that the only way I'd be allowed to move away is if I gave the thing my baby and basically abandoned her to be raised by a violent child rapist. What kind of mother would I have been to condemn my little girl to such a life? Had the judge not removed the moving restriction at the time of the divorce, we'd probably been killed years ago. I fled the state with my girl and did all I could to keep him from finding where I went, but the government kept telling him my new address and he'd travel out of state to come after me. I spent many years having to move around because of it until I finally stopped updating the address on my license. That made it harder for him to track me down.
When it first went into effect, the reform only exempted children under the age of 18 months. When it hit me, I was going through the legal battle to get divorced from the thing. I was court ordered to live in an area where I was denied the ability to work because when I had been hired before he would show up to the job and cause problems and get me fired. It was a small community where everyone knew everyone and everything about everyone. It got around pretty fast that if I was hired that he would show up. I had a restraining order at that last job I had, but his cop buddies refused to enforce it and told my employer that they would not be enforcing it since my job was a public place. I was told that if he showed up where I was that I would be arrested for violating the restraining order and that if he showed up somewhere that I would have to be the one to leave. Welfare reform literally put me and the life of my child in danger, because they spent years denying me my divorce and my time was about up when the divorce finally went through. Had I not got the divorce with the wording about my moving restriction removed before the time was up then I would've either died from lack of a place to go or had to go back to the thing and continued to be abused until he killed me. I never had any recognized rights during the whole thing. It was all about my forced husband and his rights the entire time. He even talked about how my daughter would be killed and that her death would be my fault for having left him.
At the time of the divorce, my name was still towards the bottom of the waiting list for child care assistance. I had complied with the work requirement only because I went to college and had work study, but I was due to graduate and still had no chance of being able to be employed unless I could legally move out of the area. It was made clear to me that the only way I'd be allowed to move away is if I gave the thing my baby and basically abandoned her to be raised by a violent child rapist. What kind of mother would I have been to condemn my little girl to such a life? Had the judge not removed the moving restriction at the time of the divorce, we'd probably been killed years ago. I fled the state with my girl and did all I could to keep him from finding where I went, but the government kept telling him my new address and he'd travel out of state to come after me. I spent many years having to move around because of it until I finally stopped updating the address on my license. That made it harder for him to track me down.
I am so sorry for what you have endured! Your story certainly is an excellent illustration of how wrong it is to generalize about people in certain situations!
I hope you are doing well (or at least much better) now.
That's some crazy math there... In the first place prices have NEVER dropped because COGS is reduced, if a product or service is selling at X dollars, why decrease the price unless you think you can increase demand by doing so? So all that arithmetic doesn't mean too much- but there is data that illustrates what a joke that tax bill was and how greatly it benefited the wealthy and corporations. Working people will now face higher taxes and fees and fewer government services in order to try to pay down the trillion dollar deficit
Exxon reported a quarterly profit of $8.38 billion, up from $1.68 billion a year earlier.
Banks last year made a record $236.7 billion in profits, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said on Thursday. Had the tax law not been enacted, banks still would have done well — the FDIC estimates they would have made $207.9 billion in 2018.
Amazon ended up paying an 11.4% federal income tax rate between 2011 and 2016, which is a contrast to the -1% rate this year. To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate—making its tax rate -1%.
Apple’s June (2018) quarter tax rate dropped to 13.3 percent from 22.9 percent last year.
4 pharma companies saved $7 billion from GOP tax law
I am so sorry for what you have endured! Your story certainly is an excellent illustration of how wrong it is to generalize about people in certain situations!
I hope you are doing well (or at least much better) now.
He copies and paste the same story every time he is asked.
I'm not responsible for your lil thuglet murdering someone. Not even close.
You mean not even tiny bit?
Look, I am a bit too old for "little thuglets," but here is an interesting thing;
imagine for a second that my "little thuglet" turned out not to be a murderer, but, say, a renown musician.
Or an inventor.
Sure you'll be proudly saying then "how great this nation is," and how "it produces the best and the brightest."
All of a sudden you are a benefiting party ( unless, of course, there is no such thing as "nation," but only a commercial zone.)
Yeah --if you are against 'handouts' you should be against handouts.
A very good friend who is a die hard conservative always moaned about entitlement programs....I pointed out to her that there were all kinds of those programs handing out govt. money & I feel uncomfortable with all of them -- not just some of them.
I'm still irked that rich people write off the full purchase price of a jet. This is a handout.
"Write off?" You realize that they're only saving whatever their effective tax rate is, no? For example... Pay a 27% effective federal income tax rate (that's the average effective federal income tax rate paid by the top 1%)? The "write off" is only worth 27% of the cost.
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.
