The truth about welfare

[maxcamaro]

who here thinks we should be socialist?

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Skapimp:
You want to talk about how fair taxes are?

"In 2001, the last year for which this analysis from the Internal Revenue Service is available, the 1.3 million returns representing the top 1 percent of all taxpayers collected 17.5 percent of all income and paid 33.9 percent of all income taxes."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/men....ImageFile.jpg

Yes, that's fair, 1% of the US pays for 34% of all income taxes... top 50 percent pay 96% of taxes... great, so as long as I don't make as much as everyone else, I'll just suck them dry.

Flat tax is the way to go... if that doesn't work, then about about you get a ****ing job.

uhh no.

[Shirl]

How about an engineer who has four boys and pull in about 80k a year, then his business (the entire business) goes bankrupt becuse if "faulty accounting practices". Then this guy looses his job and the mom has to hold a house together on her 40k income all by herself?????

Ya know what... don't feel sorry for ya. You chose to have 4 kids and try to run a business that goes bankrupt. It's NOT my problem to "pay for it".

Criminals you say? Not even close. Lazy? Got em' there. Scumbags? Wow now, you are really hot!!! There are too many scenarios that come into play when you are talking about an entire NATION of people. To stereotype them makes you both insensitive and "misinformed".

True, there are different scenarios, but NONE is an EXCUSE TO NOT WORK unless there is a dibilitating disease or disability present (but, we're not talking about that, are we?) Misin-formed.... LOL. HELL NO. I have neighbors that collect and then make more babies. Maybe you, my friend, are misinformed.

A third of your check goes to welfare? Yea right ma-I see more reason to complain about where taxes are really going (IE dieficit reduction, BS gov "programs"). Trust and belive me when I say you have a larger amount of your money going to a whole different version of a welfare "recipient" ma.

Why are you calling me "ma"? If you're looking for you're "Ma", maybe you'll find her in the welfare line...standing in front of you ;) [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

[ August 18, 2004, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Shirl ]

[Machiavelli]

Jobs not existing - last time I checked - was a good excuse not to work... thats still a good excuse, right?

[Shirl]

Ummm, yeah, ok... go work at Burger King and flip some burgers or scrub a floor somewhere... oh, I forgot... that's not a "job".... gee I'm sorry.

[camaro_speedemon]

Originally posted by Stefan:
I overheard a funny thing on a smoke break the other day... some coworkers complaining about their taxes and the usual story "I wish my money wasn't going to crack whores in the ghetto who plop out babies", yada yada. I felt the urge to debate the issue and smack them down so I did.

In finance, there is a saying:

"Anything you do will cost you money, including doing nothing. And doing nothing often costs more."

In government, this statement holds absolutely true when applied to welfare recipients.

Let's say this year out of all the tax money you paid, $500 of it went to the stereotype welfare recipient in the 'hood. The crackhead family has a little apartment and the kids don't have any future but their criminal records are minor. They more or less keep to themselves--as long as you don't drive into the ghetto, they don't bother you any.

Now let's suppose you cut that $500 altogether. You get to keep that money, right? Wrong.

Welfare keeps these people relatively crime-free. Cut their only source of income and they will turn to crime even more than they already do. Muggings, drug dealings, carjackings, etc. will all increase. You'll have to hire more cops to police the area. The risk of your car getting stolen increases. Many former welfare recipients will end up in our already overpopulated prisons and we'll have to spend billions building bigger and better facilities nationwide.

Net result? Now that you've "saved" $500 by not paying it to the welfare recipients, you're spending $1000 more on law enforcement. Doing nothing (cutting welfare) costs more.

In every society there will always be the bottom feeders that suck up off everyone else. It is human nature. Doing something about them costs less than doing nothing.

Show me a crackhead that won't do anything to score their next high, then I might believe you.

If you're living off welfare, then you're probably too lazy to work. You'll be willing, speaking frome dealing from experience, I know someone that does jack **** because he lives off Social security.

I say reform welfare, say you can only be on it 6 months to a year. That's it after you spent a year on welfare, you can not recieve welfare after x amount of years

Welfare should be for people that need it not for people that are too lazy to work.

[95fbirdkid]

Originally posted by Shirl:
Ummm, yeah, ok... go work at Burger King and flip some burgers or scrub a floor somewhere... oh, I forgot... that's not a "job".... gee I'm sorry.

exactly, thats whats wrong with this country, people are more ashamed to work for a fast food place than they are to get my hard earned money. makes me sick. people think they are too good to work for $7 an hour, well you know what? if your on welfare...YOUR NOT.

[Machiavelli]

So basically, Shirl and Mike - ya'll are saying that the reason people are unemployed is because they WONT get a job? are you insane? I think you both need to get out more.

THERE ARE NOT JOBS OUT THERE FOR EVERYONE. Its a rather basic economic principle.

[RallyRed 98]

Originally posted by Shirl:
Ummm, yeah, ok... go work at Burger King and flip some burgers or scrub a floor somewhere... oh, I forgot... that's not a "job".... gee I'm sorry.

so everybody does that 39 hours a week (since most places do that to avoid paying benefits) and makes $13,000 a year. they will still be on state health and housing assistance.

[95fbirdkid]

So basically, Shirl and Mike - ya'll are saying that the reason people are unemployed is because they WONT get a job? are you insane? I think you both need to get out more.

THERE ARE NOT JOBS OUT THERE FOR EVERYONE. Its a rather basic economic principle.

NO, people just dont look hard enough for jobs. you think no place is hireing anyone? go walk down the street you'll see now hireing signs everywhere. many people are either to lazy to look or think they are above working for minumum wage.

Hell if i was in a posistion that i would need to go on welfare I would be so ashamed with myself i'd go mow peoples lawns, wash cars, paint houses....THERE IS WORK IF YOU LOOK

[ August 18, 2004, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: 95fbirdkid ]

[95fbirdkid]

so everybody does that 39 hours a week (since most places do that to avoid paying benefits) and makes $13,000 a year. they will still be on state health and housing assistance.

better than welfare. Plus getting a minimum wage job should only be a short term solution. If you had a job than you have some sort of credentials, get a low paying job while you look for a better one, or if your on welfare and have never had a job, either b/c your still young and your parents are **** ups or b/c you yourself never got an education and did anything w/ your life. get a low paying job to help get your education or just be happy w/ minimum wage.

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So basically, Shirl and Mike - ya'll are saying that the reason people are unemployed is because they WONT get a job? are you insane? I think you both need to get out more.

THERE ARE NOT JOBS OUT THERE FOR EVERYONE. Its a rather basic economic principle.

NO, people just dont look hard enough for jobs. you think no place is hireing anyone? go walk down the street you'll see now hireing signs everywhere. many people are either to lazy to look or think they are above working for minumum wage.

Hell if i was in a posistion that i would need to go on welfare I would be so ashamed with myself i'd go mow peoples lawns, wash cars, paint houses....THERE IS WORK IF YOU LOOK </font>[/QUOTE]No, you live in a seriously deluded world. Many welfare recipients and unemployed live in rural areas. Most welfare recipients do not live in urban areas - sorry to burst your bubble about that one, but the stereotypical welfare recipient does not make up the majority of those on the program.

Also, our unemployment rate is 5.x% right now, that is 5.x% of our population LOOKING FOR JOBS BUT NOT FINDING ANY. Sorry buddy, there are not jobs to be found for everyone. Obviously there are those that are too lazy - but if only the lazy were unemployed this country would be a lot better off.

[Shirl]

You have got to be kidding me :rolleyes: All I hear are excuses from you to "not work". With all of the urban sprawl going on everywhere, you have department stores, fast food chains, everything. So you struggle and work your way up just like everyone else. I know someone that started out stacking boxes and putting things on shelves at Shop Rite and is now the manager of his department (for about 5 years now) making good money... has 3 cars AND a house that was just built.. So starting off with a lower paying job and working up must not be such a bad thing. I think what you are trying to say is that there are no jobs that you would want. A lot of people are afraid to make that change and use the excuse that there are no jobs.

better than welfare. Plus getting a minimum wage job should only be a short term solution. If you had a job than you have some sort of credentials, get a low paying job while you look for a better one, or if your on welfare and have never had a job, either b/c your still young and your parents are **** ups or b/c you yourself never got an education and did anything w/ your life. get a low paying job to help get your education or just be happy w/ minimum wage.

Exactly!!!

[ August 18, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Shirl ]

[95fbirdkid]

our unemployment rate is 5.x% right now, that is 5.x% of our population LOOKING FOR JOBS BUT NOT FINDING ANY

unemployment rate isnt only those looking for jobs and not finding any, its also thos NOT LOOKING FOR JOBS AND NOT FINDING ANY

sure there might not be as many jobs in rural areas, well sell your land, and get an appartment and a job untill you can afford to have that land that is so far away from jobs.

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />our unemployment rate is 5.x% right now, that is 5.x% of our population LOOKING FOR JOBS BUT NOT FINDING ANY

unemployment rate isnt only those looking for jobs and not finding any, its also thos NOT LOOKING FOR JOBS AND NOT FINDING ANY

sure there might not be as many jobs in rural areas, well sell your land, and get an appartment and a job untill you can afford to have that land that is so far away from jobs. </font>[/QUOTE]Take economics, learn what the unemployment rate is - youre wrong.

It sounds easy doesnt it? Sell what you have and move. You obviously have no idea of what poverty is. Things arent that cut and dry... what if no one wants to buy your property? What if the ammount you get for your property isnt enough to relocate? You need to learn about rural life and rural poverty before you start talking about how EASY it is to live. Life is hard for some - and youre just *personal insults removed* who thinks that life is easy for everyone just because it was easy for you.

And Shirl - sorry, there are NOT jobs for everyone. As much as you think there are, people just can NOT find jobs. There are many who HAVE found jobs recently after being fired - and they are taking jobs that pay MUCH less b/c they are desperate - thats hardly what I would call positive economic indicators.