It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law

page: 10
32
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

Ohhhh,, so now new rules are in place.

It is only okay if the person built the business. Not if they worked to garner an education, experience and were either hired or purchased said business.




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ArchPlayer

Bring what ya got.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Oh my god… I don't even live in the states, but this is terrible. I don't evne see the rationale in how the poor so bleed even more when the economy is tanking.

So… the poor looses 8 billion dollars and the rich countyr of Israel gets 220.000.000 dollars………………..

Wauw, this makes no sense!



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AazadanYep, take take take. And the amount that gets taken still doesn't even amount to enough to be above the poverty line. Those people are really living it up.

The ones I see are perfectly fine with buying beer and crap with cash, and food and necessities with their SNAP card.
And I love this "poverty line" statement.
An arbitrary number made up as the water mark to state someone is poor.
If they can eat with their SNAP card, live in a Govt subsidized apartment, drive a decent vehicle, talk on their Govt offset cell phone and triple dip in the many other Govt programs they seem to be living very well.
If they want a better quality of life, they need to work for it.....like everyone else.


originally posted by: Aazadan
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As I said before, general Welfare in this case is related to the idea of quality of life issues and law enforcement. Quality of life would be related to the idea that it's governments responsibility to extend the lifespan of the citizenry as long as possible and to make sure people have the ability to have a relatively comfortable life. Law enforcement is the idea that government seeks to create social policies that minimize crime, and that criminal actions that do happen get punished.

I can't help that you and a hand full of others have bastardized this idea of what the "General Welfare" means.
It does not mean Govt welfare programs. Never has, never will.


originally posted by: Aazadan
It has nothing to do with threatening criminal activity. It's survival instinct. If people can't afford food and shelter what do you think is going to happen?

Maybe be a grown up and work for what they want/need???


originally posted by: Aazadan
Lets put this another way. I assume you have some knowledge of Maslow's Hierarch of Needs? If you don't google it, it's a pretty simply concept. Many studies have been done over the years and have shown that the higher a person is on that hierarchy the less likely they are to commit criminal acts. When you have someone at the bottom who can't afford food or shelter they're VERY likely to be a criminal, at the very bottom of the pyramid criminal behavior reaches a near 100%.

So a theory, driving at the idea that those that are responsible and work, are to be held hostage by those that would rather perform criminal acts to live instead of being an adult means very little to me.
And when the criminal performs the criminal act, they will be punished accordingly.


originally posted by: Aazadan
Maybe you'll respond to a purely financial argument. Depending on the state it costs between $30,000 to $50,000 per year to put a criminal in jail. The average jail sentence for low level theft is about 18 months. That means that an individual is costing the state between $45,000 and $75,000 because they're too poor to support themselves. Lets average it and call it $60,000. SNAP benefits on the other hand for that same individual only run about $130 per month give or take a few by state. Over 18 months that only amounts to $2,340. Meaning actually feeding the person so that they don't have to resort to criminal actions that put them in jail saves $57,660 over those 18 months or $38,440 per year. This means that it's cheaper to pay for SNAP than to pay for the outcome of not having SNAP.

Jail is for those that break the law, the same laws you and others have in this “society” thing pitched.
Welfare is still taking from some to give to others.



originally posted by: Aazadan
Maybe you don't. Should everyone have to make that choice? Should we want to live in a society where being armed, and having the willpower to follow through with murdering someone in self defense is a reality we must all accept?

I do love the Alinsky model usage here.
Self defense is not murder. It is self defense.
Murder is murder. You really need to get your crap straight before you bring this to me.


originally posted by: Aazadan
That aside, taxes aren't theft that money was never yours to begin with. It's not yours until it's in your hand and the government says it's yours. You may not like that but government is the authority figure here, they get to dictate what is and isn't yours. That's why they also get to use laws like eminent domain where they can simply take your property. A proper government uses this authority sparingly but it's always there.

This is almost word for word the same BS pitched by every US based Socialist I have ever come across.
I thought that the Govt was all of us, not this authoritative figure you state.
And no….taxes are theft. It takes from me by force.
And no….it is my income. I earned it. I don’t need permission from the Govt to work and get in exchange compensation.
Eminent Domain as on example?? That is one of the most corrupt traits of Govt and you parade it around like it is a good thing.



originally posted by: Aazadan
Just look one quote up. You state right there that you'll kill someone without a second thought.

And please, for the 4th time, show me where I stated execute the poor.
I would wait for this, but know you have lied and contorted something from nothing.
In the act of self defense, yes….yes I would without a second thought.


originally posted by: Aazadan

Accepting a few leftist points isn't called embracing that side, it's called not being an extremist. I embrace a few conservative points too (as well as a few not supported by either side). Those aren't the topic here though.

Progressive socialist may be more along the lines.



originally posted by: Aazadan
That's why we have a real unemployment rate of near 33%? Most of the jobs we do have that are available also happen to be unskilled service sector positions. Not things people can actually do for a career.

There are plenty of jobs out there.
As for a career? Sounds like people need to start at the bottom, like everyone else and work their way up. Or is that just not okay with you and the “want it now” generation?
Burger flipper has never been, nor was it intended on being a career. It is an entry level job.
Want something more sustaining??? Go work for it.




Continued........



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Actually, your living and your wage comes from your employer. Your employers business exists only because there's a customer base that allow it to exist, those customers build and maintain the business. You are not very relevant to the situation, you could be replaced with anyone else with the proper skillset and nothing would change except you would be out of a job and someone else wouldn't.

And what is the point???
And actually, my living and wage comes for the business I work for…..and the company I run and own.
Instead of parroting Socialist talking points, why not actually read what has been written.


originally posted by: Aazadan
Sorry, long day it's actually 77%. I get disability, one of the requirements of that is that I pay back $1 for every $2 I earn pre-tax. Then I pay the various city/state/federal income taxes. That creates an effective tax rate of 75%. Throw in an average 7% sales tax on the remaining 25% and it comes to 77%. That's simply the economics of the situation, being ok with it or not doesn't really factor in. As I said before, it's not really yours until it's cash in hand.

You are right…..the disability check you get isn’t really yours. It is money provided by the tax payer.
Now I know why you rail so hard for Govt theft and handouts. Your profit and live off of it. No wonder.
Well, I guess I can’t expect those that live off the theft of others to actually stand up and state it is wrong to take from me to give to you.


originally posted by: Aazadan
The government and the country were created as an escape from tyranny and focused on the idea of liberty. Taxes and welfare programs are not the antithesis to this idea. Infact it has been shown otherwise that when people have some sort of safety net to meet their basic needs met they're better able to pursue an education and become more productive and autonomous.

WOW. Much hypocrisy here.
So, the people fled a country to get away from tyranny and taxation only to create a country that was based on the opposite….just so Progressives could turn it back into what was fled from.
A safety net was not part of the construct. “Safety net” is a really nice term for a collective Govt program.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

The hypocrisy is on you buddy!

All you have written in the typical Faux News rhetoric on how the 'welfare queens' are destroying the US. This is a lie and a propaganda piece that contributes to the class warfare. They have managed to fool people like you into blaming the poor when it is the extremely wealthy who are siphoning off the working man's wages in the States.

Please do your own research. The things Rush, Hannity and friends tell you has little if any factual basis.
edit on 27-8-2014 by jrod because: ed



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I have stated that the Govt is the issue.

Welfare queens just leech off the corrupt Govt.



And I hate to tell you this, but I don't watch Fox News.

And..................I have stated that Corporate welfare needs to stop as well. But, let's just not ever bring that up when countering my statements.....it just doesn't fit the narrative.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Okay says someone who is not even familiar with the Preamble of the US Constitution yet likes to tell the rest of us how the government is doing it wrong.

The government is still weak in the US. The power comes from a handful of large corporations that have more or less infiltrated DC via lobbying interest. As long as the masses keep voting in preselected corporate shills, the government will still be shaking down the working class to keep the oligarchy producing more profits each year.

The balance of inequality is great now. Civil unrest is spreading throughout the USA. Very few believe dogmatic class warfare rhetoric that has fooled so many for decades now.

The Pitchforks are Coming!
edit on 27-8-2014 by jrod because: ed



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

So, because I have pointed out that this idea that "General Welfare" has nothing to do with Govt welfare, I in turn don't know or understand the preamble.



You, or anyone else have yet to provide me with the framers laws surrounding such a thing. You know, that Govt based welfare.

They set the stage for everything else that the Constitution addresses, but I guess forgot to include the laws and policies for Govt handouts....Damn them and their forgetfulness.......



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982

Dude, poor is poor. it doesn't matter WHEN it was, if you can't afford something, you can't afford it. Time is irrelevant.

I'm still not well off, I struggle everyday, But the difference is, I'm PROUD to struggle. I just took the plunge and sank all of my savings into starting my own business. So, I'll be struggling for a while, probably even worse, but I am trying to better myself. THAT is my whole point.


So let me get this straight. Just because you were born before the cards fell down and were able to sack a few coins away and now live in the painful reminder of that decision in a country and government that failed you by taking the plunge as you say everybody else should figure out how to do the same, even though YOUR circumstances and environment were different in the time frame in which you were able to conceive this plan of action? I call bullshyt.

Then you proudly gloat about having to struggle (or even worse) just to better yourself. Well bully for you. The fact that you feel entitled to your struggle IS A PROBLEM. No one should have to struggle in their country of origin when illegal immigrants are getting low to no loans and literally all these fringe benefits just for being a new replacement society that TPTB feel they can control. Why should you struggle when Jorge and Enrique who can't speak a lick of English don't, and are rewarded as such?

THAT IS MY POINT.

Just because you choose to wallow in the existence that this piss poor government set up for us all to collapse in, doesn't mean it should be a way of life. Nor does it belittle the previous point I said about environment and everyone NOT being able to be as "productive" as you due to different circumstances. Ask some kids around age 18, embarking on the world what kind of opportunities are out there for them, outside entry level. When you were 18 I'm willing to bet back in the late 70s, early 80s or maybe late 80s early 90s, you could go anywhere and get on the job training, be able to work yourself up into the company, and above all have EXPERIENCE and feel apart of the network of your employ. My mother is 70, and her first job at 15 was with the phone company as an operator making 18.50 an hour after training. There are no more operators as that function went automated.

You just don't get the problem that age and circumstance play into people making it in this new America. But hey, you have to struggle and misery loves company, right?



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
The ones I see are perfectly fine with buying beer and crap with cash, and food and necessities with their SNAP card.
And I love this "poverty line" statement.


SNAP cards can't buy alcohol. Sure there's ways around it like trading your benefits for cash, but the majority of cases involve people paying for beer out of what little luxury money they have. Is it your opinion that you should be able to dictate what if any luxuries a person gets because you're the one giving them money? Does your opinion also follow that an employer should be allowed to dictate what their employees buy with their money?

People make bad choices, I was in the grocery store the other day and saw someone most likely on welfare with a shopping cart full of sugary cereals, lunchables, and coke. Is that what I would buy with the money? Not at all. Part of living in a free society however is that people need to be free to make bad decisions that others don't approve of. Actually, that's pretty much the definition of a free society.


I can't help that you and a hand full of others have bastardized this idea of what the "General Welfare" means.
It does not mean Govt welfare programs. Never has, never will.


I specified what it means. Security (military and law enforcement) and quality of life issues. Perhaps instead of saying it doesn't mean X over and over you would like to give your opinion as to what it means?


Maybe be a grown up and work for what they want/need???


And you're still missing the point that the jobs don't exist. Do you think people choose to live on $700/month because they're lazy? Having job opportunities mean a lot. That aside, the vast majority of food stamp recipients work.


So a theory, driving at the idea that those that are responsible and work, are to be held hostage by those that would rather perform criminal acts to live instead of being an adult means very little to me.
And when the criminal performs the criminal act, they will be punished accordingly.


So you want to set up a system where people are driven to criminal behavior out of necessity to survive? Aren't you the type that says you'll do anything to protect your family? If you have no income and everyone is going to bed hungry what are you going to do? Wait for jobs to appear or take action?


Jail is for those that break the law, the same laws you and others have in this “society” thing pitched.
Welfare is still taking from some to give to others.


Welfare happens when jobs either don't pay fair wages or don't exist. Currently both are true.


I do love the Alinsky model usage here.
Self defense is not murder. It is self defense.
Murder is murder. You really need to get your crap straight before you bring this to me.


Fine we'll use your term. Killing. According to every major religion in the world the main tenet is that you shouldn't kill. We have a high percentage of Christians here in the US. If they're going to adhere to their faith what are they supposed to do? What you're pushing for is a society where the need to violently defend yourself is commonplace. The majority of people don't want to live in such a society, and those religion people who take the act of not killing seriously simply can't live in a violent society. Look at countries like Iceland and Norway, they have VERY low crime. Iceland even has guns. The reason violent crime is low is because people have a reason to live and get on with their life, largely due to social safety nets.


This is almost word for word the same BS pitched by every US based Socialist I have ever come across.
I thought that the Govt was all of us, not this authoritative figure you state.
And no….taxes are theft. It takes from me by force.
And no….it is my income. I earned it. I don’t need permission from the Govt to work and get in exchange compensation.
Eminent Domain as on example?? That is one of the most corrupt traits of Govt and you parade it around like it is a good thing.


It's something you agree to when you choose to be a US citizen. Taxes and Eminent Domain are part of the constitution which is our contract between ourselves and our government. Government is made up by the people, but we the people also give it the authority to act. It's not some powerless entity, we specifically empowered it to have authority over us.


And please, for the 4th time, show me where I stated execute the poor.
I would wait for this, but know you have lied and contorted something from nothing.
In the act of self defense, yes….yes I would without a second thought.


And what do you call giving people no choice other than to lash out violently? It may not be a mobile firing squad but it's an execution just the same when you take away all of a persons options and then kill them for using the only option they have left.


Progressive socialist may be more along the lines.


Why do labels, especially progressive matter so much to you? Isn't that the Alinsky model? To control the discussion through labels? You can think of me as whatever you want, I don't really care other than to say you're wrong. Beyond that do you want to discuss ideas or do you want to label and say progressiveism (as a blanket term for anything you disagree with) is wrong at every point?



originally posted by: Aazadan
There are plenty of jobs out there.
As for a career? Sounds like people need to start at the bottom, like everyone else and work their way up. Or is that just not okay with you and the “want it now” generation?
Burger flipper has never been, nor was it intended on being a career. It is an entry level job.
Want something more sustaining??? Go work for it.


There's a big difference between an entry level job and a dead end job. What we have are dead end jobs. It has nothing to do with wanting it now. It has to do with seeing a future for yourself 10 years down the road. What great aspirations does a barista get to have? Assistant manager? The person who opens or closes the building? Those are the jobs we have in this country, and some areas (such as mine) don't even have that.

Working for it only works when there's something to work towards. Have you seen the statistics on college graduates who cannot get a job? It's pretty damning.
edit on 28-8-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
And what is the point???
And actually, my living and wage comes for the business I work for…..and the company I run and own.
Instead of parroting Socialist talking points, why not actually read what has been written.


Your wage comes from your customers. Your business generates no money without them. There is no widget or model that magically generates money from nothing (unless you're a bank). Instead it always comes from someone else. The fact that you're a successful business owner and don't even grasp concepts like this or even basic psychology is mind boggling to me. Then again it's just more proof that business success is all about luck rather than individual ability.


You are right…..the disability check you get isn’t really yours. It is money provided by the tax payer.
Now I know why you rail so hard for Govt theft and handouts. Your profit and live off of it. No wonder.
Well, I guess I can’t expect those that live off the theft of others to actually stand up and state it is wrong to take from me to give to you.


This is something I think about often actually. I get assistance from others so I should spend that money as responsibly as possible. No where in my posts will you have seen me state that I should get more, I certainly have my thoughts on the matter but I'm not in the proper position to make that argument, everyone always feels they deserve more than they do. The only hypocrisy here is that we laugh at welfare recipients who ask for more but don't give it a second thought when an employee demands more for their job.

Getting assistance (however little it is) doesn't impact my thoughts on safety nets. I still believe in them, and did before I got assistance. They're there to help people. Again we can look at it in financial terms. If I didn't get any help I wouldn't be able to goto college. Because of going to college I'm learning skills that will earn me more money in the future which increases my overall contribution to society. If I got nothing I could work a minimum wage job my entire life and maybe pay $2300/yr into taxes. Over a 52 year work span that's $119,600 paid into the system. Alternatively I can get some help now to the tune of about $6000/year and be able to goto school. So far I've gotten about $42,000 in assistance minus the income taxes I paid in I'm at about $34,000 taken from the system. By the time I finish school that will be around $46,000. On the other hand the jobs I'm going for have an entry level of $80,000/year so I'll be paying in $22,000 per year (we'll assume I never get a raise to keep things constant). So the government comes out ahead if I can pay $165,601 into the system in 40 years of work. That happens after 7.5 years meaning that by paying to give me some help now I can pay in more over my lifetime. That's a good deal for society as it means everyone else is paying slightly less.


originally posted by: Aazadan
WOW. Much hypocrisy here.
So, the people fled a country to get away from tyranny and taxation only to create a country that was based on the opposite….just so Progressives could turn it back into what was fled from.
A safety net was not part of the construct. “Safety net” is a really nice term for a collective Govt program.


Safety nets didn't exist because they were in large part unneeded. Jobs were plentiful. Tyranny is the idea that what is legal for the government is not legal for the people. And before you bring it up, no taxes are not tyranny. We specifically authorize the collection of taxes. Tyranny is the government pulling a man out of his car and beating him for no reason and no charge. Then the officer getting a reward for that behavior. Taxation wasn't something we fled, taxes were higher after forming a country than before. Liberty on an individual level is having the freedom to make bad decisions. Buying a 64 oz soda, or having access to a firearm even though you may be planning to use it. These things are examples of liberty.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
You, or anyone else have yet to provide me with the framers laws surrounding such a thing. You know, that Govt based welfare.

They set the stage for everything else that the Constitution addresses, but I guess forgot to include the laws and policies for Govt handouts....Damn them and their forgetfulness.......


They also didn't specify anything about a minimum wage which also falls under the idea of general Welfare. The constitution is not some list of commandments, it's a rather porous object that allows for interpretation, addition, and subtraction.

It also happens to be a critically flawed document because it doesn't address interactions between individuals and corporations.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
SNAP cards can't buy alcohol. Sure there's ways around it like trading your benefits for cash, but the majority of cases involve people paying for beer out of what little luxury money they have.

And I said they pay cash for these things. Please, re-read my statement.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Is it your opinion that you should be able to dictate what if any luxuries a person gets because you're the one giving them money?

If one is living of the tax payer, then yeah. If the Govt is going to take from me, to give to others, that person did not work to earn it. They were given it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Does your opinion also follow that an employer should be allowed to dictate what their employees buy with their money?

Seeing as I EARNED my paycheck for work performed, your comparison is not valid.

originally posted by: Aazadan
People make bad choices, I was in the grocery store the other day and saw someone most likely on welfare with a shopping cart full of sugary cereals, lunchables, and coke. Is that what I would buy with the money? Not at all. Part of living in a free society however is that people need to be free to make bad decisions that others don't approve of. Actually, that's pretty much the definition of a free society.

So, let me get this straight. I am not free to keep all of my EARNED money. Yet someone is free to spend the welfare money they get, after stolen from me. This right here is the great Progressive idea. It is always different.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I specified what it means. Security (military and law enforcement) and quality of life issues. Perhaps instead of saying it doesn't mean X over and over you would like to give your opinion as to what it means?

I am pretty sure I already stated it. Security and protection from enemies. Adherence to the Constitution. Following the limited authority granted to the Fed Govt as outlined in the above mentioned document. Not very hard to understand this.

originally posted by: Aazadan
And you're still missing the point that the jobs don't exist. Do you think people choose to live on $700/month because they're lazy? Having job opportunities mean a lot. That aside, the vast majority of food stamp recipients work.

Regardless of what I think, they are responsible for themselves. They need to provide for themselves. Not the Govt by stealing from me.

originally posted by: Aazadan
So you want to set up a system where people are driven to criminal behavior out of necessity to survive?

So, criminal actions are the only way they can survive. Guess it would remove a lot of people that don’t belong in “society” then. I mean, we can’t have criminals running around, robbing people.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Aren't you the type that says you'll do anything to protect your family? If you have no income and everyone is going to bed hungry what are you going to do? Wait for jobs to appear or take action?

All actions have consequences. Robbing and stealing is not something that is justified because someone is poor or hungry.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Welfare happens when jobs either don't pay fair wages or don't exist. Currently both are true.

Noooo. Welfare happens when the Govt assumes the role of the provider to people, so Govt can gain favor. Buying votes mostly.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Fine we'll use your term. Killing. According to every major religion in the world the main tenet is that you shouldn't kill.

Please, before you embarrass yourself, go and actually learn what religions state about self-defense. Even Gandhi was for self-defense.

originally posted by: Aazadan
We have a high percentage of Christians here in the US. If they're going to adhere to their faith what are they supposed to do?

Ahh, too late. Go research a bit and come back.

originally posted by: Aazadan
What you're pushing for is a society where the need to violently defend yourself is commonplace. The majority of people don't want to live in such a society, and those religion people who take the act of not killing seriously simply can't live in a violent society.

Self-defense can come in many forms. If killing someone is the only option in defense of your life, there is no issue. I can’t help if you think allowing yourself to be a victim and rolling over is okay. You are free to act accordingly, but expecting others to do this is a disgusting display of ignorance and the idea that you have the authority over others.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Look at countries like Iceland and Norway, they have VERY low crime. Iceland even has guns. The reason violent crime is low is because people have a reason to live and get on with their life, largely due to social safety nets.

And the US is neither of those places. If you like them, you are free to move there. Or, just like every other Progressive, you will push and force everyone else to move towards it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
It's something you agree to when you choose to be a US citizen. Taxes and Eminent Domain are part of the constitution which is our contract between ourselves and our government. Government is made up by the people, but we the people also give it the authority to act. It's not some powerless entity, we specifically empowered it to have authority over us.

So, can you show me where the Fed Govt has to authority granted by the Constitution to institute not only Federal income tax, but welfare tax as well? And if it does, why did it take so long after the creation of the Country/Govt to act upon such things?


originally posted by: Aazadan
And what do you call giving people no choice other than to lash out violently? It may not be a mobile firing squad but it's an execution just the same when you take away all of a persons options and then kill them for using the only option they have left.

So, poor people have freedom of choice removed??That is odd. As I look out my window and see people making choices all the time. You just think that the poor will have no choice other than to rob and steal. What a lowly and afoul way to think and judge your fellow human.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Why do labels, especially progressive matter so much to you? Isn't that the Alinsky model? To control the discussion through labels? You can think of me as whatever you want, I don't really care other than to say you're wrong. Beyond that do you want to discuss ideas or do you want to label and say progressiveism (as a blanket term for anything you disagree with) is wrong at every point?

If what you spout and march to is such……

Cont..



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
There's a big difference between an entry level job and a dead end job. What we have are dead end jobs. It has nothing to do with wanting it now. It has to do with seeing a future for yourself 10 years down the road. What great aspirations does a barista get to have? Assistant manager? The person who opens or closes the building? Those are the jobs we have in this country, and some areas (such as mine) don't even have that.

So, it is now my responsibility to financially carry the burden of someone that has yet to change their own life and job to work their way into a career??? So, I guess I get to dictate as to what job/career they go into. I mean…if they get to use the money taken from me, I get a say in how they use it. As for your area not having jobs?? May I suggest you use the 2 feet God blessed you with, and do something about it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Working for it only works when there's something to work towards. Have you seen the statistics on college graduates who cannot get a job? It's pretty damning.

When you major in underwater basket weaving, Russian literature or an MBA like millions of others, what is expected??? Oh, that’s right….you think that just having a piece of paper means you get a job.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Your wage comes from your customers. Your business generates no money without them. There is no widget or model that magically generates money from nothing (unless you're a bank). Instead it always comes from someone else. The fact that you're a successful business owner and don't even grasp concepts like this or even basic psychology is mind boggling to me. Then again it's just more proof that business success is all about luck rather than individual ability.

Really?? Another Socialist take on business.
My wage comes from my employer’s ability to sell said widget/service.
My companies’ monies come from our ability to sell a product/service to a customer.


originally posted by: Aazadan
This is something I think about often actually. I get assistance from others so I should spend that money as responsibly as possible. No where in my posts will you have seen me state that I should get more, I certainly have my thoughts on the matter but I'm not in the proper position to make that argument, everyone always feels they deserve more than they do. The only hypocrisy here is that we laugh at welfare recipients who ask for more but don't give it a second thought when an employee demands more for their job.

Are you really comparing a person taking welfare to a person working a job??
What exactly is that welfare person doing for that check??? Oh I forgot. We are paying them not to rob and steal.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Getting assistance (however little it is) doesn't impact my thoughts on safety nets. I still believe in them, and did before I got assistance. They're there to help people. Again we can look at it in financial terms. If I didn't get any help I wouldn't be able to goto college. Because of going to college I'm learning skills that will earn me more money in the future which increases my overall contribution to society. If I got nothing I could work a minimum wage job my entire life and maybe pay $2300/yr into taxes. Over a 52 year work span that's $119,600 paid into the system. Alternatively I can get some help now to the tune of about $6000/year and be able to goto school. So far I've gotten about $42,000 in assistance minus the income taxes I paid in I'm at about $34,000 taken from the system. By the time I finish school that will be around $46,000. On the other hand the jobs I'm going for have an entry level of $80,000/year so I'll be paying in $22,000 per year (we'll assume I never get a raise to keep things constant). So the government comes out ahead if I can pay $165,601 into the system in 40 years of work. That happens after 7.5 years meaning that by paying to give me some help now I can pay in more over my lifetime. That's a good deal for society as it means everyone else is paying slightly less.

So again, it is good to take from me, to give to you so you can go to school to maybe get a job paying the listed salary?
I guess I couldn’t have any better plans with MY earned money than to have the Govt remove it from me, take a large portion just for being the Govt and then giving you the left overs.


originally posted by: Aazadan
Safety nets didn't exist because they were in large part unneeded. Jobs were plentiful.


Sooo, they weren’t needed when the country was founded because there were plenty of jobs…Honestly, where and how do you come up with this crap.
So, if the safety net wasn’t something that was needed, how was it written into the founding documents if they didn’t know what they didn’t know.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Tyranny is the idea that what is legal for the government is not legal for the people. And before you bring it up, no taxes are not tyranny. We specifically authorize the collection of taxes. Tyranny is the government pulling a man out of his car and beating him for no reason and no charge. Then the officer getting a reward for that behavior. Taxation wasn't something we fled, taxes were higher after forming a country than before. Liberty on an individual level is having the freedom to make bad decisions. Buying a 64 oz soda, or having access to a firearm even though you may be planning to use it. These things are examples of liberty.

Oh, so because taxes are okay with you, as they benefit you directly and who would turn away Santa Clause, they are not Tyranny.
What was the revolt about again???Hmmm, seems taxation was a big part…Maybe.

So, since Tyranny, as you stated is basically the Govt being able to do something, and not the people…I can tax the Govt then?

You really need to rethink your basis on these things and come back with something better.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

They also didn't specify anything about a minimum wage which also falls under the idea of general Welfare.

When was this minimum wage thing instituted again?? I mean, if the Founders had that as their thought, it would have been placed into the laws.



originally posted by: Aazadan
The constitution is not some list of commandments, it's a rather porous object that allows for interpretation, addition, and subtraction.

You have got to be joking....
Okay okay, ya got me. I truly had thought you weren't the Progressive you have shown to be, but this is the clarifying statement.
The Constitution/BOR is in fact the rules/laws as to what the Federal Govt is allowed to do.
If you don't like them, then please work to have the outlined process, stated within the Document(s), and change them.


originally posted by: Aazadan
It also happens to be a critically flawed document because it doesn't address interactions between individuals and corporations.

And that is a great story to tell others.
There is a process to change the Constitution. Or is that porous and outdated as well?



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
This is a decision that will directly affect me.

I receive EBT and am on Medicaid. The government has deemed me 'fit to work with only minor restrictions,' so I am not eligible for disability. The EBT funds are held in a JP Morgan Chase account (red flag). Statistically, I am lumped in with all of the judgment and apathy directed towards the poor. When I tell my story, the lines quickly change to claims that I am not the type of person they are talking about and that programs like disability were made specifically for people like me. I will see these same people turn right around and continue their demonization of people like me with their next breath.

This becomes even more disheartening when family members start to say things like "the government has deemed you fit to work, its lazy people like you that are ruining our nation."

We are tearing each other apart due to a paradigm that was designed to do exactly that!

Our current system, even our society as a whole, is designed to foster dependence and division. The only way to fix it is to implement a new type of outlook on handling issues. The general approach of dependence, apathy, and contrarianism is a direct and expected goal that is designed to make us spend our time denigrating others rather than actively cooperating to create a more perfect union.

And looking at threads like this, facebook, and many other discussions.. it is a smashing success. Some credit must be given to 'TPTB.' They are called inept by many, but that's exactly what they want people to call them. I am starting to believe that any change for the 'better' will be more effective if TPTB steer us in that direction themselves. The general population is far too busy bickering, and they should have just as much interest in it as everyone else.

All that they, and we, have to do is realize that wealth is better defined through quality of life than the size of the disparity between bank accounts. As it stands, we have been programmed to perceive the middle man (fiat money) as the core of our society and economy rather than the real world value it should represent.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
And I said they pay cash for these things. Please, re-read my statement.


So if they're paying cash what's the problem? Someone getting help doesn't suddenly mean every aspect of their life is subject to the approval of you or even the majority of people.


If one is living of the tax payer, then yeah. If the Govt is going to take from me, to give to others, that person did not work to earn it. They were given it.


So a person has to live according to your standards if you give them 1/10 of one cent per month? That's what you're giving each person right now. Actually you're giving them even less than that. Does that miniscule amount of assistance suddenly mean they are beholden to all of your thoughts and beliefs? What about when they get help from someone with totally contradictory viewpoints to your own. What is the person supposed to do? At best the person can only satisfy one of you.


Seeing as I EARNED my paycheck for work performed, your comparison is not valid.


People who get disability worked for that too. Disability is essentially an insurance payout, if you've paid X into the system and become unable to work, you get help. Are you against insurance providers now as well?


So, let me get this straight. I am not free to keep all of my EARNED money. Yet someone is free to spend the welfare money they get, after stolen from me. This right here is the great Progressive idea. It is always different.


You're free to spend all of your after tax income however you want. The same as everyone else.


I am pretty sure I already stated it. Security and protection from enemies. Adherence to the Constitution. Following the limited authority granted to the Fed Govt as outlined in the above mentioned document. Not very hard to understand this.


Wait let me get this straight. You think the phrase "general welfare" means adherence to the Constitution and limited authority? And I'm the one who makes things up?


Regardless of what I think, they are responsible for themselves. They need to provide for themselves. Not the Govt by stealing from me.


So you're perfectly willing to give them jobs then? Start hiring. You can start with me. I have multiple college degrees and a strong computer background between programming, web design/development, graphic design, and even a good deal of hardware knowledge. I work cheap, but you'll have to give me a bonus to relocate as I simply don't have the funds to do it.

Or are you all talk but when it comes time for action it's someone elses job?


So, criminal actions are the only way they can survive. Guess it would remove a lot of people that don’t belong in “society” then. I mean, we can’t have criminals running around, robbing people.


Again basic psychology. This time it's the nature vs nuture argument. When you put people in an environment that encourages criminal behavior (in this case by making it the only viable option) people become criminals even though in other circumstances they could be productive upstanding citizens.


All actions have consequences. Robbing and stealing is not something that is justified because someone is poor or hungry.


So those without jobs should just accept their fates and quietly starve to death?


Noooo. Welfare happens when the Govt assumes the role of the provider to people, so Govt can gain favor. Buying votes mostly.


The government doesn't have to step in and provide if private business is upholding their part of the deal. In fact, if private business is making every day life for people lucrative the government can't step in because there's nothing of substance that they can offer.


Please, before you embarrass yourself, go and actually learn what religions state about self-defense. Even Gandhi was for self-defense.


Mine says I'm not even allowed to kill a fly. So does Christianity for that matter. The clause for self defense (which Christianity taught as turning the other cheek btw) generally applies to the idea that by killing you are saving life. This assumes that if you don't kill a person, that person is going to go on to kill two more people. Even then it is generally frowned upon because you're taking the future choice of to kill or not to kill away from that individual.


And the US is neither of those places. If you like them, you are free to move there. Or, just like every other Progressive, you will push and force everyone else to move towards it.


Suddenly it's a progressive idea to want to live in a society where violent rebellion is almost unheard of? What do you want the country to be? A wild west utopia where gunfights in the streets are common and you don't dare leave the city limits at night because of bandits? Why is your ideal version of the US any more valid than mine?


So, can you show me where the Fed Govt has to authority granted by the Constitution to institute not only Federal income tax, but welfare tax as well? And if it does, why did it take so long after the creation of the Country/Govt to act upon such things?


Welfare tax? The constitution gives congress the authority to tax and spend. The income tax comes from these powers but is also specifically mentioned in the 16th amendment. It was added because of the immense expense of WW1, however when the war was over it wasn't repealed. Funny thing back then, they actually increased taxes in times of heightened spending in order to avoid deficits and debt.


So, poor people have freedom of choice removed??That is odd. As I look out my window and see people making choices all the time. You just think that the poor will have no choice other than to rob and steal. What a lowly and afoul way to think and judge your fellow human.


I've been homeless before, I've also been in the situation where I had to stretch $5 to cover a months worth of meals and it wasn't all that long ago, just a few years. I've also been in the situation where that pesky need to eat required me to attend free church dinners (I'm still in that situation), all they require is the constant acceptance, thanks, and worship of a god I don't believe in. Good times.

Also I can say this from personal experience, I have stolen food before to avoid starvation. I've done some pretty bad things in the name of being able to eat. I'm a pretty average person certainly nothing special. If I'll do it, so will many others. There have been thousands of studies and hundreds of real world examples that have proven this notion as well.


If what you spout and march to is such……


In other words you don't want to discuss. You simply want to label and dictate.
edit on 28-8-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

It is futile. No argument, no reasoning, and no facts will change his mind.

Some of those who work hard have fell for the propaganda that is being used to fuel class ware fare. It is easy to blame a poor person with no job, with a different color skins on being the evil lazy entity responsible for the failures of the economy and tax structure.

Meanwhile the fat cats get fatter and laugh all the way to the bank.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join