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.

 

Donald Trump to hungry seniors: Drop dead

page: 9
64
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I am saying the regular welfare payments that the government hand out each and every week are the reason the economy stays afloat.

That money is vital to keep the gears turning so to speak, just crunch some numbers and you will understand what I mean




posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I am saying the regular welfare payments that the government hand out each and every week are the reason the economy stays afloat.

That money is vital to keep the gears turning so to speak, just crunch some numbers and you will understand what I mean


So if those that did not need welfare had jobs and were earning a income instead of receiving welfare, the economy would crash? That would be a strange set of numbers I would have to crunch to make that work.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12
en.wikipedia.org...


The 2017 United States federal budget is the United States federal budget for fiscal year 2017, which lasts from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017. President Barack Obama's budget proposal was submitted to the 114th Congress on February 9, 2016.[5]

The 2017 fiscal year overlaps the end of the Obama administration and the beginning of the Trump administration, with final appropriations legislation expected to pass during the beginning of the latter. Budget resolutions do not go to the president for a signature or veto.[6][7]

This budget does not directly enact the actual spending of the federal government, but it sets the amounts that each congressional committee is allowed to spend on the programs, agencies, and departments for which it is responsible.

Actual spending is driven by the final appropriations bills.[6] The Obama administration's proposed budget for 2017 proposed spending $4.2 trillion and raising $3.6 trillion in tax revenue.[11] The administration's stated priorities are creating jobs, building 21st century transportation, investing in medical research, addressing climate change, and increased funding for national security.

[12] Congress did not pass a regular budget resolution for the 2017 fiscal year during the 114th Congress,[13] but did so early in the 115th Congress, over three months after the fiscal year had actually begun.[14]



As much as people would love to blame Trump, most of what we face together as a Nation in Crisis was slated long before President Trump stepped into office.

edit on pm531pmSun, 28 May 2017 20:11:43 -0500 by antar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I am saying the regular welfare payments that the government hand out each and every week are the reason the economy stays afloat.

That money is vital to keep the gears turning so to speak, just crunch some numbers and you will understand what I mean


So if those that did not need welfare had jobs and were earning a income instead of receiving welfare, the economy would crash? That would be a strange set of numbers I would have to crunch to make that work.





It's not that complicated.

Remove the welfare money from the economy and see what happens.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: antar




As much as people would love to blame Trump, most of what we face together as a Nation in Crisis was slated long before President Trump stepped into office.


Well, you're getting up there in years. I hope that none of your kids or you get sick and need assistance.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: UKTruth

No, I am saying the regular welfare payments that the government hand out each and every week are the reason the economy stays afloat.

That money is vital to keep the gears turning so to speak, just crunch some numbers and you will understand what I mean





edit on 28-5-2017 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder

Is that the look one has when they are so clueless that simple stuff makes no sense



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder

The government in Australia as an example pay to welfare over 100 billion dollars every year, that money goes to everyday things like food, fuel, clothes, bills etc.

Without that injection of cash how exactly would the economy keep functioning ?

source



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: mtnshredder

Is that the look one has when they are so clueless that simple stuff makes no sense


You do realize that the government takes that money out of the economy before they put it back into the economy? If the government had never removed it in the first place it would still be circulating in the economy, right?



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

Well that half right, yes they take the money and then they redistribute it .



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Khaleesi

Well that half right, yes they take the money and then they redistribute it .


Basically the government takes it cut before 'redistributing' it. Cut out the middle man (government). If those that were able to work were given jobs instead, more of the money would remain in the economy. As an example, I know someone that is quite well off. They pay enough in personal income tax that they could actually hire someone to work for them, but instead that money goes to the government. The government doesn't redistribute 100% of that money. They take their cut. It's a racket imo.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

Its a racket alright.

I mean more along the lines that the money that is redistributed through welfare payments goes directly back into the economy, the people that receive it need the money for daily stuff, if that money was not redistributed to the needy, that money would not end up being spent on essentials. Although the money would technically still be in the economy it would not be spent where it needs to be.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
A solution I've seen a lot of people bring up is have more donations come in from communities, churches, etc., instead of food assistance. I can tell you as someone who volunteers working with the homeless and low income that food banks are hurting more and more. Cuts to senior benefits, etc., with a larger amount of people utilizing food banks, it will strap them more to the point having to close up.

It's posed to affect rural areas, probably even more than cities.


Cuts to SNAP would also place a heavier burden on the Missoula Food Bank, which might be the only option for people if they lose SNAP benefits. The Missoula Food Bank gets most of its funding from donations, and only received $103,938, or 2 percent of its revenue, from federal or state dollars in 2016.
Missoula Food Bank Executive Director Aaron Brock said cutting SNAP funding would shift the burden from the government to local donors. Demand is already growing — between 2015 and 2016, food bank visits increased by 9 percent. Brock expects this to continue should Trump’s budget cuts pass.


source
edit on 28-5-2017 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Khaleesi

Its a racket alright.

I mean more along the lines that the money that is redistributed through welfare payments goes directly back into the economy, the people that receive it need the money for daily stuff, if that money was not redistributed to the needy, that money would not end up being spent on essentials. Although the money would technically still be in the economy it would not be spent where it needs to be.


So if they had jobs making money, they could use the money to pay for the stuff they need. Do you not understand that? I'm not talking about truly disabled people here. Yes, keep supporting them. I'm talking about people that are able to work. Money is money. If they have jobs they have money. If they get welfare, they have money. IF THEY HAVE JOBS, THEY HAVE MONEY without government getting in the middle of it.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I heard from some unamed sources, he's going to force everyone to keep venomous snakes in their beds!! Can you believe the audacity!!



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

If you look at the government link I provided earlier you will see that only a very small percentage of that money is for unemployment benefits, welfare is far broader than simple unemployment.
edit on 28-5-2017 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

A solution I've seen a lot of people bring up is have more donations come in from communities, churches, etc., instead of food assistance. I can tell you as someone who volunteers working with the homeless and low income that food banks are hurting more and more. Cuts to senior benefits, etc., with a larger amount of people utilizing food banks, it will strap them more to the point having to close up. It's posed to affect rural areas, probably even more than cities.

The churches in the area where I live, yes those bastions of evil, go above and beyond, in their efforts to feed the poor and the elderly. They have pantries, meal deliveries, kitchens, even cafes.

I serve on the weekends and on Wednesdays, and any other time that I am called to help out in a pinch. It is sad to see some of the people that used to serve, fall on bad times, and have to use the pantry or bring their children in to eat.

Most of these people would have taken the shirt of their backs to help those in need, but you can't ask them to invite in guest and feed them while they watch their children go hungry.

Of course, you want to treat your guest with preference, but you don't invite in guest if you can't make them feel welcome because your cupboard is bare.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: mtnshredder

Is that the look one has when they are so clueless that simple stuff makes no sense


No.....It's the look you give someone when they're out of their frick'n mind.

Although, based on your logic, I've decided to do my part to help you and the economy out. I'm quitting my job and going on welfare, seems like the right thing to do, no?



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: mtnshredder

Is that the look one has when they are so clueless that simple stuff makes no sense


No.....It's the look you give someone when they're out of their frick'n mind.

Although, based on your logic, I've decided to do my part to help you and the economy out. I'm quitting my job and going on welfare, seems like the right thing to do, no?





Well mate if that's the conclusion you came to you may never understand.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No matter how you slice it, welfare dependency is a drain to society. The more dependent the population, the bigger the burden. Here in America, there's no shortage of people on welfare that shouldn't be.

The whole system needs an overhaul. We need to revamp and rethink our program policies and priorities. There are good and bad policies within any gov program, many of them need to go, but, some form of a meals on wheels program isn't one of them, IMO.



new topics




 
64
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join