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.

 

Under Obama, More Lucrative For Single Mom To Earn $29K Than $69K ?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


i dont agree with aggressive taxation,
but riddle me this,

if the bank bailouts are a major source of debt,
is it not the source of debt that requires more taxes ever year,

wealfare payment bearly keep up with inflation,
but year after year the interest on the debt goes up,

why not focus on the biggest source of debt interest increase,
instead of solo mums?

xploder




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by neo96
 


i dont agree with aggressive taxation,
but riddle me this,

if the bank bailouts are a major source of debt,
is it not the source of debt that requires more taxes ever year,

wealfare payment bearly keep up with inflation,
but year after year the interest on the debt goes up,

why not focus on the biggest source of debt interest increase,
instead of solo mums?

xploder


First off the "bank bailouts" paid back as in tarp. the largest source of debt in this country is student loans-1 trillion, SS,Medicare,Medicare, and the program called welfare.

Since Fdr going up to Johnson everything done "to eradicate" poverty in this country as expanded it SS,Medicare,and Medicaid do not keep up with inflation, then when one figures in how that inflation occurs is because of the Federal Government who prints that money they own, and devalues it.

Then figure in as the population of those programs age the cost increases that compounded by the effect from "inflation" and then to cover the expense that is not being paid for by tax revenue they try to add more people in.

First in first out the classic ponzi scheme where support of that argument could easily be found with the attempt of the current administration to put more suckers in to that system that could not already be paid for which added more people that still can't pay for the services they receive off the backs of a minority "raise the taxes on the rich'. which still can't pay for those programs.

social engineering is the greatest source of debt, and job destruction in this country.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by neo96
 

why not focus on the biggest source of debt interest increase,
instead of solo mums?


Because in America we tend to treat the symptom, not the cause. We see poverty, we shop at the same stores that SNAP recipients shop at, our kids go to the same schools. We drive on the same roads.

We don't see the yachts, the private planes, the private schools, the grocery delivery services, we don't shop at the expensive stores. We don't ask about what we don't see. We don't question how much in taxes the wealthiest among us pay, we don't think about those off-shore accounts that millionaires use.

When we do see it we look at it with envy or admiration. When we see a single mother using food stamps we don't envy her. There's no thought of what a great job she's doing. We see her using our money to buy her children food. We don't see millions of dollars being lost to tax havens on islands we'll never set foot on.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


There is no good jobs.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Well I want to know where they come up with that on $29k you can get $40k in benefits. Cause when I worked for the man before starting my own business, I was only making $24k a year and I was not eligible for any government benefits whatsoever through the fed or the state. Food stamps, no, had to make less than $9k. Welfare, no had to make less than $11k.

Maybe they mean child support benefits? That's more likely. I could see a single mother getting twice her wage in child support, easy. I have a friend who pays child support to his ex-wife and it's ridiculous. He grosses $375 a week paycheck and $250 of it goes to child support. He can't pay his bills and lives in poverty no matter how hard he works at 40 hours a week. Before you go on the deadbeat dad rants, it's not his fault that his ex-wife had an affair on him and divorced him. Kids were old enough to choose who to live with and chose mom because her boy toy is rich and has a huge house. Of course it's boy toys money, not the mother's, if it was he wouldn't have to pay child support. Not turning this into a woman vs men rant either. My wife pays child support to her exhusband as well (she has custody of 1 kid and he has other) and she makes more money so she has to pay him. It's rape... I am ok with child support but for them to take all your money from you when you know damn well the receiving party of the money isn't using it on the kids any way is just sick.

uhh how did i get on this rant anyway. sorry 3:36 am am super tired
edit on 15-7-2012 by WP4YT because: h



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Uh uh.

I don't think so.

Just one little problem.

In the first post you made, if you look more closely, there's a difference of only $282.

Nice try though. I see what you've tried to do and I know that you've been snitching to mods about my posts. I'm on to your game.


One more thing: You're better off working than collecting anything from the government, with all their silly rules and restrictions. If you're not "poor enough" you will be up # creek without a paddle.
edit on 15-7-2012 by The Sword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
personally, I don't mind helping the poor and needy people in society.
my problem comes in when they are lifting the standard of living for those people ABOVE what I could achieve with my income. I know for a fact that this was happening in the 90's, and well, according to the information in the op, it is still happening, only the numbers are much, much larger!! and I believe the gap between they amount that is defines the needy, and the need (the amount that is given out) is much larger!
regardless of weather you are very much against the social safety net or very much pro safety net, weather you agree with these numbers or think they are inflated (I hope the heck they are inflated!!!), you should agree, this gap shouldn't exists! people shouldn't be working hard, just so those who aren't working as hard as them can have a better standard of living as they are able to provide for their own families!! if the poor are able to obtain healthcare, then every one of the taxpayers who aren't defined as poor should also be able to obtain the same quality of healthcare! if the poor are being provided with the means to obtain three well balanced meals a day, so should the taxpayers, if the poor can be provided decent housing with adequate plumbing and sewage systems, so shouldn't the taxpayers who are footing the bill!!!
for it to be like it is has to be causing some negative repercussions...
it's more advantageous to kick your bread winning husband out onto the streets and rely on his child support and the gov't handouts to provide for your kids....and not work...
and, if those numbers are correct, well, it seems to indicate that the inflation rate of the basic necessities (those things that are provided through the gov;t programs) is far above the rate that we are giving by the economists! we have college degreed professional women now leaving the workforce because they are finding it more economically feasible to just stay home! thier checks are barely making the cost of them working and in some cases might not be!!
this shouldn't be a debate as to weather or not there should be a safety net, but rather, how in the world can we come up with a way to eliminate that gap! the total value of the benefits needs to be held in line with the amount that is determined to be defined as needy. which, considering that these benefits are coming from a number of different agencies, well, once wrote letters to various elected officials including the governor of NY, the president, members of congress, and member of the state legislator asking them what the value of all those benefits were. I made sure that the people I wrote to were from both sides of the political arena.. the answers I got weren't even close to the facts, as near as I could determine what the facts were. I kind of came to the conclusion that they didn't even know what they were!!!

eliminate all the different programs, and replace them with one programs, then you know for sure how much you are giving. then make and honest attempt to determine what is needed in this country to live, that's the benefit amount, add a little to it to reflect taxes and the expenses incurred for working (which shouldn't be hard to do, since when the welfare mom goes to work, she is provided with extra cash that they say is for these expenses, and that should be the guideline for eligibility. and then give the states the freedom to adjust them based on the actual costs in their own states....with the requirement that the amounts are kept in line with each other!!



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I know of a handful of people who "fall" into this category. People who benefit from NOT being as productive as they could potentially be.
It is a common practice of lower-middle class citizens to use gov't stroking techniques to acquire benefits and boost ones income. While actually going out and getting a better job, and make more money is considered too much work.
People will always pick the easiest available methods for achieving their goals. Especially, when everyone around them accepts the premise.
Peace~



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a lady I once worked with was a single mom. she knew exactly how much overtime she could work before they would cut her child's healthcare. and well, she never worked more than those hours, since well, the amount of money that little bit of extra money made her would not replace what she would lose.
heck even with our tax structure, how many people won't work over so many hours of overtime knowing that if they do, it will throw them into a higher tax bracket and they will end up bringing home less money than if they just worked the 40 hours.

I am not gonna claim that there isn't people out there that are just choosing benefits over work, but I would guess there are many, many more that are choosing to work less, so they can have more. and well can't say that I blame them if the more includes healthcare that they wouldn't have otherwise, or a meal every day instead of every other day, ect.

but, wouldn't it be nice to live in the world where we aren't penalized for being as productive as we can be to the point were we are left with less if we do??



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join