Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Large pizza no way. I'm not sure where he lives but I've seen a steady rise in property tax and insurance costs.I don't know what state you live in or how their structure their budget, but property taxes
If I trusted my government on spending and they managed what (no oversight) they spent and controlled waste, I wouldn't mind an increase in taxes.If you have budget problems, you either need to cut spending or raise taxes (usually both).
Because charities do not create successful countries.Why not?
Name one successful country that acts as a charity.Says who?
Yes because the public services aid in the creation of success for the communities which then create jobs, money wealth goods etc for the populace. The services do not give and get nothing in return for the communities. Without roads people couldn't go to work, food and goods wouldn't be transported to the communities, the jobs created for people that move upon the roadways which in turn pay taxes. There is give me take and the building of an economy in all of this. That fact that you make a statement like that is quite concerning.As opposed to… a public service or a public good? That’s exactly how many government services operate. Not every road is a toll road, is it?
I think you are having difficulties with the difference between charity and a functional thriving economic system which in turn helps create a strong society and country.So, government isn’t supposed to be a charity but it is supposed to be a startup incubator?
I have little confidence that whatever you dig up will show that the welfare systems as they are create success.Should I dig up the economic multiplier effects of different forms of government spending that show that payments to low income people like SNAP have the best returns? You are demonstrably wrong.
Then I guess we ought to just put him to sleep. After all he's gone past his usefulness date. He earned nothing for his years of effort.He’s retired, pays no income tax, and spends less on property taxes than you would a pizza (his comparison). That’s literally being a drain on other people.
I didn't do anything that at 9 pm that's for sure. But I was about 13 when I got my first job working a few hours a week cleaning and mowing.Man, I made a good chunk of change mowing lawn in my trailer park around that age. I'd go to the store and buy chips and Mr. Pibb and of course fuel.
Not until they learn how to budget and not waste my money. Just throwing good money after bad is not the answer.If I trusted my government on spending and they managed what (no oversight) they spent and controlled waste, I wouldn't mind an increase in taxes.
It's only your opinion that matter? SNAP has a work requirement or is that not good enough for the right.I have little confidence that whatever you dig up will show that the welfare systems as they are create success.
What is the right doing about spending besides kicking the can, I've heard it to long but here you are beating your tribal drum. If you knew how dangerous the debt is, you'd be in your politician's ear instead of these forums. I guess to be ignorant is bliss for both the left and right.Good luck with either one of those, let alone both.
John Boehner's Congress tried to hilariously "cut the rate of spending"- still an increase, just not what they wanted; President Obama said that it was "taking a chainsaw to the budget", and the press lapped it up.
Neither does hungry people and homelessness. We'll eventually look like a third world country.
Because charities do not create successful countries.
Name one successful country that acts as a charity.
Yes because the public services aid in the creation of success for the communities which then create jobs, money wealth goods etc for the populace. The services do not give and get nothing in return for the communities. Without roads people couldn't go to work, food and goods wouldn't be transported to the communities, the jobs created for people that move upon the roadways which in turn pay taxes. There is give me take and the building of an economy in all of this. That fact that you make a statement like that is quite concerning.
I think you are having difficulties with the difference between charity and a functional thriving economic system which in turn helps create a strong society and country.
Without roads people couldn't go to work
food and goods wouldn't be transported to the communities
How would you define "success"? Reducing poverty? Improving health outcomes? Improving income/wealth later in life?I have little confidence that whatever you dig up will show that the welfare systems as they are create success.
Then I guess we ought to just put him to sleep. After all he's gone past his usefulness date. He earned nothing for his years of effort.
I don't think you have any idea what government support is capable of. Show me a successful government that doesn't support its people.You seem to really be struggling with the charity vs a productive successful economic system that creates wealth and success for the greatest number of people and creates strong communities.
I believe that there should be a work/school requirement, but I also believe that what may be bought on SNAP needs to be more limited than just it have to be food. SNAP should be limited to the basics that means not junk food ( not including canned food and processed food in that I mean like cookies cakes ECT nor should it (in my opinion include high priced meat like streak and shrimp.)It's only your opinion that matter? SNAP has a work requirement or is that not good enough for the right.
I agree with a lot of what you say there. But regarding the topic of moving, sure it may be hard. But where did most immigrants to America come from before the 20th century? It was VERY hard for most of them and they left very hard circumstances. And many died on their way here. It's not nearly as hard to leave these neighborhoods in the city. I think people have become soft. And yes, that includes me.I mention what I feel part of the problem of the cause of the ever-expanding homelessness problem. You can't compare your blessed situation onto the rest of America. I too am retired, and I have money in the bank and living a blessed life. I reread the article and it's right leaning and bashing Biden but that's not what I'm not trying to do. I've seen homelessness get increasingly worse under both parties. Maybe it stems from our government's ignorance and assumptions like some Americans have.
I won't accept that 100% are lazy or on drugs. I'm curious what portion of opioid addicts became attics due to injury or sugary? I do know persons dealing with emotions are more prone to be addicted, the brains opioid receptors. I wrote a research paper on it in 2018. I also know that doctors prescribed them more freely in the past including the VA.
This does not include me, or should it include any so-called Christians. The ones you have pity for what are you doing for them?
You make it sound so easy; seems you haven't done any critical thing on what keeps those people in the cities they live in.
I know we whine about the problem and that's why nothing ever gets done. I feel in order for us to make suggestions to our politicians we have to educate ourselves to the problems. I suggest us Christian can start buying some of these people cloths so they can look presentable at a job interview.
One way to really bring fairness to the table is to make the government stop giving people money for nothing.The pro-lifers have no idea how anything works. Complaining that charity ought to cover it belies a gross ignorance of the magnitude of the problems.
What we need to do differently is distribute wealth differently. I can't seem to find the paper at the moment, but a few years ago, I read about a simulation showing that, even in a perfectly fair system, imperfections in market pricing (i.e. people charging a little less than they could or paying a little more than they have to) will naturally lead to an oligopoly. It doesn't predict which few entities will wind up with most of the money, just that somebody eventually will. If you want to prevent that, you need to implement measures that actively counteract it.
There are ways to restructure the estate tax so that it protects farms and other valuable-but-illiquid businesses from being shuttered while still also not giving away huge benefits to the already-wealthy. The fact that inheritance resets an investment's cost basis is wild.
I don't know what state you live in or how their structure their budget, but property taxes that low aren't enough to cover the services provided to your property. Congraulations, your mom may not have accepted a welfare check, but you're benefiting from a government subsidy somewhere, even if it's not obvious to you.
The kids have parents that support them. At least, that is the role of parents. Always has been.What job do you recommend for the age group of birth to say 9? I know older kids can mow yards, shovel snow, rake leaves, paper routes (all but extinct) etc... to buy some food, but the younger do what to earn money for food where you are? Or are you just saying the kids deserve to go hungry because their parents won't/don't/can't work? BTW, does your area offer 9-year-olds who mow lawns healthcare that they can afford?
In these cases, necessity is the mother of petty theft/shoplifting at a very young age leading to bigger things later in their lives.
issue is that some parents choose not to or do not do so enough.The kids have parents that support them. At least, that is the role of parents. Always has been.
Depends on what you mean by for nothing some programs are designed for people who HAVE put in the work think SSDI as opposed to SSI. Although as someone who has been on both programs first SSI and then on my late father's SSDI benefits I will say that while both programs could improve SSI NEEDS to improve on how much people actually get for certain.One way to really bring fairness to the table is to make the government stop giving people money for nothing.
soft maybe, but I would not say that everyone can just up and leave.I agree with a lot of what you say there. But regarding the topic of moving, sure it may be hard. But where did most immigrants to America come from before the 20th century? It was VERY hard for most of them and they left very hard circumstances. And many died on their way here. It's not nearly as hard to leave these neighborhoods in the city. I think people have become soft. And yes, that includes me.
So we are expecting citizens to jump trains? Even though my brother-in-law did that to LA from Juarez but really that's not realistic.But where did most immigrants to America come from before the 20th century?
I understand. Not my kids.issue is that some parents choose not to or do not do so enough.
Well, those in the old USSR certainly couldn't. Nor can those in North Korea.soft maybe, but I would not say that everyone can just up and leave.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?