|
|
Post by Karen Bean on Jul 27, 2011 10:35:23 GMT -5
I do not believe that the answer to our problems is getting rid of the illegals in our country. Nor do I buy into the bandwagon of let's blame it all on the illegals. John, you're right - a vastly great number of American citizens that are on welfare do not want to work at all no matter what the job. This is going to continue unless we start fixing what's broken here and quit pointing fingers at others.
I am a firm believer that in everyone needs some help in some form at some time in their lives. None of us have ever or will ever be able to stand on our own feet 100% for every day of our life. We all have needed or will need a little help no matter how young or old. I support helping those truly in need and have no problem in doing so. But our system is horribly flawed in that we allow them to take the help and then basically ignore them and go on to the next person. We're like a drug dealer - give them the product, get them hooked. Only difference is we don't make money off of them.
Everyone on welfare should have to work. I don't care if it's mowing and weedeating the medians in the highways, sweeping city streets, working in soup kitchens, etc. There should be set places/stations within every city of every state that these welfare recipients must report to every day and they are then transported to a job. At the end of the day, they are brought back to the station and go home. Earn the money we are paying them. Nothing hard about that - we all have done or are still doing it.
We should also utilize the state owned land that sits idle. Every state in this country owns land and they do nothing with it. Plant crops and put these welfare recipients to work there. Not only earn money for the state by having a state "farmers market" but also have people earning their money.
We need to get out of this finger pointing and blame game and make serious changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Jul 27, 2011 10:55:22 GMT -5
I do not believe that the answer to our problems is getting rid of the illegals in our country. Nor do I buy into the bandwagon of let's blame it all on the illegals. John, you're right - a vastly great number of American citizens that are on welfare do not want to work at all no matter what the job. This is going to continue unless we start fixing what's broken here and quit pointing fingers at others. I am a firm believer that in everyone needs some help in some form at some time in their lives. None of us have ever or will ever be able to stand on our own feet 100% for every day of our life. We all have needed or will need a little help no matter how young or old. I support helping those truly in need and have no problem in doing so. But our system is horribly flawed in that we allow them to take the help and then basically ignore them and go on to the next person. We're like a drug dealer - give them the product, get them hooked. Only difference is we don't make money off of them. Everyone on welfare should have to work. I don't care if it's mowing and weedeating the medians in the highways, sweeping city streets, working in soup kitchens, etc. There should be set places/stations within every city of every state that these welfare recipients must report to every day and they are then transported to a job. At the end of the day, they are brought back to the station and go home. Earn the money we are paying them. Nothing hard about that - we all have done or are still doing it. We should also utilize the state owned land that sits idle. Every state in this country owns land and they do nothing with it. Plant crops and put these welfare recipients to work there. Not only earn money for the state by having a state "farmers market" but also have people earning their money. We need to get out of this finger pointing and blame game and make serious changes. GREAT post. Welfare should be a supplement to earned income based on a median poverty income goal. For example, if today Welfare pays a person to have the same standard of living as someone who makes $30,000 per year for a family of 4 (based on your area), then that's the income goal. Welfare should make up the difference between what a person earns and that $30,000. This should also be based on hours worked. If you only average 20 hours work per week, then welfare makes up the difference to $15,000. No work, no welfare. Minimum wage is a horrible idea. Minimum wage is just welfare paid for by private industry. Any adult making minimum wage is not in need of more money per hour, they are in need of job skills. Everyone starts at the bottom. It's up to you to develop skills worth more. When you start at McDonald's making $5 an hour, you should learn as much as possible to become a shift lead, supervisor, etc. Low pay is the incentive to improve yourself. If someone is a special-needs case and will be working for peanuts, then the above mentioned welfare rule will make up the difference based on hours worked to get them to the living wage poverty line. If a person cannot work due to mental or physical illness, that's what Social Security and Disability are for. The truly disabled are the only people I believe our society has an obligation to as a civilized society. |
|
|
|
Post by Anthony Edens on Jul 27, 2011 11:28:33 GMT -5
Illegal immigration is actually a secondary cause of the downfall of our system/country. Americans are simply entitled to too much. Do you know what public education costs? "Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area" per year per child. That is just one service that we are entitled to as citizens. I can guarantee you that the average family with 2 children in public schools is not paying $24-$54,000 a year in taxes. We think it is everyone else's responsibility to take care of our elderly parents. The annual average cost of a nursing home has reached $57,000. My local school board now offers preschool for 3 year olds. Depending on where you live and the quality of the preschool, average costs range from $4,460 to $13,158 per year ($372 to $1,100 monthly), according to the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). We all know that healthcare is out of control. With obesity numbers growing every year, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is not sustainable. SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM! www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432www.therubins.com/homes/longterm.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Jul 27, 2011 11:41:14 GMT -5
Illegal immigration is actually a secondary cause of the downfall of our system/country. Americans are simply entitled to too much. Do you know what public education costs? "Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area" per year per child. That is just one service that we are entitled to as citizens. I can guarantee you that the average family with 2 children in public schools is not paying $24-$54,000 a year in taxes. We think it is everyone else's responsibility to take care of our elderly parents. The annual average cost of a nursing home has reached $57,000. My local school board now offers preschool for 3 year olds. Depending on where you live and the quality of the preschool, average costs range from $4,460 to $13,158 per year ($372 to $1,100 monthly), according to the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). We all know that healthcare is out of control. With obesity numbers growing every year, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is not sustainable. SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM! www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11432www.therubins.com/homes/longterm.htmI would agree with the fact that spending is the problem, but the question is what are we spending it on? The education system, for example, is SEVERELY bloated with unnecessary people that are paid way too much. Our government keeps just throwing more money (it's hard to call it money at this point) at the problem instead of actually fixing the problem. Watch the movie The Cartel on Netflix. It talks about the Public school system in New Jersey and how screwed up and corrupt it is. Short clip talking about REAL classroom costs: The reason they will not actually fix these problems is because too many of their "friends" are making too much money off of the corrupt and poorly designed systems. It's ALWAYS about the money.  |
|
|
|
Post by kyledarby on Jul 27, 2011 12:51:50 GMT -5
Karen
Let's just get something straight. This isn't the scapegoat for 100% of our nations problems. But it is a legitimate problem one can't just turn a blind eye too. There have been some good points raised that all share common bonds. Minimium wage exists so unions can flourish. Unions give generous contributions to political campaigns. Politicians regulate wages and labor laws. Politicians gain favor off socialist programs. Voters legal or not support structure that feeds them. Thus the vicious cycle repeats. Some countries won't accept a resident back once they are a convicted fellon. We have lots of these people here. Is that right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Karen Bean on Jul 27, 2011 13:36:08 GMT -5
Kyle, as for needing to "get something straight", I have to say that's a horrible approach to attempt to have dialect with someone.
I did not say that blaming illegals is the scapegoat for 100% of our nations problems. Please go back and read what I wrote. Yes it is a legitimate problem, but it could be dealt with in other avenues than simply posting on message boards bitching that the illegals are causing the downfall of our country.
As for your question as to "is that right", if you are asking do I agree with every single sentence/accusation/opinion you just posted - the answer is no. Do I agree with some - yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony Edens on Jul 27, 2011 14:24:38 GMT -5
Chris, after reading your post I now think that spending is actually a secondary problem, which would then make illegal immigration a tertiary problem.  The primary problem is having career politicians/too many politicians, i.e. "bloated government". I can appreciate some benefits of having Progressive minded people in office, like nice libraries and parks. On the other hand there are plenty of examples I can give you of wasted money on bad ideas, just from my little town of Somerset. One example: Hal Rogers appropriated over $1Million to subsidize plane tickets from our local "airport" as part of a development plan. For a short period of time they offered flights to D.C., Cincinnati, and Nashville for under $100 one way. The government was paying the other $600 of the tab. We also have a program that subsidizes cell phone service. Why does all of this ridiculous spending continue to happen? The person approving the money (congressman) is hearing from one or two people (lobbyist) from a town far away. The congressman is then reelected because he most likely didn't spend his constituents' money, but was able to provide them with all kinds of goodies. Example: Kentucky Medicaid is 90% funded by the federal government. That means Kentuckians; although 1 in 4 are disabled, only have to pay for 10% of the bill. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Jul 27, 2011 15:06:19 GMT -5
Spending will never get under control without a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Even then, the amount of phoney accounting gimmicks used will make everyone want to vomit. But at least it won't be a credit card with no limit in the hands of 535 shysters and hustlers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony Edens on Jul 27, 2011 15:57:03 GMT -5
Spending will never get under control without a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Even then, the amount of phoney accounting gimmicks used will make everyone want to vomit. But at least it won't be a credit card with no limit in the hands of 535 shysters and hustlers. True. Can someone explain to me in as neutral language as possible what exactly is going on right now between the President and Congress in regards to raising the debt limit? I really haven't been following it. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Jul 27, 2011 16:36:47 GMT -5
Spending will never get under control without a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Even then, the amount of phoney accounting gimmicks used will make everyone want to vomit. But at least it won't be a credit card with no limit in the hands of 535 shysters and hustlers. True. Can someone explain to me in as neutral language as possible what exactly is going on right now between the President and Congress in regards to raising the debt limit? I really haven't been following it. Thanks. In an nutshell, Republicans aren't willing to "decrease" the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy and Democrats aren't willing to "decrease" the deficit by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Also, neither is really touching the Pentagon (Military Industrial Complex's) budget either.  If it were up to me I'd hit all of them, but they aren't willing to bend on their ideologies. I still find it funny that the Republicans are still hanging on to the "trickle down" philosophy. I think the past 4 years have proved that one wrong considering the profits and raises the top 2% have received while we are all struggling. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Jul 27, 2011 17:11:16 GMT -5
It is not 'taxes on the wealthy.' Therein lies the problem. This is being debated using bumper sticker talking points.
"Taxes on the wealthy" according to the Democrats means to increase taxes on anyone who reports $250,000 per year as income. This totally ignores the reality of small business. Anyone who owns a sole proprietorship (S-corp) or operates a business under their own name- that business pays taxes at the personal income tax level. So, if you own a shop or service that does $250,000 per year this will affect you. For a business, that is chicken feed. It means that every one of these businesses will be taxed more. These are the businesses that employ the largest number of people in the US.
You want to talk about stifling business growth and job creation? Start mugging the family businesses and small companies that employ less than 100 people. That's who the Democrats are talking about whenever you hear the term "rich people" as it relates to this debate.
Rich people, TRULY rich people, do not make their money in the form of wages / salaries. Their money is tied up in investments and most of their money comes in the form of residuals from those.
The debt is what now, 14 Trillion? The Government spends 400 BILLION per day MORE than it currently brings in. The 'tax ourselves into wealth' idea is just plain stupid. There are not $400 Billion per day worth of income taxes lying around out there.
Spending cuts are the only way to make even a dent in 400 Billion dollars per day.
I'm all for fixing the tax code. Eliminate it. Flat tax or pure sales tax would be my solution. That way the government only gets my money when I spend it, not before I get it. Eliminate all subsidies and let the market take care of prices.
Republicans are not hung up on "trickle down." That's economics from a Keynesian perspective. Economics is not a zero-sum process the way Keynes imagined it to be, and the way socialism wants it to be.
All tax revenue is the product of:
1. people working
2. products being sold
3. government investments / money markets / T Bills etc
Now, to your point Anthony.
The debt ceiling is a limit Congress imposes on itself. It is the amount of debt Congress says it will not exceed. When the debt limit is reached, borrowing is to be stopped. This is the credit card limit they have chosen for themselves.
The problem is that Congress has been spending out of control for about fifty years. Both parties. We have reached the point where the interest payments on the credit card are bigger than the amount of money you owe on actual stuff you bought. (not really, but the interest is compounded based on FORECASTS of payments over the budget cycle. The same budget the Democrats did not pass for the last two years while they had both houses of congress and the Presidency.)
So now people want to raise the debt ceiling and borrow money to pay the interest we owe on all the money we borrowed earlier.
Sane people would stop spending money.
Raising the debt limit doesn't fix anything, it just keeps Congress able to write checks. Everyone gets paid, even though the bank account is full of IOUs and not actual money. IOUs that China owns.
Barack Obama voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling for George Bush. (And he was right. It should not have been raised then, either. Although I have zero faith he voted NO based on economic principles. How about you?)
The economy is going to crash. Hard. The debt is too high. The cuts Obama keeps balking at amount to less than 4 Trillion over ten years. The current deficit spending will have increased the debt more than the cuts are worth in those ten years.
So, who's playing politics?
Answer: everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hungry Hippo on Jul 27, 2011 21:34:56 GMT -5
I think the President will veto it and raise the ceiling if they don't concur
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Jul 27, 2011 22:51:19 GMT -5
I think the President will veto it and raise the ceiling if they don't concur I agree. I think it's all a ploy to give even MORE power to the Executive Branch. |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Hester on Jul 28, 2011 4:07:20 GMT -5
It is not 'taxes on the wealthy.' Therein lies the problem. This is being debated using bumper sticker talking points. "Taxes on the wealthy" according to the Democrats means to increase taxes on anyone who reports $250,000 per year as income. This totally ignores the reality of small business. Anyone who owns a sole proprietorship (S-corp) or operates a business under their own name- that business pays taxes at the personal income tax level. So, if you own a shop or service that does $250,000 per year this will affect you. For a business, that is chicken feed. It means that every one of these businesses will be taxed more. These are the businesses that employ the largest number of people in the US. You want to talk about stifling business growth and job creation? Start mugging the family businesses and small companies that employ less than 100 people. That's who the Democrats are talking about whenever you hear the term "rich people" as it relates to this debate. Rich people, TRULY rich people, do not make their money in the form of wages / salaries. Their money is tied up in investments and most of their money comes in the form of residuals from those. The debt is what now, 14 Trillion? The Government spends 400 BILLION per day MORE than it currently brings in. The 'tax ourselves into wealth' idea is just plain stupid. There are not $400 Billion per day worth of income taxes lying around out there. Spending cuts are the only way to make even a dent in 400 Billion dollars per day. I'm all for fixing the tax code. Eliminate it. Flat tax or pure sales tax would be my solution. That way the government only gets my money when I spend it, not before I get it. Eliminate all subsidies and let the market take care of prices. Republicans are not hung up on "trickle down." That's economics from a Keynesian perspective. Economics is not a zero-sum process the way Keynes imagined it to be, and the way socialism wants it to be. All tax revenue is the product of: 1. people working 2. products being sold 3. government investments / money markets / T Bills etc Now, to your point Anthony. The debt ceiling is a limit Congress imposes on itself. It is the amount of debt Congress says it will not exceed. When the debt limit is reached, borrowing is to be stopped. This is the credit card limit they have chosen for themselves. The problem is that Congress has been spending out of control for about fifty years. Both parties. We have reached the point where the interest payments on the credit card are bigger than the amount of money you owe on actual stuff you bought. (not really, but the interest is compounded based on FORECASTS of payments over the budget cycle. The same budget the Democrats did not pass for the last two years while they had both houses of congress and the Presidency.) So now people want to raise the debt ceiling and borrow money to pay the interest we owe on all the money we borrowed earlier. Sane people would stop spending money. Raising the debt limit doesn't fix anything, it just keeps Congress able to write checks. Everyone gets paid, even though the bank account is full of IOUs and not actual money. IOUs that China owns. Barack Obama voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling for George Bush. (And he was right. It should not have been raised then, either. Although I have zero faith he voted NO based on economic principles. How about you?) The economy is going to crash. Hard. The debt is too high. The cuts Obama keeps balking at amount to less than 4 Trillion over ten years. The current deficit spending will have increased the debt more than the cuts are worth in those ten years. So, who's playing politics? Answer: everyone. John, you're sexy when you talk that way... Hi John ! |
|
|
|
Post by Anthony Edens on Jul 28, 2011 13:43:47 GMT -5
Thanks Chris and John. Is it also true that Ronald Reagan rose the debt limit 17 times during his presidency? My sister told me that this is what Obama is claiming in his current speeches.
|
|
