165
Limiting welfare to the truly needy : Swingers Discussion 2122481031
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsLimiting welfare to the truly needy
TOPIC: Limiting welfare to the truly needy
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Start   31 to 40 of 44   End
User Details are only visible to members.
Party:

You are correct that all welfare provides the greatest wealth to the wealthiest. This is why I say that they ought to be taxed the most and that those employers (to include stock/share holders) who's employees receive poverty (or near poverty) level wages after a years work ought to be taxed at a 3x rate of what every other employer who pays superior wages.

Why after a year? Because after a year, the employee ought to have been motivated to learn the craft. If they are not, then it is the failing of the employer.

Like children, there are no bad children or workers, only bad teachers. If a child doesn't want to learn, it is because their teachers failed them. May that teacher be the child's first (parents) or the child's current teachers in school.

Hazle Township PA
 
 
Username hidden
(6898 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Just stating the facts lest anyone thinks 'the poor" are the recipients of welfare

Rosemont IL
 
 
Username hidden
(3772 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
This is perhaps too obvious to need saying, but apparently Repubs just can't see it.

Flat Rock NC
 
 
Username hidden
(2984 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Party:

Who are you addressing this to? Because I have stated multiple times that those who are paying minimum wages, those who aren't paying a wage which prevents people from needing social welfare ought to be taxed more for social welfare.

Basically, those who profit from welfare, ought to be taxed more for it. You need only read my post relating to welfare to see this.

Hazle Township PA
 
 
Username hidden
(6898 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
ALL welfare is corporate welfare..The "end users" of welfare are neither the poor, working poor, or lower middle class The end users are the Food industry from production to retail, medicaid health care providers, Property management companies and landlords, high risk high credit durable good stores who offer in house credit, and anyone who has a job. Republicans like to ask "How many jobs did poor people create last year.....the answer: ALL of them Low income people on assistance SPEND every dime they earn and every dime they get from the Government They have no savings and no investments.....EVERY dime goes back into the economy....ask yourself, who bought more milk and bread last year, a low income working single mother of 3, or Ann Romney?

Rosemont IL
 
 
Username hidden
(3772 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Mark:

Forum necrophilia aside.

While you have a point which can be argued from the free market point of view and it is a strong point... Have you tried thinking about the farmers side of this debate?

Sugar prices drop, so too must the farmers prices. Can anyone here actually sit there and tell me that any farmer is paid too much?

If we were to impose a junk food tax to pay for the welfare that the farmers would need, or to retool the farmers so that they can grow corn and other crops... I would be more open to siding with you on this issue.

I like the next sugar addict like my M&Ms, Hershy kisses and other chocolate bars. But too much of a good thing is bad and I don't mind the higher prices for the sugar as the higher prices for junk food has pushed me to eat better foods and make a 9.9 ounce bag of M&M last 4 months, a pack of cookies three weeks, ect...

Lastly the higher prices of sugar will keep people from buying junk food, and force companies to innovate by either creating fake sugars or market better foods for people to eat.

Hazle Township PA
 
 
Username hidden
(6898 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
OK Robert, this is how welfare managed by government actually works. This is nothing but welfare for millionairs. In one of the dumbest, most counter-productive, anti-free market moves in recent history (which is saying a lot), the U.S. government is considering a bailout of the sugar industry. In an effort to prop up sugar prices, which have fallen 18% since October, the USDA is considering buying 400,000 tons of sugar -- or enough to make 142 billion Hersey’s Kisses -- The WSJ reports. Of course, there’s nothing new about government support for the sugar industry: The government has been lending money to sugar producers since the 1934 Sugar Act. But reports of this latest bailout are particularly galling considering the backdrop of a debate in Washington over how to address the nation’s long-term deficit and the ongoing “War on Obesity” being waged by policymakers. through Medicare and Medicaid, according to The Altarum Institute. “The current rate of growth for these programs is not sustainable as it crowds out other priorities, such as infrastructure needs or education,” says the Institute, which is directed by health care economist Dr. Charles Roehrig. Thus, it boggles the mind why the White House would even consider, must less support, further bailouts of the sugar industry. I get that jobs are at stake – 142,000 according to the American Sugar Alliance – and that government subsidies help keep the cost of sugar down, reducing costs to strapped U.S. consumers.

Tulare CA
 
 
Username hidden
(1880 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
TBR:

I will agree with you to a point. My family still spends about 1/3 of our income on food. (No sodas, limited junk food.)

But I will agree that you cannot be comparing our status in the US with the status with other nations like the 3rd world. Not unless your intent is to reduce the economy of the US to the third world... In that case one must ask the question of your loyalty to your countryman and the nation itself and why you would see both become a third world nation? Are you trying to destroy the country?

Hazle Township PA
 
 
Username hidden
(6898 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well, this will take a while...

First, IMHO, one would have to establish that the poverty line is a valid measure of poverty.

Many economists don't think so.

While it is true that the poor in this country have incomes much higher than most of the rest of the world, poverty is measured as a relative measure. That is, poverty is measured as the ability of a person to survive in the country that they live in. People can live on $100 a month in the Philippines, for example, but could never do so here...

Then there is the measure itself. Molly Orshansky, who worked for the Social Security Administration, devised the current poverty measures in 1963 by taking the existing "Thrifty Food Plan" and tripling it, because it was her contention that a family spent 1/3 of their income on food.

Many items that people spend their income on today were not considered in the guidelines. For example, child care is not considered, because in 1963 there were few families with two working adults. Also, food has gotten so cheap in relation to other expenses that families now spend only 1/6th of their income on food.

So, at best, the current poverty measures are only useful as a year to year comparison of some poor people, and not really as a measure of how much it takes to actually live in this country...

More later...

Lakeside CA
 
 
Username hidden
(17278 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Shakes his head and moves on.

Saint Louis MO
 
 
Username hidden
(12439 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Start   31 to 40 of 44   End
TOPIC: Limiting welfare to the truly needy