I find it very sad that posters who participate in one of the most expensive sports, love to walk all over those who have next to nothing. Your horses eat better than alot of humans. Then again, maybe we should feel sorry for your horses.
You really should read the demographics of the different parties. The "wealthy" in a American now support the Democratic party. Nine of the ten riches counties in America voted for Obama. Democrats have more financial support from the "rich" while Republicans pull more financial support from the middle classes...Not that actual fact will change your thinking.
I don't know a single Christian who believes they don't have a responsibility to the poor. The difference is YOU think it is moral to force a group of people under threat of imprisonment to give the fruits of their labor to the government so that the government can help people. *I* think the burden of helping the poor is mine and my tax contribution does not relieve that obligation. The federal government is fraught with waste, corruption and incompetence and I can't think of a more inefficient (not to mention long term ineffective) way to help the needy.
Nor do I know any conservatives who "do not want to leave ANYTHING in their fields." There are no Republicans advocating any ideas of reducing the individual tax burden to zero. Not one. Wanting to pay less taxes is not the same as wanting to pay no taxes. How incredibly disingenuous and/or once again misinformed you are to state such an obvious falsehood.
I definitely agree with this.
You all should read the whole article in Sunday's paper.
Remember Richard Nixon? The wild eyed liberal president? He floated the idea of a negative income tax/guaranteed income.
Thoughts? It would certainly be simpler and get rid of all the overlapping bureaucracies.
DH and I have mentored and assisted kids at the local military school for the past 10 years. The one constant in assisting these kids and their families. . . yes their families is money.
BUT and this a bit BUT - each has needed different assistance, some a shove, some encouragement others hand.holding.every.step.of.the.way. Including the last kid who was supposed to be off the dole 2 years ago - yeah 2 years ago. So far all but 2 earned their HS diplomas, of those 2, 1 got his GED later and the other still has a few years. About half graduated from college, many with honors. Of the remaining half - most are in or working their way through college. DH tells them we will provide some $$ as long as they are in college and keep us advised of their grades.
The not so funny part? Two of the kids we have and are assisting kept telling us their Moms were about to the lose the family home. Welllllll Both Moms are thinking of retiring in 2013. DH and I? Even though he is SS age and I am close we can not really retire now, if we want to maintain our farm and animals.
This is a long way to tell you one size does not fit all, which is the government process. The government has had close to 50 years to end proverty. Based on what I see and hear around me, the government's war on proverty (LBJ) has been a bust. So why should you or I continue to fund a failing program?
And I never could have done it without assistance (go ahead, try to pay for professional school these days on a minimum wage job...I worked up to 3 jobs at a time while I was doing my undergrad, and I still needed assistance for some of my schooling)
And in the meantime, more basic stuff like WIC and welfare prevents children malnourished to the point that they can't benefit from the free (read: tax-payer funded) education we provide, and crime that comes from the necessity of being hungry.
As for the rest of that indignant screed, it can be summed up as "Christians only help if they want to, and you're not allowed to make them pay their fair share if they don't want to."
There are plenty who don't want to, and plenty more who think that paying a tithe to their social club disguised as a church (sitting on a multimillion dollar property, erecting outsized building after outsized building rather than spending the majority of their operating budget on helping others) is enough.
It's interesting to reflect back that a large number of our WW1 and WW2 service men and women had only an 8th grade education and yet they produced a productive generation of citizens.
It's also so confusing, you say we have malnourished children but for 4 years we've had a national war on obesity. Which one is right?? It is so confusing....
They were entitled to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, wherever they wanted no matter how it impacted anyone else with a "screw you" attitude.
Not ALL parents, mind you, but plenty. I also found a huge difference between old money and new money. I wonder if that's still true or if everyone now has the gimmees.
All I know is President Obama's own aunt and uncle are on the system here in Mass. His aunt even told reporters that we OWED her everything BECAUSE this was America. This being said while she sported a fur coat, very nice designer sunglasses and shops at nicer stores than I ever will.
I will say my mother got left with six little kids and $10/ week to feed all of us. She managed to keep us all clothed and fed by working day and night. She had to much pride to take government assistance. She certainly could have sat back and taken everything.
There in lies the problem in today's society. Everyone WANTS to be on the government dole instead of helping themselves, if they can. Of course I think we should have programs to help with people who are down and out. That's called being humane. I don't think people who come to this country illegally or people who already have 5 kids, then have another, just to get more money from all of us, should be able to sit back and soak up money for the rest of their lives. That is not how the system is suppose to work! It's there as a safety net not as a way of life.
Yes, back in WW1 and 2 many people had limited educations. Newsflash, the world has changed since then.
One can be fat and malnourished. Simple carbs are the least expensive items in the grocery (many of them due to price supports).
Caballero, you turn my stomach. Do you even post on HR topics or do you just spew your bile on OT day? Take your hate elsewhere.
No one making $21,000 for a family of 4 is living high on a hog. There are simply minimum costs to feed, house and provide medical care in this country. We choose to fill in that gap.
For example, public housing is becoming pretty nice. Because it needs to be so as not to screw the poor homeowners that live near where it is built. Public housing in my area is as nice as Class A and B rentals. Having it that nice protects the nearby middle class person hoping to see a home appreciate.
Honestly..... we need to really educate and make it not worthwhile for people to have so many children. We don't have as many jobs, thus don't need as many workers. We can educate people all day long and we still don't actually *need* them. A lot of people even have college degrees and there are not enough jobs for them.
However, if we do not provide for the poor, what happens is chaos as they find ways to support themselves that include crime. I'd rather pay taxes that go to housing and food stamps than get robbed or live next to a slum. I'd rather pay for some level of healthcare than have outbreaks of disease.
Is it fair? Not really, but what makes me angrier are the employers that don't pay living wages and receive subsidy from taxpayers. So yeah, I don't love supporting welfare mama with 6 kids, but 1. don't blame her for not working for subsistence wage and 2. am happy she is contained by a system.