Should We Take Care of the Poor?

Thank you?

 

Exactly and you dont get that by letting in more workers legal or otherwise

 

That of course was my point...

 

Well then we are on the same page at last

 

I think you mean to say progressives now infest the majority of brains. In one county, where everyone who tried to buy the acre of land with the trailer on it, was told they would have to remove the trailer (which had a basement and attached rooms), requiring me to fight the county gubermint, they were about increasing revenue, but that is not the case everywhere.

The reason is irrelevant, maximizing city revenue in such a fashion requires redistribution of income to the poor. Every poor person must be compensated for lost property (rights), because the gubermint has taken the property for public use (maximizing city revenue).

 

Oh they frequently do to the tune of about ten cents on the dollar.

 

I once met a couple with child at http://gastateparks.org/ElijahClark Elijah Clark state park, back in the 70’s. They had to move their tents every couple of weeks from one campsite to another; the school bus would show up at the entrance to the park. He was college educated and white collar, and drove a nice truck, and she fished for their food during the day. They were saving to buy a house, and had been doing it for a year already. Technically, now, most such parks, I checked here in Florida recently, you couldn’t stay in the same park and just move the camp site around. It would still be better than rent.

In most places people cannot camp on their own land, it would help a hell of a lot if they could, especially if bad credit after the crash... Since poor people cannot camp on their own land, therefore, the government must take care of the poor.

 

The down side of the government's war on jobs over the last fifty years.

 

You really mean the corporations war to gain more and more profit. They just use the gov't to make it easier to get what they want.

 

Exactly backwards. Especially considering our much higher than average, even among western nations, corporate tax. Our government uses corporations as a cash cow. And that's just on the tax side. WAMU didn't survive not because it did anything wrong but because it didn't play political games. Microsoft did because it almost immediately understood the fact that if you want to play your going to have to send some cash the governments way.

 

What about the disabled who are on the benefits of the government because its been determined they are unemployable to the point of reasonable income which is low, earning at the Federal Poverty Line. Now in some states that could be close to a part-time job which they can't do. I type due to my hand disabilities at 12wpm, no one will give me a sitting job working on phone if I can't type at least 2.5 times faster than that work with my hands leaving out assembly line work. I can't even play many instruments or do things like marionette puppetry to street perform. So get help and am not ashamed of it but its not what I wanted to do with my life sit on my bum getting a check and SNAP.

 

" Maybe we could annex places like the Philippians and Puerto Rico?"? What, just march in and "annex" them? Seriously?

As for the poor, yeah, let 'em starve. They'll become self reliant and self reliance builds character. A strong, moral society needs self reliant citizens of character. Thats the way to freedom.

Of course, there'll be a lot more crime and a lot more civil unrest. Society will be a lot uglier. But who wants a peaceful, civilised, stable society anyway? Only (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

Give me a dog eat dog, nature red in tooth and claw, violent, unstable, inequitable society any day. That's a society of free and rugged individuals.

 

Microsoft has like a 21% effective tax rate. Bill Gates' doctor probably has closer to a 45% tax rate. Maybe one should be paying some more and the other less.

 

you conflate SS with the poor and welfare or charity

First SS. It is not difficut for an employee who only works 40 years to have earned $2 million. As an employee, the employer pays half of the SS rate as does the employee. The total of medicare/ss is over 15% but SS alone is about 12.5%. That means that over those 40 years $250,000 was put into an "annuity" for that employee. Are you suggesting to steal that money?

The problem is the hacks from both sides (including I ran a surplus Clinton who falsely used SS numbers) have never addressed SS and reined in the spending of the fed govt

Instead, we fund illegals who should not be here, we fund artists, sham studies on how to change the world from doing what it has done for millions of years, build tunnels underneath roads for turtles and the list goes on and on and on

Now to charity. Nobody but nobody is going to argue that helping those in need is a bad thing. The issue is that IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE FED GOVT.

There are many reasons why people are poor or worse, homeless and a forum can't cover them

Make no bones about it, many who push forth what they believe to be admirable causes have negative consequences upon others.

Shoot, look no further than how "cash for clunkers" drove up the price of used cars because those who simply needed a "beater" and couldn't afford much more found that the "beaters" had been destroyed instead of being available on the open market. Estimates were that the taxpayers were fleeced for about $3 Billion just to make used cars more expensive.

 

You misunderstand, how much money does you doctor spend on lobbying?

 

I don't misunderstand anything. The fundamental problem with our tax code as is is that owners of small businesses get soaked while "investors" live high on the hog in comparison. If you want your mom and pop business to hire more people, let them pay taxes at dividend rates instead of pass-through rates. Allow them to retain cash in the business to save up to hire more people or expand their operations instead of forcing them to pay obscene rates on retained earnings as if they had taken it in as personal income.

 

What does race have to do with being poor, and social security is not wealth distribution...

 

I concur but that isn't what I'm talking about.

 

You identify yourself to the rest of us as one who thinks we should "take care of our people"...? Who the hell are OUR people? I don't have any "people"! We have fellow citizens, and we owe fellow citizens courtesy and respect, but aside from that we owe them NOTHING! Primer: the mention of "welfare" in the United States Constitution referred to "well-being" and the freedom to be safe and unmolested by anyone else.

You get what you EARN and what you are WORTH in a free-market economy in a Constitutional republic (like ours is!). If a citizen knows nothing, can't do anything, and just lays around waiting for the government to hand out a welfare dole, then how is someone like that "our" people...? That segment of "our" people is, in reality, nothing more or less than a collection of parasites!

BTW, Social Security and Medicare are (or should be) reserved entirely for those who have paid into those mandatory systems all their lives and EARNED them!. Medicaid, however, is just another form of handout welfare, along with "subsidies" for Obamacare.

But, yes, we should have safety-net programs for those people who because of birth defects, debilitating illness, or horrible injuries, cannot support themselves -- and even these should be monitored very closely and often for lies and fraud!

Question that no liberal has ever been willing to try to answer (and I've posed it to the Forum many times) -- What do parasites suck on when they have sucked all the blood out of the host-animal? Do they then suck on each other...? Oooh. I'll bet "brotherly love" takes a nosedive at THAT point....

 

Perhaps. Who is holding the carrot on the stick doesn't matter. They are in bed together. And you won't convince me, there are not some corporations using bribe(donation) money to influence regulations to help control their competition.

 

You're nothing but a common thief.

 

To say nothing of the fact that it doesn't work...

 

Steady on, Steady Pie.

If Nordic Democrat were a thief (I don't think he is)...he would be far from a "common" thief.

In any case, his comment, "No, but poverty can and will be solved by a universal basic income. It's coming in the wake of automation and the exportation of manufacturing"...

...IS RIGHT ON THE BUTTON.

 

Yes, common thievery.

Well okay, it's abusing the democratic system to permit technocrats to threaten you with imprisonment by men with guns if you do not let them steal your property. I suppose that's not exactly common thievery now is it?

Although given the size of government as a percentage of the economy in the Nordic countries I suppose it is...

 

Nope...not common.

Just like your thoughts are pretty far from "common."