USA income and budget pie charts

[500grains]

A graphic really helps to drive the nature of the problem home.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4d690245ccd1d5d750110000-920-691/usa-income-statement.jpg

[jklaughrey]

If we got rid of the retired, poor, and uninsured we would be doing pretty good!:D

[rickrock305]

What are your proposed solutions to the problem?

[montanadave]

And while we're cutting costs, how about we stop garrisoning the world with U.S. military forces, their dependents, and the multitude of civilian contractors to feed, clothe and shelter them.

$700 billion for defense and we've got troops scattered from hell to breakfast on some 700+ bases around the world? Private security contractors (who if in the employ of anyone else but the U.S. government would be called mercenaries) who get paid three or four times as much to do the same job as our own military personnel? Fifty thousand troops in Germany and thirty thousand in Japan for what-- to prevent the Germans and Japanese from cashing in their U.S Treasury bonds?

American militarism is bleeding us to death just as much as entitlement programs. Cut the spending across the board!

[jklaughrey]

But MontanaDave if we shut down the bases and cut personnel and contractors we have just increased our unemployment and entitlement spending. Plus there would be a whole bunch of "mercenaries" working for different regimes throughout the world who may end up being our enemy!:D

[R/Tdrvr]

And while we're cutting costs, how about we stop garrisoning the world with U.S. military forces, their dependents, and the multitude of civilian contractors to feed, clothe and shelter them.

$700 billion for defense and we've got troops scattered from hell to breakfast on some 700+ bases around the world? Private security contractors (who if in the employ of anyone else but the U.S. government would be called mercenaries) who get paid three or four times as much to do the same job as our own military personnel? Fifty thousand troops in Germany and thirty thousand in Japan for what-- to prevent the Germans and Japanese from cashing in their U.S Treasury bonds?

American militarism is bleeding us to death just as much as entitlement programs. Cut the spending across the board!

And while we're at it, how about the $700+ billion we pay for foreign oil, and the billions in foreign aid we give to our so called "allies" (and our enemies in some cases) that thumb their noses to us.

[chadbag]

If we got rid of the retired, poor, and uninsured we would be doing pretty good!:D

The current system is certainly not getting rid of the retired, poor, and uninsured. The current system encourages the poor and uninsured to remain that way. The "War on Poverty" has been going on since Johnson (by name) and the poverty level in the US is basically unchanged.

[jklaughrey]

At least on this we can agree!:D

[C4IGrant]

What are your proposed solutions to the problem?

Cut SS entitlements for people under 30 (as they have plenty of time to deal with it). Raise the age of SS to 70.

Reduce Medicare by half for everyone right now.

For the Military, reduce foot print around the world (close some bases, reduce deployments that aren't for legit reasons).

Cut unemployment down to 2 months.

These are just off the top of my head, but would greatly reduce many costs.

[500grains]

Cut SS entitlements for people under 30 (as they have plenty of time to deal with it). Raise the age of SS to 70.

Reduce Medicare by half for everyone right now.

For the Military, reduce foot print around the world (close some bases, reduce deployments that aren't for legit reasons).

Cut unemployment down to 2 months.

These are just off the top of my head, but would greatly reduce many costs.

Yes, and

Dissolve the following:

- Dept of Education
- Dept of Labor (incl. OSHA)
- Dept of Energy
- DHS (sorry Janet)
- Dept of Agriculture
- DEA, ATF (merge into FBI)
- Park Service, BLM (merge into Forest Service)

Cut these programs:

- Everything administred by the above.
- Medicaid, Section 8 housing, head start, block grants.
- Non- .mil government pensions. Put them all on 401(k)s like the rest of us.

Cut government pay (not .mil) by 1/3.
Cut DoJ by 80%. Let the states handle most prosecutions.
Subcontract federal prisons to Zimbabwe.
Cut EPA by 80%

Also, no social security for anyone under 50 (that includes ME).
Medicare should cover only very basic services. If someone wants an organ transplant, they should cover it themselves.

Let's face it, our taxes are too high. We really need to cut government by 75%.

[Belmont31R]

None of this is going to get fixed in any meaningful way.



I don't have the article handy but basically about 40% of the people in this country rely on the government to put food on the table. Count up all the workers from city level up to the feds, prisoners, military, government contractors, welfare, food stamps, SS, ect. Something like almost half rely on a government medical program for medical care.


The scales are too far tipped one way for the right people to get elected to change the system and reduce the spending to stop deficit spending then making even more cuts to where we can pay the debt down.


Then of the other half who don't rely on the government for food and medical care how many of them want those programs cut so when its 'their time' to get on the dole there isn't anything there for them? So what percent of the population is left that is willing to slash these programs? If you do you'll immediately be accused of taking food out of the mouths of the elderly and denying them medical treatment.


These programs like medicare cost so much because so many seniors are on them. They spend WAY more on medical treatment than any other age bracket. Old people are put on 20 different medications, go see a doctor 1-2 times a week. We spend hundreds of billions on seniors keeping them alive another 1-2 years. My wife has worked a long time in nursing homes, and we are spending thousands a month on each old person who are basically dead but haven't been told yet. They are propped up maybe another few months to a year having to have someone wipe their ass, they don't know who they are, and get around the clock care by expensive nurses, doctors, fed pills like crazy that cost a fortune...Im not saying someone should not get treated but only if its them or their family paying for it. Medicare pays for almost all of this so its you and me paying it not them.

[500grains]

None of this is going to get fixed in any meaningful way.

I don't have the article handy but basically about 40% of the people in this country rely on the government to put food on the table. .

Then that means we are going to crash hard and more than half will die before we recover.

[rickrock305]

The current system is certainly not getting rid of the retired, poor, and uninsured. The current system encourages the poor and uninsured to remain that way. The "War on Poverty" has been going on since Johnson (by name) and the poverty level in the US is basically unchanged.



I'd venture a guess and say that it would be a hell of a lot worse without these "entitlement programs"

[Belmont31R]

Then that means we are going to crash hard and more than half will die before we recover.



That is the eventuality. They will stop at almost nothing to keep the ruse going. We won't be the first and won't be the last to go through it.

[rickrock305]

Cut SS entitlements for people under 30 (as they have plenty of time to deal with it). Raise the age of SS to 70.

Reduce Medicare by half for everyone right now.

For the Military, reduce foot print around the world (close some bases, reduce deployments that aren't for legit reasons).

Cut unemployment down to 2 months.

These are just off the top of my head, but would greatly reduce many costs.



I don't disagree based on principle. But there are problems with cutting things like unemployment and Medicare. Yes, you may save some money upfront, but the backend costs related to the cuts are going to be tremendous. Its just not as easy as cutting something by half. And what do you expect senior citizens and the unemployed to do? As a civilized country, I think we have a responsibility to provide some kind of safety net for people like this. Do we need reform? Absolutely. But simply chopping budgets by half isn't going to do much.

[Belmont31R]

I'd venture a guess and say that it would be a hell of a lot worse without these "entitlement programs"



Of course you would. Its far better to pay poor people to pop out kids, and then pay for these kids medical care their entire lives so the process can repeat itself.


Its also far better to prop old people up on 20 different medications a month that we pay for to extend their life another 6 months.


Im also glad people can eat themselves into being obese, and then get classified as disabled so we can pay for their existence the rest of their lives.


We can also pay for a college education so the schools keep raising the rates knowing the government is going to match their increases.


Get laid off and instead of going back to work its 2 years at home on the tax payer.



Show me some examples that makes this all worth it. That snubs out the abuse and injustices of the welfare state....

[jklaughrey]

I don't disagree based on principle. But there are problems with cutting things like unemployment and Medicare. Yes, you may save some money upfront, but the backend costs related to the cuts are going to be tremendous. Its just not as easy as cutting something by half. And what do you expect senior citizens and the unemployed to do? As a civilized country, I think we have a responsibility to provide some kind of safety net for people like this. Do we need reform? Absolutely. But simply chopping budgets by half isn't going to do much.

What if within these social programs we cut benefits for all former felons, drug addicts, criminals, and generally abusers of the system. That could be one reform we could do. Thoughts?

[Belmont31R]

I don't disagree based on principle. But there are problems with cutting things like unemployment and Medicare. Yes, you may save some money upfront, but the backend costs related to the cuts are going to be tremendous. Its just not as easy as cutting something by half. And what do you expect senior citizens and the unemployed to do? As a civilized country, I think we have a responsibility to provide some kind of safety net for people like this. Do we need reform? Absolutely. But simply chopping budgets by half isn't going to do much.



So lets do away with personal responsibility and pay trillions in welfare as a "safety net". Those Federal spending amounts are a small chunk of whats really spent on these programs. Much of the cost is hidden away in state budgets. Im sure people would be shocked if we ever got the real numbers.



Edit: I just looked up my state, Texas, and the overwhelming majority of the budget is education and 'health and human services' AKA welfare. Less than 20% is spent on public safety (DPS), general government spending like roads and public works. Another example of where the "safety net" and everyone gets an education BS has caused budgets to be dominated by welfare. The bigget chunk, 33%, was welfare alone. So we spend more on welfare than public safety, criminal justice, natural resources, roads, economic development, and general government spending combined.

[Cagemonkey]

And while we're cutting costs, how about we stop garrisoning the world with U.S. military forces, their dependents, and the multitude of civilian contractors to feed, clothe and shelter them.

$700 billion for defense and we've got troops scattered from hell to breakfast on some 700+ bases around the world? Private security contractors (who if in the employ of anyone else but the U.S. government would be called mercenaries) who get paid three or four times as much to do the same job as our own military personnel? Fifty thousand troops in Germany and thirty thousand in Japan for what-- to prevent the Germans and Japanese from cashing in their U.S Treasury bonds?

American militarism is bleeding us to death just as much as entitlement programs. Cut the spending across the board!
I agree. Our Military adventures are costing us billions annually. Thousands of our Military that are killed,wounded, and maimed. Millions of so called "Liberated people" are unappreciative and resentful and conspire to be allied with our enemies. Meanwhile the price of oil rises and other foreign powers (China)get the oil and mineral rights. Finally, our nation is in debt to foreign Governments (mainly China) and heading towards bankruptcy while our Navy now advertises itself as a "Global Force for Good". WTF

[jklaughrey]

Cagemonkey, our Navy should go back to being Privateers take "Prize" vessels to help support our economy. Ahh to be in the 1700's again. LOL.:D

[chadbag]

As a civilized country, I think we have a responsibility to provide some kind of safety net for people like this. Do we need reform? Absolutely. But simply chopping budgets by half isn't going to do much.

We do? Where in the Constitution is this written? Where is it written that "civilized" countries rob from the do-ers to give to the no-do-ers? Where is it written that "civilized" countries do away with personal responsibility?

It is all rather "uncivilized" if you ask me.

[Belmont31R]

I agree. Our Military adventures are costing us billions annually. Thousands of our Military that are killed,wounded, and maimed. Millions of so called "Liberated people" are unappreciative and resentful and conspire to be allied with our enemies. Meanwhile the price of oil rises and other foreign powers (China)get the oil and mineral rights. Finally, our nation is in debt to foreign Governments (mainly China) and heading towards bankruptcy while our Navy now advertises itself as a "Global Force for Good". WTF




Yeah I had a WTF moment with the Navy commercial.


We need a strong military with the best equipment but the way we go about it is wasting billions.

[Belmont31R]

We do? Where in the Constitution is this written? Where is it written that "civilized" countries rob from the do-ers to give to the no-do-ers? Where is it written that "civilized" countries do away with personal responsibility?

It is all rather "uncivilized" if you ask me.



Exactly. Its not civilized to confiscate property, and throw people in jail at gun point because they don't want to pay taxes...most of which goes to a welfare recipient.


To me a civilized society respects peoples property and doesn't force contributions which go directly into other people's pockets for doing nothing. That should be voluntary through churches, donations, ect. Not strong arming people with threat of arrest and jail.

[Skyyr]

As a civilized country, I think we have a responsibility to provide some kind of safety net for people like this. Do we need reform? Absolutely. But simply chopping budgets by half isn't going to do much.

Point out where the Constitution states that I have a duty to pay for someone else's lifestyle choices. Here's a hint: you won't find it. Your backwards argument is based on the exact same underlying principle that caused the Revolutionary war to begin with.

[jklaughrey]

Think the ones on welfare are bad. Try this one out. A few years ago a local officer was told to "pickup" a local transient because it was cold outside and he was hungry because we had a big tourism thin going on where he usually hung out. He was arrested for vagrancy. And spent a week in the county jail getting 3 hots and a cot. Then released with charges dropped with some pocket money give to him by the county "misc" account. Granted he is not exactly an abuser by his own accord, but our own county abused the system to keep him out of sight. Wasted tax dollars.

[Belmont31R]

Think the ones on welfare are bad. Try this one out. A few years ago a local officer was told to "pickup" a local transient because it was cold outside and he was hungry because we had a big tourism thin going on where he usually hung out. He was arrested for vagrancy. And spent a week in the county jail getting 3 hots and a cot. Then released with charges dropped with some pocket money give to him by the county "misc" account. Granted he is not exactly an abuser by his own accord, but our own county abused the system to keep him out of sight. Wasted tax dollars.



My wife's aunt and her family has cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands easily. She has had 3 kids on welfare and all 3 were complicated pregnancies with c-sections. Now they get housing, food, utilities, and misc money. They just got a 9k dollar "tax refund", too. To top it off we STRONGLY think she has munchousen by proxy. She takes all 3 kids to the doctors at least once a week and is pushing for all kinds of surgical procedures. You should see these kids. They are normal but she is addicted to medical attention. We pay for it to the tune of hundreds of dollars for each visit all paid by us. Luckily she is fixed now after 3 c-sections.


My wife also has an uncle who is obese, and gets "disability" payments every month along with full medical. He is on over 10 medications. We pay for all of it.


So all you have to do is pump out kids or get fat and you'll be paid for the rest of your life along with your kids.


We are over 14 trillion in debt keeping this ruse going.

[jklaughrey]

My wife's aunt and her family has cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands easily. She has had 3 kids on welfare and all 3 were complicated pregnancies with c-sections. Now they get housing, food, utilities, and misc money. They just got a 9k dollar "tax refund", too. To top it off we STRONGLY think she has munchousen by proxy. She takes all 3 kids to the doctors at least once a week and is pushing for all kinds of surgical procedures. You should see these kids. They are normal but she is addicted to medical attention. We pay for it to the tune of hundreds of dollars for each visit all paid by us. Luckily she is fixed now after 3 c-sections.


My wife also has an uncle who is obese, and gets "disability" payments every month along with full medical. He is on over 10 medications. We pay for all of it.


So all you have to do is pump out kids or get fat and you'll be paid for the rest of your life along with your kids.


We are over 14 trillion in debt keeping this ruse going.

Holy Christ on a ****ing cross!:eek:

[Belmont31R]

Holy Christ on a ****ing cross!:eek:




Im not sure where you live but try going and sitting in your county 'health and human services' waiting room one day. I went with my wife once since she had to get a signature certifying her vaccines for her nursing classes. Went home and took a shower....thought about burning the clothes I was wearing.


Pumping out kids and getting on the dole is an industry in this country. They know all the regs and how to work the system. Their husbands work for cash while their mamacita pumps out kids all paid for by us. Then they get housing assistance, food stamps, cash cards, education, ect.

[jklaughrey]

I am in the liberal state of WA, where the UI/Welfare payouts are very high. In my area we have people from ID move over to WA for a few months then file for government aid. Not to mention free housing, a debit card with food stamps and a cash payout so they can buy the needed items and their booze, cigs, etc... Top it all off with free foodbank access and free utilities and such. They live better than most and don't pay a dime.

[Belmont31R]

I am in the liberal state of WA, where the UI/Welfare payouts are very high. In my area we have people from ID move over to WA for a few months then file for government aid. Not to mention free housing, a debit card with food stamps and a cash payout so they can buy the needed items and their booze, cigs, etc... Top it all off with free foodbank access and free utilities and such. They live better than most and don't pay a dime.




That aunt I mentioned is around Olympia.

[jklaughrey]

Well that makes sense!:D

[chadbag]

Modern "civilization" is an enabler-society.

[Smuckatelli]

Cut this and we save $770 million:

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/25764282/index.html

[rickrock305]

We do? Where in the Constitution is this written? Where is it written that "civilized" countries rob from the do-ers to give to the no-do-ers? Where is it written that "civilized" countries do away with personal responsibility?

It is all rather "uncivilized" if you ask me.



I'm glad you asked. Its right in the Preamble..


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[rickrock305]

Of course you would. Its far better to pay poor people to pop out kids, and then pay for these kids medical care their entire lives so the process can repeat itself.


Its also far better to prop old people up on 20 different medications a month that we pay for to extend their life another 6 months.


Im also glad people can eat themselves into being obese, and then get classified as disabled so we can pay for their existence the rest of their lives.


We can also pay for a college education so the schools keep raising the rates knowing the government is going to match their increases.


Get laid off and instead of going back to work its 2 years at home on the tax payer.



Show me some examples that makes this all worth it. That snubs out the abuse and injustices of the welfare state....



Of course there are those that abuse the system. But there are also those that work hard at minimum wage jobs who struggle to put food on the table every month. There are senior citizens who have worked their entire lives and don't have the luxury of a pension (and this is becoming all too common).

Here's a little information for you...

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/52/summary.html

or

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

Statistics show that average welfare benefits pay below the poverty line and less than a full-time job. Research overwhelmingly proves that welfare recipients prefer work to welfare. The General Accounting Office has reviewed over 100 studies on welfare and concluded that welfare does not significantly diminish the incentive to work.






So lets do away with personal responsibility and pay trillions in welfare as a "safety net". Those Federal spending amounts are a small chunk of whats really spent on these programs. Much of the cost is hidden away in state budgets. Im sure people would be shocked if we ever got the real numbers.


Noone is saying do away with personal responsibility. But I think we all have a responsibility to our society as a whole.

[chadbag]

Of course there are those that abuse the system. But there are also those that work hard at minimum wage jobs who struggle to put food on the table every month. There are senior citizens who have worked their entire lives and don't have the luxury of a pension (and this is becoming all too common).



And this is my problem, why? I am struggling to provide a decent life for my family. Why again is it my responsibility to pay for these people who dodged their personal responsibility?

These people who did not save for their old age but went on family vacations every year, had a nice house, two cars, and a chicken in the pot every night? When I have to rent, struggle, don't get a vacation every year with the family (granted we do go visit my wife's family in Japan when I get enough miles to get free tickets on the airplane and we stay with them and eat their food so the cost is not very high at all for the trip [and the miles come due to business spending, not personal spending]) etc and yet pay a ton of taxes to support these people.

If the guy working the minimum wage job can't make ends meet, he needs to make a decision to improve his lot.



Noone is saying do away with personal responsibility. But I think we all have a responsibility to our society as a whole.

You are saying to do away with personal responsibility. Your statement shouts that in neon.

Society as a whole is not the government. The government uses force and compulsion. Society is the people without the government and society does its best to help out. Unfortunately it is getting harder and harder because government intrudes more and more and takes more and more. It is unworkable, immoral, and unfair.

[chadbag]

I'm glad you asked. Its right in the Preamble..

No its not. It says "general welfare". It does not say welfare for specific people. That clause has nothing to do with what we call welfare today. That is a modern, mostly 20th century invention.

And domestic tranquility has nothing to do with what we call welfare today either. That was setting up a system of laws so that people could take their complaints for redress before an impartial judge and not take justice into their own hands.

[rickrock305]

And this is my problem, why?

Because one way or the other the poor are going to be a tremendous drain on society. If we don't help people help themselves, then they're going to turn to whatever means they can to put food in their mouths. Crime, selling drugs, whatever. Thats just one example. When someone steals your identity to make money to feed their kids, its gonna be your problem.



You are saying to do away with personal responsibility. Your statement shouts that in neon.

No, not at all. I'm all for having responsibility in our welfare programs. For example, drug testing for welfare recipients.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are not lifelong recipients. Its used as it should be, to cover a rough time in their lives until they can get back on their feet.



Society as a whole is not the government. The government uses force and compulsion. Society is the people without the government and society does its best to help out. Unfortunately it is getting harder and harder because government intrudes more and more and takes more and more. It is unworkable, immoral, and unfair.



I disagree. First, society does not do its best to help out. Those that do are in the minority. Churches would rather spend their money on settling lawsuits, buying the pastor's Corvette, adding a church addition, etc.

Second, the government is not taking more and more. Taxes are pretty damn low comparatively.

Its immoral to help those less fortunate than you? Strange set of morals you have there.

[rickrock305]

No its not. It says "general welfare". It does not say welfare for specific people. That clause has nothing to do with what we call welfare today. That is a modern, mostly 20th century invention.


Thats your opinion. In my opinion, I believe "general welfare" includes assistance for the poor and less fortunate because it directly affects the welfare of our nation as a whole.


I fail to understand the thinking behind the position that its perfectly ok to cut taxes for corporations making billions in profit, or rich CEOs making millions in bonuses while their companies tank, yet take issue with giving tax breaks to poor people. I find that very strange.

[chadbag]

Because one way or the other the poor are going to be a tremendous drain on society. If we don't help people help themselves, then they're going to turn to whatever means they can to put food in their mouths. Crime, selling drugs, whatever. Thats just one example. When someone steals your identity to make money to feed their kids, its gonna be your problem.


No, it is their problem when they rot in jail.



No, not at all. I'm all for having responsibility in our welfare programs. For example, drug testing for welfare recipients.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are not lifelong recipients. Its used as it should be, to cover a rough time in their lives until they can get back on their feet.






I disagree. First, society does not do its best to help out. Those that do are in the minority. Second, the government is not taking more and more. Taxes are pretty damn low comparatively.


Charity in the US woks pretty well and the US is one of the societies that has the highest level of charity giving. Of our own free will. But it is getting harder and harder the more the government steals from the people for the people to also give to charity.

No, taxes are not pretty damn low comparatively. Total tax burden is pretty damn high. Only due to the recession has tax freedom day gotten sooner but when you factor in the deficit it is higher than almost ever. And that is not even factoring in hidden taxes of regulation, things like Obamacare, etc.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/




Its immoral to help those less fortunate than you? Strange set of morals you have there.

Did I say it was immoral to help the less fortunate? NO. I said it was immoral to use compulsion and force to force me to help the less fortunate. Stealing from me to help others is not moral.

Government welfare programs are immoral. They are also remove personal responsibility and enable people to be leaches off the government, which funds it by stealing from the people through force.

This idea of government welfare was anathema to the people until the 20th Century. It has no place in America, is unconstitutional and has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

And it achieves nothing. Poverty has stayed pretty much the same. We have developed a nation of slackers, lazy bums, and dependent people. More and more people living off the labor of fewer and fewer people.

[chadbag]

Thats your opinion. In my opinion, I believe "general welfare" includes assistance for the poor and less fortunate because it directly affects the welfare of our nation as a whole.


It is not my opinion. It is fact. Look at the writings of the founding fathers. Look at when this idea of public welfare became popular. Much much later than when the Constitution was written. The idea of public assistance welfare pretty much became popular in the 20th Century.




I fail to understand the thinking behind the position that its perfectly ok to cut taxes for corporations making billions in profit, or rich CEOs making millions in bonuses while their companies tank, yet take issue with giving tax breaks to poor people. I find that very strange.

Since when are we talking about giving tax breaks to poor people? We are talking about transfer of wealth payments, ie welfare payments like SS, Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, unemployment to a certain extent, etc. Not tax breaks. Poor people already pay very little tax -- Federal Income Tax is not paid by almost 1/2 the people in this country. Many many states gear their state income tax off the federal return so many of these people are not paying any state or very little state income tax.

It is not up to the state to punish corporations for making profits. The shareholders should vote to get the corporation to equitably share their profits with the workers, shareholders, etc. It is not for the government to say, gee, you make too much so let me steal a lot of it. If some CEOs make too much, and I agree that many do, then it is up to the shareholders to fix that.

The people and the companies of this country are not a big piggy bank for you to rob so you can assuage your guilt and fix every perceived social problem and ill and inequality in the country using other people's money.

[rickrock305]

Charity in the US woks pretty well and the US is one of the societies that has the highest level of charity giving. Of our own free will. But it is getting harder and harder the more the government steals from the people for the people to also give to charity.

No, taxes are not pretty damn low comparatively. Total tax burden is pretty damn high. Only due to the recession has tax freedom day gotten sooner but when you factor in the deficit it is higher than almost ever. And that is not even factoring in hidden taxes of regulation, things like Obamacare, etc.


Where did this idea of taxes=stealing come from? Its nonsense.





Did I say it was immoral to help the less fortunate? NO. I said it was immoral to use compulsion and force to force me to help the less fortunate. Stealing from me to help others is not moral.


Taxes are not stealing. Taxes are the price you pay for living in the greatest country in the world. All this "oh, the government is stealing my money" and "why should I have to pay for poor people, its not my problem" just smack of insensitivity and greed. And the hypocrisy coming from people who consider themselves Christians (not you specifically, speaking in general here)




Government welfare programs are immoral. They are also remove personal responsibility and enable people to be leaches off the government, which funds it by stealing from the people through force.

Like I said, I'm all for putting more responsibility back into the welfare system. Welfare to work programs for example.



It has no place in America, is unconstitutional and has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution.

Your opinion.



And it achieves nothing. Poverty has stayed pretty much the same. We have developed a nation of slackers, lazy bums, and dependent people. More and more people living off the labor of fewer and fewer people.

All rhetoric aside, this is exactly why we should have a welfare system. Because the income inequality in this country is growing. The rich get richer, and the poor and middle class either get poorer or stay the same.

[mhanna91]

[QUOTE=chadbag;929235]No, it is their problem when they rot in jail.

Don't get me wrong, I am tired of working only to have a large portion of MY wages go towards paying for someone else's shitty lifestyle and all.... but it is OUR problem when they rot in jail/prison. It costs about $20,000 per year per inmate to house, feed, medicate and "rehabilitate" these people.

[chadbag]

Where did this idea of taxes=stealing come from? Its nonsense.



Nonsense? It is exactly what it is. People coming and taking your money with threat of force and arms and jail if you don't pay. It is not voluntary. When people take your money from you it is called stealing.




Taxes are not stealing. Taxes are the price you pay for living in the greatest country in the world.



Taxes are a form of extortion. They are stealing. There is no natural right for the state to force me to pay taxes. The state has no more rights than the individual unless you want to claim the states power comes from the barrel of a gun through force, and then we are talking about using force to enforce its will instead of the power of the people.

The general police power devolved onto the state as people voluntarily gave up some of their right to self protection to the state. The state can only claim to have the power of the people in as far as it only takes the power given to it.

Now, if I see a poor person starving, can I go into YOUR house and take your food and money and give that person? No, that is stealing. Well, then I cannot give that power to the state either.





Like I said, I'm all for putting more responsibility back into the welfare system. Welfare to work programs for example.


The country would be much better off eliminating the "welfare system." Let society deal with the problems of society on a free-will basis. Problems need to be solved so a way will be found. Now, people say it is the government's job and avoid their responsibilities and the problems.



Your opinion.


no. it is fact. Historically it is accurate. There was no concept of government welfare payments when the Constitution came about.




All rhetoric aside, this is exactly why we should have a welfare system. Because the income inequality in this country is growing. The rich get richer, and the poor and middle class either get poorer or stay the same.

I would posit it is because of the welfare system that this happens. No one needs to be responsible any more and we push off responsibility to the government.

Mighty interesting to look at the correlation on government welfare, taxation, and the retardation of growth and the rise in income inequality...

You want to fix the problem, eliminate the government spending and get the government off the backs of the people.

[GermanSynergy]

I agree. Make welfare harder to get as well.


What if within these social programs we cut benefits for all former felons, drug addicts, criminals, and generally abusers of the system. That could be one reform we could do. Thoughts?

[Skyyr]

No, it is their problem when they rot in jail.

Don't get me wrong, I am tired of working only to have a large portion of MY wages go towards paying for someone else's shitty lifestyle and all.... but it is OUR problem when they rot in jail/prison. It costs about $20,000 per year per inmate to house, feed, medicate and "rehabilitate" these people.

Then execute them, Conservatives have been pushing that for years. Oh, but wait, the Liberals don't want that, because executing an evil person is inhuman. Funny, because they sure as heck bring up how much it costs to keep them in prison.

Spare me the rhetoric.

[rickrock305]

[QUOTE=mhanna91;929250]

Then execute them, Conservatives have been pushing that for years. Oh, but wait, the Liberals don't want that, because executing an evil person is inhuman. Funny, because they sure as heck bring up how much it costs to keep them in prison.

Spare me the rhetoric.




Oh the irony.

Conservatives sure do seem to care about your life before you're born (abortion) and after you're dead (Terry Schiavo), but are always looking for ways to kill you in between (nuke everything!)

See how that rhetoric cuts both ways? :rolleyes:

[Belmont31R]

I'm glad you asked. Its right in the Preamble..




Go read what the founders wrote about that clause. Go read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.



General welfare was for things that benefited all of us like scientific research, the arts, ect. It wasnt to hold a gun to someones head to take money from them, rob their property, and feed welfare leaches to go pump out more babies.

[rickrock305]

General welfare was for things that benefited all of us like scientific research, the arts, ect. It wasnt to hold a gun to someones head to take money from them, rob their property, and feed welfare leaches to go pump out more babies.



Thats exactly my point. That welfare and assistance for the poor and elderly DOES in fact benefit us all. For example, welfare helps people get back to contributing to their communities, such as welfare programs that require volunteer time or vocational training. Also the contribution to local businesses from food stamps, WIC, and EBT cards. And programs like Medicaid and food stamps also contribute to a better public health overall.

Just a few examples.

[Belmont31R]

Thats exactly my point. That welfare and assistance for the poor and elderly DOES in fact benefit us all.




No. Its an indirect benefit not a direct benefit. Taking $500 from me and giving it to a poor person harms me more than it benefits. Its an indirect benefit down the road.


The welfare clause was for direct benefit like sciences and arts. It wasn't for taking money from me and giving it to joe blow 70 year old to guy buy pills.


This is why things like NASA are a benefit directly to all of us because without their work we probably wouldn't have GPS and all the other things that society as a whole has benefited from. Their work was not in a selfish manner but worked to advance all of us. Modern welfare ONLY helps the direct beneficiaries of that care. The cost doesn't outweigh the total cost on society which has resulted in a 14 trillion dollar debt.

[rickrock305]

No. Its an indirect benefit not a direct benefit.

You wanna split hairs, thats fine. I simply said it benefits all of us. Welfare, Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, these are all programs that promote the general welfare of our country.



The cost doesn't outweigh the total cost on society which has resulted in a 14 trillion dollar debt.



To blame the national debt on the welfare system and the poor is the height of ignorance.

Keep whining about your $500 dollars...cry me a river.

http://www.truegreed.com/includes/in_greed_we_trust.jpg

[Belmont31R]

To blame the national debt on the welfare system and the poor is the height of ignorance.


http://www.truegreed.com/includes/in_greed_we_trust.jpg





Sure it is. Subtract SS and medicare spending in the last 20 years from the debt.


If you want to blame the "wars" then subtract that total. Welfare spending FAR outpaces any war time spending in the last 20 years.


Welfare is not authorized by the constitution but military and war is.

[rickrock305]

Welfare is not authorized by the constitution but military and war is.



I think the military is much less clear than welfare. Lets compare.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Taking care of the elderly and less fortunate is pretty clearly promoting the general welfare of our Union. I'm pretty good at seeing both sides of an argument, but in this case I don't even understand how you can argue it isn't.



Lets be accurate here, there are a whole BUNCH of laws, regulations, agencies, etc., that are either not in the Constitution or are expressly prohibited. If you want to be a strict constitutionalist, you can't just pick and choose whats convenient.

[Skyyr]

Oh the irony.

Conservatives sure do seem to care about your life before you're born (abortion) and after you're dead (Terry Schiavo), but are always looking for ways to kill you in between (nuke everything!)

See how that rhetoric cuts both ways? :rolleyes:

First, no, there is none. A life is the most important gift there is and it must be defended. Those who take a life or attempt to put others' lives under their control have proven they do not respect life, therefore they have forfeited such rights.

Secondly, the only president in history to drop a nuke was a Democrat. Brilliant argument, genius.

[Belmont31R]

I think the military is much less clear than welfare. Lets compare.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Taking care of the elderly and less fortunate is pretty clearly promoting the general welfare of our Union. I'm pretty good at seeing both sides of an argument, but in this case I don't even understand how you can argue it isn't.



Lets be accurate here, there are a whole BUNCH of laws, regulations, agencies, etc., that are either not in the Constitution or are expressly prohibited. If you want to be a strict constitutionalist, you can't just pick and choose whats convenient.


The preamble is not legally binding....you know as far as the SCOTUS and Constitution are concerned.


No appropriation of money shall be for more than 2 years. OIF and OEF have had spending bills EVERY year for the last 8 years at least. The DOD also gets a yearly spending bill.

[chadbag]

I think the military is much less clear than welfare. Lets compare.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Taking care of the elderly and less fortunate is pretty clearly promoting the general welfare of our Union. I'm pretty good at seeing both sides of an argument, but in this case I don't even understand how you can argue it isn't.


The meaning you propose for the preamble is totally anathema to what the Constitution is about and would be totally foreign concept to the founding fathers who wrote the darn thing. Your ideas had no currency in the general conversation of society until the 20th century (I am not saying there were no people who thought that way at all previously, but their ideas were rejected by most people as ludicrous).

The idea of stealing from those who produce to give to those who don't is ludicrous and just shows you what morally bankrupt times we live in.





Lets be accurate here, there are a whole BUNCH of laws, regulations, agencies, etc., that are either not in the Constitution or are expressly prohibited. If you want to be a strict constitutionalist, you can't just pick and choose whats convenient.

[chadbag]

The preamble is not legally binding....you know as far as the SCOTUS and Constitution are concerned.


Doesn't matter if they do or don't. It has no such meaning anyway that rickrock wants to put to it. That is a modern 20th century thought.



No appropriation of money shall be for more than 2 years. OIF and OEF have had spending bills EVERY year for the last 8 years at least. The DOD also gets a yearly spending bill.

[rickrock305]

First, no, there is none. A life is the most important gift there is and it must be defended. Those who take a life or attempt to put others' lives under their control have proven they do not respect life, therefore they have forfeited such rights.

You do realize that you are attempting to do the same thing right? Put others' lives under your (or the justice system's) control.

Do you have any idea of the amount of convictions that are overturned?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php


There have been 266 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 34 states; since 2000, there have been 198 exonerations.

• 17 of the 266 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.





Secondly, the only president in history to drop a nuke was a Democrat. Brilliant argument, genius.


I was referring to the comments I see on this site all too often. Nuke Colombia over the drug war! Nuke the Middle East because some nutcase shot some soldiers! :suicide:

[rickrock305]

The preamble is not legally binding....you know as far as the SCOTUS and Constitution are concerned.


No appropriation of money shall be for more than 2 years. OIF and OEF have had spending bills EVERY year for the last 8 years at least. The DOD also gets a yearly spending bill.



And you continue to split those hairs even finer. :rolleyes:

[rickrock305]

would be totally foreign concept to the founding fathers who wrote the darn thing.


Sounds like the same premise I hear from anti gun folks about the 2nd amendment.



Your ideas had no currency in the general conversation of society until the 20th century (I am not saying there were no people who thought that way at all previously, but their ideas were rejected by most people as ludicrous).

It was a completely different time and culture then. Which is why they were smart enough to leave it open ended with terms like "general welfare".



The idea of stealing from those who produce to give to those who don't is ludicrous and just shows you what morally bankrupt times we live in.


The idea that those on welfare don't produce anything is pretty ludicrous as well and just shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[rickrock305]

http://www.zompist.com/welfare.html

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/06/libertarians_an_1.html

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=22&p=1

[jklaughrey]

You do realize that you are attempting to do the same thing right? Put others' lives under your (or the justice system's) control.

Do you have any idea of the amount of convictions that are overturned?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php

Well now if we actually would execute those on death row in a timely manner we would have no need for the innocence project since they would already be dead and overturning a conviction would be moot. And quite honestly, save a few isolated cases. Most that get convicted even for the wrong crime have still committed various other crimes that got pleaded out or they were never arrested for. I am of the opinion that it is karma for crimes you never were convicted of doing.;)

[rickrock305]

Well now if we actually would execute those on death row in a timely manner we would have no need for the innocence project since they would already be dead and overturning a conviction would be moot. And quite honestly, save a few isolated cases. Most that get convicted even for the wrong crime have still committed various other crimes that got pleaded out or they were never arrested for. I am of the opinion that it is karma for crimes you never were convicted of doing.;)


So you are perfectly ok with putting people to death for crimes they didn't commit? Typical.

[jklaughrey]

I am perfectly okay with the allowance of 1 appeal and the the sentence of death be carried out within 48 hours of the judgment from the appeal. Who are we to say they are innocent if there never is an investigation beyond the trial and appeal?

[Skyyr]

You do realize that you are attempting to do the same thing right? Put others' lives under your (or the justice system's) control.


You've committed no less than two strawmans in as many posts. We were discussing the economic effects of prison costs and a liberal points out that it's costing too much money to keep them in prison. When pointed out that prison is proposed chiefly by liberals and that conservatives prefer capital punishment, you then try to play the hypocrisy card. When pointed out that its not hypocrisy, you point out the innocents that are affected. This is not a debate about morality, so quit trying to change the subject.

But just so you can't claim I'm trying to avoid the question, I'll address it. Just because an innocent is wrongly accused does not mean that there's a problem with the system. People die all the time driving cars, but that doesn't make the car the problem, it makes the drivers the problem.

Further, no one here is advocating that every person be sentenced to death; only those who are guilty beyond a shadow of any doubt should be sentenced. However, according to you, you'd rather do away with execution entirely, while pining and crying that our prison system is too crowded and decrying capital punishment at the same time. You're putting safety before liberty.




I was referring to the comments I see on this site all too often. Nuke Colombia over the drug war! Nuke the Middle East because some nutcase shot some soldiers! :suicide:

Yet another strawman. You bring up the fact that Republicans use the term "nuke em" as a slight, yet you completely ignore the fact the only President to ever actually use a nuke was a Democrat, while criticizing Republicans for simply talking about using them. Did you seriously think before you posted that?

[Palmguy]

The preamble does not grant any specific power to the federal government. It is an introductory statement that says "here is a purpose statement for this document, following will be how we are going to do it".

[Palmguy]

Because one way or the other the poor are going to be a tremendous drain on society. If we don't help people help themselves, then they're going to turn to whatever means they can to put food in their mouths. Crime, selling drugs, whatever. Thats just one example. When someone steals your identity to make money to feed their kids, its gonna be your problem.



No, not at all. I'm all for having responsibility in our welfare programs. For example, drug testing for welfare recipients.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are not lifelong recipients. Its used as it should be, to cover a rough time in their lives until they can get back on their feet.

I'd love for you to substantiate this claim that you are making with some sort of numbers.






I disagree. First, society does not do its best to help out. Those that do are in the minority. Churches would rather spend their money on settling lawsuits, buying the pastor's Corvette, adding a church addition, etc.

Second, the government is not taking more and more. Taxes are pretty damn low comparatively.

That's your opinion.

Compared to where, exactly? Soon-to-be highest corporate tax rate in the world...that'll encourage business to prosper here which will create jobs for the legions of people on welfare just getting back on their feet, I'm sure.

[variablebinary]

There should be a 10% across the board decrease in ALL government spending.

No sacred cows, even the military which is just a very bureaucratic and wasteful organization with far too large of a global footprint to sustain.

As a nation, we could easily survive an across the board cut of 10%

[mhanna91]

Then execute them, Conservatives have been pushing that for years. Oh, but wait, the Liberals don't want that, because executing an evil person is inhuman. Funny, because they sure as heck bring up how much it costs to keep them in prison.

Spare me the rhetoric.

I honestly have never seen the actual stats, and really do not see how it is possible, but anti capital punishment folks are always saying that it is more expensive to execute than it is to simply keep them for life.

Also, execution would only get rid of a small amount of prisoners, unless you are implying that we kill everyone who enters the criminal justice system.

[mhanna91]

[QUOTE=rickrock305;929331]You do realize that you are attempting to do the same thing right? Put others' lives under your (or the justice system's) control.

You sir are acting a fool. You are implying that welfare recipients are so far out of control of their own lives that they absolutely need to have their ass wiped in order to survive. I call shennagins. Here is a perfect example. My girlfriend, who was a senior in high school and wants more than anything to go to college, comes from a very very poor family. Their income is next to zero due to back child support, her real mother is out of the picture (drug head, pretty much abandoned her and her twin sister at age 9), and her step mother is sucking the tax payer's tit through disability (but still works for cash under the table). The twins sometimes have to help pay for food and other things with the little money they earned from working cash jobs. It makes me red hot to even think about the situation, much less type it up. They sometimes struggle to feed themselves, yet between the two of them, the dad and step-mom smoke 4 packs of Malboros a day. Now that we know where their money goes, here is the rest. My girlfriend struggled in high school, and despite her desire to stay after school hours to get help from her teachers, neither of her parents were willing to go get her afterwards, so she simply did not get the help she saught, due to laziness on her parents part. Further, the step mother has decided that they cannot afford to house their daughters after they graduate high school and that they would be on their own after that point. Not knowing what to do, my girlfriend started working 30 hours a week, while still in high school, at Wendys. After 3 months, she had saved enough money to buy herself a car and is now saving for college expenses. She has literally, with no welfare or government aid, saved HERSELF from the lifestyle that you seem to condone with your misplaced willingness to fund it.

This is a great example of personal merit and responsibility. If you think that people cannot control their lives, think again. Sure jobs are hard to come by, but there will always be a burger joint or a Taco Bell or a Wal-Mart hiring. Sometimes, you cannot afford to be proud of where you work, but you can damn sure get your ass out there and get some sort of a job. The sad fact is that welfare recipients know this, but why would they get a crummy job if they can make more money sitting at home? And you want to pay for this shit.

[chadbag]

Sounds like the same premise I hear from anti gun folks about the 2nd amendment.



I don't understand. Please elaborate. The 2A claims are exactly what the FF intended. Reading the various writings of the FF it is obvious that the 2A we espouse is the 2A as written.



It was a completely different time and culture then. Which is why they were smart enough to leave it open ended with terms like "general welfare".



They did not leave anything open ended. It had specific meanings back then and was an introduction meant to explain the actual document's premises. They had just come out from under the thumb of a king, and then lived through the Articles of Confederation which left states bickering one with another. They said that certain pieces of government were important to provide a society in which everyone had a chance at success, was not trodden down by a king, nor taken advantage of by their neighbor (-ing state). This had nothing to do with welfare as we know it today for specific people.

It is probably apocryphal but the story of Davy Crockett in Congress provides good insight into the thinking of the day. (And this was much later than the actual FF of course)

http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

-----

The idea that we can just reinterpret the Constitution to provide cover for whatever illegal and unconstitutional thing we want to do, in the name of the greater good, is very very dangerous.

We need a solid basis of law that we can rely on and that is unchanging, not changing at the whim of whomever wants to buy votes next election.






The idea that those on welfare don't produce anything is pretty ludicrous as well and just shows you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Really? Really?

[chadbag]

No, it is their problem when they rot in jail.

Don't get me wrong, I am tired of working only to have a large portion of MY wages go towards paying for someone else's shitty lifestyle and all.... but it is OUR problem when they rot in jail/prison. It costs about $20,000 per year per inmate to house, feed, medicate and "rehabilitate" these people.

You know what? I am willing to pay taxes for general police services including prison for criminals AFTER we get rid of the 50% or more of the people in prison for drug offenses and other stupidity which is draining society of resources (not exclusively of course, other things drain resources as well). Empty the prisons of the people who should not be there and we will have a small and manageable system. And get rid of all the over indulgent crap in prisons too (playstations etc? I cannot afford one of those myself and had to sacrifice to get a Wii for the kids to play with very occasionally).

Keep the prisoners busy with work. They won't have time to sit around pumping iron, forming gangs, getting into trouble, graduinting from CU (criminal university) if you keep them busy.

(Same with your own kids: make the playstation or xbox or wii an occasional reward. Keep them busy in scouts, music, sports, church groups, service, jobs around the house, schoolwork, 4H, etc and they won't have time to become juvenile delinquents)

[rickrock305]

I'd love for you to substantiate this claim that you are making with some sort of numbers. .

I already did, but here it is one more time for you.



For the most part, welfare is a transient program. Recipients don't remain on the program forever. Fewer than 20 percent of all people on welfare remain on the program for more than seven months. Another 20 percent are on welfare for one to two years. Still, 27 percent remain on welfare for two to five years. Of all welfare recipients, 20 percent remain on welfare more than five years.


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm





That's your opinion.

Compared to where, exactly? Soon-to-be highest corporate tax rate in the world...that'll encourage business to prosper here which will create jobs for the legions of people on welfare just getting back on their feet, I'm sure.


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm



The U.S. tax burden has shrunk to its lowest level in 60 years, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said. Including state, federal and local taxes, the average tax bill came out to 9.2 percent of personal income in 2009.

That's down from an average of 12 percent over the past 50 years. The tax burden has not been this low since 1950.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/05/11/US-tax-burden-at-lowest-point-in-years/UPI-74091273594893/#ixzz1Fkrv4inz

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/05/11/US-tax-burden-at-lowest-point-in-years/UPI-74091273594893/

[rickrock305]

Just because an innocent is wrongly accused does not mean that there's a problem with the system. People die all the time driving cars, but that doesn't make the car the problem, it makes the drivers the problem.

If an innocent person is put to death for a crime they didn't commit, yes I'd say thats a problem with the so called "justice" system. Where is the justice there?

And your analogy is simply wrong. There are plenty of accidents that are directly related to problems with the car and not the driver.


However, according to you, you'd rather do away with execution entirely, while pining and crying that our prison system is too crowded and decrying capital punishment at the same time. You're putting safety before liberty.





Ummm, what? I never said such a thing. For being so concerned with strawmen as you seem to be, you sure are good at creating them! :rolleyes:

[rickrock305]

You sir are acting a fool. You are implying that welfare recipients are so far out of control of their own lives that they absolutely need to have their ass wiped in order to survive. I call shennagins.


No, thats not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that sometimes people need help to put food on the table.




Sometimes, you cannot afford to be proud of where you work, but you can damn sure get your ass out there and get some sort of a job. The sad fact is that welfare recipients know this, but why would they get a crummy job if they can make more money sitting at home? And you want to pay for this shit.


What you seem to be ignoring is that the majority of welfare recipients DO work. They just work jobs that pay so little (like your Taco Bell or Walmart examples) that they struggle to survive below the poverty line.

http://www.urban.org/publications/310835.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarelazy.htm

If you make $8 an hour, how the hell are you supposed to afford food and housing?

[mhanna91]

If you cannot rent a small appartment and feed yourself on $8 an hour at 40 hours a week your priorties need some re-organizing. Not saying it would be the good life, but it can be and is done. But like I said, why would someone work full time for a 1 bedroom appartment and top-ramen when they could sit at home and get the same or even more?

[chadbag]

The U.S. tax burden has shrunk to its lowest level in 60 years, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said. Including state, federal and local taxes, the average tax bill came out to 9.2 percent of personal income in 2009.

That's down from an average of 12 percent over the past 50 years. The tax burden has not been this low since 1950.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/05/11/US-tax-burden-at-lowest-point-in-years/UPI-74091273594893/#ixzz1Fkrv4inz

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/05/11/US-tax-burden-at-lowest-point-in-years/UPI-74091273594893/

It is/was a temporary shrinkage due to the bad economy and the temporary repeal/lowering of certain taxes as well as certain stimulus measures.

The very recent (and temporary) reduction in taxes is mostly related to the economy, and temporary stimulus payments and "tax reductions" and not an actual lowering of the tax burden (over time)

Government still takes more on average from each family than food, shelter, and clothing combined.

I suggest you look at:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

Taxes amount to just under 27% of American income.

[khc3]

It is/was a temporary shrinkage due to the bad economy and the temporary repeal/lowering of certain taxes as well as certain stimulus measures.

The very recent (and temporary) reduction in taxes is mostly related to the economy, and temporary stimulus payments and "tax reductions" and not an actual lowering of the tax burden (over time)

Government still takes more on average from each family than food, shelter, and clothing combined.

I suggest you look at:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

Taxes amount to just under 27% of American income.

Not only that, but Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" took approx 15 million of the lowest-income tax payers off the Fed income tax rolls.

If there aren't enough tax revenues coming in, it ain't because the rich aren't paying enough.

How about make every American pay income tax, even if just a nominal percentage? Why don't benefits incur income taxes?