Welfare Queen says Working is Stupid

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trust me, I'm a landlord, I know all about these things.

Funniest words you have ever written.
" Trust me, I'm a landlord, I know about these things" LMAO.

Aren't you the same landlord that waits until your tenants are three months behind in rent before you do anything? No you say?

Then were you lying about that couple where the woman wouldn't work? And her husband wouldn't work over 40 hours.
And after a couple months of not paying rent, you called them to your apt to tell them how to fix themselves.

Was that story a lie?

Or are you a piss poor landlord who let's tenants take advantage of you.

30 days is all my tenants get. That's the law. You can't start an eviction till they are 30 days late. Then it's attorney time.

You never let it drag on like you do.

Never knew libs had such a short attentions span until you came along.

You not only can't remember what was said, but can't even follow a subject.

 

[Moonglow]

Trust me, I'm a landlord, I know all about these things.

Funniest words you have ever written.
" Trust me, I'm a landlord, I know about these things" LMAO.

Aren't you the same landlord that waits until your tenants are three months behind in rent before you do anything? No you say?

Then were you lying about that couple where the woman wouldn't work? And her husband wouldn't work over 40 hours.
And after a couple months of not paying rent, you called them to your apt to tell them how to fix themselves.

Was that story a lie?

Or are you a piss poor landlord who let's tenants take advantage of you.

30 days is all my tenants get. That's the law. You can't start an eviction till they are 30 days late. Then it's attorney time.

You never let it drag on like you do.

Never knew libs had such a short attentions span until you came along.

You not only can't remember what was said, but can't even follow a subject.

Since you are speaking to one person, the s on libs is unnecessary...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trust me, I'm a landlord, I know all about these things.

Funniest words you have ever written.
" Trust me, I'm a landlord, I know about these things" LMAO.

Aren't you the same landlord that waits until your tenants are three months behind in rent before you do anything? No you say?

Then were you lying about that couple where the woman wouldn't work? And her husband wouldn't work over 40 hours.
And after a couple months of not paying rent, you called them to your apt to tell them how to fix themselves.

Was that story a lie?

Or are you a piss poor landlord who let's tenants take advantage of you.

30 days is all my tenants get. That's the law. You can't start an eviction till they are 30 days late. Then it's attorney time.

You never let it drag on like you do.

Never knew libs had such a short attentions span until you came along.

You not only can't remember what was said, but can't even follow a subject.

Since you are speaking to one person, the s on libs is unnecessary...

That is correct. Don't mean to associate you or anybody else with that lost soul.

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, blacks just LOVE living in ghettos, and racism is over. Blacks vote Dem because they are highly educated liberals lol. No racists in the New BS GOP!

Can you name any racist members of Congress? I can't think of any.

Whether blacks love living in the ghetto or not, who forces them to live there? I certainly don't.

Half the GOP, judging by their voting. Racism in housing, employment, and in general is well documented.

Go ahead FrankoFOS, show us that documentation.

Anywhere but the Pub Propaganda machine lol.

Then show it to us, douche bag.

Google it, stupid. I'm not your mother.

 

[bripat9643]

Can you name any racist members of Congress? I can't think of any.

Whether blacks love living in the ghetto or not, who forces them to live there? I certainly don't.

Half the GOP, judging by their voting. Racism in housing, employment, and in general is well documented.

Go ahead FrankoFOS, show us that documentation.

Anywhere but the Pub Propaganda machine lol.

Then show it to us, douche bag.

Google it, stupid. I'm not your mother.

No, but you want me to do your homework for you. Coughing up evidence to support your claims is your job, not mine.

 

[francoHFW]

Half the GOP, judging by their voting. Racism in housing, employment, and in general is well documented.

Go ahead FrankoFOS, show us that documentation.

Anywhere but the Pub Propaganda machine lol.

Then show it to us, douche bag.

Google it, stupid. I'm not your mother.

No, but you want me to do your homework for you. Coughing up evidence to support your claims is your job, not mine.

You're right, blacks face no racism. lol

 

[bripat9643]

Go ahead FrankoFOS, show us that documentation.

Anywhere but the Pub Propaganda machine lol.

Then show it to us, douche bag.

Google it, stupid. I'm not your mother.

No, but you want me to do your homework for you. Coughing up evidence to support your claims is your job, not mine.

You're right, blacks face no racism. lol

They face very little in this day and age. Furthermore, they have all manner of privileges, like Affirmative Action.

Now answer the question. Produce a single quote of a member of Congress uttering something racist in the last 20 years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Go ahead FrankoFOS, show us that documentation.

Anywhere but the Pub Propaganda machine lol.

Then show it to us, douche bag.

Google it, stupid. I'm not your mother.

No, but you want me to do your homework for you. Coughing up evidence to support your claims is your job, not mine.

You're right, blacks face no racism. lol

Racism where?

In housing? Try refusing to sell or rent a home to a black and see what happens to you.

In employment? Try selecting a white over a black with the same qualification and see what happens to you.

In education? Try refusing to admit a minority in a college today and see what happens to you. In fact, many get extra points just for being a minority.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Listening to this bitch is enough to make you vomit:

Fascinating.

So I say, working isn't stupid.

There, it's a tie.

 

[bripat9643]

Listening to this bitch is enough to make you vomit:

Fascinating.

So I say, working isn't stupid.

There, it's a tie.

True, you are both tied for being stupid hypocrites.

 

[Flopper]

What the resulting map shows is that the most “dependent states,” as measured by the composite score, are Mississippi and New Mexico, each of which gets back about $3 in federal spending for every dollar they send to the federal treasury in taxes. Alabama and Louisiana are close behind.

If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina: The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax. This bar chart, made from Wallet Hub's data, reveals the sharp discrepancies among states on that measure.

On the other side of this group, folks in 14 states, including Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, and Ohio, get back less than $1 for each $1 they spend in taxes.

It’s not just that some states are getting way more in return for their federal tax dollars, but the disproportionate amount of federal aid that some states receive allows them to keep their own taxes artificially low. That's the argument Wallet Hub analysts make in their 2014 Report on Best & Worst States to be a Taxpayer.

Part of the explanation for why southern states dominate the “most dependent” category is historical. During the many decades in the 20th century when the South was solidly Democratic, its congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate, enjoying great seniority, came to hold leadership positions on powerful committees, which they used to send federal dollars back to their home states in the form of contracts, projects, installations.

Another part of the explanation is easier to discern. The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain a “safety net” intended to help the neediest among us. Consider, for example, the percentage of each state’s residents who get “food stamps” through the federal government’s SNAP program. This chart tells the story.

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

Typical truck driver, not very bright. What the states don't pick up, we taxpayers in other states do.

Are Welfare Recipients mostly Republican?
Posted on February 22, 2012 by Tino


Paul Krugman is in puzzlement, having observed that Red States get more welfare funding, while Republican voters oppose the welfare state. He portrays Republicans as “Moochers” who are either hypocritical or too stupid to know their own best interest.

But as we know, states do not vote, individuals do. There is only a paradox if Republican voters receive welfare at above average rates while voting against it. From the Gellman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats. Republican voters earn significantly more than Democrats, even though Red state earn less than Blue states.

Krugman reports no individual level data, so let me. The Maxwell Poll has detailed information about welfare use. The data is from 2004-2007. During this period in these polls a plurality of voters supported Democrats. I will graph the two-party vote, more data is at the end.


Hardly surprising, we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.

You have similar results in this recent NPR-Poll. Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats.

Share of Recipients of each program that self-identified as supporters of Republican party in 2004-2007 Maxwell Poll:

Gov. Subsidized Housing 12%
Medicaid: 16%
Food Stamps: 20%
Unemployment Compensation: 21%
Welfare or public assistance: 22%
Disability benefits from government 25%

Are Welfare Recipients mostly Republican? | Tino Sanandaji

The Democrat leaning poor just don't vote. Those who are financially insecure largely opt out of the political system altogether. Those that are most dependent on government welfare programs are the least likely to vote. That opting out disproportionately affects Democratic support.


Among the poor that vote for Republican, do so because of issues that have little to do with social welfare, abortion, same sex marriage, immigration, and terrorism.

Pew: The poor like Democrats, but don't vote for them

The blacks like Democrats too. A large percentage of them don't vote either, but the Democrats scramble to win that vote and in fact, many say that the minority vote will wipe out the Republican party. The black population in this country is only 13%.

Ask yourself: what does the Democrat party have to offer people but free stuff? Nothing.

Liberals and Demorats don't pay attention to politics, this is true. Look at the cable news ratings compared to Fox. Look at how many liberal outlets on the radio and television have failed. PBS, NPR and others would not be around today if not for taxpayer support. They just don't attract enough audience.

But a little here and a little there, their support of the Democrat party is priceless.

It seems from your post, you're saying that welfare is a major reason why the poor vote Democrat. The question why members of any demographic group vote a certain way involves a number of issues because we are all different..

The poor, at least those that do vote, do lean Democrat for a lot of reasons other than the size of their government check. Republicans have fought to keep wages low by blocking minimum wage increase. They have been fighting to destroy unions forever. Most Republican tax proposals increases taxes on those least able to pay. They support legislation that weakens civil rights. In general, Republicans support most legislation the middle and upper class over the poor. Thus there are good reason why the poor leans Democrat that have nothing to do with welfare.

However, there are lot of poor people who vote Republican who are Christian conservatives, and swayed by many of the same issues as higher income tax payers such as terrorism, healthcare, and immigration.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm happy that she's contributing to demand. There will always be people who abuse something, it's clear that the point of this thread is to portray the majority of welfare recipients as being like the caller in the video.

She's "contributing to demand?" Bernie Madoff also contributed to demand. Do you defend his activities as well?

Aren't the majority of welfare recipients just like the caller? Do you think they don't know they are sucking off productive people while they do nothing in return?

I responded to your absurd thread with a true statement that is also absurd. When this lady spends, she contributes to demand, it's a simple fact. Every system has people who game it, get over it.
Of course not, the majority work. "Sucking off productive people." Hah, those "productive people" need to realize that the mother receiving food stamps down the street is helping to keep their local walmart up and running.
For Wal-Mart, food stamp cutback adds new challenge
And it's not just walmart that takes a hit. There's absolutely no reason to butcher people's spending power, especially the people who spend most of their income. At a time when we need demand, if anything, we need to be expanding benefits. No one has to pay for it. Deficit spending is a wonderful thing.

It only counts as CONTRIBUTES when its HER money.
Otherwise its RE-distribution of OTHER peoples money.

It is not redistribution. That is a total conservative lie.

In a competitive capitalist system, there will always be those who lack the ability, either due to lack of skills, intellect or nature, to compete or succeed. Or who may be going through a difficult time, are disabled or elderly.

Capitalistic systems are also subject to market volatility resulting in periods of growth and recession. The working poor are generally hit harder during these times.

A strong safety net is a necessity in a capitalistic society to provide assistance to those who, for whatever reason, cannot effectively compete. It is the price that capitalists must pay for the wealth they can achieve.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm happy that she's contributing to demand. There will always be people who abuse something, it's clear that the point of this thread is to portray the majority of welfare recipients as being like the caller in the video.

She's "contributing to demand?" Bernie Madoff also contributed to demand. Do you defend his activities as well?

Aren't the majority of welfare recipients just like the caller? Do you think they don't know they are sucking off productive people while they do nothing in return?

I responded to your absurd thread with a true statement that is also absurd. When this lady spends, she contributes to demand, it's a simple fact. Every system has people who game it, get over it.
Of course not, the majority work. "Sucking off productive people." Hah, those "productive people" need to realize that the mother receiving food stamps down the street is helping to keep their local walmart up and running.
For Wal-Mart, food stamp cutback adds new challenge
And it's not just walmart that takes a hit. There's absolutely no reason to butcher people's spending power, especially the people who spend most of their income. At a time when we need demand, if anything, we need to be expanding benefits. No one has to pay for it. Deficit spending is a wonderful thing.

It only counts as CONTRIBUTES when its HER money.
Otherwise its RE-distribution of OTHER peoples money.

It is not redistribution. That is a total conservative lie.

In a competitive capitalist system, there will always be those who lack the ability, either due to lack of skills, intellect or nature, to compete or succeed. Or who may be going through a difficult time, are disabled or elderly.

Capitalistic systems are also subject to market volatility resulting in periods of growth and recession. The working poor are generally hit harder during these times.

A strong safety net is a necessity in a capitalistic society to provide assistance to those who, for whatever reason, cannot effectively compete. It is the price that capitalists must pay for the wealth they can achieve.

A so-called "safety net" is not a necessity, and you failed to prove that it's not redistribution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm happy that she's contributing to demand. There will always be people who abuse something, it's clear that the point of this thread is to portray the majority of welfare recipients as being like the caller in the video.

She's "contributing to demand?" Bernie Madoff also contributed to demand. Do you defend his activities as well?

Aren't the majority of welfare recipients just like the caller? Do you think they don't know they are sucking off productive people while they do nothing in return?

I responded to your absurd thread with a true statement that is also absurd. When this lady spends, she contributes to demand, it's a simple fact. Every system has people who game it, get over it.
Of course not, the majority work. "Sucking off productive people." Hah, those "productive people" need to realize that the mother receiving food stamps down the street is helping to keep their local walmart up and running.
For Wal-Mart, food stamp cutback adds new challenge
And it's not just walmart that takes a hit. There's absolutely no reason to butcher people's spending power, especially the people who spend most of their income. At a time when we need demand, if anything, we need to be expanding benefits. No one has to pay for it. Deficit spending is a wonderful thing.

It only counts as CONTRIBUTES when its HER money.
Otherwise its RE-distribution of OTHER peoples money.

It is not redistribution. That is a total conservative lie.

In a competitive capitalist system, there will always be those who lack the ability, either due to lack of skills, intellect or nature, to compete or succeed. Or who may be going through a difficult time, are disabled or elderly.

Capitalistic systems are also subject to market volatility resulting in periods of growth and recession. The working poor are generally hit harder during these times.

A strong safety net is a necessity in a capitalistic society to provide assistance to those who, for whatever reason, cannot effectively compete. It is the price that capitalists must pay for the wealth they can achieve.

Okay, and do you include those who are too lazy to work in your category of "those who cannot effectively compete?"

I would never rag on anybody who is always trying no matter what level they are at. I understand that some people are too stupid to make a good living; I work with some of those people. The people I do rag on are those who are more than capable of working, but instead of using their talents to earn an income, use them to game the system.

When you take from those who create money, and give it to those who just don't want to work, that is redistribution.

Yes, there will be "some" people who are unfortunate or are slick enough to rob the system, but when you have a country of 315 million people, and 93 million of them within working range are not working nor looking for a job, and 45 million of them are being fed by the taxpayers, that's more than "some" people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What the resulting map shows is that the most “dependent states,” as measured by the composite score, are Mississippi and New Mexico, each of which gets back about $3 in federal spending for every dollar they send to the federal treasury in taxes. Alabama and Louisiana are close behind.

If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina: The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax. This bar chart, made from Wallet Hub's data, reveals the sharp discrepancies among states on that measure.

On the other side of this group, folks in 14 states, including Delaware, Minnesota, Illinois, Nebraska, and Ohio, get back less than $1 for each $1 they spend in taxes.

It’s not just that some states are getting way more in return for their federal tax dollars, but the disproportionate amount of federal aid that some states receive allows them to keep their own taxes artificially low. That's the argument Wallet Hub analysts make in their 2014 Report on Best & Worst States to be a Taxpayer.

Part of the explanation for why southern states dominate the “most dependent” category is historical. During the many decades in the 20th century when the South was solidly Democratic, its congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate, enjoying great seniority, came to hold leadership positions on powerful committees, which they used to send federal dollars back to their home states in the form of contracts, projects, installations.

Another part of the explanation is easier to discern. The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars. Through a variety of social programs, the federal government disburses hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain a “safety net” intended to help the neediest among us. Consider, for example, the percentage of each state’s residents who get “food stamps” through the federal government’s SNAP program. This chart tells the story.

Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers?

Typical truck driver, not very bright. What the states don't pick up, we taxpayers in other states do.

Are Welfare Recipients mostly Republican?
Posted on February 22, 2012 by Tino


Paul Krugman is in puzzlement, having observed that Red States get more welfare funding, while Republican voters oppose the welfare state. He portrays Republicans as “Moochers” who are either hypocritical or too stupid to know their own best interest.

But as we know, states do not vote, individuals do. There is only a paradox if Republican voters receive welfare at above average rates while voting against it. From the Gellman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats. Republican voters earn significantly more than Democrats, even though Red state earn less than Blue states.

Krugman reports no individual level data, so let me. The Maxwell Poll has detailed information about welfare use. The data is from 2004-2007. During this period in these polls a plurality of voters supported Democrats. I will graph the two-party vote, more data is at the end.


Hardly surprising, we see that in a two-party split, 60-80% of welfare recipients are Democrats, while full time Workers are evenly divided between parties.

You have similar results in this recent NPR-Poll. Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats.

Share of Recipients of each program that self-identified as supporters of Republican party in 2004-2007 Maxwell Poll:

Gov. Subsidized Housing 12%
Medicaid: 16%
Food Stamps: 20%
Unemployment Compensation: 21%
Welfare or public assistance: 22%
Disability benefits from government 25%

Are Welfare Recipients mostly Republican? | Tino Sanandaji

The Democrat leaning poor just don't vote. Those who are financially insecure largely opt out of the political system altogether. Those that are most dependent on government welfare programs are the least likely to vote. That opting out disproportionately affects Democratic support.


Among the poor that vote for Republican, do so because of issues that have little to do with social welfare, abortion, same sex marriage, immigration, and terrorism.

Pew: The poor like Democrats, but don't vote for them

The blacks like Democrats too. A large percentage of them don't vote either, but the Democrats scramble to win that vote and in fact, many say that the minority vote will wipe out the Republican party. The black population in this country is only 13%.

Ask yourself: what does the Democrat party have to offer people but free stuff? Nothing.

Liberals and Demorats don't pay attention to politics, this is true. Look at the cable news ratings compared to Fox. Look at how many liberal outlets on the radio and television have failed. PBS, NPR and others would not be around today if not for taxpayer support. They just don't attract enough audience.

But a little here and a little there, their support of the Democrat party is priceless.

It seems from your post, you're saying that welfare is a major reason why the poor vote Democrat. The question why members of any demographic group vote a certain way involves a number of issues because we are all different..

The poor, at least those that do vote, do lean Democrat for a lot of reasons other than the size of their government check. Republicans have fought to keep wages low by blocking minimum wage increase. They have been fighting to destroy unions forever. Most Republican tax proposals increases taxes on those least able to pay. They support legislation that weakens civil rights. In general, Republicans support most legislation the middle and upper class over the poor. Thus there are good reason why the poor leans Democrat that have nothing to do with welfare.

However, there are lot of poor people who vote Republican who are Christian conservatives, and swayed by many of the same issues as higher income tax payers such as terrorism, healthcare, and immigration.

It doesn't have to be a government check to "give them anything."

I can't go through your lengthy list of what you THINK Republicans are for, but let's look at what Sanders and Clinton are preaching about. If it were up to Sanders, he would take away most of the wealth from the wealthy. Of course his followers "assume" that they will end up with that wealth. Free college! Liberals love to talk about free stuff--but never talk about who is going to pay for free.

Then we have the equal pay nonsense. Yes, the Democrats can point to statistics that show men make more than women, but no evidence as to why. They just leave the impression that it must be gender discrimination. So they tell half of our population that they will pass an equal pay law, even though that law was already passed in 1962.

Hillary (like Sanders) complains about those evil one-percenters. Her followers ignore the fact that she is a one-percenter. Criminal justice reform. That's a hot one. Blacks commit a disproportional amount of crime in this country--especially theft and violence, so Hillary wants to do something about getting them out of jail.

Paid family leave. Yes, it's not bad enough that businesses leave this country due to all the expense it takes to have employees in the US, now she is promising Americans even more paid time-off from work.

It all boils down to making more government dependents and giving people more stuff. As you can see, it doesn't have to be a check from the government.

 

[Wilbur Right]

They kept getting more and more behind on rent. When it got to the point of over a month away, I called them to my apartment to discuss the situation.

How much is "more and more behind on rent".

What does "When it got to the point of over a month away".
What does that sentence even mean?

Then you wanted her to get a job. After they were already behind on rent.

How many months do you let a tenant get behind before you decide to do something about it?

You know about these things. Right? LMAO.

 

[Dragonlady]

Okay, and do you include those who are too lazy to work in your category of "those who cannot effectively compete?"

I would never rag on anybody who is always trying no matter what level they are at. I understand that some people are too stupid to make a good living; I work with some of those people. The people I do rag on are those who are more than capable of working, but instead of using their talents to earn an income, use them to game the system.

When you take from those who create money, and give it to those who just don't want to work, that is redistribution.

Yes, there will be "some" people who are unfortunate or are slick enough to rob the system, but when you have a country of 315 million people, and 93 million of them within working range are not working nor looking for a job, and 45 million of them are being fed by the taxpayers, that's more than "some" people.

The vast majority of the 45 million being fed by the taxpayers are the working poor. They have jobs, some of them more than one, but have such low wages that they need assistance in feeding their families. The assistance they receive, IMO, is a wage subsidy to their employers.

I have so many objections to this practice. I know of no other country which has such an expensive, and quite frankly, ridiculous system. And yet Americans, who rage against "redistribution" seem incapable of understanding that such a system is bloating their government, and doubling the cost to the taxpayers of getting money into the hands of the poor. I higher minimum wage would have the same effect, at half the cost to the economy.

In order for the working poor to receive assistance, the government has to review the tax returns for "earned income credits", and process their refunds. Food stamps have a huge administration system, at both the federal and state level. Wouldn't it be far cheaper to just have their employers pay them a wage reflective of the cost of living, and eliminate the entire syustem? I am very much in agreement with those who say that if your business can't pay its employees a living wage, it deserves to fail.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Trucks don't pay for all the roads, but much of them.

The Hidden Trucking Industry Subsidy
June 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm · Filed under Business, Economics, Policy

Freight trucks cause 99% of wear-and-tear on US roads, but only pay for 35% of the maintenance. This $60B subsidy causes extra congestion and pollution, and taxpayers pay the bill.

It seems obvious that the heavier the vehicle, the more damage it does to roads over time. A 40,000 pound big rig probably does a bit more damage than your average 3500 pound consumer vehicle, right? It turns out that vehicle road damage doesn’t rise linearly with weight. Road damage rises with the fourth power of weight, and this means that a 40,000 pound truck does roughly 10,000 times more damage to roadways than the average car [1]!

In other words, one fully loaded 18-wheeler does the same damage to a road as 9600 cars. According to the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the trucking industry represents 11% of all vehicles on the road in the US, while paying 35% of all highway taxes. But if trucks represent 11% of vehicles, their heavy loads cause them to do 99% of all road damage! [2] The trucking industry paid $35 Billion in highway taxes in 2005, according to the ATA. Since most of the $100 Billion in highway taxes paid goes to maintenance (and US infrastructure maintenance is far behind), this implies that the trucking industry receives a $60 Billion annual subsidy from other drivers.



Well looky there ray, you were lying again. You make habit of that (lying). Does your boss know?

On top of lying Ray,you have to get tax payer subsidy to do your job. That's funny.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Trucks pay for the road they use. They pay excise taxes on gasoline, and they pay per ton/mile taxes in addition.

Large trucks do 99% of the roadway damage and pay about 35% of the maintenance costs.

In your convoluted world, that's "fair". Right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, and do you include those who are too lazy to work in your category of "those who cannot effectively compete?"

I would never rag on anybody who is always trying no matter what level they are at. I understand that some people are too stupid to make a good living; I work with some of those people. The people I do rag on are those who are more than capable of working, but instead of using their talents to earn an income, use them to game the system.

When you take from those who create money, and give it to those who just don't want to work, that is redistribution.

Yes, there will be "some" people who are unfortunate or are slick enough to rob the system, but when you have a country of 315 million people, and 93 million of them within working range are not working nor looking for a job, and 45 million of them are being fed by the taxpayers, that's more than "some" people.

The vast majority of the 45 million being fed by the taxpayers are the working poor. They have jobs, some of them more than one, but have such low wages that they need assistance in feeding their families. The assistance they receive, IMO, is a wage subsidy to their employers.

I have so many objections to this practice. I know of no other country which has such an expensive, and quite frankly, ridiculous system. And yet Americans, who rage against "redistribution" seem incapable of understanding that such a system is bloating their government, and doubling the cost to the taxpayers of getting money into the hands of the poor. I higher minimum wage would have the same effect, at half the cost to the economy.

In order for the working poor to receive assistance, the government has to review the tax returns for "earned income credits", and process their refunds. Food stamps have a huge administration system, at both the federal and state level. Wouldn't it be far cheaper to just have their employers pay them a wage reflective of the cost of living, and eliminate the entire syustem? I am very much in agreement with those who say that if your business can't pay its employees a living wage, it deserves to fail.

I see, so your position is that it's better to have no jobs than low paying jobs. That's quite an admission.

Believe it or not, people don't start or open up businesses as a social obligation. They open up businesses to sell products or services. Because there is competition and the American consumer is so cheap, they have to keep prices down in order to attract customers. If you are paying good wages and benefits to those doing monkey jobs in your company, and your competition isn't, you will go out of business.

I'm in industry all day long. I talk to our customers about various things--one of them being employment. Some of our customers use temporary services. It gives them the ability to adjust the size of their work crew according to their fluctuating business, and it also give them the opportunity to try out employees first before hiring them.

What they tell me is that when things get busy and they ask their temporary help if they could work extra hours, many of them refuse. Why? Because earning more money will interfere with their SNAP's allotment. For them, it's like working for free, so they simply don't do it.

On a personal note, I see what those food stamp people are buying when they get in line in front of me: food, cigarettes, beer or wine, greeting cards, flowers for the yard, huge bags of dog food or cat litter, already made chocolate cakes and candy. At times when I have only a couple of things to purchase, I end up behind them as they leave the store. I wish I could afford the vehicles some of these people are driving.

So I don't buy into this notion that all of these people need help. In fact from what I've seen, very few of them need help, it's just that the help is free so why bother working?