CDZ Welfare vs Charity

[320 Years of History]

the Libertarian Party is never going to win the general elections.

Off Topic:
If they weren't so much like the GOP, along with putting up someone who doesn't come off more as a stoner than as a serious person. The two guys the Libs put up this year are quite credible, but the optics of them just don't "do it" for most folks, but they aren't "bad" optics, per say. On the other hand, Trump's optics are decent, but the substance isn't, and Mrs. Clinton's optics are dreadful, but the actual substance is strong.

Such is the nature of American politics. We just aren't going to get another "all in one" person package like George Washington who came across (regardless of the reality) as both a "jack of all trades" and a "master of many" too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Remember....policies do not die with the President who established same.

Hey maybe you could explain that idea to those that blame Obama for all the increase in debt.

This discussion, it seems, is waaayyyyy over your head, Willful Ignorance.

But....If I have the time, tomorrow I will post a thread about Obama what will broil your hero.

Be there....and...
...have the antacids handy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly...but the problem is solved

No, a policy that results in cities being burned to the ground is not a solution to anything.

Wait a second isn't that the solution..

Eliminate the elgibilty ...if you have a job you can not collect.

So what happens is they quit their job receive full welfare benefits or company's raise their wages to get workers..

No, what happens when welfare is cut by greedy-stupid policies is that people riot and burn things down.

They dont just quietly starve to death, dude.

"...starve to death..."

Be serious.

Have you ever had to step over bodies of folks who have 'starved to death'????

Even during the Depression that wasn't the case....


"According to my quick reading of the Life and death during the Great Depression by José A. Tapia Granadosa and Ana V. Diez Roux, the only noticeable increase of mortality was suicide, with a noticeable decline of mortality in every other category.

According also to Michael Mosley, life expectancy actually rose through the Great Depression. In his Horizon programme Eat, Fast and Live Longer he claims

From 1929 to 1933, in the darkest years of the great depression when people were eating far less, life expectancy increased by 6 years.

seeing as the US diet was far higher than starvation standards before the GD, even a serious reduction would have been unlikely to induce starvation level conditions in the majority of the population. And with enough food available overall, and the US always having had a very active local charity network, it's quite likely there would have been help for at least the majority of those who could not afford to feed themselves. In fact for quite a few people a somewhat leaner diet may well have contributed to the increased life expectancy. –"
Sources: David Stuckler, Christopher Meissner, Price Fishback, Sanjay Basu, Martin McKee. 2011. "Banking crises and mortality during the Great Depression: evidence from US urban populations, 1929-1937." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. (link)

Price Fishback, Michael Haines, and Shawn Kantor. 2005. "Births, Deaths, and New Deal Relief During the Great Depression."

How many people in the US starved to death during the Great Depression?



Liberal/Democrat policy is a great hoax, a fraud perpetrated on the electorate.

It's true aim is to keep Democrats in power.

Guess who 80% of welfare recipients vote for.

So along with 'FDR caused the Real estate bubble collapse of 2008' you are now adding 'The Great Depression was good for everybody' to your list of ridiculous claims.

Do you ever stop and just listen to yourself?

BTW, few people ever starve to death, though starvation is the root cause for their death. While they are starving their bodies become more vulnerable to disease, hypothermia and accidents. Not to mention that the starvation itself is quite distracting, which debilitates people from doing their jobs properly. This also causes disease to spread more quickly, affecting the employed, the wealthy as well as the working starving poor.

Did you know for example that prior to WW2, most people had difficulty with getting their body energy levels up, which is why Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola became so popular as the sugar input helped their body energy. IF someone was 'on a diet' it was to GAIN weight, not lose it.

You really want to return the whole population to all that?

Whatever party you think would adapt such a platform 'Let Them Starve' is never going to win a majority, right?

Gee....I'm really disappointed in you.

Frustrated by the facts that I provided...FDR is the provenance of the mortgage meltdown....

...you actually going to 'get even' by fabricating this????
"...now adding 'The Great Depression was good for everybody' to your list of ridiculous claims."
I said no such thing.

You mentioned 'starving' and welfare....
One has nothing.....not a thing....to do with the other.

Now, I'm gonna have to take you to the woodshed again:
a. As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America



b. ".... 96 percent of poor parents say that their children were never hungry at any time in the preceding year because they could not afford food." https://imprimisarchives.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_05_Imprimis.pdf

and

The Unfinished Work of Welfare Reform


See what I mean?
Facts.


The Welfare Policy is a scam, a cottage industry, that does nothing but grow government and make sure Democrats are re-elected.

Fact.


Nothing I post is ridiculous.
If it were, you would provide posts to counter same.
And, you can't.

 

[Wilbur Right]

This discussion, it seems, is waaayyyyy over your head, Willful Ignorance.

In other words, you have put your foot in your mouth again.

Just remember, a PAST presidents policies effect future presidents administrations greatly.

Like Bush busting the economy and Obama getting to deal with it.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Nothing I post is ridiculous.

LMAO. Best and funniest thing I have ever seen you write. Did you have your meds adjusted?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This discussion, it seems, is waaayyyyy over your head, Willful Ignorance.

In other words, you have put your foot in your mouth again.

Just remember, a PAST presidents policies effect future presidents administrations greatly.

Like Bush busting the economy and Obama getting to deal with it.

"Like Bush busting the economy..."

Didn't happen.

Democrat housing policy caused the meltdown.

Democrat/Liberal


See....the discussion is waaaayyyyy over your head.

 

[Andylusion]

Your comment is based on the fallacious assumption that corporations, somehow, have a responsibility to provide for their employees.

Corporations have a single responsibility - to make as much money as they can make - period. No more, no less. To attempt to assign them some social construct, is to deny your own social responsibility.

And therefore they have no right to expect the taxpayer to subsidise their starvation wages.
If people work at a full time job then their employer should pay a living wage.

What is difficult about that ?

The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth - defined as how much value to they add to the finished product - and not one nickel more. Their lifestyle is not the responsibility of the employer.

Put in its simplest terms - which seems to work best around here -- it the goal of the employer to get $1 million worth of labor for $1, and it is the goal of the employee to get $1 million for $1 worth of labor. Sounds pretty adversarial to me.

"The employer should pay them exactly what they're worth..."

And...the very opposite is the minimum wage laws...

"FDR talked Congress into creating Social Security in 1935 and imposing the nation’s first comprehensive minimum-wage law in 1938. While to this day he gets a great deal of credit for these two measures from the general public, many economists have a different perspective. The minimum-wage law prices many of the inexperienced, the young, the unskilled, and the disadvantaged out of the labor market. (For example, the minimum-wage provisions passed as part of another act in 1933 threw an estimated 500,000 blacks out of work.)"
Great Myths of the Great Depression | Lawrence W. Reed

For example, the minimum-wage provisions passed as part of another act in 1933 threw an estimated 500,000 blacks out of work

Yup most of us know that, minimum wage came into effect to destroy black jobs. Democrats I hope their is a special place in hell for them

1. Minimum wage laws actually lower the cost of discriminating against the racially less-preferred individuals. To understand, consider this nonracial example on the effects of such ‘price-setting.’
   1. Consider filet mignon and chuck steak. For argument’s sake, and in reality, consumers prefer the former.
   2. Now ask, then why does chuck steak sell at all? And, in fact, why is it that chuck steak outsells filet mignon?? It is less preferred…yet competes favorably with something more preferred??
   3. The answer is in what economists call ‘compensating differences.’ In effect the chuck says to you: “I’m not as tender nor tasty, but not as expensive,either! I sell for $4/pound, and filet mignon sells for $9/pound.”
   4. Chuck steak, in effect, offers to ‘pay’ you $5/pound for its ‘inferiority,’ a compensating difference.
   5. What if filet mignon sellers wanted to raise their sales against the less-preferred competitor, but couldn’t get a law passed forbidding the sale of chuck, what should they aim to do?
   6. Push for a law establishing a minimum steak-price, say, $9/pound for all steak.
   7. Now…chuck steak says: I don’t look as nice, I’m not tender or tasty as filet mignon, and I sell for the same price….Buy me!
   8. Prior to legislation, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak was $5/pound…Now?
      From “Race & Economics,” by Walter E. Williams.

BTW....not just blacks.

FDR had the same opinion of Jews and Asians.

Everyone needs to read what Chic is saying here, because this is exactly what led to Apartheid.

Blacks in South Africa were less educated, less skilled, and had little work experience. When they were hired, they were paid a lower wage.

That was a problem for the white racists Socialist Unions, who wanted to "protect rich white jobs".

The left-wingers came up with a brilliant plan, that both protected their wealthy white jobs, and at the same time concealed their racism as benevolence for the blacks.

They engaged in a campaign that it was "unfair" for blacks to earn less money for the same job. So they pushed a policy of equal pay, forcing companies to pay the same wage for both people.

Of course this had two effects, both of which destroyed jobs for the black minority.

First, the employer was faced with being required to pay the same wage for both whites and blacks.

If an employer was racists, there was no longer a reason to hire any blacks. See, the market forced even racists employers, to offer job opportunities to even the minorities they hated. Because if the competition was hiring minorities for a lower wage, this caused them to be able to offer an better product at a lower cost.

The racist employer, only employing high cost white labor, would be at a disadvantage, and forced out of the market. Thus the racist employer had no choice by to offer jobs to people they didn't like.

By forcing equal pay, the racists employer had no reason to ever offer a minority he hated, a job. And thus he didn't.

At the exact same time, the very opposite economic motivation affected non-racists employers.

Even if the employer was not racists, now the economic incentives pushed him to hire higher skilled, educated, experienced, and more productive white employees, over the blacks. Being forced to pay the same wage, for less productive people, would put the non-racists employer at a disadvantage to the rest of the market. Essentially they were forced to not offer job opportunities to less productive minorities.

As a result, the Unions successfully engaged in a purely racists policy which was essentially a minimum wage for Union dominated jobs, and pushed all the blacks out of the job market, and protected wealthy white workers. And they did this under the guise of being 'fair to black worker'.

The exact same thing will happen if Gender Equality laws are made universal. What is ironic about that, is how often the left-wing point to places like Sweden as Utopia of gender wage equality. In reality male and female wages are even more dramatically skewed in Sweden.... just not within the same industry.

For example, wages at a day care, are exactly the same for women and men. That's true. But over all, women have been pushed out of high-wage fields, and take up a larger portion of social service and health care positions, that are paid far less.

That's exactly what will happen with equal pay in the US. Women will be slowly forced out of high-wage jobs, while they earn the same wage.... a low wage, at low-end jobs.

 

[Andylusion]

Nothing I post is ridiculous.

LMAO. Best and funniest thing I have ever seen you write. Did you have your meds adjusted?

Everything I have read of hers thus far is dead on accurate. That would make your post, the ridiculous one. Better take your meds. You are starting to make a fool of yourself.

 

[320 Years of History]

You know, I gotta say that of all the things I could worry about, how much the government spends, thus how much of my tax dollar gets consumed by that spending, how much it spends on welfare and similar programs is very low on the list of things that disturb me. There are a few reasons why I don't really care all that much:

• Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.
• Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.
• "Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.
• I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.

This is entirely false, by any economic measure possible. In fact, it's false by the very nature of the system, without trying to measure it. At the very fundamental level, it is logically impossible for what you claim to be true.

Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.

Depends on how you define help. While I was in college, I was forced to watch an educational video about a guy who lost his job, because of an apartment fire, where he failed to buy rental insurance, and lost all his tools. Instead of getting a job at a fast food joint, he got public housing assistance, but then was faced with the dilemma that if he got a job, he would be kicked out of the public housing. So instead he just remained unemployed. After being there for 2 years, he openly on camera admitted he was considering suicide.

There's your "help".

Compare that to the shelter I worked at, which pushed and helped people get jobs, and furnish their own apartments as soon as they earned the money to sign a lease. That's real help. Helping people to move on. Not helping them to stay in misery for life.

And let's not forget that for every dollar of taxes, the end welfare recipient gets about 20¢. That's your 'help'. Where as for every dollar given to the charities I support, the end recipient gets about 90¢. That's real help.

"Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.

Total lie. Just simply not true. You have been brainwashed by liars. Pure and simple.

By the way, just for the sake of a hypothetical argument, if I had no choice, but to choose to either give money to a corporation or to a welfare recipient, which would I choose? The Corporation. How many jobs have you gotten, created by a welfare person? How many products have been made by a welfare person? How many products and jobs are created by corporations? Millions. Billions. Trillions even.

Any rational person, if they had no choice but to pick who to give money to, should pick corporations.

I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

By the way, if you want people to get off welfare, and get good jobs, who are they going to those jobs from? Corporations.

​

(click the image to access the source)​

Social Program "ROI":

• Food Stamps, Welfare Programs Stimulate the Economy
  
• Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008
  
• WELFARE TO-WORK PROGRAM BENEFITS AND COST
  
• The Economic Case for Food Stamps
  
• SNAP/Food Stamps Provide Real Stimulus
  
  
  
  
  
  
• SNAP if You Like Food Stamps

 

[Tommy Tainant]

When did the corporations get to dictate everything ?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Remember....policies do not die with the President who established same.

Ah yes, I remember George Bush proudly proclaiming how his goals of increasing home ownership rates was such a wonderful thing.
Remember that chic?

Remember how one presidents policies effect the next president?

Or do you just suspend your beliefs when it's convenient?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with Liberal welfare policy is that it stems from a belief that the problem is one that can be solved by throwing money at it.

This is their belief and the reason so many of their endeavors fail....i.e., education.

Conservatives know that the problem is largely due to a lack of values and morals.

Until the Depression, 'welfare' was church and community based.

1. Well, how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

a. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.

b. The Scots' Charitable Society, organized in 1684, "open[ed] the bowells of our compassion" to widows like Mrs. Stewart, who had "lost the use of her left arm" and whose husband was "Wash'd Overboard in a Storm."
Pumphrey, Op.Cit., p. 29.

c. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work, and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.


2. Throughout colonial times, charity was reserved for those deemed deserving of same.

Charles Chauncey, told members of the Society for Encouraging Industry, and Employing the Poor (Aug. 12. 1752), that they were "restrained as to the distribution of [their] charity; not being allowed to dispense it promiscuously, but obliged to take due Care to find out suitable Objects; distinguishing properly between those needy People who are able, and those who are unable, to employ themselves in Labour...."


a. This based on Paul's maxim of 2 Thessalonians 3:10, "... if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either."

b. Emphasis was always on both spiritual and material improvement.
In 1773, New Yorkers formed the American Society for Promoting Religious Knowledge Among the Poor. In 1808, we find the Baltimore Female Association for the Relief of Distressed Objects fighting both spiritual and material poverty.


3. Today, 'charity' is pro forma, an entitlement, with no analysis of who or for what reason that charity is given. One doesn't question why the charity is necessary, who will be getting it, nor how it will be used.

It is based on a lack of understanding of human nature: those accepting largesse without working for same hate themselves, and learn to hate the giver as well.
"If you pick up a stray dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between dogs and men." Mark Twain.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Remember....policies do not die with the President who established same.

Ah yes, I remember George Bush proudly proclaiming how his goals of increasing home ownership rates was such a wonderful thing.
Remember that chic?

Remember how one presidents policies effect the next president?

Or do you just suspend your beliefs when it's convenient?

Yes....he did proclaim that.

But....contrary to the Democrats....


"Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
The White House called for tighter regulation 17 times.


Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation."
Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac


Since Obama is an abject failure, you Liberals try to chalk everything to Bush....even after 7 years of this mistake in the White House.

And...you've failed again.

 

[Agit8r]

As with all things, one need only reflect on what the nazis did, and be for the opposite:

"The Winterhilfswerk... could have directed our appeal to the taxpayer. We consciously and deliberately did not do so because we wanted to educate the German Volk to come together in this common sacrifice, and therein to begin to understand the nature of the community; to comprehend the duties this community demands of us and to satisfy these of our own free accord without relying on the taxpayer."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech at Berlin Sportpalast (October 10, 1939)

 

[PoliticalChic]

As with all things, one need only reflect on what the nazis did, and be for the opposite:

"The Winterhilfswerk... could have directed our appeal to the taxpayer. We consciously and deliberately did not do so because we wanted to educate the German Volk to come together in this common sacrifice, and therein to begin to understand the nature of the community; to comprehend the duties this community demands of us and to satisfy these of our own free accord without relying on the taxpayer."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech at Berlin Sportpalast (October 10, 1939)

Excellent!


You bring in the Nazis because they were Leftists just like the current administration.



Superb.


And....I agree....I am for the very opposite of what this administration does.

BTW...did you see this, hot off the presses?
Obama: Second Greatest Failure in 90 Years!

 

[Agit8r]

As with all things, one need only reflect on what the nazis did, and be for the opposite:

"The Winterhilfswerk... could have directed our appeal to the taxpayer. We consciously and deliberately did not do so because we wanted to educate the German Volk to come together in this common sacrifice, and therein to begin to understand the nature of the community; to comprehend the duties this community demands of us and to satisfy these of our own free accord without relying on the taxpayer."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech at Berlin Sportpalast (October 10, 1939)

Excellent!


You bring in the Nazis because they were Leftists just like the current administration.



Superb.


And....I agree....I am for the very opposite of what this administration does.

BTW...did you see this, hot off the presses?
Obama: Second Greatest Failure in 90 Years!

learn to read.

 

[Andylusion]

You know, I gotta say that of all the things I could worry about, how much the government spends, thus how much of my tax dollar gets consumed by that spending, how much it spends on welfare and similar programs is very low on the list of things that disturb me. There are a few reasons why I don't really care all that much:

• Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.
• Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.
• "Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.
• I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

Welfare is spending that returns more to the economy than it cost to provide.

This is entirely false, by any economic measure possible. In fact, it's false by the very nature of the system, without trying to measure it. At the very fundamental level, it is logically impossible for what you claim to be true.

Welfare is spending that helps individual and specific human beings.

Depends on how you define help. While I was in college, I was forced to watch an educational video about a guy who lost his job, because of an apartment fire, where he failed to buy rental insurance, and lost all his tools. Instead of getting a job at a fast food joint, he got public housing assistance, but then was faced with the dilemma that if he got a job, he would be kicked out of the public housing. So instead he just remained unemployed. After being there for 2 years, he openly on camera admitted he was considering suicide.

There's your "help".

Compare that to the shelter I worked at, which pushed and helped people get jobs, and furnish their own apartments as soon as they earned the money to sign a lease. That's real help. Helping people to move on. Not helping them to stay in misery for life.

And let's not forget that for every dollar of taxes, the end welfare recipient gets about 20¢. That's your 'help'. Where as for every dollar given to the charities I support, the end recipient gets about 90¢. That's real help.

"Corporate welfare" consumes far, far more of my tax payments and goes indirectly to support individuals who have less need for the help than do welfare recipients, if only by dint of their being employed by those corporations, if not an ownership stake.

Total lie. Just simply not true. You have been brainwashed by liars. Pure and simple.

By the way, just for the sake of a hypothetical argument, if I had no choice, but to choose to either give money to a corporation or to a welfare recipient, which would I choose? The Corporation. How many jobs have you gotten, created by a welfare person? How many products have been made by a welfare person? How many products and jobs are created by corporations? Millions. Billions. Trillions even.

Any rational person, if they had no choice but to pick who to give money to, should pick corporations.

I really don't care whether every welfare recipient "needs" the help; I care that without welfare, the people who do truly need the help will receive less help than they do currently. I might care were welfare to consume a share of my tax payments comparable to that of "corporate welfare," but it doesn't doesn't, and I'm not going to be so heartless as to complain about the relative pittance welfare takes from my taxes, even considering whatever graft that may occur in welfare programs.

By the way, if you want people to get off welfare, and get good jobs, who are they going to those jobs from? Corporations.

​

(click the image to access the source)​

Social Program "ROI":

• Food Stamps, Welfare Programs Stimulate the Economy
  
• Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008
  
• WELFARE TO-WORK PROGRAM BENEFITS AND COST
  
• The Economic Case for Food Stamps
  
• SNAP/Food Stamps Provide Real Stimulus
  
  
  
  
  
  
• SNAP if You Like Food Stamps

Ok, there is so much BS material here, that it would take too long to answer it all. Let's focus on the first image.

First, it's impossible to know how much in taxes someone making $50,000 is paying, because it all depends on what deductions they qualify for. If people earning less than $47,000 a often paying zero in income tax, how they pretend to know how much tax they are paying at $50,000, is illogical.

Second, unemployment insurance is also paid for by states which have to levy taxes, and also through lower wages, as employers pay workers less money, to cover unemployment compensation costs. So $22.88 is no where even close to the true cost to the employee.

Third, Medicare tax rate is 2.9%. Assuming this tax payer, had zero deductions, he would pay at a minimum $1,450. And that doesn't include higher costs of health care service, caused by Medicare. Health care providers have to charge non-medicare patients a higher cost, to cover the shortfall in payment by Medicare. Again, no where even close to the $235.81. Also Medicare and Medicaid are additionally funded at the State level, which is more taxes on top of Federal taxes.

Fourth, while the cost of Federal Employee retirement and disability, might be $43.78, that doesn't seem to include the fact that Federal employees earn significantly more than private worker, and that 7% of their much higher wage is paid into their retirement. So paying directly into Federal retirement funds, may not be that large, but we pay Federal employees nearly 50% more in wages, and 7% of that massively higher wage, goes into retirement. And both the wage, and the retirement fund, come from tax money. So that $43.78 is way under the real amount. Once again this already completely wrong number, does not include State and Local level employees, many of which are mandated at the Federal level.


Fifth, the FEMA budget is completely misleading. While FEMA may only have a budget of $10 billion dollars, that $10 Billion doesn't cover anything. It's simply for the operations of the government agency. A lot of people don't know this. FEMA doesn't have any assets of their own. They don't own stores of food, or fuel, or equipment. FEMA coordinates the operations of other groups. For example, when FEMA delivers diesel fuel, and diesel electric generators to a location, FEMA doesn't own the generators, the fuel, or the trucks which deliver such items. Instead the local agencies, state agencies, or other Federal agencies provide, and pay for, such items. FEMA simply coordinates where they go. That's one of the reason FEMA gains so much criticism. They only have one job... and they can't even do that one job very well. Regardless, that $3.94 is a tiny.... TINY fraction of the true cost of disaster relief.

Sixth, Welfare and Food Stamps are obviously so far off the mark, that it makes me question if it's an intentional outright lie. Both Welfare and Food Stamps, are funded at all levels of government, from the Fed, State, to the local level. All which have to be paid for by taxes at each level. Even at the Federal Level alone, they must be excluding most welfare programs, to come up with such an unbelievable low number.

The Federal government spent $100 Billion on housing assistance alone. Almost $500 Billion was spent on welfare programs, just at the Federal level. Not including heating assistance and Obama Phones, and other similar programs. In fact public transportation assistance, is basically a welfare program. On top of that, you have knock off costs, like paying law enforcement agencies to investigate welfare and food stamp fraud. Here in Ohio, the Youngstown crime family is notorious for buying food stamp cars, and laundering the money.

So the claim that food stamps and welfare, only cost $45 dollars is clearly BS.

Seventh, the Military is a bit of a joke. DOD spending goes up in down every year, sometimes every month. How they can even attempt to claim that "it costs X much" when it changes month, is beyond me. Bit intellectually dishonest. But regardless, defense of the nation is the one job the Federal government is supposed to do. So I don't really care what the number is.

Lastly, the corporate welfare.

The $4,000 is completely off the deep end. It's not true, not accurate, with zero support. It's wrong. Period.

Corporate subsidies in the US Federal Budget is roughly, at most, about $100 Billion a year. That translates to about $870 per family. A person only making $50K a year, would pay a fraction of that, compared to the more wealthy. So that $4,000 is simply made up left-wing mythology and lies.

Moreover, the source for your mythological $4,000 cost, comes from the Common Dreams organization. One of the ways they make up this $4,000 subsidy, is by including tax breaks. But a tax break isn't a subsidy. For example, when you take the mortgage interest tax deduction.... is that a subsidy? It's exactly the same as a corporate tax deduction. So is everyone being subsidized? Let's end your subsidy first. Practice what you preach brother.

But what makes this even more funny, is that they actually contradict themselves in their own post.

Add It Up: The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business

Now read what they say:

The Huffington Post article notes that without the taxpayer subsidy, those banks would not make a profit. In other words, "the profits they report are essentially transfers from taxpayers to their shareholders."
​

So without this tax break, they would make zero profit. Do you see the problem there? If they made no profit, they would pay zero taxes at all. Your subsidy (tax break), allows them to make a profit which is taxed. The alternative, where they make zero profit, they would pay zero tax.

In the action of making their argument, they contradict their own position. How dumb can left-wingers be.

And to finish this off, it is true that the Federal government does hand out $100 Billion in corporate subsidies... which is much lower than the $480 Billion spent on welfare.

But even then.... which side, the right wing, or the left-wing, is pushing corporate welfare? Currently the country leader in subsidies is Iberdrola, a Spanish energy company, which gained most of it's subsidies, in Wind Power generation projects. Now is green-energy grants a right-wing thing, or left-wing thing? You guys. Not us.

You are the ones pushing for Ethanol subsidies, and agri-business subsidies, and green-energy, and all the rest. Not us. You did this. Complain to yourself.

 

[Andylusion]

When did the corporations get to dictate everything ?

Since they don't, the answer is never.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Welfare and fasfa only helps people a billion times more then Charity.

Charity isn't serious.

 

[Andylusion]

Welfare and fasfa only helps people a billion times more then Charity.

Charity isn't serious.

Simply not true.