Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[dblack]

It's not the governments roll to protect the middle class from predators?

Who suggested that? The role of government is to protect us from bullies. Not to BE the bully.

 

[Anathema]

A 2016 debate with a 1780 answer.

The fact that you eschew the 1780s answer (which also happens to be the truth) shows me there's no point in further conversation between us.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's nice you have such a gung-ho attitude, but when the smoke clears and the bank statement opens....you're middle class.

What's "middle class?"

I suppose, by some people's measure, I would probably be middle class.... while others may consider me "wealthy" ...and there are probably some uber-wealthy people who would laugh at the idea that I am wealthy.

I'll put it like this... I am comfortable. I don't have to work anymore. I have made enough money in my lifetime to live comfortably for the rest of my days and my kids and family are all taken care of as well. I live an extremely moderate lifestyle because I've learned the best things in life are free. It doesn't take a lot of material things to make me happy.

Are we judging "middle class" by my annual earned income? If you're going by that, I'm poverty level. I didn't even qualify to pay income tax this year. But you see... I've already earned my income and paid my taxes. I now have wealth and I live off that. And this is where your class warfare arguments break down. MOST wealthy people are in the same boat. They don't earn massive incomes anymore... they may have at one time, but they don't anymore.

What's "middle class?"

I suppose, by some people's measure, I would probably be middle class.... while others may consider me "wealthy" ...and there are probably some uber-wealthy people who would laugh at the idea that I am wealthy.

I'll put it like this... I am comfortable. I don't have to work anymore. I have made enough money in my lifetime to live comfortably for the rest of my days and my kids and family are all taken care of as well. I live an extremely moderate lifestyle because I've learned the best things in life are free. It doesn't take a lot of material things to make me happy.

Are we judging "middle class" by my annual earned income? If you're going by that, I'm poverty level. I didn't even qualify to pay income tax this year. But you see... I've already earned my income and paid my taxes. I now have wealth and I live off that. And this is where your class warfare arguments break down. MOST wealthy people are in the same boat. They don't earn massive incomes anymore... they may have at one time, but they don't anymore.

Since you're confused, this should help.

What is middle class, anyway? - CNNMoney

Too funny... Your very own link begins by admitting there is no concrete definition of "middle class" and it's all a matter of perspectives..... I just love it when smart-ass morons MAKE MY POINT FOR ME!

Too funny... Your very own link begins by admitting there is no concrete definition of "middle class" and it's all a matter of perspectives..... I just love it when smart-ass morons MAKE MY POINT FOR ME!

So you must have fared middle class in the three tests. You're welcome.

 

[OnePercenter]

Using the force of government to take money away from the people that earn it and giving it away to the people that didn't earn it is a bad thing. It is thievery in addition to creating a welfare state that will resul in severe economic problems,

Using the force of government to take money away from the people that earn it and giving it away to the people that didn't earn it is a bad thing. It is thievery in addition to creating a welfare state that will resul in severe economic problems

You really must be pissed off at Walmart and all of the other big box stores.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's not the governments roll to protect the middle class from predators?

Who suggested that? The role of government is to protect us from bullies. Not to BE the bully.

Who suggested that? The role of government is to protect us from bullies. Not to BE the bully.

My argument is that any employer that doesn't pay a living wage IS a bully.

 

[OnePercenter]

A 2016 debate with a 1780 answer.

The fact that you eschew the 1780s answer (which also happens to be the truth) shows me there's no point in further conversation between us.

The fact that you eschew the 1780s answer (which also happens to be the truth) shows me there's no point in further conversation between us.

I back you into a corner in which you have no way out and you run away? Ayn, the hypocrite is turning over in her grave.

 

[dblack]

My argument is that any employer that doesn't pay a living wage IS a bully.

Well that's a bad argument. There's no bullying at all going on there. No one is forced to work for less than a 'living wage'. Would you, likewise, say that consumers are bullies if they refuse to pay more than five bucks for a burger?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why can't we just cut it to ZERO???

Because every non-third-world-nation in the World recognizes that part of the social contract of an enlightened society is that we care for our poor. I'm sorry if you cannot recognize the social, economic, and health benefits of reducing poverty in our nation. Perhaps you should move to one of those third-world countries where they don't care, and let the rich freely rape, and pillage the poor.

If you're going to be "poor" there is no better place to do it than the USA. Our poor enjoy a higher standard of living than just about any other country in the world.

 

[Flash]

[

Using the force of government to take money away from the people that earn it and giving it away to the people that didn't earn it is a bad thing. It is thievery in addition to creating a welfare state that will resul in severe economic problems

You really must be pissed off at Walmart and all of the other big box stores.

I have a choice buying from Walmart. In fact I very seldom shop there. However, I don't have a choice when the government thugs steal my money and give it away to the filthy ass welfare queens, illegal aliens and Solyndra executives that bundled money for the Democrat Party.

 

[SwimExpert]

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%?

You buying?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

I am not sure where you got your figures, or if you understand them. I think you are confusing (not surprisingly) GDP with the Federal budget. But since you referenced the federal budget you might want to look at this chart-

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png

It's pretty clear that we spend much more on Medicare, Health,Social security than we do military. Al Gore might call that an inconvenient truth.

 

[Anathema]

I back you into a corner in which you have no way out and you run away?

No corner at all. I've already told you the answers. You don't like them. That's your problem, not mine. I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand. I'm a fan of my ancestors, who founded this country on certain principles.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ya know. I keep hearing from fake conservatives about how we spend too much on welfare. Welfare would cause taxes to raise. Poor people want to steal more of my money. Blah, blah, blah.

Some interesting statistics:

Finland spends 3.2% of its federal budget on public assistance.

Great Britain spends a little over 4.6%

Israel spends 2.4%

Norway spends a whopping 6.2%.

And the US? 0.7%. That's it.

So, why can't we just increase that to 2%? We can take that 2% away from our bloated military budget. It would still make us the Western nation that spends the least amount of money on their poor, but imagine the massive effect that would have on poverty in this country. And it wouldn't even cost the tax payers one. Red. Cent. more than they are paying, now. Because I'm not suggesting increasing the budget. I'm suggesting giving public assistance a slightly larger piece of the existing budget.

Why is that such an outrageous idea?

Feel free to go down to the hood & pass out as much of your cash as you want. Leave my wallet the fuck out of it. I made this God damn money through my sweat & labor it is NOT yours or the government's to do with as you please.

 

[Boss]

Too funny... Your very own link begins by admitting there is no concrete definition of "middle class" and it's all a matter of perspectives..... I just love it when smart-ass morons MAKE MY POINT FOR ME!

So you must have fared middle class in the three tests. You're welcome.

Actually, I didn't... it's like I said, a matter of perspective. I made a point, your posted source supports my point and you want to continue arguing an invalid point you can't support. So indeed.. thank you for demonstrating what a muscle-headed moron you are for everyone to see.

There isn't really a "middle class" ...it's a term devised by Marxists in order to promote Marxism.

So far, you have proven you are a Marxist, a Globalist and a Corporatist. You seek to implement Marxism because you stand to profit on the backs of the proletariat once you've shackled them. That's your true agenda and you insidiously hide it by pretending to stand up for the little guy. Marx laid out the master plan... Lenin, Stalin and Mao attempted to implement it and millions of people died as a result. And here you are, promoting the same philosophy again by creating a myth of class disparity and inequality. What's really sad is, so many people are ignorant of history and buy into your rhetoric without critically thinking.

 

[OnePercenter]

My argument is that any employer that doesn't pay a living wage IS a bully.

Well that's a bad argument. There's no bullying at all going on there. No one is forced to work for less than a 'living wage'. Would you, likewise, say that consumers are bullies if they refuse to pay more than five bucks for a burger?

Well that's a bad argument. There's no bullying at all going on there. No one is forced to work for less than a 'living wage'. Would you, likewise, say that consumers are bullies if they refuse to pay more than five bucks for a burger?

Your argument hinges on whether selling a burger for five-bucks makes paying a living wage impossible.

 

[OnePercenter]

[

Using the force of government to take money away from the people that earn it and giving it away to the people that didn't earn it is a bad thing. It is thievery in addition to creating a welfare state that will resul in severe economic problems

You really must be pissed off at Walmart and all of the other big box stores.

I have a choice buying from Walmart. In fact I very seldom shop there. However, I don't have a choice when the government thugs steal my money and give it away to the filthy ass welfare queens, illegal aliens and Solyndra executives that bundled money for the Democrat Party.

I have a choice buying from Walmart. In fact I very seldom shop there. However, I don't have a choice when the government thugs steal my money and give it away to the filthy ass welfare queens, illegal aliens and Solyndra executives that bundled money for the Democrat Party.

How about any of the other big box stores?

 

[OnePercenter]

I back you into a corner in which you have no way out and you run away?

No corner at all. I've already told you the answers. You don't like them. That's your problem, not mine. I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand. I'm a fan of my ancestors, who founded this country on certain principles.

No corner at all. I've already told you the answers. You don't like them. That's your problem, not mine. I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand. I'm a fan of my ancestors, who founded this country on certain principles.

You haven't stated any answers, just some silly-assed ranting about how you're the fan of dead guys.

 

[dblack]

My argument is that any employer that doesn't pay a living wage IS a bully.

Well that's a bad argument. There's no bullying at all going on there. No one is forced to work for less than a 'living wage'. Would you, likewise, say that consumers are bullies if they refuse to pay more than five bucks for a burger?

Well that's a bad argument. There's no bullying at all going on there. No one is forced to work for less than a 'living wage'. Would you, likewise, say that consumers are bullies if they refuse to pay more than five bucks for a burger?

Your argument hinges on whether selling a burger for five-bucks makes paying a living wage impossible.

No it doesn't. You're reading too much into my comment. I'm just making a comparison. I'm drawing attention to the fact that your conception of 'bullying' makes no sense. If an employer can't, or just doesn't want to, pay someone a 'living wage', they're not bullying anyone. Any more than you're bullying the local pizza shop if you don't shop there because you think their pizza's too expensive.

 

[OnePercenter]

Too funny... Your very own link begins by admitting there is no concrete definition of "middle class" and it's all a matter of perspectives..... I just love it when smart-ass morons MAKE MY POINT FOR ME!

So you must have fared middle class in the three tests. You're welcome.

Actually, I didn't... it's like I said, a matter of perspective. I made a point, your posted source supports my point and you want to continue arguing an invalid point you can't support. So indeed.. thank you for demonstrating what a muscle-headed moron you are for everyone to see.

There isn't really a "middle class" ...it's a term devised by Marxists in order to promote Marxism.

So far, you have proven you are a Marxist, a Globalist and a Corporatist. You seek to implement Marxism because you stand to profit on the backs of the proletariat once you've shackled them. That's your true agenda and you insidiously hide it by pretending to stand up for the little guy. Marx laid out the master plan... Lenin, Stalin and Mao attempted to implement it and millions of people died as a result. And here you are, promoting the same philosophy again by creating a myth of class disparity and inequality. What's really sad is, so many people are ignorant of history and buy into your rhetoric without critically thinking.

Actually, I didn't... it's like I said, a matter of perspective. I made a point, your posted source supports my point and you want to continue arguing an invalid point you can't support. So indeed.. thank you for demonstrating what a muscle-headed moron you are for everyone to see.

There isn't really a "middle class" ...it's a term devised by Marxists in order to promote Marxism.

So far, you have proven you are a Marxist, a Globalist and a Corporatist. You seek to implement Marxism because you stand to profit on the backs of the proletariat once you've shackled them. That's your true agenda and you insidiously hide it by pretending to stand up for the little guy. Marx laid out the master plan... Lenin, Stalin and Mao attempted to implement it and millions of people died as a result. And here you are, promoting the same philosophy again by creating a myth of class disparity and inequality. What's really sad is, so many people are ignorant of history and buy into your rhetoric without critically thinking.

I get it. You don't mind driving on the roadway, you just don't think you should have to pay because it's some Marxist plot to overthrow, and your dog told you you look funny wearing a foil hat. You're a wack-job.....seek help.

 

[Flash]

[Q


How about any of the other big box stores?

What about 'em?

I have a choice with any business. I can chose not to give them any of my money. I don't have a choice with the filthy ass government. If I don't cough up the tribute they come after me with armed thugs. After all the welfare queens must have their free Obamaphones, don't they?

Do you even understand the difference?