Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[Arianrhod]

Then maybe you should stop.

Didn't realize you worked for Social Services. Now that would be ironic...

I don't. Since I'm one of those funding what you think I should be forced to fund, by supporting that forced taxation, you're telling me that you can determine who I should give a shit about.

Let me ask you: Did you agree to fund the Iraq War?

Is funding war and the military a delegated power in the Constitution? The answer is yes. Does the word food stamps, government subsidized healthcare, etc. exist in the Constitution? The answer is no. I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you want it to say.

So you're happy to donate to invading other sovereign nations. Got it.

I'm happy to abide by the Constitution.

Happy to lend your support to killing children in other sovereign nations, but not to feeding children in your own. Jesus might not approve, but Yahweh would give you a fist-bump.

You aren't.

My interpretation differs from yours.

By the way, many of the Democrat leaders who now say Bush lied said exactly the same thing as Bush did.

I don't recall disputing that.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't. Since I'm one of those funding what you think I should be forced to fund, by supporting that forced taxation, you're telling me that you can determine who I should give a shit about.

Let me ask you: Did you agree to fund the Iraq War?

Is funding war and the military a delegated power in the Constitution? The answer is yes. Does the word food stamps, government subsidized healthcare, etc. exist in the Constitution? The answer is no. I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you want it to say.

So you're happy to donate to invading other sovereign nations. Got it.

I'm happy to abide by the Constitution.

Happy to lend your support to killing children in other sovereign nations, but not to feeding children in your own. Jesus might not approve, but Yahweh would give you a fist-bump.

You aren't.

My interpretation differs from yours.

By the way, many of the Democrat leaders who now say Bush lied said exactly the same thing as Bush did.

I don't recall disputing that.

Mine isn't an interpretation. It goes based on what's WRITTEN not how I want it to read. That you admit it's an interpretation means you have to put your personal bias into it. I go only by what it says and that doesn't require an interpretation. It only requires the ability to read what it says.

 

[Arianrhod]

Let me ask you: Did you agree to fund the Iraq War?

Is funding war and the military a delegated power in the Constitution? The answer is yes. Does the word food stamps, government subsidized healthcare, etc. exist in the Constitution? The answer is no. I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you want it to say.

So you're happy to donate to invading other sovereign nations. Got it.

I'm happy to abide by the Constitution.

Happy to lend your support to killing children in other sovereign nations, but not to feeding children in your own. Jesus might not approve, but Yahweh would give you a fist-bump.

You aren't.

My interpretation differs from yours.

By the way, many of the Democrat leaders who now say Bush lied said exactly the same thing as Bush did.

I don't recall disputing that.

Mine isn't an interpretation. It goes based on what's WRITTEN not how I want it to read.

Sucks for you that we live under a tricameral system and not a dictatorship, huh?

 

[Conservative65]

Is funding war and the military a delegated power in the Constitution? The answer is yes. Does the word food stamps, government subsidized healthcare, etc. exist in the Constitution? The answer is no. I go by what the Constitution says. You go by what you want it to say.

So you're happy to donate to invading other sovereign nations. Got it.

I'm happy to abide by the Constitution.

Happy to lend your support to killing children in other sovereign nations, but not to feeding children in your own. Jesus might not approve, but Yahweh would give you a fist-bump.

You aren't.

My interpretation differs from yours.

By the way, many of the Democrat leaders who now say Bush lied said exactly the same thing as Bush did.

I don't recall disputing that.

Mine isn't an interpretation. It goes based on what's WRITTEN not how I want it to read.

Sucks for you that we live under a tricameral system and not a dictatorship, huh?

Sucks that you have to rely on what you want something to say while ignoring what something actually says.

I can show you where it SAYS military and funding of it. Can you show me the word food stamps and healthcare in that same document?

 

[Arianrhod]

So you're happy to donate to invading other sovereign nations. Got it.

I'm happy to abide by the Constitution.

Happy to lend your support to killing children in other sovereign nations, but not to feeding children in your own. Jesus might not approve, but Yahweh would give you a fist-bump.

You aren't.

My interpretation differs from yours.

By the way, many of the Democrat leaders who now say Bush lied said exactly the same thing as Bush did.

I don't recall disputing that.

Mine isn't an interpretation. It goes based on what's WRITTEN not how I want it to read.

Sucks for you that we live under a tricameral system and not a dictatorship, huh?

Sucks that you have to rely on what you want something to say while ignoring what something actually says.

I can show you where it SAYS military and funding of it. Can you show me the word food stamps and healthcare in that same document?

I'm aware of the wording of the Constitution.

Which, of course, has never been amended, right?

And which, courtesy of a tricameral system, is frequently interpreted.

So what's your objection - to the amendments (except the Sacred Second, of course) or to the existence of SCOTUS (except when its rulings match your desires)?

 

[Flopper]

Because people choose to be born into poverty, attend bad schools, live in areas where the jobs either don't exist or were sent to China. Numbers 14:18, huh?

And if you're a child whose parent is serving time, don't be shocked if smug people who have no such experience dismiss you as trash. They don't have time to examine your situation more closely - they're on their way to church. Luke 18:11.

No people made choices that caused them to be in poverty and now want to blame someone else for the results or expect someone else to pay for it. Are you saying everyone that quit high school went to a bad school?

I don't need to examine it more closely. The parent made the choice to commit the crime that sent them to prison and you expect the rest of us to pay for their choice. In doing so, it takes away what I'VE earned that goes to my kids. Why should mine do with less because I am expected to pay more taxes because of what some other parent did? What you're saying is that when people make bad choices the rest of us should be willing and overjoyed to pay for it.

You're going to pay in one way or the other. Poverty is the mother of crime, disease, and insurrection. Social services that help people get out of poverty are a good investment.

Poverty and bad laws. We have spent well over 5 trillion dollars on the "war on poverty". How has that worked out for us? What has been the net effect on the amount of people still in poverty since the war was started?

What's the bible verse, You will always have the poor with you, or something like that. The War on Poverty actually did reduce poverty in US from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent today according to a study done in 2013 at Columbia University.

Social problems are the most difficult problems we face. The general public might look at the War on poverty as a failure because after spending 5 trillion dollars we still have 16% of the people below the poverty line. However, social scientist see it as successful by comparison to other programs.

Although poverty has been shown to be a major factor in most of the nations social problems, it is certainly not the only factor. Even if we could eliminate all poverty, there would certainly be crime, racism, alcohol and drug addition, dysfunctional behavior, etc. but there would be less of it.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

I'm not religious so I have never read the Bible so can't help you there. However, I do know that merely giving people money without teaching them HOW to earn money only serves to make them dependent on you who have given them the money. That is a lesson that has been learned repeatedly over the millennia. How do you deal with people who CHOOSE to remain in poverty? Must the rest of society be forced to care for them?

I actually DO agree with some aspect of that to be honest. If someone wants to check out of society I am quite happy to give them a two room apartment, feed them, give them a nice TV and a game system and let them play away till they die. The trade off is they don't get to vote, or have children. They become wards of the State and as such they have no right to procreate.

Now, should they decide that they no longer wish to live that way and decide to become productive members of society then that door is always open for them too. Nothing is permanent.

How does that work for you?

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

 

[dblack]

Consensus???
Cut social security, disability, raise medicare premiums, reduce SNAP benefits, cut welfare payments,etc.
I don't think there would be any doubt about the consensus.

Maybe. Do you think it's a good idea to merge economic and state power?

No, but I don't see what that has to do with providing social services for the poor.

It has everything to do with it. I hope you can appreciate that, for me at least, this has nothing to with compassion for the poor, and everything to do with dangerously powerful government.

Look back at the justifications you provided for propping up American workers. It's approximately the same arguments offered for giving tax breaks to American corporations. We're inviting government to treat workers and companies as resources to be fostered (and controlled) in the name of international competition.

The reason this kind of government (corporatism) is so dangerous is that it discards the equal protection of individual rights in favor of government that balances interest group privileges. It sets government up as the coach of society, rather than the referee.

 

[westwall]

No people made choices that caused them to be in poverty and now want to blame someone else for the results or expect someone else to pay for it. Are you saying everyone that quit high school went to a bad school?

I don't need to examine it more closely. The parent made the choice to commit the crime that sent them to prison and you expect the rest of us to pay for their choice. In doing so, it takes away what I'VE earned that goes to my kids. Why should mine do with less because I am expected to pay more taxes because of what some other parent did? What you're saying is that when people make bad choices the rest of us should be willing and overjoyed to pay for it.

You're going to pay in one way or the other. Poverty is the mother of crime, disease, and insurrection. Social services that help people get out of poverty are a good investment.

Poverty and bad laws. We have spent well over 5 trillion dollars on the "war on poverty". How has that worked out for us? What has been the net effect on the amount of people still in poverty since the war was started?

What's the bible verse, You will always have the poor with you, or something like that. The War on Poverty actually did reduce poverty in US from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent today according to a study done in 2013 at Columbia University.

Social problems are the most difficult problems we face. The general public might look at the War on poverty as a failure because after spending 5 trillion dollars we still have 16% of the people below the poverty line. However, social scientist see it as successful by comparison to other programs.

Although poverty has been shown to be a major factor in most of the nations social problems, it is certainly not the only factor. Even if we could eliminate all poverty, there would certainly be crime, racism, alcohol and drug addition, dysfunctional behavior, etc. but there would be less of it.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

I'm not religious so I have never read the Bible so can't help you there. However, I do know that merely giving people money without teaching them HOW to earn money only serves to make them dependent on you who have given them the money. That is a lesson that has been learned repeatedly over the millennia. How do you deal with people who CHOOSE to remain in poverty? Must the rest of society be forced to care for them?

I actually DO agree with some aspect of that to be honest. If someone wants to check out of society I am quite happy to give them a two room apartment, feed them, give them a nice TV and a game system and let them play away till they die. The trade off is they don't get to vote, or have children. They become wards of the State and as such they have no right to procreate.

Now, should they decide that they no longer wish to live that way and decide to become productive members of society then that door is always open for them too. Nothing is permanent.

How does that work for you?

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice. They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment. They COULD work, they choose not to. A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc. And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.

 

[Arianrhod]

Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice. They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment. They COULD work, they choose not to. A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc. And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.

Here we go again...

 

[westwall]

Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice. They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment. They COULD work, they choose not to. A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc. And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.

Here we go again...

Do you have a point or are you merely going to bleat?

 

[Arianrhod]

Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice. They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment. They COULD work, they choose not to. A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc. And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.

Here we go again...

Do you have a point or are you merely going to bleat?

That sound you hear is the echo of the many, many, many others here who have made that same tired "some people don't want to work" speech before you. You at least jazzed it up with the "a friend of mine" variation, but it's still tone-deaf.

 

[westwall]

Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice. They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment. They COULD work, they choose not to. A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc. And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.

Here we go again...

Do you have a point or are you merely going to bleat?

That sound you hear is the echo of the many, many, many others here who have made that same tired "some people don't want to work" speech before you. You at least jazzed it up with the "a friend of mine" variation, but it's still tone-deaf.

And yet it is factual, unlike the tired old bullshit you trot out on a daily basis. Tell me oh dimwitted one, has there ever been a society where there was no poverty?

 

[Arianrhod]

Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice. They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment. They COULD work, they choose not to. A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc. And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.

Here we go again...

Do you have a point or are you merely going to bleat?

That sound you hear is the echo of the many, many, many others here who have made that same tired "some people don't want to work" speech before you. You at least jazzed it up with the "a friend of mine" variation, but it's still tone-deaf.

And yet it is factual...

Then present some factual data, not "a friend of mine."

An example of factual data:

 

[Flopper]

Because people choose to be born into poverty, attend bad schools, live in areas where the jobs either don't exist or were sent to China. Numbers 14:18, huh?

And if you're a child whose parent is serving time, don't be shocked if smug people who have no such experience dismiss you as trash. They don't have time to examine your situation more closely - they're on their way to church. Luke 18:11.

No people made choices that caused them to be in poverty and now want to blame someone else for the results or expect someone else to pay for it. Are you saying everyone that quit high school went to a bad school?

I don't need to examine it more closely. The parent made the choice to commit the crime that sent them to prison and you expect the rest of us to pay for their choice. In doing so, it takes away what I'VE earned that goes to my kids. Why should mine do with less because I am expected to pay more taxes because of what some other parent did? What you're saying is that when people make bad choices the rest of us should be willing and overjoyed to pay for it.

You're going to pay in one way or the other. Poverty is the mother of crime, disease, and insurrection. Social services that help people get out of poverty are a good investment.

Poverty and bad laws. We have spent well over 5 trillion dollars on the "war on poverty". How has that worked out for us? What has been the net effect on the amount of people still in poverty since the war was started?

What's the bible verse, You will always have the poor with you, or something like that. The War on Poverty actually did reduce poverty in US from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent today according to a study done in 2013 at Columbia University.

Social problems are the most difficult problems we face. The general public might look at the War on poverty as a failure because after spending 5 trillion dollars we still have 16% of the people below the poverty line. However, social scientist see it as successful by comparison to other programs.

Although poverty has been shown to be a major factor in most of the nations social problems, it is certainly not the only factor. Even if we could eliminate all poverty, there would certainly be crime, racism, alcohol and drug addition, dysfunctional behavior, etc. but there would be less of it.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

We've spent $22 trillion and the poverty level today is the same as it was just before the war on poverty began.

The poverty rate couldn't have been 26% in 1967 since the highest poverty rate on record was just over 22% in 1959.

www.cnbc.com/id/48281252/

Here's a chart from the Census Bureau showing poverty by the percentages and numbers. I'm not seeing that 26% you claim

View attachment 53019 View attachment 53019

See page page 5 of the report for an explanation of the OPM/SPM poverty rates.
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

 

[Flopper]

You're going to pay in one way or the other. Poverty is the mother of crime, disease, and insurrection. Social services that help people get out of poverty are a good investment.

Poverty and bad laws. We have spent well over 5 trillion dollars on the "war on poverty". How has that worked out for us? What has been the net effect on the amount of people still in poverty since the war was started?

What's the bible verse, You will always have the poor with you, or something like that. The War on Poverty actually did reduce poverty in US from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent today according to a study done in 2013 at Columbia University.

Social problems are the most difficult problems we face. The general public might look at the War on poverty as a failure because after spending 5 trillion dollars we still have 16% of the people below the poverty line. However, social scientist see it as successful by comparison to other programs.

Although poverty has been shown to be a major factor in most of the nations social problems, it is certainly not the only factor. Even if we could eliminate all poverty, there would certainly be crime, racism, alcohol and drug addition, dysfunctional behavior, etc. but there would be less of it.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

I'm not religious so I have never read the Bible so can't help you there. However, I do know that merely giving people money without teaching them HOW to earn money only serves to make them dependent on you who have given them the money. That is a lesson that has been learned repeatedly over the millennia. How do you deal with people who CHOOSE to remain in poverty? Must the rest of society be forced to care for them?

I actually DO agree with some aspect of that to be honest. If someone wants to check out of society I am quite happy to give them a two room apartment, feed them, give them a nice TV and a game system and let them play away till they die. The trade off is they don't get to vote, or have children. They become wards of the State and as such they have no right to procreate.

Now, should they decide that they no longer wish to live that way and decide to become productive members of society then that door is always open for them too. Nothing is permanent.

How does that work for you?

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice. They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment. They COULD work, they choose not to. A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc. And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.

Yes, there are people that prefer poverty to work, but like the welfare queens they are a relatively small percentage of those receiving government assistance. As I said, the vast number of people receiving assistance from the government are either elderly, disabled or a member of a working household.

You use the term "can work". Anyone can work given the right situation; that is if the person's age, disability, hours not doing childcare, job qualifications, and a means to get to the job, match that of an available job. In spite of problems, most of them do work. They work at part time and/or temporary jobs. The common situation is they have a temporary job which last a few months. Then they're out of work for several months. They never make enough to get off public assistance. Most of these people are hired only because they will work for low pay in jobs no else wants.

I've worked or volunteered at both a job center and a homeless center. My experience has been that most of these people are willing to work and want to work. The problem is no one wants to hire them because they are either incapable of doing the work or they aren't reliable. Drugs, alcohol, physical and mental disabilities, institutionalization, age, and illnesses make them undesirable for most jobs they might qualify which aren't many.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.

Excellent! So you're against giving the Waltons a $6 billion tax break every year. Now we're getting somewhere...

No, fucknut. You might as well give up on your attempts to make what I say into what you want to hear. It's never worked for anyone else on this board, and frankly, you have about half the IQ points of the next dumbest leftist around here.

Listen up, because this will be the last time I say it: there is nothing in the tax code that specifies "only the Waltons", or "only the Kochs", or "only the [random rich person Arian hates because he's such a fucking loser]". They have the same tax code you do. The fact that you're a minimum-wage pisswad whose only income likely comes from other people's pity and therefore has no reason to use certain aspects of the tax code doesn't mean they wouldn't apply to you just as much as anyone else should a miracle happen and you win the Powerball lottery or something.

So take your liver-eating envy of anyone who isn't a room temperature mouthbreather like you, and peddle it on down the fucking road. There is nothing "clever" you are going to say that is ever going to make me agree that it's a spiffy idea to punish people for not being shitbricks like you. All your attempts at cleverness accomplish is to convince me that you are, indeed, a shitbrick. Mission accomplished, so you can stop.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.

Excellent! So you're against giving the Waltons a $6 billion tax break every year. Now we're getting somewhere...

So you're against allowing almost half the country to get by without paying income taxes.

It's 1%, not "half the country." Get back to me when those loopholes are closed.

No, fuckstain. 46% of the country - the poor side of the spectrum - don't pay federal taxes. That 1% you're so "brilliantly" convinced don't pay taxes? They're the ones paying your way in life.

Way to show us your economic acumen, Jethro.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No. I know about the Waltons. I've presented no argument or assertion regarding my willingness to give the Waltons ANYTHING.

You don't have to present an argument. You just have to keep doing what you're doing without ever questioning it - chipping in to compensate for the $6 billion a year that they don't pay. And paying for the SNAP benefits their employees get because the Waltons are the only employer in the area and they pay minimum wage.

Double penetration...into your income. But you're fine with that.

So let me get this straight. You want us all to believe that you're outraged because you claim YOU are paying taxes, and the Waltons aren't?

You need to find a mental institution and check your sorry, why-are-you-even-alive ass in. Stat.

 

[westwall]

Ahhhh but for many people poverty IS a choice. They would rather not work and collect government payouts that keep them from starving, allows them to buy a nice TV and pays for a Section 8 apartment. They COULD work, they choose not to. A friend of mine actually works with these people in the San Jose area and she is responsible for making sure the Section 8 housing unit owners are not gaming the system etc. And, according to her, the vast majority of the people in that situation are content.

Here we go again...

Do you have a point or are you merely going to bleat?

That sound you hear is the echo of the many, many, many others here who have made that same tired "some people don't want to work" speech before you. You at least jazzed it up with the "a friend of mine" variation, but it's still tone-deaf.

And yet it is factual...

Then present some factual data, not "a friend of mine."

An example of factual data:

You mean like this silly boy?


Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
Top earners were the main target of recent tax increases under President Obama, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income.

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

 

[Arianrhod]

So let me get this straight. You want us all to believe that you're outraged because you claim YOU are paying taxes, and the Waltons aren't?

I didn't say they weren't paying any taxes; I said they got a tax break of $6 billion. Do you understand the difference?