President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law

a reply to: macman

And Franklin also stated “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
So, guess Franklin saw the future and called it out.
Bravo Franklin and Bravo Aazadan.

Franklin also didn't say to not provide. He said to not make it comfortable. This is the statement I echoed at the beginning of this reply, and have said previously. The goal is to meet the basic requirements a person needs in order to be a functioning productive member of society. If the person wants more, they can work for it.

Screw the person that has what you want. Screw the fact that they worked for what you stole. Screw their budget that was impacted due to your theft.
So, let’s rehash this.
I work, pay taxes, don’t receive welfare handouts, employee a couple of people, pay business taxes.
You receive Govt Welfare……..Oh, and steal stuff when you are hungry.

When you get hungry enough you cease to be rational. As for me, I work and goto school to make myself useful in the future. I get help now but so what? As for stealing stuff, that's hopefully in the past but you never know it's not like I'm prideful about it, but facts are facts.

So, because it is hard and expensive, and let’s face it you are “entitled” to it, the tax payer should pay for this.
Makes sense for any Progressive who thinks the tax payer is infinite, with bottomless pockets.

Entitled to education? Not at all. The countries with the best quality of life also correlate with having better funding for education however. It also shouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is, I brought this up before but government loans have a lot to do with college being so costly. There are better ways to make college accessible. For instance one idea I really like is to make the colleges themselves offer loans so that they're not only competing on price, but financing for that price. This way they have an incentive to compete among each other rather than suck up all the free money they can grab.

Suicide is his choice.
College was his choice.
Student loans were his choice.
What he did/didn’t do in regards to his school work was his choice.

And you see appropriate punishment for someone barely old enough to buy alcohol making a bad decision a lifelong debt that will never be repaid? At this point 100% of his income doesn't even pay the interest on the debt. Even a kid isn't as financially devestating as that. I agree with the concept of personal responsibility but I also see our current loan system as predatory. Infact if any private business offered loans at the rate the government does it would be deemed illegal.

His only way out at 25 years old shouldn't be suicide.

All at the funding of the tax payer, instead of having the person be responsible for their life and actions.

Economy of scale. The population as a whole can better afford to send 1 million people to college than 1 million individuals can. Those people who do goto college and graduate raise tax revenues enough to pay for the assistance of everyone. If you want access to employees capable of performing skilled labor you must also have systems in place that make the obtaining of those skills possible.

This is mostly a recent issue. Back in 1980 one could pay for a full year of college tuition plus room and board off of nothing more than a full time summer job, or part time year round job.

So now you are trying to tie in murder rape and theft???
Thought those were just things that decent people didn’t do.

Morals are relative, rape for example is perfectly legal in certain nations. Theft again has been legal in certain situations in the past. We could use recent examples as well, where we all agree to due process in the courts. Look at the Zimmerman trial and how many people wanted to form a lynch mob for him. More recently we have the Michael Brown shooting where again we had riots over people wanting to string someone up. In that case we saw a group of citizens attempt to take the law into their own hands without all the facts blatantly ignoring the 5th/14th, and we saw the police respond by blatantly ignoring the 1st/4th.

So, they created such Govt based agencies just after the birth of the nation??
And yet again, your 1:1 correlation of them in deed stating that a total 100% Free market may not the be the best thing, does not then equate to them wanting or writing in laws regulating industries.

They did, but they were mostly at the state level. There were also heavy regulations on industries, perhaps you're familiar with the idea of corporate charters and the regulations they would place on those companies? The power the large corporations have in the US today is something the founders specifically wanted to avoid. They were very pro business, but they were pro small business. A large corporation is really no different from a king, which is something they did not approve of. Actually on that subject, the idea of competition that they wanted to create works best when you have numerous small entities. It begins to break down with a few mid sized entities, and fails totally with just a couple of large entities.

Where did you get this education that defined need? NASA is a want. Federal Governing of education is a Progressive want. National parks are a want.
Didn’t you outline “need” just a little bit ago??

You are aware of the massive return on investment NASA provides? Them and DARPA are pretty much responsible for modern living. Education is a need, because skilled labor is a need. Unless you want to go backwards and start living in mud huts again.

So, a Progressive tax rate is not theft nor I assume you are going to say it is punitive in nature.
Because, if someone makes more (then others) then they therefore can pay more, because they won’t miss it, or it want hurt them as much. I mean… it’s only fair that someone making a million dollars, that doesn’t use welfare, SNAP, WIC, Food stamps, Govt subsidized housing, Govt based cell phone and so on HAS to and can pay more than the person only making $25K a year that uses Food stamps and WIC, and SNAP, and Housing and all the other items.

Nice sidestep. What is the appropriate amount on a Laffer Curve and why? If you can't answer this question then you have no point of reference to state if you are under taxed or over taxed. This has nothing to do with progressive or regressive taxes only with percentages.

How is the government suppose to create jobs? I keep reading this. Not sure how that's supposed to work.

"Mr. President, 20 million people need jobs."

"Okay Senator, no problem, I'll just whip up 20 million solid middle class jobs real quick. What are their qualifications, education, backgrounds, etc?"

"Well Mr. President, roughly half of them have been on public assistance or disability payments for the last decade, a quarter or so of them are single mothers living off of EIC credits, WIC and temporary assistance for needy families, 20 percent have worked in menial labor either consistently or sporadically and finally 5 percent have either some type of college degree or certificate and have only recently found themselves out of work."

"No problem, middle class jobs comin right up, it's clear these people are just dying to get the opportunity be productive."

originally posted by: hammanderr
How is the government suppose to create jobs? I keep reading this. Not sure how that's supposed to work.

The government can't create jobs outside of a limited number of government positions. What they can do is create policies that make it possible for private enterprise to create jobs. This is a problem that has been growing for nearly 35 years the solution isn't going to happen over night. With good legislation we're looking at needing 20 years to truly fix the problem.

So what types of policies can they create? First of all they can decrease the gap between the richest and poorest, this allows for more upward mobility. Next they can reduce the tax burden on the middle class. As a percentage of income the middle class pays the highest amount of taxes yet they're the ones in the best position to create a small business and attempt to become rich because they have the money to risk. The largest share of the tax burden should be moved back to the rich. Or better yet the approach I favor most of all (though this requires a few other things to truly implement to ensure people still use Wall Street) is to remove the income tax entirely and instead place a tax on all Wall Street transactions, at current rates a 1% tax sounds reasonable and would provide roughly 5x the income that our current income taxes generate.

After that they could remove incentives for outsourcing. If a company wants to sell a product in an American market they need to be providing American jobs.

Next is education, people need to be able to obtain degrees that allow them advanced skills which allow for the eventual creation of a business. Simply put the barrier to entry on education is too high. As I mentioned before in one of these giant walls of text I assume you didn't read, we could do away with Federal Student Loans and instead make colleges offer their own loans, terms, and repayment schedules.

There's probably other things they could do too but these are the first that come to mind.

America is a nation founded on the principles of theft and involuntary labor (slavery).

MacMan and Aazadan you two are fighting on extreme sides of the same coin.

America has no intentions of providing a social safety net via employment that would prohibit able bodied citizens from working and being productive as a COLLECTIVE. Yes one out of every 1000 perhaps, but not the whole. This is where the problem lies. One of the reasons social programs have advanced the way they have is due to the discrimination and segregation of yesteryear on the descendents of slaves being denied under Jim Crow, Separate but Equal, and Grandfather Clause. The Civil Rights Act cleared some of the baggage up but didn't fully deal with the problem of integrating the society as a whole. So what you have now is terms like Welfare Queens as a result, which White Women are the welfare queens being the majority of the recipients of SNAP/LINK.

The jobs America once had as a producer are gone. America went from a producer to a consumer in 1970. That is a fact. Those jobs are NOT coming back. Technology and the government being bought and paid for by corporations did away with that. So now we are a population of 350 million people with only 100 million jobs. A fair number of those jobs are dead end fast food entry level jobs. When corporations like Walmart are encouraging their workers to apply for FOOD STAMPS because they refuse to pay an acceptable wage that is a hustle, plain and simple. Walmart also has had problems with women in upper management (gender discrimination) and with anybody moving up their ladder. There was a time in America where you could start at the bottom of a company and work your way up. Thanks to deregulation, the unraveling of Glass-Stegall Act those days are gone and won't be back in our lifetime.

Food stamps are how some people get by, whether they sell them for cold hard cash, buy cheap junk food to last the month, whatever, its become trade currency. This bill is going to hurt a lot of people and YES they will ROB and STEAL to compensate since there is nothing else in its place to compensate. They may sell drugs, or boost or whatever - its not like the government is providing a plausible solution to the problem by turning the economy around and making us a manufacturing powerhouse again. Reagen gave the Steel game over to Japan because he was quoted on record saying blacks were making too much money. Back in 1975 fresh from the Nam my uncle was able to get on at Republic Steel with no training for 35 bucks an hour. Now a Steel Mill job is MINIMUM WAGE!!!! Think about that for a minute. The Ford Plant had a hiring event on the South Side of Chicago on a cold winter day and 5K people showed up, some camped overnight and they cancelled the event.

Instead of arguing about MacMan is fortunate enough to have a job and completely unrealistic in his self proclaimed job security, argue about the fact that corporations are dangling jobs off the hook and not coming through while conducting business in this country. Bank of America in Charlotte NC built their own little mini conclave to house their H1Bs into dorms to work in their new call center at a fraction of what they would pay an American. I seem to recall Florida outsourcing their unemployment call center to India!!! Think about that.

No jobs equals crime. While white privilege may make some feel entitled to "their money" or feel if they can get a desk job it must be soooooo easy for everyone else it is not the REALITY of the GAME. Immigrants will work and soon enough Americans will hunt them and the wayward citizens that still have a job. I've seen people fight over an orange after not been eating for a week on the street. People who have nothing to fear nor lose will do what they have to do and America will look like Mad Max or Judge Dredd.

This Food Bill is just an excuse to provoke hostility and separation as proven in this thread.

a reply to: ArchPlayer

I don't know that I would call myself extreme as I advocated limited durations to welfare programs and reforms to spending but I understand what you're saying so I'll just go with it.

The jobs America once had as a producer are gone. America went from a producer to a consumer in 1970. That is a fact. Those jobs are NOT coming back. Technology and the government being bought and paid for by corporations did away with that.

This is something I've written about many times here. It's not just that we only have 100 million jobs for 350 million people, it's that we truly only need about 70 million of those jobs in order to provide for all of the needs/wants of society. Our productivity has gotten so high that at current working schedules there simply aren't enough jobs to go around. One solution I've brought up in the past is that we dramatically reduce our work week. If we cut the standard working week from 40 hours to 25 hours we would create about 37% more jobs. That would wipe out unemployment overnight.

The side effect is is that everyones income would decline with fewer work hours but with policies that shrink the wealth gap this isn't much of an issue because people end up earning more per hour.

The Ford Plant had a hiring event on the South Side of Chicago on a cold winter day and 5K people showed up, some camped overnight and they cancelled the event.

Do you remember McDonalds hiring day back in 2011? They were hiring 50,000 new entry level burger flippers for minimum wage. They ended up getting more than a million applicants that day. 20 people showed up for every burger flipper job available, and they weren't kids. The majority of them were adults who simply needed jobs.

I remember a lot of big time hiring events. Smokescreens if you ask me. I think your points are valid Aazadan, don't get me wrong. Everything you said is correct in what is really happening to the 90%.

The fact is, the work week will not be cut, people will bytch and moan about not being able to live high on the hog, and the corporations will bytch and moan about how they can't fleece high bonuses at the end of the fiscal quarter. The entire system is poised for collapse or a merging into one superbeast. Either way it goes, the people are suffering and in the future probably closer to the level of serfdom not experienced since the 11th century.

People are now worse off being disconnected from land and dependent on technology. A reset, like a EMP event will not bring it all back into perspective. We can only speculate what tools of suicide the governments are collectively hiding if they lose control.

All we can do is theorize, and hope 100 years from now some geeks will find ATS if it still exists and read our ramblings and not blame us for the problems created truly out of our control.

The fact is, the work week will not be cut, people will bytch and moan about not being able to live high on the hog, and the corporations will bytch and moan about how they can't fleece high bonuses at the end of the fiscal quarter. The entire system is poised for collapse or a merging into one superbeast. Either way it goes, the people are suffering and in the future probably closer to the level of serfdom not experienced since the 11th century.

I'm not so sure about this. The law certainly wasn't written with this in mind but we are seeing the work week for many people decline already due to health care. Right now we have a bunch of people working 29 hours and a bunch of people working 55. This is not sustainable, but the hours on those jobs aren't coming back. The only solution long term is to start dividing the work up, it's just a question of when the economy forces the change.

Looking at it from this stand point we're just in that awkward adjustment phase right now where wages need to adjust to the idea of working fewer hours.

The thought that always comes to my mind when thinking about the economy and amount of available work is the predictions of the 1950's. They correctly predicted a life where machines do our work for us and where people can get by doing less. What no one ever thought of back then however was how the economics of such a situation would work. Who gets paid when the machines do everything?

Where oh where to start.
Your responses truly are not only mind boggling, but display the exact mentality of one that does not succeed in life. Your responses reflect the actions and ideals of someone that thinks that Govt should be the entity to take care of you, all at the behest of tax payers.
Truly….the entitlement lifestyle.

originally posted by: Aazadan
If you ever expect that person to become a productive contributing member of society, then yes. The more you have the easier it is to focus on enrichment acitivies such as education and job training that lets you have more. I'm not saying go out and buy everyone on some form of assistance a yacht and a lamorguini, but a handful of comforts go a long way. If you make things too comfortable then people have no incentive to improve, but if you make them too uncomfortable people simply don't have the opportunity to improve.

I expect people to carry their own weight, take responsibility for themselves and not depend on the taxpayer to foot their bill.
Being productive is each person’s conscious decision.
Your statement is reflective of one that wishes to exert control over others.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Items that are luxuries are things beyond food, water, shelter, utilities, and required transportation. Incidently we just covered 100% of my income/spending if you classify internet as a utility (as it should be).

Yes…a totally utopian Socialist/Progressive world.
Where the Govt provides all your wants and needs.
And the un-named/faceless person funds it, happily and endlessly.

originally posted by: Aazadan
No, they don't. The US is last among developed countries in public transportation. If you live in one of the bigger cities you're likely to have some bus system and in some cases even a rail system but for many others that's not the case. My previous town I recently moved from is your typical small town, it was even rated one of the nicest small towns in the country to visit. There were a handful of taxi's (too expensive for the poor to use) and no bus system. My current small town is the same way, no bus system.

Sounds like again…..instead of bitching and moaning and expecting everyone else to take care of you, you should made put on the big boy pants and move to where the jobs are and where you can prosper.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I just double checked the Ohio Department of Transportation actually, my county has 0 fixed bus routes, only some limited service for the elderly. My previous county is labeled as having 8 routes but that's being generous. There were 4 bus stops in town: Krogers, Walmart, the courthouse, and the college. If you're generous with how you label those you can get to 8. Trying to use it for employment was totally useless.

I guess this is the responsibility of everyone else.
Expecting you to take care of yourself is WAY too much to ask.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Ohios public transportation funds in cities that do have it btw, are at the lowest levels they've been since 1980.

Solely the fault of the Govt that you don’t have some taxpayer funded method of transportation. I bet that if you dig deep enough, the Koch brothers are to blame.

originally posted by: Aazadan
The best protection is to never be in that situation in the first place. It's not an easy metric to gauge either as you can only compare before and after results. The best protection against crime isn't a gun, it's not creating the conditions that cause people to commit the crime in the first place.

Seeing yet again, I don’t look to control others, unlike you and every other Progressive, I will exercise my right to self-defense and being armed.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Actually no. I think the right to bear arms is the right to have access to any weapon you want. I find fault in the law in the fact that the government has access to weapons that aren't available to the citizenry. I see no problem with private citizens owning body armor, "assault rifles", grenades, explosives, or anything else. The greatest flaw in the second amendment is that the government can afford to buy items like carriers, fighter jets, and tanks which cost millions or billions of dollars each. The private citizen cannot compete with that. When the law was written it was at a time where there was little if any quality difference between military and private equipment.

At least you got something correct.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Next year around this time I expect I'll be employed earning minimum wage, same as now. One year closer to finishing school. And with another year worth of software written. Ten years from now I expect I'll be employed earning minimum wage, done with school, and own a failed business. Statistically that's the most likely outcome.

That is some grand plans there.
Next year I expect that I will be working at my day job still as a Telecom Engineer, my business will have grown by 2x due to new product releases and an increase in return customers.
And why can I do that???? Because unlike you, I don’t make excuses as to why I can’t do any of it.
Still will be getting 5hrs of sleep, will have added an additional kid to the mix.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Those are all called costs. The costs of an employee go beyond their wage. You have taxes, equipment, management, training, mistakes, hiring expenses, and anything else you can think of. All of that combined is the cost of hiring that person. If that cost is less than the amount of revenue they generate for you +1 minus taxes then they're worth hiring from a purely financial perspective.

Yeah…..let me take your advice and tell you this. Since you are not running a business, nor have you stated in any way that you own/operate a successful business, I think I will continue with the business model I have established.
See, taking advice from unsuccessful people, on how to be successful is like Ray Charles leading Stevie Wonder across a busy intersection.

originally posted by: Aazadan
The more corporations pay, the less people need to be on assistance.

The more people take responsibility for their own actions, including the financial, the less they will expect and think they are entitled to other people’s money.
Want higher pay in a job??? Get a better job.

There is a reason why I have forgone vacations as a whole, or studied during vacations. I have taken personal responsibility to better my career. I have taken the time to get a new certification every other year. That is the reason why I am at the career level I am. I took responsibility.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Somewhat. My expectation towards moving expenses is more along the lines of a sign on bonus that's taken out of my pay for the next couple of months to be able to afford relocation. As I already covered though, relocation by walking simply isn't financially viable. It costs money to move.

Well….guess you are stuck and will never advance….you should just give up…file for your Govt freebies and be done with it.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Every minimum wage employer in the country that doesn't offer any real job skills or training. Each job is interchangable, and they're all pretty much the same. It's very similar to slavery. I think the term people generally use here is wage slave

Yes….Every Progressive website and group states the same way. Blah blah blah.
People work for a wage. They know the wage going into it.
Want a better job? Go work for it.
Or continue to make excuses, continue to make minimum wage and continue to bitch and moan about what is fair.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Lets see: I've completed 12 out of 14 years of school (and I've done it in only 8), I hold multiple certificates, and even have a couple of awards. The list of relevant software I know is as long as this post. Experience is where I lack, I've had a couple of consulting jobs but that's all. It's a tough industry to get into, it makes the employment market in the rest of the country look good.

Ahhh, the life listing of a generation that expect pieces of paper to get you a high paying job.
Sounds like you need to start at the bottom, like everyone else and work your way up. And stop complaining.
And maybe relocate to where the jobs are.

originally posted by: Aazadan
My solution to the lack of a job market is to create my own product, however while that may make me feel better the current trends show a startup business failure rate of 90% so I have no expectations on my future business being something I can do long term.

Yep, if you believe you can or can’t, you’re probably correct.
Personally, I don’t allow statistics and others to govern what I will be successful in. But, you go ahead and keep on with that.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Not at all, they were innocent grocery stores. As I've said, when you're hungry right, wrong, and innocent cease to have meaning it's more about survival instinct and if things happen... they happen. You've never been in the situation so you wouldn't know.

So, let me get this straight.
You are fine with rationalizing theft and set your mind to feed yourself…..but you make every excuse imaginable as to why you are not successful. And blame everyone else.
Mind boggling.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Franklin also didn't say to not provide. He said to not make it comfortable. This is the statement I echoed at the beginning of this reply, and have said previously. The goal is to meet the basic requirements a person needs in order to be a functioning productive member of society. If the person wants more, they can work for it.

He never stated that the Govt should take from some to give to others.

originally posted by: Aazadan

When you get hungry enough you cease to be rational. As for me, I work and goto school to make myself useful in the future. I get help now but so what? As for stealing stuff, that's hopefully in the past but you never know it's not like I'm prideful about it, but facts are facts.

Yes yes yes. You were hungry and stole food. I get it.
How useful….. for society, to continue on the idea that the Govt should steal from me to give to you.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Entitled to education? Not at all. The countries with the best quality of life also correlate with having better funding for education however. It also shouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is, I brought this up before but government loans have a lot to do with college being so costly. There are better ways to make college accessible. For instance one idea I really like is to make the colleges themselves offer loans so that they're not only competing on price, but financing for that price. This way they have an incentive to compete among each other rather than suck up all the free money they can grab.

How about this.
The colleges are the ones driving the price. So, I guess free market principles for colleges, but not for everyone else.
Interesting.

originally posted by: Aazadan

And you see appropriate punishment for someone barely old enough to buy alcohol making a bad decision a lifelong debt that will never be repaid? At this point 100% of his income doesn't even pay the interest on the debt. Even a kid isn't as financially devestating as that.

18 years old is the age of adulthood. Sounds like he was acting like an adult, but didn’t follow through as an adult. Not my problem.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I agree with the concept of personal responsibility but I also see our current loan system as predatory. Infact if any private business offered loans at the rate the government does it would be deemed illegal.

Oh now that is truly rich.
The Govt offers loans, and you state if done in the real world, it would be illegal.
Yet, as the Govt steals from me to give to you, that is okay.
It is always different for Progressives.

originally posted by: Aazadan
His only way out at 25 years old shouldn't be suicide.

It wasn’t the only way. He just gave up. Yet another instance of not my problem.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Economy of scale. The population as a whole can better afford to send 1 million people to college than 1 million individuals can. Those people who do goto college and graduate raise tax revenues enough to pay for the assistance of everyone. If you want access to employees capable of performing skilled labor you must also have systems in place that make the obtaining of those skills possible.

And yet again, other display of the collective mentality.
It is not the responsibility of everyone else to take care of others, or send them to college.
If you or others want to go, then by all means, go. Don’t look to me, via taxes to finance your decision.

originally posted by: Aazadan
This is mostly a recent issue. Back in 1980 one could pay for a full year of college tuition plus room and board off of nothing more than a full time summer job, or part time year round job.

Sounds like an issue to be had with the college(s). Not my problem.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Morals are relative, rape for example is perfectly legal in certain nations. Theft again has been legal in certain situations in the past. We could use recent examples as well, where we all agree to due process in the courts. Look at the Zimmerman trial and how many people wanted to form a lynch mob for him. More recently we have the Michael Brown shooting where again we had riots over people wanting to string someone up. In that case we saw a group of citizens attempt to take the law into their own hands without all the facts blatantly ignoring the 5th/14th, and we saw the police respond by blatantly ignoring the 1st/4th.

Not getting into either of these issues. There are threads for them.

originally posted by: Aazadan
They did, but they were mostly at the state level. There were also heavy regulations on industries, perhaps you're familiar with the idea of corporate charters and the regulations they would place on those companies? The power the large corporations have in the US today is something the founders specifically wanted to avoid. They were very pro business, but they were pro small business. A large corporation is really no different from a king, which is something they did not approve of. Actually on that subject, the idea of competition that they wanted to create works best when you have numerous small entities. It begins to break down with a few mid sized entities, and fails totally with just a couple of large entities.

Oh, so they did create them?? At the State level you say? Like….gasp, States rights? And a restricted Federal Govt???
Oh, do tell me more from this book of knowledge.

originally posted by: Aazadan
You are aware of the massive return on investment NASA provides? Them and DARPA are pretty much responsible for modern living. Education is a need, because skilled labor is a need. Unless you want to go backwards and start living in mud huts again.

Yep, because without Govt funded programs, we wouldn’t have any of these things.
All modern advancements would never had happened if it weren’t solely for the Govt.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Nice sidestep. What is the appropriate amount on a Laffer Curve and why? If you can't answer this question then you have no point of reference to state if you are under taxed or over taxed. This has nothing to do with progressive or regressive taxes only with percentages.

*sigh* The Progressive Tax rate, or sliding scale upward is in fact a huge issue.
The more a person makes, they more that is taken from them via taxes.
It is theft…it is punitive.
Taxes, as designed, were not made in this manner.
The Progressive tax rate was instilled in a failed attempt to hold back the “robber barons”. And it failed.
The continuation is purely vote driven, as a dividing factor between the “haves” and the “have nots”.
Instead of expecting others to bring themselves to the level of those they envy, it has been pushed that everyone on top needs to be dragged down.

a reply to: ArchPlayer

It's sort of like a double wammy, the price of food is astronomical, and now the food stamps are being cut, what a mess.

originally posted by: ArchPlayer


Instead of arguing about MacMan is fortunate enough to have a job and completely unrealistic in his self proclaimed job security, argue about the fact that corporations are dangling jobs off the hook and not coming through while conducting business in this country. Bank of America in Charlotte NC built their own little mini conclave to house their H1Bs into dorms to work in their new call center at a fraction of what they would pay an American. I seem to recall Florida outsourcing their unemployment call center to India!!! Think about that.

Yep.....all luck as to why I am employed. Has nothing to do with actually putting forth what is needed to be employed in my field, making an informed decision as to where I reside or anything else like that.
But....I don't think I have this "job security" that you speak of. I know that any company can downsize and eliminate my position.
I do know that with my skills, I will be able to find employment elsewhere, as I literally juts got an offer for $105k as a network engineer locally.
And my business is still growing, I am 60 plus units backlogged, have 3 drop in parts coming to market within the next 60 days with an already vetted and ready customer base for purchase.

So, I am pretty sure should my day job employer were to drop me, I would be fine as I have made the appropriate choices and decisions to account for my responsibility.


And please, stop with the BS pitch of White Privilege. There is a Black Man as President, Jim Crow laws are gone, Bull Connor has passed and we no longer own slaves.
Or....keep making excuses and tell me how far you get.

a reply to: macman

Now that the government has created this mess, I wonder what the end result will be, with millions of people out of work with no skills, dependent on the government, no jobs but minimum wage, no one can live on minimum wage. Illegals pouring into the country, yada yada

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I have said it before and I will say it again. Cloward and Piven.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Stormdancer777

I have said it before and I will say it again. Cloward and Piven.

I hear ya, and its working, the transformation of America, it has been going on for a long time.

a reply to: macman

Yes…a totally utopian Socialist/Progressive world.
Where the Govt provides all your wants and needs.
And the un-named/faceless person funds it, happily and endlessly.

Not at all, I've been pretty clear that people should work to better their lives. The only thing I've said is that if quality of life can be measured on a scale of 0-100 that people have some form of safety net to be able to start at 10 rather than at 0.

Sounds like again…..instead of bitching and moaning and expecting everyone else to take care of you, you should made put on the big boy pants and move to where the jobs are and where you can prosper.

There's two problems with that. The first is that I live here because the education is affordable, I don't have to spend $25k/year on tuition and then another $15k on living expenses. You know, it's called practising some financial responsibility. The second problem is that unless the town I live in vanishes SOMEONE is going to live here. If I'm removed from the situation but someone else is in it, does that really change anything? Unlike you I seem to be capable of looking beyond my own circumstances.

I guess this is the responsibility of everyone else.

My assertion: There is no public transportation.
Your assertion: Everywhere has public transportation, you just have to look.
I respond by quoting the Department of Transportation.

Your response: Oh well, you don't need transportation to a job anyways.

Solely the fault of the Govt that you don’t have some taxpayer funded method of transportation. I bet that if you dig deep enough, the Koch brothers are to blame.

Public transportation in the US has been on a sharp decline for decades, it has gone hand in hand with the decline in purchasing power of wages. The problem is that we're demanding public transportation turn a profit while ignoring the entire point that it's supposed to be a method of transportation that isn't designed to be profitable. Profit is all well and good but the whole point of government is that they can do things that don't demand profit.

Seeing yet again, I don’t look to control others, unlike you and every other Progressive, I will exercise my right to self-defense and being armed.

Where did I ever argue that you shouldn't be armed? Guns are a last resort, when one gets pulled one involved party is going to the hospital or the morgue. Avoiding the situation in the first place is a better result for everyone involved.

That is some grand plans there.
Next year I expect that I will be working at my day job still as a Telecom Engineer, my business will have grown by 2x due to new product releases and an increase in return customers.
And why can I do that???? Because unlike you, I don’t make excuses as to why I can’t do any of it.
Still will be getting 5hrs of sleep, will have added an additional kid to the mix.

Yep, grandiose plans. I've already made peace with the fact that I will never own a home, be able to afford a family, or even take a vacation. That's just not part of the economic reality for myself or millions of other Americans. It's not because I'm some lazy uneducated lesser person undeserving of such things either. It's because the jobs that offer that opportunity do not exist and they aren't coming back.

Yeah…..let me take your advice and tell you this. Since you are not running a business, nor have you stated in any way that you own/operate a successful business, I think I will continue with the business model I have established.

Where did I ever offer business advice? I was categorizing costs. Costs are things beyond wages. If the revenue an employee generates is greater than the costs associated with them you profit. If you profit there's no reason to not hire them.

The more people take responsibility for their own actions, including the financial, the less they will expect and think they are entitled to other people’s money.
Want higher pay in a job??? Get a better job.

Isn't demanding higher pay for a job also being entitled? You're demanding more for yourself. Besides that by definition only 1% of the population can be in the top 1% of income earners. Similarly 15% of the population WILL be in the bottom 15% of wage earners. Does that automatically mean they need to lead a life of toil?

originally posted by: macman
People work for a wage. They know the wage going into it.
Want a better job? Go work for it.
Or continue to make excuses, continue to make minimum wage and continue to bitch and moan about what is fair.

As a percentage of jobs, more offer minimum wage today than 10 years ago. 10 years ago more jobs were minimum wage than 20 years ago. The number of people that have to make it on minimum wage as a percent of population is increasing. Despite that we are turning out record numbers of college graduates and job training is at an all time high. As a population we aren't unskilled, we simply have no where to work.

Ahhh, the life listing of a generation that expect pieces of paper to get you a high paying job.
Sounds like you need to start at the bottom, like everyone else and work your way up. And stop complaining.
And maybe relocate to where the jobs are.

Where did I say I expect a high paying job just because I have a piece of paper? I want a job where my most used phrase isn't "Would you like fries with that?". A job where I can actually hope for some sort of advancement in employment. I'm 30 years old at this point and have never had a job that pays more than minimum wage despite working and despite getting an education, never had a job with any opportunity for advancement either. At some point enough is enough and I'm not alone in this assertion.

Yep, if you believe you can or can’t, you’re probably correct.
Personally, I don’t allow statistics and others to govern what I will be successful in. But, you go ahead and keep on with that.

What I believe has nothing to do with it. The statistics are what they are, I will most likely fail. Personal desire to succeed doesn't factor into the equation.

You are fine with rationalizing theft and set your mind to feed yourself…..but you make every excuse imaginable as to why you are not successful. And blame everyone else.
Mind boggling.

Where have I made excuses? Excuses would be, "I didn't get the job because X". There are no jobs to attempt getting in the first place.

He never stated that the Govt should take from some to give to others.

Have you ever read his writings on tax policy? He was for taxes, but do you know what else he was for? A nation that managed it's own printing of money. In his mind that was the way to control a nations spending and keep the poor employed.

a reply to: macman

How about this.
The colleges are the ones driving the price. So, I guess free market principles for colleges, but not for everyone else.
Interesting.

There's a difference between using the free market to manage prices and using the free market to manage labor. In both cases the free market brings the price of each down, however part of something is better than all of nothing. People cut each others throats on wages. Without a minimum wage given enough labor the end result is slavery. The free market loves slavery.

18 years old is the age of adulthood. Sounds like he was acting like an adult, but didn’t follow through as an adult. Not my problem.

Legally being an adult and having the rational of an adult are two very different things.

The Govt offers loans, and you state if done in the real world, it would be illegal.
Yet, as the Govt steals from me to give to you, that is okay.

Where have I ever implied being ok with government loans as they currently stand? The current system does not give to someone else, it entraps a person in never ending debt. In the case of my friend his wages will eventually be garnished at the max rate of 50%. When that happens the wage garnishment if he worked 16 hours a day still wouldn't cover just the interest rate on his debt. It goes well beyond being a bad deal and into the realm of usury? Usury is something people often times freely agree to and is against the law (kind of), it also happens to be a major sin in the major religions, on par with murder. Do you agree with usury?

It wasn’t the only way. He just gave up. Yet another instance of not my problem.

He didn't commit suicide, you misunderstand. He lives on the washroom floor of a friends apartment. He cannot afford food or rent on his own and his total number of possessions fit in a single backpack. He realizes his situation and that if living conventionally there is no way out. The thing that gives him some hope for the future is the idea that student loans will one day be forgiven. On our current course that situation will be forced one day.

And yet again, other display of the collective mentality.
It is not the responsibility of everyone else to take care of others, or send them to college.
If you or others want to go, then by all means, go. Don’t look to me, via taxes to finance your decision.

It's a global market. America cannot compete if it can't produce college graduates. When other nations fund people going to college and America makes it more and more difficult to attend, how are we supposed to have a future as a nation?

originally posted by: macman
Oh, so they did create them?? At the State level you say? Like….gasp, States rights? And a restricted Federal Govt???
Oh, do tell me more from this book of knowledge.

So you're fine with state level taxes? It's still taking from you to use your terminology. A reduction of $1 in federal spending that gets offloaded to the states simply means an increase in state spending of $1.

Yep, because without Govt funded programs, we wouldn’t have any of these things.
All modern advancements would never had happened if it weren’t solely for the Govt.

We wouldn't, let me give you an example with the laser. When it was invented no one knew what to do with it. There was no profitable investment in it. Another example would be the barcode which was designed by NASA. Technologies are created all the time without a need to monetize them, oddly enough we usually figure out how they can improve our lives. On the other hand we have very real examples such as the development of FM radio which was held back decades by a private corporation because they wanted to maximize the sales of AM radio before revealing something new.

*sigh* The Progressive Tax rate, or sliding scale upward is in fact a huge issue.
The more a person makes, they more that is taken from them via taxes.
It is theft…it is punitive.
Taxes, as designed, were not made in this manner.
The Progressive tax rate was instilled in a failed attempt to hold back the “robber barons”. And it failed.
The continuation is purely vote driven, as a dividing factor between the “haves” and the “have nots”.
Instead of expecting others to bring themselves to the level of those they envy, it has been pushed that everyone on top needs to be dragged down.

So you still can't come up with a number. How can you have any point of reference to say you're overtaxed if you can't actually quantify what the tax rate should be.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: macman

Not at all, I've been pretty clear that people should work to better their lives. The only thing I've said is that if quality of life can be measured on a scale of 0-100 that people have some form of safety net to be able to start at 10 rather than at 0.

Why work then, when you can just start at 10?
I mean, why not make sports that way as well. Baseball for example. The team with the lowest standings should always start with a runner on first base.
And since others will start with a 10, everyone else should start 10 points where they normally would.
I mean, that is only fair.

originally posted by: Aazadan
There's two problems with that. The first is that I live here because the education is affordable, I don't have to spend $25k/year on tuition and then another $15k on living expenses. You know, it's called practising some financial responsibility. The second problem is that unless the town I live in vanishes SOMEONE is going to live here. If I'm removed from the situation but someone else is in it, does that really change anything? Unlike you I seem to be capable of looking beyond my own circumstances.

And yet again. You choose to live where you do, then complain about your situation in life.
Sounds like you are more concerned with everyone else.

originally posted by: Aazadan
My assertion: There is no public transportation.
Your assertion: Everywhere has public transportation, you just have to look.
I respond by quoting the Department of Transportation.

Your response: Oh well, you don't need transportation to a job anyways.

Again…….you choose to live there. Your transportation between places is YOUR responsibility. Not mine nor the tax payer.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Public transportation in the US has been on a sharp decline for decades, it has gone hand in hand with the decline in purchasing power of wages. The problem is that we're demanding public transportation turn a profit while ignoring the entire point that it's supposed to be a method of transportation that isn't designed to be profitable. Profit is all well and good but the whole point of government is that they can do things that don't demand profit.

Transportation is not the Govt responsibility.
And most Public transportation is offset highly by taxes.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Where did I ever argue that you shouldn't be armed? Guns are a last resort, when one gets pulled one involved party is going to the hospital or the morgue. Avoiding the situation in the first place is a better result for everyone involved.

Okay then. Sure sure.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Yep, grandiose plans. I've already made peace with the fact that I will never own a home, be able to afford a family, or even take a vacation. That's just not part of the economic reality for myself or millions of other Americans. It's not because I'm some lazy uneducated lesser person undeserving of such things either. It's because the jobs that offer that opportunity do not exist and they aren't coming back.

And you have chosen to live where jobs are not plentiful.
All of these things are based on decisions you made.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Where did I ever offer business advice? I was categorizing costs. Costs are things beyond wages. If the revenue an employee generates is greater than the costs associated with them you profit. If you profit there's no reason to not hire them.

And again…..your statement that if a new hirer brings just $1 of profit means nothing, as you don’t really have an understanding of how to grow a business.
I shall keep my business model.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Isn't demanding higher pay for a job also being entitled? You're demanding more for yourself. Besides that by definition only 1% of the population can be in the top 1% of income earners. Similarly 15% of the population WILL be in the bottom 15% of wage earners. Does that automatically mean they need to lead a life of toil?

You are really thinking that asking for a raise is entitled?
My pay is not an entitlement. It is the rate of compensation for my work.
You clearly have no clue do you.

originally posted by: Aazadan
As a percentage of jobs, more offer minimum wage today than 10 years ago. 10 years ago more jobs were minimum wage than 20 years ago. The number of people that have to make it on minimum wage as a percent of population is increasing. Despite that we are turning out record numbers of college graduates and job training is at an all time high. As a population we aren't unskilled, we simply have no where to work.

More excuses.
Go learn a skill. Go get a job.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Where did I say I expect a high paying job just because I have a piece of paper? I want a job where my most used phrase isn't "Would you like fries with that?". A job where I can actually hope for some sort of advancement in employment. I'm 30 years old at this point and have never had a job that pays more than minimum wage despite working and despite getting an education, never had a job with any opportunity for advancement either. At some point enough is enough and I'm not alone in this assertion.

Yep, you got a college degree and DEMAN a better job.
I say protest, loot and riot for a higher paying job. FORCE those companies to hire you..
But, seeing as you don’t live where the jobs are, I am not very optimistic about this.

originally posted by: Aazadan
What I believe has nothing to do with it. The statistics are what they are, I will most likely fail. Personal desire to succeed doesn't factor into the equation.

Got love it when someone lives their life by statistics.
Stick with that mentality. It seems to suit you really well.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Where have I made excuses? Excuses would be, "I didn't get the job because X". There are no jobs to attempt getting in the first place.

You chose to live there and continue to live there.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Have you ever read his writings on tax policy? He was for taxes, but do you know what else he was for? A nation that managed it's own printing of money. In his mind that was the way to control a nations spending and keep the poor employed.

Taxes are one thing.
Taxation to give Govt freebies is another.
He was not for that.

originally posted by: Aazadan
There's a difference between using the free market to manage prices and using the free market to manage labor. In both cases the free market brings the price of each down, however part of something is better than all of nothing. People cut each others throats on wages. Without a minimum wage given enough labor the end result is slavery. The free market loves slavery.

Oh good hell.
Unless a person/company owns a person and/or that person performs work for no compensation it is not slavery.
This redefining of terms is really old.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Legally being an adult and having the rational of an adult are two very different things.

Not the problem of anyone else.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Where have I ever implied being ok with government loans as they currently stand? The current system does not give to someone else, it entraps a person in never ending debt. In the case of my friend his wages will eventually be garnished at the max rate of 50%. When that happens the wage garnishment if he worked 16 hours a day still wouldn't cover just the interest rate on his debt. It goes well beyond being a bad deal and into the realm of usury? Usury is something people often times freely agree to and is against the law (kind of), it also happens to be a major sin in the major religions, on par with murder. Do you agree with usury?

Burrowing money is never a good thing.
But, it is not my problem for others to do so.
Their choice, their burden.

originally posted by: Aazadan
He didn't commit suicide, you misunderstand. He lives on the washroom floor of a friends apartment. He cannot afford food or rent on his own and his total number of possessions fit in a single backpack. He realizes his situation and that if living conventionally there is no way out. The thing that gives him some hope for the future is the idea that student loans will one day be forgiven. On our current course that situation will be forced one day.

Forgiven??? Why?? He made the choice.
Talk about a Man-child.

originally posted by: Aazadan
It's a global market. America cannot compete if it can't produce college graduates. When other nations fund people going to college and America makes it more and more difficult to attend, how are we supposed to have a future as a nation?

We are not other nations.
If you like this offering of other countries, you are free to leave for them.

originally posted by: Aazadan
So you're fine with state level taxes? It's still taking from you to use your terminology. A reduction of $1 in federal spending that gets offloaded to the states simply means an increase in state spending of $1.

Seeing that the states were left with this Right, yes. As that was the design.

originally posted by: Aazadan
We wouldn't, let me give you an example with the laser. When it was invented no one knew what to do with it. There was no profitable investment in it. Another example would be the barcode which was designed by NASA. Technologies are created all the time without a need to monetize them, oddly enough we usually figure out how they can improve our lives. On the other hand we have very real examples such as the development of FM radio which was held back decades by a private corporation because they wanted to maximize the sales of AM radio before revealing something new.

Yep, because without Govt, nothing would have been invented or created.
Gotta love this mentality.

originally posted by: Aazadan
So you still can't come up with a number. How can you have any point of reference to say you're overtaxed if you can't actually quantify what the tax rate should be.

I have said it before.
Fed Taxation of income was never in the design of this Govt. It was left up to the States.
But, since we are left to be taxed by the Fed, a flat tax instituted would be the “fair” taxation.
15% on everyone, no write-offs, no deductions.

Or eliminate income taxes and instate a flat tax on consumption.

a reply to: macman

Still blaming the poor for the rich siphoning off the working class's wealth?

I seriously doubt you have a high school level understanding of economics. College in the US today has become one great debt/servitude scam. The vast majority who go to college for a better paying job end up with an extra monthly payment for the rest of their lives while not making much more than their counterparts with no degrees.

College is not an option for everyone.