billvon 2,400 #51 February 9, 2009 >How? (I'm over-simplifying this) but the difference is.. I spend $3 at the >foodmart or I give my neighbor $3 to spend at the foodmart. A better example is: Warren Buffett has an extra $3. It goes into his bank account. Your neighbor who can barely feed his family has an extra $3. It goes to the foodmart. >The economy doesn't care if a dollar spent comes from me or him. Correct. But it _does_ care if it goes to the foodmart or goes into a bank account. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #52 February 9, 2009 Quote Why? It would interesting (to me at least) to explore how historically radical the idea of a standing, professional *federal* Army was at the time (as opposed to the English tradition of universal military obligation for all able-bodied free men at the will of the King or Queen). The Framers were concerned with regard to what the States (via their elected/appointed representatives) would approve, so Army was explicitly included. What was the ability/obligation/options available to the federal government w/r/t a professional Army under the Articles of Confederation? Why was the Army limited to 2-year money? A commitment from the States –- who resisted/feared strong centralized govt, a la England and who had their own “well-regulated militias” -- to support a standing *federal* Army (as opposed to the civilian volunteer force of the Revolutionary Army) must have been radical! /Marg A little off topic, but... The framers of the Constitution were very afraid of a large standing federal army. Primarily because the main use of those armies was to repress the population, not attack or defend. The less centralized local (not necessarily state organized) militias were thought to be adequate to defend against a foreign invader. The 2-year limit was to prevent any particular leader from amassing too much power. Thomas Jefferson seemed to think that revolt or rebellion was going to be necessary despite the checks and balances built into the Constitution. At least that is how I understand it. And I received free education through high school. I also had a state-subsidized mortgage as a first time home buyer. I have also seen some fairly blatant welfare abuse, by people who were fully capable of working, but preferred to sit at home. When W-2 started in Wisconsin, these people had to get jobs. Training was offered, and taken. And they had to go to work."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #53 February 9, 2009 I listen to Air America (Randi Rhodes, Steph Miller, wegotEd, old Al Franken etc...) and I listen to Medved, Hewitt, Beck, and ..gulp.. Savage. Don't much care for Limbaugh or Hannity. I stand by my last post. I would rather see my poor neighbor get a job and put money into the economy than give him my hard-earned money to spend. And if he does get a job it's because he chose to compete and display value in the workforce. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gjhdiver 0 #54 February 9, 2009 QuoteWho among you has arrived at where you are today with your jobs, property, careers, etc.. as a result of government welfare or stimulus? Me. Completely broke in the mid 80's. Govt. got me a subsidized apartment, paid to have me retrained in IT technologies, paid me to travel there and learn, paid my bills while I was there then found me a job to start me off. From there, I was able to not only support myself, I never needed another dime of govt. help. Here's your caveat. This was in the UK, where it's never been that unusual for the govt to aggressively help people retrain for new careers. I couldn't have done it without that help. I'd have been stuck in a cycle of minimum wage unskilled positions for ever, without being able to break out. For what it's like there now, you'd have to ask someone who still lives there, but that wasn't the thrust of the question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #55 February 9, 2009 Quote I think you need to turn down Limbaugh for a few hours, have a drink and relax! "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #56 February 9, 2009 Quote Warren Buffett has an extra $3. It goes into his bank account. Your neighbor who can barely feed his family has an extra $3. It goes to the foodmart. >The economy doesn't care if a dollar spent comes from me or him. Correct. But it _does_ care if it goes to the foodmart or goes into a bank account. Makes sense. But (and I'm getting ahead of myself because I don't have a finance degree) Warren Buffet does many other things with his dollar. His dollar is invested in who knows what.. Warren spends money. I'm sure his savings account is sick, BUT he spends money. Someone has to manage his accounts, tend his gardens, drive his car, fly his jet, pack his rig..kidding.. wash his dishes, plan his meetings, etc. So I take take your point, but with a dull edge Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #57 February 9, 2009 >I would rather see my poor neighbor get a job and put money into the >economy than give him my hard-earned money to spend. I would too! Heck, I prefer that he get a great job, build an addition on his house and increase all our property values. Once that happens, of course, he's probably going to start saving money instead of spending it all; that's a luxury that the relatively well off people in this country have. However, if both of you have poor jobs, you're not likely to get better ones in this economy. And if that's the case, then every dollar you're taxed is one less dollar you will spend. >And if he does get a job it's because he chose to compete and display value >in the workforce. Also agreed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #58 February 9, 2009 QuoteHowever, if both of you have poor jobs, you're not likely to get better ones in this economy. And if that's the case, then every dollar you're taxed is one less dollar you will spend. Hold on man, what exactly is a "poor job" ???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #59 February 9, 2009 Quote Quote Giving money to the lower class is like turbo charging the economy in that virtually every dollar given is spent in some way; Um, I spend money too. Why should I give it to someone else to spend I'd rather they have a job and spend their own money, And I'd rather those that wanted a war in Iraq paid for it themselves instead of using MY tax dollars to pay for it. A $trillion spent right there and WE didn't even get any roads, bridges or schools for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #60 February 9, 2009 I don't believe that anyone including GW himself wanted a 'war' in Iraq. Can you give me one good reason why someone would want a war? edit: to change my mind I'm not going there with you. There are other posts related to this argument. If you don't believe in what Iraqi people stand for in 2009 elections then we agree to disagree. This thread is about the pros and cons of government welfare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halfpastniner 0 #61 February 9, 2009 Quote I don't believe that anyone including GW himself wanted a 'war' in Iraq. Can you give me one good reason why someone would want a war? Oil dude. Duh!BASE 1384 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #62 February 9, 2009 I don't get it.. I don't get the oil thing. Like, are we taking oil from OPEC? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halfpastniner 0 #63 February 9, 2009 Quote I don't get it.. I don't get the oil thing. Like, are we taking oil from OPEC? No were talkin like a joke thing I thought everyone knew we go to war for oil (see what i did there? nother joke!) quit posting on dorkzone and come over and have a brew! natis on me tonightBASE 1384 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #64 February 9, 2009 >Hold on man, what exactly is a "poor job" ? One where you have trouble paying for even basic needs (like rent or food for your family.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #65 February 9, 2009 Quote>How? (I'm over-simplifying this) but the difference is.. I spend $3 at the >foodmart or I give my neighbor $3 to spend at the foodmart. A better example is: Warren Buffett has an extra $3. It goes into his bank account. Your neighbor who can barely feed his family has an extra $3. It goes to the foodmart. >The economy doesn't care if a dollar spent comes from me or him. Correct. But it _does_ care if it goes to the foodmart or goes into a bank a That's a very good example of why so many are against it. I can't put money in my bank account because that money is given to someone else. But I know the argument coming my way... How dare I be so insensitive to think my money should stay with me and not be handed out, right? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #66 February 9, 2009 > I can't put money in my bank account because that money is >given to someone else. You can do whatever you want with your money. The question was whether giving that poor neighbor a tax break will help the economy more than giving Warren Buffett a tax break. The answer is yes, it will, because Warren Buffett will not run to the store to buy food with the extra money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #67 February 9, 2009 QuoteThe question was whether giving that poor neighbor a tax break will help the economy more than giving Warren Buffett a tax break. The answer is yes, it will, because Warren Buffett will not run to the store to buy food with the extra money. How many poor neighbors run to the store to buy "food" on the tax dime compared to those who line up to buy Doritos though?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #68 February 9, 2009 QuoteOne where you have trouble paying for even basic needs (like rent or food for your family.) Who's fault is that??? if you are responsible enough to fuck and make a baby then you need to know how to provide. If not then be responsible and don't have kids :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #69 February 9, 2009 Quote Who's fault is that??? if you are responsible enough to fuck and make a baby then you need to know how to provide. If not then be responsible and don't have kids :) Ok, but many people are responsible and one day they lose everything.....??? Besides...Society benefits and needs most of these poor jobs anyway...they should be able to provide basic needs....Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #70 February 9, 2009 Quote> I can't put money in my bank account because that money is >given to someone else. You can do whatever you want with your money. The question was whether giving that poor neighbor a tax break will help the economy more than giving Warren Buffett a tax break. The answer is yes, it will, because Warren Buffett will not run to the store to buy food with the extra money. How does a tax break benefit someone who doesn't pay taxes? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #71 February 9, 2009 QuoteAlso, tell them I'm sorry their positive influence didn't rub off on their children....I understand. Quote Try again - it's not the charity aspect, the conservatives WELL outdo the liberals in that regard. It's the FORCED chartiy that sticks in the craw when you see the abuses of the system.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #72 February 9, 2009 Quote Try again - it's not the charity aspect, the conservatives WELL outdo the liberals in that regard. It's the FORCED chartiy that sticks in the craw when you see the abuses of the system. Fine, then your problem is with corrupt people in the system, not charity or the people that took advantage and used the support for it's intended positive purpose....that's good. That is what we're talking about right? The original question was: Quote "Who among you has arrived at where you are today with your jobs, property, careers, etc.. as a result of government welfare or stimulus? People gave an honest answer about how it helped them make it through the 80's and through college. But this just made Stewie mad so he ranted on about how mothers that use food stamps are basically irresponsible sluts that are not worthy of child bearing and should not be helped... Now you're giving me some bullshit about abuse and basically suggest that conservatives be trusted with deciding on who to help, on their own terms, left to their own prejudice, when they want to, if they want to....no thanks, you can cram that crap back in your craw.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #73 February 9, 2009 Quote > I can't put money in my bank account because that money is >given to someone else. You can do whatever you want with your money. The question was whether giving that poor neighbor a tax break will help the economy more than giving Warren Buffett a tax break. The answer is yes, it will, because Warren Buffett will not run to the store to buy food with the extra money. Giving some one a government check when they do not pay any tax is not a tax cut, its welfare or as Mr Obama puts it, speading the money around"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #74 February 9, 2009 QuoteHow many poor neighbors run to the store to buy "food" on the tax dime compared to those who line up to buy Doritos though? Who cares? If economic stimulus is the goal, as long as they are spending the money, it is circulating. I agree, morally, that people should spend their "welfare" money on things that will eventually lead them out of poverty. Please don't reply in that vein. The OP is questioning the wisdom of the current stimulus bill because he saw a woman buy Doritos. The Doritos company presumably employs lots of people who will become jobless if everyone stops buying their product. As economic stimulus (which I don't necesarily think is how welfare should be viewed, but that should be another thread) that woman's use of the money was just as effective as if she had bought wheat bread. This whole thread is actually rather stupid and patronizing anyway, but if you're going to bitch, at least decide on what you're bitching about. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #75 February 9, 2009 QuoteAs economic stimulus (which I don't necesarily think is how welfare should be viewed, but that should be another thread) that woman's use of the money was just as effective as if she had bought wheat bread. Only if you take a very narrow, short term approach to the problem. It's a very small scale comparison to the huge bonuses CEOs gave themselves with our baleout money. Hey, they intend to spend it, right? What's the difference between a welfare recipient buying Doritos with food stamps and a CEO buying a Lear Jet with baleout money?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Coreece 190 #72 February 9, 2009 Quote Try again - it's not the charity aspect, the conservatives WELL outdo the liberals in that regard. It's the FORCED chartiy that sticks in the craw when you see the abuses of the system. Fine, then your problem is with corrupt people in the system, not charity or the people that took advantage and used the support for it's intended positive purpose....that's good. That is what we're talking about right? The original question was: Quote "Who among you has arrived at where you are today with your jobs, property, careers, etc.. as a result of government welfare or stimulus? People gave an honest answer about how it helped them make it through the 80's and through college. But this just made Stewie mad so he ranted on about how mothers that use food stamps are basically irresponsible sluts that are not worthy of child bearing and should not be helped... Now you're giving me some bullshit about abuse and basically suggest that conservatives be trusted with deciding on who to help, on their own terms, left to their own prejudice, when they want to, if they want to....no thanks, you can cram that crap back in your craw.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #73 February 9, 2009 Quote > I can't put money in my bank account because that money is >given to someone else. You can do whatever you want with your money. The question was whether giving that poor neighbor a tax break will help the economy more than giving Warren Buffett a tax break. The answer is yes, it will, because Warren Buffett will not run to the store to buy food with the extra money. Giving some one a government check when they do not pay any tax is not a tax cut, its welfare or as Mr Obama puts it, speading the money around"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #74 February 9, 2009 QuoteHow many poor neighbors run to the store to buy "food" on the tax dime compared to those who line up to buy Doritos though? Who cares? If economic stimulus is the goal, as long as they are spending the money, it is circulating. I agree, morally, that people should spend their "welfare" money on things that will eventually lead them out of poverty. Please don't reply in that vein. The OP is questioning the wisdom of the current stimulus bill because he saw a woman buy Doritos. The Doritos company presumably employs lots of people who will become jobless if everyone stops buying their product. As economic stimulus (which I don't necesarily think is how welfare should be viewed, but that should be another thread) that woman's use of the money was just as effective as if she had bought wheat bread. This whole thread is actually rather stupid and patronizing anyway, but if you're going to bitch, at least decide on what you're bitching about. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #75 February 9, 2009 QuoteAs economic stimulus (which I don't necesarily think is how welfare should be viewed, but that should be another thread) that woman's use of the money was just as effective as if she had bought wheat bread. Only if you take a very narrow, short term approach to the problem. It's a very small scale comparison to the huge bonuses CEOs gave themselves with our baleout money. Hey, they intend to spend it, right? What's the difference between a welfare recipient buying Doritos with food stamps and a CEO buying a Lear Jet with baleout money?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
