Reply With QuoteSadly, they are not kidding.
Oh, THAT explains everything.
Dear God, you have GOT to be kidding me.
Sadly, they are not kidding.
The Poor- Free medical, free prescriptions, free dental and free vision care for a family of four is a non-taxable benefit in excess of $20,000 for a family of four.
Add the various federal and state programs for heating, cooling, food stamps, etc., you add another $20,000 in benefits.
So for sitting on your posterior, a poor family of four can receive $40,000 plus non-taxable benefits.
Then, we add the various educational programs to assist the poor to escape poverty, another $20,000.
I can see why the poor can afford 50" plus HD Tvs, Washers, microwaves, etc.
If it wasn't for the poor, Joe "For Oil" Kennedy would have to live off his trust funds rather than the $570,000 plus he gets from the "Joe for Oil" corporation.
The rich - record profits, little to no taxes paid, massive layoffs despite record CEO compensation and earnings, squandering 401k investments in ways they then bet against to maximize their profits, get record bailouts from the very taxpayers they screwed and will screw some more, and pay a lower effective tax rate than the all but the bottom tier of earners. Less than teachers, firefighters, and software programmers who are in the brackets which pay the highest effective tax rates.
Add the very expensive tax attorneys who reduce their tax rate even further, the revolving door between corporations and government-appointed positions so they can pass favorable legislation and deregulation in favor of their corporate interests then go back to the corporation and reap massive monetary benefits for doing so.
So, for being ultra-wealthy and making dirty deals to line their already fat bank accounts, a rich person gets a hooker fund, unlimited cocaine access, and to orchestrate layoffs of thousands to hundreds of thousands of employees, effectively forcing them into poverty and onto welfare (but then they'll test welfare recipients for drug use and do anything else in their power try to get the middle earners take their benefits away, too).
Then we add the various tax shelters, loopholes, piss-poor investment ratings, manipulation of markets, etc.
I can see how the rich can turn the making-ends-meet crowd against the poor, while effectively deflecting any negativity towards themselves as they buy and sell a new election cycle.
If it weren't for the ultra-rich "job creators", maybe the poor could actually get jobs that pay a living wage and we wouldn't have record numbers of families on welfare.
Last edited by Amber; 09-06-2011 at 10:39 PM.
Poor rich folks!Originally Posted by Amber
@Amber
Where is all this coming from? TARP and the Obama Stimulus stunk to high heaven. You can find scams in large corporations thru small non-profits. They exist only because of tax revenue allocations and then pay hefty executive salaries. But your claims of their effects are outrageous.
Take all of GE CEO's Immalt's compensation $16M -- heck make it $100M -- and you'd still only be able to cover 2,000 salaries @ $50,000. Not including benefits.
What about professional athletes and Hollywood's A-list -- the other rich that no one likes to call rich. How about we take away their salaries too?
There are a lot of reasons contributing to unemployment, including lack of competitiveness. Consider the solar panel companies that -- even with their finances paid for by the government -- are unable to stay in business.
I just don't see what you're trying to get at with these posts. Are you just venting? What's up?
I would also like to lash out at the ultra rich corporate executives who enjoy the government bailouts and reap the record profits and on and on and on and on. But, one thing that the past few years have proven is that the government cannot tax and spend America back into prosperity. It does more harm than good to take capitol out of the private sector and redistribute it to people who would rather work than collect a hand out. As for those welfare recipients who do not want to subject themselves to a drug test before collecting their check, most employers require a passing a drug test as a prerequisit for employment. Consider the drug testing for welfare recipients to be the beginning of their occupational training.
My point is, over time with recent industry "burst bubble" bailouts starting with the S&L crisis, the rich have systematically screwed far more taxpayers out of jobs and taxpayer money than the "rather collect a handout than work" sector ever thought of doing. They shouldn't be able to tax the middle class into making the rich more rich, either, but they sure are doing it!
Oh, and the drug testing? Done in Florida. 98% passed, and it screwed a hell of a lot more tax dollars to administer the tests than it saved by testing. Should we test everyone who gets a government paycheck and pension, too? Especially the politicians and any paid appointees? It's really entertaining to me that the "get out of my life, you evil government" people when it comes to gun and other rights (which I totally agree with), are then so quick to take the same civil liberties away from other people because they deem them less than worthy or somehow on the take. Because they have a cell phone instead of a house phone? My oldest had name brand clothes and expensive toys when I was a single parent because of his grandparents. They didn't pay the bills, but they lavished gifts on him. If the single mom gets any type of assistance (I got free child care at first, before my raise), mom must be a deadbeat bad-name-druggie-system-abuser because how can she possibly be on assistance when her kid dresses like that? Seriously?? Who writes this crap, let alone swallows it?
I made $47,000 a year in 2001 before getting laid off as the tech bubble blew up in all of our faces. That was up from the $25,000 I made as a receptionist in '98, and I worked and learned my way to a promotion to making nearly double my salary. After that I was lucky enough to stay home and take care of my kids. Now divorced, there's nothing out there for me at all in the job market which will pay enough to cover daycare for three kids. So, what happens when all of the life expenses go up next year and the fixed income doesn't? Nevermind that my kids already qualify for the reduced/free hot lunch program, you all want to string me up for that, too? I MUST be a deadbeat. I have a phone and a computer at home. Hey, some asshole drunk driver killed my father and left my mother to raise, feed and clothe 5 kids age 9 months to 13 on her own when life insurance didn't cut it for anything but covering the house, was she a deadbeat, too? How about a little "there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I?" instead of "suck it up, poor people, take your microwave and go live in a tent somewhere." Oh WAIT!! People already ARE!! Please don't help them, though. They probably do drugs and don't deserve to eat or feed their kids.
I completely resent the age-old asinine, piece of crap argument that because someone falls off of UI and can't find a living wage job, they should be maligned as leeching, mooching, or whatever other derogatory terms of the moment exist to denigrate them because there are no jobs out there and now they have to figure out how to support a family of 4-5 on the $400 in food stamps and $600 in TANF payments they get now that the $2400/mo in UI has bled out since their $90k/yr job was outsourced to Singaporeans putting out code for a third of a price of a US programmer. But God forbid the poor don't sell the TV or dishwasher or microwave they had before the layoffs, because they aren't really poor with all of those things. The whole premise is silly. It's such a bass-ackwards way to look at how and why we got where we are right now as a country.
Last edited by Amber; 09-06-2011 at 10:44 PM.
@Amber What is the saying... "The government powerful enough to give you everything you want., is powerful enough to take it all away?" I imagine the argument would be withholding benefits from addicts protects the public. When else does the government withhold a service based on the results of a medical test? Didn't we implement drug testing for employment? Is there a medical screening required before you can enroll a child in school?
I think the key difference -- and why drug testing as a prerequisite for welfare seems so odious -- is that in the case of screening for illness or addiction there is an argument of safety.
I think the German model made a lot of sense. Unemployment benefits were paid as salary, thereby subsidizing employment. It can't last forever, but it helps ride out the downturn while keeping skills current.
I think a quick fix is to raise the minimum wage so you could actually live on it. Right now the minimum wage is poverty level and because you work you cannot get some government programs which makes no sense to me.
On the other hand there is a tax issue. I was working full time 2 years ago and so was John and we hit the alternative minimum tax level and had to use all our savings to pay the tax. It costs us less to simply have me work part time or contract and not make so much. The tax that year was more than my salary and we got no tax breaks for 2 kids in daycare and one in college.
So this whole thing is simply way more complicated than it should be. Simplify the tax code and raise minimum wage.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks