Study: Bush Tax cuts proven to be a total failure.

Quote:

---

US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Tuesday September 19th, 2006 / 0h04

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. government recorded record-high overall and corporate tax receipts on Sept. 15, which was a quarterly deadline for tax payments, the Treasury said Monday.
Total tax receipts were $85.8 billion on Friday, compared with the previous one-day record of $71 billion on Sept. 15 of last year, the Treasury said.
Within the overall figure, corporate tax receipts Friday were $71.8 billion, up from $63 billion in September of last year.
Treasury Undersecretary for Domestic Finance Randal Quarles said Friday's numbers provided a "continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy."
"In fact, Friday's gross receipts were the largest in a single day in the nation's history - 20% higher than receipts on the same quarterly tax payment date last year," Quarles said in a statement.

---

http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dy...NewsRubrique=2


Darn. And I thought tax cuts were supposed to mean a decrease in tax receipts. Oh well.

Just you wait! The undercutting of the middle class and the deep-seated, but not yet visible, problems caused by throwing all this money at the rich will eventually cause the economy, which is really now just smoke and mirrors without substance, to enter a deep recession. People are deeply in debt, barely surviving in this brutal dog-eat-dog country of unrestrained capitalism, opressed by huge conglomerates which weild the real power.
:furious3:
Crazed Rabbit

Utter, abject failure. The key thing is to note that, absent these cuts, the Government would have much more money and wouldn't be deficit spending as badly.

:inquisitive: You mean the economy wouldn't be as robust so revenues would be lower? But I thought....

:inquisitive: You really think that Congress would spend any such revenues just as fast or faster...but we elected them, they wouldn't just pad their own political nests.....

:inquisitive: You're CERTAIN that government isn't the most efficient user of capital, but I hoped.....

....Oh come off it, we all know that tax cuts are stupid. Now lets stop this jabber and join in a couple of choruses of The Internationale!




:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I blame Bush for this!!!:furious3:








:laugh4:

I heard something contrary to this a few days ago on Sean Hannity. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. I’ll try and find what I heard.

Is the increase in tax revenue offset by the increased amount of money that the government is spending on corporate outsourcing? So in effect is the increased tax base because an even larger portion of government money is going to corporations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Utter, abject failure. The key thing is to note that, absent these cuts, the Government would have much more money and wouldn't be deficit spending as badly.

---

Or they would have less money because businesses would be unable to reinvest as much of their profits into expansion and R&D, etc.

Quote:

---

Is the increase in tax revenue offset by the increased amount of money that the government is spending on corporate outsourcing? So in effect is the increased tax base because an even larger portion of government money is going to corporations?

---

Pape, you are pulling a total Cavuto. Don't ask questions that you seek to assert as possible fact. If you have a theory, provide some research behind it.

An example of "pulling a Cavuto":

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img469.imageshack.us/img469/...sc00064pq9.jpg

Why oh why, my good freind Divinus, according to author Niall Ferguson, author of War of the World, is the Bush government borrowing so heavily from the Chinese World Bank? With all these revenues coming in from the corporate world (made greatly possible by the use of oil price gouging, the exportation of US jobs to foriegn markets and, not to mention, the use of illegal immigrant labor), why do we need to borrow capital from Asia?

I guess were supposed to just bend over and keep paying our middle class taxes, while rich oil company execs retire with 400 million dollar retirment packages made possible through the reduction of personal income taxes on the wealthy.

I am an advocate for a flat tax rate BTW. Everybody pays 10% and gets no tax loophles or returns. We would be rolling in the doe if there just weren't any loopholes. I am also against welfare except for those who are in desperate need, such as many of the elderly in our country. Not the lazy, mind you, but those who need a helping hand up.

Cordially,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Pape, you are pulling a total Cavuto. Don't ask questions that you seek to assert as possible fact. If you have a theory, provide some research behind it.

---

No, I'm asking a question hence the question marks.

I'm wondering if the amount of deficit money being spent by the government on outsourced contracts to companies is creating the extra tax revenue?

So how much more money has been spent in this fiscal year on government outsourcing and hence how much tax money has been created from this. It is a legitmate question of your hypothesis. Is the improved revenue actually being derived from tax cuts or is it being derived from deficit spending on outsourced contracts. Any extra tax created in the fiscal year due to extra government spending has to be used to adjust the amount of revenue to compare on a per annum basis. It will result in a clearer picture of how much tax cuts are contributing to the revenue.

If there is more government spending on outsourced contracts that in turn generate tax, after adjustments it will show that tax cuts are less effective.

If on the other hand there is less government spending on outsourced contracts that in turn generate tax, after adjustments it will show that tax cuts are even more effective.

Yay. Fun! Let's get to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Why oh why, my good freind Divinus, according to author Niall Ferguson, author of War of the World, is the Bush government borrowing so heavily from the Chinese World Bank?

---

The Government bonds you speak of are open to the world market. The fact that China is investing is not so much an indicator of our need for cash as it is their confidence in our currency. When a foreign investor purchases U.S. securities, they are buying the security in U.S. Dollars. They are doing this because they have confidence in the strength of the U.S. Dollar as a stable investment. The fact that China's currency is pegged to the U.S Dollar means that the Chinese investor can not possibly lose money in the deal, but they stand much to gain in later selling U.S. Dollars and buying other currencies.

Quote:

---

With all these revenues coming in from the corporate world (made greatly possible by the use of oil price gouging, the exportation of US jobs to foriegn markets and, not to mention, the use of illegal immigrant labor), why do we need to borrow capital from Asia?

---

Again, we are not "borrowing from asia". Asia is investing in the United States, confident in our economy. If our economy was crap and the dollar was really tanking, then the Chinese would be buying Euros, the world's second most stable free-floating currency.

EDIT: As for "oil gouging"- the price of oil and gasoline is based on the futures market. You'll notice that the price of oil from OPEC is taking a huge dive. OPEC. The very folks who want to rape the U.S. Their is no "gouging" going on. This is Democratoc political spin. I can procide further clarification if you need me to.

As for Exportation of US Jobs to foreign markets: As Pape and I discussed a few months back, the exportation of jobs has an additional benefit to the UNited States that goes unnoticed. On the U.S. current account, it shows that we have a trade deficit. This does not include U.S. companies that invest in manufacturing plants abroad (it shows foreign manufacture by a U.S. company for reimportation as a deficit, rather than a domestic product, even though all investment and profits originate and return to the U.S.- a major flaw in the system.). These plants send money overseas, and then bring the products and profits back home. The company sees a gain in profits, which can then be used to (a) reinvest internally within the firm to expand operations anywhere in the U.S. or world (b) provide dividends to shareholders- which are then spent or reinvested within the U.S., again creating wealth at home. This ties dirtectly into the importation of cheap labor, which I am totally against,

The United States needs to revitalize and expand opportunities for education. Our level of technology has made a high school education virtually wothless in the modern global marketplace. Workers MUSt create value for themselves to be employed. EMPLOYMENT IS NOT A RIGHT. The individual has the responsibility to educate himself andmett the needs of the modern marketplace. This is no different from somebody working their ass off on a farm to feed their family, it's simply a different type of work. The U.S. Education system needs to be reformed to increaser efficiency through competition. We need better public schools, and the only way to do that is through private school competition. Evidence of this has been shown in the u.S. postal system, which has improved tremendously since competition from fedex and UPS increased.

Quote:

---

I guess were supposed to just bend over and keep paying our middle class taxes, while rich oil company execs retire with 400 million dollar retirment packages made possible through the reduction of personal income taxes on the wealthy.

---

Two points: (1) The rich do not stuff their money under a matress. They reinvest the money which creates jobs and powers economic growth. Furthermore, there is not a limited supply of money in the world. This is the beauty of capitalism- everyone can get richer and noone suffers from it. (2) Executives are far more skilled then somebody digging a ditch and so add greater value to the company and to the country's economy. Just like a Doctor is paid for his or her expertise, we value those that contribute to what our culture demands.

Quote:

---

I am an advocate for a flat tax rate BTW. Everybody pays 10% and gets no tax loophles or returns. We would be rolling in the doe if there just weren't any loopholes.

---

Totally agree. But did you know that the current tax regiome actually favors the poor? Four the last Seven+ years of my military career I paid ZERO in taxes, thanks both to the Bush Tax cuts and the tax code. My taxable income was never more than $25,000 a year. But yet I paid NOTHING every year. So I personally know who the tax code favors, and it is the poor thank you very much. a 10% flat tax would make the poor pay their fair share. Why should they get a break just because they are stupid or lazy?

Quote:

---

I am also against welfare except for those who are in desperate need, such as many of the elderly in our country. Not the lazy, mind you, but those who need a helping hand up

---

.

I am fine with aiding the mentally and physically disabled, who have come to their situations at no fault of their own. If you chose to be a manager of McDonalds, that is your own damn fault. :2thumbsup:

Well said DA. I was going to add more, but after reading thru what you said I concluded it'd be redundant. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Is the increase in tax revenue offset by the increased amount of money that the government is spending on corporate outsourcing? So in effect is the increased tax base because an even larger portion of government money is going to corporations?

---

Are you suggesting that increased government spending has soley accounted for enough economic growth than when taken back in as tax revenue that the two are equal? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I heard something contrary to this a few days ago on Sean Hannity. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. I’ll try and find what I heard.

---

Well I had to look around to find what I was looking for, and even this isnt exactly what I was looking for but it expresses the point.
I really like the bolded part.

Quote:

---

When the economy grows, businesses grow, people earn more money, profits are higher, and they pay additional taxes on the new income. In 2005, tax revenues grew by $274 billion, or 14.5 percent; it's the largest increase in 24 years. Based on tax collections to date, the Treasury projects that tax revenues for this year will grow by $246 billion, or an 11 percent increase. The increase in tax revenues is much better than we had projected, and it's helping us cut the budget deficit.

One of the most important measures of our success in cutting the deficit is the size of the deficit in relation to the size of our economy. Think of it like a mortgage. When you take out a home loan, the most important measure is not how much you borrow, it is how much you borrow compared to how much you earn. If your income goes up, your mortgage takes up less of your family's budget. Same is true of our national economy. When the economy expands, our nation's income goes up and the burden of the deficit shrinks.

Here are some hard numbers: Our regional projection for this year's budget deficit was $423 billion. That was a projection. That's what we thought was going to happen. That's what we sent up to the Congress, here's what we think. Today's report from OMB tells us that this year's deficit will actually come in at about $296 billion.

That's what happens when you implement pro-growth economic policies. We faced difficult economic times. We cut the taxes on the American people because we strongly believe that the American people should lead us out of recession. Our small businesses flourished, people invested, tax revenue is up, and we're way ahead of cutting the deficit -- federal deficit in half by 2009.

---

Thats W talking and like him or not the pro-growth economic policy seems to be working. Although I dont think all is as bright and happy a picture as he paints I still like it better than baying more taxes.

I'm glad revenues are up. I hope it's for real, and not an accounting trick (you see more of those from the gov't in election years). Lower taxes + upswing in economy + higher tax revenue = good thing.

Now if only our corrupt, disgusting, profligate, spendthrift government could learn to spend less ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well said DA. I was going to add more, but after reading thru what you said I concluded it'd be redundant. :bow:

Are you suggesting that increased government spending has soley accounted for enough economic growth than when taken back in as tax revenue that the two are equal? :inquisitive:

---

Well, an extra 2,8 trillion dollars has to go somewere...

Give me some quality papers saying otherwise (I'm content with papers saying were all that money went) and I've to admit that Bush has been successful on one thing atleast.


Oh, and to only pay off the increased interest, you'll need about 127 billions in increased tax revenue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm glad revenues are up. I hope it's for real, and not an accounting trick (you see more of those from the gov't in election years). Lower taxes + upswing in economy + higher tax revenue = good thing.

---

Why'd you have to bring that up???!!! Here I was, having a good conservative economic moment, and you remind me that both parties have regularly "fudged" this stuff on several occasions in the past. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Now if only our corrupt, disgusting, profligate, spendthrift government could learn to spend less ...

---

...AMen, I say to you, Amen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Or they would have less money because businesses would be unable to reinvest as much of their profits into expansion and R&D, etc.

---

Absolutely. Do remember that my comment was tongue in cheek. I'm with you whole-heartedly in this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

I am an advocate for a flat tax rate BTW. Everybody pays 10% and gets no tax loophles or returns. We would be rolling in the doe if there just weren't any loopholes. I am also against welfare except for those who are in desperate need, such as many of the elderly in our country. Not the lazy, mind you, but those who need a helping hand up.

---

Good perspective. I prefer the "Fair" Tax plan -- national sales tax with reimbursement to all on a head count basis (spend more, pay more) -- but the flat tax approach is solid and would be a heck of a lot better than the convoluted mess we have now. The zero loophole idea is spot on.

Is there a real reason that a flat tax wouldn’t work? It seems like everyone likes the idea and yet it doesn’t exist. Course it would probably but half the tax guys out of business, they thrive on the complexity of the tax laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Is there a real reason that a flat tax wouldn’t work? It seems like everyone likes the idea and yet it doesn’t exist. Course it would probably but half the tax guys out of business, they thrive on the complexity of the tax laws.

---

Plus it screws over the poorest. Which wouldn't exactly help Americas's serious social problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Plus it screws over the poorest. Which wouldn't exactly help Americas's serious social problems.

---

And that's the problem. Our archaic tax system has become a tool for income redistribution and political patronage instead of just something that everyone has to pay. They might be able to work it if the first $20k weren't subject to any tax and then apply a flat tax on all income afterwards. Personally, I'd be happy with even just a few clear tiers and eliminating most deductions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Plus it screws over the poorest. Which wouldn't exactly help Americas's serious social problems.

---

I disagree that it "screws over" anyone except tax jockeys. Why should the poor get a break? They are poor for a reason. Granted, there are certain exceptions. But generally the poor are that way because they decided "college wasn't really for them" or they decided to screw and spit more babies out. Either way, it's there fault.

I find it funny that America is considered to be a land of opportunity and that those who succeed best are those who LEGALLY imigrate to the United States. We have a zillion success stories of indians, chinese, japanese, vietnamese being successful by opening up small businesses and taking charge of their lives through hard work and determination. Too many citizens and illegal immigrants & their children think that success should come to them automatically. These people blame everyone but themselves for their problems.

A flat tax works well in Estonia.

Quote:

---

Now if only our corrupt, disgusting, profligate, spendthrift government could learn to spend less ...

---

That reminds me of a quote by the late Pope John Paul II, who, speaking about the political situation in Poland, said "‘There are only two solutions to the Polish crisis, the realistic solution and the miraculous solution. The realistic solution is: if the Lady of Czestochowa should suddenly appear, with Jesus and all the saints, and solve the Polish crisis. The miraculous solution is: if the Poles learn to cooperate."

We need a way of punishing high spending and encouraging low spending. I think you've already seen the suggestion for a military base closure style law regarding review of earmarks.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I disagree that it "screws over" anyone except tax jockeys.

---

How, exactly, would a flat tax rate hurt the rich and their tax jockeys? The truly rich get all kinds of opportunities for hiding away their income before moving on to taxation. Flat rate taxation would just make it easier for them if it affected them at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

How, exactly, would a flat tax rate hurt the rich and their tax jockeys? The truly rich get all kinds of opportunities for hiding away their income before moving on to taxation. Flat rate taxation would just make it easier for them if it affected them at all.

---

I didn't say it would hurt the rich.


I said it would hurt the tax jockeys. And by that, I mean the H&R Block and TurboTax industry: The zillions of tax attorneys, businesses, and software that is all a product of the public trying in vain to navigate this piece of crap income tax code we have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

How, exactly, would a flat tax rate hurt the rich and their tax jockeys? The truly rich get all kinds of opportunities for hiding away their income before moving on to taxation. Flat rate taxation would just make it easier for them if it affected them at all.

---

Depends on the system you enact.

Rotorgun specificied a flat tax WITHOUT LOOPHOLES.

While this may be politically impossible, the absence of loopholes would address your concerns:

So, no special category for capital gains taxes, no REITs creating an artificial "loss," no exemptions for interest on the mortgage of the primary home, no child esemptions. List gains (income etc.) subtract documented losses (paid out not "paper"), subtract standard personal exemption per adult (set at a level to prevent the truly poor from paying taxes, say 12k or so) = taxable income. Multiply taxable income by tax rate. Submit balance to IRS.

Yes, this means that a two-wage family making a taxable income of 120k per annum would be paying a higher percentage of their overall income in taxes than would a two-wage family making a taxable income of 120M per annum. But the amount of tax paid by the higher income family would still be vastly more.

You could argue that even this is unfair, as the family making 120k ATI is probably receiving the same level of government service as the family making and ATI of 120M -- so who's getting ripped off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

(set at a level to prevent the truly poor from paying taxes, say 12k or so)

---

Why should the "truly poor" be exempt? These ingrates placed themselves in this position. No excuses. Nobody should be exempt from contributing to the system unless they are disabled by no fault of their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Why should the "truly poor" be exempt? These ingrates placed themselves in this position. No excuses. Nobody should be exempt from contributing to the system unless they are disabled by no fault of their own.

---

To be fair not all of the people that make low wages are ingrates, they could just be college kids, retired, have a sugar daddy, or any other of a dozen reasons. None of the reasons should make them exempt thou. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

college kids,

---

Whom are working towards a better life for themselves. Good for them.

Quote:

---

retired

---

Who should have planned better. Like my Grandmother, who is totally dependant on SSI and family support. My grandfather died 40 years ago. She was young enough to do real work. But did she? Ever? No. Because she was lazy. Her choice.

Quote:

---

have a sugar daddy

---

Which makes them wealthy, actually. Since Sugar daddy pays the bills. Again. A choice.

Quote:

---

or any other of a dozen reasons

---

.

All of which are a personal choice. UNless they are disabled by no fault of their own.

Quote:

---

None of the reasons should make them exempt thou. :bow:

---

:cheers: :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Why should the "truly poor" be exempt? These ingrates placed themselves in this position. No excuses. Nobody should be exempt from contributing to the system unless they are disabled by no fault of their own.

---

I shan't rise (or lower, depending on one's point of view) to your bait, except to note an old saying.

We can't all be first violiners in the orchestra - some of us gotta push wind through the trombone.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I shan't rise (or lower, depending on one's point of view) to your bait, except to note an old saying.

We can't all be first violiners in the orchestra - some of us gotta push wind through the trombone.

:bow:

---

I'm not baiting. I honestly feel this way. Your analogy is pretty narrow. Nobody said you had to be a musician either. Please, attack me perspective. Why should I care about people who have placed themselves in their own position of poverty? Why should I feel sorry for somebody who chose to have multiple babies at a young age (or even one- no offence to our youngest Orgah father-to-be). Don't want kids? Then don't screw. Pretty easy. Wack it off. Use a condom. Pull out. Whatever. You have a choice. Why should I feel bad for fools who drop out of school? Because it's "not for them"? That mentality is a product of a weak and permissive society. I bet they wouldn't feel like working in a factory or slaving away on a family farm, huh? "not for them".

Saying that people are poor because they choose to be is like saying that since you have an old rusty knife, you're trapped under that giant rock by choice. Sure you can get out and should get out but don't pretend that it's easy. Not giving help to those trying to get out is inhumane. I mean, you're working as a firefighter right DA? I don't see you saying "Don't want to be burnt to a crisp? Then don't smoke in the house. Pretty easy. Why should I help those ingrates?".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Saying that people are poor because they choose to be is like saying that since you have an old rusty knife, you're trapped under that giant rock by choice. Sure you can get out and should get out but don't pretend that it's easy. Not giving help to those trying to get out is inhumane. I mean, you're working as a firefighter right DA? I don't see you saying "Don't want to be burnt to a crisp? Then don't smoke in the house. Pretty easy. Why should I help those ingrates?".

---

Kind of taking it to the extreme aren't you?


There are tools and resources available to all in the United States whom have imagination, ability, and commitment. All are afforded the same basic opportunities, beginning with education. Students have the obligation to learn and then assimilate into society with careers that benefit society.

Your rock analogy assumes that the individual came to his situation by no fault of his own, but yet he has a crappy little tool with which to dig himself out. The fact is, when somebody does illegal drugs or has children at a young age and consequently neglects their education, they have placed that rock upon themselves. I have already explained that I have compassion for those who are disabled at no fault of their own.

As for your burning to death analogy, you are being extremely unfair. Just because I am willing to risk myself to save the life of an idiot does not mean that same idiot doesn't bear some responsibility for his or her actions. That inidividual placed themsleves in that situation and the consequence was risk of death. My position is commissioned for the good of the public by a compassionate society that views the individual life as meaningful and important. That same perspective of life as important translates to the understanding that all people, no matter who they are, should be afforded the same basic rights and priveleges to pursue a life of meaning.

Your comments were shallow, distorted, and crude. I am an advocate of personal responsibility, but for an individual to take responsibility they must be afforded freedom and opportunity. Our society has both, but somehow responsibility is lost to the likes of people like you whom think that all who fail are merely victims of circumstance.

Statistically speaking, it's pretty easy to stay out of poverty in the US.

1. Finish school.
2. Don't have children outside of marriage.
3. Don't have children before you're 23.

The overwhelming number of people living in poverty fit into all or some of those categories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I shan't rise (or lower, depending on one's point of view) to your bait, except to note an old saying.

We can't all be first violiners in the orchestra - some of us gotta push wind through the trombone.

:bow:

---

Wonders how the western econimics and employment would look like if we couldn't import cheap products from abroad. :thinking:

DA, the point of that saying is pointing on another population than you're pointing at. Basically, someone has to do the shity, boring, low paid work too.
And umemployment must exist too keep the salaries down.

I'm curious on your views on that part of the population BTW. How many hours a week should a person need to work to make a decent living, for example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Kind of taking it to the extreme aren't you?


There are tools and resources available to all in the United States whom have imagination, ability, and commitment. All are afforded the same basic opportunities, beginning with education. Students have the obligation to learn and then assimilate into society with careers that benefit society.

Your rock analogy assumes that the individual came to his situation by no fault of his own, but yet he has a crappy little tool with which to dig himself out. The fact is, when somebody does illegal drugs or has children at a young age and consequently neglects their education, they have placed that rock upon themselves. I have already explained that I have compassion for those who are disabled at no fault of their own.

As for your burning to death analogy, you are being extremely unfair. Just because I am willing to risk myself to save the life of an idiot does not mean that same idiot doesn't bear some responsibility for his or her actions. That inidividual placed themsleves in that situation and the consequence was risk of death. My position is commissioned for the good of the public by a compassionate society that views the individual life as meaningful and important. That same perspective of life as important translates to the understanding that all people, no matter who they are, should be afforded the same basic rights and priveleges to pursue a life of meaning.

Your comments were shallow, distorted, and crude. I am an advocate of personal responsibility, but for an individual to take responsibility they must be afforded freedom and opportunity. Our society has both, but somehow responsibility is lost to the likes of people like you whom think that all who fail are merely victims of circumstance.

---

No, I believe in personal responsibility as much as you. However, I do think that a compassionate society helps the poor just as they help the about to be burnt. I don't think the distinction you make about a human life being at risk is important. It's not like we send out a truck with 4 guys on it to deliver welfare checks.

I don't see how that's shallow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Statistically speaking, it's pretty easy to stay out of poverty in the US.

1. Finish school.
2. Don't have children outside of marriage.
3. Don't have children before you're 23.

The overwhelming number of people living in poverty fit into all or some of those categories.

---

And how many people in poverty today were born into poverty? Most people who are born into middle class assume they would make all the right decisions (myself included), and yet most people born into poverty don't. Is there some responsibility gene all the poor people are missing or are the middle class just naive about it?

I agree with you guys 100% on the fact that poor people shouldn't have a bunch of kids, take responsibility etc etc, but the truth is they're only human like you or I, and deserve compassionate help.

DA, you are obviously a really hard worker so I get you're dislike for people on welfare. Myself, I only do as much work as I have too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Kind of taking it to the extreme aren't you?

---

Whoa cowboy. Isn't that what you're doing when you say :

Quote:

---

Why should the poor get a break? They are poor for a reason. Granted, there are certain exceptions. But generally the poor are that way because they decided "college wasn't really for them" or they decided to screw and spit more babies out. Either way, it's there fault.

---

Isn't that an incredibly broad brush you are painting with ? The majority of poor people fall into those two categories ? You give us one extreme as the majority, his example seems perfectly valid in this light.

Quote:

---

I find it funny that America is considered to be a land of opportunity and that those who succeed best are those who LEGALLY imigrate to the United States. We have a zillion success stories of indians, chinese, japanese, vietnamese being successful by opening up small businesses and taking charge of their lives through hard work and determination. Too many citizens and illegal immigrants & their children think that success should come to them automatically.

---

I was under the impression that the majority of illegal immigrants worked their asses off. I mean aren't they the ones taking all of our low paying jobs ? Not because no one else will do it of course, but because they are willing to work harder at a lower wage.

As for our citizen poor. Lets focus on them. Lets focus on those who didn't go to college or had babies. Take that broad brush of yours and tell me what led them to the conclusion that college wasnt' for them. Or that babies at 18 was a great idea. Tell me a little bit more about these people. Or are we only focused on the outcome and not the environment that lead to the outcome ?

Being as you are a true capitalist I'm sure you've actually worked in the private sector extensively. So surely when something fails, you're interested in the why of it so that we don't repeat those same mistakes.

Divinus good freind, where is your compassion? Not everyone who is poor got that way because of laziness or irresponsible sexual activity. While there are many who fit into this description, there are also many that are poor merely due to their circumstances. I am a third generation grandson of a legal immigrant who came to the United States in 1937. He barely spoke English, but worked in the textile mills of New England for low wages and provided for his family as best he could. He served during WWII in the navy where he lost his life off the coast of France resisting capture by the Germans after his ship was shot up during a raid on the port where they were stationed. This left my Grandmother with three children and no other support for some time, until she remarried. My Mother, Aunt, and Uncle all had to work in the Tobacco fields of Connecticut each summer to supplement the family income. After years of struggle, my Grandmother has still never risen much above the poverty line. If it weren't for the help she has recieved by my Father and Mother she probably would have perished.

I, deciding to join the military after high school, have served my country now for almost thirty years. I have probably made a grand total of maybe $700,000 in my whole working career. I have attended some online college classes, and would like to finish college when I am not being deployed or threatened with deployments to fight ole' Georgie's war. I have never asked for a handout and never will. I am not wealthy and am able to maintain my status of lower-middle class through hard work and effort. (Even worked as agarbage collector once) Despite this fact, I still see the need to help as many of my fellow Americans who are less fortunate than I.

As Jesus said to a wealthy young man once, "Go and sell all that thou hast and give it to the poor, then come and follow me."

He also said, "The poor ye shall have with you always, but me ye shall not always have with you."

The bible tells us to "Bear ye the burdens of one another, and so fulfill the law of Christ, but insomuch as it is possible, let each man bear his own burden so that he may have pride in his own work."

Come now amigo, we cannot all be rich. You make it sound as if it is some kind of sin to want less than earning more than Donald Trump.

Cordially,

PS: Sorry it took so long to get back to this post. I appreciate your explanation of the so called "borrowing" from the Chinese for what it really is. I am still not sure how their investing so heavily in our bonds can be all that great for us, but I am grateful nonetheless.

Totally.

Instead of responding to all comments individually, I will attempt to make a broad reply to answer the questions posed.

I can speak for someone who came from poverty. Like I have explained here time and time again- I was so damn poor I literally had to pick aluminum cans out of trash bins to recycle to ensure I had enough money to eat after my rent was paid. And I lived in a low-income housing complex where the wailing of infants filled my ears every night. I had no car and walked almost five miles to work in the morning to my first job becauses buses didn't run at 4am in my town. And I had a second job at night as well. But it still wasn't enough. It was my own damn fault. I had dropped out of high school and made some crappy decisions. But I went back to school and dedicated myself to serving my nation because it was honorable and afforded me opportunity. There were other options as well, but the military was just what I wanted to do since I was a kid anyway.

Within a decade, I had purchased two homes, having upgraded to a 4 bedroom 2 story before the age of 30. I also finished college while working 50-70 hrs a week. And now I am halfway to an MBA, and am on the board of Directors for my HOA. Not to mention a whole crap load of amazing honors in my Marine Corps career which many of you have seen here before.

So I have no sympathy for low-wage earners. It is a choice to do crappy jobs. Nobody is forced to flip burgers or wash cars, but yet people choose to do this rather than attend college in their off-hours to pursue a higher-paid career. So why should I subsidize laziness?

Before WWII the lazy would simply die. There was no option to be lazy. People had a good work value because they had no other choice. Now many of the youth of our society thinks everything is entitled to them. They have a "right" to a house, car, and good salary regardless of what job they do. What a bunch of garbage. It's a lack of personal responsibility when you refuse to take charge of yoiur life and pursue a career that soceity values. Guess what? It isn't about what you want to do. It's about what society needs. And when those old jobs go away, we need people to take the new ones. But that takes an education.

I'll give you a fishing pole and teach you to fish, but I'll sure has hell won't feed you when you take a nap instead of sit at the reel.

And to respond to a few specific comments:

Rotorgun- we can't all be Jesus and walk the earth. Society has to function. If we all played Jesus, we would all die of mass starvation.

whyidie-

Quote:

---

Or are we only focused on the outcome and not the environment that lead to the outcome ?

---

Perfect example of classic liberal thinking. No responsibility. It's "society's" fault. Anybody but the idiot who made the crappy choice, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki

Myself, I only do as much work as I have too.

---

Pretty much explains why you want me to give you free crap, huh? Should I subsidize your lack of ambition? It's funny. Seriously, listen: Everytime I really nail down a leftist liberal Democrat on this issue they ultimately give me the saem response. You have given me an identical response as someone I spoke with in the chatroom a fw months ago. "Basically I am too lazy and don't want to work that hard". I do appreciate your honesty, Sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Basically, someone has to do the shity, boring, low paid work too. And umemployment must exist too keep the salaries down.

---

Sure. Someone has to do the crappy work. Until everyone is too educated to do the job and the demand for the job exceeds the supply of laborers willing to do the job at low wages. Then society is forced to increase wages. That is why illegal immigration is so harmful to the low wage earners of America. As for unemployment- Full employment will include an unemployment rate of around 3% to account for people in transition. I see what you mean. But the fact is that workers must create value for themselves in the modern global competitive marketplace. The world has changed, like it or not. Ultimately it has changed for the better.


EDIT: Here is a perplexing thought- LIberals believe everyone should be given free crap because people are inherently entitled to a life of ease and comfort. But yet they believe in natural selection. Funny contradiction. Oh ya. And they believe that a tree should be protected but yet sticking a fork in a baby's head as she is born is perfectly okay.

Div, old fruit, may I suggest you add Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol' to your reading list? (Not the Muppet version, the book).

You'll find some choice quotes for your next dissertation (and probably your sig too). I warn you though, it turns out badly in the end.

:bounce:

Impressive story DA :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I also finished college while working 50-70 hrs a week.

---

What did you study at college?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

So I have no sympathy for low-wage earners. It is a choice to do crappy jobs. Nobody is forced to flip burgers or wash cars, but yet people choose to do this rather than attend college in their off-hours to pursue a higher-paid career. So why should I subsidize laziness?

---

Because everyone is different and cannot do the same things. Some people cannot handle collage, some lacks social skills, some lacks leadership skills, "selling" themself to the employer, etc, etc. Remind you that my sympthies ends with the car washer, he that thinks that a job like that is below him, but still refuses to educate themself is fools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Perfect example of classic liberal thinking. No responsibility. It's "society's" fault. Anybody but the idiot who made the crappy choice, right?

---

Actually the classic liberal thinking is based on the question "Why did the idiot do that crappy choise and what can we do about it?" Or to make it simple: "Why is there more idiots in some areas compared to others?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Pretty much explains why you want me to give you free crap, huh? Should I subsidize your lack of ambition? It's funny. Seriously, listen: Everytime I really nail down a leftist liberal Democrat on this issue they ultimately give me the saem response. You have given me an identical response as someone I spoke with in the chatroom a fw months ago. "Basically I am too lazy and don't want to work that hard". I do appreciate your honesty, Sir.

---

As I asked before, how many hours a week do you think you should be required to work to live a decent life? 50? 70? 90? We humans are built for hard work in short periods, not constant work day out day in. Some people values thier free-time higher than more money. Don't get me wrong, people has to work to be able to live, the question is how much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Sure. Someone has to do the crappy work. Until everyone is too educated to do the job and the demand for the job exceeds the supply of laborers willing to do the job at low wages. Then society is forced to increase wages. That is why illegal immigration is so harmful to the low wage earners of America. As for unemployment- Full employment will include an unemployment rate of around 3% to account for people in transition. I see what you mean. But the fact is that workers must create value for themselves in the modern global competitive marketplace. The world has changed, like it or not. Ultimately it has changed for the better.

---

But the complexity increases when the products become more expensive due to the increased salary, making the buyers earn relativly less. If everyone makes "lower" salaries, then the demand on raises will increase, causing general inflation. As the process repeats itself, you'll be having uncontrolled inflation in no time. The market can handle smaller situations on this (by a simple supply, demand system), but not on the scale considered here.

Does that unemployment number taking in account wrongful education (aka too much of this type, too little of that type) BTW? Seen simular numbers before but I'm curious about that part.

Yeah, the transition of the economy will be an interesting thing. Although the biggest challenge (the depletion of civil service jobs) is still into the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

EDIT: Here is a perplexing thought- LIberals believe everyone should be given free crap because people are inherently entitled to a life of ease and comfort. But yet they believe in natural selection. Funny contradiction. Oh ya. And they believe that a tree should be protected but yet sticking a fork in a baby's head as she is born is perfectly okay.

---

Humanity has came long enough to be beyond natural selection. We care about our weak instead of leaving them to die...
Besides leaving people to die makes them desperate and deperation is usually not something good...

Fork in the haed at birth? :inquisitive: I know that the US is still allowing some weird abortion techniques a bit too freely, but that's a new one.
As for the comment in question, it's to where you extent your monkeysphare. How many Iraqi lives are an American life worth? Do you care that more than 35000 people died of starvation today, and tomorrow and the day after that...

If humanity does give up an all pretence of cleaning our genetic pool we are storing problems for later on. Helping our genetic abnormalities is fine. But doing so to the extent that they are allowed to breed is only going to exacerbate the problem.

The Nanny State idea is less than 100 years old. Pensions started in Germany in about 1860 when the life expectancy was close, if not 65. Very few ever got to claim a pension Now we get to a situation where in some cases people work for 45 years, then are pensioned for the next 40. Not sustainable.

Invention is the child of necessity. If people required jobs, most would get one. I do mine not out of love of humanity in general, but I want to support my family, and this job pays well. If I won £10 million, no I'd not do this - I'd do a job I liked which didn't have a week of nights every 7 weeks, and accept the massive wage hit.

There are some people that are poor in the UK.

But if you work out the cost of smoking, drinking and other non-essentials they spend a lot of money. Saving money makes you illegible for state aid. So why bother? In debt? So what - declare bankrupcy. They can't take you council house.

There is a point where trying is reqarded. But there are many where it makes no economic or social sense to do so.

~:smoking:

Proud and worthy Divinus Arma!

Your story is an inspiration to us all. I think that you and I are much more in agreement than you know, despite my holding on to the trappings of (Classical mind you) Liberalism. I am proud of you for using your opprtunities in such a way to better your lot in life. I have pretty much done the same as you, with the exception that I halted my personal growth temporarily to raise a family. Yes it was a choice, one that I often wondered why I made at times, but one that I am very proud of as well. My three children are all doing well and have been taught the work ethic that I was taught by my "Democratic" father. I have a hard time giving handouts to the lazy as well, and lobbied my representatives to pass the welfare reform bills during the Clinton administration. I am all behind tax reform, smaller government, and a fiscal conservative "pay as you go" type of approach. I also deplore the thought of abortion, although understand it in some cases.

What I am not for, is the complete abandonment of those "less fortunate" while Corporate America uses my tax dollars to subsidize their "free enterprise" endeavors. It's really all about how the wealth is used isn't it? I think that no tax dollars should be spent for such things unless they benifit the majority of Americans. It's sort of like RTW in a way. If you don't spend a certain amount of money on buildings that help the population while conquering the world, than the population gets unhappy. When war is on the rise, it is more difficult to keep the cities happy, because it is a strain on the economy and them. This is what is happening across America in a way. The people are not all behind the Republican agenda because of a lack of trust, not because they are for or against Bush's tax cuts.

Quote:

---

Rotorgun- we can't all be Jesus and walk the earth. Society has to function. If we all played Jesus, we would all die of mass starvation.

---

Jesus does not expect us to do so. As a matter of fact, he is certainly quite a proponent of good work ethics. He only sought to remind us to be compassionate to each other.

"Seek not to lay up treasures on this earth, were theives break in and steal, and moths corrupt, but store ye up treasures in heaven, where thieves do not steal and moths cannot corrupt. Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also."

This is just a reminder to us all that we are not here long on this earth, but what we do here is eternal. I think you'll find it such a blessing to help your nieghbor when you can. It's sort of like seeing the smile on the face of poor children who have just recieved a toy from the Marine Corps "Toys for Tots" campaign. There is just no better feeling than that.

Proud of you for your service BTW, and I enjoy your posts, even though we are often at loggerheads.

Sincerly,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Pretty much explains why you want me to give you free crap, huh? Should I subsidize your lack of ambition? It's funny. Seriously, listen: Everytime I really nail down a leftist liberal Democrat on this issue they ultimately give me the saem response. You have given me an identical response as someone I spoke with in the chatroom a few months ago. "Basically I am too lazy and don't want to work that hard". I do appreciate your honesty, Sir.

---

Heh, well I won't need any free crap from you, I'll have a good job when I graduate despite poor work ethic. But it would be hypocritical of me to say other people should work really hard when I kind of coast by. I like to think of it as "my tax dollars go to help the poor and your tax dollars go to help the war".

Sorry guys, this has nothing to do with my lack of compassion. I am not abandoning anyone. You know how I can say this? Because America affords opportunity through freedom and a free market. There are opportunities for all.

Here is one prime example:

Career Change Seacrh Total Time- 9:01-9:20 pm pst

Job background

Occupational Outlook Handbook: Automotive Service Technician

Quote:

---

Median hourly earnings of automotive service technicians and mechanics, including commission, were $15.60 in May 2004. The middle 50 percent earned between $11.31 and $20.75 per hour. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $8.70, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $26.22 per hour. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of service technicians in May 2004 were as follows:

Local government $38,160
Automobile dealers 38,060
Automotive repair and maintenance 28,810
Gasoline stations 28,030
Automotive parts, accessories, and tire stores 27,180

---

Education

North Chicago, Truman College (2 year community)

Automotive Technology Program
Basic Certificate (BC) 20 Credit Hours (CH)

Education Cost
$72.00 per credit hour, payable in addition to any applicable out-of-district or out-of-state tuition.


Tuition cost
72 x 20 = $1,440


Financial Aid
FAFSA: http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/
Stafford Loan: http://www.staffordloan.com/ Payments begin 6 months after student stops attending.

Loan calculator for $2,000.00 loan at 6.8%

Quote:

---

Loan Calculator

Loan Balance: $2,000.00
Loan Interest Rate: 6.80%
Loan Term: 3.8 years
Minimum Payment: $50.00

Monthly Loan Payment: $50.00
Number of Payments: 46

Cumulative Payments: $2,274.50
Total Interest Paid: $274.50

---

Jobs available in Chicago area:

simply type : "Automotive Jobs Chicago" into google. Enjoy your new career track.


See? How damn hard was that? Is this really unrealistic? Go to school on your off days and pursue a better damn life for yourself. This country makes it possible for ANYONE to succeed as long as they have ability, imagination, and commitment.

There are those among us w/o ability. We ought to care for those who cannot care for themselves, and are otherwise uncared for, at least. If you don't like it, and if the rest of us vote for it, you can leave the country.~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

There are those among us w/o ability. We ought to care for those who cannot care for themselves, and are otherwise uncared for, at least. If you don't like it, and if the rest of us vote for it, you can leave the country.~;)

---

How many times do I have to write here that I have no problem with aiding the disabled? Did you read my posts before? What is it about the truth that you people hate so much?

Quote:

---

How many times do I have to write here that I have no problem with aiding the disabled?

---

None. (My statement was stand-alone, anyway.)

Quote:

---

Did you read my posts before?

---

Nope.:shrug:

Quote:

---

What is it about the truth that you people hate so much?

---

Our views are probably pretty similar. Although I think that capitalism may have its economic benifits, people ought to be able to spend their money how they choose and, generally, market as they choose for the sake of personal choice.

(And the peace-pipe is good for all.:hippie:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Sorry guys, this has nothing to do with my lack of compassion. I am not abandoning anyone. You know how I can say this? Because America affords opportunity through freedom and a free market. There are opportunities for all.

Here is one prime example:

Career Change Seacrh Total Time- 9:01-9:20 pm pst

Job background

Occupational Outlook Handbook: Automotive Service Technician



Education

North Chicago, Truman College (2 year community)

Automotive Technology Program
Basic Certificate (BC) 20 Credit Hours (CH)

Education Cost
$72.00 per credit hour, payable in addition to any applicable out-of-district or out-of-state tuition.


Tuition cost
72 x 20 = $1,440


Financial Aid
FAFSA: http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/
Stafford Loan: http://www.staffordloan.com/ Payments begin 6 months after student stops attending.

Loan calculator for $2,000.00 loan at 6.8%



Jobs available in Chicago area:

simply type : "Automotive Jobs Chicago" into google. Enjoy your new career track.


See? How damn hard was that? Is this really unrealistic? Go to school on your off days and pursue a better damn life for yourself. This country makes it possible for ANYONE to succeed as long as they have ability, imagination, and commitment.

---

Well sure, I agree with that. Sounds like something I'd do if I was really poor. Hmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Well sure, I agree with that. Sounds like something I'd do if I was really poor. Hmm.

---

Are you being sarcastic or are you honestly contemplating the essence of my response? (hard to tell without the inerpersonal cues, ya know.~:) )

IMDHO

I've said this here before.

You don't plan to be poor and you don't plan to be sick.

But more often then not you have to chose and plan and implement to be rich and you have to choose and plan and implement to be very healthy.

There is a reason that a obese, undereducated, poor and undermotivated coagulate in the same individual. They are all aspects of the same lack of long term planning, choosing and doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Are you being sarcastic or are you honestly contemplating the essence of my response? (hard to tell without the inerpersonal cues, ya know.~:) )

---

No, I think I agree with you *insert ambiguous smiley*

oh dear...

People are...actually agreeing with me? :dizzy2:


:laugh4:


Okay, so then if you agree with me, then why should we give unearned rewards and shortcuts to the fat lazy bastards who "failed to plan", and by default, have chosen to be poor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

oh dear...

People are...actually agreeing with me? :dizzy2:


:laugh4:


Okay, so then if you agree with me, then why should we give unearned rewards and shortcuts to the fat lazy bastards who "failed to plan", and by default, have chosen to be poor?

---

We shouldn't. I'm still in favor of support for people with lots of kids though, the kids didn't make any choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Okay, so then if you agree with me, then why should we give unearned rewards and shortcuts to the fat lazy bastards who "failed to plan", and by default, have chosen to be poor?

---

Send them to the military?

Actual positive proactive early intervention not wait till everything has gone wrong and try and fix the symptoms with pharmaceuticals. Education, sports, food choices, role models etc. Teach them delayed satisfaction, goal setting, discipline, the difference between pleasure and happiness.

Essentially if the parents are failing to supply these items or they need assistance in how to do it or are unable at all then I see that an education and social system that raises independent adults is the way forward. Welfare should be like hospitals as a backup for when things go wrong. Welfare should not be a lifestyle choice anymore then hospitals should be hotels. I do place an expectation that if you are on welfare you should be looking for work. Better still you should be better off studying to further yourself and your nation then sitting around on welfare.

the flatter and lower taxation is, the better it is in my opinion.

my ideal situation:
0% taxation below the poverty line (£10k ?)
20% taxation between poverty line and national average wage (&#163;10k <> &#163;20K ?)
25% above national average wage (> &#163;20k ?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peregrine_Tergiversate

the flatter and lower taxation is the better in my opinion.

my ideal situation:
0% taxation below the poverty line (&#163;10k ?)
20% taxation between poverty line and national average wage (&#163;10k <> &#163;20K ?)
25% above national average wage (> &#163;20k ?)

---

25%! Good lord, what do you want the Gov to do with all the extra money? Or are you including SS, State and Federal?

the addition of the &#163; sign leads me to think hes talking income tax and the britsh version :laugh4: and i pay more than 25% with income and national insurance and i just started work... (im a programmer fresh out of uni)

yes, it's the joy of being the UK, those are low figures.

if was unlucky enough to get even a small payrise i would be in the 40% income tax bracket.

Wow, I guess that free healthcare isn’t cheep.~D

I payed a third of my wages in taxes last year. 8% of my Income goes on a special tax because I went to UNI called HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme)... this means I went to Uni and didn't pay up front... so when I earn above a certain threshold I start paying it off, only 10k more to go and it is indexed to CPI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I payed a third of my wages in taxes last year. 8% of my Income goes on a special tax because I went to UNI called HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme)... this means I went to Uni and didn't pay up front... so when I earn above a certain threshold I start paying it off, only 10k more to go and it is indexed to CPI.

---

Sounds like a student loan, seems reasonable to me. Fairly kind repayment schedule as your describe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I payed a third of my wages in taxes last year. 8% of my Income goes on a special tax because I went to UNI called HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme)... this means I went to Uni and didn't pay up front... so when I earn above a certain threshold I start paying it off, only 10k more to go and it is indexed to CPI.

---

What a neat idea. Any timeframe on the repay?

No, if you don't earn above the threshold you won't ever pay it back... so Bachelor of Arts won't ever have to pay it back. :laugh4:

From the Aussie Tax office: "For the 2004-05 income year, the minimum threshold is $35,000 and for 2005–06, it is $36,184."

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

No, if you don't earn above the threshold you won't ever pay it back... so Bachelor of Arts won't ever have to pay it back. :laugh4:

---

:laugh3: Its only funny because it’s true. :bigcry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

whyidie-

Perfect example of classic liberal thinking. No responsibility. It's "society's" fault. Anybody but the idiot who made the crappy choice, right?

---

And you are a classic example of a new age conservative. I have found God. I have found middle class comfort. Why can't everyone else ? I'm from the poorest of the poor. I know poor. They are my old friends. My old family. They are lazy. Not me. I worked hard. Thanks to no one but myself I learned to fish. Now I pronounce everyone who is poor as too lazy, stupid, or selfish like my family. Hurrah!

Look. I'll continue to fund your jobs, you continue to do the best with the opportunity I provide you.

Meanwhile, I'm perfectly allright paying some coin so that potential rioters are given every opportunity to be a contributing member of our middle class lifestyle.

If you want to ignore problems until they hit you in the nose, don't come crying to me for more money for punishment (military, police, jails) when I was preaching prevention.