Originally posted by Sugar Adam Ali
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
3 States that required food stamp freeloaders to work saw a 85%, 75%, 62% drop
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Derranged View PostThings have changed, chief. And why get rid of the programs in the first place? Believe it or not, they are nowhere near the burden Republican politicians like to tell their voters. Its also funny that conservatives don't seem to have a problem with corporate subsidies, which cost taxpayers twice as much as the Safety Net program, or the fact that we spend way more than needed to on defense.
EDIT-- For the record, I have no problem with throwing people off who are abusing the system. I just don't think these programs should be cut entirely.
No one is saying cut the entitlements entirely. What they are saying is that ABLE BODIED ADULTS BETWEEN 19 - 49 should be forced to work before they can apply for welfare benefits. They are also saying that welfare benefits should be a supplement to your income if you are still working at the poverty level.
Comment
-
Originally posted by GhostofDempsey View PostCorporate welfare is a necessary evil to provide incentives for corporations to remain in the U.S. and create jobs. Tax them too high and they move their production overseas for cheap labor and real estate. Sure we can increase import taxes, but don't think for a minute that prices and costs won't be raised.
No one is saying cut the entitlements entirely. What they are saying is that ABLE BODIED ADULTS BETWEEN 19 - 49 should be forced to work before they can apply for welfare benefits. They are also saying that welfare benefits should be a supplement to your income if you are still working at the poverty level.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Derranged View PostActually someone in this thread did say they should be cut entirely, unless I read that wrong. Check the first page.
No one could seriously think cutting welfare completely is a good idea, but there are far too many that feel it's okay to leech off the system at the detriment of others.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Derranged View PostActually someone in this thread did say they should be cut entirely, unless I read that wrong. Check the first page.
One thing I am for is government giving billions to companies like google, tesla, etc for research into nonprofitable areas like self driving cars, etc.. stuff like that actually benefits society.. these companies would go broke trying to develop tech on their own and none would do it and just stick to what makes them money..
Government basically gives them money to **** around and fund ideas that may not be able immediately commercialize and monetize
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sugar Adam Ali View PostCorporate welfare like bailouts n tax breaks are not good..
One thing I am for is government giving billions to companies like google, tesla, etc for research into nonprofitable areas like self driving cars, etc.. stuff like that actually benefits society.. these companies would go broke trying to develop tech on their own and none would do it and just stick to what makes them money..
Government basically gives them money to **** around and fund ideas that may not be able immediately commercialize and monetize
When you give the corporations money like that-the board, management and the investors tend to reap huge benefits. The line staff doesn't.
Yet if we tried to give money to the line staff to offset this inequity, people cry foul.
Unbelievable how people think sometimes.
Comment
-
What if there aren't enough jobs for the people who want or need them?
Economists like to keep an unemployment rate of around 5%. That keeps the power with the employers who get to pick and choose their employees. In theory it means that employees need to keep improving themselves and struggling to become more productive - the theory is that this boosts the overall economy.
It seems a bit perverse to have a system which guarantees that people will be unemployed - and to enjoy the economic benefits of this arrangement - then to also hate those people who don't have a job.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lomasexual View PostWhat if there aren't enough jobs for the people who want or need them?
Economists like to keep an unemployment rate of around 5%. That keeps the power with the employers who get to pick and choose their employees. In theory it means that employees need to keep improving themselves and struggling to become more productive - the theory is that this boosts the overall economy.
It seems a bit perverse to have a system which guarantees that people will be unemployed - and to enjoy the economic benefits of this arrangement - then to also hate those people who don't have a job.
Comment
Comment