It was true then and its true now. What would you have done with poor people? some are mental some are invalid some yes are lazy, regardless they must be fed or they will steal or even kill to eat.

I say help raise those that can be raised and what incentive does a person have to work if they cant even afford insurence?

You didn't read my post, did you? I'm not going to explain it again, actually read my post this time and if you don't understand a term like "negative Income Tax", then look it up or say "Hey Spider, what is a Negative Income Tax, I'm too lazy to look it up" and I'll help you out.

Sorry Spider I worked all day ran to the beach for a few hours with my love then cut the grass not sure at what point of the day I posted.

Please spider enlighten me about your negative tax scheme I promise after I get back from dinner I will read it sometime tonite.

Not interested.

Alright, alright. All I want to do is screw the cry-baby rich who think it is punishment to be asked to pay their fair share.

I haven't commented on your fanciful idea of a negative income tax. It might have some merit. It sounds so compassionate.

I was so looking forward to it.

Have you ever gone into a store and watched a woman buy diapers and formula with WIC stamps? More often than not, she's humiliated by the act. It would be more compassionate than any crazy Democrat scheme to send everyone a check every month to keep them at the poverty level. They may never own a fancy car or a four bedroom home, but they will have money when they need to pay the electric bill and all they have are food stamps. And the number of people it would take to run a negative income tax scheme would be far less than our current "benevolence" programs, which would reduce the total number of government paper pushers and put them into the private sector where they could accomplish so much more than rubber stamping forms.

I thought about your idea of a "negative income tax", and I kept thinking. there had to be something bogus about it. "These are Conservatives. They don't give a crap about poor people. They have nothing but contempt and hatred for people who aren't rich. They are doing everything they can to punish them for being at the bottom of the pile. Poor people cost them money".

It suddenly dawned on me what the plan seeks to do. (It took about 10 minutes). It seeks to replace legitimate entitlements with welfare. The reason Conservatives like to propose this kind of thing is that Welfare programs are quite easy to cut or eliminate. "Means testing" for Social Security was such a proposal. Entitlements are funded and paid for by the very people who use them.Social Security contributes to the deficit in no way. Those who seek to eliminate it want to do so, so that Wall Street can have that huge treasure trove that resides in the SS Trust Fund.

If I were a selfish person, I might be OK with eliminating Social Security if the money that's in it that's intended for my future were returned to me. That's money that I paid in. I don't care for the idea of turning it over to hedge fund managers. To quote Conservatives, "It's my money". It is in infinitely better hands with the Social Security Administration than it would be in the hands of a hedge fund manager.

If you're going to talk about treating welfare in a different way, be my guest. But don't even think about involving entitlements in your scheme. In this sense, the idea of a negative income tax is completely unacceptable. It is a crock. It is, however, a very clever, dishonest ruse.

1) I'm not a Conservative.
2) I didn't come up wit the idea, it's been around for decades.
3) Leftists love to humiliate and control people. So they will never agree to just give the poor and needy the money they need, they will insist on on giant bureaucracy that takes months to react, because they really couldn't give two ***** about the poor, their goal is and always will be power. I've known people who went on welfare or food stamps. I helped support them over the long months it took the system to actually react. I have a friend who has major heath issues and has been qualified for Medicare for years, but they won't put her on it. If she was getting a negative income check every month, she could afford her one medical care or at the very least a doctor's visit. You are like every other leftist I have ever met, you don't understand the problems of the poor, but you think you already know the solutions.
4) No entitlements are legitimate. NONE. The Constitution doesn't give the Government the authority to create them.
5) Ronald Reagan removed those in poverty from the income tax rolls. NOT FDR. NOT CARTER. NOT BILL CLINTON. That hateful Ronald Reagan did it. He cared more about the poor than any leftist in history.
6) You are dogmatic in your beliefs. You have no real arguments against the idea of a negative income tax scheme, so you make ad hominems about Conservatives and I guess you were trying to indirectly insult me. I've been poor most of my life, I went to school for programming and took on about 20k in debt. I worked to get where I am today. I don't want to see anyone pushed down (unlike you, you are desperate to punish the wealthy for their hard work and effort), I want to see people lifted up out of poverty to reach their fullest potential.

Gosh! You should file a law suit. I'm sure the Roberts Court would be eager to hear your argument.

Sorry. Missed again. Ronald Reagan wasn't responsible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. That happened under Nixon. It only provided a way for Reagan to make the claim that he had removed all those poor people from the rolls.



Victim mentality.


While, at the same time, advocating policies that can only create more poor people and reduce the wealth of everybody but the wealthy that
you love so much.

I'll repeat my self, so that you can understand my comment. "If you're going to talk about treating welfare in a different way, be my guest. But don't even think about involving entitlements in your scheme. In this/
sense, the idea of a negative income tax is completely unacceptable. It is a crock. It is, however, a very clever, dishonest ruse. "

http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/tax-reform-act

The act eliminated federal income tax liability for those below the poverty line. This restored the laws as they existed in the late 1970s, when poor people were excluded from the obligation to pay taxes. This particular reform was made necessary by the effects of inflation: inflation increases people's nominal income and therefore their income taxes, even though in real economic terms they live in poverty.




I don't "love the wealth", I appreciate that they can create jobs and I want to join them.



This is nonsense, nobody can understand what you are saying. Welfare is an entitlement and so are all those other programs. I would rather see the poor allowed to work and continue getting enough money to be at the poverty line. That way, they can learn job skills and move up the economic ladder. The current system keeps the poor in poverty their whole lives, it's destructive to the human spirit, is often passed on to the next generation and makes the society poorer as a whole.

My bad. I meant:

I said SSI, which isn't Social Security. Social Security is a whole different animal. It needs to be individual accounts that can be passed down in a will by each individual. The current system favors whites over blacks, which simply isn't right or fair.

We need to start cuts in military and other major entitlement programs. This stuff is small potatoes and does probably the most good for the buck.

What we need to realize is that hand outs do not fix problems, they just hide them.

2/3's of the US Government's budget is benevolence. The Military is the most successful program the US Government has. I'm sure there is some fat in the budget that can be cut, but the size of the Military shouldn't be reduced and they still need to put money into R&D.

You're right.I was wrong