Topic: Letter sent to the president and my reps
no photo
Thu 07/07/11 02:40 PM
Edited by Spidercmb on Thu 07/07/11 02:42 PM

Wow ... really? Then why has the divide between the rich and poor grown so steeply since Reagan stepped foot in office? Its so irritating to see so many Americans advocating low taxes for the rich on the OFF-CHANCE that one day they might be one of them.


Statistics are worse than meaningless when you talk about economic movement.

What you have to look at are actual people. The Reagan years show many more poor people (most especially black people) moving up in economic standing than in almost any period of human history and young people taking their place in poverty. Poverty today is mostly fueled by two things over which the Government has no control: Single parent homes and underage pregnancy.

The surest way to keep your children out of poverty is to do three simple things: Before you have kids a) Be at least 21, b) Have your HS Diploma or GED and c) Wait until you are married. The Government cannot force anyone to do those things and therefore cannot fix poverty.

donthatoneguy's photo
Thu 07/07/11 02:44 PM
Despite my agreement with MOST of that, it's still no excuse for cutting taxes on the rich.

Lpdon's photo
Thu 07/07/11 02:48 PM


They would have the opportunity if they tried.

They just want to get their money and foodstams so they can buy alcohol, drugs and cigarettes. Fking injuries and disabilities and milking unemployment.

Yup, such honest people. SHAMEFUL.


Not everyone is like that at all.

But look at the people who could work, but instead continue to accept Government Benevolence...

The system is designed to keep people on it. If you find a job and take it, your assistance ends and it will take months or longer to get back on the system.

Most people on the system are receiving as much in benefits as they would receive after tax working a job, sometimes even more.

The person's self interests are often best served by remaining on the system. They get more time with their children and they don't have to work. You cannot judge someone as being "shameful" if they choose to stay on welfare instead of finding a job if their whole family is better off with them not working.

A reverse income tax or a Flat tax with a monthly rebate would help to raise everyone out of poverty without unduelly punishing anyone above them in economic status. This would scale to the number of dependents and current income. So getting a job wouldn't decrease your monthly income and you would always have the safety net waiting to catch you.

We also have to re-stigmatize intentionally having children out of wedlock. This will do a great deal to resolving issues of poverty and crime rates.


Ya, thats fair. Me being a hard working taxpayer getting to pay for someone who CHOOSES to just collect a government check so they can spend more time at home.

That logic right there would crash our country. Think about what you just said, what if everybody did that? We'd be F'ed.

no photo
Thu 07/07/11 02:50 PM

Despite my agreement with MOST of that, it's still no excuse for cutting taxes on the rich.


The rich should pay more than the middle class, but as an amount, not a percent. If the Government sets the tax rate at 25%, it should be that for everyone who isn't poverty level. This encourages growth and doesn't punish the rich, which will force them to flee to tax shelters.

no photo
Thu 07/07/11 02:57 PM



They would have the opportunity if they tried.

They just want to get their money and foodstams so they can buy alcohol, drugs and cigarettes. Fking injuries and disabilities and milking unemployment.

Yup, such honest people. SHAMEFUL.


Not everyone is like that at all.

But look at the people who could work, but instead continue to accept Government Benevolence...

The system is designed to keep people on it. If you find a job and take it, your assistance ends and it will take months or longer to get back on the system.

Most people on the system are receiving as much in benefits as they would receive after tax working a job, sometimes even more.

The person's self interests are often best served by remaining on the system. They get more time with their children and they don't have to work. You cannot judge someone as being "shameful" if they choose to stay on welfare instead of finding a job if their whole family is better off with them not working.

A reverse income tax or a Flat tax with a monthly rebate would help to raise everyone out of poverty without unduelly punishing anyone above them in economic status. This would scale to the number of dependents and current income. So getting a job wouldn't decrease your monthly income and you would always have the safety net waiting to catch you.

We also have to re-stigmatize intentionally having children out of wedlock. This will do a great deal to resolving issues of poverty and crime rates.


Ya, thats fair. Me being a hard working taxpayer getting to pay for someone who CHOOSES to just collect a government check so they can spend more time at home.

That logic right there would crash our country. Think about what you just said, what if everybody did that? We'd be F'ed.


It isn't fair, but it's the facts. And you are right, that is a terrible situation. What I'm saying isn't that the current system is good, I'm saying the complete opposite. But blame the system, not the people. The people are doing what is in their own best interest. Make it so that their interests are best served by working and they will. Right now, the government has ensured that the people on government assistance have more financial security and usually as much or more financial means by remaining on assistance instead of going into the job market. It would be morally wrong to end all support to these people, but if we make changes to the system so that they have financial security and also have a financial interest in getting a job, then you'll see a massive reduction in the people on assistance.

Lpdon's photo
Thu 07/07/11 02:58 PM
Ya, thats fair whoa Then the poor should have to do some kind of community service to pay their share.

no photo
Thu 07/07/11 03:02 PM

Ya, thats fair whoa Then the poor should have to do some kind of community service to pay their share.


How is anyone supposed to know what you are talking about? Why not quote what you are responding to.

no photo
Thu 07/07/11 03:11 PM
Then why has the divide between the rich and poor grown so steeply since Reagan stepped foot in office?


It's amazing how a populace, once hard-working and responsible enough to support a family on one income and be productive enough to earn a vacation and a pension suddenly became so lazy and shiftless and worthless when Ronald Reagan became President. The bigots have always been among us. standing in the line in front of us at the grocery store and sitting next to us at the movies. It's only in the last 30 years theat it has become fashionable and "safe" to express their bigotries.

no photo
Thu 07/07/11 03:15 PM
The Government cannot force anyone to do those things and therefore cannot fix poverty.


Lyndon Johnson did it with his Great Society. And at a time when America was at it's most productive and prosperous. Right wing governments cannot and will not do anything that actually works for everybody. Just for the financial elite.

mightymoe's photo
Thu 07/07/11 03:23 PM

The Government cannot force anyone to do those things and therefore cannot fix poverty.


Lyndon Johnson did it with his Great Society. And at a time when America was at it's most productive and prosperous. Right wing governments cannot and will not do anything that actually works for everybody. Just for the financial elite.


just as the loony left is running it now?... where is the change at? is the change making things from bad to worse and we just misinterpreted what oberry was saying? i only see the rich people prospering right now, no one else...so this is all the right's fault? for someone as smart as you think you are, you sure make some dumb statements...

no photo
Thu 07/07/11 03:29 PM

The Government cannot force anyone to do those things and therefore cannot fix poverty.


Lyndon Johnson did it with his Great Society. And at a time when America was at it's most productive and prosperous. Right wing governments cannot and will not do anything that actually works for everybody. Just for the financial elite.


Explain to me how Lyndon Johnson (a famously racist President) fixed poverty? How did he prevent young people from having sex? How did he force them to get married before they got pregnant? How did he force them to finish HS or get a GED? You are so full of it.

donthatoneguy's photo
Thu 07/07/11 05:23 PM

Explain to me how Lyndon Johnson (a famously racist President) fixed poverty? How did he prevent young people from having sex? How did he force them to get married before they got pregnant? How did he force them to finish HS or get a GED? You are so full of it.


This is the biggest part I did not agree with from your previous post ... marriage. I've read from several sources that 55% of new marriages end within the first four years (this includes annulments, etc). So even if you COULD get people to marry before having kids, it will do little to curb single parenthood (mind you, I did NOT say it would do "nothing" to curb).

What I found even more interesting was that 70% of SECOND marriages fail within the first four years. I guess if you've gone through it before, its no longer such a big deal, so screw it. laugh

msharmony's photo
Thu 07/07/11 05:33 PM





The hell people on Welfare dont. 90% of people on Welfare are milking the system.



how would you know? seriously? are you on it,, because I have been

they look for work like anyone else, they even have 'work requirements' in order to receive assistance,, but most people who keep espousing the stereotypes have no real clue what is involved...


I have the opportunity to be on it for my permanent back injury. I have doctors who say I shouldn't be working and on disability. What did I do? I went back to work, I am not going to drain the system when I can work, I am just in a horrible amount of pain and on heavy medication. If I can do it so can everyone else.






what has that to do with the people who receive assistance because they dont have WORK and have full time parenting responsibilities, childcare, gas expenses, utilities, housing to pay?

because you could go 'back to work' doesnt mean everyone else has that opportunity,,,,


They would have the opportunity if they tried.

They just want to get their money and foodstams so they can buy alcohol, drugs and cigarettes. Fking injuries and disabilities and milking unemployment.

Yup, such honest people. SHAMEFUL.



honesty, drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol,, all nice distractions from the topic, as if to imply they are symptoms suffered by welfare recipients as opposed to the working and upper class



talk about shameful


msharmony's photo
Thu 07/07/11 05:37 PM


They would have the opportunity if they tried.

They just want to get their money and foodstams so they can buy alcohol, drugs and cigarettes. Fking injuries and disabilities and milking unemployment.

Yup, such honest people. SHAMEFUL.


Not everyone is like that at all.

But look at the people who could work, but instead continue to accept Government Benevolence...

The system is designed to keep people on it. If you find a job and take it, your assistance ends and it will take months or longer to get back on the system.

Most people on the system are receiving as much in benefits as they would receive after tax working a job, sometimes even more.

The person's self interests are often best served by remaining on the system. They get more time with their children and they don't have to work. You cannot judge someone as being "shameful" if they choose to stay on welfare instead of finding a job if their whole family is better off with them not working.

A reverse income tax or a Flat tax with a monthly rebate would help to raise everyone out of poverty without unduelly punishing anyone above them in economic status. This would scale to the number of dependents and current income. So getting a job wouldn't decrease your monthly income and you would always have the safety net waiting to catch you.

We also have to re-stigmatize intentionally having children out of wedlock. This will do a great deal to resolving issues of poverty and crime rates.



more misinformation,,,most people on assistance(not including disability or social security), have a cap of three years that they can receive it,, although they will pay taxes for at least 40 years of their life,,,

hardly 'milking' it


requirements for assistance INCLUDE actively seeking work as well as having that activity checked and VERIFIED...so its not about preferring assistance OVER working because its just not permitted to 'sit' around and collect

if someone is 'choosing' to stay on welfare, they are certainly an exception and not the rule,,,

msharmony's photo
Thu 07/07/11 05:38 PM

Ya, thats fair whoa Then the poor should have to do some kind of community service to pay their share.


welfare actually includes this PRECISE requirement,,,,

Lpdon's photo
Thu 07/07/11 05:41 PM


Ya, thats fair whoa Then the poor should have to do some kind of community service to pay their share.


welfare actually includes this PRECISE requirement,,,,


I don't see people on unemployment doing community service or the people leeching off society doing it either.

msharmony's photo
Thu 07/07/11 05:43 PM



Ya, thats fair whoa Then the poor should have to do some kind of community service to pay their share.


welfare actually includes this PRECISE requirement,,,,


I don't see people on unemployment doing community service or the people leeching off society doing it either.



how would you know if you 'saw' it?

how would you recognize that was what you were seeing?

Milesoftheusa's photo
Thu 07/07/11 05:43 PM
I wonder how many people who believe that if they pay car Insurance premiums which is the law and then have a wreck would say to the insurance company " it's okay if you do not pay for my car. I understand"

no photo
Thu 07/07/11 06:11 PM


Explain to me how Lyndon Johnson (a famously racist President) fixed poverty? How did he prevent young people from having sex? How did he force them to get married before they got pregnant? How did he force them to finish HS or get a GED? You are so full of it.


This is the biggest part I did not agree with from your previous post ... marriage. I've read from several sources that 55% of new marriages end within the first four years (this includes annulments, etc). So even if you COULD get people to marry before having kids, it will do little to curb single parenthood (mind you, I did NOT say it would do "nothing" to curb).

What I found even more interesting was that 70% of SECOND marriages fail within the first four years. I guess if you've gone through it before, its no longer such a big deal, so screw it. laugh


If you are married when you get pregnant, it's much easier to get child support, so that the single mother has a better chance of not going into poverty.

no photo
Thu 07/07/11 06:12 PM


Ya, thats fair whoa Then the poor should have to do some kind of community service to pay their share.


welfare actually includes this PRECISE requirement,,,,


I don't believe that to be true.