there is a name for this

luciferian

new world order

illuminati


they keep things compartmentalized so that one hand knows not what the other is doing and most cant comprehend what is really going on.

children learn in school certain ways to think and are punished if they dont conform to set standards.

not standards set by people but outside forces.

you lean in school that anyone can be president but that is a lie.

you can pick from 2 preprogramed partys that both have the same adgenda.

this is why the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

but now theres too many people in the world so the poor and middle class have to go.

they have you brainwashed through media that is all controlled by them.why havent you heard? they bought all the companys that make school books in the 1930s.

no child left behind (unbrainwashed)

sounds crazy? good there plan is working.

gun nuts? no guns

religious nuts? no religion except thiers

money nuts? they love money

which one doesnt fit

look on the front of a one dollar bill for an owl (molech)

there are 2600 satanic people worshiping a stone owl at bohemian groove right now in the us.

why would we have all these hording shows on tv right before a major world depression? get rid of your supplies ,food ,animals.

why not have a show called money hording instead?

make warren buffets *** poor and bill gates the rothschilds,,kennedys, rockefellers.

that would be a good show i would watch.

I haven't seen anyone saying that they are.



If the budgets were joined together into a single program, we could easily raise the poor to the 200% poverty level.



It's only bad in the moral, ethical and economic senses.

I am going to have to think about this.

I'll engage the last spider. Make an argument.

Ah... and hello.

The 2008 Federal budget was $2,900,000,000,000 (2.9 trillion) and the budget for Welfare (not including Social Security, Medicare, veterans programs, unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation) was $708,000,000,000 (708 billion). That means that Welfare alone is 25% of the budget. But that's only counting the payouts, if we include salaries and other expenses of those working in the welfare system, you are talking 26.7%.

Bad information spider.

Gotta good source?

310 million people in the US total. About 10 million receive welfare. So you're saying that 708 billion has been paid out to 10 million people?

Hmmmm....

Nah. I don't believe ya.

Okay, so ethics is the study of morality, but I needed a 3rd to make it a good list.

Moral reasons against over taxation of the rich

Taxation in all cases is an exertion of force by a Government upon it's own citizens. Society is a contract between a group of people that to live in an organized community. To apply a greater tax percentage to one group of people would be morally reprehensible because it's the majority exerting it's power against the minority. It's no difference from mugging someone, except it's legal.

Economic reasons against over taxation of the rich

The "rich" are often owners of small businesses. Much of their post-tax income is used to reinvest in their company. Take more of that money away and they will have less money to spend on their business, which means less growth and fewer employees.

The rich are the most mobile of all members of our society. If they want to leave the society, they are the most able to do so. Raising their taxes can drive them out of the economy. You can see this happening now in the flight of the rich from NYC.

The rich buy expensive items. Expensive houses, yachts, airplanes, cars, etc. Those things are all build and made by workers. When the US put higher taxes on yachts, the rich found it was cheaper to buy foreign made yachts and have them sailed to the US. The USA used to have a rich yacht building industry, but now there are very few yachts built in the USA. That means thousands of yacht builders are out of work and the tax doesn't help us at all, because very few US build yachts are purchased a year. The more we try to tax the rich, the more we impact the middle class.

Who said anything about 10 million? It's 41.3 million.

What do you consider a good source?

How about testimony from in front of Congress?

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Robert_Rector_Testimony.pdf

Hey, if you want to play the "your source isn't good enough" game, then I'm out, okay? You haven't offered a single source, you just made up a number of 10 million people on Welfare. I'm not going to play, okay? I'm not that bored or lonely. I'll go watch Swamp People or something.

Point taken.

Facts are always good.

How about this one to start?

Is the problem that we help these people, or is it that more than 40 million people need the help?

the first reader comment that was posted on your site... i think it sums it up

"Helping the poor and disadvantaged is now big business no matter which graph you look at. It’s amazing how many programs are out there designed to put people back to work or to feed and house them, but somehow only a percentage of this money flows down where it is most needed.

Yes, admin costs etc are expensive but why make it into a business and a whole new industry?"

I would much prefer that is wasn't 41.3 million people, but I see nothing wrong with helping them. As I have said many times, I would love to see all 69 Welfare programs shut down, their budgets combined, the majority of their employees fired or forcibly retired. This would give us enough money to give each person below poverty enough money to raise them to the 200% poverty level. Done correctly, you would have it tied into the IRS and other government programs, so that it scaled with income. If someone lost their job, they would start getting checks after the first missed payday. Simple, efficient and much more humane. Have you ever seen a project? Have you been inside them? Have you ever had to pay for food with food stamps? It's not a pleasant thing.

Spider...

Let's say that all the information presented in that testimony is accurate, which is not necessarily the case but for the sake of moving forward let's grant it...

What does it tell us?


Moe,

No doubt. There are problems in the system. That's why we're here.

Good points spider.

Isn't it a sign in and of itself, that the programs were implemented by the govt. to help the poor? If we then take those jobs away, we increase the amount of the poor people.

I don't buy your argument about taxing the rich. History shows otherwise. Reagan raised taxes over 15 times - no recession. Clinton raised them tremendously on the wealthy - no recession. This tells us that it is not a foregone conclusion.

Allowing Government workers to keep their jobs isn't justification for keeping 69 programs in place where one would suffice. I'm sure many of those government workers have skills that could be better used in the private sector. The pie isn't a fixed size, it can and will grow if the government allows it to. Just because those people wouldn't work for the government any more, that wouldn't mean that they couldn't find jobs. The Government is the source of many of our problems. I just read that something like 109k jobs would be created just by lifting Obama's ban on off shore drilling. 109k jobs could be created over night! Imagine what the country would be like if we removed even more government road blocks and red tape.



No, it's not. And you can probably kill some people without raising taxes too, that doesn't mean it's moral. There is a moral component of us using force against our neighbors that I can't agree with. I'm amazed that people who are anti-war are pro-force when it comes to making their neighbors pay more in taxes.

Do you believe that a person has a moral obligation to the people of their own state?

No, I don't. I believe that humanity has a moral obligation to help the poor and disadvantaged (specifically not the lazy, drug users or alcoholics). But I think we also have a moral obligation to treat one another fairly. If force is going to be applied against an innocent citizen, it should be applied equally against all citizens. I'm fine with low income households paying no taxes, but once you get to the point where people are paying taxes, it should be a flat rate.

Just an FYI: Testimony in front of Congress is under oath. If he lied under oath in front of Congress (about their own budget!), he would have been charged with perjury.