Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 50

Thread: "This is why I live on benefits!"

  1. #31
    DV - Honestly envy your fervor on the topic of looking at our issues from a bright side... I just don't think it is realistic right now. Kinda like turning to your spouse in the middle of an armed robbery and telling her to cheer up and try to think of the positive side of the fellow pointing the gun at you.

    Your point that poor people are not the only ones playing the system is not only true, it's probably understated. The people playing the system for subsistence level funds dont approach the ones taking billions in stimulus funds and wasting them. There's a little friends of the DNC club currently robbing the treasury of revenue that wont come in til my grandchildren have grandchildren. The green energy giveaways are but one leaf on that branch. I believe the market will find a green energy alternative eventually, but it wont happen because a president handed his cronies billions and told them to do it.

    Bottom line we have a president that's spending us into oblivion and strong-arming the useful idiots in congress into agreeing to help him do it... and the same man is currently mounting an assault on the 2nd amendment. Deciding whether to hand over one's firearms and rely on the gracious government to protect us isnt a matter of changing attitude, it's a matter of going entirely against one's convictions.

    It's best for the country that those who believe in the right to bear arms NOT decide to just trust Obama. I don't believe the guy is trustworthy, nor do I trust the public to elect all trustworthy men from now til the end of the republic. I'll keep my arms.
    -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup. --

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Dammann View Post
    The reason I have a tough time looking at "the rich" is that with the way the general public acts, there will always be those moving to the top and noticing that the only way to protect what they worked for (and in some instances stole of course), is to keep the masses bamboozled.
    I don't have any issues with the rich as long as they are not using their wealth and power to abuse the system and are instead using it to create jobs and build the economy. From my perspective is always comes down to the question of who is greedier: the Maker who is smart, works hard to build their wealth, takes the risks required to be successful and creates jobs in the process, or the Taker, who just wants someone else to pay for all of their freebies so that they can live fat, dumb and happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Dammann View Post
    You cannot fix stupid and the point is that the common weakest denominators are being appealed to by the media.
    The weakest common denominators are not only being appealed to by the media, in too many cases, they are part of the media. There are too many Progressives that are seeking a utopia that has never worked anywhere and will never work anywhere on this planet. It might work if there was an endless amount of wealth and no one needs to work to acquire it, but that is not the case anywhere. It also completely ignores human nature.

    If you have not read the book, "Rich Dad, Poor Dad", it is a worthwhile book to read. The first book is the best out of the series. In it, Robert Kiyosaki shows how the rich think differently and treat their money differently than others and that is why they continue to gain wealth and improve the economy. The rich do not save hardly any money in the banks. Saving money is a losing proposition because bank interest rates rarely keep up with inflation. Instead, they use their money to invest in companies and projects that build more wealth. In the process that creates jobs that improve the economy, which benefits everyone.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  3. #33
    Note....read FORBES.
    Interesting that all these billionaires give so much to charity.
    Most do so anonymously, or through their own foundations.

    And most of the billionaires are really that way on paper, with most owning stocks and bonds (Bill Gates with MSN, the Waltons with Wal Mart, etc).

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    What people do not understand about Progressives like Carter and Obama is that Progressive has nothing to do with Progress. Progressive = Communist. These are people who hate the things that once made America a great place to live.
    Progressive doesn't exist. The inspiration is from Saul Alinsky and Chicago-Old-School. Progressive sure sounds better than "Trotskyism/Crony Capitalism". Speaking of Chicago, Illinois has $96B Pension Crisis and the pension deficit is growing by $17 million per day.

    Quote Originally Posted by dvduval View Post
    You know, there are problems with rich people taking advantage of the system too, but when we spend too much time complaining about what the other party is doing in stead of focusing on bringing about the solution, we become part of the problem. We have become a nation of complainers, and we need to first start with setting a good example.
    The problem is big government. The poor and crony capatitalists are squeezing out the middle class.

    Quote Originally Posted by iowadawg View Post
    That is a noble way of thinking.
    But it is not the current reality.
    Talk to 100 people on welfare and 98 times out of 100, no way do they want a job, education, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    Yes, there are people who want to work, but the freebies become addictive and destroy the incentive to work. Most people do have a lazy side to their nature. Successful people fight that and push it aside. Others succumb to it and it takes over their lives.
    There's a lot of people that haven't worked since the recession started in Dec 2007. They've lost job skills and have a big gap in their resumes. It looks like the US will enter a recession in 2014 and then what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Dammann View Post
    The reason I have a tough time looking at "the rich" is that with the way the general public acts, there will always be those moving to the top and noticing that the only way to protect what they worked for (and in some instances stole of course), is to keep the masses bamboozled.

    You cannot fix stupid and the point is that the common weakest denominators are being appealed to by the media.
    47 million people in the US are on food stamps and the number is expected to grow to 61 million by the end of 2016.

    Quote Originally Posted by iowadawg View Post
    Note....read FORBES.
    Interesting that all these billionaires give so much to charity.
    Most do so anonymously, or through their own foundations.

    And most of the billionaires are really that way on paper, with most
    owning stocks and bonds (Bill Gates with MSN, the Waltons with Wal Mart, etc).
    You can't take it with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by robjones View Post
    It's best for the country that those who believe in the right to bear arms NOT decide to just trust Obama. I don't believe the guy is trustworthy, nor do I trust the public to elect all trustworthy men from now til the end of the republic. I'll keep my arms.
    When the government runs out of money for welfare, it's going to get ugly. I like this one --the police ordered mall employees to abandon their cash registers

    The fight broke out in the mall food court, where 200 teens had gathered
    for a flash mob. Employees at the mall were ordered to abandon their cash registers and
    evacuate immediately.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by bogart View Post
    Progressive doesn't exist. The inspiration is from Saul Alinsky and Chicago-Old-School. Progressive sure sounds better than "Trotskyism/Crony Capitalism". Speaking of Chicago, Illinois has $96B Pension Crisis and the pension deficit is growing by $17 million per day.
    Let's expand on that thought. Progressives do not exist as the term originally meant. Teddy Roosevelt was the first major Progressive US president. He was followed by Wilson, who radically radically different ideas but not unlike Obama's, then FDR, Johnson, and now Obama. There were several mini-Progressive presidents in between.

    During the 2008 campaign, Obama openly stated that he is not a Liberal, but is a Progressive. Hillary also made the same claim, but Obama's statement was on video. I think he used that as a code word because most people do not know what that really means and think it has something to do with moving the country forward. Every major Progressive president after Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive Socialist. These people were responsible for creating the huge problems we are dealing with today, including the Federal Reserve and the entitlement programs.

    Chicago's problem may actually be much worse than $96 billion. When combined with the massive welfare payouts and numerous unfunded programs, it is a $200 billion problem. The Illinois problem is unique in that government pensions are guaranteed in their Constitution. Illinois is already appealing to the Feds to bail them out. Because these are all union pensions, it is very likely that some form of taxpayer-funded bailout is in the works. The way that Chicago politics work, we may never hear about it, or we won't hear about it until it is too late to do anything about it. They may just increase funding for other programs in order to shovel additional money to the Chicago problem. The only thing that is guaranteed is they will not be up-front and honest about it.

    Chicago business group says Illinois pensions unfixable | Reuters
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    Let's expand on that thought. Progressives do not exist as the term originally meant. Teddy Roosevelt was the first major Progressive US president. He was followed by Wilson, who radically radically different ideas but not unlike Obama's, then FDR, Johnson, and now Obama. There were several mini-Progressive presidents in between.

    During the 2008 campaign, Obama openly stated that he is not a Liberal, but is a Progressive. Hillary also made the same claim, but Obama's statement was on video. I think he used that as a code word because most people do not know what that really means and think it has something to do with moving the country forward.
    At best Obama could be described as a Social Democrat that advocates for a peaceful, social transition of society from capitalism to socialism. However, he uses a lot of code words like “fundamental change”, "social justice". and "share the wealth. You look at his ties to Bill Ayers, a co-founder of the Weather Underground, Acorn and Spooky guy George Soros/Tides Foundation/Moveon.org which is scarey enough.

    The funny thing is that it all ties back to Chicago. Obama's childhood communist mentor was Frank Marshall Davis whi was actually a card carrying communist.

    Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis. Davis worked with the Canter family, who mentored David Axelrod. Davis also worked with Vernon Jarrett and Robert Taylor, father-in-law and grandfather to Valerie Jarrett. They all served together in Chicago’s Communist Party circles in the 1940s.

    Big Mentor: The Troika—Obama, Axelrod, Jarrett

    Two prominent Occupy Wall Street movement activists have been arrested by the New York Police Department for allegedly possessing a cache of weapons and explosive material in New York City’s Greenwich Village.

    FBI and Andrew Breitbart Vindicated by New 'Occupy' Explosives Arrests

    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    Most illegals coming into the country today come here for the freebies. Some may work for cash to supplement their welfare income, but they come here primarily to take advantage of the system. I moved from Minnesota a few years ago where the freeloader problem there is the large Hmong population that immigrated legally in the 1970s and 1980s as well as 36,000 Somalies who mostly immigrated legally under Clinton. The vast majority of both groups have always and continue to live on welfare, rather than work.
    Every racial, ethnic, social group (you name it) as part of their community on welfare. I was suprised to find out that Haredi Jews are among the poorest Americans. The Haredi are also a problem in Israel where there are growing tensions between the secular Israelis that pay the bills and the Haredi that live from Government benefits.

    About 70% of Kiryas Joel's residents have reported less than $15,000 in annual income. About 50% of the residents receive food stamps on a regular basis, and one-third get regular benefits to finance their housing costs.

    The reason for the poverty is that the residents engage mostly in Torah studies. Less than 5% have a bachelor's degree, and only 39% have graduated from high school. The average household size is six people.
    Haredi town is poorest place in US - Israel Business, Ynetnews

    Immigration is also a big problem in terms of welfare. You wonder how hispanics have the largest percentage of people on welfare and at the same time they manage to send billions of dollars a month to their home counties. I'd say put a 10% tax on all wire money transfers outside of US borders.

    I also read some where that over 25% of afirmative action scholarships actually go to African/Carribean immigrants that are squeezing out the native African-Americans.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    It is very likely that some form of taxpayer-funded bailout is in the works. The way that Chicago politics work, we may never hear about it, or we won't hear about it until it is too late to do anything about it. They may just increase funding for other programs in order to shovel additional money to the Chicago problem. The only thing that is guaranteed is they will not be up-front and honest about it.
    We will have to see if Boehner caves in again. This will must likely be an opportunity to bail out government sector union in both Chicago and California.

  7. #37
    My Mexican was supposed to be back at work from visiting his family in Mexico on the 2nd. He told me he was legal, but its the 11th, and I am starting to grow concerned. You think I could get Obama to petition after his well being?

    @Bogart: Every strata of society surfs the government benefits available to them, with the wealthy being some of the worst offenders. People come here for the same reasons they always have, the perception of a better life and better opportunities than the country from which they hail. Most of these people come from countries which are far more socialized than our own, almost invariably with complete medical coverage.

  8. #38
    Mexico is a very socialized country, but part of the problem is that most of the benefits are focused on the people of European Spaniard ancestry in the larger cities. The native Indian tribes are openly discriminated against by the government. They mostly live in outlying areas and receive little or no health care or educational benefits. Those are the dark brown-skinned Mexicans that have increasingly crossed in to the USA over the past 20 years. The Mexicans with European ancestry are much lighter skinned and on average are much better educated.

    I've met several illegals over the years that are mostly farm workers in the USA. Almost none have more than a 2nd or 3rd grade education.

    It is easy to understand why so many Mexicans wish to come to the USA. Our welfare systems offer a much better life than the best that Mexico has to offer to them.

    My personal opinion is that we should have a guest worker program that is limited to supporting agriculture and landscaping. There is no shortage of Americans willing to work in the construction or meat packing industries as long as they are paid the prevailing wages. I have no issue with current illegals getting on a guest worker program, but those not on the program should not be allowed to tap into freebie programs. Reward those that play by the rules. Those that come here illegally simply to take advantage of benefits should be given the boot.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    Mexico is a very socialized country, but part of the problem is that most of the benefits are focused on the people of European Spaniard ancestry in the larger cities. The native Indian tribes are openly discriminated against by the government. They mostly live in outlying areas and receive little or no health care or educational benefits. Those are the dark brown-skinned Mexicans that have increasingly crossed in to the USA over the past 20 years. The Mexicans with European ancestry are much lighter skinned and on average are much better educated.

    I've met several illegals over the years that are mostly farm workers in the USA. Almost none have more than a 2nd or 3rd grade education.

    It is easy to understand why so many Mexicans wish to come to the USA. Our welfare systems offer a much better life than the best that Mexico has to offer to them.
    You are dead on about the racial discrimination in Mexico, and all of Central America for that matter. White is right. The top echelon of society is pretty much all light skinned, and people of darker skin are heavily discriminated against, even by their own families.

    Where you missed the boat was on their social programs. Socialism runs strong in all those countries and it truly does provide all the services to all the people, regardless of skin color or social status. What has evolved, specifically in the area of medicine, is a two tier system where anyone who has any money does not use the socialized medicine, opting instead to go to private hospitals run by first world companies. Those hospitals are top notch with world class physicians offering medical care for a fraction of what the same care would cost in the US, but they are far too expensive for any average income citizen of those countries to visit. The result is a booming medical tourism business with patients coming mostly from the US.

    Another thing. The fact these people are discriminated against in their own countries runs in direct opposition to the idea they come here for social services. They come here because at least here they will not be considered the bottom rung of society with no chance of social mobility for their children, based solely on the color of their skin. For the same reason, you see the bottom castes of Indian society desperately trying to immigrate to the US. My guess is that if we were to effectively deny them access to every last social safety net offered in the US but allow them to become residents, they would come in droves.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    My personal opinion is that we should have a guest worker program that is limited to supporting agriculture and landscaping. There is no shortage of Americans willing to work in the construction or meat packing industries as long as they are paid the prevailing wages. I have no issue with current illegals getting on a guest worker program, but those not on the program should not be allowed to tap into freebie programs. Reward those that play by the rules. Those that come here illegally simply to take advantage of benefits should be given the boot.
    Cant argue with any of that. All the actuarial numbers for our social programs do not take into account caring for poor people washing up on our shores in excess of the stated immigration quotes. It is one of the big reasons States like California run at a perpetual deficit. Democrats hate it, but the more socialism/social programs our country and our states offer, the fewer poor immigrants we can accept without raising taxes. The math simply cannot work out any other way.

    Unfortunately, Democrats are only loosely in touch with reality. They want to have their cake and eat it too. If we had a functioning immigration system that effectively blocked access to illegal immigration within 5-10% of our state quotas, our Federal and State government's finances would look much better.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by obamanation View Post
    Cant argue with any of that. All the actuarial numbers for our social programs do not take into account caring for poor people washing up on our shores in excess of the stated immigration quotes. It is one of the big reasons States like California run at a perpetual deficit. Democrats hate it, but the more socialism/social programs our country and our states offer, the fewer poor immigrants we can accept without raising taxes. The math simply cannot work out any other way.
    Here in Arizona the Arizona taxpayer cost of dealing with welfare, health care and incarcerations for illegals is around $2.6 billion per year. They account for about 90% of our crime. Very few people here have any issues with the hard working Mexicans that come here, work honestly, pay taxes and integrate with society. Mexicans have been migrating to Arizona just about forever and make up 25% of our population. Unfortunately, the majority arriving today do not come here with those goals in mind. The Mexican government even hands out brochures that teach them how to milk the system in the USA and informs them of rights that they have in the USA that do not exist in Mexico.

    There is a theory that may have some merit. It basically says the Mexican political system is so corrupt that the country is always on the edge of a revolution that will most likely turn Mexico into a Communist state. Our government therefore allows border crossings to facilitate the flow of money sent home by illegal Mexicans in the USA in order to pacify the peasants to prevent a revolution. If we completely clamped down on all illegal migration we may trigger the revolution. By some estimates, at least 10% of the population of Mexico is living illegally here in the USA. There could be as much as $80 billion being sent home to Mexico every year, which would make it an "under the counter" type of foreign aid. The theory is a possibility.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •