well yeah!
Duh!
why work when the republicans will work for ya !
they think Freedom is Free
they think EVERYTHING should be free!!
2007-06-01 12:18:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
7⤋
"On the one hand they pass legislation to give handouts to those who are employable but refuse to work."
Can you cite the specific legislation? It was Clinton who passed welfare reform.
"On the other hand the Dems are destroying the incentive of others to work hard and earn a decent living because 40% and more of their earnings go to taxes."
Who pays 40% in federal taxes? Not you. http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Since you are talking about Bush's tax cuts, maybe you should also discuss the federal deficit that has skyrocketed.
2007-06-01 12:52:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by beren 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The tax cuts did nothing but put a lot of money in the hands
of the wealthy and corporations. The average working person
in this country is worse off then when Bush took office due to
nonexistent inflation and low wage increases. Except of course of CEO's who have had the largest pay increases in history. Wasn't under Bill Clintons watch that the work for welfare program was implemented. As far as taxes your boy Bush is running up the largest bills in the history of this country. Where is the money for these bills going to come from? I guess we will have to have taxes. The largest items in the budget are defense and medicare. I suppose we should just tell all of the old people in the country to go and screw themselves because the wealthy aren't quite wealthy enough.
I think you are really mixed up about Democrats. Under Clinton we had one of the best economic booms in our history plus we were not running these huge deficets. But I guess that doesn't count.
Now under your man Bush future generations for decades will be burdened with paying for his war while our entire manufacturing base has been gutted along with inviting every Mexican in Mexico to come and feast on our social programs.
So give me a tax and spend what you have over a borrow and spend all the money for the next 50 years republican any day.
2007-06-01 12:25:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by trichbopper 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
They really need to stop giving welfare to people who don't work. I think you should have a full time job to collect benefits.Unless of course you are disabled, and this should be well verified ( I have seen to many people collecting Social Security that are healthier than I am).If you are employed full tome and fall below a fixed amount, then we should be willing to help these people out. I think companies should only get tax breaks for insuring there employees. Case in point, Costco, pa yes its employees very well and provide insurance to there employees. These people make enough to support there families. On the other hand , WalMart pays there employees minimum wage with no benefits. There employees are forced to apply for health benefits from the government to survive. WalMart is a BBIIIIGGG contribute to the Republican Party. Why, you may ask, because the government gives them tax breaks for employing these people.
2007-06-01 12:35:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by oldhag 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
No. BTW, those tax cuts were legislated (i.e. enacted by congress) with specific sunset clauses on the premise that they must expire in order to balance the federal budget. That was then and remains to be a financial reality. It is no different then your personal finances...if you run up the bill, you have to cut back and pay it off. Claiming (national) bankruptcy is not an option (remember..we already told individuals they cannot fall back on that as an excuse any more..are suggesting that our government should?) P.S. Who exactly are you referring to when you speak of a 40% tax rate? Blessings....
2007-06-01 12:55:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Stevie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Welfare is necessary in a nation that intentionally keeps a 5-6 percent unemployment rate. (When unemployment dips below this, inflation starts to grow, and the Federal Reserve contracts the money supply to bring both inflation and unemployment back in line). To tell welfare recipients therefore to just "get a job" is terrible economics, because it is literally impossible to reduce the unemployment rate to zero.
In March 1987, the General Accounting Office released a report that summarized more than one hundred studies of welfare since 1975. It found that "research does not support the view that welfare encourages two-parent family breakup" or that welfare significantly reduces the incentive to work. Conservatives also accuse welfare of giving mothers an economic incentive to have more children. Ten major studies have been conducted on this issue in the last six years alone, and not one has found any connection between the level of payments offered and a woman's decision to bear children. The size of average welfare families is virtually the same as non-welfare families.
Because the poor cannot afford well-funded lobbyists in Washington, they make easy targets for budget cuts. Between 1970 and 1991, individual AFDC payments have declined 42 percent in real terms. Today, AFDC takes up less than 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Meanwhile, corporate welfare is running $150 billion a year, three times the federal spending on AFDC and food stamps.
2007-06-01 12:36:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Been to the store lately and looked to see where all the products there were made?
While all you morons were dancing in the streets waving the old stars and stripes and "mission Accomplished" banners,
all the decent manufacturing jobs were going to China.
Once the skilled manufacturing goes, you cant just bring it back, the peole with the skills are gone.
There are only three ways to create new wealth, MINE IT, FARM IT, MANUFACTURE IT.
Anything else is just moving that money around.
All great empires fell apart when the source of their wealth dried up.
Dont look now, but we have lost the manufacturing 33% of that wealth, and the Chinese will be buying up all the farmland next, and where do you think THAT food is going?
Wake up America, The Republicans will steal the eyes out of you head and swear it was someone else, and the Dems are clue and gutless.
2007-06-01 12:46:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Gee, I'm 71 and a Democrat who works 7 days a week--a professional classical actor, artistic director of a theatre company for, of, and by men, women, and children with disabilities (I am also disabled), and a professional writer as well.
Clearly, in regard to Mr. Bush's massive tax for the super-rich, you err. No doubt you feel comfortable believing as you do, but the fact is, it is not only decidedly sad to be stupid at your age but also a spit in the face of teachers and public education who perhaps once had great hope for you.
2007-06-01 12:40:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I know if they take the white house it will destroy my incentive to work! It's hard enough to raise my own family and give to the charities of MY choice without being taxed to death for charities I do not support.
Yes Libs, I give quite generously to charities..I give to the local food bank, I donate to the salvation army and good will, I also help support the families of fallen soldiers and the families of fallen police officer's...among many other things I also donate my time whenever I can to local fund raising etc...
What do you give besides what the government taxes you for?
2007-06-01 12:40:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by Erinyes 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Nobody passed legislation to anyone who "refuses to work." That's bull. Try again.
Bush's tax cuts went mostly to people who don't work anyway because they're incredibly rich, or who aren't going to work any harder just because they make a few million more.
2007-06-01 12:56:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You tell me when you loose a lot more in taxes this year. Just wait until you file, you will flip out.
2007-06-01 12:25:12
·
answer #11
·
answered by driver 5
·
4⤊
0⤋