If your IRS form asked for $1.00 to support job training for the poor,?

Question

instead of wasting it on a political campaign, would you check yes?

That's assuming you could look up the agencies' budget on the net and know they were accountable for spending.

I hate to quote certain people, but...
"Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day... you know the rest"

Some of you are missing the point. This would be entirely voluntary. Please assume that this change would be enacted by due process (a congressional bill). And if the program did not meet targets, the top administrators would be canned until it did (no Michael Brown types). I am a former conservative and a non-liberal but I've seen how the REAL poor have to live (not welfare queens, not couch potatoes). This would be a real effort to change, not some democratic joke.

I can see that the media has convinced most people that the poor are all drunk hobos. That's an awful lot of drunk hobos. If that was true, I'd buy some beer stock instead of Exxon.

Answer 1

I have never supported the political campaigns with my taxes, and I never will. If I want to give a candidate a contribution, that is my business, wihtin campaign finance laws.

Would I support job training? Damn straight!

Would I support helping single mothers? Damn straight!

Would I support universities, and even public secondary education? Damn straight.

We would get a lot more out of targeted taxes than spending it on idiots who seem intent to outspend the others. Ultimately, we are contributing to entertainment.

Politics truly is derived from Greek:

Poli= Many; Tics=Blood-sucking creatures.

It is disgusting to see campaigns starting before the last elected official is inaugurated. Presidential campaigns used to start three months before the election.

Also, everyone concentrates on the 30-second sound byte, rather than what the candidate really says. And OH MY GOD, if the candidate did something in his or her college years or earlier that the Bible thumper don't like, he or she is doomed as a heathen.

Let's go back to JFK: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

I'll read a book for entertainment.

I will read journals and newspapers for election news--issues only thank you!

I will donate my money for worthy causes--not election campaigns, unless I find a truly deserving public servent.

Answer 2

There are more job training programs, child care vouchers, transportation vouchers, food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid and anywhere else in the spectrum of aid to the poor already. Creating another "voluntary tax" is not the answer. People in government assistance programs need to be held to a standard of accountability on how they are using our money. Since that doesn't really occur for any of the welfare state programs now, why would we believe that a "new program" would have accountability. As far a Americans giving to needy causes, we do so, more than any other citizenry in the world to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Short answer, NO, I would not authorize $1 additional dollar to go to an out of control social welfare state.

Answer 3

Not if it were administered by the current public school system, run under the strong arm of the NEA.

Let me ask you, if your form asked you to donate $1 so that a poor kid could attend a private school, would you do it...instead of throwing more money at a public school system that already has been shown to fail the poor?

Answer 4

I thought they were all ready doing this. No...oh wait...that buck is to support funding Presidential campaigns.

The short answer to your question is yes.

The longer answer is if I contribute this buck, can I count on not having any of my other tax dollars go to this?

Could we do the same thing for funding the war in Iraq?

I think I know the quote that you are writing about.

"Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day...teach him to fish and he'll never work again." ROFL

Answer 5

the shame is that it would just create more government that does nothing without extraordinary expense. Each job received would cost $30 dollars an hour for the goverment to get it. And the job wouldn't pay more than 7 bucks an hour.

Answer 6

I think it's a brilliant idea as long as there is accountability for the disbursement of the money!!

I know I have had enough of government employees with sticky fingers and creative accounting practices!!

Answer 7

No. Why would I vote to support something that the federal government clearly has no authority to do?

And, why would I choose the federal government to take care of job training? Such programs are better done through private charity or through state governments, who have the flexibility to do such things.

I prefer a federal government that acts within the legal, Constitutional limits. I prefer the rule of law.

Answer 8

no. there is no reason that if you finish and graduate high school that you cant get a job that will at least pay the basic bills like housing and utilities. its when these so called poor people have cell phones, drive cars that are worth more then my house, color big screen tvs with cable, and use their food stamps to buy t bone steaks, then that's when we should be cutting these people off. I work at a church and see this kind of stuff every day.

Answer 9

Absolutely. You should start a petition online to get the gov't to pass legislation to do exactly this.

Let me know if you do this. I'll help spread the word.

Answer 10

They have job training agency's now.The problem is,is that the people standing on the corner drinking 40's while everybody else is at work wont take advantage of them.So, i say no.