our government is ripping us off...BAD...please read

The fact that there are currently several nations (and at least one state within the US) that enrich their people by some government scheme to distribute the wealth, or to give a base pay to every citizen.

 

I have a novel idea.................. GO GET A JOB AND EARN YOUR OWN MONEY!

You want to know who's ripping us off? The voters that keep putting these entitlement politicians back in office over and over again, all on the premise of getting free stuff.

 

You're just repeating what you said before. Could you tell me exactly what program you're referring to? Bear in mind that just because a program puts money into some people's pockets doesn't mean it "enriches" its citizens, because the money has to come from other taxpayers.

 

In which nation do taxpayers print their own money?

 

In which nation does the government print land, food, and flat screen TVs for the taxpayers to spend that money on? Money falls from the sky. Wealth does not.

 

What I am saying is that if we took the best parts of both sides. Socialism and Capitalism, the middle class would benefit.

Capitalism without restrictions and accountability towards those who inevitably are on the bottom is wrong. To say that they should just buck up and get a job is unrealistic when there are barely enough for who is working now. It makes the middle class slaves to big business.

Socialism without restrictions and incentives to take advantage of a system is wrong. To share the wealth equally is unrealistic. It gives the government to much power. It makes the middle class slaves to government and opens the door to restrictions on how you live your life.

Getting the same amount of money in a simple check and get rid of the bureaucratic snafu that is causing so many problems, people can decide whether they want to work or not. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't work but don't whine. I guarantee you that when the limits that are place on welfare are taken away more people will work. It will be because they want to and not be slaves. It will help with the problem of single parent families because two checks is better than one and people are happier when not dealing with endless poverty and stress.

It would not cost any more than the current system. The middle class would no longer pay the poor's way. The rich would not even be paying more. The only thing that would happen is that billions of dollars would not be wasted on useless red tape.

The cost of living may go up but the people of this country have to stand up for what is right. Business has to be held accountable for their stupid mistakes. If they take jobs to Mexico and no one can afford to buy them, we do not bail them out. They go down in flames and we start over and remember to take care of the people we rely on the most. The more money the more people spend, just because you can raise prices doesn't mean you have to. Why amass more wealth than is able to be spent? It's counterproductive and ignorant.

I am also sick of hearing about how we have to build up the military. We have to at least maintain but if not at war we should not raise the military budget. We need to create new jobs and new ideas. We are king of the mountain. The rest of the world is waiting for us to implode, they know they cannot beat us, so what are we trying to prove? No one will start a big war on this nation. Will a few cowards try to take a potshot? Yes. But they are not a real threat to taking over this country.

If something does not change this country is going down in flames. BAD. You think the Great Depression was bad? When people like Hitler show up and claim to be able to fix the worlds widespread desperation, do you realize what will happen? It may not be tomorrow or our lifetime but it is coming. You cannot live like we have for this long without consequences. We have to come together even if my idea is not the best find something to fix these problems. We are not the only ones with nukes anymore, we got lucky last time. There needs to be accountability and quick.

 

I don't want to repeat myself but my full answer to your question is on this thread if you want to take a look.

 

I accidentally said month instead of year. It is billion not trillion and is less than the current amount for welfare. I do not believe anyone needs 18,000 a month, I was just tired and not paying attention.

 

I accidentally said everyone should get 18,000 a month and meant 18,000 a year. If there are 217.8 million Americans over the age of 18 and they each get a monthly check for 18,000 that is approximately 392 billion dollars. We at this time pay approx. 395 billion in basic welfare. That is a 3 billion dollar difference. The rest of the math is included. I did not realize people did not know how to use a calculator or do some research. If you can't figure something else out let me know.

 

Is what lease, buy or rent? Is English not your strong suit? My only mistake was being tired and saying 18,000 a month instead of year.

 

Therein lies the problem.
When you restrict something you make it smaller. When you restrict business you have less jobs. Add to that burdensome taxes and you restrict even further.
I'm not proposing unregulated capitalism, society is too far gone for that. I'm not proposing no taxes, they're required. I'm proposing we've done too much restricting already with a large bloated government that our sick economy cannot sustain.
Throwing money at a problem will not make it go away.
We've spent trillions on welfare. More poor people than before.
We've spent trillions fighting wars. Still plenty of bad people out there.

 

I accidentally said you would get the check monthly at the beginning of the post. In the middle I said when you get the 18,000 dollar check what your taxes would be for the year. I know people see that I just made a mistake and it's easier to put people down and try to ridicule them.

- - - Updated - - -

You also don't know about the Slavic countries either. The system works.

 

So you would like to ridicule me for not knowing you meant a year instead of a month but take umbrage to the fact others ridicule you for making the mistake? Got it, goodbye.

 

You are right. It was wrong. I admit I was wrong. Just crabby and having a bad day. I'm a hypocrite and admit it.

 

Your OP starts out saying "Lease listen...." I'm merely looking for clarification.

 

Oh...sorry.. I meant please. I am about burnt out on this forum. I can only handle about 2 or 3 days every 6 months or so. Fun for a while and then I just start to get crabby and feel like I am losing my mind.

 

Even at a year it is 3.9 TRILLION dollars a year...........more that the intake.............

 

I will give you a gold star for that admission. I never ask for perfection but honesty is so rare. Thanks

 

join the club... hang in there

 

I don't believe that there is a way to get a 100% employment rate or take every homeless person off the street. I believe in free market capitalism because it's gotten better results throughout history for even the poorest than anything else that's ever been tried.

Giving people the power to decide whether they want to work is providing an incentive to take advantage of the system. Money can be handed out by the government, but wealth has to be created by labor. Why would someone work when they're promised a living wage for playing video games and making babies? Whether they actually receive the living wage they're promised is another matter, even if they do get $18,000 of taxpayer handouts a year.

What makes you think that?

It would be true that everyone would be getting two checks if the government could simply make everyone $18,000 richer, but that's not how government spending works. You need to remember that the government has none of its own money, and is 100% dependent on tax money for absolutely everything it does. Since the government doesn't create new wealth, it can't make one person richer without making another person poorer.

As for your assertion that more people would work because they are (supposedly) making a living wage whether they earn it or not, not dependent on labor income, and therefore more motivated, I see no reason to have that kind of faith in human integrity. Just because someone is "happier" or "under less stress" doesn't mean they'll work harder. I believe that the only sure way to get someone to do something is to incentivize them to do it. And I think that the fact that fewer people would be working is only a small part of the massive problems that would come with distributing money to everyone.

It would certainly cost more than the current system due to the increase of government employees to work out the logistics of this system, though that's not the main issue. You don't seem to understand that wealth is produced by labor, not by governments. The government doesn't have any of its own money, it's 100% dependent on taxpayer money, and can't spend a single dime without first taking it from the taxpayer. The government might write the checks, but the people are the ones who foot the bill. I imagine you'd advocate raising taxes on the wealthy to distribute these $18,000 checks, because I don't think you'd advocate raising taxes on the middle class or the poor.

If you raise taxes on the wealthy, they cut back on their payroll, lower wages for their workers, cut their production, and raise prices to preserve as much of their profits as they can. And since everyone has $18,000 worth of money whether they earned it or not, the prices on everything would go up because production would be down and everything would be in shorter supply. The wealthy be might be writing the checks, but the workers and customers are ultimately footing the bill. Throughout this paragraph and the last, I didn't even touch on the economic effects of all the people who would simply refuse to work because they're now getting $18,000 of taxpayer handouts every year.

Business is held to account for its "stupid mistakes." If a company sells the same goods at a higher price than its competitors, then it loses money as people go to the competitors to save money, and has to find a way to lower the price or go out of business. If a company withholds information from workers or consumers that cause them loss or injury, they can file a lawsuit against the company that could cost it millions. If you want to hurt someone, hit them in the pocket.

Nobody can afford to bail Mexican jobs out? I'm not sure what you mean.

That's true, except writing a check to everyone using tax money doesn't create any more money. It just takes wealth from some people and gives it to other people. Again, the government doesn't produce wealth and doesn't have any of its own money. The government can't give a single dime to someone without first taking that dime from someone else. So you can't give $18,000 to everyone without first taking an average of $18,000 from everyone. This is a distribution scheme by any other name. Cutting the grass doesn't create a forest.

If the choice is raising prices or going out of business, then companies very much will have to raise prices, just like they'd have to lower prices if not lowering them meant they'd go out of business. Since they have possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars less to hire people and produce more wealth, they lose a chunk of their profits and have to make up for that by cutting back on their payroll, lowering wages, lowering production, and raising prices.

The free market has natural mechanisms for solving nearly any economic problem. In this case, if companies are producing more wealth than is demanded, then the value of their product lowers because it becomes more abundant, and consumers aren't willing to pay as much for it. Those companies that cannot lower their prices to an agreeable level for consumers go out of business.

I have no interest in discussing what we should do with the military budget. The military budget should depend on the presence of foreign or domestic threats.

If you want to convince me that America is going to hell in a hand basket, you'll have to provide more than fear-mongering rhetoric. If you studied history, you'd know that the Germans between World Wars I and II would probably be insulted if they heard you saying that the problems in America are anywhere near as bad as theirs. For someone like Hitler to take power in America, there would have to be major political changes over at least a few decades. Finally, I see no reason to believe that you are able to foresee an economic collapse when virtually no renowned economists, businessmen, or investors are talking about it. I'd still believe you though, if you could provide a solid explanation or evidence.