Working People : The Way it is and the way it was

This is what the left means by fair share.

if you have four cows they take the four cows, and give you milk, and tell you how much you can drink in a day so you won't become fat so as to protect the neighbor who is afraid of fat people.

 

I have found but one logical choice
http://socyberty.com/society/what-d...day-america-the-new-definition-of-going-galt/

 

To my mind, what you ask is a self-created (as in society, not you personally) fallacy. We're only "stuck between a rock and a hard place" because we put ourselves there with our "we can't let the children suffer" philosophy. I agree, we cannot let the children suffer, which is why we should forcibly take them away from parents who cannot provide the basics for them, ESPECIALLY in the case of babies. It's one thing for a parent to hit a bad patch and need some help. But when it's apparent from DAY ONE that they do not have the resources, the best thing for the CHILD is to remove it. What we need to stop caring about is "parental rights" and how the parent "feels", and about the best interests of the CHILD and the social economics. Especially when we're talking about teenage parents and when it's usually been going on ad infinitum for generations of the family. When you make it easy and possible for a "parent" to make the choice to have a child and have someone else pay that child's expenses, OF COURSE they're going to take you up on it. But if you no longer offer that choice, and they know that the child will be removed from their care, they'll be forced to make a different choice or have society step in and make the choice for them.

 

You wouldn't take it just because she was poor, you would only take it if she was not able to meet it's basic needs of survival. Our family never had much money when I was growing up but we made it through. Sorry if your child cannot get an iPhone when they are 10 but oh well, they will have to deal with it.

 

As long as the child is not in danger then it does not matter how poor they are.

Plenty of people have come out of a very impoverished lifestyle and learned from it. If you start dictating morality, such as what type of life is acceptable for people to live, you are stepping on their freedom of choice.

 

You know the funny thing about poor people?

They have cars, cell phones, flat screen TVS, and a lot of beer and porn.

 

I just got through working a minimum wage seasonal job. Min. wage here is 9.10. My pay, however, was 9.20 because of differential. I only claimed 1 (myself) for taxes. I worked 10 hour shifts every day for 14 days straight, and after taxes, my check only amounted to $894. This was biweekly pay. Another 16-17 days pay would still fall short of 2k. I was still struggling to get by. I barely had time to pay the bills because of the hours I had to work. Wanna know how much the check would've been without taxes? About $1250. Maybe if we excluded some damn taxes, people could actually afford to take some days off and rest. I mean, I didn't mind it at first. But after you work about 30 days in a row, it starts to become a little tiresome.

 

Astute observers saw a long time ago that when government gets involved, "voluntary" goes out the window.

"Government is something we all do together" means "You have no choice, comrade!"

 

The illegals are going to come up here either way as long as sleezy, greedy contractors are willing to hire them off the books in order to maximize profits. Change the laws to make it a felony criminal offense with mandatory jail time for hiring illegals and you might see a drop off in them crossing the border. The food assistance is just the icing on the cake for most of them.

 

Welcome to the TEA PARTY my friend, good to have you aboard.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be a decent start but not nearly harsh enough. The idea with immigration is to make the place they are migrating to far worse then the place they are leaving.

Then they will not come.

 

Other than entitlement spending, nothing really.

I was never suggesting a new type of policy, only the removal of part of what we currently have.

 

True, but the US will never have standards as low as Mexico or other south American countries. American society will never stand for people starving or dying in our streets; charitable organizations will likewise assist in feeding illegals (until they run out of money); to refuse to feed them would risk anarchy never seen here before or refusing them medical care would risk infecting the American population with untold diseases that could have catastrophic consequences upon us as well.

I think going after the employers like you said is a good start, but we can also make the laws so tough on employers (i'm talking very draconian penalties mind you), you could most likely close down the employment market to the point, where very few illegals would bother coming here since there'd be very little or no work.

There's no easy solution to this mess we're in; but we've got to start somewhere and I think this would be a good start.

 

For any business caught using illegals they pay a 250k fine for each immigrant on the first offense, second offense they lose their business license and are shut down. Cut out all welfare benefits to illegals except emergency care, this includes schooling, monetary payouts, or anything else. Institute a mandatory national ID card that everyone needs to carry which can be asked for by any law enforcement personal at any time.

Any illegal immigrant caught committing a crime is sentenced to an automatic 3x whatever the current incarceration penalty is.

Announce the law and say it is going into effect in six months and I guarantee you that you will see a flood of immigrants back across the border.

 

That was never my main point and the conversation was sidetracked to that.

I was questioning the OP about what a "fair share" meant. As to your specific question I would say that any type of entitlement program not specifically paid for by working individuals needs to be phased out. If you must provide some sort of relief then do it for a very short period as a policy to help them while they move on. Two years of unemployment benefits is beyond ridiculous...it should be no more than two months.

Things of that nature.

 

When taxes are significantly lowered businesses raise their prices to absorb any gain made by the wage earner.

 

How do you know? Personal experience? There are many poor, working poor who cannot afford a car and rely on public transportation. Flat screen TV's? How about an old failing cathode ray tube set with a tangle of boxes and wires to receive and decode the few halting digital signals they can get... while sitting on an old couch they found set out by a dumpster.

I just can't get over how well off the poor are in this country, it's so darn funny.

 

What do you know about the poor? Have you gone and hobnobbed with them? Maybe shared a bottler with Ralph and Mortimer with their pile of junk?

What is your experience?

 

Actually it has everything to do with everyone else’s wealth. Wealth, at any one time, is finite. What is happining in this country, and has been happining over the past three decades, is that tax policy, along with other issues, have scewed the system so that ever more wealth goes to the wealthiest while those on the lower part of the economnic spectrum have been losing wealth.

Furthermore, money is worth more to a society, the more it is circulated. In our current system that favors hoarding of money by the wealthiest, there is a cost not only to the poor but to society as a whole.

A robust progressive tax structure would be the better way to go.

 

Who's talking about equal shares? That is conservative double talk. When liberals speak of equality, as should all Americans, all people, it is the equality before the law. When a poor person goes to jail for stealing bread while corporate executives who knowingly produce products that harm others face little or no penalty then there is no equality.

 

The wealth still will not find its way to middle class or the poor unless you plan on redistributing it. And how high do you plan on taking this progressive tax?........maybe up to 90% on the 1% then give that money to the poor?

You need to define what your progressive tax actually will be. You see, the left says stuff like this but leaves out the details.