Before you get too excited about all the wonderful "free" goodies in Europe, you might want to check out the tax rates.

Attachment 49109

You pay for what you get, nothing is free

Everything is tied to a federal regulation my friend that's how the USA works isn't it? I have been noting your problem processing and corelating my data, and sorry for that, but unless you are familiar with the changes the Obama administrations made to welfare regulations then you would know that states, yes even some republican run states REQUESTED waivers to implement educational and vocational training as a component and tool to get people off the welfare roles particularly during a recession where jobs where scarce and non existent.

Of course the right wing loony machine didn't care that everybody was out of work, and millions of jobs were lost, because rich guys screwed up the global economy, and the welfare roles were swelling, if you couldn't get a job, you got no assistance. Fortunately during the silly season of 2012 nobody listened to the repubs crying foul and Obama was reelected and the plan was put forth to grant those waivers with the CONDITION they could they increase employment in their state by 20%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person...pportunity_Act

Quote:

---

In July 2012, the

Department of Health and Human Services

released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.

^[11..

In response to Republican criticism,

Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services[COLOR=#004000] [/COLOR]said that states, including some with Republican governors, had previously asked Congress to allow waivers.^[17].

---

I gave you the first link to lay the foundation for the background so all the facts could be presented in an orderly fashion for serious discussion and debate. I know your position, much like Newts Contract with America crap in the 90's, and that's fine, but t's much more complicated and nuanced and conditions do change for many reasons.

Quote:

---

Frances Fox Piven said that the problem with AFDC was not a problem with the welfare system, but with low-wage work:

Logically, but not in the heated and vitriolic politics created by the attack on welfare, a concern with the relationship of welfare to dependency should have directed attention to the deteriorating conditions of the low-wage labor market. After all, if there were jobs that paid living wages, and if health care and child care were available, a great many women on AFDC would leap at the chance of a better income and a little social respect.^[36]

---

I hope this second source helps you the first.

Quote:

---

I hope this second source helps you the first

---

The first one was sixty pages and you didn't realize it was fifteen years old. Be honest. How many of those sixty pages did you read?

You were trying to make the case that the states were in charge of welfare. Your own article showed that is not true. The feds still control the regs. If you are going to give links, you might want to read the entire article and not just cherry pick what strikes you as useful.

It still comes down to one American being authorized to take money from another American. I don't think they should have that authority.

WRONG! I actually studied the whole PDF years ago, and many more like it (Including the entire ACA). Similar to you quoting scripture, but my research is much more contemporary. It's my impression that you think states are sovereign and separate from the whole, and by that thought there is no USA just 50 nation states, independent of the United States. Both my references point to the fact of states having a great deal of flexibility and latitude and a process to address the individual concerns of each state in an orderly lawful manner. Each state is different and has a variety of different issues, and are free to find reasonable solutions, so sorry if you think that what works in your state should be the law in all of them strictly and rigidly applied. Life isn't like that unfortunately, and as you know when stuff happens by man or nature, adjustments must be made to survive and endure. That's just reality.

Now you can elect your own state reps and federal representatives that promote your views, and if they fail vote them out, but stop blaming the feds for what your locals are doing, or find out what they are indeed doing for you in your name, and change it if it's not to your liking. Are you some Tea Party leftover or something? I know some want a weaker smaller central government, some want a streamlined effective one, so complaints from all sides which is fair, but sorry you haven't convinced me at all to convert to your position, which should be okay with you as it's still an open mike and you can sing any song you want.

Put simply your premise that one American cannot take money from another to give to another is way off. The consensus of Americans (both repubs and dems) sets aside assistance to other Americans in difficult times, conditions, and circumstances, so we don't have people starving and dying in the streets. That's the social safety net that we agree on by compromise and consensus. I respectfully submit, that repubs have not had the VOTES or sufficient support to repeal any of it though they had input in constructing it, administering it, and modifications over the years. So stop blaming liberals for what we have in place since it was a collaboration so yes the FEDS do have a right to govern and you have the right to beetch!

I get it, you hate government, but government has the AUTHORITY to tax for the common good. That's just reality, and who likes that?

Quote:

---

It's my impression that you think states are sovereign and separate from the whole, and by that thought there is no USA just 50 nation states, independent of the United States.

---

How you got that idea I just don't know. It was not from my comments, but I do commend you for taking the time study the material.

Quote:

---

Put simply your premise that one American cannot take money from another to give to another is way off. The consensus of Americans (both repubs and dems) sets aside assistance to other Americans in difficult times, conditions, and circumstances, so we don't have people starving and dying in the streets. That's the social safety net that we agree on by compromise and consensus. I respectfully submit, that repubs have not had the VOTES or sufficient support to repeal any of it though they had input in constructing it, administering it, and modifications over the years. So stop blaming liberals for what we have in place since it was a collaboration so yes the FEDS do have a right to govern and you have the right to beetch!

---

Not too sure about the collaboration part, especially if you look at the vote on Obamacare. Yes, Welfare has been voted in and the American people, for the most part, are somewhat comfortable with it. I am free to raise my voice against it, and that's what I'm doing. I'm all for Tal, Wondergirl, Athos, Tomder, me and others helping the poor. I am opposed to the government forcing us to engage in it. And here we are, over 21 trillion in debt because we want to spend on anything and everything but not pay for it. It's this idea that "If I think we need it, then we just have to do it," that has gotten us in this hole. There is no level of taxation that will deliver us without ruining the economy, so we have to cut spending. It cannot be done with the defense budget alone. It won't even get us close, so we have to start looking at everything, and a good place to start is to tell those who are physically and mentally healthy, "Support yourself". Discourage the idea that fatherless families should be the norm and get back to real families working together to take care of themselves. Continuing this fantasy will not get it done.

Quote:

---

Yes, Welfare has been voted in and the American people, for the most part, are somewhat comfortable with it.

---

Applying for Medicaid is not a walk in the park.

In her early 90s, my own mother, a lifelong Republican, outlived her carefully saved money and had no choice but to apply for Medicaid (welfare) so she could move into a nursing home. My two brothers and their wives lived near her and helped her as long as they could while she lived at home, but her personal needs became too involved and complicated, thus the nursing home.

Her BIL (my uncle), also Republican, lived near me, ran through most of his hard-earned savings of $250k over a five-year period in a nursing home. That facility, a good Christian nursing home, refused residents who couldn't pay out of pocket and would need Medicaid (welfare). My son and I moved Uncle, who still had a few shekels left, to a facility that accepted Medicaid which I then applied to for him. (Apply for Medicaid someday -- an exhausting and somewhat humiliating experience. Be sure you are able to show financial history.)

Quote:

---

I am free to raise my voice against it, and that's what I'm doing. ... I am opposed to the government forcing us to engage in it.

---

If our country doesn't have a welfare system, then what will happen to the elderly, disabled, chronically ill, and all those who don't have the money to keep themselves alive? Maybe we'll have to set up each with a donation can along the public sidewalks.

21 trillion in debt didn't come from helping poor people. Nobody is forcing you to do anything except pay taxes, and abide by the law, and the way you handle your poor people is between you and your county officials. It is a complicated process I grant you that, between feds, state and local, and not just about welfare, but on many fronts, including state investments and resource allocations. I can hardly blame anyone for not knowing the intricacies of such financing at all. That's the collaboration I was speaking of.

Lets look at that vote on Obama care opposed by repubs, and currently those repubs have gotten the boot and another election cycle looms, so yes health insurance and a social safety net, jobs and WAGES, are important to young, old, poor and well to do, because everybody can get laid off, like those GM workers in 3 states, or the plant closures because of technology, or slumping sales, or the rich guys steal the money and screw everybody. Or your town burns up, or gets wiped out by a force of nature. Or a husband runs off with a stripper, we all need a SOCIAL SAFETY NET. You are aware those assistance benefits have limits don't you, and conditions don't you? Of course you do I linked the FACTS right here on this forum.

If the church and charity could help everybody we wouldn't need a social safety net, would we? If we knew how to keep families together would that help working poor families? I just don't think so. If you have a Walmarts Super Center, then your city gave them a tax break, and subsidizes its low paying workers through your public assistance programs. That's just reality of low paying jobs by multinational billion dollar corporations.

Funny you don't squawk about that at all, but I understand it's complicated right? So I guess going after poor folks is all you can do, like the are the cause of all the ills in this country! Good Luck making people stay married and going back to the American dream of "Leave It To Beaver". That was just a feel good TV show and not even close to reality for the masses.

Now if Ward Cleaver got laid off and June had to hock the pearls to buy groceries that would be real.

Quote:

---

21 trillion in debt didn't come from helping poor people

---

.

A LOT of it did, about 22 trillion in the last fifty years, which just so happens to be about the amount of the federal debt, and yet the poverty rate remains unchanged. That 22 tril is more than 3 times the total amount we have spent on all the wars in our history.

Quote:

---

Nobody is forcing you to do anything except pay taxes,

---

Uhm... that's kind of what we're talking about here.

Quote:

---

everybody can get laid off, like those GM workers in 3 states, or the plant closures because of technology, or slumping sales, or the rich guys steal the money and screw everybody. Or your town burns up, or gets wiped out by a force of nature. Or a husband runs off with a stripper,

---

A lot of people have these things called "savings" and "insurance" to handle most of that. So we get to put our money into savings and insurance, and then pay even more in taxes to bail out the folks who DON'T save or insure.

Your comment about the rich stealing the money is just ludicrous. I've already shown you that the top 1% of wage earners earn 20% of the income but pay 40% of the taxes. And you call that "stealing"??

Quote:

---

If we knew how to keep families together would that help working poor families? I just don't think so.

---

I think you do. Two parents working together is fantastically more efficient that one working. The math is pretty simple.

Quote:

---

going after poor folks is all you can do,

---

You and your groundless accusations get old. I've never said anything to that effect, so if you want to discuss this, then at least try to be honest and accurate. I'm not "going after" anyone other than the people who love to pat themselves on the back for forcing others to pay into their favorite charity.

Quote:

---

Two parents working together is fantastically more efficient that one working. The math is pretty simple.

---

What about people like me who stay home for 12 years to raise their kids to be honest, respected, and hard-working members of society?

Quote:

---

lot of people have these things called "savings" and "insurance" to handle most of that.

---

No savings -- we lived paycheck to paycheck. As for insurance, we had auto insurance (state requirement), homeowners, and life insurance ("burial insurance") on the kids.

Math is not your best subject.

Quote:

---

What about people like me who stay home for 12 years to raise their kids to be honest, respected, and hard-working members of society?

---

That's great, and I'm happy for you, but what do you say to the couples where the wife worked part-time/full-time so the couple could put aside some savings? Should they have to pay extra in taxes to support you in case of an emergency where not having savings came back to bite you?

Quote:

---

Math is not your best subject.

---

Could be, but I can figure this one out pretty easily. One person makes 30K, so the family has 30K. Two people make 30K each, so the family has 60K, which is a lot more than 30K. Make sense?

I really, really, really hope you are not going to try to make the argument that single parent homes make good economic sense because you will be engaging in total foolishness.

Quote:

---

That's great, and I'm happy for you, but what do you say to the couples where the wife worked part-time/full-time so the couple could put aside some savings? Should they have to pay extra in taxes to support you in case of an emergency where not having savings came back to bite you?

---

Should my husband and I pay taxes to help support those other couples you mentioned if they need financial help (welfare)? Yes. We're all in this together, and that would be the right thing, the unselfish thing, to do. Someday someone in my family or friend group might need financial help in return.

Quote:

---

Should my husband and I pay taxes to help support those other couples you mentioned if they need financial help (welfare)?

---

So you didn't answer the question. You can be evasive with tough questions. You know I am asking why a couple who DID have the wife work so they DID save, and yet they still have to support you. Does that sound right to you??

Quote:

---

Yes. We're all in this together,

---

We're all in this together? So if I need to use your car, should I be able to just go by your house, demand the key, and take it when I want to? That might sound extreme, but it is exactly what you propose. I get the feds to go to your house, collect your money in taxes, and deliver it to me.

Quote:

---

and that would be the right thing, the unselfish thing, to do

---

You are imposing your moral values on others.

You don't answer my questions either. For instance, what will you do about paying for a nursing home once you've gone through all your savings? In my area, monthly cost is around $7,000 for a semi-private room.

Keep the person at home. Do what you have to do. Won't be fun, but people do it all the time.

One more time. You chose to stay at home, which is wonderful, but you said you had no savings. Another wife chooses to work, and the couple are able to save, but they also have to pay extra in taxes to help you in case an emergency arises for which you had not prepared. Is it right for that wife to have to pay for her family AND your family?

Quote:

---

Keep the person at home. Do what you have to do. Won't be fun, but people do it all the time.

---

We DID keep her at home for several years, but her care finally went beyond what we could do to make her comfortable and get her to and from her doctors.

And when the couple who worked and has savings runs out of money, the husband has health problems and can't care for his bedbound wife, then what?

Ask many questions, but answer none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Ask many questions, but answer none.

---

Nor do you. :D

If you're mad now that poor people get your tax money, then your head will really explode when we move to Medicare for all.