Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Bingo!! And the person collecting welfare or food stamps might be trying to raise a child or two. I'd call that a productive activity.

How many countries have taxes that go to subsidizing the propogation of the race?

Originally Posted by Aramea

Of course it is if you know ahead of time. I suspect that many people have them when they can afford them and fall on hard times later ...

Yeah. We just covered what percentage of those women were married at the time, I think.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

If Paris Hilton wants to waste her money, that's her bidness. Not yours.

I thought we were talking about people who earned their money and were not given it.

Gimme that MMT religion!
Gimme that MMT religion!
Gimme that MMT religion!
It's good enough for thee!

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

And who gave them that money to invest with? Or should we just return to castles and landed gentry? Do you not choose to use your brain at all?

In a free market economy, it wasn't "given" to them, they earned it. They could have gotten it selling sea shells by the sea shore. Who cares?

Do you choose to use your brain at all?

You did not address "castles and landed gentry".

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Gimme that MMT religion!
Gimme that MMT religion!
Gimme that MMT religion!
It's good enough for thee!

Wow, deja vu all over again ...

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Not quite. If you are able-bodied, have no children, and are between 18-49 years of age, you need to either be working or in some kind of work-search or job-training program. However, if you live in an area with high unemployment, your state can apply for a waiver.

That said, about 30 percent of food stamp households do have someone working. Another 34 per percent receive either SSI or SSA, which means someone in the household is elderly and retired, or on disability. About 20 percent have no cash income whatsover. Only about 12 percent are receiving traditional cash welfare (either Federal TANF benefits or State-funded General Assistance benefits).

So 1/3 working, 1/3 elderly or disabled, and 1/3 on welfare or with no income. That's a rough breakdown of who's on food stamps these days.

I stand corected. Thanks Wonkette

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

That was in response to this foolishness:



Also "in some kind of work-search or job-training program" is as good (or as bad as) working. From what I have seen, those "waivers" aren't being used and the "work-search" programs a waste of time. They are more like "punishment" programs. The subsidy to employers comment is based on the experience of being a student and being told that they had to drop out school and look for a job to receive food stamps.



I would argue that barring the TANF, those 12 percent actually receiving cash welfare are homeless or are in some sort of revolving door situation.

In other words, there is no huge population of couch-sitting unemployed people living off welfare. And that is point...

You stand corrected, too.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Bingo!! And the person collecting welfare or food stamps might be trying to raise a child or two. I'd call that a productive activity.

For the rich, those children could be the next generation of domestic servants, farm laborers, and of course cannon fodder who do what (I can't resist this line by the late and unlamented Spiro T. Agnew called the intellectuals who disdained Richard Nixon) an effete corps of impudent snobs would never do on their own behalf!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You could be right, playwrite.

Gimme that MMT religion!
Gimme that MMT religion!
Gimme that MMT religion!
It's good enough for she!

Originally Posted by Aramea

Yes both are a drain on the country ...

Yeah. trying living in a country where stock ownership is punished or illegal. That's the difference.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

You stand corrected, too.

On what...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Then your statement is meaningless. Unless you can define what is "positive contribution" (which necessarily means religious oppression), "positive contribution" could be anything which is exactly what we have now. Cheers.

It's up to the individual to decide, because (using Rani's term) it's their karma.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Religious oppression?
People know what a positive contribution is. They don't need me or anyone else to tell them.
Looks like another blog entry idea though ... excellent!

We're sortof on the same page.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Yeah. trying living in a country where stock ownership is punished or illegal. That's the difference.

So, if you own stock your holding down the sofa is more of sacrifice for the greater good ... Got it !!!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You do. Or I do. Or whoever is doing, does.

What's with you kids and this refusal to think with your own minds? Must everything be handed to you in Official Approved form? What will you do when you finally have to start assuming responsibility for yourselves?

(or will you simply allow there to be formed for you an adult world to follow-through with your childhood one, wherein all responsibility is taken on for you by Authority, and you can simply move through your days snug in the grip of someone else's plans?)

I guess you preempted me, too.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

It's up to the individual to decide, because (using Rani's term) it's their karma.

For various reasons later revealed, that discussion is closed. Best...

Originally Posted by Hutch74

that somehow I ought to be on your posting schedule. I am not and will not post replys based on someone elses preferred schedule. Get used to it.

Darn. I was hoping to get this coordianted.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Whatever, Justin. You didn't understand what I wrote. I don't want to fight with you (because it's pointless). So sure. You da man! Now find someone else to play with. Best...

He understood. You don't get that it's up to you to decide what "meaningful" means, not someone else.

I'll apologize if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Sorry for the interruption.

In the scene from Analyze This that David was talking about, Billy Crystal's character, a psychiatrist, loses his temper and viciously lays into one of his patients in the midst of a session. However, it quickly becomes clear that the outburst is just a fantasy that he has conjured up, presumably because he is growing bored with his job. There's no killing involved; Crystal's character just fantasizes about what he'd really like to say to her.

Given that The Rani is a psychiatrist, it's obvious that David was suggesting that she takes out her frustrations with her job on the other posters here. I don't believe that at all, but it's obvious that's what he was getting at. It wasn't a death threat.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Then I apologize to Kaiser wrt to "killing."

Originally Posted by Aramea

The new American Dream - a shit job and no beer but you're not gonna die! You should put this on a tshirt and make your fortune while there is still money in the economy.

No, I am not frothing at the mouth ...

Aramea. You start at the bottom, but you do better. Come on.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

They also own 90% of the wealth, whether non-productive (their private abodes, horses, luxury vehicles, antiques) or productive. The share of national income is nearly a half, and until at least 2006 that share has risen steadily since the 1970s. Most of the income of the super-rich comes from cash-cow investments. It is far easier and less disruptive to tax those than it is to tax income that people get the hard way -- such as low-wage labor.

Pbrower2a, the top 10% do not own 90% of the wealth or get 90% of the income.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If they want their workforce to be productive they will need to pay taxes to support schools for the working poor, freeways for their impoverished employees to travel upon, medical care for their employees, and of course military defense of "American interests abroad" (meaning their investments overseas) -- unless they are to start paying their "help" well enough that that help can pay taxes based on ability to pay.

They do, but these things benefit everyone. But the top 10% pay most of the taxes.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Taxing the poor is not worth the effort unless on "sin" taxes (booze, cancerweed) that encourages people to spend elsewhere, or as 'user fees' (gas taxes). We are at a fork in the road... and we will have to choose, as a whole, between a fascist order (modern technology and Bolshevist terror in the service of reactionary interests), a socialistic welfare state, a capitalist system that pays workers equitably, or a Marxist revolution. This is a Crisis Era, as if you didn't notice, one in which current trends in economics and politics are unsustainable due to their absurdity and amorality that create inefficacy and widespread distress.

Actually, a good part of the tax cut hole comes from the drop in the rate from 15% down to 10%.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Summer. The top 10% pay most of the Federal Income taxes in this country.

That's because they have most of the income. also, I don't think your statistic includes payroll taxes.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Aramea. You start at the bottom, but you do better. Come on.

Underemployment is becoming a very real problem for people. You start better and sink to the bottom.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

You did not address "castles and landed gentry".

Castles and landed gentry are an issue of real estate, not dividend bearing stocks. We could discuss real estate, but the answers the same. I don't have how they got the real estate. They could have got it selling sea shells by the sea shore. So what?