Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm not sure why you feel I should be comforted by the fact that the increase in spending is state and local. We still pay the tax and we still have less money for ourselves.
If you inspect the graph carefully, you'll notice that most of the increase in government spending comes from an increase in state and local spending.
The number of laws, by itself, does not mean much. Not all laws take an equal effort to enforce. Many of them may not even be effectively enforced at all. Some laws may replace and simplify others. Eve ...[text shortened]... admitting your claim was false), there isn't much to be concluded from just the number of laws.
The increase in the number of laws simply means that you are more regulated and there are more agency to enforce these laws.
If a private organization did not serve its customers needs fewer people would do business with the organization and the organizations revenue would decrease. I'd like government to work the same way. People are not happy with their government's performance yet it continually takes more of our money and passes more law giving it increasing powers. I object to government continually saying giving us money and more power and we can do a better job.
Originally posted by quackquackI'm not sure why you feel I should be comforted by the fact that the increase in spending is state and local. We still pay the tax and we still have less money for ourselves.
I'm not sure why you feel I should be comforted by the fact that the increase in spending is state and local. We still pay the tax and we still have less money for ourselves.
The increase in the number of laws simply means that you are more regulated and there are more agency to enforce these laws.
If a private organization did not serve its cus ...[text shortened]... ject to government continually saying giving us money and more power and we can do a better job.
So vote for local politicians who will levy less taxes.
The increase in the number of laws simply means that you are more regulated and there are more agency to enforce these laws.
Can you quantify that statement? For instance, how many "agencies" has the federal government added over the past decade or two?
People are not happy with their government's performance yet it continually takes more of our money and passes more law giving it increasing powers. I object to government continually saying giving us money and more power and we can do a better job.
If people are not happy, they should vote for someone else.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperDonating 3.6% is actually not a lot, but maybe it depends who one compares him to. To me, that's nothing, to you, perhaps it does seem like a lot. That's fine. Everyone probably has their own idea about how much is "a lot". But how much one gives to charity is an excellent indicator of how much one is willing to put THEIR money where their mouth is. ANYONE can be generous with someone else's money (Democrats do it all the time). What do they do with their OWN, though? Dems are the cheapest bastards on Earth when it comes to parting with their own money.
The degree that someone cares about the poor and middle class is NOT quantified by the percent of their personal income.
Donating 3.6% of your personal income is actually a lot. And How about his personal time being spent toward helping the poor and middle class?
Putting quotations around the word "benefits" doesn't cease to make unemploym ...[text shortened]... mployment benefits. I disagree with you about whether or not his policies help the middle class.
If someone like Romney donates 20% (I don't have the exact percentage in front of me) of his considerable income to charity, is that a lot? It must be, if 3.6% is a lot. And yet, we're told Romney doesn't care about the poor. I'll guarantee he gives more of his time, as well.
I'm not sure how he spends his personal time helping the poor and middle class. All I've heard the last several years is that the "gap" between the "rich" and the "poor" is greater than ever since he's taken office. That's what the Democrats (including Obama) have been complaining about... income inequality. As though he hasn't been running the show for more than five years now.
I don't see how you can think his policies have helped the middle class. Help them what? Now, Democrats are spinning the numbers about how he is liberating people from having to have a job. The government will take care of them, thanks to Obamacare (which he keeps delaying).
Just think...without that pesky job, you can pursue your dreams, spend more time with your family, and tuck your kids in at night. Ah, paradise.
Originally posted by quackquackI agree 100%. Everyone should give as much or as little as they want to charitable causes. It's the mandating that is a bad thing.
I'm fine with Obama giving as much or as little as he wants to charity.
My objection is that he wants to mandate that others give money to his causes. It is very easy to spend other people's money and that is why the government continually gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
And you're so right about how easy it is to spend (or give away) other people's money, which is all Washington does.
Having record numbers of people on Food Stamps does not help the middle class. It shrinks it.
Having record numbers of people on unemployment for record periods of time does not help the middle class.
Having record numbers of people on disability (vast majority of which are fraudulent over the past five years) does not help the middle class. People's unemployment "benefits" run out after a couple of years... next stop... disability. This case load hurts people who are genuinely disabled.
Having record numbers of college graduates still living with their mommies and daddies at age 25 or 26 is not good for the economy. It's not good for the middle class. By the time they're that age, college grads should be out there making their own livings.
Creating disincentives to work is never good. In North Carolina, the Governor actually shortened the length of time people could remain on unemployment... how mean is that, do you ask? More and more people are actually getting back to work in that state. You'd be surprised what an incentive it is to know your unemployment is about to run out. It often makes you go out and get a job. (to be fair, it's always been this way. Studies have shown that a majority of people on unemployment do find work within a month of their "benefits" expiring). But extending the length of time one can receive these "benefits" keeps them out of the work force for longer periods of time, which is not good for them.
Heck, you don't even have to prove that you've been looking for work while receiving unemployment. I know folks who have been on unemployment for a year and a half and have never been asked to submit info on where they've been looking for work or who they've talked to. It's absurd to allow people to be on unemployment for that long and never have to prove they've been looking.
Obama pays lip service to the idea that in the U.S., you can work and get ahead. He doesn't believe that for a second (look at his own life and Michelle's lives, never worked a day). Obama believes (and wants everyone else to believe) that the Fed Govt is the only answer, and without it, you're lost.
Originally posted by TheBloopMany industrialized nations allow people to stay on unemployment benefits indefinitely. Many of those nations employ a larger percentage of the workforce than the US does. But don't let facts get in your way, bashing "lazy" unemployed people is obviously a lot more fun than admitting that most people who are unemployed would rather find a job.
Having record numbers of people on Food Stamps does not help the middle class. It shrinks it.
Having record numbers of people on unemployment for record periods of time does not help the middle class.
Having record numbers of people on disability (vast majority of which are fraudulent over the past five years) does not help the middle class. Peopl ...[text shortened]... nts everyone else to believe) that the Fed Govt is the only answer, and without it, you're lost.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt is really irrelevant what an unemployed person would prefer.
Many industrialized nations allow people to stay on unemployment benefits indefinitely. Many of those nations employ a larger percentage of the workforce than the US does. But don't let facts get in your way, bashing "lazy" unemployed people is obviously a lot more fun than admitting that most people who are unemployed would rather find a job.
Unemployment is to smooth the transition between jobs. It is not a program where people get paid forever and therefore do not need to work and therefore it is essential that benefits expire so people will have an economic incentive to re-enter the work force.
Originally posted by quackquackPeople will have such an "economic incentive" as long as working pays more than the benefits do.
It is really irrelevant what an unemployed person would prefer.
Unemployment is to smooth the transition between jobs. It is not a program where people get paid forever and therefore do not need to work and therefore it is essential that benefits expire so people will have an economic incentive to re-enter the work force.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot true. The is a huge opportunity cost to working. It takes a great deal of time and effort and can be unpleasant. There is a cost is getting to work and wearing work clothes. If you subtract all the costs of from the extra pay many people would prefer to get unemployment benefits indefinitely than work.
People will have such an "economic incentive" as long as working pays more than the benefits do.
Originally posted by quackquackSo why do so few people choose that option?
Not true. The is a huge opportunity cost to working. It takes a great deal of time and effort and can be unpleasant. There is a cost is getting to work and wearing work clothes. If you subtract all the costs of from the extra pay many people would prefer to get unemployment benefits indefinitely than work.