10 Feb '14 16:38>
Originally posted by JS357That's because Whodey isn't part of the uneducated poor who are easily duped.
Apparently Obama doesn't care enough to try to win over the likes of Whodey.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.