The usual liberal humdrum. Cut spending, especially military spending, raise taxes on the rich, extend tax cuts for the poor and middle class. But it never is as simple as that.
At the same time, tackle the underlying problems of the deficit, but not focus on it directly. Boost employment as Krugman recommended, although this will eat even more into a budget.
Also, it's moving up the technological chain at a frightening pace.
a bit to fast. there are a few ghost citys. that have been build to attract farmers in living in a big city. but the farmers never came and the city's are nearly empty. the chinese government thinks that if they build a big city that people will automatically go there and that it will increase the local economy. but instead did they spend billions for nothing yet.
Those workers can only be expected to stay "content" in poor conditions for so long.
the workers are not massively crying about the work conditions. protesting against your boss is simply not done. and if the do they just lose their job. enough people that gladly takes the job.
a chinese company here in the netherlands. wanted to stop producing here entirly, because there was a protest once. and they never seen that befor and didn't know how to handle it. it toke nearly 2 year befor they set around a table to discuss the problems.
Cutting spending, that isn't "liberal" speaking is it?
cutting spendings is a must. no matter your background. the usa spends to much on nearly all levels of society.
maybe my Grandparents have made me watch too much Fox News...
Personally I think we don't need more taxes. I live in california and we have the highest tax rates in the country, it isn't to nice. And howcome the president won't allow some spending cuts? Get rid of some of these alphabet soup groups. Why do we need so many? The answer is we don't, but the government probably created half of them to give some senator's, president's, and other groups cousins some jobs. And can't these people use their own credit card sometimes instead of the tax payers? You realize Ron Paul gives a large chunk of his paycheck back to the government? Even doing this would help out. You shouldn't be in the Government for the money, it should be to help further the country and represent the people. And they haven't really been doing a good job at representing us.
And howcome the president won't allow some spending cuts?
Because you can't cut welfare when such a large group of people are going through hard times.
Get rid of some of these alphabet soup groups. Why do we need so many? The answer is we don't, but the government probably created half of them to give some senator's, president's, and other groups cousins some jobs.
It irks me that people can propose cutting spending on food and shelter for the poor, but crow on about shiny military jets that have long overrun their initial budget. Hint, F 35 program, and the Reps insistence on increasing the naval budget.
Unless you have evidence to provide for such nepotism, don't assert again.
And can't these people use their own credit card sometimes instead of the tax payers? You realize Ron Paul gives a large chunk of his paycheck back to the government?
You're jumping to and fro from issue to issue without even connecting dots. One, people who go over their credit limit aren't using tax payers money (Since when has credit been tax?), they're using the banks. If they go bankrupt, the bank loses money and seizes his asset, but no one loses money unless the bank folds.
Second, Ron Paul better be, because he's been stealing funds from political groups for years for his airfare.
Nic, I live in california, the problem with wellfair here is that most aren't even legal citizens. They come over here across the border illegally, have 7 kids, then sit on their butt all day long and recieve a check for it. I believe in helping out that mom with 1 or 2 kids who can't find a job and is trying her hardest, but if they have kids on purpose to receive a check and sleep all day, then they should just go back to their country. And Nic, I never said don't cut some military spending, personally I think we should of pulled out long ago and work on securing our border. No they just spend tax payers money on everything so they don't have to go over their credit card limit. You know what I mean, basically a credit card directly linked to the United States so they can spend it's money instead of theirs. And where did you come up with him stealing funds?
the problem with wellfair here is that most aren't even legal citizens.
Most politicians have come to the tacit understanding that deporting isn't going to solve issues. Hence the need to co opt them into the fold.
have kids on purpose to receive a check and sleep all day, then they should just go back to their country.
A reason why I support the steady decrease and cutting down of welfare. But not now, not in a time of crisis. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2009 the TANF rolls were 31.2 percent white, 33.3 percent black, and 28.8 percent Hispanic. Yet the primary image of a 'welfare recipient' in most people's mind is a black or an immigrant.
No they just spend tax payers money on everything so they don't have to go over their credit card limit.
Go and ask your dad on a lesson of how banks work. Your credit cards are funded by the bank, who take back that sum plus interest at the end of the month. No tax payer money transacted anywhere.
You know what I mean, basically a credit card directly linked to the United States so they can spend it's money instead of theirs.
NO. It's the bank's money, not the nation's.
And where did you come up with him stealing funds?
On the other thread in a response to you. I can imagine you didn't read it.
Fine, correct turm, Nation card. Show me proof that he has been stealing funds, if anything he's been giving back. I never said that what the main wellfair recipient is in the U.S. I was stating it in california. And how is it that they are allowing ILLEGAL imigrants to get wellfair checks? Unless they come here legally then they shouldn't even quallify to rent, let alone receive money that is intended to help people who actually need it.
And how is it that they are allowing ILLEGAL imigrants to get wellfair checks?
Because some of these migrants have grown up here, gone to school, and feel more American than anything. Which was why Obama rolled out his policy to permit illegals to get work permits more easily.
I was stating it in california.
Between October 1997 and September 1998, there were an average 2.6 million adults receiving cash assistance, and they were 36 percent white, 37 percent Black, and 20 percent Hispanic. In California, there were 612,000 adults on welfare, and they were 32 percent white; 20 percent Black; and 34 percent Hispanic.
By citizenship, these 2.6 million adults were 88 percent US citizens and 12 percent non-US citizens throughout the US, and 73 percent US citizens and 29 percent non-US citizens in California. The 6.3 million children were 85 percent US citizens; in California, the 1.5 million children were 94 percent US citizens.
Most of the welfare goes to citizens. Not illegals and non-US citizens.
I beg to differ. Come on over to california, I'll give you a tour. and you are getting info from over 10 years ago, plz use stuff more recent if it is going to be about statistics. Also, how is it that ANY illegal citizens get wellfair? Aren't they supposed to come over here legally and become a citizen? I'm all for coming over here legally and doing what you please, to a certain extent, but that isn't ussualy the case.
Come on over to california, I'll give you a tour. and you are getting info from over 10 years ago, plz use stuff more recent if it is going to be about statistics.
Also, how is it that ANY illegal citizens get wellfair? Aren't they supposed to come over here legally and become a citizen? I'm all for coming over here legally and doing what you please, to a certain extent, but that isn't ussualy the case.
All immigrants pay taxes whether they are illegal or not. They pay them in the form of property tax - directly if they own a home, or indirectly if they rent; sales tax on all the goods they buy, and income tax at Federal, State and local level.
Since illegal immigrants often have fake documents, including fake Social Security numbers, the money they pay into the system is money that will never be withdrawn. The amount in question is evidenced by the Social Security Administrationâs 'suspense file' (taxes that cannot be matched to workersâ names and Social Security numbers), which grew $20 billion between 1990 and 1998. When the payroll tax contributions of immigrants are taken into account, the Urban Institute found that the foreign born constitute a net fiscal windfall to the public sector of some $20 billion a year.
Contrary to popular belief, undocumented immigrants must pay taxes through the individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITIN) and employer identification numbers (EIN) in order to work safely in the U.S. EIN provides undocumented workers with an IRS version of an SSN for business bank accounts and tax payments with just a mailing address. In this way, undocumented immigrants pay more to social services than they receive from these services. In 2010, they pay $6 billion to $7 billion in social security and $72 billion to Medicare and unemployment insurance. But they cannot receive any social security, Medicare, or unemployment benefits unless they become legal.
I don't see why they shouldn't get welfare benefits if they pay taxes.
Even though I consider myself Republican, I hope we atleast come to a temporary fix for this, one that won't come back to haunt us,(If thats possible)".
I realize this hasn't been talked about for a week, but reading through, I just had one thought about something nichodemus said:
A reason why I support the steady decrease and cutting down of welfare. But not now, not in a time of crisis. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2009 the TANF rolls were 31.2 percent white, 33.3 percent black, and 28.8 percent Hispanic. Yet the primary image of a 'welfare recipient' in most people's mind is a black or an immigrant.
The direct number of people here may be close, but the percentage of each ethnicity is different. The number of white people is much higher, so an equal number given by a percentage of a given total shows a lower percentage of the total of white people. Just a thought I had when reading it. I'm not necessarily agreeing with one person or another, just...playing the devil's advocate I suppose.
