Millions of New Welfare Recipients, Thanks Politicians

[KazooSkinsFan]

Thanks to the compromise of the useless parties running Washington DC, millions of people who don't pay taxes can become a leach on instead of a citizen of the United States by accepting a $300 welfare check from those vying to make them dependent on incompetent politically motivated politicians.

The Democrats do believe the Government should turn every government program, including the process of collecting taxes into a welfare program to maximize the number of people dependent on the State (and themselves) and the Republicans pretty much believe in nothing at all making them far to useless to stop the Left.

As the old joke goes, a man offers a woman $1M for sex and she agrees. Then he offers her $100 and she asks "what do you think I am?" He replies, "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over the price." Three hundred dollars. Sadly that price will probably be enough to purchase the pride and independence of many Americans leaving them waiting for the next handout of other people's money.

Yes, "economic stimulus." If we want to stimulate the economy, taking money from people who earned it and giving it to others to buy beer, potato chips and cigarettes will pull us right out of a recession. Yeah.

[Countertrey]

I'm still trying to figure out the math...

If I pay $0 in taxes, how much can I get back?

Somehow, I don't think a single member of Congress understands the meaning of the word "rebate".

It reminds me very much of the debate over Amnesty for Illegals... err... I'm sorry... the "Guest Worker" program, where they could, you know, pretend they didn't violate our laws by promising not to do it again (and a few other things that sound an awful lot like amnesty, yet aren't).

Who knows the definition of "is"?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I'm still trying to figure out the math...

If I pay $0 in taxes, how much can I get back?

Somehow, I don't think a single member of Congress understands the meaning of the word "rebate".

It reminds me very much of the debate over Amnesty for Illegals... err... I'm sorry... the "Guest Worker" program, where they could, you know, pretend they didn't violate our laws by promising not to do it again (and a few other things that sound an awful lot like amnesty, yet aren't).

Who knows the definition of "is"?

Unfortunately, too many people will be actually be happy the government gave them someone else's money and look forward to it happening at some point again without ever giving a second thought as to the people who actually earned it.

Exactly as the Democrats want.

What the Republicans want I have no idea since they stand for nothing anymore.

[sch1977]

It seems like these rebate checks are going to benefit those who Don't pay taxes? And the people who do pay taxes get nothing. So I guess if you make over $150,000 as a married couple filing jointly you are considered rich! I think the idea is a good one, but the way they are going about it is all wrong!

[Cappster]

They should have stated in the bill "only for US citizens." My grandparents fall into the category of not paying taxes because they don't make enough money but trust me; Granny knows how to shop! She will do exactly what this bill is intended for. Unfortunately, most people will probably pay bills with their rebate.

If I get a rebate (I should since I make under 75,000 and single), I will probably keep onto it so I can use it in a situation where I may need it. Somehow, someway, I feel like I am going to get screwed by the government. They will give us a "tax credit" but it will probably count as earned income and have to be counted on next year's taxes.

[crazyhorse1]

I'm still trying to figure out the math...

If I pay $0 in taxes, how much can I get back?

Somehow, I don't think a single member of Congress understands the meaning of the word "rebate".

It reminds me very much of the debate over Amnesty for Illegals... err... I'm sorry... the "Guest Worker" program, where they could, you know, pretend they didn't violate our laws by promising not to do it again (and a few other things that sound an awful lot like amnesty, yet aren't).

Who knows the definition of "is"?

Unfortunately, too many people will be actually be happy the government gave them someone else's money and look forward to it happening at some point again without ever giving a second thought as to the people who actually earned it.

Exactly as the Democrats want.

What the Republicans want I have no idea since they stand for nothing anymore.

Frankly, if you're getting a tax break for interest on a home mortgage you're taking my money. If you drive on public roads, you're taking my money. If you went to public school, I paid for that too. Still, I wish I could be as self-made as you.

[crazyhorse1]

Thanks to the compromise of the useless parties running Washington DC, millions of people who don't pay taxes can become a leach on instead of a citizen of the United States by accepting a $300 welfare check from those vying to make them dependent on incompetent politically motivated politicians.

The Democrats do believe the Government should turn every government program, including the process of collecting taxes into a welfare program to maximize the number of people dependent on the State (and themselves) and the Republicans pretty much believe in nothing at all making them far to useless to stop the Left.

As the old joke goes, a man offers a woman $1M for sex and she agrees. Then he offers her $100 and she asks "what do you think I am?" He replies, "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over the price." Three hundred dollars. Sadly that price will probably be enough to purchase the pride and independence of many Americans leaving them waiting for the next handout of other people's money.

Yes, "economic stimulus." If we want to stimulate the economy, taking money from people who earned it and giving it to others to buy beer, potato chips and cigarettes will pull us right out of a recession. Yeah.

You are a real knack for trotting out stats and logic and all of that good stuff and then blowing it with remarks that make you sound driven entirely by attitude. Really, how can anyone take seriously anyone who believes the government wants to give loafers money to buy beer, potato chips, and cigarettes. What little clack do you belong to that finds that kind of remark insightful? I've never understood how a person can continually gripe about giving the poor pennies and then go out and vote for George Bush who's willing to spend a trillion killing foreigners and turning over the national treasury to billionaire crooks. You have a serverely irrational world view. It's provincial, probably provided to you by a inbred, racist community, and probably built, ultimately, on fear and guilt. The cliches you spout as if they were revelations put you on the Eastern seaboard and south of Washington, probably in Va. NC., or Georgia, but i guess you could have theoretically been infected anywhere.

[Countertrey]

Really, how can anyone take seriously anyone who believes the government wants to give loafers money to buy beer, potato chips, and cigarettes.

Having stood in line at a seafood store, watching as a drunken slug comes in and purchases 15 pounds of fresh sea scallops with food stamps? Yeah, I have no problem believing that.

How often have you stood in line behind some punk who reeks of pot, paying cash for his case of Old Mil, but using food stamps to purchase chips and dip? Ummm... if you have cash for beer and pot, why do you need to spend my tax money on your munchies????

Frankly, if you're getting a tax break for interest on a home mortgage you're taking my money.

I would agree... this is an abuse of taxpayers, and an illusion that politicians use to justify the continuation of the current process of stealing money from citizens. It is a reason I am for "Fair Tax", as this fraud would end.

If you drive on public roads, you're taking my money. If you went to public school, I paid for that too.

This is not an analog. All members of the public benefit from roads and schools. I do not benefit when my income is confiscated in order to satisfy the needs of a drunk with a hankering for expensive seafood.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Frankly, if you're getting a tax break for interest on a home mortgage you're taking my money. If you drive on public roads, you're taking my money. If you went to public school, I paid for that too. Still, I wish I could be as self-made as you.

I am pretty sure given that you work for a University that I pay a heck of a lot more for those things then you do. Possibly not, that's just a guess. So let's explore this logic.

crazyhorse: I can advocate a socialist government where you pay a heck of a lot more then your share for a few things you want and a whole lot of things you don't. But as long as it covers something, anything, that you use in any way, shape or form, then "I" am paying for it and you can't complain. Your points are invalid.

OK, sure. Good point there.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You are a real knack for trotting out stats and logic and all of that good stuff and then blowing it with remarks that make you sound driven entirely by attitude

First, given your endless hard left points which yield you no credibility for advocating your views in any rational or sane way shape or form, I say:

But two serious points. Actually three, the first was serious too.

- I do give you credit for at least considering my arguments. My arguments are reasonable and logical (when I try to be). That doesn't mean they can't be countered, but you are a rare liberal in that you are actually willing at times to acknowledge them. That is a sincere complement, crazyhorse. It does not counter the first one, which is that your arguments are crazy because they are, but you will respond to logic.

- So why do I do what you say? And BTW, I totally know I do. Becuse exactly of the points above. The standard for liberals of themselves is a line painted on the floor and for any other view it's a bar above the empire state building. And yet the best acknowledgments you ever get is as you give, acknowledgment of reason with no effect. I just got tired of it. I don't try anymore to STAY logical with people who have no standard at all in any way for themselves. So I make my logical argument and bash. Especially the Left who are the most pathetically illogical.

In this and other forums though I will be serious and stay that way if I want to. But doing it consistently gets me no where because the Left just doesn't care about logic and the Right's useless. I stay pretty logical with Irn-Bru because he does. I've pretty much gotten that way with welch. There just aren't a lot of people it makes any difference.

[crazyhorse1]

Really, how can anyone take seriously anyone who believes the government wants to give loafers money to buy beer, potato chips, and cigarettes.

Having stood in line at a seafood store, watching as a drunken slug comes in and purchases 15 pounds of fresh sea scallops with food stamps? Yeah, I have no problem believing that.

How often have you stood in line behind some punk who reeks of pot, paying cash for his case of Old Mil, but using food stamps to purchase chips and dip? Ummm... if you have cash for beer and pot, why do you need to spend my tax money on your munchies????

Frankly, if you're getting a tax break for interest on a home mortgage you're taking my money.

I would agree... this is an abuse of taxpayers, and an illusion that politicians use to justify the continuation of the current process of stealing money from citizens. It is a reason I am for "Fair Tax", as this fraud would end.

If you drive on public roads, you're taking my money. If you went to public school, I paid for that too.

This is not an analog. All members of the public benefit from roads and schools. I do not benefit when my income is confiscated in order to satisfy the needs of a drunk with a hankering for expensive seafood.

Actually, I go to the supermarket and have never seen a drunken slug come in and pay cash for beer and buy munches with food stamps. I have, however, seen many a rich, punk kid come in to an auto dealer with his tax avoiding dad to buy a Mercedes with excess profits made possible by paying hard-working people a minimum wage and then firing them when it's time for a raise.

You have to know what to look for. If all you want to see are the sins of minoriities or the underclass, that's all you'll see, in spite of the fact that the sins of the contolling class are a thousand times more visible. Next time you see a multi-million dollar home just ask yourself what lobbyist had to paid to make all of that happen. Or just hang out at the courthouse where the white collar crook walks out scot free and the blue collar guy gets handed a prison sentence for looking like he's guilty.

Here are a couple of good poster boys for your side: O.J. Simpson and Dick Chaney. There are thousands more like them-- many making millions on scalps from Iraq and bitching about punks buying muchies with food stamps.

Where's your sense of proportion?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I have, however, seen many a rich, punk kid come in to an auto dealer with his tax avoiding dad to buy a Mercedes with excess profits made possible by paying hard-working people a minimum wage and then firing them when it's time for a raise.

You have to know what to look for

You obviously have no idea even if someone is a rich brat the scenario you laid out is true. So by knowing what to look for, you mean seeing what you want to see.

I don't go to a lot of grocery stores anymore that deal a lot in food stamps, but in college I did and the scenario Trey laid out happened ALL the time at the local grocery stores.

So I'm still trying to figure out, you're saying as long as the tax money comes "directly" from the evil, hated rich who earned it, you don't really care if in the end the leaches (aka poor) of this country are actually disproportionately paying for it as long as you don't have that part visible so neither you nor they have to deal with reality?

Which of course is my point on logic and liberals. It's an emotional ideology that almost always harms the people it is intended to help if you actually analyze what actually happens. But liberals don't care about logic or reality, just creating selfish, feel good policies to make themselves feel superior using other people's money.

[crazyhorse1]

I have, however, seen many a rich, punk kid come in to an auto dealer with his tax avoiding dad to buy a Mercedes with excess profits made possible by paying hard-working people a minimum wage and then firing them when it's time for a raise.

You have to know what to look for

You obviously have no idea even if someone is a rich brat the scenario you laid out is true. So by knowing what to look for, you mean seeing what you want to see.

I don't go to a lot of grocery stores anymore that deal a lot in food stamps, but in college I did and the scenario Trey laid out happened ALL the time at the local grocery stores.

So I'm still trying to figure out, you're saying as long as the tax money comes "directly" from the evil, hated rich who earned it, you don't really care if in the end the leaches (aka poor) of this country are actually disproportionately paying for it as long as you don't have that part visible so neither you nor they have to deal with reality?

Which of course is my point on logic and liberals. It's an emotional ideology that almost always harms the people it is intended to help if you actually analyze what actually happens. But liberals don't care about logic or reality, just creating selfish, feel good policies to make themselves feel superior using other people's money.

It's a joke that the rich work hard. The middle class and workers, as well as the upper middle class works hard, but the super-rich live on the money others make for them. You can'tget super rich by your own labors-- that requires a huge effort by underpaid workers, even if you're a ball player or movie star.

Also the children of the rich, as well as their other significant others, ride the gravy train. What sickness of soul allows you to thrash the powerless and ignore the sloth of the powerful? Maybe you don't like welfare folk because of other reasons: n'est-ce pas? Now, let's see. What's "welfare recipient" a code word for in the South?

You don't see that, do you? Juat ask yourself why the idle rich, white collar criminal class doesn't bother you.

[KazooSkinsFan]

You don't see that, do you? Juat ask yourself why the idle rich, white collar criminal class doesn't bother you.

Here is the stupidity of the logic in your post.

crazyhorse - If you don't agree that government can take freely confiscate and redistribute money as it sees fit then you are in support that each and every rich owner personally has merited the money they have.

My point is not in support of the rich. My point is against the arrogant, greedy power driven Left to make that choice with other people's money. In the long run with capitalism money will collect with the achievers. In the short run both good and bad things will happen. However, government making that choice will mean destruction in the short and long terms.

Winston Churchill: "The Left prefers an 'equal distribution of poverty' over an 'unequal distribution of wealth.' "

[crazyhorse1]

You don't see that, do you? Juat ask yourself why the idle rich, white collar criminal class doesn't bother you.

Here is the stupidity of the logic in your post.

crazyhorse - If you don't agree that government can take freely confiscate and redistribute money as it sees fit then you are in support that each and every rich owner personally has merited the money they have.

My point is not in support of the rich. My point is against the arrogant, greedy power driven Left to make that choice with other people's money. In the long run with capitalism money will collect with the achievers. In the short run both good and bad things will happen. However, government making that choice will mean destruction in the short and long terms.

Winston Churchill: "The Left prefers an 'equal distribution of poverty' over an 'unequal distribution of wealth.' "

Actually, the power mad left supports the enforcement of already established rules of the market place that have been put in place to make
capitalism and democracy work. The right wing supports unfair market practices and corporate perogatives that have allowed private interests to usurp the traditional powers of government. It has now caused a war, enironmental crisis, massive debt, bought elections, and an economy spiraling out of control, as well as problems in health care and insurance, a constitutional crisis, problems in foreign relations, torture, a widening gap between rich and poor, and a loss of basic freedoms.

You, my friend, and the right, have proven to be a disaster for the nation. That's why you've lost both the house and the senate and now control of the Republican party, regardless of whether McCain wins the presidency or not. He's not a creature of the right, as you all know well. He might differ from the left on some key issues, but he's essentially conning the right. He'll spend his whole first term destroying the abuses of the Bush administration and pushing election reform, as well as reform of a system that allows corporeate interests to make public policy.

He could well be better for the left than Hillary. You've already lost the presidency.

[Countertrey]

pushing election reform

A legislative perversion which thumbs it's nose at the First Amendment is not "election reform".

[Redskin in Canada]

I just got my rebate. The local liquor store received a bit of economic incentive and some of us we are celebrating the much-needed economic stimulus needed to avoid a global recession during an electoral year in the good old US of A.

Cheers.
To the looming economic deficit-driven crisis
To the strong democratic electoral process
To all the political threads in this forum
To all of the taxpayers in the USA
To ...