Incoming....

[HappyHappy]

Callmesick see's the other prority. Getting elected.
It's all about the POWER one feels after
getting into an elected position.
Kiss the asses of the poor, feed em and rob the rich to pay for it.
"Spread the wealth" around and the poor will vote for you.
Since we all know the poor are the majority Slick's tactics work.

Slick likes power, he has to rob the rich to pay off the poor
to get there.

Face it guys, this is a never ending argument.
Callmeslick never saw a tax he did not like.

Europe will be a tinderbox and will explode again.
As I see it it will be sooner rather than later.
The Euro will collapse and a shooting war will break out
as a result.

All those people benefiting from the European social
programs will become cannon fodder for the next war.

HH

[Soapy]

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

here are my EXACT feelings on your "social safety net"

"Social safety nets" are bad for society in general. the premise of helping the poor is admirable and I do not disagree. but people learn to live to their means. and when things are given to them they Generally do not carry the same value. and I do not EVER want someone to tell me that it's "too hard" or "I don't make enough" that is an excuse I will not accept. I'm 50 years old have been married for 30 years, My wife and I have birthed and raise 8 children on my income alone. with my best year income of 72K. I have at times worked two jobs 6 days a week and evenings to provide for that Family, and have never taken Government assistance out side of unemployment and only once in that 30 years and then for only 3 months.
Make people uncomfortable in their Poverty and they will strive to better themselves. give them handouts and they become lazy and slovenly which is what this once great country is becoming.

I kinda agree, with the caveat that society should make sure that the conditions exist for people to be able to work in jobs that make them better off than if they were getting benefits. A lot of companies and governments actively encourage outsourced labour as it is cheaper and generates more profit, but it doesn't generate spending the my/your country.

My Dad came out of the RAF in 1958 and had 2 choices, he could enlist overseas ( Canada/Australia were looking for ex RAF types ) or he could marry my mother and find work here. He took the second option and had to work as a semi skilled engineer. He brought up 7 kids and supported a wider family network too. Worked all his days not because of the lack of ( at that time in the UK ) a safety net, but because it was his responsibility to provide.

With one exception ( my younger brother ) all of my family works for their living, even when we see others on benefits seemingly having more. Personally I could have been on a disability benefit, but instead I found a job that doesn't impact too much on the condition and we kept our family unit to 1 wife, 2 kids ( I'd love to have had more kids but 2 is the most I know I could support ). It's rough seeing people in my area who have never worked a day in their life having huge families all at the state's expense, but their kids won't finish school nevermind go to university. Further to that my kids see me and the Mrs working and this instills the same desire to better themselves as my Dad gave me. I've done everything from being in the Civil Service to working in McDonalds, to construction work to office work. Right now I work as a Broadband and Data support tech. In 5 years time I might be a security guard or a janitor, but I will be in some sort of job.

My kids on the other hand will be able to start their work life after uni and hopefully at a better pay grade than I had, with more to aspire too.

There are genuine cases for the state to support people and the state needs to take responsibility to provide the jobs and oppurtunities for people to be able to support themselves before it looks at reducing any benefits that currently exist.

I think the trick is to show people what they could have in the long run, instead of what they can have right now.

[Pudfark]

Soapy sez: " show people what they could have in the long run, instead of what they can have right now. "

Old Pudfark sez: " I much agree with that, it's always a mistake to borrow the future... "

[Pudfark]

The popularity of the Social Safety Net...is in this link.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 ... latestnews

"People like to gather together and govern themselves and now this state is so big. It seems so wide and so dysfunctional," Stan Statham was quoted saying, noting that the northern and southern parts of the state have little in common."

Old Pudfark sez: " Take note...it's Kalifornia... "

[callmeslick]

well, as I wrote in another forum.....in another generation, when most of you in the US see your kids and grandkids relegated to serfdom, peasantry or outright slavery, get back to me and tell me how this all worked out for you. Soapy has it right, except that(and I think he realizes it) it views the IDEAL situation and reality hasn't worked that way. I suspect you can ask virtually all folks subsisting on welfare, social security alone or other bottom line government welfare programs, that life isn't all that good. We are fortunate in the US that stuff is so cheap(we'll pay dearly for that fact, and already are, but I digress....) that most of the rubes don't see the slide into poverty, until some calamity hits their family. Sad to watch actually, but the mean spirited greed that passes for the American Spirit is hardly what the idea was at the outset. Then again, the economy of today, or any time post industrialization, isn't what the founders could relate to either.

[callmeslick]

oh, and Pud, you are right that you have to cash out to collect the whole 25%. Better to reinvest in high dividend securities(blue chips) and collect forever. Then wait for the inevitable sell-off when the loons in DC screw the pooch and buy cheap all over again.
Edit: the bottom line is the matter of fairness in participation in a society which benefits some mightily. Any of you 'merrikens out there making between 50k and 100k pay VASTLY higher rates of taxes to the Feds than I pay, in terms of percent income. That is wrong. To think that it should stay the way it is for some reason that might benefit you down the road is a crock of shit you've been sold. If you're happy with what you've bought, c'est la vie. I guess I shouldn't complain.

[nicolas10]

Politicians don't give a rat's ass about the future. They always postpone what needs to be done for the next dumbass. Preferably one from the opposite party. When the next guy is absolutely positively forced to do that thing (and realise he can't possibly leave it to the next guy), it's usually too late.

Nic

[Pudfark]

Very true nic.

Bill Clinton: Lower The Corporate Tax Rate For Debt-Ceiling Deal

"As the deadline to strike a deal on the debt ceiling draws closer, former president Bill Clinton criticized the nation’s corporate tax rate over the weekend, saying it should be lowered as part of an agreement between the parties.

“We’ve got an uncompetitive rate,” Clinton told a crowd at the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday. “We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/0 ... 90166.html

Old Pudfark sez: " Better late....than never....Though?.....Late has become?....Un-affordable... "

[Pudfark]

Here's another little tid bit.....

White House Disputes Study Saying Stimulus Cost Taxpayers $278,000 Per Job

The White House on Tuesday sharply disputed a report that uses data from President Obama's economic advisers to claim that jobs created or saved by the stimulus bill cost taxpayers $278,000 each.
The report released by the president's Council of Economic Advisers late Friday ahead of the July 4 holiday weekend estimated the Recovery Act saved or created between 2.4 million and 3.6 million jobs by the end of March 2011. Spending equaled $666 billion by that time.
"That's a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job," according to the Weekly Standard, a Washington, D.C.-based magazine. "In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the 'stimulus,' and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 ... z1RG7vvpUw

Old Pudfark sez: " Yup, that there is yer Social Safety Net,in "progress"....Uh,,,,anybody know what the current unemployment numbers are now? versus then? "

Pudfark sez: " Now...Old Pud...you know...Slick's gonna say..............."If we hadn't spent that money? Unemployment would be twice as bad"... "

[CUDA]

the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone

Cmon Pud everyone knows that we're not smart enough to know how to spend our own Money. that's what we need the nanny state for