Jump to content

Menu

No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?


Recommended Posts

yes, thanks. I didn't realize you were comparing $20K to $250K. Someone else must have mentioned the $50, they said that those under $50K didn't pay income tax. But on page 7 of the document you linked it shows that the lowest 20% pay 11% and the top 20% pay 33%. So how is the lowest 20% paying more in taxes? I'm really not trying to be difficult, I just really can't conceptualize this. I frustrate myself to no end sometimes!:glare:

 

To find each person's tax effectiveness rate you must divide the taxes they paid by their income. They aren't paying more in taxes overall, they are *each* paying a bigger percentage of their income in taxes. Does that help? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 956
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yes, thanks. I didn't realize you were comparing $20K to $250K. Someone else must have mentioned the $50, they said that those under $50K didn't pay income tax. But on page 7 of the document you linked it shows that the lowest 20% pay 11% and the top 20% pay 33%. So how is the lowest 20% paying more in taxes? I'm really not trying to be difficult, I just really can't conceptualize this. I frustrate myself to no end sometimes!:glare:

 

Because 11% of 60,000 is huge to a family. 33% of 400,000 doesn't do anything other than cut luxuries.

 

They pay more because what they have left is not enough. What the highest income earners have left is more than enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is great that your dh did that. I once chased down a man in taped-up shoes and took him to Payless to get a new pair. I was a social worker. I give to charity. I also think there should be some oversight of FS and other benefits provided by the high taxes we pay. You can be a "good" person and still think people should be accountable and use resources wisely.

 

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what you define as "lower income".

 

I defined the term as I was using it quite specifically.

 

It shouldn't be equal; I never indicated it should be. I said, for the like millionth time, - We don't pay "into" FS, as a prior poster indicated she had (therefore, she was justified in "getting some out").

 

I haven't worked in many years. Even when I did work, I'm sure we got most of it back. However, my hubby has worked all of these years. We are in an upper income bracket (not the top 1% by any means). We have paid lots and lots of taxes. If something really unlikely and drastic happened...say...he used drugs and got kicked out of the military and couldn't find a job. So, we apply for foodstamps to feed our kids. I might think the same sort of thing. I don't think she meant the statement *literally*. I think she meant, "we have paid and do pay taxes too, it's everybody's dime."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should have been your initial point:

 

If an individual or family have been productive, contributing members of society, it shouldn't matter whether or not the taxes they've paid in the past specifically contributed to the payment of any entitlement.

 

 

I do think she meant it literally. There are a great many people who believe that since they "paid in" they are then "owed" something. It's important, imo, to have a realistic understanding of what/who our taxes actually support and what we get in services in relation to those taxes. Some people get more than they give, but that is okay in a democratic society. We should know this, though.

 

 

I defined the term as I was using it quite specifically.

 

 

 

I haven't worked in many years. Even when I did work, I'm sure we got most of it back. However, my hubby has worked all of these years. We are in an upper income bracket (not the top 1% by any means). We have paid lots and lots of taxes. If something really unlikely and drastic happened...say...he used drugs and got kicked out of the military and couldn't find a job. So, we apply for foodstamps to feed our kids. I might think the same sort of thing. I don't think she meant the statement *literally*. I think she meant, "we have paid and do pay taxes too, it's everybody's dime."

Edited by Stacy in NJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And though I agree that this is how it SHOULD work, there are still factories shutting down, and jobs/money being sent out of country.

 

This why we need modified free trade and incentives to keep jobs.

 

IMHO I suspect that many companies cheerfully ship our jobs overseas so they can pay outrageous amounts of money to their top executives in comparison to to what they were paid in the 60s:glare: Ultimately they are shooting themselves in the foot when they will have not as many customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This why we need modified free trade and incentives to keep jobs.

 

IMHO I suspect that many companies cheerfully ship our jobs overseas so they can pay outrageous amounts of money to their top executives in comparison to to what they were paid in the 60s:glare: Ultimately they are shooting themselves in the foot when they will have not as many customers.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And though I agree that this is how it SHOULD work, there are still factories shutting down, and jobs/money being sent out of country.

 

 

So lets tax the rich(companies) even more, so even more of them leave the US. I don't understand a lot of economics but this just makes no sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This why we need modified free trade and incentives to keep jobs.

 

IMHO I suspect that many companies cheerfully ship our jobs overseas so they can pay outrageous amounts of money to their top executives in comparison to to what they were paid in the 60s:glare: Ultimately they are shooting themselves in the foot when they will have not as many customers.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because 11% of 60,000 is huge to a family. 33% of 400,000 doesn't do anything other than cut luxuries.

 

They pay more because what they have left is not enough. What the highest income earners have left is more than enough.

 

According to whom? We can't tell people on FS what to eat, but we can tell the rich when they have earned more than enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Choose to use food stamps? Huh? Like someone just goes "Gee, I think I'd like to use food stamps"? Have you ever been on FS?

Most people who are on FS are on it because the other "choice" is not eating often enough.

 

And what's up with thinking if you are on FS you don't have the right to be human and have ice cream every now and again? Also, what about birthday parties? That is one of the few times my kids get to have junk. And you are buying for more than just a few, making it costly. So I should just explain to the kids that they get bran muffins and 100% juice because you folks would like them to eat healthier? Lovely. (And I am not actually on FS-but I have been.)

 

I agree with the idiocy of WIC. I have peanut, dairy and wheat allergies. And try to limit animal products in our diet. I got the same lectures.

 

I totally agree on principle, but can we consider things like b-days and halloween? Maybe a monthly quota on such items? Like extra for Halloween and Easter and Christmas, less for most months? I dunno-just trying to inject a little perspective here.

 

 

Lakota

 

Guess what, we could be on fs but choose not to. Being human does not equal deserving ice cream. Being a kid with a birthday does not equal having a birthday party. And no I'm not being a big meanie to "poor" people. My one child just had a birthday with no party the rest of my kids are about to celebrate their birthdays over the next 2 months. Guess what? No birthday parties for them either. We just can't afford it right now.

 

All that to say, I wouldn't think anything of someone on FS buying these things, I just don't think "deserve" should be in the same sentence with extras. None of us "deserve" anything. People with money don't deserve anything either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lets tax the rich(companies) even more, so even more of them leave the US. I don't understand a lot of economics but this just makes no sense to me.

 

No, just let's not give them so many tax breaks for them to take the money and run out of country with it.

 

As to what should happen, and should have happened, to bring jobs back to the US is a whole different thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To find each person's tax effectiveness rate you must divide the taxes they paid by their income. They aren't paying more in taxes overall, they are *each* paying a bigger percentage of their income in taxes. Does that help? :)

AHA! Yes, I get it! Thank you so much!

 

So the lowest 20% pays 36% while the highest 20% pays 61%? Did I get it or did I just "think" I got it? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder at the sense of entitlement that I see in these debates - be it food stamps or health care. Coming from India where millions are starving and have no access to ANY healthcare I believe it is a wonderful privilege for most Americans to have that kind of security available to them. I am not saying these things should not be provided, I think in fact that indeed they should be provided to all from our taxes to ensure a healthier, more prosperous society. I would love for all Indians to have some kind of "minimum" security in terms of food and medical services someday.

 

But that said to expect treats and to expect that children should not be made aware of their parents dire poverty - I do not understand it at all. I grew up almost never having drunk soda except on very very very rare occasions. I so clearly remember the day when I was walking back home with my mom after having had my milk tooth pulled by the dentist. On my way home, she bought for me both soda and ice-cream! The doctor had told her to give me something cold and I will never forget that day! I knew what a stretch it was for her to do that.

 

My son today though gets what he wants and yet has this sense of entitlement where he feels he should be getting more :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without reading ANY of the other comments. I can adamantly say It's ABOUT stinking TIME!!!

 

I know that FS aren't something many people can HELP being on. I get that. BTDT. We hit a very bad patch many years ago and had to accept the help we could get from anywhere. Yet, I was appalled when they let a packet of .88 cent M&M's go through. I was mortified by that. I had a single dollar for my child to purchase those candies.

 

Honestly, the stuff that a person CAN purchase on govt. money is insane. Soda, imho, is a treat. Just like sweets, cakes, etc. I wouldn't purchase them with that money. ;) Flour, sugar, and choco chips I'd consider different. Why? Think about how much flour you can buy for the price of ONE packet of chips ahoy. ;)

 

 

ETA: Before I go read posts I also want to clarify I have nothing wrong with being told what I can and can't do when it comes to using something of someone else's. I'm being given money by the govt thus I wouldn't mind having to obey the rules. I can then choose if I need it badly enough or not. ;) Kinda like a loan, kwim?

Edited by kolamum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am shocked that food stamps could ever be used for pop. Insanity. Pure insanity. I am thankful that I've never had need for food stamps or similar programs, so I guess I was just oblivious. I'd seen those WIC stickers on grocery shelves and had sort of assumed food stamps had similar restrictions.

 

What's next? Beer? Monster Energy drinks (I guess these are already allowed!) Cigarettes? Candy?

 

I am 100% in support of food security programs: food stamps, pantries, WIC, etc. . . However, I am 100% a believer that they should be limited to foods with significant nutritional value. The foods don't have to be the best/perfect/ideal foods, but they should be FOOD -- as in provides nutrition.

 

I'd think they should cover meats, dairy, veggies, fruits, etc, but not candy/soda/chips/etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without reading ANY of the other comments. I can adamantly say It's ABOUT stinking TIME!!!

 

I know that FS aren't something many people can HELP being on. I get that. BTDT. We hit a very bad patch many years ago and had to accept the help we could get from anywhere. Yet, I was appalled when they let a packet of .88 cent M&M's go through. I was mortified by that. I had a single dollar for my child to purchase those candies.

 

Honestly, the stuff that a person CAN purchase on govt. money is insane. Soda, imho, is a treat. Just like sweets, cakes, etc. I wouldn't purchase them with that money. ;) Flour, sugar, and choco chips I'd consider different. Why? Think about how much flour you can buy for the price of ONE packet of chips ahoy. ;)

 

 

ETA: Before I go read posts I also want to clarify I have nothing wrong with being told what I can and can't do when it comes to using something of someone else's. I'm being given money by the govt thus I wouldn't mind having to obey the rules. I can then choose if I need it badly enough or not. ;) Kinda like a loan, kwim?

 

 

There are a lot of posts in this thread and as usual it went all over the place....

 

I don't think ANYONE has suggested that people on FS should dictate what may be purchased with them. Currently soda is allowed. So currently, until the guidelines change, there is nothing wrong (not legally and not morally) with buying soda with FS.

 

The problem is people angry over the way a program is set up. And then taking that anger out on people who are making perfectly legitimate use of the program.

 

If I ever need to use FS I will go by the guidelines. If pop is allowed and I want to buy some (we don't buy much of it anyway) I will. If the guidelines change and pop is no longer allowed, oh well.

 

Of all the horrible things going on in the world, and all of the abuses of power, money, etc...I am always shocked that poor people and their use of public assistance gets people so worked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am always shocked that poor people and their use of public assistance gets people so worked up.

 

I don't think that's what gets people worked up, though.

Americans are compassionate and ime do not begrudge helping those in need.

 

I think it's the abuse of public assistance that gets people worked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scarlet wrote

"Of all the horrible things going on in the world, and all of the abuses of power, money, etc...I am always shocked that poor people and their use of public assistance gets people so worked up".

 

and I say:

 

 

yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, ,yes, yes!!!!! Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. As long as there is a child going to bed hungry there is a "more than enough."

 

Do you really mean this? Or is it sensationalism? Because if you mean this, it would be fine with you if someone took everything you have except the bare minimum of food, clothing, and shelter. At least until every child in the world had enough food to eat. Because if your baseline of someone having too much is whether everyone has enough to eat, there are only two groups of people - those who have enough food and those who don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really mean this? Or is it sensationalism? Because if you mean this, it would be fine with you if someone took everything you have except the bare minimum of food, clothing, and shelter. At least until every child in the world had enough food to eat. Because if your baseline of someone having too much is whether everyone has enough to eat, there are only two groups of people - those who have enough food and those who don't.

 

Yes, I really mean this. I wasn't just referring to those hungry in America. All of us in the West are rich - even those on food stamps. What I have doesn't belong to me anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I really mean this. I wasn't just referring to those hungry in America. All of us in the West are rich - even those on food stamps. What I have doesn't belong to me anyway.[/QUOTE]

 

 

I agree with this. But I believe people are personally responsible to use their resources well. Just because I view my money this way doesn't mean I view someone else's money this way. In other words, I view my neighbor's money as belonging to my neighbor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dulcimeramy
Yes, I really mean this. I wasn't just referring to those hungry in America. All of us in the West are rich - even those on food stamps. What I have doesn't belong to me anyway.

 

Meriwether asked if you would submit to someone else who came to take your goods and give them to another. Really, you would have to actually do this yourself in real life, to put your money where your mouth is, if you say you would require involuntary asceticism from others.

 

If you have not sold all your goods to give to the poor already, why haven't you? Wait, that's not quite right. I should ask, if you have not sold all your goods to donate to the government who will then redistribute your former wealth to the deserving poor, why haven't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard anyone complaining about food stamps and aid for the disabled. Ever. And no one says that people always have a choice.

 

But as soon as someone offers up the fact that

 

1. there are many who easily qualify for food stamps yet refuse to take them, and

2. wouldn't it be nice for the country if more people would make that sacrifice,

 

we have to start putting up straw men and making it all about disabled Americans whom no one begrudges aid.

 

Why? Why can't we ever talk about responsibility and frugality among the able-bodied who receive food stamps without it turning into a simplistic, childish argument in which those who oppose totally open-ended entitlement programs are accused of not caring about the disabled?

 

See, that's the thing: disabled people qualify and may or may not buy junk food with it. Legal.

Frugal, hard-working, well-educated people qualify and may or may not buy junk food with it. Also legal.

Lazy schmucks with an irrational sense of entitlemnt also qualify and may or may not buy junk food with it. Sucks, but again, legal.

 

There is no test you take to qualify for Food Stamps that will make sure the average American thinks you "deserve it" more than the next guy. And there shouldn't be. Nuff said.

 

And if I qualify for a tax break, I'll take it. And if I qualify for FS and wish to use it because otherwise my kids will go hungry, I will do so. I never once got on food stamps in order to eat candy all day. But I reckon someone out there does. Oh well. He is resposible for his morality, not me.

 

I have always worked hard, have a college degree, and have never made more than $21,000/year. Life is like that. I do not complain that it is that way-God never promised me otherwise. I enjoy working hard.

 

But we also enjoy the occasional weenie roast in summer, whether it is during a season in our life when we have enough cash, or not. Most of the time, we do without when we must. But if we happen to be on FS at the time (in order to eat enough real food) and we wish to make room in our fs budget for junk that month, we do. We do it because we are human, we didn't stop being human when we qualified for aid. And we do it with our budget in mind, buying cheaper stuff that month-going to Aldi for produce, for example. But I too am shocked at what FS will pay for-always have been. Call your congressperson-don't get all high-horsey on me either!;)

Lakota

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. As long as there is a child going to bed hungry there is a "more than enough."

 

So no one really owns their own money or belongings according to you? If I have more than I need to meet my necessities you think it's okay for the government to take it away and give it to someone who doesn't have necessities? That goes against everything America is about. Those who can give, do for the most part. I think those with more should morally help those with less, but I do NOT think it should be forced by anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meriwether asked if you would submit to someone else who came to take your goods and give them to another. Really, you would have to actually do this yourself in real life, to put your money where your mouth is, if you say you would require involuntary asceticism from others.

 

If you have not sold all your goods to give to the poor already, why haven't you? Wait, that's not quite right. I should ask, if you have not sold all your goods to donate to the government who will then redistribute your former wealth to the deserving poor, why haven't you?

 

If someone of took my goods to distribute to the poor (deserving or undeserving) I would submit to it - yes.

 

I wouldn't donate all my goods to the government because they would not distribute them to the poor. Their track record shows that to be far from the truth.

 

Why haven't I sold everything? Well, the one who owns my stuff hasn't given me that directive. But I should never love something so much that I couldn't part with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So no one really owns their own money or belongings according to you? If I have more than I need to meet my necessities you think it's okay for the government to take it away and give it to someone who doesn't have necessities? That goes against everything America is about. Those who can give, do for the most part. I think those with more should morally help those with less, but I do NOT think it should be forced by anyone.

 

No. As a Christian I own nothing. Not everyone is a Christian.

 

Yes, capitalism doesn't go so well if you are poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's the abuse of public assistance that gets people worked up.

 

I think her point was, if it is allowable under the guidelines to buy soda, it seems unfair to judge them for doing so. It is only abuse in your opinion, not in fact, iow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. As a Christian I own nothing. Not everyone is a Christian.

 

Yes, capitalism doesn't go so well if you are poor.

 

I am a Christian. God has given me the earth and it's contents to care for. I am only 1 person and I can only affect my immediate surroundings. Saying that I will only give up my stuff to help someone if God tells me to is a cop out no matter what your religion is, IMO. If you truly beleive that those with more should give all excess to feed those with less then you are obligated to give your more.

 

What does capitalism have to do with you saying the government can come and take my belongings to give to someone else?

 

<div class="header">cap·i·tal·ism

 

cap·i·tal·ism

 

  speaker.gif /ˈkĂƒÂ¦pthinsp.pngɪthinsp.pngtlˌɪzthinsp.pngÉ™m/ dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show Spelled[kap-i-tl-iz-uhthinsp.pngm] dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif Show IPA

–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dulcimeramy

Disagreeing is another old-fashioned American thing. Someone isn't high-horsey just for holding a different opinion and articulating it in public. Especially when that person also knows full well what it is like to raise a family on less than $21,000/yr. and has never been much better off financially than those arguing the other side of an economics issue.

 

I didn't accept food stamps when we made less than $12,000/yr and had two babies at home. We lived in a trailer park and didn't have a working stove or health care coverage. I had no idea at the time that I would one day be accused of not understanding the plight of the poor!

 

When did high-horsey become adult parlance, anyway? Was that only just today? Please, God, don't let "high-horsey" be the next "icky." How that word ever made it out of nursery school is beyond me.

 

Still. There are never any real discussions about socio-economics in this strange America of 2011. The straw men go up, the accusations fly, and the rhetoric is unbelievable. The final word is, "I do what I want because I can. Call your Congressman and change the laws if you don't like it, you stuck-up elitist."

 

Shrug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I really mean this. I wasn't just referring to those hungry in America. All of us in the West are rich - even those on food stamps. What I have doesn't belong to me anyway.

 

Well, the West includes lots of places where people really have nothing. But I do agree that people on food stamps are still wealthier than most of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meriwether asked if you would submit to someone else who came to take your goods and give them to another. Really, you would have to actually do this yourself in real life, to put your money where your mouth is, if you say you would require involuntary asceticism from others.

 

If you have not sold all your goods to give to the poor already, why haven't you? Wait, that's not quite right. I should ask, if you have not sold all your goods to donate to the government who will then redistribute your former wealth to the deserving poor, why haven't you?

 

You meant this to Wehomeschool, not Meriwether, and it is an EXCELLENT question!

 

Because we all know, Jesus said, "If you see someone who is hungry, command your neighbor to give generously to the government so that the government will have an ample cut to keep for administrative purposes. But then, when the government, in its infinite wisdom, sees fit to redistribute your neighbor's nasty, undeserved riches to the man, he will receive what he so desperately needs... a soda." (Contrary to some Catholic academics, that was not what Christ taught and not what the Catholic Church teaches, I just have to add.) ;)

 

The bigger the collective pot gets and the more we have to decide to allocate collectively, the more likely abuse, misuse, and frustration all around, the kind that leads to civil unrest. That is just a fact.

 

Wehomeschool, you sound very generous and big hearted. But you are very misguided about capitalism and the poor, and your stats are faulty. The rich are not getting richer and the poor poorer in this country. Not by a long shot. Please read some economics. I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Look around. For the most part people in the USA have had a steady increase in standard of living for two centuries. Amazing wealth like the world never imagined. It is capitalism that has brought that on, the free market under a value system that, in truth, has faltered many times, but has been like no other in history. It is out of control, government spending that threatens that trend today.

 

The best thing we can all do for the poor and for ourselves is strive for prosperity and give generously, not insist on taxing others. It doesn't hurt the poor when people get rich. It is not a zero sum game. When we think only in terms of limits and dividing the pie, we stop thinking about making the pie. We need to stop the politics of envy and class warfare and think abundantly and creatively. Before it is too late!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's what gets people worked up, though.

Americans are compassionate and ime do not begrudge helping those in need.

 

I think it's the abuse of public assistance that gets people worked up.

 

That is not my impression of this thread. People are HIGHLY upset that anyone would buy soda with FS even though it is allowed by the guidelines of the program.

 

Also, there is no evidence that abuse is widespread. Then again I guess we would have to define abuse. I would define that as using them other than what the guidelines allow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not my impression of this thread. People are HIGHLY upset that anyone would buy soda with FS even though it is allowed by the guidelines of the program.

 

Also, there is no evidence that abuse is widespread. Then again I guess we would have to define abuse. I would define that as using them other than what the guidelines allow.

 

I would also define abuse as accepting and using FS and then spending the money you do earn on luxuries to keep up a status of living that you couldn't afford without FS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also define abuse and accepting and using FS and then spending the money you do earn on luxuries to keep up a status of living that you couldn't afford without FS.

 

There are guidelines. If the guidelines are being followed it isn't abuse. You might not like it....it might grate on your nerves and get you all up in arms....but it isn't abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a Christian. God has given me the earth and it's contents to care for. I am only 1 person and I can only affect my immediate surroundings. Saying that I will only give up my stuff to help someone if God tells me to is a cop out no matter what your religion is, IMO. If you truly beleive that those with more should give all excess to feed those with less then you are obligated to give your more.

 

I am thankful my children have food to eat every night. I am thankful that my children have a warm and comfortable place to sleep every night. I am thankful that my children can get a good education. :) I can't change the world, but I can be a good steward with what has been entrusted to me. I won't get into specifics as to what I am doing or what I plan to do. But my stuff is just stuff. I never said I was doing nothing. I only said I hadn't sold everything I owned to help the poor because I hadn't been given that directive.

 

What does capitalism have to do with you saying the government can come and take my belongings to give to someone else?

 

America and capitalism go together. Capitalism favors the rich. It gives to the rich at the expense of the poor. Work hard and you will achieve the American dream. Too bad corporations don't believe that. :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are guidelines. If the guidelines are being followed it isn't abuse. You might not like it....it might grate on your nerves and get you all up in arms....but it isn't abuse.

 

We all have our opinions. When the system was set up I seriously doubt it was meant to enable people to remove "food" as a line item in their personal budgets and far too many people treat FS that way. I know not everyone does. With the cards now the cashier would have to do something illegal for a FS recipient to receive ineligible items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America and capitalism go together. Capitalism favors the rich. It gives to the rich at the expense of the poor. Work hard and you will achieve the American dream. Too bad corporations don't believe that. :tongue_smilie:

 

Here's where you are wrong. Capitalism favors those who are willing to work, most times very hard. Business don't just grow on trees, they are built from the ground up by someone sacrificing to succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagreeing is another old-fashioned American thing. Someone isn't high-horsey just for holding a different opinion and articulating it in public. Especially when that person also knows full well what it is like to raise a family on less than $21,000/yr. and has never been much better off financially than those arguing the other side of an economics issue.

 

I didn't accept food stamps when we made less than $12,000/yr and had two babies at home. We lived in a trailer park and didn't have a working stove or health care coverage. I had no idea at the time that I would one day be accused of not understanding the plight of the poor!

 

When did high-horsey become adult parlance, anyway? Was that only just today? Please, God, don't let "high-horsey" be the next "icky." How that word ever made it out of nursery school is beyond me.

 

Still. There are never any real discussions about socio-economics in this strange America of 2011. The straw men go up, the accusations fly, and the rhetoric is unbelievable. The final word is, "I do what I want because I can. Call your Congressman and change the laws if you don't like it, you stuck-up elitist."

 

Shrug.

Dude, I was teasing with the high-horsey comment, hence the wink.

And while it is admirable (I guess?) that you didn't take help when low-income, it doesn't make anyone a less decent person if they do. And what some people are arguing about is more morality rather than politics. But you cannot tell me what my morality should be. I must choose it of my own free will. And who else are you to contact about a problem you see with a government program, if not your government representative?

Lakota

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wehomeschool, you sound very generous and big hearted. But you are very misguided about capitalism and the poor, and your stats are faulty. The rich are not getting richer and the poor poorer in this country. Not by a long shot. Please read some economics. I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Look around. For the most part people in the USA have had a steady increase in standard of living for two centuries. Amazing wealth like the world never imagined. It is capitalism that has brought that on, the free market under a value system that, in truth, has faltered many times, but has been like no other in history. It is out of control, government spending that threatens that trend today.

 

Is this not true? Quoted from here.

 

The report, measuring data from the mid-1980s to the late 2000s, found that top income earners became richer while more moderate to low-income have gone in the opposite direction. Disposable household income grew in all OECD countries, but the top 10 percent rose at a faster annual average (2 percent) than the bottom 10 percent (1.4 percent).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's where you are wrong. Capitalism favors those who are willing to work, most times very hard. Business don't just grow on trees, they are built from the ground up by someone sacrificing to succeed.

Favors-there are no guarantees. And those who start out poor do have to struggle harder, sometimes to no avail. And I think she meant that the corrupt govt. favors the rich.

Lakota

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's where you are wrong. Capitalism favors those who are willing to work, most times very hard. Business don't just grow on trees, they are built from the ground up by someone sacrificing to succeed.

 

Many very poor people work very hard and very long hours and often more than one job. I understand business. It is very hard work, but honestly there are many hard working poor struggling that worked more than the 60 hours a week I put in to grow and maintain my business. The poor don't always get ahead by working hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...