The Fiscal Cliff

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The Fiscal Cliff

 This is really starting to irritate me. If you pay the slightest bit of attention to politics you have heard about the "fiscal cliff". If you haven't heard about it, the fiscal cliff is the combination of the expiration of all of the tax cuts since 2001 combined with forced cuts to the federal budget. The CBO numbers suggest that the tax increases will amount to $500 billion (which since the CBO is always wrong on those predictions, it will probably be somewhat less) and budget cuts of $109 billion. Everyone is flipping out about it and proclaiming it as the end of the world. I call bullshit.

The fears lie in the belief that tax increases will slow the economy and that cutting spending will slow the economy leading us into another recession. Well, yes that will happen, it will make our GDP numbers go down and probably into the negative. But in case you haven't noticed, we are in a recession right now- oh I know technically we are not the GDP increased 1.3% in the second quarter. But included in the GDP is all the money the government is borrowing and spending and the money it is creating out of thin air. It doesn't take an economist to realize that when you borrow money, you do not actually become wealthier because sooner or later that money has to be paid back

The result is that when we do pay that money back it will make our GDP look much lower. Imagine you make $30,000 a year and you use a credit card to run up $10,000 you can pretend for a year that your income is $40,000 but that "increase" in your income isn't real. So the next year you maybe get a raise and are now making $35,000 but you have that $10,000 debt now you have the option of either borrowing more and pretending you have more money than last year, or paying it back and living on less than you lived on last year. I'm sure you can see that in your personal budget, the more intelligent option is to reduce your spending and pay off the debt even if that means you don't live as comfortably as you did when you blew $40,000. 

Yet our country fails to face up to the obvious and instead is trying to continue to borrow more and more money because we are so damn afraid to live on less than we did in previous years. We have to face the reality that we couldn't afford to live the way we did when we were doing it and now we have the choice of paying the piper or running ourselves deeper into debt. Paying off debt is always painful whenever you do it, but it is far less painful to pay off a smaller debt than it is to borrow more and make that debt larger. You can delay the pain, but the longer you delay, the more painful it will be.

The positive side is that I think the tax increases will have a much smaller negative effect on the economy than many seem to assume. They are fairly steep increases but they are also widely distributed. 90% of Americans will see their taxes increase. Those who make over $100,000 will see an increase of an average of 7% to their net tax rate and those who make less than $100,000 will see an average increase of 4% to their net tax rate. Instead of 50% of Americans getting a net refund, most Americans will be paying at least some tax, which I think is a good thing. Everyone should pay taxes.

Now the argument is that a tax increase will decrease investment and decrease consumption. Obviously, it will have some effect but in our current situation it will be minimal. The primary reason people are not investing is not because they don't have money. Investors are not investing because everyone with half a fucking brain realizes that we are headed for another recession and only a dumb ass invests when they believe a recession is around the corner. You buy low and sell high, when the recession starts people with cash on hand will have good reason to start buying.

As far as personal consumption, I have stated before and maintain that it will take care of itself. People who really want something will find a way to get it, if that means they need to increase their production and make more money, they will find a way. Short term, consumption will decrease- it MUST decrease, we have been consuming way more than we need and in many cases more than we really want. There is no rational reason to maintain an economy to consume for the sake of consuming. It is far more rational to have an economy focused on producing things that people actually want, if that means that consumption is a little lower, so be it.

As far as the spending cuts, are we really supposed to believe that with a budget of $3.796 TRILLION, we can't handle a $109 billion cut? That is less than a 3% cut.

The "fiscal cliff" is the first step to start addressing our real problem of spending more than we have. We are not going to magically grow ourselves out of our debt, we have to deal with it and the sooner the better. However, I can almost guarantee that our government is going to punt the ball down the road again and set us up for even more problems in the future. The recession is going to happen and the sooner we deal with it the less painful it will be. Imagine how much better things would be if GW had dealt with the reality that we either had to pay for the wars or not go to war. If Obama had faced the reality that we either pay for the stimulus or not have one. We all deal with reality in our personal budgets and those of us who don't go bankrupt, we ought to demand that our government deals with reality when it comes to our money.    

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Here is the point YOU miss.

Here is the point YOU miss. YOU DONT KICK PEOPLE WHILE THEY ARE DOWN.

Not to mention all this dept was created by two unfunded wars, upaid tax cuts, big pharma subsidies, oil subsidies, a casino climate on wall street, and unregulated housing scams.

It isn't that nothing should be done, but TIMING. You work on investing first and then paying off the debt. Get the economy on it's feet first so that when cuts are made, people have a place to go. What you suggest is the same fucking bullshit that got us in this mess and is nothing but republican policies on steroids.

"Every man for themselves" does not fucking work nor did trickle down for the past 30 years. "Get out of the way" CANNOT WORK in our current climate because all it will do is funnel the money up and make the greed worse at the top and fuck the rest of us.

You DID NOT do shit by yourself so stop pretending you can live on an island and do every job by yourself. We are HAPPY  you are successful and no one begrudges that success.

A little loyalty to the conditions of the middle class and working poor in DIRECT investment would get the fucking government off your back. But what we have now is not as far as climate, is even close to that mindset.

When you have oil executives ADMITTING that the price of a barrel of oil is bloated on speculation instead of cost of living and demand index FRONT OF CONGRESS, there is something wrong.

As long as the public is paying more for advertising, marketing, CEOS and maximizing profets and not the workers ability to buy things which creates the demand, and you insist on "every man for themselves" this will only be a race to the bottom.

YOU WANT TO GET RID OF DEPT you wont get it by fucking society over by only caring about yourself.

When you get the republican obstructionists out of the fucking way things will improve. The reason our economy hasn't recovered as fast isnt because we spent too much money, BUT NOT ENOUGH.

You have such a simplictic view of governance in that it can be treated like a paycheck which is just as shallow and hollow a delusion as a god of the gaps argument. You have to INVEST and if you dont care about others it does and will eventually affect even you.

Stablize the economy first by DIRECT investment by big business in better pay, health care and lower cost of living. When the middle class and working poor have better buying power and can make ends meet, they create that demand that causes growth. NICK HANOUR BILLIONAIRE GETS THIS, YOU DONT.

Only when you do that can you afford to make cuts. You want to kick society in the nuts when it is already doubled over grabbing its nuts.Th

The can is kicked down the road, not by democrats, but by the obstruction of the riech wing and it's Marrie Annonette "let them eat cake" trickle down bullshit.

I've said countless times, if people like you were the majority at the time a national highway system was suggested, idiots like you never would have invested in it and we'd still be living in an economic dark ages.

A little direct investment without the middle man and loyalty to the worker will get you what you want. "fuck you I got mine" never works long term.

How do you expect to pay down the dept if people have less in any case? I am not against cuts or lower taxes per sey, just the timing and the climate would only by doing such AT THIS MOMENT, would only be throwing gass on the fire. Put the fire out first by improving the pay and conditions of the middle and working class.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
You can't "invest" anything

You can't "invest" anything if you don't have money. And your comment that we are not spending enough money is laughably absurd. We are spending more money than any country in the history of mankind. The timing isn't going to get better, things are not improving and they are not going to improve until we address the problem. On top of that, the amount we pay in interest and the promised obligations of our government to cover social programs are continuing to increase. It would be best if we solved this problem before those bills have to be paid. The "stick our heads in the sand" approach you seem to favor will be a disaster for everyone in our country, including your precious poor. 

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:You

Beyond Saving wrote:

You can't "invest" anything if you don't have money. And your comment that we are not spending enough money is laughably absurd. We are spending more money than any country in the history of mankind. The timing isn't going to get better, things are not improving and they are not going to improve until we address the problem. On top of that, the amount we pay in interest and the promised obligations of our government to cover social programs are continuing to increase. It would be best if we solved this problem before those bills have to be paid. The "stick our heads in the sand" approach you seem to favor will be a disaster for everyone in our country, including your precious poor. 

 

 

1. The rich have money (that's why they're rich) but they're not investing in this country at a time when they can get the most favorable deals.

2. We do need to cut spending but we need to do it in the right areas. Defense and corporate welfare come to mind.

3. I'm glad you're talking about raising taxes. This seems to be a new thing for you. I just hope it's not 2% on the rich and 15% on the rest of us.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10626
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond prefers a flat tax.

Beyond prefers a flat tax.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:You can't "invest"

Quote:
You can't "invest" anything if you don't have money

I'm Wolf  Blitzer in the Situation Room our top story tonight "NO SHIT SHERLOCK"

No different than if I walk into a gas station and want to buy a 24 oz beer and don't have money the atendent would rightfully say "tough luck".

 

BUT where you think the demand is created is fucked up and absolutly false. YOU  don't create jobs, and if it is all about money you wont hire one more person you need unless the demand goes up. So it depends NOT ON YOU, but people comming through that door and buying your goods.

SO it cuts both ways dippy. If the employees of ALL industries have less money THEY BUY LESS, if they buy less there is less demand, less demand means you don't hire more people, but cut more people. Less people at work is less demand.

YOU DONT HAVE MONEY TO INVEST BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN LONG TERM MINDSET. If the top hadn't dumped all its bubbles on the rest of us and cut our jobs and hours YOU WOULD HAVE THE MONEY!

But it is utter bullshit to shift the burden on the lower classes and claim it isn't about your own lack of introspection.

The risk you should want to take in a bad economy isn't in cutting but investing, but with the society improving in mind, not "how much can I fleece and run for myself". You can slash and burn, sure and it does work, but not long term and not for the health of all long term. And by "health" you damned well know I am not talking about individuals but the health of the climate of the economy.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:Beyond prefers

Vastet wrote:
Beyond prefers a flat tax.

Yea which would benfit the top ratio wise and hurt the bottom two. I am for a progressive tax. But I am for a more simplistic less convoluted code. He is under the delusion that 5 bucks or 100 bucks means the same thing to everyone. By definition he is right, 100 pennies does equal a dollar. But a rich person with a dollar will always have more options than a poor person with that same dollar.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10626
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Not necessarily. I too would

Not necessarily. I too would favour a flat tax, though one with a ceiling and a floor to personal income. Noone anywhere can or will ever come up with a credible argument to support a personal income that can rival a nations gdp. And noone anywhere can or will ever come up with a credible argument to support the idea of the majority living in near poverty or in poverty conditions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:You

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
You can't "invest" anything if you don't have money

I'm Wolf  Blitzer in the Situation Room our top story tonight "NO SHIT SHERLOCK"

Yet you suggest we invest when we don't have money?

 

Brian37 wrote:

BUT where you think the demand is created is fucked up and absolutly false. YOU  don't create jobs, and if it is all about money you wont hire one more person you need unless the demand goes up. So it depends NOT ON YOU, but people comming through that door and buying your goods.

Demand for the goods comes from people coming through the door to purchase them, demand for a job comes from me not wanting to or being unable to do the work myself. Demand for the goods has an indirect effect on demand for the jobs. It is often possible to handle increased demand for the end product without hiring more workers either through working harder, improving efficiency or relying more on technology with your current workforce. So yes, I do create jobs, no one is forcing me to hire. I have several other options, including not being in business at all.

And people don't just randomly decide to come through the door, getting customers is one of the most time consuming and difficult tasks in any business, which is why the sales folk are so highly paid. Whether or not that business is coming into the company is ultimately on me and when I work is always my primary focus. At the end of the day, I am a salesman, because without the sale the rest is irrelevant. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

SO it cuts both ways dippy. If the employees of ALL industries have less money THEY BUY LESS, if they buy less there is less demand, less demand means you don't hire more people, but cut more people. Less people at work is less demand.

Is less demand necessarily a bad thing? I don't think an economy that relies on an endless increase in consumption is healthy either for the economy or for the environment. And the correlation between demand and money is not 1:1- there is a certain level of demand that will always exist no matter what. People need basic necessities and will always demand a certain living standard. The demand for 3000 square foot houses might drop, the demand for cable tv might drop but that demand will be transferred to smaller houses and other forms of entertainment like internet access. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

YOU DONT HAVE MONEY TO INVEST BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN LONG TERM MINDSET. If the top hadn't dumped all its bubbles on the rest of us and cut our jobs and hours YOU WOULD HAVE THE MONEY!

I have money to invest, I am not talking about my personal financial situation. I didn't participate in the bubble. I am talking about the financial situation of our government. Our government does not have the money. Our government would have money if it hadn't "invested" all of it in wars, scams, political payoffs and whiners.

 

Brian37 wrote:

But it is utter bullshit to shift the burden on the lower classes and claim it isn't about your own lack of introspection.

What did I do? I didn't support any of the spending. None of it. Not one dollar. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

The risk you should want to take in a bad economy isn't in cutting but investing, but with the society improving in mind, not "how much can I fleece and run for myself". You can slash and burn, sure and it does work, but not long term and not for the health of all long term. And by "health" you damned well know I am not talking about individuals but the health of the climate of the economy.

So if I invest my money that is somehow going to fix the federal budget? How? Where am I supposed to invest my money? 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. The rich

jcgadfly wrote:

1. The rich have money (that's why they're rich) but they're not investing in this country at a time when they can get the most favorable deals.

2. We do need to cut spending but we need to do it in the right areas. Defense and corporate welfare come to mind.

3. I'm glad you're talking about raising taxes. This seems to be a new thing for you. I just hope it's not 2% on the rich and 15% on the rest of us.

1. Yes the rich have money yet investing has been anemic although improved over what it was, why do you think that is? What favorable deals do you believe the rich are missing out on?

2. I don't care where it is cut. If I was dictator I would cut it all and run the federal government on less than a trillion, but I am not. I will settle for any sane budget that pays our bills, works to pay off our debt to a manageable level and makes plans to handle the financial situation when the trust funds run out of cash. 

3. At our current level of spending, every person in the US has to pay 30% to cover the bills and I think every person should. Of course, I would be ecstatic to reduce spending to a point where a much lower percentage would do the trick. I don't see why one person should pay a higher percentage than another or why one citizen gets exempted from taxation at the expense of others simply because they fit D.C.'s demographic of the week. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. The rich have money (that's why they're rich) but they're not investing in this country at a time when they can get the most favorable deals.

2. We do need to cut spending but we need to do it in the right areas. Defense and corporate welfare come to mind.

3. I'm glad you're talking about raising taxes. This seems to be a new thing for you. I just hope it's not 2% on the rich and 15% on the rest of us.

1. Yes the rich have money yet investing has been anemic although improved over what it was, why do you think that is? What favorable deals do you believe the rich are missing out on?

2. I don't care where it is cut. If I was dictator I would cut it all and run the federal government on less than a trillion, but I am not. I will settle for any sane budget that pays our bills, works to pay off our debt to a manageable level and makes plans to handle the financial situation when the trust funds run out of cash. 

3. At our current level of spending, every person in the US has to pay 30% to cover the bills and I think every person should. Of course, I would be ecstatic to reduce spending to a point where a much lower percentage would do the trick. I don't see why one person should pay a higher percentage than another or why one citizen gets exempted from taxation at the expense of others simply because they fit D.C.'s demographic of the week. 

1. I can only speak for Indiana but if the environment tax-wise was any more favorable here they could own the state. Bribing legislators is pretty much legal and no one in power here wants the corps to pay income tax.  Why aren't they investing? Because they don't want to invest in decent wages for production in this country. Not that they can' but that they won't.

2. I do care where it's cut because I'm not a big fan of stupid children and needless weaponry.

3. That's an argument for revamping the tax code - not a flat tax. The problem that I see with many of the flat tax proponents I've heard speak is that they seem to be in favor of a low flat tax for people in their bracket and a higher one for those below it.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. I can only

jcgadfly wrote:

1. I can only speak for Indiana but if the environment tax-wise was any more favorable here they could own the state. Bribing legislators is pretty much legal and no one in power here wants the corps to pay income tax.  Why aren't they investing? Because they don't want to invest in decent wages for production in this country. Not that they can' but that they won't.

2. I do care where it's cut because I'm not a big fan of stupid children and needless weaponry.

3. That's an argument for revamping the tax code - not a flat tax. The problem that I see with many of the flat tax proponents I've heard speak is that they seem to be in favor of a low flat tax for people in their bracket and a higher one for those below it.

 

1. Why wouldn't an investor do something that is good for them? Are they failing to invest simply to spite workers?

2. Do you seriously think that federal government spending has any relation to the education of our children? The evidence seems to suggest that continual federalization of education funds has led to an inferior education system. 

3. A flat tax is by definition everyone paying the same percentage, I have never heard of anyone claiming to be a flat tax proponent while simultaneously asking for different tax rates. A flat tax would involve lowering taxes on high incomes and raising taxes on lower ones since right now higher incomes are taxed at a much higher rate. The result would be the same rate for everyone, which I think is fair.

Although, for the purposes of this particular issue, it is far more important to me that the budget is balanced than the particulars of the tax code. A flat tax is never going to happen in the US, at least not before our entire government implodes, we have a few years of anarchy and some other government takes control. I can adjust my behavior to manage any tax situation or even quit altogether, it is an irritant but either way I can live a comfortable life. There isn't much I can do if the US government goes bankrupt.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. I can only speak for Indiana but if the environment tax-wise was any more favorable here they could own the state. Bribing legislators is pretty much legal and no one in power here wants the corps to pay income tax.  Why aren't they investing? Because they don't want to invest in decent wages for production in this country. Not that they can' but that they won't.

2. I do care where it's cut because I'm not a big fan of stupid children and needless weaponry.

3. That's an argument for revamping the tax code - not a flat tax. The problem that I see with many of the flat tax proponents I've heard speak is that they seem to be in favor of a low flat tax for people in their bracket and a higher one for those below it.

 

1. Why wouldn't an investor do something that is good for them? Are they failing to invest simply to spite workers?

2. Do you seriously think that federal government spending has any relation to the education of our children? The evidence seems to suggest that continual federalization of education funds has led to an inferior education system. 

3. A flat tax is by definition everyone paying the same percentage, I have never heard of anyone claiming to be a flat tax proponent while simultaneously asking for different tax rates. A flat tax would involve lowering taxes on high incomes and raising taxes on lower ones since right now higher incomes are taxed at a much higher rate. The result would be the same rate for everyone, which I think is fair.

Although, for the purposes of this particular issue, it is far more important to me that the budget is balanced than the particulars of the tax code. A flat tax is never going to happen in the US, at least not before our entire government implodes, we have a few years of anarchy and some other government takes control. I can adjust my behavior to manage any tax situation or even quit altogether, it is an irritant but either way I can live a comfortable life. There isn't much I can do if the US government goes bankrupt.  

1. Because they're cheap bastards when it doesn't concern their pocketbooks?

2. If we could get the Dept of Education into education instead of standardized testing, maybe.

3. You haven't run into the wackjobs I've run into - no biggie.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. Because

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Because they're cheap bastards when it doesn't concern their pocketbooks?

2. If we could get the Dept of Education into education instead of standardized testing, maybe.

3. You haven't run into the wackjobs I've run into - no biggie.

 

1. But in your first response you said that there were "deals" in the current economy.

jcgadfly wrote:

The rich have money (that's why they're rich) but they're not investing in this country at a time when they can get the most favorable deals.

So if there are favorable deals it seems to me it would be in their selfish interest to profit on those deals. Which is it? Is it a profitable time to invest or not? Do you expect people to invest their money if they do not believe it is profitable? 

 

2. Big maybe, the larger a bureaucracy the more bureaucratic it is. If we could get government to work efficiently it would work efficiently... large agencies of any type do not work efficiently, the more people involved the less efficient any agency will be. No amount of money or wishing is going to change that. You are aware that there is a reason we have state and local governments? I happen to think that is a very good thing because I am sure you know far more about what needs to be done in your local schools than I do, and certainly more than anyone in DC.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Because they're cheap bastards when it doesn't concern their pocketbooks?

2. If we could get the Dept of Education into education instead of standardized testing, maybe.

3. You haven't run into the wackjobs I've run into - no biggie.

 

1. But in your first response you said that there were "deals" in the current economy.

jcgadfly wrote:

The rich have money (that's why they're rich) but they're not investing in this country at a time when they can get the most favorable deals.

So if there are favorable deals it seems to me it would be in their selfish interest to profit on those deals. Which is it? Is it a profitable time to invest or not? Do you expect people to invest their money if they do not believe it is profitable? 

 

2. Big maybe, the larger a bureaucracy the more bureaucratic it is. If we could get government to work efficiently it would work efficiently... large agencies of any type do not work efficiently, the more people involved the less efficient any agency will be. No amount of money or wishing is going to change that. You are aware that there is a reason we have state and local governments? I happen to think that is a very good thing because I am sure you know far more about what needs to be done in your local schools than I do, and certainly more than anyone in DC.  

 

As I said, Indiana (all that I know about) is a low tax state for businesses and they want to cut the corporate rate by 40% more. They can also legally bribe legislators to get what they want (due to lax lobbying laws) How much more favorable does it need to be? Make the state a subsidiary of the highest bidder? Indiana is a damn favorable deal in this country and no rich folk are investing.

If large agencies of any type don't work efficiently how would no agency (your solution) be better?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:As I said,

jcgadfly wrote:

As I said, Indiana (all that I know about) is a low tax state for businesses and they want to cut the corporate rate by 40% more. They can also legally bribe legislators to get what they want (due to lax lobbying laws) How much more favorable does it need to be? Make the state a subsidiary of the highest bidder? Indiana is a damn favorable deal in this country and no rich folk are investing.

The state is floating in a national economy. Regardless of state policies a business still has to deal with the much larger influence of the federal government. State policies don't matter except relative to other states. State taxes don't matter so much, they are a very small portion of taxes. Property taxes may or may not matter significantly depending on the specific industry. State policies are simply irrelevant in the face of our massive federal problems. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

If large agencies of any type don't work efficiently how would no agency (your solution) be better?

Where did I suggest "no agency"? I assume you do have a local school board right? I assume you pay property taxes as the main funding of your local school district right? Why can't your local school board and your local government be primarily responsible for making those decisions and managing those funds? What is the point of having money sent to DC and then having only a portion of it returned to your local schools with a list of federal requirements?

We have local governments and state governments, it is this cool little thing called federalism and being a republic. It is a really sweet idea that smaller governments, more easily controlled by voters, would have the primary power to handle domestic affairs. Unfortunately, our public education system has obviously failed to teach people how our government is supposed to work and everyone thinks Obama and Romney are the ones who should be calling all the shots.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Nice move of the goalposts,

Nice move of the goalposts, btw.

The problem with leaving it up to state and local boards is that we will have some nimrods in this country who will teach creationism and eschew science but be able to bring their kids into the work force as equals to those states that have sensible boards. Disparate standards are as bad as if not worse than no standards.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Nice move of

jcgadfly wrote:

Nice move of the goalposts, btw.

The problem with leaving it up to state and local boards is that we will have some nimrods in this country who will teach creationism and eschew science but be able to bring their kids into the work force as equals to those states that have sensible boards. Disparate standards are as bad as if not worse than no standards.

 

Which goalposts? The ones being held by your strawman?

So having a fundy President (like say GW) who wants every school to treat creationism as on par with real science it is best to give him the power to require it? Because at least we have a single standard right? The problem with giving power to the federal government is that sooner or later someone you don't like will have that power. The Patriot Act is a good example, before Obama, democrats were screaming bloody murder about it (including Obama), after Obama, they all support it and the only protests you hear come from a handful on the right. Guess what? Obama isn't going to be president forever, sooner or later a republican will win again and have those powers. No doubt the democrats will suddenly care about our civil rights again, even though they apparently don't give a shit when they have power to do something about it. 

If I decide I want to throw out a bad school board member it is really easy. A few thousand dollars to buy some yard signs and newspaper advertisements can usually do the trick. Heck, sometimes even that isn't required. Getting control of the federal government is a lot more difficult, especially since decisions on specific standards and such are rarely done by elected politicians. It is usually decided by a political appointee who is not accountable to the voters. (A very purposeful tactic by congress so that they can say "I didn't vote for that", no you just voted for a law that says "at the secretaries discretion&quotEye-wink

And if you really don't like your state, it isn't that difficult to leave and go to one where you like the schools if schools are important to you. (they are not important to me since I don't have kids and I operate under the assumption that no one is capable of doing basic math until I teach them no matter how many college degrees they have)

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Nice move of the goalposts, btw.

The problem with leaving it up to state and local boards is that we will have some nimrods in this country who will teach creationism and eschew science but be able to bring their kids into the work force as equals to those states that have sensible boards. Disparate standards are as bad as if not worse than no standards.

 

Which goalposts? The ones being held by your strawman?

So having a fundy President (like say GW) who wants every school to treat creationism as on par with real science it is best to give him the power to require it? Because at least we have a single standard right? The problem with giving power to the federal government is that sooner or later someone you don't like will have that power. The Patriot Act is a good example, before Obama, democrats were screaming bloody murder about it (including Obama), after Obama, they all support it and the only protests you hear come from a handful on the right. Guess what? Obama isn't going to be president forever, sooner or later a republican will win again and have those powers. No doubt the democrats will suddenly care about our civil rights again, even though they apparently don't give a shit when they have power to do something about it. 

If I decide I want to throw out a bad school board member it is really easy. A few thousand dollars to buy some yard signs and newspaper advertisements can usually do the trick. Heck, sometimes even that isn't required. Getting control of the federal government is a lot more difficult, especially since decisions on specific standards and such are rarely done by elected politicians. It is usually decided by a political appointee who is not accountable to the voters. (A very purposeful tactic by congress so that they can say "I didn't vote for that", no you just voted for a law that says "at the secretaries discretion&quotEye-wink

And if you really don't like your state, it isn't that difficult to leave and go to one where you like the schools if schools are important to you. (they are not important to me since I don't have kids and I operate under the assumption that no one is capable of doing basic math until I teach them no matter how many college degrees they have)

Nope, the ones where you asked me where favorable deals were and then changed it to the national economy - don't you read the stuff you post?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Nope, the

jcgadfly wrote:

Nope, the ones where you asked me where favorable deals were and then changed it to the national economy - don't you read the stuff you post?

The national economy has an effect on what kind of deals exist. You can have a state with the most perfectly favorable laws possible but you still have to deal with federal policy, you still have to pay federal taxes, you still have to pay for Bamacare, you still have to use the US $, and still have to deal with the reality of the massive federal debt we have. You are talking about state laws as if they are significant, they are not. I have been talking about federal laws and federal policy in every single post. It is federal laws and federal policy that is squeezing investment opportunities regardless of what state you are in. You are the one who randomly decided to bring up state issues when they have as much effect on the economy as a fart in a hurricane.  

My point is that just because state laws are favorable to business, that does not directly translate into a positive investment environment. If I ask "why should I invest in Indiiana?" and you say "because we have low/no taxes"... so what? The tax rate doesn't matter a hill of beans if I don't expect to make a profit on the investment. Taxes are not a factor until I am making money. Given two states where I can make a similar investment and expect similar returns the tax rate might encourage me to choose one over the other. But if I expect the investment to result in a loss it doesn't matter whether the tax rate is 90% or 0%.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Here is the

Brian37 wrote:

Here is the point YOU miss. YOU DONT KICK PEOPLE WHILE THEY ARE DOWN.

The problem is when you help people who are down, there is no requirement that they should ever reciprocate. They only ask for more.

The leftists set up aid to the poor as an entitlement meaning the aid is a birthright. You get it just for being born.  No requirements for job training, work, limiting family size. You can trade many of the benefits for drugs, booze, cigarettes, etc... Then pass on your values to the next generation.

If we had a rational social contract, when the poor were helped, they would one day reciprocate and for example pay my pension and health care. But there is no such requirement. It's only survival money so they will keep voting for Dems like Obama, the slacker in chief.

Why don't have this 'look out for one another' social contract, so stop pretending we do. We have survival money traded for votes.

So given this set up, why should I want to help the poor with any more waisted dollars?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10626
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"The problem is when you

"The problem is when you help people who are down, there is no requirement that they should ever reciprocate. They only ask for more."

Only in your own little world, where somehow a social safety net is useable to all regardless of need or willingness to commit fraud, and all people who've ever been on welfare never get off it.

In the REAL world, if you don't take the opportunity given by the net, you fall through, and the net is never suspended beneath you again. Most people recognise that, and most use it responsibly as a result.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
You live in a fucking

You live in a fucking bubble. There are very few a fraction of the 47 percent that Romney shit on, that are truely lazy and dont want to work. Our middle class was built on investment after WW2. The soup lines of the depression were caused by the no rules atmosphere that caused our current great ressession.

I work in that "lazy" income class and can tell you flat out the people I know and most in my class ARE NOT LAZY. Get that fucking shit fallacy out of your tiney narrow minded brain.

You are taking an extreem sold to you and projecting it on others. Most people, the vast majority are NOT lazy. They simply get paid less.

Romney is the lazy fuck. He made his money the old fassioned way, did nothing and collected the money off the labor of others. He'd cry for his mommy if he had to do one day of what I do and live of the pay I do.

Sitting at a desk dreaming up ways to protect the money of the rich isn't building anything. Sitting at a desk dreaming up ways to bilk the worker is not building anything. He is a vulture and a fucking leach on society.

You could come to my job right now and ask my co workers if I am lazy, and NOT ONE OF THEM WOULD DARE TO SAY THAT. My owner however, is hardly ever there. He is just the owner and I don't give one fuck if he is lazy. I do care that people like you and people like him stand on the shoulders of others and say stupid fucking crap like "you are lazy".

FUCK YOU. That shit isn't going to wash anymore.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13622
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:"The problem is

Vastet wrote:
"The problem is when you help people who are down, there is no requirement that they should ever reciprocate. They only ask for more." Only in your own little world, where somehow a social safety net is useable to all regardless of need or willingness to commit fraud, and all people who've ever been on welfare never get off it. In the REAL world, if you don't take the opportunity given by the net, you fall through, and the net is never suspended beneath you again. Most people recognise that, and most use it responsibly as a result.

Thank you. Now that net is getting used more and more, but not because, falsely that Ex thinks. But because of the cost of living gap. If he would take his head out of his ass and actually talk to the people getting that help, he'd know that all of them, the vast majority, would simply prefur a decent paying job where they could pay thier bills and survive without that help.

There is dependancy, but it is caused by the cooporate "fuck you I got mine", not by the middle class and not by the working poor.

People like Ex cannot get it through their pee brains that there has to be a bottom and the bottom cannot be bottomless. He makes this out to be a "personal responsibility" issue falsely, when it is the lack of responsibility at the top causing the pay gap. He is too stupid to see that if the pay keeps falling for the most, other than the uber rich, long term it is untennable and will hurt the very economy the uber rich get rich off of. They are shooting themselves in the foot and too fucking stuipid to see it.

It is no different than over tilling a crop year after year. If you don't care for the soil, the land becomes barron. Maybe Ex masturbates over the thought of sweat shops and slave wages happening here, but I don't. He is too stupid to see that it is a race to the bottom.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10626
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The irony is that the

The irony is that the average citizen works hundreds of times harder than most rich people ever will.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You live in a

Brian37 wrote:

You live in a fucking bubble. There are very few a fraction of the 47 percent that Romney shit on, that are truely lazy and dont want to work. Our middle class was built on investment after WW2. The soup lines of the depression were caused by the no rules atmosphere that caused our current great ressession.

I work in that "lazy" income class and can tell you flat out the people I know and most in my class ARE NOT LAZY. Get that fucking shit fallacy out of your tiney narrow minded brain.

You are taking an extreem sold to you and projecting it on others. Most people, the vast majority are NOT lazy. They simply get paid less.

Romney is the lazy fuck. He made his money the old fassioned way, did nothing and collected the money off the labor of others. He'd cry for his mommy if he had to do one day of what I do and live of the pay I do.

Sitting at a desk dreaming up ways to protect the money of the rich isn't building anything. Sitting at a desk dreaming up ways to bilk the worker is not building anything. He is a vulture and a fucking leach on society.

You could come to my job right now and ask my co workers if I am lazy, and NOT ONE OF THEM WOULD DARE TO SAY THAT. My owner however, is hardly ever there. He is just the owner and I don't give one fuck if he is lazy. I do care that people like you and people like him stand on the shoulders of others and say stupid fucking crap like "you are lazy".

FUCK YOU. That shit isn't going to wash anymore.

 

Where did I ever say you were lazy? Your problem is that you work too hard. I see no virtue in hard work when sitting with your feet up on the desk and coming up with a way to get the job done with less effort can produce more goods. Laziness is the virtue that brings us our modern wealth. If you want to work hard, go live with the Amish and till the land behind a draft horse and ride your cart into town. Fuck that, I will take the lazy method of having tractors and machines do the work. Working hard never made anyone rich, working smart and efficiently does. The human mind sitting behind a desk can benefit society far more than any amount of labor hands can do in a lifetime. And Romney has helped out far more people in the world with his mind alone than you ever will if you wash a hundred million dishes. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: In the REAL

Vastet wrote:
In the REAL world, if you don't take the opportunity given by the net, you fall through, and the net is never suspended beneath you again. Most people recognise that, and most use it responsibly as a result.

Not what happens. People are taking way more from entitlements and government programs than they ever give back. Hence the debt and deficits. 

What you say here is fantasy, the reality is people will always take advantage if you give them the chance.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote: In

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
In the REAL world, if you don't take the opportunity given by the net, you fall through, and the net is never suspended beneath you again. Most people recognise that, and most use it responsibly as a result.

Not what happens. People are taking way more from entitlements and government programs than they ever give back. Hence the debt and deficits. 

What you say here is fantasy, the reality is people will always take advantage if you give them the chance.

 

why do you say "people" when what you mean to say is "poor people"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10626
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote: In

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
In the REAL world, if you don't take the opportunity given by the net, you fall through, and the net is never suspended beneath you again. Most people recognise that, and most use it responsibly as a result.

Not what happens. People are taking way more from entitlements and government programs than they ever give back. Hence the debt and deficits. 

What you say here is fantasy, the reality is people will always take advantage if you give them the chance.

 

Failure to support your lies leaves them as lies.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:why do you

jcgadfly wrote:

why do you say "people" when what you mean to say is "poor people"?

No everyone is going to put their own self interest ahead of others. If a creature didn't put it own interest and those of it's genes first, it would have long ago become extinct. There can only exist social contracts with reciprocation. There wouldn't be people willing to run into a burning building unless others were willing to sacrifice as well.

Vastet and Brian37 don't engage in personal relationships unless there is reciprocation. No one does for very long. But in their political views, this is what they advocate. Giving with no requirement that those receiving will ever return anything in return. This is entitlements. Makes no rational sense unless they are really wanting something for nothing.

I'm for helping those in need if there is some mechanism to require reciprocation. Otherwise our political system is like being married to a woman that fucks other guys, doesn't fuck you, but still asks you to pay all the bills. Or like having a friend that demands favors but never grants you one. Or an emplyer that doesn't pay you.

Makes no sense at all, so all they can do now is strawman. Yes I know I'm a cold hearted bastard that want to see people suffer, blah, blah, blah, etc... But of course never answer where is the reciprocation in birthright entitlements?

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:why

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

why do you say "people" when what you mean to say is "poor people"?

No everyone is going to put their own self interest ahead of others. If a creature didn't put it own interest and those of it's genes first, it would have long ago become extinct. There can only exist social contracts with reciprocation. There wouldn't be people willing to run into a burning building unless others were willing to sacrifice as well.

Vastet and Brian37 don't engage in personal relationships unless there is reciprocation. No one does for very long. But in their political views, this is what they advocate. Giving with no requirement that those receiving will ever return anything in return. This is entitlements. Makes no rational sense unless they are really wanting something for nothing.

I'm for helping those in need if there is some mechanism to require reciprocation. Otherwise our political system is like being married to a woman that fucks other guys, doesn't fuck you, but still asks you to pay all the bills. Or like having a friend that demands favors but never grants you one. Or an emplyer that doesn't pay you.

Makes no sense at all, so all they can do now is strawman. Yes I know I'm a cold hearted bastard that want to see people suffer, blah, blah, blah, etc... But of course never answer where is the reciprocation in birthright entitlements?

 

 

You're "for helping those in need if there is some mechanism to require reciprocation" - cool. The current system is helping those who aren't in need without a mechanism to require reciprocation - are you for that as well?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You're "for

jcgadfly wrote:

You're "for helping those in need if there is some mechanism to require reciprocation" - cool. The current system is helping those who aren't in need without a mechanism to require reciprocation - are you for that as well?

Yes of course.

Here is an example. We have Obama phones. So what does one need to do to get a phone? Just be born and reside in USA. If you're poor that's OK, cell phones have become another birthright.

I'm in favor of giving a poor person a cellphone if they were actually in a job training program that actually trained people for jobs and they only used these phones for school and job search. But with the entitlement mentality we get none of that. They can just waist time and money on BS phone calls.

Actually this is also corporate welfare. The telecom industry is set up so that the profits flow to billionaires and millionaires. The government buys older phones that these businesses couldn't sell at a profit anywhere else. So the money flows from the treasury to rich that don't have to compete in the free market like the middle class does.

So this is a perfect example of how the entitlement mentality is what is creating the huge wealth gap. The working middle class is funding welfare for both the rich and poor.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You're "for helping those in need if there is some mechanism to require reciprocation" - cool. The current system is helping those who aren't in need without a mechanism to require reciprocation - are you for that as well?

Yes of course.

Here is an example. We have Obama phones. So what does one need to do to get a phone? Just be born and reside in USA. If you're poor that's OK, cell phones have become another birthright.

I'm in favor of giving a poor person a cellphone if they were actually in a job training program that actually trained people for jobs and they only used these phones for school and job search. But with the entitlement mentality we get none of that. They can just waist time and money on BS phone calls.

Actually this is also corporate welfare. The telecom industry is set up so that the profits flow to billionaires and millionaires. The government buys older phones that these businesses couldn't sell at a profit anywhere else. So the money flows from the treasury to rich that don't have to compete in the free market like the middle class does.

So this is a perfect example of how the entitlement mentality is what is creating the huge wealth gap. The working middle class is funding welfare for both the rich and poor.

Actually unless you buy a plan or a phone card the only call you can make on a cell phone is 911

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Actually

jcgadfly wrote:

Actually unless you buy a plan or a phone card the only call you can make on a cell phone is 911

Actually, it varies from state to state but many come with minutes. 

https://www.reachoutmobile.com/about-lifeline.php

In Cali, you can get it for 1 cent per minute and no problem if you're illegal alien. Subsidized high speed internet too. Entitlements just for being born on this planet.

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/states/california-government-cell-phone-providers

Now you can chat and blog all day about the free stuff from the government instead of working.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Actually unless you buy a plan or a phone card the only call you can make on a cell phone is 911

Actually, it varies from state to state but many come with minutes. 

https://www.reachoutmobile.com/about-lifeline.php

In Cali, you can get it for 1 cent per minute and no problem if you're illegal alien. Subsidized high speed internet too. Entitlements just for being born on this planet.

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/states/california-government-cell-phone-providers

Now you can chat and blog all day about the free stuff from the government instead of working.

 

Shutting down the illegal immigration issue is actually easy. Make it hard on the people here who hire them so they don't have to pay taxes. Talk about entitlements.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Actually, it

EXC wrote:

Actually, it varies from state to state but many come with minutes. 

https://www.reachoutmobile.com/about-lifeline.php

In Cali, you can get it for 1 cent per minute and no problem if you're illegal alien. Subsidized high speed internet too. Entitlements just for being born on this planet.

http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/states/california-government-cell-phone-providers

Now you can chat and blog all day about the free stuff from the government instead of working.

 

In the State of Tennesee, anyone on Food Stamps can get a free phone. The reason I know this is because the guy across the street from me has one. The free phone comes with about 200 minutes per month, you can get more minutes if you pay extra.

I will say that he is working as hard as he can to get employment and having a tough time with it.

I feel for anyone that is unemployed in the current economy. Even the temp agencies and labor agencies that can give you menial day labor are not hiring anyone here.

I am lucky that I have a job right now. I would hate to be on a job search right now.

I personally have been lucky to not have to draw any food stamps or assistance.

However, I am sure that there are people out there that have these phones and are not actively trying to look for work or do anything else.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno