On government charity, in general.

[coyotes_geek]

that actually goes to what i am stating though; that there are going to be social issues confronting posterity unless there are programs in place to stem the tide. i certainly do not trust corporations enough when it comes to altruistic endeavors on such a wide scale.

I certainly agree that government has a role to play in this. I'm in no way advocating a total elimination of any and all welfare and just leaving it all up to charity. (even though I am a big believer in private charity) But we do need to accept that what we spend on the needs must be in line with what our means allow.

that is something posters such as yoni tend to ignore.

True.

[Wild Cobra]

even those who willingly accept unemployment benefits? would they be at fault?

Will you please use a few more brain cells and separate en lement type programs from insurance type.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ok for those who want the govt to stop doling out charity what about:

CHIPS
Free or reduced School lunches
Food Stamps


should these people pay federal taxes?

theoretically if people cannot afford to buy lunches for their kids, does anyone think they will be abke to pay fed taxes?


What about medicaid?

[coyotes_geek]

Yep, the USA is number 1 if you go by private donations. Liberal pundits like to show the government donations, where the USA is sorely lacking. They purposely leave out the charity that is the discretion of the people rather than the politicians.

Also interesting that most are English speaking nations.

I knew the USA was #1, but the USA being double the #2 surprised me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Will you please use a few more brain cells and separate en lement type programs from insurance type.

so you are ok with the govt providing unemployment insurance?

[Wild Cobra]

Ok for those who want the govt to stop doling out charity what about:

CHIPS
Free or reduced School lunches
Food Stamps


should these people pay federal taxes?

theoretically if people cannot afford to buy lunches for their kids, does anyone think they will be abke to pay fed taxes?


What about medicaid?

Maybe if it wasn't so easy for them to live off the fruits of other people's labor, they wouldn't have those kids to begin with.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Maybe if it wasn't so easy for them to live off the fruits of other people's labor, they wouldn't have those kids to begin with.

what do you think will happen if abortion is made illegal? I have always made the claim that conservatives are pro life until after birth..the child is on their own at that point... I guess this clarifies that..

[Wild Cobra]

what do you think will happen if abortion is made illegal?

I never said that. I meant we need to mitigate reasons why kids have abortions.

Feeling safer about sex means more sex, and more abortions.

I have always made the claim that conservatives are pro life until after birth..the child is on their own at that point... I guess this clarifies that..

You are insane, aren't you?

[RandomGuy]

so you are ok with the govt providing unemployment insurance?

... or starvation insurance?

... or homelessness insurance?

[Wild Cobra]

... or starvation insurance?

... or homelessness insurance?

We used to have things like "poor farms" where people had to work to earn their food and lodging.

[baseline bum]

"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity."

"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."

"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."

"When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation."

"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it..."

It's like the conservative equivalent of "You can't hug someone with nuclear arms".

[TeyshaBlue]

Ok for those who want the govt to stop doling out charity what about:

CHIPS
Free or reduced School lunches
Food Stamps


should these people pay federal taxes?

theoretically if people cannot afford to buy lunches for their kids, does anyone think they will be abke to pay fed taxes?

The one's that are working are paying Fed taxes. But it's a fair argument to consider whether reaping a tax refund greater than what was paid in is a healthy practice, regardless of income level.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The one's that are working are paying Fed taxes. But it's a fair argument to consider whether reaping a tax refund greater than what was paid in is a healthy practice, regardless of income level.

There are people who game the system for as much as they can get and there is not doubt about that.

[TeyshaBlue]

There are people who game the system for as much as they can get and there is not doubt about that.

Unquestionably. A whole cottage industry exists for this very practice. However, the system is set up to game itself, in a sense.

I have a relative that can't be bothered to work. She's waay to busy playing XBox to consider a job, but she works occasionally. She has children. Just by dint of filling out her 1040A and claiming the EIC, and other credits recommended by the form itself, she received 3k in refunds when she paid in less than $1,500. She didn't game the system...that would be too much work for her. But the system sure as gamed itself for her.
Would it not make sense to cap refunds at the amount paid in?

[George Gervin's Afro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

Unquestionably. A whole cottage industry exists for this very practice. However, the system is set up to game itself, in a sense.

I have a relative that can't be bothered to work. She's waay to busy playing XBox to consider a job, but she works occasionally. She has children. Just by dint of filling out her 1040A and claiming the EIC, and other credits recommended by the form itself, she received 3k in refunds when she paid in less than $1,500. She didn't game the system...that would be too much work for her. But the system sure as gamed itself for her.
[B]Would it not make sense to cap refunds at the amount paid in?[/QUOTE]

I would support that.

[coyotes_geek]

Would it not make sense to cap refunds at the amount paid in?

I think so. Putting someone on welfare is one thing. Allowing people to "make" money off of income taxes though is something else, and it shouldn't be allowed.

[LnGrrrR]

I have a relative that can't be bothered to work. She's waay to busy playing XBox to consider a job, but she works occasionally. She has children. Just by dint of filling out her 1040A and claiming the EIC, and other credits recommended by the form itself, she received 3k in refunds when she paid in less than $1,500. She didn't game the system...that would be too much work for her. But the system sure as gamed itself for her.
Would it not make sense to cap refunds at the amount paid in?

The only problem I see with this is that the money is (theoretically) supposed to be used to provide for the children, so you might be hurting the children. Tha'ts the only downside I see to that plan. (Just playing Devil's Advocate.)

[RandomGuy]

Here then is a question:

In times of economic stress, donations to charity drop at the exact same time that need increases.

In the magic "no goverment en lement" land, how do you then cover the shortfall?

Or do you simply let people on the margins go homeless and starve?

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and des ute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
First Collector: Many can't go there.
Second Collector: And some would rather die.

[Wild Cobra]

Here then is a question:

In times of economic stress, donations to charity drop at the exact same time that need increases.

In the magic "no goverment en lement" land, how do you then cover the shortfall?

Or do you simply let people on the margins go homeless and starve?

I haven't followed everything on this thread, but has anyone advocated that?

Myself, and I bet other conservatives have no problem helping people in need at times of crisis. Even with tax dollars. The problem is that we have able bodied people who should work when the economy is good, and tax dollars spent an endless war on poverty, which only sustains it. Without the right motivation, there are plenty of people content with what they get from the government. This needs to stop. Subsidizing people should only be for the old and handicapped. Not for able bodied people except for short terms.