Lets say all 300 million people in America wanted free college. How much would that cost? It depends a lot on the college, so lets say a 50000$ scholarship for everyone. 50000x300000000 = 150,000,000,000,000 Or one hundred and fifty trillion dollars. That's ten times our national deficit. How much should the government give to people? What if the top 1% shared their 50% of the wealth? That's an average increase of 0.5% per 1% of people. Its pretty insignificant of you Actually look at the numbers How much should we help the lowest class? Should we enforce population control for it? I'm having trouble understanding this whole wellfare thing from a financial standpoint -yuri
The idea of being concerned about debt is a good one, but personally I have to wonder why we always look for "welfare queens" or whatever among the poor in particular. Why does the fact that many multi-billion dollar corps pay no taxes at all not disturb us more? The fact that some of those same corps not only pay no taxes but they also get tax credits, grants, and other income from us, we're actually paying them. We bailed out the savings and loan crisis in the 80s, we bailed out the 'too big to fail' banks under Bush and Obama (yeah, they both paid into that), we've been dealing with multi-billion dollar welfare queens for ages now but most of what we seem to want to do is to point at the least powerful, least influential group in the nation as if they are the cause of our problems. Glass-Steagall kept investment banking and deposit banking, wallstreet and main street, separate. Glass-Steagall was repealed late in the Clinton administration and some 9 years or so later we had the crash. Personally I don't see that as coincidence. That alone wasn't responsible, but that was a part of a long running trend which was responsible and I think we can find the same pattern elsewhere.
1.) It would be silly for uncle sam to pay for everyone's college for multiple reasons. 2.) 50% of the top 1%'s, which is claimed to be 99% of the total wealth, would be 49.5%. If the 99%'ers each own 1/99% of the total wealth, and then increase it by 49.5/99%, each 99%er owns 50.5/99% or ~.51% of the total wealth, versus ~.101% before. So about a 500% increase in wealth held per 1% (for the 99% of the population) Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I currently pay in taxes before its all deposited into my account to include Social Security, State Tax 40%. I think that is reasonable to say its enough and reasonable to say its not doing jack. More poor people then ever in the US. Throwing money around solves nothing. Welfare is easy to understand. You make under a certain amount and you get it. When you go a dollar over it is cut off. The whole thing is designed to forever keep you poverty stricken. Its similar to Obamacare. Once you get over 20k in income your subsidy greatly diminishes. You can actually get a raise at work but the whole thing is offset by the increase in your monthly premium which nullifies your raise. Its designed to keep your income static......which is something liberals love to do.
Pretty.much. The main point was even if we tear down the top 1% and.took everything they had, the poor would only be slightly better off if it was even noticable -yuri
but the top 1% don't own 99% of Tue wealth Even in the most extreme.societies the top 1% only has 50% And the bottom 99% aren't equal either If you really distributed all wealth equally, what you would find is that.EVERYONE would become poor. -yuri
This is how I see government spending our money 1. 60% goes into the war machine 2. 20% goes into the politicians pockets 3. 20% goes to corporate kickbacks. I am so full of shit.
You are correct...what all the liberals and wealth distributors fail to ever see is a huge swatch of the population has been poor always been poor and will continue to be poor. If all your needs are met and in the US there are enough programs for someone that brings in zero income to live for years just fine and be fat dumb and happy then one tends not to strike for anything. We all want to believe that everyone strikes for a higher goal but that is simply not reality. A few months ago the issue of Reparations was brought up again by some prominent blogger. He said that one quarter of Quantitative Easing would give every black in America like 70-90k in cash. Sure 90k would be a godsend for anyone but really what would that achieve? You can easily burn through that in a month, even most houses are outside even that dollar amount. Dumb idea then dumb idea now. Hard work, patience/endurance, being honest, seeing the longview, developing a skill set will net you so much more then a handout from the false gods of DC.
What percentage of tax revenue actually goes to poor people? Not to the elderly, but to poor welfare recipients. Because everyone wants to blame single moms on food stamps for high taxes. It's incredible misleading. Most taxes go toward the military, medicare, and social security. Not toward food stamps or social programs. But what's the first thing that gets cut? Food stamps and social programs.
Here is some food for thought. The sum total wealth of a society is based on production. America has created a welfare culture that exports production, and taxes the rich to feed the poor This is a net decay. Our consumption far exceeds our production, eventually there will he nothing left. Feeding the poor sounds great on paper, but the problem is limited resources. Unless you are prepared to enforce population control, you need to allow people to compete and fail. -yuri
For the government to 'give', the government must take. Since theft is immoral, the government must not give or take anything. The state is soon to be obsolete. It already is in an ethical sense. I get what you're saying, but this statement doesn't really make sense mathematically. If you distributed wealth *equally*, there would be no 'poor', because poverty is relative. There would no 'poor' and no 'wealthy', everyone would be of the same economic class essentially. Unless I completely misinterpreted your post, I don't think your statement could possibly be correct.
Plenty of countries allow people to compete and fail and it doesn't help anything. It's not about feeding the poor. It's about helping the poor in the richest countries on the planet. Again, most tax money doesn't go to "feed the poor". The poor are just the scapegoats for high taxes and they become the sacrificial lambs whenever the country gets serious about tax cuts.
Didn't read much but the OP. Why the fuck does it cost so much to educate oneself anyway? Wtf are you paying for...electricity? Latest technology? The professor and his team of exam markers? The already built facility? The knowledge which is free.. but being told to you and then being tested If you retained it? Lots of open space in these colleges and universities man.
I think you are missing the meaning here. The top 1% control 50% of the total "resources" supposedly Even if they shared all of those resources, most people wont be much better off. The entire concept of welfare is flawed because it fails to account for production. -yuri
The problem isn't that education is really that expensive. It's all fabricated. The system is inefficient not only economically, but in it's education as well. I always say small communities are better, and with the technology and knowledge we have now, small communities can be self sustained and all things can be produced locally. Jobs would exist as needed. People will do what's best and all will be learned. In the current system we are slaves. There is no equality and people do not fit naturally. It is going against the grain of natural flow.
Backing money with some real standard which would reduce inflated prices would help. Imagine if we never switched to Federal debt money. Would the vision be so out of sight if cars costed $1000 dollars again? How much did tuition cost back then?
Colt, the element of secrecy and the black budgets size tangles the argument. It even does that to your injection of anarchy verses obsolete government. It does so because no accurate appraisal of governments relative efficiency is possible in an environment of secrecy.
This is true. But despite that you cannot deny that government spending is always inefficient, and that all government spending is theft. Even if we cannot appraise the governments hand in the economy , we still know that theft is wrong, and that money should be spent efficiently through.supply and demand. -yuri