Jump to content

The unfairness of America


stevenash

Recommended Posts

On almost a daily basis for a number of years, I hear the left screaming about how unfair things are in this country.  Just curious what everybody else thinks.  Do we need to take care of the poor?  Of course we do.  But to what extent?  How do the improverished in this country compare to the poor in the rest of the world?

 

 Here are a few items that already exist in our quest to make things fair:

Section 8 housing

Food stamps

unemployment payouts

Obamacare

Medicare

Medicaid

Disability compensation

Stafford Loans

Pell Grants

Emergency Food Assistance

Temporary Assistance for needy families

Trade Adjustment Assistance Program

Low Income Legal Advice

Child Care Subsidies

Financial Assistance for heating, coolling, and energy bills

 

I would like your opinion on this:  To what extent should we go in order to feel we are doing enough for the needy?  How do we make sure that these benefits are provided ONLY for the truly needy?

 

Oops, I forgot one more small question that many NEVER consider.  How do we pay for an increase in these benefits and exactly who will be paying for an increase?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In life, there is always a cause and reaction to every move. But, we've always paid for the increase. 

I disagree.  We've always had the increases but they have not been paid for.  Thats why the country continues to go further into debt.  There is a limit to  how much debt the markets will allow you to have.   If you dont believe me, ask Spain, Italy, and Greece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dove, Big girl, Pamfam, and New tobie: If the Miami Heat wins the title again, that will be three straight years ( the rich getting richer) This is unfair to the Milwaukee Bucks and Cleveland Cavaliers ( poor getting poorer). I demand legislation be enacted to neutralize this inequality. We should institute a fairness tax on the Heat. This tax would require them to win each game by 15 points or more in order to count it as a win. I also think they should be required to have at least 5 caucasians on the playing roster in the interest of diversity and tolerance. Furthermore, the Heat should compensate the BUcks and Cavs for the ill gotten gains they have in attendance revenue. Since they have superior attendance and more attendance revenue, the oppressed deserve a portion of those ill gotten gains. All of this, of course, is a reasonable way to "level the playing field" After all, it's only right that we "spread the wealth"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dove, Big girl, Pamfam, and New tobie: If the Miami Heat wins the title again, that will be three straight years ( the rich getting richer) This is unfair to the Milwaukee Bucks and Cleveland Cavaliers ( poor getting poorer). I demand legislation be enacted to neutralize this inequality. We should institute a fairness tax on the Heat. This tax would require them to win each game by 15 points or more in order to count it as a win. I also think they should be required to have at least 5 caucasians on the playing roster in the interest of diversity and tolerance. Furthermore, the Heat should compensate the BUcks and Cavs for the ill gotten gains they have in attendance revenue. Since they have superior attendance and more attendance revenue, the oppressed deserve a portion of those ill gotten gains. All of this, of course, is a reasonable way to "level the playing field" After all, it's only right that we "spread the wealth"

This was plain retarded if the heat win 3 straight blah blah blah the bucks are not dying of hunger the nba do not have homeless players. That was just a sad example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think compassion is great but..the needy or lazy are riding in the wagon and the tax payers are pulling the wagon and it seems that as time rolls on more and more are getting into the wagon and less and less are pulling the wagon...get where I'm going with this? Heck what would happen if we all just jump in the wagon? I would guess then we could just sit still and have compassion for each other, and slowing starve to death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think compassion is great but..the needy or lazy are riding in the wagon and the tax payers are pulling the wagon and it seems that as time rolls on more and more are getting into the wagon and less and less are pulling the wagon...get where I'm going with this? Heck what would happen if we all just jump in the wagon? I would guess then we could just sit still and have compassion for each other, and slowing starve to death.

 Very well said sir, but the ten or 15 times I have said it, it has fallen on deaf ears. The incentive to produce is being removed and replaced with an encouragement to let the government solve all issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pamfam- have you ever compared the "poverty line" in this country with it of other countries? What is the solution to getting people out from under the poverty line? Is it simply to give them money? ( Lyndon Johnson started "The War on Poverty" many years ago and while it sounds so noble, it has changed very little. Please tell us how you would deal with this if you were the President.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think compassion is great but..the needy or lazy are riding in the wagon and the tax payers are pulling the wagon and it seems that as time rolls on more and more are getting into the wagon and less and less are pulling the wagon...get where I'm going with this? Heck what would happen if we all just jump in the wagon? I would guess then we could just sit still and have compassion for each other, and slowing starve to death.

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...