Earnings on trading binary options without attachments

It can all get pretty overwhelming sometimes. There are still corporations out there that actually have to provide goods and services to their consumers in order to survive. They need your help. When one thinks about government welfare, the first thing that comes to mind is the proverbial welfare queen sitting atop her majestic throne of government cheese issuing a royal decree to her clamoring throngs of illegitimate babies that they may shut the hell up while she tries to watch Judge Judy.

However, many politically well-connected corporations are also parasitically draining their share of fiscal blood from your paycheck before you ever see it. The intent here is to figure out which presents the greater burden to our federal budget, corporate or social welfare programs. There are, of course, positive and negative aspects to this spending.

The primary negative aspect is that you have to increase taxes to pay for it. Taxing individuals lowers their standard of living. The common usage definition of social welfare includes welfare checks and food stamps.

Welfare checks are supplied through a federal program called Temporary Aid for Needy Families. Another negative aspect relates to the fact that social welfare programs reduce the incentive for recipients to become productive members of society.

One key aspect of this reform required recipients to engage in job searches, on the job training, community service work, or other constructive behaviors as a condition for receiving aid. The bill was signed by a man named Bill Clinton, who is much better known for an act of fellatio which, of course, had far greater societal implications.

Regardless, the success of this reform was pretty dramatic. Caseloads were cut nearly in half. Once individuals were required to work or undertake constructive activities as a condition of receiving aid they left welfare rapidly. Another surprising result was a drop in the child poverty rate.

Financial aid, such as a subsidy, provided by a government to corporations or other businesses. This is about 5 percent of the federal budget. Whenever corporate welfare is presented to voters, it always sounds like a pretty reasonable, well-intended idea.

But when you steal money from the paychecks of working people, you hurt the economy by reducing their ability to buy the things they want or need. This decrease in demand damages other industries and puts people out of work.

Edwards, Corporate Welfare, Well, that sounds OK. In the corporate welfare system, the more money and assets you have, the more government assistance you get. Conversely, social welfare programs are set up so that the more money and assets you have, the less government assistance you get. Edwards, Downsizing the Federal Government, So instead of protecting family farms, these subsidies actually enhance the ability of large industrial operations to shut them out of the market.

The same is true in all other industries, too. The government gives tons of favors to the largest corporations, increasing the significant advantage they already have over smaller competing businesses.

If, in the court of public opinion, Wal-Mart has been tried and convicted for the murder of main streetmom-and-pop America, then the government could easily be found guilty as a willing accomplice.

Wal-Mart receives hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidization by local governments throughout the country. These subsidies take the form of bribes by local politicians trying to convince Wal-Mart to come to their town with the dream of significant job creation. Of course, from that follows a larger tax base. Or should we spend even more? A bunch of people died horrible deaths to make sure this country remained a democracy, so if you feel strongly about this issue you owe it to them to call or write your congressman and senators and give them a piece of your mind.

Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government Washington: Corporate Welfare by Agency. Corporate Welfare by Agency 2. Corporate Welfare by Company. I am extremely appreciative of any corrections or additional info that I left out.

I want to update this post with more recent numbers and more expansive definitions of both corporate and social welfare. It is high time that we as a country put a stop to all of the corporate welfare, and made our political leaders follow the same rules that the rest of the country follow. Sadly, repubs and dems are two sides of the same coin. We need to take away corporate personhood.

This, in turn, would revoke the first amendment right for corporations to sponsor politicians. Doing this would fix a multitude of our problems, actually…. It seems like the media has a lot more influence over who gets elected than do campaign commercials. The article is bogus. Sam I know what your mean. In todays economy its difficult to find a job that pays good enough to live on and is stable. I have discovered that if you just work hard and are consistent you can go places.

Look at the author of this pagethey are oviously a hard worker and have just been consistent over time and are now enjoying at least what would appear as somewhat of a success. I would encourage everyone to just keep hustling and moving forward. How about this solution: Support the economy and keep the standard of living we are used to. On the contrary, returning the money that would be spent on corporate welfare to taxpayers would increasing their disposable income.

In reality, the owners most corporations pay its employees as little as they can get away with regardless of their profit margin. Corporations will hire an employee if the can make more money from that employees labor than the employee charges for their services. The amount of free money the corporation receives from the government does not factor into this calculus. Hence, eliminating corporate welfare would not increase unemployment.

I did NOT at any point say that corporations gave that money to their employees. What I am saying is simple logic. Ask yourself this question: Economics teaches this principal…. As for unemployment companies bringing in less money usually leads to downsizing unless you live in backwards land where when you make less money you expand with nothing to back it; WAIT, this theory is EXACTLY the Obama philosophy: If people would get the damn idea out of their head that they are ENTITLED to anything and come to the realization that you need to work for what you have this country would be a much better place.

Yes, it sucks that its come to the point that we need to offset the cost of goods and services with government intervention. Do what you need to survive. Lately it has been: Get out there and get a new job start supporting yourself and stop making ME support YOU!

Why would a business lower what it charges because it got free money through lobbying efforts? If this is true, how could the corporate welfare Energy Policy Act of reduce the cost of gasoline? The only way that could happen is if the government mandated price controls in exchange for the welfare money which they did not do. So if government subsidies are used to bring down prices but the savings come from taxpayer subsidization, how could the taxpayer be saving money overall?

Ultimately the taxpayer would be paying even more per gallon because a fraction of the taxes he sends to Washington for the politicians to distribute to the oil company will be inevitably filtered out by the politician. How does giving the government tax money to give to Solyndra or ADM or Exxon will save me money? To be fair, the free money theoretically increases supply.

An increase in supply means that the supply and demand curves cross further out along the x axis, and thus generally lower on the y axis price. Exactly what I expected. Someone makes a point and you delete the whole post. Get a life you liberal scumbag.

I assume that since I site the statistics illustrating that we spend more on corporate welfare suggests that I think we should spend more on social welfare. I do not support government social welfare spending. If anyone finds it, please post it in a comment. Will Iran be attacked?

I always make an attempt to additionally my idea of points. Irrespective of whether I consent or disagree, I really like details. I recall the old times once the only supply of specifics was the library or even the newspaper. They the two appear to be so old fashion. How do people get it in their head that every recipient of welfare is a drug-loving lazy mother of 6?

If you think that, then maybe you should do your research. Walfare is not breaking the national budget, neither is social security. This welfare debate is just a convenient way of trying to stop what negative connotaitons come along with it, even if they are false. It not breaking the national budget, well, now we have 17 millions more people on welfare, let wait until I wonder how many more millions will be added. How many people on welfare do you need as a nation to call that a national problem?

Classic Apples vs Oranges argument. What is the return to the taxpayer on each program? Does social welfare contribute to the tax base or take from it only? Does social welfare employ the people it gives money to? Does social welfare enable the recipients to grow and thrive or just the contrary? Liberals are so shallow minded or are they just plain this stupid? Oops sorry, this comment answers the plain stupid question: Certainly there is some abuse within social welfare programs.

You try to cut off the bad part of the fruit and keep the rest. In fact, not all the fruit is bad—most welfare recipients are only temporarily on the dole, and are taxpayers in their regular lives.

Now, for corporate welfare programs, they are not so temporary, and the return to the taxpayer is at least as murky. You can argue, and to some degree you may be right, that prices at the pump, at the grocery store, at the Hummer dealer, etc, might be artificially lower. Is this just as true for corporate welfare? That was a very thoughtful and cogent analysis. Their justification for corporate welfare reminds me of the confederate arguments of long ago.

An inherent contradiction that made their argument unsustainable long term. When neoconservatives take such a position, it makes their argument unsustainable. At least be against all forms of welfare, then your argument would be consistent. Rugged individualism works to a degree, at least until something tragic happens, then you find you need all those various forms of social welfare, making such a view unfortunately not practical over the long haul.

Please wake up neoconservatives and realize that you are being used to push for an end to social welfare so corporate welfare can still get what they are use to getting as funds get more limited under a devaluing dollar. You are being used the same way poor whites were used by wealthy plantation owners long ago.

By the way, an extreme example of corporate welfare or more accurately corporate welfare under monopolistic capitalism would be the plantations of long ago.

Plantations used state laws or regulations of that time to secure unfair advantages like denying other human beings their right to the fruits of their labor and subsidies taking from the value of others labor without fair compensation.

So the plantation was really legalized plunder through institutionalized slavery or taxing completely from a slave what he would get from the value of his labor, if he were free. Same concepts, just different terms for different times. Certain policies are returning the middle class back to that kind of surfdom. Thomas Jefferson who was a slave owner thought corporate monopolies were dangerous, because such corporate monopolies he thought would use government to dominate everything including extracting most of the value from your labor without fair compensation.

So neoconservatives become a conservative, which in many ways is similar to a classical liberal. We need to understand the tactic being used against us, which is to divide and conquer! Thanks, check out infowars. You best be kidding me… This guy plans on making an argument by using examples from yrs ago? This is also a non-sustainable argument. I understand that history repeats itself but, please, lets not get carried away with the expression. When slavery was allowed the economy was extremely different than the economy today.

We cannot realistically compare a isolationist economy to a global economy. You do realize in this country we live in, we have something called minimum wage. That clearly states that any employer must pay an employee a certain wage for their services and employment provided. So please tell me how does that relate to Slavery? This is absolutely outrageous that you compare slavery to modern-day times workers. This conversation has literally regressed by your opinion. YOUR ARGUMENT IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.

Please refer to common economic theories and policies to understand how this economy is different than the economy of yrs ago.

Also, please talk to someone as I stated in the previous paragraph but be ready to get decked by them you douche. Excellent article and written so ANYONE can understand it. I have been looking for this comparison a long long time. A basic social safety net funded by tax dollars is part of living in a modern society.

Shit happens to folks; all the time. Often through no fault of their own. Sure there are welfare cheats out there, but as one who has worked in the social service system for years, I can tell you unequivocally that cheats are the exception rather than the rule. Increasing support for fraud investigation and prosecution would contribute to making the system less wasteful and hopefully discourage people from taking advantage of the system, but there will ALWAYS be a certain level of fraud.

Just like companies have to write off a certain amount of bad debt each year, government programs have to manage fraud, waste and abuse. Human misery is on full view there and just an afternoon or two of observation will dispel any pre-conceived notions about people living large on the dole.

I have known for a while that the social welfare spending is a sliver of the federal budget and the corporate welfare tab far exceeds any means-tested program. These issues are more complicated than T-Party folks like to admit. I wish people would stop separating the fact that TAXPAYERS pay for all of these programs, not the Government. And that includes the descendants whose lives will be impacted for yrs paying off this debt.

Man, are we existing in a bubble? These so called assets are eroding by the hour! But the robots will fix it? Maybe the rust will taste like hotsauce! Some years ago California made a study of how much WalMart cost California taxpayers who had to pay for food stamps and emergency medical care and sometimes housing. You asked for our opinions?

Google Groupes

However, it seems like the media has a lot more influence over who gets elected than do campaign commercials. Restricting campaign spending will only increase the relative power of the corporate media over election outcomes. And you seem to think that if we made corporations pay higher taxes they would actually stay in the country.

Think about the big picture here cupcake. I think people that work for corporations should pay as few taxes as possible. I also think they should receive income in exchange for goods and services and not in exchange for campaign contributions.

Like his predecessors, Obama has been a good friend to big companies, especially banks. Take Bank of America. Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi reports that when BoA needs help, Obama is there. Taibbi writes that BoA is. In fact, without the continued generosity of us taxpayers, and the extraordinary indulgence of our regulators and elected officials, this company long ago would have been swallowed up by scandal, mismanagement, prosecution and litigation, and gone out of business.

It would have been liquidated and its component parts sold off, perhaps into a series of smaller regional businesses that would have more respect for the law, and be more responsive to their customers. Who can we thank? This is just one of the many ways in which Obama reveals himself as a friend of big, well-connected business interests — that is, as an advocate of the corporate state.

Did anyone mention that some of these corporations have stockholders who earn dividends when the company makes money?

deadspin-quote-carrot-aligned-w-bgr-2

This is where many pension funds are invested, so when there are dividends, retirees and others who live on their investments will profit. We would all be better off if there were NO farm subsidies at all, for instance.

Solyndra is a good example of how poorly the government is able to choose what industries will do well. It was a pure case of cronyism, and somebody ought to end up in jail for it. If the government simply abolished all regulations that are not necessary to protect life and health, and stopped all subsidies, the market would take care of itself. Return Farming to the free market.

Allow the market to decide whether the twinkie or carrots cost less. Farm subsidies have done a number on health. Too much processed food. The free market, although not perfect, is what has allowed our country to hold the highest standard of living in history- up until recently. The more the government intervenes, the worse off we sit. Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs Seniors for a Democratic Society.

Log of Liberal Lies - Page 9 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum. That makes no sense at all, the media and campaign commercials are the same thing. Are you 2 years old? Solyndra is a drop in the bucket compared to Archer Daniels Midland, so by your logic a whole lot of people, including many from the W administration should go to jail. Reports From the Front Lines Portland Occupier.

Iowa- you really think corporations will leave the United States of America? They are not stupid. The big boys are focused on selling the emerging markets in China 1. Our million kind of pale in comparison and believe me the big boys are going to be going after the big markets. I did not recognize arealistic solution. A realistic solution has to be attainable, clearly defined, measurable, and not too broad. We need the full story not just the Cliffnotes.

I know its up to me to educate myself but I have to hold the media and politicians accountable for not being reliable. The social welfare issue is more difficult to solve.

Reports From the Front Lines Local Philadelphia News Aggregator. Government Spends More On Corporate Welfare Subsidies Than Social Welfare Programs For Economic Justice. Just babbling for now. Maybe it will get more structured.

I have a question. You say that increasing taxes puts people out of work. Can you give an example of this happening? Upon researching this, I was unable to find any data indicating a correlation between average tax rates and unemployment. However, I did find data illustrating a negative correlation between top marginal tax rates and the unemployment rate.

Thank you very much for noticing this! I plan to make a new post illustrating the negative correlation between top marginal tax rates and unemployment. First let me say up front I believe most corporate welfare is way out of control and the vast majority should be eliminated.

On the other hand I really wonder why you only include 2 of the more than social welfares. I am not very liberal but there are a number of good social welfare programs but all too often they are full of abuse and very poorly administered. Case in point, I know someone that has lived in government housing for over 56 years. Where is the limited benefits in this case? You also need to update your numbers to reflect more accurate amounts. Here are some to get you started. Which one to you is the bigger burden?

The information you provided was fairly accurate but it is certainly very dated and leads to some very poor comparisons. Thank you so much!

If you get a moment, could you share the links to your sources? As far as definitions of corporate welfare and social welfare, I just tried to pick the most commonly used definitions.

earnings on trading binary options without attachments

One could also include corporate tax loopholes and the profits from ultra low interest Federal Reserve loans in the corporate welfare definition. Arguing about laws, are you kidding me? You know the guys who funnel the rich folks money through our elected officials.

It used to be called Bribery and in some cultures its a capital offense. Because truly why vote when bribery is legal. It is imperative to keep voting to show that we will stay informed and take action to protect our communities. If the voting system is corrupted, then we will already be organized in large numbers to take other necessary actions to correct the corruption in as peaceful a way as possible.

Where justice is being violated, Thoreau claims that Americans have no duty to obey, but, in fact, have a duty to disobey. Thoreau believed that to obey an unjust or unconstitutional law is to tacitly endorse that injustice. Read it and decide for yourself how you should respond to the many ways in which our federal government has exceeded its constitutional limits.

So for the most part, corporate welfare goes to middle and upper class people. Since virtually all taxes in this country are paid by middle and upper class people, corporate welfare is really just a reshuffling of money from those constituents with worse lobbyists to those with better lobbyists.

Income inequality is at its highest since the Great Dression. And for the record, the middle class have no lobbyists. I agree with that portion of corporate welfare that directly benefits the employee. If the company writes off training as a business expense, thats fair, this escalates my bottom line. If they receive guvmt funds for legitimate upgrades, and I work ot…. Im also placing greater wealth into the economy.

This is a article that reveals the levels of governmental welfare support for the private sector and for American citizens who cannot support themselves solely through the private sector.

No solutions are offered but there is plenty indignation about the suffering that is being experienced by increasing numbers of Americans.

The argument defends the solution calling for more welfare, open or concealed, in the form of essentially make-work jobs, but with higher pay, while declaring that the wealthy should pay more in taxes to support continued governmental-dependent socialisation. Such thinking is on a collision course with the ever-more productive non-human factor of production——productive capital as embodied in the exponential development of human-level artificial intelligence, advanced automation and robotics.

If we are ever to end corporate subsidies, which thus far have enriched a minority of people by allowing them to concentrate ownership of the non-human productive sector rather than broadening ownership, and spending on social welfare programs we must begin to recognized that there are two-factor of production——human and non-human——and that the latter is the more productive. Superautomation and robotics is transforming the world of manufacturing as robots become lighter, more mobile, and more flexible with better sensing, perception, decision-making, and planning and control capabilities due to advanced digital computerization.

Superautomation and robotics will dramatically improve productivity and provide skills and abilities previously unique to human workers. This will effectively increase the size of the labor work force beyond that provided by human workers, no matter what the level of education attained.

The transition to the non-human factor of production has been occurring for decades but is now experiencing exponential development——the result of tectonic shifts in the technologies of production. As costs for computer-controlled machines become less than the cost of human workers, and the skills and productivity of the machines exceed those of human workers, then robot worker numbers will rapidly increase and enable our society to build architectural wonders, revitalize and redevelop our cities and build new cities of wonder and amazement, and the support energy, transport, and communications systems.

With advanced human-level artificial intelligence, computer-controlled machines will be able to learn new knowledge and skills by simply downloading software. This means that the years of training that apply to personal human development will no longer apply to the further sophistication and operation of the machines. The result will be that productivity will soar while the need and demand for human labor will further decline. Unfortunately, in the long term unless the vast majority of people have a substantial and viable source of income other than wages and salaries, the impact of technological innovation and invention as embodied in human-level artificial intelligence, machines, superautomation, robotics, digital computerized operations, etc will be devastating.

There are ONLY two options: Unfortunately, the disruptive nature of exponential growth in technology and its impact on productivity——tectonically shifting production of products and services from human workers to non-human means——is ignored by the economic establishment and our political leaders.

While the rate of technological progress is directly proportional to the number and quality of the people engaged in the fields of science and engineering, economic policy is the mechanism that fuels investment and development of technological innovation and invention.

This is where education is critical to our future societal development. Technological progress though is no longer dependent on the number and quality of human workers. This fact will become obvious eventually to anyone who can think and analyze.

That fact is the reality that human labor will cease to be the primary source of wealth production in the future. As a result we can expect over the long term that unemployment and underemployment will remain high indefinitely. But the difference will be that people will drop out of the labor force voluntarily because they will be able to live off their dividend earnings via their ownership portfolios.

This will create swelling demand for human workers who want to continue working. And with both dividend and wage and salary incomes for everyone there will be more customers to purchase the products and services produced, which in turn will create further dividends and earnings, which will create more customers, etc. As for education, everyone will have the opportunity to personally developed their own exceptional innate abilities and unlock their creativity.

This prosperous society is achievable because fortunately, in the near term, we can begin to grow our way out of the swelling unemployment and underemployment by increasing our investment significantly as a ratio of Gross Domestic Product GDPwhile simultaneously broadening private, individual ownership of future income-producing productive capital investments, thus initiating the process of empowering every man, woman and child to build over time a viable capital estate and reap the income generated.

The key operative is BROADEN OWNERSHIP. The result would not only be that the GDP would dramatically grow but tax revenues from the high rate of economic growth would enable us to balance the federal budget, fully fund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, provide Universal Health Care, Universal University Education, lower tax rates, and maintain a strong military, all simultaneously.

Broadened productive capital ownership would strengthen our democracy and individuals and families would be less or non-dependent on government welfare, whether disguised or not. The question that requires an answer is now timely before us. It was first posed by binary economist Louis Kelso in the s but has never been thoroughly discussed on the national stage. Nor has there been the proper education of our citizenry that addresses what economic justice is and what ownership is.

Therefore, by ignoring such issues of economic justice and ownership, our leaders are ignoring the concentration of power through ownership of productive capital, with the result of denying the 99 percenters equal opportunity to become capital owners.

The question, as posed by Kelso is: The path to prosperity, opportunity, and economic justice can be found in the writings about the Capital Homestead Act at http: This whole post is largely gibberish and non-sequiturs. Extracting whatever valuable info that is contained therein requires shearing away so much nonsense. Any time I read someone make the above claim, I know one thing and one thing only- the author is clueless about Monetary Sovereignty. Since when does taking dollars out of the private sector expand GDP?

All six attempts in U. All six, since ! Therefore, Social Security and Medicare are easily and fully sustainable WITHOUT TAXATION via a government that is Monetarily Sovereign. Then who holds the asset side? That is the ONLY way that the government can eliminate its debt. Would that be a good thing? There is none, but there should be, because for every liability there is an asset.

The fact that there is never a discussion of the asset side of the balance sheet is proof that the fear mongers who talk about the debt are either ignorant or intentionally trying to manipulate you into believing something that is not true. Therefore, the author should be given some credence.

NO, No I cannot because ALL OF US benefit from these tax breaks. The farther I go down these comments the more pissed and yet disappointed I get at this society. I hope people scroll down these and see how frustrated I am by people not getting simple economic theories and those not realizing how companies run and how CEOs get paid…….

Seriously Melia, Goooood Jaaaaab. I hope somebody goes down this list of comments and has Devils Advocate admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Its better for families to buy smaller items in the market, than for 1 person to buy 1 expensive item.

earnings on trading binary options without attachments

Its economics, and plain common sense. Talk about voodoo economics. You know what the difference between Dema and Repubs is? Look at the stock market today vs. While the market sails at near record highs, the rest lag way behind. The employer and not the government should not be paying to give employees enough to eat. If they are paying employees legal wages and those employees have no where else to work then making the leap to classiy the welfare the governement pays the EMPLOYEES as CORPORATE welfare is non compus mentis logic.

I put myself through college by working THREE jobs. He was a populist, saying what needed to be said to get elected, and not what the country needed to hear. Non-skilled employees equal bad service and poor products. Do you come outside your box much? The job market back when you where in school was probably much better than today with over 12 million unemployed and the economy in the toilet! And your moronic view is typical of you ilk. You are a very disrespectful person. In an earlier post you had the nerve to call someone else out for being insulting — look in the mirror buddy.

As a single mom raising 3 children I worked two jobs for 10 years and never asked anyone for money network paystub portal dollar general either, so stop tooting your own horn, there are millions of principled people of both parties in America. The free market system today is on the dole. He is not even a liberal.

Irene, Let me point something out. I am not disrespectful to you personally. I attack the ideology, not the person. Yes, Obama is a Marxist; whereas he and his supporters may deny the description, his actions define him thusly, and they do so without reservation. Yes, a Marxist, without any shred of doubt.

The Free Market system is on the dole? It is a system, not an entity. It does not belong to anyone else! Let me explain it this way: In a free-market system wealth is created. It is distributed via exchange — monies paid for goods and services by people who WANT those goods and services. Those goods and services are provided by people who have worked hard to position themselves to provide them.

They have taken risks in hopes that their hard work will provide them with wealth. Envy of wealth is greedy though! Clamoring for more wealth redistribution is a form of greed! What is corrupt about the system? Let me give you an example — Senator Bob Menendez. Or how about Congress using their inside knowledge to transfer their own private investments out of companies they know are going under soon. How could you make such an outrageous claim? Ok — that was an insult prestige auto brokers stock but you started it!

Walmart is one of the most successful companies in America — throws your hypothesis in a bit of muddy water. If you work for somebody that is paying you not enough to eat and the tax payer covers your food, that is indeed corporate welfare that walmart is getting. That company is evil. I think this is probably more an indicator that the minimum wage needs to be raised again. If someone is employed and their income is not high enough even at full time hours, to support them in the current economy, then raise the minimum wage instead of allowing taxpayers to absorb the cost of supporting them.

I believe he is blaming them for the minimum wage being too low. That is how I read it. Whether you want to admit it or not, Walmart owns this country, albeit in tandem with big oil, Insurers, pharmaceuticals, Banks, and so on….

Why is it OK for Walmart to play the game, but not the individual? Oh boy, Wal-Mart provides one-million jobs!? Proper car to get to the job? Ability to afford new technology? An ethical person would look around and make calculations on how much pizza he could eat that would result in relatively equal amounts for all the patrons at the party.

Life best forex review sites along just fine before Wal-mart existed. If Wal-Mart evaporates, all that demand will fall onto other companies. Because you have none. How would you like that, tough guy? Wal-Mart is great when your life is completely removed from the chaos it creates.

And thus, why are they even in business? When did it become okay for business owners to operate a business that they take no pride in? When the citizens were duped into believing all the bullshit that spews out of the mouth of the elites.

You make some good arguments, but lets try and keep it civil.

Real earnings in the Forex without attachments | Reviews of the Forex market

When we resort to name calling, we invalidate our arguments. How do I copy and paste this?!? Section 8 does that already. And lest we forget that fine establishment run as an adult daycare. All courtesy of my taxpaying dime. They are the largest employer in the United States with 1. They just discovered a loop hole in the ACA and have made the government pay for their health care…just to push the knife in a little deeper!!

They have been known to be bribing other countries hdfc forex card in chennai order to be able to quanto equity option pricing up in their countries Mexico for one!

Walmart pays their employees the minimum wage without benefits while 4 members of the Walton family are in the top 10 of Forbes most wealthy people. Instead, tax payers subsidize Walmart wages through food stamps, and the food stamps are spent at Walmart…. How is that not corporate welfare? Yes that is true.

I have been employed by companies that consider 32 hours a week full time. It gives them a bigger buffer zone to minimize overtime in a job market that usually requires more hours than scheduled. My question is this. Who is at fault? Or a insert whichever you think is appropriately at fault here if not all a society, govt, world mentality of entitlement that does not recognize priority in spending.

One who thinks we have to spend money we dont have to motivate people to used car dealers near stockton ca money they dont have.

Our priorities are screwed up. We value luxuries over iceland stock broker. We value govt over the people. Atm euro exchange rates see businesses as being of greater importance than the people who make them possible, the consumers and employees.

Granted we all have to have businesses that provide us with goods, services and jobs, but when spending out of their control, usually govt starts getting more costly, the employees and consumers suffer. When mechanics are paid what they are worth, and movie stars have to work for their money, we may get somewhere. Now we have a govt telling me what I already know. Forex broker slogan obviously cannot afford it.

But their response is to fine me for being broke. It is a failing mentality of this entire country that is to blame, not just a few on welfare or the practice of sliding automated automated forex forex forex forex forextraderguide.info just under the wire and not having to provide expensive extras to employees.

Just so you know, at you current level ose stock market earnings on a family of 4 you will be entitled to medicare at which you will not have to pay a dime for it starting inyou might want to check with your state to see if maybe your already entitled to it….

Forex exchange rates rss the democrats have conditioned you to accept that only the government can take down Wal-Mart. In the meantime those same republicans and democrats are cleaning up. Usually three to five years. If one area offers a better deal, the company moves there.

Jobs are created, economies prosper, more disposable income is available for the citizenry, money is spent, other businesses prosper, more jobs are created…rinse and repeat. In this free-market approach, larger corporations will actively seek out the best deal for their money. If that means they get tax breaks, so be it. If it costs them more to build in a particular area, one of two things will happen: It is a business acumen that is lost on our current government: One high-profile case was an issue here in South Carolina with regard to Boeing.

Enter the NLRB i. The lawsuit was eventually dropped after Boeing conceded to the labor unions that their next line of planes would be built entirely in Washington state. Regardless of whether the planes could be built for a cheaper cost in SC, the federal government steps in and, for lack of a better word, uses EXTORTION tactics against a private company.

I preface the following with this disclaimer: I do not begrudge anyone from receiving assistance if they need it. However, in many cases, there are those who fail to take the appropriate steps to avoid future mistakes by drawing on past experiences, and those of us who are capable of making responsible london stock exchange lloyds tsb usually pay the price.

The more children she reported, the more assistance she received, in addition to child support. This is but one case, but I surmise that this scenario is being played out countless times across the country.

It boils down to personal responsibility. Until the system is reformed to hold people accountable for their actions, and tell them that we as a society are only going to forgive ONE mistake, they will continue to make the same mistakes. If you reward a mouse for bad behavior, the mouse will continue to hit the feeder bar expecting more reward for increasingly bad behavior. Not suprisingly, when you try to pick that mouse up, it WILL bite the hand that feeds it.

With regard to social welfare programs, too many people have found a way to abuse the system. Which is why so many of us hard-working people forex carry trade interest grown cynical to their plight, regardless of their circumstances.

You are a deplorable human being, Scott. Simply put, unions and the thinking behind them are one of maybe three things this country has to be proud of.

How is Scott a deplorable human being but not his ex-wife? That makes no sense. Abuse is abuse and none of it should be tolerated. Just because your ex-wife abused the system, it does not mean that all who use it abuse it. It seems like everyone against any form of aid just happens to know some scumbag who abuses it and assumes everyone using aid abuses it.

That is my pet peeve. If for every 5 people in dire need of it, 1 abuses it, it is still worth helping those 5 people. Hello Mike, I am curious — why did you not include the biggest Corporate Welfare Donation of all?

Everything else is peanuts in comparison…. However, these numbers are from years prior to the bailouts. I should probably do another post using all encompassing definitions for both types of welfare. Actually those are low interest loans and buying up assets. I would suggest taking a few days to research how the Federal reserve system works and why it works that way. All of this corporate welfare is ridiculous. These are corporations that are making billions in profits and then we as tax payers are giving them even more?!

This needs to end and you can be sure I will be writing some fairly scathing letters to my congress people about this for what good it will do. Getting them to change this will be difficult considering they all personally receive monetary benefit from these corporations either through lobbysts or campaign contributions. This was an excellent and informative article though and I hope others will write letters as well. Maybe if enough of us respond with outrage, they will at least reduce the corporate subsidies.

You want to create a change in our Government? We need to all come together and march on the congress steps and demand change NOW!!! Liberals think this is an argument against conservatism. Agreed Josh and also every news broadcast 60 second binary options strategy mt4 lamestream media outlet. Thank you for articulating this so well.

I have had to explain this reality many times…sad that it is still not understood. Oh and for those that yell when Social security benefits and veterans benefits are increased. They get increased and immediately medicare and several other groups start increasing their costs by about the same amount so in essence the person receiving the benefits actually has an end result of less money to spend rather than more.

And with the implementation of Obamacare the price of healthcare is going up. I have personally seen it double with the anticipation of Obamacare.

I will never be able to afford it at this rate. And with my last pay raise I thought I was finally close…. With or without ObamaCare, the costs of healthcare services have increased at a rate of significantly more than twice that of inflation for YEARS!

Also worth noting, costs to employers from Health Insurers rose 2. I used to work for a family owned business. I took all trainee stock trader jobs london business that I created there and went out on my own.

No one to blame but me. But, but he was the owner and ENTITLED to be greedy. Until more of us recognize their greed, people will continue to enable the Waltons, your old boss, etc. The owner who had all of the responsibility actually was somewhat successful? As an employee of that company, you would want your employer to do well so that you continue to have a job. I believe what B. Kevin is saying is that despite all of his success, the employer still opted not to spend a bit more to provide decent care for his employees.

It is this greed that is tearing us up. The health insurance industry came into existance because of government mandate. Prior to WWII there was stock market outlook march 2016 health insurance indusdtry. It was the government that froze wages. Once many companies started offering healthcare, it became difficult to manage, so the health insurance industry was created to handle the coverage policies offered by employers.

You jquery dynamic load select options to know why the price of healthcare has skyrocketed? Pharmaceutical companies add massive amounts to the cost, absolutely, but they are over-regulated too — and regulation will always drive costs up. So Walmart provides millions of jobs. Not because of their employee pay though, but because their service is so incredibly bad.

You could group Walmart in forex fnb south africa McDonalds and just about every other fast food chain: Then everyone can stop bitching about them, right?

Is healthcare a right? Only in the minds early detection of insider trading in option markets the Marxists. We all have a right to acquire any sort of healthcare within our means, but healthcare itself is not a right, it is a buy burger king stock. We have rights — unalienable rights.

The right to life, liberty, and property to name some. These rights are yours inherently, innately. You have a right, if not a duty, to defend your life, your liberty and your property even if in doing so you must threaten or cause harm to anyone infringing upon those rights. You do not posses a right to threaten a doctor or nurse for your healthcare needs. You are not legally nor morally endowed with a right to cause harm to a physician who refuses to treat you.

Are healthcare workers exchanging their services, like everyone else, for pay, or are they slaves? Healthcare is NOT a right. Employers offer subsidized healthcare plans to employees as a benefit. You can guess who they are. I have a child with Cystic Fibrosis. His medicines are very expensive; Pulmazyme, albuterol, Tobi, special vitamins, a nebulyzer and a percusser system.

His situation is completely opposite of the liberal narrative that demonizes those evil insurance companies while painting Obamacare as the protector of his benefits. His life expectancy when he was born was He went from a frail, sickly child to a very healthy teen-ager.

In fact, his CF doctors find it hard to believe he has, not just CF, but the worst possible genitic mutation of it. Future rationing of care will have an adverse affect on his future, as will projected doctor shortages. So, while you take a view on this issue based upon a false narrative, the liberal utopian one, mine is based on reality.

By stating a simple fact, that healthcare is not a right, I am not implying that I want anyone to suffer illness. Liberals are full of non-sequiturs, logical flaws. What I want is for healthcare to be affordable again, and the only way that will ever come about is to remove the shackles of government control. Does that make sense to you? Sounds like he was damn successful…plenty successful enough to offer his employee healthcare. Or is it I got mine screw everybody else? The only question is how much will you pay for it?

The answer to forex trade 0a depends on your level of income, which is basically means tested to decide how much you should be subsidised if at all. One of the problems with people who criticize health insurance companies is their profound ignorance of them.

Profit margin for these companies? Between 1 and 3 percent. Or, businesses will cut hours to decrease the number of full-time employees. So, how many enterprising people will pay the fine rather than spend 2k on healthcare insurance? To make matters worse for health insurance companies, they can no longer deny membership for pre-existing conditions.

This is what Obamacare and its successive full blown socialized medicine will bring us, auto binary options strategy software ea you libs will still be blaming Bush and insurance companies. Fools, the lot of you! They will be like Travelocity for insurance coverage. There is no public health insurance competing with private companies.

earnings on trading binary options without attachments

And these insurance companies are on board because the ACA will dramatically expand their pool of insured. And while they can no longer drop coverage due to lifetime caps quotes stock market gambling deny insurance due to preexisting conditions, they also are looking at millions of more customers many of whom are young and healthy. Those over 50 employees will now be able purchase health insurance on special employer-only exchanges.

This means that mid-sized firms will be able to get rates that were previously only available to the largest companies, increasing competition, and reducing their costs by pooling insurance with other small businesses. Doctors, nurses, clinicians, etc. They are still private, as are the hospitals they forex thailand rates for and the insurance companies that set reimbursement rates for care.

Rather, there has been a plan floating around for years to reduce Medicare reimbursements. Mark, health insurance companies will not be able to compete; they will no longer be profitable because of the several reasons I mentioned. Suggesting that the exchanges are nothing but websites is completely inaccurate and simplistic.

ALL insurance companies are being forced under this legislation to offer premium plans and eliminate lower cost plans, and then divorcing the actual cost to the individual by levying higher taxes. Take the young and healthy you mention, who have no need for premium plans. Prior to Obamacare, a young healthy individual could have purchased catastrophic coverage and paid high volatility forex pairs of pocket for a yearly checkup.

Companies under 50 employees are exempted from them insurance requirement, true, but healthcare insurance rates will cost much more as a result of this law than they would have otherwise.

Mid-size stock brokers brisbane australia and larger will be dropping their employer provided plans to save money so that their employees can purchase insurance via the exchanges.

Obamacare is being subsidized by the tax payers. The bureaucracy will become stifling as insurance companies will deny certain treatments they deem unnecessary because the government will not reimburse them.

This medicine is administered in liquid form only. Alfa forex irla insurance company denied this medicine in favor of Nexium because it was three times cheaper. Trouble is, the patient was a premature newborn incapable call option on callable bond swallowing pills.

It took time to sort this out with the insurance company, especially as this was a Medicaid patient. Do we want government mandates interfering with the decisions of our healthcare professionals? As with every single crappy government program EVER to have cursed this nation of ours, how much money did jon heder make for napoleon dynamite will have similar problems with the controlling beuracracies.

People will suffer as a result. No one likes pre-existing conditions. However, health insurance companies are FOR PROFIT businesses, JACKASS!

My only agenda is to allow everyone to keep what they earn, and to motivate everyone to become earners. I want to be financially self-sufficient and in no way dependent on government handouts, and would like to reduce the overwhelming dependency of others. I would also like to be able to donate to the charities of MY choice. Are you one of those unwashed, drug-using Occupy Wall Street types crapping on police cars?

You should change your name to Sloth Envy, you Stalinist. A program started under Bush that costs taxpayers zero dollars. Geesh you righties have trouble doing independent research…. I work for a social services non profit. So, in short, of course social welfare programs contribute to the economy. Are you shallow minded or just plain stupid? Social welfare programs do stimulate the economy. Stock options selling covered calls, the taxes required to fund them depress the economy.

Given that the government is kind of a leaky bucket in its wealth transfer, I tend to think that the depression probably exceeds the stimulation. Actually, that statement is wrong, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities http: The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent. She would also be required to work while receiving TANF. You can read the facts about TANF here: The Obama Admin relaxed the rules for work requirements because the STATES, including many republican governors thereof, requested as much.

Actually the Obama administration has not relaxed the rules for work requirements. The states still have the same level of expected welfare to work requirements. I volunteer at some foodbanks in illinois…basically.

Here in MO I lost my job for a while, arbitrage pricing theory stock market a part time job to try to make ends meet and needed food stamps to feed my family.

However TANF was offered as a separate form of assistance. As my situation did not warrant that I declined. But when filling out legal documents I was instructed to list myself as not receiving TANF as they are different. Did they lose the waiver? Anytime we are trying to reduce budget expenditures it is a good practice to find where new approaches can save money.

That is the justification. A quick Google search should be sufficient. No one brought an MSNBC or NPR post as a credible source…. My point is that the source of information is of far less importance than the information itself. I disagree that NPR is unbiased; they are, based upon their own actions, leftist, ideologically speaking. Provide, if you will, a study from a conservative source that you think has it all wrong and explain why. Perhaps then an honest dialogue can occur.

Again, the waivers were to try new approaches to save overall monies in the respective states. Not across the board request to relax work requirements. For our state, the waivers allowed us to save tons of money in day care subsidies which could then be spent on other badly needed programs. Grrr I get annoyed with people who throw out blanket statements without knowing the may 2004 market crash. The gist of my statement is correct, unless you are intending to enumerate which Democratic governors and which Republican governors supported it….

Not exactly correct either, see my response to Frank above. Recipients of TANF must be working no later than 2 years from the start of receiving the government assistance program TANF. To maintain eligibility toward the States eligibility guidelines, work must consist of employment of no less than 30 hours per week or 20 hours a week if there is a child in the household under 6 years of age.

I work with TANF recipients every day at my job in the required Job Search portion and am fairly well-versed with the program I help these folks find work. It angers me when I see the lies constantly being tossed about in this regard. My husband and I were both out of work. The waivers were given so states could try some innovative new approaches in order to try and help the program to be more efficient, while at the same time not have the peripheral needs suck the state dollars dry day care subsidies, for instance.

I am very proud of the innovative approach basic stock broking state has taken forums where forecasts for binary options this regard. Frank is my brother. I know him pretty well. His political viewpoints irritate me to no end, but there are reasons why people become emotionally wrapped up in angry right-wing politics.

People like my brother are willfully misinformed because there is something lacking in their lives, a hole that gets filled up by angry right-wing crap.

Your brother came off as being obnoxous. Any high school graduate would know this. I did not check out all the other states, but according to the states I did check, TANF does not appear to be a federal program where the rules are the same in all 50 states.

The welfare reform legislation of ended the federal Aid for Families with Dependent Children program AFDC. When AFDC was ended, the federal government established the TANF program in its place, which is the cash assistance program discussed here and still in place today. Another change with TANF is that recipients do not receive their benefits directly from the federal government. Designated state agencies are then responsible to distribute aid to their eligible residents and monitor to make sure work requirements are fulfilled.

As usual, everyone points at and bashes Obama, regardless of whether he is at fault or not! Congress are the people who are REALLY in power and are constantly getting away with creating legislation that protects and profits them while leaving us regular citizens vulnerable and poor. The president is just the mouthpiece for the government, not someone who actually gets laws passed!! He is the scapegoat for Congress and he accepts the role because he too is benefiting from it.

I wish more people would educate themselves on the way our government operates. That seems like basic common sense… something even a baby could figure out! While we are busy bickering about abortion, gay marriage, and whether Obama was born in the United States, the fat cats in Congress are taking vacations and buying yachts with our hard earned money. He simply futures trading made simple not have the support from Congress to make the big changes he envisions in his perfect world scenario.

Clearly we need changes in order foreign exchange market pdf file progress and move forward in the right direction; what we have been doing obviously is not working.

The first change that could be made in the interest of the general public would be this corporate entitlement. Take away the funding and reintroduce competition to the market.

Give someone else a chance to create a successful business! It is you who is lying. You libs lie, and twist, and are just dispicable! He left it to the states. Mike, you might try stock market explanations some research instead of relying on partisan conservative propaganda sites.

I clicked on Stock broking courses in london requirements on the whitehouse. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services released deed of call option regarding waivers for the TANF program. These waivers will strengthen welfare reform by accelerating job placement and moving more Americans from welfare to work.

Under this policy, no waivers that undercut work requirements in welfare reform will be approved. This policy will allow States to test new, more effective ways to help people get and keep a job. Thanks for bringing that twisted lie into this conversation. That is just despicable! I offer the Occupy Wall Street crowd as proof. Alright, we all have our preferred sources and dislike sources that present information with which we ideologically disagree.

If you get all of your information from right-wing sites then you are very misinformed and might try to find a non-partisan source for news. You realize that NPR is just about as nonbias as you can get. Not their fault that most reporters are liberal.

Welfare Statistics: Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Than..

FYI is there something telling about the fact that the most informed people consistently support the Left? Ok, seriously, NPR is unbiased? What about Ron Schiller? Daily exchange rate inr usd their endless obsession with anything and everything related to the Koch brothers?

Most informed people support the left? You mean like the woman who supported Obama in the now famous video declaring that Obama was gonna pay her mortgage or buy her a car? Those who truly understood his agenda and STILL voted for him are either fundamentally misguided, or evil. Informed people with at least half a brain are conservative. Obama opened certain loopholes for single mothers and others who earnings on trading binary options without attachments disabilities.

Our tax dollars hard at work. We all know that there online trading academy forex peace army people out there that abuse the program.

That does not mean that it is not useful. We are just spinning our wheels bringing up this kind of thing. Drinking alcohol can be relaxing and fun. Some people abuse it and cause problems, drive drunk, and are a danger to themselves and others. Should we ban alcohol completely? My uncle had heart surgery and hsbc stock price hk went terribly wrong.

He died on the operating table. Does this mean that no one should ever have heart surgery? I saw a movie last month which starred Jim Carrey. I did not like it. Does this mean all of his movies suck? In grade school you might have seen something like this: Some boys like baseball Gary is a boy Gary must like baseball True or False?

But you miss a big part of the problem; we are each entitled to what we earn, nothing more and nothing less. When government confiscates from earners, and rewards non-earners it punishes success and rewards sloth.

THE SEARCH HAS FINALLY ENDED!! WE HAVE FOUND THE ONLY SELF MADE MAN IN THE COUNTRY. WE CAN ONLY HOPE HE WILL SHARE HIS SECRET WITH US POOR NORMAL PEOPLE!! Humble, you make stock market fundamental analysis software case like bombay stock exchange list of holidays 2016 other misinformed liberal: Rather than discussing the virtue or lack thereof of a point made in a discussion, you attack the person.

Typical of liberals who then scratch their empty heads and wonder why our nation is so gridlocked. I am not wealthy, but I do respect basic common sense concepts of individual liberty and ownership; private property. I am not envious of the wealthy, but have great respect for the work ethic that brought them success. I have never received welfare and am determined to never do so. I have been officially unemployed, but performed contract work until something else became nifty option intraday chart. In other words, I never drew unemployment.

I had to take what I could to put food on the gbp usd forex forecast. You want to know the secret? Live every day according to those principles and to the Moral Law which is their foundation. Treat your neighbor as you would be treated. Learn from your mistakes and thank God for the priceless lessons gleaned from failure. The only real failure is the failure to try. Am I the only self-made man?

Most of the wealthy are self-made. And you could learn a thing or two from them if you could just stop thinking that someone, or everyone for that matter, owes you something. Pay yourself first, Humble, and let others do the same. And I am willing to bet good money that you are a white man over the age of And whose money would you be wagering; money you received from TANF or some other welfare program?

Yet you fail to address in even the smallest way that the point of the article is that corporate subsidies and tax breaks almost double the amount of subsidies to actual people. The writer of the article is either lying or misinformed. If he told you that wolverines make good house pets, would you believe him?

Here is a link to a report given by the Congressional Research Service detailing means-tested welfare spending between and IMO progressives avoid clarity and preciseness, and they do so purposefully. Can we at least agree on that? To say that the paltry-by-comparison billions provided solely by TANF is the sum of our yearly welfare spending is so egregiously false one must question the motives, if not the sanity, of anyone regurgitating this lie.

Time for an analogy. Suppose that person A stole from a baker, and that the baker caught him in the act. Well, to anyone with even half a brain, both person A and person B engaged in acts of theft.

You cite a ncpa source whose data are clearly stated as coming from the Heritage Foundation. The CRS memo you cite includes everything from Native American Educational Assistance to Pell Grants. Just for example, this month marks the th anniversary of the depletion allowance for big oil which allows them to write off oil in the ground as capital equipment.

The foreign tax credits, domestic manufacturing tax credits, drilling write offs which allow the oil companies to write off huge costs in the first year rather than amortizing them over the life of the investment as my small business has to do.

You may very well be rich in belongings, you are certainly intelligent and well spoken; however, I fear you are shallow in places that you think little of anyway. I did address it. If the government has money to give to businesses, then the government is taxing too much.

Money given to businesses that would exceed their tax burden should rightly be called corporate welfare, and programs such as this should be terminated. Again, the guiding principle is that we are each entitled to what we earn.

Some facts about taxes and spending: This is one reason government is the last institution we should consider getting involved. The extraordinary inefficiencies of government bureaucracy increase cost and allow far greater avenues for fraud. Hoodieduck, you, like your liberal friends, are simply misinformed by your class warfare-obsessed elitist leaders; conservatives want to help the poor and the needy.

We simply want the means to be fair and just. Charity should not line the pockets of bureaucrats before the needy receive the leftover pittance, nor should it be used by politicians to gain and retain power via populist, class-warfare rhetoric. The majority of people on various welfare programs are not the destitute and elderly you think.

Most, today, are able-bodied. Of the 83 means-tested welfare programs out there, do you think all are necessary? I bet that you love Jefferson, right? Well, son, he was a liberal. Well Gina, he was a classical liberal. She would not have become a screen writer without some help from a studio head and she would not have survived her old age without SOCIAL SECURITY which she accepted.

Stop quoting from a lying twit who was also a lousy writer and NOT well educated. Your comment is modern liberalism on display: Make stuff up to sully those with whom you disagree. For example, what does Ayn Rand have to do with my statement? Am I some Ayn Rand drone, or is this simply a circumstance where my conviction, that people are entitled to what they earn, happened to be shared by Ayn Rand — among many others too, most of whom were long dead by the time Rand was born. Ever heard of Adam Smith?

I could engage in the same tactics as you — as I have done, I admit, with others. You share convictions that would lead you to expand big government programs that confiscate from earners, with Hitler and Stalin. I suppose that makes you a Nazi, or a blood thirsty communist, hmmmmmmm? The difference is that Conservatives like me engage in these tactics to point out the absurdity of liberals for whom these tactics are the only way they know how to engage in a debate.

That falls right on line with Conservative values. Her family in the U. No government agency acted on her behalf, no politburo confiscated money from tax payers to fund her relocation, or her living expenses once she arrived. The fact of the matter is that she fled the kind of oppression that you and others would establish here in this country. Ask yourself why politicians exempt themselves from the laws, mandates and regulations that they foist upon the rest of us. Ok, can you back that up with proof?

Why do you think she lied? Can you provide examples, or are you just an angry liberal injecting a venomous statement about someone with whom you disagree? Was she really a twit? Far from that narrative, she seems to have been quite intelligent. She recognized early on the oppressive nature of the revolution and those behind it. She came to this country as soon as she could. She, whether or not you like her work, published books.

How many have you published? You would seem to suggest that, if Rand was a twit, than you yourself must be an even bigger twit, since your own accomplishments pale in comparison. While I have not read her books myself, I have heard of them, and her.

What about people who had jobs and now are not able to get a job. What about the low paying jobs that does not pay enough for a person to live on;;;no insurace benefits etc. Derek, the elderly and the disabled are certainly a concern. Most people with jobs work hard and are having difficulty getting by. Our taxes are higher and the goods and services we purchase are all costing more. At what point is it morally acceptible to take more from these people?

When taxes go up on the wealthy — or those who own businesses, whether they be wealthy or not — they pass that along to you and me through price increases. A fiend of mine rents an apartment. He may not see the tax bill every year or have to negotiate with the county tax assesor, but I have assured him many times that the cost of the property taxes is included in the rent of each and every renter.

In a similar fashion, higher taxes and forced wage increases always end up hurting the average joe — because to cover all these mandated increases, companies raise the prices on all the things our average joe needs to purchase. Smartuckus, what do you propose we do about the system then?

How does it get fixed? Living to a moral law based on who and what? What are these principles you adhere by that allow you to do these things?

I am a student, a vet, have a low paying job, and a woman without children. I am unable to afford school books half the time let alone a healthy diet to sustain my output.

The problem is the cost of living has risen exponentially and the price we pay people has faltered. If I could get food stamps to help feed myself, while I work and get an education I would take it, why would that be abuse?

I am busting my hump. The people who should be lectured on principles and morals are the people in positions of power, not just Barack Obama, all of the political entities sworn to serve and care about their constituents. Typical of our forgetful culture…blaming the victim is USUALLY the wrong answer.

We are all victims to poor governing, overreaching, overspending, over warring, etc…. I can give few and broad ideas. The welfare state, a cultural collapse on an enormous scale.

If they have a D by their names on election day, stop voting for them. Take everything the liberals have done over the last 50 years and get rid of it. BTW, Civil Rights Legislation was a Republican cause — the Senate Democrats voted it down FIVE times before it was finally passed. Our attention span seems to be fixed in 4 year cycles. We have to stop that and think in terms of long term solutions. Can we shut down all welfare programs tomorrow and expect to succeed?

No — we need something — or rather, a lot of things — to replace them, and cultural solutions will be key. Our culture devolved from emphasizing hard work and success into one that romanticizes sloth, envy and entitlement-thinking.

Education reform — we need high-schoolers to learn about personal finance, investment strategies etc. Take that same person who began investing at age 18, but increased the amount invested every month as circumstances allowed, and kept investing until age Leftists fear the market.

Privatizing Social Security is actually a very smart thing to do, yet the leftists abhor the idea citing risk. Technically, there is more risk leaving it in government hands! Lower taxes, allow people to keep and invest their own money.

If we want to fix the problem we have to eliminate the WHY. You know the old saying: Engaging high-school aged kids to prepare them for financial success will help eliminate the WHY. Well, there is a common moral order among people whether or not they believe in God. There may be differences of opinion regarding aspects of morality, but those same differences exist between people of differing religions too.

The ends do not justify the means. If we want to help the needy, that end is a good thing. But are we able to help the needy by stealing from others?

Yet the cost of living has sky-rocketed in recent years. Because of government mandates, generally higher taxes on businesses, increased minimum wage standards and gross government spending. New taxes will always cause businesses to raise prices to cover those costs. When fuel prices go up most especially due to our ridiculous energy policy you, the poor consumer, are the one paying for it.

And those higher prices are always passed on to the consumer. Is that because businesses are greedy? If you want the cost of living to go down so that you can afford the things you need, then we need to CUT taxes for EVERYONE and figure out a way to end government welfare programs over time.

We need a common sense energy policy not driven by environmentalist Chicken Littles. What are all the welfare recipients going to do when all the money is gone? Is our government going to decide that it needs to confiscate the remaining money too? BTW — I appreciate your dialogue, and I am sympathetic to your situation.

I would like to keep more of my own money to help with my children, especially my special-needs child. I would hope we could all be equally successful, but the current tax code is making the first option the more likely. You say that everyone is entitled to what they earn? I am not arguing for socialism when I say this, all I am saying is that people born to lower class families have a much lower chance of moving out of this bracket.

Almost every account of poor or poverty level children climbing out of poverty has something to do with an outside influence that supported and encouraged them to lead a better life. The child has nothing to do with how lucky they were at birth.

So you think that everyone should keep what everyone earns? Did they earn their inheritance when they were born? You say that the rich should get to keep their money because they will reinvest it in the economy? Well any and every single economist out there will tell you that if you gave some of that wealth to the poor it would be injected back into the economy far quicker.

Even with a supplemented income they would be required to spend it all as soon as it comes in. Therefor there would be an increase in the money circulation of our economy in case your wondering this benefits every single human being existing in the US. Sorry just thought of another Problem 5: So you have a problem with our taxes?

The answer is obviously no because of the fact that taxes help everyone. The poor will spend their money and it will find its way back to the rich who will then be taxed and the cycle repeats. The only difference is that slowly and surly the poor crawl out of poverty. First let me thank you for a well spoken reply. There is no way to give everyone a completely equal shot, is there?

We are all equal in the sense that each human life is of equal value in a moral sense. One is not better than another because he is wealthier — one is not entitled to better treatment by virtue of his wealth. However, we are not equal in terms of capability. Some are stronger, some are smarter, some have a better work ethic, some are better looking, some are kinder, some are more charismatic; each of us is endowed with abilities in greater measure than others.

If you own a business you want to hire the best candidate for the job that you can, regardless of race, religion excepting militant jihadistsgender etc, right? Did the sex offender not place himself on unequal grounds when he made the choice to commit a sex offense? Even then these people have second and third chances, but each requires effort and self discipline on the part of the individual, do they not?

Most of the wealthy in this country earned their wealth. There are few families by comparison who maintain wealth after two or more generations. You may know of the phenomenon particular to lottery winners, whereby most of them are broke within 5 years of a windfall lottery win. The same sort of phenomenon exists among the wealthy. Kids who inherit wealth are more likely, statistically speaking, to blow it all, because the value of that wealth and the hard work it took to acquire it are lost on them.

Most of the currently wealthy in this country have earned, honestly, their wealth within the last 20 years, and the cycle will continue. Being as that such is the case, those born in poverty have every means available to them to earn and accumulate wealth. Are they so bad that kids remain hopeless? His family was, by any measure, poor. Beethoven was abused as a child. History is replete with examples of people who overcame severe disability and hardship to achieve success. I would argue that the vast majority of the wealthy in this country faced the same challenges to various degrees as the poor.

If we were all truly equal we would possess the same drive too. Note, I am not demonizing the poor. I am demonizing a system that has undermined the drive and work ethic of society and has therefore made poverty worse. Most liberals would argue that we should end the war on drugs. Why can they not apply the same logic to the war on poverty? Not only does spending on that program or programs dwarf that of the war on drugs, there are more poor today than in — and I insist that it is all those programs war on poverty that have made it so.

In general, yes, everyone should keep what he earns. I am not advocating for a tax less country: Private ownership is an inherent, innate sort of thing. The rich parents, by virtue of their ownership are fully within their rights to give their children their money, just as they are entitled to give it to anyone else.

There are different ways to earn. First is by means of contract wage. Second is by barter or exchange. This would include investing, winning a lottery or gambling. Risk was bartered for potential reward. Third is by way of gift. Someone else may have earned money by wage or investment, and then given it to someone else.

The receiver is entitled to the gift — he or she becomes the new owner. Should she be allowed to keep all that money? I would argue that she does. She earned it by way of gift. The principle is private ownership. We all do have a responsibility to help the poor BTW. I am saying that government welfare is the wrong way to go about that task. I say that people, all people, should get to keep their money because it belongs to them. It is their money to do with what they please.

It may surprise you that most people would give more to charity if they had the money to do so. Unfortunately, punitive taxation prevents this. I say businesses reinvest, which creates jobs. There is no more money injected into the economy via welfare to the poor then there is if the wealthy spend it, is there? Our welfare system keeps poor people poor. There is no incentive for them to work if an unskilled job wage pays, for 40 hours of work, barely more than a weekly welfare check.

Businesses would hirer fewer people and prices would go up, thus neutralizing any benefit to an increased minimum wage. But, understand that you are falling into a trap here. The trap is the erroneous notion that there is only x amount of wealth to go around. If you divide it between 2 people they each get half a pie… No problem there. If you have three people they each get a third.

Eventually, if you have a million people, the each receive if equality matters one one- millionth of the pie. No one is going to be satisfied with that, right? What if two people get half of the pie one quarter each and the other million receive one millionth of the remaining half?

So let me ask you, what if one of the quarter pie owners supplied the dough and baked the pie, and the other quarter-pie owner supplied the sugar and apples? Is it still as unjust as you originally thought? Why is there only one pie?

If everyone participates, why not? My friend, wealth works exactly the same. They should pay an equal tax. To me, that sounds like class envy. I do think that circumstances beyond their control can contribute to their economic status. The issue is government involvement and the adverse effects it causes. When we begin to eliminate government involvement we may see real solutions.

You are both a credit to your positions and although I have felt incredibly as passionate on the side of one of you, the other of you has given me enough food for thought to want to read and re-read, then research all the factual representations that each of you has brought to the table. This is what debating should be; a passionate, non-threatening exchange between intelligent, informed, knowledgeable, and articulate points of view.

Well done and thank you! I agree wholeheartedly Lynn. I too had thought one way, but now that I have read the exchange between you two, I can see both sides clearer than I had before.

Thank you for the information and facts. You are more than welcome to participate, if you have any questions, concerns or thoughts. Amazing developments in the last day or two have occurred in Cyprus, a nation whose government has check and balances modeled after our own. Progressive policy has dominated the politics in that nation and, low and behold, the government is out of money and the nation heavily in debt. What are they doing after their progressive tax and spend policies have run the course?

Get a brain morans! I would like to cite this source: Granted this is a story about disability insurance in Great Britain, but no one should pretend that the outright fraud occurring there is any different than what is taking place here; human nature is not exclusive to Great Britain. So only one in eight people drawing disability in Great Britain are truly in need of that benefit as the article illustrates. The Labor Party the party most like our Democrat Party set up the system without any genuine oversight.

People took unfair advantage of the system, and thus the tax payers who funded it. This article state that social welfare is 59 billion a year yet you site a trillion. Where are you getting your numbers from. Corporate Welfare…hmmm, what a stupid, stupid invented term.

There are no billion dollar companies taking money out of my pocket. The government does that!!!!! Allowing a company to keep its own profits is NOT a form of welfare.

If the government gives money to corporations to spur economic growth in order to create jobs, there may be a good outcome. I have two thoughts on such a scenario:. The government should not be in the business of favoring any company or industry over another. However, if the money received from the government is of a lesser amount than taxes paid, then I view this as a company getting back what was its money in the first place.

Corporate Welfare would only be an accurate term in cases where a business received more money from the government than it has paid in taxes like GE, which also contributed heavily to the Obama campaign — are you mad about that one or are you gonna give them and the Obama administration a pass?

The article sites ONE form of means-tested Welfare. The total spent in for ALL means-tested welfare programs was over 1 TRILLION dollars.

And actually, the same is true ofand will be true of You can get the information from any. Keep in mind, that understating financial records is a key ploy of the leftists. You need to get your facts straight. It does so poorly, corruptly and inefficiently. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE BIBLE????? The biggest lesson in the bible is that you help the poor. If you doyou will be remembered on judgement. The only reason America is so powerful nation and also a prosperous nation is God looks on us and bleses us.

Wow — More gibberish from a pseudo-bible scholar. First let me point out that you know nothing about me. The biggest lesson in the Bible is that you love God above all else, and second to that is that you love your neighbor as yourself. In fact, the government is the worst steward of our money because it contributes to organizations that are in fact ungodly, and is so prone to corruption. You are confused Dennis; I am not advocating that we abandon the poor. I am advocating that earners be allowed to keep their own money, with which they can determine to whom they will give, and how much, since they are the best people to make those decisions.

More importantly I would encourage them to donate their time. Slavery was once legal — would you argue that it was OK? Abortion is legal — do you think God finds it acceptable? In the same manner, legalized plunder may be legal, but it is wrong. In the Old Testament Deuteronomy However, the Hebrews were to leave this food unharvested so that the poor had to work for their charity.

In the New Testament, St. Paul also demanded that the poor work for their charity. The work requirement prevented an entitlement attitude. It prevented sloth and laziness. Another requirement for charity was that the poor, widows etc. Where are the work and moral requirements for those on the dole in our society?

When taxes go up, charitable contributions go down, and prices on everything go up. Now go find a Bible and read more than just those passages that you think support your Marxist, big-government views! SOOOOO… We are quoting Leviticus now are we? I may have missed it but where did god say that if this is the case just hang them out to dry and hope that they stay in the city away from you own house and sheltered life.

I missed this response, so please forgive the tardy reply. Thank goodness for you! I must say I appreciate your responses because you do indeed debate the issues rather than attack the messenger. So in the Old Testament we find many disciplinary requirements that Christians no longer recognize as necessary.

Moral requirements remain, such as the Ten Commandments. To answer your specific question, St. It was not my intention to inject religion into the debate being as that all of us undoubtedly practice different faiths, or perhaps none at all. But since Dennis wanted to go all medieval on me, I felt it necessary to nip that one in the bud.

Smartukus I am a fan. Just one correction to better state an already well stated fact: When you reward failure and penalize success you get more failure and less success. The way you wrote it will miss the point because the common liberal as you know will interpret sloth to mean anyone on any type of assistance is sloth like.

Like you stated they are victims of a well intended act but which undermines good work ethics. Unfortunately the first answer from a supporter of such well intended acts, when that act welfare is threatened either verbally or legislatively is a violent reaction. The reason is BECAUSE it undermines an ability all human beings possess to one degree or another of surviving. That pseudo survival dynamic welfare is threatened and they will react as if the food were being ripped from the table immediately.

Again Liberal fear mongering. It will take realigning our education system from filler type classes like wood shop to broader economic classes that can enable an individual to survive on bare necessities until he or she can push through and achieve success and financial independence.

So it will take that long or more to undo the mess and be a prosperous nation once again. Sometimes electronic formats are not the best means for communicating ideas. When I type something, I hear my voice in my head, saying things how I would say them — emphasizing this word or that, with this amount of compassion or that, or maybe even sarcasm. The reader replays the message in his or her head and may hear things differently.

Your point is well taken. Our struggle should be to stop making people need welfare which, as we have both pointed out, is one seriously Herculean task. Why do people confuse greedy corporate welfare over social welfare like they are one in the same.

Means-tested welfare programs do not include entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which, after time, do operate as welfare programs.

Most of the rest of the spending was on Social Security, Medicare, National Defense, Medicaid and interest on the national debt. If you are starting to understand that we do indeed have a spending problem in this country, then you are on your way to figuring out that the only solution is to spend less, not more. The problem is that the people and businesses who earn the money are entitled to it — by virtue of the fact that they earned it.

They ARE thieves; instead of guns and knives they use the force of law. The outcome is the same. They abuse our democratic system: Despite the reporting of progressive news organizations and Hollywood propaganda, such a scenario is very, very rare.

Unfunded liabilities include Social Security, federal pension plans, etc. The Cypriot government is confiscating post-tax dollars from the bank accounts of citizens and foreign account holders.

And do you think that when the smoke clears that Cyprus will be fiscally solvent? Consider Stockdon California, having filed bankruptcy, is going to give short shrift to bond-holders while not addressing the real root of their fiscal woes, unfunded pensions for state and union workers.

Yet California has some of the highest tax rates in the country. I wonder, if every person and business were allowed to keep more of their earnings, would Stockdon even be in this situation? So, how many in Stockdon are going to hit the unemployment lines? How many are going to apply for food stamps? How many are going to ask the tax payers for money via some form of welfare? It seems to me that increasing welfare spending and taxing people more to pay for these increases is causing more people onto welfare.

If we want to solve the problem and get people back to work and off of welfare, we must lower taxes and reverse the progressive trend that began in To me it would be more of a problem with corporations taking on welfare, all the while hurting small businesses and making people close their doors, lose jobs, and forcing them on social welfare. Rather than having a free market without government intervention allowing for small businesses to compete against each other and these big mega corporations as they grow.

The only reason they get so big now is because of tax dollars and expansion forcing the people to buy product at a lower cost. Just another way to keep the rich rich and poor, poor. How about make it illegal for these scum bags have any government ties period so that businesses can compete and people can create real jobs that pay a decent living. You have expressed an opinion — surely your opinion is based on something substantive. They are NOT contributing to the American economy.

THIS is the abuse. WE, THE PEOPLE should NOT be bailing out banks and big corporations. There were a whole lot more than the auto industry who took money. Great answer for people who insist on using anecdotal evidence as proof. I am going to borrow and paraphrase this when people do this to me. You know people on meth and have not reported them?

If you have not reported them then you have very little to complain about. Your partner must just love how you are so supportive of her daughter. Structures, life choices, life chances, etc. If she is some helpless meth addict with a meth addict man, perhaps she just has a hard time choosing good, supportive men — a trait likely passed down from her mother.

So yes there is such a thing as sitting on your ass and collecting welfare. Corporations of all stripes have been weasling the tax codes as well as the workin peeps for a looong time. Slightly less in the 20th century, however Teddy R. Corporations are not human, but they seemed to have gathered more rights under the title of Person than the people brought under the standing of the Constitution by the 14th Amendment.

inserted by FC2 system