Agree or Disagre #7

I should keep my mouth shut on this one because everytime I've expressed on here that one should do anything in their capacity to earn their keep without relying on others to take care of them I've been drenched in the insensitive Ice Queen title~

Mitigating circumstances should be inserted however~I do believe that as a society we are responsible for those who honestly cannnot provide for themselves due to ailment or disability. ALL able bodied people should BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO get a decent job beyond the minimum wage~

Not everyone has the socioeconomic priveledge to go to HARVARD and hold down a three figure job~everyone SHOULD have the opportunity to do so irregardless of social or economic background~

My patience and tolerance cuts off with those who can work but object to certain jobs or have become comfortable living off taxpayer's $~

SO I guess I am a middle of the road liberal~I make no apologies

I agree with you 

Well said

i agree with you, im all for giving people a hand up, but we give to many hand outs.  Short term help is great and should be there for those who need it.  But there are to many loop holes in our system that allows others to milk it for all its worth.  As for college all HS kids can bust their butts and get the kind of grades that would make them eligable for scholarships.  My close friend just graduated with her masters degree and didnt pay a dime due to her great grades throughout school.  Another friend of mine just graduated with her BA and thanks to FASFA she also didnt pay much at all. The ones who have it harder are the middle class people who are above the income guidelines by just a bit but still can't afford it, but even they have options.

It's all well and good to say all kids can work to get scholarchips, but there is a limit to that kind of money also and they tend to go to sports jocks and not the smart ones who deserve it.

well then let's work to change that~

Sheryl, Im sure this varies state by state, but from what i have seen in my schools is that the truely smart kids (the top of the class ones) they had no problems getting their school paid for and most of them weren't jocks.  My close friend made it all the way thru her masters program without paying but she looked online and found different grants available and different scholarships.  You do have to look for them and work hard for it.  Or kids can go to cheaper colleges for their basic classes and transfer to 4yr schools after taking the basic classes at a cheaper school.  There are a lot of options out there, you just have to look and work for it. 

My brother was one of those "smart kids" but because of the stiff competition for scholarships, he did not get the first school of his choice. He was able to get  money to go to school. My daughter, on the other hand, has busted her a$$ trying to stay in school, only to have money become an issue because of loan problems. No, there is more need to make college available to all.

As far as the other "handouts", yes there are some who take advantage of the system, and because of them, many others like myself are made to go through heck over it. Anyone seen as having a health issue is seriously questioned. If it hadn't been for those handouts I would have been trapped in an abusive marriage. I had not gone to college but I had 2 children and not a bit of assistance from their deadbeat father. Crack down on non paying parents, many of whom CAN afford it but don't want to spend money on something they can't control, and you will go a ways in relieving some of the poverty in this country. Crack down on people milking the system, but give the aid to people who really need it. In the past, the crack down has been in forms of CUTS to needed programs, instead of finding ways to stop the people who do take advantage. Go into a housing project, and you will see a few that have people living with them who aren't claimed, or making cash money under the table. NEWSFLASH, it isn't just illegal aliens doing that trick. It has been going on in our country for years, but the solution has always ended up hurting too many in real NEED>

My daughter just graduated from high school.  She is a bright girl. Not one of the top students but #127 out of a class of 650.  She applied for scholarships and got none. FASFA has informed us that because of my husband's income we must pay 10,000.  The other 10,000 will be given to us in the form of a student loan.  I don't know where we will find the extra 10,000.  The kicker is my daughter does not live with us.  She is on her own but they still insisted she has to use my husband's income.

Disagree.  It frames what makes the filthy rich rich, and the working poor poor, all wrong.

What's your solution, Robin Hood?

Congress

And what do you propose Congress do?

Tax the rich A LOT more - like what they were taxed in the Eisenhower/Nixon/Ford eras.

Get rid of Reagan era anti-union laws.

Universal Health Care.

My father left my mother and me with $350 in a rent house. My mother did not have a high school diploma and had difficulty finding any work at all. She worked for $.50 an hour and so did I.  Mother had to work in hot kitchens and do heavy lifting. We had no help from anyone whatsoever! This was before any government help was available.  We struggled and constantly faced homelessness. I lived in constant anxiety.  "What will happen to us?"

I become upset when people rave about helping the poor who should be working. I have experienced the horror of poverty.

I believe that it's the responsibility of the more wealthy the help the less wealthy, but it should be voluntary.

Regarding taxes, if two items are repaired then I think it would go a long way in reaching something equitable ...

1. Tax capital gains at least as much as earned income.  It's absolutely ludicrous that one would pay less tax on financial gains enabled by having sufficient money to invest, than on money earned by hard work.

2. Drop the AMT, which has plagued the middle class for the past ten years.

By the way, Peter ... way too generic.  The solutions that you proposed would do much more harm than good without a responsible strategy.

Since the word "socialism" is tossed around so much these days, I'll put it this way:

You get socialism for the rich, or socialism for the poor.  The system is always working for somebody.  Now, since Reagan, we have an extreme trickle up system.

Both agree, and disagree~

Me too:)

I disagree.   It should be equal and working together

i think that if a person has a disability then they need help other wise i think every one should go to work

Most of the poor do work, and work looooooong hours, usually several part time jobs so they don't get any benefits.   Most of the money from their efforts funnels quickly right up to the top - and government laws helped make that so.

1.  the Minimum Wage is a farce.  It is the Liberal's way of keeping the little man down.  2.  The liberals want everyone dependant on the Federal Govt. from cradle to grave.

Minimum Wage would not be necessary if we had strong unions all over the place, again.  Otherwise it's just sweat shops for the workers.

Unions are not the answer, its just a mini gov with the workers again at the bottom.

Unions created our middle class in the first place.  Unions are the workers only advocates.  All unions are is a collective lawyer against a collection of lawyers.  Call them "mini-governments" - whatever.  The corporations would certainly want workers to NOT have their own mini-governments.  Isolated, workers are very controllable (and cheap).

Unions can bring the middle class back again.

  """Life isn't fair no one said it was fair""""..., """and i don't think things have to be equal""".  """

Why should someone who went to college for years and got a degree that enables them to make a lot of money have to have an equal income to someone who didnt make the same life choices"""?  People need to take care of themselves and their families.   The poor people have several programs available to them so that they can better themselves.  Look into Fasfa or pell grants for college.  I do think we need to offer short term help for people but imo our govt does to much and people are living off the govt and thats not right.  Life is all about choices, i can't make choices for others and because people want their rights and freedoms they need to accept personal responsiblity for their lives"""

Ashley, That same nausiating response of,"LIFE's NOT FAIR", can be used against your own arguements.

I agree, why should we have to work together?  Life isn't fair no one said it was fair, and i don't think things have to be equal.  Why should someone who went to college for years and got a degree that enables them to make a lot of money have to have an equal income to someone who didnt make the same life choices?  People need to take care of themselves and their families.   The poor people have several programs available to them so that they can better themselves.  Look into Fasfa or pell grants for college.  I do think we need to offer short term help for people but imo our govt does to much and people are living off the govt and thats not right.  Life is all about choices, i can't make choices for others and because people want their rights and freedoms they need to accept personal responsiblity for their lives

There is a HUGE difference between everything being totally equal (will never happen - and NOBODY ever asked for that to be) and America being an unfair Nation of Aristocracies.  The Reagan era mindset would have us the Nation of Aristocracies.

And a modern education is quickly becoming something only the rich can afford.

In total agreement, Purrrrrrrrrrrr!

"""I agree, why should we have to work together?""" 

"""Life isn't fair no one said it was fair, and i don't think things have to be equal""".

Because , like you said yourself, "Life isn't fair".  This same old phrase and arguement can be turned on you, and the mentality of those that always use it against the working poor/impoverished.

I think my concern is more for the 'middle class', the rich can afford to be taxed to help the poor but it's the middle class that is struggling, especially those with kids, and are taxed. 

Did you hear the next big tax item is to tax workers who have cell phones provided by their employers!  It's considered a perk. 

Next step, put a tax on employee bathroom toliet paper--I wouldn't be surprised!

I agree the middle class have it hard.  I have seen some middle class families that have less then poor families because the poor families can get free electric, free food, cash assistence, daycare assistence and so on and the middle class can't but are barely making it.  I have a few friends that are stuck in the middle and trying as hard as they can to get things paid off so that it gets better. 

The same is true for some cargivers.  I know one guy who can't afford the high cost of quality care for his wife and can't get help because he's above poverty.   He's not rich and he's not poor--he's caught in the middle!

That's sad and something needs to be done about that.  I know a woman who refuses to get promotions at work or find a better job because if she does she will lose her daycare assistence and her free insurance thru the state. So she will never better herself because if she does she wont qualify for aide and she can't afford daycare and insurance without the aide.  A lot of people are like that, they can't or wont better themselves because if they do they can't make it.  It is better to be poor in this country then to be middle class and thats a sad statement about how our govt works.  When its better to be poor then it is to be middle class something isn't right

That's ridiculous about taxing cell phones given to employees.  It's a necessity for their jobs and many times the employees consider it a bane.

To me, it seems the middle class people are the new 'poor' because they get no assistance, yet are often scraping to have enough basic necessities. Ever heard the saying, "The straw that broke the camel's back?" I hope things don't get as bad as that, but it seems to be heading too quickly in that direction. Many people I know are finding it difficult to have proper food, much less to afford insurance. So they go without, not getting any help. They earn too much to qualify for gov. assistance, yet too poor to do any better

Lets not get ridiculous. It is not better to be poor than it is to be middle class. I have no idea what you base your premise on unless I  guess you assume ever poor person receives a long list of services. All services that I am aware of are income based with some sort of relationship with the poverty line for that county or state. Some qualify for untility aid but don't for housing. It is a mismash system of aid where a few qualify for various kinds of help but few in most area qualifies for all that is available. I think if your comment was based on what is available to the poor you must be lumping everything into one category and blaming all the poor for getting a lot of aid.

Right now in the St Louis area food banks are running low on goods because of so many jobless (former middle class) have fallen to the need category. I have worked these streets in the community for decades and have heard similar complaints but it is not reality. There always remains a huge list in wait for many different services no matter what  economic condition exist.

I remember back in the 90's when welfare reform went into affect. Many of those who formerly received welfare were forced to take mimimum wage jobs which did not afford them to pay for day care, enough food or in many cases transportation yet, in this state many of the services were cut for those who had gotten jobs though the jobs did not cover even the basics. When one failed I heard a constant drum of they don't want to work cause they get everything free. That's a myth which some choose to believe because of their disdain for some poor.

If one is going to earnestly help the poor it would seem to me that counseling and a helping hand to get and keep them off the public dole would be the order of the day but it is not generally the method used.

No dear lady it is not better to be poor than to be middle class.   

Spencer,

Those cuts affected the poor across the country. I was one of them.

My friends,

I had to have the assistance because I had two small children and no family that could babysit. When I started working, my kids got knocked off of medicaid without a second thought to the fact that I couldn't get insurance. I was denied because of my size, and I didn't smoke and I wasn't suffering from any major health issues at the time. (The health issues I have now are aggravated by my weight, but not caused by it) I couldn't take my kids to the doctor. There were no FREE clinics in our area, or even low income ones. The closest things we had to that was the WIC program, which only covered Well child check ups and that through age 5. Because of child support, which I got sporadically at first I was cut out of many assistance programs, though the child support was never even paid every month. Yes there are some programs out there. some areas have more than others, and some have very few. Spencer is right about how much disdain you can receive as well. All too often, when you do get assistance, you can find people in charge that assume the same things you do. I took the help anyway, despite the way these people treated me, and talked down to me, for my children, but it is not something I would even wish on Dick Cheney.

I agree with Rayburn Blair!

totally agree...

There is no such thing as a freee lunch... "someone" has to pay the bill.

good points, thanks for posting your thoughts on this Mary, I agree by the way

Agree, with caveat.  I don't think the rich should be penalized for working hard for their money, and yes, most wealthy do indeed work hard for their money, despite what I hear so frequently.  I don't think they should be verbally degraded for taking advantage for what is available to them.  If there are tax shelters, then go for it.  It's not the wealthy who created the tax shelters, it's the loopholes in the laws.  If they are able to have more due to lax laws, then I blame our government and the legislators who cave in to special interests.

Alternatively, I don't think disabled and/or down-on-their-luck citizens should be penalized for situations beyond their control.  Some people are unable to work at all and it's not their fault, they should be able to live in dignity with more than just enough for survival.  Again, I blame laws within our government, and legislators who cave to special interests.

That being said, those with more time and/or time on their hands, altruism is a necessity when living within a community, and volunteerism should be strongly encouraged.

Perfectly and clearly stated, Cathi.

I too support a flat tax system.

That being said, those with more time and/or time on their hands, altruism is a necessity when living within a community, and volunteerism should be strongly encouraged.

I knew I should have had that 2nd cup of joe before I wrote this!  That should read "those with more time and/or money on their hands."

Again, I'm seeing a variety of words tossed around, i.e., rich, wealthy, affluent, etc.  Much depends on the definition of these words.

I do believe the wealthy work for their money.  There are many ways people can work.  For one, maintaining your investments, especially in real estate and property, is work.  These things do not build on their own.  Many wealthy volunteer for and contribute to nonprofit and charitable organizations.  Without their help, these groups wouldn't survive.

I, too, know many from all walks of life.  But I will say that we live in an enormous country, and one person's experience on this subject may be completely different from another's.

I like how you said it, you say it best.

A flat tax is the best of a poor series of choices...God knows our current system is far too gamed to be worthy of a republic.

Oh, ditto that, my friend!

People need to be trained for work and helped when they legitimately cannot work. Retirees are on the dole and I do not EVER understand why SOME retirees are AGAINST OTHERS receiving public funds.

Kathryn, the main thing with retirees is that they worked and paid into the system--I don't think that should make them resent anyone getting help--but I don't understand people agreeing that those who don't work because they don't want too, or it's easier to be on the dole should be given a free ride.

I think the government should provide free training programs for those below poverty, and provide jobs for them, or at least help businesses to create jobs rather than taxing companies and putting them out of business. 

It's a vicious circle--I am worried about how far this government will go to make sure all of us are on the dole.

I agree the government should provide free training programs. Mass. does provide many training programs for those on unemployment and also the retooled welfare system under Clinton, a Democrat, provides free but mandatory training programs for those on the now-temporary welfare system.

The old welfare system encouraged long term use and discouraged work but encourgaged multiple babies.

all of us will never be on the dole. But I am always surprised when Republicans complain because THEY ARE ON THE DOLE, too. Everybody benefits.

I have paid into SS since I was 12 but hopefully I will not retire until my 80s, if then.

My father paid huge sums of money into it because he was a highly paid professor at an exclusive university. Yet, his survivors received only a fraction of what he paid into it.

Those who make the most and pay into the system the greatest amount will only receive a fraction, and the rest goes into the pool to pay for everybody else.

So my father paid for you, Mary.

And I am paying for you, Mary.

Your generation receives FAR more of ALL public moneies compared to what your generation and my parents generation actually PUT INTO IT because of the VAST number of Baby Boomers who have been working our butts off for years paying for ALL who are CURRENTLY receiving PUBLIC monies.

Yet, the Gen X and all others who come after the Boomer Generation are not NEARLY enough to begin to contribute substantial amounts to pay for the Boomers.

The Boomers' kids, some of whom have been working for awhile, but the boom did not start until about 1984, and did not peak until 1988 - 1992 - are not strong enough yet in numbers to even BEGIN to pay for the Boomers when we begin to retire, not at 65 but at 67 and later.

But I am not complaining. I never once expected ANYONE to take care of me for anything.

I will work until I drop. They will have to pull the boots off me.

Not to worry about your social security, Kathryn--if the govenrment continues on the road it is, you'll have to be on the dole to survive.  Your generation is the one who will be paying and paying for all these bailouts and doleouts. 

BTW--I'm pre baby boomer--born before WWII

It is a not so easy to just get on public aid.  TANF you now work for to get what equals out to be $1.50 an hour.  You are worked to death to in the end get your $399 a month handed to you.  I am sure some still take advantage in some way but I think if this happens someone sitting behind their desk isn't doing their job.  This in return would make it so that the ones getting it are truely needing it. 

Most wealthy DO NOT WORK for their money. They invest it and it grows. Or grew. The people who actually WORK often do not get ENOUGH reward for their efforts:

Sanitation engineers, teachers, retail workers, office workers, i.e. AA, health care assistants. and some of the lower-paid nurses. Only a small fraction of nurses actually make GOOD money - i.e. 80 K and up.

I know plenty of people in ALL walks of life, people on the dole, people who work for minimum wage, people who work for a so-called living wage, i.e. most of the above categories, people who make GOOD professional salaries, i.e., professors at exclusive universities, doctors, some dentists and vets, some lawyers at high priced firms, and I know people who actually MAKE MORE THAN any of these people, and they are - or were - wealthy, yet they HAD MORE FREE TIME THAN 3 or 4 of these people put together. Of course, when they were on vacation, they brought cell phones and lap top and other accoutrements, but they were calling in and making decisions, i.e., a working vacation.

Now they are stressed because they cannot sell their extra homes and yachts.

Pity.

Kathryn, somebody or something seems to have made you very bitter.  I'm one of those retirees, who actually lives on the dole, and babysits to supplement my income.  Most people I know who are wealthy give more than their share to help others.  I think you may be running in the wrong circle of wealthy people.

You don't know many truly weathly people. They do NOT work for most of the money. I am talking about millionnaires, not people who make $200-$300,000 a year. They are AFFLUENT and yes, they work hard. But the truly wealthy is a small fraction and they do NOT work for the bulk of their money. The investments USED to take care of all of it.

I disagree completely. The only "free lunches" that I see these days is that provided to the rich... because they are rich. And "someone" does have to pay... they exploit the poor and the middle class (what is left of the middle class... they are shifting into the poor).

Although it is true that you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it, you can distribute it more equitably.  Right now it is concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of society... who are essentially much like royalty. I beleive that this was essentially the situation that started the American Revolution... the rich in England trying to exploit other classes through taxes. Now the rich just exploit us directly by high prices and 60% markup. Anyone who believes that the executives getting bonuses of millions of dollars (never mind their pay) cannot afford to be taxed... well, you won't be middle class for long.

Canada has the right idea....Having lived in Canada for 9 years and worked and contributed to the health care and also was able to get health care as a student too poor to contribute....

Ian B has my total support.

i believe in being fair to all

I understand your point of view and i do think its sweet to think that way:)  But how can it be fair to all when people have free will.  How can two people have the same things and have equally fair life when those people made different choices with their lives.  As long as people have free will do lets say not do good in school, drop out, have kids before they are financially stable then life wont be as fair to them as it will be to someone who waited to have kids, did good in school or made different life choices.  I would love for everyone to be financially stable but like i said life is about choices and not everyone is going to make the smart ones.  Now i do think its different for people who are disabled or special needs, they do deserve for life to be more fair for them because they did nothing wrong, they didnt ask for the special needs and so on. 

sweet heart i am disable on disability....i do get some help from the state...it just be nice if everyone could get what they need....help with no matter what your income is....i know people who verily making it need health coverage and cant get it....i know people who dont work cause they dont want to who shouldnt be getting help but they are.....

I just wish there was a way where everyone could be equal.. and get the help they need.....apparently i read this whole post wrong...

Those on disability are not all getting handouts.  When you work you pay for social security and medicare.  If you become disabled you can get SS disability, you paid for it.  You won't recieve as much as if you worked till retirement but you did pay for it.  There are those who cheat the system, but you can't throw out the bathwater with the baby in it.

I agree and to retire and get the benefits you have to have at least 40 credits from working.  My dh and i aren't counting on SS though because we doubt it will be there when we are old enough to get it.  We are both in our mid 20's and have a retirement fund and other savings for when we retire because i don't think its smart for us to rely on that money being there.

I have no idea anymore.....

I'm a proudly Liberal Democrat. That should answer the question. Some people honestly do need help.

excellent quote which is unfortunately true today soon pople wont bother wanting to work with the way the goverment is handling things

I agree. Taxation is extortion, plain and simple. And you're right. When you take from the producers to give to the non-producers, eventually no one will have incentive to work and the whole system will collapse. That is why I promote a system which observes no class distinctions and provides for the needs of all without extorting from anyone.

Oh, and BTW... (Peter) the "blame game" is so old and tired. It does not matter who got us into the situation - truth be told there are numerous names on that list.

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." 
~~Eleanor Roosevelt

What MATTERS is our response, and trying the same things which have already failed again and again WILL NOT WORK. In fact, to Einstein, it is the definition of insanity:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
~~Albert Einstein 

I agree.

What most Libs do not understand, is there is a difference between a hand up and a hand out. With the Capitalistic and free market systems, we had avenues of advancement. With all the hand outs, and the socialized programs we have been throwing into the pot, it has become slowly hampered, and we are now seeing a decline in American ingenuity because it has been dampened with giving to those who refuse not to work.

Socialism is the decline of any nation, and with the way things are going, if the US lowers herself into total socialism, then every industrialized Nation will either be Socialist or Communist, and we'll see a drop in inovation like we have not seen in our collective histories.

I'm hearing that the major European people are voting the liberals out, they have had enough of their socialism.  Now they are supporting consumerism, for which we need capitalism.

Yeah, even France and Germany lost their Socialist leaders. Maybe the tide is changing, and we're on the late swings?

The right wing of Europe is no neccessarily capitalist but more less socialist.  The ones who pay the bills there are waking up to the nightmare they have but don't expect them to do more than trim the edges of the mess they have.  We on the other hand have close to a majority of people who think we can copy Europe but not make the same mistakes

By the way, I support fare tax, which I know Peter will disagree with, because he knows the distortions of it, and not the facts.

I support the fair tax also.  Anyone who isn't sure what it is, briefly it is

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax  administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

It also draws money from those coming here legally and illegally and taxes them on what they spend, aiding additional funds to the government. We help so many of these countries out, why not tax them when they visit here?

I'm for it.

Dan, shall we start a movement?  I don't understand why our esteemed politicians don't see the viability of this.

I would say it is because the Demoncrats have control and it makes too much sense for them, but the fact is, we have not been able to get either side to support it. From what I understand, FTA (Fare-Tax America) is already workin g on it. :)

This is only a way to frame a debate that misses the problem and justifies greed and corruption by those in authority.  All this Ayn Rand kind of talk.  The fact is that the heads of almost every institution have driven them into the ground, out of incompetency.  Is working for something the same as conspiring with your buddies to vote your salary as a director or CEO up no matter what the company as a whole does?  Sorry, no, not to my way of thinking.

Neither, some could stand to donate to those who have less, but then there are too many that have less and EXPECT handouts.

Of couse I agree.  Despite the trillions spent and untold laws passed, the situation is still one of taking from one to give to another...

An unavoidable cost of doing civilization.  The cost would not be nearly so high if those who had the money did not make choices that plunge us all into existential problems.

And degrees of that argument will always be used by the Pauls when taking from Peters.

Very few would disagree with the idea some taxes must be taken for certain things.  Our Constitution enshrined that idea but maybe 10% of todays Federal government would fall under that idea.  That's the rub, someone is always making an excuse for taking more and the only ones protesting are the ones getting taken from.  For that, they are greedy and callous.

If we are building towards a monopolistic society wherein we have everlasting royalty that holds everyone else down, I'd go so far as to say give me communism, at least in the theoretical sense.

It was a different world when the Constitution was written, it seemed like the country would never be settled, let alone full, and there would always be land.  Health care was non-existent, as well as the kind of psychological stress and environmental problems we have today.  The cost is what the cost is, whatever it is it is a bargain to pay it, even for the rich, which is what irks the hell out of me.  The richer I get the less I even think about taxes.  No one is ever going to move up in life by shirking their taxes, and if they do then that is stealing from the rest of us.

The basic concepts of the rights of the citizen have not changed, who makes up the citizenary has.  Our republic was based on the idea of minimal government, it of itself was as a necessary evil.  As we have gradually lost that fear, government has encroached on more and more of our lives.  That is ok for many people but it invites a backlash eventually by those paying an increasing share of that encroachment.

Mary, my problem with your article is the assumption that half the people do not wish to work because the other half is going to take care of them. I have heard that sort of biased comment all my life and see no merit in it. Thats another one of those empty comments some choose to believe for their own reasons.

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

Please explain that statement to me. Does this mean if you are poor you deserve no freedoms? That only the wealthy deserve freedoms?

What aspect of freedom is the government trying to legislate or has legislated that denies the "poor"?  It is far easier to argue that taking more from the wealthy and middle class is an act of restriction of freedom, ie economic.

Your question asking are only the wealthy deserving of freedom was not what Mary nor her statement said.

Thanks Charles, it wasn't what the statement said.  It doesn't even imply that the poor have no freedoms.  Thank God, so far, none of our politicians have taken away the freedoms ours Constitution declared for us. 

Spencer, I am one who lives below the poverty line.  My only income is SS, I am 72 and find babysitting jobs to supplement my income, find budgeting means to keep my expenses down, and I have all the same freedoms as the wealthy.  The freedom to speak, to breathe, to work or not work, if that were a choice, unfortunately, it isn't, unless I want to go on state funded handouts, which I have chosen not to do.

Those who have physical or mental reasons not to work should always have a helping hand.  We all need to support local charities, and religious groups that help those in need.  We need to volunteer, donate and participate instead of saying, let the government take care of them. 

I'm finding that liberals think all wealthy people are greedy and miserly and want it all.  Look at Oprah, Bill Gates and other like them.  I've found that those who are wealthy and give were givers before they became wealthy.  How do you think they got to where they are? 

I'm still waiting for the explanation. What did she mean?

Mary, your explanation did not address the statement made.

Spencer, I'm confused.  What do you mean, "what did she mean?"

"Please explain that statement to me. Does this mean if you are poor you deserve no freedoms? That only the wealthy deserve freedoms?"

If it isn't clear to you I believe it means that when the government takes away the freedom to earn a good wage, keep a good portion of what they earn, and are foced to give a large substanial portion to those who don't earn or contribute, you are taking away some of their freedoms. The poor are not legislated to pay more, give more, provide more, so they have lost none of their freedoms.  Am I not making sense? 

I could see your point if you were discussing 50 percent of their disposable income, which is how you are making it sound, but that is not the case! The poor lose freedoms because they aren't wealthy enough to get the same advantages of the wealthy because it is about putting a monetary value on skills, and that value is set by all the wrong things, why else would sports stars earn millions, while police officers and teachers end up on government assistance?

No ma'am. You and I have a totally different take on what you are speaking about. Whether you earn a small income or a huge one the taxes are divided to the various expenditures of the government. I keep reading strange results from what is said like the government takes away a large substantial portion to those who don't earn or contribute, you are taking away some of their freedoms. I know of no country who does it any differently but I am not aware of what I am preceiving from what I am reading. Civilization functions on a contribute as you earn (taxes) basis. I can't grasp how so many are complaining that the poor is getting away with something while those richer are being punished. In my working years I paid large tax amounts both from my businesses and my personal taxes. I never was concerned that I was paying more than another. I made more so to me I am to pay more. Maybe if we were talingof percentages itwould be different. A person making $10,000 who pays ten percent in taxes pays the same rate as one paying ten percent o $40,000. I am totally confused as to what is being said here.

I had the freedom to earn more and I did but just like so many others if you are speaking of success as freedom then it is almost impossible to decide who is going to earn more than another. In any senerio as to who is going to be more successful than another a certain amount of luck is always in the equation. No matter how many comparisons one makes with those with similar educational levels only a handful are going to rise above the norm in that industry. All cannot be top echelon workers. ARe we to punish those who did not reach the level of top in their fields? By the same token as I understand it about 5% of the people control nearly 90% of the wealth in the US. Are you saying that by them paying taxes we are robbing them of their rights? Thats where I have a serious difference with this article. We all work and contribute to the system which in turn gives us benefits of a society. We have roads, controlled riverways, a legal system, institutions of all sorts which benifits most and on and on. The concept that we are taking from one to give to another is to me a created concept which I have failed to grasp. This continuous vilifying of those who make less than another is troubling to me in that we all contribute in some way to the whole. The insinuation that there is a huge group of people who only take but contribute nothing is a long time false premise some have been spouting since I was a child. some wish to paint the poor as the reason for so much government spendingbut I don't hear them spouting the same when companies get welfare even though it is in much larger sums. I don't hear that same spouting when companies make decisions which adversely affect a huge portion of the population. So my confusion remains as to how you explain and justify what is beng said here.

I have difficulty grasping how one can argue about the pittances some get because they are poor yet ignore the huge sums medical companies often rob the system for services they did not give. How can one vilify the pennies given to a needy family when an Exxon can spill thousands of barrels of oil and get a slap on the wrist though they have ruined a pristine waterway. How can one begrudge a family who got caught up in a company going out of business and lost everything. My heart works a bit different from yours. Especially in recent years peoples lives have been turned upside down by companies dropping payments to their retirement funds, to the future health care they promised then to cut back on labor because they are not sure of the future.  

I live in a neighborhood which was formerly a very stable area with a 90+ % home ownership. Now a large number of the residents are working two or more part time jobs because their former jobs have folded. Should they be denied help because they are now poor? They didn't refuse to work nor contribute to society but have fallen from where they used to be yet in your article nor in the comments do I see these people covered. They must be somewhere in that broad brush many have used to demean those who are poor and can no longer contribute at the level they formerly did.  When they once held on to the fact they had a good paying job that they thought would last until retirement they were waylaid by an era where employers don't want older workers. I, as well as many others, who are within 20 years or less of retirement age (I'm now retired) suddenly found themselves in a horrible position. Their savings were used up to cover long range living expenses without a steady income. Some got additional training but found no steady jobs. Some lost what savings and investments they had due to lost of health coverage and other live situations. I can't vilify these people who did and acted the way society says they should yet are now on the bottom of the heap. And may I add it has nothing to do with them not wanting to work and expectinig someone else to take care of them. How does one make a decision on some they think does not want to work? Thats always confusing to me.

>>large number of the residents are working two or more part time jobs because their former jobs have folded.<<

And you think things will be different when more businesses close?  Well probably--the answer if for everyone to be in the exact same economic situation--unfortunately, when all are poor, who will support the government?  You see what's happened to CA don't you? 

Please go up to my explanation of the fair tax--that is good because those below a certain income level will not have to pay taxes.  Only those who have money to buy consumer goods--which we won't have if we keep following the way things are going.

Spencer, can we agree to disagree.  I really think you totally do not understand my comments--I know you don't believe me but I really am a very liberal conservative--living below the povertry line and making the most of what I have.  I just don't think it should be taken from my adult children who are working hard to save money to put their kids through college and they are taxed and taxed and taxed to help those who aren't working.  At the rate it's going, you know the unemployment level is going to be higher and highter--and more of those who are working will have to pay for those not working.  And so it goes.

Love the way your mind works, and sorry we just can't seem to agree.  Sorry about your neighborhood too. It happens to many of us.

I agree with Spencer, and I do not understand the whining from those who are the best off, really, it is unseemly and shameful.  The poor don't have time to whine.

One of the best example of how those with money go on to rig the system is the capital gains tax laws.  Someone who invests money and gets a return pays less in taxes at a given income rate than someone who works for a living.  The excuse is to encourage investment.  Huh?  Why no encourage work?  Do we discourage work or investment? No, it is all the same, money earned, and should be taxed more based on ability to pay.  Somehow this idea had taken hold in the US and it is like abortion a rabid debate with the one side whipping themselves up into a frenzy about taxes.

If they hate the social problems that make excess taxes necessary, let's solve them ... except what they really hate is the idea that the people they help will rise up and be as sucessful as they no longer can be without political inflluence and favoritism.

A few years ago I got a chance to go to college,paid for by GM, even got paid 40 hours a week pay for it. My son was trying to get  a PAL grant and couldn't get one, They said I made too much money. There was a black lady that was going, she was in some of my classes. I worked in the shop with her  husband, he made more money that I did, she worked too. You guessed it she got a Pal grant to go to college. Now how is that fair.

that is not fair, and tax rate and economic help should be apportioned by need/class, not by race.  this is one way I believe the Republicans have thrown the wrench into goverment to make sure it does not work, and instead divides people.  they help minorities and crap on average Americans, even if they are disadvantaged.

A long time ago I was discriminated against by a minority supervisor.  When I searched for something to do about it, there was no provision for even recognizing the problem.  So I moved on and lived with it.  I could do that.  I am sorry for those who cannot, and I am disgusted by minorities who come to this country and demand to be treated equally and then turn around and discriminate just like the people they attacked.

These problems need to be written or seen generically, to protect those who need help, not just as straw laws to make people lose respect for and hate the government.  We are being manipulated through this garbage to ends that neither side would want to champion.

thanks

Agree, you need to work hard for your money and cannopt have it given to you.

I agree with you about this, who is to say the government knows how to best spend your money? Particularly in corrupt Illinois with extremely high taxes, there really isn't much of an incentive to work hard when you know you are going to be taxed to death.

I am in Pa looking for a job, try having car inspections(69 bucks) that the mechanic is in charge of if its safe or not....so cant drive my car(you get stickers on your windshield) have to share with my bf who leaves for work at 1230 doesnt come home til 11

Where in Pa?  My inspection was only $50 near Pittsburgh.  I did just spend $600 to meet inspection for my daughter's car so I feel your pain!!

look for these kind of things to get worse.  in europe and japan it costs thousands to own and run a car, and when a car is a certain age it is off the junk heap or the third world for resale.  when we destroy the environment there is a cost, and when we employ people to collect that cost unless we can produce good people, we get incompetence, corruption and bribery.  Pay now for schools that do something useful, and help for dependent families, or pay later in jails crime and police.  It's all the same.

I'm reminded of Adam Smith's theory of the haves and have nots...there will always be people that have and others that do without.  We do have to be compassionate to our fellow human being but they also have to find a way to balance the compensation in other ways even if means volunteering some type of time to a community organization. 

I recently heard a podcast that  if a person that does not have a lot of wealth hits the lottery for millions of dollars they will most likely be broke in 5 years no matter how much they win.  It's all a matter of mindset.  It was a very interesting podcast.

Here's the link:

http://www.selfgrowth.com/audio/brandingseminar.mp3

My point is that we need to change our mindsets to change our lives. 

Very good point, but mindset is something we instill in people to be good consumers.  if everyone was a savy consumer out society would not work, we are starting to find that out now.  we rely on dysfunctionality to take advantage of people, a disenfranchisement and alienation tax on the poorest people who are led to believe that TV is the reality, the advertising world of lies.

Spencer, you are a clear-headed sweety!  You've got a solid grasp on reality.  Thank you!

I disagree with the premis of this article.  It is a false premis.

Not a lot of time right now, Mary, so I'll simply say I agree.

I feel that I have nothing to say for this issue.

Oh, good!  My favorites: Strawman aphorisms, pithy (but meaningless) sayings, absurd oversimplifications of complex social issues.

What nonsense!

Last night I happened to see the movie with Will Smith, "Pursuit of Happiness."  That showed a different side to the story.  He did not receive any handouts and he certainly needed some help.  It is a shame that so many people who milk the system and take advantage ruin it for those people who are really in need of help.

My reasons for disagreement on the false premis of this article is summed up in Chuck's comment.

"Oh, good! My favorites: Strawman aphorisms, pithy (but meaningless) sayings, absurd over simplifications of complex social issues".

"What nonsense"!

What a world we would live in if we were all motivated like Mother Teresa!! In the real world, almost all of us are programmed to maximize our own well being. Yes, you too. Another reality is that some of us have skills that are valued more than others. Do you think your roofer should be paid the same as your brain surgeon? I am among the millions who have worked all their lives, given a day's effort for a day's wages, paid my share of taxes, lived frugally and saved enough that I can retire comfortably. Now I give my time to charities. I am not among the super rich. If I live long enough, I will die broke and my kids will cheer about it. They also earn every cent they get and they don't whine about the neighbor having a better car or a yacht. Some of what I have accumulated came from investments. Did I earn that money? Of course! Would you like it better if I had put it under a mattress? I want to hear from those out there who believe that I owe them some or all of my savings. Please make a case for me to send you money that I have earned. Even if I was super rich - tell me why I should share my fortune with you. Who is to say whether I earned it with as much sweat as you earned yours? Some fat congressman who gets a golden umbrella from his first day in office?

Do you agree that government wastes the lion's share of the tax money you send them? (Hillary just gave almost a billion dollars to rebuild the Gaza strip)(Pelosi just commandeered a 757 airplane to fly her home every week at an annual cost to tax payers of $5.76 million) Do you agree that government is corrupt (check out the earmarks), grossly inefficient and ponderous?  If you do, then explain to me why you want to make it bigger. Who do you think they will appoint to decide which of us should give their income to the others? Do you actually think the producers of this world (you are probably one of them, since you own a computer) will gladly send off their earnings to be distributed at the whim of people who, probably, have never pumped their own gas or paid their own electric bill? You want socialism. Why do you think the Soviet Union no longer exists? Why do think so many people are trying to come to the U.S.?

I know this is a fruitless appeal to many, and that true equity is a complex compromise, but punishing people for maximizing their own well being is surely disastrous. It makes as much sense as breeding people who all work at the same speed and do things that are of exactly equal value.

Rest easy 

Applause, applause, applause.   I wish there was sound to hear my cheer.  I am so in agreement.  I watch my kids, and grandkids, and I see the parents working hard to afford a good life for their children and I see where it can easily be eaten away by taxes to pay for those who don't work hard.  I"m not talking about people who try to find work, or people who work two and three jobs, I"m talking about people who don't work because they get more from their government for not working.

The sad part is that a lot of the foks who have replied on the liberal side are working people. They just don't understand that they are the ones who will pay. No one else can.

Keep trying, Mary. One or two will start to think.

Did not President Clinton improve the situation by limiting assistance to five years during which recipients of aid must train for employment and then find work?

I believe in compassion. When I was younger, my mother and I were in a position where we truly needed help. We got none.

If it was his administration, then he may have actually done good. To my knowledge it was a state-by-state thing.

Mary, you and Bill W. have got it right.  I look back at my life and see how my tax dollars have been wasted and I'm angry.  I have help foot the bill for all kinds of government programs from which no one in my family has ever been able to benefit. My taxes have paid for tuition grants for students while my children graduated with the burden of heavy student loans.

Like Leo, I believe in compassion and am a volunteer and donor to charities and my church.  If everyone put in even 24 hours of volunteer work per week, government programs wouldn't be necessary.

I am embarassed to say that I haven't been a volunteer but I am truly determined to change that.  I do support, within my finacial means, local programs that help the homeless, but Jan, I know I've got to do more than that.  Thanks for reminding me.

I agree with everything you said in your article.  :)