OOOO! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Kick him in the head!
I have the utmost respect for Nutshell, it will be a civilized debate of the highest caliber.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
OOOO! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Kick him in the head!
I have the utmost respect for Nutshell, it will be a civilized debate of the highest caliber.
Any comments, Rick or Starfish?
Nutshell, are you in favor of spending more money on welfare? What do you suggest be done?
I don't doubt there are children hungry in America; however, I would bet the responsibility falls on the decisions of the parents. Of course children should not have to suffer for their parents choices. But just giving the parents more money is only a bandaid on a bigger problem.
This bigger problem will continue to grow as long as immorality grows. If children weren't being raised in single parent homes to the degree that they are today, poverty would greatly diminish. Unwed pregnancy and absent fathers, and everything that encourages and leads to that is the bigger problem. It's all part of the collapse of the family. This lifestyle repeats generation after generation.
This is where we need to focus. But since we "cannot legislate morality" or "judge other's lifestyles", it's a difficult battle. Everything we do to strengthen and protect families is politically incorrect to someone.
So, what do you suggest?
Poor, fat Americans are a product of fast food. A typical diner costs me about $7, before tips. Sushi costs me $14 for a filling meal. A 6" sandwich at Subway costs me about $2.50, but it's certainly not going to fill you up. A two-patty cheeseburger with fries and a large drink at $4 is a good deal.
Poor Americans have two choices. Either they eat fast food and become seriously ill later on in their life, or they stick to a strict regiment of peanut-butter sandwiches and cereal which is absolutely terrible for your health.
I make less than 10k a year, and I can even afford to eat better than that.Poor Americans have two choices. Either they eat fast food and become seriously ill later on in their life, or they stick to a strict regiment of peanut-butter sandwiches and cereal which is absolutely terrible for your health.
Well, according to my accountant (the wife) we screwed up. She worked her @ss off this year and got a few raises. I got a great new job where I'm making more than the last job. So we make too much to get a rebate check. But the "disabled" woman next door who doesn't work but cleans her gutters, rides motorcycles, gardens, mows, babysits under the table and pays no taxes will be getting the maximum allowable amount.
G-d bless America!
So you and your wife must make well over $150K. Oh - boo hoo.
Forgive me if redistribution of wealth makes me a little cranky.
Oh I know what the "point" of the rebate is. The only thing is that it won't work. Short term it is like applying a band aid to a decapitation and long term it is just more money give aways we don't even have.
And, of course, it is unfair that only a certain sector of our society will receive a check. But because it is the $75,000+ that get to pay the bill but get shut out no one cares. If it was everyone below $24,000 that didn't get anything everyone would throw a hissy fit.
I'm not complaining mind you,
but until you have hit some major downfall,
like a failed business...
or a lost business/income
(due to illness, death, childbirth, or a spouse leaving)...
and you have four children,
even if you start out before your loss with 0 debt,
one small season of difficulty
can put you under for years and years.
Even when you live as frugally as we do.
Best not to lump everyone together.
Many many many of us live frugally and are struggling majorly.
We did not invite our debt, but we had to buy groceries and pay utility bills somehow.
However, you could think of it as a one-time retroactive tax adjustment. You got your final rate right up front; everyone else had the government hold onto their money for months when it really shouldn't have had the money to begin with.And, of course, it is unfair that only a certain sector of our society will receive a check. But because it is the $75,000+ that get to pay the bill but get shut out no one cares. If it was everyone below $24,000 that didn't get anything everyone would throw a hissy fit.
However, you could think of it as a one-time retroactive tax adjustment. You got your final rate right up front; everyone else had the government hold onto their money for months when it really shouldn't have had the money to begin with.
Kind of like with tax returns. All else being equal, I suppose it's better to have money in your pocket, but when people say, "Hooray! I got a big cheque from the government!" I hear, "Hooray! I gave the government a big interest-free loan all year!"
Yeah. I agree the checks will do nothing but hurt the economy with millions of dollars suddenly being pumped into the economy.The fact that the government doesn't even have this money they are "giving back" would lead me to believe it isn't even a tax rebate. It's a money give away.