Comments on critters.org/c/blog/?l=20111117122102

Forum rules
Comments for critters.org/c/blog/?l=20111117122102 - . General forum rules apply: http://critique.org/c/forum.ht
  • Ads

Comments on critters.org/c/blog/?l=20111117122102

Postby CrittersMinion » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:24 pm

[Reposted from old comment system, from Critter Captain on Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:39:47 0000]

I saw some demographic analysis of "tea party supporters" and it was slightly tilted more toward higher income earners, but generally mirrored the overall US population income-wise. So if 28% opted out, and that reduced expenditures "only" 25%, or even 20%, that'd be fine.

Beyond that, it's still the principle that counts. Putting money where mouth is makes a strong statement.
CrittersMinion
Name: A Critters Minion
Wise Old Tree
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:32 pm

Comments on critters.org/c/blog/?l=20111117122102

Postby CrittersMinion » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:24 pm

[Reposted from old comment system, from anonymous on Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:34:24 0000]

I think there's something off with the math of the last half -- 28% of the nation supporting the Tea Party does not mean that Tea Party members compose 28% of those recieving welfare. I don't know what those statistics are. I imagine (and I could be wrong) that people who pride themselves on self-sufficiency are less likely to enroll themselves on welfare, and more likely to find ways to get off of welfare if they're on it. I know back when Ron Paul was delivering babies, he worked for free if a patient couldn't pay instead of accepting Medicaid.
CrittersMinion
Name: A Critters Minion
Wise Old Tree
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:32 pm

Comments on critters.org/c/blog/?l=20111117122102

Postby CrittersMinion » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:10 am

[Reposted from old comment system, from anonymous on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 23:14:16 0000]

I agree that if the rich feel they should be taxed more, than they should go ahead and give more. Let them donate. Most conservatives are perfectly willing to opt out of government entitlements if only the money to pay for it wasn't forcibly taken. They should not have to pay for them if they are not going to use them. And I agree with the other comments that the abuse is the biggest issue most people have. Everyone gets into a jam now and again. Its the entitlement mentality that they have a right to plasma tcs and smartphones that pisses everyone off. Don't believe me, watch a weeks worth of Judge Judy to see people who have 6, 7 or 10 kids while on disability for high blood pressure, dislexia or ingrown toenails. They're fighting over who gets the XBox. Ask any of them how they care for a dozen kids and they will tell you, the government, aka, you and me.
CrittersMinion
Name: A Critters Minion
Wise Old Tree
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:32 pm

Comments on critters.org/c/blog/?l=20111117122102

Postby CrittersMinion » Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:10 am

[Reposted from old comment system, from Guest on Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:26:27 0000]

I like the idea of voluntarily paying more taxes. Regarding cutting spending, defense cuts are completely possible and admirable provided that we are cutting waste and not essentials. Entitlement programs are unpopular because of the way they are abused by those who never pay taxes anyway and make their living off the government. Unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc. are all supposed to be emergency stop-gap measures and not a way of life. For a hard-working person to "opt out" of a program that he might need as an emergency measure in the future isn't a great idea. Your statement "taxes collected to fund these programs would be reduced, since there would be all these fewer people to provide for." is false. The taxes would still be collected. No one is against social/entitlement programs, only the abuse of them.
CrittersMinion
Name: A Critters Minion
Wise Old Tree
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:32 pm

  • Ads

Return to critters.org/c/blog/?l=20111117122102

cron