A few years ago, my aunt had a high paying (over 70 grand/yr) office-type job working for some company I am not familiar with. She frittered away her money buying all the most expensive things... jewelry, an expensive apartment with a high rise ceiling (I think is the right word?), a new car, etc. The list of purchases gets more extravagent as I keep listing them, but this is all beside the point. She wasted her money, did not save any of it for the future, and in general, was just irresponsible.
A few years later, she just decided she hated her job, and quit. (she was over forty at this time.) Very soon thereafter, what money she did have in her accounts dried up, and she moved out of her apartment, moving in with other people she knew. She tried to get other jobs, but couldn't. Her old job refused to take her back. For a few years, she moved about, from friend's house, to friend's house, living there, trying to get by, going from small job to small job, working as cashiers at grocery stores, and other small jobs. Finally, she moved BACK in with her parents, and lived there for a couple years, not working. She applied for welfare, and food stamps, and got them.
She then got into disagreements with her parents, and moved in with other relatives of hers. (My house.) As I watch, she has no job, but goes out to Barnes and Noble every other day, buying expensive, extravagant drinks at the Starbucks there, and spending the day there reading, before coming home. Her parents give her money occasionally, which, 90% of the time, is frittered away like the rest.
That's pretty much it. I hope you enjoyed the story. Welfare in America, 2006.
Oh! For those who are wondering, her political affiliation could summarized with two descriptive terms: democrat/liberal. You bet she got pissed off when GWB announced his plans to replace Social Security with private retirement accounts.
Currently, she whines about degradation of the environment, Bush privatizing social security, conservatives who want to do away with welfare and food stamps, "rich americans who who won't donate to foreign aid", and of course, those "greedy" and "selfish" people who want to abolish tax-supported foreign aid.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 22:21
>>39
Cheers. I get a mild cold about once every year and that's just about it (and I'm living in Minnesota). I don't smoke/drink/do drugs/practive unsafe sex habits/ ect. Pay for your own unhealthy habits.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 22:58
People look after their health so they don't have to pay so much insurance.
As New York Times columnist Fred Brock recently wrote, "So-called reform of the Social Security system is looking more and more like a solution in search of a problem."
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 5:57
People look after their health so they don't have to pay so much insurance.
You'd think.
Of course, the current trend in insurance fees indicates that isn't the case. People act for short-term gratification, which leads to long-term detriment.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 6:16
Americans are pretty healthy, and we do not have national healthcare.
Long story short, gentlemen, is that fact and fiction are not the same thing. Dogma should not get in the way of practicality.
Name:
Xel2006-06-30 6:46
>>48 Decentralize spending yet make sure no states get up to selfish/anti-constitutional business, is that a solution? Also, stop eating the culinary equivalent of exrement, get meat/crop manufacturers to stop cutting costs at the expene of their customers and start changing the two-job culture from its roots. Better eating and less obesity/health costs would probably ensue. Don't think I have any credibility here though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 14:39
>>47
Then let the private companies charge them through the nose... I don't care. I live right. Just don't make it mandatory to have insurance...
>>48
We're pretty god damn healthy compared to most other shitholes in the world.
Name:
Xel2006-06-30 15:58
>>51 I never said business was unconstitutional, I'm talking about hard gun legislation/saying that gays can't adopt; silly, voter appeasing holy cows like that.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 22:12
We're pretty god damn healthy compared to most other shitholes in the world.
Yes, that's definitely true. Everything is relative.
But there's also room for improvement.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-30 23:00
>>53
Yeah. My life is pretty good right now. There's always room for improvement. I should go steal something to make it better.
>>55
My point would be that it would be unjust. I view taxes as slavery/stealing. If we are doing ok as it is healthwise (and we are... better than a lot of countries) then that is just fine. National healthcare is far from a must, and not enough Americans care. I'd rather not have it.
We should cut the govt programs that there ARE and leave it to the market. I shouldn't have to take on the burdens of unhealthy people who don't eat right, don't exercise, eat at mcd's, etc. Not only that, such programs are cutting deeply into the federal budget, and many citizens are not even able to recieve the promised benfits because our budget is so strangled from the war and other dumb programs.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-01 23:06
>>56
Such people would have less incentive to eat healthy (and not at McD's) if we had some kind of national health care. The public would bear the financial burdens... not them.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-02 0:02
I view taxes as slavery/stealing.
In which case, it's time to reevaluate the social contract. Leave.
Your education was supported by taxes. The electricity and telephone grid development was heavily subsidised by taxes. The roads you drive on are public works. The enforcement agencies that ensure there isn't arsenic in your toothpaste are funded by the government. Fire brigade? Police force? Even public transit?
And most people accept that taxes are necessary, and some are bright enough to understand how this relates to economy of scale. That's why they exist, because you don't get these things for free. If you don't like that, you're in the wrong place.
Maybe Timbuktu is the place for you.
Name:
Xel2006-07-02 4:33
>>58 Some experts, but not all, say that the Swedish taxation level (highest in the world) may be the best in the world: assuming the rest of the economy and the actual spending of it is skillful. Good luck with that when the incumbents are a bunch of incompetent socialists.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-02 6:14
I don't care what the best taxation level is. I just find people pulling out garbage like "zOMG taxes are stealing lol!!1!" intensely irritating.
Taxes exist because it's in our collective interest to have certain essential services performed for everyone. The payment for these services is enforced by the community, because there are always people who just want to ride on the coat-tails of everyone else (see: tragedy of the commons).
Some people want more services (high tax), some people want few (low tax), but only a complete moron believes that taxes are slavery/stealing/random bullshit sound-bite.
Of course, this world is filled with morons.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-02 20:49
>>60
The key word is "essential" services. In other words, it's not "essential" that we have a national health care system.
"Some people want more services (high tax), some people want few (low tax), but only a complete moron believes that taxes are slavery/stealing/random bullshit sound-bite."
Taxes are slavery. They are evil. That's why I agree with the first thing you said, that we should only have the "essential" services. Taxation is evil, but it is a necessary evil. We should only be taxed to the extent necessary for the preservation of our freedom.
Name:
Xel2006-07-03 5:48 (sage)
>>61 People who consider "evil" to be a necessary word that justifies its own existence by its usefulness scare the living intecourse out of me. Sage.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 19:49
>>62
Why don't you argue down my argument instead of just saying it's frightening?
Name:
Xel2006-07-04 12:34
>>63 Okay. I have, on at least three instances, explained why taxes are justified due to the US not being meritocratic enough. If person A gets opportunities that B does not, simply because of them being born in different situation, then person A is technically only evening out an unfair situation by paying some welfare to B. The problem is not that taxes are intrinsically evil, the problem is that the money is not spent effectively. Evil is not only a philosophically wrong term, it is also not applicable to taxation. The problem is the lack of nuance, a complete overhaul may be necessary but calling it slavery is a semantical mistake.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-04 14:18
>>64
What if A is less fortunate than B, but worked harder?
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-04 14:49
>>64
Slavery is evil. Taxes are slavery. Taxes are evil. The reason there should be no income distribution from money willed to another after death is because the rights in question are not the recipient, but the person who is giving the money.
If I decide to just give you 20$, why should that be taxed? The right to property is the right to use, possession, and disposal, as you please. If I give you 20$, or will you 20$ when I die, the rights involved are not yours to recieve it, but mine to give it.
Rich people who have earned their dollars the hard way in life deserve to be able to give them to whom they wish.
Name:
Xel2006-07-05 2:41
>>65 In general this isn't the case. >>66 Your semantics and lack of flexibility in thinking is sad. I do think that taxation on inheritance is not as justified, though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-05 3:33
>>66 also money being inherited has already been taxed when the person who willed it obtained it. just another useless tax
Name:
Xel2006-07-05 10:33
>>68 A point. The acceptability of inheritance tax is whether giving money to those after you is a privilege or a right. I'm for the former, but I'm about as far from an educated economist as you can come.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-05 12:07
>>67
If they didn't tax inheritance, companies would use some rather ... shady techniques to transfer large amounts of money. Something I, for one, would not like to see.
Name:
Xel2006-07-05 12:39
>>70 Which is why I'm not so keen on radical changes in taxation systems, one needs to make sure exploitation of loopholes doesn't ruin society. Changing taxation levels is a whole other ball game though.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-05 15:39
>>71
People should be taxed for how much they use from the government. People who live in a trailer park and take it apon themselves to prevent crime in their neighbourhood for instance will pay less tax than an oil refinery that will likewise take efforts to reduce it's tax bill by reducing the strain on the road system and the environment.
>>1
The fact that someone can get away with doing that in the United States of America today is sickening.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-07 19:59
f
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-09 23:21
>>1 Why are fat sluts like her getting welfare money instead of people who really need it, would be a good question to ask.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-10 4:18
FAT SLUT, EH?
I CAN SOLVE THIS FEMALE'S FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-12 1:00
>>1
Come back and bitch after you've paid income taxes.
I know people who complain non-stop about welfare recipients, despite the fact that they haven't worked a day in their life, having their education, their car, and everything they own paid for by their parents. How admirable is that?