MONSIEUR QUEBEC: Did you mention that Quebec is probably the most socialist spot of land in North America?
And, just a coincidence, the lifestyle health indicator for this province is down at #52 on a total of 60 positions…Niiiiiiiiiice, eh?
If the poor want to go there, go on. This should be their promised land for them! The numbers speak for themselves!
ThaRealest-My point was that the democrats themselves took the provision out and then blamed the Republicans for it. I know that all politicians lie but the democrats are especially deceptive at it. I heard a lady on the radio this morning (i dont recall who it was, but i heard her quote it four or five times since yesterday)say that the provision shouldnt be considered welfare but a tax refund. That is the most ludicrous thing i have ever heard. There is a chapter in Rush’s old book titled words mean things and apparently money given to the poor for no other reason than for being poor is no longer called welfare but is now called a tax break. Last year my parents made 95,000 together. According to most democrats, including Dick Gephart, my parents are rich and should not get a tax refund. My parents are the types of people who are the back bone of this country. People who go to work everyday, do a good job, inspire people, demand good with the money they make, support their children every way they can, dont break the law, and pay their fair share of taxes. They recieved no help from the government this year. Now someone who decided they dont want to work hard in school, then work a shitty job, and have ten kids out of wedlock gets 400 dollars for every kid she has even though she pays no federal income tax and probably recieves money from the government every month. Now Mr. Canada, i want you to tell me how that is fair?
We should start doing this in school. If you study hard and make a 100 on the test, we are going to take some of your score away and give it to someone who got drunk the night before and didnt study. That way everyone can be more equal. How many of you would go balistic if that were to happen to you?
My mother in law taught in a low income inner city LA school. Her classes were about evenly split between two ethnic groups. Both groups were exposed to the same neighborhood streets, the same low budgets for classroms, etc. One group showed improvement every year in measurable skills and knowledge. The other group did not do nearly as well. If a kid in that group had trouble, and most did, she rarely could convince the parents to come in to discuss it. Some of the parents that did show up made comments like, “What do they need to know that shit for?” when discussing teaching a 5th grader to read. The group that got value from the education had a totally different cultural value placed on learning. The parents wanted their kids to learn and do well and did what they could to help.
We have a suburban school close to here that is on the verge of being decertified by the state for poor performance by the students on mandatory tests. The majority of the students are from the same ethnic group that my MIL had trouble getting through to in LA.
Some groups of people in this country have certain expectations and unless they change them you can dump a boatload of money into the system and still not get literate, capable, graduates out the other end. There’s more to it than inequity in the money spent. The school nearby is new, the teachers are the same skill level as all the neighboring schools, the big difference is that education is not valued in certain “cultures” or subcultures. Money won’t fix that, better teachers might help a rare few of the kids, a sea change in cultural attitudes is what’s needed. How can the government fix that?
I’m not saying we as a society should give up but until we openly identify the real problems we can never hope to address them.
Do some of you tards have any idea how welfare even works? Read the welfare reform act, then maybe your ignorant assumption that people “sit on their ass and collect checks” might be scaled back.
I’m always amazed at seemingly working class people who are ready to burn social programs.
Oh, and unenployment (long term) is the highest it has been since the early 80’s.
Way to go Bush.
"Oh, and unenployment (long term) is the highest it has been since the early 80’s. "
Remember the boom in the Nasdaq and the Dow? When did that end? The year 2000. When did GW swear in as Prez.? Jan. 2001.
The economy, which is what drives the employment market, has been on a downward slide for longer than GW has had a chance to do anything about it. I’m sure if you look at the Enron and WorldCom scandals you’ll also see that they predated GW’s term as well.
There is more to unemployment and the economy than what the president does or does not do. I know people that worked for Dot Coms that are now making 1/3 of what they did in other jobs now. Other people that invested some of their money in the Nasdaq got burned a bit. They quit taking so many trips etc. When people don’t travel the airlines lay off, the hotels lay off, and eventually Boeing lays off too. The ripple effect of the stock market slide is far more to blame for unemployment than anything old GW had his hand in.
I don’t love the guy but give credit, and blame, where it’s due instead of just pointing at the guy at the top out of habit.
Something the government can and should do is change the tax structure to favor companies that don’t farm out work to overseas plants and penalize those that do. The same could be done with government contracts. If a $30K a year job in Ohio turns into a $5K job in Pakistan it hurts us all. The Pakistani won’t buy or rent a house in the US, or buy and drive a car here, or eat here, or even travel here because he’s too poor to.
Big corporations forgot the lesson that Henry Ford taught when he started paying his people $5 day. It’s costing us all now.
And before we start blaming Bush for the economy dont forget those planes that were flown into the World Trade Towers. Also realize the economy is cyclic and every other time taxes were lowered, an economic boom encoured. It just takes some time. I can guarantdamntee ya that the republican way is better than the liberal way. All liberals want to do is throw money at a problem and expect it to go away. As steely said,more money is not the answer. People have to start taking responsibility for their actions. How many people would try harder in school, work harder at work, and generally bust their asses a little bit more if they werent recieving a check every month. And a lot of them do sit on their asses. I live in a low socioeconomic neighborhood. I see them sitting on their front porches everyday. The people across the street from me never leave the front porch. You cant tell me that they couldnt find a job or learn a trade somewhere instead of sitting on their asses. I see it everyday so dont tell me it doesnt happen.
→ goldberg
Poor people who have kids simply don’t have the cash to raise a kid. That’s why the government needs to support them; there’s no point in making a rough situation worse. The woman could choose to have an abortion though if she doesn’t think she wants one. Oh wait, I’m talking about the USA. Your parents didn’t get a tax refund because they’re already much better off than the people who really need one. It’s perfectly fair when you think of someone other than yourself. Actually, I think they should be taxed more heavily if the government would put that cash into schools, fire stations, hospitals, etc. They want to keep their $95,000 AND get a tax return?? Instead of trying to satisfy 2 of their needs, why not try to satisfy just one of someone else’s.
The whole reason schools exist is so people can learn. If the government supports this, they should provide more funding for schools. Someone’s income shouldn’t be what determines how they do or whether they can get in or not. What you suggest is just silly; it totally contradicts the whole purpose of education.
Tax cuts for the rich won’t work. They’re not going to spend nearly as much money as people who are less well off, or single parents, etc. The only real reason for tax cuts for the rich is to do favours for friends of the Bush family & campaign donors. That’s the only reason I can think of.
I don’t think our plumped to the ground because of what happen to WTC yes it did have an effct on our economy but it wasn’t the cause of it and I don’t blame Mr.Bush for our bad economy. I think Mr. Slick Willy is the one to blame for our ecomony.
Also, for all u people that think Soicalism or Communism works, WAKE UP! It doesn’t. If it does why are more and more communist nation turning more and more into capitalism. Take China for example every day they are changing to a captlistic world they are not the yet but they are heading to that direction.
Soicalism and Communist country only have two class of people the rich and the poor no middle at all. And the rich are truelly rich and the poor are dirt poor. Now do want to live in that country. I know I wouldn’t.
Sorry for the long post but I wanted to get my 2cents in on this. By the way we broke 9000 on NYSE today. I think the ecomony is picking up a little.
“The woman could choose to have an abortion though if she doesn’t think she wants one. Oh wait, I’m talking about the USA.”
Couldn’t she also choose not to fuck until she can support a child financially?
I forgot to write Economy somehow before plummed. Don’t know how I did that.
“Tax cuts for the rich won’t work. They’re not going to spend nearly as much money as people who are less well off, or single parents, etc. The only real reason for tax cuts for the rich is to do favours for friends of the Bush family & campaign donors. That’s the only reason I can think of.”
Rich people wont spend as much as less well off people? Are you just fucking stupid? Rich people spend a hell of a lot more than poor people. Where did you get that information. Are people in Canada opposite of people in America?
The government cannot run peoples lives. My mom is a middle school teacher and my dad teaches high school. The kids dont care because the parents dont give a shit. How will throwing money at education help any when they arent going to do anything good with what they are given? If people need help monetarily when raising their kids they need to think before they have sex and have kids. You dont take on responsabilities in life that you can not handle. If you cant afford to have children then dont have sex and make a baby that you cant pay for. There’s your answer to that question right there. The government is not my mom and dad and they are not my safety net and i dont want everything that i get given to me by the government.
I dont know how it is in Canada but if you are poor you can practically get paid to go to school by the government. If you are a minority its even easier. So if you are a poor minority you have a double advantage. I dont want to hear this, I can help bullshit, when it is you that makes your future. You are not a victim. The man is not trying to keep you down. And nobody wants to see you fail. People do not appreciate things that are given to them. They appreciate things that they work for and earn. And welfare does not provide that. There should be damn time limit on welfare. Like you got five years to get your ass in gear and start pulling your weight. Do you realize these people get all of the benefits of the government(military protection, police protection, roads, welfare, food stamps, schools, lunch and breakfast at school, fire department, hospital, etc) while paying for a very very small percentage of it. Yet those who go to school, get a good education, and make an honest days work, pay their share and the share of people who sit on their porch. and remember, i see them everyday. im off to sams now. ill say hey for you.
There are fine examples of money not being the solution in the paper every once in a while. Keep an eye out for the stories about the big lotto winners and how they are doing a few years later. A good portion of them are as broke as they were the day before they bought the ticket.
The facts are that not all people have the responsibility to deal with money whether it’s $50 a week or $3 million. Those are the same people that aren’t responsible enough to show up to work regularly so they tend to be out of a job most of the time.
Germany has a good social welfare system, or so it’s said. I traveled around for a couple of weeks in March and I saw bums just like we have at home only they spoke German. The unemployment rate in Germany is 11% and their economic growth rate is half of ours. I didn’t see a triumph of liberal values and neither did a lot of the Germans I talked with. Many of them had good things to say about the USA as a matter of fact.
Some thoughts out of my little brain:
USA and Canada are both capitalist and socialist countries. There’s very few countries in this world that are totally socialist or capitalist because at both extremes lie huge social problems. France is a “socialist” country and it has its share of social problems and is a lot less productive than the US, Germany or Canada.
I’m an not in favor of long term welfare program like in Canada. There’s been studies about this very subject, every time the welfare $$ allowed is going up, the number of people using this social program keeps creeping up since welfare, in essence, acts as a security net AND (I don’t have the exact english word for it) lowers for some people their need to find a job.
Let’s face it, people aren’t all honest and many don’t give a shit if they are a social burden. In Canada, during the last 40 years, we’ve been raised as highly ego-driven people(ME!ME!ME!) Therefore, for many, it’s normal the State has to provide free money and services.
As far as Quebec, even if it rank 53th out of 60, it should be said you can still find good housing for less than 300-400$US per month in middle-size cities and life isn’t expensive. So it’s kind of hard to compare New York city living standards and Let’s say Drummondville living standards(a 20 millions megalopolis vs. 50 000 inhabitants’ city)
Lastly, there’s some difference in tax law which none of you have pointed out: there’s many form of tax credits. The first one is tax credit, which you can use IF you pay taxes. The second one is a refundable tax credit which is like a subvention since if you don’t have tax to pay, you still get the amount of the tax credit in money(it’s used in many tax situations in Canada).
Where do I stand in all this? I don’t think giving free money to every loser asking for it is a good idea as you force them to stay in poverty. But even if a rich is paying 1000 times more taxes per year than a poor, do you think the rich guy would exchange his place? Hell no! So some people should stop claiming paying 35% tax when you make 175 000$US is a sad thing, you’ll always be better than in Canada(or in Quebec where when you win 70 000$US or 103 500$CAN ou get overall tax rate of 48,2%!)
Feel free to reply, intelligently please!
-LPdSB
The school I teach at was in the top 4% in the state last year (our third year of operation). We were right at 100% minority, right at 100% ESL, and over 80% migrant. Schools in Texas spend an average of $5600 per child per year. We spent right at $3500, and we only had about 250 kids last year. That means we can’t really take advantage of the economy of scale that most schools can. Money is not the answer to education.
But I would take a raise.
I agree that the economy cannot be blamed simply on Bush or the Republicans - HOWEVER - I can question the intelligence of two massive tax cuts in periods of economic slump. As a political economist, I cannot see the reasoning behind the tax cuts as a “stimulus” to the economy - even the very conservative financial times of london says that the “insane are running the asylum”
We now have the lowest taxes as a percentage of GDP since before the New Deal - how is this tax rate sustainable if we hope to keep Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs that I think (never sure anymore) we all value?
Bush’s drive towards a war in Iraq is another mistake I point to in order to give him partial blame in the state of the economy - I can’t believe that many people would say he has a “strong domestic agenda”. Until recently, very little was said or done to help stimulate the economy, restore consumer confidence, or quell wall street concerns over corporate scandals.
And as a final point I’d like to make, the new tax cut ignores many of the loopholes in the current tax scheme that ALLOW coroporate tax evasion and profit adjustment. These provisions were left in place, and I can’t blam anyone but the lobbyists and their bitches in Washington.
Goldberg - for god’s sakes, go read about welfare before saying it doesn’t have time limits. We have one of the strictest time limited welfare systems in the world.
Here, I’ll make it easy:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/h3734_en.htm
Goldberg, Stella, SteelyEyes - Amen and God bless you!
LPdSB: Nice detailled example.
As for Quebec, it’s the roost concept that sucks. High taxes = no money left = no choice and/or stuck there.
Join that with a french speaking population (majority), and you’ve got a majority of people who have far less cash left than their neighbors, that are stuck there because of their language barrier (most of them), so a) they don’t have the money to leave and b) even if they wanted, they’d be stuck there because of the language limitation. Niiiiiiiiice. Add to that the existing french-language police and you control ‘evolution’ (or statu quo more exactly) of the situation. Who needs the Communist Party, anyway?
As for the housing, well, give people more money could be hell or heaven: either they could buy more expensive properties, which would drive up prices, or those (few) that could move away would sell, thus lowering prices. True mystery.
I prefer liberty and choiced, not government imposed roosts.