BipolarFuk
Demoted
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 11,464
Yeah it is pretty annoying to be behind someone using WIC if they don't know what they can get with it or the cashier is a newb and doesn't know wtf is going on.
Kbrown is hardly a conservative.Yep I was a conservative whore just like you, then I liked the tea party when it 1st came out. Not so much anymore.
That's why we're only on page 2.First serious political debate of the new board!
And I'm not even involved.
Conservative, yes. Free market libertarian, not always. Localist would be the closest descriptor, probably.Kbrown is hardly a conservative.
Damn, how many posts per page do you have? I'm on page 7.That's why we're only on page 2.
40 is the only correct answer.Damn, how many posts per page do you have? I'm on page 7.
No it would not,Thank you for pointing out another way in which our welfare system is easily abused. Maybe we should just get rid of the whole thing... It would certainly help our economy out significantly.
Maybe the taxes they no longer have to pay in?No it would not,
What is going to replace the money the retailers are getting from these programs?
That would be a significant hit to a lot of retailers and small stores bottom lines.
You are ignorant as to what causes economic growth. The retailers are the ones paying the taxes that are then handed out to those people on social programs. When they hand it back over to the retailers, uh, well that's pretty much not any different than letting the retailers keep it in the first place.No it would not,
What is going to replace the money the retailers are getting from these programs?
That would be a significant hit to a lot of retailers and small stores bottom lines.
Maybe the taxes they no longer have to pay in?
I am not for eliminating welfare altogether, but it does not stimulate the economy.
Long term this isn't true at all. I'm not in the mood to give a detailed economics lesson right now, but suffice it to say welfare programs shrink an economies overall productivity.That would be a significant hit to a lot of retailers and small stores bottom lines.
I'll do it!Long term this isn't true at all. I'm not in the mood to give a detailed economics lesson right now, but suffice it to say welfare programs shrink an economies overall productivity.
Sadly a lot of American's don't understand economics at all and think a lot like Jiggy.You are ignorant as to what causes economic growth. The retailers are the ones paying the taxes that are then handed out to those people on social programs. When they hand it back over to the retailers, uh, well that's pretty much not any different than letting the retailers keep it in the first place.
Exactly what I was getting at in my longer post. Production of things increases our wealth, which is what grows the economy.Sadly a lot of American's don't understand economics at all and think a lot like Jiggy.
When you have government handouts you basically take a chunk out of an economy's productivity because instead of those people being forced to produce a good or service to earn things they don't have to do anything. Less people producing a good or service means the shrinking of an economy. Of course that is a very simplistic way of describing a very complex process.
I'll do it!
Creation is what creates economic growth. Think about it if you were to take the concept of "money" out of the equation. Think about it as if we were in a barter system (ultimately, that's all that money is, it is merely a representation of our labor or the goods we would trade with each other).
How do we become better off? It's when someones goes and chops down some trees and turns those trees into a house. It's when someone cuts the wool off a sheep and turns it into clothes. It's when someone goes out into a field and turns the plants into food. This is, at it's most basic level, how we get "goods."
The more of these things we produce, the richer we are as a society. Money is merely the paper representation of those goods. The total goods owned by our society dictates how wealthy we are.
So you can take all the money you want away from the rich people and give it to the poor people, but at the end of the day, it only helps the economy if it leads to the creation of some good that contributes to our wealth. It only helps the economy if more houses, or more clothes, are produced. We then have a "wealth" of extra "things" that cover our needs. When we have so much of these extra things that our needs are more than met, we can begin to trade those extra things for recreational items (like TVs, or computers, or iPods).
The problem with giving money to poor people is that, while it may be the moral thing to do in a well-off society as a safety net for those who are less fortunate, those poor people generally just pay their rent and buy food with that money. Past that, they buy consumable goods that depreciate in value. Then the money ends up back in the hands of the rich people who it was taxed from and nothing in the system has really changed except that a rich man provided housing or food for a poor man and everyone stayed in the exact same situation in terms of wealth, at the end of the day. The poor person never got ahead, the rich man ended up with the money again. Society was not improved.
For the poor person to improve his standing long term in this cycle, there has to be an upswing in production that creates excess "things" that then become easily available to him. So real economic growth will come when our country opens new plants, or has a cutting edge breakthrough in some kind of scientific product, or does SOMETHING besides be a service economy.