• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

Exactly. And if the government confiscates Person 3's wealth, nobody achieves anything and everybody gets nothing.

Tolerating Person 3's success lets everyone else work, feed themselves, and a chance at prosperity.

Demonizing Person 3's success lets everyone else go unemployed, hungry, with no chance for anything.

Private enterprise and capitalistic endeavor employ more people, feed more people, and accomplish more social good than all government programs combine. Government little more than a parasite--a problem, not a solution.

Trickle down economics are pretty much a joke, btw.
 
Nice math but you totally miss the point as a good right winger. You are so focused on the "rich" that you fail to see the huge majority of the people are in the first 2 categories. So you are basically saying, screw the less well off as long as the super rich get their tax breaks because then they can maybe invest the money somewhere. Like it or not person 1 and 2 are what drive any economy. Person 3 can invest all his wealth but without the spending of person 1 and 2, person 3 will never achieve or expand on his or her wealth.

And I love your last comment.. may I ask where your compassion is for person 1 and 2 when they cant afford to buy food for their children or cloths for themselves? Person 3 can afford to pay that little extra in taxes, where as person 1 and 2 cant. Giving a tax break to the majority of people vs the very small minority is and always has been the best course, but listening to you only the rich matter. Great compassion there dude.

No, you entirely miss the point altogether. (I suspect you understand this completely, but refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't jive with your bitter political leanings).

By screwing over Person 3, Persons 1 and 2 are now completely at the mercy of the government, which is exactly how you and Obama want it. Funny thing is, Hitler wanted the same thing.
 
The entire state is affected by the situation, and to remove calWORKS completely would have a profound ripple effect throughout the state and the country.
Really.
Show that there are sufficient people on public assistance to plunge the entire state" into violent anarchy.
 
Trickle down economics are pretty much a joke, btw.

That statement is a joke, btw.

However, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Chavez would agree with you wholeheartedly, which judging by your moniker is exactly what you hope for.
 
Trickle down economics are pretty much a joke, btw.
Its been tried three times on a national level, and its worked three times on a national level.
The "joke" revolves around the people that deny this.
 
Really.
Show that there are sufficient people on public assistance to plunge the entire state" into violent anarchy.

A study by Beacon Economics - a California-based research firm - shows that the employment and economic activity generated by CalWORKs far exceeds the amount the state spends on it, Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors Association of California, said in letter to county social services directors.

According to the study, every $1 million spent on CalWORKs generates $7.35 million in economic output and employment in the state, he said.

...

Because families enrolled in the program use a portion of their cash assistance on housing, it could result in more county residents losing their homes, Work said.

Without job training, it also could mean fewer people finding work, which would stunt the county's economic growth, she added.

Officials say cutting CalWORKs would hurt economy : News : Redding Record Searchlight

And this is on top of the current unemployment/foreclosure crisis they are facing, as well.

That statement is a joke, btw.

However, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Chavez would agree with you wholeheartedly, which judging by your moniker is exactly what you hope for.

And this is how we know that you will not contribute anything substantial or honest to this forum, ever.:2wave:

Its been tried three times on a national level, and its worked three times on a national level.
The "joke" revolves around the people that deny this.

If by "worked" you mean failed then yes. But I have no desire to get into an economic argument with you; you obviously have other goals in mind than me when it comes to gauging "workability".
 
A study by Beacon Economics - a California-based research firm - shows that the employment and economic activity generated by CalWORKs far exceeds the amount the state spends on it, Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors Association of California, said in letter to county social services directors.

According to the study, every $1 million spent on CalWORKs generates $7.35 million in economic output and employment in the state, he said.

Because families enrolled in the program use a portion of their cash assistance on housing, it could result in more county residents losing their homes, Work said.

Without job training, it also could mean fewer people finding work, which would stunt the county's economic growth, she added.

And this is on top of the current unemployment/foreclosure crisis they are facing, as well.
Whoop-whoop.
This doesnt show what I asked you to show.

If by "worked" you mean failed then yes.
Show this to be true.
 
Whoop-whoop.
This doesnt show what I asked you to show.

Actually that article does show that; I just didn't quote it because the amount of people on it at any one time is irrelevant, as it reaches many more people than the amount simply on it in one instance.

Show this to be true.

Just like how you wanted me to show that there was no Iraq-US cease-fire agreement? I'm not interested in wasting my time writing a book on something that you would just troll in response.
 
It's pretty ridiculous to claim that a program as successful as calWORKS is responsible for this when the government has been basically hemorrhaging money in much more bureaucratic and wasteful ways, just like every other state (and the federal government, as well).

"Blame the leftists" seems to me to be more of a cop out than an actual addressing of the issue.

You certainly aren't suggesting that conservative economic policies caused this, are you?


The return is in not having the entire state collapse into rioting, chaos and economic meltdown, which is what would happen if they got rid of calWORKS.

What proof do you have that there would be riots and chaos? Assuming for a moment that you are correct, the fact that this would happen shows the failure of calWORKS, not the success, that people would start rioting because they stopped receiving other peoples' money they didn't work for rather than pick themselves up and go out looking for an income of their own.
 
The entire state is affected by the situation, and to remove calWORKS completely would have a profound ripple effect throughout the state and the country.

So what? The current situation is having a profound ripple effect right now. It's time for the gravy train to be retired.
 
Actually that article does show that; I just didn't quote it because the amount of people on it at any one time is irrelevant, as it reaches many more people than the amount simply on it in one instance.

The production of the private sector. For each dollar that it uses, how much economic activity is generated? After all, we need to compare your figure to something right?
 
You certainly aren't suggesting that conservative economic policies caused this, are you?

No, I'm not being partisan; I'm more referring to the inadequacy of this government in responsibly handling its finances in general, which includes both republicans and democrats.

The production of the private sector. For each dollar that it uses, how much economic activity is generated? After all, we need to compare your figure to something right?

What? I don't understand what you're asking here, but if I'm guessing right then your answer is in my last post:

According to the study, every $1 million spent on CalWORKs generates $7.35 million in economic output and employment in the state, he said.
 
What? I don't understand what you're asking here, but if I'm guessing right then your answer is in my last post:

According to the study, every $1 million spent on CalWORKs generates $7.35 million in economic output and employment in the state, he said.

I want you to show me this figure, just fill in the blank:

Every $1 million spent by the private sector generates $____ million in economic output and employment in the state.

This way we'll have a point of comparison.
 
Actually that article does show that; I just didn't quote it because the amount of people on it at any one time is irrelevant, as it reaches many more people than the amount simply on it in one instance.
So... you cannot show your claim to be true. Noted.

Just like how you wanted me to show that there was no Iraq-US cease-fire agreement? I'm not interested in wasting my time writing a book on something that you would just troll in response.
Again... you cannot show your claim to be true. Noted.
 
For the love of God, why is this so hard to grasp? I understood this concept in fourth grade, yet liberals love to wrap the "Reaganomics" tag on it and make it sound like some grand Ponzi scheme.

Either liberals are intellectually dishonest enough to argue against what they know to be true, or they are dumber than I was in fourth grade. I suspect the former, and unfortunately for them it flies in the face of their political agenda, which is to reward the lazy in exchange for the collective vote.

:yt .......
 
And I don't think California will ever just turn off welfare. As has been pointed out, the state would erupt in riots.

I don't think that a variety of people here realize for most intensive purposes that welfare is nothing more than a fee we pay to poor people to stop them from robbing us and burglarizing our houses.
 
I don't think that a variety of people here realize for most intensive purposes that welfare is nothing more than a fee we pay to poor people to stop them from robbing us and burglarizing our houses.
A Smith&Wesson in every household would be far cheaper.
 
I don't think that a variety of people here realize for most intensive purposes that welfare is nothing more than a fee we pay to poor people to stop them from robbing us and burglarizing our houses.
If there were -ever- a case for -ending- welfare, it is this.

Paying people to not be criminals is among the WORST thing a society can do.
 
If there were -ever- a case for -ending- welfare, it is this.

Huh? So we should enact measures that increase criminal activity?

Paying people to not be criminals is among the WORST thing a society can do.

What makes you think we don't do this in a variety of ways already, with the middle class and upper class?

Furthermore, not all of the poor will go criminal should welfare end.
 
A Smith&Wesson in every household would be far cheaper.

Not really. Most gun owners are not the most intelligent people, especially when it comes to safety. Giving everyone a firearm when even the avid collectors don't have the best practices is essentially like forcing bars to accept people with guns. Yay! Alcohol and firearms are a bad combination, as is stupidity and firearms, not to mention inexperience/ignorance and firearms.
 
I'd read the Fair Tax book anyway, whether you agree with the premise or not it is a good read, I agree with you that it has little chance of being implemented for two reasons, one, as you mentioned the IRS doesn't want to give up it's power, and also the CPA lobby enjoys the easy way of "big hitting" around April 15, i.e., the bulk of their incomes comes between Jan.-Apr. with late filers allowing them to basically coast the rest of the year, with a flat tax these CPAs would actually have to find employment with companies and *gasp* work year round like the rest of us. I'll say this though, the fair tax is so simple it's brilliant.

The idea is to implement the tax first, it is weighted to provide sufficient operating funds for existing programs with the idea of weening the government off of spending and waste in an economically viable timeframe, the concept involves a trimming effect on overspending, forcing programs to lean down through the natural progression of legislative law, not by shock and awe economic leveraging

Most fair minded conservatives would state that we have too many entitlements, but we have so much at the moment that immediate elimination would damage the economy past the benefit of the reductions, many of us advocate a strategic roll back of programs to what is necessary, but to eliminate the fat, we would use a scalpel, not a hatchet. I agree, but I would also commend those that put their position at risk to do what needs to be done towards solvency.

Thank you for the insight. I'm going to do some more research. I'm afraid however that I'm going to find that it in fact is a brilliant idea and I will become despondent over the probability that it will never be realized due to tradition.
 
Most gun owners are not the most intelligent people, especially when it comes to safety.
A statement you cannot, in any way, support.

Giving everyone a firearm when even the avid collectors don't have the best practices...
Another statement you cannot, in any way, support.
 
Back
Top Bottom