Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Politician Wants To Post The Address Of Welfare Recipients" video.

  1. +Lizzy Bennet http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5
    2
  2. +Sean McKelvey I agree with that. We have it for the most part already.
    1
  3. How is this "poor shaming"? They are receiving money off of the taxpayer's hard work. We know where all of our money is being spent. Politicians have their phone numbers and addresses of their office online. Plus it isn't an issue X amount of money being spent, it is that welfare contributes to inflation which cost more money in the end.
    1
  4. +Peter Jumper 1. Giving people money does not generate wealth. What we want to do is generate goods and services. The more goods and services we have the better off society is as a whole. Just giving people money just because the simply exist means others have to work that much harder to pick up the slack or simply that there won't enough goods and services thus the value of the dollar is now lower. 2. There is nothing wrong with safety nets if society deems them necessary and not a waste. You do that at the local level. At the federal level you have a waste. You have people who literally earn money for doing nothing and you come up with an unbalanced tax system where the top 10% earn 40% of the income by pay 70% of taxes. That means they have to do an extra 30% of the work for free. Opportunity isn't there due to expensive regulations preventing jobs from being created. You seem to have a basic lack of knowledge of economics here.
    1
  5. +Peter Jumper If you took economics then you should get your money back. What generates wealth is work. Money is just a universal means of trade. Spending does not generate wealth, trade and development (work) does. If people had more money to spend but the development of wealth is the same then all that does is raise prices, or lower the value of money. Wealth just doesn't exist, it needs to be developed.
    1
  6. +kerner530 http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5 That that much according to this.
    1
  7. +Mickey Cohen http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5 Almost half of the budget is on welfare. It is a problem as well.
    1
  8. +Mickey Cohen Where does it say that it has gone down 36%?
    1
  9. +Mickey Cohen Show me. Break it down for me.
    1
  10. +Mickey Cohen I want to see how you break it down. The link I gave broke it down in specific categories. I want to see if you are matching that as well.
    1
  11. +Mickey Cohen Then do it, it isn't that hard to find a link. Until then you whole "36%" is a made up stat.
    1
  12. +ademetal They are receiving taxpayer's dollars to pay for bills. At that point they should be serving the taxpayers.
    1
  13. +markis hilaurelius Everyone is not a taxpayer. These people receive money from the government. They should work for society. People who get welfare personally get money from the government for a specific reason. That is why they are different. I was in Stockton, CA the other day. There is so much trash on the ground. How about Stockton, CA gets their welfare recipients to work for the city and clean it up. That will help out the community a lot more than just giving people money.
    1
  14. +PappyMan Please retype with paragraphs, it is hard to read.
    1
  15. +PappyMan No your couldn't. The pure fact is that paying people money to do nothing is a waste. Welfare is one of the contributors to our current problems.
    1
  16. +Jonathan Gomes If having knowledge of economics makes me a sociopath than I am fine with that.
    1
  17. +mcjagggerd Economics is actually very simple to learn. Economics is based off of a set of very simple rules that are connected in a complex way. In a healthy economy goods and services should get better and cheaper. We see that in a lot of areas. Computers, TVs, cell phones, cars, LASIK etc. In areas we don't see that and instead see prices go up are areas that the federal government has touched. Healthcare, college education, food and so on. That is because the federal government has perturbed the market and thus prices went up. Looking at food giving away food stamps has led to the increase in food prices. We are producing too much food but yet prices continue to go up. That doesn't help the economy.
    1
  18. +mcjagggerd Going back to the simple set of rules in economics you have to realize that economics is based off of psychology than you think. If we were to at least create a flat income tax and remove all federal welfare programs then the money people earn is theirs. They will invest it more and be wiser in how they use it. You will see prices drop and more wealth become generated. You will also see a decrease in the income inequality gap. As is you have this progressive tax where the top 10% earn 40% of all income but pay 70% of taxes. They know the value of resources and they know how to generate wealth. Having them do that extra work for society means they will value their money more and thus find a way to earn more. That is why the income gap is growing. People who understand the value of money invest it and people who don't waste it.
    1
  19. +mcjagggerd Depends on what you mean by food prices going down. The cost of food is higher today than in the past. Looks like they are going up. And it isn't because of the drought. While it may be true that the price of groceries is going down for the average family so is the average family size since the 70s and the fact that Title I schools give away free meals which cost the government more money (and lead to higher food prices for others). Healthcare is expensive due to the government creating a system where people are hindered from negotiating prices and picking an insurance plan that suits them. They are stuck to what their employer's offer due to taxes that prevented higher wages. Businesses wanted to pay higher wages but couldn't. They loophole were benefits that were 100% tax free. College loans led to higher tuition. As with healthcare it removed the negotiation of the buyer and seller. People can just pull out a loan and attend a college with no care of how to pay it off until later. What you are saying about grants is slightly true, but in the end that money was limited. Loans are not, and almost everyone qualifies. Look at how much in loans one can pull out. With the loans you increased demand for college without increasing the amount of goods and services it has to offer. Thus the price goes up, econ. 101 there. You have a few problems when you talk about psychology. First off the housing bubble would not have happen, or at least have not been as bad and recovery would not have been so slow. That is because banks would not have given bad loans to people who can't afford it. Now you mentioned the min. wage worker. Only around 2% work full time and earn the min. wage. The thought that there are people who are trying to live off of the min. wage is wrong. The vast majority of those working min. wage jobs are not poor. Plus you don't have to put your money in the stock market to invest it. Simply saving it works. "The top 1% owns 43% of the wealth in this country." Wealth does not equal income. Until you can learn that fact your then we can go to opinions. Cutting funding does not kill the private sector. You have a lot to learn about economics. That is okay, I am hear to help. We can take baby steps. First learn the massive difference between wealth and income.
    1
  20. +PappyMan I agree the wars were a waste, but so are federal welfare programs. If you were to do the math you would find out that CEOs are not earning that much. A $15/hr min. wage will kill jobs for several people and raise prices.
    1