How much did you make on your "earned income credit" this year? Welfare momma......
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-22
In Reply to: Then Obama should be honest and call it welfare. - But, that would make him look bad.nm
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Are you complaining about the "earned income credit?" nm
x
Sing it sister!! Earned income tax credit most defintely is welfare.
But I bet very few people who receive it think of it that way. They just happily cash that refund check.
okay - what do you think earned income credit is?
My sister pays no taxes - she has no taxes taken out of her check every week - she works a full time job, but she still every year gets back $5000-6000. Now why do you think that is any different than what you are talking about now? It is the same thing...
Yes, earned income credit, we pay our taxes....
Whaddya you make? 7 cents a line? LOL. You call that paying taxes? HAHAHAHA!
No, it's more than jus the earned income credit and kids.
This is adding in things like tuition and related school expenses, but not claiming the grant money they've recieved to pay for that - which you legally have to do. That's what makes me so mad!
Sorry, earned income credit, I have to pay taxes.....
I have no dependents, alas. I don't get food stamps or Welfare, either. Unlike you, the prophet, I will wait and see what direction our President takes us. You might be disappointed or I might be disappointed, but, obviously, it will all roll out in the end, won't it? Yes, I know about gas. Unfortunately for you, it has no escape route because you are too full of $hit to allow its escape. Sorry about the blockage.........honest, it isn't brain matter - it is fecal.
Time to stop the earned income tax credit
No more WELFARE period. Everybody can plant a small garden - even in pots. Go fishing and deer hunting for your meat. Tents are cheap - can walk or hitchhike to warmer climates so you're more comfortable. Live off the land! And let govt get smaller - no more handouts to ANYONE! If we did that, we wouldn't need roads or bridges - end that spending habit. Get rid of government completely. Everybody arm yourselves and live like they did in the old west. We are already well on our way to being a 3rd world country (even airports are dingy). Everybody is on their OWN. Consumerism would end. Who needs TV or iPods or computers or anything else? We're all gonna die anyway. Some sooner than others, but there's no way outta that one. If you don't make any money - you won't have to pay taxes.
Dont worry. Obama is going to make this a welfare
nm
YOU MAKE OVER $250,000 a year
and can't afford to go out to dinner more than once or twice a year, live in a plain house that is almost paid off and have no debt? That is ASTOUNDING! Taxes are being raised on those making over $250,000 a year. My husband and I made around $80,000 last year and now we can't afford a pot to p**s in or a window to throw it out. Cancer has defined my life for the past year, meds are astronomical, medical bills drove us to bankruptcy and, right now, I'm too sick to work. We are barely surviving on hubbies income - I sold all of my jewelry to pay bills and put food on the table. I've been saving aluminum and scrapping it for gas money. I've been fighting insurance companies for treatment and compensation that I PAID for. My 30-year-old son is handicapped and works in a sheltered workshop. He broke his glasses. He's darn near blind. He had to wait 2 years before his medical card would pay for a new pair. So, I don't want to hear how WONDERFUL those on the "dole" have it. We live in a 600 sq. ft. "cottage" and my husband is a professional with a 5-year engineering degree. We are middle class and have been stabbed in the back over the last year. I can't take 4 more years. If McCain gets elected, I hope I sucumb to this disease so I don't have to see my children and grandchildren suffer.
I do not make over 250,000 a year, sorry
and like I am going to take someone like Donald Trump's opinions to heart. not a chance. he has a lot more to lose than I do if he has to pay taxes. I will get 1000 stimulus and end up paying less in taxes, it is just they will be distributed differently, in other words, not so much given to lobbyists and oil people that is my understanding...
my cash gets taken out of my wallet NOW, more than ever, and my say where it goes is all but diminished - now THAT is scary...
If you make under 75K a year
you will get an extra 13 bucks a week. Woo hoo! Now let me ask you this......he is giving tax cuts to 95% of the people and yet these cuts only go to people making under 75K a year.....surely not 95% of Americans are making under 75K a year?
You make a good point, but I think the real credit for African American progress..sm
is education. You can take away all of the social programs you want to, but if there is not progress in education, you still have poverty.
Do you make over $250,000 a year? With Obama I'm
.
With the flat tax, people who make under 40,000 per year will not have to
pay taxes the way it reads now. They estimate that people making over 40,000 will be able to produce more tax income than the current income tax w/o including people who make under 40,000.
Q and A about the Flat Tax.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7146/flattax.html
I don't care how much the parents make per year...
Their kids still deserve affordable healthcare. You keep talking about people making $80,000 per year, and yes that is a lot of money, and more than double what I make, but those people can still get into trouble with medical bills of $100,000 to $200,000, and is it fair for that hard-working upper-middle-class family to have to sell their house simply to pay medical bills for a sick child? Not in my personal opinion.
Some people don't prioritize their spending well - I agree with you there, but should their kids suffer health-wise because of their parents horrible spending habits? Is it fair that many parents have to take a 2nd job simply to pay for their health insurance premiums? Is it fair that they cannot afford to take simple family vacations because ALL of their money goes to bills and health insurance? Is it right that many parents don't spend quality time with their children at night and aren't there to help their kids with their homework because they have had to take a 2nd job to cover health care for the family? For most families it is not a choice between cable TV and healthcare. Cable TV costs about $60 to $100 per month. Health insurance premiums can be upwards of $1000 per month plus additional costs. $12,000 per year on cable TV? I don't think so.
I personally don't go out and buy extravagant things, and that is fine with me. I can barely afford to take the kids on a weekend trip to the museum in the next town, but I know if I keep working hard someday I might be able to take my kids on more trips and broaden their herizons a bit more. In the meantime, we have a lot of love to go around, and I know that is what kids needs most, but I long for the freedom to show them a little more of the beautiful state we live in without having to worry about a $1000 per month health insurance premium.
Holycrap! You make more than 250K a year!
How did you do that with MT jobs?
Check out his income tax returns. Bulk of his income
royalties he gets from his books, which are selling like hotcakes. Besides, he gets to spend his own salary, yes? Your second paragraph is incoherent and inaccurate. McC's age is an issue NOT because of his "image", but rather because of his ill-advised VP pick and the truly TERRIFYING idea that SP could ever get that close to the oval office. SP's beauty pageant competitions have little to do with image either, rather with perceptions. Your parting shot is ridiculous. Obama gives twice the average American to charity and his jet is something his contributors think is key to his ability to "spread himself around" and get the vote out. You or I cannot pretend to know what he will do with it once the election is over. One thing for sure is that he will not be lying about selling it on Ebay.
The 2008 credit has to be paid back (no interest), but not the 2009 credit.
nm
credit for safety = credit for 9/11
If Bush wants takes credit for keeping us "safe" from terrorist attacks since 9/11, then he has to take credit for the fact that we experienced the largest terrorist attack in US history under his presidency, as well. He can't have it both ways!
I gave credit where credit was due.
I think Obama did a good job not saying anything about the hostage situation with the captain and I commend him for giving the order to the Navy Seals to do what they did. But still.....I think the heroes and the biggest thank yous need to go to the ones who risked their necks to save the captain.....and that would be the Navy Seals.
All in all, I don't like a lot of things that Obama has done. I know Bush didn't do us any favors in his 8 years either, but Obama is now in office and I do not like the way our country is heading.
As for not giving Obama any slack....how many of you people gave Bush slack on anything even when he did something good....cuz believe it or not.....he did some good things too. It goes both ways.
Income between 31K and 63K ?
Poster tried to get you to read this before but obviously ignored by most. You might want to remember this at the polls......... This was just back in March when this was attempted by Obama.. your hero!
WASHINGTON - Presidential candidates John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton interrupted their campaign schedules to return to the Senate for votes on taxes and spending likely to become key points of contention in the race for the White House.
Votes on tax cuts and on a one-year ban on pet projects topped the Senate’s agenda before an expected late-night vote yesterday to pass a $3 trillion Democratic budget blueprint. The nonbinding plan predicts a balanced budget in four years and promises generous increases for many domestic programs, but achieves those goals only by assuming major tax increases when President Bush’s tax cuts expire in about three years. This was found out and release the morning after they tried to get this passed in the mddle of the night back in March.
Obama(D-Ill.) and Clinton (D-N.Y.) both promise to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.
right - available to the low income -
You said that the insurance program to everyone would become a free program. That is not what it is. It is going to cost. My point was that Medicaid was already there as a government program for free.
Income tax
Rich are given lots of stuff for free. There is no way to hold them accountable to declare it all. Look at the goody bags they get at the award shows. They are worth tens of thousands of dollar. Only just recently has it been taxed.
It will be just like the income tax
1. They'll sell it "for a good cause". The income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax that was sold to the people on the basis of paying off war debts.
2. It will start off small and end up big.
3. It will never end.
4. It will prove incredibly burdensome to whoever has to actually keep all the records and submit the tax to government.
5. It will act as another drag on economic growth.
6. It will serve as yet another brake on the entrepreneurial engine that has always been unique to America.
If a tax revolt of one kind or another isn't coming, I'll eat your hat, with or without feathers. It's gone way past the point of ridiculous now.
My MT pay is certainly not the main income....
in this household. Sure, we could lose our jobs, however, we are quite prepared for something like that. We have an emergency fund in place that would last at least a year (a year's worth of mortgage and utilility payments), we don't have a car payment, all credit cards are paid off and we have CDs, retirement funds, etc. It's called planning for the future and planning for the unexpected. We have paid into unemployment, so of course we would take it if we had to.
It is based on income . . .
not on grades. You have to keep your grades up to keep receiving it, BUT the primary requirement to receive it is low income. So do you thing those who have done well for themselves should be required to give money to those who are below them if they are trying to do better? Because that is what is sounds like. As long as it is benefiting you, it is okay because you are trying to do better?
No matter how you slice it, you are still taking from those who have and giving it to havenots. Just stay consistent with your argument. Who is to say who HONESTLY deserves aid?
Well sure, look at the source of her income or
!!
this is phased out at $47,000-50,000 income nm
x
One income already does not pay the bills! nm
x
Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it...
and that does not work. Stirring up class warfare does not work. And that $200,000 puts small businesses' necks on the block. Because many S corporations and other small businesses pay the personal tax, not the business tax. He will effectively kill them and jobs will be lost and even MORE people added to the lower bracket. Do people really not see the socialist implications here?
i don't care what the individual income is
how is it anyone else's right to tell me that i have to give ANY portion of my income to help those less fortunate? I don't care if the income is $200,000 or $20,000!
Yes, my income grew after 2001...nm
Moved home, and I took my primary account home with me as an IC, and then promptly found two other accounts. I've always worked more than one job, and being at home is no different. And it's always been just me doing the work, no one else.
However, in the last two years, since dems have had control of Congress, my income has plummeted by 20,000. The most I ever made was close to $80,000 a year, and that was working 12 hours a day, every day, seven days a week.
Now, I have to work more day, get paid less, and make somewhere around $55 or 60,000.
I'm an IC MT/editor/QA type person, who does all three, for different clients, depending on who I work for.
Not an MTSO, but took advantage of all the tax breaks for small businesses, as well as HSA account for health purposes, just for my husband and myself.
Soooo...to answer your question to sam....Yes, I did well in the first four years after 9/11. I work my butt off, to be able to live where I do. We're middle class America....but dropping fast.
I cannot afford to have more taxes. I cannot afford to pay for more social programs for those who do not work.
As someone said recently on this board. Why should I work my butt off to make $60,000 a year, to be told I am in an upper middle class bracket, and have to dole out thousands more in taxes to the people who refuse to work? (And if they can't work, there are progrmas for them) I'd do just as well working only 40 hours a week, instead of the 80 to 100 I do work.
Do not believe for a moment, that Obama knows what he's doing for the economy. It's all a subterfuge to raise taxes anything that isn't tied down, and then some. A one time tax rebate to lower and middle America, to buy their votes. Then tax, tax, tax.
No thanks.
Income tax versus sales tax......sm
Since sales tax was brought up below, let's take a little poll..........
Do you believe that a federal sales tax to replace the current income tax system would be a good move? Do you think it would be more fair or less fair and why?
I'll post my opinion separate from this.
The $83,000 question. SCHIP income guidelines
I agree that the bill is a bit confusing, but I think it's great so many of us are actually looking into it to find out what it is really about. I think the New York Times article below clarifies the income guidelines pretty well. I also want to say that I heard that if we go with Bush's $5 billion plan for SCHIP it will be grossly underfunded, as apparently, it is already underfunded and many kids who qualify with the current income guidelines cannot get on SCHIP, so I hope he is willing to at least compromise and give more money to the program if his veto isn't overridden. It's for a good cause, darn it!
"Oct. 16 — It is the $83,000 question: Could children with that amount of family income qualify for subsidized health insurance under the bipartisan bill passed by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?
When the House votes Thursday on whether to override the veto, Republicans will insist that the answer is yes. They will express outrage that rich children could get coverage from the government while hundreds of thousands of poor children still go uninsured.
Democrats say it is a total distortion for Mr. Bush and his Republican allies to say that the bill allows coverage with family incomes up to $83,000 a year.
Who is right? Each side appears to overstate its case. The bill does not encourage or prohibit coverage of children with family incomes at that level.
Of the 6.6 million children now covered by the program, most come from families with incomes well below $83,000, and the bill would give states financial incentives to sign up low-income children who are eligible but not enrolled.
In general, children with family incomes below the poverty level ($20,650 for a family of four) are eligible for Medicaid. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is meant for families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.
Mr. Bush said Monday that the bill would expand eligibility for the program up to $83,000.
But Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and an architect of the bill, said Tuesday that the president’s argument was specious. “About 92 percent of the kids will be under 200 percent of the poverty level,” Mr. Hatch said at a news conference with supporters of the bill, including the singer Paul Simon.
Another Republican author of the bill, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said the White House claims were “flatly incorrect.”
States establish income limits for the child health program. A recent survey by the Congressional Research Service found that 32 states had set limits at twice the poverty level or less, while 17 states had limits from 220 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level. Only one state, New Jersey, has a higher limit. It offers coverage to children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four.
In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature this year passed a bill that would have raised the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The Bush administration rejected the proposal, saying it would have allowed the substitution of public coverage for private insurance.
States that cover middle-income children often charge premiums and co-payments on a sliding scale, so the coverage is not free.
While the bill passed by Congress would not prohibit states from setting the income limit at $82,600, it would set stringent new standards for such coverage.
In general, after Oct. 1, 2010, a state could not receive any federal money to cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level unless a vast majority of its low-income children — those at or below 200 percent of the poverty level — were already covered. To meet this test, a state would have to show that the proportion of its low-income children with insurance was at least equal to the average for the 10 states with the highest rates of coverage of low-income children.
Moreover, if a state was allowed to cover children over 300 percent of the poverty level, the federal payment for those children would, in most cases, be reduced. New Jersey and New York would be exempt from the cuts if they met the bill’s other requirements.
Citing that provision, the White House said Oct. 6 that the bill included a “grandfather clause” allowing higher payment rates for children above 300 percent of the poverty level in New Jersey and New York.
Jocelyn A. Guyer, a researcher at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said: “This is a wildly contentious political issue, but it’s largely a theoretical question. More than 99 percent of children in the program are below three times the poverty level, and New York is the only state that has expressed any interest in going to four times the poverty level.”
Suzanne Esterman, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, said that 3,000 of the 124,000 children in the state program — about 2.4 percent — had family incomes exceeding three times the poverty level.
Some of the current confusion can be traced back to a bill introduced in March by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, both Democrats. They would have explicitly allowed all states to expand eligibility to families making four times the poverty level. But the bill passed by Congress did not go that far." -by Robert Pear
Instead of trying to move the lower income levels....
out of those levels by incentivizing them to work instead of stay there, he wants to move the upper income levels DOWN closer to them. Socialism. Makes absolutely NO sense. If he really cared about lower income levels, he would be trying to figure out a way to help them OUT of it, not keep them IN it and bring others DOWN. That is his idea of "economic parity." Misguided, to say the least.
Spread the wealth, redistribution of income...that is the big O's
plan...AKA I'll give to those who don't deserve it by taking it from those who have worked hard to get it. O wants to take the hard earned money from many Americans and then HE will decide who he gives it to. Sounds a bit like socialism to me. Just where is he going to get the money for all the programs he wants to GIVE to us? Oh, and remember the words of Biden, it's patriotic to pay taxes. So what does that make the 40% of Americans who DON'T pay taxes?
they lose a lot of their income and also their Medicare if they marry - nm
x
I thought this article clarified the income issue
You guys are probably sick of hearing my opinions on this if you read the last thread, but I wanted to re-post this section of an article that addresses the income level concern. It sounds like the only state that asked for income guidelines to go as high as $83,000 was New York, and their request was denied, so that income level is not a part of the current bill. (To me it sounds like even the $60,000 guideline may be limited to New York, but I'm honestly not sure on that and will try to find out).
--The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.
link to the entire article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685
1 more time. INDIVIDUAL income means 1 person.
not a family. It means the income that one single person makes. This means that a husband and wife making less than $500,000 yearly combined incomes will receive tax cuts. I am posting separate information under a second post to dispel any confusion that is being generated on this issue. Small businesses have a different plan does not involve tax increases of any sort of description.
Full coverage based on income for people whose...sm
employers do not offer insurance.
Two-Thirds of US Corps pay no federal income taxes
Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax
GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes
WASHINGTON, Aug. 12, 2008
(AP) Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.
Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.
"It's shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who asked for the GAO study with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called "S" corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.
"Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code," Edwards said.
The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.
More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.
The GAO said it analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service, examining samples of corporate returns for the years 1998 through 2005. For 2005, for example, it reviewed 110,003 tax returns from among more than 1.2 million corporations doing business in the U.S.
Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices - amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities. The GAO did not suggest which companies might be doing this.
"It's time for the big corporations to pay their fair share," Dorgan said.
Combined income or small business making 120,000 or higher
will be taxed big time instead of the 250,000. It could down lower to where anyone making 42,000 or higher will be taxed big time. He keeps changing his mind, but we will for sure see if he wins.
MT on welfare.
I took my first MT job in 1974 when we were still respected hospital employees with benefits. In 1976 I had my first child and in 1980 I became a singe parent. Between 1974 and 1992, I worked between 40 and 50 hours every single week of my life, worked all holidays because I needed the extra pay and had an interval between 1986 and 1993 where I did not take one single vacation day because I bought a home to get my son away from the gang problems that became concentrated in apartment complexes. During those years, I developed hypertension at age 34 and progressive, unrelenting back pain in 1987. With the help of ibuprofen and regular exercise, I worked through it and never skipped a beat. For those who may not remember, 1986 was when outsourcing happened and in the years to follow, not one single start-up MTSO offered medical benefits.
In 1992 I began to develop significant insomnia due to the chronic pain. One morning, after tossing and turning through the night, I got out of bed and found myself unable to stand erect because of the pain. For the next week or so, I had to crawl around on my hands and knees and was unable to work. I got behind in my bills, depressed and was utterly exhausted. I had a physical and "nervous" breakdown that landed me in a psychiatric facility where I received much needed rest and treatment. I couldn't afford to pay that bill.
I lost my car, my job and my house. My son had to go to live with his father since I could not feed him and at age 40 I had to move back in with my aging mother. I tried to apply for social security disability just long enough to get job retraining and get back on my feet again. I was denied those benefits. I applied for unemployment and food stamps and entered the county medical health care system. I was not able to achieve rehabilitation and recovery sufficient to enable me to return to transcription. I ended up out of work for 7 years while I figured out my own rehabilitation and lived with my elderly mother who could not really afford to support the extra expense of feeding me on a fixed social security/retirement income. My unemployment benefits ran out, but I stayed on food stamps for 3 of those years for her sake until I returned to school on a student loan and later on scholarship. When mhy mother's health deteriorated, I became her terminal care attendant and had to leave school.
I am no slacker. It took me 7 years to recover from the disability I sustained from medical transcription and single parenthood. When I was able to return to work, I did. I still transcribe and at age 59, have developed the same back problems I had that disabled me in 1993. I am simply trying to scratch my way to retirement, which probable will commence for me one I drop dead in front of the computer. I would not wish this fate on anyone, but if any of you, your family or your friends ever do encounter such circumstances for whatever reason, (i.e., death of a spouse, for example) and need assistance, you will come to understand the importance of welfare and will never view it with the cold-blooded, icy, self-righteous indignation that some on this board have expressed.
Before you come back with "that's the exception, not the rule," don't bother. I saw plenty of others in my situation along the way, especially during the 6-8 hours I spent in the waiting rooms at the county hospital before MD appointments. I am no better and no worse than any of them. Same human beings, facing the same struggles, each with their own special needs going unaddressed for the most part. Poverty is a cycle that is destructive, not only to the welfare recipients and their families, but to the society at large. Outrage is not going to solve it. Insight will.
Welfare in Florida
Welfare in Florida can add up to about $900-1000 a month! Add reduced rent to that, food stamps, reduced utility bills, and why would you want to work?
I am so sick and tired of driving by low-income apartments with satellite dishes in the front, high-end SUVs in the parking lot and big-screen TVs visible through the screen door.
So yes, welfare does pay!
Isn't the poor the ones that get the welfare now?
So what's your complaint? You think they need more? Fine, give them everything you have and we'll call it a day!
Welfare was initiated for those that
needed a little bit of help at a rough time in their lives. It was not intended to cover those who have teeny excuses as to why they can't (won't) work. I see it in our community. Projects with gas guzzler newer cars than mine.
I drive a ྙ Buick LeSabre when hubby doesn't work. We bought that car for "free"; i.e., a friend gave us a calender for Christmas with daily numbers on it. On December 29, 2 days after my car died, our number came up and we won $100. The car cost exactly $100, blown engine, so we took the engine from my car that would not pass inspection and placed it in the $100 (free) car. We made a profit because I found $.03 cents when cleaning out the car. LOL
If I can live with a car like this, why can't they? They buy brand new or next to new. My car has 150,000 miles on it and still going strong. The engine only had 84,000 miles on it, so it will live a little longer. In the meantime, we're looking for another decent deal just in case. Do they? No, they get a new car every couple years.
What I'm trying to say is that they shouldn't be in government-subsided housing if they can afford a new car or a car that is only a couple years old. You didn't see that years ago. They drove what I'm driving now.
I think people on welfare should
Same with any unemployed person receiving government assistance.
There is welfare and wick.
.
No fair for the welfare
well, my husband was laid off the 1st of the year. We lost our insurance. I am in between chemo treatments (last one in October) and his unemployment will not cover the mortgage and COBRA. So, a major hospital is pulling strings to try to get me treatment. Am I going to refuse it? No. Call it welfare, call me lazy. I don't give a rats. You need to research all this welfare crap before you spout off about it. A very, very small portion of your tax dollars go to pay for the indigent (lazy). I know. I went into social work. It is political propaganda to get people riled up. So easily manipulated...........sigh
They HAVE to supplement that welfare with something.....
I had to go on welfare when my kids were little (husband took off after he was arrested for pounding on me) and it was HORRIBLE. That was in the late 80s. I sure would like to know what their secret is, because it was a death scrabble for me and that's BEFORE welfare reform was implemented (now it's even harder). It's called temporary for a reason - you get cut off for at least 3 months out of the year - how do they manage? They must have a meth lab in the basement......
You need to research Welfare a little bit better......
It was W who gave the banks all those billions with no oversight. It is the same old song and dance about welfare recipients - which the numbers on the roles had dropped by more than half since Clinton instituted the welfare reform. Just about 12% of our tax dollars goes to welfare programs - not very much in the big scheme of things. The recipients have to work for that money (didja know that?). For a family of 3 they get $445 per month and the adults have to work 40 hours for that money. Then, they are cut off for 3 months out of the year (an incentive to go to school or get a job which is MANDATORY). So, keep crying about all those sucking off the titt of America. I think they should end the earned income credit on our tax returns - that's Welfare for the working. If they don't make enough money, too bad. Right?
|
