How much is enough??????
May 3, 2010 | 07:41 PM
#21
Range Rover
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
From: Central NJ
Hey all,
Well, get ready to kill me, but here goes...
Moose, you had a GREAT quote from Reagan a little while back, he had the BEST writers. Just a fact check though, the VAST majority of folks "on the dole" are white and old. WELL over 90% man. The federal definition, in terms of the income or means test does not allow for a differentation between the catagories "senior/handicapped/disabled." The remainder of folks receiving government benefits are, by and large, in this catagory.
Now, I am not unrealistic. There are some folks receiving benefits who should not be. But I'll tell you, and all of the scholarly evidence supprts this, they are very few. Maybe 6% or 7%. OK, that's not chump change, so let's go after them! But there are not a whole lot of them.
Don't get me all wrong, Reagan did the super Presidential... Walking into a downtown DC hospital with a .22 mag ripped up his lungs, and shook hands on the way in? That IS a president.
From a common sense perspective, you are not getting very far trying to balance a budget on the backs of a very small number of people who have, essentially, no GDP. Like trying to put gas in your quad at a water fountain.
have a great night all!
PBL
Well, get ready to kill me, but here goes...
Moose, you had a GREAT quote from Reagan a little while back, he had the BEST writers. Just a fact check though, the VAST majority of folks "on the dole" are white and old. WELL over 90% man. The federal definition, in terms of the income or means test does not allow for a differentation between the catagories "senior/handicapped/disabled." The remainder of folks receiving government benefits are, by and large, in this catagory.
Now, I am not unrealistic. There are some folks receiving benefits who should not be. But I'll tell you, and all of the scholarly evidence supprts this, they are very few. Maybe 6% or 7%. OK, that's not chump change, so let's go after them! But there are not a whole lot of them.
Don't get me all wrong, Reagan did the super Presidential... Walking into a downtown DC hospital with a .22 mag ripped up his lungs, and shook hands on the way in? That IS a president.
From a common sense perspective, you are not getting very far trying to balance a budget on the backs of a very small number of people who have, essentially, no GDP. Like trying to put gas in your quad at a water fountain.
have a great night all!
PBL
May 4, 2010 | 08:12 AM
#23
Super Moderator
Well, golly JimBob!
Well, golly JimBob!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 40,210
Likes: 55
Hey all,
Well, get ready to kill me, but here goes...
Moose, you had a GREAT quote from Reagan a little while back, he had the BEST writers. Just a fact check though, the VAST majority of folks "on the dole" are white and old. WELL over 90% man. The federal definition, in terms of the income or means test does not allow for a differentation between the catagories "senior/handicapped/disabled." The remainder of folks receiving government benefits are, by and large, in this catagory.
Now, I am not unrealistic. There are some folks receiving benefits who should not be. But I'll tell you, and all of the scholarly evidence supprts this, they are very few. Maybe 6% or 7%. OK, that's not chump change, so let's go after them! But there are not a whole lot of them.
Don't get me all wrong, Reagan did the super Presidential... Walking into a downtown DC hospital with a .22 mag ripped up his lungs, and shook hands on the way in? That IS a president.
From a common sense perspective, you are not getting very far trying to balance a budget on the backs of a very small number of people who have, essentially, no GDP. Like trying to put gas in your quad at a water fountain.
have a great night all!
PBL
Well, get ready to kill me, but here goes...
Moose, you had a GREAT quote from Reagan a little while back, he had the BEST writers. Just a fact check though, the VAST majority of folks "on the dole" are white and old. WELL over 90% man. The federal definition, in terms of the income or means test does not allow for a differentation between the catagories "senior/handicapped/disabled." The remainder of folks receiving government benefits are, by and large, in this catagory.
Now, I am not unrealistic. There are some folks receiving benefits who should not be. But I'll tell you, and all of the scholarly evidence supprts this, they are very few. Maybe 6% or 7%. OK, that's not chump change, so let's go after them! But there are not a whole lot of them.
Don't get me all wrong, Reagan did the super Presidential... Walking into a downtown DC hospital with a .22 mag ripped up his lungs, and shook hands on the way in? That IS a president.
From a common sense perspective, you are not getting very far trying to balance a budget on the backs of a very small number of people who have, essentially, no GDP. Like trying to put gas in your quad at a water fountain.
have a great night all!
PBL
Just kidding. I don't remember talking about folks on the public dole on this topic but agree with you. It's just more saturated here in Mass. where they give everything away unless you're actually making a living. My main concern is the statement that was made by Obama as being a manifestation of his core beliefs. In this country you should be able to make as much money as you want as long as it is legal.
May 30, 2010 | 03:42 PM
#25
Pro Rider
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
What has turned the US into an economic powerhouse is exactly the opposite thinking - that one is free to pursue their dream with a minimum of restriction.
The personal computer exploded into a world changing device, not because it was 'planned', but because enough computer geeks fiddled with them until they got it right, and especially - because they could profit from the invention. Same with the internet. Sites like Google and Ebay didn't come about for social good, they came about because someone had an idea, and could profit from it. That's where inspiration comes from, and it's why socialist countries rarely prosper, because the person who can get rich from their efforts works a lot harder than the person who can't benefit from their inspiration.
People have come to the US to pursue their dream for just that reason. Two Russians came to the US to pursue their ideas, because the US didn't restrict their thoughts, nor did the US take a huge share of their profits. Alexander Ponitoff started a company called Ampex. Figured out that to record video on tape, the tape had to move so fast that it usually came apart, so he spun the tape head instead, and his practical video recorder contributed greatly to broadcast television. Igor Sikorsky left the USSR and came to the US, to pursue his dream of vertical flight. His final prototype of the first practical helicopter flew on Dec 8, 1941. Both became very wealthy from their inventions.
Personal profit is still the best motivation. The country that restricts it's people the least, and takes the least from the productive people, tends to be the most prosperous. About all I can say about the socialist countries is: they do provide equal misery to all of their people.
The personal computer exploded into a world changing device, not because it was 'planned', but because enough computer geeks fiddled with them until they got it right, and especially - because they could profit from the invention. Same with the internet. Sites like Google and Ebay didn't come about for social good, they came about because someone had an idea, and could profit from it. That's where inspiration comes from, and it's why socialist countries rarely prosper, because the person who can get rich from their efforts works a lot harder than the person who can't benefit from their inspiration.
People have come to the US to pursue their dream for just that reason. Two Russians came to the US to pursue their ideas, because the US didn't restrict their thoughts, nor did the US take a huge share of their profits. Alexander Ponitoff started a company called Ampex. Figured out that to record video on tape, the tape had to move so fast that it usually came apart, so he spun the tape head instead, and his practical video recorder contributed greatly to broadcast television. Igor Sikorsky left the USSR and came to the US, to pursue his dream of vertical flight. His final prototype of the first practical helicopter flew on Dec 8, 1941. Both became very wealthy from their inventions.
Personal profit is still the best motivation. The country that restricts it's people the least, and takes the least from the productive people, tends to be the most prosperous. About all I can say about the socialist countries is: they do provide equal misery to all of their people.
May 30, 2010 | 08:41 PM
#26
Super Moderator
Well, golly JimBob!
Well, golly JimBob!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 40,210
Likes: 55
What has turned the US into an economic powerhouse is exactly the opposite thinking - that one is free to pursue their dream with a minimum of restriction.
The personal computer exploded into a world changing device, not because it was 'planned', but because enough computer geeks fiddled with them until they got it right, and especially - because they could profit from the invention. Same with the internet. Sites like Google and Ebay didn't come about for social good, they came about because someone had an idea, and could profit from it. That's where inspiration comes from, and it's why socialist countries rarely prosper, because the person who can get rich from their efforts works a lot harder than the person who can't benefit from their inspiration.
People have come to the US to pursue their dream for just that reason. Two Russians came to the US to pursue their ideas, because the US didn't restrict their thoughts, nor did the US take a huge share of their profits. Alexander Ponitoff started a company called Ampex. Figured out that to record video on tape, the tape had to move so fast that it usually came apart, so he spun the tape head instead, and his practical video recorder contributed greatly to broadcast television. Igor Sikorsky left the USSR and came to the US, to pursue his dream of vertical flight. His final prototype of the first practical helicopter flew on Dec 8, 1941. Both became very wealthy from their inventions.
Personal profit is still the best motivation. The country that restricts it's people the least, and takes the least from the productive people, tends to be the most prosperous. About all I can say about the socialist countries is: they do provide equal misery to all of their people.
The personal computer exploded into a world changing device, not because it was 'planned', but because enough computer geeks fiddled with them until they got it right, and especially - because they could profit from the invention. Same with the internet. Sites like Google and Ebay didn't come about for social good, they came about because someone had an idea, and could profit from it. That's where inspiration comes from, and it's why socialist countries rarely prosper, because the person who can get rich from their efforts works a lot harder than the person who can't benefit from their inspiration.
People have come to the US to pursue their dream for just that reason. Two Russians came to the US to pursue their ideas, because the US didn't restrict their thoughts, nor did the US take a huge share of their profits. Alexander Ponitoff started a company called Ampex. Figured out that to record video on tape, the tape had to move so fast that it usually came apart, so he spun the tape head instead, and his practical video recorder contributed greatly to broadcast television. Igor Sikorsky left the USSR and came to the US, to pursue his dream of vertical flight. His final prototype of the first practical helicopter flew on Dec 8, 1941. Both became very wealthy from their inventions.
Personal profit is still the best motivation. The country that restricts it's people the least, and takes the least from the productive people, tends to be the most prosperous. About all I can say about the socialist countries is: they do provide equal misery to all of their people.
