PrintSmith wrote: There's a reason that the DOW doesn't want you feeding the wildlife. they get dependent upon that support and stop working as hard to provide for themselves. The parallels with people are not incidental, rather they are predictable. And I am of the opinion that this is precisely why the "progressives" have expanded individual entitlement spending to 60% of all federal spending and worked so hard to remove any stigma attached to being on the fedeal dole. EBT cards are but one example of that.
Of course the counter of not feeding the bears is that the poor decide to instead of working, they start committing crimes. Lots cheaper to throw them a couple hundred per month than put them in jail. They recently priced a year of jail time in NYC, 150K per year to the city.
So food stamps are like trick or treating, give us candy or we will egg your house. A small time bribe.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
on that note wrote: As long as those on educational welfare realize how much more they take from all of us vs. these folks down at Walmart one time.
Let's say one of these means tested folks took $1000 worth of food.
That would make them far better of a person than someone who lives in the foothills of the rockies in their own home with two cars and then had the balls to take $12,000 from their neighbors to educate their kids PER YEAR. These losers are not even means tested and do what those folks in Walmart did x10 or x100 or more. AND They feel good about their taking.
I just hope none of the people being critical of those who took from the EBT system took far more from their neighbors by gaming the local systems the same way.
In my world, you are all in the same group and those that used the system to take $1000 are far better people with higher morals than those that take $120,000 per kid from their neighbors to support their educational welfare if they were not in fact poor and in need. That is over 100x more taking BTW.
But don't get me wrong, all those that take from others or use the govt systems (or loopholes - like not having means testing for educational support) to get more for them when they are not in need are inferior.
Plus the cards did not malfunction, both the people and the govt program did.
I'm a little unsure what your point is. Are you saying that property taxes shouldn't go toward public schools, we shouldn't have to pay property taxes,....? I don't see how you are comparing this situation with the tax system every homeowner should already understand.
This is just like going to the bank knowing you only a have a few hundred bucks but see that suddenly you have 30k magically appear, then you go on a shopping spree because you think it's morally ok.
If you don't like the fact that property taxes pay for public schools, then express why that is wrong. There is no moral comparison, period.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
I am saying quite clearly that those that use their neighbors funds to educate their children when they are not poor or in need are WORSE than those that cleared the shelves at WALMART.
The local school taxes and the EBT are two systems that can be gamed, without breaking any rules, just morals. They are just govt systems that one person or group can use to get the money from another group without asking, they get the govt to take it for them.
I am saying just because the govt lets it happen it does not make it right. If you are not poor and in need, you should not use the govt as a tool to get other people's money. If you are, it seems reasonable to go to the govt after you have asked your friends and family. I am saying that if you have taken $100,000 plus to educate your children and you were not in need, you gamed the system more than these EBT folks did x 100 or more.
People that take an extra $1000 using their EBT cards because it is ok at that time are HIGHER CLASS CITIZENS than a person that is not poor taking the education for their child in stead of leaving those public funds for someone that was in need or even better leaving those funds to be spent by the one that earned it. I am not saying you don't have to send your kids to school, just if you are not poor, freaking pay your own way.
Essentially if you sent your kids to public school, and did not pay for it, but were not in need, I have a lower opinion of you, taking form those that are both in need and those that actually earned the money. Since public schools are one of the biggest tax expenses out there, it should be given more though, most govt entities are in massive debt, the people funding them are not doing well either and are about to do a lot worse.
We all have lots of stuff the govt will allow you to do that others are not ok with. I am not ok with creepy parents that are not poor taking a free ride for as many kids as they want at the expense of everyone else.
Remember 1/20 of those kids will end up in prison or jail anyway before hitting 30. Even more will end up with an EBT card.
on that note wrote: I am saying quite clearly that those that use their neighbors funds to educate their children when they are not poor or in need are WORSE than those that cleared the shelves at WALMART.
The local school taxes and the EBT are two systems that can be gamed, without breaking any rules, just morals. They are just govt systems that one person or group can use to get the money from another group without asking, they get the govt to take it for them.
I am saying just because the govt lets it happen it does not make it right. If you are not poor and in need, you should not use the govt as a tool to get other people's money. If you are, it seems reasonable to go to the govt after you have asked your friends and family. I am saying that if you have taken $100,000 plus to educate your children and you were not in need, you gamed the system more than these EBT folks did x 100 or more.
People that take an extra $1000 using their EBT cards because it is ok at that time are HIGHER CLASS CITIZENS than a person that is not poor taking the education for their child in stead of leaving those public funds for someone that was in need or even better leaving those funds to be spent by the one that earned it. I am not saying you don't have to send your kids to school, just if you are not poor, freaking pay your own way.
Essentially if you sent your kids to public school, and did not pay for it, but were not in need, I have a lower opinion of you, taking form those that are both in need and those that actually earned the money. Since public schools are one of the biggest tax expenses out there, it should be given more though, most govt entities are in massive debt, the people funding them are not doing well either and are about to do a lot worse.
We all have lots of stuff the govt will allow you to do that others are not ok with. I am not ok with creepy parents that are not poor taking a free ride for as many kids as they want at the expense of everyone else.
Remember 1/20 of those kids will end up in prison or jail anyway before hitting 30. Even more will end up with an EBT card.
Does that clear it up?
So if a guy that can afford to send his kid to private school, but decides to send him to the local public school instead, my guess is that guy also pays more in property taxes than the poor guy that lives in a rented shack, right? And if he doesn't pay property taxes but still has plenty of money (seems unlikely, but whatever) does he just write a check to the public school as a donation and who's pocket would be lined with that donation?
You're still trying to compare a legal situation with an illegal one. If these ETB cards were atm cards, would you still be ok with people spending ill-gotten gains?
If you don't like the way public schools are funded, that's a topic for a different thread. It's not relevant to this one imo.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Rick wrote: And if he doesn't pay property taxes but still has plenty of money (seems unlikely, but whatever) does he just write a check to the public school as a donation and who's pocket would be lined with that donation?
Hit this same point with Walter in a different thread. The renter still pays the property taxes, plus profit, which in essence means that they pay a higher property tax as it relates to the value of the property than they would if they owned the property. Granted, it is an indirect tax (built into the cost of their rent payments), but it is a tax they pay nonetheless. The cost of the tax is always born by the entity occupying the property and not the property owner, unless, of course, they are one and the same. In the instance of a single dwelling, the property owner likely owns the home they are living in in addition to the home they are renting out, so they are paying property taxes on one property and collecting taxes on the other and remitting them to the taxing entity.
Until we start understanding exactly how taxation is accomplished, and who it is that is actually paying the taxes, there is little hope of convincing the populace to alter the manner in which they are taxed and it will remain fruitful for the taxing entities to attempt to hide the true cost of the taxation from them by leading them to believe that others are paying the taxes instead of themselves. I hate to harp on the point and take away from the larger discussion, but I believe that the distinction is worth the interruption.
Rick wrote: And if he doesn't pay property taxes but still has plenty of money (seems unlikely, but whatever) does he just write a check to the public school as a donation and who's pocket would be lined with that donation?
Hit this same point with Walter in a different thread. The renter still pays the property taxes, plus profit, which in essence means that they pay a higher property tax as it relates to the value of the property than they would if they owned the property. Granted, it is an indirect tax (built into the cost of their rent payments), but it is a tax they pay nonetheless. The cost of the tax is always born by the entity occupying the property and not the property owner, unless, of course, they are one and the same. In the instance of a single dwelling, the property owner likely owns the home they are living in in addition to the home they are renting out, so they are paying property taxes on one property and collecting taxes on the other and remitting them to the taxing entity.
Until we start understanding exactly how taxation is accomplished, and who it is that is actually paying the taxes, there is little hope of convincing the populace to alter the manner in which they are taxed and it will remain fruitful for the taxing entities to attempt to hide the true cost of the taxation from them by leading them to believe that others are paying the taxes instead of themselves. I hate to harp on the point and take away from the larger discussion, but I believe that the distinction is worth the interruption.
I agree with what you said, however the point I was trying to make with OTN is that the rich guy is most likely contributing more to public schools than the poor or midde class guy (especially if he owns a commercial business). I was paying $1000 a month for a warehouse that had a $4000 a month mortgage in Denver.
Again, not sure how public education got mixed up in a thread about people taking advantage of a glitch.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Back on topic, it looks like maybe Walllymart screwed up and maybe there was a default daily $50 limit. Makes sense to have backup procedures. The airline web sites screwed up recently and offered cheap fares like $10 or something, and they ended up honoring those.
I'm waiting to lock in my $1/month health insurance on Obummercare. As soon as I can log in that is.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
So food stamps are like trick or treating, give us candy or we will egg your house. A small time bribe.
