When I hear welfare, I normally think of getting a check because you are poor. I normally don't think of welfare as the rich paying more in taxes then everyone else. Yes there is a shift in money, redistribution of sorts if you will, but I look at that as not being welfare. I think this is were a lot of disagreement/arguments come from between dems/repubs.
Wade, it seems I might need to change my definition. Could you be a little more precise in your definition from a technical perspective? I would assume that you define welfare as any shift in money/benefits (direct and indirect) from the rich to those not so rich. I am defining direct like the stimulus check, and indirect as the rich pay more in taxes then everyone else, so the not rich, middle class pay less for fire/roads/police.
No argument here, that is a hand out and is wrong, though is that a realistic scenario? On another note, thanks for the correction on the unemployment.
Poor and middle class. They are floating you (and me) too! I think your example is a stretch.
I think your summation is a little simplistic. He is not giving them money, just that the rich aren't getting it back. On further thought, I think I am playing semantics and this goes back to the definition of welfare. I would view this as indirect. Note that you and I benefit from this too. Honestly, I tend to agree with this. With the creation of 401k's as the replacement for pensions in America, the contribution to retirement of companies has drastically decreased. The benefit is higher profit margins, stock prices, and the like. Though, it could be argued that it has a benefit from trickle down economics, but I see it as a loss.
We see different things because I am naive and you are pessimistic. I don't think it is right that people who don't pay in, or pay in very little, get money back, but I think you are infering that is the average benefit. The average benefit is the middle class and lower middle class... the average worker. I do agree that the stimulus checks that last went out was stupid, but again, your example was not average for the country. Yes, giving tax rebates to people who paid very little in taxes is wrong. I am not trying to argue otherwise, well maybe.
I got no argument... but you are the one that will be benefiting too. (I know that alone, doesn't make it right). You personally will not be paying the redistribution, the rich will, unless of course your combined is over 250k, then disregard my comments.
Good point, I forgot to take that into his consideration. Though with his thirst for money being reduced, does that really reduce his knowledge in finances? I guess his motives seem to be in question, though I would say he is just seeing more clearly.
The best one?
I see the future being heavily dependent on technology and energy, just like it is now. If through the global warming scare, we become leaders in both, we will be in a very strong place, from a security perspective, environmental perspective, and last but most important, from a economy perspective also. I see the green energy movement as a large opportunity for America.
