To The GOP, Poor = Villian, Rich = Victim

That is an interesting statistic from Florida. Perhaps if the state of Florida were sending money to the 8%, or providing them with publicly funded benefits, then they should do the testing on them as well.

Is this why you are arguing to not do drug testing? Because they are being singled out?
 

Ford, I still don't understand why the poor have to be singled out. Florida has a mandatory drug test for welfare benefits. It is in place. The results so far? 2% of welfare recipients tested positive. Overall average for Florida residents? 8%. Maybe we are trying to "help" the wrong demographic.
 

Dave,

The fact that many families suffer because of drug and alcohol abuse should be a given. Do we at least agree on that point? Drug abuse and alcohol abuse has a negative impact on the poor. Agreed? I thought so. No argument even possible. We agree!

And this is Mitt Romney's fault? Or Warren Buffet's problem? Or Bill Gate's responsibility? Frankly, who cares about them? Not me. Not you. I care about people who are suffering because of drugs and alcohol. I care about support systems that seem to gloss over the fact that these factors are a real and present danger to the lives of people. Agreed?

So rather than use media space to coax a bigger mob into your camp to cease more money from the public, why don't you look at the legislation, or propose an alternative, that attempts to address the problem at hand--drug and alcohol abuse.

There are many moderates and conservatives that well understand the abusive nature of the safety net. What better way to gather a majority caucus than to manufacture more victims. It's shameful Dave. I'm sorry you can't see this.
 

Mitt Romney pays 15% in taxes on income in the millions. Fair? If he pays a higher tax, he still has millions. How many homes does one need when we have millions in this country who are homeless. Mitt Romney's company and money changers like them lobbied to get the favorable tax status. They paid lobbyists to game the system so that they would get favorable tax rates. Out of self interest they have made tax rates in this country unfair. Question: Who lobbies for the poor?
 

So here we see, once again, the opposition arguing to DESTROY the very people they pretend to represent. Shameful! Disgraceful!

If there were true compassion in the ranks of opponents, they would help figure out how to eliminate problems with current legislation. The people in need of real help are often being pushed aside by those demanding somebody facilitate them with their self-destructive lifestyle.

It's shameful Dave. I expect better...

 

Dave,
We are the 99%. None of us work for the poor. No, some rich guy is risking it all to employ the 99% and provide a living for their families. Currently, the 1% are struggling with a tax rate approaching 50%. So let's talk about fairness, and agree to establish some reasonable measure for the cost of government.

So this 1% fella, who inherited his fortunes from his daddy's daddy, owns a business that employs 1000 people in Minnesota. Nice! Thanks! A real patriot! when his business "earns" $100, he pays tax at about 40%. So he's got $60 left for his family. When he pays it to himself (it is his after all), they tax it again. Now the rate on dividends is pretty low, but in the end the combined federal (including minimum tax) and state is about 24%. $40, plus $24, is $64. He is getting $36 of that $100 to benefit his family.

Let's discuss fairness then.

There is the notion of the Laffer Curve. It's the 70% tax rate that causes government revenues to decline because alternate investments become more attractive. Frankly, just letting the money sit someplace is better than putting it at risk, earning money, and having it taxed away.

In truth, the real measure of the size of government is not measured in dollars. The correct measuse is the cost of government measured as a percentage of GDP. In MN, the cost of state government hovers around 15% to 17% of GDP. There are numerator effects and denominator effects. Right now, the cost is on the high side of things.

So people want the 1% to pay more. Mob rule? We have the votes and intend to take the money? Is this good government? No, it is a true democracy. And true democracies have ALWAYS failed. Why? Because of mob rule.

So be careful what you wish for. You may end up with a big fat zero of you feast on the golden goose instead of her eggs.

No, welfare is not bankrupting this state. We agree there. But the measure of the effectiveness of the safety net should be measured, not by the number of people getting checks, but by the number of people no longer needing help. In spite of your strawman arguments, drugs can and do play a role in a family's ability to thrive. No amount of money, facilitating the true problem, is going to solve that basic issue.