Umm, those Americans that are low income should check out opportunities in the military. They can earn good pay, benefits, pension, learn a skill, develop a work ethic (if they don't have one), money for college, get free haircuts and get in shape.
Most volunteer armies are predominantly of the lower income class. It's always been preferable to take on the people with the least amount of political or economic might to fight wars.
Government suppose to be the representative of the people and perform the tasks that is decided by the citizens. If we as society decide that all HUMAN must be provided with basic human needs such as food, shelter and medicine, then it is the duty of the government to make this a reality.
I didn't say people who are mentally ill should be homeless, I said that homeless are often mentally ill. Well for one I didn't say the people are on welfare, I said that they live in income controlled/ affordable housing. Where you have to make under a certain amount to rent there. Which is subsidized with tax money. So essentially I am helping to pay for some clown to have cheaper place to live, so he can buy "bling" , instead of him having to pay the market rate for rent. I have no idea what the welfare pays in Florida, but I don't think anyone should get welfare for any length of time, unless they mentally ill or disabled. When I lived in the tenderloin in san Francisco , half the people in my building were getting some sort of assistance, and most in my opinion could do without it. They would sell there food stamps and buy crack with the money. They could work if they wanted to, but they would rather get assistance and then run some little hustle on the side. I don't really care if people want to smoke crack thats no real concern of mine, but I don't want to help pay for them to do it.
With all my respect to you Tesla , I have really liked what you have said !!! Unfortunately , People nowadays do not enjoy owning something unique , but its lack in others !!!! When you buy a new car , it doesn't please you because you like it , but because others don't own it
Rent isn’t to cheep these days. The average rent price around where I live is 500-700 witch is more than most low wage workers earn when you factor in other costs. (>.<)
This is I guess where we differ. I don't believe in evangelism or forcing my morality on others. The problem with democracy is that the tyranny of the majority rules the minority. Picture a 2 horse race. 55/45. Is it fair for 55 people to tell another 45 what to do if they disagree? Picture a 3 horse race. 40/30/30. Is it fair for 40 people to tell 60 what to do if they disagree? One thing that bothers me is the UN. When the UN comes up with a law or initiative, as member nations, WE THE PEOPLE are expected to conform, without elected representation and without referendum or consensus. The further government grows from the individual, the more dangerous it becomes. Some rights are basic, absolute and human. The right to free speech. The right to privacy. The Magna Carta. Freedom of religion. I happen to believe that the right to keep the fruits of your labor, and how to use that wealth should be the rights of the individual. I don't think that the lower and middle classes have the right to strip wealth for their good from the wealthy, and likewise in any other combination you can come up with of the theoretical 3 classes. The reason why leaving it to big government doesn't work, is that there is so little control, and the higher up and more globally the decision is made, the harder it is for regional bias and accountability be brought to bear. For example, social welfare. Who decides who is poor? Who makes sure that every poor person has the opportunity to get help? Who enforces that some people are not poor enough? And what do we do in times when the working class cannot generate enough income to feed all of the poor? I've got a big heart, and it sounds like you do as well gworld. But that comes from who we are as people, not who we elect, or what the law of the land is.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/creditcardsmarts/P74808.asp I currently have $10,000 in credit card debt because it's at 0% interest and it'll be paid off by April next year. $6000 is a student loan that was over 7%. $4000 is money we spent on upgrades to our house. So even of those who have more than $8000 in credit card debt, some are actually saving money by having that debt.
Shawn said "If you are unable to post in this forum (or any forum for that matter) without insulting someone's beliefs, don't post." This thread insults my belief that human beings should be treated as adults and with respect for their own abilities.
is that credit card you mentioned that gives 0% interest cash advances, but you can't seem to remember the company?
Of course I know what companies I'm dealing with. Nothing I can tell you will get you the same deal. I don't ask for 0%. I just get checks in the mail from companies I've been doing business with for years. I think it mostly has to do with having excellent credit and using your cards responsibly for a long time to build up a history with the company. Racking up a large debt and then paying it off quickly (in a month or two) tends to get fast results for getting better deals. But if you want to know, I get 0% with my Bank of America credit cards periodically. Other companies like Wells Fargo and Citibank aren't quite as generous. But, other people may have different results. Some people who are lucky enough to not have debt for whatever reason, create debt on these types of deals in order to make money.
I get 0% offers all the time from my card companies. I can also call them at ANY time and request 0% vouchers. Having excellent credit helps I also make $1,000.00 or more a year just for using my credit cards, they do not cost me like most people.
I am not nearly as organized as you two. I keep all of my cards at zero balances because I know that I might just forget to pay them off for a few months while I go mentally deep into a project! I understand that if you pay attention, you can continually move debt from one 0% deal to another. But I think it's just easier to not use credit.
I keep mine at 0 as well I use the cards as I get paid to use them. For my retail business I need credit cards to purchase my goods. I keep 0 balances and very rarely use the 0% option, only when buying a large ticket item do I use that. For instance, my one card pays me up to 5% back on every purchase I make. If I make a $1,000.00 purchase I get 5% back, if I also use a 0% option I can also keep that $1,000.00 in my bank account until the amount is due collecting interest. It adds up, I love making money by spending it
my girlfriend has great credit and every time the checks come they are essentially a cash advance, and you have pay interest immediately on a cash advance on most credit cards really 5% on everything? I get 5% on gas with American express and for everything else I use the paypal debt card, which gives me 1% on everything, but also you can use paypal as a money market account which pays 5.05%
I said up to 5% It's 5% on all gas, groceries, drug stores and a few others. Gas is where you can really hit it back, some I've looked into pay 6% or more on gas! My american express doesn't give me cash back, I have the HHhonors one. Gives me free vacations though
This sounds good but in real life decisions has to be made one way or another, if we do it my way then my opinion is forced you and if we do it your way then your opinion is forced on me. The question is what method should we use, a democratic method or a dictatorship. Again sounds good as political speech but for hungry, seek and homeless, the above rights don't mean shit unless they are feed and get medicine so they can survive. Basic needs of all humans first and foremost is food, shelter and medicine. Don't you pay tax? You are already paying the fruit of your labor for things that you might not use. This is part of living in society and contributing to the group. You are continually mixing two subjects, the right of all humans to be provided with basic necessity to survive and incompetence of government. I do not argue that government on the subject of welfare is as incompetent as they are about military, immigration, eduction or even running post offices but the same way that because government wastes money on other bureaucracy doesn't mean that we should close the schools or post offices, it doesn't also mean that we should not help people in need. Americans have this belief that anyone can become rich in any time, you just need some luck or some hard work and the reason it hasn't happen to you yet is because you have been unlucky until now but it can happen any time. In order to protect your future wealth, helping other people is bad because you don't want the government take away the wealth that you are going to have some times in future. Life is not like that and most people will never become rich. I am not saying this because I hate rich people or want their money, I retired when I was 39 years old, I have my place in Vancouver, I have a home in USA, I have my cars and anything else that I would need and I have no debt. I think we should help everyone because I am selfish. I like to walk in Vancouver and some time I see this mentally sick walking in the street, shouting and talking with themselves. If one of them decides to stick a knife in me because of his illusions, do you think all my money will keep me from dying? If we keep people hungry and they decide to beat me up to rob my wallet, do you think that my money will protect me from a punch or a kick? If we make people criminal and then try to put them in prisons or even kill them, who do you think has to pay for the cost of doing this? If they break the window on my car in order to steal some change and it cost couple thousand for insurance company, who do you think in the end has to pay these costs? I have a child, if my child is not as successful as I am or make a mistake, would I like to see my child die of hunger or be homeless after I am gone? I think we should help people not only because it is a right thing to do but also because it is smart thing to do.
There is a third method. We each choose to do our own thing. I'll agree, but those rights provide the opportunity for people to form communities, to work together, to engage in charity, organized and personal and to promote the welfare of others. Our obligations do not begin and end with paying our taxes. Do you really believe that if people wanted to send letters and there was no post office, they would not get sent? Or that if the Public Education system closed, children would not learn? This is what I am talking about when I talk about government coercion. We become so dependent on them, we dread the idea of them not providing everything for us. Before public education, people educated themselves and each other. I'm not trying to be rude or confrontational, because I like you and you know that, so read this accordingly please. You are ok with helping people because you are there. You can afford to do so. People struggling just above the poverty line, not poor enough to participate in the levels set by the state for assistance, but taxed which limits their ability to become secure, and independent might argue differently than someone who is financially secure. As you say, most people will not be rich. I'd say retiring before 40 makes you fairly successful, a standard a lot of people cannot expect to achieve. Of course not. But we're not God. We don't control everything. We can't control if we are rich or poor and someone wants to stab us for our wallet or shoes. We can't control the onset of disease or accidents. We can't control how wealthy our family is or if we are raised by single parents. The reason why there is not enough work, not enough assistance and not enough upward mobility is that there is a transfer of wealth occurring, and it has been going on for hundreds of years. When the government regulates, collects and disperses taxes, there is no guarantee of efficiency. We pay more than what we get or what is shared. And when it's mandated by taxes and governmental control, we can't opt out, or choose another option. We are forced to overpay for services, for the good of everyone having them. I agree 100%. I'm not arguing against helping people, I just question whether or not government performs that role better than we could on our own. After all, what makes the ability of government to be charitable so much better than my own? What makes government more honest or compassionate than me?
As good old Ben Franklin said, "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." When we "adopt" poor people and treat them like our national children, we stunt their natural growth and condemn them to a lifetime of of dependence. We give them comfort, but we steal their humanity to feed our overarching egos. To me, that is not an even trade-off.