... and let the opposition voters pay for it to boot !!!





... and let the opposition voters pay for it to boot !!!


I guess my response to such a system would be, okay well for every dollar used by such a system, reduce federal support to higher education. But really that's just in the hope someone would understand you can't just wave the wand and create money. Oh wait you can, but not without it having repercussions.
In any case its a sterling example of why I think Hilary is the republicans best chance to win the presidency.





4 million babies born in America every year * $5000 totals up to 20 billion dollars per year ... not counting the US born babies of illegal immigrants who would also be eligible if registered.
In comparison, total federal spending on all Pell Grants for 5.3 million college students last year totaled up to 13 billion. So following your suggestion would not only abolish the Pell Grant program altogether, but also cut into the interest rate subsidies the federal gov't pays Sallie Mae etc. to offer low cost student loans to otherwise uncreditworthy borrowers.
These people in D.C. are insane.
They are ALREADY giving away trillions of dollars we don't even have.
They are destroying the value of the dollar.
They are outsourcing and offshoring as much productive capacity as possible.
After literally decades of trade deficits they want even more NAFTA like agreements with South America.
They are mortgaging our future technocrats and business people with out of control tuition and college costs (I saw a calculus book for $110 - and I was pissed when I paid $50 for mine way back when!)
We already pay nearly 40% of our income in taxes on everything from gas to toilet paper.
These people are either grossly incompetent... or going communist under our noses.





^^^ yes, but ...
The but, of course, centers on who actually winds up taking the financial lumps. Arguably, the 50% of 'taxpayers' whose incomes are low enough that they are only required to pay a 3.5% de-facto income tax rate directly benefit from all such programs. Arguably, the top 1% of taxpayers whose incomes are high enough to take advantage of tax shelters / tax credits / tax free investments / offshore opportunities effectively avoid paying for such programs, as well as being in a position where the college tuition costs for their own children are a non-issue. Arguably, upper echelon members of federal / state / local govt's don't have to worry about this either since they are in a reasonably good position to secure a scholarship or grant from either a gov't agency or a private source for their own children.
A very effective coalition of voters seems to be solidifying ... which consists of the 50% lowest income voters plus very high earning voters plus upper echelon menbers of federal / state / local govt's ... who are in a position to wield a majority in future elections ... and whose voter appeal depends on extracting money from 'middle class' Americans (i.e. 51% to 99% earnings percentiles) via higher taxes, and 'giving' that money away to low income Americans (i.e 1% to 50% earnings percentiles) via new benefits.




Applying this scenario to a dancer who belongs to the "middle class":
I personally have already stopped working as often as I used to after realizing that I am not much better off dancing full time versus part time since if I work full time at the end of the day I end up :
a) paying more in taxes, house fees, fuel to get to work, make up, shoes and clothing for work thus leaving me with less disposable income;
b) being constantly tired and doing more damage to my body thus potentially having to spend more on health care costs in the future and even possibly having to stop dancing sooner than planned;
c) aging sooner by being in a smoky and stressful environment and working nights thus needing more skin rejuvenation treatments and possibly plastic surgery in the near future and so more money needs to be earned to pay for those.
And noticing my earning going down year after year due to the strip club industry ungergoing some major changes and seeing my saving go down with the decreasing purchasing power I sometimes think before going to work: is it even worth going in?





^^^ well, this is certainly part of the 'moral hazard' which our gov't has created via progressive tax policy and eligibility thresholds for social welfare benefits. Ultimately, in states like NY, a person with a documented income of less than $30k is eligible for subsidized housing (rent), subsidized utility bills, subsidized medical coverage, full value grants for education etc.
Thus by working their ass off and earning $50k instead of $30k, this not only results in the higher costs of transportation / house fees / daily expenses, and not only results in energy depletion / negative health effects of second hand smoke and stress as you point out, but it also increases your de-facto monthly rent payment, increases your de-facto monthly utility bills, increases your de-facto out of pocket costs for medical (should you need medical treatment), increases your de-facto out of pocket costs for college tuition etc. As a result, there are large number of dancers in NY (and probably in other states with similar social welfare program eligibility) who carefully limit their 'on the record' earnings to guarantee they do not lose eligibility for these lucrative benefit programs.
arguably, these 'changes' in the strip club industry are a direct result of attempts to limit 'on the record' dancer earnings in favor of increasing the undocumented cash transactions between customers and dancers (inside or outside the club).And noticing my earning going down year after year due to the strip club industry ungergoing some major changes and seeing my saving go down with the decreasing purchasing power I sometimes think before going to work: is it even worth going in?
Bookmarks