53% vs "99%" - Personal and Financial responsibility versus entitlement mentality and dependencySojal Jock

53% vs "99%" - Personal and Financial responsibility versus entitlement mentality and dependency

The "99%" has made a claim that they represent the rest of the Americans who aren't rich in this country. Is this true? No. Absolutely not! These people represent a fringe of this country who believe capitalism or free-markets are bad. For the record the United States economy is not purely capitalistic. If anything we live in a quasi socialist capitalist state. If we didn't have medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, and welfare then we would be living in a purely capitalistic state. And, that is what the Church objects to. I do believe that everyone should pay their fair share. But I am not talking about the rich or wealthy. The rich, wealthy and those in the middle class already pay ALL of the federal taxes in this country and that in and of itself isn't fair. My proposal includes that anyone who is able to pay for internet access or cable/satellite/Fios should also be able to make the plunge into accepting personal responsibility for their households and pay $250 worth of income taxes for the year. These two things are amenities - extras which are not a necessity but contributing to our society is a duty each individual or family has a responsibility to do. In addition those that have cell phones, internet, cable which is being paid by our government - the taxpayers of America - should accept personal responsibility and pay for all of those non-essentials and if they can't afford those items then find a job or an additional job.

The liberal Democrat vision has expanded the government dependent rolls over the past 50 years. Now this is mostly because the Democrats love big government and they need more people to be dependent on the government for them to be re-elected. These Democrats are self-indulgent users who are in actuality against the common good and welfare of those poor individuals. If they really cared about the poor they would help them become financially independent and not keep them on the government dole.

We should fix the loopholes that allow big corporations to pay zero taxes. Corporations that pay no federal taxes should at least pay 4 X as much as those who would be required to pay $250 per year in federal income taxes. Herman Cain's plan would eliminate these loopholes. This is one reason I like Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan or 9-0-9 plan, whichever it may be now. I am against crony capitalism. Some of the "OWS" protesters may be only against crony capitalism too. I'm sure many are confusing crony capitalism with true capitalism. I believe in order to be on welfare the person should be required to get a job and/or further their education so that they can achieve financial independence by going off of welfare and avoiding becoming permanently dependent on the government. There needs to be a time limit for those receiving benefits from the government, with the exception of social security since the person paid into this program. Although this may change if the social security program changes.

I believe that welfare and other social safety nets should be run similar to that of unemployment. The unskilled poor should be able to go to school and earn a living (minimum wage?) while receiving welfare checks. As the person moves up the ladder his/her welfare payments should be decreased by 25%, then 50%, and then eliminated. I don't think that staying on or getting off of welfare should be an all-or-nothing deal. Keeping welfare as an all-or-nothing program only acts as a disincentive for the person to get off of welfare.

Morning's Minion is in a huff over at Vox Nova complaining that the 53% is waging a "war on the poor". Some of the poor who survive solely on welfare, food stamps and other social safety nets and are not employed may in fact be "freeloaders". Now there are people who pay those medicare taxes et al on their paychecks but the fact remains that these people do not pay any federal income taxes. Is it really fair for these people to pay zilch and demand others to pay even more than they already do? I believe in charity but not forced charity. Plus in the past when Congress has passed legislation which forced the rich to pay more but the tax revenues from solely the rich or wealthy wound up not being enough to meet the tax burden so taxes ended up being raised on everyone. This is because increased taxes do not create more revenues.

Conservatives want to help the financially poor to help themselves. Standing on your own two feet gives a person a sense of pride and accomplishment. There is a clear difference between helping those who are needy and keeping them dependent on the government. Conservatives believe in the former and progressives believe in the latter. Conservatives believe in empowering the individual to be the best they can possibly be while liberals believe in keeping the chains on the individual and classifying them on groups so they receive preferential treatment.

Morning's Minion says "The richest one percent gets about 20 percent of the income and pays about 20 percent of the taxes." But this isn't true. The National Taxpayers Union has broken down how much each person or family pays toward federal taxes according to their gross income and they show that the top 1% pays 38% of the total federal tax income and the top 10% pays 70% of the total tax burden.

Here are some examples of those 53%ers who believe in hard work, personal responsibility, and financial responsibility instead of the Occupy Wall Street protesters who believe that they are entitled to whatever simply because they want it. The class warfare and war against the innovators, inventors and producers needs to stop.