I regard Bill Clinton as a criminal, rapist and a pervert. But what he did with the welfare was the right thing. Read that article carefully. He formulated a new rule, which stated that individuals could not receive more than five years of welfare in their life time. Is there anything wrong with that? Welfare is a temporary measure. You can't expect the tax payers to fund you for the rest of your life.
in some cases, 5 years legitimately isnt enough. we are forgetting those that are sick, are caregivers because they cant afford healthcare for a non contributing household participants, or those that are unable to work because of extreme trauma and require psycholgical help. also, the job market isnt healthy across the entire US; there are some places where you can indeed land a job, but it will not be enough to live without government assistance. in fact, this is the case of a majority of Walmart employees in low income areas:
Walmart's low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
"The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs," reads the report, available in full here.
"It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers."
Americans for Tax Fairness then took the mid-point of that range ($4,415) and multiplied it by Walmart’s approximately 1.4 million workers to come up with an estimate of the overall taxpayers' bill for the Bentonville, Ark.-based big box giant's staffers.
The report provides a state-by-state breakdown of these figures, as well as some context on the other side of the coin: Walmart's huge share of the nationwide SNAP, or food stamp, market.
"Walmart told analysts last year that the company has captured 18 percent of the SNAP market," it reads. "Using that figure, we estimate that the company accounted for $13.5 billion out of $76 billion in food stamp sales in 2013."
18 percent of people on snap, work at Walmart
why are we allowing Walmart to avoid taxes, and underpay its workers so that we have to pick up the remainder with taxes?
why punish the people, when we can punish a corporation that doesnt pull its fair share? seems like the social policies/legislature in place have caused this problem, not the atttude of the people. I feel a similar way about the opiod epidemic; not so much that people are weak willed, its more that the pharma industry has been agressively marketing this shit to doctors, for bonuses, who in turn overprescribe it to citizens, for additional bonuses.
the shareholder will see us all crash and burn. and fuck communism, im a born and bred capitalist. but shareholders have more rights than citizens in this country, and this is an effect of that. it is illegal for a company not to act in the best interests of the shareholders. fuck the citizens, just the shareholders matter here. it shows
and we are forgetting about the disabled. disability is permanent once bestowed, and the amount of benefits they get is
off the fucking chain. not really mad at that, they cant participate in society normally, and as a tax payer, I pay for a whole bunch of shit I dont agree with. its part of living in a democracy
so I wont bitch about helping folks, when the other half of my tax dollars goes to killing folks in the name of national defense (the police, military). I even pay the guys that pull me over to give me tickets
and Daddy Clinton can eat a dick. to hell with the man (his actions brought shame upon the office as well), his policies are some of the most Rebuplican you will get from the 'left'. most liberals/moderates wont claim him, ideologically. you will have to look far for someone as motivated to degrade social welfare, and implement tougher policing policies in the name of public safety (these legislative objectives rest squarely in the Republican portfolio).
