Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Does corporate welfare qualify as wealth redistribution

Posted By: on your side of the universe? nm on 2008-10-18
In Reply to: Too bad that redistribution of wealth - sm

nm


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

It's very difficult to qualify for welfare these days. It is the rich getting
xx
So those corporate welfare deadbeats
don't count as socialism? Wait...this bulletin just in. Nobody cares about your e-mail.
Since when is a tax cut welfare? Corporate bail-outs, maybe...
corporations and plans to continue W's tax cuts for the rich in 2011. Is that welfare too? Sheesh.
against wealth redistribution

I am fatigued with more and more of my paycheck going to the stockholders of the company I work for.  My benefits are being taken away, my line count has been "adjusted" several times in the last 10 years to make more profit for the stockholders. Meanwhile, the suits are given astronomical salaries and golden parachutes. 


Second issue.  It is very important to remember that the 3 remaining judges on the Supreme Court who are not conservative will be leaving very soon.  The pres who appoints their replacements will be impacting the nation for the next 30 to 40 years or so.  Think about it.   Can you imagine your 15-year-old granddaughter or great-granddaughter being forced to give birth to a horribly deformed baby because she made a  mistake?  Roe v Wade WILL be overturned if McCain is elected.  The court will be totally pro-corporate interests if mcCain is elected.  This is a much getter consequence that is not getting enough consideration amidst all the slogan throwing.


 


 


I don't really think a redistribution of the wealth
is the answer and don't necessarily agree with it either. What I would like to see though are these corporations, and individuals, that don't fairly pay taxes start paying what they are supposed to. They hide their money in off-shore accounts and redistribute it so they don't have to pay so much. I know that this happens, I started out in accounting in college and we had big long discussions about this. But I didn't have to have a class to know that this happens.
Too bad that redistribution of wealth
won't benefit most of us.....it will benefit the low income people who want to mooch off of the government.  Besides, I still says that the middle class is fair game to Obama.  He will raise our taxes too....you just wait.
Redistribution of wealth...
"Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the hom eless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."


Redistribution of Wealth

Redistribution of wealth is happening as I write this, except that it's all going to make greedy rich people richer.  Up to a trillion dollars now (and probably growing in the future), the Wall Street crooks are still earning their bonuses.


Why is it okay to redistribute the wealth to the WEALTHIEST while punishing people who are working hard and HONESTLY, just trying to feed their families?


The middle class has been diminishing in this country for a long time now, and it's almost extinct.  I'll never understand why people support rewarding those who are dishonest.


Redistribution of wealth...another way of saying
reparations, just not as blatant.
Redistribution of YOUR Wealth
Obama and Congress will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. That will cost each of us MTs about $1,200 or so a year. He is proposing 3 new separte payroll taxes (new separate deductions) including his own bill now in Congress to "fight WORLD hunger." Sounds nice, but I would rather fight hunger at my house. If you think you are going to get a bunch of free stuff in return for all these new taxes, think again - that stuff will all evaporate after the election but the tax increases will remain, just like with Clinton. I heard last night that 57% of Americans think Republicans now control Congress - and these morons vote - scary.
He is already promising redistribution of wealth and he ...
doesn't even have the job yet. That is not a lie. He has campaign commercials about it and he is Barack Obama and he approved that message. Have you read anything about his voting history and the people he has associated with most of his adult life? Of course he is socialist. Way left socialist.

I never said Democrats were socialists. I did say Hillary Clinton was one, and Obama is to the left of her on that particular issue.

You think calling someone a socialist is name calling?
About all that redistribution of wealth silliness
That would be $1200 to nearly every Alaskan in addition to their already existing $2000 annual rebate. In a nutshell, Palin levied a windfall profit tax against oil companies, then will pay a portion of the revenues out as bonus checks to residents.

One might even suggest that, since Alaska has no state income tax, this was a almost straight redistribution of wealth using higher taxes on the oil companies to redistribute wealth to individuals. It's almost...socialist. Go Gov. Palin!!!
Correct. The *redistribution of wealth* is just that...

those who have gotten their piece of the American Dream are forced to give to those who can't/don't/won't achieve their own American Dream. We are on the way sheeple, wake up and do research, don't take leftist talking points as truth.


I think not. both related to redistribution of wealth...nm

An argument for redistribution of wealth

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm


FY 2007


Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:


1.     Individual income tax                  45%. 


Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.


2.     Payroll taxes                               35%


Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)


Supplemental Security Income (SSI).   Individual's share of this is 17.5%.  


3.     Corporate Income Tax                 15%


4.     Excise Tax                                    3%. 


Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas. 


5.     "Other"                                          2%


 


So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    


 


If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.   


 


A couple of other points of interest: 


http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html


"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.(6) Put another way, small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.


 


http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:


 


Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items. 


 


1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s


2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s   


3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 


4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 


5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s


6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s


7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s.    


                                  


From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.  


What pat of redistribution of wealth do you not understand?
THAT is socialism and THAT is what he wants to do. Said so himself. Remember spreading the wealth? C'mon. Admit it. He's a socialist. Fair tax cuts go to EVERYONE. Not the rich to redistribute to those who do not even PAY taxes. THAT is socialism.
He's not lying about redistribution of wealth...
unfortunately. He is wholly committed to that one.
Obama's redistribution of wealth
I challenge all of you who are making such a big deal about Obama's plan for "redistribution of wealth" to do a little research.  Then come back and talk about it.  It's a matter of where the distribution is to go.  Republicans want it to go to the top i.e. Reagan's "trickle down economics"  and the institution of the earned income tax credit goes to him as well.  Tell me, who has benefited?  Maybe it's about time we go back to trickle up economics....sorta like FDR's "chicken in every pot."  Ya thank????
Spread the wealth, redistribution of income...that is the big O's
plan...AKA I'll give to those who don't deserve it by taking it from those who have worked hard to get it. O wants to take the hard earned money from many Americans and then HE will decide who he gives it to. Sounds a bit like socialism to me. Just where is he going to get the money for all the programs he wants to GIVE to us?  Oh, and remember the words of Biden, it's patriotic to pay taxes. So what does that make the 40% of Americans who DON'T pay taxes?
Redistribution of wealth American style.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm


Total tax revenues for FY 2007 are composed of:


1.     Individual income tax 45% of tax revenues.  Included in individual income tax category are capital gains taxes, which make up between 4% and 7% of individual income tax revenues and between 2% and 3% of total tax revenues within this category.


2.     Payroll taxes 35% of tax revenues.  Social insurance (Social Security).  Funds used to pay for Federal old age, survivors, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance to needed families, Medicare/Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).  Employee's share of this is 17.5%.


3.     Corporate Income Tax 15% of total tax revenues. 


4.     Excise Tax 3% of total tax revenues.  Essentially a consumer tax on alcohol, cigarettes and gas.


5.     "Other"  2%


So, individuals' share of total tax revenues amounts to approximately 65.5%, employers 17.5% and corporations 15% plus the mysterious "other" of 2%.    If you go to the above link and scroll down about halfway, you will find a nifty little chart that shows how much the share corporations paid into total tax revenues has diminshed since 1950.  For example, an early 50s spike on the graph show corporations' share to be approximately 30+%...TWICE AS MUCH AS IT IS NOW.


http://www.sba.gov/ADVO/laws/statement07_0309.html


"…tax compliance costs employers with less than 20 employees a total of $1304 per employee as compared to employers with 500 or more employees which incur $780 per employee to comply with Federal taxes.  Small entities pay 40% more for tax compliance than employers with 500 or more employees.


http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm


Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – How Robust was 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?  Figures 1 and 2 will indicate the following information:  Based on the 7 economic indicators, Bush years turned in below average growth percentages in every single indicator except for one….CORPORATE PROFITS.  The biggest losers….employment (JOBS) and wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS).   To make this dry economic data a little bit spicier, 2 comparisons have been shown…Bush years against Post WWII averages and Bush years as compared to the 90s decade.  I have run averages on the trough and peak growth comparison data depicted in Figure 2 to come up with the following overall percentages.  Pay special attention to the last 3 items.


1.     Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down 31% from Post WWII average and down 12.85% from the 90s


2.     Consumption down 23.45% from Post WWII average and down 6.25% from the 90s


3.     Non-residential fixed investment down 40% from Post WWII average and down 58% from the 90s 


4.     Net worth down 16.25% from Post WWII average and down 20.1% from the 90s 


5.     Wages and salaries (PAYCHECKS) down a whopping 55.6% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 40.55% from the 90s


6.     Employment (JOBS) down an amazing 68.65% from Post WWII average and down an impressive 46.65% from the 90s


7.     Corporate profits up 200% above post WWII average and up 126% from the 90s. 


From where I sit, there is clearly something wrong with this picture.  I will be voting for the candidate who shares this view and plans to restore a more balanced, equitable and FAIR distribution of wealth.  This is not about shifting bucks from one person to another.  This is about corporations whose butts are being bailed out right and left by us Joe Shmoes shouldering more fiscal responsibility toward their shareholders AND toward John Q. Public.


Redistribution of wealth is a basic socialism tenet...
and it is part of his platform. He leans very hard in the direction of government run health care...alnother socialism tenet. He used and taught the Alinsky method of organizing...hard left Marxist theory. Not overgeneralization. He went to a church preaching black liberation theology for 20 years....major Marxist overtones and "economic parity" part of that theology. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. And if you look at his associations throughout his career...common thread there. And for me, that is concerning. And yet another reason I am not voting for him. He is no change from any of the hard left liberals before him, except in one key area...he is harder left than any of them, if you look only at his voting record. He's not the guy for the job as far as I am concerned.
Obama talking about redistribution of wealth in 2001...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/


Before discounting this because it is on a conservative site....the You Tube tape is there...you can hear "O" in his own words.


Hope is not a dirty word....redistribution of wealth is,
in my books. Have you looked at the church he belonged to for 20 years? Divisive is a MILD way to describe it. He has no interest in uniting us. He has interest in forcing his view of how society should run down all our throats. I do not call that bringing unity. His whole life has been influenced by Marxists. That is how he wants to "unify" us. I am sure Cubans heard these same stories from Che Guevara and loved him just as much. And look how it turned out for them. Not great, not even the way Che wanted. He was off to Bolivia when he found out it wasn't going the way he hoped. The next socalist always thinks he will get it "right." And you know what? Those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them...I just hope America is not the next failed socialist state. There is MY "HOPE."
Let me just qualify this, as some might remember me...
talking about affordable health care and I was able to make it, yada yada, are now thinking "she has room to talk, she is on hubby's insurance." Well, let me put that to rest. This is second marriage for both of us. Suffice it to say, I am paying out the same amount of money I was paying out before the marriage. Also suffice it to say, BOTH of us learned in marriage #1 to keep finances independent. LOL. Just clarifying that. :-)
after reading this, I qualify what I said above...
Obama is not a communist YET. He is in the socialist stage.
I think the OP was being sarcastic when she said they would qualify sm
for food stamps, in reference to BO's policy. I don't think she meant they were going to quit their jobs! LOL

Considering Obama won the race, his supporters sure are touchy today. Breathe! :-)
"dam near dead to qualify for it" (sm)

You're right on the money there!!!  I applied 10 months ago due to chronic pancreatitis from cystic fibrosis.  (In fact, I was just discharged from my 10th hospitalization yesterday, after spending the night in the hospital for what they deemed to be a small stroke.)


I'm at the point now where I'm awaiting a hearing.  My lawyer said it can take up to 14 months for one to be scheduled.


I was doing great with the medicines I had been prescribed because three of them are free from the manufacturer based on my income.  One of these medications is the Duragesic patch, which would cost almost $700 a month if I wasn't enrolled in this program.  (With this new diagnosis, however, I need to check to see who manufactures some of the other medicines I've now been prescribed.)


I would encourage anyone who has difficulty paying for their medicines to find out who manufactures them.  I think many of them have a patient assistance program.  It can really help a LOT.


How is it dishonest to qualify for food stamps?
I don't think anybody is getting rich off foodstamps! The whole thing that set me off down below was the post about what people were buying with foodstamps.

I have a cousin who will not work - yes, he is a moocher. I don't condone what he does whatsoever. He gets a grand $110 a month in food stamps. Now tell me how that is really helping anybody? He could make that in half a day as he has his CDLs and can drive a truck for anybody.

Nobody is getting rich taking welfare!

I have a friend who got hurt 2 years ago and cannot work due to the injuries he sustained. Because he brings home 173.00 a week, he does not qualify for foodstamps, or any type of help because of his income. Now how do you support anybody off of that? He cannot afford even to get a project to live in. At $173 a week, his rent was going to be $300.

I cannot see a way to abuse the foodstamp program. It is a program that was designed to help low-income people and obviously people meet those requirements even working as a family!

What about the corporate greed fctor?
x
Absolutely! No corporate giveaways! nm
x
Big-3 corporate CEOs arrived in Washington in - sm
PRIVATE Lear jets to ask for a bailout. Proof positive that those people don't have a clue how to run a successful business, which is why the auto industry is now failing.

I don't want to see them get a penny only to squander it. Before I'd give a thumbs-up to any kind of a bailout, they need to:

a) SELL the jets.

b) Redesign, retool, and get out of bed with the oil industry, so they can get us independent of fossil fuels. If they had used their brains, and built cars that were equal to or better than the foreign manufacturers in quality, safety, and efficiency, they wouldn't be in this pickle. But no, they wanted their big profits NOW, and screw the future. Well, the future has now come and bit them in the behind.

c) Part of the retooling process should include dumping the CEOs (who are obviously worthless) and all upper management. The average Joe line-assemblyman could probably run those companies better than the fat-cat CEO's have been doing.
NO! Major corporate & CEO greed & mismanagement
Same thing happened to Mervyn's Dept. Stores... greedy big company bought them up, then ran them into the ground. They were great stores, too.

No tears shed here for the corporate shake-outs going on in many industries: Auto, financial, stock market, power, etc. I just hope they eventually grab the HEALTH CARE industry by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shaking, as well. NO PITY HERE.
The economy was ruined by corporate greed, stock
* nm *
Corporate greed, politician back-scratching,

Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers. see article.

Commentary: Larger-Than-Life Corporate Salaries are Unfair to Average American Workers


Date: Friday, April 14, 2006
By: Judge Greg Mathis, BlackAmericaWeb.com



Despite slower-than-anticipated growth and lower-than-expected profits, many corporations have generously rewarded their leaders, while simultaneously reducing lower-level staff salaries and benefits in an attempt to control costs. This disturbing practice only serves to further widen the gap between America’s wealthy few and its working class and clearly demonstrates just how little this country values its workforce.


At a time when most American workers are struggling to make basic ends meet and worrying how they’ll manage to save enough for retirement, many of this country’s corporate chief executives are stuffing their pockets with larger-than-life compensation packages that include high base salaries, stock options and ample pension plans. In 2004, the average chief executive’s salary at a large company was more than 170 times that of the average worker’s pay. Last year, executive salaries grew 25 percent, while that of the average American worker grew only 3.1 percent. 




Even when a company struggles, their CEOs are still rewarded. For example, the current CEO of a global manufacturing firm received over $11 million in compensation last year, despite the company’s $3.4 billion revenue loss, an 11-percent drop in stock value and a staff reduction of 17,000 workers. There are similar stories at corporations across the country. While worker pensions are frozen and many are asked to do without raises, CEOs manage to earn their multi-million dollar bonuses.


It’s no surprise that CEOs are cleaning up. Consider this: Corporations often use compensation committees to set their executive salaries. Many of these committees use outside consultants to help guide the process. These consultants are often already contracted to do other work for the company. The conflict of interest here is obvious: The consultant won’t upset the CEO -- and risk losing other contracts -- by setting a more realistic, performance based pay model.


Many corporate CEOs are, in short, getting over, and it is a slap in the face of every American worker. While it is understood that executive salaries would greatly exceed that of the average worker’s, there is no logical argument to explain why the growth rate between the two is so dramatically different. To protect its workforce, corporate America must ensure worker’s salaries grow at rates that keep pace with the cost of living, while slowing the rate of growth of CEO salaries. Corporate boards must stop rewarding CEOs with multi-million dollar bonuses. It is unacceptable for a company to lay off thousands of workers and then turn around and pay an executive for a job well done.


As a country, we often ask our government to think about the needs of the average American, and rightly so. However, if America is to truly prosper, the corporations that feed our local economy must also consider and respect the well-being of average worker.


---


Judge Greg Mathis is national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.


Redistribution (sm)
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it...
and that does not work. Stirring up class warfare does not work. And that $200,000 puts small businesses' necks on the block. Because many S corporations and other small businesses pay the personal tax, not the business tax. He will effectively kill them and jobs will be lost and even MORE people added to the lower bracket. Do people really not see the socialist implications here?
Over generalization....socialism is redistribution
xx
"income redistribution" is just a fancy term for
nm
What exactly do you think spread the wealth
xx
I say YES to spreading the wealth

I am happy that FINALLY someone is standing up for the middle class.  I am happy that finally we will be given some tax breaks.  The wealth does NOT trickle down when the tax breaks are given to the upper class/business that fall in that tax bracket.  They do not create more jobs, therefore strengthening the middle class/economy.  What they do is line their pockets and get rich  and then save even more money and get even more tax breaks by sending work overseas and hiring people that will gladly work for way less an hour, therefore driving the value of American jobs down so that the rest of us, who are stuck trying to make it, find a decent paying job, are screwed.  I am voting for Obama and I think he is going to win.


spreading the wealth
no I dont and I dont want to.  But I do know about working my butt off and my husband his.  My husband has lost his job as a finish trim carpenter because of this ecomony.  I also know that since Bush has been in office, our lives have been that much harder.  Prices have gone up on EVERYTHING but our pay has not.  I also know that McCain did nothing but support Bush over the last eight years and only just recently has tried to separate himself from him.  Even McCain has said that he voted 90 percent of the time with Bush.  That is ALL I need to know.  By the way, not everyone who is having a hard time these days are people who refuse to work.  Not everyone that votes for Obama are people that are on welfare.  I have never been on welfare and would never be on welfare.  But unfortunately, the days of just simply working hard and getting ahead are gone.  It is NOT true.  I have been smart with my money, I work hard and I have been responsible with my credit but I cant see where I am getting anywhere. 
"Spread the wealth around"..also known as...
we are penalizing those who have worked hard, make a decent living, pay our bills and don't live above our means so that those who don't or won't do the same can ride our coat tails and not have to be responsible for themselves and feel some sort of entitlement. Some plan, placed squarely on the shoulders of hard working Americans who have done the right thing. Can you say SOCIALIST STATE?
Yes, need to spread that wealth around. LOL nm

So restribution of wealth

isn't taken away someone's rights even though it penalizes hardworkers by taking their money and giving it to people who don't?  I do believe that is taking away someone rights....the rights to keep the hard earned money that they earned and make their life better because that is what they worked for and we voted for that when we voted in Obama.


They still have the right to be together as a couple.  No one is telling them that they can't go out in public and declare they are a couple, etc.  However, to allow their union and call it marriage is something that many people cannot agree with and they have that right to their opinion and their vote has made that decision.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  If homosexuals want to be legally bound to each other......call it something else but keep the definition of marriage as a man and woman.


MT on welfare.

I took my first MT job in 1974 when we were still respected hospital employees with benefits.  In 1976 I had my first child and in 1980 I became a singe parent.  Between 1974 and 1992, I worked between 40 and 50 hours every single week of my life, worked all holidays because I needed the extra pay and had an interval between 1986 and 1993 where I did not take one single vacation day because I bought a home to get my son away from the gang problems that became concentrated in apartment complexes.  During those years, I developed hypertension at age 34 and progressive, unrelenting back pain in 1987.  With the help of ibuprofen and regular exercise, I worked through it and never skipped a beat.  For those who may not remember, 1986 was when outsourcing happened and in the years to follow, not one single start-up MTSO offered medical benefits.    


 


In 1992 I began to develop significant insomnia due to the chronic pain.  One morning, after tossing and turning through the night, I got out of bed and found myself unable to stand erect because of the pain.  For the next week or so, I had to crawl around on my hands and knees and was unable to work.  I got behind in my bills, depressed and was utterly exhausted.  I had a physical and "nervous" breakdown that landed me in a psychiatric facility where I received much needed rest and treatment.  I couldn't afford to pay that bill.    


 


I lost my car, my job and my house.  My son had to go to live with his father since I could not feed him and at age 40 I had to move back in with my aging mother.  I tried to apply for social security disability just long enough to get job retraining and get back on my feet again.  I was denied those benefits.  I applied for unemployment and food stamps and entered the county medical health care system.  I was not able to achieve rehabilitation and recovery sufficient to enable me to return to transcription.  I ended up out of work for 7 years while I figured out my own rehabilitation and lived with my elderly mother who could not really afford to support the extra expense of feeding me on a fixed social security/retirement income.  My unemployment benefits ran out, but I stayed on food stamps for 3 of those years for her sake until I returned to school on a student loan and later on scholarship.  When mhy mother's health deteriorated, I became her terminal care attendant and had to leave school.   


 


I am no slacker.  It took me 7 years to recover from the disability I sustained from medical transcription and single parenthood.  When I was able to return to work, I did.  I still transcribe and at age 59, have developed the same back problems I had that disabled me in 1993.  I am simply trying to scratch my way to retirement, which probable will commence for me one I drop dead in front of the computer.  I would not wish this fate on anyone, but if any of you, your family or your friends ever do encounter such circumstances for whatever reason, (i.e., death of a spouse, for example) and need assistance, you will come to understand the importance of welfare and will never view it with the cold-blooded, icy, self-righteous indignation that some on this board have expressed. 


 

Before you come back with "that's the exception, not the rule," don't bother.  I saw plenty of others in my situation along the way, especially during the 6-8 hours I spent in the waiting rooms at the county hospital before MD appointments.  I am no better and no worse than any of them.  Same human beings, facing the same struggles, each with their own special needs going unaddressed for the most part.  Poverty is a cycle that is destructive, not only to the welfare recipients and their families, but to the society at large.  Outrage is not going to solve it.  Insight will. 
talking about "redistributing the wealth" --
do you not think that is already being done? How about the earned income credit? Why should some people get back $5000-7000 on their taxes, never pay anything in, and all because their income is lower? That is definitely redistributing my wealth!
our government already redistributes the wealth...
I don't know why this is now an issue when it has not been being one - nobody cares about the redistribution of our wealth when tax time rolls around and all these people get thousands and thousands of dollars back from the IRS that they did not pay in, will never pay in, did not earn! Where do you think that money comes from - from us of course.

For example, I have a relative who makes $13.00 an hour but she never pays in a single penny of tax during the year and she gets a rebate of at least $5000 every year because of earned income. That effectively means, she makes $27040 tax free. That $5000 does not go toward income requirements for anything - she still qualifies for any government programs without including that extra $5000 as income.

Wake up people - our wealth has been being redistributed for years!
I'm going shopping before O can spread my wealth around! nm

//


No, wait! Not until he spreads enough wealth
nm
O has talked about "spreading the wealth."
That basically means those who have are going to be taxed so that the have nots get more than what they work for.