NC tax changes that will hit us all

[McLeansvilleAppFan]

I'm not certain of much in this world but I do know when discussing politics neither side will change their opinion.

Let's not bring common sense into a board about college athletics.

[firemoose]

I'm not certain of much in this world but I do know when discussing politics neither side will change their opinion.

Let's not bring common sense into a board about college athletics.

Please NOOOO...Not Common Sense. Where would I go for my daily comedy fix It's the only thing keeping me sane after spending all day reading tweets from people who should not have access to a computer, or any form of communication at all.

[HeffnerIV]

He's right, of course. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... h-low-iqs/

Again, because you and the author can't debate the merits of his study you deflect attention to a character assassination. Instead of searching for a way to reduce his credibility, you should've searched for help in support of your thesis.

Regarding his article, keep in mind that our immigration system has been designed, in the past, to allow immigrants who could contribute to our society as opposed to those who would become a part of the public charge. I don't necessarily agree with him because I believe there are contributions to be made at all labor skill levels, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[HeffnerIV]

Once again, predictably, you've chosen the absolute worst situations you could find. How about all those business that operate each day union free, who never blow up? I bet my example outnumbers yours!

People have free will to work where they wish, for whomever they wish, for as much money as they agree. They also have the self-responsibility to work in a place that they feel safe. See the common theme here? Self-Responsibility!

What about all the wage theft, injuries that are not the extreme cases, but still injuries. The illegal firings. I could make a pretty long list. Yes, there are employers that are decent, how many and what percentage-I doubt as high as you would think.

Your idea is a nice idea, but to think that all the laws are written to really give all this free will is a bit of a stretch. The laws are written in ways that really keep that from happening, partly because the laws involving workplace are not enforced as they once were. How many employers go to jail for wage theft. It is still theft, but it is hardly enforced. One example of how all this fairness is not really fair and the deck is stacked.

I'm sure wage theft is an issue for some employees/employers. I can also assure you that employees are not always 100% honest/accurate when they file their hours as well. I can assure you that employees take longer than their allotted lunch breaks. I can assure you that employees everywhere aren't laboring every minute they're 'on the clock'.

What's an illegal firing? Should employers not be able to dismiss anyone they don't want working at their PRIVATE organization, for any reason? This is where we've gotten away from common sense. Should you not be able to remove me from your property for any reason, reasonable or not?

You are correct about this, laws are NEVER written to encourage more free will. If government wanted us to have more free will they would remove laws! Remember, government doesn't give us our rights, those are inalienable. The constitution was written in a way intending to reduce government's rights. Somewhere along the way we had the definition reversed in our education. Again, if you feel your employer is stealing from you, there are court actions available to him/her. Quit your job for your lousy employer and file a claim against them. We don't need a new law to protect us from every injustice from bad employers. Just find the good ones! It's the free market and good employees will flock to good employers.

[Maddog1956]

So at what point should citizens pay for the government they use? Don't get me started on who pays the dues in this country. Just look at the stats. We have about half of the country who are net takers, and half that are net payers. The average household with a head-of-household without a high school diploma is a net consumer of government services of over $31,000/annual.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-taxpayer

If I may, at what point do we require citizens to take responsibility for their lives?

Take responsibility for what, whose womb they come out of? Over 50% of who you are today is based on the womb you came out of.

Take responsibility for being black or being born in another country, or having part of their body blown away in the military, or maybe just for having mental defects! Yeah where do they come off picking drug addict, poor, abusive parents or attending the worst schools because no one cares about that side of town.

Maybe the 1%'ers should take responsibility for fighting the wars they get us into since they make millions off them. Our paying most of the cost of the FAA since they use it in a much higher percentage (as shown by congress just voting them more funds). Or maybe they should just pay an equal tax rate as the middle class instead of setting up phony companies. Now that's what I call "taking responsibility".

It's funny but most of the people that I know (myself included) that took responsibility and pulled themselves up from not the best start in life, are not the ones telling others to take responsibility. They usually don't mind helping another human (regardless of who they are) when in need. They don't even mind paying taxes, because they know there are things that we can't do alone and that the country is better when everyone is better. It's usually the old white guy that won the womb lottery that's thinks everyone else should take responsibility and that's why government has to "make them take responsibility" for living in this country. Or they can do like Rush and go to Costa Rica, oh sorry he really didn't do that did he!

And the "take responsibility" argument doesn't even have anything to do with this topic because we are talking about shifting taxes from one group (wealth) to another (middle class). I'm not sure why when the 1%'ers doesn't want to pay taxes they they shift it to the middle class and call that "taking responsibility".

BTW, here is another piece by the heritage article co-author Richwine. Just because a think tank publishes something doesn't make it so (see austerity spreadsheet errors).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... h-low-iqs/

I'll be glad to read any negative comments about taking responsibility but please start with your dates of active military and branch so I know what dates you took responsibility. (not saying service makes you better than anyone else, but I don't think you can tell someone else to take responsibility if you didn't)

75-78 Army

[97grad]

Lol @ "womb lottery". I'll have to remember that one. Agree totally though. The "makers" always want to tout how they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, etc and attribute their success to nothing but themselves. The bottom line is that none of us, well off, worse off, whatever got to where we are without a huge helping of dumb luck. Some of us who actually recognize that are less likely to assume that folks who are having a rough go of it have no one to blame but themselves.

[Maddog1956]

Lol @ "womb lottery".

I'd love to take credit for it but I "stole" it from that well known "taker" Warren Buffett.

[HeffnerIV]

So at what point should citizens pay for the government they use? Don't get me started on who pays the dues in this country. Just look at the stats. We have about half of the country who are net takers, and half that are net payers. The average household with a head-of-household without a high school diploma is a net consumer of government services of over $31,000/annual.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-taxpayer

If I may, at what point do we require citizens to take responsibility for their lives?

Take responsibility for what, whose womb they come out of? Over 50% of who you are today is based on the womb you came out of.

Take responsibility for being black or being born in another country, or having part of their body blown away in the military, or maybe just for having mental defects! Yeah where do they come off picking drug addict, poor, abusive parents or attending the worst schools because no one cares about that side of town.

Maybe the 1%'ers should take responsibility for fighting the wars they get us into since they make millions off them. Our paying most of the cost of the FAA since they use it in a much higher percentage (as shown by congress just voting them more funds). Or maybe they should just pay an equal tax rate as the middle class instead of setting up phony companies. Now that's what I call "taking responsibility".

It's funny but most of the people that I know (myself included) that took responsibility and pulled themselves up from not the best start in life, are not the ones telling others to take responsibility. They usually don't mind helping another human (regardless of who they are) when in need. They don't even mind paying taxes, because they know there are things that we can't do alone and that the country is better when everyone is better. It's usually the old white guy that won the womb lottery that's thinks everyone else should take responsibility and that's why government has to "make them take responsibility" for living in this country. Or they can do like Rush and go to Costa Rica, oh sorry he really didn't do that did he!

And the "take responsibility" argument doesn't even have anything to do with this topic because we are talking about shifting taxes from one group (wealth) to another (middle class). I'm not sure why when the 1%'ers doesn't want to pay taxes they they shift it to the middle class and call that "taking responsibility".

BTW, here is another piece by the heritage article co-author Richwine. Just because a think tank publishes something doesn't make it so (see austerity spreadsheet errors).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... h-low-iqs/

I'll be glad to read any negative comments about taking responsibility but please start with your dates of active military and branch so I know what dates you took responsibility. (not saying service makes you better than anyone else, but I don't think you can tell someone else to take responsibility if you didn't)

75-78 Army

So essentially your argument is that if you don't "win the womb lottery" you aren't responsible for yourself at any time in your life? I thought that is what all of these liberal "social safety nets" were supposed to resolve? You can now get food, housing, education, healthcare, phones, cars, etc. So, why aren't these womb losers, as you feel, improving? Why aren't less folks consuming these services? Do we have more womb losers now? If so, should their parents never be held responsible for their care? Or should we just abort them?

If you would've read the entire thread you would've noticed that your linked article has already been posted. Once again, instead of arguing the merits of the study, you've chosen a personal attack on the author. That's what we call a diversion.

I'm not a conservative, but referring to paying taxes and being charitable, social conservatives are more charitable by a decent margin.

Please don't quote the Occupy Movement if you want to be taken seriously. Regarding the "1%," do you know how much of the tax burden they carry? Is that not enough? I'm assuming it's not, so how much is enough?

Finally, I thank you for your service to our security. That is something that I did not participate in and I highly respect your contribution to my security! With that said, should I have no opinion about the course of my government? I would argue that if you think that Veterans are the only group allowed to complain about taking responsibility, your positions would be in the minority.

[97grad]

Regarding the "1%," do you know how much of the tax burden they carry? Is that not enough? I'm assuming it's not, so how much is enough?

They carry a large portion. However it's peanuts compared to the proportion of the nations wealth that they hold. So to answer your question directly, no it is not enough. I defy any reasonable person to watch this video and claim that it's the poor whom our system disproportionately benefits:

[HeffnerIV]

Regarding the "1%," do you know how much of the tax burden they carry? Is that not enough? I'm assuming it's not, so how much is enough?

They carry a large portion. However it's peanuts compared to the proportion of the nations wealth that they hold. So to answer your question directly, no it is not enough. I defy any reasonable person to watch this video and claim that it's the poor whom our system disproportionately benefits:

Yes it is. They own about 35% of the wealth, and they pay about 39% of all federal taxes. How is that not 'fair'? I'm assuming that you essentially believe in wealth distribution. Well, the way that many of these folks got into the top 1% is through government welfare, and that's not party specific. It's what we call the political entrepreneur. They learned long ago that you need not work hard and take chances in business. You simply lobby government for grants, laws that stifle competition, and regulation that your smaller competitors can't survive (Amazon is in favor of the internet sales tax). You also lobby for 'green legislation' and build your business around this newly developed industry that the government invented. So, in essence, the exact system you want your government to fix and make fair, is exactly how most of these "1%" got the wealth they have. Warren Buffet is no conservative or liberal. He's an opportunist.

Al Gore had net worth of about 1.7M in 2000. He's now worth over 200M. Do you think it was simply his business acumen that gained him this success?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ecade.html

[97grad]

So, I'm confused. Your assertion is that these people gamed an unfair system to get to the top 1%. Ok. But now asking them to pay more is somehow also unfair? Also funny that you bring up wealth redistribution, because that's exactly what started this thread, though not in the direction you are referring.

[HeffnerIV]

So, I'm confused. Your assertion is that these people gamed an unfair system to get to the top 1%. Ok. But now asking them to pay more is somehow also unfair? Also funny that you bring up wealth redistribution, because that's exactly what started this thread, though not in the direction you are referring.

I'm arguing that I don't believe in wealth distribution in either direction. I don't necessarily disagree or agree with the the new tax plan- I haven't studied it enough. What got me interested in this debate is that I'm tired of hearing people complaining about the poor, down trodden, disenfranchised. The only people who stay in those roles are people who relish them. There is too much opportunity in the country to succeed, despite government intervention 'intended to help them'. At some point you're not a victim anymore.

If I may clarify, I don't think all people in the top bracket got there through manipulation of government welfare. I just believe there are a healthy number of them. I believe a 'fair tax' rate is best avenue- Flatten the tax rate. In this form, the rich are paying more, but not at a rate intended to punish their success. Meanwhile, stop the corporate welfare of government picking winners and losers. Let the consumer decide who deserves to remain.

[Maddog1956]

So at what point should citizens pay for the government they use? Don't get me started on who pays the dues in this country. Just look at the stats. We have about half of the country who are net takers, and half that are net payers. The average household with a head-of-household without a high school diploma is a net consumer of government services of over $31,000/annual.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-taxpayer

If I may, at what point do we require citizens to take responsibility for their lives?

Take responsibility for what, whose womb they come out of? Over 50% of who you are today is based on the womb you came out of.

Take responsibility for being black or being born in another country, or having part of their body blown away in the military, or maybe just for having mental defects! Yeah where do they come off picking drug addict, poor, abusive parents or attending the worst schools because no one cares about that side of town.

Maybe the 1%'ers should take responsibility for fighting the wars they get us into since they make millions off them. Our paying most of the cost of the FAA since they use it in a much higher percentage (as shown by congress just voting them more funds). Or maybe they should just pay an equal tax rate as the middle class instead of setting up phony companies. Now that's what I call "taking responsibility".

It's funny but most of the people that I know (myself included) that took responsibility and pulled themselves up from not the best start in life, are not the ones telling others to take responsibility. They usually don't mind helping another human (regardless of who they are) when in need. They don't even mind paying taxes, because they know there are things that we can't do alone and that the country is better when everyone is better. It's usually the old white guy that won the womb lottery that's thinks everyone else should take responsibility and that's why government has to "make them take responsibility" for living in this country. Or they can do like Rush and go to Costa Rica, oh sorry he really didn't do that did he!

And the "take responsibility" argument doesn't even have anything to do with this topic because we are talking about shifting taxes from one group (wealth) to another (middle class). I'm not sure why when the 1%'ers doesn't want to pay taxes they they shift it to the middle class and call that "taking responsibility".

BTW, here is another piece by the heritage article co-author Richwine. Just because a think tank publishes something doesn't make it so (see austerity spreadsheet errors).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... h-low-iqs/

I'll be glad to read any negative comments about taking responsibility but please start with your dates of active military and branch so I know what dates you took responsibility. (not saying service makes you better than anyone else, but I don't think you can tell someone else to take responsibility if you didn't)

75-78 Army

So essentially your argument is that if you don't "win the womb lottery" you aren't responsible for yourself at any time in your life? I thought that is what all of these liberal "social safety nets" were supposed to resolve? You can now get food, housing, education, healthcare, phones, cars, etc. So, why aren't these womb losers, as you feel, improving? Why aren't less folks consuming these services? Do we have more womb losers now? If so, should their parents never be held responsible for their care? Or should we just abort them?

If you would've read the entire thread you would've noticed that your linked article has already been posted. Once again, instead of arguing the merits of the study, you've chosen a personal attack on the author. That's what we call a diversion.

I'm not a conservative, but referring to paying taxes and being charitable, social conservatives are more charitable by a decent margin.

Please don't quote the Occupy Movement if you want to be taken seriously. Regarding the "1%," do you know how much of the tax burden they carry? Is that not enough? I'm assuming it's not, so how much is enough?

Finally, I thank you for your service to our security. That is something that I did not participate in and I highly respect your contribution to my security! With that said, should I have no opinion about the course of my government? I would argue that if you think that Veterans are the only group allowed to complain about taking responsibility, your positions would be in the minority.

I didn't say you can't complain without being a veteran, but it seems kind of hypocritical that a "taker" would talk about someone else not taking responsibility. Hey, I'm the liberal I know there are some takers and I'm ok with a limited amount, I just don't care for hypocritical takers is all.

Second, why aren't "womb losers" improving, maybe it's has to do with the fact that the top 1% is getting richer and the "womb losers" are getting less, contrary to what you seem to be reading. Instead of asking why with safety nets do we still have any "womb losers", the question is how many more would we have and what that cost to the country would there be without safety nets. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-201 ... ly-richer/

While the 1% tell people that all the problems in the US would go away if we just got rid of "deadbeats" and all we need is tax cuts for the 1%, we tried that and it didn't work (see Bush recession, great depression, etc). What gets me is how they can still get the same foolish people (that aren't 1%'ers) to keep believing them. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

There is no merit to the study and the easiest way to point it out is by pointing out the author has a lack of merit, but if you still have a hard time seeing what totally obvious to everyone without blinders, here is what one of your own guys Sen. Marco Rubio thinks (if you're quoting Heritage you must be Jim Demint Tea Party) of the "deeply flawed" study. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-immigra/

I can't quote the Occupy Movement (I'm not sure where the quote was, but it really doesn't matter), but you can quote the Heritage Foundation lead by the great mental midget Jim DeMint that has one purpose to elect Republicans. (just one of his good quotes "single mothers who live with their boyfriends should similarly be excluded from being educators".

Btw, your whole post in this thread is a diversion, I still haven't found the link between immigrants amnesty (or takers and non-takers) in your no-merit link and shifting taxes from the over $200,000/year to the $30,000/year which is what the NC tax change does. Can you just answer just that one question?

[Maddog1956]

What got me interested in this debate is that I'm tired of hearing people complaining about the poor, down trodden, disenfranchised. The only people who stay in those roles are people who relish them. There is too much opportunity in the country to succeed, despite government intervention 'intended to help them'. At some point you're not a victim anymore.

That states it all! You can't fix stupid.

Sorry I hate to go there, but if you think that the only people that are "poor, down trodden, disenfranchised" are those that relish them. You either don't know anyone in those roles or you're stupid. But I guess that's better than just being mean, full of hate, without compassion.

I know you won't take my advice, but tonight if I was you (and I'm glad I'm not), I'd thank someone or something that so far you have been blessed enough that nothing you couldn't recover from hasn't hit you.

[HeffnerIV]

"

I didn't say you can't complain without being a veteran, but it seems kind of hypocritical that a "taker" would talk about someone else not taking responsibility. Hey, I'm the liberal I know there are some takers and I'm ok with a limited amount, I just don't care for hypocritical takers is all.

Second, why aren't "womb losers" improving, maybe it's has to do with the fact that the top 1% is getting richer and the "womb losers" are getting less, contrary to what you seem to be reading. Instead of asking why with safety nets do we still have any "womb losers", the question is how many more would we have and what that cost to the country would there be without safety nets. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-201 ... ly-richer/

While the 1% tell people that all the problems in the US would go away if we just got rid of "deadbeats" and all we need is tax cuts for the 1%, we tried that and it didn't work (see Bush recession, great depression, etc). What gets me is how they can still get the same foolish people (that aren't 1%'ers) to keep believing them. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

There is no merit to the study and the easiest way to point it out is by pointing out the author has a lack of merit, but if you still have a hard time seeing what totally obvious to everyone without blinders, here is what one of your own guys Sen. Marco Rubio thinks (if you're quoting Heritage you must be Jim Demint Tea Party) of the "deeply flawed" study. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-immigra/

I can't quote the Occupy Movement (I'm not sure where the quote was, but it really doesn't matter), but you can quote the Heritage Foundation lead by the great mental midget Jim DeMint that has one purpose to elect Republicans. (just one of his good quotes "single mothers who live with their boyfriends should similarly be excluded from being educators".

Btw, your whole post in this thread is a diversion, I still haven't found the link between immigrants amnesty (or takers and non-takers) in your no-merit link and shifting taxes from the over $200,000/year to the $30,000/year which is what the NC tax change does. Can you just answer just that one question?"

Okay, so anyone who didn't serve in the military is a taker. Got it. Thanks.

Your second point- Got it, you're in your lot because someone else is holding you down. It's someone else's fault.

Third, The "1%" trying to rid themselves of the "deadbeats?- And people like you who think the world would solve all its problems if we tax them at a rate of about 90%.

Fourth, Again you can't debate the study, Only attack the character of the author, his boss, and the Senator who has pretty much tied his career to this legislation. Thanks.

Fifth, you need to read the entire thread.

[HeffnerIV]

What got me interested in this debate is that I'm tired of hearing people complaining about the poor, down trodden, disenfranchised. The only people who stay in those roles are people who relish them. There is too much opportunity in the country to succeed, despite government intervention 'intended to help them'. At some point you're not a victim anymore.

That states it all! You can't fix stupid.

Sorry I hate to go there, but if you think that the only people that are "poor, down trodden, disenfranchised" are those that relish them. You either don't know anyone in those roles or you're stupid. But I guess that's better than just being mean, full of hate, without compassion.

I know you won't take my advice, but tonight if I was you (and I'm glad I'm not), I'd thank someone or something that so far you have been blessed enough that nothing you couldn't recover from hasn't hit you.

Dang boy, you're a real internet tough guy. I should've known you would reduce to this. Here's a little advice back at ya- I'm sure you're a nice guy and have good intentions, but you come across on the internet as angry. Just a thought.

[Maddog1956]

"

Okay, so anyone who didn't serve in the military is a taker. Got it. Thanks. Pretty much true using your definition of "taker", you took freedom, from someone that gave theirs. But I'm not worried about takers, but you seem to be, just count everything not just taxes.

Your second point- Got it, you're in your lot because someone else is holding you down. It's someone else's fault. I'm not in a bad lot (never said I was), but I didn't get to where I'm at alone either. I thought you were the one worried that the "takers" were out to bring you down.

Third, The "1%" trying to rid themselves of the "deadbeats?- And people like you who think the world would solve all its problems if we tax them at a rate of about 90%. Never said 90% (I guess that's the Heritage #), but I think it should be above 14% (see Mitt's tax return).

Fourth, Again you can't debate the study, Only attack the character of the author, his boss, and the Senator who has pretty much tied his career to this legislation. Thanks. Fourth, you need to read the entire thread. I'll try and simplify this as much as possible for you. When the main source for a study is your own #'s that are not displayed for others to view (ie. the source for most of the assumptions are "Heritage Foundations calculations using numbers from the US Census") you have to look at the source of the calculations. When the source of the calculations are politically motivated people you have to doubt the calculations. If the whole point of the study is to determine "Cost", based on those calculations, you have to doubt the "Cost", there for, the study. But I know you will believe the study from now on, no matter how big of joke it becomes.

However I still want you to answer how the study has anything to do with the topic "NC Tax Changes".

[Maddog1956]

Dang boy, you're a real internet tough guy. I should've known you would reduce to this. Here's a little advice back at ya- I'm sure you're a nice guy and have good intentions, but you come across on the internet as angry. Just a thought.

Didn't claim to be tough, but I guess that was said as a compliment. So it's neither here or there.

I thought "you" were the angry old guy living in fear that all "poor, down trodden, disenfranchised takers" that relished living that way were going to invade your little tea party. You know, it kind of comes across the internet a like you're trying to say you're a victim.

I thought that was the whole point of your post, since the study didn't seem to have anything to do with the topic.

[HeffnerIV]

"

Okay, so anyone who didn't serve in the military is a taker. Got it. Thanks. Pretty much true using your definition of "taker", you took freedom, from someone that gave theirs. But I'm not worried about takers, but you seem to be, just count everything not just taxes.

Your second point- Got it, you're in your lot because someone else is holding you down. It's someone else's fault. I'm not in a bad lot (never said I was), but I didn't get to where I'm at alone either. I thought you were the one worried that the "takers" were out to bring you down.

Third, The "1%" trying to rid themselves of the "deadbeats?- And people like you who think the world would solve all its problems if we tax them at a rate of about 90%. Never said 90% (I guess that's the Heritage #), but I think it should be above 14% (see Mitt's tax return).

Fourth, Again you can't debate the study, Only attack the character of the author, his boss, and the Senator who has pretty much tied his career to this legislation. Thanks. Fourth, you need to read the entire thread. I'll try and simplify this as much as possible for you. When the main source for a study is your own #'s that are not displayed for others to view (ie. the source for most of the assumptions are "Heritage Foundations calculations using numbers from the US Census") you have to look at the source of the calculations. When the source of the calculations are politically motivated people you have to doubt the calculations. If the whole point of the study is to determine "Cost", based on those calculations, you have to doubt the "Cost", there for, the study. But I know you will believe the study from now on, no matter how big of joke it becomes.

However I still want you to answer how the study has anything to do with the topic "NC Tax Changes".

For the third and final time, I wasn't making an argument for/against the proposition. I was simply responding to the thread that immediately went to the hyper-emotional response of 'those evil rich folks stealing from the poor again'. There is a long, documented series where I've addressed this.

[HeffnerIV]

Dang boy, you're a real internet tough guy. I should've known you would reduce to this. Here's a little advice back at ya- I'm sure you're a nice guy and have good intentions, but you come across on the internet as angry. Just a thought.

Didn't claim to be tough, but I guess that was said as a compliment. So it's neither here or there.

I thought "you" were the angry old guy living in fear that all "poor, down trodden, disenfranchised takers" that relished living that way were going to invade your little tea party. You know, it kind of comes across the internet a like you're trying to say you're a victim.

I thought that was the whole point of your post, since the study didn't seem to have anything to do with the topic.

No, I'm no old man. I'm definitely not an angry, mud-slinging 57 YO who thinks that government is the way to save 'victims'. I'm just a green, 31 YO who thinks there's might be a better path of opportunity for those who "didn't win the womb lottery."

Welfare: The biggest hoax pulled on poor in the history of the United States.