Quote from Gina Rinehart seems to court controversy[/quote »
– from her family lawsuits to her battles with Australian media.
Now, the Australian mining heiress, worth $19 billion dollars and earlier this year thought to be the world's richest woman, has sparked another controversy in her latest column in Australian Resources and Investment magazine. (Yes, I am a registered reader online.) Rinehart rails against class warfare and says the non-rich should stop attacking the rich and go to work.
“There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire,” she writes. “If you’re jealous of those with more money, don’t just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself – spend less time drinking, or smoking and socializing and more time working.”
The comments were part of a treatise on what she sees as Australia’s decline due to high taxes, high wages and over-regulation. Rinehart said taxes should fall, red tape should be cut, environmental rules relaxed and the minimum wage should be lowered. (It’s currently AUS $15.06 an hour or $606 a week, about the same in U.S. dollars). (Read more: Millionaire Parents Say Kids Aren't Fit to Inherit)
Her quotes are sure to escalate the already heated debate in the United States, Britain and Europe over class warfare, taxing the wealthy and “fair shares.”
When governments target the rich, she warns, they really hurt the middle and lower classes.
“The terrible millionaires and billionaires can often invest in other countries. And if they do suffer, what does that really mean? Maybe their teenagers don’t get the cars they wanted or a better beach house or maybe the holiday to Europe is cut short; But otherwise life goes on for these millionaires and billionaires.”
Robert Frank
CNBC Reporter
& Editor
Those who really suffer from anti-business and anti-investor policies are regular workers who “usually vote for the anti-business socialist parties,” she writes. “If you want to help the poor and our next generation, make investment, reinvenstment and businesses welcome.”
She also tells the stories of her two grandfathers and three of her wealthy friends, who all started at the bottom and worked their way to the top. One grandfather, James Nicholas, started cleaning stables and launched a transportation company. Another granddad built a sheep station with 25,000 sheep.
Her pal Michael Kailis came from a poor Greek immigrant family and became Australia’s crawfish king. Friend Jack Cowin borrowed from friends to found the Hungry Jack burger chain, and is now the country’s “king of fries.” (Read more: The Lack of Women Billionaires)
“The lessons are the same,” she writes. “You can’t get rich without working hard, taking risks, investing and reinvesting your profits. “
Of course, as Rinehart knows, you can also become very rich from inheriting and expanding your father’s company.
Free Registration for the article, but posted it here for ease of access:
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
The rich have been fighting class warfare against the poor for as long as there have been rich people. It is one of the greatest lies achieved that they don't. The problem is when the poor don't fight to protect themselves. The rich people have money to protect themselves, they don't need anyone else's help to do so.
Classes should be a system of checks and balances, the rich should have the money to protect themselves, the poor should have numbers to protect themselves, when one gets out of line to a certain extent, the other should force action to fix the problem. Right now you have the rich having more than they have had in the past 100 years and we actually have poor people fighting for the rich's right to take advantage of a broken system.
Being an Australian I am intimately aware of Gina Rinehart and her family. Her father, Lane Hancock, had a plan to give all Aboriginals cheques for huge amounts of money in the middle of Australia (in the desert), and when they get there they will be sterilised. He wasn't a fan of Aboriginals because, in the 60's, he flew over Austrlaia in a plane (it's a big and sparsley populated country) and asked all the time 'who owns this bit of desert or bush?' Upon finding that 'no-one' did, the government just gave it to him, hence how he got his huge mining fortune. But Aboriginals weren't happy because they claimed traditional ownership.
Anyway, Gina has often expressed that she idolised her dad, and has a tendency to say equally peculiar things.
Now, Gina is not your typical heiress. She was born into millions, but turned that into billions in her mining venture. Now, in this economic climate any millionaire who couldn't make billions off mining is a fool, as it's a question of digging and selling. But we shouldn't dismiss her business acheivements altogether.
Regarding her statement, I'm of mixed minds. I do agree with her that people who whinge about not being millionaires could go a good way to acheiving this by not spending so much time socialising at the pub, and getting down to business. But then not everyone has a real interest in being a millionaire. I, for example, really couldn't care less. If I got $10 million at lotto I would buy a house and give the rest to charity. It really doesn't interest me because my goal in life isn't have money. It's having enough money so that I can comfortably do what I want. And being a millionaire would make me lethargic concerning my work, and I am of the opinion that a good day's work gives people a sense of worth. I am particularly keen on mine, being philosophy, as I think it's worthwhile in all spheres as well.
But the real issue I take is that we should lower the minimum wage to encourage people. I look in horror at the minimum wage in America and think there is no surprise that a real 'cycle of poverty' exists there. In my first job I started off on $11 an hour, and by the time I was 21 the minimum wage was almost $20 an hour. But Australia is a prosperous nation, and workers deserve a minimum wage like this. Now, I'm not advocating a dramatic increase, but people on minimum wage do struggle to pay for mortgages and service bills. And I feel sorry for these people, as I know that they do work hard. To lower the minimum wage because some Australians piss it away on piss and **** is just insulting. It shows her ignorance and her classist attitudes. She really thinks a high enough proportion of minimum wage workers are like that that we need to socially engineer them off it by making them choose between work or play.
In the end, I know what kind of a person I'd prefer to go to the pub with. And it ain't Gina.
I honestly actually agree with her on the point about frontiers, but not her approach to the understanding and role of frontier. Of course she expects people to pick up and move to some random place in the dead of nowhere and raise sheep, but often if you study pioneers they also get arrows in the back and in particular to Australia there was an entrepreneur that introduced a hybrid sheep to the continent that was able to out produce other breeds. Equally the lands, if settled in a good spot, also impacts husbandry in being able to maintaining a profit along with the ability to get the sheep to port for export.
At each stage of development going from a resource to an efficiency to an innovation economy isn't a total revitalization to take from those various stages, rather that each of those stages seem to adduce themselves towards wealth acquisition. The first stage is to gain wealth as an extractor or merchant and follow through up the value chain to become an innovator/transactor through increasing complexity upon the division of labor.
The complexity therein shuffles greater specialization and a lack of capacity to shift from one area to a different area, heralding back to old school tribalism to be branded a certain way for job transition. Of course she seems to be deflate that wealth accumulation and government manipulation has a wild habit of closing frontiers and keeping older former frontiers transformed into walled off neighborhoods.
Government has a limited role, certainly, but "wealth redistribution" isn't evil if it's used to build new frontiers and keeps up with basic services such as education and basic research. Regulations suck when regulatory compliance becomes a science rather than common sense practices. Paper work and "rule by committee" with various interlocking forms of government is mind boggling. I feel we need protections against the evils that travail society, but she fails in the resource extraction and tragedy of the commons argument with an assumption that the efficiency is labor induced for mineral extractions meanwhile that industry is a bit more complicated than that in terms of costs. The slow down in China for instance is one major point into their two year projections, since they just raised interest rates and want to increase domestic consumption patterns.
Not bad ideas, but just comes off as whining without much of a mention for something about the northern territories to tote about modern persons up there making a great living and starting from scratch. Ironically, she's using a frontiersman mentality, where as the city is often the greatest driver for GDP creation with it's connectivity to ports, people, and extraction centers located around it's area. People who are of frontiers stock forget their parents left the cities, but those who stayed behind thrived as merchants and connectors to the larger world.
Being an Australian I am intimately aware of Gina Rinehart and her family. Her father, Lane Hancock, had a plan to give all Aboriginals cheques for huge amounts of money in the middle of Australia (in the desert), and when they get there they will be sterilised. He wasn't a fan of Aboriginals because, in the 60's, he flew over Austrlaia in a plane (it's a big and sparsley populated country) and asked all the time 'who owns this bit of desert or bush?' Upon finding that 'no-one' did, the government just gave it to him, hence how he got his huge mining fortune. But Aboriginals weren't happy because they claimed traditional ownership.
Sounds distinctly 19th century American, "whose is that?" "Uh I dunno, it's yours now dude!"
Native wandering peoples come around to old watering old, "Dude what's up with that, who jacked our land?"
Jesus always said:
"Screw the poor, for they should work harder and drink less."
This is nothing new in this "we despise the poor" atmosphere the right has created. Classism is the new paradigm of conservative thought.
Really? Where did you see "screw the poor" or "I despise the poor," in there?
“There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire,” she writes. “If you’re jealous of those with more money, don’t just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself – spend less time drinking, or smoking and socializing and more time working.”
Frankly, I don't see much to take issue with here.
The only thing I don't like is the implication that everyone wants to be well-off, which is probably an incorrect assumption that the left makes even more often than the right.
Most people don't want to be well-off. I sure don't! Too much work, not worth it.
Really? Where did you see "screw the poor" or "I despise the poor," in there?
This whole idea of the poor just being lazy and irresponsible (drink less, work more), stop complaining etc. It's classism and it's how the right thinks these days.
Why does the opinion of some tart born into millions and given the helm of a corporation in a booming area of industry carry any weight?
It's like this, she goes to her people and says "Open up a mine where the geologists say there are good rocks" and they go "Yes, milady." I know it's not that simple but it's not like she'd be saying that if her parents made 35k a year, she went to college by working part time and taking out loans to get a degree in business, accounting, or computer science, and ended up living a comfortable life where she can't sleep on a mattress stuffed with 100's.
This whole idea of the poor just being lazy and irresponsible (drink less, work more), stop complaining etc. It's classism and it's how the right thinks these days.
To requote:
“There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire,” she writes. “If you’re jealous of those with more money, don’t just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself – spend less time drinking, or smoking and socializing and more time working.”
I think this is literally true. Any single one of us could be better off if we did less partying (or whatever else) and more working/put in more effort.
Millionaires? Probably not, but just as an example, I've got a buddy who has always worked 60+ hours a week, sometimes at 2 or 3 different jobs from the age of 16 on. We all poked fun at him for so long, until we got to the age of 23 and he was settling into an amazing house in a high end neighborhood and we were all living in our parent's basements. He's always been conservative with his money, max contributions to IRA, etc. Dude is pretty well set for life, though he'll be spending much of that life (at least the early part of it) working.
It's just a matter of determining priorities. My fiancee and I are fine with our low-mid to mid-mid incomes, because it provides us with a lot of time for fun and relaxation. Lots of people share a similar view, perhaps even most of the people on this board.
So the moral of the story is: determine what kind of life you want and then live it. Yeah, we all know the exceptions (inheritance/lotto on the one side, poor education/poor mental health/etc. on the other side). Still, the fact is that the other 99.9% of us have 2 choices: have the cake or eat the cake.
And for every person that doesn't get their shot because they are legitimately oppressed or systematically exploited, there's another that persists in low end retail jobs and whines about the system rather than doing something to actually improve their situation. Oh, and if I didn't make it clear, I've got absolutely no beef with the guy that chooses to work entry level jobs all his life. Hey, he's doing something, that's respectable.. nothing wrong with that! Just talking about the ones that do that and then complain that they aren't filthy rich. It'd be kinda like a Fortune 500 CEO complaining that he doesn't have any free time on his hands. In other words, ridiculous.
Now, Gina is not your typical heiress. She was born into millions, but turned that into billions in her mining venture.
Despite popular media depicting certain heirs/heiresses poorly (often well deservedly poorly), I think Gina is more typical of an heiress than Paris Hilton is.
Kids learn from their parents. If Daddy worked 80 hours a week, then the kids will see that and learn that usually.
But that's just the thing. She may have worked incredibly hard, but then, she indicated that if you aren't making the kind of money she is, you aren't working hard. Not only do you need to work incredibly hard, but you need to be very lucky. Seems like the uber wealthy are always downplaying that part, and instead create a narrative that is incredibly self serving and ignores everything that went into their success.
She may have worked incredibly hard, but then, she indicated that if you aren't making the kind of money she is, you aren't working hard.
Where did she indicate that? As far as I could tell she indicated that in order to move toward the point of amassing any sort of wealth you need to sacrifice some of your "fun" and "luxury" now.
Not only do you need to work incredibly hard, but you need to be very lucky. Seems like the uber wealthy are always downplaying that part, and instead create a narrative that is incredibly self serving and ignores everything that went into their success.
I don't see where you are getting that shes ignoring any of that. I don't see her claiming to have earned it all herself...
What she is saying, and what is true and will be true no matter how much wealth redistribution there is, is that in order to amass wealth one needs to make sacrifices. People who are actively acquiring wealth (rather than those who are expending wealth) can't go out to the pub every night, can't go out partying. That was the point.
The reason that European and American Governments are in such a debt crisis is because of the overspending in entitlement programs. Here's a chart of the projected percentage of entitlement spending as opposed to GDP.
Unemployed people and people who do not wish to work need to stop using "There's no jobs" as an excuse for laziness and leech off the government. If there is no jobs in your city, then move. There are plenty of jobs even for less educated individuals. For example the farming and truck driving industry are always looking for people. People are not willing to do them because it is much easier living off of the government than actually work.
Yes the Rich should help out more by paying more taxes. When most of the wealthy's income comes from investing, 15% tax on capital gains is just ridiculous. However it is even more appalling when 40%-50% of Americans pay 0 tax. Everyone should contribute to their country. The ones who can contribute more should be made to do so. At the same time people need to reduce their dependency on the government and lessen its spending burdens.
Neither of those support your statement. Those refer to only income tax. There are plenty of other ways people pay taxes.
Income tax and corporate tax makes up 55% of Total Tax Recepits. Social Security tax 36% goes straight to fund social security. So what ever tax that is paid by these people is beyond inconsequential and pales in comparison to the benefits they receive from the entitlement programs that are bankrupting our country. Link
Income tax and corporate tax makes up 55% of Total Tax Recepits. Social Security tax 36% goes straight to fund social security. So what ever tax that is paid by these people is beyond inconsequetial and pales in comparison to the benefits they receive from the entitlement programs. Link
People who earn $12,000 or less pay on average 18% of their income in taxes by way of FICA, plus state and local tax. That's not an insignificant burden. If you're making 12k, and you pay over 2k of that in taxes, that's not "inconsequential".
People who earn $12,000 or less pay on average 18% of their income in taxes by way of FICA, plus state and local tax. That's not an insignificant burden. If you're making 12k, and you pay over 2k of that in taxes, that's not "inconsequential".
$2,000 as compared to the Housing Assistance, Food Stamp, Medicaid, and possible child care assistance is pretty inconsequential.
And that's only for people who are underemployed. What about the people who are unemployed or refuse to go to work that makes no income?
$2,000 as compared to the Housing Assistance, Food Stamp, Medicaid, and possible child care assistance is pretty inconsequential.
And that's only for people who are underemployed. What about the people who are unemployed or refuse to go to work that makes no income?
What about them? Who's fault is it that someone is unemployed but can't find work even though they are looking? And who cares if somebody chooses to not work at all? Good thing welfare has caps on how long you can be on it.
Lastly, have you ever heard the phrase, blood from a stone?
There would be less of a problem with taxes if the government would do away with a lot of the deductions/returns. My parents who are retired and receive Social Security got $2000 in returns last year without having to pay anything in. They would be willing to pay more into the system if obligated to.
It's not that what she said is wrong, it's not. It's that she's such a goddamned ****ing hypocrite. I don't want someone who's never lifted a goddamned finger to earn a dollar to tell me what I need to do to deserve her lifestyle. ****.
Free Registration for the article, but posted it here for ease of access:
http://www.australianresourcesandinvestment.com.au/
Copyrighted material removed.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
On phasing:
"Screw the poor, for they should work harder and drink less."
This is nothing new in this "we despise the poor" atmosphere the right has created. Classism is the new paradigm of conservative thought.
Classes should be a system of checks and balances, the rich should have the money to protect themselves, the poor should have numbers to protect themselves, when one gets out of line to a certain extent, the other should force action to fix the problem. Right now you have the rich having more than they have had in the past 100 years and we actually have poor people fighting for the rich's right to take advantage of a broken system.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Anyway, Gina has often expressed that she idolised her dad, and has a tendency to say equally peculiar things.
Now, Gina is not your typical heiress. She was born into millions, but turned that into billions in her mining venture. Now, in this economic climate any millionaire who couldn't make billions off mining is a fool, as it's a question of digging and selling. But we shouldn't dismiss her business acheivements altogether.
Regarding her statement, I'm of mixed minds. I do agree with her that people who whinge about not being millionaires could go a good way to acheiving this by not spending so much time socialising at the pub, and getting down to business. But then not everyone has a real interest in being a millionaire. I, for example, really couldn't care less. If I got $10 million at lotto I would buy a house and give the rest to charity. It really doesn't interest me because my goal in life isn't have money. It's having enough money so that I can comfortably do what I want. And being a millionaire would make me lethargic concerning my work, and I am of the opinion that a good day's work gives people a sense of worth. I am particularly keen on mine, being philosophy, as I think it's worthwhile in all spheres as well.
But the real issue I take is that we should lower the minimum wage to encourage people. I look in horror at the minimum wage in America and think there is no surprise that a real 'cycle of poverty' exists there. In my first job I started off on $11 an hour, and by the time I was 21 the minimum wage was almost $20 an hour. But Australia is a prosperous nation, and workers deserve a minimum wage like this. Now, I'm not advocating a dramatic increase, but people on minimum wage do struggle to pay for mortgages and service bills. And I feel sorry for these people, as I know that they do work hard. To lower the minimum wage because some Australians piss it away on piss and **** is just insulting. It shows her ignorance and her classist attitudes. She really thinks a high enough proportion of minimum wage workers are like that that we need to socially engineer them off it by making them choose between work or play.
In the end, I know what kind of a person I'd prefer to go to the pub with. And it ain't Gina.
At each stage of development going from a resource to an efficiency to an innovation economy isn't a total revitalization to take from those various stages, rather that each of those stages seem to adduce themselves towards wealth acquisition. The first stage is to gain wealth as an extractor or merchant and follow through up the value chain to become an innovator/transactor through increasing complexity upon the division of labor.
The complexity therein shuffles greater specialization and a lack of capacity to shift from one area to a different area, heralding back to old school tribalism to be branded a certain way for job transition. Of course she seems to be deflate that wealth accumulation and government manipulation has a wild habit of closing frontiers and keeping older former frontiers transformed into walled off neighborhoods.
Government has a limited role, certainly, but "wealth redistribution" isn't evil if it's used to build new frontiers and keeps up with basic services such as education and basic research. Regulations suck when regulatory compliance becomes a science rather than common sense practices. Paper work and "rule by committee" with various interlocking forms of government is mind boggling. I feel we need protections against the evils that travail society, but she fails in the resource extraction and tragedy of the commons argument with an assumption that the efficiency is labor induced for mineral extractions meanwhile that industry is a bit more complicated than that in terms of costs. The slow down in China for instance is one major point into their two year projections, since they just raised interest rates and want to increase domestic consumption patterns.
Not bad ideas, but just comes off as whining without much of a mention for something about the northern territories to tote about modern persons up there making a great living and starting from scratch. Ironically, she's using a frontiersman mentality, where as the city is often the greatest driver for GDP creation with it's connectivity to ports, people, and extraction centers located around it's area. People who are of frontiers stock forget their parents left the cities, but those who stayed behind thrived as merchants and connectors to the larger world.
Sounds distinctly 19th century American, "whose is that?" "Uh I dunno, it's yours now dude!"
Native wandering peoples come around to old watering old, "Dude what's up with that, who jacked our land?"
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Really? Where did you see "screw the poor" or "I despise the poor," in there?
Frankly, I don't see much to take issue with here.
The only thing I don't like is the implication that everyone wants to be well-off, which is probably an incorrect assumption that the left makes even more often than the right.
Most people don't want to be well-off. I sure don't! Too much work, not worth it.
This whole idea of the poor just being lazy and irresponsible (drink less, work more), stop complaining etc. It's classism and it's how the right thinks these days.
It's like this, she goes to her people and says "Open up a mine where the geologists say there are good rocks" and they go "Yes, milady." I know it's not that simple but it's not like she'd be saying that if her parents made 35k a year, she went to college by working part time and taking out loans to get a degree in business, accounting, or computer science, and ended up living a comfortable life where she can't sleep on a mattress stuffed with 100's.
To requote:
I think this is literally true. Any single one of us could be better off if we did less partying (or whatever else) and more working/put in more effort.
Millionaires? Probably not, but just as an example, I've got a buddy who has always worked 60+ hours a week, sometimes at 2 or 3 different jobs from the age of 16 on. We all poked fun at him for so long, until we got to the age of 23 and he was settling into an amazing house in a high end neighborhood and we were all living in our parent's basements. He's always been conservative with his money, max contributions to IRA, etc. Dude is pretty well set for life, though he'll be spending much of that life (at least the early part of it) working.
It's just a matter of determining priorities. My fiancee and I are fine with our low-mid to mid-mid incomes, because it provides us with a lot of time for fun and relaxation. Lots of people share a similar view, perhaps even most of the people on this board.
So the moral of the story is: determine what kind of life you want and then live it. Yeah, we all know the exceptions (inheritance/lotto on the one side, poor education/poor mental health/etc. on the other side). Still, the fact is that the other 99.9% of us have 2 choices: have the cake or eat the cake.
And for every person that doesn't get their shot because they are legitimately oppressed or systematically exploited, there's another that persists in low end retail jobs and whines about the system rather than doing something to actually improve their situation. Oh, and if I didn't make it clear, I've got absolutely no beef with the guy that chooses to work entry level jobs all his life. Hey, he's doing something, that's respectable.. nothing wrong with that! Just talking about the ones that do that and then complain that they aren't filthy rich. It'd be kinda like a Fortune 500 CEO complaining that he doesn't have any free time on his hands. In other words, ridiculous.
Despite popular media depicting certain heirs/heiresses poorly (often well deservedly poorly), I think Gina is more typical of an heiress than Paris Hilton is.
Kids learn from their parents. If Daddy worked 80 hours a week, then the kids will see that and learn that usually.
What makes you think she doesn't work hard? What exactly do you think heiress means?
Where did she indicate that? As far as I could tell she indicated that in order to move toward the point of amassing any sort of wealth you need to sacrifice some of your "fun" and "luxury" now.
WHich is true.
I don't see where you are getting that shes ignoring any of that. I don't see her claiming to have earned it all herself...
What she is saying, and what is true and will be true no matter how much wealth redistribution there is, is that in order to amass wealth one needs to make sacrifices. People who are actively acquiring wealth (rather than those who are expending wealth) can't go out to the pub every night, can't go out partying. That was the point.
Where did I say that? Where did I indicate that?
See? I can play that game, too. You are trying to read between the lines I posted, which is exactly what I did with hers:
that she thinks people are poor because they're lazy drunkards, and someone with a money has an easier time making more money.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Unemployed people and people who do not wish to work need to stop using "There's no jobs" as an excuse for laziness and leech off the government. If there is no jobs in your city, then move. There are plenty of jobs even for less educated individuals. For example the farming and truck driving industry are always looking for people. People are not willing to do them because it is much easier living off of the government than actually work.
Yes the Rich should help out more by paying more taxes. When most of the wealthy's income comes from investing, 15% tax on capital gains is just ridiculous. However it is even more appalling when 40%-50% of Americans pay 0 tax. Everyone should contribute to their country. The ones who can contribute more should be made to do so. At the same time people need to reduce their dependency on the government and lessen its spending burdens.
This is obviously false.
Look here and here
Neither of those support your statement. Those refer to only income tax. There are plenty of other ways people pay taxes.
Income tax and corporate tax makes up 55% of Total Tax Recepits. Social Security tax 36% goes straight to fund social security. So what ever tax that is paid by these people is beyond inconsequential and pales in comparison to the benefits they receive from the entitlement programs that are bankrupting our country. Link
People who earn $12,000 or less pay on average 18% of their income in taxes by way of FICA, plus state and local tax. That's not an insignificant burden. If you're making 12k, and you pay over 2k of that in taxes, that's not "inconsequential".
$2,000 as compared to the Housing Assistance, Food Stamp, Medicaid, and possible child care assistance is pretty inconsequential.
And that's only for people who are underemployed. What about the people who are unemployed or refuse to go to work that makes no income?
What about them? Who's fault is it that someone is unemployed but can't find work even though they are looking? And who cares if somebody chooses to not work at all? Good thing welfare has caps on how long you can be on it.
Lastly, have you ever heard the phrase, blood from a stone?
Right, because 40-50% of Americans don't buy anything ever.
Thanks to the [Æther] shop for the sig!