It's Halftime in Amercia...

[TheBlend]

Believe me I explored this option with my tax attorney and accountant and we would have paid more in that scenario. I am not being deceptive. I make enough to put everything that she makes in the 35% bracket. By the way if you are married and file separately I don't think you can claim the child credit and lots of other credits. It's typical of progressives to take what is a real world scenario like this and say "well you know the effective tax rate that you really pay blah,blah,blah.....". By the way, combined our effective federal tax rate was around 31% Now you may say well there you go 31% isn't so bad. But then you look at FICA, and unemployment, and state taxes and the bill keeps going up and up. So yeah, thats about 37k lost in revenue because it wasn't worth it to us for her to work. I doubt that we are an isolated case. Raising taxes does not in the long run raise tax revenue. A system in which half of all Americans pay no taxes cannot last.

I wasn't doubting your sincerity. It must be a terrible burden to make enough that your wife has options. On this note, if you were offered a$ 75000 raise you would turn it down right. And you conservatives should stop spreading the half of americans pay no taxes distortion.

From http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505#_ftn10

" The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

The 51 percent figure covers only the federal income tax and ignores the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay . As a result, it greatly overstates the share of households that do not pay any federal taxes. Data from the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center show only about 14 percent of households paid neither federal income tax nor payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year. "

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pd4emergence]

I wasn't doubting your sincerity. It must be a terrible burden to make enough that your wife has options. On this note, if you were offered a$ 75000 raise you would turn it down right. And you conservatives should stop spreading the half of americans pay no taxes distortion.

From http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505#_ftn10

" The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

The 51 percent figure covers only the federal income tax and ignores the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay . As a result, it greatly overstates the share of households that do not pay any federal taxes. Data from the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center show only about 14 percent of households paid neither federal income tax nor payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year. "

Actually turning down 75k is exactly what we did. My point was that there is a tax rate at which people start really think about whether working a little bit harder, or working that extra shift is really worth it. I love the argument that I hear all the time and above of "you would surely rather have a x percentage of a certain amount over nothing at all". The answer is it depends. I work my ass off for the money I make. If I get offered an extra shift, I think real hard whether or not it's worth it to bring home 55 to 60% of what I actually make. Now above you make a snide comment about being lucky for only one of us to have to work. It's not about luck, it about living within your means. I also love it when high earning people get demonized for complaining about bearing most of the tax burden or the condescending attitude that we should somehow be thankful for getting to keep only a little over half of our paychecks. I am telling you that there is a point where the tax burden is so onerous that people will do what they have to to get by but not much more. Progressives won't ever believe this till it happens but it has happened in my household and my wife is a physician.

 

[pgg]

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent.

So only a third of US households paid no federal income tax before the recession, in normal/prosperous times.

And you somehow spin this into some kind of counterargument to the gripe about 1/2 of people paying no income tax?

You're missing the point. It's not appalling because it's 1/2 of them, it's appalling because they're paying nothing. It would still be appalling if ANY percentage of people with earned income paid nothing.


Yes, yes they pay sales tax and payroll tax and (maybe) property tax and (often) tax on their cigarettes ... good for them. Why do they get a pass on income tax?

This is not an argument against a progressive tax system; most of us are absolutely fine with paying a higher % than people with lower incomes. It's the big fat ZERO on the low end that is offensive.

 

[TheBlend]

So only a third of US households paid no federal income tax before the recession, in normal/prosperous times.

And you somehow spin this into some kind of counterargument to the gripe about 1/2 of people paying no income tax?

You're missing the point. It's not appalling because it's 1/2 of them, it's appalling because they're paying nothing. It would still be appalling if ANY percentage of people with earned income paid nothing.


Yes, yes they pay sales tax and payroll tax and (maybe) property tax and (often) tax on their cigarettes ... good for them. Why do they get a pass on income tax?

This is not an argument against a progressive tax system; most of us are absolutely fine with paying a higher % than people with lower incomes. It's the big fat ZERO on the low end that is offensive.

1. Half and a third are very different, that was my point. 2. The majority of the population we are discussing pays a much greater percentage of their income in the form of sales tax and basic cost of living. Rent and $50 worth of groceries is a lot more expensive to someone living on a couple hundred dollars a week and then add that 5-ish dollars in sales tax every time which also is a higher % of their income as well. 3. I grew up very poor with a mother who worked 50-60hrs a week my entire childhood and we would not have survived without programs like WIC, foodstamps, and welfare.

It matters to me that people who can "put some skin in the game" do just that, your philosophy seems to think that the real problem is that poor people still have some of their skin. Not all wealthy people work(ed) hard and not all poor people are lazy.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

So only a third of US households paid no federal income tax before the recession, in normal/prosperous times.

And you somehow spin this into some kind of counterargument to the gripe about 1/2 of people paying no income tax?

You're missing the point. It's not appalling because it's 1/2 of them, it's appalling because they're paying nothing. It would still be appalling if ANY percentage of people with earned income paid nothing.


Yes, yes they pay sales tax and payroll tax and (maybe) property tax and (often) tax on their cigarettes ... good for them. Why do they get a pass on income tax?

This is not an argument against a progressive tax system; most of us are absolutely fine with paying a higher % than people with lower incomes. It's the big fat ZERO on the low end that is offensive.

I'm not at all offended that the poorest American's don't have to pay income tax. Being poor would absolutely suck.

 

[TheBlend]

Actually turning down 75k is exactly what we did. My point was that there is a tax rate at which people start really think about whether working a little bit harder, or working that extra shift is really worth it. I love the argument that I hear all the time and above of "you would surely rather have a x percentage of a certain amount over nothing at all". The answer is it depends. I work my ass off for the money I make. If I get offered an extra shift, I think real hard whether or not it's worth it to bring home 55 to 60% of what I actually make. Now above you make a snide comment about being lucky for only one of us to have to work. It's not about luck, it about living within your means. I also love it when high earning people get demonized for complaining about bearing most of the tax burden or the condescending attitude that we should somehow be thankful for getting to keep only a little over half of our paychecks. I am telling you that there is a point where the tax burden is so onerous that people will do what they have to to get by but not much more. Progressives won't ever believe this till it happens but it has happened in my household and my wife is a physician.

I'm not "demonizing" anybody. You have been programmed to say that by Fox.

I actually appreciate the discussion while it lasts because I know Blade will multi-post me to death tomorrow .

The problem us progressives have is that we stand behind several government programs. Those programs need to be funded. They could be funded by things like closing loopholes for corporations that pay $0 in taxes and/or taxing wall street transactions, but they have better lobbyists than poor folk.

I know that most Docs deserve their pay and should keep as much of it as possible. These financial folks though, don't actually contribute anything tangible to society.

The difference when it comes to your situation and why I used the phrase lucky, is that working for 55-60% of your pay is an option on which you can afford to pass.
Many people I grew up around had to work 2-3 part time jobs, meaning never getting any OT, just to make ends meet, as well as taking odd jobs on the weekends for half of what they normally make just in order to pay the heat bill in the Winter.

Conservatives seem to think that if poor people had just done their high school homework, then they would have gotten into a good college and wouldn't be where they are. Forget college, just high school was not even a real possibility for too many brilliant and hardworking people that have been in flat out unlucky circumstances.
When a crackhead mother leaves a 16 year old just as broke and hungry as their 2 younger siblings, that kid having to quit school for any job they can find is pretty damn unlucky. So yea, no matter how much sweat, blood, and tears you have put in to get where you are, you've been lucky along the way. And I am too, it's not meant as a jab, just a description.

 

[chessknt]

I'm not "demonizing" anybody. You have been programmed to say that by Fox.

I actually appreciate the discussion while it lasts because I know Blade will multi-post me to death tomorrow .

The problem us progressives have is that we stand behind several government programs. Those programs need to be funded. They could be funded by things like closing loopholes for corporations that pay $0 in taxes and/or taxing wall street transactions, but they have better lobbyists than poor folk.

I know that most Docs deserve their pay and should keep as much of it as possible. These financial folks though, don't actually contribute anything tangible to society.

The difference when it comes to your situation and why I used the phrase lucky, is that working for 55-60% of your pay is an option on which you can afford to pass.
Many people I grew up around had to work 2-3 part time jobs, meaning never getting any OT, just to make ends meet, as well as taking odd jobs on the weekends for half of what they normally make just in order to pay the heat bill in the Winter.

Conservatives seem to think that if poor people had just done their high school homework, then they would have gotten into a good college and wouldn't be where they are. Forget college, just high school was not even a real possibility for too many brilliant and hardworking people that have been in flat out unlucky circumstances.
When a crackhead mother leaves a 16 year old just as broke and hungry as their 2 younger siblings, that kid having to quit school for any job they can find is pretty damn unlucky. So yea, no matter how much sweat, blood, and tears you have put in to get where you are, you've been lucky along the way. And I am too, it's not meant as a jab, just a description.

When some obese trailer trash who is on permanent disability for a fake back injury collects her check every month and buys booze and cigarettes with the inevitable MI/cirrhosis that will be paid for using some form of public insurance she barely paid in to, that is pretty abusive. So no matter how many examples you cite to make your case, there is always someone on the other side of the spectrum to cancel it.

Supporting welfare programs is akin to a religious belief--you either think you should or don't. Unlike conservatives, liberals insist on forcing this belief on everyone. If I must donate a portion of my income to charity, I would rather select what causes it goes to instead of go through a highly inefficient, corrupt, and broken federal government before it reaches its questionable endpoint.

Also a sidepoint--corporations are legal constructs, any taxes they pay are passed on to their employees, shareholders, or (more likely) consumers. Taxing corporations doesnt create new wealth for the government.

 

[chessknt]

I'm not at all offended that the poorest American's don't have to pay income tax. Being poor would absolutely suck.

The problem is that when these masses go to the voting booth and they have the option to get free services by raising taxes they do not have to pay, there is a lack of representation for those who do have to pay.

 

[yappy]

I completely agree with you about people who take advantage. I wish programs were focused on getting people off the entitlements rather than make them comfortable on them. I think it's terrible when people abuse the program because that is money that could have been spent educating someone into a better position in life.

I think if programs were ran like a reform/internvention program then they would face less opposition. For examle; just like they're means tested, they should be drug tested and when people fall short of specific bench marks they're dropped from the program and left to their own devices. This way the most amount of people that want a better life get funds and become productive.

Supporting welfare programs is akin to a religious belief--you either think you should or don't. Unlike conservatives, liberals insist on forcing this belief on everyone. If I must donate a portion of my income to charity, I would rather select what causes it goes to instead of go through a highly inefficient, corrupt, and broken federal government before it reaches its questionable endpoint.

Also a sidepoint--corporations are legal constructs, any taxes they pay are passed on to their employees, shareholders, or (more likely) consumers. Taxing corporations doesnt create new wealth for the government.

 

[vector2]

I sure hope mine wind up in the top 10%.

Highly educated, gainfully employed, high earning parents all have something in common: we remember how we got here, and we know the score, and we set our kids up for success. When my 12-year-old can't figure out his math homework I sit my ass down and we do the entire assignment together, and then I make him do more problems until he proves to me that he gets it.

So where's the government program aimed at making parents give a ****?

As you pointed out in your post, WIC, welfare, medicaid, funding of planned parenthood et al are the programs that allow parents the opportunity to give a ****. Indeed it's sorta hard to help your kids with their homework when you're uneducated and/or working double shifts all the time.

I have to deviate from my usual agreement with Blade here. I'm pretty far off on the libertarian scale, I admit it. I'm totally OK with the dirty little secret of liberty ("you're on your own") ... and it doesn't really bother me that some people squander the advantage an American birth gives them and wind up failures in life.

But there are some non-Constitutionally-mandated things I want our government to do.

I totally favor 100% federally funded comprehensive limitless healthcare for everyone under the age of 18. There's no reason for the richest most powerful country on earth to have kids without medical care, no matter how stupid or screwed up their parents are.

I favor social security and medicare for old people, subject to some rational limits (maybe no free CABG at age 87), because I don't want to live in a country where old people eat cat food or fight over the park bench closest to the steam pipe.

Welfare and programs like WIC have a place too.

Free public education (no "voucher" system), strong defense (albeit one of a less expeditionary flavor), extensive and well-maintained infrastructure, a solid and rational strategy for environmental protection and resource exploitation ...

These points certainly raise some philosophical questions. Kids should get a break because their parents are messed up? So what, they're not my kids and the constitution doesn't say I have to give my money to some other jerk who can't take care of his own. And you say: We have a moral responsibility to help those not of legal age because they can't take care of themselves. And I say: What is the moral distinction that makes a 17.9 year old deserving of care and an 18 year old a national debt burden? And you say: The 18 year old is an adult who has adult opportunities like the ability to work full-time. And I say: There is no feasible way that every willing and able adult who works can all have health insurance short of a socialistic living wage law or national single-payer system with a 300 million person pool. Also consider for a moment: There were ~1 million applicants for 62,000 ****ty McDonalds jobs.

I agree with "There's no reason for the richest most powerful country on earth to have kids without medical care." I would just change "kids" to "people" because I think that such a goal is 1. moral and 2. feasible with structural reforms to the healthcare system (i.e. stop wasting 30% of healthcare dollars on deny-stamping private insurance company administrative costs and stop letting 90 year olds ride out 6 futile weeks in the ICU after CABG).

... but here's the thing:

My most basic belief here (and I think Blade's too though I don't presume to speak for him) is that reducing government spending and debt MUST trump all, and Real Soon Now - because if you do the math, the day is coming when that debt will make it impossible to provide both the minimalist Constitution-directed federal services as well as the optional niceties most of us want to see from a wealthy, free, and civilized nation.

I believe that we have to have a strategic long-term deficit reduction plan, but saying "MUST trump all" doesn't hold any water if we took it to an absurd conclusion (i.e. if a major war broke out or if the US was hit with a tsunami-style catastrophe we wouldn't give two ****s about the debt). Clearly debt doesn't trump all, so how do we go about deciding what exactly it does trump? Again, why doesn't debt trump the health care needs of children?

We need debt reduction, but we are not Greece. We are by far the largest economy in the world. We control our own currency (well, we would if anyone knew wtf the Fed was actually doing). We spend more on our military than the next 17 countries combined, and therefore the only creditors we really need to be worried about are domestic, i.e. the American people. As I pointed out earlier, Japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world and has had steady aggregate economic growth over the past 20 years in spite of having 200% debt to GDP. They are only now running into serious problems because they stubbornly have refused to raise taxes even as their necessary obligations grew- a path which we're on now. For us though, social security wouldn't even have been a problem had wages (and therefore tax revenue) gone up along with CEO salaries for the last 40 years, and also if FICA wasn't capped at an absurdly low $100k. Medicare is not intrinsically the problem- an overall health care system that is a convoluted mixture of public and private payors based on fee-for-service where everyone gets the latest and greatest unfortunately is. Scaling down medicare does not magically cut costs, it just shifts it back to seniors and their employers who will end up paying more for private care.

It's the big fat ZERO on the low end that is offensive.

What are you getting at here? You want to impose some nominal sum on those who can least afford it even if it won't make any significant dent in the deficit...for what....punishment? You want to know what's really offensive....Mitt pretending to care about the deficit while proposing a tax plan that would cut his own taxes by 40%

 

[vector2]

Also, I'm still waiting for you libertarians to explain the "paradox" that is Germany. They're a social democracy with strong unions, progressive taxation, social security, nationalized healthcare, heavy corporate regulation, and a leader who believes in Keynesian principles. But they also have the strongest economy in Europe, an unemployment rate <6%, and a trade surplus of $209 billion. Something doesn't quite gel with what some of you have been advocating ITT...

 

[yappy]

They have a great manufactoring base. Once the world catches up to the US we'll get more insourcing too. It's already starting to pick up. A friend of mine who has been an engineer said the cost of US to India EE was about 1:8. Now it's 1:2. Either they're catching up or we're falling down or a combo of both.

Libertarianism does not say that "things can only work this way"; rather, a belief that things operate best with extremely limited gov.

On a side note about Libertarians: I've noticed that people tend to be libertarian when it's in their best interest to be libertarian. They either 1.) Arrive at a place of professional development to where they're headed for financial independence or 2.) Have parents with money for education and/or connections.

They like to think of themselves as Atlas.

Also, I'm still waiting for you libertarians to explain the "paradox" that is Germany. They're a social democracy with strong unions, progressive taxation, social security, nationalized healthcare, heavy corporate regulation, and a leader who believes in Keynesian principles. But they also have the strongest economy in Europe, an unemployment rate <6%, and a trade surplus of $209 billion. Something doesn't quite gel with what some of you have been advocating ITT...

 

[BLADEMDA]

It seems that the Republican's miss the irony in the idea the only way to pay off our debt is to lower taxes. You can't effectively do both at the same time even with drastic spending cuts. I am for cutting spending to an extent. The best thing about these past couple years is that many people are starting to pay attention and have a real conversation about what role we want government to fill.

The influence of big money on politicians on both sides and their near-constant campaigning and fund raising, there is no more compromise and no more real solutions. The Democrats role has being the party advocating growing and using government to try and solve problems, the Repubs role is to make the Dems justify when or if it's right or necessary. I just miss the actually fiscal conservative republicans of the 90's that are as responsible for the "clinton surplus" as the dotcom bubble. The real issue is that they do not practice what they preach anymore.

On most money issues, I'm fairly conservative. On social issues I'm liberal on some, libertarian on others. I could back Ron Paul if he would drop the gold standard ramblings, defining life at conception and too many other social issues that he will not so I cannot. The only thing I like about Santorum was his description of Romney as a perfectly lubricated weather vane. Both for its accuracy and that hearing Santorum say lubricated in any context is hilarious. I don;t think that Romney should be underestimated, he did win as a Mormon-Republican in freakin' Massachusetts. With that said, Obama is going to win another term because this lack of unity in the GOP means lower turnout and an increase chance of a third party candidate.

Just as I think Bush gets blamed for things well beyond his understanding and control, Obama gets to much blame and too much credit on many things. To think that ANY president can single-handedly fix or destroy the economy is preposterous.

WRONG. You have no idea what you are talking about here. None. Bowles-Simpson would lower my taxes dramatically and save me in excess of $20,000 per year. Yet. your own graph shows it raises more revenue than Obama's plan. $500 billion in more revenue while lowering tax rates and broadening the base. My taxes under Obama's plan goes up $20K per year. Again, I pay substamtially more money while the govt. gets less overall revenue than under Bowles-Simpson?

Why is that? Why is Bowles SImpson inherently more fair (if there is such a thing in getting fleeced by the govt) than Obama's class warfare tax code? Because I already pay my fair share of taxes and don't hide behind a layer of tax law loopholes the honest citizen benefits under Bowles-Simpson while Obama continues the same old flawed system at a much higher rate.

 

[BLADEMDA]

1.Notice the military cuts while considering the push by the Right to act on Iran and Syria.and 2. Those social Security 'savings' are from raising the retirement age.

http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/Analyzing_the_Presidents_New_Budget_Framework.pdf

This graph is proof Obama would rather punish the upper middle class than raise more revenue (500 billion more) by following his own deficit commission's recommendations: Lower tax brackets with fewer deductions.

Again, if one has any doubt that Obama is a socialist whose agenda comes before practical solutions simply look at his decision to go with massive tax increases on the upper middle class instead of adopting Bowles Simpson. Yes, this is a big deal.
In fact, our tax code and budget deficits are the biggest problems we face economically as a nation.

Bowles-Simpson, while not perfect, was a reasonable solution to a very difficult problem.
Bill Clinton endorsed the plan while Obama rejected it. This shows why Obama is a socialist while Clinton is just a left of middle, practical politician.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Also, I'm still waiting for you libertarians to explain the "paradox" that is Germany. They're a social democracy with strong unions, progressive taxation, social security, nationalized healthcare, heavy corporate regulation, and a leader who believes in Keynesian principles. But they also have the strongest economy in Europe, an unemployment rate <6%, and a trade surplus of $209 billion. Something doesn't quite gel with what some of you have been advocating ITT...

We have a social democracy as well. We no longer have a true capitalistic system and under Obama/Bush have moved even further toward's Germany's system.

Under Obama we will have heavy progressive taxation, strong unions, Obamacare, National Payment Advisory Board for Physicians, heavy corporate regulation and a leader who believes in Keynesian principles.

However, Germany is deathly afraid of high budget deficits and the people do not support massive debt/gdp ratios. They still hear horror stories of the old weimar republic and currrency collapse. Unfortunately, the Euro is a doomed currency "as is" and the German people will need a new Euro or the Deutsche Mark.

Social Democracy does work as long as spending remains in check to GDP and taxation/regulation isn't so high that individuals/businesses can't function properly (grow and make a profit). However, Socialists don't know when to stop and can easily cross the line causing total chaos in society, e.g. Greece.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Weimar Republic hyperinflation from one to one trillion paper Marks per gold Mark


A 50,000,000 (50-million) mark banknote from 1923



A 1000 Mark banknote, over-stamped in red with "Eine Milliarde Mark" long scale (1,000,000,000 mark), issued in Germany during the hyperinflation of 1923



Postage stamps of Weimar Germany during the hyperinflation period of early 1920s



A medal commemorating Germany's 1923 hyperinflation. The engraving reads: "On 1st November 1923 1 pound of bread cost 3 billion, 1 pound of meat: 36 billion, 1 glass of beer: 4 billion."


The hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic was a three year period of hyperinflation in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Germany has to be careful not to try and support Greece and another nation as its debt/gdp is 80%. Many German citizens are concerned about this mounting debt and the soon to be devalued Euro currency.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Raising revenues through tax reform is better than simply raising rates, which Democrats insist upon with near religious fervor. It is more economically efficient because it eliminates credits, carve-outs, and deductions that grossly misallocate capital. And it is more fair because it is the rich who can afford not only the sharp lawyers and accountants who exploit loopholes but the lobbyists who create them in the first place.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/14/obamas_budget_vs_simpson-bowles_113128.html

Read the link above. Why would anyone who pays Federal taxes vote for Obama?

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

High gas prices over $5.00 per gallon is my best shot at defeating Obama this Fall. The average American will blame Obama.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[Narcotized]

When a crackhead mother leaves a 16 year old just as broke and hungry as their 2 younger siblings, that kid having to quit school for any job they can find is pretty damn unlucky. So yea, no matter how much sweat, blood, and tears you have put in to get where you are, you've been lucky along the way. And I am too, it's not meant as a jab, just a description.

.

 

[Narcotized]

I grew up very poor with a mother who worked 50-60hrs a week my entire childhood and we would not have survived without programs like WIC, foodstamps, and welfare.

.

 

[Narcotized]

Also, I'm still waiting for you libertarians to explain the "paradox" that is Germany.

Don't look now, but their government is on its way to being broke as well. Was Germany's economy was better when it was under more government control (think East Germany)?

 

[TheBlend]

The question is why is the crackhead mother living off of the government even allowed to have more than one baby???? Contrary to your opinion, it is NOT some innate right to have as many kids as you want and expect the rest of society to support them.

Smart hard working educated Americans are having less babies because they consider the cost while poor Americans are having a baby boom. You are never going to government program your way out of those demographics.

I didn't say anything about the crackhead mother being on any sort of assistance. You are mixing messages again. This example was one of why some kids don't get to finish highschool by no fault of their own but due to a sense of responsibility to their siblings. I also didn't make any points whatsoever about how many children people should be allowed to have. If your going to try and and guess my opinions, you should improve your reading comprehension so that you can make guesses based on something I actually said.

 

[TheBlend]

When some obese trailer trash who is on permanent disability for a fake back injury collects her check every month and buys booze and cigarettes with the inevitable MI/cirrhosis that will be paid for using some form of public insurance she barely paid in to, that is pretty abusive. So no matter how many examples you cite to make your case, there is always someone on the other side of the spectrum to cancel it.

Supporting welfare programs is akin to a religious belief--you either think you should or don't. Unlike conservatives, liberals insist on forcing this belief on everyone. If I must donate a portion of my income to charity, I would rather select what causes it goes to instead of go through a highly inefficient, corrupt, and broken federal government before it reaches its questionable endpoint.

Also a sidepoint--corporations are legal constructs, any taxes they pay are passed on to their employees, shareholders, or (more likely) consumers. Taxing corporations doesnt create new wealth for the government.

Abuse of entitlement programs is drastically exaggerated. Show me something beside anecdotal evidence.

Liberals forcing views on conservatives....Google any or all of the following: "benton harbor takeover" "marraige equality" "birth control is abortion" "creationism in the classroom"

 

[TheBlend]

I'm glad you worked hard and succeeded, but your own life experience makes this topic too emotional and personal for you to step back and be rational and unbiased discussing it.

You are funny. It's neat how you shift between adressing points I havent made (strawmanning), and now an outright dismissal of my points and instead addressing me (ad hominem).

Life experience has taught me about struggles in poverty. My bias towards a humanistic perspective is one I stand behind and gladly admit.

 

[chessknt]

Abuse of entitlement programs is drastically exaggerated. Show me something beside anecdotal evidence.

Liberals forcing views on conservatives....Google any or all of the following: "benton harbor takeover" "marraige equality" "birth control is abortion" "creationism in the classroom"

Those are all social issues I could care less about and think states should have the right to decide. Taxes and welfare are what is at discussion here.

I'd equally like to see evidence of how many crackhead children grow up to succeed because of these programs. I am going to guess that this data does not exist for various reasons, so your evidence is anecdotal as well. We both know true fraud statistics for welfare are nonexistent because of strong lobbies to prevent genuine investigation and crackdown on these programs.

 

[Narcotized]

I didn't say anything about the crackhead mother being on any sort of assistance. You are mixing messages again. This example was one of why some kids don't get to finish highschool by no fault of their own but due to a sense of responsibility to their siblings. I also didn't make any points whatsoever about how many children people should be allowed to have. If your going to try and and guess my opinions, you should improve your reading comprehension so that you can make guesses based on something I actually said.

.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Lastly, the immigrants don't have Lutheran work ethics and strong social pressure not to abuse the welfare state like the Scandinavians. Many non-western immigrants take full advantage of all the generous benefits, and some cheat if they can. This behavior has forced the Scandinavians to make social insurance payments less generous for everybody, and to introduce harsher controls. The unintended consequence is that a 55 year old Swedish working class women with health problems cannot get early retirement as easily as she could in 1985, because the system has become less trusting to everyone due to abuse.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/02/decline-and-fall-of-scandinavian-social.html

(click on the link)

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

If you study history and economics it is clear Obama has the wrong policies in place for a recovery and for sustainable growth.

 

[BLADEMDA]

As you can see, the responses that Hoover advocated in 1920 and implemented in 1929 are very nearly the same policies that President Obama implemented in 2009. The results of these policies are seen today and were seen in 1929- but not in 1920 because President Warren Harding ignored Hoover and did the exact opposite as what he recommended. Whereas Hoover pushed for more government spending, Harding decreased it; when Hoover wanted more regulation, Harding put in place less; for every board of smart elites that Hoover proposed to control human action, Harding cut boards and agencies so that the common man could be more free; and Harding ignored demands to raise taxes and instead slashed taxes.
The result of Harding's more conservative approach to the severe recession of 1920-1921? The recession ended quickly and ushered in an amazing period of robust economic activity the continued throughout the 1920&#8242;s as Harding and Coolidge continued conservative policies. It is no surprise that the limited government, balanced budget, low taxes, low regulation, and unleashing of human freedom led to the Roaring Twenties, an amazing period in American history of social, artistic, and economic dynamism, while the active government, increased taxes, massive government spending, and more regulation of the progressive Hoover and liberal Roosevelt led to the Great Depression.

http://conservativehideout.com/2011...ecessions-ii-the-forgotten-recession-of-1920/

 

[pgg]

1. Half and a third are very different, that was my point.

They're not; that was my point.

Here's a short exerpt from my 2008 tax return cut & pasted from Turbotax, when I was a resident.

2008 | Adjusted Gross Income                   $     83,748.00
Federal | Taxable Income                          $     37,527.00
Tax | Total Tax                               $      1,826.00
Return | Total Payments/Credits                  $      5,621.00
Summary | Amount to be Refunded                   $      3,795.00
| Effective Tax Rate                               2.18%

You don't see anything WRONG with someone maing roughly 4x the official "poverty level" paying TWO PERCENT federal income tax?

No, I didn't cheat on my taxes. (I'm in the military so about $25K of our income was untaxed housing pay.)

2. The majority of the population we are discussing pays a much greater percentage of their income in the form of sales tax and basic cost of living. Rent and $50 worth of groceries is a lot more expensive to someone living on a couple hundred dollars a week then that 5-ish dollars in sales tax every time is a higher % of their income as well.

I understand that.

The problem is when nothing is paid the benefits received are viewed as genuine entitlements. I see this all the time with the military patient population - abuse of medical resources is rampant in part because there is never ever any copay for anything, ever.

3. I grew up very poor with a mother who worked 50-60hrs a week my entire childhood and we would not have survived without programs like WIC, foodstamps, and welfare.

Those are important and necessary programs.

Remind me again how they're relevant to 1/2 ... wait, 1/3 ... of US households not paying any income tax?

It matters to me that people who can "put some skin in the game" do just that, your philosophy seems to think that the real problem is that poor people still have some of their skin. Not all wealthy people work(ed) hard and not all poor people are lazy.

Yes, yes that's it, I hate the thought of those lazy poor people having any money left over after they've gluttonously feasted on TWO packs of Ramen noodles each night.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Only Ron paul understands this history (our history) and offers real solutions to our fiscal crisis.

 

[pgg]

I actually appreciate the discussion while it lasts because I know Blade will multi-post me to death tomorrow .

 

[BLADEMDA]

They're not; that was my point.

Here's a short exerpt from my 2008 tax return cut & pasted from Turbotax, when I was a resident.

2008 | Adjusted Gross Income                   $     83,748.00
Federal | Taxable Income                          $     37,527.00
Tax | Total Tax                               $      1,826.00
Return | Total Payments/Credits                  $      5,621.00
Summary | Amount to be Refunded                   $      3,795.00
| Effective Tax Rate                               2.18%

You don't see anything WRONG with someone maing roughly 4x the official "poverty level" paying TWO PERCENT federal income tax?

No, I didn't cheat on my taxes. (I'm in the military so about $25K of our income was untaxed housing pay.)



I understand that.

The problem is when nothing is paid the benefits received are viewed as genuine entitlements. I see this all the time with the military patient population - abuse of medical resources is rampant in part because there is never ever any copay for anything, ever.



Those are important and necessary programs.

Remind me again how they're relevant to 1/2 ... wait, 1/3 ... of US households not paying any income tax?



Yes, yes that's it, I hate the thought of those lazy poor people having any money left over after they've gluttonously feasted on TWO packs of Ramen noodles each night.

PGG,


It takes balls to post this. Kudos. Liberals hate facts because it gets in the way of their agenda.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Harding SLASHED govt. spending during the depression of 1920. That's right. He didn't spend a trillion dollars but instead SLASHED govt. spending and cut taxes. Do you know what happened next?