| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2011 08:18:46 PM · #76 |
I saw this floating around the Internets, but don't know how accurate it is.
 |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 08:32:25 PM · #77 |
Here's an example of where I think that we should be cutting back on our budget: A U.S. military base in Australia
Originally posted by this article:
Mr. Obama described the deployment as responding to the wishes of democratic allies in the region, from Japan to India. Some allies have expressed concerns that the United States, facing war fatigue and a slackened economy, will cede its leadership role to China. |
Those democratic allies (Japan, India, Australia, and more) should be bearing more of the expensive burden that our country is paying for. I'm not suggesting that we close all of our bases in foreign lands, but I really don't think that we need quite the presence that we have in countries like England, Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, and Spain.
Those countries ought to be taking care of themselves and they should be contributing more towards the strength of our united allied forces instead of our country having to foot the bill while we struggle with our deficit.
Even in this economic downturn, the U.S. is still the strongest country in the world, both, economically and militarily. Therefore, we have a responsibility to help to maintain peace and prevent weaker countries from being taken advantage of by the bullies of the world. However, having grown up in a military family, I have long thought that we pay much more than our fair share in maintaining peace while countries like Japan reap the benefits without paying much for it.
If a stronger military presence is required in Australia then why shouldn't Australia recognize this need and fill it? If nearby "democratic allies in the region, from Japan to India" see a need for it then why don't they step to the plate instead? They are a heck of a lot closer than we are. |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 09:08:40 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
...however, the wealthy in this country are the ones giving jobs.... |
Really? The wealthy control more wealth than at any time in our country's history and they are taxed at record low rates. If the wealthy really were the "job creators", unemployment should be at an all time low. Only it's not because the whole "trickle down economics" thing is just a lie. It just doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2011 09:10:27 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
..This is one reason why I like the 9 - 9 - 9 plan |
You mean the one from the video game... |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 10:23:47 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
[url=//thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/24/303133/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-could-line-rick-scotts-pockets-but-it-isnt-saving-florida-much-money/] |
Not to blame you Judith, but just pointing out poor methodology when it exists. It is fallacious to compared the results of drug testing among welfare recipients (2% positive with a 2% abstention rate) and the results of a general survey of the public (listed results 6-18% of drug use) and conclude that welfare recipients use drugs less than the general public. It may or may not be true, but you cannot legitimately conclude it from these apples and oranges results. Either you have to survey welfare recipients or you have to blood test the general public and then compare similar methodologies. |
As I understand it, the Office of Drug Control Policy survey relies on self-report. And when a survey relies on self-report of a negative behavior, there tends to be under-reporting of that behavior. So just taking Florida residents as an example and comparing the 8 percent rate of drug use (self-report rate, so that's probably a low estimate) in the general Florida population to the 2 percent rate of drug use among welfare recipients (blood- or urine-tested results, so probably a fairly accurate rate), the gap is probably wider than what these results show. And while it may not be a perfect comparison because there are two methodologies being employed, it's probably the best that can be achieved as we're not going to blood- or urine-test the entire Florida population.
But the important point for purposes of this discussion is that even when a hole is blown a mile wide through one of the right-wing talking points, that drug use is higher in the welfare recipient population than in the general population, which is really just another way of saying that it's the poor and/or unemployed person's fault that they're poor and/or unemployed, the Fox News adherents just blip right over it, as cowboy221977 has done here. No response from him, just on to the next Fox News talking point: "It's still the fault of the unemployed person that they're unemployed, because they just don't want to work." How convenient. |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 10:31:40 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
..This is one reason why I like the 9 - 9 - 9 plan |
You mean the one from the video game... |
no honey that's the IT'S OVER 9000 plan |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 10:42:02 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
[url=//thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/24/303133/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-could-line-rick-scotts-pockets-but-it-isnt-saving-florida-much-money/] |
Not to blame you Judith, but just pointing out poor methodology when it exists. It is fallacious to compared the results of drug testing among welfare recipients (2% positive with a 2% abstention rate) and the results of a general survey of the public (listed results 6-18% of drug use) and conclude that welfare recipients use drugs less than the general public. It may or may not be true, but you cannot legitimately conclude it from these apples and oranges results. Either you have to survey welfare recipients or you have to blood test the general public and then compare similar methodologies. |
As I understand it, the Office of Drug Control Policy survey relies on self-report. And when a survey relies on self-report of a negative behavior, there tends to be under-reporting of that behavior. So just taking Florida residents as an example and comparing the 8 percent rate of drug use (self-report rate, so that's probably a low estimate) in the general Florida population to the 2 percent rate of drug use among welfare recipients (blood- or urine-tested results, so probably a fairly accurate rate), the gap is probably wider than what these results show. And while it may not be a perfect comparison because there are two methodologies being employed, it's probably the best that can be achieved as we're not going to blood- or urine-test the entire Florida population.
But the important point for purposes of this discussion is that even when a hole is blown a mile wide through one of the right-wing talking points, that drug use is higher in the welfare recipient population than in the general population, which is really just another way of saying that it's the poor and/or unemployed person's fault that they're poor and/or unemployed, the Fox News adherents just blip right over it, as cowboy221977 has done here. No response from him, just on to the next Fox News talking point: "It's still the fault of the unemployed person that they're unemployed, because they just don't want to work." How convenient. |
Are you kidding me. 2 years ago I was laid off...I had to move back into my parents house....In order to make half of what I did before being laid off I was working 2 jobs. Construction by day (7:30 am - 3:30) then on to Michaels (my schedule did vary sometimes as early as 4:00...sometimes 4:30 or 5:00 until 9:30 or 10:00 occasionally later) I have been in the real world I have seen what people go through. Look it is tough being unemployed... I lasted 2 years +.....Oh and by the way this is the second time that I have been laid off.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2011 11:10:14 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
[url=//thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/24/303133/drug-testing-welfare-recipients-could-line-rick-scotts-pockets-but-it-isnt-saving-florida-much-money/] |
Not to blame you Judith, but just pointing out poor methodology when it exists. It is fallacious to compared the results of drug testing among welfare recipients (2% positive with a 2% abstention rate) and the results of a general survey of the public (listed results 6-18% of drug use) and conclude that welfare recipients use drugs less than the general public. It may or may not be true, but you cannot legitimately conclude it from these apples and oranges results. Either you have to survey welfare recipients or you have to blood test the general public and then compare similar methodologies. |
As I understand it, the Office of Drug Control Policy survey relies on self-report. And when a survey relies on self-report of a negative behavior, there tends to be under-reporting of that behavior. So just taking Florida residents as an example and comparing the 8 percent rate of drug use (self-report rate, so that's probably a low estimate) in the general Florida population to the 2 percent rate of drug use among welfare recipients (blood- or urine-tested results, so probably a fairly accurate rate), the gap is probably wider than what these results show. And while it may not be a perfect comparison because there are two methodologies being employed, it's probably the best that can be achieved as we're not going to blood- or urine-test the entire Florida population.
But the important point for purposes of this discussion is that even when a hole is blown a mile wide through one of the right-wing talking points, that drug use is higher in the welfare recipient population than in the general population, which is really just another way of saying that it's the poor and/or unemployed person's fault that they're poor and/or unemployed, the Fox News adherents just blip right over it, as cowboy221977 has done here. No response from him, just on to the next Fox News talking point: "It's still the fault of the unemployed person that they're unemployed, because they just don't want to work." How convenient. |
Are you kidding me. 2 years ago I was laid off...I had to move back into my parents house....In order to make half of what I did before being laid off I was working 2 jobs. Construction by day (7:30 am - 3:30) then on to Michaels (my schedule did vary sometimes as early as 4:00...sometimes 4:30 or 5:00 until 9:30 or 10:00 occasionally later) I have been in the real world I have seen what people go through. Look it is tough being unemployed... I lasted 2 years +.....Oh and by the way this is the second time that I have been laid off. |
In one breath you say the poor waste money on drugs yet now you're saying you've been poor. Am I to assume you've also wasted money on drugs? Or does that habit only kick in once you've started accepting food stamps? I'm confused.
Message edited by author 2011-11-29 23:24:21. |
|
|
|
11/29/2011 11:22:16 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The problem with any flat/fair tax proposal is that it will meet vigorous resistance from the over 50% of the population who currently pay zero taxes. |
Probably because that's a load of B.S. Maybe by "population" you meant the corporate population?
|
|
|
|
11/30/2011 12:35:51 AM · #85 |
I'd probably assume the urine drug screens were also underreporting. 1) 2% refused to take the test. 2) it's not hard to come up with a clean test if you know enough. Stop smoking 30 days before the test (I hadn't heard if it wad random) or use someone else's urine (a trick I've personally known people to successfully employ).
Still, the interesting question would be, do you think someone taking drugs should receive a government check? |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 03:05:47 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The problem with any flat/fair tax proposal is that it will meet vigorous resistance from the over 50% of the population who currently pay zero taxes. |
Probably because that's a load of B.S. Maybe by "population" you meant the corporate population? |
I stand corrected. 38% of the population pays no income tax (remember, it is INCOME tax we are talking about). But I suspect the 12% difference pays much less than any proposed flat tax, so any flat tax would effectively be a tax hike for a good majority of the population (except the rich). |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 04:17:21 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd probably assume the urine drug screens were also underreporting. 1) 2% refused to take the test. 2) it's not hard to come up with a clean test if you know enough. Stop smoking 30 days before the test (I hadn't heard if it wad random) or use someone else's urine (a trick I've personally known people to successfully employ).
Still, the interesting question would be, do you think someone taking drugs should receive a government check? |
What's even more interesting is when people who claim they want smaller government make demands for giant government oversight for other people.
The cost of the agency/programs/resources required to drug test a reasonable sample of welfare recipients would far outweigh any cost savings that would be realized by denying benefits to those people. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 04:19:48 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The problem with any flat/fair tax proposal is that it will meet vigorous resistance from the over 50% of the population who currently pay zero taxes. |
Probably because that's a load of B.S. Maybe by "population" you meant the corporate population? |
I stand corrected. 38% of the population pays no income tax (remember, it is INCOME tax we are talking about). But I suspect the 12% difference pays much less than any proposed flat tax, so any flat tax would effectively be a tax hike for a good majority of the population (except the rich). |
Don't forget the corporations like General Electric, which had huge profits, yet received a nice fat rebate from the government.
They had to fund a few senators, but that's peanuts. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 11:33:30 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd probably assume the urine drug screens were also underreporting. 1) 2% refused to take the test. 2) it's not hard to come up with a clean test if you know enough. Stop smoking 30 days before the test (I hadn't heard if it wad random) or use someone else's urine (a trick I've personally known people to successfully employ).
Still, the interesting question would be, do you think someone taking drugs should receive a government check? |
What's even more interesting is when people who claim they want smaller government make demands for giant government oversight for other people.
The cost of the agency/programs/resources required to drug test a reasonable sample of welfare recipients would far outweigh any cost savings that would be realized by denying benefits to those people. |
According to the articles it was basically a wash. They were saving as much as they were spending. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 02:46:27 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The problem with any flat/fair tax proposal is that it will meet vigorous resistance from the over 50% of the population who currently pay zero taxes. |
Probably because that's a load of B.S. Maybe by "population" you meant the corporate population? |
I stand corrected. 38% of the population pays no income tax (remember, it is INCOME tax we are talking about). But I suspect the 12% difference pays much less than any proposed flat tax, so any flat tax would effectively be a tax hike for a good majority of the population (except the rich). |
Don't forget the corporations like General Electric, which had huge profits, yet received a nice fat rebate from the government.
They had to fund a few senators, but that's peanuts. |
I'm sure we are in total agreement on that bullshit. All I was pointing out is that, as logical and fair as a "Flat" or "Fair" personal income tax is concerned, the effect would be that it would raise taxes on lower income households and lower taxes on the upper income segment and therefor would meet with much resistance. We do need a complete overhaul/simplification of our tax code, though. I haven't seen any proposals that are large enough in scope and that would have a chance of getting enough support to pass. With the country so polarized on so many issues, it's not likely that reforms of any consequence will pass. :/
Here's what stumps me- "Congress" has an approval rating in the single digits, but I think each Senator and Representative, collectively probably have an average of 50% approval. We can't elect/unelect congress as a whole, so everyone keeps reelecting the same people. This is something I believe term limits would at least help resolve. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 02:47:00 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd probably assume the urine drug screens were also underreporting. 1) 2% refused to take the test. 2) it's not hard to come up with a clean test if you know enough. Stop smoking 30 days before the test (I hadn't heard if it wad random) or use someone else's urine (a trick I've personally known people to successfully employ).
Still, the interesting question would be, do you think someone taking drugs should receive a government check? |
What's even more interesting is when people who claim they want smaller government make demands for giant government oversight for other people.
The cost of the agency/programs/resources required to drug test a reasonable sample of welfare recipients would far outweigh any cost savings that would be realized by denying benefits to those people. |
According to the articles it was basically a wash. They were saving as much as they were spending. |
Ahh, BUT it is creating jobs for the little plastic cup suppliers. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 02:51:01 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Ahh, BUT it is creating jobs for the little plastic cup suppliers. ;-) |
I work at a drug-treatment program -- the little plastic bottles are mostly made in China ... it does create a few jobs for lab technicians. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 02:52:03 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Ahh, BUT it is creating jobs for the little plastic cup suppliers. ;-) |
I work at a drug-treatment program -- the little plastic bottles are mostly made in China ... it does create a few jobs for lab technicians. |
Sunuva...I thought we were onto something! :) |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 02:55:35 PM · #94 |
| FWIW a survey of high-tech companies in Silicon Valley conducted a while ago found that worker productivity (however that was measured) was higher at companies which did NOT have an employee drug-testing program ... |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 03:02:11 PM · #95 |
On a related note, I am working on a self-contained drug testing plastic cup. The subject pees in the cup and holds it over their head and the cup itself will detect the presence of drugs and if positive, the cup immediately disintegrates. Pretty cool, huh?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
FWIW a survey of high-tech companies in Silicon Valley conducted a while ago found that worker productivity (however that was measured) was higher at companies which did NOT have an employee drug-testing program ... |
Wait-- say that again-- my computer crashed while I was reading it... ;-) |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 03:26:38 PM · #96 |
One thing to be aware of as far as "flat tax" proposals go, is that there would be a threshold beneath which income is not taxable, and this would take care of the red herring that "Poor people who pay no taxes now would be taxed under the flat rate". The basic principle behind flat-tax theory is that ALL forms of income (once you pass the threshold) are taxable at the same rate and that there are no loopholes that can be used to squirrel income out of sight of the system.
Before you guys jump all over me, I'm well aware there are serious problems in structuring a flat-tax system that would work and be "fair" (whatever that is). So I'm not actually ADVOCATING that here; I'm just pointing out that those who claim a flat-tax system will be the equivalent of hammering poor people even further into the mud aren't making sense. If anything, a properly-functioning, flat-tax system would serve to RAISE the threshold of non-taxable income to a level that actually makes sense. As things stand now, you start paying income tax on your earnings WAY before you're making enough money to stay alive...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2011 03:30:27 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One thing to be aware of as far as "flat tax" proposals go, is that there would be a threshold beneath which income is not taxable, and this would take care of the red herring that "Poor people who pay no taxes now would be taxed under the flat rate". The basic principle behind flat-tax theory is that ALL forms of income (once you pass the threshold) are taxable at the same rate and that there are no loopholes that can be used to squirrel income out of sight of the system. |
Ok, well that makes sense. I hadn't heard specifically about a threshold.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Before you guys jump all over me, I'm well aware there are serious problems in structuring a flat-tax system that would work and be "fair" (whatever that is). |
Like what "serious problems"? |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 03:45:44 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The problem with any flat/fair tax proposal is that it will meet vigorous resistance from the over 50% of the population who currently pay zero taxes. |
Probably because that's a load of B.S. Maybe by "population" you meant the corporate population? |
I stand corrected. 38% of the population pays no income tax (remember, it is INCOME tax we are talking about). But I suspect the 12% difference pays much less than any proposed flat tax, so any flat tax would effectively be a tax hike for a good majority of the population (except the rich). |
Don't forget the corporations like General Electric, which had huge profits, yet received a nice fat rebate from the government.
They had to fund a few senators, but that's peanuts. |
I'm sure we are in total agreement on that bullshit. All I was pointing out is that, as logical and fair as a "Flat" or "Fair" personal income tax is concerned, the effect would be that it would raise taxes on lower income households and lower taxes on the upper income segment and therefor would meet with much resistance. We do need a complete overhaul/simplification of our tax code, though. I haven't seen any proposals that are large enough in scope and that would have a chance of getting enough support to pass. With the country so polarized on so many issues, it's not likely that reforms of any consequence will pass. :/
Here's what stumps me- "Congress" has an approval rating in the single digits, but I think each Senator and Representative, collectively probably have an average of 50% approval. We can't elect/unelect congress as a whole, so everyone keeps reelecting the same people. This is something I believe term limits would at least help resolve. |
I'm a big fan of the "Fire all of the bastards, preferably out of a cannon, and start over" approach... repeat as necessary. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 04:00:50 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Before you guys jump all over me, I'm well aware there are serious problems in structuring a flat-tax system that would work and be "fair" (whatever that is). |
Like what "serious problems"? |
A few I can think of are:
1) a "flat" tax places the greatest burden on the poor and the least burden on the rich. as you pointed out in another post
2) unless other revenue streams are created or the tax rates grow huge, the overall revenues would fall drastically
3) to avoid 2, usually these plans add some other kind of tax is added, creating a disincentive to purchase, slowing demand.
IMO, the best approach is to close the loopholes and tax breaks given to corporations and the wealthy in the mistaken belief that the wealthy are "job creators" and that the whole "trickle down economics" model works. |
|
|
|
11/30/2011 04:01:22 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The problem with any flat/fair tax proposal is that it will meet vigorous resistance from the over 50% of the population who currently pay zero taxes. |
Probably because that's a load of B.S. Maybe by "population" you meant the corporate population? |
I stand corrected. 38% of the population pays no income tax (remember, it is INCOME tax we are talking about). But I suspect the 12% difference pays much less than any proposed flat tax, so any flat tax would effectively be a tax hike for a good majority of the population (except the rich). |
That's not entirely correct. In the U.S. if you make $400 or more during the year you must file an income tax return because you're still subject to other taxes such as FICA which is based on your income and goes to paying social security. In short, if you're receiving paychecks and make more than $400/yr you're paying taxes on your income.
As for the flat tax, I agree it would probably turn out to be a tax hike for the majority, especially if there weren't exemptions for things such as food, electricity, etc.
Message edited by author 2011-11-30 16:02:50. |
|
