| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2008 09:24:31 AM · #1276 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
My whole point is that it's not a tax cut when you are not paying taxes |
There are corporations and rather rich individuals who, after taking advantage of all the loopholes available, pay no taxes either... would you consider them as being welfare moochers too?
Ray |
Do you want to show me where I said those who get an EITC are moochers? I'll answer your no basis immflamatory question when you can show me where my statements stated the such Ray. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:24:54 AM · #1277 |
Originally posted by yanko:
It is impossible to give 95% of Americans a tax cut when nearly half of the population doesn't pay taxes to begin with. Some will get a tax cut (i.e. money you paid to the government that is given back to you) while others will receive gifts (i.e. money just given to you). |
Actually, I believe the Obama campaign claim was that they would give 95% of working families a tax cut. There are certainly places & times where we can catch them misspeaking/lying by dropping the all important details working and families, but in most published material and most speeches they included that clintonesque language which makes their stats work (in that infamous statistical way). |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:34:29 AM · #1278 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
It cant be a cut in taxes when you are not paying any taxes at all. If you receive more back than you put in and then someone comes along and gives you even more back than you were already receiving then that is not a cut, it's an increase in your government subsidies/welfare. |
Pretty much everybody pays taxes. They might not make enough to pay income taxes, but even those living in poverty still send money to the government in the form of federal taxes on gas, cigarettes, Social Security, etc. Besides, McCain was campaigning to give everyone a $5,000 tax credit and throw $300 billion to people who were delinquent on their mortgages. How is that not the same thing?
The complaint isn't (or shouldn't be) about helping struggling families or layoff victims. It's about the freeloaders who aren't trying. The people who spent their Katrina debit cards on plasma TVs and beer or treated unemployment as a 6 week vacation before they even started looking for another job. That's an issue of better oversight, not the program itself, and local governments are often just as bad or worse. You could put a major dent in these problems by offering a bounty for reporting scofflaws, raising the stakes for doctors participating in disability schemes, and requiring people to register in a national job database before they can collect unemployment. In other words, attack the problems, not the solution. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:39:32 AM · #1279 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
He should had stated that he is cutting taxes for 55% of Americans and increasing the amount of welfare for 40% of Americans. |
That would have been more accurate than what he was promising during his campaign. Then we had his 250K number which got morphed into 200K which got phrased by Biden as 150K and then Gov Bill Richardson used 120K. Further, a CNN article which I linked previously showed that all the way to 66K - McCains plan was better. So Obama's plan benefits primarily those under 66K - who pay the lowest taxes to begin with. You can call it whatever you want, but is is not a tax cut if you didn't pay in. It is a refund - if you paid in - up to the amount you paid in. Then it becomes gov't assistance - something Obama has been a champion of and campaigned on as one recipient of the 10 billion/month military spending in Iraq. He said we can fund a whole host of social programs by simply diverting the money from the current Iraq war. He campaigned as an anti-war president and unless he gets an epiphany today when he begins receiving classified CIA intel, he stands the chance of carrying through on this promise.
Now much has been made in recent posts about how politicians mislead and Obama supporters are eager to chalk up these statements as requirements to get elected. Yet those same posters who want us to forgive these campaign statements as "necessary lies" were the very ones accusing the Bush administration of lying about WMD's or any host of other slanders. So the evidence is rather clear to me - just as I've suspected and claimed from jump street, the hypocricy is rampant. It really is OK for you to accept your politicians lies as necessary and still support him/her. Just don't use that as the reason to dis' someone else. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:41:37 AM · #1280 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
He should had stated that he is cutting taxes for 55% of Americans and increasing the amount of welfare for 40% of Americans. |
That would have been more accurate than what he was promising during his campaign. Then we had his 250K number which got morphed into 200K which got phrased by Biden as 150K and then Gov Bill Richardson used 120K. Further, a CNN article which I linked previously showed that all the way to 66K - McCains plan was better. So Obama's plan benefits primarily those under 66K - who pay the lowest taxes to begin with. You can call it whatever you want, but is is not a tax cut if you didn't pay in. It is a refund - if you paid in - up to the amount you paid in. Then it becomes gov't assistance - something Obama has been a champion of and campaigned on as one recipient of the 10 billion/month military spending in Iraq. He said we can fund a whole host of social programs by simply diverting the money from the current Iraq war. He campaigned as an anti-war president and unless he gets an epiphany today when he begins receiving classified CIA intel, he stands the chance of carrying through on this promise.
Now much has been made in recent posts about how politicians mislead and Obama supporters are eager to chalk up these statements as requirements to get elected. Yet those same posters who want us to forgive these campaign statements as "necessary lies" were the very ones accusing the Bush administration of lying about WMD's or any host of other slanders. So the evidence is rather clear to me - just as I've suspected and claimed from jump street, the hypocricy is rampant. It really is OK for you to accept your politicians lies as necessary and still support him/her. Just don't use that as the reason to dis' someone else. |
McCain promised tax cuts to 100% of Americans. The same story. I never heard a peep from Republicans on that.
No matter how much you yearn to call tax rebates or EIC "welfare" it's not. There was EIC under Bush too.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 09:43:33. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:43:07 AM · #1281 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The complaint isn't (or shouldn't be) about helping struggling families or layoff victims. It's about the freeloaders who aren't trying. The people who spent their Katrina debit cards on plasma TVs and beer or treated unemployment as a 6 week vacation before they even started looking for another job. That's an issue of better oversight, not the program itself, and local governments are often just as bad or worse. You could put a major dent in these problems by offering a bounty for reporting scofflaws, raising the stakes for doctors participating in disability schemes, and requiring people to register in a national job database before they can collect unemployment. In other words, attack the problems, not the solution. |
We have some common ground. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:51:34 AM · #1282 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... and requiring people to register in a national job database before they can collect unemployment... |
Since unemployement insurance programs are administered by the states (though additionally funded Federally and by employers) any such database would be managed on a state level. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Michigan "registering for work", which involves creating and submitting a resume to a jobs database is a requirement for collecting unemployment insurance payments.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 09:52:01. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:52:40 AM · #1283 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Then we had his 250K number which got morphed into 200K which got phrased by Biden as 150K and then Gov Bill Richardson used 120K. |
This shouldn't even be worthy of discussion. Both Biden and Richardson gave examples of people who would get a tax cut, not the limits. A middle class family making $150K or $120K would indeed be among those who get a tax cut. So would a family making $225K. A family earning $250,000 might get MORE of a tax cut under McCain than Obama, but that's not the point, and the $66K figure you cited was likely individuals, not families. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:55:04 AM · #1284 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The complaint isn't (or shouldn't be) about helping struggling families or layoff victims. It's about the freeloaders who aren't trying. The people who spent their Katrina debit cards on plasma TVs and beer or treated unemployment as a 6 week vacation before they even started looking for another job. That's an issue of better oversight, not the program itself, and local governments are often just as bad or worse. You could put a major dent in these problems by offering a bounty for reporting scofflaws, raising the stakes for doctors participating in disability schemes, and requiring people to register in a national job database before they can collect unemployment. In other words, attack the problems, not the solution. |
We have some common ground. |
I'll bet that we can all agree that the government shouldn't keep giving money to people who abuse the system. I think the disagreements begin when you consider how to go about doing that. There are some who would trash the whole system and put millions of people at risk to solve the problems. Others are willing to accept some abuse in order to continue helping those that truly need and deserve it. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 09:56:25 AM · #1285 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
in Michigan "registering for work", which involves creating and submitting a resume to a jobs database is a requirement for collecting unemployment insurance payments. |
I think it's the same in Connecticut, but the jobs currently on those lists are primarily low end service industries. I believe it should be a national/regional job listing service that puts Craigslist to shame. A resource that ALL employers would want to use.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:04:46 AM · #1286 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Well the lie/mislead is that he isn't cutting taxes for a large group of individuals, he is actually increasing the amount the government gives them. It cant be a cut in taxes when you are not paying any taxes at all. If you receive more back than you put in and then someone comes along and gives you even more back than you were already receiving then that is not a cut, it's an increase in your government subsidies/welfare. He should had stated that he is cutting taxes for 55% of Americans and increasing the amount of welfare for 40% of Americans. It's all about spin in politics, a mincing of words to get the masses on your side.
I was typing slow and not trying to Yanko you:) |
If all people were given a "living wage" this would not be necessary. That's the bottom line to everything. I know people that work two full time jobs and can't pay their mortgage. These are the same people who used to have wonderful, good paying jobs that were yanked out from under them and sent to foreign countries. If the federal government expects people to bust their asses for five something an hour, they should expect to give them something for their efforts. It's as simple as that. Someone has to do those jobs. The salaries are never going to be good. Those people still need to live. I don't get all the welfare references. Do you really not understand how hard some people work for peanuts??? Do you really not understand how hard your life would be if everyone refused to work those types of jobs???? |
I used the term welfare b/c earned income tax credits are the very definition of welfare. I completely understand that there are hardworking individuals out there struggling to make ends meet, I work with them on a daily basis. I don't think anywhere in my statement did I advocate for or against earned income tax credits or types of welfare in general. My whole point is that it's not a tax cut when you are not paying taxes and it was represented as something different. |
Welfare is something people get for nothing. People on welfare do not get tax breaks because they are not working for the money. An earned income credit is just that "earned". These people you are referring to work hard. Often times, literally back breaking work. On their feet for 8 to 16 hours a day. And I find it offensive that you consider this to be welfare. They are not getting something for nothing. They are working for it! Would you rather all those low paying jobs went away? God forbid, who would make your coffee? Where in the world would you get a cheeseburger? And as others have asked, is it welfare for those big wigs getting all their tax breaks and paying squat? Arrgghhh! I've got to stay out of this thread. |
Your definition is wrong, welfare is not just for people who do nothing and I would bet that welfare benefits more working people and individuals than non-working Moochers(as Ray like to call them). The definition of welfare according to Merriam Webster online:
1: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity 2
a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
You obviously have a negative idea of the word welfare and it's king of funny that you find me offensive. Again, no where did I argue against increasing the EITC or that it is a bad thing, what I said is that it was refereed to a tax cut when it isn't.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:14:54 AM · #1287 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The complaint isn't (or shouldn't be) about helping struggling families or layoff victims. It's about the freeloaders who aren't trying. The people who spent their Katrina debit cards on plasma TVs and beer or treated unemployment as a 6 week vacation before they even started looking for another job. That's an issue of better oversight, not the program itself, and local governments are often just as bad or worse. You could put a major dent in these problems by offering a bounty for reporting scofflaws, raising the stakes for doctors participating in disability schemes, and requiring people to register in a national job database before they can collect unemployment. In other words, attack the problems, not the solution. |
We have some common ground. |
I'll bet that we can all agree that the government shouldn't keep giving money to people who abuse the system. I think the disagreements begin when you consider how to go about doing that. There are some who would trash the whole system and put millions of people at risk to solve the problems. Others are willing to accept some abuse in order to continue helping those that truly need and deserve it. |
Ok. But for me, even if we were to accept "some" abuse (say 5-10%), at least before we raised taxes to fund more of it, we should demand that pork spending halt and use that already collected tax money to support it IF it is that important. I think that before congress can raise one more dime of tax money, they should be required to post on the 6 O'clock news on every station the pork bill, who supported it, who the recipient is and why it is necessary to spend the tax dollars. An open and transparent review of these by the masses would most assuredly limit wasteful spending. The phone lines would be jammed. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:16:47 AM · #1288 |
| An interesting article about Obama's politics compared to the generalized politics in Canada. "Tory" is a moniker for a member of the Conservative party. "Barack Obama is not the Canadian version of a liberal politician, even while occupying the far left ΓΆ€“ as a United States senator ΓΆ€“ of the political spectrum. In Canadian terms, he'd barely qualify as a Red Tory." |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:20:03 AM · #1289 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
in Michigan "registering for work", which involves creating and submitting a resume to a jobs database is a requirement for collecting unemployment insurance payments. |
I think it's the same in Connecticut, but the jobs currently on those lists are primarily low end service industries. I believe it should be a national/regional job listing service that puts Craigslist to shame. A resource that ALL employers would want to use. |
Traditionally, the service sector has been the major component of unemployment claims and the service addressed that. I believe that is changing. When I was unemployed, I received a few leads through the state database, but none of them led to jobs.
Why nationally? Some people, while unemployed would be unable to move across the country for work or relocation would not make sense for them. (e.g. a family where one spouse HAS a job or a divorced parent with joint custody.) Also, with unemployment up, many companies are not paying relocation expenses believing they can find talent locally without paying expensive relocation costs, which these days are likely to include purchasing a house from the new employee. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:21:11 AM · #1290 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The complaint isn't (or shouldn't be) about helping struggling families or layoff victims. It's about the freeloaders who aren't trying. The people who spent their Katrina debit cards on plasma TVs and beer or treated unemployment as a 6 week vacation before they even started looking for another job. That's an issue of better oversight, not the program itself, and local governments are often just as bad or worse. You could put a major dent in these problems by offering a bounty for reporting scofflaws, raising the stakes for doctors participating in disability schemes, and requiring people to register in a national job database before they can collect unemployment. In other words, attack the problems, not the solution. |
We have some common ground. |
I'll bet that we can all agree that the government shouldn't keep giving money to people who abuse the system. I think the disagreements begin when you consider how to go about doing that. There are some who would trash the whole system and put millions of people at risk to solve the problems. Others are willing to accept some abuse in order to continue helping those that truly need and deserve it. |
Ok. But for me, even if we were to accept "some" abuse (say 5-10%), at least before we raised taxes to fund more of it, we should demand that pork spending halt and use that already collected tax money to support it IF it is that important. I think that before congress can raise one more dime of tax money, they should be required to post on the 6 O'clock news on every station the pork bill, who supported it, who the recipient is and why it is necessary to spend the tax dollars. An open and transparent review of these by the masses would most assuredly limit wasteful spending. The phone lines would be jammed. |
I disagree with this focus on pork, as I've said before. How many more people would be in the welfare system if all the so-called "pork" was eliminated. Most of the projects are critical to local economies, and that is critical to the nation as a whole. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:24:21 AM · #1291 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The complaint isn't (or shouldn't be) about helping struggling families or layoff victims. It's about the freeloaders who aren't trying. The people who spent their Katrina debit cards on plasma TVs and beer or treated unemployment as a 6 week vacation before they even started looking for another job. That's an issue of better oversight, not the program itself, and local governments are often just as bad or worse. You could put a major dent in these problems by offering a bounty for reporting scofflaws, raising the stakes for doctors participating in disability schemes, and requiring people to register in a national job database before they can collect unemployment. In other words, attack the problems, not the solution. |
We have some common ground. |
I'll bet that we can all agree that the government shouldn't keep giving money to people who abuse the system. I think the disagreements begin when you consider how to go about doing that. There are some who would trash the whole system and put millions of people at risk to solve the problems. Others are willing to accept some abuse in order to continue helping those that truly need and deserve it. |
Ok. But for me, even if we were to accept "some" abuse (say 5-10%), at least before we raised taxes to fund more of it, we should demand that pork spending halt and use that already collected tax money to support it IF it is that important. I think that before congress can raise one more dime of tax money, they should be required to post on the 6 O'clock news on every station the pork bill, who supported it, who the recipient is and why it is necessary to spend the tax dollars. An open and transparent review of these by the masses would most assuredly limit wasteful spending. The phone lines would be jammed. |
Have you ever actually thought about how much of the government's budget is actual "pork"? At less than 2%, it's picking the flypoop out of the pepper. Eliminating it would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture that would hurt those who it was intended to benefit. Simply because you, personally, receive no direct benefit from a budget line item does not make it "pork" or otherwise unnecessary.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 10:25:01. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:24:56 AM · #1292 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
It cant be a cut in taxes when you are not paying any taxes at all. If you receive more back than you put in and then someone comes along and gives you even more back than you were already receiving then that is not a cut, it's an increase in your government subsidies/welfare. |
Pretty much everybody pays taxes. They might not make enough to pay income taxes, but even those living in poverty still send money to the government in the form of federal taxes on gas, cigarettes, Social Security, etc. Besides, McCain was campaigning to give everyone a $5,000 tax credit and throw $300 billion to people who were delinquent on their mortgages. How is that not the same thing? |
I completely agree, trickle up economics is much better than trickle down. The thing about lower income families is that they actually spend their money, whereas many higher income families tend to hoard. McCains plan was worse than Obama's, I don't disagree with that at all. With the state of this country's ecomomics and debt I'm not really in favor of anyone getting tax breaks or cuts and I'm in favor of raising taxes "moderately" on those who can afford.
Originally posted by scalvert:
The complaint isn't (or shouldn't be) about helping struggling families or layoff victims. It's about the freeloaders who aren't trying. The people who spent their Katrina debit cards on plasma TVs and beer or treated unemployment as a 6 week vacation before they even started looking for another job. That's an issue of better oversight, not the program itself, and local governments are often just as bad or worse. You could put a major dent in these problems by offering a bounty for reporting scofflaws, raising the stakes for doctors participating in disability schemes, and requiring people to register in a national job database before they can collect unemployment. In other words, attack the problems, not the solution. |
Agree again, I'm in favor of routing out abuse but I'm also cautious not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are reforms needed to both welfare and corporate tax loopholes. Hell, at this point there is reform needed everywhere, hopefully President Obama can get er done.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:27:03 AM · #1293 |
Originally posted by Louis:
An interesting article about Obama's politics compared to the generalized politics in Canada. "Tory" is a moniker for a member of the Conservative party. "Barack Obama is not the Canadian version of a liberal politician, even while occupying the far left ΓΆ€“ as a United States senator ΓΆ€“ of the political spectrum. In Canadian terms, he'd barely qualify as a Red Tory." |
Interesting read, as are the comments. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:30:03 AM · #1294 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Actually, I believe the Obama campaign claim was that they would give 95% of working families a tax cut. There are certainly places & times where we can catch them misspeaking/lying by dropping the all important details working and families, but in most published material and most speeches they included that clintonesque language which makes their stats work (in that infamous statistical way). |
You may be 100% correct. The problem for me is that some politicians are slick talkers and some stumble. Bush (W) and McCain both stumble with their words while Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are pretty word savy and elequent. Now many posters here are impressed with Obama's delivery and have previously demeaned Bush for his lack of vernacular delivery and bumbling stumbles - even suggesting he was stupid. They have also pointed to Barack's education and inspiring speeches of how smart and "Presidential" he is. OK. But I've bought a lot of cars in my lifetime. Some used ones too. And the smooth talkers always made me feel like they had an angle, an edge, that they were just a wee bit smarter - thus I didn't/don't trust them. So as a student of english, I must admit to being mesmerized by the craftiness of some political speak, but for trust, I'll stick with the plain talkers who occasionally stumble on their words. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:34:15 AM · #1295 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You may be 100% correct. The problem for me is that some politicians are slick talkers and some stumble. Bush (W) and McCain both stumble with their words while Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are pretty word savy and elequent. Now many posters here are impressed with Obama's delivery and have previously demeaned Bush for his lack of vernacular delivery and bumbling stumbles - even suggesting he was stupid. They have also pointed to Barack's education and inspiring speeches of how smart and "Presidential" he is. OK. But I've bought a lot of cars in my lifetime. Some used ones too. And the smooth talkers always made me feel like they had an angle, an edge, that they were just a wee bit smarter - thus I didn't/don't trust them. So as a student of english, I must admit to being mesmerized by the craftiness of some political speak, but for trust, I'll stick with the plain talkers who occasionally stumble on their words. |
I had noticed how often people used words like "slick" and "smooth" to describe Clinton and Obama. Sad that intelligence is equated with craftiness. Frankly, if I was going to sit down and "have a beer" (metaphorically speaking) with politicians, I'd rather hang with the smart ones.
EDIT: It should go without saying I'd also rather have the smart ones run my country.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 10:35:20. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:40:47 AM · #1296 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I believe it should be a national/regional job listing service that puts Craigslist to shame. A resource that ALL employers would want to use. |
Why nationally? |
For the same reason Craigslist is national. It would be a single source, searchable by region, where people could look for all options. Maybe a company wants to open an office in another state. Would they currently think to list openings in the state unemployment office or tap Craigslist/local papers? I might not be planning to move, but discover the perfect job in a place near relatives, etc. The bigger the pool, the more likely people will post and search there.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 10:41:05. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:42:04 AM · #1297 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Flash:
You may be 100% correct. The problem for me is that some politicians are slick talkers and some stumble. Bush (W) and McCain both stumble with their words while Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are pretty word savy and elequent. Now many posters here are impressed with Obama's delivery and have previously demeaned Bush for his lack of vernacular delivery and bumbling stumbles - even suggesting he was stupid. They have also pointed to Barack's education and inspiring speeches of how smart and "Presidential" he is. OK. But I've bought a lot of cars in my lifetime. Some used ones too. And the smooth talkers always made me feel like they had an angle, an edge, that they were just a wee bit smarter - thus I didn't/don't trust them. So as a student of english, I must admit to being mesmerized by the craftiness of some political speak, but for trust, I'll stick with the plain talkers who occasionally stumble on their words. |
I had noticed how often people used words like "slick" and "smooth" to describe Clinton and Obama. Sad that intelligence is equated with craftiness. Frankly, if I was going to sit down and "have a beer" (metaphorically speaking) with politicians, I'd rather hang with the smart ones.
EDIT: It should go without saying I'd also rather have the smart ones run my country. |
Not sure how many here watch PBS for the political commentary or the numerous political shows on Sunday mornings, but I really enjoy listening and parsing their words to derive what they are really saying. Few would argue - in my opinon - that Dick Cheney is a pretty smart guy and eloquent as well. But many here are not too happy with his running fo the country. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:42:55 AM · #1298 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Now many posters here are impressed with Obama's delivery and have previously demeaned Bush for his lack of vernacular delivery and bumbling stumbles - even suggesting he was stupid. |
With Bush, it was his decisions, not how he described them, that made him look stupid. Lipstick on a pig, ya' know. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:45:28 AM · #1299 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Dick Cheney is a pretty smart guy and eloquent as well. But many here are not too happy with his running fo the country. |
Many here are not too happy because he's not supposed to be running the country! |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:46:10 AM · #1300 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Few would argue - in my opinon - that Dick Cheney is a pretty smart guy and eloquent as well. |
I think you meant the opposite. |
|
