| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2008 10:53:31 AM · #1301 |
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 â as a United States senator â of the political spectrum. In Canadian terms, he'd barely qualify as a Red Tory." |
That's because left/ liberal here in the US is moderate/ right wing in the rest of the world. The main two parties are far right and right wing in their policies. It varies even more within the states. In Texas, a typical Democrat would make a Californian Republican look left wing.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 10:54:46. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 10:59:30 AM · #1302 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
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. |
If you take the time to re-read my comments, at no time did I say that YOU stated they were moochers. Rather my question was whether or not you would "consider" those taking advantage of all the loopholes as falling into a category that could be described as "moochers"... there is a difference.
As an aside, I am having great difficulty in understanding what exactly in my post you found "Inflammatory". While it remains true that the comment most certainly lacked in specificity, I seriously doubt it falls in the "No Basis" category. I can assure you that whatever you may have found derogatory was not directed at you.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 11:04:33 AM · #1303 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
So, why make registration with a national service mandatory? If an unemployed person can't relocate or doesn't want to relocate, why would employers from six states away even want to bother.
FWIW, most companies that are looking to relocate, look at the availability of the kinds of workers they want to hire when evaluating those moves. The unemployment rolls are one of many sources. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 11:08:57 AM · #1304 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
So, why make registration with a national service mandatory? If an unemployed person can't relocate or doesn't want to relocate, why would employers from six states away even want to bother.
FWIW, most companies that are looking to relocate, look at the availability of the kinds of workers they want to hire when evaluating those moves. The unemployment rolls are one of many sources. |
Why national? So those who are willing to relocate don't have to register in umpteen databases. There's usually a question about relocation ( or could be) so those that don't want to just say so and out of state searches won't pick up their name. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 11:27:04 AM · #1305 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
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. |
If you take the time to re-read my comments, at no time did I say that YOU stated they were moochers. Rather my question was whether or not you would "consider" those taking advantage of all the loopholes as falling into a category that could be described as "moochers"... there is a difference.
As an aside, I am having great difficulty in understanding what exactly in my post you found "Inflammatory". While it remains true that the comment most certainly lacked in specificity, I seriously doubt it falls in the "No Basis" category. I can assure you that whatever you may have found derogatory was not directed at you.
Ray |
Sorry if I misinterpreted, morning ya know. As for the loopholes, as I stated in my comment to Scalvert I believe we need to reform on both ends and I would focus more on the top of the food chain then the bottom. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 11:29:36 AM · #1306 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, why make registration with a national service mandatory? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It would be a single source, searchable by region, where people could look for all options... The bigger the pool, the more likely people will post and search there. |
Most large employment resources (HotJobs, Monster, CareerBuilder, Craigslist, etc.) are already national registries. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 12:08:33 PM · #1307 |
| A fascinating peek behind the scenes. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 12:18:47 PM · #1308 |
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 think thats a fair demand. I am not against cutting government spendings... it is an important aspect of the whole domestic economic scenario. That said, I still think that shutting off all the loopholes that give big corporations and their execs huge tax cuts is equally if not more important. I look at the rich's tax savings (through loopholes) a bigger problem than a poor hard working family getting some money for free (as is the EIC called sometimes).
In all fairness, would you not agree that because of corrupt practices among lobbyists and the industry and the politicians, some already privileged guys end up getting huge tax cuts? And note I didnt say just the politicians as they may just be puppets in the hands of the other two groups (lobbies and industries).
I do not know the exact numbers on
- how much it is that is wasted in government spendings per year, and
- how much is spent on huge tax cuts to big corporations via loopholes, and
- how much is spent on welfare (from wiki, I read is is about 400 Billion)
Can anyone fill in the first two numbers?
ET: spell check.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 12:19:50.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2008 12:25:13 PM · #1309 |
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? |
From factcheck.org:
Who's a "Taxpayer"?
"... the [Wall Street] Journal's editorial misstated a key fact in its "welfare" argument. It said that anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes is not a "taxpayer," which is simply incorrect. Here's what the editorial said:
Wall Street Journal editorial, Oct. 13: [Refundable credits] are an income transfer â a federal check â from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare." ... Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
"The fact is, a worker can be a "taxpayer" whether or not they owe any income tax. Just about every worker is subject to federal Social Security and Medicare taxes totaling 7.65 percent on every dollar of earnings, up to $102,000 per year. (For earnings over $102,000, only the 1.45 percent Medicare tax applies.) Low-income workers, and retired and jobless persons as well, also pay federal excise taxes whenever they buy gasoline or pay a telephone bill, for example. Obama and other Democrats argue that for low-income workers, refundable tax credits are not âwelfareâ but, in effect, a reduction in their overall federal tax burden, counting payroll taxes.
"Congressional Budget Office figures show that even those in the lowest-earning fifth of households pay an effective federal tax rate, on average, of 4.3 percent of their income, despite benefiting from existing federal refundable tax credits to a major degree. This group had average income of $15,900 in 2005, the most recent year for which CBO has done the calculations. But despite receiving "a federal check" through the income tax system that boosted income by an average of 6.5 percent (this shows up as a negative tax rate in the CBO tables), they still paid an average of $600 in federal taxes. That's true even after subtracting the effects of refundable tax credit "welfare."" |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 12:42:37 PM · #1310 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, why make registration with a national service mandatory? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It would be a single source, searchable by region, where people could look for all options... The bigger the pool, the more likely people will post and search there. |
Most large employment resources (HotJobs, Monster, CareerBuilder, Craigslist, etc.) are already national registries. |
So, why re-invent the wheel? |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 12:56:51 PM · #1311 |
| What Judith posted. In addition, it's worth noting that the people pushing for more taxes on the wealthy are often doing so against their own self interests. Obama and Warren Buffet will be in the group that gets hit the hardest, while McCain stood to benefit the most from his proposal. There is no greater incentive to cut wasteful government spending and reduce the overall tax burden than to have a disproportionate share of that money come from your own pocket. Food for thought. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 01:18:19 PM · #1312 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Most large employment resources (HotJobs, Monster, CareerBuilder, Craigslist, etc.) are already national registries. |
So, why re-invent the wheel? |
I think you're missing the point. Some (maybe most) states require people to register in a local job bank to receive unemployment benefits. That's all well and good, but the listings are very incomplete, and often limited to lower end service jobs. With a free national database that's open to everyone, the states and federal government can reduce overhead while making the registry the primary resource for ALL employers and job seekers. It would reach a critical mass that makes it the de facto standard for all employment- the first place anyone would look to hire or be hired.
You'd kill a whole flock of birds with one stone. Employers get free job listings with less worry over reaching potential candidates. Job hunters only have to look in one place to see what's available. Governments can coordinate efforts and save the cost of managing 50 different databases. You'd have a much easier way to track the efforts of those collecting benefits, and a central place to offer these people help with resumes and training. Everybody wins. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 01:38:21 PM · #1313 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Most large employment resources (HotJobs, Monster, CareerBuilder, Craigslist, etc.) are already national registries. |
So, why re-invent the wheel? |
I think you're missing the point. Some (maybe most) states require people to register in a local job bank to receive unemployment benefits. That's all well and good, but the listings are very incomplete, and often limited to lower end service jobs. With a free national database that's open to everyone, the states and federal government can reduce overhead while making the registry the primary resource for ALL employers and job seekers. It would reach a critical mass that makes it the de facto standard for all employment- the first place anyone would look to hire or be hired.
You'd kill a whole flock of birds with one stone. Employers get free job listings with less worry over reaching potential candidates. Job hunters only have to look in one place to see what's available. Governments can coordinate efforts and save the cost of managing 50 different databases. You'd have a much easier way to track the efforts of those collecting benefits, and a central place to offer these people help with resumes and training. Everybody wins. |
I don't think you'd kill many birds that aren't already killed with existing resources.
The employees of Monster, Career Builder et.al. wouldn't win, they would lose. Maybe they could be the first to post their resumes in the database.
You're talking about regulating something to basically make sure people are "looking" for work to justify their receiving unemployment, a benefit that has an expiration date on it. Here in Michigan, it's 6 months and that's it, no more, no extensions, nothing. It wouldn't really save the government money since employers and employees pay for virtually 100% of the benefits paid out to claimants.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 13:39:54. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 01:46:39 PM · #1314 |
| Perhaps it's time to kill this thread and start "U.S. ECONOMY '08" |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 02:05:56 PM · #1315 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
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? |
From factcheck.org:
Who's a "Taxpayer"?
"... the [Wall Street] Journal's editorial misstated a key fact in its "welfare" argument. It said that anyone who doesn't pay federal income taxes is not a "taxpayer," which is simply incorrect. Here's what the editorial said:
Wall Street Journal editorial, Oct. 13: [Refundable credits] are an income transfer â a federal check â from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare." ... Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
"The fact is, a worker can be a "taxpayer" whether or not they owe any income tax. Just about every worker is subject to federal Social Security and Medicare taxes totaling 7.65 percent on every dollar of earnings, up to $102,000 per year. (For earnings over $102,000, only the 1.45 percent Medicare tax applies.) Low-income workers, and retired and jobless persons as well, also pay federal excise taxes whenever they buy gasoline or pay a telephone bill, for example. Obama and other Democrats argue that for low-income workers, refundable tax credits are not âwelfareâ but, in effect, a reduction in their overall federal tax burden, counting payroll taxes.
"Congressional Budget Office figures show that even those in the lowest-earning fifth of households pay an effective federal tax rate, on average, of 4.3 percent of their income, despite benefiting from existing federal refundable tax credits to a major degree. This group had average income of $15,900 in 2005, the most recent year for which CBO has done the calculations. But despite receiving "a federal check" through the income tax system that boosted income by an average of 6.5 percent (this shows up as a negative tax rate in the CBO tables), they still paid an average of $600 in federal taxes. That's true even after subtracting the effects of refundable tax credit "welfare."" |
Hmm. Interesting. So in effect, Obama's proposed tax cuts for low income families *DO* make sense then. People will be paying taxes effectively in other forms.. not just in form of an income tax. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 02:32:10 PM · #1316 |
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. |
I don't see how that would help, since I don't believe it's right to make people move out of their communities/states. UI programs have a prescribed travel radius/travel time within which recipients are supposed to be looking for work. Certainly people could choose to move far away to take a good job, but to make moving across the country to work a condition of receiving benefits seems a bit ridiculous.
Bah ... now I've read some of the later posts. Nevermind ....
About the budget numbers -- "earmarks" last year (not all "pork" and not all the "pork" there was) was $18 billion. Special tax breaks to oil companies alone are about $4-5 billion (remember, some are making over $10 billion profit per quarter); I don't know how much goes into agriculture subsidies, but it's sure to be billions more.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 14:42:01. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 03:02:06 PM · #1317 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
I don't see how that would help, since I don't believe it's right to make people move out of their communities/states. UI programs have a prescribed travel radius/travel time within which recipients are supposed to be looking for work. Certainly people could choose to move far away to take a good job, but to make moving across the country to work a condition of receiving benefits seems a bit ridiculous.
Bah ... now I've read some of the later posts. Nevermind ....
About the budget numbers -- "earmarks" last year (not all "pork" and not all the "pork" there was) was $18 billion. Special tax breaks to oil companies alone are about $4-5 billion (remember, some are making over $10 billion profit per quarter); I don't know how much goes into agriculture subsidies, but it's sure to be billions more. |
Thanks.
This page from the treasury says which categories in the budget ate up more, and which ones suffered for more.
Outlays (spendings?): Here.
Income (receipts?): Here.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 15:13:21. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 03:39:31 PM · #1318 |
From today's email:
"People all over the world are celebrating Obamaâs victory. Sarah Palin watched the Russians celebrating from her house."
BTW: Since Wasilla is over 600 miles from Alaska's western coast, unless Ms. Palin has Super X-Ray vision or can see around the Earth's curvature, she can't really "See Russia from my house," and even less so from the State Capitol. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 03:51:39 PM · #1319 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From today's email:
"People all over the world are celebrating Obamaâs victory. Sarah Palin watched the Russians celebrating from her house."
BTW: Since Wasilla is over 600 miles from Alaska's western coast, unless Ms. Palin has Super X-Ray vision or can see around the Earth's curvature, she can't really "See Russia from my house," and even less so from the State Capitol. |
While you are correct in your assessment, you are implying that Sarah Palin said that she could "see Russia from my house" ( implied by virtue of the quotation marks ).
When did Sarah Palin ever say that she could "see Russia from my house"? |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 03:56:49 PM · #1320 |
Originally posted by RonB:
When did Sarah Palin ever say that she could "see Russia from my house"? |
Can you prove she hasn't? ;-) |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 03:57:34 PM · #1321 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
What Judith posted. In addition, it's worth noting that the people pushing for more taxes on the wealthy are often doing so against their own self interests. Obama and Warren Buffet will be in the group that gets hit the hardest, while McCain stood to benefit the most from his proposal. There is no greater incentive to cut wasteful government spending and reduce the overall tax burden than to have a disproportionate share of that money come from your own pocket. Food for thought. |
Food for thought? I don't think anybody could argue that the wealthy (i.e. the wealthy and not the rich who are dirt poor in comparison) can afford to pay more taxes. Increasing capital gains tax from 15% to 20% won't even feel like a pinch to someone like Warren Buffet, which I believe is where he pays most of his taxes (i.e. he's not subject to income tax the way working people are). So instead of Buffet paying 15% (or 17.7% that he has stated in the past) he'll be paying 22%, which will still be lower than what he reportedly stated his secretary and cleaning lady pays. Yeah, I'll donate a band-aid to Buffet for the gash he's about to receive from Obama.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 16:02:29. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 04:01:04 PM · #1322 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From today's email:
"People all over the world are celebrating Obamaâs victory. Sarah Palin watched the Russians celebrating from her house."
BTW: Since Wasilla is over 600 miles from Alaska's western coast, unless Ms. Palin has Super X-Ray vision or can see around the Earth's curvature, she can't really "See Russia from my house," and even less so from the State Capitol. |
While you are correct in your assessment, you are implying that Sarah Palin said that she could "see Russia from my house" ( implied by virtue of the quotation marks ).
When did Sarah Palin ever say that she could "see Russia from my house"? |
From what little I remember, Tina Fey said 'I can see Russia from my house' Palin just said 'you can see Russia from Alaska' as justification of her foreign policy experience. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 04:06:13 PM · #1323 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From today's email:
"People all over the world are celebrating Obamaâs victory. Sarah Palin watched the Russians celebrating from her house."
BTW: Since Wasilla is over 600 miles from Alaska's western coast, unless Ms. Palin has Super X-Ray vision or can see around the Earth's curvature, she can't really "See Russia from my house," and even less so from the State Capitol. |
While you are correct in your assessment, you are implying that Sarah Palin said that she could "see Russia from my house" ( implied by virtue of the quotation marks ).
When did Sarah Palin ever say that she could "see Russia from my house"? |
Don't know about her house, but this video is what the fuss is probably all about. She seems to be connecting her insight with being able to see the country. Is that some kind of qualification? |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 04:08:01 PM · #1324 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From today's email:
"People all over the world are celebrating Obamaâs victory. Sarah Palin watched the Russians celebrating from her house."
BTW: Since Wasilla is over 600 miles from Alaska's western coast, unless Ms. Palin has Super X-Ray vision or can see around the Earth's curvature, she can't really "See Russia from my house," and even less so from the State Capitol. |
While you are correct in your assessment, you are implying that Sarah Palin said that she could "see Russia from my house" ( implied by virtue of the quotation marks ).
When did Sarah Palin ever say that she could "see Russia from my house"? |
From what little I remember, Tina Fey said 'I can see Russia from my house' Palin just said 'you can see Russia from Alaska' as justification of her foreign policy experience. |
I remember her saying that in context of a foreign policy discussion, which to me should raise far more eybrows itself than the use of an obvious hyperbole.
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 16:09:12. |
|
|
|
11/07/2008 04:09:25 PM · #1325 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From today's email:
"People all over the world are celebrating Obamaâs victory. Sarah Palin watched the Russians celebrating from her house."
BTW: Since Wasilla is over 600 miles from Alaska's western coast, unless Ms. Palin has Super X-Ray vision or can see around the Earth's curvature, she can't really "See Russia from my house," and even less so from the State Capitol. |
While you are correct in your assessment, you are implying that Sarah Palin said that she could "see Russia from my house" ( implied by virtue of the quotation marks ).
When did Sarah Palin ever say that she could "see Russia from my house"? |
From what little I remember, Tina Fey said 'I can see Russia from my house' Palin just said 'you can see Russia from Alaska' as justification of her foreign policy experience. |
I remember her saying that in context of a foreign policy discussion, which to me should raise far more eybrows than an obvious hyperbole. |
From the interview...
On Russia:
PALIN: Weâve gotta keep an eye on Russia. ⦠You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what theyâre doing inside Georgia?
PALIN: Well, Iâm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relations with all of these countries, especially Russia.
link
Message edited by author 2008-11-07 16:10:27. |
|
