Debate and Discussion

The Big Lie
bobhhh at 8:14AM, April 17, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
You know I will probably be called a hopeless lefty, but I am so tired about hearing how social programs will bankrupt our economy.

The big lie is that to be fiscallly responsible we need to cut such programs which amount to so much pork.

The fact is these programs are measured in millions of dollars, while military and business subsidies are measured in billions of dollars, recently military in trillions.

If we had paused the war for a couple of months, we could have used the $$ to hire twice as many teachers and cops. We could have rebuilt schools and funded universal health care.

If you cut off one or two megacorporations from their welfare, you'd have enough to fund programs designed to lift people out of the cycle of poverty.

The great depression proved that if you spend money on human captital, it will come back to you in income taxes. Talk to some old folks before they all die off and ask then if FDR didn't save this country with his “pork barrel” government welfare.

The fact is that super rich people and mega corporations have become the worst antipatriots. They act as if they owe nothing to the country that allowed them to become so wealthy. Corporations that open clandestine off shore headquarters, and yet do all or most of their business in the US are the worst tax dodging scum. When these companies wave the flag it sickens me.

Republicans aren't all like this, a majority are hardworking and honest, even if they are a bit misguided. They should kick these charlatans out of their party if they really want to be the fiscally responsible party. But they are ruled by this neoconservative wing.

So what are you left with? The Democrats. I have to shower sometimes after voting Democrat, but it's way better than tossing my rights into the Republican toilet like we have these past 8 years.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
imshard at 11:31AM, April 17, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
573.9 billion on total DOD spending.

558.7 billion on medicare and health

824.3 billion on social programs

no major funding to “welfare mega corporations”

You tell me where the majority of our spending is. I'm no fan of our tax system or spending habits either, but you need to get off your witch hunt and stop dismissing a major party as “mis-lead”. Blaming the rich and powerful is historically a knee-jerk reaction to personal inequity. When france and russia had their revolutions, guess what: they were still dirt broke. Being bitter at your betters won't fix anything. They don't Take money away from you. Tax evasion means holding on to money that you earned. Even with their “rampant abuse” of the tax system corporations still generate more tax revenue then you and I ever will. Democrat or republican the new boss is still the same as the old boss. The only difference is what rhetoric they spout while doing the same job the same way. The executive branch no matter party they belong to will still do the same things.

btw I'd like to know, very much how you “pause a war”.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Marguati at 4:51AM, April 18, 2008
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
just a brief note:

imshard
They don't Take money away from you. Tax evasion means holding on to money that you earned.

As a matter of fact, they do. Tax evasion means less money for welfare, infrastructures, services and whatever: this way, they take money away from the whole community. And it doesn't matter if the taxes they're paying are several orders of magnitude greater than mine.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
cartoonprofessor at 5:06AM, April 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
I can't remember who it was that said, “The success of a country is measured by the standard of living of its poor.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
ozoneocean at 8:20AM, April 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
War or occupation… I tend to go for the latter since that's what such situations are called everywhere else. And both states are quite distinct in a lot of ways…
imshard
573.9 billion on total DOD spending.

558.7 billion on medicare and health

824.3 billion on social programs
I would have to question those figures… There are a helluva lot of hidden defence costs: all the money it takes to care for war veterans are not included in defence, but your Medicare, health and “social programs”. All the billions it takes to to research, develop and manage nuclear weapons programs go to the department of energy. Direct foreign military aid is also expensive and doesn't come from the DOD budget, as well as indirect aid with military purposes of various different kinds: Aid to governments that allow U.S. bases on their territory and troop movements, the US deferred Turkey's cost of its participation in Iraq in 2005… and of course U.S. aid to places like Israel, Egypt, Columbia, and Pakistan goes to buy US weapons systems as well as funding their militarys that often tend to act as proxies…

So they say the true figure tends to be closer to double ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
SpANG at 10:42AM, April 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
imshard
… no major funding to “welfare mega corporations”
… Except for HUGE tax breaks to ship American jobs overseas. Plus, as an added bonus, pay your workers way less than min wage over there.

… Except for the protection of bankruptcy that corporations are protected under, yet citizens no longer are.

… Except for HUUUUUUGEEE oil PROFITS, not sales, PROFITS… with no legitimate hearings (they don't have to swear in, and then it is found that they lied) or even real questions as to how they can justify it.


Just because corporate perks aren't “on the books” doesn't mean they aren't making billions, if not trillions at this point. And it IS hurting America. All you have to do is look around to see that.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:53PM
imshard at 2:10PM, April 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/budget.zip

Knock yourselves out, look it over yourselves.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
imshard at 3:03PM, April 18, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Marguati
just a brief note:

imshard
They don't Take money away from you. Tax evasion means holding on to money that you earned.

As a matter of fact, they do. Tax evasion means less money for welfare, infrastructures, services and whatever: this way, they take money away from the whole community. And it doesn't matter if the taxes they're paying are several orders of magnitude greater than mine.

They Pay IN to the treasury they do not get a Pay OUT. Large corporations pay taxes, they DO NOT withdraw money from it. When you assume you are entitled to money and that you are being deprived and taken from when somebody does not give you their money that makes you a communist. The People do not have a right to private property (private property does include money), even if it belongs to a corporation. Though I agree that the principle of it is important, they still pay taxes and the amount matters very much to the guys who have to figure out how things are gonna get paid for. A single tax evading corporation still pays in taxes for more welfare and infrastructures than thousands of rank and file individual taxpayers.

Someone
I can't remember who it was that said, “The success of a country is measured by the standard of living of its poor.”

That would make the US one of the richest countries.

Someone
I would have to question those figures… There are a helluva lot of hidden defence costs: all the money it takes to care for war veterans are not included in defence, but your Medicare, health and “social programs”. All the billions it takes to to research, develop and manage nuclear weapons programs go to the department of energy. Direct foreign military aid is also expensive and doesn't come from the DOD budget, as well as indirect aid with military purposes of various different kinds: Aid to governments that allow U.S. bases on their territory and troop movements, the US deferred Turkey's cost of its participation in Iraq in 2005… and of course U.S. aid to places like Israel, Egypt, Columbia, and Pakistan goes to buy US weapons systems as well as funding their militarys that often tend to act as proxies…

You are partly right. The department of veterans affairs costs us about 91 billion. And the “hidden” defense costs are not on the budget but on the discretionary borrowing list. Thats right: China and other lenders pay for the war costs of Iraq, not us. Those costs tack on about 189 billion onto our national debt. If we actually paid for our wars we'd have been broke by the middle of the Vietnam war. besides the costs I mentioned in my first post most departments use about or less than 100 billion. Including foreign aid costs.

Someone
… Except for HUGE tax breaks to ship American jobs overseas. Plus, as an added bonus, pay your workers way less than min wage over there.
… Except for the protection of bankruptcy that corporations are protected under, yet citizens no longer are.
… Except for HUUUUUUGEEE oil PROFITS, not sales, PROFITS… with no legitimate hearings (they don't have to swear in, and then it is found that they lied) or even real questions as to how they can justify it.
Just because corporate perks aren't “on the books” doesn't mean they aren't making billions, if not trillions at this point. And it IS hurting America. All you have to do is look around to see that.

I'm not questioning that they're making a killing in everything they can. I just said that the government does not actively fund companies. As for the bankruptcy protection its to prevent another depression from occurring. If large companies were simply allowed to crash it could cripple the economy overnight.

EDIT: a fair tax would take care of all these problems.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Marguati at 8:33AM, April 19, 2008
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
imshard
Marguati
just a brief note:

imshard
They don't Take money away from you. Tax evasion means holding on to money that you earned.

As a matter of fact, they do. Tax evasion means less money for welfare, infrastructures, services and whatever: this way, they take money away from the whole community. And it doesn't matter if the taxes they're paying are several orders of magnitude greater than mine.

They Pay IN to the treasury they do not get a Pay OUT. Large corporations pay taxes, they DO NOT withdraw money from it. When you assume you are entitled to money and that you are being deprived and taken from when somebody does not give you their money that makes you a communist. The People do not have a right to private property (private property does include money), even if it belongs to a corporation. Though I agree that the principle of it is important, they still pay taxes and the amount matters very much to the guys who have to figure out how things are gonna get paid for. A single tax evading corporation still pays in taxes for more welfare and infrastructures than thousands of rank and file individual taxpayers.

Let's make an example: I owe you 100$. I give you 80$. Though I didn't phisically take 20$ from your wallet while you were sleeping, I still owe you 20$. It's money you're entitled to, and I'm depriving you of the possibility to use that 20$.

When corporations or whoever else don't pay taxes, they're not taking money away from me PERSONALLY: I have no right on that money. But the Government does; and since the Government is supposed to use that money for the sake of every citizen, it's money that should have helped ‘The People’.
And I'm not the one who says they aren't paying enough: if the Government says ‘they should be paying X’, they should be paying X. Simple as that.


They still pay a lot of taxes, but they're not paying as much as they should. Think how much welfare and infrastructures SHOULD (not COULD) be improved with the money they're not paying.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
bobhhh at 4:47PM, April 19, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Of course they're not paying what they should. If they were paying what they should, they wouldn't be dodging taxes by opening offices in the Kaman Islands.

When ADM gets farm subsidies designed to help family farmers weather market fluctuations, and oil companies get huge tax breaks while posting record profits, that money has to come from somewhere. Social programs and infrastucture cost so much less than the money our government wastses on no bid contracts, military adventures and corporate welfare, it sickens me to hear the neocons bemoan wasteful spending.

Go down the line,

capital gains tax….tax dodge for the rich.
Repeal of estate tax….tax dodge for the rich.
Payroll tax…unfairly tilted toward the working class.

The notion that tax breaks spur the economy just doesn't make sense. If you are a multimillionaire, are you going to stop spending if taxes go up?? No fkn way, but when poor people get taxed and effectively taxed by things like gas prices, their buying power really suffers.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
imshard at 11:20PM, April 19, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
tell me, how would you feel if you had a high stress job you had worked to build up everything you had and then some douchebag says you have to hand over more than half of what you earn every year. Talk about the principle of evading what you owe? how about having whats yours taken from you without recompense. Spare me the preferential treatment bull. The tighter you squeeze people, the more they'll wiggle and try to get out. And thats not just the rich either. the idea of taxcuts is not that rich people will have more, its that everybody will have more. It just looks like they get more advantage because a percentage of their income is larger than the same percentage of your income. When more people have more of their own money they'll spend it instead of waiting for the government to give them back just enough to buy food.

I will not be trapped into defending the current tax system because I believe it is flawed and corrupt. The concept of taxcuts was correct but poorly executed. You may have noticed but I'm a supporter of the fair tax instead.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bobhhh at 8:26AM, April 20, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
tell me, how would you feel if you had a high stress job you had worked to build up everything you had and then some douchebag says you have to hand over more than half of what you earn every year. Talk about the principle of evading what you owe? how about having whats yours taken from you without recompense. Spare me the preferential treatment bull. The tighter you squeeze people, the more they'll wiggle and try to get out. And thats not just the rich either. the idea of taxcuts is not that rich people will have more, its that everybody will have more. It just looks like they get more advantage because a percentage of their income is larger than the same percentage of your income. When more people have more of their own money they'll spend it instead of waiting for the government to give them back just enough to buy food.

I will not be trapped into defending the current tax system because I believe it is flawed and corrupt. The concept of taxcuts was correct but poorly executed. You may have noticed but I'm a supporter of the fair tax instead.

If you make more than several million dollars a year, you won't seriously feel a huge tax burden, because at that point further wealth is effectively a status symbol. How much money do you really need? Why is it so important to amass such great wealth when your fellow countrymen suffer from unfair economic class structure?

And please be serious about taxcuts. For the amount of money they sap from the government revenue stream what do the working class get under Bush? $300 measley dollars. Just how exactly does that help poor people?? And the rich get Five Figures on average, just exactly how does that help their buying power??? How can you justify making such a big fuss over demanding multimillionaires recieve their 10,000 bucks? People like that pick that kind os money out of their teeth.

No sorry you will never get me to sympathize with super rich person having to turn over a large portion of their stack, when they most likely will remain super rich afterwards and grow moreso each year.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
imshard at 1:04PM, April 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
bobhhh
If you make more than several million dollars a year, you won't seriously feel a huge tax burden, because at that point further wealth is effectively a status symbol. How much money do you really need? Why is it so important to amass such great wealth when your fellow countrymen suffer from unfair economic class structure?

And please be serious about taxcuts. For the amount of money they sap from the government revenue stream what do the working class get under Bush? $300 measley dollars. Just how exactly does that help poor people?? And the rich get Five Figures on average, just exactly how does that help their buying power??? How can you justify making such a big fuss over demanding multimillionaires recieve their 10,000 bucks? People like that pick that kind os money out of their teeth.

No sorry you will never get me to sympathize with super rich person having to turn over a large portion of their stack, when they most likely will remain super rich afterwards and grow moreso each year.

That $300 the middle class man gets back is $300 he would have never seen again. $300 he would not have otherwise had. Thats 300 dollars that can buy food, pay rent, and make a car payments. Things that would have gone unpurchased or unpaid for. For someone in debt that $300 is invaluable. You know what difference the $10,000 makes? the people who get that kind of money back own small businesses. Thats money that can buy insurance or finance an extra employee, even add a major expansion to their enterprise. Believe it or not most millionaires have the same standard of living as most Americans, but simply buy their possessions outright instead of financing them. Thats the only difference. They still have the same hardships and experience the same things as you and I. That several million usually goes straight back into expenses, not their own pockets. Just because they earn a larger amount than you doesn't mean they have extra cash, or can just throw 10,000 bucks around for the hell of it. The very fortunate have simply attained the American dream and live financially independent. Don't begrudge them their success.

The kind of rich snobs you are visualizing are few and far between. They earn hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. The “super rich, who only get richer” are a tiny percentage (about 1% actually) of the population and represent a special exception to the rules of society. These high-rollers run politics and move the economy with their decisions. They can lose as much as 70% of their income and still bring in a fortune. I won't ask you to sympathize with them because they don't need it.

Don't be so bitter that it puts blinders on your eyes.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Kohdok at 4:28PM, April 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
imshard
That $300 the middle class man gets back is $300 he would have never seen again. $300 he would not have otherwise had. Thats 300 dollars that can buy food, pay rent, and make a car payments. Things that would have gone unpurchased or unpaid for. For someone in debt that $300 is invaluable.
Now THIS I find highly insulting. $300 is SHIT in today's economy. $300 MIGHT be able to pay a LITTLE of ONE of the things you're talking about. Median income is just about $3,000 a month. A person who only gets 10% of what they need a month to survive feels CHEATED.

You know what difference the $10,000 makes? the people who get that kind of money back own small businesses. Thats money that can buy insurance or finance an extra employee, even add a major expansion to their enterprise. Believe it or not most millionaires have the same standard of living as most Americans, but simply buy their possessions outright instead of financing them. Thats the only difference. They still have the same hardships and experience the same things as you and I. That several million usually goes straight back into expenses, not their own pockets. Just because they earn a larger amount than you doesn't mean they have extra cash, or can just throw 10,000 bucks around for the hell of it. The very fortunate have simply attained the American dream and live financially independent. Don't begrudge them their success.

Yes, the burdens of buying huge houses, ranches, boats, bailing their children out of whatever they do. Oh SO much trouble…

The kind of rich snobs you are visualizing are few and far between. They earn hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. The “super rich, who only get richer” are a tiny percentage (about 1% actually) of the population and represent a special exception to the rules of society.
This 1% controls roughly 90% of the wealth. now if THAT isn't twisted, I don't know what is. So, according to your calcuations and mine, 90% of our country's wealth is owned by rich snobs.

These high-rollers run politics and move the economy with their decisions. They can lose as much as 70% of their income and still bring in a fortune. I won't ask you to sympathize with them because they don't need it.

So why shouldn't we sympathize with the woman who works three full-time jobs to have enough to keep her kids clothed and fed? Why shouldn't they be allowed the benefits of decent living?

My uncle has a saying: If you give a rich man $1,000, he'll put it into some offshore account. If you give a poor man $1,000, he'll use it to pay bills/buy food/liquor whatever, but he's still PUTTING IT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
Calbeck at 3:37AM, April 21, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
The Big Lie I'm seeing in progress began with “Bush stole the election” in 2000.

Some 40% of the electorate believes that the sitting President illegally seized power by subverting the electoral system. Having already established in their eyes that he is a criminal of the highest magnitude, they are easy to convince that he is likewise capable (or just plain guilty) of any number of crimes.

Proof doesn't enter into it. It is the belief in the first Big Lie that drives the belief in all the others that follow.

The truth is simple:

We have had two presidential elections so tightly contested that the margin of victory fell into the long-ignored — because it never mattered before — margin of error.

The Supreme Court of the United States did not “appoint Bush”; it ruled that Florida could not violate its own election laws. Them's the rules, folks.

The United States was named by the United Nations as a direct signatory to the 1991 cease-fire — not peace treaty — Hussein's government agreed to. This is what made both 1998's “Operation Desert Fox” and the 2003 invasion legitimate: the US and Iraq had never been at peace between 1991 and 2003.

Bush's “tax cuts for the rich” gave less than one-third of the cuts to the people who pay over half of the taxes — the rich — and the rest to everyone else.


Is everything “just ducky”? No. I have always considered Bush the Younger a mediocre, uninspiring figure and did not vote for him in 2000. He is a spendthrift with more “vision” than concern for details. Iraq is overrun with confirmed cases of mass profiteering and little apparent oversight.

These are things that can and should be investigated — but they are buried under almost-daily accusations of little or no merit, the nigh-incoherent screams of misaligned rage from the rank and file of the left, and the too-readily-accepted claims of various conspiracies that bog down the real issues. With such tripe has the Democratic Party sought to reinvigorate its previously-flagging fortunes through sheer vitriol. And it has in large measure succeeded to date, gaining a narrow majority in Congress and a possible presidency next year…

…and all they had to do was utterly divide the nation with hate to do it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
Calbeck at 4:42AM, April 21, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
Kohdok
$300 is SHIT in today's economy. $300 MIGHT be able to pay a LITTLE of ONE of the things you're talking about. Median income is just about $3,000 a month. A person who only gets 10% of what they need a month to survive feels CHEATED.

If you need $3,000/month to SURVIVE, you're either in the hospital on life support or living in Manhattan on gourmet food. For most people, that's a month's worth of groceries: you'd be bloody ecstatic if you walked into your local store and they just handed everyone walking in that day a $300 gift card.

How big of a check would make you HAPPY? I don't think you can name a figure that could realistically be applied to the entire country. It's just not enough FOR YOU.

Yes, the burdens of buying huge houses, ranches, boats, bailing their children out of whatever they do. Oh SO much trouble…

Yeah, sucks that YOU CAN'T, doesn't it? Envy makes hatred so easy. They're paying more than their fair share right now, but envy makes you want them to pay more, because you see those houses and ranches and boats and whatnot and say to yourself "that's a needless luxury; I can do without that, and so should they".

This 1% controls roughly 90% of the wealth.

The reality is that 10% controls 71%. Which I'm sure you still consider extremely unfair.

So why shouldn't we sympathize with the woman who works three full-time jobs to have enough to keep her kids clothed and fed?

120 hours per week at $5.85/hr is over $38K/yr. If she can't feed or clothe her kids on that, she's not trying.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
bobhhh at 6:30PM, April 21, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Calbeck
The Big Lie I'm seeing in progress began with “Bush stole the election” in 2000.

Some 40% of the electorate believes that the sitting President illegally seized power by subverting the electoral system. Having already established in their eyes that he is a criminal of the highest magnitude, they are easy to convince that he is likewise capable (or just plain guilty) of any number of crimes.

Proof doesn't enter into it. It is the belief in the first Big Lie that drives the belief in all the others that follow.

The truth is simple:

We have had two presidential elections so tightly contested that the margin of victory fell into the long-ignored — because it never mattered before — margin of error.

The Supreme Court of the United States did not “appoint Bush”; it ruled that Florida could not violate its own election laws. Them's the rules, folks.

The United States was named by the United Nations as a direct signatory to the 1991 cease-fire — not peace treaty — Hussein's government agreed to. This is what made both 1998's “Operation Desert Fox” and the 2003 invasion legitimate: the US and Iraq had never been at peace between 1991 and 2003.

Bush's “tax cuts for the rich” gave less than one-third of the cuts to the people who pay over half of the taxes — the rich — and the rest to everyone else.


Is everything “just ducky”? No. I have always considered Bush the Younger a mediocre, uninspiring figure and did not vote for him in 2000. He is a spendthrift with more “vision” than concern for details. Iraq is overrun with confirmed cases of mass profiteering and little apparent oversight.

These are things that can and should be investigated — but they are buried under almost-daily accusations of little or no merit, the nigh-incoherent screams of misaligned rage from the rank and file of the left, and the too-readily-accepted claims of various conspiracies that bog down the real issues. With such tripe has the Democratic Party sought to reinvigorate its previously-flagging fortunes through sheer vitriol. And it has in large measure succeeded to date, gaining a narrow majority in Congress and a possible presidency next year…

…and all they had to do was utterly divide the nation with hate to do it.

Nice try hijacking this thread. I for one think Gore lost the election fair and square. Forget Florida, had Gore conducted a better campaign he would have won without Florida. He couldn't even carry his home state.

Bush has done a lot of heinous things, but stealing the election wasn't one of them. Gore's retraction of his concession was nearly as embarrasing as the Clinton witchunt and impeachment proceedings conducted by the Neocons.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
Calbeck at 10:55PM, April 21, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
bobhhh
Nice try hijacking this thread.

It ain't hijacking to be on topic.

I for one think Gore lost the election fair and square. Forget Florida, had Gore conducted a better campaign he would have won without Florida. He couldn't even carry his home state.

And I agree. Then again, I was referring to 40% of the electorate in general, not you in specific.

Gore's retraction of his concession was nearly as embarrasing as the Clinton witchunt and impeachment proceedings conducted by the Neocons.

Doesn't help Clinton's case that he agreed to a plea deal in which he would not be prosecuted for three incidents of perjury in exchange for, amongst other things, settling with Paula Jones.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
bobhhh at 8:55PM, April 22, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Calbeck
bobhhh
Nice try hijacking this thread.

It ain't hijacking to be on topic.



No the topic was about the lie of cutting welfare programs as a panacea for an ailing economy whilst blowing money on military misadventures and corporate welfare and tax cuts for the most wealthy.

I oughta know I started it.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
imshard at 11:57PM, April 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
bobhhh
Calbeck
bobhhh
Nice try hijacking this thread.[/quote
It ain't hijacking to be on topic.
No the topic was about the lie of cutting welfare programs as a panacea for an ailing economy whilst blowing money on military misadventures and corporate welfare and tax cuts for the most wealthy.
I oughta know I started it.

To be fair there were plenty of posts discussing the proper topic. And for a rebuttal I say: Allowing corporations to profit from their own efforts, conniving and shameless profiteering hardly constitutes welfare, and we do in fact pay out more for welfare/medicare/other social programs than we do on the military. Personally I refuse to believe that tax cuts are a bad idea or that they only benefit the wealthiest citizens. Reducing spending in general really would constitute a tax relief. It just depends on your economic theory if you believe that people having more money to spend would boost the economy.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Calbeck at 12:15AM, April 23, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
bobhhh
No the topic was about the lie of cutting welfare programs

The topic is “The Big Lie”. You listed your personal issue with what you consider one Big Lie. I listed another. They're both on topic.

Besides, you're incorrect. Bush spent nearly 60% more on welfare programs in 2006 ($1.672T) than Clinton did in 1998 ($1.087T). These programs included education, employment, training and social services, health, Medicare, income security, Social Security and veteran benefits.

http://www.fas.org/man/docs/fy00/historical/index.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/hist.html

And to stave off any “but Bush has a Democrat Congress now” arguments, the 1993 Democrat-majority Congress under Clinton spent $0.827T on the same programs, while the 2001 Congress (with a Republican-majority House and a slim-Democrat-majority Senate) under Bush spent $1.194T.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
bobhhh at 8:40AM, April 23, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Calbeck
bobhhh
No the topic was about the lie of cutting welfare programs

Besides, you're incorrect. Bush spent nearly 60% more on welfare programs in 2006 ($1.672T) than Clinton did in 1998 ($1.087T). These programs included education, employment, training and social services, health, Medicare, income security, Social Security and veteran benefits.

http://www.fas.org/man/docs/fy00/historical/index.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/hist.html

And to stave off any “but Bush has a Democrat Congress now” arguments, the 1993 Democrat-majority Congress under Clinton spent $0.827T on the same programs, while the 2001 Congress (with a Republican-majority House and a slim-Democrat-majority Senate) under Bush spent $1.194T.

Yeah Bush is a prince.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
bobhhh at 8:47AM, April 23, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Calbeck
bobhhh
No the topic was about the lie of cutting welfare programs

The topic is “The Big Lie”. You listed your personal issue with what you consider one Big Lie. I listed another. They're both on topic.

Ok you got me there, I should have been more specific, but i can see how my generic title gave you liscense to to list another percieved lie.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
Calbeck at 11:36PM, April 23, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
Calbeck
Bush spent nearly 60% more on welfare programs in 2006 ($1.672T) than Clinton did in 1998 ($1.087T).

bobhhh
Yeah Bush is a prince.

Gee, some people around here claim he's an emperor. Don't sell him short. -:D
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
ozoneocean at 1:40PM, April 24, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Calbeck
$300 is SHIT in today's economy. $300 MIGHT be able to pay a LITTLE of ONE of the things you're talking about. Median income is just about $3,000 a month.
You need that much with an actual family to support. Life is expensive, thre are lots of bills and on-going costs. That might have been a lot of money back in the 80's, but time has moved on.
Calbeck
120 hours per week at $5.85/hr is over $38K/yr. If she can't feed or clothe her kids on that, she's not trying.
WTF? Man, if I worked that many hours a week with what I'm paid I'd be happily well off, but dead. :(

But that pay level is criminal… You shouldn't be allowed to pay that low. With that total earning it'd be hard for a single mother to support more than a couple of kids. You must either live very cheaply (student?), or the cost of living is very low there for some reason, (subsidised?).
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:30PM
imshard at 5:30PM, April 24, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
ozoneocean
Calbeck
$300 is SHIT in today's economy. $300 MIGHT be able to pay a LITTLE of ONE of the things you're talking about. Median income is just about $3,000 a month.
You need that much with an actual family to support. Life is expensive, thre are lots of bills and on-going costs. That might have been a lot of money back in the 80's, but time has moved on.
Calbeck
120 hours per week at $5.85/hr is over $38K/yr. If she can't feed or clothe her kids on that, she's not trying.
WTF? Man, if I worked that many hours a week with what I'm paid I'd be happily well off, but dead. :(

But that pay level is criminal… You shouldn't be allowed to pay that low. With that total earning it'd be hard for a single mother to support more than a couple of kids. You must either live very cheaply (student?), or the cost of living is very low there for some reason, (subsidised?).

In the US the minimum wage is $5.85 at its lowest. Most states have it around $7.00 and some as high as $8.00 By July 24th, 2009 federal law has mandated $7.25 as the minimum. However the majority of minimum wage earners are typically single and just entering the job market. Plus those are the dirt bottom jobs. Most jobs pay at least a little more than minimum. In the cases of low wage earning families, there is a LOT of welfare and other government and charity assistance available and on average the working members earn $2-$3 more hourly than the local minimum. Only a few coastal states have high living costs in the US, with most (especially mid-west states) being very cheap to live in. ($300 bucks either takes care of rent or the rest of my living expenses for me). In my city for instance we enjoy a standard of living that costs 52% less than Boston and 28% less than LA. $3,000 a month can and does pay for a small American family.

NOTE: that calbeck example was extreme but carried a valid point. The minimum wage was calculated based on the local cost of living to ensure that the minimum wage earner had enough to pay for housing, food, and basic expenses. Now that it is being nationalized to a standard, many minimum wage earners will see a significant boost to their income, as they get more than needed to pay their base expenses.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Toshubi at 11:04PM, April 25, 2008
(online)
posts: 119
joined: 3-25-2006
I've been reading this topic for a couple of days and I'll chip in my thoughts here….
The poor…
The issue I see with our welfare system is that we have too many deadbeats just riding an assistance program that is supposed to be used temporarly untill the person using it can start supporting themselves. As long as there are people taking advantage of these programs they will continue to be a major financial burden that we ALL, (Rich and poor alike) will have to pay into. I've used these assistance programs in the past, and promptly got out of them once I was able to support myself.
As for taxing the rich… I do believe that the rich should pay a little more since they have the extra disposable income, but I don't think they should be taxed so heavly that it seriously impacts them to the point of tightening thier spending. Why do I believe this? Because poor people don't create jobs, the rich do. I've never been employed by a poor person. To some extent I agree with imshard.
imshard
tell me, how would you feel if you had a high stress job you had worked to build up everything you had and then some douchebag says you have to hand over more than half of what you earn every year. Talk about the principle of evading what you owe? how about having whats yours taken from you without recompense.
If I had saved and fought to make myself a fortune I would want to keep as much of it as I could too.
However…
I do believe that anyone, (Or any corperation) that makes it's fortune here in the U.S., owes it to this country and it's not so fortunate to keep U.S. jobs in the U.S. They've reaped the rewards of success here in the U.S. using our government, or our education system, or whatever it was that got them thier fortune. The least they could do is keep the jobs here in the U.S. When the rich start sending jobs overseas they are no longer helping our economy only themselves. I believe that companies that send jobs overseas should be taxed so hard that it hurts! I feel that this would help solve two issues. One, it would make companies think twice before shutting down factories and putting thousands out of work. Two, for the companies that still insist on sending jobs over seas, they would be assisting the funds for programs like welfare and food stamps since they technicaly created more poverty level people here in the U.S.

If I'm off topic I do apologize, but after losing three really good jobs to corperate downsizing and sending jobs and factories over seas, I'm a little biased to this line of thinking when the topic of tax breaks for the rich comes up.

Oh and on a side note,
Calbeck
Yeah, sucks that YOU CAN'T, doesn't it? Envy makes hatred so easy. They're paying more than their fair share right now, but envy makes you want them to pay more, because you see those houses and ranches and boats and whatnot and say to yourself “that's a needless luxury; I can do without that, and so should they”.
I think that most of us may be envyous that we aren't rich… but that doesn't mean that I feel I'm entitled to a free handout or that I think it's unfair to work for my pay. Being rich is a great power… and as the saying goes, “With great power comes great responsibility.” I can accept the fact that I can't go out and buy whatever I want, but that doesn't mean that I want to take away someone else's ability to do so. I just think that since they made thier fortune here in this country, the least they could do is give a little back to those who helped them reach the top. (The blue collar working class.)
Ya know that tough material they make the “black box” on airplanes?
Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:33PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved