The tax cuts that are being debated in Washington have been described as a jobs creating nessessity by the republicans. These tax cuts have been in effect for 10 years now and I have to wonder where all the jobs they created during their existence, have gone. Are we to believe that they will magically behave as they are supposed to only when the repubs are in control. We have been told that the rich will take this money and creat jobs with it. This may be true but I have to ask how jobs they like to create overseas, will help this country?
The whole thing is crap in my opinion. It is like you said, "were are the jobs?" The tax cuts have not yet expired but unemployment is at its highest.
Obviously, it doesn't work and had an adverse effect. But they are using it as an ultimatum and that is pretty wrong. "Give us a break or we will cut more jobs."
It's pretty sinister.
They will cut child nutrition programs, and help for the unemployed to pay for their welfare to the rich program. It amazes me to see poor republicans down here in la-la land, fighting programs and ideas that actually benefit them. Now before anyone starts, I know poor republican is an oxi-moron. However, every time I discuss the repubs, the word moron tend to make an appearance.
How Is allowing people to keep more of their OWN money "welfare for the rich". Welfare programs have only existed since the sixties, have done little if anything to reduce poverty, and have resulted in nearly 50 percent of the population now subsidizing the other half. It is a failed and very expensive experiment. What it has produced is a culture of dependence and entitlement. There was a time before welfare when people like my grandmother simply raised chickens and gardened and lived just fine without running water, plumbing, or electricity. She lived until she was 96. Of course, she didn't smoke, drink, shoot up opiates or smoke crack either. Poverty is the often the result of bad decisions made by the impoverished, and accepting welfare does nothing to break that pattern. I would recommend as alternate solutions homesteading, learning the importance of education, clean living, not having kids you can't afford, working a minimum of 80 hours a week, (not more than many of us docs do), and quitting making bad decisions, which universally produce bad results. To ask highly productive people to throw away half of their income to pay for a system that simply does not work, that in fact produces more dependence, is simply unsustainable, not to mention divisive. Paradoxically, if we want to end poverty, we need to end welfare. We would be better off to give each welfare recipient a one time gift of two acres of land, a plow, some vegetable seeds, and twenty chickens. After that, let the chips fall where they may. No one could claim they were the victim of a lack of opportunity
All except that perpetuating the tax cuts while we are still in two wars and facing growing deficits makes the concerns about the debt we are bequeathing to our grandchildren sound pretty hollow.
As I said previously, I wish Obama had told the GOP to get stuffed and allowed the Bush tax cuts lapse as scheduled.
I would agree that we probably don't need tax cuts or increases right now. What about the wars? They were such a bad thing when Bush was in. More than anything we need to end these wars!
Interesting read that does nothing to answer the original question. These so called job creating tax cuts have been in place for almost 10 years and we are facing the worst unemployment this country has ever faced. Where are the jobs and why should we believe that these tax cuts will suddenly start producing jobs if extended?
Is it your opinion that the majority of Americans should exist with out running water and electricity in order to give more to those who live in 25,000 square foot houses?
No, it is my opinion that anybody with some talent, intelligence, drive, an ability to delay gratification, and a strong work ethic who desires to live in a 25,000 square foot house can if that is what they really want, even in this economy.
I also disagree that the fellow in the big house is getting anything via the tax cuts, he is having less taken away.
As to not having running water or electricity, I do it all the time on wilderness trips, and it is surprisingly easy. Also take after my Grandma and raise a few yard birds and fruits and vegetables, and am pretty much off the grid. I have a great job, but if I lost it tomorrow, I would survive without government benefits. In addition to the homestead, plenty of game and fish out there. The point was that people survived just fine for centuries without these things and today a TV and a cell phone are considered by some to be basic human rights. We all need to look to ourselves for survival, not the rich, or anyone else.
Most of us are not living in the 1850's any more.
Poor people don't necessarily live where they can hunt game, couldn't afford to buy hunting equipment and wouldn't find enough to feed themselves if they did.
Wait until Sara Palin has her way and all of us will be hunting...
More, I can't, I can't, I can't. Exactly the crux of the problem.
Most supporters of the welfare state rely on this mentality.
They look at everything in terms of no-win situations. To them it is "realistic" to portray a world of poor people with absolutely no resources to utilize in order to better their own situations.
Once welfare began going mainstream, more people in need of it suddenly sprouted out from the woodwork. Whatever the government subsidizes, it creates more of. Drugs, poverty, war -- you name it!
It is a little narrow minded to say that most of the people struggling in today's economy are doing so because of bad decisions or a lack of effort. Unfortunatly, there are many professionals who have lost their jobs, as well as their homes. Recent graduates are stressing because they are now in debt from student loans, and unable to find jobs. The Republican "trickle-down" approach to economics only works in theory.
Our government is run by lobbiest who are not at concerned with our economy. They are being paid by large corporations to influence legislation in their favor. Large corporations have accepted many handouts, and have put our tax dollars in their pockets.
"It is a little narrow minded to say that most of the people struggling in today's economy are doing so because of bad decisions or a lack of effort. "
Well said - articulate, accurate. Reflects empathy. However you can't ever overcome the conservative strategy and ethos - Blame the victim.
Liberal Ethos-make everybody a victim. I, like everyone have made stupid decisions from time to time, and got EXACTLY what I deserved for making them. I was not a victim of anyone except myself for doing something asinine. My successes are a credit to myself, my failures my own. A few years ago I developed hypertension because I was completely stupid and allowed myself to get too heavy. The solution simple, a rigorous exercise program and and to stop eating like a pig, not continuing down the road to a heart attack and a disability application. Result-no more blood pressure problem, and 10 percent below ideal body weight. We perhaps cannot control all the variables in our lives, but we must control evey last one which we are able to intelligently and rigorously.
There are several studies that indicate that a significant portion of new college grads are not getting jobs because they chose majors that are not in demand, again poor decisions. For example, there are about a gazillion jobs going unfilled in healthcare right now, but virtually no jobs for undergraduate majors in English, psychology, and a number of other areas. In this economy, you do not have the luxury of majoring in an area of interest, you need to major in an area that you can use to support yourself, and learn to love it. Again, that nasty sense of entitlement rears it's ugly head. You must plan your life around economic reality, Trying to do the reverse will not work.
There has always been college students who choose useless majors. There are students graduating from law school that are unable to find employment. The medical field is also becoming saturated, and many of those jobs are a step above minimum wage. I assure you that I have no "entitlement issues." I was raised to work hard, and earn every dime that I recieve. Our economy is not suffering because of bottom feeders. The deterioration of the middle class is the problem.
"The medical field is also becoming saturated, and many of those jobs are a step above minimum wage."
No it isn't.
Jobs are very abundant in the medical field.
The medical field in many states is becoming saturated, because of the many people who are changing professions in hopes of earning more money. Because of the competition for these jobs, they are paying less than they have in the past.
Are you in the medical field?
There are too many jobs and not enough qualified people to fill them.
A CNA or some other type of care giver are not making big money but then again a month course is a bit shorter than what it takes to become a LVN,RN not to mention a physician etc.
Nice try though.
Your right. The problem is that the growth in health care is largely in geriatrics. Many of the new grads don't want to do that kind of work.
There are not enough jobs in the medical field to save middle class America or the economy. However, if the companies who have accepted tax breaks and government handouts created jobs here in the U.S., instead of out sourcing to sweat shops overseas, maybe middle class Americans could afford to consume goods and services at a rate that would boost the economy.
Good try though.
"However, if the companies who have accepted tax breaks and government handouts created jobs here in the U.S."
You got a tax break under Bush, I got a tax break under Bush, the wealthy got a tax break under Bush.
Whining and crying that the wealthy received something that you received is a bit odd to me.
Do you consider yourself more entitled?
He Jim I am an emergency physician and FindMy... has not a clue what they are talking about. There are shortages of primary care physicians, emergency physicians,, registered nurses, radiology technicians, physical therapiststs, and a host of others.
I would suggest you join th Marines if you are having trouble finding a job. Was a great start for a lot of us old guys.
"Our government is run by lobbiest who are not at concerned with our economy. They are being paid by large corporations to influence legislation in their favor. Large corporations have accepted many handouts, and have put our tax dollars in their pockets."
This is a HUGE problem. We follow the talking points of our chosen party while the above is running rampant on both sides of the aisle!
You are missing the fundamental point of the question. The Bush tax cuts were not removed with Democrats in 2006 and Obama in 2008. They have precided over the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression-there is no logical economic basis for their extension. Your tales of personal responsobility and hard work are accurate and inspiring but its the same company line we have been fed over and over. These current tax cuts have not created jobs-Period. That cannot be argued.
Ironically, you do identify the problem in your posting but not the one you think. The Democrats in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and now 2010 have been an integral part of the worst economy in decades. To lay all the blame on one man, even a president, is to miss how our government functions. The economic down turn started in 2007 and continues now. The Democrats have been in control of congress since 2007, nothing becomes law without congress - regardless of who the president is. What have the Democrats done to turn the economy around but deficit spend like no one ever has - even the evil "W."
I was not laying the blame on GW. I was saying that his tax cuts were in effect while the economy collapsed. There a lot of reasons (Wall Street, Sub Prime Housing Meltdown) and people (too many to name) that caused the mess we are in. The issue is whether giving the upper tax bracket creates jobs, and they havent.
Okay well that view is just wrong. The economic downturn was solely caused by the extended term forecast of financial uncertainty created by the aggressive liberal agenda. You may recall, (if not research it), this entire fiasco started when John McCain and Barrack Obama clinched their respective nominations.
Granted the financial structure in some ways was stacked like a house of cards. These nominations and the coming “winds of change” blew down the house. These resulting economic uncertainties about healthcare, cap and trade, a global community and increased governmental regulation and taxation all created a withdrawal from the markets trillions of dollars of investment capitol. This pullback caused the market downturn and the financial losses that began the unemployment climb and the resulting foreclosure storm.
Please do not misunderstand where I am coming from, I am a Libertarian, not a Democrat or a Republican. The problem is not too little taxation, but too much spending. The budget needs severe cutting, at least over the long term, and no area should be exempt. Neither party has demonstrated much fiscal restraint over the last 10 years, and we are not going to tax our way to prosperity.
Right you are! Who cares whether the tax break of 10 years ago created jobs. If it didn't, so what. History. That's not a good enough reason for goverment to demand more taxes from us. They need to be fiscally responsible first, then if a legitimate need arises, maybe we can talk about giving them more money.
Taxes should be left alone for the time being. Job creation is not going to get any better until business' feel more secure about the economy overall. The constant threat of Unions/card check, Cap and Trade and the new Health Care Law are also scaring off new jobs. Finally the US has lost it's greatest job genrator, that being manufacturing.
CJ, did we lose our greatest jobs creator or did those who seek this continuation of the tax break send our jobs overseas?
Lets be clear. The Republicans are for extending the tax cuts, not the Democrats. The Democrats brought us NAFTA, not the Republicans. NAFTA knocked the exit door off it's hinges as business' rushed to Mexico. Later because of more regulations business' sent the customer support business' to India. Clothing to Asia, etc, etc. It goes on and on. We have lost our job base in this country. We have outsourced our jobs and replaced our work ethic with a sense of entitlement. All must bow before the holy alter of government it seems.
We are in the worst economic crisis in decades and the Congress is worried about the volume of TV Commercials or the fact that small farms are selling raw milk. These are your elected officials, democrat and republican.
They have created jobs for bankers and hedge fund managers. I heard GM was hiring - overseas. Thats where the jobs were created.
Of course they created jobs!
Unfortunately those jobs are in India and China, but the theory of not taxing the rich absolutely makes sense.
Not for us, necessarily, of course.
It's my understanding that these cuts were originally intended to expire. I appologize that I don't have the link to the government site where I read an old study about these cuts.
good ol' minimum wage : preventing people from asking for lower wages to keep their jobs.
Keep them. Don't keep them. The economy is going into the waste bucket for bigger reasons either way.
Ideologically it's a good idea to extend tax cuts for EVERYONE if you are in favor of limited government and free-markets. Government does not own your life, and it is not an act of generosity when they let you keep x amount of what you earn.
But Bush's was a shell game -- lower taxes without curbing spending, and have the fed print the money to make-up for the shortfall.
Lower taxes for the top earners do not create economic prosperity if you have a fiat currency, an overseas empire, a fed manipulating interest rates, and a growing deficit in the trillions.
As far as policy is concerned it is a step in the right direction, but the economy will go to crap for much bigger reasons regardless of whether or not the cuts are kept.
And, again, this is a minuscule issue when compared to the grand scheme of things -- another topic of debate to divide the right from the left and take focus off of much bigger problems affecting our economy.
Wish we were talking about whether or not to get rid of the IRS -- now THERE'S a topic of substance!
I have to point out a major problem with the bush handling of the war in Iraq. This problem is the pallets of 100 dollar bills that cheney and his cohorts stole. Cheney's company got 20 billion dollars worth of cost plus contracts. Cheney's company caused two major oil spill catastrophies involving mud. They let Obama in the whitehouse to distract the general public from the continued rape of our country.
I've been on a search of late. I have been searching for one thing good that came from the Bush admin. Can any bushites help me and point out 1 good thing bush and the repubs did in 8 yrs?
Can anyone state the reason bush is in the 2003 guiness book of world records? If you know the answer, make less than 300.000 dollars a year, and still vote repub, you deserve the pain you are suffering now.
nothing is black and white...all sides are corrupt...the economy is caused by the various of how things are handled...if the Constitution were followed simply and efficiently there would not be this huge problem...as long as the Fed is in the mix there will be problems of allowing the elites to run the lives of the masses
GOP blocks increase for millionaires--
Senate Republicans have blocked legislation allowing taxes to rise on Jan. 1 on people earning more than $1 million.
Read more: GOP blocks bill to raise taxes on $1M-plus income | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20101204/N … z17AOUG6DR
Do you see how twisting words around can make anyone who isn't informed believe what the headline says? It's what the headline does not say that is just as important, that is that they blocked it because it's unfair to discriminate against a class of people. Well, let me rephrase. It's unfair for everyone except rich white people. We can discriminate against them.
the point that small businesses could be hurt is valid if they don't get the tax cuts...why can't congress single that out, how hard would that be to do?
A business can earn a quarter mil and get a cut on that income...it's only after that that the tax increase comes in.
Are you telling me that is more agregious than increasing medicare fees for seniors with an average income of $18,000?
How about somebody like Limbaugh, who earns 39 mil...he gets 2 mil back. He really needs that 2 mil back? On whose back?
You know , they keep saying "shared sacrifice"--well, it wasn't shared prosperity! Why should people who already went under sink even lower, while those who went up keep rising?
The only reason we have those millionaire bonuses is because the Repubs base is wealthy people...and when Bush came in, they got paid!
They do not create jobs with that money--they keep it. Stop lieing to us over and over and over again...we SEE the results of Bush-era tax-cuts.....DISASTER!!!
I disagree with Rush on many levels, but do not begrudge him his income or his desire to keep more of it one bit. What is killing our culture is the exact sense of entitlement expressed by some here. Want to earn more? Get your own ultra-popular radio show, get drafted by the NFL, our go to school for 12 or 15 years beyond high school and become a brain surgeon or Trial Lawyer. Not talented or smart enough do do any of those things? Then shut up and live with it. The constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of ability. I cannot believe how much people worry that somebody else makes more than they do.
Let me address a few things about your post because you make some good points that are often repeated. If you firmly believe that we should live in a society where the means of production are controlled by the government, and reward for hard work and smarts is minimal then you are following a Communist ideology that proved to be wrong in the last century. This is not the Communist ideal Marx dreamed of but that’s a discussion for another time. I don’t agree with people like this. I agree that if you go to law school or have some special talent you should be compensated more. The issue with these tax breaks is whether we should ask the wealthy who have had it very good for a long time, to make a sacrifice during an economic cataclysm. These are people who have millions and billions and dollars and whether you agree or not, have had government assistance in obtaining this wealth through lobbying of the government to deregulate industries, promote oligopolies and corporate welfare. So when you think of people that need their taxes increased don’t think of Rush Limbaugh or Lebron James, think of Comcast or Verizon executives who provide lousy service and high rates and get away with it.
Yeah--I know how it was before welfare too. My Mother-in-law experienced it first hand, Beaten and tortured by a brute of a husband, and having no where to go.
Of course, you'll blame her for being with him in the first place, but it wasn't her fault. Or her kids, who also were beaten.
But you know, where was she to go with 7 mouths to feed?
Welfare would have been a blessing for her, and I would gladly give it!
What I resent giving is more more more to those already wealthy.
Because you see--we have a big country, with lots of people, and lots of things need to be done.
And people who live here contribute to it.
Now-when you take 700 billion away from that contribution, SOMEBODY has got to make up for it.
You do know they are BORROWING money from China for that tax give-away don't you?
Guess who they will come after to make up that 700 billion of the so-called deficit reducers (HA!!!)?
They will come after those who have less.
Poor get poorer, so the rich can get richer......OLIGARCHY my brother, OLIGARCHY.
Can I ask you---why wasn't a cut on $250,000 enough for them? Why did they have to get a break on extreme wealth on top of that?
Why do they only pay FICA on $103,000 of their income?
Seems to me, they get a LOT of welfare themselves! And they don't neeed it!
It's not worrying that someon makes more, it's that they don't pay their fair share, and they make less well off make up for it!!!!
Um, the wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.
Seems to me that the rich are already paying more than their "fair share"....
This piece of logic never penetrates dense heads. It's unfortunate.
That's true. Maybe we should balance the budget and finance the wars and government programs by raising the taxes on Social Security, welfare and unemployment compensation.
OMG! It's the same thing over and over again. One doesn't understand the tax structure and thinks millionaires are only taxed on $103,000., another one thinks the government borrowed money from China to PAY millionaires to keep their money, another one thinks the only way to balance the budget is to raise taxes on SS, etc. Why can't they just stop spending in foreign countries, stop giving our money away to foreign governments for causes which don't directly benefit the U.S.? Why do we need to support the world? Aarrgh.
FICA is taxed on income up to $103,000. The rest of the income is taxed with fed and state only.
So, you can earn 5 million dollars, and have 397,000,000 of it go FICA free.
Meanwhile, a school teacher who earns $65,000 has FICA, fed and state taken out of ALL of it......get it?
As percentage of income, the Uber Rich pay less than anyone.
Because, FICA is more than fed and state combined.
So, a poor person earning $20,000 has to give up more out of their labor than a billionaire has to give up from sitting on investments. Not MONETARY wise, but as percent of income.
Or, in other words, poor people pay more of their wealth into the system than an Uber, who enjoys luxury at less personal expense.
Gotta love it....and they decry any attempt to even it out as Socialism. What have we got now?.....
Let them eat cake?
"It's not worrying that someon makes more, it's that they don't pay their fair share, and they make less well off make up for it!!!!"
Then don't be less well off. By the way there is no constitutional prohibition of discrimination on the basis of ability. If you have the ability ,fortitude and drive, and feel like one gains advantage by being rich, then get rich.
Additionally, no one needs to make up the 700 bil. It needs to be cut from the bloated bureaucracy.
Its not wealth envy. It's the rich have enough, why the hell do we have to give them more? They don't need tax cuts. I know this for a fact, I am them and i don't need more "Disposable income" I would rather the money go where it is needed. thanks tho...
Who decides what is enough? From where does the power to order someone to surrender their property to the government derive? By whose standard will we all live or is it just a few who will be forced to live one way and others permitted to live another? The complexity of a price regulated free market place always eludes those who believe that all the knowledge necessary to determine who should own how much, make how much, keep how much, spend how much is attainable by the state. It is the same arrogance that destroyed the Soviet Union.
No group of individuals can know enough to make the billions of economic decisions made daily in the United States and so there are those who decide that they will surrender my liberty to the state because they say I have enough. Arbitrary, subjective and ultimately tyrannical the centrally controlled economy destroys wealth and freedom by attempting to redistribute. The market does have a wisdom of its own when it is allowed to function free of interference, coercion, force or fraud.
Free markets raise global standards of living, available products - both necessities and luxuries, and promotes peaceful relations between nations. Fascism, Communism and Isalmic government/economics cannot make such a claim. The miracle has happened and liberals refuse not only to see it but let it continue.
You are exactly correct.
What is "enough" is relative to what a person desires. While someone may consider $500,000/yr salary as more than enough, the person who earns that much may desire a million dollar mansion and two Lambos, in which case $500,000 isn't going to cut it.
Should they be hindered from making one, two, or three million dollars more by redistributing their earnings through the tax system, just because some bureaucrat decides that anything over $250,000 is "enough"? Of course not.
There should be no cap on earning or desire, and those who achieve past a certain degree of wealth should not be penalized through a redistributive tax system.
Even more plain and more thorough - why don't we all live as the poorest live, same living space, water, calories, energy, clothing, entertainment, everything in absolutely equal portions so that we know that no one gets too much. The problem arises when those who actually produced the wealth enjoyed by so many are compelled to live exactly like every one else. Ever read Animal Farm or 1984?
Only through liberty can any kind of real equity exist.
People on low incomes pay for hospitals, cops, roads, benefits--but people on high incomes often pay no tax at all. Objecting to that isn't wealth envy, its a desire for basic fairness.
"but people on high incomes often pay no tax at all."
That's not true.
Prove that statement.
I mean prove it with a real source.
One of our Chicago mayoral candidates paid no tax for several years, a fact even he sould not deny when directly questioned on it. It is quite possible to do by running a deliberately non-profitable business, using family trusts etc.
I think you will find many top business people paid no net tax. All it takes is a lot of money, a lot of assets and a very good accountant.
So basically you have no credible source?
So there's a handful, relatively speaking, of people not paying their taxes. And a Chicago mayoral candidate being one of them doesn't suprise me. I think it would be funny if no one paid any taxes (if we could get away with it) just to see what would happen.
Let me just put this in an understandable way. The rich have absolutely no social or financial obligation to the poor,whatsoever, and that is PERFECTLY FAIR. Some of us give through charity and contributions, but that is by personal choice, not by government fiat to redistribute income.I do not ever recall asking a poor person to subsidize me, so why should it work the other way around. Poor life results are always the result of poor life decisions. We all make 'em, some just way more than others
Actually, the poor do subsidize many of us. Poor people mow my lawn and shovel my walkways, bus my table in restaurants, polish my wife's nails, wash my car.. If there were not so many of them, these services would cost me far more than I can afford. Their desperation makes them willing to work for wages that often require three or four jobs for a family to survive - even without children. The poor have always subsidized my life of privilege.
Paying people to do work at the prevailing rate is not a subsidy, it is Capitalism working.
You fail to understand that it is they who are providing the subsidy to us.
That is because they aren't. They are working under contract at the prevailing wage. Hope you tried to negotiate those prices down. It's your responsibility in a capitalist economic system. I salute them for working. Are you withholding taxes or filing 1099s on them?
Perhaps as a capitalist running dog, a leftist whiner and a self loathing beneficiary of wage slave sacrifice you should help out the poor and let them live in your home, eat your food, use your razor, sleep in your bed, borrow your car - that way you can assuage your guilt.
Why is it that liberals so bound up in their own self loathing and sin want to punish everyone for their failure to personally redistribute their own wealth? It is the liberal who says, "Since I want the poor to do better I will take your property to make it happen." It is the conservative who says, "I am satisfied with what I have now I will do - with my own money - what I want to help others attain financial wealth. You do what you want to do."
The liberal is not happy doing what he wants with that which is his unless he can make you do what he wants with that which is yours.
Socialist heal they self.
I don't know about pcunix, but my nail girl makes about $400. cash in tips alone a week. Not rich by but certainly not poor. It takes my lawn guy about 40 minutes to mow my lawn. He gets $25. That's about $36. an hour. Cash money. My father worked 3 jobs, I've worked 2. Now work 50 hours a week and attend college 1/2 time. Still think the rich should keep their money unless they choose to give it away to me.
I guess you are right Rundy; not inheriting a fortune from parents is a poor choice some people make, just like living in a bad area of the city and not having enough money to go to college
Not to mention having a disability...
The disabled in the US are cared for. They are trained, educated, provided with medical care, etc, etc. I don't think anyone would deny them that. To lump those who are truly in need with those who simply have lost their humanity to government dependecny is rediculous.
Not if you are not disabled enough to qualify. For example, there are some jobs I cannot do like those where I have to stand a lot. Yet, I would not qualify for government aid. I am so grateful I have a job right now because I would have a very hard time finding another one due to that disability and my age.
Did you happen to read about the woman whose transplant was canceled as she was heading for the operating room thanks to a cut in Medicaid? It's called an Arizona GOP death panel.
Agreed, things like this will happen when you rely on a huge, impersonal government. My point exactly. We pay all of these taxes and still can't adequately provide for those in need. However weve been told this lie about Social Security and Medicare and now the new Healtcare law. Nothings going to change. Now, that being said. The disabled get SSI, Medicaid and other benefits. There is only so much you can expect from a government.
You can call it "Republican Death Panels" if you like. Rhetoric for the heart strings at best. You know as well as I. Once this Healthcare law is in full effect "death panels" will be black and white policy.
No one wants to sound cold, but needing a transplant is not what one would consider "Disabled". They are however in need of medical care as part of a disease or illness treatment. The people you are speaking of are getting their treatment. The state simply cannot afford the transplants. Specifically transplants that do not enjoy high success rates. When you have a large number of people drawing from one pool of money, in a down economy, people will be left out. There is no stopping it.
Note: The ACLU wont be coming to these folks rescue.
Note: The Obama Admin WONT be filing a law suit against AZ for this.
Note: Follow the story Ralph, I bet some "Rich Death Panel
Republican" shells out a lot of cash to help these 98 people in Arizona who have been turned down.
Since you decided to be partisan, lets see if the Obama Administration sends them a check. It's only 20 Million. Hell, he had Hillary drop off 150 Million to the Pallestinians last month. I know, foriegn aid is a drop in the bucket.....
Arizona, a great example of a state going broke because of a foriegn invasion. The Federal governments answer? LAWSUIT!
That is typically a liberal thing.
They love those crooked trial lawyers.
Son ain't good enough to play baseball...LAWSUIT.
Daughter too ugly to be Miss Teen USA...LAWSUIT
A State exercising its right to protect its boundary...LAWSUIT.
Two Angry Black Panther Party members intimidating voters...Move along, nothing to see here.
And so your right? That someone, whom I've never met, is more entitled to something than I am? Simply because of bad luck? How does that pass the logic test?
The vast majority of the wealthy did not inherit anything. I grew up dirt poor. If I can make it anyone can.
I grew up in the city, 2 parents, 5 kids in a walk-up apartment with no green space. Father worked 3 jobs. No reason to be entitled to any government aid, such as minority status, illegal status, or disability. Parents wouldn't take it even if there were. We've never expected the rich to give to us, we only aspired, whether rightly or wrongly, to earn more for ourselves. Funny, thing, though, the more I earn, the more I give away. What a concept. If you leave people to their own devices, most of us are somehow empowered to make our own decisions for our money. We have even been known to do the right thing.
The purpose of taxes is not to promote social justice or percieved fairness. It's to pay for government. Social Security and Medicare are certainly stretching the "Common Welfare" phrase in the Constitution. In truth these programs have only led to more entitlement programs. Programs that do nothing more than create government dependency. All in the name of compassion.
Somehow, maybe because they've been in place so long, I understand the need for SS and Medicare. Because of the way our society is set up, older people are forced to retire, let go, given packages or otherwise disassociated from their jobs. The average middle class is generally not proficient in financial growth endeavors so allowing medical insurance to the elderly is benevolent. SS is not meant to be a retirement income but this is unfortunately what it has become for many and even that is taxed to supplement their Medicare care.
Personally I think those who have more should provide more towards the public good, and that is in fact fair. whether you come at from a Christain perspective, an economic one, or a socialist one.
No, everybody paying the same rate is fair.
What you suggest is completely unfair.
But it is amazing how people think it is fair.
They KNOW its not fair they are just angry that someone is able to make more money.
Its really kind of sad.
Jim, I think they sincerely think it's fair. Taxes were a way to pay for the services that government provides. But people see taxes now as a way to redistribute income. It never enters their head that the person who earns a high income, pays the most taxes but still gets the similar government services to someone who doesn't pay as much, as unfair. And I still haven't gotten over the stat that currently 50% of people in the US don't pay taxes.
"They" didn't get this idea on their own. They were tought it by the party that brought us the "Great Society". Isn't life grand?
Oh yeah, the war on poverty and the beginning of the community organizer
I don't know about you, but I was taught by my mom and dad.
"When one is suffering, we all suffer. Don't think about what you can do for you, think of what you can do for others." etc etc....
And some Jewish carpenter back some 2000 years ago said all the same things!!
You know...that JC dude.
You're citing the JC dude you don't think exists?
Au Contraire...I even wrote a Hub about it. You don't know me vewwy well.
Here's some more hypocriciy from your side of the aisle:
"The CBS News/New York Times poll shows 53% of Americans agree with President Barack Obama to end tax cuts for the wealthy, while 38% think it’s a bad idea and 9% do not know.
Two-thirds of Democrats think tax cuts for the wealthiest should expire, in addition to most independents (55%). The majority of Republicans (57%) think it’s a bad idea."
Errrr, I thought the Repubs were elected to "Do the will of the people"...???
That's what they said!
Just like they want to start working on the deficit. Uh Huh...yeah riiiiight.
""When one is suffering, we all suffer. Don't think about what you can do for you, think of what you can do for others." etc etc...."
"ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country"
Some JFK dude said that, you can pay your fair share in taxes.
Thank you, that is all.
Explain to me how it helped my country to send jobs overseas, put money in Swiss bank accounts and outsource your accounting to avoid paying US taxes????
Oh Ho Ho Ho.....Santa got a good laugh at that one!
This is all so very simple that it boggles the mind that there are those who can't grasp it.
We should not be worried about increasing tax revenues but rather growing the economy.
When the rich are sure that they wont be raped by higher taxes they will invest, they will invest to get richer. That investment will get the economy growing.
Looking back over Bush's terms as President and asking where the jobs were is ridiculous, the US was embroiled in two wars and that screwed up the economy more than anything.
Fight the war to win or get the hell out of it.
Here's a link for you Jim and a brief excerpt of what you will find. This was written in 2003 and it amazes me how quickly the American people forget when they are instructed to.
"In the early 1980s, Reagan promised the nation that if we lowered tax rates on the wealthy, the economy would grow so much the federal budget would be balanced "within three years, maybe even two."
Sober people were skeptical-and rightly so. Reagan's Republican opponent for the 1980 presidential election, George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo economics." His own Budget Director, David Stockman, called it a "Trojan horse," a scam intended really to funnel more money to the already rich. Stockman was quickly dismissed.
The results, we now know, were a disaster. In 1982, the first full year after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy actually shrank 2.2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. And the effect on the federal budget was catastrophic."
Again, will someone explain to me how extending the very tax cuts that cost us millions of jobs will magically produce them this time around.
"The results, we now know, were a disaster."
There was no disaster, the economy grew and grew.
I lived it, your spin won't work.
What spin? Look at the shape this country is in and try to explain how it's not a result of Bush and Reagan policies. You are actually telling me that the economy is in better shape now than when Reagan and either of the bushes were running things? You feel that all of their policies were beneficial to the entire country and the world? Repubs want these tax breaks to make up for the losses they caused with the deregulation of the financial industry.
What spin? Your spin, whoever filled your head full of myths about the economic boom in the 80's spin.
This is probably why Reagan is the second highest rated modern President behind JFK and before Bill Clinton who was kept in check by a Republican congress.
You are talking about Income Taxes. They don't pay, because they don't make enough income to justify it!
Or, are you saying that 50% of Americans don't work?
ALL workers pay FICA.......except those whose earnings are, oh say...5 MIL or so. Then THEY are excempt from FICA on $497,000,000 of it. Go figure!
Rich people pay more in dollar amounts, because they have more money. But, as a percentage of their income, they pay less that everyone.
Middle: FICA, state, federal
Ultra Rich: fed and state, no FICA
ding ding ding!!!!! Middle class gets hit the most!
Most companies paid no taxes during the boom
With corporate tax receipts at 20-year low, the GAO takes a look through the books and finds 94% of all U.S. companies paid less than 5% -- and 61% paid nothing at all.
Think about this as you sign that check to Uncle Sam next week: More than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000, the General Accounting Office reports.
In 2000 alone, 94% of all U.S. corporations paid less than 5% of their total income in corporate taxes, the GAO said in a report released Friday. Among the largest corporations -- the 1% of all corporations that owns 93% of all corporate assets -- 82% paid less than 5% of their income in taxes."-- By MSN Money staff and news services
Read it and Weep.
"More than 60% of all U.S. companies paid no federal tax at all during the boom years of 1996 to 2000"
There is a reason to not vote for a democrat.
Thanks for the info..
and who controlled the congress...I agree with you, but that's going to be the retort.....
Did you see the part about boom years?
And they paid less in taxes than a poor mom.
You say Dems are anti-business, they are not.
Corporate America had their best quarter EVER this past quarter.
So--how are they deserving of little to no taxes?
"And they paid less in taxes than a poor mom."
Whatever that poor mom paid in taxes she got back twice as much from the earned income credit.
Care to answer a question....once in your life?
Checkmate. Of course this will only get you labled as an ^$$#()!&
I am too (for myself that is). When the argument of fairness comes up regarding taxes we have to remember it's normally just a smoke screen for redistribution of wealth. Something that's totally unconstitutional. As we see with all redistribution programs such as EIC or entitlement programs such as welfare. Too much is never enough.
"You say Dems. are anti-business. They are not. Corporate America had their best quarter ever this past quarter."
So are the Dems for rich corporate business or not?
No little guys there. Best quarter ever? Improved economy?
Is it because the Dems are not anti-business that the rich are getting richer?
I'm only saying that there is a lot of contradiction there.
This just goes to show a little knowledge can be dangerous. For every FICA tax that the employee pays, the employer pays the other half. In fact there's a whole slew of taxes and expenses that have to be paid before the corporation pays the corporate tax. The corporation ges double taxation. But there are people who think they know so much by reading one article.
It's a hella lot more than one articlel. Hell--you could spend all day on Halliburton alone!
Again...a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Not dangerous, just eye-opening.
The Uber Rich/Robber Barons/Banks have made out like BANDITS, while the rest of us are floundering.
Genie is out of the bottle.
It's Highway Robbery!
You need to return the money you have received and start paying your fair share.
I do pay fair..there are no loopholes and accounting tricks for me. I'm an honest person. Ahem!
You guys are forgetting the "corporate tax" paid by shareholders on their stock. This is paid as capital gains.
Here's a reason to vote Democrat.
Between 1992 and 2000, the U.S. economy produced the longest sustained economic expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 18 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years.
Real interest rates fell by over 40% producing the greatest housing boom ever. Overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations. Most impressively, Clinton reversed the mammoth deficits of the Supply Side years, turning them into surpluses. He used these surpluses to begin paying down the national debt.
By virtually every meaningful measure-employment, growth, inflation, interest rates, investment, deficits and debt-the economy performed better once the Supply Side experiment was terminated and replaced with a more honest economic policy where we actually pay our bills as we go.
How many times do we have to watch this intentional destruction of our country by the Republicans? This is the third time they have fought for this type of policy and that the first two attempts ended in disaster matter not in the least.
re: FICA - the government mandated "retirement" program
Let's see. In very round numbers, the poor will pay 7% of the $20,000 they earn each year and get back, depending on their lifespan, perhaps triple what they paid.
The rich will pay the same 7% of $100,000 each year and get back, because they created a perpetual income, probably nothing.
Fair and equitable, yes? Robin Hood did much the same...steal from the rich and give to the poor. Very ethical.
Should? Yes. Be forced to by government? No.
I say should because I personally believe we should want to help out other people if we have the means to do so. But that is a personal conviction and not one I would ever force on any body else nor demand that the government force it.
If someone wants to save every penny they earn, well, it's their money. They can do whatever they wish with it....
Actually, people who have more do provide more for the public good. They have more so they get taxed more. If I paid $100 a year in taxes and they paid $100 a year in taxes, we'd be paying the same. But I pay a lot less than someone earning 1 mil. In fact, they pay more in taxes than I gross. I'd say that's about as fair as it can get. And most of them give to charitable causes. Yes it's a tax write-off but they're still contributing to the public good.
Tax-payers MADE 17 million profit from Citibank loan.
Good going Obama!!!
Capitalism at its finest, eh?
Everyone benefits...that's the deal right?
Thank God Obama understands that we matter too....not just Business.
Good going. Now we can keep the tax cut.
Tax cut had nothing to do with it.
It was the good deal the Obama administration made.
Just as with GM.
This tax cut will only provide for those who already have more than 95% of us. It will do nothing for anybody else. When will you admit that?
After the next 8 years of seeing it with your own eyes?
I guess I am a terrible person, I don't mind paying taxes if I know it will help someone less fortunate than I am. I don't assume that everyone is lazy if they are poor just as I don't assume that every rich person got there due to hard work.
Everyone should pay the same percentage of their income...if that means I pay more when I earn more then so be it...
That I can agree to. In fact, thats the way it is in the US today, by design. The problem is that our wonderfull legislators in congress have, either by incompetence or intent, left loopholes in the tax law.
Actually, that's not the way it is, C.J. We don't all pay the same percentage. I wish we did. People who earn more pay a higher percentage than those who earn less. It's not a flat tax across the board. Some pay 15%, some pay as much as 40%. I'd say their contributing well. It's those bastards in Congress that are eating us up alive. And U.W., with respect, please don't be so naive as to believe that you're taxes are going exclusively to help the less fortunate.
Wouldn't it be better for you to give those dollars directly to a charity of your choosing, rather than have it confiscated by the government?
THAT'S called losing your humanity!
But don't fret....Russsshhhhhhwill still get his extra 2 mil!
Bravo! I ask my self that question too. If they were going to create so many jobs, then why haven't they been doing it thus far. Maybe because they were helping the Republicans get back into office by making the American people suffer and lose their posession and blame it on Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the other villins they've created?
A worker agreeing to do x work for y amount of hours in order to receive z amount in dollars from their employer is not a subsidy -- it's a contract! A mutual agreement!
Wilderness, every time you spout percentages the rich pay, you are manipulating numbers. When the middleclass pay 7% of $20,000
that is almost 1/3rd of their income. Do the super rich even come close to paying 1/3rd of their income to taxes? Some actresses and actors do without a whimper, too? Oprah feels she should receive at the very least a Thank You note. Also, look into the tax codes that were written during any Republican term regardless of that parties control over the Senate or the House of Repres. Do these tax codes support the middle class? I am amazed that you cannot see how we the working poor, are being squeezed out of the American Dream and this has been happening for over 35 years.
With respect, fetty, re-think the numbers. 7% is 7% or about $1400., 1/3 is 33.3% or about $6,666. But you are right about the middle class being squeezed. Always has. That's why I want the tax cut to remain permanently. Gov. needs to stop giving money away and spend responsibly.
http://www.heritage.org/research/report … mic-record
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
The Two Santa Claus Theory
by: David Dayen
Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 12:44:35 PM
"Riffing off of Brian's post referencing the horror show of a Field Poll, where Californians polled apparently think we can balance the budget through spending cuts but don't want to cut anything (a sort-of companion PPIC poll basically shows the same thing, with respect to nobody wanting education cuts but nobody wanting to pay for increases), this should be a very familiar outlook to people. It's at the heart of the two Santa Claus theory, proposed by Jude Wanniski, a Republican economist, during the time of Ronald Reagan.
By 1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks - both programs of the New Deal - as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections [...]
Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics - which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years - on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase - "supply side economics" - and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow."
The Repubs are now the Santa Claus, and the Dems are the big bad Scrooge who has to pay for things.....
"We want tax cuts and we want them now!!!" Even if they already have 7 billion dollars.....give them more!!!
Those big bad Dems will take from you. WE will give it back!
HA. Irresponsibilty vs Responsibility. We are big babies, we don't WANT to be responsible!
Hence, the election of these shameless givers----of money we don't have!
I love that non-stop whining about overseas jobs. Why don't you people shop at Balducci instead of Walmart? Can't afford it? See, the same thing about businesses and american employers.
With the help of your beloved unions and government regulations over the course of the last century you successfully priced yourself out of the market, and until you seriously cut your salary expectations no business will be able to afford you. Those that try will eventually go under, so only those who keep a healthy number of cheap overseas jobs will stay afloat. We are right in the midst of this wetting process right now I think...
Agreed. The idea that you get a rediculous salary and endless benefits to put lugnuts on a car is just crazy.
As the president of Tanzania says, he has been waiting for the dribble down effect for two decades and it hasn't happened.
It's a fallacy.
The rich like to spread that fallacy so the poor don't mind if they get tax cuts. And the middle class allow the tax cuts because one day, when they're rich, they also want the same tax cuts.
Misguidedness is rampant. What can I say?
Actually much of the "working" poor pay no taxes at all. In fact they get more money back from the IRS than they pay in. The government has created class warfare via the IRS.
That is perfectly true. However, the poor used not to mind that the rich got the tax cuts because they thought if the rich got tax cuts, then the rich would invest in business, and eventually they, the poor, would get jobs, and then they could work, and then they wouldn't be poor anymore.
The poor are not poor because they don't want to work. It is because the system is so skewered that when they do work, they get paid minimum wage, and minimum wage, in America, is 50% below the bread line.
Class warfare has always existed. Whether classes are defined by birth, by money, or by deed.
Someone mention Bush era jobs? Those weren't job apps. Those were military enlistment papers!
"The poor are not poor because they don't want to work"
This statement is not absolute. While there are many who fit this description, it's not always the case. Many are entrenched in a system that does not encourage work and in some cases punishes working. If they earn too much according to the governmetn they loose some of the benefits they require for subsitanence. So, if you work and can only earn a wage that doesn't quite get you by, you aren't entitled to benefits.
It's a system that prefers single mothers over families. Only making it harder when there is only one able body in the household available for work.
It's a system that encourages not work, but "gaming" the system. Work for cash under the table to make up the difference between the money you get from the government and the money you need to survive. So you never have a job, let alone a career. You have a government benefactor and a boss who basically owns you.
C.J. - You make a good point about the entrenchment of poverty. I've never been poor but have been severely broke. The difference being that a poor person has no viable resources, a broke person still has wit, health, books, whatever. The point is this: after trying many avenues to no avail, I called a government resource for a retraining offer they were giving to women. I called 8 different departments, all of which said they were out of funds for this project. Finally, out of exasperation, the woman on the other end of the line said, "Well, are you on welfare?" I said, no. She said, "If you were on welfare, I'd be able to help you. But since you're not, there's nothing I can do." I said, "So you want to put me on welfare so you can try to get me off of it?" She said, "I know it's screwed up, but that's how the system works." Unbelievable but true story.
I'd call a 5 million $$ bonus a hell of a lot more than staying afloat!
In fact, I'd call it sinking the economy!!
They want to pay poverty wages, have lax regualtions, and minimal oversight.
That's how it was here in the USA too.
Child labor, dangerous working conditions, dirt-poor pay and 14 hr days for pennies.
WOW! Those great humanitarian business owners. The poor things had to step up to the plate and be human.
They just want it all don't they?
Huge pay with the least amount of oversight and accountability, pay no taxes here if at all possible, and sell us their cheaply made goods at an exhorbitant mark-up.
Waaaaaaaaaa. Who are the whiners here?
They did a study here, and found that $14.00 an hour was needed to make it....with the cost of living so high and all. The price of things so high--you know.
So, let's see....thats twice as much as the minimum wage.......
Would help SO much if we had Universal Healthcare, and free education, wouldn't it?
Would lessen the burden on business owners too!
But our tax dollars have to go to fill 700 billion in borrowing, so these same business owners and trust-fund babies can save even more...out of this country no doubt.
AND--10's of millions to make up for in death taxes that will be erased.
Why do they cry about living here? They get a fantastic deal!!
Meanwhile---look out, all you "grandchildren"....you are no longer used as politcal leverage. You are officially On the Hook for eternity!!
USA USA USA
First, there is nothing wrong with a forteen hour workday. That is about the very minimum that I work in a day. When I was younger and a medical chief resident I worked 128 hours a week for three years. Second, assuming that wealthy people are all "trust fund babies" is stereotyping at it's worse. I grew up with a hand stoked coal stove for heat, and a chicken coop in the back yard, which is precisely why I am wealthy now. Also never stole other tax payers money by taking a government hand out either. Yes, public assistance is theft. Not bragging by the way because I strongly believe that anybody can succeed economically. Here is a simple plan to become economically secure. Get out you pens, if I could do it, anybody can. First get all As in high school, and I mean ALL As. Then secure 2 or 3 jobs and use the income to go to college for 10 or twelve years, obtaining an advanced degree in an area of need, (as I noted earlier, healthcare is one, there are others). Do not do what you love but learn to love what you have to do. Delay having ANY children until the 10 to 12 years of education is complete and follow your industry carefully to make sure you make educational changes as needed to account for demand. Be sure to sustain your work and school week at well over 100 hours per week or the plan won't work. Save as much as you can as part of your plan to raise your future children, and again, DO NOT start poppin out any babies until this phase is complete. You should be about 30 or so when the first baby arrives, however, under no conditions should you conceive a child with someone with whom you have not been in a monogamous relationship with for at least six years. Hint: you will be able to save more if you never go out to eat, never smoke, and never drink. Eat all of your leftovers and don't waste anything. For those of you who have never heard of it, this is called delayed gratification, and if you are having any fun during those 10 years you are not practicing it correctly.
When you're done with this first phase of your life, you may party for one night only, then get a job as the most excellent, hard working person in your profession. Under extend yourself and live like you are making a third of what you do. NEVER buy a new car, ever. Two years old is best combination of depreciation and performance, by my experience. Hint number 2: I heat much of my homestead with junk mail. Sign up for every catalog you can find, roll them into logs with a log roller and burn them in a wood stove. Now give 10% of your gross income to charity and reduce your work week to 80 hours a week. invest wisely and social security will be you retirement pocket change. Anyone can succeed by following this simple plan. Oh, don't want to follow the plan? Then be happy with your poverty. You earned it.
Randy - Gotta disagree with that first line. I know a lot of us are working 14 hours a day or more, including me (and going to school) but there is something wrong with it. Life should have balance. You're right about the bottom line, though. We do what we have to do. And when you lose it all, as in the 9/11 fiasco when so many people lost all their investments because of the market fall, you just start again. This is what separates the doers from the takers and whiners.
"This is what separates the doers from the takers and whiners."
You really don't have a clue. And it is useless trying.
My whiny dad had cancer, and the meds ate up all my parent's savings.
What a lazy rotten no-good bum he was, huh? Dam him! Should have just got out there and found a job. I mean, who wouldn't hire a cancer-ridden 54 yr old? Employers are CLAMORING for people like him!!
Not to mention my lazy no-good whiny neighbor who'se daughter has autism. Screw her! She needs to put her kid in a day-care where they don't understand the disease, so she can work a job that will never cover day-care costs. Freakin whiny idiot. God, the drain on America that kid is.....just throw her in an institution and be done with her.
We NEED the money to go to Bill Clinton and Al Gore....they NEED this tax break dammit...screw those lazy whiny poor and disabled and $18,000 median income seniors.
You all should have been born into wealth....what is your problem?
lmc - you shouldn't take it personally and be so defensive. Those who can, who are able bodied and have the mental capacity to 'do' are the people I was referring to. I've already stated many times that I agree with Medicare, SS, catastrophic care, and care for special needs. That's where I'm willing to put my tax dollars. In fact, in some ways (oddly) you and I are alike. I would give everything, including my own life, to save a loved one dying from cancer or anything else. Sadly, this is where no amount of money can help any of us.
Obviously there are exceptions. Unfortunately the vast majority, perhaps 90%, of public assistance receiving patients that I see in the ER, are able bodied 20 somethings seeking narcotics. Those folks make much or most public funded assistance unavailable for folks like your dad. It is also my experience that people like your Dad are the least likely to be determined as eligible for assistance. I certainly contribute more to charitable organizations when I am taxed less, and the money is used more efficiently than tax dollars are. In our state when an assistance application is filled out, there is no investigation made as to the validity of the data provided.Subsequently, the vast majority of recipients are less than 30 years old.
I would contend that life can have balance with a 14 hour work day. I raised 4 kids who are now in college on such a schedule. I will admit that I have been blessed with a 4 hour per day sleep requirement. That certainly helps. Not to mention that our residency attendings back in the early 80s practically considered it a crime if we ever felt rested. Kind of what you get used to.
Misha, for years I didn't purchase anything that was made in China. It got to the point where I literally had a difficult time finding anything I could purchase.
Makes no sense to me that the same people who got us in trouble, are the 'magical' ones who will help us out. Of course they will not, they vote for their own best interests. What interest is that? Big corporations because our government is tied to the big business of making money from corporations. Simple as that!
Bobbi - with respect, if our government is tied to the big business of making money from corporations, which I agree it is, why should the Republicans be any different than the Democrats? Neither side has proved to be a winner in that regard. The Democrats say they are for the people, yet they take as many handouts as the other guys. They try to skew their own tax liability moreso than the other guys (or at least what has been made public), and they are no better morally, vocally, or intellectually. So why pick a side? They all got us in trouble.
why support government at all?
Just go anarchy. It only makes sense.
Where's your tribe. I'm in. Oh, wait, are you being sarcastic?
No, I love anarchy. Check out my hubs and posts on the forums.
Anarchy is the only logical political system: If I steal from someone, I go to jail : if the government steals from me, it's called "taxes" and are good.
Obviously there's a logical misstep.
Yes, equating taxes with theft is an incredibly illogical position. If you wish to live outside of civilization, just leave, quit crying.
Good point. These people think that anarchy and the elimination of government will create better education, better schools, better jobs, better medical care... And I always ask for a historical example where such improvement has occurred in an environment without government, since history invariable shows the opposite.
I believe that would take courage to actually live where there is no government. It's easier to complain about taxes and vote for candidates who want to repeal the Civil Rights Act while enjoying the comforts of civilized society.
Who wants to repeal the civil rights act?
Here we go again.
I know that Rand Paul, after the uproar over his original statements about the Civil Rights Act, stated that he would not want it repealed.
I stand corrected, if that's what it takes to end this right here.
What the hell are you talking about?
Here we go again?
I asked a question.
Awhile back I went 'round and 'round with someone about Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act. Not interested in doing it again.
I should've explained my "here we go again" better. My bad. It had nothing to do with you.
The Civil Rights Act made it so that government could claim ownership of your property.
I like minorities as much as the next man, but The simple fact that the government can say "you can't do X on your own property so long as all acts are voluntary with all who participate" is nonsense.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'The simple fact that the government can say "you can't do X on your own property so long as all acts are voluntary with all who participate" is nonsense.'
Maybe I'm dense today, but that sentence makes no sense to me.
No kidding, and I never said taxes were theft, only acceptance of public assistance. Also never advocated for anarchy, only a smaller government.
I pretty much do on my homestead. I don't need you tax dollars, why do you want mine?
That is why I am a libertarian in favor of doing a slash and burn on the entire budget. How about 10% across the board cuts per year until we reach the same budget we had in 1975. We can all share the pain on the way down to a reasonable level. No one needs higher taxes. Let's get a budget that fits revenues, not the reverse.
"Those who can, who are able bodied and have the mental capacity to 'do' are the people I was referring to."
And what makes you think they don't want to? Do you REALLY think they enjoy being out of work and poor? Losing EVERYTHING because the jobs are gone?
While those who moved the jobs OUT, benefit from a nice extra tax bonus in their Christmas Stocking.
The problem I have and why I am so defensive is from 10 years of this type of attitude.
You blame the wrong ones, and reward the ones who are to blame. IMO.
I really don't blame anyone except maybe Congress in general. It's not my business to lay blame, only to find answers for myself and my tribe. People who don't want to do for themselves, assuming they are able, cause their own problems, generally speaking. It's still not my job to get them out unless I chose to do so. And it's certainly not government's job. But I really love your tenacity.
For me the only thing better than where I am now would be a log cabin on 2000 acres in the middle of nowhere in Montana or the Dakotas. Someone asked me earlier if I would like to go back to the 1850s and I would have to answer that in many ways I would. As it is, I enjoy my homestead lifestyle and commuting the 40 minutes to work. Would much rather spend my time at the Farmers Co-Op than Walmart or Best Buy. Just Sayin'. I think that if more people became self reliant, and went as much as possible off the grid, we would all be physically, economically, and emotionally healthier. Starting next month, I will be selling rather than buying electricity. How cool is that?
Thank you cpc. But I do think it's gvt's job. I pay taxes too, you know. And I see them going to all this stuff I don't like, don't agree with, find MORALLY reprehensible....Blackwater and Haliburton for example. The police-state mentality here and the military take-over of the world for another. Helping a wealthy country to steal land and committ genocide for another....I could go on and on too you know!
The gvt's job is to facilitate a good life for all its citizens, that's what I believe. When one is hurting, we all hurt. When one faces injustice, we all do.
And for 30 years, I have watched as everything I hold dear got trampled on....by MY gvt.
You people on the right are not the only ones who matter, you know.
"The gvt's job is to facilitate a good life for all its citizens, that's what I believe."
Well, you can "believe" it to your heart's content, but it's not constitutional. The government basically sets laws and provides for the defense of our nation.....the degree to which your life is "good" rests largely with the individual.
I'm not sure why anybody would even want government to decided what constitutes a "good life" anyway....
lmc - I think we 'fundamentally' agree, that when one is hurting, we all hurt. But as Billy stated, it is not constitutional for the U.S. government to facilitate the good life. I agree they need to lay regulations on some industries so there are standards which are for the public good but how far can we take taxation? Your tendency is to assume everyone on the left is a bleeding heart in need and willing to give to his fellow man and everyone on the right is wealthy, greedy, and not willing to give. I think there are both types on both sides. I just want to be the one to keep what I earn and give it to people I think are in need, not have government do it for me. I promise you, they will take your life if you let them.
Yes, I really do think that a majority of the poor, whom I work with every day, want to sit home and smoke crack and only work enough for the next fix, and that usually that work is knocking off a liquor store or seven-eleven. I have been dealing daily with these folks for thirty years. They are not your dad. They are EXACTLY the same people you see on the crime and arrest pages of the newspaper every day, That is what YOUR taxes are subsidizing. Their other "job" is working to defraud you out of your tax dollars, and in some cases to separate you from your wallet at gunpoint. I work closely with our police department and virtually every criminal is on public assistance. All we are doing is enabling a pathological lifestyle, one for which there is little evidence ever changes, and one which is perpetuated by public assistance. Folks like your Dad account for less than 10 percent of those receiving aid.
You know, there is a gang memebr who has written a book....wish I could remember his name--he was on the news. Anyway, his gang members are angry at him for writing that book. But he says as long as you throw people in ghettos, and there is no work available to them, no future to speak of....you are going to have drugs and crime.
In fact, I read long ago a book about the creation of these high-rise ghetto buildings. They were designed specifically to remove the people who live there from society.
Kind of like, "stick them in the corner, throw them a pittance, and hope we can ignore them."
And you know how stunned Robert Kennedy was when he saw the conditions of people living in Appalachia.
Poverty is a far more deep-rooted probem than, "Those bums are taking my tax money"
And I daresay, you had some type of "leg up" in your life....even if it's getting that first job at McDonalds.
Some people never even have that opportunity, and that is the sad truth.
Some people are thrown away--shoved into the outskirts, and forgotten.
So, what are they supposed to do?
Somebody here said it: it is going to take hardship for everybody before we finally see that we are all the same. We all want the same thing.
But some have been given more than others....simply be being born in the right circumstance, or
having the right color skin. To ignore that, and say we have NO RESPONSIBILTY in the lives of others is WRONG. IMO
That is why I advocated early in this debate the idea of providing every ghetto dwelling person a ONE TIME opportunity; that being 20 acres of arable land, a small cabin with solar power, a well, 20 chickens, seed for a garden to supply 6, a few weeks of farming education, and transportation to this new home. Thats it. Nothing else, ever. Make it or break it. I promise that at least 80% of those receiving this offer will reject it out of hand, say it isn't enough or it is racist or not fair, or just find a way to screw up the opportunity, and grasp failure from the jaws of success. Believe me, if I can work full time and run a farm on the side, any other American could also do it. You will not convince me that the vast majority of the impoverished in the US are not there primarily as a result of bad decision making. Have offered a number of these folks a very competitive wage to come help me harvest soy beans, butter beans, or potatos and not one has showed up, ever. Why do you think that is, LMC? Several have told me that they would only come if I paid them before they performed any work. Yeah, right. LMC, I think that you are a terrific person who is a little naive. I would love to have you come to my ER. I think that after the first three or four times you were punched by a patient, discovered a few defecating on the floor when the Toilet is three feet away, wrestled a few crazed Meth/PCP/paint huffers onto a stretcher, or been spit on by folks who are HIV and Hep C positive, you would gain or more realistic perspective as to what is happening out here in the trenches. Many of these patients are barely more than animals. They are all on public assistance. It's done so much for them, hasn't it?
Oh, jut in case anybody is remotely interested, it takes about 8 weeks to raise a hen from hatch to table, and don't hate me because I slaughter chickens. Sorry, I am off topic.
Hey, I want 20 acres and all that stuff, too. I can make it work. Please? I'm a good person. Don't discriminate against me because my grandparents came to this country and worked their asses off, learned the language, never took a handout, survived being spit on and called names, because my mother raised 5 kids on beans and macaroni while my father worked 3 jobs, because I'm white, because I'm well...you get the picture. Point is if they get land we all get land. I'm not going to stand for that crap.
Don't worry, you can always buy it from them later for a bottle of beer and big mac
Read ALL of my posts.I am not for giving anybody anything, but the point was that if we must, let's make it once only. I am the son of immigrants also and another point I was trying to make was that even if you offered these folks all of the above they would reject it as not enough. We are in agreement. See above and below.
Oh, that's right, nobody is ever successful because they actually worked hard and achieved....they're successful because they were either a) lucky, or b) defrauded someone else to get there.
Wow, thanks for clearing that up for us.......
"So what are they supposed to do?"
Preferably, man up and remove themselves from the gene pool.
But no ever succeeded in this world without help from someone, you never get there alone.
Hey there Billy,
I know whatcha mean. I have spent a life in service, and have three adoptive kids out of my four, but because I have argued that public assistance perpetuates poverty and that more taxes are not the way to end the same, I am a no good, rightist, racist, (two of my kids are Asian, one African American, one white), Republican rich dude who just must have been born with a silver spoon in my mouth, because nobody could possibly get ahead in this world if there was no redistribution of wealth by government you know. I am an old fart, and I am battle weary, but still we must press on to reduce the size of government, and reward ONLY perseverance, a strong work ethic, drive and ambition. These people have not the simplest understanding of behavioral psychology; reward productive behaviors and punish non productive behaviors, NOT the reverse. For example, I am going to open up a whole new bag of worms. What if we had a regressive tax policy, highest rates on the bottom, wouldn't that encourage people to aspire to a higher income? Just throwing that out for debate. Also, why should we not pay the poor not to reproduce, instead of the reverse.
But no one has ever succeeded by being rewarded for doing nothing, either. That I think is the point that the Libertarians and Anarchists here are trying to make. You are much more likely to work hard if you starve by not working hard, and you might find opportunity in work you had previously rejected. Another example: several unemployed people that I know have no intention of returning to work until their unemployment benefits run out, therefore, more unemployment benefits produce more unemployment. Economics is sometimes wrought with seeming paradoxes until you dig a little deeper. Human behavior, like it or not, is very much about self interest and self preservation, and economic policy that tries to reject this fact rather than embrace it and make use of it will never work.
Cutting taxes on the wealthy is generally a good idea. However in the current political and economic situation it is not enough. The government has encouraged business to flee the country. The government is focusing on outcomes versus opportunity. The government has chosen to focus on the global economy vice the national. We are small potatoes in the big picture. Isn't it time America be put in her place? How dare her declare herself as exceptional! The beneficiaries of the tax cuts were those not tainted with the original sin of America and therefore certainly more deserving, right?
God I love satire!!!
by Holle Abee6 years ago
Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
" ...The defining economic policy of the last decade, of course, was the Bush tax cuts. President George W. Bush and Congress, including Mr. Ryan, passed a large tax cut in 2001, sped up its implementation in 2003...
by Nickny798 years ago
HIGH tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it LESS profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing...
by Alex Frias6 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush...
by kerryg6 years ago
Republicans have repeated the lie that tax cuts are always good for the economy so often that all of Washington seems absolutely convinced that it's true. The conventional wisdom is so established on this that all a...
by ptosis5 hours ago
federal income tax rates history, During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)What does it mean, though?...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.