Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-19-2005, 11:01 AM   #1 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
So we are in a fiscal "crisis an d the Right does WHAT?

Yes, that's right, come on up people and drink the lemonade.

We're facing deficits so the GOP Congress believes cutting student loans (which educate people and help them get better jobs), cutting medical care (so people default on bills thus rising the premiums for those who have insurance, plus forcing the government to pay the hospitals anyway, or they'll go out of business..... remember that is why this congress last year pledged billions to pay hospitals for illegal aliens hospitalizations?)....

That's right people we'll slice, dice and chop these programs, while giving more tax cuts to the wealthiest in America.

By all means tell us how it's the poor's fault and that they don't need student loans to better themselves. By all means tell us that those $6.00 an hour jobs are supposed to be "starter jobs" for the poor and that they should pay their way through school working those jobs.

Hot damn who the "F" cares about Bush illegally tapping lines when the richest in America get tax cuts? The poor deserve to stay poor, fuck education. The rich need those 3 mansions, with garages full of cars and yachts on both coasts.

Hot damn, why can't we have another 4 more years of this BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!


Quote:
House approves $39.7 bln spending cuts By Richard Cowan
2 hours, 22 minutes ago



The House of Representatives on Monday narrowly voted to cut $39.7 billion from federal spending over five years, including health care and other social welfare, as part of a conservative push to contain these growing programs.

By a vote of 212-206, the House, at the end of a rare overnight session, approved the spending cuts, which were opposed by Democrats.

"We have a plan to reform the government and achieve savings," said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican.

In separate legislation, the House also approved a 1 percent reduction in spending this fiscal year for all federal programs, except for the Veterans Administration, to save an additional $8 billion.

The five-year budget bill, which was trimmed from the nearly $50 billion in savings approved by the House last month, is expected to be debated by the Senate this week.

Democrats criticized spending cuts to student loans, child care and other programs. Rep. John Spratt (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, the senior Budget Committee Democrat, complained that Republicans were negotiating last-minute deals to help medical equipment manufacturers and suppliers, while maintaining reductions in some programs for the poor.

Rep. Chet Edwards (news, bio, voting record), a Texas Democrat, said, "This bill under the Republican leadership makes Scrooge look like a philanthropist."



A large chunk of the spending cuts, about $11.2 billion over five years, would come from Medicare and Medicaid, the health-care programs for the elderly and poor.



The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning economic analysis group, said the bill would raise co-payments for many Medicaid beneficiaries, "as well as the premiums they can be charged to enroll in Medicaid in the first place."

Additional savings would come in student loan programs, which Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat, called "the biggest cuts to student aid programs ever."

The spending-cut bill also would make a significant change to U.S. trade policy.

If enacted, it would repeal a trade law known as the "Byrd amendment" that allows the government to distribute some duties it collects on foreign goods to U.S. companies involved in trade disputes with foreign competitors.

Under a compromise, the law, which has been declared illegal by the World Trade Organization, would be repealed after a two-year grace period.

American companies have collected more than $1 billion since 2000 under this law.

Throughout this year, the Republican-led Congress has been pushing some form of spending reductions, which they said were necessary in light of huge U.S. budget deficits and unexpected hurricane clean-up and rebuilding costs.

The $39.7 billion in savings would be dwarfed, however, by an estimated $14 trillion the government is expected to spend over the next five years under a Republican budget plan approved last April.

Democrats argued that the spending cuts were falling disproportionately on the poor as Republicans also were pushing through Congress tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Some of those Democrats have acknowledged the need to control the growth of these federal programs, a problem that will only get worse as baby-boomers retire and enroll in federal programs such as Medicare. But they argued that long-term reforms, not stop-gap spending cuts, were necessary.

House Republicans abandoned earlier attempts to cut food stamps by about $700 million. The program helps the poor buy groceries.

The government would gain $3.6 billion in revenues over five years by raising premiums companies would pay to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 11:04 AM   #2 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
By default its the wealthy that pay the most in taxes so any tax break will by default benifit them more in a per dollar amount. You can't get a tax cut if you don't pay much/any in federal taxes like the poor.

So when I hear this which is what the democrats say every tax cut....

Democrats argued that the spending cuts were falling disproportionately on the poor as Republicans also were pushing through Congress tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

I laugh and sip more tastey lemonade.

Oh and how do you spending cut on the rich who don't get anything from the government?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 11:17 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Not sure what else the left expected them to do, raise taxes? not bloody likely. Although I'm not a bit surprised that instead of more 'fat' out of the budget that they chose to start cutting money from those that need it the most.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 11:31 AM   #4 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Since the poor and middle class spend a larger portion of their income on living expenses (food, shelter, etc..), and since these item's prices are probably 50% or more due to taxes, then they spend a lot more of their income on taxes (indirectly) than the wealthy. An income tax cut only immediately effects those who pay income taxes, eventually it may help to reduce the price of goods and services though.
flstf is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 11:36 AM   #5 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
If they cut programs, they cut programs. That happens, I could live with it, but to cut taxes on the wealthiest in America? WTF?

They expect the poor, the elderly and the middle class, as Flstf points out, to sacrifice programs THEIR tax money goes into, while the rich get tax cuts?

So the rich sacrifice what exactly?
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 11:53 AM   #6 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Not sure what else the left expected them to do, raise taxes? not bloody likely. Although I'm not a bit surprised that instead of more 'fat' out of the budget that they chose to start cutting money from those that need it the most.
First question is are these CUTS or are they cuts in the rate of spending INCREASE.

The only true cuts I know of in the last 20 years were Clintons military spending cuts, as in the military had less money to do stuff after the cuts than the year before.

All the other 'cuts' were really reductions in the rate of increase which means the organizations had MORE money than the prior year, just not as much as they were first budgeted for.

Without even looking into it, I'm willing to bet this is the case here.

I hope I'm wrong though, we really do need real cuts across the board. This is my primary gripe with the republicans, they have only slowed the rate of government expansion, but they have not reversed it. This is not why they were voted into office in 1994.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 11:59 AM   #7 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
Since the poor and middle class spend a larger portion of their income on living expenses (food, shelter, etc..), and since these item's prices are probably 50% or more due to taxes, then they spend a lot more of their income on taxes (indirectly) than the wealthy. An income tax cut only immediately effects those who pay income taxes, eventually it may help to reduce the price of goods and services though.
This is what brings me to the 'I trust the rich' post.

We have people who can't even figure out how to spend less money than they make trying to dictate government tax policy. Its no wonder the government is in debt.

Since money gets taxed when it changes hands its VERY hard to explain to someone that by lowering taxes you can increase tax revenue. What the people see is IF they had a higher tax and the same transactions took place the government would have made more money. What they fail to see is that if the taxes were higher, less money would have changed hands less often or done so in more tax free ways. The end result is less revenue.

This is part of why we need more economics taught in school.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 12:10 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
This is what brings me to the 'I trust the rich' post.

We have people who can't even figure out how to spend less money than they make trying to dictate government tax policy. Its no wonder the government is in debt.

Since money gets taxed when it changes hands its VERY hard to explain to someone that by lowering taxes you can increase tax revenue. What the people see is IF they had a higher tax and the same transactions took place the government would have made more money. What they fail to see is that if the taxes were higher, less money would have changed hands less often or done so in more tax free ways. The end result is less revenue.

This is part of why we need more economics taught in school.
something i've never understood is how, after watching all these years, we elect wealthy businessmen in to office KNOWING that they can't manage the budget? yet a majority of us are still gulled in to the rhetoric of 'I'm just ordinary folk like you'.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 12:41 PM   #9 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
something i've never understood is how, after watching all these years, we elect wealthy businessmen in to office KNOWING that they can't manage the budget? yet a majority of us are still gulled in to the rhetoric of 'I'm just ordinary folk like you'.
Most of them are not wealthy business men, they are wealthy but not business men. While I have no doubt there are a number who became wealthy with 'hot tips' due to their government positions (and I'd give examples but they are all democrats and its not my intent to be partisan) I'd be willing to bet there are few self made millionaires in the lot.

The other problem of course is what do they seek? Serving the people is wonderful in theory but power and ego have a lot to do with it. The government budget doesn't matter to them as its not 'their' money, any more than a guy working at kinkos cares if he spills extra toner, he didn't pay for it. This is why I'd trust real business people, those who built a business on their own to be better managers of tax money than most of these elected officials.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Last edited by Ustwo; 12-19-2005 at 12:57 PM.. Reason: Tyop
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 12:53 PM   #10 (permalink)
seeker
 
Location: home
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467

So the rich sacrifice what exactly?
They sacrifice an hour of their time
to make a really crappy music CD
To sell to the poor and middle class.
After the record company takes their profit
the rest gets donated to The red cross.
Who in turn eats up 80% of that
in adminstrative costs
(gotta pay the quarter of a million dollar salaries to
each ofthe board of directors members)
The remainder trickles to the needy.

They sacrifice the lives of our
best and brightest youths
in wars.

John Kerry sacrificed 12% of his income on federal taxes
While hassling bush over tax breaks for the rich
Bush paid 31%
__________________
All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
"The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.
alpha phi is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 01:00 PM   #11 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
something i've never understood is how, after watching all these years, we elect wealthy businessmen in to office KNOWING that they can't manage the budget? yet a majority of us are still gulled in to the rhetoric of 'I'm just ordinary folk like you'.
You are right except I don't think that they can't manage the budget, it's just that they won't. These are very smart people and they know how to get re-elected and the best way is to funnel money to those who contribute to their campaigns as well as promise to fund us voter's pet causes.

It is probably very difficult to get elected by telling voters that they will have to do with less.
flstf is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 03:00 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
Yes, that's right, come on up people and drink the lemonade.
We're facing deficits so the GOP Congress believes cutting student loans (which educate people and help them get better jobs),
Why does the government need to gaurantee student loans? Banks would loan students money if the government was not involved. Or, why not work and save? Why should taxpayers who don't or have not gone to college subsidize those who do?
Quote:
cutting medical care (so people default on bills thus rising the premiums for those who have insurance, plus forcing the government to pay the hospitals anyway, or they'll go out of business..... remember that is why this congress last year pledged billions to pay hospitals for illegal aliens hospitalizations?)....
The government is spending more on medical care than at anyother time in hisotry. Also, look at the spending as a percentage of GNP. What cuts are you talking about?
Quote:
That's right people we'll slice, dice and chop these programs, while giving more tax cuts to the wealthiest in America.
The government is collecting more taxes not less. Difference between cutting taxes and cutting tax rates. Ask anyone - Are you paying less in taxes this year compared to last year? I bet 99.999% say no.
Quote:
By all means tell us how it's the poor's fault and that they don't need student loans to better themselves. By all means tell us that those $6.00 an hour jobs are supposed to be "starter jobs" for the poor and that they should pay their way through school working those jobs.
Very few poor people stay poor their entire lives. The people who stay poor have usually made a choice that has kept them in that condition; crime, drugs, negative attitudes, no education, etc.

Those who work those starter jobs get raises and promotions if they work hard and apply themselves. If conditions are bad they with the experience and training they can get better jobs.

People who work hard and save some money don't stay poor.

Quote:
Hot damn who the "F" cares about Bush illegally tapping lines when the richest in America get tax cuts? The poor deserve to stay poor, fuck education. The rich need those 3 mansions, with garages full of cars and yachts on both coasts.
Hot damn, why can't we have another 4 more years of this BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!
I am here for you man.

What the hell happened that made you so bitter. Did they say you can't go to college? Were you some a medical benefit program that got cut? Are you working in a fast-food joint and can't get a raise? I admit I am a republican, but I do care. But, even if you can't confide in me I am sure there are a few democrats who can give you some advice on how to get rich.

Then after you get rich, you can use all your money paying for other people's education, their medical bills and pay for everything else. You could do everything for them, so all they would have to do is sleep, eat, watch TV, and vote democratic. Isn't that how you show that you care?
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 03:43 PM   #13 (permalink)
Registered User
 
frogza's Avatar
 
Location: Right Here
I have to agree with what's going on. I think that relying on the government for my education, food, healthcare etc. is a last resort thing, the emergency fund. Too many people live on the emergency fund simply because it is there and because they lack ambition or creativity.

My family is a case in point. I come from a very poor family, I can still remember the first time I slept in a bed, I was 12. My brothers and I slept on the floor up until that time. The only way we ate was when we got the welfare check or kind hearted people gave us bags of groceries. My cousins were in the same boat.

Now my brothers and I all make over $75k/year, my cousins are all on welfare. Only one of my brothers used financial aid to get through college, one never went to college but has been called on to be a consultant to the zoology department at three universities. My cousins are still on welfare, three of them living in the same house because they can't afford rent seperately. My parents deciding to get better and more jobs and quit welfare was the best thing they did for us.

I'm don't think that we should abolish welfare by any means. I do think that it should be used as a temporary emergency fund.
frogza is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 06:02 PM   #14 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
The conservative movement is committed to bankrupting America.

It's been talked about in many conservative publications. It's been mentioned many times by the Bush administration. It was first devised as a doctrine of the Reagan adminstration. It's referred to as "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast">Starving</a> the <a href="http://www.wordspy.com/words/starvethebeast.asp">Beast</a>".

The notion is that conservatives can use trade deficit and federal debt, and the resulting lack of federal funds, to force the termiation of social spending. Once they've run the American economy well and truly into the ground, they'll finally have the small, unobstrusive government they've always wanted. In this, as in every other conservative plan, the ends absolutely justify the means.

Bush's legacy will be a black hole where our economy used to be. This is NOT an accident on his part or a result of mismanagement. It is a deliberate political move designed to further the conservative agenda.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 06:24 PM   #15 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Why does the government need to gaurantee student loans? Banks would loan students money if the government was not involved. Or, why not work and save? Why should taxpayers who don't or have not gone to college subsidize those who do?
The college I went to was about 36k a year. I had to apply to over 1500 scholarships in order to go there (and I had a 1556 on my SAT). I still ended up having to pay about 10k a year. I worked 50 hours a week and never took less than 22 units. Even with all of that, I had to take advantage of governmnet loans. I had to sell my car to finish the last semester.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Very few poor people stay poor their entire lives. The people who stay poor have usually made a choice that has kept them in that condition; crime, drugs, negative attitudes, no education, etc.
Actually, statistics say that if you are born poor, odds are that you'll be abducted by martians. Of course, I have no data to back this up, so you'll just have to take me at my word. (that was an elaborate, if sarcastic, way to say that you'll need sources on a claim like that before people will believe you)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Those who work those starter jobs get raises and promotions if they work hard and apply themselves. If conditions are bad they with the experience and training they can get better jobs.
Wrong. Working hard and appling yourself is not a guerentee of promotion in any buisness. And you can't always get a better job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
People who work hard and save some money don't stay poor.
How do you know that?
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 10:37 PM   #16 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
First question is are these CUTS or are they cuts in the rate of spending INCREASE.

<b>The only true cuts I know of in the last 20 years were Clintons military spending cuts, as in the military had less money to do stuff after the cuts than the year before.</b>

All the other 'cuts' were really reductions in the rate of increase which means the organizations had MORE money than the prior year, just not as much as they were first budgeted for.

Without even looking into it, I'm willing to bet this is the case here.

I hope I'm wrong though, we really do need real cuts across the board. This is my primary gripe with the republicans, they have only slowed the rate of government expansion, but they have not reversed it. This is not why they were voted into office in 1994.
The CBO Federal non-defense civilian employment stats from 1985 to 2000,
tend to make your statements seem inaccurate. What kind of research did you perform before you posted assertive statements about the growth of the federal government in the 1990's. Employment groowth seems to be a reliable indicator oof overall government growth trends. Employment numbers seem immune to inflation and budgeting constraints in discretionary spending.

What can you offer, ustwo, to back up your claims? Federal employment grew during Reagan's second term and Bush 41's term....and then..........
Quote:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...nce=0#tableA-1

Non-Department of Defense Agencies (Not including postal service)
(iin thousands)

1985 1,187.2
1986 1,175.5
1987 1,180.8
1988 1,212.8
1989 1,226.6
1990 1,349.0 Commerce Dept. Employment Increases from 39.5 (1988) to 155.9 - Census Workers

1991 1,272.2
1992 1,301.2
1993 1,304.1
1994 1,279.0
1995 1,248.7
1996 1,211.0
1997 1,188.5
1998 1,187.2
1999 1,205.5
2000 1,328.1 Commerce Dept. Employment Increases from 39.5 (1998) to 205.5 - Census Workers
In 1985, there were 1,187,200 federal employees in the civilian, non-defense related category. Avoiding temporary Commerce Dept. employment increases in 1990 and 2000, there were 1,301,200 federal employees in 1992, an increase of 114,000 or nearly ten percent in the seven years since 1985.

In 1999, seven years later, there were 1,205,500 federal employees in the same category; a decrease of 96,000 vs. the 1992 total, a decreasee of 7.4 percent.
host is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 05:51 AM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
The college I went to was about 36k a year.
That's the price of a private college. You know there were plenty of state colleges. I go to UT-Austin, one of (if not) the best colleges in the south, I pay about 3k a semester. That is with the price hikes of the past 2 years that has gotten people complaining.

I'm going through college with no parental assistance, no government assistance, and no loans. It can be done, very easily without the government.
Seaver is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 06:30 AM   #18 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
The conservative movement is committed to bankrupting America.

It's been talked about in many conservative publications. It's been mentioned many times by the Bush administration. It was first devised as a doctrine of the Reagan adminstration. It's referred to as "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast">Starving</a> the <a href="http://www.wordspy.com/words/starvethebeast.asp">Beast</a>".

The notion is that conservatives can use trade deficit and federal debt, and the resulting lack of federal funds, to force the termiation of social spending. Once they've run the American economy well and truly into the ground, they'll finally have the small, unobstrusive government they've always wanted. In this, as in every other conservative plan, the ends absolutely justify the means.

Bush's legacy will be a black hole where our economy used to be. This is NOT an accident on his part or a result of mismanagement. It is a deliberate political move designed to further the conservative agenda.
rastbastid I'm getting close to thinking you need a tinfoil hat pretty soon. Let go your hate, for that leads to the darkside.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 07:09 AM   #19 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
I just don't get it, every other comparable country out there is spending more on educating their youth, helping their elderly and healthcare and run far less deficits than we do, have better infant mortality rates, standard of living, less families in debt, less of a trade deficit and less poverty.

Yet, here we are supposedly the greatest nation in the world and we are in pathetic shape and getting worse.

It's like the people in power now and who argue to cut all these things PLUS give out tax cuts are saying to the youth, "We got ours fuck you."

For the first time in our nations history we have a generation doing worse than their parents? And this is acceptable?

Look, if the Right wants to cut student loans, raise Medicare premiums and so on.... then make your argument and do it. Perhaps, it does need to be done....

But then to fucking cut taxes on the wealthy??????

This causes the states to raise sales taxes... taxes that hurt the poor, far more than the rich.

It raises property taxes, again taxes that cripple the poor (even renters as their rents go up), yet do little harm to the rich.

It raises State and local income taxes.... again taxes that hurt the poor far more than the wealthy because the wealthy have the means to move to where taxes are cheaper, moving costs money the poor don't have.

It raises the need for school levies or programs and basic education suffer.... again destroying the poor, the rich don't care because they have the means to send their kids to private schools.

The tax monies have to be gathered somewhere.

I guarantee I pay more of a percentage of taxes than anyone on here making over $50,000 (if not less). I pay more of a percentage of my income than my father, who makes 7 figures.

I am sick and tired of hearing the Right cry how taxes are so unfair to them when they pay less of a percentage than the poor the demonize, they deem lazy, they deem as not worthy..... yet, they also refuse to make sure those poor they complain and belittle about, cannot advance by cutting their education, raising the hidden taxes and the taxes above that affect the poor far more than them, and laugh about it, rather than even debate the issues at hand.

It's pathetic, and it needs to end.

What is truly sad is the party doing this to the poor, claim to be the "Pro-Christian" party, and feed into their fears to get elected.

If the Right ran on economics alone and not on the religious trump card and the prejudices of the supporters they hold, they would lose in landslides. But they thrive on people's fears and then destroy the nation by running extremely dangerous deficits, cutting social spending and cutting taxes for the rich.

IF you want to cut social spending cut it..... if you want to cut taxes for the rich, then cut them ..... but it is suicidal to the nation and to society as we know it to do both.

I challenege anyone on the right to debate how your economic platform truly helps the country as a whole.... the only rules are YOU NEED TO BACKUP EVERYTHING YOU SAY WITH FACTS PROVIDED FROM RELIABLE SOURCES.... AND I WILL DO THE SAME....... anyone??????? No personal attacks, no belittling/ insulting each other (we are all pretty intelligent we don't need to be talked down to), just providing facts and treating each other with respect. (A personal attack or belittling and insulting as deemed by a neutral moderator is automatic loss of the debate and 10 days banning..... any takers???)

DISCLAIMER: USTWO is exempted because it has been proven that the 2 of us cannot act civilly toward each other, and neither has any respect for the other.... and I have him on ignore so I can't debate someone I ignore). If someone else on the Left would want to take that task then I'll defer to them.

I doubt very much I get a taker, instead, I'll just get personally attacked, ignored or they'll change the subject.

Just a nice true debate.... there are some of you who have debated me on here and they can attest I keep it civil..... and those people have also (Stevo, Mojo, Longbough, Seaver come to mind as people I have had civil debates here with that I gained a true amount of respect for afterward)
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 12-20-2005 at 07:22 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 07:53 AM   #20 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
I would love to debate some time pan, and I appreciate the offer, but I just don't have time for a debate right now. I've only got a day and a half left to get some things done and then its off to see the family for the holidays. Maybe after the new year if time permits.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 08:09 AM   #21 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
rastbastid I'm getting close to thinking you need a tinfoil hat pretty soon. Let go your hate, for that leads to the darkside.
The only other explanation is incompetence. Which do you choose?

Hey, by the way, nice work once again walking right UP TO the line of personal attack. Whatever you do, don't follow the links I posted and actually address the issues. Might have to re-think a few things that way, and we wouldn't want that. Much better to just call me paranoid and dismiss what I have to say.

Lemme guess: you learned debate from George W. "I have legal authority for illegal wiretaps because I HAVE legal authority for illegal wiretaps" Bush, right?
ratbastid is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 08:31 AM   #22 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
I would love to debate some time pan, and I appreciate the offer, but I just don't have time for a debate right now. I've only got a day and a half left to get some things done and then its off to see the family for the holidays. Maybe after the new year if time permits.
Stevo, take care of yourself and have a safe and happy hollidays man. I promise you we shall again debate. I learned al ot last time from you.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 08:56 AM   #23 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
The only other explanation is incompetence. Which do you choose?

Hey, by the way, nice work once again walking right UP TO the line of personal attack. Whatever you do, don't follow the links I posted and actually address the issues. Might have to re-think a few things that way, and we wouldn't want that. Much better to just call me paranoid and dismiss what I have to say.

Lemme guess: you learned debate from George W. "I have legal authority for illegal wiretaps because I HAVE legal authority for illegal wiretaps" Bush, right?
Links....

Aliens build the Pyramids

LINKY!

George Bush is involved in human sacrifice

LINKY!

Big Foot is real

LINKY!

I hope you see my point.

So you have a conspiracy theory link, I checked it out, I saw that all it was, was a conspiracy theory link. Was I suppose to have an epiphany? Did you expect me to debate it? It wouldn't be the first post in politics to get moved to paranoia. I have to also wonder if the financial problems of the European powers is due to this too or some other anti-big government conspiracy.

What I don't see is any debate here, just hate and while some of the politics posters are 'not all there' I think you don't fall into that category. I am honestly concerned that so much hate which turns rational people into the paranoid. When thinking about the future of the nation several years ago my personal conclusion was that we would have something of a revolution in 50 years. I have to wonder if the growing number of completely polarized people is the first symptom of this revolution. Of course thinking this might make me paranoid
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 09:40 AM   #24 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Wikipedia does not equate with the Iluminati Conspiracy Archive or the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. Try again.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 10:02 AM   #25 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Wikipedia does not equate with the Iluminati Conspiracy Archive or the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. Try again.
If you google "starving the beast", you'll find some very interesting things.

Like <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20041115galeorszag.htm">this one</a>, an article from <i>Tax Notes</i> on the Brookings Institution's website.

Or <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-10.pdf">this publication</a> (titled "Starving the Beast Will Not Work") from the Cato Institute.

Or <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801224_pf.html">this editorial</a> from hurricane-torn and cash-strapped Louisiana, which appeared in the Washington Post in late November. (Oops. That writer uses words like "cynical" and "callous" to describe Bush. Might be too much blind hate for you.)

This isn't fringe-group ranting. Major political institutions and publications are dealing with this topic. Your ignorance in this matter doesn't make it a crackpot theory.

Last edited by ratbastid; 12-20-2005 at 10:08 AM..
ratbastid is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 10:16 AM   #26 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Cool articles Rat..... thank you for sharing and helping to educate me on the issue.

Deeply appreciated.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 10:36 AM   #27 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
The college I went to was about 36k a year. I had to apply to over 1500 scholarships in order to go there (and I had a 1556 on my SAT). I still ended up having to pay about 10k a year. I worked 50 hours a week and never took less than 22 units. Even with all of that, I had to take advantage of governmnet loans. I had to sell my car to finish the last semester.

Actually, statistics say that if you are born poor, odds are that you'll be abducted by martians. Of course, I have no data to back this up, so you'll just have to take me at my word. (that was an elaborate, if sarcastic, way to say that you'll need sources on a claim like that before people will believe you)

Wrong. Working hard and appling yourself is not a guerentee of promotion in any buisness. And you can't always get a better job.

How do you know that?

Personal experience. My grandmother didn't get an in-door bathroom until I was 6 years-old, 1966. I started life in a dirt-poor family. My dad, never complained, worked two jobs, never showed up late and never called in sick. He is retired now, has a pension, owns his home, travels and still works part-time because he values work. I am the first person to graduate colledge in my family. I went to a state school, and paid for it using my money. My first real job was at McDonald's, making about $3/hr. Even as a McDonald's employee, I worked hard, showed up on time, learned new stuff, took pride in my work and I got promotions and raises. That the way it happens. No magic, just doing what needs to be done and doing it well.

I have seen firsthand those in my old neighborhood who have made it and those who have not, and I know why. If your experience is different you are 100% correct in everything you have said, but I am highly suspicious.
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 10:49 AM   #28 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
If you google "starving the beast", you'll find some very interesting things.

Like <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20041115galeorszag.htm">this one</a>, an article from <i>Tax Notes</i> on the Brookings Institution's website.

Or <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-10.pdf">this publication</a> (titled "Starving the Beast Will Not Work") from the Cato Institute.

Or <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801224_pf.html">this editorial</a> from hurricane-torn and cash-strapped Louisiana, which appeared in the Washington Post in late November. (Oops. That writer uses words like "cynical" and "callous" to describe Bush. Might be too much blind hate for you.)

This isn't fringe-group ranting. Major political institutions and publications are dealing with this topic. Your ignorance in this matter doesn't make it a crackpot theory.
Thanks for the interesting links. I had heard of the "starve the beast" concept before but never really analyzed it. I spent an hour or so reading some google links and think I understand it a little better now.

From what I understand the best way to control government growth is to cut spending. But since our polititians will not do this for political reasons some think that the best way is to control their allowance like Milton Friedman said:
Quote:
. . . how can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For governments, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effectiveŚI would go as far as to say, the only effectiveŚrestraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature. The public reaction will make that restraint effective.
I guess the thinking here is that when deficits get high enough polititians will have to cut spending eventually. While I don't totally agree with this nothing else seems to work either.

One of the links makes the claim that taxes are not too high and that the middle class only pays about 25% of their income on taxes. I have no formal economic education but common sense tells me that the rate is probably much higher. If the middle class spends the majority of their income on living expenses and those expenses are priced to include all the taxes paid along the distribution chain then the price of those goods and services are probably more than 50% because of taxes.

I guess I disagree with the position that taxes are not too high. I guess the best way to reduce government growth is for the beast to eat less and maybe it will eventually if we provide it a little less food. This might work if we hold our polititians accountable and they will eventually begin to balance the budget.
flstf is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 11:41 AM   #29 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Well, and the "beast" in this case is the social safety net. What this doctrine is trying to cut away is social spending--programs designed to impact the quality of people's lives. Little things like welfare and medicare. Fundamentally, the right believes that people should only have their lives bettered if they have the opportunity for that provided them by the marketplace, and then do good, honest, moral work to earn it.

IMO it was the right way to think when we were 13 little states on the edge of a vast, unexploited continent, but it doesn't address today's economic realities. Most of the people who are recipients of federal social program dollars have no way out of their situations on their own. See pre-Katrina New Orleans for a fine example of that.

It appears that even the most compassionate of conservative doesn't much care about that, though. Better to run us trillions of dollars into debt so that we're forced to stop helping people.

I hope Jenna and Barbara's kids learn to speak Chinese!
ratbastid is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 12:48 PM   #30 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Perhaps they can cut spending on other things instead of medicare, etc.. like bridges to nowhere, etc.. Surely there must be a lot of fat and pork barrel projects that they could target.

One doesn't necessarily have to be a conservative to think that the government is too large and getting out of control. Both parties seem to be very good at feeding at the public trough while enriching themselves, their families and their cronies.
flstf is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 05:03 PM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Well, and the "beast" in this case is the social safety net. What this doctrine is trying to cut away is social spending--programs designed to impact the quality of people's lives. Little things like welfare and medicare. Fundamentally, the right believes that people should only have their lives bettered if they have the opportunity for that provided them by the marketplace, and then do good, honest, moral work to earn it.

IMO it was the right way to think when we were 13 little states on the edge of a vast, unexploited continent, but it doesn't address today's economic realities. Most of the people who are recipients of federal social program dollars have no way out of their situations on their own. See pre-Katrina New Orleans for a fine example of that.
I know a person who never saved a dime during their working years and now is only receiving social security, and medicare. This person is truely in poverty and is totally controlled by government. A better plan for them woild have been a private of social security account. If they would have had a private account over 50 years of working a contributing to a private plan rather than to social security, they would have a nice large nest egg, somthing to leave to their children. They would have gained real wealth and had real control over their life in retirement.

Welfare programs are designed to control people. These programs promoted by rich evil democrats like Edward Kennedy and John Kerry so they keep their billions and make to make sure everyone else stays poor. They keep special loop-holes in the tax code so they avoid taxes, want high tax rates so upwardly mobil people don't get rich and so that poor people stay poor and controlled. Now thats the real truth.
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 05:07 PM   #32 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
They keep special loop-holes in the tax code so they avoid taxes, want high tax rates so upwardly mobil people don't get rich and so that poor people stay poor and controlled. Now thats the real truth.
Maybe so, but that's not what this thread is about. I apologize for drawing the topic away from the financial and economic issues in the OP--it's not my intention to have a conversation about the rightness or wrongness of social welfare programs, which would be a very interesting conversation, but it was a mistake to bring that up here. Let's return to the topic, shall we?
ratbastid is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 05:39 PM   #33 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Maybe so, but that's not what this thread is about. I apologize for drawing the topic away from the financial and economic issues in the OP--it's not my intention to have a conversation about the rightness or wrongness of social welfare programs, which would be a very interesting conversation, but it was a mistake to bring that up here. Let's return to the topic, shall we?
Cool.

Please explain why the government should take a dollar away from a person who worked hard for it and then give it to someone else?

In the original post a complaint was made about government cutting social programs, I understand taxation for something like national defense, police, fire, etc. But I don't understand taking from one man to give to another, why not let me choose who I want to help?

P.s. Really the government takes a dollar and gives more like fifty cents, the rest is waste. It is sad, and thats why I hate paying taxes.
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 08:48 PM   #34 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Cool.

Please explain why the government should take a dollar away from a person who worked hard for it and then give it to someone else?

In the original post a complaint was made about government cutting social programs, I understand taxation for something like national defense, police, fire, etc. But I don't understand taking from one man to give to another, why not let me choose who I want to help?

P.s. Really the government takes a dollar and gives more like fifty cents, the rest is waste. It is sad, and thats why I hate paying taxes.
It worked for the previous generation, the baby boomer.

If you make education (college) available for EVERYONE, the past has shown the poor do take advantage of it and move forward and upward.

If the government sponsors training programs, they work and the poor move upward and forward.

If you have a healthcare system where people are not afraid to go, preventative medicine is cheaper because more people go before that cough turns into pneumonia or worse.

Food stamps keep people from starving.

Is there abuse? Most definately, on both sides. But overall, the past has shown when you spend on social programs to better people the rewards are there.

Now when you cut programs and you allow jobs to go overseas and refuse to train workers so they can get better jobs, when you cut education to where the poor and middle classes cannot afford it..... these prohibit advancement.

I've used my dad as an example over and over on here. He grew up in one of the poorest households in the area. He truly was dirt poor.

However, he was able to advance because of government sponsored programs that allowed companies to train him, he was able to go to college with money in the form of loans and grants (while keeping a family of 4 fed).

And it worked, he is now a very successful man. His drive and my mother pushing him helped, but in the long run he admits it was because the government helped him.

He pays more in taxes now than he ever would have had he not gotten the help from the government. But he also can afford more personal luxury than he ever dreamt of regardless of the tax rate, and it is solely because the programms were there to advance him.

A lot of baby boomers moved upward this way. Most couldn't afford college on their own, but with Pell Grants, loans and other programs they got into college became the best educated in the world and advanced in society.

When I pay taxes, (and I am not happy about it but I pay my share), I expect my money to go to uses to better the country and people's lives.

If because of taxes people get better jobs and advance forward then, in their advancement the tax base increases and they help others to advance.

Instead what we are seeing are people crying about taxes, education going into the shitter because people care more about their money and class advancement declining.

Now, show me 1 rich person that cannot afford that new car or mansion, or trip to Jamaica, because of taxes.

Yet, I can show you poor people who work and can barely make it, because sales taxes, property taxes, etc. have risen to cover the losses from the tax cuts to the rich.

I can show you where in our past one reason this country was very successful in the 1950's-80's was because of small business loans and grants, education, and so on.

I can show you now where because of cuts those oppurtunities are no longer there.

In the past the undereducated could just go work at a factory and still make good money. But there are no true factories and prevailing wages are such that people can barely eek out livings..... so there is a huge build up of credit and debt.

You educate and elevate people to maximize their fullest potential and the rewards are a greater tax base that can handle paying the programs back so that others can use them.

You cut the programs, there is no elevation, people do not adavance and the programs die because funding is not there.

Now, you cut the social spending..... perhaps we need to, but try fixing the system first. Cut the pork don't cut the benefits that allow people to advance.

But you cut anyway, saying we cannot afford it. Ok....

But then you cut income from the tax revenue and the cuts you made in the social programs aren't going to help.

It's like you at home. You want to help your kid have a better life than you so you save for him to go to college. But then times get tough for you and you have to cut the amount you save, but at the time you cut the amount you save you also start getting paid less.... so you cut the savings to where you believe you can sustain it, but then you get paid less..... so eventually you are paid so little you cannot save anything. Then, you start going into debt and you have to use the funds you saved, till they are gone. But you are still indebt, because of the necessities in life. Yet, your wages keep getting cut.

That is what the government is doing. They aren't helping cut the deficit, they are not doing anything positive. All they are doing is cutting spending on needed programs, replacing that with tax cuts and spending on bridges to nowhere, and pork programs that are not advancing anyone, while cutting revenue. The debts pile up still but now you have a tax base that is undereducated and cannot compete on the world market for jobs and thus get paid less, so tax revenue is less and so on.

It is a downward spiral.

Cut the pork, streamline spending to help, but not be abused. And if needed cut spending, or if you feel tax cuts will generate private spending and renew the tax base do that. But in the end cutting both is suicidal and will destroy this nation's greatness.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 12-20-2005 at 08:50 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:54 AM   #35 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Just a side note before I return to this thread. Its time to go buy the wife gifts.

Quote:

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
Dec 21 8:37 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON - The U.S. economy turned in a remarkably strong performance in the summer despite surging energy prices and the battering the Gulf Coast states took from hurricanes, although business growth was slightly lower than the government previously estimated. The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that the gross domestic product, the nation's total output of goods and services, rose at an annual rate of 4.1 percent in the July-September quarter. It was the fastest pace of growth in 1 1/2 years.

While down slightly from the 4.3 percent GDP estimate made a month ago, the new figure demonstrated that the economy kept expanding at a strong pace during the summer, led by solid increases in consumer demand, especially for autos, and business investment.

The third quarter performance was up substantially from a 3.3 percent GDP growth rate in the April-June quarter and was the best showing since the economy expanded at a 4.3 percent rate in the first three months of 2004.

Analysts believe growth has slowed substantially in the current quarter to around 3 percent, reflecting slower increases in consumer spending now that attractive auto incentives have been removed.

The increase in third quarter growth came despite the fact that the country was hit by Katrina, the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history, and by Rita.
I wonder how that compares to the rest of the free world.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 09:09 AM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
It worked for the previous generation, the baby boomer.

If you make education (college) available for EVERYONE, the past has shown the poor do take advantage of it and move forward and upward.

If the government sponsors training programs, they work and the poor move upward and forward.

If you have a healthcare system where people are not afraid to go, preventative medicine is cheaper because more people go before that cough turns into pneumonia or worse.

Food stamps keep people from starving.s
The person who started this discussion is going to one of the more expensive colleges in the country, yet he complained about a government cut in a student loan program. He further complained about needing to sell his car. In other words we are talking about someone wanting a government handout, but does not want to make a personal sacrifice. His education is not free. Many hard working people who never had an opportunity and will never benefit from going to a big prestigious university are paying for the program he complains about. The government takes dollars from the guy just getting by for another guy's benefit and it is as if no one realizes that. And then the guy getting the benefit doesn't even say thanks.

Government sponsored training programs are a drop in the bucket. First a person gets a basic education through highschool, then they can go to a subsidized junior college or a state school. If a person f***'s off thier high school education, can't read, do math, and write, I am willing to help those people, but at some point they need to pay the cost for that. Real job training happens in the private sector, all the private sector needs are people who can read, write, do math, and think. The real problem is most people with no skills don't want to start at the bottom.

First no one is starving in this country. Second if we did not have food stamps, people and charitable organizations will step-up and help. I know you would, I would, and everyone else on this forum would. Even during the Great Depression, without food stamps, people did not starve.

We have the best healthcare in the world. People live longer than ever before. We spend more money not less on medical care. Infant survival rates are high than at anytime in history.

Where would you draw the line between socialism and allowing people to benefit from hardwork and sacrifice?
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 09:50 AM   #37 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I just don't get it, every other comparable country out there is spending more on educating their youth, helping their elderly and healthcare and run far less deficits than we do, have better infant mortality rates, standard of living, less families in debt, less of a trade deficit and less poverty.
Other comparable countries have HUGE taxes on everything which is how they can spend more on their elderly and healthcare.

as far as less families in debt?

I'm not so sure, I saw MANY people who shouldn't have cellphones in the Philippines and India, but because they needed to "keep up with the Joneses" they did and pay ALOT for using it. People are living above their means in many countries, not just America.

I've lived in another country for an extended period of time. Have you? Some of them trade off some freedoms to have such government services.

I'd be willing to move back to Singapore even though it would curb my freedom of speech and right to bear arms, all for the safety and cleanliness of that city state.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:05 AM   #38 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The person who started this discussion is going to one of the more expensive colleges in the country, yet he complained about a government cut in a student loan program. He further complained about needing to sell his car. In other words we are talking about someone wanting a government handout, but does not want to make a personal sacrifice. His education is not free. Many hard working people who never had an opportunity and will never benefit from going to a big prestigious university are paying for the program he complains about. The government takes dollars from the guy just getting by for another guy's benefit and it is as if no one realizes that. And then the guy getting the benefit doesn't even say thanks.

Government sponsored training programs are a drop in the bucket. First a person gets a basic education through highschool, then they can go to a subsidized junior college or a state school. If a person f***'s off thier high school education, can't read, do math, and write, I am willing to help those people, but at some point they need to pay the cost for that. Real job training happens in the private sector, all the private sector needs are people who can read, write, do math, and think. The real problem is most people with no skills don't want to start at the bottom.

First no one is starving in this country. Second if we did not have food stamps, people and charitable organizations will step-up and help. I know you would, I would, and everyone else on this forum would. Even during the Great Depression, without food stamps, people did not starve.

We have the best healthcare in the world. People live longer than ever before. We spend more money not less on medical care. Infant survival rates are high than at anytime in history.

Where would you draw the line between socialism and allowing people to benefit from hardwork and sacrifice?

First I started the thread, I am not going to one of the most expensive colleges, nor am I complaining about having to sell a car.

Actually other than my recent medical bills that now stand at $25,000, I am doing quite well for myself. (and I have recieved a 4th phone call telling me if I quit my job I will qualify for aid on my bills, which I have said and continue to say is BS...... why would you not help someone who actually is bettering society, instead of telling them to quit and then get the help needed?)

Just because I am though does not mean that the kids coming up will be.

If you care to take me up on the debate I offered fine.....

As for infant mortality rates we are behind most other comparable countries, we in fact rank with several 3rd world countries..... Evidence I have posted and reposted on several threads.

As for our life exdpectency, again it is behind most othe comparable other countries again... Evidence I have posted and reposted on several threads.

Both go by per capita and percentages not based on how many people live in the country.

Name some companies that pay $50,000 jobs that train people, who start at the ground level without a college degree.

I posted a challenge of a debate, you are more than welcome to take me up on it.

I just believe as I have stated,

if you want to cut social spending.... then prove it needs done and is beneficial to the nation and do it..... we probably could cut pork.

If you want to cut taxes on the rich.... then prove it is needed and will help the nation and do it

But it is suicidal to the country's economy, the welfare of the middle and lower classes and is just showing greed when you do both. It's not justifiable in any way.

I can also prove, that I who make $12,000 roughly pay more of a percentage of my income in taxes than the rich...... yet they cry that they pay too much? AND I make too little to qualify for any healtchcare or education programs (except student loans).

I have no problem paying taxes, IF the money is going to advance the future of this nation..... by cutting education, healthcare and social benefits then cutting the taxes for the rich.... it's not helping the future of the country.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:12 AM   #39 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I can also prove, that I who make $12,000 roughly pay more of a percentage of my income in taxes than the rich...... yet they cry that they pay too much? AND I make too little to qualify for any healtchcare or education programs (except student loans).

I have no problem paying taxes, IF the money is going to advance the future of this nation..... by cutting education, healthcare and social benefits then cutting the taxes for the rich.... it's not helping the future of the country.
In many other countries there are Non Government Organizations that are filing in the gaps because even in those countries the costs are skyrocketing. The NGOs are getting sponsorships from businesses who are getting tax credits for helping out local communities.

As far as how much you earn vs. paying in taxes, I'd happily give you DIRECTLY what I've paid in taxes equal to your income since I pay almost double that already and that's just my salary, there's still my wife's.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:15 AM   #40 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Other comparable countries have HUGE taxes on everything which is how they can spend more on their elderly and healthcare.

as far as less families in debt?

I'm not so sure, I saw MANY people who shouldn't have cellphones in the Philippines and India, but because they needed to "keep up with the Joneses" they did and pay ALOT for using it. People are living above their means in many countries, not just America.

I've lived in another country for an extended period of time. Have you? Some of them trade off some freedoms to have such government services.

I'd be willing to move back to Singapore even though it would curb my freedom of speech and right to bear arms, all for the safety and cleanliness of that city state.
I'm sorry Cyn.... I should have qualified "comparable" as meaning countries that are considered more industrial and "advanced" such as Finland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Australia, Germany, France, England, Canada, Japan, and so on. All the data I have seen and read and friends I have that have been to some of these, live there and so on all show the same evidence, that I have pointed out.

But I would be more than willing to share evidence with you and if I am wrong admit it.

The Philippines, India, Singapore... "the Asian shelf" is pretty much still developing. The exceptions are Japan, Taiwan, Australia and China.

Now in 10-20 years if not sooner they should become major players as they are developing at strong rates, most of them.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
 

Tags
crisis, fiscal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:39 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360