47% will pay no federal income tax (1 Viewer)

[mister pc]

you think the government is overstepping its bounds by redistributing money, but its ok for the government to redistribute children. this kind of bassackwards stupidity is the reason i put you on ignore. sorry biz but i really need to excercise some self restraint and stop indulging you in this nonsense. it is difficult for me to see idiocy and allow it to go unchecked but ill work on that.

 

[dtc]

It is not always that cut and dry. The two do not always correlate. For example, if 8 years ago the upper class received a tax break. About the same time, 9/11 occurs and we go to war. The economy falters and spending goes through the roof. This does not mean that the tax break caused the economy to falter or spending to increase. To make a fair assessment of the tax break, everything else would have to remain the same. This of course never happens in a large economy. This is also why it is so difficult to pin a problem on somebody. Sure spending increased during Bush's two terms. We also had 9/11, Iraq war and two major devastating hurricanes. Remove those three events and we could have a completely different economy right now. But like I said before, we can not go back in time, make a change and then compare results. 9?11 occurred, Bush declared war on Iraq and the hurricanes hit. It is what it is. This of course makes it easy for any party to point the finger.

I know you guys tend to think Ike and Katrina were the only two hurricanes that hit in the past 100 years, but rest assured there have been others. FYI, Ivan and Dennis hit my area directly in 04 causing much loss of life and property. We're just lucky that we weren't being protected by faulty govt funded levees thankfully.

Anyway, you're rationalizing the fact that Bush could have curtailed spending or left taxes where they were if, indeed, he cared about debt/deficit. Why doesn't matter. We're talking about fiscal discipline. Neither party have it - hurricanes or not. The party in charge that gave tax cuts while spending increases was R until 2 years ago.

 

[dtc]

Revenues to the government went up following the 2nd Bush tax cuts as usually is the case when taxes are cut. Unfortunately, Congress chooses to outspend the increased revenues...as usual.

Revenues
2000 2,025.5
2001 1,991.4
2002 1,853.4 First Bush Tax Cut (Keynesian)
2003 1,782.5
2004 1,880.3 Second Bush Tax Cut (Supply Side)
2005 2,153.9
2006 2,407.3
2007 2,568.2
2008 2,523.6

Outlays
2000 1,789.2
2001 1,863.2
2002 2,011.2
2003 2,160.1
2004 2,293.0
2005 2,472.2
2006 2,655.4
2007 2,728.9
2008 2,978.5


Obama is spending your kids and grandkids' financial futures.

The 2000 and 2001 budgets are Clintons, FYI. And, the economy was running on stimulus money from all the printing and borrowing when govt revenues went up.

 

[BHM]

I know you guys tend to think Ike and Katrina were the only two hurricanes that hit in the past 100 years, but rest assured there have been others. FYI, Ivan and Dennis hit my area directly in 04 causing much loss of life and property. We're just lucky that we weren't being protected by faulty govt funded levees thankfully.

Anyway, you're rationalizing the fact that Bush could have curtailed spending or left taxes where they were if, indeed, he cared about debt/deficit. Why doesn't matter. We're talking about fiscal discipline. Neither party have it - hurricanes or not. The party in charge that gave tax cuts while spending increases was R until 2 years ago.

I was just making the point that just because spending increased, does not mean that it was caused by Bush's tax cuts. It could have been directly related but not necessarily. The increased spending could have been from other reasons.

From your last post, it seems that revenue increased after Bush's second tax cut. But I think it would still be a stretch to say that the tax cuts increased revenue. Again, the increased revenue could have been totally unrealted to the tax cut.

Bottom line is that we need to control the spending as well, I do not care who is running the ship.

 

[dtc]

I see you did not offer me a monthly check. And one more time... just in case you missed it... I do not advocate starving and suffering kids. But since you will not tell me how much you are willing to write me a monthly check for, I will ask you another question. What if more of a horrific alternative, leaving a child to fend for themselves living in the projects with irresponsible parents or taking the kid away and putting them in an environment conducive to growth and well being?

And by the way, I think it is funny how people of your thinking advocate helping but never answer the question about how much of their money they are willing to give up to accomplish that goal. But yet they have no problem saying that this country has the resources. Are they not part of this country? Why is it such a tough question to answer? If we could end poverty tomorrow morning if you gave up 30% of your income, downsized to a one bedroom home and gave up your nice car for an old beater, would you vote yes for it?

This whole thing is getting rEdiculous. I pay a lot of taxes because most years I make a good deal of money. Let me assure you all that I'm not starving nor do I feel punished for my success. Personally, I feel blessed, but I guess that's just me. Stupid glutton.

 

[RazorOye]

This whole thing is getting rEdiculous.

like I tried pointing out earlier, this thread passed ridiculous a long time ago... we've passed ludicrous speed, too

we've gone plaid

/spaceballs

 

[BHM]

I understand that many of you do not agree with me and that is fine. Everyone is welcome to their own views. Some like to simplify what I say in an effort to make it sound worse than it is. That is fine as well. Some like to twist and spin things to justify their own reasonings. That is cool. Some even call my views bassackwards and that may be true as well. But maybe we need a little bassackwardsness since the current welfare system is doing very little to reduce the numbers in the system. We continue to see more and more people receiving benefits and it is costing this country more and more each year and kids are still suffering.

I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem helping. That I do not wish to see children suffer. But we continue to leave our blindfolds on and fail to see that children are suffering. Welfare is doing little to help this situation. Welfare is doing little to end the cycle of poverty. We have for decades taken from the wealthy and given to the poor. Poverty remains a huge issue in this country. Rather than have an open minded conversation about other possible solutions, the closed minded want to continue the same old thing that is simply not working.

So maybe my ideas are a little off base. Maybe some are happy with the status quo? Maybe some settle for continuing the decline. Go ride through a housing project and ask yourself if welfare is helping. Ask yourself if those kids do not deserve a better life. Ask yourself if we are doing the right thing.

How much more are we going to spend to continue this problem? How much more are you willing to take out of your check to accomplish very little? Where are your ideas? All you have is dumping more money on them and getting worse results. Yeah, I am bassackwards and our welfare system is great.

 

[BHM]

This whole thing is getting rEdiculous. I pay a lot of taxes because most years I make a good deal of money. Let me assure you all that I'm not starving nor do I feel punished for my success. Personally, I feel blessed, but I guess that's just me. Stupid glutton.

So, what's wrong with a tax break? I guess its best to give tax breaks to people who have kids they can't afford than to people living off retirement,

Well at least you partially agree with me now don't you?

 

[Shawn]

I understand that many of you do not agree with me and that is fine. Everyone is welcome to their own views. Some like to simplify what I say in an effort to make it sound worse than it is. That is fine as well. Some like to twist and spin things to justify their own reasonings. That is cool. Some even call my views bassackwards and that may be true as well. But maybe we need a little bassackwardsness since the current welfare system is doing very little to reduce the numbers in the system. We continue to see more and more people receiving benefits and it is costing this country more and more each year and kids are still suffering.

I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem helping. That I do not wish to see children suffer. But we continue to leave our blindfolds on and fail to see that children are suffering. Welfare is doing little to help this situation. Welfare is doing little to end the cycle of poverty. We have for decades taken from the wealthy and given to the poor. Poverty remains a huge issue in this country. Rather than have an open minded conversation about other possible solutions, the closed minded want to continue the same old thing that is simply not working.

So maybe my ideas are a little off base. Maybe some are happy with the status quo? Maybe some settle for continuing the decline. Go ride through a housing project and ask yourself if welfare is helping. Ask yourself if those kids do not deserve a better life. Ask yourself if we are doing the right thing.

How much more are we going to spend to continue this problem? How much more are you willing to take out of your check to accomplish very little? Where are your ideas? All you have is dumping more money on them and getting worse results. Yeah, I am bassackwards and our welfare system is great.

Your second paragraph is really an opinion. If we eliminated welfare tomorrow, do you think children would be better off or worse off?

You would have a strong case to say that welfare doesn't make the lives of children "good". It's not great--it's just that it could be worse. It's a hard thing to quantify. And it's a troubled system, that has been tinkered with endlessly, and it seems that when one problem is addressed, a new one takes its place. But it does do some good.

With all due respect, it seems to me that when people express the point of view that you have--I see them complaining about a problem without having any viable or realistic solution to solve that problem. Welfare may be inefficient and flawed; it's also abused. But like all forms of assistance, it attempts to reach people in need who use the system as it's intended, with the knowledge that a certain amount of waste has to be tolerated.

Ultimately, I don't see anyone coming up with any great solutions; and simply ending welfare or ending the tax breaks, is NOT going to stop people from having kids that they can't afford. And these children will likely end up becoming a burden to the state in one way or another.

Oh...unless you want to promote and encourage Federally funded abortions.

 

[BHM]

Your second paragraph is really an opinion. If we eliminated welfare tomorrow, do you think children would be better off or worse off?

You would have a strong case to say that welfare doesn't make the lives of children "good". It's not great--it's just that it could be worse. It's a hard thing to quantify. And it's a troubled system, that has been tinkered with endlessly, and it seems that when one problem is addressed, a new one takes its place. But it does do some good.

With all due respect, it seems to me that when people express the point of view that you have--I see them complaining about a problem without having any viable or realistic solution to solve that problem. Welfare may be inefficient and flawed; it's also abused. But like all forms of assistance, it attempts to reach people in need who use the system as it's intended, with the knowledge that a certain amount of waste has to be tolerated.

Ultimately, I don't see anyone coming up with any great solutions; and simply ending welfare or ending the tax breaks, is NOT going to stop people from having kids that they can't afford. And these children will likely end up becoming a burden to the state in one way or another.

Oh...unless you want to promote and encourage Federally funded abortions.

I gave what I believe to be viable solutions. They were ridiculed. Viable solutions do not mean it will be easy or popular solutions. We have to encourage poor people to wait to have their kids until they can afford them. At that point, their children will be better cared for and live a fuller life. Maybe even breaking the cycle of poverty. I would not mind if they were paid for not having kids until they were above the poverty level. Perhaps a reward for being responsible. Paying and extra $500.00/month for waiting to have kids is cheaper than paying for that kids for the rest of his life.

Kids being raised by more responsible parents who waited until they were financially and emotionally better prepared to have kids would probably do better in school and would less likely to turn to crime.

 

[Tapxe]

I'm fine with this as long as I am in the 47% with no liability.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Revenues to the government went up following the 2nd Bush tax cuts as usually is the case when taxes are cut. Unfortunately, Congress chooses to outspend the increased revenues...as usual.

Revenues
2000 2,025.5
2001 1,991.4
2002 1,853.4 First Bush Tax Cut (Keynesian)
2003 1,782.5
2004 1,880.3 Second Bush Tax Cut (Supply Side)
2005 2,153.9
2006 2,407.3
2007 2,568.2
2008 2,523.6

Outlays
2000 1,789.2
2001 1,863.2
2002 2,011.2
2003 2,160.1
2004 2,293.0
2005 2,472.2
2006 2,655.4
2007 2,728.9
2008 2,978.5


Obama is spending your kids and grandkids' financial futures.

We went over this myth of yours that tax cuts have increased revenue above and beyond what taxes would have been absent the cuts. It tends to go: you throw some numbers without context up. I tell you how wrong you are. You come back with some more numbers and some poor excuses for academic links you think support your argument. I show you how wrong you are. Than you go away from the topic for a little while and then come back and basically repeat the same thing all over again a few months later.

 

[Rouxble]

Oh...unless you want to promote and encourage Federally funded abortions.

http://uspoverty.change.org/blog/view/paying_teens_not_to_get_pregnant

I remember reading this or something similar awhile back. Increase the opportunity costs of pregnancy, theoretically reduce the incidence of pregnancy. I wonder if a program like this implemented on a large scale would have a positive effect? Would the cost of providing the incentives result in fewer transfer payments to the point that there would be a net savings? Would we see an increase in average productivity as women opt for education over/before pregnancy?

/threadjack

 

[dtc]

I understand that many of you do not agree with me and that is fine. Everyone is welcome to their own views. Some like to simplify what I say in an effort to make it sound worse than it is. That is fine as well. Some like to twist and spin things to justify their own reasonings. That is cool. Some even call my views bassackwards and that may be true as well. But maybe we need a little bassackwardsness since the current welfare system is doing very little to reduce the numbers in the system. We continue to see more and more people receiving benefits and it is costing this country more and more each year and kids are still suffering.

I have stated repeatedly that I have no problem helping. That I do not wish to see children suffer. But we continue to leave our blindfolds on and fail to see that children are suffering. Welfare is doing little to help this situation. Welfare is doing little to end the cycle of poverty. We have for decades taken from the wealthy and given to the poor. Poverty remains a huge issue in this country. Rather than have an open minded conversation about other possible solutions, the closed minded want to continue the same old thing that is simply not working.

So maybe my ideas are a little off base. Maybe some are happy with the status quo? Maybe some settle for continuing the decline. Go ride through a housing project and ask yourself if welfare is helping. Ask yourself if those kids do not deserve a better life. Ask yourself if we are doing the right thing.

How much more are we going to spend to continue this problem? How much more are you willing to take out of your check to accomplish very little? Where are your ideas? All you have is dumping more money on them and getting worse results. Yeah, I am bassackwards and our welfare system is great.

Dood, you're assuming poverty can be fixed. You're assuming welfare was designed to turn people into productive members of society or that some element of fair comes into play if welfare = which you define as stealing from the rich to give to the poor - somehow results in fewer poor.

It's your assumptions that are wrong. There will always be poor people. There will always be lazy. There will always be dumb, crazy, ignorant, unlucky, unmotivated or otherwise incapable. Those people, in a civilised nation, are provided the bare minimum to get by. It's a tactic rich people learned some time ago and it prevents those fortunate enough to be rich from being rounded up and guillotined.

And, btw, our country's welfare system is rife with examples of those who have benefitted who otherwise would have been thrown on life's big trash heap. I think our current POTUS and most recent Supreme Court Justice appointee come to mind, but there are many, many, many more.

 

[iron error]

Dood, you're assuming poverty can be fixed. You're assuming welfare was designed to turn people into productive members of society or that some element of fair comes into play if welfare = which you define as stealing from the rich to give to the poor - somehow results in fewer poor.

It's your assumptions that are wrong. There will always be poor people. There will always be lazy. There will always be dumb, crazy, ignorant, unlucky, unmotivated or otherwise incapable. Those people, in a civilised nation, are provided the bare minimum to get by. It's a tactic rich people learned some time ago and it prevents those fortunate enough to be rich from being rounded up and guillotined.

And, btw, our country's welfare system is rife with examples of those who have benefitted who otherwise would have been thrown on life's big trash heap. I think our current POTUS and most recent Supreme Court Justice appointee come to mind, but there are many, many, many more.

There are tons and tons of success stories of people doing real well that came from welfare households. That is not even questionable.

I think where Biz is coming from is if you should have children knowing full well that you cannot afford to support and raise them and will need assistance, not from family, but from the government/taxpayers. But Biz is thinking that way because he is a responsible person and he feels we should all be and do responsible things in life. This country is not one of responsible people for the most part. It shows in the way we live on credit and do things that directly and immediately affect others negatively, and for some in ways that drain society in general. He seems to be getting a lot of grief for it. However, he has to realize that is the way people are. Period. It will always be that way, just like you stated. Heck, even Jesus explicitly said that you will always have the poor. However, we have to realize that you have to try to help everyone in need to a certain extent, for some are not in need by their own irresponsibility, and some have been and are working past that fact, some will overcome their need in great ways, and some will always be in need by their own poor choices. You do not know who is which so you just have to provide help in general and let people make their own choices in life. That is a benefit of living in the USA and not a third-world country.




My point for myself would be do not raise my taxes anymore in order to pay for the excess of government. They need to tighten their belt like everyone else is.