06 Jul 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhat would your "freedom" be like if you had to pay no tax?
its not perceiving their hands our in my pockets its reality.when you see your check getting smaller and smaller for the same amount of work(income tax,state and federal)and your buying power less from inflation and sales tax you begin to feel the crunch.when they tax they keep on taxing for this and that.it never ends.I agree money does not buy happi ...[text shortened]... hicle to help my family and others as I see fit. I worked for the money am i not entitled to it?
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyNo, Obama hasn't even come close to surpassing Reagan and Bush/Cheney's levels of deficit spending. Obama has plans to address the deficit by raising taxes on the rich and corporations, and nonpartisan estimates found that McCain's policies would have sent the country further into debt than Obama's. Furthermore, Obama's policies are a necessary remedy to a mess he interested. His stimulus spending so far may even be too timid.
Due to the last Republican presidents? Have you ever heard of Obama? He has by far surpassed them all and he has not even been in office for a year as of yet!! Why not get your partisan head out of the sand? So you want to scold the Republican Presidents only for what Obama is doing as well? In fact, he is by far the best at it.
Fiscal conservatism on domestic spending doesn't work. There needs to be a certain amount of money flowing to low-to-middle income earners, or else you have an economy at risk of crashes. Harding and Coolidge's fiscal conservatism created the Great Depression, then Hoover continued these policies and worsened it. Only when money was directed towards low-to-middle income earners did the economy start to recover.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by menace71Welfare in the US is minimal, and to cut it further would make crime rates explode, costing the taxpayer more than the meager benefits. Employment rate correlates negatively with tax rates; countries with higher taxes tend to have a higher proportion of people working. This suggests that the percentage of people on benefits who are too lazy to work because of benefits is either low or negligible.
Not sure but too much welfare programs and people are rewarded for being lazy and not working. Cut out Government waste also.
Manny
How do you suggest government waste be cut?
06 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't know where you got that information, but welfare in the US is anything but minimal.
Welfare in the US is minimal, and to cut it further would make crime rates explode, costing the taxpayer more than the meager benefits. Employment rate correlates negatively with tax rates; countries with higher taxes tend to have a higher proportion of people working. This suggests that the percentage of people on benefits who are too lazy to work b ...[text shortened]... ause of benefits is either low or negligible.
How do you suggest government waste be cut?
On the federal level, we have Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing assistance, social security (including SSI and SSD) and Medicare.
Many states, especially NY and Massachussetts have supplemental healthcare programs for the lower middle class plus welfare systems that write monthly checks to people who are poor.
An enormous amount of federal and state dollars go into paying for people's college and training in the forms of Pell Grants, low interest Stafford loans, state re-training programs, etc. etc.
I'm not sure if you're making that assertion based on reputation or based on comparisons with some European countries. I'm sure some European countries give more welfare, but your assertion that US welfare is minimal is incorrect.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76You bring up food stamps as an example of how generous welfare is in the US. I really don't know what to say to that... Most European countries have not seen food stamps since World War II, and giving food stamps instead of money goes way too far for even the most right wing politicians.
I don't know where you got that information, but welfare in the US is anything but minimal.
On the federal level, we have Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing assistance, social security (including SSI and SSD) and Medicare.
Many states, especially NY and Massachussetts have supplemental healthcare programs for the lower middle class plus welfare syst ...[text shortened]... an countries give more welfare, but your assertion that US welfare is minimal is incorrect.
Here are some of the benefits to the unemployed in, let's say, Sweden:
Universal health care, free education (including access to university), virtual assurance of housing, pensions and an income that will guarantee being able to buy food and clothing.
06 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe U.S. equivalents ARE minimal as compared to these.
Here are some of the benefits to the unemployed in, let's say, Sweden: Universal health care, free education (including access to university), virtual assurance of housing, pensions and an income that will guarantee being able to buy food and clothing.
06 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFree education is provided in the US as well, though this does not extend to University. Still, University education is heavily subsidized. Between Pell grants and low interest Stafford loans, everyone can go to college if they so choose.
You bring up food stamps as an example of how generous welfare is in the US. I really don't know what to say to that... Most European countries have not seen food stamps since World War II, and giving food stamps instead of money goes way too far for even the most right wing politicians.
Here are some of the benefits to the unemployed in, let's say, ...[text shortened]... ousing, pensions and an income that will guarantee being able to buy food and clothing.
In fact, you could argue that the US system is more progressive because these programs are income based. Therefore, people who can afford to, pay for their own college education while people who cannot afford to, have their education subsidized by the government.
Section 8 and social security give virtual assurance of housing and pensions. Maybe not to the same extent as they do in Sweden, but to a pretty darn sizeable extent. Again, these are income based.
Which is more progressive: High taxes on all classes and give everyone the services they need or: low taxes on the lower classes, medium taxes on the higher classes and only give the services to people who can't afford them?
I think the idea of giving food stamps to people who need food is a better idea than giving them cash, which can be spent on anything, if you're trying to give those same people food.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Education is not available to the poor in the US. Public schools in poor neighbourhoods are usually worthless, and therefore getting into university is extremely difficult. The other programs you mention are, as you admit, not as generous as in most rich industrialized nations, who also don't leave their poor to die when they are sick.
Free education is provided in the US as well, though this does not extend to University. Still, University education is heavily subsidized. Between Pell grants and low interest Stafford loans, everyone can go to college if they so choose.
In fact, you could argue that the US system is more progressive because these programs are income based. Therefore, peopl ...[text shortened]... medium taxes on the higher classes and only give the services to people who can't afford them?
I don't understand what you are trying to say with your latter statement; you can simply look up and verify that income differences are smaller.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWho leaves the poor to die when they're sick? That's simply being inflammatory.
Education is not available to the poor in the US. Public schools in poor neighbourhoods are usually worthless, and therefore getting into university is extremely difficult. The other programs you mention are, as you admit, not as generous as in most rich industrialized nations, who also don't leave their poor to die when they are sick.
I don't unders ...[text shortened]... your latter statement; you can simply look up and verify that income differences are smaller.
I didn't say the welfare system was generous. I said it was not minimal.
About the public schools being worthless, what exactly then do you WANT the government to do? Create better schools? Well, duh. How? If there's a problem with US public schools, it's a failure of socialism not a reason to demand more of it. The US public school system is socialist.
To address the issue of failing public schools, I'd like to see a 100% voucher system (everyone gets $12,000 per child or whatever the average is and gets to apply it as tuition to any school they choose). The University system does that (though it's not 100% subsidized) and relies on accreditation to police the schools.