skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Jan 28, 2011 10:40:54 GMT -5
Red states have national parks, and protections of wildlife. The federal government pays to keep land out of development and business that brings in tax revenue, and pays for the replacement of livestock that would have been sold for food. Both of these issues cost federal tax dollars, and eliminate tax revenues, and they are typically voted for by blue state representatives. Red states often have a great deal of agriculture, which is heavily subsidized, so that food prices will be cheaper at the market, so that the poor can afford a better diet. Again liberal policy that doesn't really benefit the folks in the red states, but sends money their way. The highway system on great expanses in the mid-west and west are a great expense and so are military installations. As a conservative in a red state I would allow for the sale of all federal lands, elimination of wildlife protection and agricultural subsidies to help the federal deficit, would a liberal from a blue state write the bill please. I would even deal with significantly worse interstate highway system and smaller military if that is necessary, to make a deal. As far as the states that are going bankrupt, it isn't the union's fault, your government willingly signed the union contract. As we know from GM and Chrysler bailouts, those contracts are a protected class, and as citizens you will fund them fully, unless the US gov't bails you out with our collective money. Personally I will never invest in a union company, ever again, I wish I could do the same with states.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jan 28, 2011 10:40:55 GMT -5
<<< It's similar to a Packers fan saying "we're gonna beat Pittsburgh!". What do YOU win in the end? >>>
...a 7th Super Bowl ring... ;D
|
|
robinking
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:54:21 GMT -5
Posts: 167
|
Post by robinking on Jan 28, 2011 11:02:02 GMT -5
<<< It's similar to a Packers fan saying "we're gonna beat Pittsburgh!". What do YOU win in the end? >>> ...a 7th Super Bowl ring... ;D They better win, I have Ben and the Steeler's defense on my playoff fantasy team! I'm in 1st by 3 points and the closest guys have Aaron R. and the Packers defense. It's gonna be a great game. I'm a Lions fan and if it weren't for fantasy, I wouldn't have a pony in the race. Go Steelers! But, if the Packers win, I'll be happy for them them as well.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 28, 2011 11:09:56 GMT -5
Indeed. Thank that raving liberal Roosevelt for that. It hurts lumber companies,paper products,all in the name of stifeling free enterprise at a huge cost.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jan 28, 2011 11:32:08 GMT -5
Red states.....blue states I did notice that both MS and LA made a decent jump in 2005. I'd imagine due in part to hurricane relief. I'd also guess that the Midwest states receive more relief dollars for natural disasters as well. Some receive dollars for parks, military bases, and a whole host of other reasons. So, I'll say the same thing I say every time this issue comes up. Unless you know what the money is for and where it is going, you can't really make any logical conclusion other than state x receives more than state z.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 11:33:49 GMT -5
Yes, i'd like to see it broken down... does anyone have any data on that? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Jan 28, 2011 11:42:30 GMT -5
Much is being said and debated in the public about these two political concepts. There are some very well educated folks on both sides, along with some well intentioned and caring people. Then there are the sheep on both sides who follow talking points as if this is some game. "Us", "we", "they"... as if when their side wins they receive a prize in the mail. It's similar to a Packers fan saying "we're gonna beat Pittsburgh!". What do YOU win in the end? Bragging rights? In the case of Liberals, more entitlement spending or Conservatives, lower taxes? Here we are, in dire economic straits, with states actually considering bankruptcy and people are still Liberal. It's akin to a Liberal family that brings in $100,000 a year and lives a $140,000 a year lifestyle. Add to this, they have promised the kids college and a nice starter home. Well, the kids are seniors in high school and the bread winner just took a pay cut. Here's two scenarios: The Liberal family will look for any free handouts they can find. Hold a grudge on their shoulder as it was everyone's fault their hours were cut but their own. The kids would lash out because mom & dad promised me college at Harvard, so they BETTER find the money! Take out a loan, borrow from the richer neighbors (with no intention of repaying), take money from my twin sister's college fund... I don't care, my union, I mean family contract said I get to go to college! Never mind there is no money in the account. Mom & dad put IOUs in there, so the trust fund is good! I don't care how or where the money comes from, YOU MADE A PROMISE TO ME! It's not my fault you lied or couldn't do math!!!! A Conservative family would simply, cut the food budget, maybe drop the thermostat a few degrees, drop HBO and tell the kids they're going to have to get a part-time job and go to community college for the first two years. They can live at home, but if they disrespect the rules... they're out! These kids may be disappointed, but they RESPECT their parents and will be better adjusted after they earn their degree themselves! I have no issue with unions. They have brought about better working conditions, pay and benefits... but their leadership abused their power and have directly lead to our economic collapse. Unions used their clout to elect leaders who use emotion instead of math! They made ridiculous promises that they knew wouldn't work, but that got them short term prosperity and power. Now, the states that have been run with CONSERVATIVE ideology and that are in the black, will have to bail out the Liberal states. To the Liberals I ask this; if your ideology is so great, why are all the "blue states" broke and many "red states" not? How do you blame Conservatives for this? How and where was the information you have based your scenario on obtained? Is this anecdotal? Do you know a family like this?
|
|
robinking
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:54:21 GMT -5
Posts: 167
|
Post by robinking on Jan 28, 2011 12:18:50 GMT -5
It's completely anecdotal. It's meant to compare a household to the government. Many things the government does would put us in jail. I can't print money, but they do with impunity... making our dollars with less. They give contracts in exchange for votes. If I do this, it's called a bribe. They accept political donations for favorable legislation, then live like kings & queens using their election slush funds. They hire family, get hired themselves by compaines they helped or serve of boards once they quit office or are removed. These board positions are political bribes and easy money that effectively takes from the shareholders. I remember hearing about Mrs. Obama's position at a hospital when the president was a senator. She made ~$300,000+ a year but it wasn't a full time position. I believe the position wasn't filled when she quit. Pay back? I don't know. Then there's Hillary turning $1,000 into $100,000 with Whitewater. Republicans get their hands dirty too!
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jan 28, 2011 12:21:11 GMT -5
'For every one person who cleaned, bought food or whatever, there were 3 who only TOOK!!!!!! My God Liberals, wake up!'
This is why the communes of the 60s failed. Socialism fails for this same reason, for each giver there are 3-4 takers. The time will come when there is no more to give. Unfortunately commune living and Dr Benjamin Spock destroyed a whole generation, and that generation raised children with the 'gimmee' mentality. We are now in the third generation with that mentality and it will take a major shakeup to bring this country back on it's 'personal responsibility' feet.
'Do you know a family like this?'
I know families on both sides of the spectrum. The kids that demand parents send them to a name college in a different state, and get it no matter the cost to the rest of the family. Other kids that are willing to go to community college then transfer to a college within the resident state.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 12:43:32 GMT -5
And are all the entitled kids liberals? And all the content cc goers conservative... not that it would be generalizable from that sample anyway, but i doubt these things really divide along those lines...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 28, 2011 12:59:52 GMT -5
Much is being said and debated in the public about these two political concepts. There are some very well educated folks on both sides, along with some well intentioned and caring people. Then there are the sheep on both sides who follow talking points as if this is some game. "Us", "we", "they"... as if when their side wins they receive a prize in the mail. It's similar to a Packers fan saying "we're gonna beat Pittsburgh!". What do YOU win in the end? Bragging rights? In the case of Liberals, more entitlement spending or Conservatives, lower taxes? Here we are, in dire economic straits, with states actually considering bankruptcy and people are still Liberal. It's akin to a Liberal family that brings in $100,000 a year and lives a $140,000 a year lifestyle. Add to this, they have promised the kids college and a nice starter home. Well, the kids are seniors in high school and the bread winner just took a pay cut. Here's two scenarios: The Liberal family will look for any free handouts they can find. Hold a grudge on their shoulder as it was everyone's fault their hours were cut but their own. The kids would lash out because mom & dad promised me college at Harvard, so they BETTER find the money! Take out a loan, borrow from the richer neighbors (with no intention of repaying), take money from my twin sister's college fund... I don't care, my union, I mean family contract said I get to go to college! Never mind there is no money in the account. Mom & dad put IOUs in there, so the trust fund is good! I don't care how or where the money comes from, YOU MADE A PROMISE TO ME! It's not my fault you lied or couldn't do math!!!! A Conservative family would simply, cut the food budget, maybe drop the thermostat a few degrees, drop HBO and tell the kids they're going to have to get a part-time job and go to community college for the first two years. They can live at home, but if they disrespect the rules... they're out! These kids may be disappointed, but they RESPECT their parents and will be better adjusted after they earn their degree themselves! I have no issue with unions. They have brought about better working conditions, pay and benefits... but their leadership abused their power and have directly lead to our economic collapse. Unions used their clout to elect leaders who use emotion instead of math! They made ridiculous promises that they knew wouldn't work, but that got them short term prosperity and power. Now, the states that have been run with CONSERVATIVE ideology and that are in the black, will have to bail out the Liberal states. To the Liberals I ask this; if your ideology is so great, why are all the "blue states" broke and many "red states" not? How do you blame Conservatives for this? How and where was the information you have based your scenario on obtained? Is this anecdotal? Do you know a family like this? Thank you for tackling this bolder dash BS ..I started to but just gave up as I hate talking to rocks, you get so little back. I could do the same against the conservatives. Example , I believe the majority of them are afraid of any change. Most , while coming from immigrant stock , some how have forgot that and seem to feel that their fore bearers were on the third ship from England after the Mayflower, and are not happy with those who came after unless they have the same skin color and ethnic back ground as themselves. They believe they and they alone are the true patriots of this country and all others are just hear to tear the country apart. Only they and theirs have served and bled in our wars and served when called upon to do so. Only the "others " ever find themselves at a disadvantage at times and thus in need of help from the government till they are able to get back on their feet and when the few of them find themselves in that situation, they hold up their hands and say no, we won't ask for that assistance, we'll do it ourselves. I could continue with this foolishness but why bother. I am very happy being what I am politically...middle bend to the left. Extremism on any side is not productive and just doesn't work. When it's in force, very shortly it is overturned , at least it has so far and no I don't think the country is going to the dogs and our time as a world leader is over. That we have problems, well when haven't we. We are a nation of over 300 million. I remember a population of 150 million, . You may feel it is ancient history. It was 1950..not that long ago, and the stress of doubling in 60 years has been handled over all, not badly. Different Administrations, Political parties in power, and we are still chugging along...doing not bad overall. Problem is, my feeling, Conservatives, to many have a stick stuck up their butt..take themselves so seriously..feel they have it all right on all topics and overall, besides being scared of change , feel they are superior to all others..and over all, while not really prejudice, really , again , overall, are not that tolerant of those who are different then they are. It's that stick thing again in my opinion.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 28, 2011 13:42:49 GMT -5
Are you saying those recieving unconstitutional redistribution programs tend to live in conservative states,jkpp? I'm saying they have to...they can't afford to live in the high cost/tax states. They may have lived in the blue states their entire lives and paid their taxes in those states, but now that they are retired they can't live on their fixed incomes and blow through, let's say, $8000 a year on property taxes. Who would want to?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 13:44:55 GMT -5
Did you bother to look at any of the links i posted that show that really isn't true jkapp... There is not a significant difference of over 65 populations in blue/red states...
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Jan 28, 2011 13:49:22 GMT -5
Robin - I'm liberal and I can tell you that is not how I lived my life or continue to live it. I can paint some pretty pathetic pictures of the conservatives I know, but what's the point? There are whiners and complainers in both camps. Each has a sense of entitlement population within its rank.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 28, 2011 14:10:06 GMT -5
Did you bother to look at any of the links i posted that show that really isn't true jkapp... There is not a significant difference of over 65 populations in blue/red states... www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre70p78y-us-usa-taxes-states/>>Many of the states with large population gains in the 2010 Census are well-known low-tax havens, such as Florida, Texas and Nevada. The tax-motivated move is a common strategy for retirees who abandon high-tax states for low- and no- tax places. Retirees who can stash money into a tax-deferred retirement account during their working years, and then withdraw the money to spend on their new life in a low-tax state, can especially profit.<< www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/nj_ranks_5th_in_nation_for_mos.html>>The data confirms residents are leaving for states like Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and the Carolinas faster than they are being replaced — a phenomenon that economists attribute to factors such as climate, high taxes and a lack of job opportunities. "People are being pulled out, and they’re being pushed out," said Joseph Seneca, a Rutgers University economics professor who studies migration. "They’re pulled because of retirement and climate reasons. They’re pushed by taxes and costs and — through this decade — a relative lack of economic opportunities in terms of job growth."<< >>Lifelong resident Jim Steinruck, 58, said he is counting down the days until he and his wife can retire and move out of New Jersey. With their children out of school, they can no longer justify paying $12,000 a year in property taxes for their Branchburg home, he said — not to mention separate fees for garbage, sewer, police and heating<< Statistical reports are not always accurate...mainly from the fact that you can make statistical reports show whatever you want
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 14:14:39 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. I rarely add much to discussions like this because I feel they are a waste of time. I believe that both conservatives & liberals are 99.9% closed minded. I know that I am. No one will ever get me to agree that wealth distribution (no matter what name you call it) is fair. The same applies to property rights, etc. Just like President Obama's statement that the federal government will be used to hire some of the unemployed doesn't add up to me (the numbers just don't add up..duh). To me our country has done pretty well so far & right now what's killing us is overspending caused by: 1. Stupid pork barrel spending (to get people re-elected & 2. Social (socialist) programs. Right now those programs are failing (when the government has to go back & cut entitlements that people have ALREADY earned, that is a failure) & yet we are expanding those social programs. That is more or less what I would define as insane. I believe when 60% of the people pay taxes & 40% do not pay taxes that is insane. We are on this socialist road now & I don't think there is a way to change the course that we are taking (to much give me momentum) & I believe that it marks the end of the United States as we know it. Just what I think.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 14:17:56 GMT -5
"The data confirms residents are leaving for states like Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and the Carolinas faster than they are being replaced — a phenomenon that economists attribute to factors such as climate, high taxes and a lack of job opportunities." ... i'm sorry... New York and Pennsyvlania, etc. are red states? ... Yes, Florida does have like 17%... but most have between 12-14% ages over 65... there is very little range if you throw out Florida and Utah... and no decidedly blue/red divide .... These are census accounts of #s, not being skewed in any way...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 14:21:25 GMT -5
I believe when 60% of the people pay taxes & 40% do not pay taxes that is insane.
Are you saying they pay NO taxes... or they pay no federal income taxes?
And have you looked at a budget to see 1) how much of it is actually made up of 'pork barrel projects' ... and 2) what exactly those 'stupid' projects consist of?
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Jan 28, 2011 14:33:15 GMT -5
Oldtex- What programs do you consider socialist?
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jan 28, 2011 14:41:39 GMT -5
I can say that as a liberal, the OP's description is nowhere near to how I think or how a "lib family" handles things.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jan 28, 2011 14:56:27 GMT -5
The issue of who contributes/receives Federal Funds is misleading. There are a number of considerations and I've never seen it broken down. 1] How much of the Federal monies sent to Red States are used to meet Federal Mandates? 2] How much for Federal and Interstate Highways? Remember, High population states use the Interstates particularly, more than the States through which they pass ~ to send, e.g., goods from LA to NY. The Federal money for interstates is to benefit the nation, not individual States through which they pass. 3] In the case of military and other Federal installations, how much of the Federal money is actually fee for service? That just touches a little. To me, it's an invalid argument unless the actual expenditures are designated so that we could see if the Federal monies are actually a "benefit" or something else. 4] Another factor should be considered. Consider W. Virginia: Sen. Byrd was a master of funneling Federal money to his state, establishing Federal installations, etc. Now ~ Sen. Byrd wasn't a "conservative" in the sense we're discussing. This phenomenon is an artifact of Reconstruction. The legislators from the South became masters of "pork." That's why they were Democrats. They were in no way, "fiscal conservatives," although the people they represented tended to be "social conservatives." But even they were not opposed to Federal "handouts." The "conservatism" we're discussing is an overall philosophy which is in many ways like "classical liberalism." Modern "liberalism' tends to be more collectivist than genuinely liberal. In other words, genuine liberals tend, today, to consider themselves conservatives while those who call themselves liberals today tend to be socialists.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jan 28, 2011 15:00:01 GMT -5
"The data confirms residents are leaving for states like Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and the Carolinas faster than they are being replaced — a phenomenon that economists attribute to factors such as climate, high taxes and a lack of job opportunities." ... i'm sorry... New York and Pennsyvlania, etc. are red states? ... Yes, Florida does have like 17%... but most have between 12-14% ages over 65... there is very little range if you throw out Florida and Utah... and no decidedly blue/red divide .... These are census accounts of #s, not being skewed in any way... Ugh....that story was about New Jersey which is why neighboring states were included. Funny (or maybe sad?) how you ignore the other national story that I included. Head meet sand, I guess?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 15:51:16 GMT -5
First... if you read, they both said pretty much the same thing... florida, pa, connecticut, new hampshire, etc... were listed as the states they moved TO... not really red states... and not the states that get more federal funding then they pay in federal taxes...
It might be that 2010 census gains were in Texas... as the first story suggested... but if you actually go to the census figures for people living in Texas who are over the age of 65... Texas is actual one of the states with a lower population of that age group..
...so while there is a chance the citations used spoke to the authors' thesis... they did not do anything to prove yours...
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jan 28, 2011 16:02:01 GMT -5
The age range is skewed by the correspondingly large number of Hispanics and young adults looking for work. I think more people come to Texas to work than to retire ~ although it isn't a bad place to retire. [Did you mean "lower population" or "lower proportion"?]
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 16:09:31 GMT -5
You suggested that the reason red states received more money, in general, than blue states, was because people moved from blue states to retire in red states... This is NOT true according to either the census numbers i posted... OR the articles you posted... which stated that people move to florida, pa, connecticut, new hampshire, michigan, new york, etc. ( basically only OUT of New Jersey... that i could see)... So this does not prove your point...
By the way, i don't think texas is actually one of those red states that actually take in a lot more than they give... its New Mexico, Alabama, Missisippi, Alaska, Lousianna, South Dakota, North Dakota, West Virginia, kentucky, oklahoma, arkansas ... etc.
|
|
robinking
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:54:21 GMT -5
Posts: 167
|
Post by robinking on Jan 28, 2011 16:15:59 GMT -5
I don't mean to state all liberal households can't balance a budget. As far as I'm concerned, placing us in two wars and not paying for them is fiscally irresponsible and this was done by a so called conservative (LMFAO). The cost is going to be conservatively, 3 trillion when you figure the hot component of the wars, and economy dislocation of resources they caused and the resulting benefits for veterans and contractors. This was a Liberal Republican's hand out to the military industrial complex. Some just confuse Liberal with Democrat and Conservative with Republican.
I'm tired of MY wealth being confiscated! WEALTH = one's LABOR! I'm working so others can collect benefits. I'm tired of it. Call me what you want, but no one has a right to my wealth. I don't labor so other's can enjoy the fruits of it. Now, if I had less government I could give more to charity or hire another person for my office.
BTW: I'm tired of corporate CEO welfare as well. A CEO making $15,000,000 a year and only paying 10% in actual taxes after all the loopholes... is sick! They're stealing from the shareholder as far as I'm concerned. They didn't make this kind of money 30 years ago. Let them earn stock as a bonus and make it so they have to hold onto the stock for their retirement. If you own you business, then I don't care how much you make. Just pay a flat tax on your profit. When you're a CEO with no long term skin in the game, then since we all have interest in the market somehow via 401ks, pensions, IRAs... then they need to be better regulated. Call it a CEO pay czar if you want, I don't care. If you don't want the public determining how much you make, then don't make your company public!
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jan 28, 2011 17:20:43 GMT -5
"I believe when 60% of the people pay taxes & 40% do not pay taxes that is insane." Did you get this from somebody spitting out some talking point? If you visit the IRS website you would get this information. Top 1%= 38.02% Top 1-5%=20.70% Top 5-10=11.22% Top 10-25=16.40% Top 25-50=10.96% bottom 50= 2.7% Unless of course you are insinuating that 40% of the U.S. Population is made up of illegal aliens. Which the number I see that comes up all the time is about 23 million, which doesn't come closet to 40%. See to me it is not the talking points that are ridiculous, it is the people that don't do research(with multiple sources) that I think the problem is. This is what I see as Democrats or Republicans, which I believe do not reflect the words liberal and conservative (actually I think being D or R is just a black or white selection without much thought). I think after the last election there is more substance to the words liberal and conservative. I personally like progression(just not blind progression) and I also like conservatism( without stubbornness ). I tend to go along the lines of reason and common sense, I am not sure if they can be associated with a political view though. I like expressing my opinion to inspire ideas, but I don't like to argue it without the facts. I am not right all the time and appreciate it if others point out my mistakes(but no excessive salt to wound rubbing, I like jesting though). The big thing for me is for people to use reason and live within their means. We can progress without greed or unnecessary spending. A lot of the elder generations that I talk to keep on insinuating the same message to me " I you follow what your grandparents did you will be in good shape"(eating healthy foods, hard work, respect to others, morals). I have been working on doing this and I can't find fault with the logic. I am in the IT and I love technology, but a lot of it is not necessary at all. I am sure I can go on on, so I won't bore you any more . Just my 1 + 1 cents
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 17:31:11 GMT -5
I believe when 60% of the people pay taxes & 40% do not pay taxes that is insane.
Are you saying they pay NO taxes... or they pay no federal income taxes? I believe that there should be a flat tax. Everyone pay the same percent. Yes, even the poor.
And have you looked at a budget to see 1) how much of it is actually made up of 'pork barrel projects' ... and 2) what exactly those 'stupid' projects consist of? Each bill might have 10 other items tacked on to it. So you take something needed (why tack something on to something that might get voted down) & then get your pork project added to the bill. Just stupid. My favorite pork project was in the stimulus package (to stimulate OUR economy). It was to build a monument for WWII fighters in the Philippines. Yea....That will help our economy, to build something in the Philippines. But lets just look around & face facts, even if you don't agree that Congress throws buckets of money away. They still are spending more than they have every single year. That can't go on forever.
Oldtex- What programs do you consider socialist?
Social Security is, so is President Obama's health care program. Any program is socialist who's primary purpose or that has the primary result in having the wealthy, or middle class pay for the poor.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 17:41:51 GMT -5
Each bill might have 10 other items tacked on to it
Oh yes... i do not like this practice... you should have to vote the individual merits... if it can't pass on its own... it shouldn't pass.
But the health care program is not for the poor... the poor have health care... its called Medicaid... the health care program is for the working/middle class and especially for entrepreneurs and the self employed who are not protected by group policy regulations....
As far as taxes go... I think everyone should have some stake in it (I think this for health care too... except for low income children, i think everyone should have a premium/deductable/co-pay... even if its minimal... everyone should have a stake in the process)... however, and i dislike the EIC, particularly because it is 'covert'... and most people feel 'entitled to it'... i think if we need to help lower income populations, we should help them... but be up front about it... However, its not like low income populations don't pay taxes, alghough they may not pay much federal income... they do pay other taxes, state, local, sales, property, etc.
I'm not sold on flat tax. I don't think the system works unless it is progressive. Fact is that if you make a lot more money than most people in the system, you still managed to do it because of the system, and you have to continue to support the system..
And right now... while its true that the top 50% pay 97% of the federal income taxes... they also bring in 87% of the total AGI in the country... so its not like there is a big imbalance...
I do agree that everyone should have to pay in something... and would support getting rid of the EIC in its current form.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 17:46:32 GMT -5
As far as social security being wealth re-distribution, i'm not sold on this as fact. There is a limit on the amount of income on which SS can be collected (i'm still right on that i believe)... so the uber rich don't get taxed significantly more... and those who do pay in more receive more in benefits... not to mention that currently the life expectancy for people with higher AGI is over 4 years longer than those at the poorest level (and the gap continues to grow) which means people at higher AGI levels generally receive benefits for longer....
|
|