user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I'm an idiot and I've never understood 'tax cuts'. If anything, raising taxes periodically seems to only make sense to me, or at least keep it steady percentage-wise and perhaps redistribute.
I think the Republicans balance out the Democrats in this respect. As the Democrats push for more free handouts to crack adicted obese mothers, the Republicans are trying to prevent this. Somewhere in the middle a balance is reached.
no your just paranoid
by ABC on Fri Jul 30, 04 2:51pm
[+]
If so then keep up the good work. Our government could stand some pruning.
Ahh, what came first the chicken or the egg?
Yes, person X could say that person Y seeks tax cuts in order to create budget deficits in order to squeeze government spending.
Another way to look at it is that person Y could say that person X's presidency contributed to a recession in which loose accounting, higher taxes on the wealthy, and piss poor intelligence allowed for our financial foundation to literally and figuratively fall to the ground, in which case resuming consumer and investor confidence, encouraging the Fed to lower rates, and keeping money in the hands of all American became the order of the day, thus spurring the economy at the expense of our current national debt and ultimately creating more tax revenue.
P.S. How can you say Repubs are sabotaging Medicare when the Dept. of Health & Human Services has gone from yearly budgets of $380 billion to $560 billion since Bush took over?
And yes, Social Security is a losing proposition that Bush is wisely trying to steer into the private sector. It was drawn up in the same manner that criminals have developed Ponzi schemes, being counted as a budget asset when in fact we're making payments today on funds we've already counted from tommorow. This is blowing up in our face on a daily basis and it's time that people not just in my generation, but the boomers in my parent's generation as well, accept the fact that they cannot depend on the steady flow of SS checks.
You put your trust in government accounting? Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.
My focus is not so much on *Are the programs good or bad* as *is there a conscious effort underway to do away with them*.
Sorry Cathexis, I'm a little battle-weary from fighting the good fight today, so I may have a little straycat in me right now.
Yes, there is a conscious effort to trim the fat. No matter who gets elected, JK or GW, we will have to trim pork.
thumbs: I hear ya! I am home now, nursing a cold one and feeling better towards the world. ;-)
SS: Usually, I'd agree. But Social Security has been the tarditional 3rd rail for politicians: Touch it and die.
Cath: a question, do you think the government should be cut down to size, or do you agree with expanding it/keeping it the same size? And as a follow up, do you think reducing the budget is a good way to accomplish that goal or not?
First, I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers. Or even a significant portion.
That being said: I believe the Government should be as small as *functionally* possible -- that is to say, as small as it can be while still providing intended services.
I am beginning to believe that the point of contention is not really the size of government, but the scope: What services *should* it provide. Here is where the disagreement lies.
On one hand, I can see a Conservative argument for cost-control and work equity. On the other hand ... I can't prescribe to *Let everyone fend for themselves and those who fall, die.* An I have heard of no alternative, in most cases.
I used to be able to believe in Social Darwinism. But then I realized that so much is due to chance of birth ... and that Survival of the Weralthiest didn't necessarily mean Survival of the Fittest. Witness the Shrub.
Plus ... I had interactions with some of the Great Unwashed and discovered that they were people, too. It was a lot harder to cavalierly dismiss lives when you saw them, spoke to them, and learned a little about them.
'First, I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers. Or even a significant portion.'
A good attitude to have. So take it from me, I *do* have all the ansers. ; )
But I'll reiterate, there is a difference between simply reducing the size of government and letting everyone fend for themselves. It is possible to cut the size of the government and still not let people starve in the streets.
I think it is quite true, and this is not even a cospiracy or a plot, it is a straight form of economic policy, aimed to let everything that works in a state in the hands of big corporations. It's called Socialism for the rich and free market for the middle-low class. This is happening in every 'western' nation in different ways. Also in Italy, the right wing want to cut taxes, they do, then they say: wait, now we have to find the money we need in another way... let's cut spending, etc. What are that money good for? Not for the poor (all the poor needs is 'spendig' by the state) but for the rich: money to help companies, money to help investments, money for the army that go abroad to defend corporation interest. It's not a conspiracy, it's capitalism in our time. The two things (tax-cuts, squeeze-spending) go togheter, and they both make happy the right people- great ballot as usual, Cathex
For all its faults, I am so glad I live in the UK, where we still care about other people. Hence we have a National Health System and a Welfare State to help those at the bottom.
I would find it difficult to be complacent in a country like the US which although supposed to be the richest country in the world, has 35 million of its citizens living in poverty.
I dont want to be accused of America bashing, I just find myself counting my blessing, that I live in an affluent country that can still look after all.
This is probably why I am at such odds with people of Herzogs opinions, as they seem like an anathema to decent society.
Human beings are in essence social animals and contrary to popular belief, we are a compassionate animal in the main.
Sorry if that sounds 'soft' and 'liberal' but for me to turn my back on human misery, would sicken my soul.
Steelhamster-
Nearly every European nation would have a large proportion of their population living in poverty if they defined poverty the same way we do.
I sure hope they're trying to get rid of those programs. Stealing is immoral even when it's called an income tax.
And when is called profit for big corporations that lay off people and outsource jobs, is this called stealing again, thc?
Price gouging is just as wrong as stealing. Outsourcing without lowering prices is also wrong.
THC, you would support a system of no taxation?
Basically, you want no welfare programs, no health care, no defence and no education?
I hope you have the means to support yourself THC, and ensure you are always in employment or self employment.
Itmay seem like Im stating the obvious, but surely you cannot mean that you support a society that discards anyone who doesnt make a social critera.
As to you assertion about every European country having the same amount of poor people... all western countries have poor people, my point is, that most Europeans choose to lift them out of destitution with some sort of welfare program and to treat sickness free of charge.
Unless there is a drastic change in world economics, poor people will always exist, its how we as a society choose to help them that defines a civilised country and a barbaric one.
I wish we could go back to having no income tax, but I would never support a system without any taxes; the system would collapse. At this point in history I believe an income tax is proper but not at the level we have now. We still need a military, some form of federal government and public education. These things benefit everyone and so should be payed for by an income tax. Businesses should be charged income tax to support the roads and other peripherals that benefit business. Nearly everything else that isn't privatized should be payed for by user fees, like a sales tax or a toll.
btw, I support universal healthcare for all children but adults should be able to care for themselves. And yes, this should be payed for through an income tax.
Steelhamster, however you want to frame it, you ARE America bashing. Before you spend too much time counting your 'blessing' for being born in the good old, compassionate U.K.(your imperialism was apparently good for world poverty), let me clear up what we actually call 'poverty' here in America:
*Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
*Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
*Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
*The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
*Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
*Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
*Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
*Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
*The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children
*Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.
*In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
*Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
Let's not forget that among those not represented within these numbers, many choose not to engage in the trappings of society and they are free to do so. Homeless people who've harvested their mental faculties for alcohol and drug abuse often avoid shelters, community programs, and jobs found through parole. How are you going to force these people to be contribute to their own and the common welfare of the republic, Steelhamster? These are adults. If they don't want to work, don't want to get sober and don't want to stop asking me for change on the way to work, then fine, that's their choice. And no amount of hand-wringing by social workers and liberal activists is going to stop (now and in the future) people who decide to shirk all responsibilities of family and self in order to indulge in themselves.
People who admit they need help, receive it in our country, even if they are the poorest of the poor.
** karma **
thumbs says: If they don't want to work, don't want to get sober and don't want to stop asking me for change on the way to work, then fine, that's their choice.
Cx: Puh-leez! Are you really going to try and tell me that poverty is, basically, a voluntary thing?
Also, I really wonder where you're getting these stats -- I didn't have a lot of that until into adulthood, and I didn't consider myself poor.
It's true that lower socio-economic classes don't always make the best financial decisions, but your assertions just don't seem credible.
As for $18/hr pizaa jobs ... great! But if such a thing exists, it is the rule, rather than the exception. I see tech writing job offers that don't approach that.
Exception rather than the rule.
Cx- I'm not saying poverty is voluntary, I'm saying that it's temporary.
Anything can happen. Bad luck and poor choices can conspire to bring anyone down, no matter what their economic status. I feel for these people and give much respect to anyone who overcomes their poverty.
However, given reasonable health and a moderately functional adult brain, over time and after the counsel of hopefully loved ones, but at least social workers, one should be able to put enough money away to support themself. If they take this second chance at life (their health, their inherent gifts and their pride) and squander it on continuing the cyclical nightmare of poverty then they are losers and don't deserve the free cots the government provides them with.
thumbs: Actually, I disagree with your assessment. There is not enough work for all of the Middle Class who want to work, much less the lower classes. And as for taking any job ... work is supposed to help get you out of poverty, not make it permanent.
If resources are scarce then some people will inevitably live in poverty.
Evrytime we've had a Tax Cut, the amount going into the treasury went up. JFK did it, Reagan did it, and Bush did it. Only trouble was when the Democrats were in power they spent the surplus like drunken sailors.
Note: When JFK Lowered Taxes, the income into the treasury went up. More people had money to invest, spend, and to stimulate the economy.
This is probably somewhat correct, but don't imply that Republicans are against government spending. They are for more government spending, admittedly on different things. The republican creed - to put as much public money in the hands of private industry as possible - is not achievable unless the government is spending money.
JFK cut Taxes and it spurred the economy. Because more people had money to invest in companies. Companies then had more money to hire more workers & raise wages.
|
|
