10 Steps to Defeat Boehner

[StrangeSox]

Yes, as the foundation of progressive taxation. Why? Perhaps you should take it up with Adam Smith?

[EvilMonkey]

Yes, as the foundation of progressive taxation. Why? Perhaps you should take it up with Adam Smith?

Maybe we should just start this variable pricing on everything. You need to pay $10 for that movie because you can afford it, the extra $2 won't hurt you that much. We can just tack on an extra $6.99 to your internet bill every month. It's just a small amount, you can afford it and $6.99 wont really disrupt your lifestyle all that much.

 

We both agree that taxes to a point are needed to pay for services rendered by the government. Where we disagree is what services and how much from whom to pay for those. I would be more inclined to ignore the taxes on the rich if there was a true minumum tax that everyone paid. Then everyone had a horse in the race. But since that isn't the case, I don't see why rich should be singled out to pay a higher percentage than anyoone else,just because they have it. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on that as we are not changing each others minds.

[StrangeSox]

We both agree that taxes to a point are needed to pay for services rendered by the government. Where we disagree is what services and how much from whom to pay for those. I would be more inclined to ignore the taxes on the rich if there was a true minumum tax that everyone paid.

 

Why? There are millions of Americans who can barely get by as it is and are at an instutionalized disadvantage because of their socioeconomic position. Why would we further burden them in some bizarre sense of "fairness" to the wealthy?

 

But since that isn't the case, I don't see why rich should be singled out to pay a higher percentage than anyoone else,just because they have it.

 

Precisely because they can afford it, because they are in a position of privilege and luxury and because they wouldn't be there without functional government. If you're making enough to be "singled out" for a marginally higher tax rate, you're one of the wealthiest people alive and have been incredibly successful. Your life isn't going to be impacted by paying a few percentage points more on any marginal income above $XXX.

 

Again, do you want the government that the poorest Americans can afford? What do you think would happen if we switched to that? We'd have a huge hole blown in the budget, so where do we start cutting?

[StrangeSox]

Quick question:

 

Do you believe, generally speaking, that if people are wealthy, it's because they have done something to deserve the wealth, and if people are poor, they must have done something to deserve to be poor?

[Chisoxfn]

By and large in this country I believe if people make the right choices in life and work hard they can succeed. However, I do fully agree that luck to an extent plays some impact on things as well. I believe sometimes people just have too many unfortunate circumstances put in front of them that prevent that from happening.

 

As a whole though, I truly believe you make with what you have and you work your way up. There are clearly certain major issues, specifically within the inner city where people have so many negative influences tugging and pulling at them.

[StrangeSox]

By and large in this country I believe if people make the right choices in life and work hard they can succeed. However, I do fully agree that luck to an extent plays some impact on things as well. I believe sometimes people just have too many unfortunate circumstances put in front of them that prevent that from happening.

 

As a whole though, I truly believe you make with what you have and you work your way up. There are clearly certain major issues, specifically within the inner city where people have so many negative influences tugging and pulling at them.

 

Right, I won't argue that being wealthy is only accomplished through birth or trickery or fraud. Many people do earn their wealth, even if they do come from advantaged or privileged backgrounds.

 

But, conversely, being poor is usually the result of situations out of people's controls, like what their parents situation is. All too often it's portrayed almost as punishment for people, as if they're not worthy of living a decent life if it means the guys making more in a week than they do in a year pay a little more in taxes.

[southsideirish71]

I have no problem with the different taxation policies. But I want the following for those who are pulling services and are not contributing from a taxation standpoint.

 

1.) If you are receiving benefits from the government ( eg welfare, unemployment, healthcare, etc ). You must submit to scheduled drug tests. I don't care if you are for or against drugs. But if you can afford drugs, you don't need welfare.

2.) If you are able bodied and are cleared by a doctor to work and are receiving the above benefits then you must perform some sort of community work. This will help associate work with benefits as well as to coop some of the costs. Now of course the Unions will fight this, but in reality it makes sense. This can be anything from litter patrol, to cutting grass, to whatever is needed from labor standpoint. You don't want to do this, then you don't get the benefits.

3.) Skills for work program. For those who participate in the above work program, you will get credits for some training to learn skills that will help you get employed. This can also include office based skills and have some college credit involved. Again its about training people and letting them provide for themselves.

4.) People need to actively show that they are looking for a job. My wife's friend's husband was all proud of the fact that he made good money on unemployment. So now he could have "me" time. He could work out at the health club, and watch movies and enjoy life until his enemployment was going away. Then magically he was motivated and found a job.

 

I don't care if you tax me, well I care, but sure whatever. But then in the next breathe don't ask me to be thrilled when I see someone pull up at the local Jewel in their 45k SUV, have a shopping cart filled with all sorts of stuff. Then split the order up into small orders using some on link, some on wic, and then buy your liquor after pulling out a wad of 100's. I see this more than a few times in Darien and its stupid. Sure not everyone is doing it. But I have seen enough abusing the system to say that we need to start to make sure that those who are getting help need it. And if they are getting the help, then they can provide some sort of service back to the community.

Edited November 4, 2010 by southsideirish71

[EvilMonkey]

2.) If you are able bodied and are cleared by a doctor to work and are receiving the above benefits then you must perform some sort of community work. This will help associate work with benefits as well as to coop some of the costs. Now of course the Unions will fight this, but in reality it makes sense. This can be anything from litter patrol, to cutting grass, to whatever is needed from labor standpoint. You don't want to do this, then you don't get the benefits.

They have cases where unions have fought against Boy Scout troops fixing up bike paths and such because that should be union work, so you are sure correct in that one. And I like your ideas, would have said very similar stuff, but already opened up 8 or 9 different arguments in this thread alone, and lose track as it is while at work.

[Soxbadger]

I think that most reasonable people would be fine trying to make sure that only those people who are out there trying to get a job or do the right thing receive benefits, benefits shouldnt be a free handout.

 

And I think the first step to defeating anyone is to deny their existence.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Welfare itself amounts to something like 1% of the total budget. Even if we assume a ridiculously high 10% fraud rate, that's still only 0.1% of the entire budget.

 

1) Two problems here. One, drug tests aren't free. Something like $75/pop. That's going to cost the government millions and millions of dollars. Second, and more importantly, it's been ruled unconstitutional.

2) This was tried in the 90's and early 2000's, at least with single parents, and the results weren't great. There's a whole host of issues this brings up, and little it actually solves.

depository of studies:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/newws/

one conclusion:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/newws/synthesis02/chapt8.htm

The Family Support Act of 1988 sent a strong signal to states and localities — a signal that was amplified in the 1996 welfare reform law — that it was important to move people from welfare to work. States responded by developing welfare-to-work programs that were more complex, offered a wider spectrum of services, were implemented on a broader scale, and targeted for enrollment more groups of welfare recipients. The findings from NEWWS provide compelling evidence that these programs succeeded in achieving many of FSA's and program operators' principal explicit goals. All the programs increased people's employment and earnings and decreased their receipt of welfare, thus resulting in gains in people's self-sufficiency. Notably, mothers who were single parents achieved these benefits with few concomitant indications of harm or benefit to the well-being of their children. Despite these successes, however, none of the programs met FSA's implicit goal of making people materially better off. The NEWWS programs generally did not increase income or reduce poverty. Indeed, some of the more disadvantaged program enrollees were made worse off financially.

 

3) Job training and education services are provided now to the unemployed. Is working some menial, low-wage job that's below a living wage more important than education or finding a new job?

Edited November 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

2) You also have to take into consideration all the high school students who are looking to pay for university, seasonal university students, the typical lawn mowing services in the summer, the 20% that are unemployed or underemployed right now, the elderly that are typically greeters at Wal-Mart but now desperately seeking any way to make ends meet, prison work progams, immigrants (legal and illegal)...it's not just about taking away unionized or city/state jobs, it's much more complicated than just bashing unions for being against such a program (you didn't do that, but it came up somewhere else)

 

Not to mention the fact that (as mentioned below) if single mothers are going out and being forced to do #2, then there's absolutely nobody to monitor or supervise their kids, which will lead to multiple detrimental affects on a society compared to the positives accrued from simply imposing responsibility on people. I taught in an inner city school for four years, most of those mothers would have loved to have high paying jobs, but they resented having to work 2-3 jobs for 60-80 hours per week and then never have any time to spend with their children. I think you need to look at this on a case-by-case basis.

 

1) One of the biggest problems in the inner city is alcohol and gambling. You're not going to touch on either of these...and you're certainly not going to get the working middle class and rich to pay for drug testing for the poor, are you? I don't think so.

 

3) Many of these programs like Job Corps and job placement centers DO EXIST. They just cost money. And nobody wants to pay for programs and services...and non-profits, of course, have likewise seen tremendous drop-offs in donations, same with churches. What you really need to do is provided "bundled" services (where you can go to school, receive health/dental/counseling, every possible social service in one place) like the Harlem Children's Zone, but that's a VERY expensive model. It could be replicated, but there's not the political or societal will to do so. It's, once again, one of those times when people are more concerned with their own welfare and don't care about anyone else, as I perceive from reading the various comments about taxes. You would think the US tax rate was 70-80% like in much of northern Europe. We're actually in the bottom quartile in terms of the industrialized world. Whenever this issue is raised, someone will quote the tax rates for a rich person in NYC, but that person is living in Manhattan for a unique reason which isn't applicable to the majority of Americans, and 98% of those New Yorkers wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

 

The whole thing about welfare abuse, WIC, food stamps, it's like complaining about foreign aid or assistance when it's a tiny drop in the bucket.

 

The fact is that the majority of uber-rich people don't pay much or anything in taxes...they often earn salary through stock options and have had zero or low capital gains rates during the Republican years. Most of them have companies set up off shore to avoid taxes. I'm sure the real/actual tax rate for millionaires is often lower than it is for the middle and lower class, maybe 15-20% if the US government and IRS are lucky enough to catch them.

 

I have no problem with the different taxation policies. But I want the following for those who are pulling services and are not contributing from a taxation standpoint.

 

1.) If you are receiving benefits from the government ( eg welfare, unemployment, healthcare, etc ). You must submit to scheduled drug tests. I don't care if you are for or against drugs. But if you can afford drugs, you don't need welfare.

2.) If you are able bodied and are cleared by a doctor to work and are receiving the above benefits then you must perform some sort of community work. This will help associate work with benefits as well as to coop some of the costs. Now of course the Unions will fight this, but in reality it makes sense. This can be anything from litter patrol, to cutting grass, to whatever is needed from labor standpoint. You don't want to do this, then you don't get the benefits.

3.) Skills for work program. For those who participate in the above work program, you will get credits for some training to learn skills that will help you get employed. This can also include office based skills and have some college credit involved. Again its about training people and letting them provide for themselves.

4.) People need to actively show that they are looking for a job. My wife's friend's husband was all proud of the fact that he made good money on unemployment. So now he could have "me" time. He could work out at the health club, and watch movies and enjoy life until his enemployment was going away. Then magically he was motivated and found a job.

 

I don't care if you tax me, well I care, but sure whatever. But then in the next breathe don't ask me to be thrilled when I see someone pull up at the local Jewel in their 45k SUV, have a shopping cart filled with all sorts of stuff. Then split the order up into small orders using some on link, some on wic, and then buy your liquor after pulling out a wad of 100's. I see this more than a few times in Darien and its stupid. Sure not everyone is doing it. But I have seen enough abusing the system to say that we need to start to make sure that those who are getting help need it. And if they are getting the help, then they can provide some sort of service back to the community.

 

[lostfan]

By and large in this country I believe if people make the right choices in life and work hard they can succeed. However, I do fully agree that luck to an extent plays some impact on things as well. I believe sometimes people just have too many unfortunate circumstances put in front of them that prevent that from happening.

 

As a whole though, I truly believe you make with what you have and you work your way up. There are clearly certain major issues, specifically within the inner city where people have so many negative influences tugging and pulling at them.

You sound kind of like a Democrat here... lol

[lostfan]

I have no problem with the different taxation policies. But I want the following for those who are pulling services and are not contributing from a taxation standpoint.

 

1.) If you are receiving benefits from the government ( eg welfare, unemployment, healthcare, etc ). You must submit to scheduled drug tests. I don't care if you are for or against drugs. But if you can afford drugs, you don't need welfare.

2.) If you are able bodied and are cleared by a doctor to work and are receiving the above benefits then you must perform some sort of community work. This will help associate work with benefits as well as to coop some of the costs. Now of course the Unions will fight this, but in reality it makes sense. This can be anything from litter patrol, to cutting grass, to whatever is needed from labor standpoint. You don't want to do this, then you don't get the benefits.

3.) Skills for work program. For those who participate in the above work program, you will get credits for some training to learn skills that will help you get employed. This can also include office based skills and have some college credit involved. Again its about training people and letting them provide for themselves.

4.) People need to actively show that they are looking for a job. My wife's friend's husband was all proud of the fact that he made good money on unemployment. So now he could have "me" time. He could work out at the health club, and watch movies and enjoy life until his enemployment was going away. Then magically he was motivated and found a job.

 

I don't care if you tax me, well I care, but sure whatever. But then in the next breathe don't ask me to be thrilled when I see someone pull up at the local Jewel in their 45k SUV, have a shopping cart filled with all sorts of stuff. Then split the order up into small orders using some on link, some on wic, and then buy your liquor after pulling out a wad of 100's. I see this more than a few times in Darien and its stupid. Sure not everyone is doing it. But I have seen enough abusing the system to say that we need to start to make sure that those who are getting help need it. And if they are getting the help, then they can provide some sort of service back to the community.

I don't have a problem with #2 in principle, but a single mother using public assistance who is, say, going to school isn't going to be able to afford daycare so she can also work. Or to do anything with her kids while she works, really.

 

Also like has been brought up before, drug testing costs more than it's probably worth in this case.

[bmags]

what the hell are the numbers in this thread. Caulfield man, you throw like a billion arguments at once.

 

I'll respond to NS72, i don't think Obama has to attack boehner or cooperate with boehner, I think obama should just get his damn fed appointments thru and focus on foreign policy.

[lostfan]

BTW I've gradually worked into the tax brackets where I really start to feel the pinch and here's my opinion on that... the truth is, if your taxes are killing your finances or otherwise putting a painful dent in your budget, you really suck at managing finances. Some people who make $120k or so need a reality check on what's essential to their life and what's really going to hurt if they didn't have it. They aren't as rich as they like to think they are but they probably live in a neighborhood in the suburbs next to someone who makes $1M or whatever, and their kids go to the same school, etc.

 

Stuff that is essential to virtually everyone and most people struggle to pay month to month (in this order):

Mortgage

Car Payment

Groceries

Utilities

Insurance (health, auto, homeowners etc)

Phone/Internet/Cable

Home security system (if it can be afforded)

 

Stuff that some yuppies in my tax bracket think falls into the above category but the vast majority of people see as a luxury:

Sending kids to private school

Putting a significant amount into savings every month (like 20%. This is NOT an expense)

529 for kids' college

Landscaper and/or maid

Annual vacation

Home improvement

 

You get the idea but it's always like "if my taxes go up (like... a couple of percent) I won't be able to go to Europe next year while I do all these other things! Seriously now. None are as entitled as those who were born into privilege. Tell that to my parents 15 years ago when they were working just as hard but making 1/4 that, they'd have LOVED to have a problem like that.

[southsider2k5]

You sound kind of like a Democrat here... lol

 

He said work hard and succeed. That sounded nothing like an entitlement program.

[lostfan]

He said work hard and succeed. That sounded nothing like an entitlement program.

major issues, unfortunate circumstances, disadvantages etc.

 

People act like all Democrats actually like it when people on welfare... that's just not true. Example: this woman from California, I forget her name, is one of the "tea party darlings" who was a single mother who had 4 abortions and was on welfare who eventually went to school and worked her way up and then became born again. There was an article on Slate about how she "lived the lie of the left for 10 years" and preached personal responsibility which all the Slate commenters thought was odd because she sounded like a walking advertisement for liberal policies working. She was on welfare to support her kids and eventually used that as a stopgap to go to school and eventually become successful... but she blames the fact that she was a moocher on the government which, along with the fact that she'd had 4 abortions to mitigate her promiscuity, really undermines her argument about personal responsibility, however valid it was.

[Soxbadger]

I dont think you understand. Democrats are a Republican stereotype.

 

They give away rich peoples money, none of them work and all of them are on welfare.

 

No Democrat has ever worked hard to succeed nor do they care about personal responsibility.

[bmags]

BTW I've gradually worked into the tax brackets where I really start to feel the pinch and here's my opinion on that... the truth is, if your taxes are killing your finances or otherwise putting a painful dent in your budget, you really suck at managing finances. Some people who make $120k or so need a reality check on what's essential to their life and what's really going to hurt if they didn't have it. They aren't as rich as they like to think they are but they probably live in a neighborhood in the suburbs next to someone who makes $1M or whatever, and their kids go to the same school, etc.

 

Stuff that is essential to virtually everyone and most people struggle to pay month to month (in this order):

Mortgage

Car Payment

Groceries

Utilities

Insurance (health, auto, homeowners etc)

Phone/Internet/Cable

Home security system (if it can be afforded)

 

Stuff that some yuppies in my tax bracket think falls into the above category but the vast majority of people see as a luxury:

Sending kids to private school

Putting a significant amount into savings every month (like 20%. This is NOT an expense)

529 for kids' college

Landscaper and/or maid

Annual vacation

Home improvement

 

You get the idea but it's always like "if my taxes go up (like... a couple of percent) I won't be able to go to Europe next year while I do all these other things! Seriously now. None are as entitled as those who were born into privilege. Tell that to my parents 15 years ago when they were working just as hard but making 1/4 that, they'd have LOVED to have a problem like that.

 

I think you are getting muddled down in an unwinnable argument. This was a little too micro.

[lostfan]

I think you are getting muddled down in an unwinnable argument. This was a little too micro.

i was trying to make a point and got carried away.

[bmags]

i was trying to make a point and got carried away.

 

I know...i just think the "you shouldn't worry about how much taxes are b/c it's not that much" thing is just way too personal. But perhaps my ways are way too wonky.

[EvilMonkey]

I dont think you understand. Democrats are a Republican stereotype.

 

They give away rich peoples money, none of them work and all of them are on welfare.

 

No Democrat has ever worked hard to succeed nor do they care about personal responsibility.

No, Democrats give away other people's money. And then the ones in power do everythign they can to avoid paying their fair share, while trying to make everyone else feel guilty for not thanking the government for taking what they do.

 

And why is it that with every thing that someone brings up on here to cut or fix to save money, the argument is always "Well, it's only XXX% of the problem, so that wont matter" It ALL matters. Drops add up. There is no magic bullet that will fix everything in one swoop. Take the changes where you can. Just doon't stop with only a few 'drops'. 1% here, 3% there, .5% in several other places, you start making dents that matter. The "Oh, it's only..." argument really is weak.

[lostfan]

No, Democrats give away other people's money. And then the ones in power do everythign they can to avoid paying their fair share, while trying to make everyone else feel guilty for not thanking the government for taking what they do.

 

And why is it that with every thing that someone brings up on here to cut or fix to save money, the argument is always "Well, it's only XXX% of the problem, so that wont matter" It ALL matters. Drops add up. There is no magic bullet that will fix everything in one swoop. Take the changes where you can. Just doon't stop with only a few 'drops'. 1% here, 3% there, .5% in several other places, you start making dents that matter. The "Oh, it's only..." argument really is weak.

Okay, you do have a point there. However, I don't think going after tiny, piecemeal pieces of the budget is going to get anywhere close to solving the deficit. Also it's not realistic - let's say we eliminate all public aid at the federal level entirely so we can save X% on the deficit. Then what? We still have a gaping hole. Except we also f***ed a lot of people over.

Edited November 5, 2010 by lostfan

[caulfield12]

But eliminating all earmarks would hardly dent annual deficits. In the 2006 fiscal year, when Republicans last controlled Congress, they approved nearly 10,000 earmarks, a record; the $29 billion cost was about 11 percent of the year’s deficit. But now deficits are much larger, swollen by the recession.

 

In Republicans’ overall policy statements, they have not specified exactly how they would fulfill the promise to cut more than $100 billion from the budget for domestic discretionary programs. That would be the largest reduction in such spending from one year to the next since it began to be tracked in 1962.

 

Once they take control of the House in January, however, Republicans will have to begin work on their alternative to the annual budget Mr. Obama will outline soon after Congress convenes, an exercise that will test Republicans’ unity once the scale of such reductions sinks in for them, for their allies among business lobbyists and for constituents back home.

 

“Neither party dealt with this in the campaign, particularly with asking the middle class to face up to what costs it may have to bear,” said C. Eugene Steuerle, an economist at the Urban Institute and a Treasury official in the Reagan administration.

 

Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats also have promised to work to reduce projected deficits, lest they inflate the already high federal debt to an unsustainable level. But Democrats do not favor major spending reductions until the economy recovers, perhaps by 2012, and even then they would not consider anything near the $100 billion in one-year cuts that Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House speaker-in-waiting, has proposed.

 

“To have cuts that deep — cutting nondefense spending on average by a fifth — will require deep cuts in programs that most Americans think are very important,” said James R. Horney, the director of federal fiscal policy at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

 

Reductions inevitably would hit education, the national parks, health research and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, just to name a few, Mr. Horney said. “And if you start saying you’re going to protect certain popular programs,” he said, “then the cuts in everything else become really draconian.”

 

The cuts in discretionary programs would not apply to the so-called entitlement programs — chiefly Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — whose rising costs, along with inadequate tax revenues, are driving the deficit projections.

 

Domestic discretionary programs account for about 15 percent of the annual budget, a portion that is not growing. Entitlement programs are 40 percent and national security spending 23 percent; both are expanding.

 

Mr. Cantor, in his document to other Republicans this week, has acknowledged that the debt problem could not be solved without reining in the growth of the entitlement programs.

 

nytimes.com

[StrangeSox]

No, Democrats give away other people's money. And then the ones in power do everythign they can to avoid paying their fair share, while trying to make everyone else feel guilty for not thanking the government for taking what they do.

 

 

Conservatives are all racist white people who hate minorities and f**s! They want to keep as much money as possible and game the system however they can! They do everything in their power to find loop holes and tax shelters, and still b**** about taxes! They trick gullible middle and lower class whites into supporting their largess and voting for policies that actively hurt their own situation while benefiting the rich!

 

See, we can all come up with ridiculous, stupid, unproductive stereotypes.

Edited November 5, 2010 by StrangeSox