Romney tax cuts would be very deep--hurting the poor on disability, etc.

[depotoo]

Romney would keep the massive subsidies to oil companies and reinstate the subsidies to insurance companies. He would give tax breaks to millionaires but increase taxes on the middle class.

I pay taxes, more than 13%, and I'd much rather that money go to those that need it than greedy oligarchs.

Maybe some of you like the idea of your hard-earned tax dollars going to Dick Cheney and British Petroleum.

you just might want to get your facts before you start spouting off there grandma.

The federal government handed out $37.2 billion in direct energy subsidies in 2010, an increase of more than $19 billion over 2007. This 50 percent increase from three years ago [/COLORconfirms that federal energy favors are a part of our out-of-control spending problem.

Of that $19 billion increase, additional subsidies for renewables amounted to more than $9 billion, a 186 percent increase. Subsidies for renewables now total $14.7 billion.

Wind power was the biggest recipient of federal energy dollars. Last year, this sector took in almost $5 billion in subsidies – a more-than-tenfold increase from 2007. Meanwhile, solar energy subsidies increased six times over the same period, from $179 million to $1.13 billion. And biofuels (think ethanol) saw a jump from $4 billion to $6.6 billion.

 

[PredFan]

Romney tax cuts would be very deep--hurting the poor on disability, etc.

Not good! My son is on disability and food stamps which is one reason I strongly oppose Romney!

For the most part, Governor Romney has not outlined cuts in specific programs. But if policy*makers repealed health reform (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) and exempted Social Security from cuts, as Romney has suggested, and cut Medicare, Medicaid, and all other entitlement and discretionary programs by the same percentage to meet Romney’s overall spending cap and defense spending target, then they would have to cut non-defense programs other than Social Security by 22 percent in 2016 and 34 percent in 2022 (see Figure 1). If they exempted Medicare from cuts for this period, the cuts in other programs would have to be even more dramatic — 32 percent in 2016 and 53 percent in 2022.

If they applied these cuts proportionately, the cuts in programs such as veterans’ disability compensation, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for poor elderly and disabled individuals, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), school lunches and other child nutrition programs, and unemployment compensation would cause the incomes of large numbers of households to fall below the poverty line. Many who already are poor would become poorer.

The cuts in non*defense discretionary programs — a spending category that covers a wide variety of public services such as elemen*tary and secondary education, law enforcement, veterans’ health care, environmen*tal protection, and biomedical research — would come on top ofthe substantial cuts in this part of the budget that are already in law, due to the discretionary funding caps in last year’s Budget Control Act (BCA). By 2022, the cuts under Governor Romney’s budget proposals would shrink nondefense discretionary spending — which, over the past 50 years, has averaged 3.9 percent of GDP and never fallen below 3.2 percent — to 1.8 percent of GDP if Medicare shares in the cuts, and to 1.3 percent of GDP if it does not.

These cuts would be noticeably deeper than those required under the austere House-passed budget plan authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). (Romney’s nondefense cuts are deeper because his proposal increases core defense spending — the defense budget other than war costs and some relatively small items such as military family housing — to 4 percent of GDP, while the Ryan budget does not.) Over the coming decade, Romney would require cuts in programs other than core defense of $6.1 trillion, compared with $5.0 trillion in cuts under the House-passed budget.

LINK

Do you ever have an independant thought?

 

[Navy1960]

Food for thought here, and this is not an opinion on a candidate one way or another, but if taxes are at the lowest they have been since the 1950's , and we have the highest amount of debt in history, regardless of what party made that happen, how would cutting taxes even more serve to make that debt go down ? While increasing the tax base would bring in more revenue thats true, would it make more sense to leave the taxe rates where they are, and increase the tax base, and change the deductions? Just as a thought? One more thought here, if we did increase the revenue into the Federal Govt. by whatever method , where is the advocate for spending that money on actually reducing that debt and making programs that people have come to rely on sound? See what I mean. most in congress , Republican or Democrat at least in the last 15 or so years have seen any revenue increase as a license to spend. Just a thought.

 

[Oddball]

Food for thought here, and this is not an opinion on a candidate one way or another, but if taxes are at the lowest they have been since the 1950's , and we have the highest amount of debt in history, regardless of what party made that happen, how would cutting taxes even more serve to make that debt do down ? While increasing the tax base would bring in more revenue thats true, would it make more sense to leave the taxe rates where they are, and increase the tax base, and change the deductions? Just as a thought? One more thought here, if we did increase the revenue into the Federal Govt. by whatever method , where is the advocate for spending that money on actually reducing that debt and making programs that people have come to rely on sound? See what I mean. most in congress , Republican or Democrat at least in the last 15 or so years have seen any revenue increase as a license to spend. Just a thought.

Maybe because spending hasn't been controlled, in any way, shape or manner.

Even though the tax receipts during the latter years of Reagan, much of Clinton's term and the middle years of Dubya's came in at a record pace, the congressweasels still found ways to spend it all.

The problem is, has been and always will be spending.

 

[Navy1960]

Food for thought here, and this is not an opinion on a candidate one way or another, but if taxes are at the lowest they have been since the 1950's , and we have the highest amount of debt in history, regardless of what party made that happen, how would cutting taxes even more serve to make that debt do down ? While increasing the tax base would bring in more revenue thats true, would it make more sense to leave the taxe rates where they are, and increase the tax base, and change the deductions? Just as a thought? One more thought here, if we did increase the revenue into the Federal Govt. by whatever method , where is the advocate for spending that money on actually reducing that debt and making programs that people have come to rely on sound? See what I mean. most in congress , Republican or Democrat at least in the last 15 or so years have seen any revenue increase as a license to spend. Just a thought.

Maybe because spending hasn't been controlled, in any way, shape or manner.

Even though the tax receipts during the latter years of Reagan, much of Clinton's term and the middle years of Dubya's came in at a record pace, the congressweasels still found ways to spend it all.

The problem is, has been and always will be spending.

My point, I have no issues with getting more revenue into the Govt. but it sure makes a lot more sense to have someone make sure that money is spent less wrecklessly than it has been. When we go about digging massivie holes to bury nuclear waste at the cost of billions, or defense programs for billions on aircraft that never fly, or guns that are never fired or delivered. or domestic programs that make no sense all to serve the needs of one party or the other, then one begins too understand why we got where we are now. So I for one would like to see someone stand up and say, if we do get more revenue through whatever method you want, they will spend it the way it needs to be for a change. I guess what did it for me was when I found out that DOD spent 125 million dollars to sponsor a NASCAR team , forgive me and many might disagree with me here, but what the heck does DOD need to be spending that kind of money on a race team for when, they have Military families that are on Food Stamps, and some can't even afford a cell phone. I have long thought that our spending problem is no so much a revenue issue and in fact taxes are just fine where they are and dont need to be cut or raised, but if you want to really fix the problem , apply some common sense at how our Govt. spends our money, and we might find ourselves not having to borrow, from Social Security or China to cover the difference.

 

[JimH52]

Romney tax cuts would be very deep--hurting the poor on disability, etc.

Not good! My son is on disability and food stamps which is one reason I strongly oppose Romney!

For the most part, Governor Romney has not outlined cuts in specific programs. But if policy*makers repealed health reform (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) and exempted Social Security from cuts, as Romney has suggested, and cut Medicare, Medicaid, and all other entitlement and discretionary programs by the same percentage to meet Romney’s overall spending cap and defense spending target, then they would have to cut non-defense programs other than Social Security by 22 percent in 2016 and 34 percent in 2022 (see Figure 1). If they exempted Medicare from cuts for this period, the cuts in other programs would have to be even more dramatic — 32 percent in 2016 and 53 percent in 2022.

If they applied these cuts proportionately, the cuts in programs such as veterans’ disability compensation, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for poor elderly and disabled individuals, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), school lunches and other child nutrition programs, and unemployment compensation would cause the incomes of large numbers of households to fall below the poverty line. Many who already are poor would become poorer.

The cuts in non*defense discretionary programs — a spending category that covers a wide variety of public services such as elemen*tary and secondary education, law enforcement, veterans’ health care, environmen*tal protection, and biomedical research — would come on top ofthe substantial cuts in this part of the budget that are already in law, due to the discretionary funding caps in last year’s Budget Control Act (BCA). By 2022, the cuts under Governor Romney’s budget proposals would shrink nondefense discretionary spending — which, over the past 50 years, has averaged 3.9 percent of GDP and never fallen below 3.2 percent — to 1.8 percent of GDP if Medicare shares in the cuts, and to 1.3 percent of GDP if it does not.

These cuts would be noticeably deeper than those required under the austere House-passed budget plan authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). (Romney’s nondefense cuts are deeper because his proposal increases core defense spending — the defense budget other than war costs and some relatively small items such as military family housing — to 4 percent of GDP, while the Ryan budget does not.) Over the coming decade, Romney would require cuts in programs other than core defense of $6.1 trillion, compared with $5.0 trillion in cuts under the House-passed budget.

LINK

Wait! He said in the debate that he was going to strengthen these....oh...ya think he was lying? Not Mitt the Mormon????

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Depreciation is the new "subsidy"

You fucking libprogs need your own fucked up country

 

[Katzndogz]

Not all people are smart or capable, or even just plain old irresponsible.

How our society treats those who fall through the cracks is in question. We could let them starve. Let them die off. Let them riot for food, or just jail them. Hell, the Chinese and North Koreans just kill them off.

Cutting their aid may or may not be necessary. BUT....certain people in our society simply dont give a fuck. Those folks could starve, die, and leave their kids to fend for themselves. Survival of the fittest. They'd be perfectly ok with that. Fuck 'em. "I got mine".

Others would say we must create a social cradle to support these people's every single need and want.

Both views are wrong imo. But...most seem to be holding one of those two extremes right now.

What did we do before we became a welfare state?

 

[bucs90]

Not all people are smart or capable, or even just plain old irresponsible.

How our society treats those who fall through the cracks is in question. We could let them starve. Let them die off. Let them riot for food, or just jail them. Hell, the Chinese and North Koreans just kill them off.

Cutting their aid may or may not be necessary. BUT....certain people in our society simply dont give a fuck. Those folks could starve, die, and leave their kids to fend for themselves. Survival of the fittest. They'd be perfectly ok with that. Fuck 'em. "I got mine".

Others would say we must create a social cradle to support these people's every single need and want.

Both views are wrong imo. But...most seem to be holding one of those two extremes right now.

What did we do before we became a welfare state?

Fought a lot. The Dark Ages, etc. There is a reason US cities not longer have massive walls around them like old villages did with castle walls. Our neighboring cities aren't invading us to take our food, water, etc.

People died much earlier. I dont know the exact numbers, but year 1AD to I guess the 1700's people lived to their 30's, maybe 40's, average. Now...the well off lived longer. They had food and doctors. But the poor just died off or killed each other fighting over scraps.

But then, in the 1700 and 1800's, we (the country) did something bad. We imported millions of slaves. Then we fought a war, and they were "freed", then oppressed for a century or so, and now those familiy trees have ended up with a lot of poverty, as have the regular % of dumb, lazy, disabled among our population.

So we have what we have. That aint changing. How we deal with it is the question. Do we have a structured forced-charity (taxes) that spreads out some basic aid to the lower masses? Or...do we say "Fuck 'em" and let them fend for themselves.

Im not arguing that we have all the money to do it. Not at all.

Just asking what direction are we trying to go?

 

[Katzndogz]

If you are asking me, my answer is fuck 'em. If they want to throw a little tantrum, teach them a lesson by applying some discipline.

If you have not noticed we ARE walling neighborhoods in. That's what gated communities are all about.

 

[depotoo]

Not all people are smart or capable, or even just plain old irresponsible.

How our society treats those who fall through the cracks is in question. We could let them starve. Let them die off. Let them riot for food, or just jail them. Hell, the Chinese and North Koreans just kill them off.

Cutting their aid may or may not be necessary. BUT....certain people in our society simply dont give a fuck. Those folks could starve, die, and leave their kids to fend for themselves. Survival of the fittest. They'd be perfectly ok with that. Fuck 'em. "I got mine".

Others would say we must create a social cradle to support these people's every single need and want.

Both views are wrong imo. But...most seem to be holding one of those two extremes right now.

What did we do before we became a welfare state?

In the US, approximations show that in 2011 -
Americans gave more than $298.42 billion in 2011 to their favorite causes despite the economic conditions.

Now that, to me, shows we, as a nation, do care. It increased over 2010, which I believe shows that in even harder economic times, we are willing to go that extra mile.


Just think of what more we could give to have the help directed to those that truly are in need and to see it not wasted on bureaucratic red tape?
Last year we directed $745 billion into welfare spending on the government levels. Close to a trillion dollars. Think of the waste and fraud involved in that amount. Think of those that could truly be helped, if properly managed.

 

[auditor0007]

"Poor" people shouldn't be on disability. Truly DISABLED people should receive disability.

Disabled people tend to be poor because they can't work.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not all people are smart or capable, or even just plain old irresponsible.

How our society treats those who fall through the cracks is in question. We could let them starve. Let them die off. Let them riot for food, or just jail them. Hell, the Chinese and North Koreans just kill them off.

Cutting their aid may or may not be necessary. BUT....certain people in our society simply dont give a fuck. Those folks could starve, die, and leave their kids to fend for themselves. Survival of the fittest. They'd be perfectly ok with that. Fuck 'em. "I got mine".

Others would say we must create a social cradle to support these people's every single need and want.

Both views are wrong imo. But...most seem to be holding one of those two extremes right now.

What did we do before we became a welfare state?

In the US, approximations show that in 2011 -
Americans gave more than $298.42 billion in 2011 to their favorite causes despite the economic conditions.

Now that, to me, shows we, as a nation, do care. It increased over 2010, which I believe shows that in even harder economic times, we are willing to go that extra mile.


Just think of what more we could give to have the help directed to those that truly are in need and to see it not wasted on bureaucratic red tape?
Last year we directed $745 billion into welfare spending on the government levels. Close to a trillion dollars. Think of the waste and fraud involved in that amount. Think of those that could truly be helped, if properly managed.

The government's answer is that people cannot be trusted to be charitable in precisely the way government wants them to be charitable. You might donate only to the causes of crippled children and not give a dime to Tyrone from South Central who is 6'3", weighs 250 and spends his time pumping iron at the city's rec center and playing hoops. That means Tyrone might not get anything. That's unfair. Tyrone is as needy as the crippled child. A man who wants sex change surgery to make him feel better about himself is as needy as a child born with a cleft palate. You might, if left to decide for yourself, only donate to the child with the cleft palate. I do not, as a matter of personal policy, donate to causes that benefit human beings. Not time, effort or money. I voluntarily support only charities that help animals. The government sees itself as forcing me to be more fair when I don't want to be fair at all.

 

[auditor0007]

Not all people are smart or capable, or even just plain old irresponsible.

How our society treats those who fall through the cracks is in question. We could let them starve. Let them die off. Let them riot for food, or just jail them. Hell, the Chinese and North Koreans just kill them off.

Cutting their aid may or may not be necessary. BUT....certain people in our society simply dont give a fuck. Those folks could starve, die, and leave their kids to fend for themselves. Survival of the fittest. They'd be perfectly ok with that. Fuck 'em. "I got mine".

Others would say we must create a social cradle to support these people's every single need and want.

Both views are wrong imo. But...most seem to be holding one of those two extremes right now.

What did we do before we became a welfare state?

There is no welfare state other than one concocted in your mind. We do have a substantial safety net now. Before that safety net was put into place, the average life expectancy for Americans was less than 60 years. Today it's pushing 80. Without any safety net, we had a much higher infant mortality rate, and many others died of illnesses that they could not afford to treat. For many, life simply sucked, and despite being the land of great opportunity, digging out from poverty was nearly impossible. Due to social programs and public education, everyone now at least has the opportunity to succeed. Do some take advantage and waste their lives away? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we should remove all the programs that have given so many real opportunities.

For all of you who are so upset about our "welfare state", imagine what this country would look like if there was no Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, public education, EPA, and on and on. Do you really think we would be better off? If you do, I would suggest that you have a mental disorder and should seek treatment.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not all people are smart or capable, or even just plain old irresponsible.

How our society treats those who fall through the cracks is in question. We could let them starve. Let them die off. Let them riot for food, or just jail them. Hell, the Chinese and North Koreans just kill them off.

Cutting their aid may or may not be necessary. BUT....certain people in our society simply dont give a fuck. Those folks could starve, die, and leave their kids to fend for themselves. Survival of the fittest. They'd be perfectly ok with that. Fuck 'em. "I got mine".

Others would say we must create a social cradle to support these people's every single need and want.

Both views are wrong imo. But...most seem to be holding one of those two extremes right now.

What did we do before we became a welfare state?

There is no welfare state other than one concocted in your mind. We do have a substantial safety net now. Before that safety net was put into place, the average life expectancy for Americans was less than 60 years. Today it's pushing 80. Without any safety net, we had a much higher infant mortality rate, and many others died of illnesses that they could not afford to treat. For many, life simply sucked, and despite being the land of great opportunity, digging out from poverty was nearly impossible. Due to social programs and public education, everyone now at least has the opportunity to succeed. Do some take advantage and waste their lives away? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we should remove all the programs that have given so many real opportunities.

For all of you who are so upset about our "welfare state", imagine what this country would look like if there was no Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, public education, EPA, and on and on. Do you really think we would be better off? If you do, I would suggest that you have a mental disorder and should seek treatment.

We certainly don't need public education because that's failed at everything except getting more expensive. The EPA should be the very first government agency shut down. I see how well it's working in California. There are dozens of government aid programs that could be ended with a net benefit to the whole country.

 

[auditor0007]

What did we do before we became a welfare state?

There is no welfare state other than one concocted in your mind. We do have a substantial safety net now. Before that safety net was put into place, the average life expectancy for Americans was less than 60 years. Today it's pushing 80. Without any safety net, we had a much higher infant mortality rate, and many others died of illnesses that they could not afford to treat. For many, life simply sucked, and despite being the land of great opportunity, digging out from poverty was nearly impossible. Due to social programs and public education, everyone now at least has the opportunity to succeed. Do some take advantage and waste their lives away? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we should remove all the programs that have given so many real opportunities.

For all of you who are so upset about our "welfare state", imagine what this country would look like if there was no Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, public education, EPA, and on and on. Do you really think we would be better off? If you do, I would suggest that you have a mental disorder and should seek treatment.

We certainly don't need public education because that's failed at everything except getting more expensive. The EPA should be the very first government agency shut down. I see how well it's working in California. There are dozens of government aid programs that could be ended with a net benefit to the whole country.

Yes, we want to go back to a time when companies dumped whatever they wanted wherever they wanted. The EPA was set up because companies were destroying our water and air. You want to go back to that. What stupidity.

As for education, I'm sure we would be better off just not sending some kids to school at all if their parents can't afford to send them to private school. Your ideas are right up there with the average drop out.