How Will Sen. McCain Make You Wealthy?

[rayboyusmc]

and yes, the majority CAN do more to take care of themselves, they simply choose NOT to..

show me some hard data that proves this.

This sounds too much like Reagan's welfare queen with the Cadilac. She never existed, but it was a good story to fall back on.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I am saying that MANY Americans complain about not having what they want or need.. and do not do the extra it takes to get to that level... whether it be a second or third job.. learning on their own time... advancing in their job... and I am saying that too many Americans think that those things they believe they need, are owed to them by others or the government

If I have a family emergency.. I do whatever the fuck it takes... work day and night.. borrow... sell my house.. whatever... but it is not someone else's responsibility to take care of my personal needs or the needs of my children... I do not believe in welfare and the forced redistribution of tax income for welfare programs.. I believe in charity, the voluntary help of people who feel the wish to help situations and charities set up for special needs...

In other words, since those that control 95% of the wealth of this country won't allow most people to make enough to have some stability and security without working so much they aren't able to spend time with their families, that's ok? But if everyone just gave a little extra, especially those that benefit so much, everyone will have more opportunity to live better lives thereby decreasing poverty, poor education, crime, and a myriad of other social problems. Do you think its all going to some lazy, godless, unmarried black woman with three fatherless criminals? Everything you said to argue your points is exactly what the Republican party has taught you.

 

[DiamondDave]

Um, Obama is taxing the rich. They already have suits, cars, businesses, houses. And I, personally, won't see any tax money from the Federal Government. What I want to see is the elderly being better care for, education improved, opportunities for average people to earn better or start a small business, stability and security for the middle classes, veterans being properly cared for because they deserve it ( the VA is something the Republicans have historically cut funding to), and those classes of disenfranchised people feeling (and then acting) as though they aren't oppressed because they no longer will be.

Quit spouting Republican propranda and think for yourself.

Quit spouting entitlement propaganda.... nobody is given an opportunity as an average person to 'earn better', as governmental action... the government does not exist to help you open your small business....

And what, in terms of equality and liberty, makes it right to tax burden any one earner more than another? Robin Hood is mythical... "Take from the rich to give to the poor' is not the way a free society with liberty is set up to work...

As for the elderly or whomever CANNOT truly take care of themselves... that is a different story... but that story is not the same as the vast majority of individuals receiving government handouts... the vast majority are quite physically and mentally capable of earning their living

Do I support VA benefits?? Yep... but if you notice so many VA bills, the amount of pork that has been attached that has absolutely nothing to do with the VA or the support of soldiers... I would vote against VA benefits too (even as a vet) if that crap was attached.... I wish for better quality care of injured vets. I wish for better medical care for soldiers currently serving... and I would personally call for a STAND ALONE BILL that addresses exactly that

 

[Skull Pilot]

Are you saying that the majority of Americans choose not to take care of themselves? You think there are millions of Americans, sitting at home on the couch watching tv who vote every two to four years just waiting for the government hand out? C'mon! When has America every displayed that its citizens are that way?! That is simply what the Republican party has told you, Dave. They've fooled you and made you fear some nebulous mass of beggars who live off welfare and vote Democrat.

Obama and the Tax Tipping Point - WSJ.com

What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

When 3 out of five voters get more back from the government than they pay in taxes, what do you call it? i call it a handout or perhaps a bribe that ensures these people will keep voting for higher taxes on the "rich"

but what happens here:

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.

Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.

Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.

BHO"s so called strategy has been tried before in Germany ,France and Greta Britain and they solved the problems by cutting taxes. If BHO is as smart as you seem to think he is, how come he doesn't know this?

 

[DiamondDave]

In other words, since those that control 95% of the wealth of this country won't allow most people to make enough to have some stability and security without working so much they aren't able to spend time with their families, that's ok? But if everyone just gave a little extra, especially those that benefit so much, everyone will have more opportunity to live better lives thereby decreasing poverty, poor education, crime, and a myriad of other social problems. Do you think its all going to some lazy, godless, unmarried black woman with three fatherless criminals? Everything you said to argue your points is exactly what the Republican party has taught you.

If more people VOLUNTARILY gave in support of great programs for job training, helping retarded person learn to live on their own and work on their own, etc, I would GREATLY support any effort someone gave in regards to that...

But it is not the job of government to redistribute wealth in any matter to take care of you personal responsibilities FOR YOU....

I fully believe that you are free and have the liberty to the fruits of your labors, investments, etc... that that is not owed to support someone else who is perfectly capable of supporting themself

And don't fool yourself... you are not talking about 'everyone' giving a little extra... you are talking about higher earners giving something extra to be distributed to those who you subjectively deem worthy of receiving a handout

 

[DiamondDave]

show me some hard data that proves this.

This sounds too much like Reagan's welfare queen with the Cadilac. She never existed, but it was a good story to fall back on.

Are you stating that everyone on welfare, everyone receiving food stamps, everyone receiving government handouts of various kinds, is completely incapable of working as necessary to earn a living to take care of themselves?? That they are all physically and mentally incapable??

Give me a fucking break... it is the much more the rare case that someone is at the point where it is physically or mentally impossible for them to earn their way

How about you show hard data that everyone on the government handout tit is completely incapable of taking care of themselves and earning a living

 

[Skull Pilot]

Um, Obama is taxing the rich. They already have suits, cars, businesses, houses. And I, personally, won't see any tax money from the Federal Government. What I want to see is the elderly being better care for, education improved, opportunities for average people to earn better or start a small business, stability and security for the middle classes, veterans being properly cared for because they deserve it ( the VA is something the Republicans have historically cut funding to), and those classes of disenfranchised people feeling (and then acting) as though they aren't oppressed because they no longer will be.

Quit spouting Republican propranda and think for yourself.

that's not republican propaganda. It's called economics. and if you want all that you better believe that taxing a mere 5% of the "rich" isn't going to cut it.

And tell me how will raising taxes on a rich businessman help someone else start a business? it won't and I'll tell you why.

My wife and I own a small business. We employ ten people. We have to get supplies from big corporations like Pfizer and Merck. So raise taxes on them and what happens? I have to pay more and more for my inventory which means I have to charge more and more for our services. We don't make alarger profit because all of our price increases are solely to offset costs. Those higher costs and stagnating profits stop us from putting an addition on the building and hiring 2 more employees. Not to mention the work we would have given to carpenters, plumbers and electricians who would build the addition. the town loses tax revenues that a larger business would bring in all because you want to tax the wealthy business men and corporations.

great plan.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

"Welfare" is a pretty generic term that encompasses an array of state and federal benefits. Think of disability, food stamps, housing, Medicaid, Medicare, etc, etc.

So, you don't have any facts, yourself, on who receives governmental aid but you assume its a bunch of lazy mooches?!

You spout the politics of fear.

 

[bigbroodmaster]

I believe in having a "lowest point" i.e. a point at which no citizen of the US can fall below. I think it's an important thing to have, and really the only sort of argument is how low should that point be? How high does it have to be before it's considered socialism?

Set too low, and you have people who legitimately need the governments help: the handicapped, unwed mothers, etc. not recieve the funding they need. Set it too high and the incentive to work for gain diminishes, and the tax burden becomes too great.

Those that cannot work, for whatever reason, should not be punished by society for that fact, in the same way that those that choose not to work should not be rewarded.

 

[Ravi]

Just as I've always doubted that cutting taxes on the wealthy would boost the economy (we can see right now that it didn't do any good) I also doubt that restoring them to close to what they were under Clinton will harm the economy.

 

[DiamondDave]

I believe in having a "lowest point" i.e. a point at which no citizen of the US can fall below. I think it's an important thing to have, and really the only sort of argument is how low should that point be? How high does it have to be before it's considered socialism?

Set too low, and you have people who legitimately need the governments help: the handicapped, unwed mothers, etc. not recieve the funding they need. Set it too high and the incentive to work for gain diminishes, and the tax burden becomes too great.

Those that cannot work, for whatever reason, should not be punished by society for that fact, in the same way that those that choose not to work should not be rewarded.

How do unwed mothers NEED help if they are capable of working to support themselves... if they are not physically or mentally deficient to the point where they cannot work in any fashion?

There will always be a very limited number of people who could basically be wards of the state or 'committed' because they are incapable of taking care of themselves and have no family to support them... but this is indeed a very rare case... a majority of people receiving assistance CAN work and CAN earn... they simply do not, for various reasons

 

[bigbroodmaster]

How do unwed mothers NEED help if they are capable of working to support themselves... if they are not physically or mentally deficient to the point where they cannot work in any fashion?

There will always be a very limited number of people who could basically be wards of the state or 'committed' because they are incapable of taking care of themselves and have no family to support them... but this is indeed a very rare case... a majority of people receiving assistance CAN work and CAN earn... they simply do not, for various reasons

So should mentally challenged people recieve state care?

 

[DiamondDave]

So should mentally challenged people recieve state care?

Not in all cases.. mentally handicapped does not inherently mean mentally incapable of taking care of one's self....

As a matter of fact I donate to a local charity that helps teach mentally handicapped persons to live on their own and work to support themselves

But there are people who are mentally handicapped to the point where they cannot take care of themselves... and they have no family to take care of them... and they, as happens now and has happened for a long time, are usually wards of the state and are cared for by society

 

[Coloradomtnman]

How do unwed mothers NEED help if they are capable of working to support themselves... if they are not physically or mentally deficient to the point where they cannot work in any fashion?

There will always be a very limited number of people who could basically be wards of the state or 'committed' because they are incapable of taking care of themselves and have no family to support them... but this is indeed a very rare case... a majority of people receiving assistance CAN work and CAN earn... they simply do not, for various reasons

Where do you get this argument, Dave? How do you know that most people take advantage of welfare because they're lazy?

And mentally disabled people who work probably aren't well paid, and if they have families who care for them, shouldn't those families receive aid to help them to care for their child or ward?

 

[DiamondDave]

Where do you get this argument, Dave? How do you know that most people take advantage of welfare because they're lazy?

And mentally disabled people who work probably aren't well paid, and if they have families who care for them, shouldn't those families receive aid to help them to care for their child or ward?

No... personal responsibility for your family is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY... it is not someone else's responsibility to provide for you

And indeed... most people are not incapable of working.... do you fully believe we have that many millions and millions of people who are physically and mentally incapable of working a job to earn a living?

 

[bigbroodmaster]

Not in all cases.. mentally handicapped does not inherently mean mentally incapable of taking care of one's self....

As a matter of fact I donate to a local charity that helps teach mentally handicapped persons to live on their own and work to support themselves

But there are people who are mentally handicapped to the point where they cannot take care of themselves... and they have no family to take care of them... and they, as happens now and has happened for a long time, are usually wards of the state and are cared for by society

So there is, in your opinion, a level to which no American can fall below. In your system you aren't allowing mentally handicapped people to die due to poverty and inability to take care of themselves.

These people didn't earn anything themselves. They make no contribution to society. How could you justify giving these people that don't give anything to society any money? Taking from those who work to give to the mentally infirm is just socialism with another name.

Why, because it makes you feel good? Is that why you support helping them?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Do you know about the Clinton welfare reforms that have worked so well to get people off welfare, Dave? Do some research and you'll learn how its helped. And, although there will always be people who are lazy and mooch off the government, at least the people who deserve it get help.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No... personal responsibility for your family is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY... it is not someone else's responsibility to provide for you

And indeed... most people are not incapable of working.... do you fully believe we have that many millions and millions of people who are physically and mentally incapable of working a job to earn a living?

Yes, I fully believe there are millions of people who are physically and mentally handicapped. You must live in a small town or in some mid-western suburbs and are not exposed to all of the mentally ill, mentally disabled, or physically disabled people that, yes, actually exist. And a mother of two kids with a job at KFC or at the Mall or at the factory who earns $11 an hour will struggle to feed, clothe, and house her children and still have time to raise them so that they don't grow up to be the "lazy" people you so wish to ignore.

 

[DiamondDave]

So there is, in your opinion, a level to which no American can fall below. In your system you aren't allowing mentally handicapped people to die due to poverty and inability to take care of themselves.

These people didn't earn anything themselves. They make no contribution to society. How could you justify giving these people that don't give anything to society any money? Taking from those who work to give to the mentally infirm is just socialism with another name.

Why, because it makes you feel good? Is that why you support helping them?

Support of the incapable is not the same as support/entitlement to the capable but unwilling...

As wards of the state, there are in essence dependents of society... also as persons in that state, they are not out in society as free persons.... I.E. those committed in mental institutions, persons in vegetative states without family, those severely retarded to the point where mental capacity makes them a danger to themselves and/or others, etc...

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes, I fully believe there are millions of people who are physically and mentally handicapped. You must live in a small town or in some mid-western suburbs and are not exposed to all of the mentally ill, mentally disabled, or physically disabled people that, yes, actually exist. And a mother of two kids with a job at KFC or at the Mall or at the factory who earns $11 an hour will struggle to feed, clothe, and house her children and still have time to raise them so that they don't grow up to be the "lazy" people you so wish to ignore.

There may be a great number who are mentally or physically handicapped to different levels.. but not off of those levels make them incapable of taking care of themselves.... big difference

As for a mom with 2 kids and a job at KFC, it is her decisions that put her in her situation in life.. it does not change the fact that her personal responsibility is her personal responsibility... that if she needs to employ babysitters, or employ the aid of family, or decide to work a second job, or decide to room mate with another single mom to share and assist each other while working different schedules, or whatever... so be it... that single mother is not incapable of taking care of herself..

I have a sister that was pregnant at 14... has struggled the hard way all her life (both her and her husband).... worked 2 jobs apiece.... and years later she has done what she has had to do and is about to graduate nursing school at age 31... did not take assistance and did not require assistance from the government, for even though it was tough and even though she had needs that were hard to fulfill, it was still her responsibility....

life is tough.... government is not mommy to make it all go away with a handout... to say 'awww poor baby' and give you money so you can stay home and shirk responsibility for your position in life that has resulted from your actions and your decisions