I have a nazi-like idea in regard to mooches

[Ravi]

Or applying the OP's logic of 'moochers' consistently.

Are we including those public school-using moochers?

no, he was conflating two very different things: people who use tax loopholes, and people who are sustained in their entirety by welfare

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch.

The tax expenditure moochers are extorting $1.2 TRILLION every year. I guess you must be one of them sucking on that tit, eh?

No exceptions!

I don't disagree with closing tax loopholes, but what you're missing is that they're not in the red if you take away their loopholes. Necessarily. You're not taxed on losses.

So what that means is, take away the loopholes and they aren't magically in loss of their income and magically need the hypothetical camp.

In many cases, when it comes to the elderly and disabled, taking away their tax credits (loopholes) could see them needing assistance.

 

[G.T.]

no.

Again, here, you conflate criminalizing poverty with criminalizing taking advantage of other people to sustain yourself while capable.

Poverty incorporates both the able bodied and the non-able bodied. As does hunger. That you criminalize hunger and poverty if a able bodied person uses government assistance to meet the needs of either is awful. Neither is a crime, rationally or by any semblance of our laws. And your proposal is more extreme than debtors prison, a concept so contrary to our legal system that its been anathema for approaching 2 centuries.

And you'd not only meet it....you'd *exceed it*. With vast 'internment camps' to house the 'criminal poor'.

Worse, indefinite incarceration is explicitly unconstitutional. There must be a term of punishment. 'Until you do what I say' isn't it. Your entire proposal is layers of hideously awful and blatantly unconstitutional.

Ignore as you will. I doubt the American people would if such a proposal were seriously contemplated. And the courts certainly wouldn't.

It's not a moral crime to be able bodied, on assistance, and doing NOTHING to try to change your circumstance while continuing to take said assistance?

Weird.

 

[G.T.]

Or applying the OP's logic of 'moochers' consistently.

Are we including those public school-using moochers?

no, he was conflating two very different things: people who use tax loopholes, and people who are sustained in their entirety by welfare

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch.

The tax expenditure moochers are extorting $1.2 TRILLION every year. I guess you must be one of them sucking on that tit, eh?

No exceptions!

I don't disagree with closing tax loopholes, but what you're missing is that they're not in the red if you take away their loopholes. Necessarily. You're not taxed on losses.

So what that means is, take away the loopholes and they aren't magically in loss of their income and magically need the hypothetical camp.

In many cases, when it comes to the elderly and disabled, taking away their tax credits (loopholes) could see them needing assistance.

They don't apply to my scenario. They aren't able bodied and doing nothing about it.

there are exemptions for everyone except the nefarious

 

[g5000]

Sure you

A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Whether he is collecting a mortgage interest deduction or an Obamaphone from the government.

No exceptions!

You are either trolling or trapped in a warped moral relativism bubble.

Sorry, but tax expenditures account for $1.2 trillion a year. That is some SERIOUS mooching! You won't be able to top it.

You have to combined the totals of programs as diverse as Earned Income Tax Credits and Medicaid, Pell Grants and WIC to get your numbers.

Nope. You have no idea what tax expenditures are, do you.

Its possible. Its also possible that we've had this debate before and you've already shown me your hold cards. And I've paid closer attention to your sources than you have.

Why don't you show us your sources for the 1.2 trillion in expenditures and we'll see how accurate my claims are. I think you'll find that my posts match the reality of your sources quite nicely.

I have no fear since I know what I am talking about, whereas you do not.

The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System - CBO

Tax expenditures, like traditional forms of federal spending, contribute to the federal budget deficit; influence how people work, save, and invest; and affect the distribution of income.

See that? Tax expenditures are spending, add to the deficit, and are openly social behavioral experiments performed by the government. How in the name of all that is holy could a self-respecting conservative support them?

Although the 10 major tax expenditures listed here represent a small fraction of the more than 200 tax expenditures in the individual and corporate income tax systems, they will account for roughly two-thirds of the total budgetary effects of all tax expenditures in fiscal year 2013, CBO estimates. Together, those 10 tax expenditures are estimated to total more than $900 billion, or 5.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), in fiscal year 2013 and are projected to amount to nearly $12 trillion, or 5.4 percent of GDP, over the 2014–2023 period.

But wait, there's more!

JCT Identifies 1.2 Trillion in Tax Breaks This Year Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

As lawmakers fight over whether to extend and expand expired tax breaks or create new ones, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) this week updated its estimate of the already existing tax breaks for 2014-2018. Adding up the individual costs of tax expenditures shows a total of $1.2 trillion for 2014, more than two-thirds of total projected income tax revenue this year.

But wait, there's still more!

U.S. GAO - Key Issues Tax Expenditures

Tax expenditures have a significant effect on overall tax rates as well as the budget outlook. The revenue the federal government forgoes from tax expenditures reduces the tax base and requires higher tax rates to raise any given amount of revenue.

Higher tax rates. That means people being forced to pay more money, kids.

The Effects of Terminating Tax Expenditures and Cutting Individual Income Tax Rates Tax Foundation

Leading members of the House and Senate tax writing committees are examining the possibility of trading a broader tax base for dramatically lower rates. Representative Dave Camp (R-MI), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is believed to be seeking enough revenue enhancers to lower the top corporate and individual income tax rates to 25 percent while maintaining revenue neutrality. Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, respectively, have proposed a "blank slate" approach, in which most "tax expenditures"—income tax exclusions, deductions, and credits, and other provisions that the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) classifies as preferences—would be abolished, except for those that could be convincingly defended, with the money dedicated to rate cuts and perhaps deficit reduction.

You see that? Tax expenditures are well defined here. They have NOTHING to do with Pell Grants or Medicaid or WIC.

What's more, it plainly says that we can abolish tax expenditures so you can lower the top corporate and individual income tax rates!

TA-DAAAAAAAAA!


A mooch is a mooch is a mooch. Your tax exclusions, deductions, and credits are forcing everyone to pay higher tax rates.

$1.2 trillion a year of mooching.

But hey, it is more fun to throw the poor into concentration camps, amiright? I got my government tit, so **** you, amiright?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

So far, to recap the thread:

The only person who engaged me from an honest place was Ravi.
Everyone else mischaracterized the idea and went on tirades against their mischaracterization.

The idea is not to punish anyone who is poor. We would help the poor as we do now: food and shelter, except the food would be healthier and the shelter would be safer, as most of the poor's shelter now is in crime habitat USA.

Further, the only people who lose in this scenario are:

those ABLE but UNWILLING TO work to get off of said assistance. <--and every word in said quote means something, so by conflating it by removing some of those words only bastardizes the whole conversation and it's engaging in futile talking past people for kicks.

Dude, where are you going to house these people?

I mean that right there makes this a dead end. You are talking about spending MILLIONS just to build habitats. And by the way have you ever been to any public housing? They are shit holes.

I would much prefer we closed down all welfare , sent every household $50K a year and told em "do the **** you want, this is ALL you are getting"

 

[Ravi]

What about the kids? You're gonna leave them living in a camp or take them away from their parents?

So no consideration of "the best interest of the child" to consider here, just just the two choices you offer. When mothers are overwhelmed do you suggest, just propping them up indefinitely?? What happens when the best interest of the child / children conflicts with those choices??

Barring physical or emotional abuse the best interests of the child would be living with their parents.

 

[G.T.]

So far, to recap the thread:

The only person who engaged me from an honest place was Ravi.
Everyone else mischaracterized the idea and went on tirades against their mischaracterization.

The idea is not to punish anyone who is poor. We would help the poor as we do now: food and shelter, except the food would be healthier and the shelter would be safer, as most of the poor's shelter now is in crime habitat USA.

Further, the only people who lose in this scenario are:

those ABLE but UNWILLING TO work to get off of said assistance. <--and every word in said quote means something, so by conflating it by removing some of those words only bastardizes the whole conversation and it's engaging in futile talking past people for kicks.

Dude, where are you going to house these people?

I mean that right there makes this a dead end. You are talking about spending MILLIONS just to build habitats. And by the way have you ever been to any public housing? They are shit holes.

I would much prefer we closed down all welfare , sent every household $50K a year and told em "do the **** you want, this is ALL you are getting"

no, I'm taking about SAVING millions.

section 8 is already being paid for, and it's FAR FAR more square footage than we'd be using




your idea of giving everyone money doesn't work

it has to come from somewhere

 

[ricechickie]

The threads are a lot easier to follow if everyone cuts quotes, as I just did here.

Commie.

 

[G.T.]

What about the kids? You're gonna leave them living in a camp or take them away from their parents?

So no consideration of "the best interest of the child" to consider here, just just the two choices you offer. When mothers are overwhelmed do you suggest, just propping them up indefinitely?? What happens when the best interest of the child / children conflicts with those choices??

Barring physical or emotional abuse the best interests of the child would be living with their parents.

agreed

 

[Skylar]

It's not a moral crime to be able bodied, on assistance, and doing NOTHING to try to change your circumstance while continuing to take said assistance?

Weird.

No. And its certainly not worthy of indefinite incarceration without trial. That you would even *want* to have vast internment camps to imprison the 'criminally poor' speaks volumes. And they're not good ones.

I've said it before, but this thread really underlines......the question of whether the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer has been answered: yes. Now the battle is to convince the American people that this is how its *supposed* to be. With rambling justifications that the wealthy are morally superior and the poor morally inferior. And each deserves their station.

With internment camps for 'criminal poverty' being a superb example of this kind of awkward moral justification.

 

[Ravi]

no.

Again, here, you conflate criminalizing poverty with criminalizing taking advantage of other people to sustain yourself while capable.

Poverty incorporates both the able bodied and the non-able bodied. As does hunger. That you criminalize hunger and poverty if a able bodied person uses government assistance to meet the needs of either is awful. Neither is a crime, rationally or by any semblance of our laws. And your proposal is more extreme than debtors prison, a concept so contrary to our legal system that its been anathema for approaching 2 centuries.

And you'd not only meet it....you'd *exceed it*. With vast 'internment camps' to house the 'criminal poor'.

Worse, indefinite incarceration is explicitly unconstitutional. There must be a term of punishment. 'Until you do what I say' isn't it. Your entire proposal is layers of hideously awful and blatantly unconstitutional.

Ignore as you will. I doubt the American people would if such a proposal were seriously contemplated. And the courts certainly wouldn't.

It's not a moral crime to be able bodied, on assistance, and doing NOTHING to try to change your circumstance while continuing to take said assistance?

Weird.

Who decides that, though?

 

[G.T.]

It's not a moral crime to be able bodied, on assistance, and doing NOTHING to try to change your circumstance while continuing to take said assistance?

Weird.

No. And its certainly not worthy of indefinite incarceration without trial. That you would even *want* to have vast internment camps to imprison the 'criminally poor' speaks volumes. And they're not good ones.

I've said it before, but this thread really underlines......the question of whether the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer has been answered: yes. Now the battle is to convince the American people that this is how its *supposed* to be. With rambling justifications that the wealthy are morally superior and the poor morally inferior. And each deserves their station.

With internment camps for 'criminal poverty' being a superb example of this kind of awkward moral justification.

Well, that you think it's moral to be able bodied and receiving assistance while REFUSING to try to work and make your own way................ means we are woooo000o00oooooorlds apart, morally at the very least.

Also I disagree that the poor would get poorer. they'd be greatly incentivized to work towards sustaining themselves. The food is disgusting, the lack of entertainment and other "perks" of life really just sucks. Those are the things that hard work is for. You don't get them magically put in your lap as our immoral system allows for now.

 

[ricechickie]

Nobody's punishing the poor. It's just making seeking help for poverty so unbelievably uncomfortable that no one would do it, except through sheer desperation.

Completely different!

 

[G.T.]

no.

Again, here, you conflate criminalizing poverty with criminalizing taking advantage of other people to sustain yourself while capable.

Poverty incorporates both the able bodied and the non-able bodied. As does hunger. That you criminalize hunger and poverty if a able bodied person uses government assistance to meet the needs of either is awful. Neither is a crime, rationally or by any semblance of our laws. And your proposal is more extreme than debtors prison, a concept so contrary to our legal system that its been anathema for approaching 2 centuries.

And you'd not only meet it....you'd *exceed it*. With vast 'internment camps' to house the 'criminal poor'.

Worse, indefinite incarceration is explicitly unconstitutional. There must be a term of punishment. 'Until you do what I say' isn't it. Your entire proposal is layers of hideously awful and blatantly unconstitutional.

Ignore as you will. I doubt the American people would if such a proposal were seriously contemplated. And the courts certainly wouldn't.

It's not a moral crime to be able bodied, on assistance, and doing NOTHING to try to change your circumstance while continuing to take said assistance?

Weird.

Who decides that, though?

That's the big issue I'd have with the idea, not one of the other canards.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

NOTHING to try to change your circumstance while continuing to take said assistance?

Weird.

Who decides that, though?

I do. I shall be a fair and benevolent dictator

 

[Skylar]

I have no fear since I know what I am talking about, whereas you do not.

The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System - CBO

Uh-huh. Looks like you might have missed a little:

Preferential tax rates on capital gains and dividends; and

So the Mooches would include folks who get most of their income under these preferential tax rates on capital gains and dividends.....

......like, say, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney? To the internment camps for ol' Romney is it? Kinda puts a kink in the whole 'makers' and 'takers' theme of the Republican National Convention, doesn't it?

Oh, and where does it say that these expenditures total 1.2 trillion dollars?

 

[G.T.]

Nobody's punishing the poor. It's just making seeking help for poverty so unbelievably uncomfortable that no one would do it, except through sheer desperation.

Completely different!

Are you guaranteed life on this planet? I don't understand.

Should everyone work hard while some (again, this scenario is not for all of the poor, just the ones who refuse to help themselves and take advantage) get to do nothing yet enjoy many of the fruits of said labor? That's not fishy to you, morally?

 

[ricechickie]

I don't want a quote-cutter deciding these things.

 

[G.T.]

NOTHING to try to change your circumstance while continuing to take said assistance?

Weird.

Who decides that, though?

I do. I shall be a fair and benevolent dictator

death to Caesar~

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I don't want ..... things.

Why not?