Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

.
You know, it really sucks that the richest people in the country are mostly liberal Democrats. There is no stopping them now. We are all doomed....

.

Yet the top 6 of 10 are right wing Koch/Walton family who inherited their money. Go figure

Forbes took at look at the 50 richest clans on our new list of America’s Richest Families. There are a handful of politicians in the mix, and an overwhelming majority that support one political party far more than another.




The politics of other billion-dollar families aren’t as well known. Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats

Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?

Top 10 wealthiest senators

Dang ... Democrats....

AND THEY SUPPORT THE BUFFETT RULE (min tax 30$ on $1.000,000+ incomes)? How terrible of them!


The 50 Richest Members of Congress

The 50 Richest won’t set new standards for diversity. All are white. Women comprise 18 percent. There were 20 Democrats and 30 Republicans.

Roll Call's 50 Richest Members of Congress

 

[Dad2three]

YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!


You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol

So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!

Proven ACA unfunded? lol

SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly among partisan lines, 270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.


State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The recent expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was funded by an increase in federal excise taxes on tobacco ...


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)

Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA


S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.

Weird, right wingers CLAIM that nonsense, but generally can't back it up, you?

Want Gov't to run more effectually AND EFFICIENTLY? Stop electing guys who think Gov't IS the problem and NEVER the solution!

Easiest way is to get money out of politics and stop the plutocrats from capturing Gov't

Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!

.

Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...

Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!

Weird you think state/national policies don't effect cities? Moron

 

[Dad2three]

Sure, like today's Robber Barrons, Koch/Walton's make up 6 of the top 10 wealthiest in the US, all inherited wealth too!


LBJ tax cuts were DEMAND side tax cuts, the ones JFK advocated for!


Let me guess a libertarian moron right? ONE NATION/STATE to EVER successfully use that BS?

They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible. And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?

You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.

You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.

And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.

“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.” Ayn Rand

Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.

You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.

ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*

ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?

Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!

YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years

Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US, WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS

Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?

Socialism huh?


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Try the country you live in and Switzerland. I'm not calling for anarchy, I'm calling for good policy too, not selective policy. And how does it fail? It's not by following it's own principles, it's by straying from it's principles. Communism fails by following it's own principles. And name a country that did fail that used strictly libertarian policy?

Business isn't bad, unless they are not playing by the rules, or getting made rules in their favor. Walmart is so bad right, they pay their employees poop right? Well they're able to do that because there is government policy that allows their employees to be subsidized by the government. They don't have to change or really offer competitive wages for employees. Government is not going to fix that by raising min wage. It's only cause the standard of living to become relatively more expensive. Just like giving more govt money out for college only makes the cost of college go up. Raise on min wage will also chase more business out of the US. How did regulation help the cab industry, or the phone industry. Look at uber and telephones now. How did lack of regulation effect the internet industry? Is net neutrality going to hurt or help an already booming new industry ?

Nope the US NEVER was a libertarian nation, even when we had the "small states rights" Articles of Confederation

UNLESS you think HEAVY protectionists policies the US used from our founding until the last 30 years is libertarian?

NEVER

Swiss huh?

I remember you Klownboy,

MANDATORY military service?

The immigration restriction proposal passed by a narrow margin, with 50.3% of participating voters supporting the measure; the proposal was also approved by the required majority of cantons.The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to either renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of people within three years, or to revoke the agreement. The proposal mandates re-introduction of strict quotas for various immigration categories, and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits, and to request asylum


Swiss referendums, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




How about that mandatory min income on the ballot for them?




There is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are!


UBER AND PHONES? Lol, you mean uber dismantling TAXI'S by not having a floor and not playing by the same rules? Phone, the US has 4 phone comps (90% OF SERVICE) for 300+ million residents. CHOICE?

Increasing min wage runs Biz out? lol

THE COUNTRY THAT USED STRICTLY LIBERTARIAN POLICY? Hint it's a gawddam FETISH NOT REALITY!

What the hell is your definition of libertarianism!?!? Fwi it's a very very diverse group with thousands of individual beliefs, unlike the two parties we see today. It's alarming when one whole group essentially agrees with everything they're "leaders" push. I have a hard time seeing how that's a good thing.

And mandatory military service isn't bad policy...especially when your a neutral country that doesn't get involved in foreign wars!!! And it's up to the people to be the first and last line of defense for their country. Why didn't hitler invade the Swiss and steal their gold like they did to all of Germany's other neighbors?

Nor is immigration restrictions so poverty isn't imported and fed off of tax payers dollars. And yea if you arnt paying taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote, because you dont have a stake in where your tax dollars are going and will vote for handouts.

Sorry, I forgot mandatory military service, the will of the majority and closed borders are a libertarian ideal *shaking head*

Hitler didn't invade BECAUSE the Swiss were armed? LMAROG



PLEASE however, tell me more about LBJ tax cuts you brought up earlier?

 

[sakinago]

They all fund both parties! And groups for both parties. You only recognize that a certain group of the rich are bad, unless they parrot your view, then everything questionable they do is permissible. And your answer is to give more power to a certain group of people (those in govt), people who, even if you get a group of good ones, will be corrupted themselves, or the next group eventually will. You quote Chris Hayes like he is some sort of wealth of political thought, and that there should be a high respect for governments job, but fail to see the need for respect for human nature that we constantly see over and over again throughout history?

You want to raise minimum wage, and you think that will help keep jobs in America? Ford and nabisco didn't just recently move to Mexico because they felt like they weren't paying their entry level employees enough.

You want to raise taxes as an answer... An answer for what exactly. If the government was a charity, and we looked at cents on the dollar that actually go to help people... You'd be shouting them down and telling people not to donate to them.

And sure ayn rand said some crazy things, but she also said some good things that are true, and I'm sure that you would agree with.

“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.” Ayn Rand

Yea I'll take her over CORPORATE RUN Chris Hayes anyday. Granted I don't parrot everything that ayn rand says, but I discern what I agree with and what I don't agree with. I don't follow people blindly. It's naive and rash to think that your party is only capable of good.

You want a push towards socialism, which just creates an unnecessary utilitarianism. Where, at best, the good of the many will outweigh the good of the few. What almost always happens is the good of the people making the decisions for the good of the group takes precedence.

ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*

ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?

Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!

YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years

Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US, WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS

Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?

Socialism huh?


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Try the country you live in and Switzerland. I'm not calling for anarchy, I'm calling for good policy too, not selective policy. And how does it fail? It's not by following it's own principles, it's by straying from it's principles. Communism fails by following it's own principles. And name a country that did fail that used strictly libertarian policy?

Business isn't bad, unless they are not playing by the rules, or getting made rules in their favor. Walmart is so bad right, they pay their employees poop right? Well they're able to do that because there is government policy that allows their employees to be subsidized by the government. They don't have to change or really offer competitive wages for employees. Government is not going to fix that by raising min wage. It's only cause the standard of living to become relatively more expensive. Just like giving more govt money out for college only makes the cost of college go up. Raise on min wage will also chase more business out of the US. How did regulation help the cab industry, or the phone industry. Look at uber and telephones now. How did lack of regulation effect the internet industry? Is net neutrality going to hurt or help an already booming new industry ?

Nope the US NEVER was a libertarian nation, even when we had the "small states rights" Articles of Confederation

UNLESS you think HEAVY protectionists policies the US used from our founding until the last 30 years is libertarian?

NEVER

Swiss huh?

I remember you Klownboy,

MANDATORY military service?

The immigration restriction proposal passed by a narrow margin, with 50.3% of participating voters supporting the measure; the proposal was also approved by the required majority of cantons.The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to either renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of people within three years, or to revoke the agreement. The proposal mandates re-introduction of strict quotas for various immigration categories, and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits, and to request asylum


Swiss referendums, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




How about that mandatory min income on the ballot for them?




There is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are!


UBER AND PHONES? Lol, you mean uber dismantling TAXI'S by not having a floor and not playing by the same rules? Phone, the US has 4 phone comps (90% OF SERVICE) for 300+ million residents. CHOICE?

Increasing min wage runs Biz out? lol

THE COUNTRY THAT USED STRICTLY LIBERTARIAN POLICY? Hint it's a gawddam FETISH NOT REALITY!

What the hell is your definition of libertarianism!?!? Fwi it's a very very diverse group with thousands of individual beliefs, unlike the two parties we see today. It's alarming when one whole group essentially agrees with everything they're "leaders" push. I have a hard time seeing how that's a good thing.

And mandatory military service isn't bad policy...especially when your a neutral country that doesn't get involved in foreign wars!!! And it's up to the people to be the first and last line of defense for their country. Why didn't hitler invade the Swiss and steal their gold like they did to all of Germany's other neighbors?

Nor is immigration restrictions so poverty isn't imported and fed off of tax payers dollars. And yea if you arnt paying taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote, because you dont have a stake in where your tax dollars are going and will vote for handouts.

Sorry, I forgot mandatory military service, the will of the majority and closed borders are a libertarian ideal *shaking head*

Hitler didn't invade BECAUSE the Swiss were armed? LMAROG



PLEASE however, tell me more about LBJ tax cuts you brought up earlier?

Why did they not invade Switzerland? Please inform me. Bc they were holding their gold??? Along with gold from every other European country.

And yes closed boarders if your a welfare state, that is a very popular libertarian idea. Open boarders would be great for nations to compete...but not with welfare states, that's just a ridiculous policy. And why is mandatory military service bad policy in a NUETRAL NATION?

 

[Dad2three]

ANOTHER Randian fetishists *shaking head*

ONE place EVER that used that losertarin crap successfully ANYWHERE?

Great THEORY, but like communism, it's failure when tried!

YES, GOOD GOV'T POLICY MATTERS. Weird how ONE party has fought EVERYTHING that MIGHT shift the tax burden back to those "job creators" for 30+ years right? AFTER the growing inequality of the past 35 years

Yes, both parties are captured, but ONE party refuses to even adjust things around the edge to help with GOOD GOV'T POLICY AND INSTEAD USE LOSERTARIN POLICIES TO CREATE THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE US, WHERE CORPS ARE PEOPLE AND PAY THE LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40 YEARS ON THEIR RECORD PROFITS

Over half of dividends/Cap gains go to the top 1/10th of 1% of US THINK THEY COULD AFFORD TO PAY A LIL MORE FOR GOV'T?

Socialism huh?


In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Try the country you live in and Switzerland. I'm not calling for anarchy, I'm calling for good policy too, not selective policy. And how does it fail? It's not by following it's own principles, it's by straying from it's principles. Communism fails by following it's own principles. And name a country that did fail that used strictly libertarian policy?

Business isn't bad, unless they are not playing by the rules, or getting made rules in their favor. Walmart is so bad right, they pay their employees poop right? Well they're able to do that because there is government policy that allows their employees to be subsidized by the government. They don't have to change or really offer competitive wages for employees. Government is not going to fix that by raising min wage. It's only cause the standard of living to become relatively more expensive. Just like giving more govt money out for college only makes the cost of college go up. Raise on min wage will also chase more business out of the US. How did regulation help the cab industry, or the phone industry. Look at uber and telephones now. How did lack of regulation effect the internet industry? Is net neutrality going to hurt or help an already booming new industry ?

Nope the US NEVER was a libertarian nation, even when we had the "small states rights" Articles of Confederation

UNLESS you think HEAVY protectionists policies the US used from our founding until the last 30 years is libertarian?

NEVER

Swiss huh?

I remember you Klownboy,

MANDATORY military service?

The immigration restriction proposal passed by a narrow margin, with 50.3% of participating voters supporting the measure; the proposal was also approved by the required majority of cantons.The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to either renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of people within three years, or to revoke the agreement. The proposal mandates re-introduction of strict quotas for various immigration categories, and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits, and to request asylum


Swiss referendums, 2014 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




How about that mandatory min income on the ballot for them?




There is no libertarian run country because that would force libertarians to rely on a collectivism to govern their country which goes against the individualism that libertarians claim they are!


UBER AND PHONES? Lol, you mean uber dismantling TAXI'S by not having a floor and not playing by the same rules? Phone, the US has 4 phone comps (90% OF SERVICE) for 300+ million residents. CHOICE?

Increasing min wage runs Biz out? lol

THE COUNTRY THAT USED STRICTLY LIBERTARIAN POLICY? Hint it's a gawddam FETISH NOT REALITY!

What the hell is your definition of libertarianism!?!? Fwi it's a very very diverse group with thousands of individual beliefs, unlike the two parties we see today. It's alarming when one whole group essentially agrees with everything they're "leaders" push. I have a hard time seeing how that's a good thing.

And mandatory military service isn't bad policy...especially when your a neutral country that doesn't get involved in foreign wars!!! And it's up to the people to be the first and last line of defense for their country. Why didn't hitler invade the Swiss and steal their gold like they did to all of Germany's other neighbors?

Nor is immigration restrictions so poverty isn't imported and fed off of tax payers dollars. And yea if you arnt paying taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote, because you dont have a stake in where your tax dollars are going and will vote for handouts.

Sorry, I forgot mandatory military service, the will of the majority and closed borders are a libertarian ideal *shaking head*

Hitler didn't invade BECAUSE the Swiss were armed? LMAROG



PLEASE however, tell me more about LBJ tax cuts you brought up earlier?

Why did they not invade Switzerland? Please inform me. Bc they were holding their gold??? Along with gold from every other European country.

And yes closed boarders if your a welfare state, that is a very popular libertarian idea. Open boarders would be great for nations to compete...but not with welfare states, that's just a ridiculous policy. And why is mandatory military service bad policy in a NUETRAL NATION?

Welfare state? lol


For tactical reasons Hitler made repeated assurances before the outbreak of the Second World War that Germany would respect Swiss neutrality in the event of a military conflict in Europe. In February 1937, he announced that "at all times, whatever happens, we will respect the inviolability and neutrality of Switzerland" to the Swiss federal councillor Edmund Schulthess, reiterating this promise shortly before the German invasion of Poland] These were, however, purely political maneuvers intended to guarantee Switzerland's passiveness. Nazi Germany planned to end Switzerland's independence after it had defeated its main enemies on the continent first


Nazi attitudes towards Switzerland


Hitler stated his opinion on Switzerland quite plainly:

"Switzerland possessed the most disgusting and miserable people and political system. The Swiss were the mortal enemies of the new Germany."

In a later discussion the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop directly alluded to the possibility of carving up Switzerland between the two Axis powers:

"On the Duce's query whether Switzerland, as a true anachronism, had any future, the Reich Foreign Minister smiled and told the Duce that he would have to discuss this with the Führer."


In August 1942, Hitler further described Switzerland as "a pimple on the face of Europe" and as a state that no longer had a right to exist, denouncing the Swiss people as "a misbegotten branch of our Volk."


...Germany started planning the invasion of Switzerland on 25 June 1940, the day France surrendered. At this point the German Army in France consisted of three army groups with two million soldiers in 102 divisions Switzerland and Liechtenstein were completely surrounded by Occupied France and the Axis Powers, and so Guisan issued Operationsbefehl Nr. 10, a complete overhaul of existing Swiss defensive plans.




....Hitler never gave the go-ahead, for reasons still uncertain today. Although the Wehrmacht feigned moves toward Switzerland in its offensives, it never attempted to invade. After D-Day, the operation was put on hold, and Switzerland remained neutral for the duration of the war.

Operation Tannenbaum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PLEASE HOWEVER, LBJ DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS FROM EARLIER???

 

[Papageorgio]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

If they have the right documentation and fill out an I-9 that is all the employer can do. If they single out anyone because of a language barrier or because of skin color, that is discrimination.

An employer can e-verify but the government does not require the employer to do so at this time.

Since YOU are the second right winger to buzz into the conversation and not get it, I'll say it once more

THERE IS NO LAW PREVENTING AN EMPLOYER FROM ASKING AT A JOB INTERVIEW IF THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US LEGALLY! None. Yes there are OTHER restrictions, BUT this is the question:

ARE YOU ALLOWED TO WORK IN THE US LEGALLY?

Again, EMPLOYERS KNOW they are hiring people who don't have the RIGHT to legally work i n the US but ARE hiring them BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LOWER WAGES, THAT WAS THE PREMISE!!!

So you are saying Target knowingly hires illegal aliens? How do they get around the I-9?

An I-9 asks the questions and with the proper documentation they are allowed to work. Now why would I need to ask them if I run all the checks? You can lie in an interview, the verifications are better screens.

I hire and I I9 and e-verify all employees, I also background check them and drug test. I can't pick and choose which ones to test, run backgrounds or secure their worker status. They all go through the same process.

I'm not understanding the idea if people can't speak English that you assume they are illegal. I by law can not assume that, it is called discrimination and I could put my company in line for a lawsuit.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.

Weird, right wingers CLAIM that nonsense, but generally can't back it up, you?

Want Gov't to run more effectually AND EFFICIENTLY? Stop electing guys who think Gov't IS the problem and NEVER the solution!

Easiest way is to get money out of politics and stop the plutocrats from capturing Gov't

Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!

.

Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...

Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!

Weird you think state/national policies don't effect cities? Moron

Why would you believe they only affect Democrat run cities?

 

[Dad2three]

The lobbiests for business paid their lackeys in Congress to insert that one word " knowingly " in the law against hiring illegal aliens.

It makes it almost impossible to prove they " knowingly " hired the illegal.
Especially when the illegal presents forged documents that you can buy on the street in any major city --- they have a Social Security card and a Drivers License and a Birth Certificate often on original paper from the department that supposedly issued them. Crooked people in the government steal the paper and sell it to the forgers.

Until we get that one word removed the law will be WORTHLESS.

That one word is a Get Out Of Jail Free card to employers of illegal aliens.

So you think we should punish people who unknowingly break the law?

Went to Target a few years ago, at 8:00 AM (when they first opened) and the cleaning crew was leaving, 3-4 people, the manager had to ask them to wait while she got someone to interpret for her when she asked them questions. Nah she didn't have reason to SUSPECT they might be "illegal" right?


Go to ANY fast food restaurant, motel/hotel in the Salinas Valley near where I live, over 50% of the workers ARE suspected of being INELIGIBLE to work legally. Think BIZ SHOULD KNOW?

If they have the right documentation and fill out an I-9 that is all the employer can do. If they single out anyone because of a language barrier or because of skin color, that is discrimination.

An employer can e-verify but the government does not require the employer to do so at this time.

Since YOU are the second right winger to buzz into the conversation and not get it, I'll say it once more

THERE IS NO LAW PREVENTING AN EMPLOYER FROM ASKING AT A JOB INTERVIEW IF THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US LEGALLY! None. Yes there are OTHER restrictions, BUT this is the question:

ARE YOU ALLOWED TO WORK IN THE US LEGALLY?

Again, EMPLOYERS KNOW they are hiring people who don't have the RIGHT to legally work i n the US but ARE hiring them BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY LOWER WAGES, THAT WAS THE PREMISE!!!

So you are saying Target knowingly hires illegal aliens? How do they get around the I-9?

An I-9 asks the questions and with the proper documentation they are allowed to work. Now why would I need to ask them if I run all the checks? You can lie in an interview, the verifications are better screens.

I hire and I I9 and e-verify all employees, I also background check them and drug test. I can't pick and choose which ones to test, run backgrounds or secure their worker status. They all go through the same process.

I'm not understanding the idea if people can't speak English that you assume they are illegal. I by law can not assume that, it is called discrimination and I could put my company in line for a lawsuit.

Got it, you'll CONTINUE to be a douche and not understand the CONTEXT of the quote from the OTHER low informed right winger who claimed you couldn't ASK if they had a RIGHT TO WORK IN THE US



Now IF you think a group of the cleaning crew at Target who the manager was TRYING to communicate with, none seemed NOT to speak English, BUT to understand English, they needed to get a translator from the store, were here in the US LEGALLY, I HAVE A NICE PIECE OF OCEAN FRONT PROPERTY TO SELL IN JAPAN BUBS!


ILLEGAL? FROM THE PAPERS PLEASE CROWD? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, right wingers CLAIM that nonsense, but generally can't back it up, you?

Want Gov't to run more effectually AND EFFICIENTLY? Stop electing guys who think Gov't IS the problem and NEVER the solution!

Easiest way is to get money out of politics and stop the plutocrats from capturing Gov't

Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!

.

Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...

Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!

Weird you think state/national policies don't effect cities? Moron

Why would you believe they only affect Democrat run cities?

Is that the premise now Bubba? HINT I SAID RUST BELT


Yes, CONservatives/GOP policy HAVE hurt US all (well not the top 1%ers) the past 35 years!

 

[bripat9643]

Right On! ...like ... Detroit and ..um ... well ... Right On!

.

Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...

Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!

Weird you think state/national policies don't effect cities? Moron

Why would you believe they only affect Democrat run cities?

Is that the premise now Bubba? HINT I SAID RUST BELT


Yes, CONservatives/GOP policy HAVE hurt US all (well not the top 1%ers) the past 35 years!

All the rust belt cities are Democrat controlled, aren't they?

 

[Dad2three]

Weird how critical thinking escapes the low informed like you right? Yeah, Detroit wasn't a reflection of CONservative policies that weakened the rust belt, like tax cuts to offshore jobs, "free trade", gutting safety net spending on education, etc...

Sure ... blame urban decay and bankruptcy on conservatives even though liberals have been running the cities for the past 50 years...Right On!

Weird you think state/national policies don't effect cities? Moron

Why would you believe they only affect Democrat run cities?

Is that the premise now Bubba? HINT I SAID RUST BELT


Yes, CONservatives/GOP policy HAVE hurt US all (well not the top 1%ers) the past 35 years!

All the rust belt cities are Democrat controlled, aren't they?

The Rust Belt is a term for the region straddling the upper Northeastern United States, the Great Lakes, and the Midwest States, referring to economic decline, population loss, and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once powerful industrial sector.


The Rust Belt begins in south-central New York and traverses to the west through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, ending in northern Illinois and eastern Wisconsin. Previously it was known as the industrial heartland of America. However, industry has been declining in the region since the mid-20th century due to a variety of economic factors, such as the transfer of manufacturing to the Southeast, increased automation, the decline of the US steel and coal industries, globalization, and internationalization.


Deteriorating U.S. net international investment position (NIIP) has caused concern among economists over the effects of outsourcing and high U.S. trade deficits over the long-run.

Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs in tradeable goods has been an important issue in the region. One source has been globalization and the expansion of worldwide free trade agreements. Anti-globalization groups argue that trade with developing countries has resulted in stiff competition from countries such as China which pegs its currency to the dollar and has much lower prevailing wages, forcing domestic wages to drift downward. Some economists are concerned that long-run effects of high trade deficits and outsourcing are a cause of economic problems in the U.S. with high external debt (amount owed to foreign lenders) and a serious deterioration in the United States net international investment position (NIIP) (−24% of GDP)

On June 26, 2009, Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, called for the United States to increase its manufacturing base employment to 20% of the workforce, commenting that the U.S. has outsourced too much in some areas and can no longer rely on the financial sector and consumer spending to drive demand



Since the 1960s, the expansion of worldwide free trade agreements have been less favorable to U.S. workers. Imported goods such as steel cost much less to produce in Third World countries with cheap foreign labor

Rust Belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


CITIES FAULT HUH? lol

 

[Andylusion]

"The right doesn't believe in huge capital programs."

EXCEPT UNFUNDED tax cuts, UNFUNDED Medicare expansions, UNFUNDED wars, etc

Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding." Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively. Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded? Is Social Security "funded?" Obamacare? Any liberal social program?

Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't

You assume spending is a given. You can't have a deficit without spending. Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.



YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!

Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol

You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.

Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM

There is no trust fund," and there never has been. All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately

Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.

It has been proven over and over again that it isn't. Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.

Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)

You fukkn lying POS

The same goes for every government program. So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP? When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?

YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!


You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol

So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!

Proven ACA unfunded? lol

SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly among partisan lines, 270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.


State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The recent expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was funded by an increase in federal excise taxes on tobacco ...


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)

Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA


S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.

Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three. This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll. That's not an insult or exaggeration. It's simply what he is. If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread. When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.

I'm just warning you for your own benefit. You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore. I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.

That said.....

The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function. You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.

And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....

That's not how government sees it. Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term. They want their cushy government jobs.

Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.



Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist. But working for the Department of Labor cured him. He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.

And see, that's how all government works. Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station. This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits. The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".

Now how would we be losing millions of dollars? We were not. In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars. If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money. But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.

But.... the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs. No recipients, no cushy government jobs. So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.

I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.

But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.

You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.

You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.

 

[sakinago]

Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding." Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively. Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded? Is Social Security "funded?" Obamacare? Any liberal social program?

Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't

You assume spending is a given. You can't have a deficit without spending. Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.



YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!

Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol

You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.

Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM

There is no trust fund," and there never has been. All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately

Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.

It has been proven over and over again that it isn't. Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.

Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)

You fukkn lying POS

The same goes for every government program. So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP? When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?

YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!


You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol

So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!

Proven ACA unfunded? lol

SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly among partisan lines, 270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.


State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The recent expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was funded by an increase in federal excise taxes on tobacco ...


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)

Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA


S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.

Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three. This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll. That's not an insult or exaggeration. It's simply what he is. If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread. When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.

I'm just warning you for your own benefit. You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore. I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.

That said.....

The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function. You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.

And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....

That's not how government sees it. Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term. They want their cushy government jobs.

Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.



Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist. But working for the Department of Labor cured him. He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.

And see, that's how all government works. Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station. This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits. The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".

Now how would we be losing millions of dollars? We were not. In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars. If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money. But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.

But.... the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs. No recipients, no cushy government jobs. So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.

I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.

But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.

You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.

You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.

Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.

And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent

 

[danielpalos]

Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't

You assume spending is a given. You can't have a deficit without spending. Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.



YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!

Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol

You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.

Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM

There is no trust fund," and there never has been. All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately

Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.

It has been proven over and over again that it isn't. Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.

Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)

You fukkn lying POS

The same goes for every government program. So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP? When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?

YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!


You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol

So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!

Proven ACA unfunded? lol

SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly among partisan lines, 270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.


State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The recent expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was funded by an increase in federal excise taxes on tobacco ...


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)

Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA


S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.

Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three. This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll. That's not an insult or exaggeration. It's simply what he is. If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread. When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.

I'm just warning you for your own benefit. You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore. I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.

That said.....

The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function. You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.

And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....

That's not how government sees it. Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term. They want their cushy government jobs.

Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.



Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist. But working for the Department of Labor cured him. He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.

And see, that's how all government works. Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station. This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits. The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".

Now how would we be losing millions of dollars? We were not. In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars. If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money. But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.

But.... the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs. No recipients, no cushy government jobs. So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.

I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.

But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.

You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.

You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.

Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.

And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent

y'all think that is bad. the right can't even bear true witness to our own laws while claiming the social morals of Religion are "better" than the social morals of secular republics.

 

[Andylusion]

Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't

You assume spending is a given. You can't have a deficit without spending. Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.



YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!

Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol

You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.

Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM

There is no trust fund," and there never has been. All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately

Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.

It has been proven over and over again that it isn't. Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.

Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)

You fukkn lying POS

The same goes for every government program. So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP? When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?

YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!


You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol

So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!

Proven ACA unfunded? lol

SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly among partisan lines, 270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.


State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The recent expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was funded by an increase in federal excise taxes on tobacco ...


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)

Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA


S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.

Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three. This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll. That's not an insult or exaggeration. It's simply what he is. If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread. When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.

I'm just warning you for your own benefit. You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore. I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.

That said.....

The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function. You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.

And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....

That's not how government sees it. Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term. They want their cushy government jobs.

Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.



Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist. But working for the Department of Labor cured him. He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.

And see, that's how all government works. Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station. This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits. The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".

Now how would we be losing millions of dollars? We were not. In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars. If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money. But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.

But.... the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs. No recipients, no cushy government jobs. So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.

I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.

But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.

You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.

You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.

Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.

And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent

D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead. Total troll.

Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.

Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.

Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives. The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.

So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.

This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.

Take healthcare. You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor. The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.

Which hospital get's additional funds? The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER. The one doing a good job, get's nothing. And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.

Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.

So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible. You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.

If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism or just bad management? socialism in the US should promote the general welfare. supplemental funds for "fixing problems" are just that; why not frame the problem better so that funds are spent more wisely on the People's behalf.

 

[Dad2three]

Allowing taxpayers to keep their money doesn't require "funding." Democrats wanted to make the same Medicare expansion, only do it more expensively. Why is it that Dims claim only wars are unfunded? Is Social Security "funded?" Obamacare? Any liberal social program?

Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't

You assume spending is a given. You can't have a deficit without spending. Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.



YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!

Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol

You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.

Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM

There is no trust fund," and there never has been. All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately

Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.

It has been proven over and over again that it isn't. Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.

Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)

You fukkn lying POS

The same goes for every government program. So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP? When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?

YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!


You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol

So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!

Proven ACA unfunded? lol

SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly among partisan lines, 270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.


State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The recent expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was funded by an increase in federal excise taxes on tobacco ...


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)

Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA


S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.

Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three. This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll. That's not an insult or exaggeration. It's simply what he is. If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread. When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.

I'm just warning you for your own benefit. You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore. I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.

That said.....

The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function. You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.

And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....

That's not how government sees it. Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term. They want their cushy government jobs.

Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.



Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist. But working for the Department of Labor cured him. He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.

And see, that's how all government works. Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station. This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits. The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".

Now how would we be losing millions of dollars? We were not. In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars. If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money. But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.

But.... the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs. No recipients, no cushy government jobs. So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.

I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.

But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.

You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.

You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.

"But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.

But.... the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs. No recipients, no cushy government jobs. So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV."





LOL, TOO FUNNY BUBBA, TOO FUNNY


Block Grants (KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS BUBS?) Were THE Key to the Success of Welfare Reform





The nation’s governors, on the other hand, were worried that Congressional proposals would cut their federal assistance as the easier-to-train-and-employ caseload was reduced.


This would limit their ability to assist more entrenched, multi-generational welfare recipients that were much harder to train or employ.




A compromise was reached whereby federal assistance to each state would be both capped and maintained at 1994 spending levels (for the most part) and the states were allowed to transfer portions of their federal welfare funds to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) and the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) programs to provide
job training, child care and other welfare-related services. States were also given the flexibility of using federal welfare funds on any state program “reasonably calculated” to achieve the goals of the federal TANF program in providing welfare assistance while also reducing recipients’ dependence on welfare. In exchange, the states were required to maintain their own 1994 levels of state welfare spending (i.e. “maintenance of effort”) to ensure they used the savings from any decline in caseloads to enhance welfare recipient job training and other services and not merely to substitute federal welfare dollars for their
own state welfare funds.


http://www.theccwr.org/pdfs/block-grants-were-the-key.pdf


How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant

How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities



Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF


Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

A PROVEN LIAR ATTACKING ME?

AND THERE GOES YOUR BULLSH*T PREMISE BUBS!

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, FUNDING requires cutting something else OR getting new revenues, the GOP did the opposite, GUTTED revenues AS THEY EXPANDED Gov't

You assume spending is a given. You can't have a deficit without spending. Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.



YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!

Sure Bubs, sure the Dems wanted to create a Medicare expansion that not only didn't give a single penny of new revenues, BUT by law forbid Gov't from negotiating with big pharma, lol

You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.

Yes Bubs, SS has over $2.5+ trillion in the trust funds thanks to Ronnie increasing taxes on the working guy to hide the tax cuts for the rich, although it was designed as a PAY AS YOU GO INSURANCE SYSTEM

There is no trust fund," and there never has been. All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately

Again, Obamacares was 100% FUNDED when passed.

It has been proven over and over again that it isn't. Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.

Wars ARE UNFUNDED unless you cut other spending, or get more revenues, the GOP NOT ONLY GUTTED REVENUES FROM THE 20% OF GDP CLINTON/DEM POLICIES FINALLY GOT US BACK TO (CARTER LEVEL), BUT DID IT TWICE WHILE GOING TO TWO WARS AND TAKING US REVENUES BELOW 15% OF GDP (Korean war levels!!!)

You fukkn lying POS

The same goes for every government program. So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP? When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?

YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!


You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol

So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!

Proven ACA unfunded? lol

SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly among partisan lines, 270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.


State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The recent expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was funded by an increase in federal excise taxes on tobacco ...


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)

Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA


S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.

Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three. This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll. That's not an insult or exaggeration. It's simply what he is. If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread. When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.

I'm just warning you for your own benefit. You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore. I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.

That said.....

The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function. You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.

And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....

That's not how government sees it. Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term. They want their cushy government jobs.

Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.



Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist. But working for the Department of Labor cured him. He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.

And see, that's how all government works. Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station. This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits. The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".

Now how would we be losing millions of dollars? We were not. In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars. If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money. But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.

But.... the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs. No recipients, no cushy government jobs. So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.

I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.

But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.

You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.

You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.

Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.

And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent

Without false premises,m distortions and lies, what would the right wingers EVER have?


Yeah the "left" ALWAYS says just give us more money *shaking head*

AS CONServatives/GOP say Gov't functions badly, then get's elected and prove it!


The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. PJ O'Rourke

 

[Dad2three]

You assume spending is a given. You can't have a deficit without spending. Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.



YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!



You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.




There is no trust fund," and there never has been. All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately

It has been proven over and over again that it isn't. Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.

The same goes for every government program. So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP? When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?

YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!


You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol

So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!

Proven ACA unfunded? lol

SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly among partisan lines, 270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.


State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The recent expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was funded by an increase in federal excise taxes on tobacco ...


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)

Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA


S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.

Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three. This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll. That's not an insult or exaggeration. It's simply what he is. If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread. When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.

I'm just warning you for your own benefit. You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore. I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.

That said.....

The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function. You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.

And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....

That's not how government sees it. Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term. They want their cushy government jobs.

Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.



Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist. But working for the Department of Labor cured him. He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.

And see, that's how all government works. Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station. This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits. The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".

Now how would we be losing millions of dollars? We were not. In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars. If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money. But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.

But.... the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs. No recipients, no cushy government jobs. So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.

I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.

But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.

You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.

You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.

Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.

And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent

D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead. Total troll.

Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.

Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.

Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives. The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.

So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.

This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.

Take healthcare. You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor. The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.

Which hospital get's additional funds? The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER. The one doing a good job, get's nothing. And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.

Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.

So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible. You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.

If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.

Weird, the "christian" attacks me as a "troll" but I've proven YOU are a liar

IF you want ATTEMPT to refute ANY of my posts, that I generally back up with well thought out, reasoned AND credible sources, PLEASE do. Otherwise go fukk yourself!

 

[sakinago]

You assume spending is a given. You can't have a deficit without spending. Blaming tax cuts is like blaming the door you walk into for the knot on your forehead.



YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!



You can blather endlessly about how some Democrat Bill wouldn't have cost as much, but past history indicates something else.




There is no trust fund," and there never has been. All FICA revenues go into the general fund and get spent immediately

It has been proven over and over again that it isn't. Furthermore, that claim ignores future cost increases.

The same goes for every government program. So when did the government increases taxes to fund SCHIP? When did they increase taxes to fund the numerous spending increases the Democrats always demand?

YET UNLESS YOU CUT SPENDING, WHEN YOU GUT REVENUES VIA GOP TAX CUTS, ALL YOU DO IS CREATE DEBT. GO figure!


You ignore the GOP RAMMED DOWN OUR THROAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT MEDICARE EXPANSION WITHOUT A PENNY IN FUNDING, But whine about what the Dems MIGHT have done on Medicare expansion? lol

So the bonds that go to the trust funds don't really exist? The money isn't actual;y owed? But yes that was Ronnie's idea, increase tax burden on the working guy via his "saving" SS and use the revenues to hide the real costs of tax cuts for the rich, THEN when the debt you crated is due, claim your broke. GOP's plan all along!

Proven ACA unfunded? lol

SCHIP is located at Title IV, subtitle J of H.R. 2015 [105th] Balanced Budget Act of 1997. H.R. 2015 was introduced and sponsored by Rep John Kasich [R-OH] with no cosponsors. On 25 June 1997, H.R. 2015 passed House Vote Roll #241 mainly among partisan lines, 270 ayes and 162 nays, with most Democrats in the House of Representatives in opposition. On the same day, the bill passed in the Senate, with a substitute amendment, by unanimous consent. After a conference between the House and Senate, passage in both House (Roll #345: 346-85) and Senate (Roll #209: 85-15) on the conference substitute became more bipartisan.


State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The recent expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was funded by an increase in federal excise taxes on tobacco ...


Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


ACA HELPS FUND S-CHIP, BUT MAJOR FUNDING TODAY IS TOBACCO TAX BY THE DEMS (THAT OF COURSE DUBYA VETOED!)

Children’s Health Coverage: Medicaid, CHIP and the ACA


S. 275, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009

Yes so let's shrink government spending in essentially useless areas...there are many that we can find, and let's find ways govt can do it's job more efficiently and with less cost.

Before I respond, I noticed you are talking to Dad2Three. This guy is a well known forum wide, as a mindless troll. That's not an insult or exaggeration. It's simply what he is. If you ever pin him down on anything, he will simply resort to insults, and spamming links, and often the same links that have been responded to 50 posts earlier in the same thread. When you counter the claims on those links, he'll spam them again, as if he lives in a bubble where information contrary to his beliefs doesn't exist.

I'm just warning you for your own benefit. You'll find very few people respond to Dad2Three because the majority of us, already have him on ignore. I forgot he still existed on this forum, until I replied to your post.

That said.....

The problem is, there is a justification for nearly every single government function. You claim it's useless, but in reality, every action government takes has a purpose.

And while it seems obvious and clear that we should cut out wasteful spending, and bad programs, and destructive laws....

That's not how government sees it. Politicians, especially non-business career politicians, are not interested, or give a crap about the country in the long term. They want their cushy government jobs.

Thomas Sowell had this great story about how he was working at the Department of Labor.



Now if you fast forward to 6 Minutes in, Sowell is talking about how he was a Marxist. But working for the Department of Labor cured him. He realized that the Department of Labor had no interest in whether or not the laws passed were economically beneficial, but rather that they towed the correct policy that continued to pay for their cushy jobs.

And see, that's how all government works. Back in the late 90s, happened to see a news broadcast from the local TV station. This was after the welfare reform bill had passed, and people were kicked off welfare and food stamps throughout the country.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, (which runs welfare and food stamps), started running TV commercials advertising food stamps and welfare benefits. The New Broadcast highlighted the ads, and boldly proclaimed "Ohio is losing millions of dollars every year".

Now how would we be losing millions of dollars? We were not. In fact Ohio was saving millions of dollars. If you look up the Ohio budget during the 90s, we saved money. But they were adding in Federal welfare and food stamp dollars, that were not given to the State because we didn't have as many recipients.

But.... the people at The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services didn't want to lose their cushy jobs. No recipients, no cushy government jobs. So they spent tens of thousands of dollars advertising welfare and food stamps on the TV.

I think it's admirable that you want government to be more efficient and less wasteful.... and if we were talking about a private business, then that would work.

But the reality is, the people who work in these government agencies have zero reason to not waste money, and every single reason possible to waste and be as inefficient as they can.

You are never going to convince government employees that it's in there best interest to be more effective so that fewer government employees is needed, and they can eliminate their own jobs.

You are never going to convince any government agency, that it's in their best interest to eliminate fraud, and eliminate people gaming the system, so that the agency doesn't need as much money, and can do with fewer employees.

Thanks for the heads up. I am very well aware of what I am getting into with d23 and his tactics.

And the point I was trying get across was that the left can't even admit that there should be a streamlining of govt, that it's only problem is that it needs more money. And any time streamlining is tried, say in education, instead of getting rid of the a portion 100s of the highly paid administration positions in a school district, they get rid of teaches and say hey, look at your kids now, in classes of 30 students per teacher. Told you we needed that money, now your kids are getting a bad education, so give us even more money , and it will all be okay. I am aware of how the beast works, it fails in areas and then claims the problem lies with the lack of funds, not funds mis-spent

D23 won't even admit his own position, not even if you printed out his own posts, and stapled them to his forehead. Total troll.

Well yes, education is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The deal in New Jersey where schools were intentionally holding grades down, because if grade came up, they wouldn't qualify for supplemental education spending by the state.

Only in a government run system, are schools rewarded with extra money for having bad education outcomes, and punished with less money for having better education outcomes.

Socialism reverses the universal economic incentives. The only way you get more funding for any agency... any agency anywhere, is by having major problems you need more money to combat.

So inherently to government, agencies have an automatic incentive to NOT fix any problems.

This is one of the reasons why we don't want government involved period.

Take healthcare. You have two hospitals, one with dozens of people waiting 4 hours in the ER without being seen, the place is packed, people laying on the floor. The other, place is relatively empty with few people, all of whom are seen within 20 minutes.

Which hospital get's additional funds? The one providing 4 hour waits in the ER. The one doing a good job, get's nothing. And worse, if the one with 4 hour waits improves things, they lose the money.

Then everyone wonders why socialized care around the world is terrible.... not a shock to us.

So as I said before, it's a nice thought to get government agencies to be more efficient and higher quality, that's just not possible. You can't get a socialized system to operate like a private system, when they are all governed by socialized incentives.

If you have a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.

Socialized medicine works fine if you have a cold, but breaks down when you need something specialized. I work as an RN at a chemo infusion center about four hours from Canadian boarder and we have 3 patients who make that 4 hour drive from Canada at my center alone. Why is that? Because the socialized system creates a fake utilitarian system, where many need their colds, flus, and broken arms treated but the few who need chemo, lung transplant, etc wait very long to get treated bc they are not a high demand in medicine