U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-08-2014, 02:40 PM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,145,317 times
Reputation: 8606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart View Post
God what a phoney scare tactic. If we cut corporate welfare the prices of goods will rise. Hog wash!
I thought you said you knew about economics?

Since when aren't the costs of doing business factored into the price of a good or service?

 
Old 04-08-2014, 02:42 PM
 
39,109 posts, read 20,248,870 times
Reputation: 12659
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart View Post
subsidize CEOs and others exaggerated figures of worth. They make 35x more now then in 79 while everyones elses has stayed the same or lowered. We need to say no way.
And then since you hate big corporations you can celebrate when they go overseas.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 02:43 PM
 
Location: mainland but born oahu
6,657 posts, read 6,399,491 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Welfare is taking money from someone else who earned that money. The mistake you made is demanding even more (getting greedy). People are going to look down on able bodied people on welfare and call them lazy if you like it or not. Your attempting to justify it will fall on deaf ears, No one likes to be robbed. Get used to it.
No not me im not a demacrate or liberal. But rich CEOs who make millions and owners who make billions earn the $92 billion in subdues and handouts our government gives them and is taken out of our pockets? The most able people of us all? Your logic is weird. Im for welfare reform, but a welfare reform that is balanced it you guys that are justifying why thats not ok. I you who is choosing to ignore corporate welfare, or at least justifying it

Also please be paitent im trying to catch up with you guys post wise.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 02:46 PM
 
6,791 posts, read 7,091,558 times
Reputation: 6970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vejadu View Post
Nobody wants to scrap all social programs. They serve a legitimate need for many people. But they are also huge magnets for abuse and fraud. They enable poverty in those who low ambition; what incentive is there to work when you can make about as much through handouts? This has to change; not by getting rid of these programs but by making them harder to exploit.
I believe most people would agree with this. Arguments about welfare usually framed as an attack on the "leeches" of society with no regard for who the true leeches are. Sometimes people need help, and that help should be there. Welfare should not be manipulated into regular income for the able bodied. Fraud reduction should be vigorously pursued.

48% of Americans earn less that 25K/yr, many earn much less. 30% of Americans earn less that 18K/yr. Unfortunately these are the jobs our new economy are providing. Not everyone is cut out to get a college degree, that doesn't mean they deserve to earn so little that they can work full time, and still not earn enough to support themselves, or their family. Does anyone really believe a full time worker enjoys needing food stamps to feed their children? Can people who enjoy the leech narrative try just a hint of empathy, and imagine how it would feel to work 40 hours a week, and still not be able to meet the basic needs of their family.

The loss of decent paying jobs is creating a large class of working poor people who end up needing some type of welfare. This suits the corporations just fine, they get to rake in record profits while the taxpayers support their low wage workers. Wages have to rise, or various types of welfare will keep being necessary. The corporations that own our government are very happy to have people too busy fighting with each other to fight for truly responsible government. All the ******* and wing nut screaming shows far too many Americans have fallen for it.

A person is not a leech if they are working, and consuming goods and services. These are people who are serving your food, CNAs taking care of people's elderly parents, and changing bedpans at your local hospital. They may not earn enough to pay federal income taxes, but they are still paying all their local taxes, excise taxes (including federal excise taxes), and they are purchasing goods and services which add to the overall economy.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 02:46 PM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,145,317 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart View Post
subsidize CEOs and others exaggerated figures of worth. They make 35x more now then in 79 while everyones elses has stayed the same or lowered. We need to say no way.
Then you need to change the tax system. I already explained to you why a progressive tax system creates the perverse incentive for the government to keep the income gap as wide as possible and to grow the top 1%'s income share: That's how the government maximizes tax revenue.

Read it again, if you still don't get it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Quote:
"[Economist Anatole] Kaletsky argues that over-reliance on progressive taxes creates "a perverse incentive for governments to promote income inequality. If the solvency of the state and the ability to fund basic services for the poorest people in society depends on the rich getting even richer, it is tempting for even the most progressive politicians to support widening inequalities."
The liberal case for regressive taxation - Salon.com

As long as the U.S. has a progressive tax system, the incentive remains to keep the income gap as wide as possible, and this is why: When the top 1% loses income share, the federal government loses twice that much in tax revenue. But when the top 1% gains income share, the federal government consequently gains twice that much in tax revenue.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 02:46 PM
 
39,109 posts, read 20,248,870 times
Reputation: 12659
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart View Post
No not me im not a demacrate or liberal. But rich CEOs who make millions and owners who make billions earn the $92 billion in subdues and handouts our government gives them and is taken out of our pockets? The most able people of us all? Your logic is weird. Im for welfare reform, but a welfare reform that is balanced it you guys that are justifying why thats not ok. I you who is choosing to ignore corporate welfare, or at least justifying it

Also please be paitent im trying to catch up with you guys post wise.
LOL, are you still talking about corporate welfare even after a couple pages back people told you 50 times they agree.

Yet you are angry at people making millions and billions then support Obama who wanted to raise taxes on people making $200k. Obviously it doesn't matter who you hurt.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 02:48 PM
 
Location: mainland but born oahu
6,657 posts, read 6,399,491 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Finally we agree. Remember when Obama wanted to raise taxes on $200k, that was small business, not big business. Look, he even wanted to raise taxes on you. Middle class pays these taxes too.
Will you stop it with the hate! Our deficit was already terrible from the bush administration. God irresponsibly is irresponsibly. It doesn't matter which party.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 02:51 PM
 
Location: mainland but born oahu
6,657 posts, read 6,399,491 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreutz View Post
So the government private run schools on Indian land were houses of horror, but without the government to "protect people"...they'd be in government private run houses of horror?

The point is the orphanage type model doesn't work. That the right keeps bringing up from history.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 02:54 PM
 
Location: mainland but born oahu
6,657 posts, read 6,399,491 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Driller1 View Post
Who decides what (or, who) is TO rich????
The example i brought up had nothing to do with is being rich bad, it has everything to do with how it effects our economic welbeing. Please really go back and read it.
 
Old 04-08-2014, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,833 posts, read 5,828,701 times
Reputation: 3404
Good solid companies operate on profit margin. Salaries,and cost of goods and services, are all determined by profit margin. If the profit margin is decreased, then the cost of those goods and services produced are increased to maintain profitability. If the profit margin increases significantly, salaries are increased. CEO's contrary to common belief, do not set their own salaries. Their salaries are set by the board of directors and approved by stock holders. Stock holders reward CEO's for their performance which increases the stock value. This is a very very basic explanation that I hope you can understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top