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.
We're heard the narrative before, that there's a vast stream of federal money going to people who are sitting on their a$$es eating Cheetos instead of going out and earning a living instead. These people are being bred into dependence on Uncle Sam's tit and having their work ethics destroyed.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities decided to add up the numbers and figure out how much money the federal government spends on the nonworking poor. The answer: about 10 percent of all federal welfare spending.
You are aware, I'm sure that Medicare a health insurance policy that in order to get it, you have to pay for it just like any other insurance, except part A which workers paid for during their working years.
Lol, workers paid for during their working years.......dude, one hip replacement pretty much wiped out about 10 times what the average old person EVER contributed to Medicare.
Its just like SS, some old person still puttering around at 95 years old, who has been sucking 25k out of SS for THIRTY YEARS, talking about how "they paid in, they should get out"
I have two solutions
1. We can write a check back to every old person for what they paid in SS and Medicare, with 5% compound interest, and they can be responsible for themselves
or
2. We can cut old people off at age 80 from drawing on the system, which would be about the age the average person would cease drawing out "their money" from SS, and start drawing out welfare.
Yep. Payroll taxes serve a specific purpose. Federal Income taxes do not. One SHOULD be able to expect a service for which they specifically paid. One SHOULD NOT expect a service for which they paid nothing. 47% get something for nothing. That's not "fair."
1. How do you know people on welfare paid "nothing" for that service? By the fact that they didnt pay anything currently? Wow, thats logical.
2. As for people getting what they paid for, thats exactly what I propose. The reason why SS and Medicare are being bankrupted is because people are taking out WAY MORE then they ever put in, especially in the case of Medicare. The system was not created to support the high dollar medical procedures and medication seniors or the life span they are using them to inch up. So, I say, either write them a check, and wash our hands, or kick them off at age 80. We dont need another old person warehouse full of people who are absolutely useless to the planet.
1. Nobody should get a 'refund' for money they did not pay in the first place. Tax is to pay for services not a means of wealth redistribution.
2. There should be a minimum tax contribution that everyone should pay. It could be as little as $25 but it would establish the principal that everyone contributes.
When are you guys going to wake up and realize that it's the republicans who love federal deficits and debt? When has the national debt ever shrunk on a republican president's watch? Never, that's when.
Bill Clinton ran a surplus 6 of 8 years and drastically paid down the federal debt. By the year 2016 we were set to be even steven with the house. At that point all income tax could have been ended. The Gov could have run on import/export tariffs and other revenues.
College tuition could have been free. People could have worked 32 hour work weeks and paid their expenses.
Republicans love debt. It gives them an excuse to cut benefits on the lower part of society. Oldest trick in the book, claim poverty and cut money to people you don't like.
Bush's debt and deficits were fueled almost entirely from the wars, Katrina, and all of the other bad luck events that happened under his watch.
Unfortunately for Bush, his time in office never saw a break in terms of bad luck. Regardless of all this bad luck, he managed to control the 2001 recession and bring unemployment back down to healthy levels again (less than 5%). Bush managed to get the economy back on its feet, and given the fact that we were in two wars and had Katrina hit during 2005 (near the peak of the economy), I think he did a fantastic job managing everything.
In addition, he managed to steadily reduce our increase in public debt and our deficit near the end of his final term. It only started to rise again in 2008. If Bush had more time in office, I am very confident he could have gotten this economy stabilized and back on its feet again in much shorter time than Obama. Unemployment would not have gone higher than 9% I'm thinking either. In fact even during the 2001 recession, unemployment never got higher than 6.3%!
In 2005 through 2007 our deficit and debt were reduced under Bushes terms...
Bush's debt and deficits were fueled almost entirely from the wars, Katrina, and all of the other bad luck events that happened under his watch.
Unfortunately for Bush, his time in office never saw a break in terms of bad luck. Regardless of all this bad luck, he managed to control the 2001 recession and bring unemployment back down to healthy levels again (less than 5%). Bush managed to get the economy back on its feet, and given the fact that we were in two wars and had Katrina hit during 2005 (near the peak of the economy), I think he did a fantastic job managing everything.
In addition, he managed to steadily reduce our increase in public debt and our deficit near the end of his final term. It only started to rise again in 2008. If Bush had more time in office, I am very confident he could have gotten this economy stabilized and back on its feet again in much shorter time than Obama. Unemployment would not have gone higher than 9% I'm thinking either. In fact even during the 2001 recession, unemployment never got higher than 6.3%!
In 2005 through 2007 our deficit and debt were reduced under Bushes terms...
I think, besides the disasters you cite, the bigger problem during his admin was that, with the help of the press saying how outrageous 5.25% unemployment was, Reid and Pelosi took over Congress. Once they did that, it was Katy, bar the door.
You hit the nail on the head. This is EXACTLY why it's not "fair" to zero in on the rich while completely ignoring the 47% of American's who pay ZERO federal income taxes.
Why should ANYONE.......rich, middle, or poor.....get a free ride?
I'm glad you finally understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Yep. Payroll taxes serve a specific purpose. Federal Income taxes do not. One SHOULD be able to expect a service for which they specifically paid. One SHOULD NOT expect a service for which they paid nothing. 47% get something for nothing. That's not "fair."
Hey, I totally agree with you.
It took 20 pages for something as simple as "Why should ANYONE.......rich, middle, or poor.....get a free ride?" to get the point across to some on here.
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.
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.
