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.
You're ignorant. You really don't understand the way most people who receive entitlements live, or have lived. Your remarks show a lack of understanding, to say nothing of compassion. I for one am sick of people like you spewing ideologically fuelled misinformation. Labelling people as "parasites" doesn't help your arguments, its a value judgement that shows disrespect for your audiences intelligence.
Then how do you explain the proven fact that tax cuts have "ALWAYS" led to more tax $'s for the government because of the increase in private enterprise activity which leads to more people working which leads to a much broader tax base.
The problem is caused by government, instead of using the expanded tax income to pay down debt and repaying $'s so-called "borrowed" from Social Security, etc. they just spend more on useless crap to buy votes!!
Please, pay attention to what is really going on with our foolish government spewing out brain-washing spin to those who don't really pay attention to facts.
Patently false.
Quote:
The actual numbers and sources can be found at recgro8y.html. As can be seen in the second table and graph, real individual income tax receipts declined 25.06% from 2001 to 2009. Even total receipts declined -13.93% over that period. Finally, real GDP grew just 13.36% from 2001 to 2009. This was the lowest real GDP growth over any 8-year span since 13.33% from 1966 to 1976. Hence, although it's been just about eight years since the 2001 tax cut and six years since the 2003 tax cut, the evidence to this point is that the Bush tax cuts decreased revenues over what they would have been, at least over the short term. This was true even in my prior analysis based on data through 2007, before the financial crisis of 2008.
We saw an increase after Kennedy's drop in the sixties, which took the top margin down from 91% to 77%. All cuts after that have lead to decreasing real dollar receipts, and decreasing %GDP receipts. Clinton raised taxes in the nineties--and look at that, revenues were up until Bush cut them again.
Then how do you explain the proven fact that tax cuts have "ALWAYS" led to more tax $'s for the government because of the increase in private enterprise activity which leads to more people working which leads to a much broader tax base.
The problem is caused by government, instead of using the expanded tax income to pay down debt and repaying $'s so-called "borrowed" from Social Security, etc. they just spend more on useless crap to buy votes!!
Please, pay attention to what is really going on with our foolish government spewing out brain-washing spin to those who don't really pay attention to facts.
If one doesn't work, doesn't have to work, depend on government, would one really, really care about taxes since it doesn't affect them? The day they will begin to care is when their government "entitlements" are reduced or eliminated, then you will see these parasites start complaining to "their" government. .
You mean like, oh, let me think...............Greece?
Why yes, like Greece.
Didn't I read OH has reduced SNAP entitlements by $50/month? It's a start.
Then how do you explain the proven fact that tax cuts have "ALWAYS" led to more tax $'s for the government because of the increase in private enterprise activity which leads to more people working which leads to a much broader tax base.
One can't prove a negative. If you can, explain the red. For example: Tax revenue in 2000 = Tax revenue in 2006. When was the last time we saw something similar? 1981-1986.
Do you have any stats to back up the fact that you think most people on food stamps, medicare, medicaid, and social security are "able bodied, unwilling to work"? Or are you going on an anecdote from some talk radio guy?
You right wing clowns live in a fantasy world.
I mentioned senior citizens social security/medicare. Who would expect them to work? Of course there are many people who legitimately need government assistance - either full blown or partial, but I can assure you that is not the case for the majority.
If you want to believe that those out of 100 million people on full blown government assistance - welfare (rent, utilities, food stamps, medicaid, disability, childcare, access to programs) are disabled and/or uneducated, then you go right ahead.
Assuming you aren't on welfare and work, I hope you jump for joy when more taxes are taken out of your paycheck to provide for those who can, but won't. Welfare was not designed to be a lifestyle.
Not calling you one, but you have to be a total idiot not to understand that at least 1/2 of those on full blown welfare are quite capable of working. You don't have to have a Master's degree to push a broom.
I mentioned senior citizens social security/medicare. Who would expect them to work? Of course there are many people who legitimately need government assistance - either full blown or partial, but I can assure you that is not the case for the majority.
You have to provide evidence supporting your assertion, not just rhetoric.
Quote:
If you want to believe that those out of 100 million people on full blown government assistance - welfare (rent, utilities, food stamps, medicaid, disability, childcare, access to programs) are disabled and/or uneducated, then you go right ahead.
Please provide the relevant statistics supporting that 1\3 of the country is on all of these programs simultaneously.
Quote:
Assuming you aren't on welfare and work, I hope you jump for joy when more taxes are taken out of your paycheck to provide for those who can, but won't. Welfare was not designed to be a lifestyle.
Not calling you one, but you have to be a total idiot not to understand that at least 1/2 of those on full blown welfare are quite capable of working. You don't have to have a Master's degree to push a broom.
Support this claim with evidence!
Those people could be 1. looking for work, potentially lazy, between jobs, under-educated and can't find work because we have no real investment in re-training and education, and any number of similar scenarios. An able-bodied person out of work does not automatically make them lazy.
And, you're making a different argument as well--welfare is paying more than "broom-pushing." This isn't an argument against welfare, it's an argument for a stronger minimum wage.
You're ignorant. You really don't understand the way most people who receive entitlements live, or have lived. Your remarks show a lack of understanding, to say nothing of compassion. I for one am sick of people like you spewing ideologically fuelled misinformation. Labelling people as "parasites" doesn't help your arguments, its a value judgement that shows disrespect for your audiences intelligence.
I do understand that there are different circumstances for people who receive entitlements. I also understand that this crushing economy has pushed people to seek government assistance, something they never imagined in their life they would have to do. I also understand that there are seniors and those legitimately disabled who rely on government. I also understand that there is considerable disability fraud and that there are many able bodied people who CAN work but do not work, because they are not made to work. I guess you also believe that EVERYONE who has made full blown welfare a lifestyle is incapable of working. Get the able bodied parasites, yes I said parasites, off of welfare and the money could go towards improving the lives of seniors, those disabled and those that REALLY need it.
I really don't care how you perceive me. You mean nothing to me and your opinion means less.
Last edited by softblueyz; 11-15-2012 at 09:45 AM..
And, you're making a different argument as well--welfare is paying more than "broom-pushing." This isn't an argument against welfare, it's an argument for a stronger minimum wage.
So your argument is why should they work when welfare pays more? Why work and be subsidized when you can get all of it doing nothing? If someone is existing on federal/state welfare, then the government should put them to "work". Let them sweep streets and clean parks for their checks. Or pay them and subsidize them. Not support them 100%.
In the video it was pointed out there was a job center. Did you miss that?
Did you miss the guy who wants to be an executive?
Government provides plenty of programs to train people.
I do understand that there are different circumstances for people who receive entitlements. I also understand that this crushing economy has pushed people to seek government assistance, something they never imagined in their life they would have to do.
How old are these people you speak of?
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.