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.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,586,979 times
Reputation: 2576
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
Your rationale fails because you assume that money is being created. That money already exists and needs not pass through the government first to be spent.
Oh we don't even want to talk about money that is being created by FICA and the governments money laundering schemes ... if they didn't take it out of paychecks, the government would never see it to pass it through ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
FICA was not collected before the creation programs such as Social Security in the 30s and Medicare in the 60s, therefore it couldn't have been spent on anything else.
That said, yes, we will be retaining those two programs because it is not politically possible to eliminate them, but we do need to make sure they are able to survive into the future, which will require some restructuring.
Quote:
FICA was not collected before the creation programs
You're right it wasn't. Federal Income Tax has existed though since 1913 ... the federal government began taking other people's money and spending it. (yes, I am tired of the congress kids going to ivy league colleges and we're flipping the bill, paying them for services that have yet to yield anything fruitful)
Quote:
That said, yes, we will be retaining those two programs because it is not politically possible to eliminate them
You didn't like Bush's ownership society. I did ...
Oh we don't even want to talk about money that is being created by FICA and the governments money laundering schemes ... if they didn't take it out of paychecks, the government would never see it to pass it through ...
You're right it wasn't. Federal Income Tax has existed though since 1913 ... the federal government began taking other people's money and spending it. (yes, I am tired of the congress kids going to ivy league colleges and we're flipping the bill, paying them for services that have yet to yield anything fruitful)
You didn't like Bush's ownership society. I did ...
Yes, the income tax in it's current incarnation began in 1913, but you were talking about FICA.
Beg my pardon, but your posts are all over the place, I'm not following your logic.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,586,979 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
Agree with all you've posted. Some on here seem not to understand the difference between programs such as SS and Medicare, which all workers contribute to via FICA taxes (I understand it wholeheartedly, considering I'm self employed and pay 15.3% rate FICA taxes on top of income tax), and entitlement welfare programs like Medicaid, food stamps and welfare payments.
Paying a tax on my wages for my future SS check and Medicare benefits is something I don't mind as much, knowing it is MY money. However, those programs need restructuring to survive, it seems.
However, the main question in this thread being about poor people's healthcare, the question is how much should we be paying to support people who don't work? The current system of welfare handouts does nothing to help the so called 'poor', but only sustains underclass poverty, destroying entire communities and groups of people in the process. Government handouts are perhaps the most hateful thing one can wish on poor people.
We need to encourage economic growth and job creation, so people can help themselves, not forever depend on a sustaining check. Liberals love to point out that the so called poverty rate in the US is higher than say European countries. Well, no it isn't, because there being there being three types of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics - the lower poverty rates in Europe on paper mean simply that they are giving more poor people more money to sustain them. Those people are still in real poverty and in poverty of spirit, with no possible way to advance and no social mobility.
Quote:
entitlement welfare programs like Medicaid, food stamps and welfare payments.
This is money that was not available in the 1930s. Many businesses shut down, when people lost their jobs and did not have money to spend.
Quote:
Those people are still in real poverty and in poverty of spirit, with no possible way to advance and no social mobility.
People who do not know this life, have no 'real' understanding of what it is like, so without that how can one pretend to know?
btw: save the word 'entitlement' for the rich class, as that is the word they alone would understand.
This is money that was not available in the 1930s. Many business shut down, when people lost their jobs and did not have money to spend.
People who do not know this life, have no 'real' understanding of what it is like, so without that how can one pretend to know?
btw: save the word 'entitlement' for the rich class, as that is the word they alone would understand.
The Great Depression was a slump in the business cycle, which exists naturally and cannot be avoided. The shameful part was the response to it in the form of the New Deal, which prolonged the Great Depression by a good 10 years. Taking that money out of the private sector and squandering it on various programs did not bring us out of the slump - that is one of the greatest myths that persists into today.
I don't personally have experience with poverty, but my parents both did, having grown up in the economically depressed and fully Democrat party controlled cotton growing region in the Mid-South. It was an area, which reminds me of the inner city today, where the Democrats run a regime, whereby capitalism is not allowed to take hold, instead being run much more like serfdom, where the system is comprises of Democrat bosses controlling the wealth and all the little people accepting the handouts in return for vortes.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,586,979 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
Yes, the income tax in it's current incarnation began in 1913, but you were talking about FICA.
Beg my pardon, but your posts are all over the place, I'm not following your logic.
Quote:
Yes, the income tax in it's current incarnation began in 1913, but you were talking about FICA.
I wanted to see who was paying attention. And you proved you were.
Quote:
I'm not following your logic.
Let me see if I can make it simple.
One, the federal government will always tax (take money from other people) its citizens. Those programs, takes a budgeted amount of those taxes and puts them back into the economy.
Two, the programs ...
S.S. Insurance spending for the elderly.
Medicare Insurance spending for the elderly on healthcare (that industry sees money, that would not be there if the program went away)
Employment Benefits for the unemployed (money for general markets)
SNAP general spending in the grocery market (that industry sees money, that if the program went away, that money would not be there)
And I haven't even mentioned the Farm Bill ...
Final ...
Question: If those programs went away tomorrow, where would the (tax) money then fall in the government budget?
I wanted to see who was paying attention. And you proved you were.
Let me see if I can make it simple.
One, the federal government will always tax (take money from other people) its citizens. Those programs, takes a budgeted amount of those taxes and puts them back into the economy.
Two, the programs ...
S.S. Insurance spending for the elderly.
Medicare Insurance spending for the elderly on healthcare (that industry sees money, that would not be there if the program went away)
Employment Benefits for the unemployed (money for general markets)
SNAP general spending in the grocery market (that industry sees money, that if the program went away, that money would not be there)
And I haven't even mentioned the Farm Bill ...
Final ...
Question: If those programs went away tomorrow, where would the (tax) money then fall in the government budget?
There's the logic.
One, we do not need the government to collect money and then put it into the economy. That money would be spent by the people who EARNED it.
Two, what is your point here? As I've stated, there are two types of programs here, 1) those, in which workers are forced to turn over a part of their earnings (SS, Medicare and unemployment). That is the workers' money that they have contributed. And, 2) welfare programs such as SNAP, which are intended only for the indigent. One must understand that these are two categories.
Three, the entire point is to cut spending AND cut taxes. FICA taxes, will remain as they are, as so called 'contributions', which all workers pay and from which all workers receive benefits. General spending on such programs such as CHIP and other welfare programs should be cut significantly along with tax cuts.
The Great Depression was a slump in the business cycle, which exists naturally and cannot be avoided. The shameful part was the response to it in the form of the New Deal, which prolonged the Great Depression by a good 10 years. Taking that money out of the private sector and squandering it on various programs did not bring us out of the slump - that is one of the greatest myths that persists into today.
It STILL doesn't. It stifles economic growth. And then idiots complain that their wages aren't increasing and there aren't enough well-paying jobs. Well... no kidding. That's what happens when money that would have been used to invest in economic expansion is instead diverted to artificially support non-contributors.
Quote:
I don't personally have experience with poverty, but my parents both did, having grown up in the economically depressed and fully Democrat party controlled cotton growing region in the Mid-South. It was an area, which reminds me of the inner city today, where the Democrats run a regime, whereby capitalism is not allowed to take hold, instead being run much more like serfdom, where the system is comprises of Democrat bosses controlling the wealth and all the little people accepting the handouts in return for votes.
Still works that way. There's the Dem wealthy elite, and a much larger population of Dem poor. 2/3 of those on public assistance are Dem voters.
I wanted to see who was paying attention. And you proved you were.
Let me see if I can make it simple.
One, the federal government will always tax (take money from other people) its citizens. Those programs, takes a budgeted amount of those taxes and puts them back into the economy.
Two, the programs ...
S.S. Insurance spending for the elderly.
Medicare Insurance spending for the elderly on healthcare (that industry sees money, that would not be there if the program went away)
Employment Benefits for the unemployed (money for general markets)
SNAP general spending in the grocery market (that industry sees money, that if the program went away, that money would not be there)
And I haven't even mentioned the Farm Bill ...
Final ...
Question: If those programs went away tomorrow, where would the (tax) money then fall in the government budget?
There's the logic.
It would stay with those who earned it because taxes would be drastically reduced. Therefore, much more can be invested in economic expansion, which then provides more and better-paying jobs.
It STILL doesn't. It stifles economic growth. And then idiots complain that their wages aren't increasing and there aren't enough well-paying jobs. Well... no kidding. That's what happens when money that would have been used to invest in economic expansion is instead diverted to artificially support non-contributors.
Still works that way. There's the Dem wealthy elite, and a much larger population of Dem poor. 2/3 of those on public assistance are Dem voters.
Yes, correct on both points. The situation in the inner city today is pitiful, with the Democrat elite in total control, enforcing anti-growth and anti-job policies, creating a situation, where only those who are politically connected have any chance. The elites are perfectly content on keeping it that way, because they are ensured of continued success.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,586,979 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound
The Great Depression was a slump in the business cycle, which exists naturally and cannot be avoided. The shameful part was the response to it in the form of the New Deal, which prolonged the Great Depression by a good 10 years. Taking that money out of the private sector and squandering it on various programs did not bring us out of the slump - that is one of the greatest myths that persists into today.
I don't personally have experience with poverty, but my parents both did, having grown up in the economically depressed and fully Democrat party controlled cotton growing region in the Mid-South. It was an area, which reminds me of the inner city today, where the Democrats run a regime, whereby capitalism is not allowed to take hold, instead being run much more like serfdom, where the system is comprises of Democrat bosses controlling the wealth and all the little people accepting the handouts in return for vortes.
Quote:
The Great Depression was a slump in the business cycle, which exists naturally and cannot be avoided.
Taking that money out of the private sector and squandering it on various programs did not bring us out of the slump
World War II did that, as it created a need and from that need, jobs were created in the manufacturing industry. While I would like to agree with you on the taking of the money out of the private sector, the government was going to take that money any way. We may as well have gotten something back out of it, that would also help the private sector, just as it hurt them.
Quote:
I don't personally have experience with poverty, but my parents both did
You weren't raised under their roof?
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.
