GOP Poverty Creators Plan to Increase Taxes on 22.9 Million Poor and Middle Class Families

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by nunyadammm

This is why I know you have no argument. All you can do is call me lazy for not proving YOUR argument FOR YOU. What you fail to understand is that instead of being lazy, I am finding a different truth. How you determine just how much effort I put into that without even imagining it were possible is going to be an amazing tale to tell. That is ok, I understand.

I have already proved my argument and even gave excerpts to prove it... The one using only rhetorical nonsense is you... And yes, YOU should be finding the truth instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you. That is laziness. If you don't like the truth, then don't read at all and keep sitting in your chair thinking Democrats are great, and they don't work for big banks, big pharma, and would never implement laws that would imrpison any American for "possible future crimes" according to the way that person thinks...

Obviously you are not even reading my posts.
Trying to converse with you is much like hitting my head.
I just said

What you fail to understand is that instead of being lazy, I am finding a different truth.

Now look at what you responded with?
Obviously not reading what you reply to so I am not even going to play.

Originally posted by thepresident

And this modern model of debt began in 1980 Sees Far

By 1988 the national debt was 180% larger than it was in 1979 constituting a growth that was larger than all the previous presidencies past.

This economic mire coincided with the adoption and practice of trickle down economics during that period. Not only was it the policies of the government,rather, it was the shedding of the old ethos that put people and country beforeprofit.

This recent move to raise taxing on the poor people, the people who meet DEMAND and actually buy the products is just another twisted evolution of this 80's mentality.

While you may think both parties are to blame, I invite you to look at the seismic shift in politics to the far right in the last 30 years, especially as it concerns economics. The GOP and the Rightwing would have never considered raising taxes on the poor or middle class in favor of the banks and corporations some 40 years ago.
But today that considered a viable solution to the supposed scarcity the banks and wealthy are experiencing.

The modern questions that keep replaying are PRO banks? or PRO consumer

i.e do you make it easier for banks to extract benefit from economic transactions or do you make it easier for the individual consumer to extract benefit from economic transactions.

Being pro consumer and pro person is the path to a better America which is a substancial conflict and point of disagreement between left and right, DEM/GOP

I think you might agree that the benefit has been bestowed upon the banks in an ever increasing manner. I am angry at people who cannot see this simple truth and exchange it for a rhetorical story that is patently false and irresponsible.

While much of what you have to say cannot be logically argued, I maintain the position that the Democratic Party has held a slight sway, even in the last 30 years that you used as an example.

Mostly, though, I maintain that it is still two sides of the same coin. While you seem to point a finger at the Republican Party being at fault the past 30 years, I would point out using the 'Party in Power' chart I provided, since 1980 Democrats have controlled Congress 6 times to the Republican's 5 times, with a split Congress 4 times ~ pretty equal, overall, in the holding of power. Yet, while they rail against one another at election time, once that is past they seem to work quite well hand-in-hand. AND NOTHING CHANGES FOR THE WORKING AMERICAN.

While it is disingenuous for anyone to deny that spending increased dramatically under Reagan, it is equally disingenuous for anyone to say that the Democrats "Great Society" enacted under Johnson (D) hasn't beaten the economic knees out from under the working public for over 50 years now. Equally disingenuous would be to deny it was Clinton's (D) policy that ultimately broke the economy (and caused the crash of '08) by demanding loans be made to people who could not afford them. We could go back to Wilson (D) and his Progressive view and that Congress that introduced the Income Tax to pay for the Federal Reserve they approved, both implemented in 1913 and both of which have worked diligently for 99 years to strip Americans of both real money and real wealth. Then we could go to the (R)s and the money they spend on wars, yet no (D)s seem to stop them.

The point I'm trying to make is that one could go back and forth nearly without end pointing fingers from one side of the aisle to the other ~ as they've been doing for nearly 100 years now ~ but it changes nothing about the position that we're in. And we're in the position that we're in because of a two party system.

U.S. voters might as well paint a big, red "Republican" stripe down one leg of their pants and a big, blue "Democratic" stripe down the other leg and march in formation, as that is the way they vote because that IS the choice.

"I don't like what the Republicans did THIS time, so I'll be voting Democrat." .... "I don't like what the Democrats did THIS time, so I'll be voting Republican" .... left, right, left, right, the march continues and we, the WORKING, contributing American citizenry get nowhere, but still we (the workers) point fingers and argue with one another over what is essentially the same situation.

These Congressmen have not held their seats 20, 25, 30, 40 and, in at least one case, 50 years, without working together quite well behind closed doors, out of the public eye, despite (R)s and (D)s.

If either side of the aisle TRULY wanted to get something done, they'd do it when they had the power to do it and they've proven that they (neither side) do ANYTHING for the WORKING average American.

We need a party or two that represents the WORKING average American - we have plenty of political support for the uber wealthy and plenty for those who don't want to support themselves. But where is the party who represents those in the middle?

Originally posted by thepresident

It does exist, see that the flipping problem , it is there and conservatives apply policy
that only makes matters so much worse because conservatives prefer a top down
hierarchy you genius.The banks are the top, trickle down is a top down policy.

Own it and release your brain from the confines of low blood flow.

Wow, obviously the one who needs to breath a bit more to increase oxygen flow into your brain is you...

When LEFTWINGERS put CENTRAL BANKS in power owned by international socialist/fascist world elites, who have been in control of this nation since 1913, how in ANYONE'S right mind do you have the galls to claim "it is rightwinger's fault" when LEFTWINGERS put other LEFTWINGERS in power?...

You have to be missing more than a few braincells not to understand this...

Another fact I mentioned, and which obviously you seem to like to ignore, is that I wrote a couple of times that I don't condone what RINOs (Republican In Name Only) have done to help in the destruction of the REPUBLIC...

They are to blame as well as to what has been going on since 1913, but it was the LEFTWINGER SYSTEM known as "the CENTRAL BANK or "THE FEDS" alongside the IRS, which have helped put some corporations at the top, and made them monopolies meanwhile puting excessive regulations against small businesses.

People like you probably still consider the Republic of the U.S.A. as a "democracy" I am sure... When "democracy" is the dictatorship of the mayority, which is the same thing in socialism/communism as a "dictatorship of the proletariat"...

Originally posted by thepresident

And the FED owns the government because the banks stock the government with pro business
conservatives who believe in a top down economic model. Pro business, just like Romney
is currently going on about; a trait that Conservatives pride them selves in...

Well the Banks are,

guess what???


A BUSINESS


ding ding ding!

The FED owns the government because we elect pro business corporatists who believe
in a top down hierarchy AKA Conservatives

And who gave power to that CORPORATION/BUSINESS?...

DING DING DING DING

LEFTWINGERS...

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Obviously you are not even reading my posts.
Trying to converse with you is much like hitting my head.

On the contrary, it is I who is facepalming my head when you have the galls to claim REPUBLICAN means something different to what it is...

Originally posted by nunyadammm
I just said

What you fail to understand is that instead of being lazy, I am finding a different truth.

Now look at what you responded with?
Obviously not reading what you reply to so I am not even going to play.

Of course you won't, you have no argument except empty rhetoric...

What the rich should be doing is a better job in the private charity sector. The government should not be so burdened with assisting the poor, elderly, and disabled. I think the problem lies in that the system is a bit too federalized.

America needs stronger communities that rely less on national/international corporations and the US Gov't.

Smaller governments is generally associated with the republican party but i think the party system in itself is more of a problem than a path to solutions.

Being honest with ourselves, what America needs is a generation or two that is willing to majorly sacrifice in the name of improving society in totality. If more people would volunteer and donate the burden of social security and welfare wouldn't be as great. Everyone would benefit from a more generous society. I would propose a system in which people could work one shift a week doing something that benefits your community as an alternative to paying taxes all together.

Too bad everyone is so disgusted that they refuse to get up and take concrete steps to help the situation.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


On the contrary, it is I who is facepalming my head when you have the galls to claim REPUBLICAN means something different to what it is...

Oh so you were able to read that post. I was not sure since you never responded to it.
So you are saying that is what you believe? The founding fathers intended for our country to be run by what is the current Republican party?

This is a simple yes or no just like it was last time.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by thepresident

It does exist, see that the flipping problem , it is there and conservatives apply policy
that only makes matters so much worse because conservatives prefer a top down
hierarchy you genius.The banks are the top, trickle down is a top down policy.

Own it and release your brain from the confines of low blood flow.

Wow, obviously the one who needs to breath a bit more to increase oxygen flow into your brain is you...

When LEFTWINGERS put CENTRAL BANKS in power owned by international socialist/fascist world elites, who have been in control of this nation since 1913, how in ANYONE'S right mind do you have the galls to claim "it is rightwinger's fault" when LEFTWINGERS put other LEFTWINGERS in power?...

You have to be missing more than a few braincells not to understand this...

Another fact I mentioned, and which obviously you seem to like to ignore, is that I wrote a couple of times that I don't condone what RINOs (Republican In Name Only) have done to help in the destruction of the REPUBLIC...

They are to blame as well as to what has been going on since 1913, but it was the LEFTWINGER SYSTEM known as "the CENTRAL BANK or "THE FEDS" alongside the IRS, which have helped put some corporations at the top, and made them monopolies meanwhile puting excessive regulations against small businesses.

People like you probably still consider the Republic of the U.S.A. as a "democracy" I am sure... When "democracy" is the dictatorship of the mayority, which is the same thing in socialism/communism as a "dictatorship of the proletariat"...

Originally posted by thepresident

And the FED owns the government because the banks stock the government with pro business
conservatives who believe in a top down economic model. Pro business, just like Romney
is currently going on about; a trait that Conservatives pride them selves in...

Well the Banks are,

guess what???


A BUSINESS


ding ding ding!

The FED owns the government because we elect pro business corporatists who believe
in a top down hierarchy AKA Conservatives

And who gave power to that CORPORATION/BUSINESS?...

DING DING DING DING

LEFTWINGERS...

edit on 2-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Glass Steagall

Right Wingers took of all the reigns off the FED and banks on purpose

The want to raise taxes on the poor and lower taxes for instruments of the FED
you can bring up 100 years ago all you want, but the fact remains that right wingers
are in lock step with the banks, elites and insurance companies in modern times.

By citing Excessive regulations (like you have) the GOP and conservatives
engineer the economy for the banking system in the name of Free Market

Anyways I'm done with you, I'm gonna cuss at you and place a curse upon you
if you keep spouting your ignorance to me.

Thanks

reply to post by MassOccurs


while I agree with you....I have to say..
the rich, the employers should do a better job of paying their employees a wage that can meet the cost of living, or make some moves to get that cost of living down to a range that can be handled with what they want to pay their employees. people who are working two jobs just to get by, more than likely don't have the time to volunteer, and not much left to sacrifice without sacrificing the health and well being of themselves and their families.

besides, the best charity that can be given is to lift the people up so that they don't need any charity or gov't programs.

raising up a workforce of volunteers will only serve to increase the unemployment rate probably, since well, if I am running a non-profit or am part of the gov't, why should I keep this employee, when I can replace them with someone who is willing to work for free??? we need good paying jobs, and we need a lower cost of living....
no employer who has employees using food stamps, or gov't subsidies for housing, or medicaid, ect has any right to complain about their taxes!!! your employees are your responsibility, not mine...you want them healthy, sheltered, and fed....provide them the means! god, even the slave owners of old did that much!

Originally posted by dawnstar

while I agree with you....I have to say..
the rich, the employers should do a better job of paying their employees a wage that can meet the cost of living, or make some moves to get that cost of living down to a range that can be handled with what they want to pay their employees. people who are working two jobs just to get by, more than likely don't have the time to volunteer, and not much left to sacrifice without sacrificing the health and well being of themselves and their families.

besides, the best charity that can be given is to lift the people up so that they don't need any charity or gov't programs.

raising up a workforce of volunteers will only serve to increase the unemployment rate probably, since well, if I am running a non-profit or am part of the gov't, why should I keep this employee, when I can replace them with someone who is willing to work for free??? we need good paying jobs, and we need a lower cost of living....
no employer who has employees using food stamps, or gov't subsidies for housing, or medicaid, ect has any right to complain about their taxes!!! your employees are your responsibility, not mine...you want them healthy, sheltered, and fed....provide them the means! god, even the slave owners of old did that much!

"...the rich, the employers?" Not all employers are "rich." In fact, most of our private sector employment comes from small business owners. Our government has included among the "rich" anyone making $250k a year. While my household income doesn't even come close to that, I have worked for many whose income is that or more BEFORE they pay taxes.

I worked many years in dual roles, one of which was almost always Office Administrator. For every dime of Social Security, Medicare and Federal Income Tax you see deducted from your paycheck, your employer also sees leave his/her bank account. They must match every dime you pay in. If you're paying $300 a month for your health insurance provided through your employer, I will guarantee you that your employer is also paying about that much, if not slightly more. For EVERY employee.

Depending upon how their company is set up, most small business owners personal funds are tied to their business funds, especially in the eyes of the IRS. So, while it may *appear* that they are "rich," all operating costs for the business that provides your job (and those of your co-workers) comes out of their private pocket according to how the IRS taxes them.

A small business owner may take in ("earn") a couple of million dollars a year which certainly sounds "rich" to most of us; however, out of those "earnings," they pay rent or mortgage for the building, they pay the utilities (at commercial rates), liability/malpractice insurances, salaries, taxes (their own AND match that of the employees); they buy all the supplies needed for the business. In most cities, they pay personal property taxes each year on all the desks, company vehicles, copy machines, etc. They pay more than most people who've never administered an office can possibly conceive of. And most still provide paid sick/vacation days - pay you for NOT being there.

Then, at the end of the tax year, they have to claim all the money they've taken in AS earnings. But do they get to deduct ALL of the money it takes to run that business? No, they do not!

That's why so many businesses are closing their doors. These 'rich' employers have used their savings, mortgaged their homes, sold their belongings and maxed out their credit cards to keep their business open and their employees employed. When they approach their employees about taking a pay cut in order to keep a job, the employees go ballistic on them. So, they do without and make up the difference out of pocket until there's nothing left in the pocket. The lives of their employees are NOT "their responsibility."

Whose job is it to "lift people up?" It is the job of the person needing the lift. It is no one's responsibility but our own to provide for ourselves. If we have to work 2 jobs, then that's what we have to do. There is no utopian society where everyone has the same, nor will there likely ever be on this earth - unless "the same" means having virtually nothing. We have lots of those "equal" places on this Earth.

The definition of "dire need" has changed. We have millions on welfare - over 46 million on food stamps right now. I can't tell you how many times I've stood behind someone paying with Food Stamps who has a nice manicure, a cell phone, high end clothing, etc.

It's not our "rich" employers who've messed things up. It's the wrong attitude people have that, somehow, someone with more OWES them something. No one is owed anything.

It's the gov't induced apathy built by the welfare system that's the problem. Government causes inflation, not job creators. Government controls 'cost of living;' not employers.

It's hard to make people understand, though I tried in the limited space in my post above. So, I thought I would give you a real-life example.

I have a friend who is a small business owner. She employs 11 people plus herself, In 2010, the IRS required a $70,000 tax deposit from her against future payroll taxes. They're the IRS; they CAN and DO do that regularly to the small business owner. The company account didn't have $70k in it, so she had to dip into her savings and some other stuff to come up with the $70k. The company paid the money in as a tax deposit, as required by the IRS.

Now, remember, that was HER money, saved diligently over a period of some 10 years, plus other means she had to go come up with in order to scrape up the money. And that money, HER money, was deposited into the COMPANY account so that the COMPANY could write a check to the IRS. She IS the company.

What happened at tax time? The IRS said that $70k had to be claimed as income because it was deposited into the Company account. Her OWN money, taken from her OWN savings was counted as her own INCOME and she had to pay income tax on her own money. What was taken out of the $70k deposit with the IRS? Taxes - hers, employees, the company's.

How did she start her business? She started with ONE employee (who is still with her 12 years later). She started by the skin of her teeth, sinking every penny she had previously saved. She ate bologna sandwiches and Ramen noodles 3 times a day for 3 years. She put in 16-20 hour days, initially doing most of the work herself, doing all of the marketing herself, etc. She did without because she had a dream. On average, through her own diligence and hard work, she's managed to create one job per year. Those employees don't eat bologna sandwiches and Ramen noodles in order to GET that job; she GIVES it to them. She never married; she never had children; she devoted herself to first saving to start a company and then doing without to get it up and running. Was that a personal choice? Sure it was! But her personal choice and sacrifice employs 11 people who might otherwise not have jobs.

She's one of what most people see as a "success story." She even got to the point where, out of the goodness of her heart (and she is truly a good person), she was able to begin giving what I would consider sizable Christmas bonuses, as well as a big company Holiday dinner at a nice restaurant - all at her expense and just a way to say 'thank you' to her employees - she was thanking people to whom SHE had provided a job. Who thanked her?

What happened? People B*TCHED that their BONUS was only in the $350 range. She told them at the company Holiday party that the meal for them AND THEIR FAMILY was on her; however, they would have to pay their own bar tabs - that was a legal liability issue; not that she didn't want to buy them a drink. What happened? Two of the employees ran up a $300 bar tab and walked on it. She had to pay the bar tab.

Why did they complain about getting something they didn't earn? Why did they take advantage of her by running up a bar tab? Because they think she's "rich."

They don't know that she just had lost $70k twice, so to speak. It's not their business, they wouldn't understand, and it would put her in a position of disclosing too much information to tell them. What's more, the average person would claim she's "lying" because, after all, she's one of the "rich."

Times got hard after the crash of '08. She gathered her employees together and explained that unless something was done, some people were going to be out of work. She asked - ASKED, mind you - if everyone would take a $1 an hour pay cut so that ALL could keep their jobs. They did, but then they began to quit, without notice, out of anger at having to make a personal sacrifice of that $1 an hour. She lost people she'd employed for 10 years, people she'd given performance and Christmas and other bonuses to; people who she'd PAID for not coming to work when they had their babies or had personal tragedy.

I'm not talking about WalMarts or other giants. I'm talking about the majority of people who employ others in this Country - the small business owner whom so many think is "rich."

The overall tone of most Americans is that THEY don't want to sacrifice. They don't mind if someone else does, but not them. THEY don't want to give up more.

My question: if the average American wants employers to sacrifice more, then what is the average American willing to sacrifice? No one wants to live 3 generations to a home, but that's how it used to work. No one wants to move back home, nor do their parents want them there, but that's how it used to work. Men don't want to wait until their in their late 30s to marry because it took them that long to pay for land and build a house, but that's how it used to work.

What are WE willing to sacrifice to change the system we so willing complain about?

reply to post by SeesFar


Nice to see someone actually making sense here. Chances are, the minds of those you commented directly to will turn a blind eye and ignore the many valid points you made. They have chosen to live in a me, me world and have no clue of what it takes to run a business and frankly have no desire to learn.
That being said, you (mr./ms) may have opened an eye are two to those willing to listen to reason and facts.

O s dv
i ga

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by SeesFar

 

Every country, and the people in those countries should be the ones deciding what sort of system they want to implement in their countries. But for the U.S.A. the best system has always been Republicanism.

Many people, and mostly those in the left, don't even have any idea of what being a Republican really is.

Republican can refer to:
An advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and is generally associated with the rule of law Republicanism, the ideology in support of republics or against monarchy; the opposite of monarchism
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Even the founding fathers of the U.S.A. with all their differences and different ideas understood at one time and agreed on what is the best form of government for the people of the United States, and they wrote it on the Constitution.

Article IV - The States
Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

usgovinfo.about.com...

The world socialist/fascist elites have been working hard for decades in destroying the only, and original party in the U.S. that was "The People's Party", the Republican Party...

They have been destroying it so that people will become used to a nanny state, a socialist/fascist state.

edit on 1-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

I'm one of the first to get mad at the use of the word "democracy" when applied to our Country. We are not now, nor have we ever been a "democracy.." The U.S. was established as a Constitutional Republic - that cannot be denied. I cringe every time I hear a President, especially this one, refer to our Country as a "democracy." Democracies always, throughout history, result in dictatorships.

Nor do i disagree with you on what the Republican Party was *meant* to be; what I disagree with is what a preponderance of that Party has *become.*

Overall, it cannot honestly be said that either of our two main parties are doing anything FOR the benefit of the average working person.

It cannot be denied, logically, that people who have occupied the same offices, the same chairs, the same working environment for 20 years or more are not on the same page in one way or another.

Further, if they ARE on different pages, then they need to be booted out if they can't come to agreements that will benefit the backbone of this Country - the working middle class.

Taken as a WHOLE .. a BIG picture .. I DO see the Republicans giving more support to big corporations and I DO see Democrats pandering to the welfare crowd and special interest "groups" who think they deserve special "rights" because they are different from heterosexual, working whites. No, i'm not white - I'm Native American - but I see what I see and I do not believe that I am seeing it incorrectly.

WHERE is the party for the average working American? Who represents US, the working people, in these days and times?

And, no, I do not believe every politician is dishonest. I very much believe there are a few out there who are trying their damnedest - they're just overrun by the majority who don't want anyone else's well-being raining on their personal parade.

Please don't misunderstand; I'm not accusing you of seeing only the (R); I'm just saying that too many people never look past the letter at the end of the name, combined with general apathy of the citizenry and the enormity of the nanny-state people created by welfare programs is what has landed us where we are.

Originally posted by Kituwa
reply to post by SeesFar

 

Nice to see someone actually making sense here. Chances are, the minds of those you commented directly to will turn a blind eye and ignore the many valid points you made. They have chosen to live in a me, me world and have no clue of what it takes to run a business and frankly have no desire to learn.
That being said, you (mr./ms) may have opened an eye are two to those willing to listen to reason and facts.

O s dv
i ga

Wado, Go hu s di a na da dv ni!

It's "Mrs." =)

Tsu li e na yv wi, tsu na gi we sv gi. =(

The sad irony is that the ancestors of those who complain destroyed the very system their descendants now want; yet the descendants seem unwilling to sacrifice to rebuild what their antecedents demolished.

U so nv nv hi ~ then and now.

I na a ga wa dv di

reply to post by grey580


"No tax cuts for the rich Boo Hoo, Blah Blah Blah."
Standard Rebuttal: "Tax cuts for the rich! They are the engine's that run the economy!"
"You don't care about the poor, and whatnot..."

Here's a novel concept - drop all of your partisan bull$#!t and realize that taxes on the rich AND the poor are a bad idea. Cut spending, and get rid of the income tax. The USA did very well without one until 1913 (the period immediately preceding 1913 gave the US the largest economic boom in history).

Seriously people, stop drinking the Republicrat Kool Aid.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by MassOccurs

 

the rich, the employers should do a better job of paying their employees a wage that can meet the cost of living, or make some moves to get that cost of living down to a range that can be handled with what they want to pay their employees.

no employer who has employees using food stamps, or gov't subsidies for housing, or medicaid, ect has any right to complain about their taxes!!! your employees are your responsibility, not mine...you want them healthy, sheltered, and fed....provide them the means! god, even the slave owners of old did that much!

#1 - Have you considered that (some) employees should do a better job to warrant getting a raise? Ask yourself: "What can I do to help the company I work for, grow"?

#2 - How can an employer get the cost of living down? Joe's plumbing has nothing to do with what a loaf of bread costs.

#3 - It is NOT the employers responsibility to see that they pay an employee enough to support the 5 children they couldn't afford to take care of in the first place! It's NOT the employers responsibility to pay the employee enough to see to it that each of those children has cell phone & $100.00 tennis shoes!

#4 Keep in mind that higher taxes on an employer will and/or

#1 - Add to the unemployment rate.
#2 - Provide lower wages.
#3 - Put some companies out of business.

It's time that those that gripe about their job to say: THANK YOU for the job you have given me and helping me provide for my family. THANK YOU for paying the exorbitant taxes you "already do" so food stamps, gov't subsidies for housing, and medicaid is available to those who need it and to available to the many that don't!

Peace

I apologize for responding out of sequence, but yours was a very thought provoking post, so I wanted to be sure I gave it the full amount of thought I believed it deserved. IMHO, you have some very good points, though I have some questions and some comments.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
What the rich should be doing is a better job in the private charity sector. The government should not be so burdened with assisting the poor, elderly, and disabled. I think the problem lies in that the system is a bit too federalized.

Why do you believe the rich *should* be doing a better job in the private charity sector. Are they somehow obligated simply because they are wealthy? That is much like saying someone *should* buy a car just because they know how to drive; after all, that would help the auto industry and helping the auto industry would create more jobs, etc. I believe the wealthy do give a lot to charity; just not to "the deserving poor," which is how I interpret what you wrote (my apology if I interpret incorrectly). Just who IS "the deserving poor?" You didn't use those words; it's just words I hear a lot. "The deserving poor." WHO are they? WHY do they "deserve?"

The system is FAR too federalized. It was our very own government who created the welfare system/nanny state/generational welfare recipients (LB Johnson's "Great Society") and they did it on purpose. When they created welfare, they took men out of homes - you simply cannot obtain welfare if there's a healthy, able-to-work male in the household. They created apathy and criminals. It needs to stop. If someone CAN work, they NEED to work. The elderly and *most* of the disabled have PAID into the Social Security/Medicare system all their working lives - the money they draw is not charity; it was taken from their checks by law and it belongs to them. Those who draw from it without ever having paid a cent into it are the thieves - that does not, of course, include those born disabled who no longer have families who can help them; and, really, I don't think many of us mind including those people in a national level charity program.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
America needs stronger communities that rely less on national/international corporations and the US Gov't.

Absolutely agree! But how do we achieve stronger communities when we, as a Country, can't even manage to agree that we're all one RACE of people? "This" group thinks THEY deserve because they are "X;" "that" group thinks THEY deserve because they are "Y;" "Another" group thinks THEY deserve because they are "Z." When and how do we stop that? It starts with US. We STOP "celebrating" and rewarding "differences" and we begin to once more practice social censure - in other words, "if you're healthy and you don't want to work, please feel free to go hungry and don't expect a place at my table." Why must middle class working Americans pay for a generational welfare mother to have 9 children by 8 fathers? How many people could the trillions of dollars spent on welfare programs have educated in the past 50 years? Why don't we have a law that says "Okay, we feel a little sorry for you, young single mother; you boo-boo'd and had ONE child. We'll pay for you to go school. BUT! have another child and you don't get a dime more?"

Originally posted by MassOccurs
Smaller governments is generally associated with the republican party but i think the party system in itself is more of a problem than a path to solutions.

First half of that sentence I see as true; second half I see as even more true.

Originally posted by MassOccurs
Being honest with ourselves, what America needs is a generation or two that is willing to majorly sacrifice in the name of improving society in totality.

AMEN! But who is willing to sacrifice? Do you hear the "Not ME!" chorus out there?

Originally posted by MassOccurs
If more people would volunteer and donate the burden of social security and welfare wouldn't be as great. Everyone would benefit from a more generous society. I would propose a system in which people could work one shift a week doing something that benefits your community as an alternative to paying taxes all together.

I would propose a system that able-bodied people collecting welfare must work a 40 hour week benefiting the community. Don't want to volunteer? Do without!

Originally posted by MassOccurs
Too bad everyone is so disgusted that they refuse to get up and take concrete steps to help the situation.

Apathy. We are buried in apathy. The welfare generations are apathetic and don't want to help themselves at all. The hard working have hearts turned cold due to their bank accounts being emptied by law to make easier the path of those willing to do nothing for themselves but more than happy to live off the sweat of others.

reply to post by SeesFar



"the rich, the employers"....

I wouldn't have mentioned both, if I knew that only one group would include everyone???

I work for a small business owner. although I believe he is living a little better than me, I don't consider him rich. and, I know about how much he is putting into our health insurance, and ya know what.....every year he is messing around with the insurance companies (do you consider the ceos of those companies rich when they are bringing in a few million in salaries along with insane bonuses?) and we all spend a few months wondering if we are gonna have insurance the coming year!!!
the business depends of us being able to liscense the products we create that carry the mascots and trademarks of the countries colleges and universities. We're a small company and because of the nature of the work, the product is created mostly from the sweat and labor of it's workforce, the printing is manual, the sewing is done on peice at a time. We don't mass produce anything! this company has designed many of the college mascots in times gone by!!! so now, there's a group going around to these colleges convincing them that if they will just let them design a "trademark" for them, that somehow, it will it will magically turn their college into the next penn state or something, for a price of course. and, this logo is now the only thing we can print on their products. so, we are now faced with chaos while we check everything with liscensing to make sure we can use the old artwork, and if not, sometimes trying to find a way to make this little 3 inch by 3 inch logo look right on this huge banner!!! all this chaos because one group (those involved in the "trademarking" of the colleges and universities want to make a fortune consincing another group the colleges that they can make more money, if they will just employ their services...the company I work for worked with these colleges and universities to develop the original mascots without charging them any extra money!!! and of course we aren't making the liscensing outrageous profits, they want us to mass produce this product (next to impossible) and sell them for half the price we are not to the big store, like wal mart and such....which we aren't doing, so well, is seems we are pretty low on their priority list, we sit and wait for them to okay everything!!!

on the top of every industry, there are a few very rich people who are working hard to become richer....and to heck with everyone else!!! that is why I put the rich, and the employers!!!

the small businesses are getting squeezed out, their suppliers want more and then more money for the products and services that they are providing, but then on the other side, the consumers are demanding lower and lower prices...probably because the people in the middle want a bigger and bigger share of the profit!!!
I have a good idea just how much our product is costing our customers....
and I have a good idea just how much it is costing the consumer.
and, the amount that liscensing is charging!!!

and, well, it's not gonna work like this, somewhere, somehow, someone's gonna have to take a paycut. otherwise, well, the consumers aren't gonna have the money any longer to buy the product! there's just too many middle men taking bigger and bigger cuts of the pie!!

people keep saying that these business owners aren't doing the work, well, I've worked for quite a few small businesses, and in most of them, I have had occasions where I have worked beyond the 8 hour shift with my boss at my side working along with me!!!
so, I know they are working just as hard as me, and then they are having the headache of having to deal with people like those in liscensing who are getting about impossible to deal with!

by the way, payroll, building expenses, ect...they are expenses and in no way should be included in the profit of a company and therefor and taxed!

the biggest point in my post was that it is a mistake to think that charity and volunteerism is the solution!!!
it isn't!!! no one who is working 40 hours a week should have to stand in a bread line to get their daily meal! and well, think employers disagree?? go tell your boss that you need next tuesday off so that you can run down to social services and apply for food stamps!!! if he is like my boss is at the moment, he won't appreciate the idea too much!

reply to post by dawnstar


I understand your frustration. I also apologize to you for *not* understanding that you're one of the few who sees the inside of how small business works. So many these days lump too many together as "the rich" and hold them responsible for all ills in society.

In truth, WE are responsible for most of the ills in society. I'm NOT saying the uber rich aren't getting uber richer with every crash, as you stated. I see it, too. My husband and I barely squeak by, too. But it’s the government that’s created the loopholes for the uber rich and it’s the government that created the Welfare system and it’s US who didn’t fight back and get it UNdone.

Back in the 60s, people needed to be screaming their heads off at the implementation of the Welfare State. It needed to have happened, too, when Social Security was implemented. That (Soc Sec) is what began the notion in peoples' heads that they didn't have to take care of or plan for themselves.

Look at this: One in five Americans—the highest in the nation’s history—relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance. That’s more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington.

One in five. 20%. Staggering! The article further states (in bold to clarify that it's off-site content since ex-text feature won't work for me):

"The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).

At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.

As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed."

Frankly, I am offended that they claim retirees TAKE “retirement assistance” – they don’t “take” it; most of them were required by law to PAY it their entire working lives. That is THEIR money. If the government dipped it’s hand in that Trust kitty, it’s on them; not on the retirees.

Now let's look at some other numbers:

U.S. population: 314,090,325
Taxpayers: 114,085,058
Official Unemployment: 12,517,334
ACTUAL Unemployment: 22,986,322
U.S. Workforce: 143,760,352
Retirees & Disabled (Soc Sec): 67,596,848
Food Stamp Recipients: 46,620,536

314,090,325 population supported by 143,760,352 working people. The government has NO money – it’s taxpayer money they’re using. 45% of the population is supporting the other 55%.

314,090,325 population but only 114,085,058 taxpayers? 36% of the population is carrying the burden for the other 64%.

Where is the equity in that?

Almost 23 MILLION actually unemployed, it says, but do they count generational welfare recipients as “unemployed?” You know who I’m talking about – those who are content to sit on their behinds, never doing anything for themselves, thinking the “government” is giving them money and not caring enough about their fellow citizens to acknowledge that it is the sweat of others feeding/housing/clothing them all while popping out children they cannot afford.

What about the “Earned Income Credit?” What is that? It’s credit for income NOT earned but, instead, GIVEN to people who create larger families than they can support. WHY do we allow that? Why is anyone expected to pay for the poor decisions of another?

I feel for your boss and for you. But the rich didn’t do that; lobbyists and dirty politicians in the government create the situations by which your boss and your job suffer. Lunatics in charge of the asylum (nincompoops that run the Universities) created the situation your boss and, by extension, you, are in. Getting food stamps isn’t the answer; planting a garden is the answer. Applying for assistance isn’t the answer; getting a job is the answer. “But there aren’t any jobs!” Yes, there are! People just don’t want to DO them. Allowing unlimited immigration and granting amnesty isn’t the answer; adopting the immigration laws that other Countries have of NOT allowing you to immigrate unless you’re wealthy enough to support yourself without taking of one THEIR jobs is the answer.

Until we firmly place the blame where it belongs – upon ourselves for not reigning in our own government – we can’t fix a thing.

There ARE answers, but few are willing to sacrifice.

reply to post by Henley


Have you looked at the growing chasm between CEO pay and employee pay over the last 50 years?
I find it hard to respond to your post without laughing or getting mad at you for even asking such questions when I do.

Originally posted by Henley
#4 Keep in mind that higher taxes on an employer will and/or

#1 - Add to the unemployment rate.
#2 - Provide lower wages.
#3 - Put some companies out of business.

Sigh.
You forgot

#4 - Reduce CEO compensation.
I guess you would have a huge problem with the richest guys at the top of a company taking home less money. You want the hourly workers to take home less money instead.

That sounds like an idea, I guess.
Now make it not a horrible one.