Is anyone else here worried about this notion of redistribution of wealth?

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/30/2008 1:07:03 AM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/30/2008 12:58:07 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/29/2008 8:33:23 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/29/2008 8:24:28 PM

Author: Dancing Fire



meats ??? how about lobsters with food stamp

Seriously DF, get over the lobsters. Someone on food stamps has a food budget just like ANY of us and can choose to spend it how they wish. Everyone has an example of people abusing food stamps by buying something WE wouldn''t buy. Just because someone buys lots of meat or lobsters doesn''t mean that they then get to buy more of other things. Just like any of us with a budget, they budget their foodstamps the way they deem necessary. Doesn''t mean they don''t need them.

yeah but....mine didn''t come from the taxpayers.

Well then DF I sure hope that you are never put in a situation to need anything from the government or the taxpayers.

hey neat

that''s why the U.S. is greatest nation on earth even our welfare recipients can afford to eat lobsters for dinner.

 

[movie zombie]

DF, i thought what made us the greatest nation in the world was corporate socialism and taxpayers paying off corporate bad debt by taking out loans for which the great grandchildren will be paying. makes welfare and/or food stamp fraud look like a speck of sand on a vast vast vast beach.

movie zombie

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 10/30/2008 2:04:23 AM
Author: movie zombie
DF, i thought what made us the greatest nation in the world was corporate socialism and taxpayers paying off corporate bad debt by taking out loans for which the great grandchildren will be paying. makes welfare and/or food stamp fraud look like a speck of sand on a vast vast vast beach.

movie zombie

that too!!

 

[ksinger]

Time on Welfare and Welfare Dependency
Testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Human Resources

While I''m certain there are some on this board much better qualified to comment on people needing public assistance than I, I did find the above. It presents a much more complex and nuanced picture of welfare than the attitude of, "Everyone on welfare is lazy and gaming the system" that I see expressed here so often. I suggest that the entire piece be read, rather than skimmed - there are some interesting, seeming contradictions in there.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Date: 10/29/2008 3:47:00 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 10/29/2008 3:04:43 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
The issue for me isn''t so much about the amount of taxes I''m paying, it''s where that money is going. I want more transparency in regards to money used by our government. I''m ok with money being spent on social programs, however; we need serious reform on those programs and in general, before I''d be 100% OK with handing off any more. I''m in an interesting situation right now. I currently make 45k, however my new position, which I''ll take on next week, offers unlimited earning potential. Just bringing in 80k, combined with FI''s salary would put us within the danger zone ($150,000-$250,000). That concerns me.

That''s my issue too. Congratulations on the huge salary increase!

Ha! I wish I was bringing in 80K+, that''s just a possible amount I could make with comission.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I would just like to point out that there''s nothing wrong with constatutionalism. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are our most treasured documents and should be taken seriously. I think the majority of politicians in Washington (and our own repective states) need a refresher on American history, what it means to be an American, and how these Documents have and should affect the governing of our country.

NEL-I 100% agree with your post.

 

[swimmer]

Date: 10/29/2008 10:13:01 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 10/29/2008 9:47:21 PM

Author: swimmer

NEL, I'm also in MA, can you tell me some of those superfluous programs? I'm collaborating on a budget for my public school district, our state funding is slashed and with housing values dropping, so will our incoming funds. We can either not heat one elementary school, or cut half the gym teachers and all the librarians in the district. At least the federal programs like breakfast for Title 1 kids won't be cut. We haven't purchased new textbooks in years and are in need of a new roof on the high school. Hopefully it won't snow too much, the flat roof from the 70s leaks terribly and we hope it won't cave in. What fat should be cut? Photocopying is already restricted and we are 'going green' out of necessity. No field trips for the rest of the year and no substitute teachers if teachers are out sick.


What would Ayn Rand do?

She'd tell you that ths is a perfect example of a publicly-funded program.


I don't believe education is a right, so you might be barking up the wrong tree. I do understand, though, because I grew up in a very rural school with few resources. My parents spent quite a bit of time working with me after school so I wouldn't fall behind on standardized tests and when I was older, I would buy books from second-hand stores to prepare myself for college.


Sounds like the system has let you down.

That is wonderful that your parents had the wherwithal to help you out, it is wonderful that they had the time and ability to do so, as in they weren't working overtime and they speak English.

I believe that a war is going on, but it is not between the wealthy and the poor, it is between big business and anything standing in its way. For the past 8+ years, the deregulation movement (which libertarians see as a right) only made huge businesses wealthy...not individual people. If you were indeed Queen, just for the sake of argument, and abolished public schools, sewage and water treatment plants, dumps, recycling stations, vaccination clinics, police, fire, libraries, etc...we would indeed be living in Rousseau's state of nature. Which of course he thought was ideal, but most of us would predict to be something like China during the Cultural Revolution, but not with Mao in charge, but big businesses who focus on the bottom line, not the human condition (think Gilded Age). Not pretty, anti-education, and hopelessly unprepared for progress. China overcame that by opening up their markets, a very libertarian argument. And I suppose that a few dead child laborers here and there doesn't spoil the entire system, but some of us will still be opposed to that deregulation because it is inhumane. I think that the libertarian plan is heartless as it does nothing to care for the least capable among us. Perhaps they should go off and die in a corner like some sort of Darwinian experiment, but can humans really condemn say the profoundly handicapped, emotionally disturbed, or ill to just die? It seems like we invented govt, Lord of the Flies fashion to prevent that sort of experiment. Yes, NEL was able to pull up her bootstraps, but what about the autistic child, or my nonverbal student, or my Schizophrenic BIL?

No, the system did not fail me, the citizens guided by a deluded sense of libertarianism in the early 1970s did when they passed prop 2.5 and set state funding for schools at their 1972 rate. Since the cost of living has gone up, property taxes now make up the rest of the funding for schools. My district is in the top 10 in MA, one of the top 3 states for education in the US, that we are trying to cut corners is sad as it shows me how much worse off the rest of the US must be. My point was that this mythology of gross spending is just a lie. We will continue to provide world class education to our students, it would just be great if people realized that paying for students' education now is like ensuring that our country functions in the future. I would not want to retire in the mayhem that some wish for our country.

Together we can all pay a little bit and then if the worst happens, the system will help us. Hopefully it will not, but we pay for an infrastructure just in case. Just be happy we don't personally need it (medicaid, DYS, DSS, WIC, unemployment) eh? Oh and if you have ever partaken of any of these services, how dare you oppose others who now need help?

 

[Maria D]

Date: 10/29/2008 11:37:58 PM
Author: Miranda

Date: 10/29/2008 10:59:12 PM

Oh yes we can! The difference is CHOICE. Some people CHOOSE to be plumbers, teachers, nurses or do nothing at all. It is a choice.

Miranda, I *totally* agree with you that it''s a choice. If you want to work really hard you may choose to be a plumber-teacher-nurse, etc. If you want to work hard and make a lot of money, then corporate finance is an option. My point is that it''s not just the high money makers who are working hard. Also, the corporate financiers wouldn''t have a job if the corporations they worked for didn''t have regular old hard working clientele to sell their products and services to. There''s no planet of the Corporate Financiers where they can all make money off of one another. We all need the rest of the people in this society to keep this gig going. If the hard working lower income people can''t afford to pay for the "infrastructure" of this country (and increasingly, they can''t) the funds still have to come from somewhere. By your argument that people can choose, one could say fine, you don''t like high tax rates? Move to some other developed country where the tax rates are lower or choose to be a low income earner and you''ll be taxed at a lower rate.

So yes, people can disagree whether or not there should be a flat rate system and everyone pays the same share or whether there''s the current sliding scale where people that earn more pay more. We can disagree on the tweaking of the sliding scale. What I don''t agree with is this notion of "well my ________ works his/her butt off for that money so no more of should be taken away." Who (besides those of us who have time to waste here, LOL) isn''t working hard for the money! It would be nice if we had a slacker tax -- higher rate for those who don''t work as hard -- but that would be pretty hard to manage.

 

[swimmer]

I''m having a hard time understanding this "choice" theme and wonder what is meant. I choose to make a difference in the lives of young people. The notes and poems that we teachers get at the end of the school year about how we pushed them to learn or helped them through hard times by caring to listen are more precious than any diamond.

Some people have to be trash collectors, some people have to be day traders, or investment bankers; society would continue without the last two though. Only the brave, patient, caring, and strong of bladder can be educators. I know that my stories from school are the hit of cocktail parties and that my reward is not in my bank account but in that transcendental moment when driving home knowing that I am a force for good in the world.

Shout out to the teachers! Now I have to go see a girl who has been hurting herself and develop a plan for her recovery. What have you done worthwhile today?

 

[strmrdr]

Interesting conversation.

Welfare - kick those that make it a lifestyle off and increase the benefits to those that need a hand up. Turn it over to the states 0 federal funding after 10 years.
Education - it is none of the federal governments business it is not a power granted to them. Education is a privilege that should be society funded on the local level through high school.
State and Federal research grants should be used to help fund colleges with the patents belonging to the American people and available for licensing with the resulting fees going back into the program.
Such a program could be self supporting or close to it.
Loans and grants should be available but they are being abused by the schools, every time the limits are raised the schools raise the costs.

Taxes it is really simple make the first $30k tax free for single, $60k for married and add $5k per kid.
Eliminate earned income as it is fundamentally unfair.
Then look at the constitutional duties of the federal government(end 98% of it) and set a flat tax to cover it over the amounts above. 5% is plenty. within 10 years move it to a sales tax.
No deductions other than the standard deductions for anyone.
The same rate should be charged for everyone.
Congress becomes a volunteer position and meets for 2 weeks every 3 months.
Transportation, housing for the 2 weeks, and a small fee will be provided.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 10/30/2008 8:18:25 AM
Author: swimmer
I''m having a hard time understanding this ''choice'' theme and wonder what is meant. I choose to make a difference in the lives of young people. The notes and poems that we teachers get at the end of the school year about how we pushed them to learn or helped them through hard times by caring to listen are more precious than any diamond.

Some people have to be trash collectors, some people have to be day traders, or investment bankers; society would continue without the last two though. Only the brave, patient, caring, and strong of bladder can be educators. I know that my stories from school are the hit of cocktail parties and that my reward is not in my bank account but in that transcendental moment when driving home knowing that I am a force for good in the world.

Shout out to the teachers! Now I have to go see a girl who has been hurting herself and develop a plan for her recovery. What have you done worthwhile today?

I truly truly love you Swimmer! The DH would be roaring with laughter and agreement right now, as he goes to the gallows today - to listen to a screeching, uneducated mother as she berates and threatens him for failing her slacker "baby" (who has been warned repeatedly that if he doesn''t do the work he will fail, and now the bill is coming due). Just an ordinary day....

BTW - he DOES do sails still, in case you were interested.

 

[zhuzhu]

Well said, swimmer and maria.

strmrdr, though I disagree with your "black and white" view of how this country should be run, I admire that fact that you have taken the time to think though how you would have governed this country.

 

[MaggieB]

Well, y''all just continue your debate about whether school children deserve to be educated or not.

I''m off to my son''s elementary school, where I volunteer as a reading tutor.

 

[777_LDY]

I have not posted in a while mostly because I haven''t had the time, but I have read a few of these election threads and they have been so down right dirty. I am amazed to see how an election year can really bring out the worst in people. I will be very honest though as I am very worried about the redistribution of wealth, and I just wanted to voice my concerns and opinions just as everyone else here has done. I really do not care to be scrutinized.

We are in the highest tax bracket. We have three small children, two mortgages (on very modest properties), and my husband works in (what I would consider) a small business. As it is we do not get a single tax deduction except on the massive amounts of money that we have lost in the stock market (3,000 a year offset I think), or if we had real estate investments we could sell to offset that amount (which we do not). We are not rolling in the dough as some would like to think. My husband works an incredibly stressful job which in turn effects his family. To think that he is working so hard to earn even less now makes my stomach turn like you wouldn''t believe.

My husband works 6 day a week. We eat at 7 just so we can have family time. I do 99% of parenting by myself so we can give a better life to our children, and now we probably won''t be able to afford the school that I have always dreamed we could send them to. We are not living in a mansion taking lavish vacations all year long, we are a normal hard working family so why should we be penalized for this? Should I feel bad that I had the hopes of better schools for my children, something I wished my mother could have given to me? That is what we work so damn hard for!

I count my blessings everyday and strive for what I thought was an American Dream where you used to be rewarded for hard work. That was a lesson that was taught to us when we were children and now? Now, I would rather my husband close his doors and just stay home to try and regain the years he has lost due to stress.

If Obama does win my husband may not close his doors but I will guarantee that he will have to let some of his employees go and cut the hours of others. We know other companies that will have to do the same thing. These are people who will not be able to find other work, and these are people with families as well. This makes me so incredibly angry because they are the middle class that is oh so often talked about, and I am the supposed wealthy... what a joke.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I don''t think anyone is saying that children should not be educated. I think they''re debating the source of funding (or lack thereof). I would prefer to see more money going to education (college included) and less going to "wars" that we shouldn''t be in or banks who got into trouble (but who are still willing to pay big $$ for exec bonuses). The truth is, we don''t know where our federal tax dollars go and until we do, it''s pointless to argue over any of this.

 

[movie zombie]

and while we''re setting records straight: all the forms for food stamps when the program originated were USDA...yes, US Department of Agriculture. the program wasn''t started to help poor people...it was started to move more product off the store shelves so that more product could replace them. how do i know? i was an eligibiility worker, that''s how. the perceived rate of welfare/food stamp scam is a lot higher than what it actually is. however, the perceived scam by corporations is a lot higher than most people realize. yet we''ll yell and scream about those at the lower end of the economic system rather than doing something about those that are the true abusers at the higher end of the system. end of rant.

movie zombie

ps Swimmer, you''ve stated just why libertarians drive me absolutely wild. no commitment to the common good.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/30/2008 10:23:36 AM
Author: movie zombie
and while we're setting records straight: all the forms for food stamps when the program originated were USDA...yes, US Department of Agriculture. the program wasn't started to help poor people...it was started to move more product off the store shelves so that more product could replace them. how do i know? i was an eligibiility worker, that's how. the perceived rate of welfare/food stamp scam is a lot higher than what it actually is. however, the perceived scam by corporations is a lot higher than most people realize. yet we'll yell and scream about those at the lower end of the economic system rather than doing something about those that are the true abusers at the higher end of the system. end of rant.


movie zombie

Well said MZ. It's often the same people who whine about those frauding the government and taxpayers through small foodstamp/welfare checks that find it completely acceptable to defraud the government when it's their turn to pay taxes, etc. Illegal deductions, not reporting/underreporting money from a small business, having a "business" expense that is really a personal expense, moving money offshore, etc., these things are all fraud...

(and I am speaking generally here, not about people posting on this thread specifically)

 

[Demelza]

Date: 10/29/2008 11:54:38 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 10/29/2008 11:37:58 PM

Author: Miranda

Oh yes we can! The difference is CHOICE. Some people CHOOSE to be plumbers, teachers, nurses or do nothing at all. It is a choice.

I completely disagree. Being able to choose what one does is a luxury not everyone is afforded. Those who are truly able to ''choose'' generally have access to good (and easily accessible) education, and this isn''t the case for many Americans. When, as a child, one is expected to help put food on his or her family''s table, what choice does he or she have?

Amen, Ebree! The idea that America is a true meritocracy is a myth. It would be great if hard work was all that was needed for success in this country, but is simply isn''t true. Does a child born to a single mother in poverty have the same "choices" as a child born to an upper middle class family? Is it just a matter of "hard work"? Yes, there are many people who overcome the challenges of an impoverished upbringing to achieve financial success, but "hard work" is only part of the equation. America is NOT a level playing field no matter how much we like to think it is. It is so much more complicated than the myth of "choice" or "freedom". It might assuage our collective guilt to think that those living in poverty simply aren''t working hard enough, that it''s their fault they don''t have enough to eat, but that just isn''t true and I happen to believe that those of us in positions to do so have a responsibility to our fellow human beings not to let them fall through the cracks. If that makes me a socialist, so be it.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 10/30/2008 1:39:42 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/30/2008 1:07:03 AM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/30/2008 12:58:07 AM

Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/29/2008 8:33:23 PM


Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/29/2008 8:24:28 PM


Author: Dancing Fire




meats ??? how about lobsters with food stamp

Seriously DF, get over the lobsters. Someone on food stamps has a food budget just like ANY of us and can choose to spend it how they wish. Everyone has an example of people abusing food stamps by buying something WE wouldn''t buy. Just because someone buys lots of meat or lobsters doesn''t mean that they then get to buy more of other things. Just like any of us with a budget, they budget their foodstamps the way they deem necessary. Doesn''t mean they don''t need them.

yeah but....mine didn''t come from the taxpayers.

Well then DF I sure hope that you are never put in a situation to need anything from the government or the taxpayers.

hey neat

that''s why the U.S. is greatest nation on earth even our welfare recipients can afford to eat lobsters for dinner.

For goodness sake, do you really believe in the myth of the Welfare Cadillac propagated by Reagan? It''s so absurd!! People on welfare are NOT living the high life on your dime. It simply isn''t true. Your financial welfare is impacted much more by the top earners on Wall Street than by those struggling to get by on food stamps.

Here are a few facts that might interest you:

The two largest welfare programs are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps. In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job. There are other welfare programs, of course, but they either pay a minuscule fraction of these two programs, or, if larger, are collected by only a small percentage of welfare recipients. The typical welfare recipient remains among the poorest members of society.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 10/30/2008 10:23:36 AM
Author: movie zombie

ps Swimmer, you've stated just why libertarians drive me absolutely wild. no commitment to the common good.

I think you've hit the nail on the head--libertarians have absolutely no intererest in a government-enforced "common good" and relish instead in individual freedom.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/30/2008 10:45:55 AM
Author: Demelza

Date: 10/30/2008 1:39:42 AM

Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/30/2008 1:07:03 AM


Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/30/2008 12:58:07 AM


Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 10/29/2008 8:33:23 PM



Author: neatfreak

Date: 10/29/2008 8:24:28 PM



Author: Dancing Fire





meats ??? how about lobsters with food stamp

Seriously DF, get over the lobsters. Someone on food stamps has a food budget just like ANY of us and can choose to spend it how they wish. Everyone has an example of people abusing food stamps by buying something WE wouldn''t buy. Just because someone buys lots of meat or lobsters doesn''t mean that they then get to buy more of other things. Just like any of us with a budget, they budget their foodstamps the way they deem necessary. Doesn''t mean they don''t need them.

yeah but....mine didn''t come from the taxpayers.

Well then DF I sure hope that you are never put in a situation to need anything from the government or the taxpayers.

hey neat

that''s why the U.S. is greatest nation on earth even our welfare recipients can afford to eat lobsters for dinner.

For goodness sake, do you really believe in the myth of the Welfare Cadillac propagated by Reagan? It''s so absurd!! People on welfare are NOT living the high life on your dime. It simply isn''t true. Your financial welfare is impacted much more by the top earners on Wall Street than by those struggling to get by on food stamps.


Here are a few facts that might interest you:


The two largest welfare programs are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps. In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job. There are other welfare programs, of course, but they either pay a minuscule fraction of these two programs, or, if larger, are collected by only a small percentage of welfare recipients. The typical welfare recipient remains among the poorest members of society.

And that was in 1992. Welfare programs have been overhauled completely since then and for the most part benefits are now even smaller, harder to come by, and have strict time limits. You can only be on welfare for a few years over your entire life now, it isn''t a lifestyle. It''s a stopgap that helps people when they need it.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 10/30/2008 10:51:05 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 10/30/2008 10:23:36 AM

Author: movie zombie


ps Swimmer, you''ve stated just why libertarians drive me absolutely wild. no commitment to the common good.

I think you''ve hit the nail on the head--libertarians have absolutely no intererest in a government-enforced ''common good'' and relish instead in individual freedom.

Hi NEL,
Forgive my ignorance as I understand very little about Libertarian party. I recall reading from your previous post that you do not believe the global warming is associated with/caused by human behavior? Is that related to the philosophy of Libertarian party, or simply something from your personal knowledge?

 

[krispi]

Date: 10/29/2008 7:58:37 PM
Author: zhuzhu

Date: 10/29/2008 6:00:40 PM
Author: krispi


Zhuzhu, while I agree with that sentiment, I cannot believe that a policy of redistributing wealth is what''s truly best for our nation. In fact, I think it runs counter to the principles that our country was founded on. So many people came to this land to work hard and earn opportunities that they could not have where they were from. They were not given money that was taken from the rich; rather they were given a chance to make something of themselves and a chance to make their own money or own their own property. It scares me that our country is getting away from this philosophy - that if you work hard enough, you can be whatever you want to be. (That''s what my parents always taught me when I was growing up...)

Believe it or not, the majority of the people that would be receiving tax relief from Obama''s plan do work hard. Some of them actually work hard at multiple jobs to keep up with the rising costs of every day life. These people probably don''t have the time to post on Pricescope and can only dream about buying expensive jewelry. These people may be secretaries, administrative assistants, carpenters, and yes even plumbers. Even though these people may work hard and long hours and perform important jobs in our society, they are not valued as much as company executives that may or may not be worth what they are paid. In my opinion, most of these executives are not worth the 6 and 7 figure salaries they make - especially the ones involved with the current financial crisis. If the next administration wants to make it a little easier for the middle class to put food on the table and cover for it by returning the taxes of those that can afford it back to what they were the last time we had a budget surplus, that is okay with me. Business owners both large and small should be happy that their customers will have more money to spend on their products and services . . .

The GOP has demonstrated they have lost touch with their roots of fiscal responsibility. It is time to give the Democrats a chance, after all they were the last party to have a balanced budget.

I totally hear you on all these points. As I stated before, I''m far from falling into the "wealthy" category, whether the cut-off is $250 or $150K. I''m constantly worried that something will happen to my meagerly-paying job and I won''t be able to afford my mortgage. My BF works 2 jobs just to have enough to live on. Most days, I feel like I''m barely getting by. I certainly don''t own any real diamonds and can''t afford to buy any either.

However, I just don''t feel that any of that makes me entitled to benefit from someone else''s money. Although the things I have are pretty modest compared to a lot of other people, I worked hard for them, and I''m proud of what I''ve been able to accomplish.

For the record, I also think that executive salaries are grossly out of line, but I don''t think the answer is to tax them more heavily and force them to give that money to the government.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/30/2008 11:20:52 AM
Author: krispi

Date: 10/29/2008 7:58:37 PM

Author: zhuzhu

Date: 10/29/2008 6:00:40 PM

Author: krispi



Zhuzhu, while I agree with that sentiment, I cannot believe that a policy of redistributing wealth is what''s truly best for our nation. In fact, I think it runs counter to the principles that our country was founded on. So many people came to this land to work hard and earn opportunities that they could not have where they were from. They were not given money that was taken from the rich; rather they were given a chance to make something of themselves and a chance to make their own money or own their own property. It scares me that our country is getting away from this philosophy - that if you work hard enough, you can be whatever you want to be. (That''s what my parents always taught me when I was growing up...)

Believe it or not, the majority of the people that would be receiving tax relief from Obama''s plan do work hard. Some of them actually work hard at multiple jobs to keep up with the rising costs of every day life. These people probably don''t have the time to post on Pricescope and can only dream about buying expensive jewelry. These people may be secretaries, administrative assistants, carpenters, and yes even plumbers. Even though these people may work hard and long hours and perform important jobs in our society, they are not valued as much as company executives that may or may not be worth what they are paid. In my opinion, most of these executives are not worth the 6 and 7 figure salaries they make - especially the ones involved with the current financial crisis. If the next administration wants to make it a little easier for the middle class to put food on the table and cover for it by returning the taxes of those that can afford it back to what they were the last time we had a budget surplus, that is okay with me. Business owners both large and small should be happy that their customers will have more money to spend on their products and services . . .


The GOP has demonstrated they have lost touch with their roots of fiscal responsibility. It is time to give the Democrats a chance, after all they were the last party to have a balanced budget.

I totally hear you on all these points. As I stated before, I''m far from falling into the ''wealthy'' category, whether the cut-off is $250 or $150K. I''m constantly worried that something will happen to my meagerly-paying job and I won''t be able to afford my mortgage. My BF works 2 jobs just to have enough to live on. Most days, I feel like I''m barely getting by. I certainly don''t own any real diamonds and can''t afford to buy any either.


However, I just don''t feel that any of that makes me entitled to benefit from someone else''s money. Although the things I have are pretty modest compared to a lot of other people, I worked hard for them, and I''m proud of what I''ve been able to accomplish.


For the record, I also think that executive salaries are grossly out of line, but I don''t think the answer is to tax them more heavily and force them to give that money to the government.

If you aren''t comfortable accepting things from other people than you shouldn''t use roads, public services, public transit, education, social security, disability, unemployment, etc. Our system is already based on public services paid for (or subsidized by) everyone who works, but when you use these services you haven''t paid for them entirely through YOUR hard work.

Just something to think about...realistically the plan specified by Obama really isn''t very different than what happens now tax wise...I don''t understand why everyone is so scared by it!!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/30/2008 10:53:28 AM
Author: neatfreak
You can only be on welfare for a few years over your entire life now, it isn't a lifestyle. It's a stopgap that helps people when they need it.

depends on the state many states continue to fund the lifestyle while cutting services to those that need a hand up.
Read the report linked above.
I don't want a cut in welfare benefits I want it increased but with very strict limits unless someone has a legitimate condition that they need it longer such as illness or disability funded and controlled at the state level. 1 year max sounds good to me.
It can take weeks to just get an appointment for non-emergency food stamps, ie: you have $28 to your name because the case workers are overwhelmed by the lifestyle abusers in IL.
I do however think it can be done much more effectively through local charities than the government.
On that topic a lot of the national charities need to be shut down and the directors sent to jail for fraud.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 10/30/2008 11:00:33 AM
Author: zhuzhu

Date: 10/30/2008 10:51:05 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 10/30/2008 10:23:36 AM

Author: movie zombie


ps Swimmer, you've stated just why libertarians drive me absolutely wild. no commitment to the common good.

I think you've hit the nail on the head--libertarians have absolutely no intererest in a government-enforced 'common good' and relish instead in individual freedom.

Hi NEL,
Forgive my ignorance as I understand very little about Libertarian party. I recall reading from your previous post that you do not believe the global warming is associated with/caused by human behavior? Is that related to the philosophy of Libertarian party, or simply something from your personal knowledge?

Hey, Zhuzhu--not ignorant at all, my interest in the causes global warming/global cooling are wholly personal, nothing at all to do with political affiliation.

BTW, I realize this has nothing to do with taxes or redistribution of wealth, but since I'm already off topic I have to tell you how much I love your ring!

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 10/30/2008 11:31:07 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 10/30/2008 10:53:28 AM

Author: neatfreak

You can only be on welfare for a few years over your entire life now, it isn't a lifestyle. It's a stopgap that helps people when they need it.

depends on the state many states continue to fund the lifestyle while cutting services to those that need a hand up.

Read the report linked above.

I don't want a cut in welfare benefits I want it increased but with very strict limits unless someone has a legitimate condition that they need it longer such as illness or disability funded and controlled at the state level. 1 year max sounds good to me.

It can take weeks to just get an appointment for non-emergency food stamps, ie: you have $28 to your name because the case workers are overwhelmed by the lifestyle abusers in IL.

I do however think it can be done much more effectively through local charities than the government.

On that topic a lot of the national charities need to be shut down and the directors sent to jail for fraud.

Not sure what you mean about IL...last time I checked they had a 60 month lifetime limit on welfare benefits like almost every other state...and the states that don't have time limits need to fund it with state funds, not federal.

 

[neatfreak]

For anyone who wants to talk about welfare fraud, people being on welfare for their entire lives, being able to get free money, etc. I highly suggest you read this report on TANF (which is welfare in the traditional sense of the word) policies state by state before making broad generalizations about how the welfare system works in the US nowadays. It's very informative and will give you the REAL scoop on the requirements, eligibility, and time limits. Which are pretty strict in most states.

Link:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/welfare_employ/state_tanf/index.html

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 10/30/2008 12:04:30 PM
Author: neatfreak

Not sure what you mean about IL...last time I checked they had a 60 month lifetime limit on welfare benefits like almost every other state...and the states that don''t have time limits need to fund it with state funds, not federal.

I know exactly how it works in IL.
From personal experience when I was laid up from my surgery and from volunteering at a homeless shelter before and after that.
One of the hospitals requirements was that I fill out the paperwork and get a turn down letter for medical benefits before they would help with the cost of the operation.
They offered 3 months of food stamps and 0 other help because I was a male and anything but food stamps is impossible to get if your a male in IL.
It did come in handy those 3 months.

 

[MaggieB]

Date: 10/30/2008 10:51:05 AM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 10/30/2008 10:23:36 AM
Author: movie zombie

ps Swimmer, you''ve stated just why libertarians drive me absolutely wild. no commitment to the common good.

I think you''ve hit the nail on the head--libertarians have absolutely no intererest in a government-enforced ''common good'' and relish instead in individual freedom.

This is a conversation that I often have with my (very slightly) Libertarian leaning fiance. I don''t believe that anyone decides anything based on the "common good", not even the bleeding heart liberal. Everyone is motivated by self-preservation and the promotion of their own self-interest.

I think that the true difference lies in what we perceive to be the promotion of our own self-interest. I, and other liberals that I know, believe it is in our interest not to have our society implode due to poverty. We don''t believe that we benefit from more jails, more hungry kids, more crime, and more people receiving substandard or no healthcare.

There is nothing warm and fuzzy about us. We don''t LOVE the criminals and want to hug the homeless. We don''t sit around going, gee guys, who do we want to give our hard-earned money to today?

However, we want to live in a society without these problems. Therefore it is in our self-interest to fix them.