• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Romney vs. Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
TxGoat said:
I have quite a few examples of people on welfare that abuse the system as well. Having worked at Walmart in high school, I saw it first hand. I remember ringing up one woman who had over $100 worth of food, and a bar of soap. She had items like filet mignon and other extravagant itmes. Since the bar of soap wasn't a food stamp item, she paid cash. She actually pulled out a WAD of $100 bills and paid for the bar of soap with a hundred.

Not every welfare case abuses the system. There are more than there should be of course, but reform should be the first attempt at cutting costs, not denying a bunch of families that truly depend on the service.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating that we should drop welfare simply because a few people abuse the system...there will always be people attempting to cheat. However, we could probably use some rather significant reforms. Making ridiculous things legal such as allowing people to claim luxuries (cable tv) as part of their necessary, monthly utility bills is just insane. I have no problem with helping out those who are less fortunate. Just don't allow them to claim ridiculous things and if they cheat the system, cut them off.

I think the problem is that this country is so polarized that people take an all or nothing, black vs. white stance on everything. However, I find that rarely is an issue so simple that it can be broken down in such terms. Most issues we face today are complex and the best solution is some shade of grey that sits in the middle of the two polar opposites.

I think we need to cut spending AND raise taxes, at least on the wealthy. I'm not talking about a large increase...just put the tax rates back for the wealthy (need a definition here...those making over $1 million?) to what they were during the Clinton era. Not only was that one of the most prosperous times for our country (granted, it had more to do with the expansion of the internet than anything), it was the last time we have run a budget surplus in recent history.

The Daily Show had a great opening one day where Obama was proposing a 0.7% tax increase on those making over $1 million. The GOP blasted this saying you cant raise taxes during a recession and that it would only raise a mere $700 billion...which apparently meant nothing because our debt is in the trillions. Then they rolled clips of Republicans saying that we need to cut spending instead, like cut funding for NPR which would save about A MILLION DOLLARS. They emphasized 1 million as if it were some huge savings. But apparently $700 billion isn't. There were several more examples and I don't recall what they were, but it was pretty hilarious.

Also, the fair tax looks pretty awesome!
 
gamblor01 said:
I'm not talking about a large increase...just put the tax rates back for the wealthy (need a definition here...those making over $1 million?) to what they were during the Clinton era. Not only was that one of the most prosperous times for our country (granted, it had more to do with the expansion of the internet than anything), it was the last time we have run a budget surplus in recent history.
Click to expand...

if you also put a cap on the budget to what it was during the same period.....as you said..... people were doing great....... there were no problems at all..... why do we need to spend a penny more????

gamblor01 said:
If you can't tax corporations then you cannot tax anyone. Remember....corporations are people!
Click to expand...

can we say total incomprehension???? try reading what he said....... there is no such thing as a tax on a company in practice....... if you raise the company's taxes by $1 they raise their prices to the consumer enough to make an additional dollar to pay that tax...... in other words......... If Im a company that sells 1000 gallons of milk...... and you raise my taxes by $1000........ then Im going to raise the price of milk by $1 per gallon to offset that tax increase....... in the end tax increases on companies only hurt the consumer......... no company on the planet is going to shrug their shoulders and bare the burden of a tax increase........ in other words.... you cannot tax corporations
 
TxGoat said:
Why don't we also demolish all highways, remove a woman's right to vote, and assign 3/5ths voting rights to anyone that doesn't have at least $2,000,000 in liquid assets? Let me go get my powdered wig, lets do this!
Click to expand...

Translated: "The Constitution is an outdated relic which should be ignored."
 
copestag said:
...there is no such thing as a tax on a company in practice....... if you raise the company's taxes by $1 they raise their prices to the consumer enough to make an additional dollar to pay that tax...... in other words......... If Im a company that sells 1000 gallons of milk...... and you raise my taxes by $1000........ then Im going to raise the price of milk by $1 per gallon to offset that tax increase....... in the end tax increases on companies only hurt the consumer......... no company on the planet is going to shrug their shoulders and bare the burden of a tax increase........ in other words.... you cannot tax corporations
Click to expand...

Bunk .... look up the terms price elasticity or product substitution or tax effect on monopolies/oligopolies.
 
FJR1300 said:
Perhaps the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world recognize these facts and give generously just because it's the moral thing to do, in spite of the fact that they are already being forced to pay far more than their 'fair' share.
Click to expand...

Why is it moral? I disagree that the wealthy have some sort of moral imperative to give more and/or pay more. As long as they came by their wealth by legal and moral means, to me it's their money and they can keep all of it if they wish.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Why is it moral? I disagree that the wealthy have some sort of moral imperative to give more and/or pay more. As long as they came by their wealth by legal and moral means, to me it's their money and they can keep all of it if they wish.
Click to expand...

Because if I have more money than I can spend, and there are people suffering from poverty, as a fellow human being it is a moral thing to do. I didn't say that hay had to, I also conceded that wealthy people pay far more than their fair share in taxes.

It is just a matter of caring about your fellow man, there is no law against not caring, I just don't think it's very moral.
 
FJR1300 said:
Because if I have more money than I can spend, and there are people suffering from poverty, as a fellow human being it is a moral thing to do. I didn't say that hay had to, I also conceded that wealthy people pay far more than their fair share in taxes.

It is just a matter of caring about your fellow man, there is no law against not caring, I just don't think it's very moral.
Click to expand...

I completely and totally disagree with you. As long as you've earned your money by honest means, I say to stick all of it under your mattress or burn it for warmth if you want. Is it wrong to give to the poor and the downtrodden? Certainly not. I would never knock anyone for doing so. It's certainly an admirable thing to do. No question there. I don't think there's a moral obligation there at all though.

Heck, I have more money than I absolutely need and chances are that if you're running around with a $100-200 smart phone you do do. Does that mean we should move into a studio apartment, sell our stuff, eat the store brand foods and give all of our surplus to the poor or it's immoral? Not at all. Neither one of us would advocate that I'm sure. So when does a person have "more money than they can spend"? Where's that cut off? I may already be there to be honest and I don't even make $40k a year. I prefer to live very simply though and I have no debt.
 
where he is at doesn't matter.

just because where i live doesn't 100% agree with my philosophical beliefs doesn't mean i wish to live somewhere else.
 
batgeek said:
charity. morality.

neither should be forced by anyone upon someone else.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute here. A few pages back there were folks saying social programs should be abolished in favor of charitable organizations. There's no way I'm going back and sifting through all those posts to find out who proposed it, but I distinctly remember several people advocating it. Now all of a sudden charity is bad too? Color me confused.
 
FJR1300 said:
In 2009 there were 2.4 million minimum age workers with children. No matter how you slice it that is significant number of people that just aren't going to make ends meet without some type of assistance.

It's difficult to factor in (without performing a fair amount of unpaid research ;) ) all of the workers with children who are earning just above the minimum wage, receiving raises of a dime, a quarter or maybe 50 cents once a year if they're lucky.

These low paying positions are very common and plentiful, the food and services industry relies upon them for cheap labor and they are easily replaceable without having to give raises or benefits.

I find it difficult to believe that your average citizen can deny that these people exist in the millions, perhaps your own personal experience and the area where you live are exceptions, but it is not the norm.

Even at twice the minimum wage, it is damned hard for a single person to make ends meet and have any kind of a life beyond feeling like a slave to the system.

As I've already stated, I don't propose simply taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. I most definitely agree that many wealthy people pay far more in taxes than their proportionate share. But I also agree that many of the extremely wealthy wouldn't have their wealth without these low income workers and conversely the poor wouldn't have their low paying jobs without the wealthy business owners.

But if you take away those jobs, the poor will still be poor, only more so. What would happen to the wealthy without the poor to fill those jobs, and the slightly better off, but eroding middle class to buy their products?

Perhaps the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world recognize these facts and give generously just because it's the moral thing to do, in spite of the fact that they are already being forced to pay far more than their 'fair' share.
Click to expand...


This.

Where I live in Ca., there is no way a single person can afford even a studio apt and still eat and pay basic utilities on a minimum wage or slightly higher scale. It's outrageous.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, society will not function well without some kind of social safety net. Take that net away and you wind up with skyrocketing crime rates, increased suicides, and astronomical child mortality rates. Has nobody studied history here? Why do you think Marie Antoinette lost her head? Yes, I realize there were other political factors involved, but the fact remains, if the people were well fed and happy, there never would have been a revolution.

Our net needs reform, not abolition. Yes, there are shady people taking advantage of the system. Heck, I know one of those shady people and have done my civic duty and reported her. But I'm unwilling to take food and shelter away from people who would either die, or turn to crime in order to survive.

My family falls into the tax bracket that pays a hefty amount. We are no where near being in the top 1%, but we are comfortable. It wasn't always so. Neither my husband or I come from any kind of wealth. In fact it is quite the opposite. We don't mind paying what we do in taxes because we are well aware of the good social programs can accomplish.

I think what's really needed is a complete overhaul to the tax system its self. If I could choose where my tax dollars went I wouldn't mind paying a bit more than I already do. If I could say I want x% to go towards heath care, y% towards schools, and z% towards care for the disabled I'd gladly fork over a little more. So, if defense is important to you that's where your money goes. You like space science? Check the box next to NASA. Just imagine if our government had to spend our money on programs we the people decided were important!
 
copestag said:
if you also put a cap on the budget to what it was during the same period.....as you said..... people were doing great....... there were no problems at all..... why do we need to spend a penny more????



can we say total incomprehension???? try reading what he said....... there is no such thing as a tax on a company in practice....... if you raise the company's taxes by $1 they raise their prices to the consumer enough to make an additional dollar to pay that tax...... in other words......... If Im a company that sells 1000 gallons of milk...... and you raise my taxes by $1000........ then Im going to raise the price of milk by $1 per gallon to offset that tax increase....... in the end tax increases on companies only hurt the consumer......... no company on the planet is going to shrug their shoulders and bare the burden of a tax increase........ in other words.... you cannot tax corporations
Click to expand...

Dude, I totally understand that concept. I guess I should have added a smiley or something. It was just a joke, and not meant to be taken seriously at all. :)
 
cmybliss said:
Wait a minute here. A few pages back there were folks saying social programs should be abolished in favor of charitable organizations. There's no way I'm going back and sifting through all those posts to find out who proposed it, but I distinctly remember several people advocating it. Now all of a sudden charity is bad too? Color me confused.
Click to expand...

at no point ever in this thread did i say either charity or morality is bad.

at no point do i recall anyone saying either is bad.
 
batgeek said:
at no point ever in this thread did i say either charity or morality is bad.

at no point do i recall anyone saying either is bad.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you said it was bad. My point is, people, again not you specifically, have said we should rely on charity to help the less fortunate, and now folks are saying the rich have no moral obligation to give charity. Which is it? My personal belief is that every person on this planet has the moral obligation to help others in a way that is feasible for them. If they can afford to give money or goods they should. If they can't, they should give of their time.
 
batgeek said:
and if they can't give money, time, or goods, does that make them morally deficient?

who are you to expect my morals to parrallel yours?
Click to expand...


Did you see the part where I said in a way that is feasible for them? I mean just that. My morals are just that, my morals. They govern my actions. I was stating my personal belief. If someone is unable to give time, money or goods of course they are not morally deficient! On the other hand, if someone is able but unwilling, I personally find that a deficiency in character. Would I force them to abide by my moral standard? Absolutely not, it is ultimately their choice. I would however have no respect for such a person, which is my right.

My daughter, who I love more than life, has several disabilities. It is unclear at this time whether she will be able to care for herself as an adult, let alone contribute to charitable works. I certainly don't find her morally deficient. She is the reason I have such strong views on this subject. We are preparing for a future when we won't be there to care for her should she need it, but I know there are countless others who are not so lucky.

Everyone has their own compass that they must follow.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I completely and totally disagree with you. As long as you've earned your money by honest means, I say to stick all of it under your mattress or burn it for warmth if you want. Is it wrong to give to the poor and the downtrodden? Certainly not. I would never knock anyone for doing so. It's certainly an admirable thing to do. No question there. I don't think there's a moral obligation there at all though.

Heck, I have more money than I absolutely need and chances are that if you're running around with a $100-200 smart phone you do do. Does that mean we should move into a studio apartment, sell our stuff, eat the store brand foods and give all of our surplus to the poor or it's immoral? Not at all. Neither one of us would advocate that I'm sure. So when does a person have "more money than they can spend"? Where's that cut off? I may already be there to be honest and I don't even make $40k a year. I prefer to live very simply though and I have no debt.
Click to expand...


"Honest means" sounds like "Fair share". If i can lower the prices of my products or services and drive my competition out of business, then as an exclusive employer in that area decide I want to lowball wages to prevent having to raise prices, thus keeping my employees at a certain standard of living, then decide that my efforts warrant a 6-7 figure salary that afford me a standard of living that is 10-20 times better than my average employee, then tell me again about this magical land where corporations are altruistic and everyone operates under "honest means". I bet they thought Bernie Madoff was an honest guy until they realized that he "Madoff" (see what I did there?) with all their money.
 
Oh and last I heard, greed is immoral across most mainstream religions. If you look at how the animal kingdom operates (before anyone responds with "we're not animals", you're more animal than you think even if your vanity tries to convince you otherwise), greed is not a trait that is exhibited. Animals will eat and drink what they need, and some will try to store small reserves, but they don't amass in excessive bulk. Most likely because the excess bulk will only make it easier for their predators.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom